| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Don't fight back! If you just lie down and let yourself be conquered and subjugated, all will be well. That's essentially the message here. And the views expressed here are by no means unique to the Arabs; they are quite common in the U.S. also. Rashwan's statement, "Al-Qaeda has changed from a medium-sized group to a big network; it has become a franchise and a model for potential self-recruiting terrorists," is absurd on numerous ways. For one thing, the group already demonstrated in the 1990s a capacity to attack on an international level. But even worse is the idea that the U.S. response to 9/11, being responsible for a buildup, is therefore wrong in itself. Certainly, as we have often argued here, it has not been pursued as it should have, but the answer is decidedly not to make no response at all. Imagine an article in 1943 tut-tutting that the U.S. response to Pearl Harbor had led to the Japanese Navy growing from a medium-sized to a large force.
By Samia Hosny for DPA (thanks to all who sent this in):
Cairo - Some six years after the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, many in the Arab world say the US-led "war on terror" is spurring terrorism everywhere and that the world is less safe as a result.The resurgence of al-Qaeda is blamed by many Arabs on the United States, with recent foiled bomb plots in Germany, deadly terror attacks in Algeria, the latest video release by Osama bin Laden as well as the undiminishing daily violence in Iraq and Afghanistan winning yet more converts to this viewpoint.
"The world is much worse than it was before the war on terror," said Egyptian terrorism expert Dia Rashwan. The US-led campaign "created two main hotbeds for terrorism: Iraq and Afghanistan," Rashwan says.
According to Rashwan, the war on terror has given the al-Qaeda network and its ideological brethren ammunition to legitimize their terror ideology and continue their media campaign for the hearts of Muslim youths.
"Al-Qaeda has changed from a medium-sized group to a big network; it has become a franchise and a model for potential self-recruiting terrorists," Rashwan says.
The apparent failure of US strategy in Iraq combined with a comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan are creating a general feeling of "schadenfreude" in the Arab world.
Posted by Robert at September 12, 2007 10:52 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Gee, stay outta my face and all will be well too.
Like that's gonna happen...
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 12, 2007 11:17 AM
Kinda reminds me of when I was a kid, and my big brother used to grab my hand and start hitting my face with it, saying, "Quit hitting yourself! Quit hitting yourself! Why do you keep hitting yourself like that?"
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at September 12, 2007 11:26 AM
...but with bombs.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at September 12, 2007 11:27 AM
Kinda like the old Bobby Knight faux pas:
"If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it."
NO WAY! We have a country because we were willing to fight, and we will KEEP our country because we are willing to fight. These people subscribe to the childish fantasy that if you just hold up two fingers and say "Peace, man" then all will be well. No. Freedom is a relatively new, and incredibly rare, concept in the human race. Bullies have always ruled. Freedom-loving people MUST embrace the dove AND the hawk.
As Orwell said: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
at September 12, 2007 11:39 AM
The US-led campaign "created two main hotbeds for terrorism: Iraq and Afghanistan," Rashwan says.
....more like, " The US-led campaign has openly exposed the hidden agenda of the Muslims"...
...Thanks to US efforts the world is more aware of the Islamic threat of world domination....What the real world decides to do with this information remains to be seen....
...it appears the worlds leaders love sticking their heads into the sand....
...Ban Muslim Immigration
Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 12, 2007 11:41 AM
The old line used to be "don't fight back" it will be over soon. If you fight back you will end up getting hurt or worse.
Now they say to fight back and yell, etc. Turns out you are just as likely to get hurt.
Sounds like Jihadists are giving us the old advice to rape victims. Maybe this is why women need to walk around in Betkas, covered head to toe.
Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at September 12, 2007 11:44 AM
salahudin Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 11:14 am
anyways, here is a nice perspective on christianity for you and awake:
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html
20 reasons to leave christianity. by Chaz Bufe
here’s the list
1. Christianity is based on fear
2. Christianity preys on the innocent
3. Christianity is based on dishonesty
4. Christianity is extremely egocentric
5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism
7. Christianity is cruel
8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
10. Christianity produces sexual misery
11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
13. Christianity depreciates the natural world
14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
15. Christianity sanctions slavery
16. Christianity is misogynistic
17. Christianity is homophobic
18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings
19. The Bible is riddled with contradictions
20. Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions
it seems, lord vader, that christianity can be argued against using BETTER arguments than the ones you use against islam!
personally i think they’re stretching the truth a bit… just like you stretch the lies about islam.
I guess he hasnt read Robert Spencer's new book.
Posted by: Elric66 at September 12, 2007 11:47 AM
What a typical croc of crap. And rest assured leftist useful idiots everywhere will seize on that lie and run with it.
Of course, they are banking on the widespread ignorance of how extensive Islamic terrorism around the world really is. Places like the Phillipines, Thailand, Dafur, India, Pakistan, Algeria etc, are hardly hotbeds of pro-US sentiment, yet their citizens, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are routinely slaughtered by Islamists hell bent on domination.
Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about what Arabs and Muslims think about anything anymore.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at September 12, 2007 11:56 AM
rashwan statemen, Theirs more al queda now than befor is possibaly right. Thats because my beloved America has not come to tearms with how to define the enemy. If and when America desides to destroy the islamists they will scatter like the vermin they are. Maybe one day soon, we're running out of time but the enemy is known by true Patriots.
Posted by: AMartinez at September 12, 2007 12:00 PM
Blaming the victim is so backwards and is such a convenient excuse for yellow-bellied cowards. Guess the terrorists THEMSELVES are not responsible for the increase in violence in the world today.
at September 12, 2007 12:05 PM
Who says the terrorists are not reading the left's talking points?
Or maybe the terrorists are WRITING the left's talking points.....
Posted by: infidel! at September 12, 2007 12:14 PM
It seems the arabs blame EVERYTHING on the U.S.. This is getting old, we all know that we can rightfully blame most of the worlds problems on the arabs & islam.
Why does it seem that any country that borders an islamic country has problems?
Why does it seem like for the most part people of different religions get along, until islam comes into the equation?
Why does it seem that the only people who face discrimination are islamic? (sarcasm)
What would happen if I brought my bible to Saudi Arabia?
What would happen if my wife walked around without proper attire in Iran?
What would happen if I opened a music shop in Pakistan?
What if I created a cartoon or a story that islam
took offense too?
What would happen if you questioned the authority of the local mullahs?
We know who should be blaming what on whom, and if you ask me, arabs should be glad that Americans are easy going folks. The good ol' Blame Game.
at September 12, 2007 12:15 PM
...and when the heat is on them - point the finger right back. Sort of like them blaming the Jews for all their problems. Now we are looking at their continued support of violent jihad around this globe so they now have to say it is our fault.
Yeah, it is our fault - we made ourselves dependent on their oil.
Posted by: R_not at September 12, 2007 12:19 PM
Arabs blame US for terror rise?
And have the Arabs ever been wrong about anything?
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at September 12, 2007 12:24 PM
You know the problem with all of this? The number of people - who are not muslim, and even those masses of 'moderates' that do believe this crud - that we are to blame for their woes.
They had a chance to take a lot of money, oil money, and do some good with it for them and their people. And the last ones to have a clue as to do such a thing are the Arabs. They are dolts. Morons. And they are dangerous dolts and morons.
Posted by: R_not at September 12, 2007 12:27 PM
A mere echo of this:
"Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport""Nobody move. everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet"
-Mohamed Atta al Sayed, 8:24 AM, 11 September 2001
Posted by: Greek Fire at September 12, 2007 12:34 PM
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Arabs Blame U.S. and Israel for Tsunami--Really!
From The American Thinker:
The January 4, 2005 NBC Nightly News showed clips from alArabiya television, which is popular all over the Arab world, where many commentators seriously "proved" that the Big Satan (the US) and the Little Satan (Israel) set off underground nuclear explosions which resulted in the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
If they are going to assign that much power to the U.S. and Israel, maybe they should start having a little more respect!
Melanie Phillips stated in her linked piece, the giant 9.0 Indonesian earthquake that triggered the tsunami approximated the force of 9500 Hiroshima bombs. My, what power we have. Too bad we couldn't have gotten closer to Iraq.
http://thisisrich.blogspot.com/2005/01/arabs-blame-us-and-israel-for-tsunami.html
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 12, 2007 12:39 PM
We're winning and let's hope the other side keep making these stupid statements.
If they're designed to fool us, they wont.
The best jihadi is a dead one
(fifty on average in Iraq killed or captured each day - a subject worthy of comment from tarbaby commentators)
Posted by: dgene at September 12, 2007 12:40 PM
Greek Fire you hit the nail on the head!
Posted by: americanmadestrat at September 12, 2007 12:40 PM
A good book to read on the saudis was 'Princes of Darkness'. It shows their... lacks. I don't know how to say it any better without writing a dirty word. But, these people are not to be underestimated because they are proving to be very dangerous.
Their wahabbism has successfully been exported to our country and our politicians - local and federal - are allowing it to happen. And not to forget our schools - they are letting it happen too. Then the businesses are being bought out by them via stocks. We sell our lands to whomever wants to lay out the money.
We have a problem, as does the world - and no one is 'getting it'. Instead so many fight in their own little corners trying to keep back the muslim hordes, and lessen the slaughter - and some nations are just caving in because they chose ignorance and let it happen.
Posted by: R_not at September 12, 2007 12:42 PM
(fifty on average in Iraq killed or captured each day - a subject worthy of comment from tarbaby commentators)
Posted by: dgene
Would those 50 jihadis we kill everyday be on our side (the shiites of al-sistani), or would they be the sunnis fighting the same fight as us against the mahdi army, or would they be the shiite militiamen inside the Iraqi police force, or would they be the sunni tribes we are arming and training, or perhaps the really "bad" guys fighting for Al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia but helping us restrain Iran and its agents in Iraq?
Just doing some thinking.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Jihad, the struggle against Infidels who put up resistance to the spread and dominance of Islam, is a central and permanent duty imposed on Believers by the texts and tenets of Islam. Sometimes it can be fulfilled as a collective duty, where some participate actively and the rest merely lend support. Some circumstances require a Believer to participate individually, and directly, and not merely to support, in any number of ways, others who might participate.
Jihad does not employ terrorism alone, or even mianly. Qitaal, or military combat, was always the the traditiional and most obvous way that Islam was spread. And what we correctly identify as "terrorism" is what most Muslims would describe as a form of qitaal. As for the other instruments of Jihad, that have proven in modern circumstances far more effective than qitaal, and besides, the Infidels have superior military technology, which is one of the things that Muslims from Al-Qaradawi to Mohamed Mahathir, keep deploring before Muslim audiences. These instruments include the clever deployment of the money weapon (a weapon only made possible in recent decades through the sudden, quite unmerited, oil revenues), the campaigns of Da'wa that can now be conducted because large numbers of Muslims were permitted, in an act of criminal negligence by Western elites, to settle deep within Infidel lands, behind what Muslims themselves have always been taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines that delineate Dar al-Harb; the demographic conquest which can be seen all over Western Europe, and which is not leading to a widespread acceptance by Muslims of the legitimacy of the Infidel nation-state, or of its laws and political institutions and social arrangements, but those laws and political institutions are being exploited and manipulated in an attempt to insure that Islam sets down permanent roots and is able to keep up steady, growing pressure on the Infidel nation-state, whose existence and laws and customs flatly contradict, and are contradicted by, the tenets of Islam.
The "schadenfreude" of the Arabs will quickly evanesce when the Americans withdraw from Iraq, allowing the Camp of Islam to be forced to endure its own fissures, without the spectacle of expensive, depleting, vain American attempts to hold things in check, and by other actions that can and must be undertaken by sensible leaders, who unlike Bush will have to have familiarized themselves with Islam's texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics, and from that familiarity construct unsentimenal policies. No more "ordinary moms and dads" who want "
freedom"; no more nonsense about reaching out to help make a better world for Muslims, no more nonsensical payments of tens of billions to Muslim states and societies by Infidels, no more naive faith in the basic goodness of Islam which has been mysteriously "hijacked" by "extremists," no more ignorance of one's own past that allows a leader to claim that Iraq is just like the young American Republic, no more of any of this utter crap that we have had at such great cost, to endure because our current President, and some of his loyalists, far from being tough on Islam, are not nearly tough, or far-seeing, or comprehending, enough.
Let us find ways to experience that schadenfreude the Arabs and other Muslims are now experiencing at the spectacle of Ameria stuck to Tarbaby Iraq. Let's get quickly unstuck, and forget about any of those who tell us "we owe the Iraqis" this or "we owe the Sunni regimes" that. We owe none of them anything.
Long past time to replace the obstinately stupid with the imaginative, intelligently ruthless, and relentless people necessary for the task, without end, at hand -- the task of constraining the forces of those who participate in, or support, or defend, or potentially could participate in, or support, or defend, the Jihad directed at Infidels everywhere in the world, from southern Thailand to southern Sudan to southern Nigeria to southern France and southern England, and all the way to North America, where only the Atlantic moat has managed to limit the flow, and therefore the local size, of the world-wide problem that comes from the texts and tenets of Islam. . people necessary. Such people already exist. Others can be so fashioned. Find them. Make use of them.
Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2007 12:57 PM
The apparent failure of US strategy in Iraq combined with a comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan are creating a general feeling of "schadenfreude" in the Arab world.
Stop right there. Shadenfreud is feeling pleasure at someone elses misfortune. This means Arabs/Muslims want terrorist entities to triumph over the U.S. and that's just another way of saying Arabs/Muslims support terrorist entities.
So Why would Arabs/Muslims pretend to be concerned by or about a growth in the size of terrorist organizations. Such news should simply be 'freude' (joy) to them.
at September 12, 2007 1:01 PM
Blaming the victim is so backwards and is such a convenient excuse for yellow-bellied cowards.
-- champ
True enough...but that is an old Muslim trick. Rape a woman? No problem -- blame the woman, because she was tempting you, acting as an agent of Satan, etc., etc., etc. Kill a Jew or Christian? No problem -- blame the Jews AND Christians, because, after all, Jews are Zionist "apes" and "pigs", and Christians are "Frankish" "Crusaders", "blasphemers" and "Zionists". Kill a fellow Muslim? No problem -- he must have been an apostate, having rejected the TRUE Islamic faith.
It's an all purpose excuse -- whatever you do, against whoever you want, is always the fault of the victim (but only so long as you're a good Muslim!).
Posted by: Rachel at September 12, 2007 1:24 PM
Sorry for the bit of "Schadenfreude" on my part: I am SO happy to see my prayers for another earthgquake in Indonesiastan have been answered.. now where's the Tsunami??!!
LeKärcher!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 12, 2007 1:28 PM
Hugh: I share your great distaste for the Islamic faith, as do so many others who post here. It seems from your statements above, though, that you see as our only course of action permanent, unremitting conflict against Islam and Muslims. You may very well be correct that eventually we will be left with no other choice, but meanwhile there are many Muslims out there, confused though they may be, who are not aligned with the many extremist groups that Islam produces in spades. Is it your intent to jettison them all forthwith? And surely anyone who counsels American withdrawal from Iraq must still see that it will not be costless, and not just to Americans but to others as well, for instance the Kurds up north in what in ancient times was Assyria. Sometimes life leaves you only lousy options and you have to choose the least bad among them. I'm not sure at this point that the best choice among all the bad ones facing us is what you seem to suggest, although I concede you could be right. Anyway, damn Mohammed for ever existing and leaving the world this mess of a religion of his.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2007 1:38 PM
LMAO @ topic header.
"arabs blame US for terror rise"?
LMAO
English translation:
"pots call kettle black"
'nuf sed
LMAO
at September 12, 2007 1:39 PM
Wellington, at what point do all those muslims 'out there' make a choice - follow a prophet who raped, lied, stole, enslaved, kidnapped, tortured and murdered - and confuse us by practicing taqiyya/kithman? Or do something about their jihadists who murder non-muslims just because they are muslim?
They say there are more of the 'peaceful' ones, or 'moderate' ones. How come they continually sit by and watch peoples die? Are they ALL afraid? If they are then they should be booted out (it won't happen anyway - not unless something bigger than 9/11 happens).
If we keep skirting the issue - we don't even call the ones who kill, muslim. We skirt that by calling them 'islamists', or 'radical' muslims. That is crud - they are practicing islam. Read the koran - go get a copy for yourself and read what abrogates all those peaceful passages - surrah 9. cspipublishing.com or blog along with Mr. Spencer.
Thanks Hugh, it was a good article. I have been trying to say it in my feeble way that there are more tactics than just the violence and we are in the beginning stages of a jihad right here at home.
Posted by: R_not at September 12, 2007 1:47 PM
"Imagine an article in 1943 tut-tutting that the U.S. response to Pearl Harbor had led to the Japanese Navy growing from a medium-sized to a large force." - Robert
Americans don't understand the nature of this "struggle" and so can't think of it in the frame of mind we had in the second world war. The biggest stumbling block is the "only Westerners can provoke aggression and are therefore responsible for stopping it" mentality held by Muslims and leftists. This is compounded by a foe as nebulous as jihad and makes it harder for the general public to come to an understanding.
Just think back to Afghanistan and all the talk about "blowback" and now we're hearing from this article that we get "blowback" by just about doing anything. But we infidels can't manage the attitudes of Muslim terrorist groups or Muslims in general and simultaneously maintain our societies as they are without getting blowback. They contradict each other. If people could get that straight, we might be able to concentrate on what we can do for ourselves and toss out of office the obsinately stupid "religion of peace"-spouters.
Posted by: sci_ at September 12, 2007 2:06 PM
R_not: Believe me when I say that my contempt for the Islamic religion is total. And I have read the Koran, all of it, and have concluded that it is desultory, disturbing, highly repetitive, boring and, in the final analysis, a very sick work. As I have posted here before, if Islam is the true religion as Muslims claim it is (and I don't for one moment, of course, think so), then we live in a very creepy universe and God's a malevolent power indeed and the ultimate control freak. Nonetheless, invoking Abraham Lincoln's standard here, is it possible to hate the sin (i.e., Islam) without hating the sinner (i.e., a majority of Muslims)?
I am completely in accord with you, though, that so called "moderate" Muslims are a deep disappointment. They strike me as overwhelmingly confused and timid. But what is your message to them? Is their time up (it may be) and they are our enemy as well? What then? For instance, right now there are some Muslims out there worldwide who provide America, France, Britain and, yes, even Israel vital information that is useful against Islamic terrorists. Are you prepared to tell them to f--- off? My main point here is that the world is in a damn mess because of Islam and I'm not certain at this point if it should declare all Muslims reprobates and enemies of civilization or if we should follow a policy of divide and conquer. What say you?
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2007 2:19 PM
Rashwans ideas are almost identical to those expressed by local leftists I have been ...er...ah...interacting with on the local papers web forum. These people amazingly sound like clones of one another. Not one of them knows twit about Islam, but call me a bigot when I try to explain the Islamic connection to Islamic terrorism. And I don't even go heavy on them. Just the suggestion that Islamic terrorism, or jihad, is the responsibility of something other than Geo Bush, sends them into fits and rages of insults and name calling.
The only name calling I do is to refer to liberals as liberals. For some reason that really ticks them off. Liberals who are offended at being called liberals, is a sign that we indeed do live in strange times...
at September 12, 2007 2:21 PM
Americans don't understand the nature of this "struggle" because our leaders tell us to go out shopping and buy homes we can't afford among other sage advice.
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at September 12, 2007 2:21 PM
"It seems from your statements above, though, that you see as our only course of action permanent, unremitting conflict against Islam and Muslims."
-- from a posting above
It is not I who "see" a "permanent, unremitting conflict." It is Islam, that clearly, unambiguously, teaches Believers that there must exist a state of "permanent, unremitting" hostility, a state of warfare, if not always of open war, between Believers and Infidels. It is Islam that insists upon that, not any Infidel.
It is true that in times of weakness Islam has not been such a threat. OPEC trillions, which are not diminishing and will continue at least for several decades, provide the Money Weapon, which in turn helps fund the carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa in the Western, Infidel lands. And now that there are millions of Muslim migrants in those Infidel lands, who may learn the language, learn something that allows them the better to seemingly fit in, those Muslims can use the money weapon to conduct that Da'wa, or to employ, or otherwise pay off, directly or indirectly, small armies of Western hirelings (academics, journalists, former diplomats and intelligence agents, businessmen, former government officials who take their payoff in the form of contributions to their self-aggrandizing Presidential library or some think-tank named after them or just in the form of fat lecture fees, to speak on current affairs in a way that will please, and not offend, the Muslims who sponsor the lecture and put the check in the envelope).
The "unremitting conflict" need not be, should not be, anything like the idiotically wasteful war in Iraq. There should never again be any direct attempt to "transform" or "mold" Muslim societies, even if that attempt was partly an afterthought by a shallow group of policymakers, some of them much taken with, and taken in by, a plausible group of Shi'a exiles. No more judging of Muslim states and societies by that new, entirely unrepresentative class of Muslims who, whether or not they are diplomats, are often taken, wrongly, to truthfully represent their societies, which are far more primitive, violent, and essentially, being hidden from our scrutiny by the likes of Chalabi or Prince Hassan of Jordan (not to mention former Queen Noor with her "Act of Faith" and all the others who, at the Oprah-Book-Club level of things, appeal to the desire of others to believe that there really is merely a temporary problem.
When one supposed expert the other day wrote in the newspaper that Islam is going through a "temporary crisis" one wondered how he could possibly write such a thing? Does he think the immutable texts of Islam are merely "temporary" or will be subject to some kind of red-pencil revising? Who's going to do it? Mustafa Akyol? Stephen Schwartz? Who? And who is going to accept a throwing out of large parts of Muhammad's life, of hundreds of his "authentic" Hadith? Who is going to rip out many passages in the Qur'an, to make it Infidel-friendly? Who? And who is going to take that New and Improved Islam as the Islam they should now give their allegiance too, rather than the permanent Islam that teaches them to regard any such revisions as the work of collaborators with Shaytan, who deserve death.
Yes, of course the conflict will go on forever. Muslims say it will, that it must. The trick is to make it a manageable conflict, with as little expense and disruption of our lives, and loss of Infidel life, as possible. Intelligence, a keen awareness of what pre-existing problems can be found in the Camp of Islam and exploited, will go a long way. Much longer, seven leagues longer, than all those boots on the ground in Iraq that are not merely a waste, but are being employed in exactly the wrong way, toward the wrong goal, based on a wrong understanding of Iraq, and of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2007 2:25 PM
What? The islamists want us to lie down and die? I say lets do it our own way lets take control of our own destiny. Fight back you say? Heck no let’s join the “voluntary human extinction movement” here in the west. Yes, they have offices and homes near you, it’s quick, convenient and environmentally friendly too! I’m sure you are wondering, is this Constitutional? Yes, the holocaust primarily targeted Jews so it is a crime to deny it in some countries. This however is a multiracial initiative it cuts across all ethnic/religious and cultural lines so therefore, it is a right! All the compassion of Stalin, all the sensitivity of Hitler and all the generosity of Mao. It is pretty straight forward, they all hate humanity so why should they care what you or I as human’s think?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/240206.php
No wonder obl is reaching out to them it should be no surprise he has so much support among the arabs as well as many others.
Islam, a lot like the picture of Dorian Grey.
at September 12, 2007 2:28 PM
... meanwhile there are many Muslims out there, confused though they may be, who are not aligned with the many extremist groups that Islam produces in spades.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
Unless you mean Moslem apostates, you're wrong, because observant Moslems observe the Koran and the Sunnah. To observe the Koran means accepting as gospel a book that calls for the subjugation or murder (if necessary) of all non-Moslems. To observe the Sunnah means emulating the life of Mohammed, an act of faith that implicitly calls for extortion, rape, theft, hatred, murder, misogyny, perpetual war, and the like.
No part of Islam is moderate. All of Islam is extreme; all observant Moslems are extremists, whether actively engaged in the "struggle" or not.
* 2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *
I think what you were pointing out is that there are more inactive Moslems than active Moslems. But this has always the case in the early stages of wars.
But when events come to a head, all able-bodied Moslem men --- the ones "non-aligned" right now --- will become directly engaged in the hostilities. Moslimas too.
At this point in the Global Jihad, what with modern weaponry and communications, a mere 2% of Moslems has made fantastic headway over the past decade, albeit with abundant help from self-deluded Infidel nations.
Look for both Moslem success and % activism to swell over the next decade as the Global Jihad expands with little or no resistance.
610 * 624 * 632 * 1453 * 1526 *1683 * 1848 * 1917 * 1948 * 1968 * 1996 * 2001 * 2005
But in any event, it's all extreme.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 12, 2007 2:30 PM
It will go on forever, endless warfare. I mentioned once before, that in my estimation this is sexual in orientation, because the only fast track to the fab72 is dying in jihad. For the hormone driven muslim who can't get a real time woman, jihad is the way. If the gates of jihad close, the former jihadist will have to take their chances with Allah's normal selection to regular old heaven, with lots of clouds to float on, but no 72. I don't know if the concept of perpetual war = perpetual sex, is something stated or written, or operates subliminally in submitters. But along that line, it looks like 2+2=4 to me...
Of course that's only one room in the house of Islam, there are many more...
at September 12, 2007 2:42 PM
I had a feeling it was all our fault. I might stop by a church tonight on my way home from work to repent and ask forgiveness for merely existing as an infidel in Allah's world.
Posted by: awake at September 12, 2007 2:43 PM
Yankeedoodle2:
Was referring to jihadis.
A jihadi is a muslim who tries to kill for what he perceives to be allah mandated.
The best jihadi is still a dead one.
Let God sort out their ethnicity or country of origin.
That these scum are running into the pointy end of our spear is great. Makes for less of them wherever we have to catch and find them. Also sends a great message to their families.
When enough of them are killed, the war is essentially over.
One can try and make it more complex to please the lefties (the masters of conspiracy theories), but that's it.
at September 12, 2007 3:21 PM
Of course we are responsible for the rise in jihadist violence.. since we refuse to heed the "call to pigslam".
in Germany they are now discussing having large lunches outdoors complete with beer and pork sausages so the Ramadaniots can enjoy the nice sights and smells of regular Germans enjoying their traditional HOMEGROWN eating and drinking ways.
I suggest others consider being more in-their-face elsewhere too.
They are certainly in our faces inside OUR OWN LANDS!
So enjoy your lunches everyone...
Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 12, 2007 3:24 PM
Alarmed Pig Farmer and Hugh: As I believe Ibn Warraq has written, there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. The best thing, I would argue, any Muslim can do for his or her own humanity is to cease being a Muslim. Short of that, however, my concern is what the West, and particularly America, should do with all those passive, ho-hum, "moderate" Muslims out there, confused though they be. Announce to all of them that they are our enemy as their religion has already done with us? (And deep, perpetual shame upon Islam for dividing the world into the Land of War and the Land of Islam.) Perhaps. But before we go there, we should fully realize the step we are taking, one I have often thought we may very well have to take eventually------permanent hostility to all Muslims worldwide. In short, the ultimate clash of human beings, dwarfing all previous wars in scope and duration. And again let me curse Mohammed for all the harm he has visited upon mankind through the centuries with his demented religion.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2007 3:48 PM
OT, but indirect relevance.
8.4 quake Indonesia...Sumatra region.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070912/D8RK2E3O0.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-09-12T175201Z_01_SP197418_RTRUKOC_0_US-QUAKE-INDONESIA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RK15I00&show_article=1
Looks like someone's starting ramalamadingdong with a bang.
Posted by: jcom972 at September 12, 2007 3:50 PM
I nabi ZK, nabi to the mohametan trolls and others, proclaim that, well yes, the mohametans are being terrorized and will indeed be sorely terrorized some more, and that, yeah, the US will probably be behind a lot of that. Could be.
nabi ZK
a nabi you can trust.....
Posted by: zonie kafir at September 12, 2007 4:08 PM
Rachel wrote:
"It's an all purpose excuse -- whatever you do, against whoever you want, is always the fault of the victim (but only so long as you're a good Muslim!)."
This is the result when a culture swears off the ideas of free will,reason, and scientific curiosity (subjugating all those nasty little details to the will of Allah)--a complete lack of understanding, self-criticism, or tolerance. A kind of confused-monkey view of the world (apologies to actual monkeys). Add violence and psychotic cultural insecurity, bake in a lifeless desert for 1400 years...and VOILA!
at September 12, 2007 4:09 PM
Wellington wrote:
"As I believe Ibn Warraq has written, there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. The best thing, I would argue, any Muslim can do for his or her own humanity is to cease being a Muslim."
I was actually pleased today to find the story of a European group of former Muslims that is planning to sign a petition to that effect. I think this guy is very courageous, and he has my true support in what must be a very frightening and brave step:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/former-muslims-will-sign-declaration-of.html
at September 12, 2007 4:15 PM
the arabs blame us for everythingincluding the fact they've never produced anything but terrorists in the past 1700 years and like Microsoft they are very good at claiming other peoples inventions at their own
Posted by: mowasaperv at September 12, 2007 4:17 PM
JohnAdams: Thanks for the link to that story about Muslims who have seen Islam for what it is and have left their faith. And you're right, any ex-Muslim who does so publicly is courageous because the religion of peace and tolerance decrees death for those who cease being Muslim. And that Dutch minister, Wouter Bos, who decried all this is indeed a useful idiot of the first rank. Bet he would have never said what he did if it were folks who publicly left Christianity.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2007 4:42 PM
Jcom972,
'Just wondering, was the earthquake a form of retribution caused by:
a) not enough Islam,
or
b) too much Islam?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at September 12, 2007 5:05 PM
SDS alert,
Brittney, Madonna others to be beheaded, stoned, bbq’ed and eaten ala pork sausages, well I’m not positive on the eaten part.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57596
I wonder what the mad ma another useless idiot has to say about that. No doubt Brittney has no opinion as speaking requires preparation.
at September 12, 2007 5:09 PM
No Isabelle...
It was caused by karl rove & the evil bushcabal (whatever the hell that even MEANS, lol)
at September 12, 2007 5:45 PM
Is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan producing more jihad warriors than we are killing? Are Western nation foreign policies, especially those in support of Israel, causing jihad? Is jihad merely a symptom of a deeper socioeconomic malaise? Is jihad a grassroots response to lack of political freedom? Is the jihad today a delayed response to the Medieval Crusades? What did the West do exactly, to cause the jihad?
The answer to all of the above questions are to be found in a single remarkable account of the chance encounter of John Adams, the American minister to the court of St. James and the newly arrived ambassador of Tripoli in February 1786[1].
In 1783 Adams, John Jay and Benjamin Franklin negotiated the Treaty of Paris that ended the War for Independence. As a reward for his loyal service, the Continental Congress anointed Adams as plenipotentiary to the British crown. Jay assumed the post of Foreign Minister. To London to take up official diplomatic residence Adams was dispatched with his wife Abagail and daughter Nabby in 1785 where the reception by Mayfair society was as warm as the British climate.
After months of cool reception from the London diplomatic corps, Adams expressed feint hope of accomplishing anything of worth in his regular dispatches to Jay. So when he heard that the new ambassador from Tripoli had arrived in London he made it a point to include the residence of Ambassador Abdurahman in his next round of embassy calls.
It was a cold February late afternoon when Ambassador Adams knocked on the door of the Tripolitan Ambassador’s residence. He had intended only to present his card to arrange a later appointment. To his surprise he was immediately ushered into the sitting room and invited by Ambassador Abdurahman to join him by the warmth of the fireplace. They drank tea and smoked long stemmed pipes while the host eagerly inquired of Mr. Adams in all manner of subjects Americana. He was curious about the climate, the food, the native habits, cultivation, commerce and the wilderness. The conversation was in fact quite civil and refreshing for Adams.
It was Adams’ intention to some day engage Ambassador Abdurahman in a diplomatic exchange on the subject of treaty between the two nations on matters of military and commercial affairs. The Tripolitan, however preempted Adams’ plan by spontaneously announcing in this very first meeting between the two men that a treaty between their two countries must be negotiated as soon as possible so that the state of war that exists between them may be suspended. In his dispatch to Foreign Secretary Jay Adams reported, “that his Excellency made many inquiries concering America, the climate, soil, cold, &c., and observed, ‘it is a very great country, but Tripoli is at war with it.’”
Adams was flabbergasted and protested that America harbored no ill will toward Tripoli and that neither nation had provoked the other. Abdurahman brushed the protest aside pointing out that it was irrelevant, reiterating that until they negotiated a treaty of peace the two countries were at war. Adams goes on to say, “His Excellency replied, that Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco were the soverigns of the Mediterranean; and that no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace with them; that America must make such treaties with Tripoli first, then with Constantinople, then with Algiers and Morocco, as France, England, and all the other powers of Europe had done.”
From this account of the first official encounter between the United States and the Islamic world we have the answer to all of the questions posed at the front of this essay: no to the first five and nothing to the last. For Ambassador Abdurahman informs the United States that the default condition of relations between Muslim states with all non-Muslim states is war. It is absolute, unconditional and unprovoked. It is the Islamic weltanschauung. It is enshrined in the Islamic canon (Qur’an, Hadith and Sira) and is therefore immutable. It is not caused by anything a non-Muslim nation does or does not do. It is the Muslim natural order that Islamic peoples shall be perpetually at war with all others.
It is the elephant whose presence in the living room the denizens of non-Muslim nations today are reluctant to acknowledge. We should pay more attention to our own history so that we do not squander our national resources on Quixotic quests to answer questions that were long ago satisfied by the experience of our own ancestors.
[1] Charles F. Adams, The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1850-56), vol 8.
Posted by: DrMack at September 12, 2007 6:15 PM
Well, what did we expect from those arab islamicommie loons who consider noam chomsky smart?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200709/CUL20070911a.html
LMAO
at September 12, 2007 6:27 PM
Well, what did we expect from those arab islamicommie loons who consider noam chomsky smart?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200709/CUL20070911a.html
LMAO
at September 12, 2007 6:41 PM
wow, how the hell did that happen?
I only hit post once...lol
at September 12, 2007 6:42 PM
DrMack: Enjoyed the historical narration. Thank you. Most interesting and telling. Helps to further confirm (as if we needed any more confirmation) that the Islamic world is a monolith through time and not an attractive, trustworthy or gracious one at that. Your account also reminded me of Henry Kissinger's opening pages in his work, Diplomacy, wherein he pointed out two disparate attitudes of America towards the world. To wit, one as beacon to the rest of mankind but this position accompanied by a decided inclination to remain isolated from the rest of the world which must learn from America only by example; the other the crusading mentality which takes upon itself the moral obligation to save mankind from its worst tendencies and thus make the earth a far better place. The tug of war between these two contradictory approaches continues to this day. Whichever approach is preferred (and rational minds can understandably disagree here), it confirms for me that America is too good for almost the entire rest of the world.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2007 9:11 PM
Hmmm...well, ya gotta love diplomacy-
http://www.tothepointnews.com/images/stories/message2.jpg
then again, where I come from, diplomacy is a fully loaded gun battery anyway.
lol
at September 13, 2007 12:39 AM
"it confirms for me that America is too good for almost the entire rest of the world.
Posted by: Wellington"
....should we close our borders and become isolationist...should we ban all Immigration. ...should we close our eyes to worldwide atrocities....
....we could, but we won't ....we are not that stupid....
but we should Ban Muslim Immigration...
at September 14, 2007 12:38 PM
Sorry to burst everyone's balloon, but our presence in Iraq has increased Islamic terrorism and made more Muslims hate us. I'll patiently endure the usual howling and cheap accusations based on some peoples' state of denial. Not every Muslim is some killbot programmed to destroy infidels and heretics and hate americans, maybe about 5% of them. So when we started this useless war in Iraq and cause all this damage, we just upped that number say to 12%. Most of the Muslims fighting us in Iraq are fighting us cause we are in THEIR country, not based on some world wide Muslim terrorist ideology. Now, we added the Shiite crazies to that list too. Most people on the right like to feel sorry for themselves, telling themselves that since almost all the world hates us except for a few benighted faves, then we don't have to worry about international relations except to make threats. But it has been international police work that has rolled up most of the Muslim terrorists, not military force.
Posted by: Dumbo at September 15, 2007 11:26 PM
90% aren't iraqis at all...old documented news, and the police/military tally is even more off base.
It's over 100 to 1 military.
I know...I was there.
at September 16, 2007 6:21 AM
(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.)