Everything happened in a moment. Two persons in black niqabs ... came into the bank. I thought they were ladies,’ the Sarajevo daily Oslobodjenje quoted bank customer Mehmedalija Komarac as saying.

Maybe they were ladies; gad, there is no telling what is lurking under those black niqabs.

Posted by: witness at July 4, 2007 9:50 PM

Good, yes this is good!
Add it to the list of reasons why burkhas should be banned. Keep 'em coming!

Posted by: Gramfan at July 4, 2007 9:52 PM

It's the Serbs' fault! All that ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo caused it to happen.

Similarly, the standoff at the Lal Masjid is the fault of the Indians.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 4, 2007 10:06 PM

One of the reasons Western societies dislike Muslim veiling of women is neatly illustrated by this incident: Veils and other face covering impede identification, which can be crucial in a criminal case. That's why bandits often wear masks.
Ostensibly, according to the liturgy, veiling is for modesty. Yet, it is also often used by Muslim men who wish to hide their identity as insurgents or terrorists. Given Islam's warlike nature, and Muhammed's early life as a bandit, veiling reinforces the image of Muslims as threatening, violent and criminal. Really though, veiling makes sense, as I think Muslims have a lot to be modest about.

Posted by: jewdog at July 4, 2007 10:09 PM

Yes, that's right, attack the culture of millions of people just because two schmucks in Sarajevo got a little creative with their robbery gear. Should we ban Halloween masks too?

Restricting clothing preferences near something like a bank: sensible. Outright ban on an article of clothing because someone might use it as a clever disguise: stupid.

Let's just stick to making fun of two guys who dressed in drag to rob a bank.

Posted by: ThePurpleCow at July 4, 2007 10:10 PM

You beat me to it Gramfan . . .exactly my sentiments. BAN costumes of deceit akaburka, niqab, abaya, hijab, jilbab etc. concealing bruises & cowards.

Posted by: justamomof4 at July 4, 2007 10:12 PM

I've never seen men dressed like women here to rob a bank! Time to unveil!

Posted by: MZ at July 4, 2007 10:17 PM

I guess this is where someone should throw in a proverbial, routine THANK YOU to Clinton, Nato, the UN, Albright and others for turning Bosnia from a Christian/secularist site of inter ethnic and religous cooperation into the Islamic jihadi capitol of Europe, along with Kosovo of course. The stories of Bosnia and Kosovo should be all the rpoof one needs as to why Spencer and friends are so desperately needed now. ANd even if you're convinced the Serb forces did many bad, rotten, reprehensible things in the Bosnian war, which no rational analyst Serb or otherwise of that war denies btw, it's still no reason to not learn about the jihadist nature of the Bosnian 5th corps they were fighting, about what the Serbs dealt with under Islamic rule and what they up against now. So to all those from the past who are 100% serious about fighting violent jihad, at least TRY to understand the current Serb point of view while you rake them over the coals over Srebrenica.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at July 4, 2007 10:19 PM

Mohammedans love to fit the punishment to the crime, yes? Estrogen therapy for every man in Muslimah wear!

Talk about humiliation--they always do--imagine how proud these two Bozos, and the Runaway Imam would feel, when they started to develop boobs!

Posted by: Abscedere at July 4, 2007 10:24 PM

Check out number 6.

From justamomof4's link:

Here are Qur'ans Basic Guidelines on Clothing:

1.Clothing for both women and men should be modest.

2.Clothing should not attract attention...

3.Clothing must cover the entire body; only the hands and face may remain visible.

4.Clothing must hang loose ...

5.The material must thick enough so that no one can see through it.

6.The woman's clothing must not resemble the man's clothing, nor should the man's clothing resemble the woman's.

7.While praying in a mosque, clothing should be plain...

Posted by: Abscedere at July 4, 2007 10:37 PM

justamomof4

Well,,sometimes being in a different time zone can be an advantage,lol!

And while I am at it,I must say you do post some really good stuff.
gramfan aka just a momof2!

Posted by: Gramfan at July 4, 2007 10:40 PM

This is disgusting. What ever happened to the days when mobsters were real men. You never heard of Al Capone, Dutch Shultz, Machine Gun Kelly, dressing in heels to pull a job? They would have been embarrassed to think of going to the morgue dead with eye shadow, lipstick and wearing lace underwear.

This new breed of Islamic mobsters have no pride.

Posted by: rational at July 4, 2007 10:42 PM

The first time I saw a black bag -- it was emerging from a bank. I bumped smack dab into it. I recall my initial shock and horror -- my first thought: "Is the bank being robbed??!!" Then, "no", why, it's a Muslim...that was around 10 years ago. And, yeah, thanks Chretien for turning portions of Canada into little, islamic, Infidels-keep-out, enclaves.

Posted by: J.S. at July 4, 2007 10:49 PM

ThePurpleCow

Don't forget other terrorists have used this ploy to escape authorities as they recently did in the UK, and it is possible there are more such cases we will never know about.

As for Halloween masks:
if the authorites try to arrest someone in a mask they possibly wouldn't plead religion as a reason for not taking the mask off,IMHO. They wouldn't get away with that excuse.

Robbers have used masks forever. A sex-change is a little different, going to the next level, perhaps.

Posted by: Gramfan at July 4, 2007 10:57 PM

PurpleCow,

Your analogy between burkahs and halloween masks doesn't work.

In some societies (as in this case) women wearing burkahs would not draw attention if they walked into a bank or walked down the street. It does work as camouflage for bank robbers or other criminals.

However, a Halloween mask WOULD draw attention immediately if someone walked into a bank wearing one (unless it was halloween and the person was a small kid) or walked down the street when it wasn't in season. If I was in a bank and someone walked in wearing a halloween mask, I'd make a beeline for the nearest exit and dial 911.

Posted by: atheling at July 4, 2007 11:21 PM

Yes, that's right, attack the culture of millions of people just because two schmucks in Sarajevo got a little creative with their robbery gear. Should we ban Halloween masks too?

If you are referring to islam, it is this culture that seems to be attacking and murdering everyone else; according to this so-called culture, they are doing it because they want to subjugate everyone else because everyone else is sub-human. This culture is saying this, I believe them.

Restricting clothing preferences near something like a bank: sensible. Outright ban on an article of clothing because someone might use it as a clever disguise: stupid.

Ban everything related to this so-called culture of millions -- including Halloween masks that look like their prophet.

Let's just stick to making fun of two guys who dressed in drag to rob a bank.

That would be homophobic, no?

Posted by: witness at July 4, 2007 11:23 PM

Men disguised as priests and nuns to rob banks is a frequent occurence in Europe, so what's new in this story? Too bad they only 40k.
Ex-lover of jesus and no lover Judeo-Nazis.

Posted by: progressive at July 4, 2007 11:53 PM

cross dressing muslims,anyone else noticing a trend here?

Posted by: SAtarzan at July 5, 2007 12:20 AM

...Heard at a muslim strip-bar: "Take off the veil, take off the veil!"

Posted by: thibjac at July 5, 2007 12:38 AM

progressive

The burqa is just an Islamic equivalent of a Klans outfit - except that the costume is black instead of white, and worn by Mohammedanettes instead of men.

The equation to halloween masks above is less appropriate.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 5, 2007 12:42 AM

"Men disguised as priests and nuns to rob banks is a frequent occurence in Europe"

FREQUENT??? How often? Give us some statistics!

BTW, how old are you? Your comments reflect the maturity of a 12 year old. Seriously, how old are you???

Posted by: atheling at July 5, 2007 12:46 AM

Quick! Someone blame Slobo.

Posted by: ewha1 at July 5, 2007 12:46 AM

Is it a good idea to ban "progressive" now?

Posted by: wrathofasma at July 5, 2007 12:47 AM

Is it a good idea to ban "progressive" now?

Posted by: wrathofasma

In my books he is getting closer and closer,,,

Posted by: Gramfan at July 5, 2007 1:12 AM

Progressive:

Please give me the stats and incidents that you maintain. I need hard, cold facts. Pictures. News reports. Actual data. Police reports. Interpol reports. Eye witness accounts. The bank cameras.
Please, indulge me.

Posted by: breezy55 at July 5, 2007 1:34 AM

Is it a good idea to ban "progressive" now?

Posted by: wrathofasma

I vote NO. He/She shows a good indication of what the ________________________ (fill in the blank here) are thinking.

Posted by: jay at July 5, 2007 1:38 AM

Progressive:

Come on. No deal? Please compile your info. We are waiting for it. Justify your dogma. Give us a clue of your sincerity and honesty. I'm, waiting for it.

Posted by: breezy55 at July 5, 2007 1:55 AM

Well in this instance I have to agree that the clothes they were wearing, has little bearing on the crime, except for an investigative lead.

This type of thing is not your usual Islamic atrocity, unless they blew up upon entry to the bank and killed innocent bystanders, THEN it would be business as usual.

I think I can let this go as a CRIME of convenience, rather than a world domination attempt by the Religion of peace.

Posted by: Robert at July 5, 2007 2:24 AM

I remember reading a while back a comment that Hugh made, about people like progressive, he described this type of person as a total regulation of life type of person. Unless of course I misunderstood Hugh.

Posted by: Xena the dog at July 5, 2007 2:37 AM

"progressive" is way past his sell-by date.

Posted by: Audacity at July 5, 2007 3:21 AM

Women in burqas and men with long beards have become a common sight in the Bosnian capital in recent years

Sadly they've become a common sight all over Germany, France and Britain as well. :-(

And a few other spots they don't belong!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at July 5, 2007 3:31 AM

Minimizing vulnerability to categorization as a “hate site” and consequent banning

Only repeated specific demonstrations – not just a general, static statement of principle at the top of each thread -- can adequately counter the very specific impressions created by Robert Spencer's proximity to the ever new comments made at this site, some of which are crudely, some subtly, hateful.

Recall that certain Indian tribes assumed to begin with that the Conquistador and the horse he was riding were a single being. The tribes in question had apparently never seen horses except with Conquistadors on them. Even if Conquistadors had worn a button with words in Indian languages stating "I am distinct from this horse, and the fact that I am riding it should IN NO WAY be construed as indicating it is organically part of me," still, until Conquistadors actually dismounted and perceptually demonstrated their distinctness from horses, the Indians in question would have retained a perceptual and therefore powerful bias that the man and the horse were a single being.

Spencer should on a regular if infrequent basis demonstrate, more specifically than he can do with a mere general statement of principle repeated at the top of each thread, that he is distinct particularly from those of his commenters who support him, and with whom he disagrees with regard to characteristics in their thinking that he considers cross the line from objectivity into something like irrational hate. And perhaps the brief warning at the top of each comments thread should be expanded slightly into a few guidelines on what exactly, in Robert Spencer's opinion, constitutes crossing over the line from objectivity into hate. Robert Spencer should go, however briefly, into the subtleties of that question, and not refer only to things like use of the term "muzzies." Despite his notable sense of humor (I recall something about "bon bons and I Love Lucy recently), Spencer clearly takes his responsibility to reason and fact and the dignity of the individual very seriously, and that ramifies in subtle ways, it seems to me, into what he is willing and unwilling to say. When commenters here who support him say things he finds cross some subtle line and detract from respect for the fundamental values Spencer supports, he should take the trouble occasionally to comment himself and define the difference between his own views and those of the supporter-commenter in question.

I’m not suggesting Spencer delete the comment from the thread if it's not an outrage nor treat the commenter with anything other than the wonted decency and respect most commenters receive and are entitled to. But Spencer should get off the horse once in a while so we Indians can see he really is not part of it: on the thread explain to this or that supporter when the supporter, in Spencer's view, has gone too far. This could be done without implication that the commenter should change and simply as a way for Spencer to outline his own position by contrast.

If Spencer does not wish to contribute to site-visitors misunderstanding him, he should give more consideration to the fact that human beings, or most of us, are fairly concrete and need demonstrations to fully grasp statements of general principle – including the general principle stated at the top of each thread: that his permission of comments here in no way constitutes agreement with those comments.

Posted by: traeh at July 5, 2007 3:34 AM

Yeppers.. time to pull the plug on "progressive".. not nearly entertaining enuff..

At least Nazeem has the "sexy slutty womens" daughter to entertain us with..

Abdullah got arrested in the recent anti-jihadist raid.. but please.. we don't need "progressive" nor this "purple dildo" to make up for these - I am sure - temporary losses..

Give him THE BOOT already!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at July 5, 2007 3:47 AM

Addendum to my long comment above: the comments I urged Spencer to start occasionally making should not be comments but posts. Spencer now and then should as publicly as possible define his differences with commenter-supporters of his. I believe doing that would remove a significant portion -- if still less than half -- of misunderstandings by non-supporters.

Posted by: traeh at July 5, 2007 4:04 AM

Shouldn't taht read:
"Men in burqas and women with long beards have become a common sight in the Bosnian capital in recent years"?
That's what happens when your "prophet" was a pedophile.

Posted by: Timur at July 5, 2007 4:56 AM

:...Judeo-Nazis.

Posted by: progressive "

....doesn't exist.....check out the real history, it was the Muslims who worked hand in hand with the Nazis....I suspect the term Islamo-Nazis would be more correct....

.....as for not loving Jesus...you are certainly free to make your own mistakes....I am certain you have much experience...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 5, 2007 6:13 AM

Good point, traeh. I'll second that. I'm sure we all know Spencer is working himself into the ground, but maybe he could manage a couple of posts a month, such as our inimitable Hugh Fitzgerald is wont to provide. Hugh is saturnine, a bit sarcastic. Robert's stage presence is entirely different. I trust his scholarship, which is rock-solid, and I get a strong sense of him as a person both likeable and cool-headed. NOT a hate-monger...a truth-teller with some fairly unpleasant truths to convey.

Note to self: think, and wait five minutes before posting. Because we DO have an audience, much of it unfriendly, much of it undecided, and much of it completely ignorant.

I visualise this 'comments floor' at jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch as a mix of bunker, war-room, 18th century coffee shop, 1920s pub and Wild West saloon. That's the imagery I used when I posted an ad/ shoutout for jihadwatch at a very different online community that I frequent (devoted to, of all things, literary discussion of Lynn Johnston's comic strip/ sitcom, For Better or For Worse). I quote:

"Shoutout to everyone here - I invite you all to visit the only other online community at which I post - radically different from this one - a red-hot rough and tumble discussion group dealing with THE major issue of our times, the jihad, the assault by the Empire of Islam, that looms like a huge black thundercloud over the sunny little suburban world inhabited by Lynn's oblivious FOOBS."

"I refer to Robert Spencer's 'jihadwatch' site where you will meet Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, atheists, and concerned citizens from many countries reacting to, and dissecting, news items that document the latest activities of our 'friends' in the "Religion of Peace". It's not unlike here, in a way, because often the responses run along the lines of - oh my GOD they're doing that AGAIN!! - BUT it's deadly serious, and very educational, because the regular posters know Islam back-to-front, its texts, its history, the works."

"Compared to cookie's elegant salon where wit and laughter flourish [that is, the FBOFW discussion group and its moderator] Robert's virtual bunker/ war room is a bear pit - or, perhaps, an 18th century coffee shop where religion and politics are fair game and no punches are pulled. Muslim trolls regularly pop out from under the bridge, spitting venom, and get unceremoniously booted back into the water. And yet: cookie's salon represents in its own small way the world of the West, that the jihad desires to destroy, the world of sexual, political, intellectual and emotional freedom - and good manners!; where people argue with each other, convince, persuade, using both reason and laughter, fun and art." (That is, I wanted people on the other forum to understand that from jihadwatch I had learned that the world they were inhabiting - and creating - was in grave danger.)

"The silliest thing Lynn Johnston ever did in her whole life was to criticise the people who published the Mohammed cartoons, and declare that Muslim feelings should have been respected. (She should have remembered her own cartoon where child April bought a poppy from Grandpa for Remembrance Day, and the image in April's head was the Twin Towers burning - because, in telling us to cave in to Muslim tantrums and give up our right to free speech, she [Lynn] betrayed the people who died in those towers)."

And if what I wrote piqued people's curiosity...we might be getting new visitors. I warned them it gets rough at times - but even so, let's most of us try to keep our heads, eh?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 5, 2007 6:29 AM

Hi, i remember a while back JW ran the story of Alan Johnston, the journo kidnapped in Gaza. Now that the issue has been resolved, im rather perplexed by JW's lack of coverage on the matter. Heres some info, Alan Johnston was freed following a concerted effort by the Islamic group Hamas and a reglious edict(fatwah) issued by an Imam. Hamas as you all know were democratically elected by the Palestinians, but democracy was stabbed in the back by our neo-con and zionist friends. Fatah undemocratically obstructed Hamas's right to power and were forced out of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, in what was an amazing military achievement. Also for an attack fought with machine guns, Hamas and Fatahs conflict resulted in less civilian deaths(callateral when done by west, terrorism when its by muslims) than most "precision" Israeli air strikes, infact precision is an accurate word to describe israeli strikes on civilians.
The streets of Gaza are now under the control of Hamas, the party the Palis(who dont exist) voted for, and Gaza is now peaceful and relatively stable, untill the Israeli war machine next decides to unleash some suppressed anger,(something to do with 50 or 60 years ago) I apologize for the Alan Johnston issue not being resolved in the manner which im certain spencer and you lot wanted, may you forgive us for not giving you the ending you wanted, but im sure this ending is one most appreciated by Johnston and his family.

Posted by: ricky at July 5, 2007 6:46 AM

criminals posing as "religious" persons ... hmm

Posted by: TINBH at July 5, 2007 6:56 AM

"I apologize for the Alan Johnston issue not being resolved in the manner which im certain spencer and you lot wanted, may you forgive us for not giving you the ending you wanted, but im sure this ending is one most appreciated by Johnston and his family."
Posted by: ricky

Are you suggesting that Mr. Spencer and the posters here were hoping Alan Johnston had not been released, or even worse, had been murdered by his fanatical muslim captors ?

Whoever you are, ricky, you're dead wrong.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at July 5, 2007 7:45 AM

Ricky, it's not even one 24 hours after the 4th of July, a national holiday in America. Give them time. Unlike the Muslim sites, Robert and company are very fair.

Posted by: Timur at July 5, 2007 8:00 AM

To be fair, you guys do make the compelling argument that the burqa does cause some problems for law enforcement and bank security. I'm not denying that. What I am taking issue with is your automatic jump that this is evidence that "there is a problem with Islam" or that the culture should be invalidated. Granted, this line of thinking would make sense if I bought into your larger ideology that Islam is the clear and present danger of our times because it is a sick and evil cult.

Sure, plenty of terrorist have used them to their advantage. But what about the many, many, many more people that just use them peacefully? I know, Robert spends most of his day cherry-picking news articles that make it seem like muslim terrorist violence is everywhere. And he's got a point, we should know more about these stories; there is no argument with that. Unfortunately, this site presents this information in such a way that people can be tricked into believing that such events represent what the majority of the muslim populations are doing, rather than just the actions of some fringe groups. Believe it or not, there are other explanations out there for what is going on.

Side note: yes, Muslims, particularly in Iraq, did work with the Nazis. Then again, the Nazis were giving those people an opportunity to strike back against their current imperial overlords, the British. The Cossaks sided with the Nazis too, not because they bought the ideology, but because they hated the Russians. So did plenty of European adventurers who bought into the master race ideology, as well as many that just wanted to fight the communists. The Dutch and Belgians had their own SS divisions.......and the most vicious resistance movement, so where does that leave them? So yeah, maybe there were some Muslim leaders that liked the Nazi ideology.......then again, maybe they just cooperated with them to serve their own geopolitical agenda. Kind of like how we sided with the Russian Communists.

Posted by: ThePurpleCow at July 5, 2007 9:39 AM

Traeh--

You're correct about the fact that Robert is extremely busy. (Just yesterday, I told him in an email that I don't know how he keeps the hours he does). And, as he mentions from time to time, he gets a pile of email of epic proportions each day. My point is that, since I have the privilege of working for him (I volunteer my time), I can vouch for the fact that he's busier than a one-armed paper hanger. Thus, if he's not seen a great deal in the comments section, one shouldn't take it personally.

While I don't think of myself as anywhere near an equivalent substitute for Robert, I do try to provide an extra set of eyes on the comments, deleting as necessary. I often explain why I deleted a comment if someone asks, but for all of us, looking in on the comments depends on time.

A troll in another thread just recently suggested we apply some kind of filter. I don't like that idea; I think unmoderated comments imply a certain trust of and respect for visitors, along with the expectation that the trust is not abused. That, and filters are ultimately not smart enough to catch everything, or catch the right things. (They'll often end up blocking unexpected things, like a particular diminutive for the name "Richard.")

It's not that we wouldn't like to provide more oversight and communication if we could; we're a non-profit org and simply don't have the budget to support that kind of infrastructure. We do what we can, and would do more if we could.

I hope I've managed to address some of your concerns.

Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor

Posted by: MarisolJW at July 5, 2007 10:22 AM

Marisol,
I don't think I wrote anything in this thread about Robert being "extremely busy," so I guess you are confusing my comment with someone else's.

I'm very glad that you are a News Editor here, but I can't say I think you addressed my point, much less noticed it. But I can't blame you, since my post was too long.

I'll try reposting the message on another thread eventually. -- Ed

Posted by: traeh at July 5, 2007 2:05 PM

Traeh--

Sorry, I did confuse part of Dumbledoresarmy's comment with yours (apologies to both of you). But I do think I addressed some of the comments situation as far as time and resources are concerned.

We do appreciate the input.

Posted by: MarisolJW at July 5, 2007 3:48 PM

I posted at the Jerusalem Post & advised Israelis to infiltrate Iran & suddenly attack power centers in Tehran disguised in chadors. Would be poetic justice for all enslaved Muslim women.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at July 5, 2007 4:56 PM

To the Purple Cow troll - so, you don't think Islam is a problem?

Look, mate, long before I ever heard of Robert Spencer, long before 9/11, I knew that Islam killed anyone who tried to leave it. I knew that if a Muslim converted to Christianity, their own family would kill them. I had read the Qur'an, and had found it incoherent, totalitarian and terrifying, saturated with spiritual and physical violence. (And I've read the whole Bible cover to cover, so don't pull any garbage about the Bible being the same, because it ISN'T).

Since then, I have learned a lot more. I've re-read the Qur'an, several times, slowly and attentively. That reading, combined with a great deal more that I've learned about the documented - and totally consistent - historical patterns of Muslim conduct in many different places, at many different times, in relation to Unbelievers of many descriptions - Christian, pagan, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu - has convinced me that the problem is, indeed, with Islam. Robert isn't 'cherry picking'. The stories he chooses to post here are, on the contrary, dismally representative.

As for the burqa: besides being a major security problem, it is a health and safety problem.

Moreover: for its wearers and those who meet them, it impedes normal human communication. We humans communicate as much by our facial expression and body language as by our voices. That is the way we are 'hard-wired' to operate. But the burqa, the niqab publicly blots out the faces and seriously obscures even the body language of Muslim women, blocking them from 'transmitting on all channels', so to speak. That seems to me to be psychologically and socially crippling.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 5, 2007 8:32 PM