RoPaT.

Posted by: jay at February 19, 2008 8:11 AM

I think that these statements would be an endorsement of MORE cartoons. Rage Boy can only rage for so long..........

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 19, 2008 8:27 AM

Definitely, more Mo-toons are needed. Ali Sina has pointed out the importance of such ridicule and satire.

Posted by: Always On Watch at February 19, 2008 8:41 AM

Popular Resistance Committees of... Hypothetical Buddhists?

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 19, 2008 8:44 AM

hmmm

let get my head around this mo logic:

Action: Some danes print some cartoons (not as good as the ones the immams made mind you)

Response: Therefore followers of old mo should go kill danes all over the world.

does this mean I am allowed to presume that, by the same mo logic this is also morally correct:

Action: Mo followers protest about having freedom in the west by setting some bombs off and killing innocent civilians (eg London Paris New York)

Response: Every follower of old mo is now a legitimate target for innocent civilians (eg in London Paris New York) to go out and kill?

I suppose that ordinary moslems will be expecting it when they become targets?????

Posted by: exposesithlords at February 19, 2008 8:57 AM

I was using the Mo-toon as an avatar at http://www.skyscrapercity.com. I didn't have any problems for about 3 weeks, and then I got a message yesterday that I was permanently banned for using an "offensive" avatar. No warning. Just forever-banned. Crazy.

Posted by: antishock8 at February 19, 2008 9:12 AM

when will the world wake up and realize that islam is at war with the world and will conquer the world if not stopped??? how many nations across the world have already fallen to islam??? 12???

Europe is so asleep that it will take nukes going off before the European governments wake up.......

Europe did not learn from the 1930's......... and Europe will be conquered again if they do not start taking action.

how sad that hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent Europeans will die before Europe takes action to save itself......

Posted by: ??? at February 19, 2008 9:13 AM

More Cartoons? They would surely love this one:

'Khadijah hatches Muhammad'

http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/prophet-mohammed-with-first-wife1.jpg

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 19, 2008 9:13 AM

When I first heard about the cartoons, two years ago, my initial response, as a graduate student in Religious Studies, taught good Leftist values throughout my various degrees, was to think that the cartoonists had crossed a line. Then, we began to hear of people calling for the death of the cartoonists, of riots in London, Paris, and elsewhere, all over a dozen or so political cartoons. It was the violent response of Muslims to these cartoons that made me reconsider the Leftist values I've been brought up, which led me to make a sharp turn to the Right.

I would love to say that Islam is a Religion of Peace (TM), but the fact is that the evidence does not support this contention. The more I learn, and the more I experience, the more frightened I become. At the university where I study and teach, a group of Muslim students--thugs, really--found a loophole in the electoral process for the Presidency of the Graduate Student Association, such that, five of them, wielding hundreds of proxy votes obtained through intimidation and outright lies, had more voting power than all the other graduate students combined! They managed to elect one of their own as President. He then attempted to force through a change to our drug plan that would allow only married women to receive compensation for oral contraceptives, and to shut down the Graduate Student Pub, which is owned and operated by the Graduate Student Association. What was their justfication for this move? That monies collected from their tuition fees should not go to things that violate their moral code.

People who opposed them were accused of being motivated by hatred of Muslims. These charges went before the University's Human Rights and Equity Services, which ruled that there was no substance to the accusations of hating Muslims, and that, in fact, those who brought the charges had to issue a public apology for the slander. Likewise, none of their amendments went through: the insurance company that carries our drug plan could not legally discriminate on the basis of marital status, and there was too much popular support for the pub. However, for months, our Graduate Student Association was practically shut down by five men, who were explicitly motivated by the promotion of Muslim values to Islamify our heathen Graduate Student Association. We lost tens of thousands of dollars due to mismanagement, etc., as they carried out their Jihad.

This is different from the cartoon controversy only insofar as they used proxy votes instead of guns and vandalism to get power, and that, again, they used verbal and physical intimidation and guile instead of guns and vandalism to obtain said proxies. It convinced me, however, that with many (not necessarily all) Muslim we are dealing with less than rational folk who are prepared to use any means available to press their Islamicist agendas. I have little doubt, too, that they would have used guns and vandalism if they thought it would have been deemed necessary and effective. Only the fact that it was neither prevented them from doing so.

As I posted elsewhere, do I hate Muslims? No. Do I fear them? Yes, absolutely. The fact is, the Jihad is not just on our TVs. It is in our schools, our neighbourhoods, our places of employment. We are at war, and many of our neighbours are siding with the enemy. We ignore this at our own risk.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 19, 2008 9:13 AM

??? writes:
"Europe did not learn from the 1930's......... and Europe will be conquered again if they do not start taking action."

Your point is well-taken. Sometimes I feel like Churchill, in about 1938, being laughed at for saying that war is coming. Except, of course, war is here, has clearly been for at least six and a half years.

That said, there is another lesson to be learned from the 1930s and '40s. Canada and the US are still haunted, and rightfully so, by the fact that we rounded up Japanese-Canadians and Japanese-Americans, many second or generation, and put them into internment camps for no crime other than being Japanese. The parallels to the Nazi "Final Solution" are far from exact, but still chilling. Each was predicated upon the assumption that a certain group of people was, for whatever reason, less deserving of humane treatment than others. This was affront not only to their humaniy, but was an implicit repudiation of our own. We must take care that, in the process of defening ourselves, lose our humanity.

Of course, I would have little problem with bugging mosques whose members might be involved somehow with Islamic terrorists. Why? Because mosques are known to be breeding grounds for extremist groups and actions. Freedom of religion must not become a shield for sedition. However, I would be deeply concerned if we began to prosecute or imprison Muslims simply for being Muslim. If they commit a crime, of course, we ought to prosecute them to the full extent of the law--as we would any other resident of our lands. Ultimately, this is about the rule of law, which is one of the very values for which we ought to be fighting. If we can suspend it at will, then why bother fighting for it?

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 19, 2008 9:26 AM

FidesEtRatio,

This is what's so scary about fighting them. They're focused and have no distraction wile the people they're attempting to subjugate are distracted and generally don't have the collective will to go through what you had to go through in order to win. It's going to take a tremendous amout of will on our part to preserve our freedoms in the face of this increasingly monolithic threat.

Posted by: antishock8 at February 19, 2008 9:29 AM

And these are the people the Three Stooges presidential candidates think we should meet with and treat with dignity and respect.

Posted by: Balrog at February 19, 2008 9:47 AM

People, as language is quite a powerful tool (duh), I urge everyone to start referring to the "Glorious Qur'an" as the "Spurious Qur'an." "Spurious," a like-sounding word to "glorious" but with the meaning of "false; not genuine." Which says it all, doesn't it!

"The Spurious Qur'an," people - I hope it'll catch on.

Posted by: darcy at February 19, 2008 9:57 AM

OT

Remember my little mosque across the street? This morning I heard they want to add a madrassa.

Now, my guess is that what they actually want to do is build a more mosque-like mosque, and use the house-like mosque for the madrassa.

As I've said before, I for one can't fault Europe or Great Britain for their Muslim infestation. It's happening right here, in the good old USA.

Watch and wait, in that order, is all I can do.

On Topic:

How is it, that no one hears these animals talk about how they want to kill people for someone else's artwork? Not that I think cartoonists should be slaughtered, either (quite the opposite--we need more cartoons).

It's a situation that's gotten out of control, and I'd really like it, if someone in authority would put a stop to it. Yet, no one seems to see it or hear it.

Posted by: Abscedere at February 19, 2008 10:14 AM

FidesEtRatio said: However, I would be deeply concerned if we began to prosecute or imprison Muslims simply for being Muslim.

Why? Their very tenets say they must fight until there is one faith.

Given that's how they 'believe' I'd say it's important to treat them all as an enemy. They're telling us their intentions, why not trust that they mean it?

Religion is such a poor excuse for anything in the 21st Century. Let science and logic be your guide.

Peace,

Abu Lahab

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 19, 2008 10:15 AM

OT

Remember my little mosque across the street? This morning I heard they want to add a madrassa.

Now, my guess is that what they actually want to do is build a more mosque-like mosque, and use the house-like mosque for the madrassa.

As I've said before, I for one can't fault Europe or Great Britain for their Muslim infestation. It's happening right here, in the good old USA.

Watch and wait, in that order, is all I can do.

On Topic:

How is it, that no one hears these animals talk about how they want to kill people for someone else's artwork? Not that I think cartoonists should be slaughtered, either (quite the opposite--we need more cartoons).

It's a situation that's gotten out of control, and I'd really like it, if someone in authority would put a stop to it. Yet, no one seems to see it or hear it.

Posted by: Abscedere at February 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Islam has bloody borders wherever it has been established.

Kosovo is a prime example, Kashmir, the south of Thailand, Mindano/Philipines, Lebanon is typical, Cyprus, all those places show you clearly what's in store for us if we don't go to extreme measures, which means mass-deportations, no less.

We cannot coexist. Its either us or them.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 19, 2008 10:27 AM

How is it, that no one hears these animals talk about how they want to kill people for someone else's artwork?
by Abscedere

A follow-up question:

How is it that we are not allowed to treat them as they would treat us - hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of the few who "just don't understand"?

This doesn't mean killing or imprisoning them. It means isolating and deporting them, a far more humane action than a Muslim would exact on any of us once he is in a position of power with no fear of retribution. I've only reached page 54, but Dr. Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" is a sickening recount of just how "peaceful" Muslims were, from their earliest days. The story of what happened to Egypt alone is enough to make you shudder.

Posted by: PMK at February 19, 2008 10:42 AM

Abu Lahab writes:
"Given that's how they 'believe' I'd say it's important to treat them all as an enemy. They're telling us their intentions, why not trust that they mean it?

Religion is such a poor excuse for anything in the 21st Century. Let science and logic be your guide."

Dear Abu Lahab,

I am an enthusiastic advocate of logic, as the "ratio" in my screen name ought make clear (just as the "fides" ought to make clear that I am unconvinced that religion and logic are mutually exclusive; it was, after all, the Medieval Scholastics, devout Catholics all, who made some of the greatest advances in logic since Aristotle). Thus, as one logical thinker to another, let us consider the logic of what you have said here.

For the conclusion of an argument to accepted as true, two logical conditions need be met: it must be valid, and it must be sound (properly speaking, of course, validity is a precondition for soundness, but does not guarantee it). In order to test the validity and soundness of your argument, please allow me to put it into syllogistic form:

All people who hold this particular set of tenets are our enemies.
All Muslims are people who hold this particular set of tenets.
Therefore, all Muslims are our enemies.

Now, this is clearly a valid argument. However, is it sound? In order to answer that question, we must focus our attention upon the minor term. Is it in fact the case that all Muslims hold the tenets to which you allude? Not necessarily. I assume by this you mean the belief that non-Muslims are enemies of Islam who are deserving of violent opposition and mistreatment. I have met many a Muslim who would feel otherwise. Therefore, I would contend that the minor term is fallacious, and thus the conclusion is also false. In order we must change the second term to "Some Muslims are people who hold this particular set of tenets." Therefore, the syllogism ought to look like this:

All people who hold this particular set of tenets are our enemies.
Some Muslims are people who hold this particular set of tenets.
Therefore, all Muslims are our enemies.

However, this is not valid. Some of all is not all. Therefore, the conclusion must be rejected as false. Insofar as your argument for treating all Muslims as enemies seems necessarily to presuppose that all Muslims are enemies, your argument is fact either invalid or unsound. You can only make it valid and sound by defending the premise that all Muslims hold to the tenets to which you alluded, a premise which I would (to repeat) contend is simply indefensible.

Consequently, if logic is to be our guide, and if your suggestion to treat all Muslims as enemies is neither logically valid nor sound, then we must reject your suggestion.

This brings me back to my original point: we ought to carry out our war on terror in a properly human fashion. Insofar as I would content that rationality is a necessary condition of what it means to be properly human, and insofar as logic is a necessary part of rationality, then I would further contend that any logically invalid or unsound course of act would be less than properly human. This war, I think, is not really between Islam and the rest of the world, but between humanity and inhumanity. We cannot consider ourselves champions of humanity if we conduct ourselves in an other than properly human fashion. In point of fact, insofar as we conduct ourselves in an inhuman fashion, we find ourselves at risk of becoming the very thing against which we strive.

Ultimately, then, the first, most crucial, question is not how ought we to treat Muslims, but rather what sort of people do we want to be? I do not want to be an irrational, inhuman, person, and thus I choose to conduct myself in a rational, human, fashion.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 19, 2008 11:06 AM

PMK writes:
"How is it that we are not allowed to treat them as they would treat us - hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of the few who "just don't understand"?"

The answer is simple: because if we do that, we legitimate that way of thinking. By refusing to act in that way, we say, by our very actions, that this is not the path forward for humanity. If we truly believe that a person ought only to be held accountable for their own actions (as our Western values of jurisprudence have long argued) then we cannot act otherwise. Make no mistake, we struggle not only against flesh and blood, but for the very essence of what it means to be human. Liberty is not won by acting in ways contrary to the spirit of liberty.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 19, 2008 11:11 AM

"Muslims worldwide should bomb Denmark's embassies and kill it diplomats following last week's republication of caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip said on Monday"

This is the desired reaction to a cartoon? What would one get for a contiguous string of cartoons -- you know, a movie? I guess it will be the same, and we'll find out as we watch events unfold around Geert Wilders. These people have no progression of escalation. They respond to a drawing or "mishandling" of a book the same as they would an armed invasion. Their propensity to immediately move to a position of outright warfare for any perceived slight leaves ZERO room for negotiation with them. It only affords us room to submit, which is their goal, or to steadfastly respond with all appropriate means.

Islamic leaders call for bombing and murder because the West refuses to squelch its freedoms. I call for Western nations to stand firmly with the Danes, and to collectively respond to any manifestation of this threat with all appropriate means, from ostracism to overwhelming force.

Posted by: Gondemar at February 19, 2008 11:13 AM

Yes Fides, you chose not to be irrational, inhuman. But our enemies don't give you the light of day. They use our humanity and our laws against us.

But here we can see what a real a-sole looks like:

Top UN anti-terrorism official condemns linkage of terror with Islam

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1885487&Language=en

BRUSSELS, Feb 19 (KUNA) -- The new head of the United Nations Counter-terrorism (CTC) Executive Directorate rejected today any attempts to link acts of terrorism with Islam or any other religion.
"The UN has never made any link with a particular religion and terrorism", Mike Smith told a press conference here Tuesday.
"To make any link with Islam and terrorism is quite unfair, he said noting that a majority of victims of terrorism are probably Muslims.
"It is kind of crazy to try and say that terrorism is Islam, said the former Australian diplomat who also speaks Arabic and served as his countrys ambassador to Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia.
He however, noted that some extremists have tried to link Islam to their cause. "That is enormously sad and if I was a Muslim, I would be very angry about that," said Smith who was appointed to his new UN post last October.
The UN official was in Brussels to discuss with EU

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 19, 2008 11:14 AM

FidesEtRatio said: I have met many a Muslim who would feel otherwise. Therefore, I would contend that the minor term is fallacious, and thus the conclusion is also false.

Heresay isn't proof. We only have their deeds to judge them by. Ever heard of Taqqiyah? Could these 'decent' muslims be lying to achieve their stated goal?

I understand your humanity in dealing with these people, I have no such humanity as I have far more examples of their hatred than their compassion.

Your humanity, to me, is misplaced as is your application of logic.

Peace,

Abu Lahab.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 19, 2008 11:17 AM

I think smothering them with cartoons is fine, but we can expect a violent response to some non violent ribbing. A better way to eliminate Islam, is to
create apostates. Not all muslims have a stomach for all this violence. Those like 'Muslims against Shari'a', while only half apostate, would cause others to question Islam. Against Shari'a maybe, but not against Mohammad, jihad or Allah. At least is a start. Since these things are all hooked together, to disbelieve one part, leads to disbelief in all parts. Halfway apostates create others. Some cross the line.
Eventually overwhelming numbers of apostates would seriously weaken, and kill Allah in the end.
As long as Allah remains 'The-god' to be worshipped, there will be troublesome muslims.

Posted by: duh_swami at February 19, 2008 11:27 AM

If you think that this threat will stop those pesky Danes irittating all those millions of muslims think again they are at it again. Enjoy this bit of Photoshoping from a Danish Blogger.

http://hodja.wordpress.com/

You will have to scroll down a little bit but it is well worth the effort

Posted by: Holger Dansker at February 19, 2008 11:49 AM

FidesEtRatio,

Are we not allowed to differentiate between right and wrong? Muslims who will not make this distinction are our enemies. Those who do make the distinction will show us by their actions: they will disable those who threaten them and us.

The Umma amounts to a nation. You insist on treating them as individuals, which is the way we will lose. You have to remember this isn't a personal faith. Islam is the only religion that not only sanctions violence, it demands violence against all who don't believe. Muslims are following through on this belief. The only times Islam was "peaceful" were when it was in a relative position of weakness. They don't share your values.
Individual Germans couldn't say they didn't support Hitler after the elections took place. When war was declared then how an individual voted was irrelevant. If you didn't support Hitler then it was up to you to come over to the other side and do what was necessary to defeat him, even at the risk of your own life. The same holds true for "peaceful" Muslims. If they truly don't support the jihad then it is up to them to join the fight to defeat those who would impose their way of life on the entire world. If they are not with us then we can only assume they are with the jihadists. There is no middle ground. Neutrality is not an option.
We are not validating their way of thinking and we aren't stooping to their level. The jihadists are working from an ideology. Do you support that ideology or don't you? How does a Muslim NOT support them and still remain a Muslim?
I wouldn't bomb them into oblivion, though it may come to that. I say that isolation is far more humane than anything they have ever done to anyone they have come into contact with. Their history shows that they are peaceful and benevolent as long as they don't have the upper hand. Once they gain control, they take the gloves off. It goes all the way back to Mohammed. That was his M.O. from day one.
We are acting for our own survival. Theirs isn't just a religion. It's a system of government. They want to impose that system on all of us.
They are the ones who made this an existential fight, not us. If we value our existence we fight. If we don't, we surrender. Would you choose to surrender rather than get your hands dirty?
Containment is a valid strategy of war. What I propose amounts to containment - keeping Muslims to one section of the world and leaving the rest of us in peace. Even though many Muslims have successfully made lives for themselves among us, the Islamic experience throughout the last 1400 years suggests that is little more than a holding action. Just look at Great Britain. The first generation of Pakistanis were peaceful, law-abiding members of society. Once they gained mass, they began making demands. They want Islamic law in Britain. The same is happening here in the US. Look at Dearborn.
The peaceful ones are little more than decoys, keeping us busy while the rest get on about their business: turning Europe and North America into Islamic outposts.

Posted by: PMK at February 19, 2008 12:05 PM

"The Umma amounts to a nation. You insist on treating them as individuals, which is the way we will lose." --PMK

I agree with PMK. It's not required that every single Muslim be a Terrorist or want Death to America or shar'ia law --there's enough who are Terrorists and who do want to destroy America and who do want shar'ia law. Stop worrying about individual Muslims who may or may not exist and whose names you can't even furnish - not one.

I know we are in trouble when I can't put a "Mohammed bear" in my car window for fear of either 1. Getting killed by a Muslim or 2. arrested by my own government for "inciting hatred."

People, we are in trouble NOW. STOP WORRYING ABOUT "MODERATE" INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST. WE MUST FIGHT ISLAM - THEY ARE WELCOME TO JOIN THE FIGHT.

Posted by: darcy at February 19, 2008 12:19 PM

Heresay isn't proof. We only have their deeds to judge them by. Ever heard of Taqqiyah? Could these 'decent' muslims be lying to achieve their stated goal?

I understand your humanity in dealing with these people, I have no such humanity as I have far more examples of their hatred than their compassion.

Your humanity, to me, is misplaced as is your application of logic.

Peace,

Abu Lahab.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 19, 2008 11:17 AM

Commenter with, ironically, a Mohammedan nic, that's really brilliant. Yes, "deeds." Where are the good deeds, where? where? where? All I see are atrocious actions by muslims on the one hand, and silence on the other.

"Actions speak louder than Taqiyyah."

Posted by: darcy at February 19, 2008 12:23 PM

Abu Lahab ibn 'Abdul Muttalib (Arabic: أبو لهب) (c. death 624) is among those named as enemies of Islam condemned by name in the Surah Al-Masadd.

His full name was Abd-al-Uzza ibn 'Abdul Muttalib and he was called Abu Lahab (meaning father of the flame) because his cheeks were always red or inflamed. His wife was Umm Jamil, who bore him two sons, Utbah ibn Abu Lahab and Utaybah bin Abu Lahab. The two sons married (later divorced) two daughters of Muhammad and Khadijah bint Khuwaylid. He is the son of Abdul Muttalib and therefore Muhammad's uncle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Lahab

I consider him a hero, Darcy.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 19, 2008 12:55 PM

WE MUST FIGHT ISLAM - THEY ARE WELCOME TO JOIN THE FIGHT.

darcy,

Absolutely. But they won't join the fight. That's the whole problem. Instead they say that by attacking Osama we are attacking them. They cannot see the difference between a Muslim that kills and one that doesn't. You attack a Muslim and that means you are attacking them. That makes them my enemy.

I pray for the day when "peaceful" Muslims will stand up and be counted and vent their wrath on those who are making it difficult for them to survive: THE JIHADISTS. Instead they blame us. They still don't get it. One day the jihadists will come for them and no one will mourn their passing and no one will be there to defend them. C'est la vie.

Posted by: PMK at February 19, 2008 1:36 PM

http://hodja.wordpress.com/

You will have to scroll down a little bit but it is well worth the effort

Posted by: Holger Dansker at February 19, 2008 11:49 AM

Great link! Check out the brilliant pic in the right column entitled, "The other Islamic bomb" also scroll down far enough and see video by none other than Robert S.

Posted by: Xero G at February 19, 2008 1:37 PM

I believe war is coming, and if that is correct, to win requires one to fight, just as his enemy will, and more.

It really is about being, to survive, nothing more. Humanity come after the battles, not during when life itself is under threat.

In the middle of a hostle jungle, alone, to reach safety is the only mission, to live.

Read this post's title, to me it says we are now close to the center of that jungle, about to be set loose in it. One owns his life, or it is taken from him, thats all there is, all there will be.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at February 19, 2008 2:04 PM

Madness is right. And to think that we are up against such insanity makes me both nervous and ready - ready to fight this madness by supporting our military muster.

Posted by: champ at February 19, 2008 2:10 PM

Posted by FidesEtRatio:
Canada and the US are still haunted, and rightfully so, by the fact that we rounded up Japanese-Canadians and Japanese-Americans, many second or generation, and put them into internment camps for no crime other than being Japanese.

And what of the German and Italian internment camps in the US during World War II? Were they put into internment camps for no other crime than being German or Italian? Probably not, as this would not fit into the racist picture the Left likes to paint of the US.

I do not want to be an irrational, inhuman, person, and thus I choose to conduct myself in a rational, human, fashion.

Rationality demands accepting the fact that conditions change over time, that historical and political threats wax and wane, recede into the past, only to reappear again later as the same threat with an innocent, fresh face.

Rationality is situational dependent; shooting someone you don't know is normally considered irrational and criminal. But, if your life depends on shooting a stranger before they shoot you, is it irrational to do so? I maintain it is irrational not to do so.

This brings me back to my original point: we ought to carry out our war on terror in a properly human fashion. Insofar as I would content that rationality is a necessary condition of what it means to be properly human, and insofar as logic is a necessary part of rationality, then I would further contend that any logically invalid or unsound course of act would be less than properly human. This war, I think, is not really between Islam and the rest of the world, but between humanity and inhumanity. We cannot consider ourselves champions of humanity if we conduct ourselves in an other than properly human fashion. In point of fact, insofar as we conduct ourselves in an inhuman fashion, we find ourselves at risk of becoming the very thing against which we strive.

Beautiful sentiments and no doubt well received by a rational audience. But don't try to talk a Jihadi out of beheading you by appealing to logic or lofty ideals.

This war will be won by convincing the other side that: (1)to continue it will lead to their destruction as individuals and as a nation, (2)we are willing to go to whatever extreme is necessary ensure victory, and (3) if they really do "love death", we have no problem supplying it to them in whatever quantity is needed. Somewhere along the line we have forgotten some of these basic facts of life.

As I posted elsewhere, do I hate Muslims? No. Do I fear them? Yes, absolutely. The fact is, the Jihad is not just on our TVs. It is in our schools, our neighbourhoods, our places of employment. We are at war, and many of our neighbours are siding with the enemy. We ignore this at our own risk.

You obviously recognize the problem. Do you want your children to have to live with that kind of fear, or if we fail to act, worse?

Ultimately, then, the first, most crucial, question is not how ought we to treat Muslims, but rather what sort of people do we want to be?

Exactly. And my answer: FREE, at any cost and with no qualifiers.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 19, 2008 2:53 PM

What exactly is Denmark's proportional share of the Billions in aid that have gone to Gaza?!

I wish someone would publish the EXACT amount. The very assh•ats inciting to slaughter Danes are eating off Danish money each and every day!

STOP PAYMENTS TO JIHADISTS!!!

Cut taxes instead or at least spend the money more wisely.. maybe special units to round up radical islamists in and around Europe for starters...

Then spend money on good defensible borders.

Abolish the Schengen Agreement!

And if money is left over we could think of spending on redesigning the mosks left behind when we expel the moslems from within our midst.

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at February 19, 2008 2:59 PM

bu Lahab writes:
"Heresay isn't proof."

I respond:
You are correct, of course, that hearsay is not proof. However, I would respond by asking for evidence to support the contention that all Muslims hold the tenets to which you alluded. You have not refuted my demonstration that, without said evidence, your argument for considering all Muslims enemies, and treating them accordingly, is at least unsound, if not outright invalid. Note that "all Muslims" is logically identical to treating Muslims not as individuals but as a singular group (cf. below, in this comment). Unless you refute the logical validity of my argument (remembering that you yourself were the one who initially advocated the supremacy of logic in decision-making), you need to provide evidence that all Muslims, as a singular group, hold the tenet to which you refer. It is insufficient to say that my logic is misapplied, of course; one must actually demonstrate that to be the case, logically and/or empirically.

PMK writes:
"The Umma amounts to a nation. You insist on treating them as individuals, which is the way we will lose."

I respond:
If I insist upon treating them as individuals, that is because Western civilization has determined that human rights are located first and foremost at the level of the individual. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Spencer's argument that Western civilization is something worth fighting for. Now, a fundamental conviction of modern Western civilization is that every individual residing legally within the boundaries of our states has a right to the same protection and consideration under the law as any other individual. Note the term "legally residing within the boundaries of our states." This is crucial, for it recognizes that the rule of our law does extend beyond our boundaries, nor that people illegally residing within our boundaries have the same protections. This is, in fact a very conservative, very Western, view of jurisprudence.

If we want to uphold Western principles, we must do so by upholding Western principles. It is insufficient to win this war militarily. We must also win this war militarily, without abandoning our principles. Put otherwise, if, in response to the Islamic threat, we abandon our Western principles, then in point of fact they have achieved their initial objective. Once Western principles are discarded, for whatever reason, we are that much closer to being Islamified. In short, do not think that in abandoning the rule of law one is defending the West. Quite the opposite.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 19, 2008 3:09 PM

FidesEtRatio said: ....for evidence to support the contention that all Muslims hold the tenets to which you alluded.

I would suggest you read the quran, possibly even peruse Robert’s tomes. They have the answer you’re looking for. The 'Yes, but...' muslims you suggest are apostate to their own. I’m sure that there may be a handful of muslims that are ‘moderate’, but I’m still having trouble finding them.

Anyone accepting islam as their guiding principles has no just cause to be living in a Democratic country.

It's not a race issue as you hinted at with your Japanese example. I have friends who had parents suffer that ignominious treatment and they harbor no ill-will. It was for the greater good of the Nation. Can you see muslims doing the same? No

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 19, 2008 3:35 PM

from PMK:
When war was declared then how an individual voted was irrelevant. If you didn't support Hitler then it was up to you to come over to the other side and do what was necessary to defeat him, even at the risk of your own life. The same holds true for "peaceful" Muslims. If they truly don't support the jihad then it is up to them to join the fight to defeat those who would impose their way of life on the entire world. If they are not with us then we can only assume they are with the jihadists. There is no middle ground. Neutrality is not an option.

Ditto. War - when nuance becomes distracting background noise.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 19, 2008 4:27 PM

Western Principles had no qualms about Carpet Bombing German Cities I WWII. For all we know, it could be Allah's will that we apply a little more Western Principles in this War. It is Allah's will that makes them Kill each other as it is. Allah just may wish us to hasten things along.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at February 19, 2008 4:40 PM

FidesEtRatio,

If I insist upon treating them as individuals, that is because Western civilization has determined that human rights are located first and foremost at the level of the individual.

These people don't agree with the principles of Western civilization. They don't respect the freedom of the individual. You would give them something they will not give to you. The question is why you would allow them to enter your country, knowing ahead of time that they don't respect your laws, your religion or your right to live under a different set of religious tenets than they do.
It isn't necessary for us to remain on the defensive in order to be true to our principles. Our principles are meant for people of good will. They don't apply to the enemy. Of course you can find millions of "good" Muslims but I would say to them: all that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. These "good" Muslims are doing nothing to combat the evil that exists in THEIR communities. They won't combat it and they will have suffer for it. It wasn't our choice. We didn't ask for this fight. Muslims declared war on the West. If Muslims don't stop it, they will pay for it. That's life. It has happened throughout history.

The rights of the individual also come with responsibility - to respect the freedom of others. Those you would treat with such high-mindedness don't share your values. This isn't about religion. It's about your right to self-determination. They don't believe in your right to self-determination. They believe it is their religious duty to stamp out your religion. They believe that YOU are a slave to Allah, that YOU have no rights of your own.

We must also win this war militarily, without abandoning our principles.

What principles do you think we would abandon? This isn't a matter of jurisprudence.

It's called WAR.

The first thing we can do that is in keeping with our principles is to change our LAWS to prohibit all travel by Muslims anywhere in the West. They declared war on the West, not the other way around.

We follow rules of war that the enemy does not. We don't attack individuals indiscriminately. Our enemy doesn't wear a uniform. He is a spy, living among us in civilian clothes and pretending to be a part of our community until he strikes and innocent people die while shopping or working or flying somewhere on vacation. People who didn't arm themselves because they expected that those who entered their community respected their rules of jurisprudence died because of these spies. The rules of war demand that spies be summarily executed - no trials of any kind.

The freedom you have wasn't won by people sitting around a table. People fought for your freedom. Many people died defending your right to live. Many people died fighting for your right to self-determination. The umma would take it away from you. You can't protect your rights in a courtroom. Keep your hands clean and make sure you bow toward Mecca.

Posted by: PMK at February 19, 2008 7:30 PM

Oh, and finally FidesEtRatio, you can either have faith or reason, but not both.

Rational people don't need religion.

Peace,

Abu Lahab

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 19, 2008 9:57 PM

Arthur C. Clarke once said that "religion was cancer of the mind."

He never specified any particular religion. However, in my opinion, judging from the way many islamists behave: how they threaten non-believers, how they treat their women as property, and how they place a child molester as a leader of their false belief...I'd say that islam is not only a cancer of the mind, I'd also compare it to a malignant tumor that threatens to spread and destroy other host nations.

Posted by: PorkFatRules at February 19, 2008 11:18 PM

"A better way to eliminate Islam, is to
create apostates. Not all muslims have a stomach for all this violence. Those like 'Muslims against Shari'a', while only half apostate, would cause others to question Islam. . . . Since these things are all hooked together, to disbelieve one part, leads to disbelief in all parts. Halfway apostates create others. Some cross the line.
Eventually overwhelming numbers of apostates would seriously weaken, and kill Allah in the end.

Posted by: duh_swami

I agree. Keep up the mockery and ridicule and criticism. Islam is a cock-eyed and half-baked cult, and a very brittle one. Only the threats of violence against critics and apostates hold it together. I think that if there were no threats of violence from fanatics -- and from the tyrannical governments who find the fanatics useful -- that Moslems would leave Islam in droves. Consider: (1) its founder was a murderer, pirate, child-molester, and oath-breaker; (2) in his visions, he couldn't tell the difference between the authentic angel of God and Satan disguised as that angel; (3)he couldn't read or write, and the "holy books" were only compiled a century or so after his death, by consulting the memories of old men who tried to remember what he had said or done (so much for being infallible and unchangeable); (4) the Koran is about 20% gibberish which no scholar has ever been able to make sense of; another large part is devoted to toilet training, which makes one wonder about Allah's priorities; a third large part is devoted to long repetitions of the torments awaiting the damned in Hell; and parts of what's left nullify ("abrogate") the rest. It's not a religion that any sensible person would follow unless compelled to by threats. And there is some evidence that when the threats are reduced, there are massive defections. I have seen claims that Moslems in Europe (where the threats against apostasy are much reduced) are leaving Islam at the rate of 2000/day.

Posted by: ebonystone at February 19, 2008 11:29 PM

fidesetratio -

I don't suppose you could find your way to giving us the name of the university at which the attempted Muslim putsch in the Graduate Student Association, took place?

Was it in the UK, USA, Canada?

Country, name of university, and year in which the events took place, would be worth knowing.

The reason being that your experience as recounted, forms an excellent cautionary tale that surely ought to be shared with student bodies, e.g. student unions, clubs and societies, both undergrad and grad, on campuses across the Infidel world. Beware of attempted Muslim takeover bids! (I speak as one who was involved with student bodies of this kind, during my university days, and now wonder what is happening to my two alma mater institutions, and whether similar stealth takeovers may not be going on).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 20, 2008 2:14 AM

To all who have responded to my comments, allow me to state clearly what I have and, more importantly, not said:

--I have said that I think the Islamic threat very grave, and one that must be countered. I have not said that we should not respond to said threat with the utmost seriousness.
--I have said, along these lines, that (to use Robert Spencer's terms) Western civilization is worth defending, even though it might have some warts (i.e. mistreatment of Japanese, German and Italian Canadians and Americans during the Second World War). I have not said that these warts negate the essential goodness of Western civilization.
--I have said that, because Western civilization is worth defending, we ought to defend it in a way that is in accordance with the principles of Western civilization. I have not said that we ought not defend it.
--I have said that, insofar as we must deal with individuals legally resident within our own borders, that is properly a law enforcement issue. I have not said that we ought not deal with these legally resident individuals.

My argument boils down to three fundamental points: 1) We are defending not only our physical well-being, but also our moral well-being; 2) Thus, victory is dependent not only upon physical (i.e. military) superiority but also moral superiority; 3) Insofar as our moral superiority is dependent in turn upon the moral superiority of the fundamental principles of Western civilization, we cannot abandon those in the course of the war and hope to claim a moral victory at the end thereof.

Let us, then, go through some of the arguments articulated here:
-From PMK: "It means isolating and deporting them," them being (in PMK's own words) "all Muslims." I ask: how does this fit with the Blackstone Principle, which is central to our conception of the rights of the accused, that it is "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Western notions of justice are predicated entirely upon the principle that individuals ought not to suffer for crimes they did not commit. Deporting all Muslims, regardless of what they have actually done, is not an action consistent with Western notions of justice.
--Again, from PMK: "These people don't agree with the principles of Western civilization." This is well and true for a large number of Muslims, but perfectly irrelevant to the question of whether or not we ought to abide by our principles. We try people under our legal systems, following the rules thereof, who do not agree with its principles all the time. Most convicted individuals claim that they are innocent, and thus challenge the legitimacy of the process that led to their conviction. Does their failure to agree with the process that led to their conviction negate the process, or the result thereof? Of course not. One need not agree to the set of principles governing a land to be subject to those principles.
--Again, from PMK: "The question is why you would allow them to enter your country, knowing ahead of time that they don't respect your laws, your religion or your right to live under a different set of religious tenets than they do." Fair enough, and personally I would support a moritorium on further emigration from Muslim countries into my own (Canada). However, the restriction of future immigration is a question
of an altogether order than mass deportation (advocated previously). The first in no way violates Western principles of jurisprudence and statecraft, as these have always upheld a state's right to cross its borders to any foreign element it considers undesirable. However, equally, Western principles of jurisprudence say that, once admitted, legally, individuals have the same rights as other residents.
--Again, from PMK: "The freedom you have wasn't won by people sitting around a table. People fought for your freedom." Absolutely true. My Grandfather, for instance, lied about his age, joined the Canadian Army, and went to war when we took up arms against Germany in 1939 (a full two years before the US did, one might add). My grandfather, I might add, is my personal hero. If I could be but half the person he is, I would be think myself quite the person. Just as my grandfather did not go around Germany indiscriminately shooting every German he could find, civilian and non-civilian, neither should we indiscriminatey deport or mistreat every Muslim we can find.
--Again, PMK: "This isn't a matter of jurisprudence. It's called WAR." In point of fact, when one speaks of deporting citizens legally resident within the borders of one's nation, it becomes, by definition, a matter of jurisprudence. Why? Because Western civilization has, in our various law codes, recognized that matters of deportation are subject to the oversight of the judicial system. We cannot ignore our own laws when we find them inconvenient.
--From flowerknife_us: "Western Principles had no qualms about Carpet Bombing German Cities I WWII." No doubt, and note that I have said explicitly that there is a qualitative difference between actions against legal residents of our own respective nations and people who live outside our borders. The actions to which you refer fall under the latter category, and thus are of a qualitative difference type than such things as mass deportation.
--"The rules of war demand that spies be summarily executed - no trials of any kind." If, and only if, there is sufficient reason to think that THIS person, the one being executed at THIS moment, is a spy. Moreover, generally speaking, Western civilization has, in practice, tried individuals living within the borders of our state for treason, rather than engage in summary executions.

In closing, allow me to reiterate: I do not argue that we ought not to respond to the Islamic threat, and defend Western civilization. I simply argue that we ought not lose Western civilization in the process, by voluntarily abandoning its principles. Let us fight, and vigourously so. Let us, however, fight in such a way that our grandchildren will be proud, not ashamed, of our conduct. This is not just about our, and their, physical security, but also our, and their, moral security. What would be the point in defending the body but losing the soul?

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 20, 2008 8:09 AM

Abu Lahab writes: "I would suggest you read the quran, possibly even peruse Robert’s tomes." I would suggest you peruse the latter before arguing (actually, asserting, as there was, in fact, no argument given, and, thus, in fact, no reason) that "you can either have faith or reason, but not both." You might want to consider his central (on my reading, at least), and fundamentally correct, argument in "Religion of Peace": that not all religions are equal, intellectually or morally. Note that this goes back to my central argument throughout my preceding comments: that we ought not abandon those very things which make Western civilization, and its Judeo-Christian foundation, morally and (I would argue) intellectually superior to Islamic civilization.

Now, taking a somewhat different tack to the same issue, if, as Mr. Spencer argues, Judaism and Christianity are foundational to Western civilization, and if, as you assert, they are, by definition, as religion, unreasonable, than it follows necessarily that Western civilization is founded upon unreason. If this is the case, as it must be if we accept both Mr. Spencer and yourself on these respective points, and if you are, as you assert, committed to reason, then it would follow necessarily that you cannot be committed to Western civilization.

Thus, given the conglomeration of what you have asserted, it seems likely that you either a) do not think Judaism and Christianity foundational to Western civilization, or b) do not think Western civilization worth defending. If (a), then what would you, as an alternative, identify as foundational to Western civilization? If (b) what do you think that we are fighting for, if not for Western civilization? In elaborating upon (a), I cannot think of anything that you would present as foundational that either was not the product of Jewish or Christian thought and practice, or was not appropriated, to mutual benefit, by at least one, and very often both, of these traditions. Of course, you might surprise me, and I would welcome this, as I welcome any and all sound arguments, and the insight they might provide into the world.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 20, 2008 8:35 AM

FidesEtratio,
Thanks for your clarifications. If I may clarify:

You said: I simply argue that we ought not lose Western civilization in the process, by voluntarily abandoning its principles.

I say: We ARE ALREADY losing Western civilization by tolerating among us people who don't have any intention of assimilating into our society. Think about that the next time you go to board a plane. You don't just get screened for weapons anymore. Your luggage is searched outside your view. You have no guarantees of privacy. All of that is because we tolerate people among us who say OPENLY that their intent is to DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION. You are refusing to see that the community of Islam tolerates and promotes these activities. The community needs to be called to account. The leaders of the mosques need to answer for their acts. People are meeting and planning their deeds inside the mosque. They are using their freedom of religion to thwart law enforcement. They are free to practice their religion. They are not free to kill you and me.

Once again you are making false comparisons. This is not the jury failing to convict one man who killed his wife or robbed a bank. This is a community that is refusing to police its own. This is a religion that openly sanctions and promotes murder.

Hope you enjoy the mosque. You say otherwise but the long and the short of it is that you are refusing to defend your civilization because you might get your hands dirty. After you have followed all the laws of "Western jurisprudence", which was never built to fight a war, your enemy will throw you to the ground and demand you submit to Allah or he will kill you.

OUR PRINCIPLES ARE NOT A SUICIDE PACT.

Our principles don't call for us to blindly jump off a cliff. Many of the people who are technically "legally resident" are still deserving of deportation because they came under false pretenses. They didn't come to join Western society and to become Americans or Canadians or Europeans. The first day anyone in the community calls for sharia law is the day they all go. The only ones who can stay are the ones who openly support WESTERN CIVILIZATION, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE SHARIA. NEUTRALITY is not an option.

Posted by: PMK at February 20, 2008 8:36 AM

Dear dumbledoresarmy,

I appreciate your interest in my story, and I agree that it constitutes a cautionary tale. I can still remember clearly the moment, in the middle of a General Membership Meeting, where I realised that I was witnessing exactly, to use your term, a putsch. It was shocking. For various reasons, however, I would prefer not to reveal the exact university at which it took place. I am genuinely sorry that I feel it best not to accomodate your request, but would ask that you respect my preference on this matter.

I would revisit my telling of this story, btw, to point out that I have, quite clearly, acknowledged that jihad is a domestic as well as foreign issue (contrary to how some--not you--seem to have read my comment). In fact, that is the explicit point I drew from the story, at its telling. Thus, to those who have suggested that I have my head in the sand, if that is the case I must have a remarkable ability to see through solid objects.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 20, 2008 8:56 AM

PMK writes: "Our principles don't call for us to blindly jump off a cliff. Many of the people who are technically 'legally resident' are still deserving of deportation because they came under false pretenses."

I respond: Note that I did not argue against deportation as a legitimate response, but merely against mass deportation of all Muslims, regardless of their actual, individual, participation in activities that warrant deportation. I would take no issue with deporting an individual who, in accordance with the respective laws of our respective lands, is deported--or imprisoned, or even executed--on the basis of his or her own activities. insofar as we are dealing with legal residents of our respective lands, we must act in accord with our own laws and principles. Inalienable rights (to cite the US Declaration of Independence) are exactly that, or they are not: inalienable. Again, Western rights theory (of which the Declaration of Independence is a foundational document) fundamentally locates rights at the level of the individual, not of the group. It is illegitimate, under Western rights theory, to speak of "Muslim rights," but rather of "the rights of this or that person, who happens to be Muslim."

Ironically, given what I am about to say, I am not American. However, I think that the Founding Fathers of America were right in saying that it is better to die free than to live oppressed. I take this to mean, fundamentally, that it is better to die with one's integrity intact then to live without said integrity. Part of the integrity of the West is that, unlike much of the Islamic world, we respect the rights of the individual. That means, among other things, that we respect due process before undertaking acts as deportation, or imprisonment, or execution. That is ALL that I am saying: let us not abandon our own commitment to notions such as due process and the right of the individual when dealing with people legally resident within our borders. That I have to defend the Western way of life to those who advocate the defense of the Western way of life seems passing strange.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 20, 2008 9:13 AM

FidesEtRatio,

Hugh said it far better than I ever could.

Islam does not say: take this territory but not that. It says: the world, the land, belongs to Allah. It is right, it is just, it is proper, it is necessary, for all Muslims, as a central duty, to support Jihad, the struggle to remove all obstacles (it could be a fence, it could be an army, it could be a code of laws, it could be the Constitution of the United States, or the British Commmon Law, or the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the Bible, or a hymn-book, or the collected works of Shakespeare or Dante or Pushkin, it could be the pictures of Rembrandt depicting rabbis and scenes from the Old Testament, it could be the pictures of Balthus depicting young girls, it could be Mozart, it could be Fats Waller, it could be anything or everything that could ever have come out of the world of Islam and could never, for one minute, survive in the kind of world that the Shari'a, the ideal code, the Holy Law of Islam, would bring into our world, with all its woe.
by Hugh

Our laws of jurisprudence mean nothing to this enemy.

Posted by: PMK at February 20, 2008 10:16 AM

I have seen claims that Moslems in Europe (where the threats against apostasy are much reduced) are leaving Islam at the rate of 2000/day.

Posted by: ebonystone

I'll believe it when I see it. When these ex-Muslims show their faces and speak out against sharia law and face down Muslims who would kill those who don't believe, then they'll get my respect. Until then, taqiyya.

Posted by: PMK at February 20, 2008 10:27 AM

FidesEtRatio,

You said in another post that "jihad is a domestic as well as foreign issue (contrary to how some--not you--seem to have read my comment".

You seem to want it both ways. Jihad means a lot of things. We cannot fight jihad domestically unless we go into the mosque and find the people who are even THINKING of blowing up people or arrest the imams who even suggest that it's okay to kill others who don't accept Allah. The problem is those who commit the acts are dead afterward. They don't have to answer for their crimes. Those who remain have plausible deniability. How do you fight jihad domestically? Do you shut down groups like CAIR? Then you're taking away someone's freedom of speech. War is a messy business. We can't fight it cleanly.

You're asking us to be perfect in our execution. We're not perfect. I did read your comments. One of them was the oft-quoted saying with regard to the criminal justice system: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. Blackstone was talking about the criminal justice system. This isn't domestic law-breaking. It is war. In case you have forgotten, we are in the house of war. Spies didn't get tried in the domestic criminal justice system. If they weren't taken out and shot (or beheaded in the Muslim world) they were put on trial before a military tribunal. Do you object to the military tribunals being used at Gitmo? Many people do. Deporting Muslims isn't punishing them and it isn't making them suffer. I am not suggesting locking everyone up. If we are to prevent all acts of terrorism we must be perfect every time. Mohammad Atta will never answer to the American people for what he did. Even if we stop someone from blowing up a plane, look at the cost. You avoided the question, but do you mind taking off your shoes or is that an acceptable standard for you to maintain safety? Do you mind not being able to bring your own toiletries on an airplane? All of this is because Muslim terrorists are looking for ways to blow up airplanes, to the point where they would use a baby's bottle to hide liquid explosives. Let me ask you: is it better that ten million Canadians die than one "innocent" Muslim be removed from Canada? Sooner or later, that's the choice. I only hope it doesn't come after the fact. We won't have anything to preserve once we're under sharia law. Your grandfather and my father and many others did things they never could have conceived of doing in order to ensure that you and I would grow up in safety and continue to enjoy our liberty. Did they forfeit their souls when Hiroshima was bombed or when Dresden was bombed?
The rules of war and the rules of peace are different. We are in a time of war. We didn't choose it. It was forced upon us. We can fight it with all our might or we can surrender. Your way looks like surrender. You come across as an idealist and I appreciate that but idealism won't save us.

Posted by: PMK at February 20, 2008 10:53 AM