2009 can't come fast enough.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 4, 2007 2:06 PM

I am so sick of Rice and her jihadist leaning views. What is wrong with that woman?

If she ever comes out of the closet and admits she's been a Muslim for years I wouldn't be at all shocked. She must be the Meccan Candidate.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at May 4, 2007 2:06 PM

So perceptive and sagacious are Rice, Blair and various European spokespersons that they know more about the reality of any threat from Islamists than the Turkish army, left wing radicals and secular establishment do. Aren't we lucky to have such knowledgeable people in charge of our affairs.

Posted by: wallyUK at May 4, 2007 2:11 PM

Oh, it's a symptom of politicians trying too damn hard not to offend and in the course of their ridiculous mewling, they end up offending our collective intelligence with their utter lack of foresight and courage. If only I was ready to play the game, I would go get involved in local politics right now just in order to attempt to travel to Congress one day, but my, would I offend a few people along the way....LOL. Most definitely.

There isn't enough emotion in Washington. There isn't enough honest indignation and anger. Such parlor games can not continue if we are to defeat the Islamist Agenda.

If we really wanted to start putting a face on our State Department for the Islamic world to take seriously, we'd get Ambassador Bolton out of File 13 and make him the next Sec. of State for the coming 2009 administration. Fun, fun, fun!

Posted by: Foehammer at May 4, 2007 2:12 PM

Amen, Foehammer

Posted by: the poetess at May 4, 2007 2:22 PM

"If we really wanted to start putting a face on our State Department for the Islamic world to take seriously, we'd get Ambassador Bolton out of File 13 and make him the next Sec. of State for the coming 2009 administration."

From foehammer:

I would definitely agree with that. I am at a loss to understand why the EU, and the US State Department are taking such a position.

What is there reasoning on this? Are they going to think that somekind of diplomacy would work to avoid Turkey from giving up its secular governance? If Turkey where to be ruled by a fully Islamic Government I would have to believe that the door would get slammed on Turkey to enter the EU. Is there reasoning designed only to avoid a military coup in Turkey and hope that the will of the people will not allow an Islamic Government?

Posted by: Mackie at May 4, 2007 2:28 PM

It's me, the American that you banned. This is partially a test post to see if I have actually been banned or not. I am sorry that I don't agree with you, but Spencer throws temper tantrums sometimes (like on that "Thought Crime Bill" thingy today [I have never seen somebody cry like that before])--he never even read it (it had to do with violence. I put a post on about it but apparently the "first post" rule now applies to that account, and I am unaware on how long this post will stay up either (you people love free speech and say that the Muslims want to suppress it, but yet you seem to get really angry when I say something.) On with the post:

I know this is an odd concept to Spencer (he is too busy advocating oppression of Muslims and those who don't agree with him [he calls them Islamists, but this is just semantics] even though that's what he claims Muslims are trying to do to him and others) but the United States (and periodically Spencer, when it achieves the results he wants) is pushing democracy and democratization. Although this is a change for Rice (she and Spencer usually have much in common: Democracy is only "right" when it leans pro-US), she is still pushing democratization. The Turks will vote, hopefully without military intervention (although the fear of intervention might be enough), and very well might pick Gul (who has stated numerous times that he will maintain secularism, but Spencer doesn't care). If Gul is oppressive and democracy holds (as it has through the other military interventions), then the people will pick a different leader next time around (unless it's like Israel, where the same militarist expansionists have been in power for 60 years).

Just doing some thinking...

Posted by: Watcher at May 4, 2007 2:29 PM

By the way, I requested that an e-mail be sent stating the reason that I have been banned, or is it just ja3rama (3ala kaifak?). I know that I probably won't get one, because you guys don't care who you censor or why (like you claim Islamists do--but you guys look more and more like Islamists every day). Sorry for taking up the space with this request, but you can just push "end" on the keyboard...it'll take you right to the input section where you can type your hatred and go on...

Posted by: Watcher at May 4, 2007 2:32 PM

Uh, banned Muslim, you could do a lot better with your writing with less parentheses and brackets.

Just a suggestion.

And, try not to think, k?

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 2:36 PM

Hey "wallyUK" I read that the Labour Party has taken a big hit this week. Losing lots of seats.

The Media can come up with any false yet PC reasons it wants, but Labour is on the way out because IT LET THE MUSLIMS IN!!! The British people are TIRED OF THE F'ING (excuse me) MUSLIM ONSLAUGHT!

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 2:40 PM

Frankly I'm sick of this country trying to save people who don't want to be saved.

If the Turkish electorate vote the islamists into power, let them live with thier choice.

The great delusion of the Bush administration, and the pin head intellectuals that influnce it, is that all people, every where, want freedom, democracy, justice and human rights for all.

You would think that after our experience in Iraq, these people would have snapped into reality, and realized that many people, and especially those in the Islamic world, prefer the darkness they live in, and are willing to die to preserve it.

Let's start spending our time, energy and treasure, helping those who want to be helped and leave the rest to the ignorance and misery they prefer.

Posted by: rational at May 4, 2007 2:41 PM

2009 can't come fast enough.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 4, 2007 02:06 PM

Why wait demand that Bush fire her now!

Posted by: Catherine at May 4, 2007 3:09 PM

Perhaps the best and quickest way to getting this over with is to insist that any and all nations who wish to vote in Islamism by electing Hizbullah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist Brotherhood for Preaching and Combat ( love that name ) be allowed to take control through voting.

May all of the umman al islamayya - the great gathering of believing muslims in the pan-Islamic world get what they want... may they elect their local versions of Hamas to the highest levels of power.

I think this could be the most direct and efficient way to get to the place we're going. It will make things very clear and the choices to be made very simple.

The idea of benevolent juntas, royal families, dictators and the manifestations of a Family of Friends plan as we seen in Egypt all need to be tested and found wanting. Then the rest of the world should no longer have illusions about 'Moderate Muslims' or 'People We Can Work With'

If they want Dar al-Harb & Dar al-Islam I hope they get it. It will make the choice crystal for all but the most stubborn or delusional.

Peace? Out.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 4, 2007 3:12 PM

By the way, I requested that an e-mail be sent stating the reason that I have been banned

Posted by: Watcher (aka An American)

Your disdain for Robert Spencer and the users of this site is apparent; yet here you are. When you can face that contradiction you will have answered your own question.

Posted by: deesine at May 4, 2007 3:15 PM

She wants to protect democracy above all things, and may end up with yet another Islamic state for her pains.

I'm sure it represents no pain for her. Dr. Rice is a globalist.

As a globalist, her only true belief system is purely materialistic; religon and belief systems are merely tools to control the masses.

Globalists, (which include the likes of Soros, Rush, Clinotn, Bush, Clinton, etc., etc.) view relgious leaders such as the Pope, various and sundry immams, shamons, clerics, mystics in general, and any other religous leader, as merely "useful idiots" -- that will keep various followers which in total, compose the "masses" under heel so that they, the globalis elites, can control them.

So Dr. Rice is merely doing what is expected of any globalist.

This should neither "shock" or "surprise" or "disappoint" anyone really; it is merely "predictable."

It is the "wee folk" who will be left in the smoking ruins of Western Civilazation to slit one anothers throats in their pathetic and desparate struggle to survive one day.

The globalist elites, like Rice, the House of Saud, and all the rest will leave for themselves and each other, a life of luxuary and quite splendor behind fortified walls of safety.

But I suspect that in the equation of destiny, there are lurking variables not calculated in to their formualtion of the good life.

They will ultimately betray one another or will be force to cede to one greater among themselves that will enslave us all.

The bells are tolling, tolling, as Poe once penned -- but not for just the masses, rather they are tolling for everyone.

Posted by: witness at May 4, 2007 3:17 PM

Watcher:
It's me, the American that you banned.

Okay. Lets answer your arguments, and you had better answer mine.

...but Spencer throws temper tantrums sometimes

I dont see that. I've lurked here a whole year and read his books. I have never seen Spencer lose his temper. I have seen plenty of Muslims, however use smear tactics all the time.

I know this is an odd concept to Spencer (he is too busy advocating oppression of Muslims and those who don't agree with him [he calls them Islamists, but this is just semantics] even though that's what he claims Muslims are trying to do to him and others)

But that is true.
Lets see, do you deny

That Muslims invaded Syria in 637AD?
That Muslims invaded and conquered Egypt in 642AD?
That Muslims invaded and conquered Cyprus in 647AD?
That Muslims raided Sicily in 666AD?
That Muslims started campaigns against the Berbers in 700AD?
That Muslims occupied Spain from 711AD to 1492AD?
That Muslims occupied Nimes, France in 725AD?
That Muslims were defeated in Tours, France in 732AD?
That Muslims laid siege to Vienna in 1529AD?
That Muslims laid siege to Vienna in 1683AD?

and that does not even begin to cover the decimation of Hindu's in India.

Do you deny these events?

On the basis of that, the World should rise up and slaughter Muslims everywhere, leaving none alive, burning all Qurans, Hadiths and Sira and flattening Mecca and Medina.

Islam has been responsible for systematic rape, enslavement, theft, murder & destruction of other peoples culture than any other system of belief over time.

Just doing some thinking...

But not any genuine original thinking where you examine what Islam has brought mankind. Nor have you deliberated what is revealed about Muhammad in Hadith & Sira that he is a murderer, a paedophile, sanctioned theft, sanctioned lying, a despot.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 4, 2007 3:22 PM

Watcher counters the whining by Robert with...whining?

You were probably banned because you no longer provided any useful discourse and merely served to take threads and commentors off-topic.

You will be allowed to stay, that is, until you slip back into non-substantive attacks, which it appears you are doing already.

Make your points, and back them up if you can. Answer questions posed to you from differing non-Islamic viewpoints and you should be fine, insha'Allah, of course.

Posted by: awake at May 4, 2007 3:24 PM

Once again, our govt. naively hinders secularism in an Islamic state. It doesn't surprise me that Rice is doing this to Turkey. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, this administration is allowing a law system based on Sharia. So basically, we just wasted a ton of resources except for the initial overthrow of the Taliban.

It seems like the elites have an oversimplified view of democracy where it should just blossom where ever free elections are held. Then, they're shocked that people vote in evil such as Hamas and etc. They don't realize that in order to have true democracy, one must influence the people well in advance for it. This means flooding the intellectual arena with pro democracy material and writings that influenced our Founding Fathers. Also, democracy cannot be unless some sort of bill of rights is contained within a country's constitution and the separation of religion and state is enforced.

It seems to me that our govt. does not realize that in Turkey, democracy and secularism only exists due to the rise of Kemalism and that Kemalism exists only because of the military. Then again, Rice is on that "Islam is peace" mantra that blinds her and most govt. officials from realizing that Erdogan's party will plunge Turkey back into the Caliphate if it has a chance.

We cannot let the most secularized Middle Eastern country besides Israel to fall, especially one right on Europe's doorstep. Yet, we are helping it to fall.

Posted by: Itachi at May 4, 2007 3:28 PM

I almost hope the Turk's go Islamist because of the urgent need to remove this nonsense about how "secular" and "moderate" Turkey is as great example to the Islamic world of a nation who jails persons for insulting Islam, murders innocent Catholic priests, and continue to deny the Armenian genocide.
I say let the Ottomans show themselves to be what they really are, they are not an ally they are our enemy. Turkey has no business even being considered for entry into the EU and should be expelled from NATO. This false notion of a moderate Turkey washed away it would also make the idea of an independant Kurdish state in the region(which would have the effects of destabilizing both Syria and Iran as well as promoting nationalist alternative to Islamism) all the more possible.

Posted by: irish_infidel at May 4, 2007 3:35 PM

"It's me, the American that you banned..."
-- from a Muslim ("The American") above

Robert Spencer did not ban you. Far from it -- he disagreed with my decision to ban you because you were, in my view, too disruptive, and likely to distract posters, taking their attention away from the matters at hand. Naseem, in her own way, is pedagogically useful; so are some other Muslim posters, at a lesser level. You merely annoy.

But Robert apparently believes in free speech and, as others have done, appears to think that private parties (this is not a government-owned site, and the First Amendment does not apply) should unless repeatedly egregious in their postings, be permitted to have their say.

I'm much harder to please, and were this my website I'd never let you on in the first place.

Well, that's what makes horse races.

By the way, this thread is about Rice and her naivete about Turkey: putting a principle, "democracy," above the desired result which at this point is far more important -- preventing the Erbakan-Erdogan-Gul line from loosening even more the constraints on Islam. Secular Turks will know exactly what I mean.

Would it be wrong to suggest that just possibly what Rice is doing in Turkey, putting principled cart before realistic horse, is not irrelevant to the matter of "free speech" and wise banning -- by a benevolent behind-the-scenes dictator or two -- at this website?

As "The American" likes to end his own exercises in sweetly sinister innocently-wondering meretriciousness: "Just thinking."

Posted by: Hugh at May 4, 2007 3:37 PM

I say disband the Turkish army and hand power to muslim religious parties like the Bush administration did in Iraq, that will be much more democratic and functional....

Rice = proof that affirmative action is a failing policy

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at May 4, 2007 3:39 PM

Thank you Sir Hugh...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 4, 2007 3:56 PM

RICE?...doesn't the secret service have handcuffs?..

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 4, 2007 4:04 PM

Freedom of Speech?
Democracy?
Not if you're a Muhammadan!

from: http://ww4report.com/node/3761

NYC: Barnes & Noble imbroglio over Armenian genocide
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Thu, 05/03/2007 - 19:45.

First-time author Margaret Ajemian Ahnert's May 1 appearance at a Barnes & Noble store on New York's Upper East Side to promote her new memoir on survivng the Armenian genocide, The Knock at the Door, was disrupted by hecklers who shouted and passed out leaflets denying the genocide occurred.

Ahnert's book relates how her mother survived the genocide as a teenager during World War I and eventually resettled in the United States. "Here I was trying to tell the story of my mother, not making a political statement," she said. "It's a mother-daughter story, it's how it affected my life. It's not just about the Armenian genocide, it's about my mother growing up, my life, and events in her life that affected me. It's a mother-daughter memoir. I'm not making any historical statements."

The crowd apparently included such notables as former governor Hugh Carey and the Manhattan district attorney, Robert Morgenthau, whose grandfather, Henry Morgenthau, was ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916. But trouble broke out in the Q&A session.

"Someone in the middle of the back of the room stood up and said, 'That's not so,'" Ahnert said. "Five or six men started to pass out fliers of denial. I thought, oh, my goodness sakes, it's like Holocaust deniers. I was completely taken aback."

Audience member Mary Occhino, the host of a call-in program on Sirius satellite radio, said some of the people were shouting, "This is a lie, this is a lie, this never happened."

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 4, 2007 4:15 PM

"Asked whether the U.S. agreed with Europe's call for the military to stay out of the dispute, Rice said: 'The answer is yes, the U.S. would be in a similar position.'"
--Sec'y Rice

Comparing Turkey (and Iraq) to the US: "the U.S. would be in a similar position" reveals the idiocy of these people running the show. (The other idiots--Pelosi/Reid--are no antidote to the Bush idiots.)

Yes, we here in the US do not want the army to take over our government. We, however, are not a country whose American inhabitants (sans Moslems) are hankering to be governed by shariah and become an Islamic republic.

Although Bush is definitely lacking in the intelligence department, his "idiocy," as well as Rice's, is not so much lack of intelligence as following a hidden agenda (as pointed out by many commentators here). This agenda benefits the ruling elite.

Even with Bush's legacy at Yale and Rice's education in an affirmative action climate, it is hard to accept that our universities are complicit in conferring degrees upon the undeserving (more so in Rice's case than in the President's).

Posted by: unicorns62000 at May 4, 2007 4:32 PM

I can see that Rice is in a tough spot, and I believe she's smart enough to have something else up her sleeve. (I'm beginning to disbelieve this after some of her strange interactions with Islamists, but I've always thought she's a cut above a lot of administrative and political idiots. Hopefully she's not showing all her cards.)

The U.S. and the west can't be seen to be against democracy, if they are to make any progress in convincing the Islamic world of its value. They have to support it whether or not it is "in their favour", ideologically. So, what to do when it looks like an Islamist romp over the principles of democracy while outwardly appearing to uphold the practice?

I agree that the situation is dangerous and I certainly feel for the army in its position, being a firmly entrenched secular force, and our best ally within the country (along with the freedom-loving masses that rallied in their support), and unhappy with the direction the government is going.

I think something wise could be done BESIDES supporting a military coup. America's foreign policy in the past in which it encouraged antidemocratic (not spun this way, of course) military coups has not won it many friends abroad, and acting as a cheerleader for a secular army takeover in a muslim-majority country would not earn her any brownie points in the middle east. Thus far, Rice appears to have the right idea.

But what CAN be done is this, and I hope someone in the military there, or someone in the american diplomatic services in communication with them, thinks of something like this:

If the freedom of the masses to a lifestyle not constrained by Islam and Sharia law is under threat, they can work *positively* and proactively toward the establishment of structures and limitations that protect against this threat, without killing this struggling democracy.

I realise that there are policies in Turkey, such as the no-hijab at school rule, that go beyond even western nations in protecting against islamism. The reason for these is clear: extraordinary measures are called for when it is necessary to deal with extraordinary threats.

So, they need more actions that shore up areas that are under threat. Does Turkey have a bill of rights? If so, does it contain specific protections for women, religious minorities, etc that would forestall any kind of Sharia? The current doctrine of separation of mosque and state... Do these things have any teeth? By whom, and under what conditions, can they be enforced?

If the army doesn't have a role in this, then they need to. Clearly a large number of Turks, including many "moderate" muslims, value the role of the Army (witness the massive demonstrations we've been seeing there recently) in maintaining separation of mosque and state.

If they already have the authority to intervene in government if this principle is violated, then they have no need to sabre-rattle. If they don't have this authority, then instead of sabre-rattling, they need to rally the masses, allied with a civilian, non-military secularist movement (the evidence for the existence of such is pretty overwhelming right now), and have documents put in place that are beyond the reach of garden-variety legislators, that give the army the authority to intervene to protect the freedoms of the masses.

In other words, install a safety mechanism so that the islamists can't use democracy as a bus that leads to non-democratic theocracy, by making secularism an inviolable principle, and gives the army a policing role.

Thus, the army needn't engage in military coups -- they need only invoke their police powers as mandated by the country's written laws.

Such a thing can be forced into effect with the support of a large enough segment of the population -- while democracy still functions. In any case, the army has coercive powers to force this without necessarily resorting to violent means.

So I believe there is hope, even with Rice's stated position ... but they'd better start playing some of these other cards, rather than folding and letting the Islamists take the pot on a bluff they can't back up.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 4, 2007 4:43 PM

I've said it before and I'll shout it again; we cannot allow another pure Islamic state to exist. Whether it comes into existance through a coup d'etat or by popular election, it does not matter. We must stamp it into dust. If the Turks want an Islamic state, I'll give them Mars.

I've had enough of this Muslim democracy crap. Rice is so full of it that it is coming out her mouth.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 4, 2007 4:47 PM

Carter also went along with the Islamists in Iran, and withheld his backing for the Shah and the military. The result has been an Iran that we see now.

Posted by: DP111 at May 4, 2007 5:06 PM

Rice would do better making a statement by getting them out of our country! Asked: Rice do you think the talks did any good? Rice says;"We didn't talk but at least were all sitting at the same table." Ya, and we here in America have to tolerate them on our land. We are living more with the reality of their brutality then she is. I would really think her being a scholar would know. Of coarse if you do not have insight with your knowledge what could is it but like an empty book sitting on the shelf!

Posted by: MZ at May 4, 2007 5:07 PM

Archimedes2

Excellent post. Wish someone in State will read it.

Posted by: DP111 at May 4, 2007 5:09 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald,

If the case is what you say, then I would like to issue a formal apology to Mr. Spencer. However, I will continue to disagree with his and your opinions.

Thank you for telling me what this thread is supposed to be about. I can read and understand what is implied by the posts (despite Spencer's invitation to a reading comprehension class). I will not disagree that Rice does not understand entirely what is going on in the Middle East, and frankly, neither do you. This is a matter of oppression. I particularly enjoyed the "loosening even more the constraints on Islam..."--is that not the goal of democracy? Letting people do what they want to do (even though you might not agree with it?)--Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness--but not for Muslims, right, because they just don't get it? I know that you don't believe democracy and Islam get along and that no post (even of your infamous length) could even remotely begin to convince you otherwise, so I won't try. However, what I will try is to challenge your assumptions so hopefully others don't become as hateful as you. Oppression is exactly what has spawned these groups (not all Muslims like you argue), take for example the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If allowed to present their views totally and completely in Egyptian society, I believe whole-heartedly having lived in Egypt that some Egyptians would go for it, while others would not. However, because of the violence put into use by the state security authorities in the name of the "war on terror," it pushes the group further underground, stifiling their opinions and keeping them from showing the people who they really are (whether "bad" or "good" or somewhere in between).

Sincerely,
An American
Just doing some more thinking...

(Unrelated)
Mr. UK Infidel Lover, I do not deny that these events happened, however I will respond to them in order (even using your own biased word choice. There is biased Muslim word choice as well, don't get me wrong.):

That Muslims invaded Syria in 637AD?- Syria is one of the beautiful places on Earth, and there was a History Channel thing on about al-Jazari's scientific work there. Some of the greatest anti-Muslim writers come from Syria (and most lived full lives)

That Muslims invaded and conquered Egypt in 642AD? -Egypt, including Cairo, remained one of the wealthiest cities in the world until the 18th Century. Maimonides (sp?) fled oppression in Spain (at the hands of Muslims, yes), but went to Egypt, another Muslim country (why not to Paris?). The Genizeh documents show quite of bit of Jewish-Muslim-Christian interaction in Egypt. There is a really good book on them right now published by an Arab Jewish author that I would recommend.

That Muslims invaded and conquered Cyprus in 647AD?- Ah, a very strategic island. I could see why any army would want it.

That Muslims raided Sicily in 666AD?--True, eventually conquered it for a time. Although short-lived, this period is known as one of the most tolerant and diverse periods in Sicily's history. Almost completely reversed the homogonization carried out through Hellinization until the Normans came along and started slaughtering everybody.

That Muslims started campaigns against the Berbers in 700AD?--yes, however led by racists who were actually condemned by Islamic theologians. (Muslims can be racists too)

That Muslims occupied Spain from 711AD to 1492AD?- I know you don't agree, but most scholars who have researched the topic (although some might not go so far as a "Golden Age") find that this was an extaordinary period of religious tolerance, cultural interaction, and modernization (street lights and indoor plumbing when Parisians were living in shacks along the river).

That Muslims occupied Nimes, France in 725AD?- True, although there as well most scholars believe that this occupation was one of the most benificial to the region in its history.

That Muslims were defeated in Tours, France in 732AD?--That they were. A historical date. Some say it means that the Muslims were stopped from conquering Europe, although Charles Martel has his own very expansive policies and, after hearing the accounts of the advances in Muslim Spain, reportedly despised the Muslims out of envy and desired their collapse and worked very hard to do it. (Eventually it would happen, but he wouldn't live to see it).

That Muslims laid siege to Vienna in 1529AD?
That Muslims laid siege to Vienna in 1683AD?--Yes, they did.

As you might have noticed, I tried my best to answer all of them. The bottom line is: Muslims are people too, although you might not believe me. They do raid, conquer, hold power, pillage, etc. just like everybody else. However, if you look at it in list form like Bostom does in his book, you could reach this conclusion. However, if you look at Islamic history just as you would any other history and looked at the events around it and all of the people involved including dissenting arguments (some of the biggest detractors for the Vienna raids, for example, were clerics who saw it as pointless, animal-like raiding) as well as the results of such "raids" and "conquering" you might reach a different conclusion. This, in academics, is called context, and I hope that you take care to use it in the future. For example, let's say that Joe has beat the living fire out of somebody every single Saturday for the last 10 years. Now, that makes Joe look pretty violent. However, what if I told you he was a boxer...is he still the rampaging crazy person, or something else? Sorry for the stupid analogy, but I was just trying to make a point. I don't say you have to agree with it or not (or that seeing Islamic events in context make them right. The seiges of Vienna were wrong in my opinion.)

Posted by: Watcher at May 4, 2007 5:30 PM

Only a greater force can oppose a declared terroristic force.

"Muslim moderates", as such, will not be as bloodthirsty as their extremist Muslim jihadi opposition, so they are self-doomed in any attempt to "reason" with them, or "power-share" with them.

To try to make deals will self-declared calculating liars is rank foolishness.

The Turkish military knows, historically, what must be done with violent Islamists.

But any half-hearted supression of the Muslim jihad in Turkey (as has been done in the past) will only delay the final, fateful decision that needs to be made within Islam- between the (necessarily violent in response) reformists and the extremist traditionalists: who will be stronger?

We know who is more cruel. More rapacious. More immoral. More obsessed. And more devious.

Eventually, those who of us do not want to cede to the world such maniacal savages will have to kill them off.

And be more cunning and more brutal and more determined, meanwhile.

It shall all come down to Will.

And who understands and can implement their own instinct for survival and for triumph the best.

The jihadis know what they are fighting for.

Merely responding is inadequate.

We have to overwhelm their ideology with the truth about their corrupt origins and their peodphile warlord founder.

With free speech scorn and mockery.

And with Koranic analysis and historical studies in schools (and on the History Channel, etc.) exposing the early days of Islam.

And with strong challenges to their irrationalistic savagery and shameless megalomania.

The spiderweb of the Koran must be unravelled.

Then the spider will wither.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 4, 2007 5:38 PM

Our American freedom ideas came from old world inabilities to progress with mankinds needs, this will be the downfall for the islamic cult!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at May 4, 2007 5:45 PM

Why is it every time someone does not agree with either the government or someone posting on this site it immediately either must be something sinister or stupid. (rhetorical)

Condi Rice is one of a long list of diplomats risen from the ranks of "Rockefeller thought" policy. This does not make her a dupe nor naive. It makes her someone like Cyrus Vance or Colon Powell whose allegeance is toward a mindset which benefits an ordered world ruled by the elite.

Condi was even more correct in her position with her Freudian slip of the US being in the same position. This was not about the position of backing Europe, but the position if the Christian majority with the military would clean house in the United States.
This would mean the end of the communist globalists ruling in America and the end of the US government as Americans suffer under it.

None of this is naive. It is simply keeping your place at the table of power and making sure you have a 6 figure paycheck and a 7 figure retirement posting in some Rockefeller cartel backed corporation after you have served them.

I had hoped for more from Condi Rice, but like Richard Nixon, President Bush picked her for the simple reason he could send the Secretary of State off on missions while the big boys formulate policy. The big boys being President Bush, VP Cheney, Bob "the triggerman" Gates and the carefully installed military people into the CIA and CENTCOM.

The thing the US government fears like all EU governments is the Turkish junta with citizen backing takes back all the toys, because what happens there is what can happen here.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 4, 2007 6:01 PM

Like madelene albright, i see no tangible proof that rice has been effective.

Posted by: OLD SARGE at May 4, 2007 6:19 PM

Watcher,

Please do stop the endless whining about this being a hate site. It is tedious to read. No one is suggesting that Muslims are not people too. They obviously are. The mojority opinion on Muslims at this site is that they are irrelevant in the equation of Islam. The doctrine of Islam that perpetuates the justification of jihad against the infidel is the main concern. Pointing out that absolute truth is not hate, merely reality.

you wrote:
"Oppression is exactly what has spawned these groups (not all Muslims like you argue), take for example the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If allowed to present their views totally and completely in Egyptian society, I believe whole-heartedly having lived in Egypt that some Egyptians would go for it, while others would not."

Now that sounds like an internal problem in the Muslim world. Give us a shout out when you guys get that squared away. Oppression is an exuse, not the cause. What did the Islamists complain about before US imperialism?

"If allowed to present their views", if,...it's a huge qualifier. If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle...catch my drift?

Posted by: awake at May 4, 2007 6:22 PM

Condi ought to team up with Nancy Pelosi...

Posted by: pythagoras at May 4, 2007 7:06 PM

Just goes to prove, more cronyism instead of qualfications in this administration. In this case an expertise in Cold War Soviet Union apparently doesn't translate into a grasp of Jihadist groupthink or Sharia Law.

Pathetic.

Posted by: amana39 at May 4, 2007 7:30 PM

"They do raid, conquer, hold power, pillage, etc. just like everybody else." by whatsisname

Like everybody else, huh? Gee, can you name them. Yeah, all you have is the evil Americans and their treatment of American Indians.

If Americans were truly like Muslims, they would be playing baseball in Mecca.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 4, 2007 7:37 PM

If Americans were truly like Muslims, they would be playing baseball in Mecca.

PLAY BALL!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at May 4, 2007 8:03 PM

l think some are too hard on Condi, she cannot go out and say its okay for a military takeover if you dont like the election results, coming from a "real Democratic" country, you have obligations on what you can say. there are far more restraints coming from where Condi stands. you have to think she is doing things under the wire that most do not see.
But l would prefer a person like Bolton to be in charge. its too bad Bush gave in to Dem';s pressure.. you kind of wish that at least once the "good guys" win sometimes.
oh "Watcher" there is nothing wrong for trying to have other countries with "American style Democracy", look at where your fellow muslims are immigrating to, not some poverty /dictatorship cesspoolstan! If any muslim country truly become a "Democratic country with a US style constitution it would make a better world, because your mullah's and immans would lose their hold and power on the people!
Freedom is worth fighting for, and you need to understand how the West has fought for and died for our freedoms. We will never bow down to mecca.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 4, 2007 8:26 PM

I once read an interview with Condi Rice in which she was asked if the "War on Terror" had anything to do with Islam, and she flatly said "No".
Imagine having a Secretary of State who said that the Cold War had nothing to do with Communism.
I guess it would be impolite to offend religious sensibilities, or is she really that ignorant?

Posted by: jewdog at May 4, 2007 8:31 PM

What a bunch of jackasses running this country. God help us all.

Posted by: solomonpal at May 4, 2007 11:01 PM

"I know this is an odd concept to Spencer (he is too busy advocating oppression of Muslims and those who don't agree with him... but the United States (and periodically Spencer, when it achieves the results he wants) is pushing democracy and democratization... Democracy is only "right" when it leans pro-US...."
Posted above

I believe that this actually is on topic. My point being that as Lincoln once said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". I believe in oppressing those that oppress others or threaten our freedoms; I expect our blood, money and lives spent "helping" other countries damn well ought to produce a pro-American government; and that fledgling "democracies" so produced better damn well "lean" pro-US. I am completely unashamed of this.

And I would appreciate it if our politicians would reserve their use of the term the "U.S. position" to be inclusive of my opinion, which I believe is demonstrated by the red-blue county map to be the dominant opinion for the vast amount of United States territory and of our military. And people like myself are breeding much faster than those who will allow themselves to be so enslaved by their "pure" "non-hypocritical" ideological concepts that they will allow their nation to be destroyed or bankrupted rather than be portrayed as intolerant, unkind, ungenerous or somehow conflicted.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 4, 2007 11:17 PM

OK, here is some insider information:

figures from the 2001 election which brought into force the AKP with a "huge majority":

total number of enlisted voters: 41.407.027
total number of votes cast: 32.768.161
total number of valid votes: 31.528.783
total number of invalid votes: 1.239.378
distribution of votes:
AKP (islamist): 10.808.229
CHP (secularist opposition): 6.113.352
The rest (those who couldn't get into parliament because of the 10% threshold):14.607.202

out of a valid 31.528.783 votes the AKP gets 10.808.229 and thus 34,28%. The number of people who didn't vote or who cast empty votes (thus invalid) is 9.878.244, when coupled with votes for parties other then the AKP the total figure is: 30.598.798.

So if the army has to step in because a party representing 10.808.229 voters (many of who voted for the AKP because they believed the AKP when they swore that they did not have an islamist agenda) thinks that it can do anything it wants because an unjust election system gave them 60% of the seats in parliament how is this any more undemocratic then a party with such a low electorate backing yet unbalanced parliamentary representation trying to force it's will on the majority of people who oppose them.

I am against army intervention if things can be solved within normal democratic procedures but if the army HAS to protect my interests against a minority party with an unfair majority parliamentary representation then bring in the tanks.

I do not understand how statesmen/women in the US and EU can overlook that the AKP is not a majority party, how they are acting like politicians from other muslim countries who want to see the AKP transform Turkey into an islamist state.

Posted by: neoromancer at May 4, 2007 11:32 PM

The Algerian election of 1991 is of some relevance to democracy and Islam. The Islamists' slogan was: 'vote for us and you will never have to vote again.'The army had to step in to prevent an irreversible fundamentalist takeover there and it is just the same in Turkey. They still have elections in Iran but the legislature is completely subordinate to the mullahs.

Posted by: wallyUK at May 4, 2007 11:36 PM

correction to my above post; it should have been the 2002 election, not 2001 election

Posted by: neoromancer at May 4, 2007 11:46 PM

Also I want to add;

I was talking to a friend who voted for the AKP in the last election, she is no way an islamist, although she says she's a muslim there is nothing islamic about her (she has nice legs and likes to reveal them and is a clubber).

here is how it went:

I asked-why did you vote for the AKP
she said-because they are a new party and not corrupted like other parties.
My reply-but they have an islamist agenda,
her reply-I don't think so, they are islamists but they would not try anything funny.
my reply-what makes you think so?
her reply-because if they do the army will step in, thus nothing to worry about.

Maybe our trust of the army will be our undoing, maybe our army in the future will be so subdued that they will not act when the islamists take action (though I yet cannot imagine this it is not impossible). That is what happened in Iran, and unfortunately neither we nor our friends like rice in the west understand this.

Posted by: neoromancer at May 5, 2007 12:07 AM

To 'watcher' - Garbage. I don't believe any of that rubbish about how things would have been SOOO wonderful if Charles Martel and his army had been annihilated by the marauding Moors, or the myth of lovely golden Andalusia (with its harems stuffed full of black slave eunuchs and Christian girls who'd been violently abducted from neighbouring countries and forced to be sex slaves to Muslim despots). I am allergic to the idea of harems. I am severely allergic to the idea of eunuchs. The dhimmi rules are so mindbendingly unjust, so surreal, so antihuman, that I felt physically sick the first time I encountered them all spelled out.

Want to know something? My ancestors are Scots, Irish, Germans, Danes and English. And when I found out about Charles Martel and his victory I felt like standing up and cheering on behalf of my ancestors! Thanks to the sheer guts of those Frankish soldiers my Irish, Scots, Danish, English and German ancestors in the heartland of northwest Europe didn't finish up as dhimmi slaves, stomped on and sneered at and financially ripped off by Muslim tyrants, with no right to bear arms and no right to build new churches or ring their church bells. It means my female ancestors DIDN'T have to wear the burkha. It means my female ancestors didn't have to share their husbands with two or three or four or a dozen other women. Get it: I'M GLAD CHARLES MARTEL WON! YAAAAY! I'm glad the Crusaders managed to take the battle to the jihadists for awhile; and that Constantinople managed to withstand jihad till 1453. No victory for Charles Martel ...no Crusades, 400 years later; and we'd have had no Dante, no Chartres Cathedral, no Cologne Cathedral, no Chaucer, no Vermeer, no Giotto, no Francis of Assisi, no J S Bach.

And I'm damn glad of the other victories - at Lepanto in 1571, the successful resistance of Malta in 1565, the successful resistance of Vienna in 1529 and then the victory in 1683. I'm GLAD the Spaniards booted out the Moors; and I'm glad the Greeks and the Serbs and the Bulgarians and the Romanians rebelled against the horrible Ottoman Turks and got out from under - and put an end to vicious, ghastly system of the devshirme (sorry, no matter how you try to spin that one, it was E.V.I.L). And - you're going to hate me for this - I'M GLAD THAT THE JEWS TOOK THEIR COUNTRY BACK, TOO!

Three cheers for Charles Martel and everyone else, everywhere, who has ever resisted the jihad and refused to submit!

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 5, 2007 2:05 AM

'An American'/Watcher

It's deceptive on your part to use the term 'oppression' to describe what's going on in Egypt, since Muslims very much rule the roost. The Ikhwan was started in 1928, long before there was a Mubarak, long before there was a Sadat, long before there was an Israel. In fact, before the 1920s, Egypt was under Ottoman rule, not a democracy and nobody felt any need to form an Ikhwan. It was only after the fall of the Ottoman empire that it came into existance. Also, today, it's not an Egypt only party - it exists in Syria as well (that other member of the United Arab Republics - anybody remember that from the 60's?) and Jordan; I'm not sure whether it exists in the Arabian peninsula or Iraq, but I guess al Qaeda substitutes for it.

Yeah, this is the first time you responded to anybody's challenge. And while the conquests you defend were only to a limited extent typical of conquests, they do belie the claim of Mohammedan apologists that Islam is the religion of peace. The atrocities historically carried out against Infidels everywhere after a place was conquered were generally unmatched by others - most conquerors were usually quite happy to simply annex a place to their empire. A study in contrasts would be Timur and Chengiz Khan.

Regardless of whether it was Robert or Hugh, I'm glad somebody had the sense to ban you. The comments section sometimes gets pretty insufferable these days, thanks to you and another specific poster who shall remain unnamed - for now.

Just doing some thinking.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 5, 2007 2:12 AM

Why do we continue to let important women (Albright, Pelosi, Rice) visit that part of the world? They are "unclean," and their presence alone must be laughable and offensive to primitive Islamic sensibilities.

Besides, Rice is an ineffective SEC STATE. I didn't expect that, but she's terrible.

Posted by: Bingo at May 5, 2007 5:08 AM

irish_infidel
I almost hope the Turk's go Islamist because of the urgent need to remove this nonsense about how "secular" and "moderate" Turkey is as great example to the Islamic world of a nation who jails persons for insulting Islam, murders innocent Catholic priests, and continue to deny the Armenian genocide.

i totally agree with you that there is not much difference between islamic Turks and Secular Turks the only difference is that secular Turks pretend they are moderate muslims. The secular Turks leader attaturk was a mass murderer of christians If Turkey was a True secular Country they would Turn agis sophia back to a church and they would not oppress christians.

in my apinion muslims who lie they are secular is more dangerous then a muslims admitting he is islamic because then people will trust a muslim they think is secular more then a islamic muslim

Posted by: Greek Gurl at May 5, 2007 5:09 AM

Anti Dhimmitude in Cyprus: ‘Why Should We Adopt the Turkish Culture?’

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/05/05/anti-dhimmitude-in-cyprus-why-should-we-adopt-the-turkish-culture/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 5, 2007 7:06 AM

News from downunder:

Fools give racism a real Sheik

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/05/04/charles-rips-the-media-whores/

I AM not keen on inter-newspaper slanging matches. One group of journalists claiming to be morally superior to another is like two hookers arguing over who has the cleaner house.

On Wednesday, however, a profile of Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly in The Sydney Morning Herald’s Insight section typified a particular kind of weak journalism masquerading as balanced and fair while doing little more than appeasing extremism.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 5, 2007 7:23 AM

So Rice sides with Islamists in Turkey ?

What's new in this aspect, about American Foreign Policy ?

As I know, the Americans armed Pakistan to the hilt, very well knowing that the arms would find use against democratic India. They have armed a fundamentalist dictatorship against a liberal democracy.

Even now America hesitates declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, with full knowledge that almost all the Islamic terrorism of the world has an unbreakable Pakistani connection.

The Americans ousted the Taliban govt. for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

American foreign policy has never supported India's legitimate claim on Kashmir. This has only emboldened the Pakistani claim and now the Pakistani claim on Kashmir comes with terrorist ballast. Pakistani Occupied Kashmir has trained several militants now operating against the United States itself.

The king of Saudi Arabia called America his favourite slave..well expressing his opinion about America's cringing before the Arabs.

America hasn't helped the Tibetan cause, instead it has sided with communist-dictatorist China.

Malaysia continues with its atrocities against minorities, and America eyes these episodes askance.

The American foreign policy puts arms race, business interests and hegemony above just principles. Rice's siding with the jihadists is just another example. Only, I wish it doesn't rebound on USA badly. It's time the Americans fought wars on principles, like Truman or Lincoln.

Otherwise, like Turkey or Pakistan, they have to have "inimical friends", who smile in the front and plot in the back.

Posted by: proud-hindu at May 5, 2007 8:48 AM

Mr. Infidel Pride,

I would seriously question your knowledge of Egyptian history. During that time period was the one of "liberalism" in which the British gave the Egyptians on-paper independence whilst retaining complete control of the country. The kings, aka to the Egyptian people as British puppets, violently pushed down (oppressed) all forces that opposed them, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Hasan al-Banna saw this oppression and forced changes of his country and saw what he interpreted to be the result (his studies in Colorado, the factual accuracies of his accounts are irrelevant because the importance was as he perceived them). I don't limit oppression to Mubarak, hardly. I also don't limit that oppression to Egypt, either. I just intended to provide an example.

As for the conquering, etc.--I am not making judgments as to whether the Islamic conquests were "good" or "bad," I was simply asked whether I denied that they happened. In my honest opinion, I believe that these conquests were good, allowing the peoples of the region to come together and develop together, although it was in no way perfect or close to equal (just look at economic development in the modern day, with our problems of income distribution, etc.) Conquest and occupation can be good and it can be bad, based on the opinion of the viewer. Take the Crusades. For the Catholic Church, these were awesome. However, for the citizens of the Middle East (including Jews and Eastern Christians, who documented terrible suffering at the hands of the Crusaders and who provided logistical support and refuge to the Muslim armies as they drove the Crusaders out), the Crusades weren't so great. However, they brought to Europe many ideas and concepts that would help eventually push them out of the Dark Ages, albeit not for some time. For the Middle East, it provided an equally important religious re-questioning period, in the minds of many strengthening the faith and re-assessing the original Islamic sources.

Just doing some thinking...
I am not here to tell you that all Muslims are great and that everything in Islamic history was happy and wonderful, just that we should work to not make judgments (like that everything the Muslims do is somehow inherently wrong and that non-Muslims are better--or vice versa.)

Posted by: Watcher at May 5, 2007 12:55 PM

watcher: "I am not here to tell you that all Muslims are great and that everything in Islamic history was happy and wonderful, just that we should work to not make judgments"

Not make judgments? Then what is the purpose of all that supposed "thinking" you're always doing? Judgments follow from thinking. If you don't want to make judgments, then you should end your posts with "Just doing some feeling."

I had surmised that you were probably a Muslim. Now I think it's more likely that you're just a typical morally relativist liberal, for whom non-judgmentalism is the highest moral virtue.

Posted by: Caroline at May 5, 2007 1:39 PM

The central performative contradiction of the post-modernists: a view that abdicates hierarchy and judgment while ignoring those mechanism's role in reaching said view.

Posted by: deesine at May 5, 2007 3:13 PM

I continue to be disappointed in Condi Rice. If her official statements were only impartial, that would be a big improvement.

Posted by: Josephine at May 5, 2007 7:30 PM

As for the conquering, etc.--I am not making judgments as to whether the Islamic conquests were "good" or "bad," I was simply asked whether I denied that they happened. In my honest opinion, I believe that these conquests were good, allowing the peoples of the region to come together and develop together, although it was in no way perfect or close to equal (just look at economic development in the modern day, with our problems of income distribution, etc.) Conquest and occupation can be good and it can be bad, based on the opinion of the viewer.

The Arabs overran and quickly conquered Syria, Palestine, Persia, Egypt, North Aftica and Spain. Once they did, they then went on to institute shariah laws that institutionalized discrimination against the native peoples of these lands until the majority of them embraced Islam.

Contrast this with the Mongols. They went to war with the Sultanate of Khwarzeim after their envoy was murdered and head sent back to Chengiz Khan. Like the Arabs, the Mongols too had their own religion - Tengri - which Chengiz Khan followed. But they didn't force that on everybody - even among themselves, there were Buddhists and Christians, and they were far more tolerant than any Islamic country at any time, including Spain or Ottoman Turkey. If the Mongols had the same standards as the Arabs, not only would all Mongol Buddhists and Christians have had to worship Tengri - all countries from Baghdad to Karakorum to Kazan to Kabul would today be worshipping Tengri, instead of Allah.

So spare us the tu quoque of the Crusades, which was a belated response to Muslim interference in the activities of Christian pilgrims. Note the real comparisons between non-Muslim Mongol conquerors between the 12th to 14th centuries, and contrast that to the Muslim Arabs, Afghans and Turks throughout that same time period.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 6, 2007 12:38 AM

infidel pride

Contrast this with the Mongols. They went to war with the Sultanate of Khwarzeim after their envoy was murdered and head sent back to Chengiz Khan. Like the Arabs, the Mongols too had their own religion - Tengri - which Chengiz Khan followed. But they didn't force that on everybody - even among themselves, there were Buddhists and Christians, and they were far more tolerant than any Islamic country at any time, including Spain or Ottoman Turkey. If the Mongols had the same standards as the Arabs, not only would all Mongol Buddhists and Christians have had to worship Tengri - all countries from Baghdad to Karakorum to Kazan to Kabul would today be worshipping Tengri, instead of Allah.

i disagree with you on that i watched a documentry on the life of ghenghis khan he was very brutal man he killed his own brother when he was a kid even thought his little brother begged him not to he just shot him with a arrow he then grew up spending his life in war his motto was to look for other tribes to fight and to steal the women.

famous quote by ghenghis khan
"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy,
plunder his riches, ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
-- Genghis Khan {Father of all turks.}

Posted by: Greek Gurl at May 6, 2007 7:22 AM

Greek Gurl

Wrong. Mongols and Turks are different people. And while Chengiz was brutal, he was not needlessly so - he was engaged in war with the Turks - like the sultan of Khwarzeim (in what is now Turkmenistan), and overran Islamic empires like Afghanistan and Persia. So it's important to note the context of his campaigns.

And it's even more noteworthy that his army included Buddhists and Christians. If they were anything like the Arabs, most of the people in that part of Asia would be practicing Tengri, rather than Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 6, 2007 7:16 PM

Just doing some thinking...
I am not here to tell you that all Muslims are great and that everything in Islamic history was happy and wonderful, just that we should work to not make judgments (like that everything the Muslims do is somehow inherently wrong and that non-Muslims are better--or vice versa.)

Posted by: Watcher at May 5, 2007 12:55 PM

I'm glad you're not here to tell us how great muslims are or to edify us with your revisionist version of islamic history. That being said, I would much prefer to work to make judgments, not avoid them. Judgments are the fruit of thought, are they not? If we cannot make them, why think? You seem dedicated to "thinking" up ways to deny or obfuscate reality, historical facts, and truth.

I can't remember what you called yourself, but you posted here a while back and you haven't changed a bit, still a diehard cultural Marxist and moral relativist who prefers the pablum of revisionist history because it doesn't offend anyone, champion of the putatively downtrodden and oppressed no matter how evil they may be. Oops, I forgot, there's no such thing as evil. So sorry! Nothing pains you more than seeing the hideous truth printed in black and white, especially the truth about islam and muslims.

The fact that they are "human" endows them with physical similarities that we all share, nothing more. The muslim ethos is corrupted and debased by islam and the finished product is a very primitive and uncivilized, albeit, "human" entity. Cannibals and headhunters are also humans, as well as other groups of "noble" savages. I want no part of their cultures as I consider them extremely inferior to my own. I cannot respect violent, inferior, primitive cultures that are incongruous in the 21st century, including islamic culture. In my estimation, being "human" requires more than a human body, but that is all muslims share with the rest of humanity.

Posted by: Susanp at May 7, 2007 1:56 AM