| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Another "Muslims fear backlash" story. "Muslims fear backlash from Fort Dix attack plot," by Wayne Parry for Associated Press, with thanks to all who sent this in:
FORT DIX, N.J. -- Authorities' description of six suspects charged with plotting an attack on Fort Dix as "Islamic militants" is causing renewed worry among New Jersey's Muslim community.Hundreds of Muslim men from New Jersey were rounded up and detained by authorities in the months following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but none were connected to that plot.
Now, Muslims fear a resurgence of anti-Islamic sentiment and incidents of bias.
"If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. "But when the government says 'Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous. Don't equate actions with religion."
Now wait a minute, Mr. Mohammed. These guys had video of men firing rifles while calling for jihad and shouting "Allahu akbar." They had video of Osama bin Laden and others who couch all their actions in the language of Islamic jihad. One of them said, "I'm doing it in the name of Allah." And now you, Mr. Mohammed, are warning officials not to call them "Islamic militants"? Shouldn't you be working within the Islamic community to create a wider separation between Islam and militancy, instead of pretending that it is American law enforcement officials who are arbitrarily making this equation? It was the Duka brothers and the other Fort Dix jihadists who made the equation. They are the ones who have suggested that Islam has something to do with terrorism, and they (and all the others like them) are responsible for the equation. The officials are just noting the manifest fact. Would you prefer they ignore unpleasant or inconvenient facts?
The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee's New Jersey chapter participated in a conference call Tuesday with FBI officials to discuss security matters."What we're all afraid of is a new backlash," said Hesham Mahmoud, a spokesman for the group.
A new one? When was the old one?
Anyway, CAIR actually condemned this one:
..."It seems clear that a potentially deadly attack has been averted," the group said. "We applaud the FBI for its efforts and repeat the American Muslim community's condemnation and repudiation of all those who would plan or carry out acts of terror while falsely claiming their actions have religious justification."
Meanwhile, here is a New Jersey Muslim leader suggesting that unless U.S. foreign policy starts toeing the Islamic line, we will see more such jihad plots:
Yaser El-Menshawy, chairman of the Majlis Ash-Shura of New Jersey, the state's council of mosques, condemned the plot and said he is glad it was not carried out. But he said the motivation of people who plot against the government "cannot be stopped simply by law enforcement or military means alone."He said U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, among other issues, needs to be examined dispassionately.
"We are going to have to take a look at it and see where we are right and where we are not right," El-Menshawy said. "If that's not the case, then I fear we are in for a very long and difficult period."
Is that a threat?
Posted by Robert at May 10, 2007 7:21 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"When the government says 'islamic militants' it sends a message to the public that islam and militancy are synonymous."
lol
And their point IS...???????
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 10, 2007 7:39 PM
Islam is jihad is terrorism.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 10, 2007 7:48 PM
The only backlash that ever comes is from the Muslim community itself ... as more Muslims, angered that these six were caught, take up the jihad cause. And still other Muslims demand yet another concession to Sharia Law.
Thank you Clinton for inviting this plague into our country. Thank you Bush for continuing to extend the invitation.
Wise up people. We need Tom Tancredo now!
Posted by: LoneRanger at May 10, 2007 7:55 PM
yes precisely!!! what backlash? after 7/7 london bombs went off, after secretaries had arms and legs blown off and lay dying in hospitals, when everday normal folk went peacefully to work that day and were blown to crap by muslims, all we heard down from tony blair doen to the Muslim Council of great Britain was "we want no backlash"!!!! this as young women were dying in hospital!
and muslims just sat back, smiled and said "but this", "but that", "this is because of UK aggression in iraq" "we do not want backlash".
AND THERE WAS NO BACKLASH after the slaughter!!! after 9/11 no backlash.
WHY?
because we are civilised in the west, we handle this via parliament, via congress. we do not rampage (example being childish mohammed cartoons and the disgusting muslim riots all over the world), we dont chop little girls heads off because they were christian.
im so angry. im so pissed at the government, at the media at socialism and their liberal gonads and especially at CAIR and the MCB. they are all guilty and they will all be dealt with, via parliament and congress, peacefully and democratically!
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at May 10, 2007 8:05 PM
Is it beyond imagination that at some point in the future after a series of terrorist acts in the USA, successful or otherwise, someone might just do the unthinkable and intern huge groups of these people? Perhaps that will be a necessary protective measure to ensure their safety. After all these poor people are now living in a state of fear and uncertainty on account of a possible backlash….
Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at May 10, 2007 8:09 PM
The only person definitely linking Islam with militance in the maintream media at the moment apparently would be this guy Mohammed Solail himself. He might give the public the wrong impression if he doesn't watch what he is saying (or how he phrases his ideas)...
Now, we wonder why would this guy suspect the public to be so gullible anyway???? Might it be because that equating militance with Islam would be the truth (which Americans aren't supposed to know about Islam)?
And what would the consequences of the public equating militancy with Islam be for Muslims anyway? Might the consequences include being a permanent inability to convert Americans to Islam under false pretenses (for example that Islam means peace and freedom?).
Not to worry! Most Americans no longer consider Islam to be a 'religion' anyway.
Posted by: pythagoras at May 10, 2007 8:10 PM
Well, I suppose if a bunch of Quakers or Amish were caught at regular intervals trying to kill people we'd hear "Quaker militants", or "Amish militants" in the press.
I guess we could call them "New Jersey militants", but then residents of the Garden State would feel unfairly singled out.
The best way to resolve the question is to make sure the "New Jersey Muslim" is on a par with the "Maine Alligator".
at May 10, 2007 8:20 PM
El-Menshawy states: "If that's not the case, then I fear we are in for a very long and difficult period."
Robert you are so correct because my feelings are the same with this statement. Is this a threat? In other words we demand you make the statements we want and the type of law enforcement we want or if we don't get our way get ready for a "difficult period".
I keep saying this and some people think I am nuts because we are going down the road to war within our own lands and it appears own leaders are too weak to stop it. People please see where we are going. We have alien peoples whose values are counter to our own on so many levels. We talk integration but how integrate somebody who does not want to integrate?
In the end you have to force them or they will force you. Did we end slavery in this country by peace? Did we colonize this land by peace? Did we stop communism and Nazism by peace?
The answer is no. Peace and integration only can happen when people share the same dreams. Most Muslims have a different dream. It may sound great on the surface. They will say they want peace and freedom but if ask them question like how they view women or secular government you get closer to the truth. Remember this country was founded on freedom and liberty but not everybody had the same concept of what that means. It was shaped and molded into the concept we have today. It was done as much on battlefields as it was in polling booths.
Its 1830s-1840s all over again and if Muslim immigration keeps up we will in 20-30 years be in another Civil War. Mark my words...
Who wants to be an abolitionist against Sharia and Jihad? Who wants to free Muslim women (those that want freedom) from the tyranny of Islamic slavery? Who wants to save western civilization? Sometime in the near future the anti-jihad forces must form into a strong political block and interest group to at least counter balance the effects of Arabian money and their insurgent (modern day border ruffians) groups within this country like CAIR.
at May 10, 2007 8:24 PM
we had a great politician in the UK, during hte 60's, his name was enoch powell. he stated that uncontrolled immigration will result in bloodshed so great that the UK will fall into bloody civil war.
to this day, they call this great man a fascist, a traitor.
we should be terribly ashamed that we never listened to this man. 7/7 was just the beginning.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at May 10, 2007 8:28 PM
The best way to resolve the question is to make sure the "New Jersey Muslim" is on a par with the "Maine Alligator".
Posted by: jewdog
But that Aligator was relocated and put in an exhibit!
Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at May 10, 2007 8:30 PM
We should start our own History book and start with the results of Multiculturalism and appeasment.
How some idiot politician brain panned the idea above without it being even remotely a two way street is beyond me.Why didn't they just give the nation away and save us all the trouble.
It's the peoples nation more than it is a handfull of elite and politicians ,people forget this.NOT ME
Muslims do not even fit into the "PEOPLE" part of this nation because all they do is for themselves,as they spew day in day out.
All of you go away you push "others" too far,way too far.
at May 10, 2007 8:30 PM
Now, Muslims fear a resurgence of anti-Islamic sentiment and incidents of bias.
Actually what "Muslims" fear is that the West will wake up to the fact that when you connect the dots, the word "Islam" is the commn dominator, and those who practice this "Islam" are causing over 90percent of terroism across the world.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 10, 2007 8:33 PM
It's ok comet:
violence is the LAST thing they'd try in the US.
We're a lot better armed than europeans are...and the islamofascists here know it, which is why they haven't tried anything remotely close to euroriots here.
They know the math as well as we do...they're maniacs, but they're not that stupid.
They know our playbook...so it's time to throw it away (which is one major thing I've been screaming at the big dogs for...they're just now starting to consider it).
at May 10, 2007 8:35 PM
Ranger
I was singularly unimpressed by Tancredo at the last GOP debate - his focus seems to have shifted to abortion, and he even equivocated on whether the US should go to war against Iran should Israel be attacked. Romney, who was perceived as the 'winner' of that debate, seems to be the only anti-Jihad candidate. I'm still open to many candidates, but at the moment, Romney looks like he should be our guy.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 10, 2007 8:45 PM
Don't you just feel a huge wave of collective guilt rushing over America for characterizing Muslim TERRORISTS as Muslim MILITANTS.
God, will the whining never cease with these people. They have not only cornered the market on death and destruction but they are first place in the world of whine.
Posted by: Theseus at May 10, 2007 8:54 PM
If the US went with the immigration questionnaire, then CAIR would say, all answers are equally good and that no one should be excluded, regardless of their answers.
Apparently from C. Rice's taking the side of the Islamists in Turkey to have power and control, I mean enter, the EU, she would agree with them. Didn't she react that way before 9-11 when George Tenet and Richard Clarke were trying to get her attention?
The more things change, the more Rice stays the same.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 10, 2007 8:56 PM
lol Theseus:
I would suggest we offer cheese to go with their whine, but I don't think we have enough to go around!
Posted by: jcom972 at May 10, 2007 9:04 PM
Problems and solutions from Bush Blair Cameron Clinton: (In British case substitute the ethnic group formerly known as British)
The solution when Americans have low wages from immigration, is more low wages from immigration.
The solution when Americans can't get to the ER because it closed is to close more ER's.
The solution when Americans lose job security from immigration, is for more Americans to lose job security.
The solution when Americans are killed is for more Americans to be killed.
The solution to schools that don't teach is to teach the students to call anyone who points out they didn't learn job skills, biased.
The solution to asking why should Americans die for immigration is to call those asking the question, bigots.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 10, 2007 9:05 PM
First off let me say how happy I am to have found this forum and the views you guys share, living in San Francisco I am surrounded by morons! I agree with you guys totally. Why when militants doing something to innocent non-muslim people and doing it in the name of Allah, are we always at fault somehow. So quick to step up and denounce us coorelating the two, but so docile to denounce the actual act itself. Then..when they actually do denounce it, they never fail to follow that up with an almost antogonistic justification for it. I am soooo sick of this crap. Now, we have Hamas bases in S. America, with easy access to our southern border, and we these idiots complainin about strict border policies. I fear what lies ahead for our great country.
Posted by: s0nny11 at May 10, 2007 9:36 PM
Would it help to use "Fiendish Pixies" in place of "Islamic Militants" in the future? Honestly, these people are laughable-they're more concerned about PR than the fact that their "brothers" are out to cause nothing but trouble in the world. No wonder it is impossible to take talk of Islam being peaceful or ever reforming itself seriously.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at May 10, 2007 9:50 PM
Welcome s0nny11:
It's called political correctness (run amok).
You're not the only one surrounded...we both live in the peoplez republik of kalifornia, only it's not nearly as bad here in the sj valley as in SFO.
Good Luck to you.
Posted by: jcom972 at May 10, 2007 9:50 PM
There was a backlash after 9/11; it was, however, against a group of people who look like Muslims (according to some idiots): Sikhs. No Muslims were murdered after 9/11, as far as I know, but a couple of Sikhs were. And I've heard some people from CAIR use this as an example of backlash against Muslims. Pah!
Posted by: wrathofasma at May 10, 2007 9:50 PM
jcom972
I would agree however if we keep current policies up then there is a very real possibility. Money goes along way in this nation and the Arab muslim lobby is strong. What if muslim immigration numbers increase per year? What are the number of illegal muslim immigrants? What are the number of semi-practicing muslims who could go full scale?
With the way our leaders are handling things right now anything is possible. I will keep all my crazy ideas on the table for now. I might look smart one day..(I will admit the counter argument to what I have said looks perhaps more rational...but we are living in irrational times)
:)
How many new muslim immigrants from Iraq do you think will get in after we leave? That will be a neat test case...
at May 10, 2007 9:51 PM
All these words, jihadist, militant, extreemist, radical, moderate, are tactics. At the very bottom of the rotten barrel of Islam, under layers of historic slime, where no human dares tread, hides Allah. Shielding himself behind blind submitters, Allah wields these tactics like swords. Allah must be driven back to the lower realms of the Qliphoth, The dark regions where the sun dont shine, and truth dont count. Mohammads big mistake was that he let Allah escape from his cage...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 10, 2007 9:54 PM
But he said the motivation of people who plot against the government "cannot be stopped simply by law enforcement or military means alone."
from the article
He seems to be admitting that the motivation is the religion. And that it won't be stopped by law enforcement. Definite threat.
He said U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, among other issues, needs to be examined dispassionately.
from the article
Once again he is saying that Islam is the motivation. Why else would U.S. Foreign policy be an issue here.
Sir, the way we deal with our dissatisfaction with the government in this country is in the voting booth, not with AK47s and RPGs. These guys are getting as open in their threats as the ones in Australia. He is practically telling the Islamics here that he sees this as an acceptable means of changing policy. I'm not sure this guy shouldn't be on his way to jail.
"We are going to have to take a look at it and see where we are right and where we are not right,"
from the article
What's with the WE stuff? Does he mean the NJ Muslims? If Tony Soprano made statements like these, they would certainly be taken outright as threats.
FBI please tell me you have this seditious fellow on your watch list now.
at May 10, 2007 9:58 PM
If they're so worried, theen thy should all leave.
Plenty of room and money in Saudi Arabia.
We should even offer free ticket for those Muslims who are AOTB (Afraid Of The Backlash).
I know, personally, I'd feel much better if they were all nice and safe in Islamic lands.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 10, 2007 10:14 PM
jcorn972, s0nny11
Yep, that's No Cal for you. Great weather, but
lots of nutcases. Keep plugging away, don't be
shy about letting people know what you think
about these vermin invading our country. I'm
in the South Bay, and I see too many burkas for my
taste.
Remember, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting,
it's for We The People.
Koran Inspired Violence, that can be the new PC
term, if Islamic militant is a bummer. :-)
at May 10, 2007 10:17 PM
"We are going to have to take a look at it and see where we are right and where we are not right,"
from the article
What's with the WE stuff? Does he mean the NJ Muslims? If Tony Soprano made statements like these, they would certainly be taken outright as threats.
FBI please tell me you have this seditious fellow on your watch list now. Posted by: auntbea
You beat me to it, Aunt Bea.
From my readings, the only people who have a right to an opinion among Muslims are Muslims so that "we" speaks volumes.
Posted by: USBeast at May 10, 2007 10:25 PM
Terms like "Islamic radicals" "Islamofascists" and the like are PC euphemisms. The correct, neutral, objective term is simply "Muslims." That says it all.
Posted by: BunrattyBill at May 10, 2007 10:43 PM
"The only backlash that ever comes is from the Muslim community itself ... as more Muslims, angered that these six were caught, take up the jihad cause. And still other Muslims demand yet another concession to Sharia Law."
posted by Lone Ranger
The excuses get more and more brazen, as well.
While debating the meaning of "moderate Muslim" one person said that most Muslims were moderate compared to al-qaeda" and most Muslims don't belong to al-Qaeda.
(now we can all rest easy!)
He says that Muslims are happy to live under non-Muslim rule.
"Look at Muslims in Britain, the USA, Canada, the Philippines, Thailand, China and so on. They are all ruled by non-Muslims. They "accede" to this situation because, at least in western countries, they emigrated to those (Christian) countries willingly, knowing full well that they would be "ruled" by non-Muslims."
We have a problem with second and third generation Muslims "Because by the time they reach early adulthood, these 2nd & 3d generation suddenly realize that they will never be fully accepted into mainstream society…..not because of what they believe, but because of who they are."
So now the new excuse is racism. They're attacking us because of who WE are.
Apparently Dinesh D'Souza went over to the other side because "well, he was never really accepted in what used to be called "polite" society….he just doesn't have the proper, well, the proper "blood-line"."
Sayyid Qutb was aghast at what he found in the US: that women didn't find him sexually attractive and so he was ignored.
(why didn't he just say so?)
"The dimensions and politics of race and sex have almost completely been ignored in explaining the rise of militant Islam. What part they in fact have played is open to question……but I think it is a very big part."
So now it's not about religion. It's all about race.
at May 10, 2007 11:22 PM
"Yaser El-Menshawy, chairman of the Majlis Ash-Shura of New Jersey, the state's council of mosques, condemned the plot and said he is glad it was not carried out. But he said the motivation of people who plot against the government "cannot be stopped simply by law enforcement or military means alone."
He said U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, among other issues, needs to be examined dispassionately.
No, Mr. Yaser El-Menshawy, I've lived in this country all my life, and I have never claimed any right to commit acts of terrorism because I disagree with the Governments foreign policy -- and I have often disagreed with its foreign policy.
So on what principle do you claim such a right for yourself and your Muslim brothers?
You say that " the motivation of people who plot against the government "cannot be stopped simply by law enforcement or military means alone."
The day might come, sir, when the American people -- once they've had enough of your dysfunctional religion -- will say "the motivation of people who plot terrorist acts against themselves, their fellow citizens and their government, cannot be stopped simply by law enforcement or military means alone", and start taking matters into their own hands.
If you or your Muslim brothers don't agree with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, or anywhere else, you have only one option -- the ballot box.
If you believe that you have the option of terrorizing the rest of America into adopting some Islamic foreign policy towards the rest of the world, you do not belong in this country. You lack the minimal understanding of the principles required to function in a democratic society.
Your principles are the principles of the jungle, where you can prey on others and they can prey on you. It's a world far better suited to you than a civilized society like America.
at May 10, 2007 11:42 PM
greatcometof1577 says:
How many new muslim immigrants from Iraq do you think will get in after we leave? That will be a neat test case...
Ahh...been thinking alot about this scenario lately. Looking at my crystal ball here...
Prediction
After President Clinton II declares Iraq a lost cause within the first 50 days of her inauguration, and apologizes to the world for America's insolence, and after the real civil war between the sunnis and shia begin, to show the depths of her compassion, so that the Muslim world will know that she "feels their pain" , will establish a most liberal immigration policy towards those Iraqis, she will say, whom we have so dissappointed and find themselves caught in the middle of a war solely attributable to the failures of George Bush and the republican party.
sarc/ off. Well, maybe not exactly like that but, there is little evidence mission II (project democracy) will succeed before Bush'd term ends. We will have to leave Iraq sometime and admit mission II a failure. Whether its a republican or democrat in the White House, the issue of US responsibility to all those Iraqis caught in a civil war will become a huge issue after we pull out (presuming, of course, no interveing miracle allows mission II to succeed).
How a republican or democrat handles this issue is critical. Hitlary will see an additional 1 million or so Iraqi's as adding to the multi-cultaral mosaic that is America, not as 1 million or so dormant jihadist.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now
at May 10, 2007 11:52 PM
Terms like "Islamic radicals" "Islamofascists" and the like are PC euphemisms. The correct, neutral, objective term is simply "Muslims." That says it all.
Posted by: BunrattyBill
BunrattyBill,
I agree with you that these terms have become euphemisms, though I don't think they started out that way. In the beginning, I believe the terms "facist" and "radical" were used by folks like us in order to wake up the rest of the world.
These coins have lost their lustre, to be sure. But "Muslim" is the dullest coin of all, as the resulting whine from the Muslims casts a fog so dense as to cloud the issue, whatever the issue happens to be.
Personally, I like "Mohammedans", because a body can score a two-for-one with it. Mohammedans hate it, because it is true. Allah is only Mohammed's straight man, Mohammedans worship Mohammed. Maximum offense value, plus unpalatable truth. It works for me, anyway.
Posted by: Abscedere at May 11, 2007 12:03 AM
Just agreeing with auntbea and rational about the veiled threat from Mr Menshawy. It lines up with that other story from the French elections - Royal chirping 'vote for me or the Muslims will riot'; and a story from not so long ago, after the London bombings, when Muslim leaders in Britain issued a veiled threat that boiled down to saying that if the UK continued to pursue the current foreign policies they could expect more bombings.
When Muslims WITHIN OUR SOCIETIES essentially threaten extreme violence unless we - in the persons of our elected representatives - do as they (a minority) dictate, then that is totally beyond the pale.
It is standover tactics. Time to classify Mohammedanism alongside the Triads and the Mafia.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 11, 2007 12:37 AM
Infidel Pride,
Valid points.
I agree the debate was a joke ... nobody looked good to me under the circumstances.
About going to war ... FDR said he would not go to war ... things don't always work out the way one hopes.
When a crisis occurs, leaders lead.
Posted by: LoneRanger at May 11, 2007 12:54 AM
WHAT BACKLASH?!?!?!?!
Only backlash here is the fact that refugees sheltered in the base 8 years ago were planing to "kill as much as they can" of their hosts. That's backlash for you!!!!
One must be very stupid or very dhimmi to write something like this...
Posted by: WallsofByzant at May 11, 2007 4:00 AM
My sentiments are 100% that we need to make sure that people of all religions understand that their religious beliefs do not override any other person's beliefs. I have great reservations that Muslims have the slightest understanding of this principle.
My comment is about the statement being a threat.
Observing from Australia, I see a lot of issues that give concern. I put myself into the shoes of some of these people and wonder what I would do if I had lived a good life in IRAQ and had that bombed away to appease some one's false notion about weapons of mass destruction.
To cause such grief to so many in the country that have never done any harm to the USA (or Australia) on an incorrect premise must be very hard to wear. Particularly as the USA people approved that action by re electing the administration that made that decision.
I ponder if my life was in tatters, my family killed by the bombs - what would I do?
I live in the Lucky country and do not have to go through that agony. I do appreciate that this is an agony for so many.
The comment that the USA needs to change its attitude resonates with me (as does Australia's need to be more consistant).
Where in either of our countries foreign affairs statements do we acknowledge it was a false premise to invade IRAQ? I am not saying it was necessarily wrong to overthrough the evil dictator. Though that raises issues -if you are consistant you should overthroow all the despots. As bad as Hussan was - he was a long way from the worst in this world.
If push comes to shove I would support the USA if the conflict was about most any matter. I do beleive that supporting astute well reasonned and compassionate leadership would be great. A pity the USA does not vote that leadership into power.
Back to my point - I do not think this was a threat. I believe the person who made the statement was astute and has understanding that if you treat people like **** they will want to treat you in the same way.
Posted by: Aussiethoughts at May 11, 2007 4:04 AM
i overheard some people suggesting that a key stategy to destroy america and west was to make the fighting so bad in iraq lots of immigrants would be accepted. When there is the rush of "asylum seekers" fleeing the violence many many mujahids would be among them to bring the west to submission.
When someone suggested that no one in the west cares about the christian minority now, why would they help moslems later the reply went along the line of:
We accept the sacrifice of women and children in this fighting because it will help make those chirstian westerns feel guilty and seek immigration. why? they don't care or know about fellow christians suffering but with the umma already in the west making lots of noise about the moslems and appealing to their guilt it will surely make it possible for mujahids to seek asylum.
one guy laughed and commented on how funny it would be when mujahids blew up civilians and everyone understood it was understandable because of what america did to iraq and they would feel so guilty yet the killings in iraq were partly so they could get access to kill in america...
Posted by: exposesithlords at May 11, 2007 4:31 AM
"Yaser El-Menshawy, chairman of the Majlis Ash-Shura of New Jersey, the state's council of mosques, condemned the plot and said he is glad it was not carried out. But he said the motivation of people who plot against the government "cannot be stopped simply by law enforcement or military means alone."
Sounds very sinister to me.
He said U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, among other issues, needs to be examined dispassionately.
I translate it as - "Give Israel to the palis."
"We are going to have to take a look at it and see where we are right and where we are not right," El-Menshawy said. "If that's not the case, then I fear we are in for a very long and difficult period."
I translate it as - "muslims are not going to change. We are going to wage our jihad until all dar-ul-harb becomes dar-ul-islam. Either give in to each and every one of our demands that we shall be making sequentially, or perish."
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 11, 2007 5:55 AM
Okay, I have resisted this as long as I can.
The Ft. Dix Six
The Six Dix
The Dix Six
Sorry, LOL LOL LOL
The Army guys call Fort Leonard Woods Fort Lost-in-the-woods. Anybody know the nickname for Fort Dix? There has to be one.
Aunt Bea - guilty as charged of a sick sense of humor.
Posted by: auntbea at May 11, 2007 6:58 AM
If we, as a nation, are so very wrong in just about every area, why don't these clowns get back on the boat and go back where they came from?
Posted by: RIslander at May 11, 2007 7:52 AM
islam = terrorism
muslim = militant terrorist
gitmo = nice place - sun, fresh air, locked cells!
at May 11, 2007 9:14 AM
"He said U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, among other issues, needs to be examined dispassionately."
no he is saying pull "your" troops out of the middle east (and spain) and we will stop the jihad, for now.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at May 11, 2007 9:36 AM
auntbea - are you familiar with Fort Leonard Wood? Just curious.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 11, 2007 10:43 AM
"When the government says 'islamic militants' it sends a message to the public that islam and militancy are synonymous."
Okay, I have a grammatical problem with this:
Islamic = adjective, i.e. describes a noun, like MILITANTS?
Gawd, even our lawyers need to go back to school (grammar school, that is).
Case closed.
Posted by: kafir_kelbeh at May 11, 2007 12:19 PM
auntbea, what about:
The Tricky Dix Six?
The Tricky Dix?
gotta admit, it's kinda catchy!
Posted by: kafir_kelbeh at May 11, 2007 12:21 PM
"I am not saying it was necessarily wrong to overthrough the evil dictator. Though that raises issues -if you are consistant you should overthroow all the despots. As bad as Hussan was - he was a long way from the worst in this world."
Aussie,
Australia is a true ally and we thank you for your support.
You've encapsulated the dilemma we face.
Who do you consider worse than Hussein? He invaded two neighboring countries and he defied the will of the world community (remember all those Security Council resolutions?)for over a decade. He used chemical weapons on his own people and he had the goal to acquire nukes.
Do you want the US to invade Iran? The people there don't deserve American intervention. Why should the US assume that responsibility? France, China, Russia and Germany are getting rich in Iran.
We can't overthrow EVERY despot. It's not our job. When we do we're interfering with sovereign governments. When we mind our own business we're ignoring the "plight" of suffering people. Eventually Americans will tell the world to fight its own battles and leave us out of it.
We have no reason to go to Darfur or anywhere else where Muslims are killing Muslims. If the rest of the world is so incensed about what is going on then Americans will applaud them for not only taking a stand but for putting their money and their soldiers where their mouths are. Don't say that no one else has the capability. Whose fault is that? If people want to overthrow despots then let them build up their own militaries to have the capability. If they want to be pacifists they shouldn't call on the US to solve their problems. They don't want us to be the world's policeman. Guess what? Neither do we.
After fifty years of fighting the Cold War followed by ten years of dealing with Saddam (while our erstwhile allies in Europe stabbed us in the back), America's cupboard is nearly bare.
at May 11, 2007 12:37 PM
A-plague
No, I was never there. Closest was Fort Knox as a spouse and a sister to soldiers.
I just heard that phrase and thought it was funny.
at May 11, 2007 1:56 PM
PMK - right on! We're d@mn'd if we do and/or if we don't. I've had to stand up with the same rebuttal's, as you posted, time and time again. We're NOT the bad guys, people!
Posted by: Shinerbocker at May 11, 2007 5:05 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.)