“A white flag will not put out the fire from the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. They are thirsty for the Muslim’s blood,” an article in February said.

An orange one over Pakistan might be a better way to put out the fire. You fight fire with fire.

Posted by: TexasInfidel at April 27, 2007 12:36 AM

"The level of extremism and fanaticism has gone up"!

The Devil is certainly aware that his time is short, isnt he!

Robert, I know you are not talking about true nerve, but actually, political posturing posing as nerve.

"A video shows a child beheading a militant accused of betraying his comrades"--I would like to invite all who post here to checkout my post on a previous article (2 back, I think) about a 12 year old beheading a man on video.

Posted by: guide inside at April 27, 2007 1:33 AM

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
The only way to stop this is to shoot the liar, or bombard him with bigger truth. That was the purpose of the old 'Radio Free America'. Powerful radio stations in secure undisclosed locations or mobiles, could pound Islamic countrys with lie nutralising truths. If they had strong amplifiers, they could bleed the message over radio and television. Pirate radio/tv, a civilian operation, almost invisible, but loud...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2007 1:44 AM

I would just love to know if we could at the very least make any aid to Pakistan conditional with getting rid of all this terrorist sympathizing media. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Leftist Revolutionary, Reactionary, it doesn't matter really, Political party be damned,the first politician to advocate cutting off every last form of aid to the Paki gov't, or at the very least start making it conditional on actually combatting jihadist media and political movements, is going to get an astounding amount of votes from Americans who are finally getting beleagured by by being taken advantaged of by Islamists.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at April 27, 2007 1:44 AM

jihadi media thrives in pakistan?
Ya think???
Ummm, is this supposed to be a newsflash?
lol

Posted by: jcom972 at April 27, 2007 3:07 AM

And this is a country with about 60 nuclear warheads. They were right to move that doomsday clock forward.

Posted by: BlowHammed at April 27, 2007 6:02 AM

Why didn't they just hand over bin-laden or arrest him from the beginning? They fueled the fire and keep it going! They get worse along the way. Just how a true little demon starts and wants to please SATAN! A fire just grows bigger and it is there for one thing, To consume!

Posted by: MZ at April 27, 2007 7:42 AM

Why indeed, MZ. Zia Al-Haq, the Pak army general who overthrew Benazeer Bhutto's father back in the 1970s was a staunch Islamist when OBL was a teenager.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 27, 2007 8:28 AM

"the first politician to advocate cutting off every last form of aid to the Paki gov't, or at the very least start making it conditional on actually combatting jihadist media and political movements"

Why limit it to the Paki government? Why not "ANY" islamic country's government?

Posted by: walterc at April 27, 2007 10:43 AM

"Why limit it to the Paki government? Why not "ANY" islamic country's government?"

Great idea, but it has a catch.

Do that and you'll hear the OIC talk about the "economic genocide" America is committing against "poor Muslim nations".

Condition it upon their silencing jihadists and you'll hear in the UN and everywhere else that we are "stifling freedom of speech".

Unless our leaders on both sides are prepared to let such remarks go unanswered and resist the urge domestically to demonize the political party that takes such action, then it will never happen.

Posted by: PMK at April 27, 2007 11:30 AM

PMK-

Since Islam is so hot for the "Greater Jihad" (peaceful inner struggle), forbid aid to any Muslim land unless they swear that Jihad only means "peaceful inner struggle".

If anyone in their country says otherwise, aid ends.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 27, 2007 11:38 AM

To walterc,

Actually, I DO think such a philosphy should apply to EVERY islamic nation, including those like Bosnia or Nigeria that even if they aren't solidly majority muslim, are becoming heavily domninated by muslims or the most purist, militant stripe. Within the islamic world, the only people that should get the slightest assitance are the religous minority movements, i.e. Sudanese Christians, Biafrans, Bosnian/Kosovo Serbs, Pakistani Hindus, Indonesian Christians, Lebannon Maronites, the ethnic/cultural minorities, i.e. Baloch and Sindhis in Pakiland, Indians and Chinese in Malaysia, Kurds and Azeris in Iran and Amazigh iun North Africa, and of course the apostate movements within Islam.

As far as aid to Islamic nations goes, MAYBE for places like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Trukmenistan and Tajikistan where the muslim in name only populace is in a genuinely aggressive campaign against growing jihadist movements. Other than that, yes, for all other islamic nations developmental aid at the very least needs to be much more "conditional" then it currently is, and in most cases preferably nil.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at April 27, 2007 12:04 PM

If only the Muslims of the world actually practiced what they preached: not ridiculing other cultures.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (Reuters) -- Irate Islamist lawmakers have persuaded the Pakistan government to stop a theatre group staging a satirical play about the burqa, the all-covering head-to-toe garment worn by conservative Muslim women.

"Burqavaganza" played earlier this month during an arts festival in Lahore, the eastern city regarded as Pakistan's cultural capital, and home to some of the most liberal and most puritanical parts of the Muslim nation's society.

"The burqa is part of our culture. We can't allow anyone to ridicule our culture," Culture Minister Sayed Ghazi Gulab Jamal told the National Assembly.

Posted by: PMK at April 27, 2007 12:10 PM

Since Islam is so hot for the "Greater Jihad" (peaceful inner struggle), forbid aid to any Muslim land unless they swear that Jihad only means "peaceful inner struggle".

If anyone in their country says otherwise, aid ends.

Profitsbeard,

Again it's fine in theory, but practice is another matter. The problem is in THIS country, not theirs. Will OUR leaders be willing to take such hard actions or will power seekers of EITHER party (no matter which party is out at the time) be unable to resist the temptation to make political hay over our government's "punishing the many innocents for the actions of a few bad people".

I'll say again here: what about the many countries with which we have signed treaties? Treaties are the supreme law of the land. We have countries with governments that are actively trying to combat jihad. Do we hold them and their people responsible for the failure to stop ALL jihadists? We don't necessarily blame a country for the actions of its criminal element. We work with them to control or eliminate it. So if another would-be Usama turns up in Jordan, do we stop all aid to Jordan? Aren't we then putting that government at the mercy of the Islamists? We'll end up with total dictatorships (secular as well as Islamist) all through the Muslim world. Will that make us any safer?

Posted by: PMK at April 27, 2007 12:21 PM

It is called leftist media and it does not make any difference if it is American Katie Couric advocating aborticide which is an ancient religion of sacrificing children in a Jihad of her "rights" to Ahab the hater in Pakistan calling for post aborticides to please Naseem. It is all leftist media and needs to be defined exactly as such.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 27, 2007 12:49 PM

PMK, excellent comment!

Until we can speak and act as one nation America will continue to operate at minimal efficiency.

What sort of disaster we would have to suffer to override the cacaphony of the D.C. echo chamber and get our leaders' attention, I hate to imagine.

The threat of Islam is looking to be a greater one than the Soviet Union ever was. The difference is that the Russians never believed their own schtick. The Muslims do.

Posted by: blackshards at April 27, 2007 2:55 PM

To PMK - "Burqagavanza" sounds interesting - maybe the ladies should be offered some sponsorship and an invitation to attend a cultural festival somewhere a long way from Pakistan, in the infidel realms.

Because - let's face it - there are quite a few obvious elements of the Islamic culture that are, shall we say, ripe for comic and satirical treatment. And even though their insistence on covering women expresses a repressive mindset, viewed from another angle those ambulatory 'garbage bag' costumes are...funny. They're horrible and ugly; but they are ridiculous. They are at least as funny as the old-fashioned Catholic nuns' costume that has been a favourite in Western comedy and cross-dressing since forever. They're MORE funny because - since the extreme version doesn't show the wearer's face and the 'bag' shape conceals the figure, anyone with half a brain can see the criminal and cross-dressing potential. (Pre-PC comics and old black and white movies frequently show the intrepid hero in a nameless Muslim/ Middle Eastern country adopting full burqa in order to infiltrate the harem/ escape from the bad guys, by posing as a woman. SO much easier than in our countries where female dress generally makes it clear that the wearer is female, and faces are visible!).

And while we're on the subject of satire - has anyone here actually read Voltaire's satirical play about Mohammed? How accurate is it? Is it online somewhere? How easy is it to find in libraries? Because it strikes me that if some avant-garde theatre company somewhere REALLY wants some free publicity, this one sounds like a goer, if it's any good as a play. (Video the performance - if the players are scared of reprisals, all wear masks like in Greek theatre - and POST IT ON YOUTUBE!).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 27, 2007 4:42 PM

I believe the only ones of which he speaks with no nerve is the women and children running and screaming.Those women and children that the "mighty" "heroes and lions" just love to kill.

Any conversation that involves the U.N. or ANY Human Rights groups is a conversation that kills innocent people and wastes valuable time and money.

If these "groups" can't unite together or if these "groups" can't find the spine to lay the blame where the "REAL" culprits and actors of these breaches in human rights as in innocent deaths,PURPOSEFUL killings of innocent,then these "groups " nullify themselves.

Because they have no TRUE idea of that of which they speak.

The reality that these "groups" say nothing about these "brave men" and thier actions says more than any worthless "ASSumption and flimsy report they couls ever compile.

The mere fact they appease the likes of Hezbola,Hamas and fatah or the islamic court or the muslim brother hood says that there is NEVER going to be anything less than the crap we see today.What is thier rhyme and reason for such aiding and abetting?

Is it the simple phrase "freedom fighter" that legalizes the tactics and actions of the "brave and mighty?"

Because if it is let me explain what the definition is in islam for "freedom fighter"...It is to "FIGHT FREEDOM",not for it but fight against it.

There is no freedom in islam.They desire no freedom and they wish it for none other.

Continue to abet and to appease but do not forget the crocodile is never satisfied.It is in fact doomed to eat itself.

Islam to english definition OF islam should be suicide,not submission.

In fact it should mean a lot of things sadistic when translated to any other language.

Peace should never be uttered in the same sentence as islam or maybe in any entire conversation.It's just too missleading

Posted by: Dar al-harb at April 27, 2007 5:40 PM

ISLAMABAD: "A newspaper warns that Jews and Christians are engaged in “genocide” against Muslims."

Sorry i forgot about this part.

Yes the christian world has gone under cover as pious muslims and go around blowing muslims and anyone else in range to bits.

I remember my covert training from kindergarten.I remember all those rallies at Bomb university.Do you think christians will beat out zionists for the title this year?

End sarracasm!

When will muslims ever learn to live?dieing is the easy part.

How can one be expected to continue to care for another when they don't care for themselves?Thier failure at life is astounding.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at April 27, 2007 5:56 PM

dumbledoresarmy,

Burqagavanza definitely seems worth seeing. It was a hit in Lahore.

Described by critics as a romp, the play sought to highlight the impact of the veil on society, by showing how wearers use it as a way to hide what they want to keep private.

In the play, young men and women wore the burqa to go out on secret dates, and it featured a character called Burqa bin Badin.

The play also showed a burqa-clad married couple put to death for making love in public.

But can you imagine the outcry if it ever opened here in the US? We saw what a few Danish cartoons did to hypersensitive people. Imagine a play running night after night to audiences of infidels in the US laughing at the stupidity of Islam.

It's more likely no playhouse would take a chance.

Posted by: PMK at April 27, 2007 7:50 PM

"“Jews, Christians and their allies are engaged in genocide of Muslims but Islam is spreading and its enemies are losing their nerve,” a recent article said."

What a joke coming from Pakistan of all places, where they've nearly succeeded in their ethnic cleansing campaign against the minority Hindus.

What a classic case of "generalized projection", which is to be distinguished from "Freudian projection". Freudian projection assumes that one projects one's unconscious desires onto the other because one is deeply ashamed and so has repressed those desires. Muslims experience no such shame about their genocidal goals so the concept of Freudian projections doesn't even apply. Generalized projection describes something much more ordinary and mundane - namely the tendency to assume that others are like oneself. So the pacifist erroneously imagines that his enemy has peaceful intentions. In contrast, the Muslim, whose genocidal goal is to eliminate all non-Muslims off the face of the earth, through violent means if necessary, imagines that non-Muslims share the same goals. That's why they issue such bizarre statements. Of course, if they keep it up, they will create a self-fulfilling prophecy in which their imaginary projections will become reality. Fortunately, since Islam isn't an intrinsic feature of human beings, like race or ethnicity is, no genocide needs to occur to rid the world of Muslims. All that needs to change is inside their head, without non-Muslims ever needing to fire a shot. If you eliminate an ideology out of people's heads not by physical force but by showing their ideology to be false, without killing a one, is that genocide? No. It's not. So why doesn't the west concentrate it's entire intellectual arsenal on doing just that? Showing Islam to be the falsehood that it is. Let them scream "genocide" all they want. It's just generalized projection.

Posted by: Caroline at April 28, 2007 4:34 AM