With Olmert in charge, its believable

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 11:21 AM

There will not be Lebanon left either. Or Gaza, the West Bank, Syria,Egypt....

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 3, 2008 11:27 AM

There will not be Lebanon left either. Or Gaza, the West Bank, Syria,Egypt....

Posted by: flowerknife_us

But the Muslims won't care. The umma is all.

So when do we remove a few dozen "nations" from the UN and replace them with one umma? It's only fair. If the umma and the EU are the models the US should have 52 votes in the General Assembly.

Posted by: PMK at March 3, 2008 11:46 AM

It is amazing how their imagination cannot conjure up any scenerio except one of total islamic victory including the escape of attackers from any destruction. But in their mind, victory could be a few muslims survivors sitting on the edge of a smoking crater drinking tea and congratulating themselves.

Posted by: pismopal at March 3, 2008 11:48 AM

The person who says this about Isreal has not read what the Bible says about God's love for Isreal and the defeat of Isreal's enemies.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 3, 2008 12:05 PM

Lebanese researcher Anis Al-Naqash said that talk of a new Middle East without Israel indicated a fact that will come true

This further demonstrates that many Muslims cannot differentiate between a belief and a fact. Muhammad's night flight to the farthest mosque on the back of a winged horse is also a "fact" for a true "believer", just as the "fact" that women are more ignorant, evil, weak, and unclean than men (in the mind of a Muslim).

And that's a fact.

Posted by: Xero G at March 3, 2008 12:06 PM

Israel has always been surrounded by enemies. This time, like the 1967 war, their enemies have a concerted plan to eradicated the Jewist state.

* Hamas will attack from Gaza and N Sinai (a border 3 times what they had a couple of weeks ago before they blew up the wall.) They'll use sophisticated weapons from Iran.

* Iranian-created and backed Hezbollah will attack from South Lebanon (they'll neutralize the Lebanese government with the assassination of the Lebanese PM.)

* Syria will attack from the North. They'll use cutting-edge military technology from Russia that was bought on their behalf by Iran.

* Fatah in the West Bank will at best allow Hamas to work in their territory. At worst, it'll become another major staging area.

Plus,

Chavez has orders to attack Columbia, a US-backed government that we're obligated to defend. So, the Venezuela-Columbia war will not only serve as a distraction, but also end the flow of oil from Venezuela (the 3rd largest source of import oil.)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

While the entire Israeli army focuses on fighting in the Hamas on the southern border, Hezebollah and Syria can strike Israel from the North. Then, Hamas can pull back into N. Sinai and regroup and get reprovisioned (technically Egypt's area where by older agreements between Israel and Egypt they can't go.) while the fight is on in the north. Then, Hezebollah and Syria can take a respite, and Hamaz can attack. Eventually, they'll tired Israel out. Then, Israel can either surrender or use nuke's (probably the latter.)

If the US gets involved, Iran can threaten to close down the Straight of Hormuz and Hamas can close down the Suez canal (in North Sinani). This action would temporarily shutting down more oil from world consumption.

Posted by: screwThePCPolice at March 3, 2008 12:13 PM

screwThePCPolice ...and all this while the UN, China and Russia play tennis...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 3, 2008 12:21 PM

and Barack Hussein Obama has said he would invade Pakistan but meet face-to-face with no restrictions with Ahmadinejad.... If he gets elected, Israel better take care of business now or forget it...

Posted by: HOV Dummy at March 3, 2008 12:31 PM

Is the Middle East without Israeli a "fact"?

It will not settle anything as the largest killer of Muslims is..............other Muslims. And that's a fact.

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 3, 2008 12:52 PM

As Olmert does it yet again and is ALLOWED to wimp out yet again...one wonders if Israel or any nation so unwilling to stand up for itself DESERVES to survive.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 3, 2008 12:55 PM

Better yet, why is Olmert ALLOWED to remain in power?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 1:00 PM

ImANut had a big group hug with Chavez not long ago. It could be Chavez is to distract the US while Iran can do it's dirty work.

Posted by: Sounder at March 3, 2008 1:05 PM

"The demise of Israel would not be the end of the jihad, but would herald the beginning of a new phase in the ongoing war against the West."

Exactly - Israel is just the beginning towards their aim to rule the world, so lets not forget what they are really after.

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 1:29 PM

There are many idiots here in the US ( and from what I gather, very many more in Europe ) who believe that if only we throw Israel off of the sled of Western Civilization, the wolves will devour Israel and then the wolves will be sated and will not bother us anymore.
This is, of course, complete TWADDLE. Listen up:
if they succeed in destroying Israel, the ULTRA-VIOLENT MAHOMETAN THUG CULTISTS will only be EMBOLDENED. They will take the destruction of Israel as proof that The Will of Allah is being done and the 12th Imam is about to appear. If Israel goes down, WE'RE NEXT.
Tragically, not only is Olmert a complete wimp and spineless dhimmi fool, but look at the candidates for president we have here in the US!
Whichever one of these DIMWITS wins, this election is going to be a DISASTER for all of us!!
Now I know what the world felt like in 1938.

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at March 3, 2008 1:34 PM

Reminds me of the Lebanese Pan-Arabist prime-minister Rashid Karame's confident prediction on the eve of the Six Day War in May 1967: "The shame of Israel will be removed".
But as the great hero Ariel Sharon has overturned the Egyptian Pharaonic hordes in the Sinai desert, Karame suddenly began worrying about his own ass rather than "injured Arab pride", coming up with all kinds of excuses to turn down Pharaoh Nasser's frantic pleas for Lebanon to join "the Arab fight".

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at March 3, 2008 1:37 PM

I apologize in advance for getting so far off topic, although I can see a relationship between issues.

I'd have to agree that I can see some triangulation between thugs in the middle east and Chavez. However, I view Chavez as a idiot who seems hell bent on cutting his own throat. The 'easy' oil reserves his country has are in decline, while the big strike that is currently increasing his revenues are produced from the Orinoco Tar Sands. He will be unable to produce oil from those tar sands for very long without western technology, machinery, and technological assistance.
Unfortunately, idiot or not, he can cause a lot of problems, espcaially if he acts in conjunction with someone like Pres. Tom.

Dangerous times we live in folks! I do not feel particularly safe these days, and I live in the US. I dearly love Israel (the land, and God's chosen people), but I am thankful I do not live there.

Again, I apologize for getting so far off topic.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at March 3, 2008 1:39 PM

Lebanese researcher: A new Middle East without Israel will soon be a reality
it sounds to me like this Lebanese researcher has been smoking hashish again, the fact is that Israel has been in the Middle East. For over two millennia. In one form or another unfortunately for the Israelis in the eyes of their Muslim occupiers. The Israelis have broken their Dhimmitude in the eyes of there Muslim occupiers
and under Islamic law they must die and they are no longer paying protection to the Muslims from Muslims. It is a Muslims that are the occupiers of Jewish and Christian lands such as Lebanon and hopefully one day there will be a middle east with out the murderous cult known as Islam

Posted by: doglover at March 3, 2008 1:42 PM

"Hate to break it to you guys, but Olmert's reckless and ultimately pointless invasion of Lebanon in '06 turned the whole country against Israel, even the Christian and anti-islamic forces who previously supported Israel."

What country are you refering to?As for a pointless invasion, it was only pointless because Olmert didint fight to win. Lebanon invaded and killed Israeli soldiers and kidnapped 2. What would have Israel do? Sit back like a good dhimmi?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 1:56 PM

Olmert is a fool without strategic military experience. The sooner the Israelis dump him, the better.

On this side of the pond things are still dire, with one of the presidential candidates (The Big Zero) potentially having a telephone line from the Nation of Islam into the White House.

What strange times we live in.

The mainstreammedia are not willing to report on these islamic associations of B.Hussein Obama.

Posted by: dgene at March 3, 2008 2:09 PM

livefreeordie!,

Would Chavez really have that much trouble getting the necessary technology to develop the oil sands? Even if US technology was unavailable, there are multinationals whose only reason for existence is to drill oil. There are countries that need it and will do whatever it takes to assist Chavez in its extraction.

You're right we live in dangerous times, and globalization is a huge reason for it. It was supposed to make war unnecessary but instead it only facilitates the transfer of knowledge that makes war possible. Trading blocs were once based on politics but no longer. Once we could have withheld vital technology secure in the knowledge that an adversary couldn't get his hands on it but no longer. What we don't sell, others will. If the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis didn't prevent Iran from developing its reserves then why should Chavez have any trouble? Iran poses a bigger danger to the West than Chavez ever could.

Posted by: PMK at March 3, 2008 2:12 PM

Lock and load.

Posted by: special_guest at March 3, 2008 2:14 PM

"Hizbollah attacked Israel."

Last I checked, Hezbolllah was part of the Lebanese government.

"There are no guarantees and diplomacy is worth at least 2 corps."

Theres no guarantee that appeasement will bring peace, especially with Islam. In fact, it never will.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 2:28 PM

Israel is only the "Little Satan".
The US is the "Great Satan"
If Israel is destroyed it will only be an
appetizer.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 3, 2008 2:31 PM

"You can't just blast everything away."

I dont remember Israel "Blasting everything away"

"At some point you have to have diplomacy."

Really? I think Israel sucking up numerous attacks on its borders was more than you could ask anyone.

"Just because there are a lot of jihad crazies there it doesn't exempt our side from political and moral considerations."

Yeah, thats worked out so well before. Thank God we didnt think that way in WW 2. We would have lost.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 2:46 PM

Lebanese researcher - I wonder how he went about to do 'research'. Islamic way, I guess he went to one fo those thousands Madrasses and talked to a bunch of hate spewing Mullahs, and they all agree that soon Israel will be a thing of the past.

They (MoSlimes) have hugely inflated opinion about their abilities above the rest of us. They devalued the meaning of original term 'scholar', as they tend to abuse it for any mule-abusing Mullah, who rited Cowran about two hundred times, does not know one iota about abundance of spectrum of Humanity about him. I guess this is another pathetic attempt to devalue the term 'research'. Is there anything at all they can contribute to in a positive manner like the rest of us?

My research results indicates, if any of these goat-abusers try some funnies with Israel, they will be put out their misery in a flash.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 3, 2008 3:02 PM

"Lebanese researcher: A new Middle East without Israel will soon be a reality"

If that unhappy day ever comes, the reality will be unrestrained Islamic barbarism in the Middle East.

Posted by: rational at March 3, 2008 3:03 PM

"Meanwhile, the embattled Lebanese Christians are again left to their fate."

Not just in Lebanon, Christians are hung out to dry by the West in every Islamic country.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 3:21 PM

Hi PMK,

I read a good article recently (sorry I don't have the link) about Chavez cuddling up with the ChiComs, and in the event that he fell out permanently with the US and was subject to a technological embargo, the Red Chinese would buy all of Chaves' oil and help with (or take over) production. They would provide technical assistance and machinery and reverse engineer western equipment if necessary.
Theoretically, that's a possibility. How efficiently it would all happen is another story. I know there are different points of view on all these things, and most certainly some people will disagree with mine. I see it like this: western countries have located and produced most of the world's petroleum, and lead the way in discovering and developing new reserves. The ChiComs and other thug nations have not. Whether it was in the Middle East; Africa; Indonesia; South America; Russia and other former Soviet Bloc countries- petroleum reserves were all developed with western capital, technology, and manpower. Even when the reserves were under their own lands (i.e. Soviet Union) they couldn't efficiently develop the reserves.
There are most certainly areas with a lot of potential (Iran for example) that the ChiComs could flex their muscle and locate new oil fields, but their efforts have been kinda' weak. They talk big, but if the proof is in the pudding so far their bowl is fairly small.
Maybe they can actually move in, take over, and produce from the Orinoco Tar Sands. They have little to no experience in such matters, and I personally can't see it working out nearly as well as if we'd done the work. It's hard to replace 150 years of experience. I guess we'll see what happens...

Again, I apologize to other readers for straying so far off course.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at March 3, 2008 3:26 PM

If this ever looked likely to happen what are the rest of us going to do? This is the question I've been asking myself. What's our plan to be?

Back in the 1930s people watched the rise of Hitler and his anti-semtic policies - and did nothing. Nobody wanted to bust their ass for what might or might not be happenning. Result: 6 million Jews dead. I guess everybody hoped a world war could be averted, just as we do now. War is the greatest disaster that can befall mankind; we have learned that, but unfortunately the still glorify war.

Could it happen again? Could history repeat itself? Have we learned nothing?

Today Israel (7 million) is surrounded by enemies on all sides including one genocidal maniac intent on building an A bomb.

Scary times.

Man do I wish at times Saddam was back.

Posted by: devorgilla at March 3, 2008 3:35 PM

"You can't just blast everything away."

Well, you certainly can, if need be. This statement represents a bit of the dementia that has landed us at the point we find ourselves; the idea that "war never solves anything". Decisive wars solve things; decisively. WWII solved the problem of aggressive German and Japanese behavior decisively.

"At some point you have to have diplomacy."

Why? You state this as though it were a fundamental law of the universe.

Many conflicts have ended with the victor stating the conditions of surrender; unconditional. 'Police actions' can never do this; they undermine the effectiveness of combat to meet its stated ends.

As a culture of reason we have come to rely on negotiation on nearly every aspect of our lives. From buying our houses to determining our salaries to managing our relationships, we are so accusation to working toward a win-win negotiated outcome that we assume negotiation and diplomacy are a natural part of human nature.

Islamic culture suffers from no such illusions. It understands that wars are won by stomping the will out of the enemy and the population that supports them until they are begging to stop.

Sometimes the only way to effectively deal with unreasonable people is to be unreasonable in the extreme. Ask a cop.

Only two approaches can result in stability when dealing with a culture that glorifies killing civilians as an expansion philosophy and codifies that outlook in its sacred texts: meeting on its own terms to defeat it, and surrender.

Wishing it wasn't so won't change it.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 3, 2008 3:44 PM

ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE

Man Butchers 15-Month-Old Nephew in Jeddah Supermarket

JEDDAH, 3 March 2008 — Early morning shoppers at a supermarket in Jeddah were left reeling yesterday, with some falling unconscious, after a well-built Syrian man clinched a knife and decapitated his 15-month-old nephew in front of his mother in the store’s fruit and vegetable section.

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/03/sick-sick-sick.html

Posted by: Shiva at March 3, 2008 3:50 PM

Lock and load.
Posted by: special_guest

Ha ha ha, my best friend tells me that all the time. We are living in uncertain times and I hate to see what happens if Obama gets elected. But fear not my friends, for Israel will not be destroyed. God told the Jews once he gave them their land back, no one would ever be able to take it away again. Israel will be attacked in a major way, but the land will never revert back to Arab control or domination.

Livefreeordie, you're not off topic. Thanks for the info. It's nice to know Venezuelan oil will dry up without our help, although it looks like Chavez is there to stay.

I don't know why we didn't plan an assassination of Ahmadinejahd while he was in Iraq. That would have been the perfect time to get rid of him once and for all.

Posted by: Bonniea at March 3, 2008 3:56 PM

bigcatir13106 said:

"The person who says this about Isreal has not read what the Bible says about God's love for Isreal and the defeat of Isreal's enemies."

No doubt the Byzantines in early May, 1453 could also point to verses in the Bible to reassure themselves of the eternal survival of Christian Constantinople. It had withstood 22 separate attempts by Muslims to conquer the city over the previous ~800 years, but on the 23rd attempt it fell. The biggest jewel of the Christian Middle East was thus destroyed and has been under Muslim rule for the past 555 years.

Whenever Muslims wail "What about the Crusades" I always respond "Well, what about Constantinople? Your point is...?"

Citing Biblical sources as a guide to the future has not been, historically, a good basis for predicting future events, no matter how evangelists attempt to spin the alleged "prophecies" of the Bible. It is not likely to suddenly become so in the future.

I'll put my faith in the Israeli military and Western support to ensure its continued survival.

Posted by: Eastview at March 3, 2008 4:19 PM

That Israel will be taken out of the picture in the Middle East is a ridiculous claim by a person with no real authority. In fact, I have as much right to claim that Germany will be absorbed by the rest of Europe as this Lebanese research does to say that Israel will be conquered by the collective nations of the Middle East. This person is a [b]researcher[/b], not a representative of a country or anyone with the power to make such heavy statements. And, even if this person was in a position to make such a declaration, it would be absolutely stupid. Why warn an enemy that you're coming? It's the same thing as being a robber and telling your victim that you're coming to their house soon. And don't reply with some crap like, "Oh, they're Muslims, they're that dumb." That's absolutely ridiculous as well. You're so smug sitting at your computer desk thinking that you're the best without having any real knowledge of what's going on. You listen to what's on the news or what you hear people say at work or what the bloggers on this site say and you accept it as law. You think that because some Muslims partake in terrorist activities that, of course, all Muslims must be terrorists, right? Sound logic right there. Hmm. Some Ku Klux Klan guys burned a black guy's house. They're Christian, right? Hey, that must mean that [u]all[/u] Christians like to burn black guys' houses! Hey everybody, guess what I just learned?!?

Take a minute, step back, and listen to what you're saying. You're modern-day witch hunters, McCarthys all over again. Where's the communist in this pack? Well, I don't know, so let's shoot them all, just to be safe. Unbelievable.

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 4:24 PM

"I'll put my faith in the Israeli military and Western support to ensure its continued survival."

Honestly I would put more faith in Biblical prophecies than the Israeli miltary and Western support at this point.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 4:24 PM

"You think that because some Muslims partake in terrorist activities that, of course, all Muslims must be terrorists, right?"

Errrr....no. We say that most terrorism is committed by Muslims and that Islam is the root cause.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 4:31 PM

"Errrr....no. We say that most terrorism is committed by Muslims and that Islam is the root cause."

Here's quote I found from terrorism expert Jessica Stern: "To begin with, it is only Islamist terrorists today that are causing major threats to international security," she said. "But I wanted to include the other religious traditions, because at different points in history, every religion has produced significant armies of religious killers. There is nothing unique about Islam."

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 4:39 PM

Posted by Elric66 : Not just in Lebanon, Christians are hung out to dry by the West in every Islamic country.

How true. In the non-Western parts of the world, Christians are the most persecuted people. Christians look to us in the West for support, but even moral support is not offered to them. Even Christian leaders will not say a word of comfort for persecuted Christians in the world. Only the Barnabus Fund offers support.

In the West, it is true that Christians are not persecuted in the traditional meaning of "persecution". However, they do come last in the pecking order. Muslims ofcourse are first - as prescribed by the natural order. Then the rest of the ethnic and religious minorities, and bringing up the rear - Christians.

In addition, it is quite striking, that in almost all conflicts between Muslims and any others, the US has sided with Muslims. Christians are not even worth mentioning or thinking about - as shown clearly by the cavalier neglect of Lebanese and Iraqi Christians by the West, and specifically by the USA.

Posted by: DP111 at March 3, 2008 4:49 PM

Don't_BeStupid:

Read Robert Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad, if you want to understand what's behind Jihad Watch and Islamic agression/terrorism.

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 5:06 PM

Don't_Hate whined

Well, I don't know, so let's shoot them all, just to be safe. Unbelievable.

Gee, another day, another false claim of genocide. If I had nickle for every one, I'd donate it all to JW/DW, and Robert and Hugh wouldn't have to make eleemosynary requests. But jihadis and their apologists are not only false, they're cheapskates.

So who, besides you, talked about "shoot[ing] them all, just to be safe"?

Chump.

Posted by: special_guest at March 3, 2008 5:08 PM

DP111,

Yep, for a "Christian nation", the US has largely turned it back on Christians living in muslim dominated countries. I cannot even begin to put into words how I admire the faith and strength of those persecuted believers!! My family and I pray for them on a continual basis. Their situation, as well as ours, will grow much worse before it gets better.
Pray, plan, and prepare.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at March 3, 2008 5:08 PM

Israeli artillery out ranges almost all of Hesbolaha's and Hamas Rockets. The Artillery is very accurate, the rockets, as used, is any body's guess where they land.

Israel need not confront any of these groups by directly engaging Ground Forces. Just contain The self imposed siege Hamas has itself under. Deny penetration while systematically reducing Hamas launch sites, weapon caches and the like.

Tell the "innocent" Gaza residents the only safe place in Gaza, is in Egypt. Shelling begins in 24hrs.

If Israel is going to be Dammed if they do and Dammed if they don't. They might as well be Dammed on their own terms and time frame.

Hamas has started the ball rolling. Time to cleave part of it flat.

Just think of all those Palestinians flooding the Sinai seeking shelter.Preventing the Egyptian Army from becoming involved in other nefarious activities.

Many to many People tend to over look the reality that in 2006, nothing the Enemy did prevented Israel from lobbing Shells or dropping Ordinance at will. With one hand tied behind its back no less.

Shape the Battle Field. Divide and Conquer.

Will F-22's go Duck Hunting at Hugo Farms?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 3, 2008 5:12 PM

Quote from Jessica Stern, "terroristm" "expert":
"But I wanted to include the other religious traditions, because at different points in history, every religion has produced significant armies of religious killers."

So, assuming that is true, it is irrelevant, we are living at this point in history.

"There is nothing unique about Islam."

Well, other than a 1400 year track record of expansion, violence, and subjagation. Read Reliance of the Traveler. I think you'll find quite a lot unique about Islam.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 3, 2008 5:21 PM

Jessica Stern states: "There is nothing unique about Islam."

Jessica needs to find another occupation, because she is no "expert" on terrorism; especially as it is connected to Islam. I would guess that she's never even read the Qur'an or Hadith, or other Islamic texts, because if she had, she would not be making such a naive and dangerous statement.

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 5:36 PM

Dear Don't-hate

You don't make any sence. Muslims are commiting arocities every day from Nigiria to the PI. But thats ok because other religions have killed people too.

When we have to fight Buddhist monks we will cross that road when we get to it. Right now it's these punks.

Posted by: Ruebacca at March 3, 2008 5:38 PM

Subjugate that 'subjagation' in my last post.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 3, 2008 5:42 PM

“There is nothing unique about Islam.”
Posted by: Don't_Hate

Only a willfully ignorant fool, with a malicious self-hating agenda, would make this statement.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 3, 2008 5:46 PM

"When we have to fight Buddhist monks we will cross that road when we get to it."...lol

That really hit my funny bone - I suppose anything is possible :-)

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 5:54 PM

"In addition, it is quite striking, that in almost all conflicts between Muslims and any others, the US has sided with Muslims."

Funny you mention that. Gates of Vienna had an excellent article on that just last week. Very informative and very shameful to say the least. I would highly recommend the article.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 5:55 PM

I ask you this one question: how do you propose to negate this "jihad" that is supposedly coming, or that is happening all around us?

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 5:58 PM

While the Isrealis need to defend themselves, the Bible also speaks about these very interesting times we are living in, including Isreal.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 3, 2008 6:04 PM

DP111,

"How true. In the non-Western parts of the world, Christians are the most persecuted people. Christians look to us in the West for support, but even moral support is not offered to them. Even Christian leaders will not say a word of comfort for persecuted Christians in the world. Only the Barnabus Fund offers support.

In the West, it is true that Christians are not persecuted in the traditional meaning of "persecution". However, they do come last in the pecking order. Muslims ofcourse are first - as prescribed by the natural order. Then the rest of the ethnic and religious minorities, and bringing up the rear - Christians.

In addition, it is quite striking, that in almost all conflicts between Muslims and any others, the US has sided with Muslims. Christians are not even worth mentioning or thinking about - as shown clearly by the cavalier neglect of Lebanese and Iraqi Christians by the West, and specifically by the USA."

Not suprising at all because the West and Christian leaders do not respond simply because of one word: FEAR, because they have seen the violence and the threats.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 3, 2008 6:08 PM

Posted by livefreeordie! Pray, plan, and prepare.

Yes, I'm now convinced that nothing can save us from a gruesome civil war in the West. To overcome, we will need fortitude, determination, as well as compassion for the enemy. Such a combination is not available unless we pray to our Saviour Lord, in humility and penitence.

Posted by: DP111 at March 3, 2008 6:08 PM

DP111,

How true, what we are seeing with the attacks of the Christians in the Near East should give us pause, because down the road it will come to us.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Well, let us open the eyes to the truth, shall we? Ho ho! Have I got a Bible verse for you! And you, a Christian or a Jew, if I can discern from your profile, ought to be apt to follow this, lest you are not a devout Christian or Jew, no?

Taken from the King James' Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy verses 13: 6-10

"13:006 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy
daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as
thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and
serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy
fathers;

013:007 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you,
nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the
earth even unto the other end of the earth;

013:008 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither
shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither
shalt thou conceal him:

013:009 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the
people.

013:010 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he
hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of
bondage."

Well, I suppose I should be killing you, too, shouldn't I, because your holy book tells you to kill those of another religion.

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 6:31 PM

A few reminders:

1. Non-sectarian site.

2. Please stay on topic.

3. Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 3, 2008 6:50 PM

Don't~

I suggest you do not go there. (Citing violent passages in non-Islamic scripture)

All you will get is a Bible verse contest with those who believe that reciting impertinent scripture will somehow defeat jihadism.

Any religion contains unpleasant elements that must be sublimated. In the many and several biblical passages you quote, it is necessary to internalize the violence. What all these Bible passages indicate is that you should “stone” your own spirit when it turns away from God in anger or despair.

Regrettably, Islam has a heck of a lot to sublimate. The Koran and the Hadith have calls to violence on just about every page.

The seventh century was an evil time. We would all do well to turn away from it.

Posted by: skevin at March 3, 2008 6:58 PM

livefreeordie,

We no longer control the technology. Our corporations have moved operations to China and Vietnam and other countries and have transferred all their technology in the process. Patents and copyrights are ignored. Chicoms take whatever they want. We gave away the store.
A company like Halliburton (everyone's favorite whipping boy) is loyal to no one but its shareholders. Contracts are offered and they'll bid. The government might have more control over military hardware but even that is being sent right and left. Private corporations want customers. They'll sell to anyone with the dough.
You're right that none of the oil sheikhs could develop their reserves without Western technology. We've given the technology to them, in the name of cooperation and world commerce. Unless we can force private companies to pull out and cease all operations they'll continue getting what they want. It would have to be a GLOBAL effort - if the US pulls out they can't be replaced by French or Canadian or other Western workers, and vice versa. I just don't see that happening.

Posted by: PMK at March 3, 2008 7:07 PM

First and foremost, I would like to say that I am sorry if I was deemed a troll. My intentions were simply to engage in a debate with someone who felt strongly that Islam equates to terrorism, a belief, obviously, that I strongly disagree with. Now, I'd like to bring this to out:

"A Hadith expounds upon this understanding [belief that jihad is a struggle against one's soul] by recounting how Muhammad, upon returning from a victorious battle, told others that "We have returned from the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." When asked what this "greater jihad" could be in relation to the battle just fought, he informed them that it was the struggle "against oneself."

Skevin has pointed out that the Bible verses seem to dictate that one should "stone your own spirit when it turns away from God in anger or despair." Is that not what Muhammad is saying in the aforementioned passage?

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 7:24 PM

Dont_Hate -

What church/religion/faith do you subscribe to?

Or are you an atheist/agnostic?

Just curious.

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 7:49 PM

Even if the Bible is just as violent as the Qur'an, which it isnt, you dont see Christians committing terrorism in the name of Christianity like Muslims do with Islam. Lets also not forget that documentary that was suppose to come out to counter "Fitna" was scrubbed.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 7:53 PM

To Champ: Actually, I am Christian through and through. I, for one, believe that the Lord Jesus was my savior and that I should live my life the way that he did. Did I see him hating people and wishing them to die even as he was being brutally executed on the cross? No. Sometimes, it seems that people should slow down and remember the casual phrase: What would Jesus do.

The things people do in the name of their faith...

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 8:08 PM

Don't_Hate,

It's worth taking a look at your last post for a little perspective:

"A Hadith expounds upon this understanding [belief that jihad is a struggle against one's soul] by recounting how Muhammad, upon returning from a victorious battle, told others that "We have returned from the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." When asked what this "greater jihad" could be in relation to the battle just fought, he informed them that it was the struggle "against oneself."

Set aside for the moment the obvious problem that in quote above, Mohammad himself equates war to jihad.

There is also that detail about Christianity implying Christ-like, as in the New Testament abrogation of the violence of the Old Testament.

Somehow, it just doesn't work to imagine Christ, returning from some glorious spat of gladiatorial combat, telling his followers to turn the other cheek? It's not really the atmosphere that the New Testament attempts to create.

There is no equivalent abrogation in the Koran. If anything, it's the more peaceful, accommodating passages that were replaced by the more violent verses.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 3, 2008 8:16 PM

"What would Jesus do?"

You talking about the Christian Jesus or the Islamic one?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 8:22 PM

Violence in the bible has context that dealt with the ancient Hebrews facing utterly barbaric enemies that were hell bent on their annihilation...

Hmm sounds EXACTLY like what we see today with the Islamic death cult's obsession with the destruction of Israel...except Baal is now named Allah.

Posted by: SoteriA at March 3, 2008 8:27 PM

Don't_Hate,

To the question “what is unique a about Islam as compared to any other religion?” I would ask the questioner to show me ANY other religion practiced ANYWHERE today whose “Perfect Man” (al insan al kamil) and “Model of Conduct” (uswan husana) is a mass murderer, rapist, torturer, liar and thief.

Not a religion where someone ELSE says these things about its “Model of Conduct”. Show me a religion, which describes IN ITS OWN HOLY TEXTS the actions OF ITS OWN PROPHET as having done these things – and sets him up as an example to follow.

THIS is what is unique about Islam compared to any other religion.

If you are at all honest, you will either provide the example, or concede the point that ISLAM TRULLY IS UNIQUE among religions, in the EXTREME VIOLENCE it encourages its believers to take, AS PROVIDED BY ITS FOUNDERS EXAMPLE.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 3, 2008 8:38 PM

Show me another religion where you can be executed for leaving the religion.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 8:40 PM

Fighting in defense is considered obligatory upon Muslims, according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an, however, says that should enemy hostile behavior cease, then the reason for engaging such enemy also lapses:

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." - Surah 2:190-193.

The Hanafi school of thought holds that war can only be launched against a state that had resorted to armed conflict against the Muslims. War, according to the Hanafis, can't simply be made because a state was not Islamic. Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i, founder of the Shafi'i school of thought, was the first to permit offensive jihad (200 years after Muhammad). He limited this warfare against pagan Arabs only, not permitting it against non-Arab non-Muslims. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a well-known Pakistani Islamic scholar, exegete, and educationist, states that after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam (until Shafi'i) obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for military jihad is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam completely prohibits the killing of those who have not participated in war. Commentators of the Qur'an agree that Muslims should always be willing and ready to negotiate peace with the other party without any hesitation. According to Maududi, Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed. "Fight in the cause of Allah those against those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."-Qur'an 2:190

Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

"Jihad is one of the most misunderstood and abused aspects of Islam. There are some Muslims who exploit and misuse this concept for their own political objectives. There are many non-Muslims who misunderstand it. There are some other non-Muslims who misinterpret it to discredit Islam and Muslims. That is why the word 'Jihad' has been misused due to misunderstanding its true meaning. The word 'Jihad' is derived from the Arabic word jahd which means fatigue or from the word juhd which means effort. A mujahid is the one who strives in the Cause of Allah and exerts efforts which makes him feel fatigued. Jihad means exerting effort to achieve a desired thing or 'to prevent an undesired one. In other words, it is an effort that aims at bringing about benefit or preventing harm. Jihad can be observed through any means and in any field whether material or moral. Among the types of Jihad are struggling against one’s desires, Satan, poverty, illiteracy, and disease, and fighting all evil forces in the world. There are many religious texts that refer to these types of Jihad. One of the forms of Jihad is defending life, property or honor. Those who die while engaging in Jihad are considered to be martyrs, as confirmed by Prophetic Hadiths. Jihad is also done to avert aggression on home countries and on all that is held sacred, or in order to face those who try to hinder the march of the call of truth. Thus, Jihad is never a tool of waging war against the innocents. It is never a means of flexing the muscles or bullying the weak and oppressed. Jihad in Islam is something unique that is established to defend the divine message from being eliminated or hindered by its enemies.”

Prominent Al-Azhar scholar Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh states:

"I would like to tell you, dear son or dear daughter, who may share in the same belief or have his or her own, that understanding defensive Jihad as initiating fighting without a religiously acceptable reason is a total misunderstanding of the tenets of faith and the clear Qur'anic verses. In the Qur'an, defensive Jihad is under condition of repelling aggression, whereas preemptive Jihad is done only when the Muslim Ummah seriously expects a treason or an attack against its territories from an enemy."

Abu Bakr gave instructions for his troops in Syria:

“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”

Islamic jurist and scholar Khaled Abou Al-Fadl states in ‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’
The classical jurists, nearly without exception, argued that those who attack by stealth, while targeting noncombatants in order to terrorize the resident and wayfarer, are corrupters of the earth. "Resident and wayfarer" was a legal expression that meant that whether the attackers terrorize people in their urban centers or terrorize travelers, the result was the same: all such attacks constitute a corruption of the earth. The legal term given to people who act this way was muharibun (those who wage war against society), and the crime is called the crime of hiraba (waging war against society). The crime of hiraba was so serious and repugnant that, according to Islamic law, those guilty of this crime were considered enemies of humankind and were not to be given quarter or sanctuary anywhere. ... Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells - that could indiscriminately kill the innocent - as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.

You guys link suicide bombing to Islam: can you explain the lack of suicide bombings in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in Israel for nearly 30 years after the occupation began? What of the massive increase in suicide bombing in 2003? Can you name a single suicide attack before 1948 by Muslims? In fact, there are many scholastic refutations of suicide bombings. Ihsanic Intelligence, an Islamic think-tank, wrote a 2-year study into suicide bombings, titled 'The Hijacked Caravan', which concluded:

"The technique of suicide bombing is anathema, antithetical and abhorrent to Sunni Islam. It is considered legally forbidden, constituting a reprehensible innovation in the Islamic tradition, morally an enormity of sin combining suicide and murder and theologically an act which has consequences of eternal damnation."

The Malayist jurist, Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, issued a fatwa on suicide bombing titled 'Defending the Transgressed, by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians'. Also, one of Shia Islam's highest ranking marja clerics, Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sanei decreed a fatwa against suicide bombing, declaring it as a terrorist act.

You guys also ignore Christianity's own violent history: one example: the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, an instance of Christian terrorism on the same level as modern day Islamic terrorism. The massacre, said Pope Gregory XIII, gave him more pleasure than "fifty Battles of Lepanto, and he commissioned Vasari to paint frescoes of it in the Vatican". It is estimated that ten thousand to possibly one-hundred thousand Huguenots were killed by Catholic mobs, and it has been called "the worst of the century's religious massacres". The massacre also started the fourth war of the French Wars of Religion.

We can interpret this stage of Middle Eastern history as just that- a stage in history that will pass away sonner or later. In his "World without Islam" essay, Graham Fuller, former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA and a professor of history at Simon Fraser University, analyzed the “internal dynamics of the region without religion” and realized that a Middle East without Islam would still be just as “complex and conflicted.” We can interpret the violent sentiments in the Islamic World as another development that will end sooner or later, because historically, Christians have been MUCH worse (see Martin Luther's "Von den Jüden und iren Lügen" (On the Jews and Their Lies) for a small sample).

(PS, on the killing of apostates, this was opposed by many Islamic scholars, although Muslim leaders adopted it to consolidate their power. Some of the most prominent Islamic scholars throughout history have disagreed with the practice. Islamic jurists, such as Shafi`i Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, argued or issued fatwas that the changing of religion is not punishable. Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet." (Grand Ayatollah) Montazeri believes that the execution was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam due to conspiracies against Muslims, not because of changing the belief. Medieval Muslim scholars, like Sufyan al-Thawri and modern, like Hasan at-Turabi, have argued that the hadith used to justify execution of apostates should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment and/or execution. S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty in the Qur'an. Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment.

Posted by: Comment at March 3, 2008 8:58 PM

I noticed that Robert Spencer and all other so called "Islamophobes" love to misquote the Qur'an:

I'll give you a few examples: he quotes Surah Al-Baqarah (2):191:

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter."

If we were to read the adjacent verses, we get:

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." - Surah 2:190-193.

Another example:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful." - Qur'an 9:5

He (but also Jihadists promoting their agenda) quote this verse out of context. We need to read from verse 1 of this Surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Mecca. This treaty was violated by the Mushriq Meccans. Four months were given to the Meccans to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them:

“A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.” – Qur’an 9:1-4

Surah 9:6 (right after his quote) answers his claim that Islam promotes bloodshed. It says:

"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge (of Islam)."

Also, in one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Muhammad saying "She did not fight." (Quick comparison, but go check Numbers 31 for a comparison):

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"- Numbers 31:17-18.

Yes, we all know about the Banu Qurayza. The Banu Qurayza incident has created much controversy. Marco Scholler believes the Banu Qurayza were "openly, probably actively," supporting Meccans and their allies. Nasr writes that it was discovered that Qurayzah had been complicit with the enemy during the Battle. Finally, Welch states that Muslims "discovered, or perhaps became suspected" that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy."

Posted by: Comment at March 3, 2008 9:08 PM

Don't_Hate:

Thanks for answering my question. I am also a Christian, but I believe that Islam was started by a false teacher, and that Muhammad is one of the many false teachers that Jesus warned us about.

Jesus confronted evil many times during his life, which is what I believe I am doing with regard to Muhammad & Islam on this forum. So yes, I am doing what Jesus would have done; and if you study the life of Muhammad and compare him to Jesus, then you will quickly see why I stand against Islam so strongly. I do not advocate murdering people at all, but I strongly stand against the evil behind Islam, and that may involve going to war with certain nations.

Do you think that Jesus is against war and/or self defense? I don't believe that Jesus is agaisnt either one, but then that's a whole other discussion for another time.

But for now - please check this out:
Jesus or Muhammad - You Decide
http://www.christring.org/shortseries/jesusormuhammad.htm

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 9:26 PM

Now, it seems I have many arguments to answer to, and I will answer all of them.

Soteria points out that the Herbrews were faced with their destruction. Might I add that the Muslims were, too. A basic history of Islam would teach you that; it's the entire reason that Muhammad and his followers were forced to undertake the hijra to Medina and literally FIGHT FOR THEIR LIVES. Muhammand and the rest of the Muslims were in the SAME SITUATION AS THE JEWS. Tell me how the situation is any different.

Davegreybeard asks me to come up with a religion whose holy book expressly describes its prophet taking part in wanton destruction. I have a verse from you from the Old Testament, again from the King James's Version, again from Deuteronomy. Now, just to let you know, these are words Moses is speaking to the Israelites, as the first verse quotes "These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel on this side of the Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain opposite Suph, between Paran, Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab."

2:32 "Then Sihon and all his people came out against us to fight at Jahaz. 2:33 And the Lord our God delivered him over to us; so we defeated him, his sons, and all his people. 2:34 We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining."

Note how the pronoun "we" is used, implying that Moses, who is the speaker, partook in this absolute massacre and destruction.

As for a religion which executes those who turn away: Christianity. Spanish Inquisition anyone?

"

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 9:30 PM

As for Champ's comment: do I personally follow Muhammad's teachings? No. Do I believe that people should be allowed to follow his teachings? Yes. Jesus advocated respect and benevolence towards one another, and I, although I do in no way condone the violence done my Muslim terrorists in the name of Allah, I am of the opinion that killing Muslims in not the way to make it stop. Education and acceptance, at least in my opinion, is the only way to halt the violence.

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 9:35 PM

Nope they can't. Precisely why extremism is against Islam. And by the way, only hardcore Wahabbis imterprete "innocent" as being non-Muslims. Did you know Iran's theocratic government (including the Grand Ayatollahs) are against the building of nuclear weapons since there "only purpose is to take life" (even non-Muslim life)? In an interview with The San Francisco Chronicle, Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei said:

"There is complete consensus on this issue. It is self-evident in Islam that it is prohibited to have nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because the basic function of these weapons is to kill innocent people. This cannot be reversed."

Ayatollah Yousef Sanei said clerical authorities have quietly expressed opposition to the development of weapons of mass destruction for many years, and he described it as the reason that Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons when Saddam Hussein used them to kill Iranian troops and Iran-backed Kurds during the 1980- 88 Iran-Iraq war. "You cannot deliberately kill innocent people," he said.

Posted by: Comment at March 3, 2008 9:35 PM

@Don't_Hate

Are you a troll or are you asking because you want to know or debate? By you answers you are skating on thin ice. You made some statements others answered. You ignored and did not address the responses. You asked a question? You did not reply to the answer except by going off topic. The topic on the blog is Islamic Jihad and the thread is Israel's existence. Dragging up historical injustices by non-Muslims has nothing to do with the subject, except to say two wrongs make a right by you logic. Not buying it! You are naive in you understanding of the Koran and Islam.

To answer you question. Outlaw the institution called Islam. Take away all legal privileges and rights that it uses to perpetuate the overthrow of this country. This is the same thing that has been done to other threats ie Nazism, KKK and The John Birch Society. Ban all immigration from countries that have followers of Islam in them. Politically this country is not ready for this yet but based upon what is going on it will eventually happen. I would prefer it happen sooner than later. Because the enemy and treat is that real.

Now with out using the hate canard or other straw men respond to continue the debate or stop.

@Comment

As was pointed out on another thread yesterday, you are peaching to the wrong crowd. Even if we agreed with what you posted. The Good Muslims are spot on with what the text says and following it. Even if a dozen imam disagree. From what I have read of the text they are understanding it correctly and it justifies every violent act they commit.

The issue is to change the text. Which they are unwilling to do because they have themselves in an untenable situation, ie the Koran is supposedly the actual words of allah and are perfect as written. There was some talk about revising the Hadiths in Turkey but that was a big misunderstanding.

Tell us how you are going to convince them not to do what the Koran and Hadith say. Not what we should believe or don't believe it says. We are not stupid, yet you make statement that assume we are.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 3, 2008 9:35 PM

Wow...I already pointed out how grossly you misquote the Qur'an already. You have not come up with ANY response, save telling me I'm wrong. HOW am I wrong? Really.

Posted by: Comment at March 3, 2008 9:39 PM

So jihad is an inner struggle...Here is a little gem I like to trot out every now and then for jihad deniers.

From Imam Bukhari's Book of Jihad, and a foot note to the Quran...this...Thanks Imam Bukhari...

"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."

Please take special note of the last two sentences.

This is what Israel and all the west is up against. Everything you see from Islam is a variation of that theme...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 3, 2008 9:43 PM

This is me, exercising restraint.

"Ho hum."

Posted by: Ezekiel2012

...lol!! We know! You are awesome!! :-)

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 9:46 PM

I see my requests from earlier have gone more or less unheeded.

Let me add, then, that this line of argumentation is ultimately irrelevant. Arguing from the tu quoque ("your guys did it too") angle doesn't tell us anything about what is really in Islamic texts and teachings. If anything, the fact that one needs to resort to such a tactic acknowledges there is violence committed in the name of Islam dating back to Muhammad himself-- but it's something the apologist does not want to engage, and therefore tries to deflect attention from it, lest he or she be called upon to repudiate something substantive.

Also, who is misunderstanding jihad? The many Muslims who commit acts of violence and justify them in the name of Islamic jihad, or those who simply notice that phenomenon? If it's the former, why are you wasting your time on us and not them?

Finally, I find the user name "Don't Hate" presumptuous and condescending. I don't hate Muslims. Never have. So that point is moot.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 3, 2008 9:52 PM

Actually, the comment that jihad is a pillar of Islam is incredibly heretical. They hold that there are only five pillars, the basic tenets of the faith, and jihad is not one of them.

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 9:54 PM

Why do they have to share 1/5 of the booty? I don't know, but in the Bible, it says:

(6:17)"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent."
(6:18)"And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it."
(6:19)"But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD."
(6:20)So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
(6:21)"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."- Joshua 6:17-21

Posted by: Comment at March 3, 2008 9:59 PM

from above: Isn't Allah strong enough to do all of this himself?

Now that's the 64 dollar question. The answer is no.
The most Allah ever did was dictate a book. The rest of the work was done by Gabriel and Mohammad while Allah was interviewing prospective virgins.
Now that Mohammad is gone and Gabriel never comes around anymore, modern muslim have had to carry Allah's baggage. You certainly can't expect him to do it. He is still tied up with those virgins.
Nope Allah does nothing for himself, he does whisper sweet nothings in muslims ears when they read the Quran, but that's it. He never fights his own battles or anything, muslims do it for him.
And I wish he would reconsider that pesky predestination thing, it's really messing things up. Muslims are getting killed all over the place because Allah predestined it, and won't call it off. He's hard headed that way. If I was a muslim I would be very worried about that...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 3, 2008 10:01 PM

To Marisol: If you don't hate Muslims, then what are you doing on this website? I don't mean to sound rude or anything like that, but, from the responses I have received as to what people would do to address this "threat" of jihad, one person told me they would kill every Muslim and the other told me they would ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States or something like that, so I assumed, incorrectly, that people who posted on this site, with the exception of those campaigning for the Muslims, hated Muslims.

And, onto jihad. I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, that the definition of jihad doesn't matter. So long as the word is twisted and corrupted by those with anti-Western agendas, then there is little that we, in our comfortable homes and offices, can do about it. If you want to make a difference, why not campaign against drunk driving? You can make a difference in that field, and it claims way too many lives--16,885 in one year. My goal is to try to get people to let go off their anger against Muslims and to try to learn to coexist with them. I will try to accomplish that with any means necessary; it is a noble objective.

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 10:02 PM

To Marisol: If you don't hate Muslims, then what are you doing on this website?

No, I don't hate Muslims. And what am I doing here? I work here -- I volunteer my time, because I care that much about this site and its mission.

We delete comments that call for indiscriminate killings whenever we find them. I deleted one on this thread, you might have noticed.

Back to why I'm here:

What brought me here in the first place was having taken notice of the vast incongruence between what the apologists tell us about Islam, and what we see going on in the world with respect to warfare and subjugation of women and non-Muslims. I investigated further and it became apparent to me that such phenomena were not a matter of a "hijacking" of Islam, but of its core texts.

And I noticed worldwide instances of terrorism in the name of Islam, and a slow creep of apologetics and demands for culturally (and often morally) unacceptable accomodations.

I believe in a secular state, a pluralistic society, freedom of speech, movement, and association, and the dignity and equality of all people under the law. Islamic law would destroy this, and the aim of all jihad is to impose Islamic law.

Therefore, Jihad is worth... Watching. And resisting in all its forms.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 3, 2008 10:12 PM

don't hate...Actually, the comment that jihad is a pillar of Islam is incredibly heretical.

Maybe, but if you think so, you should take it up with Imam Bukhari...I think it is interesting that Imam Bukhari is one of the most respected scholars of Islam, and his Ahadith are considered next to the Quran in importance, and you pronounce him a heretic...What do you think of the part that says all muslims are 'obligated' to jihad. Got any comment on that, and how maybe that is what Israel is up against? Do you see Israel as a victim or perpetrator?

Posted by: duh_swami at March 3, 2008 10:16 PM

I find it so odd when [supposed] Christians defend a insane death cult bent on destroying the Jews, in which the fulfillment of many New Testament prophecies hinges on their survival. Some base this upon some totally absurd lie about "3 religions, one God" nonsense. No matter what you believe, a simple comparative test exposes irreconcilable differences between the Hebrew Deity [YWVH] and the Arabic Deity [Allah]. Yeshua [Jesus] exalted YWVH [His very name means "YWVH our salvation" in Hebrew]..but with the obvious separation that Christians accept Him as Messiah and most Jews do not.

There is no defense for Islam. It was never a religion of peace to those who refused to submit to it. The survival of Jews and Israel is vital to biblical prophecy, and the destruction of Israel is vital to Islam.

To this I say...LONG LIVE ISRAEL!!!

Posted by: SoteriA at March 3, 2008 10:19 PM

To answer Ezekiel: India.

India was ruled by Islamic leaders both during the times of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Around 25% of the Indian population are Muslim, but the vast majority of the remainder are Hindu. They were ruled by Muslim for hundreds of years, and I didn't see their culture being wiped out.

To Marisol: But isn't the basis of jihad to resist the non-Muslims, to resist the oppression of the outsiders? Translated into English, it means something along the lines of "to struggle." How can one resist what is, ultimately, meant to be a resistance, a struggle to stay on Allah's path and to preserve their identity? That is what is at the core of Islam. If this site is devoted to watching jihad and somehow preventing it from happening, then why are all these anti-Islamic comments being posted? What do imams demanding $100,000 have to do with jihad? And, with the comment attached to the original posting, it seems that the operators of this blog wish to make a mockery of the religion.

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 10:21 PM

"Lebanese researcher Anis Al-Naqash said in a lecture that talk of a new Middle East without Israel indicated a fact that will come true, and that the next victory will be soon and will include the destruction of the Israeli army.?

Talk of a new Middle East without Anis Al-Naqash indicated a fact that will come true.

Posted by: Lex at March 3, 2008 10:26 PM

We can make a mockery of the imams all we want. They're human beings and public figures, filing frivolous lawsuits.

And again, why not tell the jihadists they're doing their struggling wrong?

If all jihad was harmless inner spiritual struggle, we wouldn't be here.

And the Islamic texts themselves, as well as all the acts done in their name prove that "struggle" has been identified and continues to be identified with warfare, overt and otherwise.

I think we're reaching the point of diminishing returns here.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 3, 2008 10:26 PM

"Fighting in defense is considered obligatory upon Muslims, according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an, however, says that should enemy hostile behavior cease, then the reason for engaging such enemy also lapses..."
-- from a posting by tireless Muslim apologist "comment" above

But the word "defense" is assigned a different meaning in Islam. Any attempt by Infidels to prevent the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam in their own lands, or any attempt to refuse to accept Muslim mistreatment of Infidels in lands already under Muslim control, is regarded as an act of offense, an attack on Muslims. And so they may then attack, for they are "fighting in defense." Americans who attempt to preserve, for example, the First Amendment rights, against the chipping away at them by Muslim demands for limits on free speech (i.e., no criticism or mockery of Islam), or limits on freedom of conscience (Islam, a collectivist faith, does not allow those born into Islam to decide, at any point, whether or not they wish to continue as Muslims or to leave Islam for another faith, or for no faith at all), would be seen by Muslims as engaged in an attack on Islam, and therefore Muslims would have a perfect right to attack back -- in "defense."

"Comment" knows this perfectly well. He keeps hoping you will not. And in the same spirit, he put up again the same nonsense about apostasy in Islam that had been thoroughly answered, in a post I put up, the other day. I suggest he stop going over the same ground. If he continues to ignore what has already been answered, and is merely going to continue using this site for his own propaganda, he will be banned and all of his past postings removed.

If, on the other hand, he wishes to actually answer, for example, the evidence I put up about the view of apostasy in Islam, he is welcome to do so. But the propaganda must stop. This is not a site full of the usual uninformed and the foolish.

Posted by: Hugh at March 3, 2008 10:31 PM

Hugh-- Comment won't be visiting us anymore.

And I'm pondering the diminishing marginal utility of another poster's presence.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 3, 2008 10:33 PM

I will not deny that a part of jihad is the struggle against aggressors through armed conflict. But the greater jihad is the inner path to purity. What we find ourselves is in a situation where the lesser jihad is getting more attention than the greater jihad, and the United States is helping to fuel it. But, what's done is done and we can't go back to the Gulf War and decide not to place troops in Saudi Arabia; we can only move forward and try to resolve the situation. What one might argue is that Islam is "immature." What I mean by that is that Islam, having coming around 600 years after Christianity, may be experiencing the growing pains that Christianity experienced during the reformation, the counter-reformation, and the religious wars that followed. You said that "If all jihad was inner spiritual struggle, we wouldn't be here. And the Islamic texts themselves bear that out." The Bible contains texts that "bear that out," that enemies and non-Christians are to be dealt with brutally. And guess what? Those very same texts were warped by those who perpetrated the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the like, into justification, just as the imam are corrupting the words of the Qur'an into justification to carry out attacks against the West. Christianity experienced this same phase--that cannot be denied. Is Islam in the very same phase as well? Only time will tell. For those Christians among us, we are lucky that we did not live during the 15th and 16th centuries. For those Muslims among us, they are unfortunate enough to live during Islam's equivalent to the pains of the 15th and 16th centuries. And though I do agree that keeping watch for possible zones of conflict is a good idea, bashing a religion is not, and I see a great deal of that going on.

Posted by: Don't_Hate at March 3, 2008 10:35 PM

Don't_Hate,

As I said in the first place, “Only a willfully ignorant fool, with a malicious self-hating agenda, would make this statement.”

I would emphasize the “malicious” and the “fool” part.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 3, 2008 10:35 PM

And we're back to tu quoque.

Good night.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 3, 2008 10:36 PM

From a Muslim troll pretenting to be a Christian:

'My intentions were simply to engage in a debate with someone who felt strongly that Islam equates to terrorism, a belief, obviously, that I strongly disagree with."

The evidence is clear, the Koran and the hadith clearly incite to mass murder, genocide, hatred and subjugation of unbelievers. Besides, good Muslims like Qaradwi, Zawahiri, OBL and all the rest confirm it every time they open their mouth.

It always cracks me up when Muslim trolls pretend to be Christians but haven't got a clue about Christianity, only to make the usual associations with the KKK, abortion clinic bombers, Tim McVeigh and some Mosaic atrocities.

All these trolls ever do is tell us not to look at Islamic scriptures, not to look at what Muslims do, not to see the writing on the wall and to go like lambs to the slaughter, because being Christians means going like lambs to the slaughter?

Troll, better find yourself a new game..!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 3, 2008 10:37 PM

Don't_Hate states:

"My goal is to try to get people to let go off their anger against Muslims and to try to learn to coexist with them. I will try to accomplish that with any means necessary; it is a noble objective."

Why in the world should we learn to coexist with those intent on our destruction? That is never going to fly with those smart enough to see what Islam is truly about; and your objective is anything but noble, dude, it is downright dangerous...YOU...are dangerous.

You also stated: "Jesus advocated respect and benevolence towards one another"

Yes, but Jesus also spoke out against false teachers, so try to remember the context of what we're talking about. He did not say to "Love Other Religions"....Hell No!!....He said that false teachers would lead you astray, and that's exactly what Muhammad did. He led people astray.

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 10:56 PM

I was going to comment and don't hate, but now they have gone. I guess I will close with this thought.

Mat 6:22-23
Your eye is a lamp for your body. A pure eye lets sunshine into your soul. But an evil eye shuts out the light and plunges you into darkness. If the light you think you have is really darkness, how deep that darkness will be!

حصير 6:22-23
العين الخاص بك هو مصباح لجسمك. لنعترف نقيه العين ضوء الشمس الى روحك. ولكن شر العين يغلق اصل ضوء ويغرق في الظلام لكم. اذا كنت تعتقد ان ضوء لديك حقا الظلام ، ومدى عمق ذلك الظلام سيكو

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 3, 2008 11:03 PM

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Not if you are a Christian named don't hate.
Some of these people are soo defensive of Islam, I wonder why they don't just Shahada themselves down to the local mosque and hang out with the folks.
As far as Israel is concerned, I don't think the last chapter has been written yet, and it won't be for quite a while. When the dust finally settles Israel will still be there.

Posted by: duh_swami at March 3, 2008 11:03 PM

PMK,

You have some excellent points and could very well be right. When crunch time arrives I pray they can't make it all work correctly, but our corporations have sold out a lot of technology to the enemy. And what of our European "allies"? If we needed to shut some valves to get a point across, would they stand with us? Probably not.

This afternoon I was thinking about the Chicom efforts to drill for oil in Cuban waters. On the surface it almost a joke to think about the Red Chinese doing such a thing when you consider the complexities of offshore technology. It's defintely not the era of my Grandad building a wooden rig out on Caddo Lake anymore. But...Kerr-McGee drilled the first deep-water well right after WW2 ended. Same as the Chicoms copied a antique manned spacecraft and moon probe I guess they could build a 1940's offshore rig.
(It'd be my luck they'll announce a big strike off of Cuba tomorrow.)

My instincts tell me they won't be able to operate/maintain the equipment for tar sand extraction or conventional oil and gas operations as well as we would nor expand the operations like we would. Operate it AT ALL, yes; do an exceptional job...nahhh.

I would prefer that we never discover which of us is right in our analysis. Unfortunately, I'm afraid we might just get to see what "could happen" in more than one area of the world. Hang on my friend, the ride could get rough.
Pray, Plan, and Prepare.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at March 3, 2008 11:08 PM

"Lebanese researcher: A new Middle East without Israel will soon be a reality"

Neither will Israel go, nor will Hinduism, nor Christianity, nor atheism, nor reason.

It is Islam which will go, and it is hurtling down to its destruction all too soon.....

Posted by: proud-hindu at March 4, 2008 12:12 AM

don't_hate,

It has been noted here several times before, that the authenticity of the oft-cited hadith you repeat is poorly attested to, not not found in the collections of canonical Muslim compilers; it has a life of its own due to its utility in apologetics targeting non-Muslims.

Jihad does mean to "Struggle in the way of Allah until fitna[mischief; corruption; oppression, that is, disorder and opposition against Allah's will and its imposition] is no more, and all religion is for Allah alone." The Qur'an amply illustrates this struggle as foremost qitaal, literal combat; the assertedly "lesser" jihad.

You should, if your purpose is sincere and not taqqiya, dissimulation in the cause, read the foundational texts of Sunni Islam in the compendium presented at the link Ezechiel2012 provides above, posted at 9:20PM. Then let's see if we are both describing the same animal differently.

Posted by: John C at March 4, 2008 12:24 AM

I agree with your sentiments, proud-hindu.

Posted by: John C at March 4, 2008 12:27 AM

Proud-hindu'

I think all said and done in the future you got it right. Somehow someway the world will have had enough of this dark divisive death cult and it's founder.

Posted by: Infidel Brotherhood at March 4, 2008 1:08 AM

To answer Ezekiel: India.

India was ruled by Islamic leaders both during the times of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Around 25% of the Indian population are Muslim, but the vast majority of the remainder are Hindu. They were ruled by Muslim for hundreds of years, and I didn't see their culture being wiped out.

India was ruled by Islamic rulers from the 1200s to the 1700s, and sustained invasions from 1000 to 1761. In course of that, some 80m Hindus, Buddhists and Jains died during the Sultanate of Delhi, and another 70m Hindus and Sikhs died during the Moghuls. Also, where did you get your number of 25%? The Republic of India's Muslim percentage is 15% tops, and if you factor in Pakistan and Bangladesh, then the total Muslim population is 35%.

To find out more about what really happened, read these books at the Voice of India to find out not only the bloodbath of Hindus that took place, but also all the temples and other monuments to Hindu culture that were ravaged.

To deny any of this is pure hatred of Indian Infidels - be they Hindu, Jain, Buddhist or Sikh. My message to you - Mr/Ms 'Don't_Hate' - is Don't hate!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 4, 2008 1:21 AM

Don't_Hate said

What one might argue is that Islam is "immature." What I mean by that is that Islam, having coming around 600 years after Christianity, may be experiencing the growing pains that Christianity experienced during the reformation

Islam is not where Christianity was 600 years ago. Islam is exactly where it was 1350 years ago, when it was founded. It hasn't changed, it will never change. Jesus never beheaded 900 men and boys. Jesus never had sex with a 9 year old girl. Jesus never raided a caravan. Jesus never gave his followers permission to lie and deceive in order to successfully kill non-Christians. Jesus never ordered the execution of a female poet while she slept with her baby at her breast for the "crime" of "insulting" him. We can wait another 600 years or 6000 years, and Islam and Christianity will never be the same. They will never teach the same values.

Even an atheist such as myself can see the glaring differences in the moral foundations of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, on the one hand, and on the other hand: Islam.

And you, thinking that Islam has the ability to change over time, show your ignorance of the basic core beliefs of Islam. You think that Allah changes his mind on a whim? You think that the gates of ijtihad are left forever open to the changing interpretation of modern men?

When Muslims threaten to obliterate our countries, we don't need "to try to learn to coexist with them." That's very far from what we need to do.

Posted by: special_guest at March 4, 2008 1:33 AM

screwThePCPolice-Don't worry for us...
Israel has enough W.M.Ds to survive

plus

while calling up the resevers it can deal with a combined assolte of all of these armies...
even now , it is only about 2 brigades in Gaza...
in case of need Border-police takes control of west bank...

plus
during war major general Ashkenazi will run show and not Olmert

but thanks for your concern...

(Yair-Israel)

Posted by: zion at