Doctore Roberto said : "to recruit terrorists"

And SUDDENLY it jumps out at me.

This is a new term for what moslems have always done. I suppose that it's always been used, but in this new phase of an old war, the word "terrorists" seems like a newly coined word.

Posted by: allat at January 25, 2007 12:03 PM

Wow, muslims get to have mosques (to worship satan) all over the western world and how many churches exist in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, or the U.A.E.?

Oops, I forgot, ZERO, because islimmmmme is the official religion and all other faiths are outlawed by pain of death or imprisonment!!

When will this cult of death be outlawed.
We need to start treating muslims the same way they treat us in their nations.

Its only fair as I am sick of this 1-way political street for muslims getting everything and everyone else GETTING KILLED!

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 25, 2007 12:09 PM

Robert, you NEED to be heard on the UK Channel 4. I understand that Channel 4 has gotten a lot of flack since the program aired, although this has mostly come from the Islamic organisations and the idiot left.

I think you would find that MOST folks in England, who already know the problem well, would find it a relief to hear someone actually SAY what they wish they were allowed to say.

We have many friends there who have to really watch what they say because of the threat of losing their jobs or being arrested. Big Brother has really become a problem in the UK.

Is there anything you can do for them?

Posted by: The Goobs at January 25, 2007 12:13 PM

Based on these shocking revelations, maybe Tony should lift the trigger finger belonging to that Moslem Admiral running the British Navy from out of Portsmouth off the nuclear missiles now under his direct command.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 25, 2007 12:14 PM

Are the Germans waking up?

By chance I came across this excellent blog here:

http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2007/01/unschuldiges_folteropfer_murat.html

Seems to be a German version of Jihad Watch.
The you tube video is about the German Taliban Murat Kurnaz, who claims 'torture' according to the Al Qaeda handbook lesson no 18, just like the Australian Mohammed Dawood aka David Hicks or Mamduh Habib. I covered this on my blog here:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/23/kurnatz-the-human-rights-circus-continued/

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/18/murat-kurnatz-the-al-qaeda-war-manual/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 25, 2007 12:31 PM

Hungarian Crusader wrote:
"We need to start treating muslims the same way they treat us in their nations."

That would mean sinking to their level, which would be a defeat.

Jesus said, 'Do unto others like you would have them do unto you.'

He didn't say, 'Do unto others what they do unto you.'

Think about that Mr. Crusader. And you call yourself a Christian!

(Actually, you call yourself a 'crusader', which is something quite different. The crusaders were hate-filled heretics, blood-thirsty distorters of Christ's message.)

Posted by: schmegel at January 25, 2007 12:58 PM

Schmegal:

Yes, turn the other cheek, it will be much easier for them to cut your head off. Or get down on your knees and lick their boots as a dhimmi and servant of Allah.

Your heroes then were the inquistors, who much like the Islamists, killed people who would not revert to their demented for of religious dogma.

As the Islamists push their totalitarian will on all of us, more will become "crusaders". More will take their swords from the closets of Christianity and become the soldiers of Christ they vowed themselves to be.

Posted by: Briars at January 25, 2007 1:12 PM

Hungarian Crusader wrote:
"We need to start treating muslims the same way they treat us in their nations."

There is truth here, but also a lot of ignorance. The fact is that in all the countries you mention, churches and Christianity IS allowed (although very oppressed as well, in that Christians cannot build or rebuild churches without government authority etc). The only country the church is outlawed is in Saudi Arabia (all religiouns except Islam are outlawed). If the world's Christians would simply demand reciprocity of freedom of religion in places like Saudi Arabia in exchange for Muslims being able to freely practice in Western countries, they would have to consent. The Saudi economy is dependent on Christian workers and revenue derrived from Christian countries.

schmegel wrote:

Jesus said, 'Do unto others like you would have them do unto you.' He didn't say, 'Do unto others what they do unto you.'

(Actually, you call yourself a 'crusader', which is something quite different. The crusaders were hate-filled heretics, blood-thirsty distorters of Christ's message.)

This is also a distortion of history and an ignorant hate-filled statement. There were hundreds of thousands of Crusaders, some who never raised a sword. The Knights Hospitaliers were crusaders whose sole purpose was to protect pilgrims and build hospitals. Many sold their entire posessions and died paupers in order to dedicate their life to protecting the Christian communities which had been overrun by Islam.

I know the message of Our Savior does not call for violence (or even self-defense) in any part of the gospel. Christianity in its purest form is 100% pacific. But you don't get to determine if anyone is a heretic/distorter of Christ's message etc. You simply do not have that authority.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 25, 2007 1:33 PM

"Schmegel.
You are lying.

Posted by: Mother Ecclesiastica "

Dear 'Mother',

Inform me please, which part of my post contained a lie?

Posted by: schmegel at January 25, 2007 1:33 PM

The crusaders brutally murdered thousands of Christians in 1204 when they attacked the city of Constantinople. This was because its inhabitants were the 'wrong' type of Christian, i.e. eastern Orthodox, not Papist. Thus the term 'crusader' has an extremely negative resonance for Orthodox Christians.

Posted by: schmegel at January 25, 2007 1:40 PM

The fact of the matter is that no matter what people say at the moment they will just be called Islamaphobic and racist but we have a fight coming there is no doubt.

And what all the left wing morons can,t get through there thick skulls is that the so called modrate muslim will back the facists when push comes to shove.

The facist will make there move when they feel there numbers are big enough and when law enforcment starts kicking in there doors the so called good muslims will start there usual it,s an attack on islam routine and here,s my favourite,your driving us to the terrorists.

And then the fight will begin and it will be the biggest fight the western world has ever faced for it,s survival.

Posted by: stevenz at January 25, 2007 1:43 PM

I can see it now....Muslims doing pat-downs and electronic scans of all who enter Mosques...Giving them a taste of how we feel at airports.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 25, 2007 1:44 PM

* “Allah has created the woman – even if she gets a Ph.D. – deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional".

OK-that explains MUSLIM women. What's the excuse for Muslim men?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 25, 2007 1:50 PM

Schmegel wrote:

The crusaders brutally murdered thousands of Christians in 1204 when they attacked the city of Constantinople. This was because its inhabitants were the 'wrong' type of Christian, i.e. eastern Orthodox, not Papist. Thus the term 'crusader' has an extremely negative resonance for Orthodox Christians.

Yes, and just 20 years prior in 1182 the "good" Orthodox of Constantinople massacred around 50,000 Latin (Catholic) Christians, including the Latin Cardinal John, who was beheaded and his head then tied to a dog to be dragged around the city.

I do not fault all Orthodoxy for the barbaric act of some individuals, nor should you blame all crusaders for the acts of some within their ranks. History is filled with such acts on all sides.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 25, 2007 1:55 PM

Christanity is not a suicide pact.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 25, 2007 1:58 PM

You know I am beginning to think that no Muslim should be allowed to have a driving license.
The reason being that they are totally unaware of the here and now.
They can only relate to what is in their rear view mirror.
All basis of discussion comes from events that happened in the past, i.e. the Crusades.
Conclusion: They should not be allowed to drive, they are too dangerous.
Just look at smegal.
By the way your namesake jumped into Mount Doom because he was under the control of EVIL. Burned up.

Posted by: auntbea at January 25, 2007 2:17 PM

“Allah has created the woman – even if she gets a Ph.D. – deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional".

I agree. Any woman, especially if she gets a PH.D, allows herself to be relegated to the status of a goat or camel, among other forms of degradation by Muslim Males, is clearly deficient in intellect, has rock-bottom self-esteem, or has a serious hormonal imbalance.

Posted by: rational at January 25, 2007 2:23 PM

This programme brings up some very important issues to be addressed. But who in the mainstream British political arena is going to address them?
The three main political parties might well know the deal on Islam, but so too concerned with canvassing the Muslim vote, too short-sighted to realize that in the near future Muslims will vote for their own Muslim Party candidates.

I had hoped that in the House of Commons this week that the Conservatives would have had a field day at Prime Minister's question time, but no, the time was filled with discussing 'Celebrity Big Brother'.

Posted by: Elephant at January 25, 2007 2:25 PM

Rational wrote:

Any woman, especially if she gets a PH.D, allows herself to be relegated to the status of a goat or camel, among other forms of degradation by Muslim Males, is clearly deficient in intellect, has rock-bottom self-esteem, or has a serious hormonal imbalance.

Couldn't agree more. This would explain converts. But to those born into Islam, I think it is more of a case of "caged animal" syndrome. If you cage a parrot from birth, although it has wings, it has never been allowed to use them to fly, so it has simply lost the capacity for it. Same with Muslim women and rational thought.

Elephant wrote:

The three main political parties might well know the deal on Islam, but so too concerned with canvassing the Muslim vote, too short-sighted to realize that in the near future Muslims will vote for their own Muslim Party candidates.

Absolutely. History has shown that anytime society "collaborates" with Muslims, they simply lie in wait for the opportunity to usurp power. This is PRECISELY what happened to the US when they supported the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan. Even though they sided with the infidel to curtail Communism (the USSR), the infidel later allowed Ossama Bin Ladin to operate from their land and perform one of the worst atrocities in modern human history; the attack on the WTC.

The bottom line is NEVER COLLABORATE with the infidel, politically, economically or militarily. It will only come back to harm us in this generation or the next.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 25, 2007 2:33 PM

WHATS LEFT ?

From the Sunday Times Culture section Review of Books.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2550492,00.html

A man with a score to settle
REVIEWED BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

WHAT'S LEFT? How the Liberals Lost Their Way
by Nick Cohen
Fourth Estate £12.99 pp296
It is not until quite near the end of this mordant and instructive polemic that Nick Cohen comes right out with his own confession: “My instant reaction to the 9/11 attacks was that they were a nuisance that got in the way of more pressing concerns. Throughout the 1990s, I had been writing about the overweening power of big business and how it could corrupt democratic governments. I had lambasted new Labour for its love of conservative crime policies and attacks on civil liberties for years. Attacking Tony Blair was what I liked doing — what got me out of bed in the morning. Accepting that fascism is worse than western democracy, even western democracies governed by George W Bush and Tony Blair, sounds very easy in theory, but it is very difficult to do in practice when you are a habitual enemy of the status quo in your own country.”

He might have left it at this. After all, there are thousands and thousands of middle-aged lefties for whom their once-revolutionary “credentials” are all they have left to show for a lifetime of “activism”, and who could not face their friends — or, perhaps, their students — if they found themselves endorsing a war fought by British or American soldiers. (I myself remember repressing a twinge of annoyance at the idea that the assault on civilisation represented by the 9/11 attacks would drive my anti-Kissinger book from the front page where I still believe it belonged.) But Cohen goes further: “I wanted anything associated with Tony Blair to fail, because that would allow me to return to the easy life of attacking him.”

It is this sentence, and its implications, that make his book an exceptional and necessary one. Cohen has no problem with those who are upset about state-sponsored exaggerations of the causes of war, or furious about the bungled occupation of Iraq that has ensued. People who think this is the problem are not his problem. Here’s his problem: the people who would die before they would applaud the squaddies and grunts who removed hideous regimes from Afghanistan and Iraq, yet who happily describe Islamist video-butchers and suicide-murderers as a “resistance”. Those who do this are not “anti-war” at all, but are shadily taking the other side in a conflict where the moral and civilisational stakes are extremely high.

There are two possible sorts of “left” reaction to a dilemma like this. One is to seek out the democratic and secular forces in the Muslim world — the Kurdish revolutionaries in Iraq, say, or the Afghan women’s movement — and to offer them your solidarity whether Bush or Blair will do so or not. (Some things, as Orwell wrote, are true even if The Daily Telegraph says they are true.) The other is to say that globalisation is the main enemy, and that, therefore, any enemy of that enemy is a friend. In this twisted mental universe, even a medievalist jihad is better than no struggle at all. Cohen has decided to adopt the first position, and to anatomise and ridicule the second one. The result is an exemplary piece of political satire, in which the generally amusing and ironic tone should not lull you into ignoring the deadly seriousness of the argument.

It is not absolutely necessary to have a personal stake in a discussion like this, but it does help. Cohen started out trying to defend the honour of the left, and attempting to appeal to its better traditions. He swiftly found that this made him the target of the most hysterical slander, from people whose hatred of liberal democracy has a long and sordid ancestry. He then lowered his head, clenched his teeth, steered into the storm and embarked on the toughest struggle an old leftist can ever undertake: a confrontation with former comrades who suspect him of “selling out”. What probably began as a long essay has now metamorphosed into a full-scale settling of accounts.

It’s all here: from the pseudo-radicals who said there was nothing to choose between Nazi imperialism in Europe and British rule in India, through the supporters of the Hitler-Stalin pact, all the way to those who defended Slobodan Milosevic as a socialist and those who took, quite literally took, money from the bloody hands of Saddam Hussein. Just in the past decade or so, had this “anti-war” rabble had its way, we would have seen Kuwait stay part of Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo cleansed and annexed by “Greater” Serbia, and the Taliban retaining control of Afghanistan. You might think that such a record would lead its adherents to be dismissed as a silly and sinister fringe, but instead it is they who pose as the principled radicals and their opponents who are treated with unconcealed disdain in the universities and on the BBC.

This betrayal (because there is no other word for it) has been made possible in part by a degraded version of multiculturalism. The hard left has junked its historic secularism, to say nothing of its principles of equality for females and homosexuals, to make common cause with Muslim outfits some of which are associated in other countries with the extreme right. It has done this by the use of nonsense terms such as “Islamophobia”, which are designed to give the no-less nonsensical impression that Islam is some kind of persecuted ethnicity. But the vile attacks by Islamists on the Jews (Britain’s oldest minority) and on India (Britain’s most important democratic ally after the United States) show the truly reactionary and hateful character of the opportunist alliance between failed ex-Stalinists and fanatical theocrats. For Cohen, as for some others of us, this is no longer a difference of emphasis within the family of the left. It is the adamant line of division in a bitter fight against a new form of fascism, at home no less than abroad.

I think he is right to identify the opening of this crisis with the events in Bosnia and Kosovo, because in that instance it was America (pushed by the supposed “poodle” Blair) that used force to prevent the annihilation of a Muslim community. Those who opposed that rescue operation, and who yet denounce the fight against Bin-Ladenism and its allies as “targeting” Muslims, have given the game away and shown that they hate only Anglo-American policy, to a degree that results in blindness. Meanwhile, Israel is always and everywhere to be denounced (and not always wrongly) while the other product of British partition policy during 1947-48, the part-rogue and part-failed state named Pakistan, is never indicted in the same way for its numberless bigotries and aggressions. This is bad faith, and needs to be unmasked as such. Cohen’s book is an admirable example of self- criticism and self-examination, using intellectual honesty as a means of illuminating a much wider canvas.

Do not feel that you have to be a leftist or liberal to read it, because it engages with an argument that is crucial for all of us, and for our time.

Read on... books:

Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman (Norton £9.99)
A huge influence on Cohen’s ideas

Azar Nafisi
In copy additional to the above review, under the heading Odd Bedfellows, reference was made to Azar Nafisi's book being dedicated to Paul Wolfowitz. The dedication was made to her parents and family. We are happy to put the record straight.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. What’s Left? is available at the Books First price of £11.99 (inc p&p) on 0870 165 8585

Posted by: apostate_islam at January 25, 2007 2:34 PM

A letter to the BNP with a reply from an editor>>>

Monday, 22nd January 2007
Letter to police
Hello all right thinking British People, I was wondering if anyone can tell me if Nick Griffin got a a response from the police to his letter demanding action after the Channel 4 documentary,if not,I hope he pushes the point that we demand action be taken against these evil people that will stop at nothing to rule our country and the world.

(Ed replies - Yes indeed Mr. Griffin received a polite response saying that the Police ARE now investigating the content of that programme with a view to establish if any crime was committed by those featured in it. )

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at January 25, 2007 2:55 PM

A letter to the BNP with a reply from an editor>>>

Monday, 22nd January 2007
Letter to police
Hello all right thinking British People, I was wondering if anyone can tell me if Nick Griffin got a a response from the police to his letter demanding action after the Channel 4 documentary,if not,I hope he pushes the point that we demand action be taken against these evil people that will stop at nothing to rule our country and the world.

(Ed replies - Yes indeed Mr. Griffin received a polite response saying that the Police ARE now investigating the content of that programme with a view to establish if any crime was committed by those featured in it. )

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at January 25, 2007 2:56 PM

HEY!! I just walked in and saw this schemgel INSULT ME AND MY EDUCATION!!

I truly would wish to see you face to face and talk rather this cowardly blog method.

I did not say anything rude, ignorant, or racist as you imply. SIMPLY TO TREAT THEM AS THEY TREAT ALL OTHERS AROUND THEM!

Jesus did say the statement as you write, BUT you take it out of context AGAIN as your islamic friends.

If we were to listen to you and your take on the statement you would be endorsing national suicide. Christ wants us to spread the Gospel and how can Christains do that if we all lay down as you wish and be murdered-butchered by the muslims??
Christians are allowed to defend themselves and that is why the Bible is very specific on capital punishment and forfeiting a murderous life for an innocent life. DO YOU COMPREHEND??

Regarding the Crusaders Mr. Rookie, you should be thankful everyday for if not for them large tracts of Western and Southern Europe would today still be under islamic slavery rather the banner of freedom and democracy.
Why do you argue with me regarding the outlawing of all religions in islamic societies? What you say in return is basically the same thing what I said so please slow down on the drinking and the medications.
Why is it all Jews in Saudi are gone and all underground Christians are leaving by the thousands every month in Israel and Lebanon?
You read this reality and you have the nerve to say Christianity is allowed and legal...where?
You are lying and distorting the truth.
WHY DONT YOU GO TO 1 OF THOSE NATIONS AND TRY TO LIVE AS A CHRISTIAN AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU?
You should turn on FOX news today and see what your friends are doing and have done to the Lebanese Christians for decaides.
Christians leaving their ancestral homelands and you call this FREEDOM OF RELIGION?
You need to talk yourself to just 1 of these local Arab-Christians and I'm sure they will give you a reality check and education on the status of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in any of these muslim dominated states.
You said I am ignorant, I thknk not.
You dont have any education, facts, eyewitness accounts on the ground, or anything and you are trying to tell me history?
You better think again chump change.

I will be a Crusader RATHER A JIHADIST!!

RESPECT THE ANCIENT CRUSADERS BECAUSE THAT IS WHY EUROPE AND EVEN AMERICA ARE NOT ISLAMIC TODAY AND THAT IS MY EDUCATION FOR THE MORONS ON THIS SITE. I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH!

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 25, 2007 3:34 PM

Hungarian Crusader
You are right Europe would have been under Islamic laws i have been saying this for a long time whilst people frown on their past but blindly make out nothing stirred it up. The Vatican would have been converted into a Euro-Mecca and America would never have been discovered well if it was it would have been ISA by now. The Islamic crusades happens everyday Somalia is no different, you get your head chopped off if you don't prey 5 times a day now and yet this is 2007. If Islam and Muslims fit in a democracy why do they go to court to change the rules of the land and demand rights whist people of the land they immigrated for lose theirs? The truth is while we offend Islam by having crosses in classrooms and on your graves they want the right to build prayer rooms in colleges, hospitals and airports. If Muslims were so fitting and tolerant as people claim they are why the fuss? Yes schools complain that Veils are on student’s courses teaching pupils some trouble in communication and in a way a social separation hence why uniforms were introduced in schools. Muslim Teachers wearing them does as much. It also represents the opposite of democracy of freedom not religious freedom as they say it is but submission to fear that comes with it. It’s a big subject yes not here to explain this issue.

Well the comments that have been said to come from these Mosques is not surprising the thing is it course the person to do two things feel like they are suffering in this democratic society because Allah has lost the battle in the country they immigrated to. Which then it makes them angry so they do all they can to change man made laws when they cannot see how Man made Islam is if not Satanic is in it self. So what do they do? Fight or blow up the infidels because living is this infidel land that is so corrupt that they immigrate to be so forced on them in their dreams to do so. Christian and Jewish faith by numbers is virtually extinct in Islamic countries by either forced to flee or by logic, the ones that have stayed have been there before Islam was invented and the Churches were there before Islam were invented, maybe a few did crop up after but not as much in 50 years of Mosque building in Europe.

Also Christians and other religions are driven out daily in Islamic countries the populations have dropped close to nothing in percentage whilst Europe gives the non-integrating Islamic people a welcome, its in our Christian nature. Yes some racism and ill treatment occurs in society but no way does it go to the extent of how minorities are treated in Muslim Countries hence why not many are left and why Islam still exists unreformed. Not because of persuasion but because of fear and that fear of terrorism in Europe and knowledge of fanatical behaviour makes governments bow down to the pressue. Non-Islamic history including evidence that can disprove Islam or has anything to do with another religion is destroyed. But I guess Babylonian history is kept at least they made the Jews slaves once and the Pyramids bring money to the Egyptian economy. We should count lucky democracy lives on and don't forget Christian democracy co-exists to. This link below tells us what is going on without being PC about it because I doubt the UK would admit to it without some complaints or fear from within to speak up.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/why_europe_abandoned_israel.html

Posted by: jesusisthelamb at January 25, 2007 4:58 PM

Robert Spencer posted: None have taken even a single step to combat the spread of the understanding of Islam depicted in the show, or to mitigate the elements of Islam that incite to violence and inculcate Islamic supremacism.

Why ever should they if the strategy is working just as it was designed to.

I thing there is need for a re-think of what we ask of the Muslim community. First it has to be coupled to an "or else". And when that is not forthcoming, then an acknowledgement that Islam and liberal democracies are incompatible, and it is best for the safety of all, that we live in separate houses.

Or else, we are just dancing our way to eventual subjugation.

Posted by: DP111 at January 25, 2007 4:59 PM

"The three main political parties might well know the deal on Islam, but so too concerned with canvassing the Muslim vote, too short-sighted to realize that in the near future Muslims will vote for their own Muslim Party candidates."

In my view, that would be a good thing, because then the mainstream parties would not be in thrall to the Muslim vote, and the Muslim Party would of course only gain, at most, the votes of Muslims, a small minority of the electorate. In other words, it would free the main parties -- political correctness permitting -- to say what they really think about the Muslim threat. Discuss.

Posted by: JFGR at January 25, 2007 6:10 PM

Seriously folks, let's not fight like the Sunnis and Shias.

Over history, many horrible things have been done in the name of 'organized Christianity'.... mostly in the days when folks couldn't read the scriptures themselves and were manipulated by their religious leadership. This applies to both Catholic and Protestant organisations.

Such horrible deeds were NEVER something that Christ (being the head of the Church) would have endorsed. Such horrific deeds were really all about power and control of the population.

There has always been a remnant Church that would not partake in such evil.

We need to immitate Christ - not muslims.

Posted by: The Goobs at January 25, 2007 8:10 PM

As an asian american and asian. I do know that my fellow chinese DO NOT ALLOW MUSLIMS to get away with their EVIL AND CULTISH AND SICK religion called ISLAM. They simply kicked them out of southern china in 2001, where was the IMAM and MUSLIM death threat to china, NON EXISTENT! Chinese would invade muslim countries and EXTERMINATE them like raid does to cockroaches should muslims proclaim a fatawas and jihad. Most of the world are fed up with muslims.
Us filipinos have been fighting sick and evil muslims for centuries which the idiots in the U.S. and BRITISH government FAIL to believe that ISLAM is at war with our western world, religion and culture, and not just us,but against all other religions and government including communists. The only difference is that they know they can't DECLARE WAR against communists because will they will get INVADED and EXTERMINATED not like western culture and governments who give them LAWYERS AND MORE RIGHTS THAN IT'S CITIZENS. Muslims and the ISLAM is a cancer to the whole world that needs to be erradicated forever for there won't be a human race. Saudi's persecute and torture christians such as filipinos who work in saudi arabia with their religious police. They do that to all non muslims. This world and the western world need to wake up to the worldwide threat of NO, not radical islam, but the entire RELIGION OF ISLAM AND MUSLIMS. The whole religion is TERRORISM and the WORST religion ever devised by demented people like MUHAMMED and his sheep and child molesting followers. ALLAH is the GREAT SATAN OR DEVIL, how deceived muslims are and those who DEFEND these evil people. Just talk to middle easterners who came out of ISLAM and was born into it. They will tell you that it is the most oppressive and EVIL RELIGION. That's coming from former muslims who are middle easterners.
Muslims are stupid! They are uniting the world into exterminating them by their CONTINUOUS gripe of forcing their sharia garbage law and the koran down everyone's throat. Muslims are the most cowardly non fighters. They are all cowards and weak. Any moron can strap a bomb and blow themselves up in front of children.
MUSLIMS are miserable people and those who follow the koran are miserable people who do not have a BRAIN! the muslim threat will be defeated rather easily when russia, china and india becomes one big force. The united states of europe when it is formed as a military will destroy the muslim threat before the other three powers gets involved.
In the near future, muslims will not get away with their violence towards the rest of us any longer and their worldwide lies and propoganda brainwashing all these leftist liberals in the political arena and western media buying into the lie of ISLAM. ISLAM and muslims has no place in the human race.

Posted by: gerbilinfantry at January 25, 2007 8:11 PM

The video's

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI

3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k

4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE&eurl=

5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs&eurl=

6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjvNScmTQA&eurl=

Posted by: Morghodius at January 25, 2007 9:32 PM

Muslim worshippers are being urged by radical clerics to ignore British law

Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a 'state within a state'

Another speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims. 'You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir [non-Muslim],' a preacher, Dr Ijaz Mian, tells a meeting held within the mosque. 'We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others.'

Inside the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, a preacher is recorded saying: 'Allah has created the woman deficient.' A satellite broadcast from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, beamed into the Green Lane mosque suggests that Muslim children should be hit if they don't pray: 'When he is seven, tell him to go and pray, and start hitting them when they are 10.' Another preacher is heard saying that 'if a girl 'doesn't wear hijab, we hit her'.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1984530,00.html

Posted by: Morghodius at January 25, 2007 9:34 PM

gerbilinfantry

i am interested in what you said what China did in 2001, i would like to hear more about it please :)

Mail me ad wintermorg@gmail.com

Thank you.

Posted by: Morghodius at January 25, 2007 9:40 PM

Gerbil,

Perhaps you missed it, but the Wall Street Journal ran a story today on how China's state-run TV network has banned all images and spoken references to pigs. This is "in order to show respect to Islam, upon guidance from higher levels of government". Given that next month ushers in the Year of the Pig, China's attitude appears to have done quite the about-face since 2001.

Rather than slap down their Muslim minority, the PRC is making nice, something they've never felt necessary when dealing with Tibetans. Amazing what some Iranian gas can do!

Posted by: materialguy at January 25, 2007 9:52 PM

Dear Mr. Crusader,

I think a few things need clearing up here. I agree with you about the inadequacies of the 'cowardly blog method'. But you then go on to deliver an unhinged tirade, which included a few cheap insults.

First of all, I did not insult you at all. The only thing I said that anyone could regard as in any way insulting was my parenthetical reference to the crusaders. The 'offending' terms were clearly aimed at the historical crusaders. You are not one of them, whatever your nickname.

You say I accused you of being 'ignorant'. Not true! Someone else on this thread used that word when responding to you, not me. Check who made each posting before you make accusations.

You wrote: "Why do you argue with me regarding the outlawing of all religions in islamic societies? you have the nerve to say Christianity is allowed and legal...where?" Again, I didn't say anything about this. Somebody else posted a comment about Christianity being allowed, not me. Go and check!!! (I am fully aware how Christians are persecuted in those countries; I have worked on the Arabian peninsula, and I have spoken at length with Christians in monasteries in Egypt.)

You say I took Jesus's 'Do unto others...' quote out of context. This is the kind of argument Muslims used to disparage the 'Dispatches' documemtary, and just as nonsensical. Jesus didn't say, 'Do unto others like you would have them do unto you, but only in certain contexts, er... like only when it suits you.' It's not my problem if right-wing Christians are embarrassed by Jesus (they would probably taunt him by calling him a Dhimmi if he were here today!)

You wrote regarding the Jesus quote: "If we were to listen to you and your take on the statement you would be endorsing national suicide. "
No. I am arguing that Britain should remain a decent, civilised, democratic, free country, where people's rights are respected. You and your ilk, in contrast, seem to be arguing that Britain should become a kind of anti-muslim version of a (Saudi Arabia-style) repressive dictatorship. Now THAT would be national suicide!
Jesus had a point and it applies to this context. Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said before, we don't need to sink to their level.

There are already existing laws in Britain that could and should be used against the preachers of violence and hate. We don't need to dismantle our democratic rights and freedoms.

You wrote: "You should turn on FOX news today and see ..."
Please don't ask me to watch Rupert Murdoch's awful, biased, dumbed-down, trashy, neo-con propaganda, 'news' channel.

Finally, you wrote: "RESPECT THE ANCIENT CRUSADERS BECAUSE THAT IS WHY EUROPE AND EVEN AMERICA ARE NOT ISLAMIC TODAY AND THAT IS MY EDUCATION FOR THE MORONS ON THIS SITE. I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH!"

The crusaders had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the West is not Islamic today. The liberation of Andalusia was nothing to do with the crusades. And it may be said that the weakening of Byzantium by the fourth crusade eventually led to its destruction by the Muslims, who then ruled over the Balkans (including Greece) for hundreds of years.

Mr. Crusader, I don't want you to apologise for speaking the truth, but I do want you to apologise for talking shite!

Posted by: schmegel at January 26, 2007 5:43 AM

Good on you Qualis Rex, you talk a lot of common sense... also people dont realise that most people couldnt read so were easily manipulated into doing things under the guise of God said so...

Posted by: Gaye at January 26, 2007 7:40 AM

It appears that we have a bigger problem than this coming up if this man wins the presidency..

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii.

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a radical Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a Muslim school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obamas mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Osama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Posted by: Gaye at January 26, 2007 7:43 AM

Professor Schmegel,

I guess the citizens of Western Europe just politely told upwards of 90,000+ jihadists invaders to leave.
No, they were smashed in a counteroffensive led by Charles Martel, ever hear of him?
If not for this French leader, Paris would had fallen and who knows how far the islamic armies would had marched.
I am sorry for 1 point where I was wrong...SPAIN WAS HELD FOR OVER 700 YEARS AND NOT 400 YEARS AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED. That is what I call a lengthy occupation.
Just to let you know it was the 2nd Crusade that liberated Lisbon, Portugal, and parts of Spain from the muslims in 1147.
I wont charge you for that minor lesson of history.
Again thank the Crusaders for getting their armies together to smash the jihadists under the call of Pope Urban.
Yes, I know the 4th Crusade attacked Constantinople...I read the entire book by John Phillips so again you speak of things where I am very knowledgable. That was a stupid war and they should had united against the muslims rather than fight each other but people can be very vain.
If not for the crusades started by Pope Urban than we would now be up to our necks in shiite rather just up to our knees as today.
I will continue your education when needed.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 26, 2007 10:53 AM

Yes, 1 more thing.
We NEED to be a western version of Saudi Arabia and I dont know HOW you believe that would lead to national suicide.
It is not suicide to defend yourself in war and other forms of subversive attacks.
Did you ever hear of "you must become your enemy to defeat your enemy?"
Remeber how the Germans and Japanese cities and population centers were ruthlessly bombed and incinerated and tens of thousands were killed?
Wow, we were nasty AND WE WON THE WAR so your statement is grossly incorrect.
Nobody in those years cared about how the Germans and Japanese would feel rage for losing so many civilians and we should not care now what muslims think and feel.
They certainly did not care about the political ramifications of incinerating thousands in the WTC in New York.
I have been told we should not further anger 1.4 billion muslims on this planet.
Really?
MAYBE MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT FURTHER ANGER 4.8 BILLION NON MUSLIMS!!
Remeber, if you do not become as your enemy you will become the slave of your enemy.
I prefer to fight and use proven methods of years ago rather the politically correct poison mindset we see now.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 26, 2007 11:03 AM

Dear Mr. Anachronistic Crusader,

I have heard of Charles Martel. He did indeed lead an important defeat of a Muslim army, halting their further expansion in Europe. This was in the year 732. That's 363 years before the first crusade began in 1095. He had nothing to do with the crusades; he wasn't even from the same period of history, nowhere near!

Spain was finally liberated from Islam when the Muslims were driven out of Andalusia in the year 1492. That's 201 years after the end of the last crusade in 1291.

I repeat, the crusaders had absolutely nothing to do with the protection of the West from Islam.

They were simply a gratuitous bloodfest, involving the massacre of thousands of Jews and Orthodox Christians, among others.

Posted by: schmegel at January 26, 2007 3:23 PM

I think we need to ask Robert who has written a book on this subject... but here is what I have..

The Crusades:

The Crusades were a series of wars initiated by Christians to win back their holy lands from Muslims, with a total of 8 Crusades in almost 200 years:

the first, 1095-1101;
the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;
the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, conquest of Jerusalem, 1188-92;
the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;
the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;
the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);
the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;
the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.
The reason for the Crusades:

By the end of the 10th century, the spread of Islam had all but stopped and a comparatively stable state of affairs existed between Muslims, Jews and Christians with the latter able to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem, which had at that stage been taken over by Muslims.

This state of affairs came to an end however, with the aggressive expansion of the Turks who were ambushing parties of Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. The various routes to Jerusalem had been relatively safe and these sudden attacks alarmed the European Christians for whom pilgrimages were very important.

With the Byzantine Empire under threat from the Turks, the Emperor Alexius swallowed his pride and sent a request to Pope Urban II in Rome for help.

This cry for help was a perfect opportunity for Pope Urban to regain some influence over Constantinople and also fulfil his obligation to protect the rights of Christendom.

On 27 November 1095, thousands gathered outside the cathedral in Clermont-Ferrand in France to hear Pope Urban II's message. At this great gathering he called Western Christendom to take up arms and liberate the Holy Land. With the Pope's message stirring them to fever pitch, they shouted, "God wills it!" and began to sew the sign of the cross on their tunics. Within months, thousands had started the long trek eastwards, anxious to bear the sword in the name of Jesus Christ and to free Jerusalem from the Muslim infidel.

Jerusalem was taken from the Muslims on the third Crusade, by Philip II King of France, and Richard I (Coeur-de-Lion) King of England.

Posted by: Gaye at January 26, 2007 6:08 PM

and the rest of the article is......
The Crusaders had to set up a state. They took counsel as to who should be chosen to rule in the Holy Land. After much intrigue, Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorraine, was offered the title of king. He chose instead to be called the Defender of the Holy Sepulcher, saying that he could not wear a crown of gold in the city where his Savior had worn a crown of thorns.

In 1187 Saladin, who had overthrown the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt, expanded his power into Palestine and seized Jerusalem.

In 1291, when Acre fell, Christian rule in the Holy Land ceased to be a matter of practical politics.

During the many battles of the Crusades there were many atrocities, both by the Christians and by the Muslims. The Muslims won more battles and eventually the War, seizing Palestine and Jerusalem for hundreds of years... so, they had more opportunities to commit atrocities, and indeed they did!... but one wonders why many historians don't even mention one of them!.

Some historians believe that the starting of the Crusades was a Just War, I believe so too.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=19838

Other historians believe that the initial spirit of the Crusades was changed into Western Europe's most ambitious common enterprise and its most conspicuous failure was the attempt to bring together all mankind in Christian unity under the leadership of the bishop of Rome, St. Peter's successor, the pope. The most intense part of this enterprise and the one that enlisted the most widespread support in Europe from all levels of society was the Crusades.
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/21crusades.html
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=11822 Crusades: Truth and Black Legend
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia, the Crusades

The Church of Christ has often apologized for the wrongs of the pass, for the Crusades, the Inquisitions... I would like to see apologies of Islam for the wrong doings of the pass, for the 1001 battles with millions dead, for the 800 years of conquest and blood shed in Spain, for those 600 years in Portugal, Greece 500 years, Sicily 300 years, Serbia 400 years, Bulgaria 500 years, Rumania 400 years, Hungary 150 years... for the bloody conquests in Africa and Asia for hundreds of years... for the atrocities now going on in Sudan, with already 2 million people dead for the only crime of being a Christian...

Posted by: Gaye at January 26, 2007 6:11 PM

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land.
If this evil had not been pushed back the warriors who responded would have had to eventually fight this evil on their own grounds, but with reduced numbers. We face the same prospect today...

Posted by: Gaye at January 26, 2007 6:24 PM

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land.
if the warriors had not responded they would eventually have to fight then evil on their home grounds but with reduced numbers... and we face the same prospect today...

Posted by: Gaye at January 26, 2007 6:27 PM