| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"It is these radicals who are Islam's true enemy." Fair enough. Certainly the jihadists have never hesitated to target Muslims whom they didn't deem sufficiently Islamic. Just think for a moment, however, about what we do not see: we don't see comprehensive programs in American mosques to teach against the jihad ideology and political Islam, and the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the non-establishment clause. We don't see any Islamic authority that has rejected not just the vague "terrorism," but the specific supremacist agenda that has always been part of the jihad imperative. These things make it unlikely that the President will succeed in convincing large numbers of Muslims to turn against their "true enemy" with more than mere words, and vague, half-hearted words at that.
By James Gerstenzang for the Los Angeles Times (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
WASHINGTON -- Visiting an Islamic mosque on Washington's Embassy Row, President Bush delivered a strongly worded denunciation today of Muslim radicals and said he would appoint for the first time a U.S. representative to a major international Islamic organization.Drawing a distinction between moderation in the practice of Islam and those seeking to use the faith for what he described as radical political ends, the president said "it is these radicals who are Islam's true enemy."
[...]
He cited U.S. support for Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina after the disintegration of Yugoslavia — a reference applauded by his audience — and said Americans offered such support out of "compassion, conviction and conscience." It reflected the proper course of supporting moderation against extremism, he said.
In the Middle East, he said, "we have seen the rise of groups of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power."
It is the radicals, Bush said, who stage "spectacular attacks" against Muslim holy sites to divide Muslims and push them into fighting each other, conducting "acts of butchery ... in the name of Allah."
It is such extremism, the president said, that needs to be turned back "before it finds its path to power."
Posted by Robert at June 27, 2007 1:26 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
American Muslims just cannot lose.
If America stands up to the radicals they hide behind the First Amendment and loudly proclaim their patriotism and continue to enjoy the freedom that is the fruit of many generations of Americans who defended it, some at the cost of their own lives.
If America falls to the radicals, America's Muslims will swear their allegiance to the new caliphate and enjoy the freedom, this time, of conquerors.
In the meantime, they lie low.
The only way for them to lose is if a future president decides, undoubtedly in the wake of a massive attack, they are all enemy combatants or sympathizers and orders them deported.
I don't see how you avoid at least connecting American Muslims with the violence being committed against the US, given their failure, for the most part, to stand up for America. There are always exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions. American Muslims should be standing up for this country. Why aren't they?
I find their silence (or muted whispers) positively deafening.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 27, 2007 1:52 PM
He cited U.S. support for Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina after the disintegration of Yugoslavia — a reference applauded by his audience — and said Americans offered such support out of "compassion, conviction and conscience." It reflected the proper course of supporting moderation against extremism, he said.
Damn.. how much longer till the next election??!! Let's just hope it won't be Hitlery next.
The Clintons have blessed us with traitors such as Sandy Burglar and Jamie Gorelick already!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at June 27, 2007 1:58 PM
Alternate headline in 1941.
FDR condemns radical Nazis in visit to Reichstag.
FDR - "It is these radicals who are Nazisms true enemy."
Posted by: feralcat9 at June 27, 2007 1:58 PM
ALL muslims are enemies, does not matter where they are from.
Posted by: ooddballz at June 27, 2007 2:00 PM
The last thing we need is a fantical Christian crusader(i.e. Bush) addressing islamic issues.
Posted by: progressive at June 27, 2007 2:01 PM
The last thing we need is a fantical Christian crusader(i.e. Bush) addressing islamic issues. Please stop talking.
Posted by: progressive at June 27, 2007 2:01 PM
I voted for George W. Bush. I like him as a person. I like and support most of his policies. Lately however, I am under the impression that he is either on drugs or being influenced by some source that has total control over his decision making. Between this Immigration situation, his being popular in Albania, and his praising of Islam as being one of the "world's great religions," my feelings toward him is changing rapidly. I just don't get it. He wants to follow in the footsteps of Reagan, but I think his legacy will not even come close. That is a real shame because I thought he had the potential to do so.
Posted by: Oiznop at June 27, 2007 2:04 PM
Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for US?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/06/27/muslim-immigration-a-winning-or-losing-proposition-for-us/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 27, 2007 2:11 PM
progressive
For once, I agree with you. You probably disagree with him that radical Muslims are Islam's worst enemy. If you do, you're right there as well.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 27, 2007 2:16 PM
Radical Islam is Islam. Just think about it. Would Mo be concidered a "radical" Muslim if he was alive today? Mo created Islam so therefore set the standards for Islam. A true radical Muslims would be peaceful and tolerant of others. Until we look at this in the true context, we will never win.
at June 27, 2007 2:27 PM
Groan...How long till Bush is otta there? Today would be fine, tomorrow is acceptable.
When is he going to confess that he is a muslim convert, revert or pervert. He seem's to be some kind of a vert.
at June 27, 2007 2:41 PM
I suffer from BDS and I am a conservative. He cant leave office fast enough.
Posted by: Elric66 at June 27, 2007 2:44 PM
and said Americans offered such support out of "compassion, conviction and conscience."
No more like stupidity and the idiocy of Clinton and Albright. Its a shame he can't get his arms around Clinton enough. Must have got that from his daddy.
Posted by: infidel! at June 27, 2007 2:48 PM
Do you really think that it would be different if the other two would have been voted into office? I would say that we would all be buying prayer rugs, and I would be buying a tent in my size, to wear around bowing to allah. Those other two have even less of a clue. Look at Kerry's voting record for the intelligence and military - ghastly. Gore is a bore and just more of a Clinton cling on. And I don't trust either as far as immigration goes.
Posted by: R_not at June 27, 2007 2:50 PM
"The only way for them to lose is if a future president decides, undoubtedly in the wake of a massive attack, they are all enemy combatants or sympathizers and orders them deported."
This will NEVER EVER EVER happen. We are WAY too freaked about being unfair, those in power will happily let the plebs die first.
The best case scenario is that in the next 5 years we restrict immigration and formulate very strict laws, for citizens already here, on a wide range of actions relating to terrorism, but not focusing on religious or national identity. At the same time, we develop an defence strategy drawing heavily from insights of people like Robert and Hugh.
All this is possible, but unlikely. Most likely is that we continue on the current deluded course, expecting Islam to just magically turn totally peaceful from the inside. Not dealing with root problems, the Islamofascist armies will grow, and eventually become a serious existential threat. Most likely, because of the ideologies of those in power, and the intellectual laziness of much of the general populace.
When there have been enough major attacks to really piss of the populace at this strategy, the President at the time will institute martial law, neuter the right to bear arms (supposedly for our safety), continue the lies to us about how Islam is peaceful, and equally persecute those Muslims that are explicitly working for violent overthrow of the Constitution (without actually strategizing about the overall networks and recruitment efforts) AND those Americans that would then be pushing for the ability to defend themselves in a war on our own turf. Government propoganda will treat them as if they were identical, as they both threaten the power status quo.
When jihad comes here in a big way, and it will if we keep pussyfooting around the root issues, we won't be allowed to fight it militia style, for elites' fear that will reduce our dependance on the Feds, and fear of creation of a popular force that could eventually challenge their power and reinstitute the Constitution. Gun control is more likely, then, than honestly addressing the ideological roots of Islamofascism. Politics is all about power, and the Constitutional checks and balances have been skewed.
We citizens will take heavy casualties from Islamofascists and have to choose between being sitting ducks and taking on *both* Islamic crazies and our own unconstitutional government. Many of us will chose to take on both. Many of us will cower and hand over our sons to fight for the Feds, or our daughters to placate the Muslims.
Likely most of us now will be dead before we get to this. But powerbrokers are, at this point, clearly on a certai ideological path... and conservatives have by and large fallen for it. Few in the populace are really a small government, defence-oriented Constitutionalists anymore.
It'll suck. But, there's some justice: If Nasseem's grandsons are freely raping your grandaughters and there's little you can do about it for fear of the Feds; Congratulations! You've left your mark on the world: It couldn't have happened without your current blind loyalty and addiction to soundbites and spin.
And keep paying the Jizyah. We wouldn't want Egyptians to have to control their family size to avoid starvation, now, would we? Nope! That would cut into the size of the future Islamofascist decentralized global military force.
Heck. Republicans are all lining up behind Guliani because he seems so darn strong. Nevermind his firearms record. Never mind his ACTUAL positions insofar as strategy against jihad goes (same old, same old).
...And that's political leanings NOW. Wait about 10 years, until the generation raised by the public school system and university system at the height of its takeover by leftists takes charge of the political controls. They don't think about politics and society in classical American terms and values; they think in terms of feelings and identity politics and popularity. The best-case scenario will have to start being implemented well before then.
at June 27, 2007 3:07 PM
Here are a couple of my favorite quotes. Can anyone tell me which one is considered the 'moderate'?
1. "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah.'" prophet Mohammad's farewell address, March 632
2. "I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge allah."
Saladin, Jan 1189
3. "We will export our revolution throughout the world... until the calls 'there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over thie world." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1979
4. "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Mohammed."
Osamam bin Laden, Nov 2001
at June 27, 2007 3:19 PM
Bush is feeding a very dangerous delusion that Islam can somehow be made "moderate."
It can't.
Alas.
Islamic teachings are at their very core violent if not genocidal (they also have Americans in their crosshairs by the way). The Kuran is held by Muslims to be the word of the 'almighty' al-lah and therefore is both non-negotiable and untouchable. The brutality of Kuranic teachings are 100 % fixed (and largely decontextualized; their meanings are usually as explicit as they are violent).
Islam is therefore inherently extremely violent, in fact by far the most violent ideology ever conceived by man, brutal and homicidal--and deceitful--
And heading straight for the American people (like a locomotive) who are continually being brainwashed in the media by dimwits like 'Dubya' Bush who keep telling us Islam can be moderated when it can't. And this has the tragic effect of keeping us unable to defend ourselves from Islam. (Bush needs to shut up)!!
It looks like the best anyone can hope for at this point is to convince Muslims across the world that since Islam has no empirical underpinnings that its violence cannot be justified and thereby persuade most of them to abandon Islamic brutality towards fellow human beings. But don't hold your breath anyone.
We may just have to wipe this 'moderate'(ha ha, only kidding) thing out.
Posted by: pythagoras at June 27, 2007 3:22 PM
pythagoras, how did we change the nazi youth who were brainwashed from youth, after the war? That is what would have to be done all over the place. And since we haven't won anything, we haven't even got a direction in this war on a tactic (war on terror), we haven't even begun while the muslims continue forward with their declared war on us (since mohammed declared it 1400 years ago, and it has been reiterated to us many times since the 1970s).
I still wonder how the nazi youth were 'un'brainwashed.
Posted by: R_not at June 27, 2007 3:31 PM
R_not: Hitler's Nazi youth mostly ended up as cannon fodder.
The remainder was not especially significant as the Nazi movement was largely (but not entirely) neutralized by the war. Many Euro-Nazis 'escaped' (some with the French government's blessing) to Latin America and the Muslim world where they since have found a happy home.
Check out 'THE ISLAMIC MEIN KAMPF' on the Terrorism Awareness link.
at June 27, 2007 3:49 PM
It is only a matter of time before you Amricans will have these in your wallets
The obverse of the Three Dollar note depicts the ironfisted Islamic revolutionary, Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini.
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/01/united-states-of-islam_2593.html
UNITED STATES OF ISLAM
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/01/united-states-of-islam.html
And here are some sights New Yorkers will have to get used too
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/01/disturbing-images-new-york.html
at June 27, 2007 4:00 PM
The last thing we need is a fantical Christian crusader(i.e. Bush) addressing islamic issues. Bush and his ilk brought more devastation and destruction on muslim lands that anyone before him/them. We don't need lecture from someone with muslim blood on his hands.
Posted by: progressive at June 27, 2007 4:07 PM
Americans should feel so bad about the images I linked to in my last comment, because if they go to Europe, they will surely feel at home, as it will be very much the same, having to be care ful so as to not treading in camel shiit
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/01/disturbing-images-europe.html
at June 27, 2007 4:08 PM
"I still wonder how the nazi youth were 'un'brainwashed."
They weren't they were mostly dead, those that weren't couldn't delude themselves or anyone else they won. That's why there was no resurgent Shinto terrorism in Japan either. After the catastrophe of invasion, there could be no more illusions about Japan's decision to prosecute aggressive war.
If after 9/11, we'd have done what we should have done and declared total war on Islam, by Britain, and the USA, we'd could have destroyed it. Brushing Iraq aside, we could have dealt with Iran once and for all. With all its mosques in flames, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of muslims dead, not one Islamic country left with an army worth the name, or a religion worth the name, then we'd get the same reaction: none.
The few left to listen to the odd firebrand Mullah that escaped death, would see the discrepancy between the wreckage and the rhetoric, and finally know once and for all, that Allah wasn't going to come down on a firey chariot and save them.
But to do that, we'd have to commit ourselves to total war, rationing, hardship, deprivation, and conscription. Can't win and have air conditioning, and so much food it makes you fat, that's the way of it, I'm afraid.
at June 27, 2007 4:10 PM
"how did we change the nazi youth who were brainwashed from youth, after the war? That is what would have to be done all over the place. "
"Hitler's Nazi youth mostly ended up as cannon fodder."
Also, we defeated them, and that took a great deal of steam out of their ideology, to say the least. The thousand year's reigh beaten by Yanks and Brits before it got going?
That, and brutally shooting in the streets any Nazi rebels, once we occupied the place.
Now, our leader's are too squeamish to take this war seriously and address root causes. So we won't have the ideological power of defeat. And we aren't interested in really occupying. We're more interested in building civil infrastructure for them, with our tax dollars.
And, seriously, a LOT of the culture in Germany hadn't changed so much in the war period that it was impossible to get the country back on track to a democratic republic. Polygamy wasn't build into the social fabric, for example, and neither were patterns of extended tribal loyalty. Much as the Nazis would have liked to turn family relationships into state breeding programs, they didn't have the time to make that a tradition.
The loss of the men to war, in the long term, may have eventually changed social patterns to the sort we see today, unable to sustain a population, but that's a different problem than the tribal stuff going on in Muslim countries.
at June 27, 2007 4:14 PM
from progressive(who I don't find too progressive), "The last thing we need is a fantical Christian crusader(i.e. Bush) addressing islamic issues. Bush and his ilk brought more devastation and destruction on muslim lands that anyone before him/them. We don't need lecture from someone with muslim blood on his hands."
Since it seems that the muslims don't like Bush, it has just made me like Bush a lot more.
We don't need lectures from those with infidel blood on their hands.
Posted by: R_not at June 27, 2007 4:36 PM
Breaking NEWS:
NYC SUBWAY SYSTEM SUFFERS MASSIVE POWER OUTAGE AS RUSH HOUR BEGINS
at June 27, 2007 4:41 PM
that's about as effective as his so-called "immigration reform"
what is it with the "elites" of the world - be they "right", "left", "middle", "religious", "non-religious", etc., etc. that they take any major problem and do everything in their power to make it worse
Posted by: TINBH at June 27, 2007 4:41 PM
Progressive
I've always wondered what exactly the people that call themselves progressives, are progressing towards?
Do you know?
Posted by: GuitarBob at June 27, 2007 4:45 PM
Bush is feeding a very dangerous delusion that Islam can somehow be made "moderate."
It can't.
Alas.
Pythagoras - agreed.
Instead of me posting "Moderate Unicorns" for the fourth time... if anyone would like to read a 350-op/ed on why it's folly to misplace hope in the myth of moderate muslims ======> http://a-plague-on-both-houses.blogspot.com/2007/06/moderate-unicorns.html
at June 27, 2007 4:46 PM
Whether you believe it or not "progressive" a true Christian in office would be a good thing.
All the real leaders we have had in the not so distant past have been strong believers.
Can you imagine FDR standing in the middle of a Nazi meeting hall proclaiming Nazism to have been hi-jacked.?
at June 27, 2007 4:49 PM
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler, were all socialist "progressives" and like all totalitarians (e.g. islamists) enslaved and murdered more human beings -in the name of their "progressive" causes than all other "causes" put together - and all in under a century - now that's "progress"
Posted by: TINBH at June 27, 2007 4:55 PM
The last thing we need in office is a moslem apologist. What we need IS a Christian crusader. Someone with the balls to round up these murderers and put them some where safe. Like maybe in the middle of the Sahara.
Bush has moslem blood on his hands? Maybe - but not enough. They still haven't got the message. Stay home and cut each other's heads off or we will destroy you.
Posted by: infidel! at June 27, 2007 4:56 PM
"The last thing we need is a fantical Christian crusader(i.e. Bush) addressing islamic issues.
Posted by: progressive"
...it does not matter who shows up..Muslims hate all Christians...Islam is for losers...they prove it every day..
at June 27, 2007 5:09 PM
progressive; after reading your post,"The last thing we need is fanatical Christian crusaters." Because the fanatical muslim crusaters would soil themselves. Now, I have business to conduct. I'll respectivly use the bog in your honor.
Posted by: mustang65 at June 27, 2007 5:11 PM
"The last thing we need is a fantical Christian crusader(i.e. Bush) addressing islamic issues. Bush and his ilk brought more devastation and destruction on muslim lands that anyone before him/them. We don't need lecture from someone with muslim blood on his hands."
The problem is, you don't make a distinction between someone with Muslim blood on his hands because he was defending himself and his country and his family, and someone with Muslim blood on his hands merely because he wants to experiment with the latest in a long line of crackpot utopian political theories cooked up by power-drunk ideologue academics and intellectuals.
Also, that you speak in terms of "Muslim" blood, not "innocent" or "human" blood. Which is what really matters. Though, not to cult members who subvert morality to expanding the hive, of course.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at June 27, 2007 5:11 PM
Bush helped to "re-dedicate" the Washington mosque that, at the original dedication some fifty years ago, an entirely innocent-of-Islam Dwight Eisenhower, secure in his John-Foster-and-Allen-Dulles-induced belief that Islam was a "bulwark against Communism" also took part. One can excuse Eisenhower, back in 1957. There is no excuse for Bush's performance today.
And if he wanted to dedicate, or re-dedicate, why didn't he just go whole hog?
He could have said something like...like this:
"Four years and three months ago our fathers and brothers and sons -- and mothers and sisters and daughters too, come to think of it -- brought forth on that continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition thatordinary moms and dads everywhere want the same thing.
Now we are engaged in Iraq’s great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so constructed, can long endure. We are now met at a mosque, for mosques are everywhere the great battle-fields of that war. We have come to re-dedicate this mosque in Washington, to show that those brave young Americans who were asked to give their lives far from home, iin distant Iraq, in order to ensure that the Iraqi nation might live, will find that we too are willing to try to win hearts and minds among Muslims in America as they attempted to do in Iraq, and that therefore they did not sacrifice in vain. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this mosque’s ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggle there,and who keep standing up and being sacrificed, until such time as the Iraqis themselves decide that they are willing to stand up so that our troops may stand downs, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did there. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion —to finish the job, to fulfill the mission, to never cut and never run but to make sure that the “brave Iraqi people,” those countless millions of ordinary moms and dads, Iraqi Muslim dads, and Iraqi Muslim moms, finally can begin to assume – in five years, or ten, or possibly in twenty years, but who's counting? – among the powers of the earth the separate and completely dominant station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, and because the quality of mercy is not strained, but is twice blest, and falleth as the gentle rain from heaven, upon the place beneath, it is meet that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that that nation, under their God, shall have a new birth of what they think of as freedom or rather, justice — and that Sharia, which comes from Allah, and by Allah, and for Allah, shall not perish from the earth."
Posted by: Hugh
at June 27, 2007 5:15 PM
"Just think for a moment, however, about what we do not see: we don't see comprehensive programs in American mosques to teach against the jihad ideology and political Islam, and the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the non-establishment clause".-Robert
Human beings will go to great lengths and endure much pain in order not to face facts because if they face facts then they have to do something about them. It's called denial. So don't be surprised when you are under attack. It's called human nature.
Posted by: Frank at June 27, 2007 5:29 PM
Here is a picture for the occasion
http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/2006/05/if-its-such-religion-of-peace-why-dont.html
at June 27, 2007 5:32 PM
"But to do that, we'd have to commit ourselves to total war, rationing, hardship, deprivation, and conscription. Can't win and have air conditioning, and so much food it makes you fat, that's the way of it, I'm afraid."
Yeah, uhh, because we've all seen how successful the Spartans and the Nazis eventually were.
We don't need conscription. We need to address the root causes and deal with them rationally. We need to not waste our resources doing stupid things tryng to avoid the seriousness of the root causes. That's the problem, to the tune of hundereds of billions of dollars (in not trillions...). Not lack of rationing.
We're perfectly willing to beat ourselves up in this country, or to vote in a government that will do that for us. If rationing would win this war, we'd have done that, or our government would at least be pushing for it as a way out of the current bind.
This war, we have to risk offending people. We have to have some real civilizational confidence. That's a heck of a lot harder for us than conscription, but it is what would actually work.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at June 27, 2007 5:35 PM
Repeat after me...
respect the alien religion
respect the alien religion....
Dhimmis.
http://legacyeditorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=74933082&cdi=0
at June 27, 2007 6:01 PM
I wonder if the moslems will have some sort of cleaning ritual after all the kufr leave?
Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 27, 2007 6:07 PM
interestingconundrum-
-"I wonder if the moslems will have some sort of cleaning ritual after all the kufr leave?"
They burn a bush.
The same kind of shrub that the Jews will shelter behind on the Mohammedan "Last Day", since it is the only plant on Earth that will not cry out: "O' Muslim, O' servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come kill him!"
(I think GWB overlooked that little part of Islamic teachings. Forgetful fellah.)
at June 27, 2007 6:21 PM
We must remember that when we are making a reply that no true American is Anti-Muslim, but we are all anti-jihad. We in the west need to keep a separation between the two, Muslim and Jihad, or we will wind up looking like hate mongers, and I know in my heart that we, on this site, are not. And as many of us are Veterans of one war or another, we know that the wars were fought for everyone of us, together. I for one fought in my war for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons and Buddhists. For Gays Straights, and in betweens. Blacks Reds, Browns, Yellows and Whites. But on reading some of the replies here it looks like most of us are Anti-Muslim, and I am sure none of us want to leave that impression. Well, most of us anyway.
And I have to tell you, I keep hearing the same drum beat, that the Koran and the Moderate Muslims need to revise their thinking. But in order for the Mods to cause a change in their religion they would need to change their basic beliefs, and cull the radical element from there Religion, and that is just not going to happen. It would much like Christians changing their practice and belief in Cannibalism, and it being so deeply imbedded into Christianity there would be no hope of that ever happening.
Posted by: QuadoLama at June 27, 2007 6:23 PM
Here is an interesting video of an undercover visit to Green Lane Mosque.
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d7d9bf74191e006d8e24&page=1&viewtype=&category=mv
at June 27, 2007 6:27 PM
Maybe GWB should explain this sermon....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article707299.ece
at June 27, 2007 7:13 PM
The last thing we need is a fantical Christian crusader(i.e. Bush) addressing islamic issues. Bush and his ilk brought more devastation and destruction on muslim lands that anyone before him/them. We don't need lecture from someone with muslim blood on his hands.
Posted by: progressive [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2007 4:07 PM
Wrong cupcake. The LAST thing we need is islamofaciests trying to convince people that islam is a religion of peace.The next to the last thing we need is a CIC who paders to this camel dung.
Posted by: ooddballz at June 27, 2007 7:33 PM
Germany: Yusuf Islam and Carlos Santana in Concert
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/06/27/germany-yusuf-islam-and-carlos-santana-in-concert/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 27, 2007 8:00 PM
QuadoLama,
What is the difference between a jihadist and a muslim?
Muslims are obligated to perform jihad aren't they? Muslims are either committing the jihad or aiding and abetting those who are comitting the jihad (which is jihad in itself). If they don't, they know they are going to burn in hell (which is the biggest fear of any muslim).
I don't like hate mongers either (people who go around hating for no apparent reason). But are we supposed to just condemned those muslims that are throwing bombs around or are we allowed to condemned the slower jihad also (money weapon, demographics, using our own laws against us, dawa, etc.)? How are we to know which muslims are performing the slower jihad (finding the ones performing the faster jihad is obvious)?
Don't all muslims worship the same doctrine?
You said yourself that reforming the koran is impossible. "But in order for the Mods to cause a change in their religion they would need to change their basic beliefs, and cull the radical element from there Religion, and that is just not going to happen." If it's impossible, then aren't all muslims obligated to perform jihad as it says in the koran?
Posted by: mrockroll1969 at June 27, 2007 8:05 PM
I read this full article, and it appears that Tony Blair is going to be this special Middle East envoy. I have to laugh. Like diplomacy hasn't been tried for a century!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286788,00.html
Posted by: Cinder at June 27, 2007 8:12 PM
Progressive
The radical muslim (almost redundant) blood on Bush's hands is one of his few redeeming qualities. If you live in this country you should perhaps be a little concerned about your own blood or maybe leave while there is still time. That isn't a threat..just a warning from someone very concerned for your safety and welfare.
Posted by: pismopal at June 27, 2007 8:19 PM
I really could care less about these sorts of speeches. The fact is, the Muslims are what they are.
Instead of going around expressing platitudes, I'd rather see Bush try much harder to stop the Iranian nuclear program. My message to him is: Forget about making friends with them, just concentrate on protecting us from them.
at June 27, 2007 8:24 PM
mrockroll1969
Yes, you are right, I see the same thing in the faster and the slower ones. But I cant help but think that if you are going to take the Bible and Christian dogma as, well... gospel, then it would be repugnant to practice Cannibalism every week. Lets say you are from the Trobriand Islands, and Margret Mitchell just convinced you to stop eating people. Now she invites you to go to church with her, and during the service they have communion. Now, you just stopped drinking blood, and eating flesh, as you were told it was bad, and now they want you to see them doing it, at least in a symbolic way. I'm sure you can see how it would look a little odd to the islanders. Perhaps it is the same with the Muslims. They read how the Christians worship, and they may say to themselves, hummmm.... 'and they think we're nuts'! But we would have no more luck than them of changing that Cannibal-human Sacrifice practice than they would of changing the Rads in their midst
at June 27, 2007 8:37 PM
Radical Muslims are those who voice the teachings of the Qu’ran. Radical Muslims are bad.
Moderate Muslims are those who pray five times a day and pledge allegiance to the man who dictated the Qu’ran. Moderate Muslims are good.
Iranian leadership is bad. Iranian people are good. Iran can’t have nuclear bombs. Can’t let Iran get bomb. Bad for legacy.
Pakistan leadership is good. Pakistani people are bad. That Bolton guy keeps telling me Pakistan is building a new nuclear reactor that can fuel dozens of new bombs each year. He won’t shut up. Can’t let bad Pakistani people overthrow good Pakistani leader. Must send F-16s. When he snubbed me in that book tour, he was just having a bad day.
Posted by: pez at June 27, 2007 8:49 PM
It would much like Christians changing their practice and belief in Cannibalism, and it being so deeply imbedded into Christianity there would be no hope of that ever happening. - QuadoLama
What?
Posted by: MarisolJW at June 27, 2007 9:26 PM
QuadoLama: "We must remember that when we are making a reply that no true American is Anti-Muslim, but we are all anti-jihad. We in the west need to keep a separation between the two, Muslim and Jihad, or we will wind up looking like hate mongers, and I know in my heart that we, on this site, are not."
You are right, there must be a separation of Islam, which is a personal belief system, and Jihad, which is an aggressive supremacist political system, totalitarian and hideously violent. The deceits of those who harbor a personal faith not -peaceful is what needs to be rooted out. Somewhere in between these two extremes of a peaceful personal faith in God, called Islam, and the abhorantly low human behavior of political Islam, called Jihad, there must be the 'moderate' voices of Islam. Unfortunately, they have not yet been found, and that is the sad truth of it. Critics of Islam are often apostates, who themselves labor under death threats. Apologists of Islam often remain ill informed of Islam's imperialist history, or stated objectives of a world wide totalitarian Sharia based ummah. Where do you draw the line for who is a 'moderate' and who is the 'extremist' fundamentalist of Islam, without becoming branded a 'hate monger' or Islamophobe, especially if that line if further blurred by 'takkyia'? There is the problem we of the free world must face. Is there a solution to this? Probably, but it is not an attractive solution, since it means deportation of all Muslims who support Jihad, and condemning the fundamentals of the religion as a violent cult group. Do you know how many people would be dragged in that net in Europe and America? How do you solve that problem, and still respect the First Amendment, of a separation of church and state, a truly American ideal?
Can you see how it is so much more complicated than simply saying 'hate mongers'?
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at June 27, 2007 9:40 PM
I first attacked Bush's dhimmism, the day after he declared "Islam is peace" at the Islamic Center of DC, on Sept. 16, 2001. We had 5 days of Muslim humility and fear until that surrender. Within 30 days of same, al-Jazeera felt sufficiently bold to cheerlead Taliban/al-Qaeda terrorists, as US planes were wasting smart bombs on Pashto rubbish. Almost 6 years later, the Pastho President of Afghanistan is lecturing NATO on civilian casualties, while giving Taliban a pass on their use of human shields. Not only has Taliban's 5% take of the opium crop expanded; 5 years of limited war folly has enabled them to support open heroin processessing. And this poison is debilitating the West, under protection of the Bush crime family.
In Iraq, in order to sustain Bush's Potemkin Village of anti-terrorism, US troops are forced to conduct useless 24-7 turkey shoots, posing as patrols. Any use of coercion in aid of field intelligence is prohibited as a threat to Bush's depraved notion of "freedom."
In Egypt, 80% of the 19,000 jihadi animals that were held in prison on 9-11 have been released because of Bush's suicidal indulgence of political Islam. Islamofascists now form either the official or unofficial opposition throughout the Islamic world. Then there is Gaza. As for Iran and Syria, Bush has done absolutely nothing to challenge those aggressive abominations. Secularism had strong roots in the ME on 9-11; Bush has all but murdered that ideology.
Screw Bush Derangement Syndrome BS; the problem is American monarchism. The Conservative temper actually admired his serial dispatch of mentally retarded men to Texas gas chambers. Why does he go to extreme lengths and depthless depravity to support inclusion of Muslim Brotherhood and Wahabi pigs, in pseudo democratic processes? Why did he back French fascists on the hijab issue? Why can't he understand that jihadism is inherent to Islam, and Muslims will wage final jihad should his nation-building atrocities reach suicide point?
The explanation of George Walker Bush can be discerned from David Frum's insider book, "The Right Man." According to Frum, King George the 4th, gathered a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim in the Oval Office, and informed them that without faith he would still be a depressed alcoholic. By projecting generalized faith as a cure for his dypsomania, he is given global reinforcement of his lust for the bottle. By supporting the mortal Muslim enemy as part of a global Alcoholics Anonymous, he is given impetus to refrain from drinking. Clips from Letterman and Kimmel, attest to the effects of over a decade of drunken debauchery. The man is dry drunk. But why does he have so many supporters? Majorities do not understand either Islam or the effects of excessive reliance on individuals who happen to be pushed into high office. Bush is the modern version of U.S. Grant. He is incapable of excercising common sense.
The Global War on Terror can only be won if Western Civilization both reverses the importation of jihadis, and forces the remnants of Secular Muslims to do our killing for us. Bush wants jihadis to vote; a good President would want them to die, and by the tens of millions. The best prescription would be for Republicans to rise against Goof-One - particularly on Kosovo and the insane East European missile folly - and toss him to the political wolves. He can have his Saudi financed library, just like his oil patch doormat father.
$800,000,000,000 + Bush = catastrophe
Posted by: supercargo at June 27, 2007 9:55 PM
Just think for a moment, however, about what we do not see: we don't see comprehensive programs in American mosques to teach against the jihad ideology and political Islam, and the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the non-establishment clause.
We don't see these things cuz the Islamic Fictive Reality persists. It persists cuz of the Marxism infestation in our public discourse, and because the bullshit-consuming public (lapping up distortions fed to them by CNN, A2, Fox News, BBC, CBS, etc.) have not yet received a sufficient shock to decouple their ignorant minds from the false assumptions they've been fed by extremely unprofessional journalists, educators, permanent government workers, et al.
Gonna take an Atomic Moment to make the public confront the Truth. History teaches that an Atomic Moment will take place. And maybe the firing by their respective networks of ultra-ignoramouses Bill, Chris, Hugh, Tim, and of course the world-leading ignoramous Keith, whose obtrusive and inexcusable ignorance on DixieCrats propelled him to big money stardom. Who better to plumb the complexities of Taqiyya and Jihad than the star of Dumbass Florida Presidential Election Conspiracy Theorist, Keith?
Let us have that Nuclear moment, then we'll see what we're made of. Not before.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at June 27, 2007 10:03 PM
But, but - George W (and all the Bushes, actually) are really fond of Prince Bandar. I'm sure Bandar behaved well (was polite, kind, attentive, and reasonable) while he was here hobnobbing with the First Family. Therefore: Islam is peaceful, and Muslims are moderate. Bush is certain of this because he knows Bandar.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at June 27, 2007 10:05 PM
The post-Blair lunatocracy of the UK wants to hand Islamic curriculum to the Islamofascists, and turn public financed education centers into mosques.
http://ummahnewslinks.com/2007/06/25/report-on-the-teaching-of-islam-in-universities.aspx
Notice how dhimmis NEVER attack Muslims for oppressing religious minorities in Koranimal entities? Of course, Bush and Blair set terrible examples of ass-kissing.
Posted by: supercargo at June 27, 2007 10:08 PM
Addendum (to my above): You have two religions here posing as one, the personal faith of Islam, and the political faith of Islamic Jihad. How do you separate the two?
By our First Amendment, we are powerless if we treat Islam as one religion. But by the same First Amendment, we can pry open the can of worms Jihad represents. Our US Constitution does not offer safe passage for violent religious cults. The FBI makes sure of that. So we must separate the two sides of Islam, into a "divide and conquer" model, so that we can address the deceitful and violent parts of the religion without violating their religious freedoms to a personal faith. This is a very hard job, which unfortunately the likes of Bush and Rice et al are not up to the job. Who do we have in our political leadership who understands the problem here? Asking for help from so called 'moderates' of Islam is not the solution, but part of the problem. They will not reveal who among them is purely Muslim by personal faith, and who is Muslim by political Jihad faith. Find the answer to this problem, and perhaps we have the separation of church and state on our side. Fail to solve this problem, and they win. We had better get better leaders in this fight, because if we fail here, then the worst of humanity will rise to power, that Arab Jihad will rule over us, either with violence or soft-jihad with out own laws, and our freedoms will be destroyed. Are we ready for this fight, not a fight against a religion, but against two religions, one benign and other evil? Or else, if we are not ready, then we might as well say the "blah blah blah", and accept our own defeat before the first shot. We need more enlightened leadership. Where are the Jeffersons and Adamses of our day?
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at June 27, 2007 10:20 PM
It would much like Christians changing their practice and belief in Cannibalism, and it being so deeply imbedded into Christianity there would be no hope of that ever happening. - QuadoLama
What?
Posted by: MarisolJW
That was my reaction too. I think he is equating the sacrament of communion - the body and blood of Jesus (never mind that it is bread and water and wine) to cannibalism. He sees the words "body and blood" and can't get past them.
That's the problem with Islam. They take everything literally. Symbolism is lost on them.
QuadoLama,
Jesus wasn't advocating even symbolic cannibalism. He was here to sacrifice His life (not collect booty, like your "prophet") and this was the last thing He did with the apostles - share bread and drink at the Passover.
Posted by: PMK at June 27, 2007 10:46 PM
I hope when the Bush family finally leaves Washington, nobody trips on the way out; I don't want any delays.
I'm with the vast majority of posters above -- George W. and crew can't leave soon enough. The utter lack of foresight it takes to make the choices he and his cabinet have made over the course of the past year makes me want to retch on my office floor and today's move was like that tiny little breath mint.
"Somebody bring me a bucket."
Posted by: Foehammer at June 27, 2007 10:47 PM
PEW poll: support for US collapsing on a global scale. Could be that Goof-One is projecting US weakness.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2742510720070627
Hmmm...Charles Johnson - littlegreenfootballs - has at long lost been reading Spencer-Fitz. Goof-One is taking daily hits from CJ.
Posted by: supercargo at June 27, 2007 10:50 PM
It is therapeutic to have fun with Bush because:
(1) He deeply deserves to be ridiculed.
(2) When it boils down to it, there is really not much that individuals can do in a Country of 300 million people (other than family preparedness).
But the President is just a reflection of the electorate. Jefferson noted that people get the governments that they deserve. The American electorate deserves George Bush because the concept of competing for resources has become alien to our collective consciousness. Over half of Americans get a significant percentage of their income from the government and probably can’t imagine the concept of not getting an annual cost of living allowance.
Japanese companies who work with American executives have some saying I can’t translate but boils down to once an American makes it big, he usually stops working hard. The condition is probably a genetic defect in white people.
Right now, we’re coasting on the accumulated inertia of lots of hard work along with some borrowed money. I’m not sure if a few nuclear explosions would wake us up. My bet is that we won’t remember what we are made of until the money runs out. Then we get the Second American Republic (heck, France is already up to five). There will be no Islam in the Second American Republic.
Posted by: pez at June 27, 2007 11:14 PM
pez: You're right. And that's exactly why, if we're lucky, Muslim terrorists are going to kick our collective teeth in -- not enough to destroy us, but enough to wake up a fresh generation of leaders to oust the complete jackasses that now have the majority of control.
Posted by: Foehammer at June 27, 2007 11:18 PM
QuadoLama said:
"Lets say you are from the Trobriand Islands, and Margret Mitchell just convinced you to stop eating people".
I think you mean the anthropologist Margaret Mead. In Margaret Mitchell's book 'Gone With The Wind', Scarlett gets quite hungry, but to the best of my recollection, she doesn't eat anybody.
I'm not sure which is weaker, your facts or your logic.
at June 27, 2007 11:21 PM
Quodo lama:
I quote you a passage from the Kuran: "And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare against them; levy the poor tax upon their conversion to the ways of al-lah."
(Surah 9.5)
Islamic doctrine as taught through the verses of the Kuran teach first degree murder (against the so-called "unbelievers") as in the above passage from the Kuran. First degree murder is a capital crime in most western democracies including the United States(I have no idea where you are from --would that be Mars per chance?). That is reason enough for anyone being anti-islam.
The US Constitution has a passage about 'cruel and unusual punishment'--something Islam is full of (beheadings, amputations, crucifixions, disembowelments, burnings, stonings, whippings, and beatings to name a few sanctioned by the Kuran). These Islamic punishments ARE clearly un-American as they are unconstitutional. NOT opposing any of these unconstitutional punishments would be un-American! (Islam does not recognize any legal system other than its own one, the sharia't).
There is absolutely nothing that can be done by anyone (Muslim or otherwise) to change, reform or make Islam less violent--its doctrines from the Kuran are taken by Muslims to be straight from the supposedly almighty al-lah. Therefore millions of Muslims intend to exercise their supposedly allah-given right to massacre "unbelievers" on their way to (as Islam commands them to do)controlling the entire world and the rest of the world is targeted for death whether they like it or not.
Islam is therefore an open threat to liberty of all persons (there is no room in Islam for individual choices and there is no room or tolerance for anyone deviating from the narrow path of human bahevior set forth by the Kuran). Islam is also a threat to the life and limb of all persons non-Muslim. Why shouldn't non-Muslims oppose such an ideology??? Because it's not 'nice'??? Who really cares if it's not nice to be against Islam when Islam istelf isn't 'nice'???
Islamic terror has now become a threat to the entire world community (it is obtaining nukes and other weapons of mass destruction to make war against the "unbelievers" as the Kuran instructs Muslims to do)) and Islamic leaders actually do little to conceal this either. The trouble is people in the western democracies listen to nonsense like the line you wrote (you know which one I refer to).
Being opposed to Islam is NOT un-American in any way, shape, or form. We therefore find your thesis ridiculous and disingenuous. And that is putting it nicely.
ps: If you are a non-Muslim the Kuran claims that you are the descendant of an ape or a pig!
Posted by: pythagoras at June 27, 2007 11:26 PM
pythagoras
Thanks for saving me some time I can use to fry some bacon. You said it well.
QuadoLama
I think what you are saying, in effect, is that to fear the rise of seditious, violent Islam and call for its destruction (or at least containment-- after some destruction) is not to say that one need condemn all muslims because of their religion.
It is fairly certain that many muslims are "regular folks" who are not especially informed or enthused about the details of the Koran or sharia. Whether they are 75% or 45% or 20% of the umma is irrelevant. The fact remains that their allegiances will always be with fellow muslims, even the really bad ones, as against any infidel. It is apparent by now that there is really a continuum and NOT a bipartite body of followers of Islam. The "good muslim/bad muslim" ("moderate"/jihadist) oversimplification needs to be thrown out-- there is no parsing out of radicals to leave behind the peaceful throngs. The distribution of fanatic wahabbi literature by the Saudis, our allies in oil politics only, to mosques around the world highlights this complexity. And we are not even fighting back on this level.
Roughly in order we have terrorists, fundamentalists, activists, sympathizers, "undecided" and finally the ones we could possibly live in harmony with. The growth trend is from the last toward the first by all accounts. So-called leaders, imams and mullahs, help direct traffic and their ongoing radicalization is likely the greatest long term threat of all.
Muslims may or may not ever ackowledge the koran as the divide source of what the rest of the world considers to be barbaric, anti-humanitarian behavior. You cannot change what you will not see. Until then, or until their defeat, our imperative is our own survival and not theirs.
Posted by: lycaste at June 28, 2007 12:22 AM
..we are on our own...the politicians have decided on a path of amnesty for illegals and
the big bend over for muslims..watch out for yourself if you dont live in a gated community like the rich..
at June 28, 2007 12:29 AM
Pez.. I saw you trash Hackworth as a "shmuck"..
on another thread..would you care to further substantiate that comment..?..Hackworth resigned his commission in vietnam in protest of the policies..also was the most decorated soldier of our modern times with 6 silver stars..why is he in your opinion..a shmuck?
at June 28, 2007 12:35 AM
Pez..recommended reading:"Once An Eagle" by Col. David hackworth...I knew him..many would take umbrage at your appelation.."shmuck"
Posted by: Madduck at June 28, 2007 12:56 AM
Hackworth the reporter was all about Hackworth in my humble opinion. His articles were self serving and completely biased by the small periscope through which he viewed national defense. Again, my opinion.
The word schmuck was used because of the personal manner which Hackworth went after Boorda, using the Newsweek megaphone to attack the good man's character over something twenty years old and insignificant. Boorda was a man of deep conscience and is dead as a direct result of Hackworth's personal attacks. Boorda should have been stronger but he wasn't, and I think Hackworth knew it.
In any case, Hackworth's combat service is deserving of respect. In retrospect, I should have used a different word. I knew Boorda, so blame an old personal grudge.
Posted by: pez at June 28, 2007 1:14 AM
thanks for the response ,Pez..but Boordas death can not be attributed to Col. Hackworth but only to his own action., but i understand your perspective..and there is no reason to imagine Hackworth knew of Boordas fragility..in any case
I suspect Hack regeted his actions in this regard..but i cant speak for him.
at June 28, 2007 1:25 AM
PMK,
Well said! I think the first step for the U.S. government is to quit recognizing Islam as a religion. It is a political organization hiding behind the special status religion enjoys under our constitution.
Posted by: rational
at June 28, 2007 1:33 AM
http://www.hackworth.com/"He was twice awarded the Army’s second highest honor for valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, along with 10 Silver Stars and eight Bronze Stars. When asked about his many awards, he always said he was proudest of his eight Purple Hearts and his Combat Infantryman’s Badge."
at June 28, 2007 1:52 AM
If we are to survive in America...our government need to get off it's buns in offices and realize moderate muslims are snakes in grasses and taking from us all. I don't see where muslims is a big help to America. I see them using medicaid!!! I am sure they have food stamps too :\.
On the Compounds..the muslims were paying 10 percent of their income (now it's 30 percent of their income) to Islamic terrorist in Pakistan. (This was told from a muslim from Red house Compound on Fox news.)
Now that we know they are supporting "terrorist's"...why aren't the Compound's shut down and those American Muslims charged with treason?
A lot of unanswered questions!!!
I am wondering about Bush... and I voted him in. He is weakening and giving in to "wrong". He is for amnesty...I am against amnesty. Who come's across the southern border with illegal aliens?
What really happen to the Professional Wrestler and his family? What really happen to the lady in Texas and her children? What really happen to the man and his children up north!!! The news say they all were murder /suicide! Baloney!
This is a pattern! All three incidences had family members dead..and the woman hanged, the man hanged, and the Professional Wrestler hanged.
they say he sent text messages after he kill his wife and son? Anyone can do that!
I get the feeling that all these families deaths were planned by "you can imagine who I am thinking".
We need to change our government(get the socialist elite out)! We need to close our borders and have people come in here legally and work out a plan for people to work here. We need to take care of the gang problem in America (Gangs and muslims work together) and we need to fingerprint and have an ID (eye scan) on every Muslim in America...and we need to close those Compounds. Because they are too secretive on the Compounds!!! Of course our government is becoming so Communistic...what do they care!
American People will have to stand up and fight for this country!
Posted by: Cher at June 28, 2007 2:18 AM
OT
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1996680.ece
An Egyptian billionaire financier who feared for his life after being accused of being a Mossad spy was found dead outside his Mayfair flat yesterday in suspicious circumstances.
[-]
Posted by: Borg at June 28, 2007 2:56 AM
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1859317.ece
[-]
Renewed uproar over female circumcision
A new NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) television report on the circumcision of Norwegian girls in Somalia has reawakened focus on the problem.
Labour politician Anniken Huitfeldt wants to target the circles where the problem of female genital mutilation is most likely.
Labour Party politician Anniken Huitfeldt wants girls from Somalia and other at-risk nations to undergo regular physical checks.
Huitfeldt told newspaper VG that she proposes that every family that comes from Somalia and other at-risk countries must sign a document saying that the circumcision of family members must not happen.
[-]
Posted by: Borg at June 28, 2007 3:04 AM
Hackworth first served in WW2. He was 15 in 1945, and used fake ID.
At the end of his life, he used his website to advocate for veteran's rights. He was critical of troop-grinding of any kind, including show-our-inertia patrols.
And he was quick to answer his e-mail.
Posted by: supercargo at June 28, 2007 3:18 AM
This is truely scary! Islams's true enemy ...
radicals,,,I think they are getting rid of them!
What kind of radicals?..,,,like did he see Rosie's
kid? That is a message to me about you Bush! She does not like you! American jihadist! Explosive!
What is that message?.. I switch the sentence around..Islam's enemy is true radicals...Islam is a true radical enemy . . . .lets c ....this country is in trouble!!!....,,, I am starting to think different about some things..now.. for metal
bent.., I am with you guys. . .
at June 28, 2007 3:48 AM
OT
Muslim pupils urged to boycott school meals
By Nick Evans
Comment | Read Comments (41)
HALAL ROW: Muslims have been urged to choose vegetarian options at school
MUSLIM pupils are being urged to boycott school meals containing meat over fears it may not be halal.
The Lancashire Council of Mosques (LCM) has written to all mosques in the county and urged parents to ensure their children stick to vegetarian options or take a packed lunch.
It came after Lancashire County Council and Blackburn with Darwen Council switched their meat suppliers this month - prompting fears that halal standards might not be met with the new products.
[-]
Halal meat means to make one cut of the throat and let the animal bleed to death while making a prayer. This is supposed to be more humane? The comments section has "Aisha" calling the western way of stunning an animal first 'cruel and barbaric'. I wonder if she has ever seen a chicken that has had it's throat cut? Don't stand too close Aisha!
at June 28, 2007 3:50 AM
Islam reveals the problem with hiring Evangelicals to hold high office, they embrace evil in hopes it will reform with an eye on Jesus to save the day.
I want a person free of beliefs in the last days to defend the constitution , not a kook looking for a guy in the sky to come smite my enemies.
at June 28, 2007 3:53 AM
Radicals, sounds like a big space! He is calling them radicals! People that chop peoples heads off!
What do they have to do to deserve their true name? Not true radicals, oh, true islam enemie is radicals that hijacked (whered he get that word) such a peacefull religion! kiss, kiss, who is he talking to?...I guess the radicals I know are just wussies!? That is to bad they will not like to hear this!
at June 28, 2007 4:18 AM
Radical Muslims are those who voice the teachings of the Qu’ran. Radical Muslims are bad.
Moderate Muslims are those who pray five times a day and pledge allegiance to the man who dictated the Qu’ran. Moderate Muslims are good.
Whats the difference? Mo was an evil guy, anyone that holds allegiance to Mo is evil.
at June 28, 2007 6:07 AM
"Drawing a distinction between moderation in the practice of Islam and those seeking to use the faith for what he described as radical political ends, the president said "it is these radicals who are Islam's true enemy."
You have to give President Bush credit for trying to engage the elusive moderates to monitor what goes on in their mosques, schools and communities. Attempting to get these 'moderates' to see that radicalism is against the best interests of the survival of Islam in any civilized country is a purely political tactic, a a win-win scenario for Muslims and for the civilized world.
The problem is that the survival of Islam is not in the best interests of the civilized world. The survival of Islam in Islamic countries (where one intolerant tyrant reigns supreme over the populus through beheadings, stonings, beatings, chopping off hands and feet, etc.) will continue as long as moderates refuse to confront the violent and evil messages which justify such inhumanity.
If Islam survives its transplantation to the civilized world (at the expense of the host civilization), what will result will be neither civilized, nor humane.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at June 28, 2007 8:28 AM
Modify "win-win scenario" to "theoretically a win-win scenario."
Personally, I'm for reciprocating the same religious tolerance to Islam that Islam extends to Christianity and all other religions.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at June 28, 2007 8:34 AM
"It is the radicals, Bush said, who stage "spectacular attacks" against Muslim holy sites to divide Muslims and push them into fighting each other, conducting "acts of butchery ... in the name of Allah."
Mr. President, they conduct "acts of butchery" several times a day in the very place that you have visited, i.e., mosques. They saw off the heads of animals 5 times a day in mosques. Was it this butchery that you were talking about ?
Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 28, 2007 9:15 AM
The dhimmitude of the Catholic Church or Orthodox church is nothing, compared with our politicians, this Bush´s sentences is for crying, it´s too much sad.
Posted by: Franze at June 28, 2007 10:58 AM
Eastern Christians and Jews will be sacrificed once again because of games in American internal politics.
Every time I hear argument that USA helped muslims in ex-Yugoslavia and therefore can't be accused for anti-muslim policy, I get a MASSIVE diarrhoea.
Bush became Clinton, uses his disgusting argumentation. Nightmare... Can American policy ever be changed? Preferably before it's too late? Looks like it can't. Well, that's it, last chance for redefining American role in the world has gone, America is hostage to its own power prepositions, deceiving and twisted liberalism...
And who will help eastern Christians and Jews? Hopefuly someone else...
Sad, selfdestructive and disapointing.
So long and thanks for all the fish...
Posted by: WallsofByzant at June 28, 2007 12:14 PM
materialguy
Yes, you are correct, but you didn't address the point.
pythagoras
like every one else, you didn't do the math!
The whole point was to compare the 2 religions in their refusal to revise their nonsense. Velikovsky, in "worlds in collision', from the early 50s, set out to explain scientifically, how the bible was true. Now, we all know that was nonsense, but it was not until the mid 70s that Sagan made a reply to 'Worlds', in 'Broca's brain'. It took over 20 years to dispel, in writing, the Velikovsky clap-trap, but every frickin one of you refuses to address the fact of Christian ritual Cannibalism, instead, you spout some Islam crap to show how evil they are. Plz refer to the first post, the hate-monger ditty.
And if you will see this as the same as Spencer addressing Islam point by point, you may find that it is the same as Sagan and the Myths for Christianity. Perhaps that is all that will be needed to cause a change in Islam, a good dose of social ridicule.
But most of you need to wake up. Muslims are here, and here they will stay. Do you really want to turn them into 'victims' of the white man. Can any of you tell me if there are classes or races of people here in the USA that resent white men, and feel they have been oppressed? When you address the illegal immigration here in the US do you go after the Mexicans? NO! You go after the Gov for it's lack of immigration enforcement. But you refuse to see how you are the one that has made it happen. (the flood of immigrants into the US) So c'mon man, all religions need to be revised in some way or other. What we need to do is a little 12 step work here in the USA, before we go after anyone else
ps: I was raised by wolves, so the pig & Ape analogy can not be used here. Oh and BTW, I was raised Quaker and we think all of you are wrong!
Posted by: QuadoLama at June 28, 2007 1:55 PM
Battle_of_Tours
"Can you see how it is so much more complicated than simply saying 'hate mongers'?"
Yes, thx for that, it is far more complex than just kicking people out, or creating some test in order to stay here. I guess the point here is that we must cast the mote for our own eye first. Muslims are here, and here they will stay, no matter who is in office. So lets deal with that reality. How would any of us like it if every time we went to a site some Black guy was saying "we need to kill whitie", "death to the White Man"! Or by the same token, how will we react when we go to a Islam site and they are saying that? I just feel that we give up the moral high ground when we stoop to doing that. We need to believe that we are in the right here, not be brought down to that level. We need to believe that Spencer and his winning smile can defeat Islam on an intellectual level.
Posted by: QuadoLama at June 28, 2007 2:25 PM
QuadoLama, I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point here...
Main problem is the idea of islamist supremacy. We all believers believe in one God and one church and therefore we think that our religion is best way of serving the God.
Problem arises on two parallel tracks.
First is basic, practical one. West is nowdays mainly eather atheist or gnostic. Combined with liberal values it is complex but balanced and productive system. But when aggressive alien element is introduced, balance is broken and new equilibrium is achieved trough period of instability. Someone prevails. Like the way Mother Nature handles the situation.
Second thing is very esence of islamist doctrine. While Christian conquest was/is mainly because of short term political gain or matherial gain onlu covered by religious convictions, i.e. because of frailty inherent to normal human being, muslim conquest was/is ORDERED from God.
Consequence of the first part of the problem is that Western society lacks effective mechanism to adress the problem, mechanism that wouldn't jeopardise fundaments of western system. But this dilemma is wrongly put in the first place. Solution to a problem of balance-shaking magnitude must be sought outside of conventional wisdom. If whole system is endangered, cure must be sought outside the system, in wider enviroment. System couldn't predict this, because is based on presumption that it is perfect and no same person would reject it.
When one fight for God's will, nothing can stop him. It can be compared with ideological extremism, common in Europe in the 20th century or even better, with Japanese WW2 fanatics. Answer to this isn't christian fundamentalism. Rather, muslims will have to adjust to rools which are same for all in the West. Simple as that.
Posted by: WallsofByzant at June 28, 2007 9:09 PM
QuadoLama
By singling out the Christian-Muslim rift you ridicule the premise of the threat of Islam to all non-mulsims around the world. They are intent, or, for accuracy, enough of them are intent, on defeating the Communists, atheists, agnostics, deists and religious of all stripes. There are obvious reasons to focus on the historic and renewing opposition in Christian sects but it misses the larger point.
It always sounds like a "reasonable" argument when someone tries to balance things out by saying "Clean up your own house before you go after someone else." But that is not how human behavior works. It is querky, unpredictable, rash and plain scary often times. When a group feels very strongly that they are threatened by a lethal and growing force, you will find rational dialog only on the surface. Many posts here are from below that surface as should be obvious to anyone.
Are you suggesting that perhaps Western Muslims will one day settle in, as the Japanese and Germans have? That is a hopeful proposition and one worth hoping for, but it also assumes that some force/s will have taken effect on Islam so that militant radicalism is no longer a viable means for them to advance their cause. It will also have the effect of halting the subversive use of law and subtle forms of coercion to implement sharia and otherwise make inroads into non-Arab lands.
That force is us- those who are concerned and undistracted.
at June 28, 2007 11:35 PM
"But most of you need to wake up. Muslims are here, and here they will stay. Do you really want to turn them into 'victims' of the white man. Can any of you tell me if there are classes or races of people here in the USA that resent white men, and feel they have been oppressed?"
You are right to point out that we need a plan to minimize the damage from Muslims already here. It isn't worth setting a precedent of selectively overturning rights of citizenship when we have other ways of dealing with the problem.
You are WRONG WRONG WRONG to compare our situation with Muslims to the situation with Native Americans or blacks, and I think the only reason you have for doing that is that you see dark-skined people as weak victims and white-skinned as strong potential oppressors. Basically, I think it is racist.
First, look at what people are DOING before looking at their skin. Organizing Jihad as a voluntary immigrant (legal or otherwise) is extremely different from hunting buffalo on your anscestral lands in the Dakotas, or being captured on your land in Africa and by Arab slave traders and being sold to plantation owners in Georgia, or whatever.
Second, remember the Persians and Egyptians and Iraqis had civilization long before the whites did, back when whites were living not much differently than the American Indians were: primitive, tribal hunter-gatherers. Islam dealt those civilisations a death blow, and they have been in pitiful decay since it established dominancy over them. That could be you; your grandchildren could be then. Your skin color will protect you FAR less than their long and noble histories protected them; it doesn't symbolize any sort of superiority whatsoever.
Going back to the first point: The potential damage CAN be minimized without methods that themselves challenge our civilization. Especially in the US.
FIRST: Secure the borders so that we aren't just hampering people going by the law while people willing to break the law to terrorize can just sneak in.
SECOND: Stop further immigration of people who are not ideologically compatible with the constitution. There are ways of doing this without referencing religion explicitly. Cultural screening tests, quotas on immigration from Muslim-majority countries.
THIRD: Apply pressure to assimilate those already here. Apply laws about incitement to violence. Focus especially hard on any cases of child and spousal abuse that occur systematically for cultural reasons - FGM, polygamy, death threats for dating men parents don't like; these sorts of things.
FOURTH: This is more applicable in Europe, because our Muslims are fewer in number and better educated, but it IS possible to offer voluntary one-time sums to get unassimilated but legal resident or citizen Muslims to go back to their nations of origin. They sign a contract, get a sum, and PROVIDED THE BORDERS ARE PROPERLY ENFORCED, don't come back.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at June 29, 2007 12:32 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.)