"In order to gather recruits, Mr Evans said, extremists were methodically and intentionally targeting vulnerable young people and children."
-- from the article above

And if some Muslims are doing this to other Muslims, targetting the "vulnerable young" and "children" as recruits for terrorism, other Muslims, many many Muslims, are through well-financed campaigns of Da'wa targetting the "vulnerable" (young and old) among the Infidels, including black prisoners who may have Islam presented to them as a Vehicle of Protest and "social justice," or others, of the Yvonne Ridley variety, who are psychically marginal (and every Westen society throws up such people), and who can find their putative needs satisfied by becoming members of a collectivist faith, one in which they have to decide nothing except to submit, except to follow the rules as to what is Halal and Haram. It's an instant community, with its chorus singing, as it has been singing for 1350 years, a variant on Tomorrow Belongs To Me.

The 2,000 who have been identified as ready to commit acts of terrorism are clearly the tip of the iceberg, those of whom Evans is certain. But if the likely recruits are not 2,000, but rather 10,000 or 20,000, and if hundreds of thousands of others support the idea of Jihad, through the use of violence, and if virtually all Believers accept the notion of Jihad, a "struggle" to remove all the barriers to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, everywhere in the world, should anyone, should Mr. Evans, take any comfort from that figure of 2,000? Should he not explain that the participation by some in violent Jihad makes such participation unnecessary by other Muslims, who merely need to support, through money, or other means, those who do so engage, and shouldn't he also talk about the Money Weapon, and those campaigns of Da'wa, and the inexorable demographic conquest that makes the task of monitoring more hellishly expensive and complicated with each passing day? Shouldn't that be discussed, unapologetically and straightforwardly?

Posted by: Hugh at November 5, 2007 4:48 PM

England is on the verge of a rude awakening.

They have gone further than any other country ( even France) when it comes to Political Correctness.

And very soon it is going to bite them on the ass very hard, so long as the left wing morons keep telling every one there is no threat and the dick heads on the right follow along that country is doomed.

Just take a look at it now, there in no English pride any more, it has been dragged down to the same level of mediocre status as the rest of Europe.

I thought it started to decay back in the 80's now the rot has truly set in.

What a shame, what was once defended by war, blood tears and pain has now been given away for free under the guise of Multiculturalism.

Of course you cant talk about it, because if you do this will just wake every one up to the poison that the left has made every one drink.

Posted by: Joe Bananas in Pajamas at November 5, 2007 4:53 PM

Quote:
"Long-term resolution requires identifying and addressing the root causes of the problem."

Looks like they still haven't worked it out.
Could it be Islam? Nah, no way. What are you, some kind of islamophobe?

It must be foreign policy. Or poverty. Or disenfranchised doctors.

Posted by: pr126 at November 5, 2007 4:55 PM

"Teens recruited"....sure, what young man in his sexual prime with raging hormones WOULDN'T be sold on Sex Heaven's lies. Pathetic.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 4:56 PM

Mohammed Shafiq, a spokesman for the Muslim youth organisation, said the language was inflammatory and called for responsible dialogue.

He said the group was prepared to talk to the police and security services, but in order to defeat terrorism it was important to acknowledge the threat existed mainly due to foreign policy.

Note the second paragraph in article (next line after above cut-off) is followed by the obligatory disclaimer: “..in order to defeat terrorism it was important to acknowledge the threat existed mainly due to foreign policy.” - - snicker snicker.

Of course, nothing to do with Mohammed’s “foreign policy” following his examples, for past 1400 years! Nothing “inflammatory” about that, is there? How do you "dialogue" with a crime cult syndicated by Mohammed's examples, followed from the 7th century to today by his 'radicalized' faithful ones?

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 5, 2007 4:57 PM

There's gonna be a seethin'....

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at November 5, 2007 5:00 PM

This number of 2,000 is probably way low, considering how many don't fit the PC mold...like the recent attack in Scotland.

Doctors as Jihadists?

I would put the number atleast 10 times that amount.

Posted by: SoteriA at November 5, 2007 5:04 PM

Root causes? Three words.
1. Koran
2. Ahadith
3. Sira

There.

Posted by: commonsense at November 5, 2007 5:08 PM

it was important to acknowledge the threat existed mainly due to foreign policy

Ah, yes, that ol' "foreign policy"....something I'm sure many "children as young as 15" have a mature, well-informed grasp of to justify any extremist views/behavior.

If anyone should be pissed over "foreign policy", it should be Muslim senior citizens, who've lived through more of it, have opinions better shaped through their long life experiences, and being in twilight years have less to live for than their youthful, more immature counterparts. And yet, funny that most violent, suicidal/homicidal extremists still tend to be of the younger variety.

Posted by: yadayada at November 5, 2007 5:13 PM

--from the article--

But the Ramadhan Foundation said it was concerned Mr Evans had not stressed the 2,000 people suspected of involvement in extremist activity made up only a small proportion of the 1.6 million Muslim population.

Mohammed Shafiq, a spokesman for the Muslim youth organisation, said the language was inflammatory and called for responsible dialogue.

He said the group was prepared to talk to the police and security services, but in order to defeat terrorism it was important to acknowledge the threat existed mainly due to foreign policy.
--

Once again, there is utter denial. First the obligatory downplaying that the extremists are such a tiny minority, that they are barely worth mentioning. This is then followed by the expression of being slighted for even mentioning the fact.

This is then followed by the typical tu quoque argument based on foreign policy, as it really is Britain's fault anyway, you know.

The Islamists would have us believe that this is an internal problem to be dealt with by their own communities.

We can see that they are getting right on that.

1300+ years and counting.

tick-tick-tick-tick-tick.

Posted by: awake at November 5, 2007 5:23 PM

1,598,000 peaceful Muslims in Britain - JW

Oh boy!! Where did these people come from? I guess in their normal fashion, we'll have to use a different word for 'peaceful', because when it is used in the context of Muslims, it just doesn't sound convincing. It is so tempting to make the correction, i.e. crossing off 'peaceful' and replacing it with 'real'. I see nothing wrong with that.

Hence -

1,598,000 real Muslims in Britain.

Now, there is something that Britain should be real worried about!!!!

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at November 5, 2007 5:25 PM

I think the figure of 2000 is only those they have identified, I saw somewhere that he estimated the unidentified at another 2000 so thats 4000 total.

Posted by: Fred at November 5, 2007 5:31 PM

0.13% of the British Muslims are "extremists", i.e., willing to kill British citizens in the name of the Islamic ideology as soon as they feel that they have an opportunity to do so. That is twice the proportion of common murderers to general population in the United States (0.06%).

Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at November 5, 2007 5:36 PM

The article has a section 'Root causes' and doesn't
elaborate any.

As many posters understand, the root cause is Islam.
Simple as that!

Posted by: root_cause at November 5, 2007 5:39 PM

"Evans is in trouble for this: "But the Ramadhan Foundation said it was concerned Mr Evans had not stressed the 2,000 people suspected of involvement in extremist activity made up only a small proportion of the 1.6 million Muslim population."

There are probably 40-50 million people in Britain who would describe themselves as Anglicans. I doubt that you could find 2-3 that could be described as extremist, in the Islamic mode.

The Ramadhan Foundation would have us believe that a mere 2000 Muslim extremist, out of a Muslim population of 1.6 million, is proof that the British have nothing to fear from Muslims.

That "small proportion" of 2000 should send shudders up the spines of the British public. How many lives could 2000 dedicated Islamic Jihadists snuff out once they go on a rampage? It only took 5 to murder 53 innocent people in the London subway.

And how far off is mister Evans in his estimate of 2000. It's most likely only the tip of the iceberg, and it says nothing about the number of sympathizers among the 1.6 million, or the number of potential recruits ready to rush to join the holy war should the British attempt to fight back against the Islamic threat.

Something Mr. Evans doesn't tell us, but would be interesting to know, is how many of those 2000 extremists, were born and raised in Britain (all 5 of the subway bombers were born and bred in Britain)? It says something about the fiction that Muslims can be assimulated into a liberal, democratic society -- even down to the 2nd and 3rd generations.

Posted by: rational at November 5, 2007 5:39 PM

Nick Griffin speaks out.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8336123906443296275

This wonderful piece pretty much sums it up in this very comprehensive video. This guy and others like him are our social imune system against the threat that faces us.

Posted by: ethoman at November 5, 2007 6:09 PM

ABC news just announced "be prepared for $4 a gallon gas."
Oil ticks....

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 5, 2007 6:37 PM

'the language was inflammatory and called for responsible dialogue'....

I thought it was very 'inflammatory' because he never once claimed that the terrorist youth were muslim.

This guy danced so much to deliver the speech without saying the word 'muslim', that he might as well stared in Singing in the Rain song!

As far as 'responisible dialogue', oh wait muslims, you don't want to go there.....if someone is to have 'responsible dialogue' that might actually say that the terrorist are muslims and that the recruiters are muslims.

But the guy fulfilled PM Browns new law by not referring to 'muslim-terrorist or islamic-terrorist'. His freedom of speech was so watered down, but it still got out the message.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at November 5, 2007 7:00 PM

Seeing there are so "few" of them, the Muslim comunity should have no problem identifying them and solving the problem, right? They being an anomoly and all.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 5, 2007 7:11 PM

Hi All,

Mao Tse-tung said that the revolutionary was the fish that swam in the ocean of the masses. In this particular case, if the subject community refuses to fully cooperate with authorities and hand over their "wehrmacht", then they could reasonably be accused of treason and fomenting civil war. At this point, one option would be to drain the swamp.

Magooey

Posted by: magooey at November 5, 2007 7:35 PM

"Long-term resolution requires identifying and addressing the root causes of the problem."

Hmmm, a good place to start might be the unfounded, unprovable, philosophically defeatable belief in an imaginary god. If one is looking for a "root cause", challenging this wild assumption might go along way towards uncovering absolute truth. If Allah actually exists, the entire world should resolve to worship Allah...If Allah remains unprovable and unworthy of human regard, dropping Islam as just another mythology would be a profound step towards resolving Islamic supremacy and its wanton violence FOREVER.

...but that would take more spine than is actually present in all the UK leaders combined.

Challenging the linch-pin of Islam might be a good place to start once political correctness has been replaced with political directness. Muslims want Sharia law? Repeatably prove with independently predicable results the existence of Allah and the world is yours. If not, you are free to keep your imaginary friend to yourself.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at November 5, 2007 7:42 PM

Spencer:
"So pointing out that there are 2,000 jihadists in the UK is "inflammatory" unless one takes pains to point out also that there are 1,598,000 peaceful Muslims in Britain as well? And what assurance do we have that none of those 1,598,000 peaceful Muslims agree with the jihad ideology or Islamic supremacism -- particularly when such things can't even be discussed in the public sphere? And how helpful is it for a Muslim leader to take offense at something as silly as this? Did World War II leaders stop to assure us constantly that the vast majority of Germans weren't Nazis? Would anyone sane have taken offense if they didn't do this?"

One problem with all this. In Nazi Germany, we had a well-defined group of people in charge of a well-defined set of state machinery. When they attacked, they attacked as a unified group. You never were attacked by just one or even a dozen Panzers. There was a Blitzkrieg, and immediately after the tanks rolled in, and then the ground troops afterward. All this had to happen for a Nazi invasion to work. If any part was missing, the mission was liable to fail.
WW2 was entirely a matter of force. It was the American military apparatus, in its totality, along with the French and English apparatuses in their totality, against the German and Italian apparatuses. If one German happened not to like what Hitler was doing, he would get shot; and that would be it. Individual opinions did not matter.

Not so with Islamic Jihadism. Control of state machinery is not only unecessary for Jihadis, it might even be a burden. The Pashtuni Jihadis have managed to carry out attacks fine, despite not controlling any state machinery. Hezbollah was able to launch hundreds of bombs into Israel despite being a minority party. Hamas has greatly reduced missile attacks since taking control of Gaza.
Here, the unit of action is not the state. It is an individual, group of individuals, or organization. You don't need twenty suicide bombers to act in unison. Often, one is enough. Given that this is true, what EACH INDIVIDUAL thinks becomes drastically more important.

The problem here, Mr. Spencer, is not that you're a little rude to the foreigners and minorities. It's not even that you're being inflammatory. It's that by alienating more and more moderate Moslems, you unwittingly promote Jihad.

Let me give a concrete example: your egregious misdiagnosis of the situation in Pakistan. Today, there were peaceful protests of thousands of lawyers, striving for justice and freedom. But all you saw is that they happened to be Moslem, and dissmissed their efforts with "too bad about the lawyers". Not only is it too bad, but if the U.S. had followed your policy, it would have sent a clear message that Moslems can only fight oppression with force. From there, it's a short step to suicide bombings.

By focusing on radical Islamists, and ignoring or minimizing the impact of the moderates, you are hardly empowering moderate Islam. At best, you send a message that their efforts are futile. At worst, you telegraph to them that they have no place here. Defining Moslems by their religious identity, and their connection to terrorists, can only lead to policies that force them into their Moslem identity, and then to radical Jihad.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 5, 2007 7:56 PM

The figure of 2000 represents, I presume, suspected terrorists. It does not include terrorist enablers. These are people that know of the terrorists and continue to associate with them, up to and including, giving them aid and comfort. The ratio of terrorist enablers to the actual terrorists themselves is probably 10 : 1. So there really are 20,000 muslims in Britain who are either terrorists or the associates of terrorists.

Then there are those who are merely terrorist sympathizers. These are the muslims who may not know of any terrorist plots, or terrorists, themselves, but if they did, they would not tell the police. They support the jihad ideology, while keeping their own hands clean of any illegal activity. These are the peace-loving muslims the double decker buses tell us about. The ratio of sympathizers to terrorists/enablers again is about 10 : 1. So we can safely say that there are at least 200,000 muslims in Britain who are the immediate enemies of the current British society as it now stands.

Then there are the islamics. These are the muslims who may not support the terrorists morally, and may regret any terrorist activity, but they do so only because such massacres give the muslim community a black eye, not because the slaughter of human beings of another religion are of any moral consequence to them. These are muslims who, according to the infamous recent poll conducted in Britain, feel that sharia is the way to go, not just for them, but for every other Brit as well. These are the muslims who do not want to achieve islamic rule by force, but by education, by indoctrination, they want to do it peacefully. And they are patient. These are the more educated of the muslim population. Many of these are politically active. The ratio of these muslims to the aforementioned more radical-thinking, impatient muslims is probably 5 : 1.

What this all means is that there are at least 1 million muslims in Britain who would like to see democracy, liberty, free speech, art, music, theater, and sexual freedom, among a myriad of all things that make civilization civilized, disappear. All those things violate their sensibilities.

Consequently, the number of 2000 does not represent the real threat. It represents only the youthful idiots that are no real threat at all, except to themselves and those standing within 20 yards. The real threat is that there are at least 1 million muslims in Britain who would like to see, and some are engaged in, the downfall not only of the government, not only of the society, but of the culture. That is 1,000,000 enemies of the British people, one million enemies of the current population and of any future kaffirs born in Britain from this day forward.

Unfortunately, most of those are not doing anything illegal. It is unfortunate because, in the West, only violence, plots of violence, or talk of violence, are deemed illegal. Therefore, in a liberal democracy, there is not a darn thing that can be done about most of those 1,000,000. Unfortunately again, eventually those 1,000,000 will become 2 million. And still, they will be peace-loving. That's the key.

That is how you take over a country. Not by war, and certainly not by the mickey mouse pin pricks of terrorism, but by demographics, by activism, by political pressure, by immigration. The British, as well as all other western nations, see only violence as the problem. It appears as if the feeling of the social elites is that as long as there is no violence, the gradual dissolution of their nation, their culture, their way of life, is of no consequence for them. It is not of concern to the government. It can not be of concern to the government. It falls outside their mandate. They are tasked only with maintaining law and order and their own hold on power. Everything else is for future descendants to handle. Unfortunately, the government doesn't see it that way.

Posted by: jihadwatcher at November 5, 2007 8:21 PM

there are 1,598,000 peaceful Muslims in Britain(?)

How did so many peaceful people create so many jihadists? And what are they doing about it?

What community, upon hearing there were 2,000 violence-prone individuals of a specific ideology would say: wait that's not so bad. There are 2 million others who aren't violence prone! (Those 2 million people are also at risk from the random violence of criminals. It's as if being law-abiding should be noted, not expected.)

When you read about a murderer, you don't read about the millions of people who wouldn't dream of killing another human being. Most often, you don't even read about the many professionals who are trying to reduce crime rates. Why must any story about jihadists also say that not everyone is a jihadist? It's beside the point.

2,000 human powder kegs in the same country should worry even the most peaceful Muslim.

Posted by: PMK at November 5, 2007 9:40 PM

Shlomo is obviously a provacateur, for no one can be this innocently ignorant. Shlomo has gone out of his way to hammer home the D'Souza point that Robert, by merely commentating on Islamic jihadist activities, drives potential "moderate" Muslims to "radicalize".

Absolute nonsense.

True "moderates", if the animal even exists, which I and many others doubt more and more with each passing day, would should share in Spencer's disdain for the actions the radicals engage in based solely upon the direct divine mandates from the canonical Islamic texts, to which Robert has pointed out ad nauseum, and supported by the words and actions of the Islamists, themselves.

The concept that each jihadist operates on a personal level in terms of interpretation of what is directed by their ideology...Islam, comparative to an organized political ideology like Nazism, rings most hollow.

Six in one, half dozen the other. The six million Jews murdered by the Nazis, coupled with the unneccesary deaths of countless millions of deaths from allied forces in WWII, including the Russians, are in essence, and more importantly, reality...no less dead by any sort of rationalization.

Political Islam is no less dangerous. It never has been historically. In fact, the number of potential adherents to the well-documented call for Islamic supremecism far outweighs the threat the Nazis proposed, but Shlomo willfully chooses not to acknowledge that obvious fact.

So be it.

With Shlomo, there are always excuses for the actions of the jihadists, Shlomo being a purported Jew, which I also doubt. It is always someone else's fault, always an outside impetus that drives the machine that currently ails the West. Never the introspective criticism.

Never.

Well, I for one, and many others here, with many thanks under the tutelage of Robert, Hugh, Marisol and Greg, know better. We all took the blue pill and cannot go back to sleep. That is our unfortunate reality we all now dwell in.

I, personally look forward to the remaining short time that Shlomo has here in this community. I can only swallow so much unsubstantiated Islamic apologist crap for so long.

I hope I am not alone in this sentiment.

Posted by: awake at November 5, 2007 9:46 PM

Shlomo:
Please list the impact the moderate Muslims have had on the Jihadists? From what I hear in my little area of America, most are in denial that these jihadists are part of Islam or, they pass it off to Western foreign policy, poor social conditions and victimization. If one denies that it is a Muslim problem or offers excuses for Islamic terrorism, I don't see how this will solve the problem?

The only evidence I see of this might be in Iraq, where tribal leaders have urged their followers to rise up against the tyrants in the form of Al-Qaeda and Khomienists in the form of Al-Sadr. Does this much blood have to flow before Muslims see the light?

Posted by: Briars at November 5, 2007 9:52 PM

Consequently, the number of 2000 does not represent the real threat. It represents only the youthful idiots that are no real threat at all, except to themselves and those standing within 20 yards. The real threat is that there are at least 1 million muslims in Britain who would like to see, and some are engaged in, the downfall not only of the government, not only of the society, but of the culture. That is 1,000,000 enemies of the British people, one million enemies of the current population and of any future kaffirs born in Britain from this day forward. - Posted by: jihadwatcher

This is the pure tragedy of it all, not only in the UK but France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Spain, and all those countries who continue to think that Islam is merely a religion (of peace), but fail to understand it is a rapacious devourer of civilization, and especially of human freedom. The Beast must be fed not only in blood, but in souls, free souls, to becomes slaves of Allah. And it is those who support this, who are far more in numbers than them who blow up, that is the real danger to our societies and the free world at large. Does anyone in State understand this? There's the tragedy, both in the US and abroad, that they do not.

Those 'peaceful' quiet consenters who would like to see Sharia in our world are the real danger, more than those hormon-moron fools who blow themselves up for 72 virgins.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 5, 2007 10:25 PM

awake,

Read my post again. I never EVER minimized the threat of radical Islamism. EVER! I think it is a dire threat, I think it is the greatest threat we face.
All I did was point out that they operate differently than the fascists did, and that we should adapt strategy to account for that difference.

I also never denied that radical Jihadis are motivated by religion. Of course they are! But we can not control the fact that over a billion people follow the Quran. All we can control is how they interpret choice passages within it, and minimize the amount of people who decide God likes suicide bombings. The way to do that is not to shout "Your religion sucks!" The way to do that is to strengthen the moderate voice, and show that moderate Moslems are valued in our society.

Four years in Iraq should have taught us we can't ram moderation and democracy down people's throats. The success of the Anbar Strategy should have taught us that working with "the terrorists" can be highly productive.

You never even addressed my points. You just mangled everything I said so that they fit into your preconceived notions of me, and then proceeded to demolish your own straw-man arguments. Well, nice job. I agree with most everything you said, and if I had believed that, you would've had me pretty good. Now can you answer my REAL points, instead of the ones you made up in my name?

Briars,
Is it so terrible that moderate Moslems disavow Jihadists?

Islam has been around for a long time. Suicide bombing has not. It seems that suicide bombings are the weapon of choice specifically for radical Islamists, but why did they start now? And why is there variation within the Islamic world, such that only Moslems in specific places and specific situations are suicide bombers?

Finally, you realize that our new pals in Iraq, the tribal leaders, were organizing suicide attacks less than half a year ago? Why did they change? Is it because some new preacher came into town? Or it is because, as you said, the blood was flowing? Please explain.

Tours,
Every religious individual views the enshrinement of their religion as state policy as the ideal. Christians want Jesus in the American constitution, Jews want Judaism in Israel, Moslems want Islam in Pakistan. That's not the issue here. The issue is to what extent they are willing to compromise that ideal, including refraining from suicide attacks, for the sake of peace.

By the way, as a Jew whose grandfather lived on the French-German border, I find your logic chillingly familiar. In 1930, the alarm bells were sounding over the Jewish Problem, because every Jew was supposedly weakening Europe. Now, in 2007, you sound the alarm over Moslems, the "rapacious devourers of civilization". Like certain individuals in the 1930's, you do not take into account Moslems' background, or circumstances, or dreams for the future. Instead, you think that if they're from THIS RELIGION, they must be up to no good. That is genocidal logic, my friend. It is you who have parted ways with civilization.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 5, 2007 11:15 PM

"Terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country,'' Evans said, according to a text of his speech in Manchester, England. ''They are radicalizing, indoctrinating and grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."

And where is all this radicalization taking place, in churches?

Mr. Evans is as determined as other Western leaders to deny the source of their terrorist problems, Islam. He, like the others, is so wedded to the ideology that Islam is perfectly compatible with a secular, democratic society, that no amount of evidence to the contrary can lift the scales from their eyes. If Muslim terrorist' blew the dome off of St. Pauls, I doubt if it would have the slightest effect on their thinking.

The Islamic terrorist at least know what they stand for, and what it is they want to achieve. Our Western leaders don't know who they are, what they should be standing for, or what they should be doing to defend their civilization.

We're in big trouble!

Posted by: rational at November 5, 2007 11:22 PM

Tours, Every religious individual views the enshrinement of their religion as state policy as the ideal. Christians want Jesus in the American constitution, Jews want Judaism in Israel, Moslems want Islam in Pakistan. That's not the issue here. The issue is to what extent they are willing to compromise that ideal, including refraining from suicide attacks, for the sake of peace.

Appeasement, which is how I understand your position of 'dialogue' for the sake of peace, will not work, and is wishful thinking, childish almost. Islam's record of 1400 years of jihad warfare stands on its own. Why would you think it suddenly changes now? Your assessment that "Christians want Jesus in the American constitution" is false. No one in American wants to eliminate the separation of 'church and state' written into the First Amendment of our US Constitution. Are you familiar enough with this to understand?

If Jews or Muslims want to overturn that separation in their own lands, then it is not our problem. What is our problem is Sharia, which means religious government theocracy. Perhaps Jews and Pakistanis are comfortable with this, but it is false reason, and absurd, to project this into our Constitutional form of government, where we explicitly rejected the idea of a religious theocracy. Perhaps, before you condemn what you fail to understand, you had better try to study how our governments work. We of the free world specifically separated religion out of government, for a very good reason. The second problem is that Islam has proven itself over and over again to be violently opposed to our 'man made' laws, constitutional government, and nations. Why would I wish to negotiate in good faith with any group that wishes me to be enslaved by their Sharia law as dictated by their perverse prophet of their mythical Allah?

I don't know what your agenda is, but if it is to compromise and appease this evil trend of the Sharianisation of our Western freedoms, then I oppose you. Peace will not come until this evil Sharia anti-freedom agenda is totally subdued. If you could achieve this with dialogue, then I will be not only impressed but proved wrong. I am quite certain you will fail Sir.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 5, 2007 11:58 PM

By the way, as a Jew whose grandfather lived on the French-German border, I find your logic chillingly familiar. In 1930, the alarm bells were sounding over the Jewish Problem, because every Jew was supposedly weakening Europe. Now, in 2007, you sound the alarm over Moslems, the "rapacious devourers of civilization".
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael

You are making a false analogy here. Jews were not blowing themselves up to institute Sharia equivalence in Europe, as Islamists are doing now. So your logic is badly flawed here. So I must ask this question: Are you a Moslem parading yourself off as a Jew?

They lie, so I would not be surprised with an affirmative answer. Remember "War is deceit" as their high priest of Allah told them. But your reasoning is not only false, but odious to any reasonable person. When did the last Jew blow himself up for his God? Your position righs 'alarm bells' in me.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 6, 2007 12:11 AM

By the way, as a Jew whose grandfather lived on the French-German border, I find your logic chillingly familiar. In 1930, the alarm bells were sounding over the Jewish Problem, because every Jew was supposedly weakening Europe. Now, in 2007, you sound the alarm over Moslems, the "rapacious devourers of civilization".
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael

You are making a false analogy here. Jews were not blowing themselves up to institute Sharia equivalence in Europe, as Islamists are doing now. So your logic is badly flawed here. So I must ask this question: Are you a Moslem parading yourself off as a Jew?

They lie, so I would not be surprised with an affirmative answer. Remember "War is deceit" as their high priest of Allah told them. But your reasoning is not only false, but odious to any reasonable person. When did the last Jew blow himself up for his God? Your position rings 'alarm bells' in me.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 6, 2007 12:11 AM

Shlomo:

Your posts are an odd mixture of fact, fiction & fantasy. You wrote:

"But we can not control the fact that over a billion people follow the Quran. All we can control is how they interpret choice passages within it, and minimize the amount of people who decide God likes suicide bombings. The way to do that is not to shout "Your religion sucks!" The way to do that is to strengthen the moderate voice, and show that moderate Moslems are valued in our society."

Please to explain how we, the Kaffir, can control how muslims interpret their quran. Actually, don't bother, as the statement is absurd on its face. furthermore, in the wake of 9/11, the burden is on so-called moderate muslims to prove to the rest of us Americans that they deserve to be treated as valued citizens. they might do this by -- oh, I don't know -- denouncing all violence committed in the name of islam, co-operating with law enforcement to ferret out radicals w/in their communities, accepting the heightened level of scrutiny that muslims will necessarily fall under after 9/11. Instead, all we hear is that muslims aren't being very helpful in identifying potential trouble-makers to law enforcement, that any measures taken to address suspicious activity by muslim airline passengers will be met with lawsuits, that islam is, & always has been, a religion of peace.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at November 6, 2007 12:21 AM

Shlomo wrote:

The problem here, Mr. Spencer, is not that you're a little rude to the foreigners and minorities. It's not even that you're being inflammatory. It's that by alienating more and more moderate Moslems, you unwittingly promote Jihad.

Truly comical. So Robert incites Muslims to become mass murderers merely by exposing the contents of the Koran, Hadiths and Sharia to the infidel public at large? well then your moderate Muslim brothers are truly a violent and unstable lot if this is all it takes to get them to murder people. If anything you prove the point that Muslims in the west need to be expelled since they are incapable of tolerating people having different opinions than you or your violent associates.

Christians want Jesus in the American constitution, Jews want Judaism in Israel, Moslems want Islam in Pakistan. That's not the issue here. The issue is to what extent they are willing to compromise that ideal, including refraining from suicide attacks, for the sake of peace.

Nice set of lies and strawmen. The vast majority of Christians do not want Jesus in the Constitution or blurring of the separation of Church and State with the exception of Dominionists.

Christianity has no Sharia which enshrines the theocratic state as does Islam.

In Islam there never was a separation of Church and state. It is all inclusive thanks to the Sharia and furthermore no devout Muslim will repudiate it either lest they be labeled heretics and murdered.

Posted by: waltc at November 6, 2007 12:23 AM

How many jihadi sympathizers in the UK, Muslim or otherwise? Any statistics?

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 6, 2007 12:45 AM

Tours,

You're right, there's very good reasons for the separation of Church and State. That's why I am so disturbed that it seems to be creeping back in in our foreign policies. In your declaration of war on Islam, I hear the echoes of Crusaders' cries as they massacred my people.
Maybe we're thinking about this differently because my primary identitification is not with Christendom. You probably view this from the perspective of your society being attacked by the same outside enemy. What I see is two civilizations killing each other in large numbers. Jews usually took punishment under Christianity as well as Islam. If they were lucky, they would watch as the Islamo-Christian border went back and forth and back and forth. If they were unlucky, the victors would slaughter them for fun after acquiring new territory. In my mind, a millenium and a half of useless and devastating religious wars speaks for itself. I'm not in a hurry for another round.
What good will come of this? One religious community builds a great civilization, then it comes crashing down because the other decides to attack. A few centuries of disorganization, and then the other religion builds a great civilization. But then the other religion goes berserk, and round and round we go...what does this accomplish? So much is lost in the ruins!
Christendom has the upper hand now. It can try to oppress Moslems forever, a futile exercise that will lead to its downfall sooner or later; or it can make a lasting peace on its own terms, such that this madness is no longer tenable. That is not "appeasement". That is best for Jews, Christians, and Moslems alike.

Regarding your genocidal madness,
What's imporant here is not what Jews were actually DOING-nothing. What matters is that they were perceived to be destroying civilization, and eventually that perception grew so strong in people's minds it erased all evidence to the contrary based on personal interactions. You are going down the same road, when you claim that anyone who follows Sharia is a closet terrorist. Do you know any Moslems? I know plenty, and I know none of them are terrorists. Yet you are intent on creating a perception of my friends that they are enemies of civilization. Well, I will protect them. With great pride, I will take up the mantle of the "righteous dhimmi" just as some brave souls took up the mantle of "righteous gentiles" during the Holocaust.

Sheik yer booty,
"We" are hearing what certain individuals want us to hear. Anyone who knowingly cooperates with terrorists should of course face consequences.
That being said, all other Americans are valued citizens, regardless of whom they worship. No one has to "prove" anything to you or anyone else. Everyone is equal under the law, even if your own prejudices cause you to wish it otherwise.

How Moslems interpret the Quran is based on a range of factors. Only since very recently have the stars aligned to produce the suicide-bombing interpretation.

waltc,
Slaves killed their masters after slavery ended. Hutus killed Tutsis after they turned the tables on their historical opressors. The preceding were both examples of Christian-on-Christian violence. When you deny people their human dignities, they tend to get a little angry. Do it for long enough, they want payback. If they are religious, they will find justification for it in their holy books. Otherwise, they'll just do it anyways. But either way, those tens of millions in Pakistan are not planning to lay down and die. They will not watch Musharraf's goons rape their daughters forever without responding. Suicide bombing is terribly destructive, but at least (in their minds) it's payback.

Obviously, there's a spectrum. My Moslem friends will not start strapping on suicide belts because of IFAW. But they might get a little more cynical about our civilization, if it grows increasingly unkind to them by adopting the bigoted policies that are tossed around freely on this website. Somewhere down the road, this cynicism might restrain them from challenging a radical at their local mosque. Or, they might challenge, but lose because the radicals will point to Jihad Watch oppression of Moslems. Then, their radical friends might turn down the dark path...

Do you know anything at all about Islamic history? Some of the Moslems' most esteemed juridical authorities (Ibn Hanbal, for example) have been killed for refusing to be "absorbed" into the state apparatus. Ever since the Rashidun, Mosque and Caliphate have in effect been more seperate than Church and State.
I know that Judaism, like Islam, is all-inclusive. The Kingdom of David integrates church and state pretty well. Maybe I'm wrong about Christianity, but I seem to remember many bloody religious wars between different church-states. These wars first ended when Henry of Navarre decided to secularize the state, and made peace between Catholics and Huguenots in France. But this was a SECULARIZATION that was exogenous to Christianity!

In understand that most Christians today live under secular states, with divisions between the two. Historically, this was done to end the vicious set of religious wars between different sects. I respect that. But I hope you'll in turn recognize that there are other, valid ways of doing things, and respect that as well.
I'd rather have a representative Moslem government that likes the West but has a tinge of Sharia, than a secular government backed by the West as it oppresses and radicalizes its own people.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 6, 2007 1:24 AM

How many jihadi sympathizers in the UK, Muslim or otherwise? Any statistics? - Posted by: Wimbledon Womble

40% of British Muslims want sharia law
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54018

Multiculturalism - an aside
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5416/2263/1600/05.07.20.RealSuicideBomb-X.0.gif

This gives an idea of the depth of support for Sharia law, to overturn our 'man made' Constitutional laws of freedom with their mythical Allah's laws of 'submission' slavery. The gall to think that one man's mad imaginings can rule the world... oh, that reminds me of Hitler! Don't learn from history, it just keeps coming back at you.

Islam's been at it longer than anybody else, had gone dormant, and now empowered by 'multiculturalism' raises its world domination ugly head once again. Stop Sharia now!

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 6, 2007 1:32 AM

That's why I am so disturbed that it seems to be creeping back in in our foreign policies. In your declaration of war on Islam, I hear the echoes of Crusaders' cries as they massacred my people.

That personal 'paranoia' has no place in facing off against Islamic aggressions. If you feel persecuted historically, and you have right to do so for good reasons, do not bring this into the battle we face to preserve our freedoms against Sharia enslavement. Remember your prophet of long ago: "Let my people go." Learn from history, or suffer slavery again.

OTOH, religion has no place in stopping Sharia. This is a secular war against enslavement.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 6, 2007 1:41 AM

Battle_of_Tours:

40% of British Muslims want sharia law, eh?

Sharia law is what jihadis want. That is their expressed end goal, although methinks that death and destruction, and not having a steady girlfriend, is a big part of the adolescent jihadi death cult fantasies.

Now...what is the difference between a jihadist and a jihadi-/Islamist sympathizer who wants sharia law?

Umm... Any difference?

So the problem is a lot bigger than just 2,000 jihadists in the UK. We are talking about 500 times as many jihad-lovers in the UK.

Prince Charles must be proud.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 6, 2007 1:49 AM

Obviously, there's a spectrum. My Moslem friends will not start strapping on suicide belts because of IFAW. But they might get a little more cynical about our civilization, if it grows increasingly unkind to them by adopting the bigoted policies that are tossed around freely on this website. Somewhere down the road, this cynicism might restrain them from challenging a radical at their local mosque. Or, they might challenge, but lose because the radicals will point to Jihad Watch oppression of Moslems. Then, their radical friends might turn down the dark path...

Lance the boil and watch the puss flow. It's not pretty, it stinks, but it gets the boil down. How much are your Moslems friends? What do they think of freedom? Do they understand the responsibilities this means? Ask them. I'm not talking 'permissiveness' but freedom. Do they understand? Do you?

I'm not even addressing all the odious habits Moslems have: honor killings, death for apostasy, death for infidels and Jews, clitorectomies, 4:34 wife beatings, jizya tax and dhimmitude, amputations, stonings for ____ (fill in your favorite), 1400 years of cultural genocide, jihad suicide bombings, and so on. I'm just addressing human rights and equality before the law for all people, regardless of gender or religion, our Consitutional freedoms, as opposed to 'submission' to Mohammed's mad dreams of Allah's laws. Can you understand the difference? This has nothing to do with religion! It's a war against slavery, all over again, as it had been through all history. Who do you thing were the grandest African slavers of them all, for a thousand years? Still at it today, if under the radar? Moslems. So ask you friends about this.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 6, 2007 2:04 AM

Do you know any Moslems? I know plenty, and I know none of them are terrorists. Yet you are intent on creating a perception of my friends that they are enemies of civilization. Well, I will protect them. With great pride, I will take up the mantle of the "righteous dhimmi" just as some brave souls took up the mantle of "righteous gentiles" during the Holocaust. Posted by: Shlomo_Michael

Take pride, but remember takiyya, they will not tell you all the truth about their intentions. And yes, I too have Moslem friends, but we keep religion separate from our everyday life.

My gut tells me you are only one step away from accepting Da'wa. But before you say the shahadah, better think about all that was said. It's your choice, and your life. Death for apostasy also means the life of all your progenitors, for ever. This has nothing to do with the Holocaust, unless your bring it back upon yourself, and your progeny for ever through Sharia law.

Think about it. There is more here than being nice.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 6, 2007 2:47 AM

The sorry state of English politics

A Liberal Democrat activist had his £50,000 Range Rover set on fire during a bitter fight to oust a Labour councillor, an election court was told yesterday.

The activist, Iftikhar Ahmed, was a key supporter of Saeed Aehmed, who was defeated in the council elections in Birmingham in May when he stood against the Labour candidate Muhammad Afzal.

Mr Aehmed is challenging Mr Afzal’s victory and claims that he was the victim of a smear campaign, in which voters were told wrongly that he had been arrested for fraud.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2796395.ece

Posted by: shiva at November 6, 2007 4:21 AM

Or, they might challenge, but lose because the radicals will point to Jihad Watch oppression of Moslems. Then, their radical friends might turn down the dark path...

All because of words on a website? And one that's surely read by only a minuscule minority of the web community? Really, how does such a website, privately run in the vast chaos of the Internet where point-counterpoint is norm and expected, "oppress" anybody? This isn't state-run television, where only one side rules and opposing views are censored. A counter-website to JW could easily be up-and-running in hours, made available to the exact same web audience as JW, if one so chooses.

I wonder....as you worry about JW's influence on moderate Muslims, do you similarly worry moderate Jews will cynically turn down a "dark path" because of jewwatch.com? And do you worry moderate Christians will cynically do likewise when they read infidels.org or bibletrash.com? If not, then why do you worry so with Muslims?

Sheesh, if everyone were to turn down a "dark path" because of any obscure website or Hitchens-like alarmist that criticize/ridicule/mock/demonize (whether fairly or unfairly) their religion, ethnicity, country, political view, etc., this world would be a smoking wasteland by now. The fact it isn't says much about the thick-skinned tenacity of most of peoplekind, IMO. In contrast, the suggestion that Muslims would feel "oppressed" to the point of giving in to the "dark path" simply because of websites like JW is quite condescending, don't you think? Do you and your Muslim friends believe the good-in-Islam is more than capable of debunking Spencer's claims about Muhammad, Quran, sharia, etc., beyond just insisting he not make such claims so as to avoid hurt feelings and keeping peace? Or are Muslims, as you seem to suggest, doomed to shrivel up in angry, violent-prone cynicism because they can't take the heat of criticism/ridicule from words on a website? Ironically, I think you overestimate Spencer and JW's influence and underestimate moderate-Islam's influence on today's Muslims, which doesn't reflect admirably on folks like your moderate Muslim friends....or Islam in general, for that matter.

Posted by: yadayada at November 6, 2007 4:58 AM

Shlomo_Michael

"These wars first ended when Henry of Navarre decided to secularize the state, and made peace between Catholics and Huguenots in France. But this was a SECULARIZATION that was exogenous to Christianity!!"

Historic detail - Your get out phrase is "First ended"

A Protestant himself he was offered the crown of France if he became a Catholic, which he did with the classic political statement “Paris's worth a Mass”

What he actually did was grant the Protestant factions in France extremely generous terms including the right to fortify cities and most historians agree that in terms of the state's interest the terms were too generous. The war was reopened 40 years later when Cardinal Richelieu who was not the least concerned with their religion as much as the threat they constituted to the unity of the state started to withdraw their privileges. The job of finally destroying Protestants in France was completed in the 1680’s when most of them were driven out by a well-organised and systematic campaign of repression. French Protestants were then reduced to a very tiny sect living in secret and ceased to exist as an identifiable group in France.

Consequently religious divisions in France ceased to be a problem. It gives me no satisfaction to say this is an extremely effective way deal with religions which constitute a threat to the security of the state.

It is also worth pointing out that in the religious wars you speak of the German Protestants were subsidised by same Catholic Cardinal Richelieu to fight the Austrian Catholics. Richelieu had no intention of allowing a unified German state to exist on France's northern border.

Finally please do not compare the position of the Muslims today with that of the Jews in Europe in the 1930s. Unlike Muslims who openly declare their intention to take over societies they have settled in in the last 25 years, I know of no occasion when Jews ever constituted a threat to the security of any state or attacked their fellow countrymen.

The appalling tragedy is that the German Jews were the most integrated and patriotic Jews in Europe and many simply could not come to terms with what their country was doing to them. A leading member of the Jewish community in Britain said her grandfather continued to wear his German medals earned in World War 1 when he was a refugee in Britain at the height of World War 2!

Posted by: Fred at November 6, 2007 5:18 AM

". Defining Moslems by their religious identity, and their connection to terrorists, can only lead to policies that force them into their Moslem identity, and then to radical Jihad.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael "

....any policy put into place would not change the fact that Muslims are connected to terrorism, any policy put into place would not diminish the grand Islamic plan of global domination....

.....in fact, the best plan would be to confront Islam militancy and Islams grand plan now....

start by Banning Muslim Immigration....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 6, 2007 5:24 AM

...Great Britain endured the Black Plague, and Great Britain is now confronted with the Muslim Plague....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 6, 2007 5:26 AM

shlomo,
you barking mad s.o.b.
you sound one step away from strapping on your bombers belt.
moderate islamic government? you crazy so and so,
why don't you clear off to saudi and enjoy your islamic community,sharia law and all?
thats all.

Posted by: victor at November 6, 2007 8:25 AM

Unfortunately dated song:

"There'll always be an England, and England shall be free..."

Not if you cannot even identify the enemy much less defeat him, you are sooooooo gone.

The ship will go down with Sir Iqbal Socranie on the bridge as well as the Labor Party.

So much for happy memories.

Posted by: dgene at November 6, 2007 8:48 AM

'And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'?

A great question to answer if you have nothing else to do.

What Christians did or do, what Jews did or do,
what Pigmy head hunters living in the Congo, did or do, has nothing to do with Islam except they are all dar al-harb, and must be fought. Especially those pesky headhunters. That's part of 'eliminate the competition jihad', that I mentioned one before.

Muslims were given a manual of directions from Allah. In this manual, Allah tells muslims exactly how to behave, and what he wants them to do and accomplish for him...in his name. That manual is called 'The Quran'. Mohammad provides the living (at the time) example of just how to carry out the directions given in Allah's manual.
A good muslim is one who carries out the directions in Allah's book, using the examples of Mohammad as much as possible. If this did not lend itself to dar al-harb ideology, if it did not have hegemoniacal, world take over ideas, if it did give permission to unstable muslims to commit Ist degree murder, with impunity, probably no one outside Islam would even care, but because those things do exist in Islam as active particles of the religion, there is plenty of reason to care.
Muslims in America, by logical extension of Islamic responsibility, would be foolish and border line apostates, if they were not preparing for the take over (or attempted) of America. They can do it with slow jihad by multiplying and capturing the vote weapon. Faster jihad the explosive way will be a little harder...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 6, 2007 9:09 AM

You don't say, Londonistan?!
For a decade, UK extended generous welcome to jihadists wanted for murder in practically every country in the world, from Argentina to Morocco to Egypt to Israel to Russia to Kashmir to Bali to the Philippines to France in hopes to buy "peace in their time" for the English people at the expence of other's blood. And now, all that for nothing?!
In 1999, even as the British media and populace gleefully cheered the brutal eradication of Christianity from Kosovo by the NATO-backed Albanian hordes, Reda Hassaine, a courageous Arab who infiltrated jihad cells in London, had publically warned the US that "Britain is your enemy", disclosing that UK authorities at every level actively aid and appease terrorists from all over the world as long as they do their murdering elsewere. The results are not surprising. According to an anti-jihad Muslim Amir Taheri there are 2,000 (!) Islamist organizations in Britain, all inciting jihad! The English people keep repeating Munich over and over again.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at November 6, 2007 3:23 PM

Enragedsince1999

I am afraid that much of this is true but censorship is so severe that the British people at large just do not know about it.

The key news programme in Britain goes out on BBC Radio 4 between 7.00 & 9.30 every day of the week. I do not remember subject of a particular interview some years ago, but I remember a Conservative MP asking, “How can we expect co-operation from the French when a man they want for bombing the Paris underground in has been living in London on social security for 10 years?”

The response of the anchor man John Humphrys, one of the best-known and probably best informed journalists and the country?

Shock! “Upon my soul I never knew that!”

If the head man on the BBC’s flagship daily news programme does not know what's going on how can anyone else?

It is actually a criminal offence in Britain to publish anything likely to cause racial hatred and the fact that it is true is no defence. Within the last month a Bill has been passed to allow the prosecution of bloggers so JW posters watch out!

Added detail - I think the French eventually got him back but he was almost certainly kept in the country with the help of civil rights lawyers provided by the British taxpayer.

Posted by: Fred at November 6, 2007 3:59 PM

"The only evidence I see of this might be in Iraq, where tribal leaders have urged their followers to rise up against the tyrants in the form of Al-Qaeda and Khomienists in the form of Al-Sadr. Does this much blood have to flow before Muslims see the light?" - above

When the Shiites were suffering badly at the hands of the Sunni, in Iraq, they wanted the Americans to stay - when the Shiites are in a position to kick the Sunni around, the latter want the Americans to protect them. Of course, both have to kill infidels to maintain credibility as proper Muslims but it's a question of degree.

Posted by: wallyUK at November 6, 2007 6:34 PM

Fred

really, so i can get prosectued for stating that "islam is a wicked faith"?

couldnt you just tell them to shove their laws up their arses. hold on, i will just do that. could you send me a link please and i'll tell them that they can shove that new law right up their arse.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 7, 2007 5:53 PM