| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Parody becomes reality
Britain wants to drop the "war on terror" phrase "because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives."
I'm gobsmacked, I tell you, gobsmacked. The "war on terror" is a silly, stupid, inadequate phrase, but for almost exactly the opposite of these reasons. One of its defects is that it doesn't communicate the fact that we are facing one enemy (with various degrees of organization) with with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. As I and many others have pointed out on numerous occasions, terrorism is a tactic, not an opponent, and it was not invented by Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001.
And the British also have a bad idea here because we are facing one enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. Even if one believes that they are twisting and hijacking Islam, they are still at least self-proclaimed Islamic jihadists with the goal of setting up a worldwide caliphate. Even President Bush has spoken about that, on one or two occasions. But evidently now official Britain is retreating so far from reality that we have to pretend that we are facing simply a few gangs of thugs with no coherent ideology or common aims.
And don't forget: the Democrats want to do this too.
"'War On Terror' Row," from SkyNews, with thanks to the American Israeli Patriot:
Britain has decided to ban the term 'War on Terror' - sparking fears of a major row with the US.The International Development Secretary will say the phrase has strengthened militant groups by giving them a shared identity.
Hilary Benn's speech is expected to anger the White House when he criticises President Bush's phrase.
He will stress the term makes terrorist groups feel that they are part of something "bigger".
Mr Benn will also urge world leaders to open dialogue with potential enemies rather than use military force.
President Bush championed the phrase 'War on Terror' shortly after the al Qaeda attacks on New York on September 11, 2001.
The Foreign Office called for it to be dropped in December last year but Washington stuck to its guns.
Mr Benn will say in his speech: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'War on Terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
"It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups.
"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."
They are part of something bigger, Mr. Benn, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it. They believe that they are the sons and heirs of mujahedin going back 14 centuries. Do you really think they have just gotten this idea because you started calling them "terrorists"? If so, it is an appalling commentary on the state of affairs in the West that you occupy any position of public influence at all.
Posted by Robert at April 16, 2007 8:15 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I know what will save Britain from Islamic terror.......(with a nod to South Park)
they should all BURY THEIR HEADS IN SAND!!!
It might take a while, but they could import tons of the stuff from key allies such as Saudi Arabia and Eqypt..........
Posted by: Raek![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 16, 2007 8:57 AM
I always knew we brits were smarter than the yankeys. There is no nation in the history of mankind as stupid (pardon me language) as the armracks
at April 16, 2007 9:00 AM
Why not call it the war on Qutb?
Robert MacNeil on Crossroads last night implicitly said Sayyid Qutb invented Jihad and Islamic fundamentalism, which never existed before Qutb went to a dance in Greeley Colorado in 1949.
MacNeil said that Islam was a peaceful religion before Qutb ruined it for everyone by his new ideas.
One question is when India was partitioned in 1947, how did they know there would be a fight? Since Qutb hadn't been to the dance yet, how could they know he would invent jihad?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 16, 2007 9:08 AM
Well, I never liked that phrase anyway... I think they should have called it the war on mutant hogsnoggers... Yup, that makes about as much sense, and doesn't offend anyone who might be of a certain religious faith... (*sarcasm*)
It doesn't matter what they call it, as long as they define it, and stop pussy-footing around and fight it with no holds barred!!!
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at April 16, 2007 9:09 AM
The Dimmicrats have no imagination. I am not joking....
When I lived in the UK, I would watch Euro News, BBC, SKY News and Fox News.
EVERY time the opposition party would attack Tony Blair, literally 2-3 days later, the Dimmicrats would use the exact same attack on George Bush....sometimes almost word for word.
They have no imagination and really want to move to France...............well at least I would like to see them leave.
at April 16, 2007 9:10 AM
I guess Britain realized what a great mistake it made for breaking the ranks with the rest of Europe by jumping on the wagon with a neo-conservative agenda. The biggest armed robberry in the history of the world is still going on. First, the land due to its geopolitical importance. Then the ancient artifacts and finally the grand prize: OIL.
Posted by: idn batutta at April 16, 2007 9:10 AM
Mr Benn is the son of an extreme left wing idiot and is following in his fathers footsteps. This is the Labour party, an extreme left wing party headed up by a few people who are less left wing then their membership. My American friends, while Labour is in powr you can not really rely on Britain, sorry.
This troll is no Brit, I feel no "we" with this zero...
Posted by: Daffersd
at April 16, 2007 9:13 AM
I always knew we brits were smarter than the yankeys. There is no nation in the history of mankind as stupid (pardon me language) as the armracks
Posted by: Abdullah
"WE" Brits??! Hey, can I see a show of hands from all real Brits what they think about Abby calling himself a Brit?
Is Abby a "Brit" in your eyes? Or is he merely a presumptuous interloper?
Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 16, 2007 9:16 AM
I suggest that folks out there go root around in their basement and find the old dog-eared copy of Orwell's "1984" that they read in middle school. Turn to the appendix and re-read "The Principles of Newspeak". We are there.
Posted by: Jeff M at April 16, 2007 9:27 AM
Just doing some thinking...
(one day, I think some of you might try to criticize this tag...oh yeah, that's all you can think to do!)
Posted by: An American
Here we have another moslem assuming a phoney identity. Whatever your "name" is - you are NOT "an American".
Noam Chomsky is nothing but a seditionist. We know what he and his ilk propose. They are infesting our media and they are all over our educational system.
No way do we need any MORE of the same!
And neither are you doing any thinking. You are regurgitating the kkkoran.
I am doing some thinking.. How to smite the black rock in meka. You know the idol rock they worship over there...
I really think we will have to destroy or occupy meca to stop this scourge called Pigslam.
This is almost like abad movie.. islam has such a "monstrous" satanic quality to it.. those unkempt beards.. devils.
Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 16, 2007 9:28 AM
Robert MacNeil on Crossroads last night implicitly said Sayyid Qutb invented Jihad and Islamic fundamentalism, which never existed before Qutb went to a dance in Greeley Colorado in 1949.
Oh, boy! We have [public broadcasting funds-]robber McNeil "enlightening" us on islam. He of the HUGE bags under his eyes.. These leftie fossils just don't seem to die.
This suicidalism in our societies has to STOP!
NO more of our money and aid to ANY moslem state or entity!
Where was THEIR aid during Katrina?
NO more moslem "immigration".
NO more lefty indoctrination in our educational system! We need engineers - not "social" engineers!
Let us get ready for the WAR that is coming!
Let us prepare ourselves well.
Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 16, 2007 9:44 AM
The biggest armed robberry in the history of the world is still going on. First, the land due to its geopolitical importance. Then the ancient artifacts and finally the grand prize: OIL.
Posted by: idn batutta
The biggest robbery is you and your islamist ilk invading our countries while the left is holding open the doors.
The true robbery is all the money you take from our social welfare programs.
The money we have to spend on police and courts and prisons because of the islamic filth coming into our lands!
I read the story of Holger Danske last night.
VAGNER!!! NOW.
Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 16, 2007 9:58 AM
This deserves a re-posting:
From "Scary Movie 4"
Henry Hale: I fear the presence of the outsiders will attract those of whom we do not speak.
Female Elder #2: But if you talk about those of whom we do not speak, have you not spoken of that about which we do not talk.
Henry Hale: Do not speak of that of about which we talk of not speaking... about.
We are under seige from "those of whom we do not speak."
We are going to lose this; place your bets before gambling is outlawed by the winners.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 16, 2007 10:09 AM
Posted by: An American [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 16, 2007 09:06 AM
I'm clever, you're all dumb, ya boo! Can't you say anything else? Four or five posts I've read, always the same - I'm clever, you're not, I read arabic, you don't.
Pure playground stuff, really.
Posted by: Jesus Worshipping Zionist at April 16, 2007 10:09 AM
I've got an idea instead War on Terror ot Islamofascism or (gasp!) Islam... call it Beans on Toast. We are fighting Beans on Toast. And it started in a dance in Greeley, Colorado in 1949 and if they destroy our civilization we deserve it anyway because of the Spice Girls and Pee Wee Herman and 'colonialism'. Oh dear, it's way past time for my medication.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 16, 2007 10:15 AM
Hilary Benn is the mediocre son of a loony left father (Tony Benn) and typifies the new looniness of the new Labour Party – the denial of the truth in the name of PC-multiculturalism. I suspect these people are in for a big shock in the local elections coming up in May.
Posted by: JFGR at April 16, 2007 10:22 AM
"maybe you should read Noam Chomsky"
Do you mean the linguist Chomsky who knows what he is talking about, or the rent-a-slogan oikophobe Chomsky whom we have absolutely no reason to take notice of?
Posted by: JFGR at April 16, 2007 10:26 AM
JFGR
agreed, but how many americans will today be talking about britain's withdrawel from the "war on terror". thanks to a non entity hilary benn (whom is only well known 'cos of his dad), he somehow gets his stupid ideas on the front pages of every newspaper.
americans, please do not listen to hilary benn, he does not, i repeat, he does not speak for the british people.
he is a mediocre politician with connections to left wing british editors. no one listens to him in the UK. (a bit like the independent newspaper but each time they do an anti american article its splashed out all over fox news and american talk shows)
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 16, 2007 10:27 AM
"I always knew we brits were smarter than the yankeys. There is no nation in the history of mankind as stupid (pardon me language) as the armracks
Posted by: Abdullah
"WE" Brits??! Hey, can I see a show of hands from all real Brits what they think about Abby calling himself a Brit? "
Let him call himself a "Brit" -- he can't call himself an Englishman.
Posted by: JFGR at April 16, 2007 10:28 AM
"Britain has decided to ban the term 'War on Terror' - sparking fears of a major row with the US."
britain has not banned this phrase.
please stop spreading silly misinformation. this crap only bolsters our islamic enemies and the marxist anti-americans.
please delete this thread.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 16, 2007 10:29 AM
Mr spencer, fox/sky is sponsored by the saudi royal family. you should realise this before putting this thread out. this is silly misinformation.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 16, 2007 10:30 AM
Leon:
Please provide some solid evidence that the SkyNews story is inaccurate, and I will remove it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 16, 2007 10:30 AM
“Leon: Please provide some solid evidence that the SkyNews story is inaccurate, and I will remove it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer”
What Leon may take issue with, I think, is your phrase “Britain wants to drop the "war on terror" phrase”, presumably because Benn said "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'War on Terror'”. Yes, Benn is “International Development Secretary” (what an orwellian title!), but has little clout in government, and certainly has no right to talk about what “we” use or do not use. However, I agree that it’s hight time the idiotic “war on terror” slogan was dropped – just a pity (and typical of New Labour) that it’s for the wrong reason!
at April 16, 2007 10:43 AM
leonthepigfarmer,
Do not worry so much. Those in America that believe this can not be reasoned with. Those of us who are with you always will be and will not be swayed by bologna delivered by metrosexuals. One thing we true Americans have is a brain and the ability to use it. I am very interested in all the European elections coming up and I have a suspicion they are not going to turn out like these fools hope they will. When we see things like this it only brings those who were on the fence closer to our side. The truth is the best defense against this mindless newspeak. It is best brought out into the light for all to see.
at April 16, 2007 10:45 AM
"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence."
Technically, I think he is accurate in the above statement. However, the key to that sentence seems to be the word 'dialogue,' and I'm guessing that Mr. Benn's solution for the Islamic problem is focused on 'dialogue.' If we could just have endless dialogues, endless debates, the caliphate seeking Islamists would change their violent intentions and we'd all live happily ever after in the Merry and Peaceful Euro Socialist Utopia.
If we changed the name 'Benn' to 'Chamberlain' or 'Pelosi,' the gist of the his message would stay exactly the same, wouldn't it?
Posted by: s at April 16, 2007 10:45 AM
""I always knew we brits were smarter than the yankeys."
...OK, you and your friend can go back to the mosque now....
at April 16, 2007 10:46 AM
Leon:
Your assertion that "fox/sky is sponsored by the saudi royal family" is wildly overstated.
Prince Al-Waleed owns 5% of Fox. That is a scandal, but it hardly amounts to sponsorship by the House of Saud.
As I said above, please provide evidence that Benn did not say the salient quotes, or other evidence that the story is inaccurate, and I'll remove it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 16, 2007 10:50 AM
Well...it IS a sucky phrase. A wordsmith ('misunderestimated") GWB is not.
Allahfanculo
DUDE!
The war isn't coming. It's here. There. And soon to be everywhere.
The challenge is in getting the burners to the high position.
_________________________
Hey An American--let's get together for some delicious baby back ribs! Bring Abby (normal) and idn (he stupid) along for giggles. I'll even buy the beer.
Everybody else: I propose we chip in and buy An American the ticket he or she can't afford. To someplace that 'scholars' sit around and debate the merits of the one chop vs the saw-thru methods of beheading while drinking coffee and blaming the Jews for their lack of electricity and sanitation.
I, for one, would love to receive his comments posted from an internet cafe in gaza. Oops! They were firebombed by...the Zionist Entity masquerading as hamas.
___________________________
You can take everything from me but my sense of humor.
Posted by: turn at April 16, 2007 10:58 AM
Call it "The War Against Islamofascism" and cut the b.s.
Or doesn't the idea of a global theocratic terror state on the march deserve resisting?
With all of our might, and intelligence and passion?
You want these zombified chuckleheads ruling the world?
Then keep obscuring the stakes.
And keep blurring the enemy:
Fascistic Islam.
Which knows exactly who it is fighting:
All infidel dogs.
(Even the craven yapping of these puppies.)
at April 16, 2007 11:01 AM
The International Development Secretary will say the phrase has strengthened militant groups by giving them a shared identity.These groups have 'a shared identity' and are part of 'something bigger' and no amount of lying or hedging is going to change the dynamics. In fact, all this clown is doing is lying to himself and the public.He will stress the term makes terrorist groups feel that they are part of something "bigger".
When Frost sought to have Blair describe Iraq as a disaster, these were Blairs words:
It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy -- al Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other -- to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."That's hardly the description of a few misguided individuals or gangs. It's the description of well organized groups, organizations and States engaged in the deliberate strategy and tactics of War.
If - or should I say 'when' - we're finally forced to pull our forces out of Iraq, there's absolutely no-way in hell anybody, even a complete idiot, will be mistaken of the 'stakes' or will be able to remain in this 'state of denial' of this much larger 'War.'
Posted by: Eg at April 16, 2007 11:06 AM
mr spencer
thanks for commenting!
unfortunately mr Benn did make those comments but he is a little known player in the UK, he has more friends in the media than he does in the voting booths, most brits will have never heard of him nor will they support his views.
this is a bit like the independent newspaper (read by extremely crazy englsih liberals) making its way onto american talk shows as a reflection on how all brits think.
all im saying is, that a lesser known politician, helped by his anti american news editors are further damaging US/UK relations, its their plan to create a wedge between our nations, the end of the special relationship is the marxists goal.
the saudis would also love a weaker socialist UK that accepts more wahabbi sponsered mosques and "education" centers.
it's just sad (like the iranian/uk hostage conflict) because the american public after hearing this story are gonna think that the british want out on the war against islamic terror. when this is false, the majority of brits want to wipe them out.
i also had american friends call me and ask me why the UK was pulling out of iraq. this was again after misinformation put out on the internet and on fox news. when in fact the british forces are not leaving, they did in fact clean up southern iraq, trained the iraqi forces and handed over the provinces to the iraqi government. a victory! yet the fox stated that the british were pulling out and all leaving.
the brits are keeping over 1000 in iraqi secure camps to respond to any emergencies. the rest are heading over to afganistan to bolster the NATO forces. hardly a retreat!
hope i didnt take up too much of your time, but thank for responding.
respectfully
leon
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 16, 2007 11:09 AM
The Canadian News media (was it CTV?) have reported that the term "War on Terror" was to be dropped...from a Democratic party memo...(the media is very eager to report such things -- it makes it sound as if, "YES, we were right all along, and finally an American agrees with us!")
Also, from an article (title: "There was a global war on terror?") by Brian Bresnahan (published in York New-Times), he wrote: "According to a March 27th House Armed Services Committee memo penned by the new Democratic leadership, the term 'global war on terror' is not to be used." Further on, the article writer states that the Democratic Party considers the "War on Terror" a "colloquialism."
(many Canadian "news" commentators have been very critical of the "War on Terror" -- but, as others note, for all the WRONG reasons -- many Canadian "news" people preface the phrase by saying, "The so-called war on terror" or they'll emphasize it's "*Bush's* war on terror" (in other words, the war in Iraq has nothing to do about fighting Islamic extremists -- "Islam is a religion of Peace, remember!!" -- only about "The Oil." That's the continual, repeated propaganda stated here -- there's only one reason why Americans are in Iraq, blah, blah, blah..and it's also repeated by many, many other apologists for Islam. Chalk it up to the Loonie Leftists.)
at April 16, 2007 11:49 AM
The only nations more silly than a typical American society are the ones that have a fit and riot over trivial matters and don't know what a joke is. Are taught not to look at a women because the behaviour in them has been programmed to feel guilty whist sexually psycologically depraved making the behaviour as predicted by its own society of the male's reaction to uncovered females an engineered reality. Where as in the West people do not have to feel insecure around women and the young men at least have that built up sexual tention released into a more positive channel. Rape happens everywhere in the world and being covered up does not help if people climb into the woman's house window to do it.
Posted by: jesusisthelamb at April 16, 2007 11:55 AM
I believe a response is required:
1. Arabic- I am sorry if you don't read it...but you and everybody around you continously bash a religion, scholars, and countless individuals whose foundational texts are in Arabic or not English, how can you possibly claim to have any understanding or credible evidence. Hugh, in his "pushing a century in age," has failed in all those years of hatred to learn the foundational language of his enemy. Imagine if we had fought the Cold War with not a single person in America learning Russian, or fighting in Iraq with nobody knowing Arabic (you can see the results every night on the news). What if I told you that I was going to take you to an expert on Mexican ideoligies and affairs, regardless of my political persuasion. You would inherently assume that he/she was Mexican, or at the very least been to Mexico or speak Spanish. However, you read, believe, and use as evidence the writings of people who have NEVER been there, NEVER bothered to study the language, and NEVER bothered to read nor cite anything that might eustion your topic (or cite at all, like Spencer). You will make the claim that I am trying to make it impossible by saying that you can never understand the texts, but that is not true. I have not been studying Arabic for that long at all, and am not Arab nor a native Arabic speaker, but somehow I reach a different conclusion, one not predicated upon hatred...
2. Turn---I really enjoy baby back ribs. I think it is really weird that I must inherently be a Muslim because I don't think like you--or hate like you. Although you don't see the connection, not too long ago anybody preaching anti-Semitism (like Henry Ford) claimed that those who didn't think exactly like they did were either Jews or collaborators with Jews. This JihadWatch line of thinking---just replace "Jews" with "Muslims" and collaborators with "Dhimmi"(Spencer keeps mispronouncing it, keeps me laughing)--and you have an identical ideology. Strange...
3. Chomsky--That is weird. Why is it that I don't think that radical conservatives who write things like "While Europe Slept" and the like should be stopped? I think that they are completely legitimate, and worthy of discussion. Why is it that you all constantly bash what I have to say simply because it is not exactly on the lines of what you are thinking? Chomsky is full of errors and inaccuracies in his books, very similar to the completely pro-American, bash Europe ideology written in the books another poster suggested.
Just doing some thinking...
(I will keep putting this until you stop attacking it and me, and start talking about the issue at hand. Why didn't you bring up the controversial discussions [and different opinions of those issues] discussed at the Azhar conference?)
at April 16, 2007 11:56 AM
Surprised I haven't seen this mentioned here at JW yet, so here's a link:
Movie Screening ‘Obsession’: Islamo-Fascism Awareness Day is April 19th
Posted by: Foehammer at April 16, 2007 11:58 AM
There are many translations of the koran and hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. In fact, imams proudly give away translated korans (donated by the Wahabbi Saudis)at their dawah sessions at the mosque.
So, american, you are saying that these translations are no good? That we must all learn classical arabic before we can understand and critically examine the doctrine of islam? This sounds very provincial for the claims of a global religion.
But perhaps we are looking an imperialistic belief system. A belief system which my local muslim brotherhood dawah expert told me was a complete way of life as it covered culture (arabic), religion (pieced together from Judaism, Gnostic Christianity, Zoroatrianism and indigenous pagan beliefs) and last but not least, a political system based on tribal sharia law.
Posted by: the poetess at April 16, 2007 12:25 PM
Yawn, another one of those read it in the original language to understand it, but I have a quick question, what language did Bin Laden read it in? Klingon?
You need to do some more thinking, after all there are many ex-Muslims who do a fantatstic job giving us the meaning and we can not of course miss the millions killed over the last 1,400 years.
I better start snoring now, how many times have we seen this sort of thing..., zzzzzzzz
Posted by: Daffersd at April 16, 2007 12:26 PM
Ban the term 'War on Terror' it's fine by me, we'll have to replace it with a relevant term sooner or later as we all know this conflict is not going to disappear on its own...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at April 16, 2007 12:34 PM
A brief comment to the "American" (whom we all know is not an American), if you are claiming to actually think about things -- you might want to read an essay written by Maynard Mack, entitled: "A note on translation." Mack contends that a translation is "always an interpretation." What would happen if a purist insisted that one should only read the classics in the original language, and that all translations were flawed?
If world literature can only be read (appreciated) in the original -- then you will be denying yourself the exploration of vast realms. If, for example, you speak/read only English and insist that literature can only be understood in the original -- then, the delights of Homer, the works of Virgil, the Hebrew Poets, The Divine Comedy of Dante, etc., etc. all will be denied to you. Such provincialism makes for a very limited individual...you will lack what Northrup Frye called "an educated imagination." Mack's concluding advice was that "literature is to be read, and the criticism that would destroy the reader's power to make some form of contact with much of the world's great writing must indeed be blown aside."
Then, again, I suppose, if you insist that the only people who should have contact with the Koran be speakers of Arabic -- fine, if you really believe that -- then go return or live in some Arabic speaking country.
Posted by: J.S. at April 16, 2007 12:51 PM
Saw Walid Phares on CSPAN at Heritage Foundation speaking to this very point.
Sounds like his new book is going to rock. I think It's called "War of Ideas" or something like that.
He made a point of going over the fact that as vague and inadequate as is the phrase "war on terror", there is even so, right now, a battle over that phrase itself, whether to use it and what it means.
===========
All of this of course is part of the Post-Modern anti-mind disease.
Never identify anything unambiguously.
No absolute truth. No absolute falsehood. No absolute right. No absolute wrong.
Hell, even basic arithmetic is open to question.
===========
And the worst part of all is that people who subscribe to such luke-warm fuzzy ideas must inevitably lose against those truly committed to absolutes and confident in their commitment.
Even if those absolutes are wrong.
Or as it was said by a better writer long ago,
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I'd like to believe we still have a better shot than that.
I'd like to believe that the ideals of freedom are stronger than the props that held up Imperial Rome.
The Roman republicans were faced with imperial power from within and barbarians from without.
We have better ideas than they had.
Is that a guarantee that we will succeed where they failed? If not, what's our move?
Posted by: joeblough at April 16, 2007 12:55 PM
No. Britain did not end its war on terror.
Islam is what has put an end to Britain's national identity and its war against terrorism.
In other words, Britain has just lost its war on terrorism.
And, yes, we should all be seeing handwriting on the wall for America in this...
Dashed unsporting, I say old chap!
at April 16, 2007 12:58 PM
To the Chomskyite poster 'An American' re: the necessity of knowing Arabic. Read this, and just do some thinking - for real, this time.
at April 16, 2007 1:14 PM
Ibn Warraq on the 'You must know Arabic to understand the Quran' argument:
Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice.
However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word.
In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities.[1]
Even for contemporary Arabic –speaking peoples, reading the Koran is far from being a straightforward matter. The Koran is putatively (in fact it is very difficult to decide exactly what the language of the Koran is) written in what we call Classical Arabic (CA), but modern Arab populations, leaving aside the problem of illiteracy in Arab countries [2], do not speak, read, or write, let alone think in Classical Arabic (CA). We are confronted with the phenomenon of diglossia [3], that is to say, a situation where two varieties of the same language live side by side. The two variations are high and low. High Arabic is sometimes called Modern Literary Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic, and is learned through formal education in school like Latin or Sanskrit, and would be used in sermon, university lecture, news broadcast and for mass media purposes. Low Arabic or Colloquial Arabic is a dialect which native speakers acquire as a mother tongue, and is used at home conversing with family and friends, and is also used in radio or television soap opera. But as Kaye points out, "the differences between many colloquials and the classical language are so great that a fallah (= farmer or peasant) who had never been to school could hardly understand more than a few scattered words and expressions in it without great difficulty. One could assemble dozens of so-called Arabs (fallahin or peasants) in a room, who have never been exposed to the classical language, so that not one could properly understand the other." [4]
Though some scholars do allow for some change and decay, they paint a totally misleading picture of the actual linguistic situation in modern Arabic speaking societies. These scholars imply that anyone able to read a modern Arabic newspaper should have no difficulties with the Koran or any classical Arabic text. They seem totally insensitive "to the evolution of the language, to changes in the usage and meaning of terms over the very long period and in the very broad area in which Classical Arabic has been used." [5] Anyone who has lived in the Middle East in recent years will know that the language of the press is at best semi-literary [6], and certainly simplified as far as structure and vocabulary are concerned. We can discern what would be called grammatical errors from a Classical Arabic point of view in daily newspapers or on television news. This semi-literary language is highly artificial, and certainly no one thinks in it. For an average middle class Arab it would take considerable effort to construct even the simplest sentence, let alone talk, in Classical Arabic. The linguist Pierre Larcher has written of the "considerable gap between Medieval Classical Arabic and Modern Classical Arabic [or what I have been calling Modern Literary Arabic], certain texts written in the former are today the object of explanatory texts in the latter." He then adds in a footnote that he has in his library, based on this model, an edition of the Risala of Shafi`i (died 204/820) which appeared in a collection with the significant title "Getting closer to the Patrimony." [7]
As Kaye puts it, "In support of the hypothesis that modern standard Arabic is ill-defined is the so-called ‘mixed’ language or ‘Inter-Arabic’ being used in the speeches of, say, President Bourguiba of Tunisia, noting that very few native speakers of Arabic from any Arab country can really ever master the intricacies of Classical Arabic grammar in such a way as to extemporaneously give a formal speech in it." [8]
Pierre Larcher [9] has pointed out that wherever you have a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language coexist, you are also likely to get all sorts of linguistic mixtures, leading some linguists to talk of triglossia. Gustav Meiseles [10] even talks of quadriglossia: between Literary Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, he distinguishes a Sub-Standard Arabic and an Educated Spoken Arabic. Still others speak of pluri- or multi- or polyglossia, viewed as a continuum. [11]
The style of the Koran is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Koran would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Koran.
You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Koran in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
So let me summarise: You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Paul Kurtz does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation. [12] You only need a critical sense, critical thought and scepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran, by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [13] which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it.
Endnotes below.
1. See Appendix, Bibliography of Translations, in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, edd. Beeston, Johnstone et al, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.502-520.
2. In Egypt, the rate of illiteracy is placed as high as 49.8 %, see Information Please Almanac, Boston, 1997, p.180
3. Charles Ferguson, Diglossia, Word, Vol.15, No.2 pp325-340, Aug.1959; William Marçais, La diglossie arabe, L’Enseignement public –Revue Pédagogique, tome 104, no 12, 1930, pp.401-409; Alan S. Kaye,Arabic, in The Major Languages of South Asia, The Middle East and Africa, ed. Bernard Comrie, London, Routledge, 1990, p.181
4. Ibid., p.173.
5. B.Lewis, Islam and the West, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.65
6. It is in fact becoming more and more westernized, i.e. de-semitized under the influence of the international news agencies.
7. P.Larcher,Les Incertitudes de la Poesie Arabe Archaique, in La Revue des Deux Rives, No.1, 1999,p.129
8. Kaye, op. cit. p.183.
9. P.Larcher, La Linguistique Arabe d’Hier a Demain : Tendances Nouvelles de la Recherche, Arabica, tome XLV, 1998, pp.409-29.
10. Gustav Meiseles, Educated Spoken Arabic and the Arabic Language Continuum, Archivum Linguisticum, vol. XI, Number 2, 1980, pp.118-142;quoted in P.Larcher,see note 10 above.
11. A.S.Kaye, Formal vs. Informal in Arabic : Diglossia, Triglossia, Tetraglossia, etc., Polyglossia –Multiglossia Viewed as a Continuum, ZAL, 27, 1994, pp.47-66.
12. P.Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation, Prometheus Books, Amherst,1986
13. There seems to be some controversy as to what the language of the Koran really is, see my introduction to What the Koran Really Says., Prometheus Books, Amherst, 2002.
Note: Population figures cited by Ibn Warraq above are as of the time this article was written.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 16, 2007 1:21 PM
"Imagine if we had fought the Cold War with not a single person in America learning Russian, or fighting in Iraq with nobody knowing Arabic (you can see the results every night on the news)."
American,
You are being silly. Not every American needed to learn Russian to learn what Lenin or Stalin stood for and not every person needs to learn Arabic to learn the tenets of Islam.
Practicing Muslims and Arabic speakers should be able to explain it quite clearly. Wasn't Mohammad illiterate? Hasn't the Koran, like the Bible, been copied and recopied through the centuries? How do you know that the Koran is accurately reflecting Mohammad's teachings?
What about the many Muslims around the world who don't speak Arabic? Give me a page of German and I could speak it very well even without knowing what it meant. Isn't that what many of these people face with the Koran? They learn the words but not the meaning. What about the Muslims who, when they finally heard the Koran in their own language, were shocked to hear what it actually said?
In the Catholic Church the Mass was once said in Latin. The priest and servers knew enough Latin to get by. The US congregation read English translations. We knew what the Mass was about without learning Latin or Aramaic or Hebrew.
We live in an era of specialization. I trust Arabic speakers and scholars to translate works of historical importance in order that they reach the widest audience.
I applaud your intellectual curiosity but don't demean others who are just trying to learn about Islam. What if people are not linguistically gifted as you seem to be? Are their studies worthless?
What about Al-Jazeera? They broadcast in English. People like you are valuable because we know they say one thing in English and another in Arabic. We would rely on you to spread your knowledge, not look down on others. You could perform a valuable service, if you chose to.
at April 16, 2007 1:27 PM
Translation?
Man points to dromedary and says (noise phonetically understood as):
"Gamal."
In English, this becomes:
"Camel."
And is grasped as a four-footed "ship of the desert".
What's the big problem?
Pedophile warlord says "Strike at their necks!".
Infidels see people beheaded.
The meaning is quite clear.
All of this obfuscation over the 'secret' meanings of the "original Arabic" are 99% nonsense. (And the general lack of specifically written vowel sounds should only make Arabic more freely interpretable, not less so.)
The Arabic words point to root objects, or shared states of mind and emotion, common to all sentient beings.
Or are Muslims not sentient beings?
Posted by: profitsbeard
at April 16, 2007 1:28 PM
An American
I think it is very clever of you to learn Arabic. However, there are a few more things for you to consider while you are thinking:
1) You really have no idea of how many people logging on to this site read and speak Arabic. To arrogate to yourself the position of objective authority based upon your newly acquired fluency in Arabic seems to be a bit shaky
2) To dismiss translations is essentially to dismiss your objective authoritym based upon your newly acquired fluency in Arabic. See how it works?
3) Imagine Parliament preventing Winston Churchill from giving his "Blood, Sweat and Tears" speech, all on the basis that he hadn't sufficient fluency in German. Golly, that would be too bad, don't you think?
4) You may be doing some thinking, but apparently you're only thinking about reading Robert Spencer's books, given your comment that he "... NEVER bothered to ...(cite at all, like Spencer)." He makes his citations from the canonical Islamic literature.
5) Equating the anti-Jewish with the putative anti-Moslem bias is interesting. All acts of discrimination against law-abiding citizens are reprehensible. Acts of vigilantism are reprehensible. Ignoring a coordinated attack by an hostile ideology upon the Western legal structure that protects these rights is reprehensible. See how it works?
I'm glad you're thinking. Keep checking in and let us know how it's going with all that.
Posted by: Chatillon at April 16, 2007 1:32 PM
An American,
"However, you read, believe, and use as evidence the writings of people who have NEVER been there, NEVER bothered to study the language, and NEVER bothered to read nor cite anything that might eustion your topic..."
You mean people (ex-Muslims and Muslim reformers) like...
Wafa Sultan,
Ibn Warraq,
Nonie Darwish,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
Ali Sina,
Brigitte Gabriel,
Kareem Amer,
Abul Kasem,
Meher Ali Khan,
Alamgir Hussein,
Alie Siraj,
Arzu Toker,
Mina Ahadi (along with 29 other immigrants from Muslim countries who joined her in declaring they have renounced Islam),
Magdi Allam,
Anwar Shaikh,
Muhammad bin Abdulla,
Mohammed Rasoel (or Mohamed Rasul),
Ayesha Ahmed,
Homa Arjomand,
Imran Hossain,
Mohammed Jahed Ahmed,
Syed Kamran Mirza,
Fatemolla,
Avijit Roy,
Aparthib Zaman,
Mohammad Asghar,
Esam Sohail,
Quddus Khan,
Syed Munir Islam,
Sher Khan,
A.H. Jaffor Ullah,
Jamal Hasan,
Khaled Waleed,
Mumin Salih...?
Not to mention non-Muslim scholars of Islamic culture & history literate in Arabic such as Snouck Hurgronje, Arthur Jeffery, St. Clair Tisdall, Joseph Schacht, David Margoliouth, Edmond Fagnan, Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, Hans Jansen, Samuel Zwemer, A.S. Tritton, Antoine Fattal, Franz Rosenthal, W.H.T. Gairdner, David Littman, Patricia Crone...?
at April 16, 2007 1:39 PM
"War on Terror" "Islamic Terror"
Clarify the language used in the Global War On Terror (GWOT) in order to accurately define our enemy
defining our enemy as "Islamic" or "Islamist" is a PR disaster for the West..
OK ..War on terror is out..
soon in USA(if they get their way)can't call it
Islamic terror...
Not good PR move, you know..
So, hummm?
What? What? HEY! How'bout "bad guys"..
"War on the bad guys"..
Wait ..humm ..he word "War"...humm..that might be to strong..."war" sounds ..like we might want to win..or something..
How 'bout..I got it !
"Cast eyes down when They come around"
sounds prutty..like a poem..
Ok ..lets go with that!
http://www.islamistterrorismitisnot.net/
Places where Resolution was passed:
1. City of Plano, TX - Pending
http://www.freeandjust.org/AreasOfFocus.htm
Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at April 16, 2007 1:41 PM
Call the war anything you like just so long as we continue the fight against Jihad.
The best way to win is to recognise that Islam and democracy cannot coexist.
Posted by: DP111 at April 16, 2007 1:42 PM
Why is it that I don't think that radical conservatives who write things like "While Europe Slept" and the like should be stopped? --"An American"
"While Europe Slept" was authored by a gay liberal who was initially strongly pro-European--until he lived in Europe for several years and saw what it's become and had a number of not-so-pleasant experiences with the intolerant Muslim community of Amsterdam. This is all detailed in the book, which you've clearly never even looked at; instead you immediately assume it's a "radical conservative" book merely because it's main premise, like that of "America Alone", disagrees with your pro-Islamic views. You say nobody here will read Noam Chomsky--whom you yourself admit is often horribly inaccurate--because his arguments don't "support our topic"--yet it's obvious you only read books which support yours and dismiss everything else as being "radical conservative". Hypocrisy at its finest. I'd like to see you dispute any of the demographic arguments--or anything else, for that matter--in either of the two books I recommended. Nevermind, that would require "thinking"; clearly not your strong point, regardless of how frequently you claim otherwise.
I'm guessing you've never read any of Robert's books, either, as you claim he never cites anything. His books are full of citations from the Islamic texts he uses as his sources; I also believe he does speak Arabic, but somebody can correct me if I'm wrong on that. Your comments are one display of arrogance and ignorance after another.
Posted by: staff_of_magius at April 16, 2007 1:44 PM
Allahfanculo,
Abby aint no Brit! He doesn't know what he is. One day he's a Brit, the next day he's some kind of somali, the next he's a mujihadeen wannabe and on....and on....oh B**ger it-just ignore the brainwashed idiot.
Posted by: rookie at April 16, 2007 1:44 PM
So the Brits fail in their part in the War on Terror, so they think naming it something else and allowing their sissy troops to slink back home will make a difference.
News to Brits, bin Laden planned this phase of the policy knowing you would react just like you are.
The British leadership are rats in bin Laden's maze reacting perfectly to his game.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 16, 2007 1:45 PM
Britain has decided to ban the term 'War on Terror' - sparking fears of a major row with the US.
Finally, the British government is catching on! The way to win a war is to ban any reference to war!
This way, if you have a major row with the US at least you have quantified and identified an enemy.
Yes, the Bristish has so much superior intellect in these matters, it is simply dazzeling. We should take a lesson or two from our smarter allies across the pond.
In that spirit, we should simply declare that 911 never happened. That way, we have no imperative to go to war and we can all come home and live in peace at the mosques.
When our unnamed enemy kills our people, we'll just ignore them. Given enough time, they will leave in frustration and we will have shown how much better we are then they -- even if we are dead.
You know, just when I thought the barbaric Swedish police, who took the drastic action of writting up a formal report in response to a riot (or was it really civil insurrection?), were really dumb; the British government has far and away eclipsed them in dumbness.
I pitty the British people -- heck, I still have relations there, but who are thinking of escaping -- moving out that is, to a "free" and smarter run country.
Posted by: witness at April 16, 2007 1:54 PM
Whether or not there is imminent truth to the moribund status of the inadequate label "war on terror", it is ultimately irrelevant. The war is clearly against Islam, historically and as applied today. It is not against "extreme Islam, "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam"....just Islam.
To "An American":
Your posts are consistent in that they are crtical of Robert and Hugh and all that they are attemting to do here at JW/DW. Your reference to the Azhar conference is noted, and if it is genuine in it's desire to discuss things that are present in Islam that are troubling to the West, then great, let's have more of it. A token gesture, even if it is more than a charade, is not enough to offset the valid political debate that occurs on this site, nor the existence of this site as a whole. As has been stated numerous times before, this is mainly a pedagogical site, charged with the task of educating the ignorant to the reality of certain aspects of Islam.
If one is to accept the meaning of the word "taqiyya" as true, as I and many others certainly do, then maybe we infidels should not completely rely on what we are told Islam means by only Islamists themselves. You do not need to read any book to understand that in terms of common sense. The intolerant passages in the Qur'an, the reference manual for Islamists, is all that matters. The words, in plain sight, evoke action each and every day from those who follow Islam. There have been numerous translations of the Qur'an, by Arabs and non-Arabs alike. If you are suggesting that these translations are all null and void because they can not be understood unless they are read in their original tongue, then just say so. I will refute that absurd proposal if you do and might remind you that one did not need to read Mein Kampf in it's native German language to adequately understand it's meaning.
There is a central theme used by Islamists when addressing infidels. It is the old, "your are misinterpreting the Qur'an." Likewise Islamic apologists usually tend to dismiss those who commit violence in the name of Allah as heretics,those who do not practice "true" Islam. I believe that the biggest concern about Islam is the lack of a clear defining power to provide interpretations of Qur'anic principles and mandates that can be universally accepted and enforced. As ludicrous as this sounds, I actually support the restoration of the Caliphate. it would be a great time-saver. Once the Caliphate expresses his opinion on the matters of jihad, the only opinion that would matter, we infidels would clearly know where we stand. This, hoever, is not to suggest that we don't have a pretty good clue already. As Islam exists today, the open-ended justification for jihad, the warfare one, not the inner spritual struggle one, is obvious. There are those who act an the apologist, discarding the transgressor as one who is not acting in the true spirit of Islam, and then there are those who advocate and support the jihadist's actions. It seems the immutable words of Allah, found in the texts, are quite mutable or malleable, if you will, able to be bent to support the actions of the jihadist du jour.
The bottom line is excuses fall short. We need to be proven not by words alone, but by actions supporting those words, that Islam does not pose the overt threat that we perceive it to. "American imperialism", "Political Correctness", "mainsream media", et al, may be relevant in form to a certain degree, but they are also extraneous to the central "issue at hand", as you put it, which is and will continue to be Islam here on this site. As far as others and I am concerned, until that changes, nothing changes. Calling me or Robert or anyone here a "hater", without any substantive argument behind it, is just ad hominem as you well know.
"An American".
If you will, indulge me and please provide your specific insights to the term jihad, and it's dual meaning, with what that reality means or should mean, to the infidel. I am more than happy to enage is respectful discourse and I believe this to be an excellent starting point.
Regards.
at April 16, 2007 2:03 PM
I think we all have a clear understanding of the Message those who understand Arabic have translated into English. I'm talking Arabs here. Mr. Spencer just seems to have clarified for us the accuracy of their translations.
It would seem to me that if Islam is so darned peaceful. Then the "true" Arabs and the "true" Muslims are having trouble understanding their own Language.
Chew on that while your "thinking".
Considering a Muslim can Lie to an Infidel. Why should we take any thing they say as truthful.
When they say they are Hungry, they must mean they are full. So no Food for you.
The war against Infidelobia.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 16, 2007 2:10 PM
The war isn't coming. It's here. There. And soon to be everywhere.
The challenge is in getting the burners to the high position.
Touché on both points! When I wrote it's coming I was referring to the hot phase. I should have worded that a bit better.
Like you, I think the sooner we get the hot phase started the better for us. The tactical advantage will shift to the other side the longer we wait. There is a moslem captaining a British submarine already, if I am not mistaken.
You can obviously forget about fighting moslems when you have moslems within your ranks.
Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 16, 2007 2:19 PM
memo to Idn Battuta:
Your victim act doesn't fool anyone here.
Islam viciously murdered over 300 million innocent human beings around the world as it grabbed land by military force from Spain to Africa and east to Java and north to China during the first millennia. Islam also enslaved hundreds of millions of others with equally absent conscence.
Don't you think it's time that the non-Muslims of the inhabitants of this planet rose up and took back everything stolen from them by Muslims? And received fair compensation for the unbelievable misery that Islam has so cruelly and inhumanly caused the rest of of the planet???
(And might not that just compensation be O-I-L)?
Islam OWES the rest of humanity for its centuries of plunder, land theft, and mass murder and enslavement! And, Big time, Ibn.
ps-Muslims, living under the primitive conditions commanded by the Kuran, could never have done anything with O-I-L anyway, as they never had any technology to apply it to. So what do they care if someone else gets it?
Posted by: pythagoras at April 16, 2007 2:23 PM
Just doing some thinking...
(I will keep putting this until you stop attacking it and me, and start talking about the issue at hand. Why didn't you bring up the controversial discussions [and different opinions of those issues] discussed at the Azhar conference?)
Posted by: An American
just doing some thinking myself here.. WE do NOT need to read the islamic texts in Arabic. Just as "Mein Kampf" is "my Struggle" in English. So is Mein KKKoran!
The ACTIONS of moslems world-wide speak for themselves. Whether a certain wording of some KKKoranic text wsas this way or that way .. or whether it is "legal" in the eyes of their deity to kill by fire.. these fine points do not require special linguistic skills.
We see the actions of moslems world-wide. We see what they say on their jihadist websites. What we don't see is that nebulous "vast majority" saying anything against all of this. Therefore we have to assume this is mainstream islam.
I do not have to list everything they have done by way of violence, but it dwarfs anything that any repressive regime has ever produce in sheer mayhem and destruction.
So if you want to say we're a bunch of former anti-Semites as you were alluding to above - bear the actions of moslems in mind. Furthermore.. I say you are guilty of turnspeak.. casting the perpetrator in the role of the victim.
Pfui!!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 16, 2007 2:34 PM
I like it when the mistranslations are executed when in Islamic countries go by their culture inspired book;
When women must be covered,
Witnesses for rape lashes for the woman
Cutting the head off people, be it kidnaps or public executions
Other religions made illegal or spreading of it,
When Jews are worth thinking about genocide,
When executions are allowed when putting down the name of Allah or speaking out against him as thought crimes,
Infidel- phobia is acceptable,
Anti-Western extremist views which lead to happen as some worthy propaganda which leads to terrorist ideologies,
Martyrdom as honour,
Honour killings as a way of life,
Not being able to play diplomacy but rather separatist attitudes to anything outside Islam, in other words you are not welcome but they are.
Are all these things not in the Koran are they just misunderstandings of it all, is it our fault now for not reading the Koran or do the facts speak from them selves which people practice in those countries, these things are Islamic inspired and maybe they have too many open ended passages to loophole evil over good and why does it take westernised Muslims to understand the true meaning does not Islamic countries teach the truth or has the Christian educated environment become another imitated behaviour as to put into the adapt and hide the truth tactics one of many in history.
at April 16, 2007 2:36 PM
"...Do you really think they have just gotten this idea because you started calling them "terrorists"? If so, it is an appalling commentary on the state of affairs in the West that you occupy any position of public influence at all...."
From Robert above.
What is even more appalling is that that sentence could be applied to the pol-elites in every Western capital.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at April 16, 2007 2:47 PM
OT
There is an aweful event that has unfolded this morning at Virgina Tech and my thoughts and prayers go out to those touched by this horror; but what caught my eye was this from drudgereport.com
SKY NEWS: Witnesses said he was heavily armed and entered the college looking for his girlfriend... He reportedly lined up students and opened fire at them. He was said to be a young Asian...
Young Asian? Usually that is media-speak for islamic terrorist, and we have been reading lately about an American Beslan.
Perhaps there is no connection, but it is something we are forced to consider.
Staying tuned ...
at April 16, 2007 2:48 PM
He will stress the term makes terrorist groups feel that they are part of something "bigger". Mr Benn will also urge world leaders to open dialogue with potential enemies rather than use military force.
I have a modest proposal. I think the time has come for a "Manhattan Project" type of effort, to convince ourselves that Islam is a peaceful religion. Here are several suggestions to get it started:
- Ban all uses of the phrases "War on Terror" and "Islamic terrorist".
- Disallow any mention of the religious affiliation of terrorist attackers. Instead, use gender and religously-neutral terms such as "youths" (which is, admittedly, ageist, but that will be the topic of another "Manhattan Project").
- Have our top scientists work around the clock to come up with new euphemisms, excuses, and cover stories for the acts committed by, umm, "youths".
- Have our top leaders commit their energies full time into convincing us that Islam is the Religion of Peace. This includes mentioning the phrase "RoP" in every speech, praising Islam as "the Noble Religion" whenever possible, inviting top Islamic leaders to speak (including to lead prayers that call for the enslaving of infidels), and so on.
- Disallow any infidel to quote from the Qur'an for the purpose of showing how violent it is.
If we can redirect our efforts and resources away from such wastes as finding "alternative energy resources" (as if there could be an alternative to petroleum! Insanity!), and into this project, and if we carefully control what we say and what we know, we can successfully convince ourselves that Islam is peaceful.
at April 16, 2007 3:00 PM
Special Guest,
I am utterly outraged. How, How could you have possibly forgotten that every Infidel news broadcaster MUST prefix any mention of certain historically important Islamic towns with the term "holy" -- thus, it is (based fatwa 10, look it up), the "Holy city of karbala" or "the holy site of mekkah" etc. as opposed to saying, say, "the Unholy, Bloody, Terrorist-infested city of Karbala."
Posted by: J.S. at April 16, 2007 3:47 PM
OT:
VT Shooting.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3045605&page=2
So far it looks like the school screwed up big time and the authorities know little yet, but the FBI chimed in quite early with the obligatory:
FBI spokesman Richard Kolko in Washington said there was no evidence to suggest it was a terrorist attack, "but all avenues will be explored."
Indeed. It never suggests a terrorist attack now does it?
at April 16, 2007 3:48 PM
Witness, "young asian" is uaually British media-speak for middle eastern men. In the US Asian means Oriental.
My Taurus has a trunk, a Jaguar has a boot.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 16, 2007 3:52 PM
If randomly killing 30 some Students isn't considered an act of Terror. Can anyone tell me what would be an act of Terror?
Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 16, 2007 4:24 PM
Even if the events at VA Tech turn out not to be Islamic jihad related, it certainly sends a very bad message to the Islamists that are already here in the USA planning attacks.
The problem with school security is going to be severely exploited at some point by our enemies, and my great fear is that the numbers we are seeing today will be eclipsed in many American Beslans.
It's past time to wake up, people. We've got problems within and without that must be addressed. Students of any age should not be guessing if they will come home alive from class.
Posted by: Foehammer at April 16, 2007 4:38 PM
By flowerknife_us;
If randomly killing 30 some Students isn't considered an act of Terror. Can anyone tell me what would be an act of Terror?
-------------------------------------------------------------
That is a good point but you have to go by considering are bank robberies terrorist acts?
There is terror in the word of the crime committed yes and the effect on people but I am not sure if this terrible act is of a political statement or a command from another source that provoked it. The could be classed as a localised terror maybe the killer had personal issues.
If related to religion or obsessed nature of religion questions will be made and maybe changes.
The person could have been deranged from the similar conditioning that extremists use on martyrdoms, this could be from another form of mental break down like over obsessive ness on a particular theme from guns to the act it self as a fantasy needed playing out with a small trigger point to make it happen within. This in turns parallels with extremist views and acts of terror from over obsessive reading or control from cults which in the end all end up with death on the agenda.
If the story is of a belsan school nature that is signal to America as a whole, but since it was not a political organised group massacre its unlikely it was a real terror to change the politics within the country or a revenge attack on America.
I am no expert but one can figure out the logic behind all this and why it's here.
at April 16, 2007 4:44 PM
Officials are claiming they still haven't identified the shooter. That is very suspect in my opinion.
Posted by: Foehammer at April 16, 2007 4:46 PM
If you have the stomach, read the nonsense at the nytimes blog regarding this:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/britain-deserts-war-on-terror-the-phrase/#comments
take care
at April 16, 2007 5:34 PM
'An American' has skunked away, rather than confront the questions that his 'thoughts' have raised. Look forward to him re-surfacing at another thread and repeating the same stuff without bothering to address what's here.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 16, 2007 5:43 PM
I've always thought "the war on unreformed Islam" is to the point. Until Islam chucks it's violent passages, philosophy, fatwas, etc, there will be no peace. If Islam doesn't get reformed, we are doomed to suffer from violence and dhimmitude.
Posted by: npabga at April 16, 2007 5:50 PM
“Arabic- I am sorry if you don't read it...but you and everybody around you continously bash a religion, scholars, and countless individuals whose foundational texts are in Arabic or not English, how can you possibly claim to have any understanding or credible evidence.”
Can one be a Christian, or anti-Christian, only if one has studied Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and New Testament Greek?
at April 16, 2007 5:57 PM
Yes lets all sit around in this room and analyze the event of today.Lets see just how it fits in with the events of yesterday and the day before that and on and on.
Frankly it's the same old words the same old outcome.
I don't know how you people find anything more to say.It's all been said,nothing new,nothing different.
Someone runs over and finds some article of some poor soul that has been tortured and killed and says "see,see what islam is,see what islam offers."
Everyday articles and comments are posted in surprise or with grunts of disapproval over the self servers of our governments lack of any ability or wherewithall to state the obvious.
Instead they do quite the opposite.They abet and they ally themselves with those when in saner days and patriotic days they would have fought those they embrace.
Therefore we (I ) have no representation,no vote of confidence.This means i am to lose by thier rules,that they create as we go along.While at the same time playing by rules that no other is to be made to play by.But there are rules of a game that is being played that is usable for all.
I belive the warnings after warnings have gone full circle.
Whether this event was due to islam or not is of concern but in the larger picture the blame lies with our representatives and i personaly hold them to account.
As far as i am concerned they are all the same and the rope has many necks in it and the lever needs to be pulled.There is no pity ,no remorse,no care.
The price for freedom is blood.That doesn't have to mean the free mans blood.That doesn't mean we have to sacrifice ourselves for those who sacrifice nothing,those users and abusers.The self servers.I do not wish to fight for these people,no instead it should be thier blood that stains the altar of freedom.These creatures that have allowed this whole freak show to thrive.
I will fight with ferocity and courage and conviction for those who have been the victims and sacrifices to some hack of a god and his miserable hillbilly snaggletoothed loser.
I wonder is there an army of ones like me?Or does the ozone just continue to get heated with all the hot air all the talk and fabulous words.
This i say to all those involved meaning governments and abetters and even islam itself.
"stop insulting my inteligence.You can call "it" whatever you wish.I just hope you have as much kindness for my movement,my resistance.Not that i care."
No more words.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at April 16, 2007 6:47 PM
Infidel Pride wrote:
"'An American' has skunked away, rather than confront the questions that his 'thoughts' have raised. Look forward to him re-surfacing at another thread and repeating the same stuff without bothering to address what's here."
Agreed. It is easy to play devil's advocate. It is even easier to play completely unsubstantiated devil's advocate. If he truly believed in his position, he most assuredly would be "champing at the bit" for the opportunity to display his breadth of knowledge and correct us all.
I must admit, that was a pretty thorough beating he was taking for awhile there.
Posted by: awake at April 16, 2007 7:12 PM
He will stress the term makes terrorist groups feel that they are part of something "bigger".
Aren't they already part of something bigger? It's called the UMMAH.
Posted by: PMK at April 16, 2007 7:31 PM
What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence."
Posted by someone earlier
It's more like the violence comes in because they themselves know islam offers nothing.
The only thing that keeps islam afloat is force and brutality.
Dialogue and debate? These two things have to involve truth and facts.None of which you find in islam.
Thier individual and narrow values? Islam my have something but values definetaly are not found in islam. You cannot say a thing has values when it does things like islam does.
Two things the muslim male does "value" one is the female and the other is his sheep.Both give him sexual pleasure but the female gives him off spring (no matter how hard he tries with the sheep).Both can bring him profit so yes he "values" them.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at April 16, 2007 8:49 PM
Dar al-harb wrote:
"The only thing that keeps islam afloat is force and brutality."
Those two examples, essentially yes, but the only thing, no. The geological accident of petroleum wealth has a compelling voice, consistently contributing to the sustenance of Islam. Without that wealth that Islam currently enjoys, it would be reduced to merely "pounding sand", for all intents and purposes, as an expression of their collective displeasure of the world, with the "their" being Allah, of course.
The "misinterpreted" texts, supported by the multiple actions enacted in Allah's name, are quite revealing indeed.
After all, Islam is still Islam...right?
Posted by: awake at April 16, 2007 11:37 PM
"Abdullah" is such a corny and obvious moniker for some pretend Islamist; this troll is, I suspect, a lone acne-ridden white British male in his early twenties, with left-leaning tendencies and the usual concomitant anti-American racism. I recall that he recently justified the execution and burning of innocent Thai Buddhists in southern Thailand with the words "self-determination". Incorrigible depraved boneheaded leftists like "Abdullah" still manage to see elements of liberation and anti-imperialist struggles in the daily acts of jihad violence committed worldwide.
He may well be British, as I am, but then the fifth columnists in Madrid, 1936, were also Spanish.
Posted by: The Northumbrian at April 16, 2007 11:43 PM
This man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two owned
a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German
people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward
fanaticism.
"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of
German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who
just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat
back
and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had
lost
control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I
ended
up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."
We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is
the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to
live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant.
It is
meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow
diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of
Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50
shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter
Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over
the
entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead,
murder,
or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is
the
fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the "silent
majority"
is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet
the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million
people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population, it
was
peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70
million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a war mongering
sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia
in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million
Chinese
civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be
said
that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our
powers of
reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because
like
my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics
own
them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans,
Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have
died
because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group
that counts;
the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is
serious and just
deletes this email without sending it on, can contribute to the passiveness
that allows
the problems to expand.
Please forward this message. Help the interests and well being of the US and
it's
citizens.
___
Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at April 17, 2007 12:11 AM
Oh Yes, tilly tally how silly? Shall we have another cup of tea and disgust it? How about War on War to save all Wars of what we have fought for?
Posted by: MZ at April 17, 2007 12:37 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)