| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Assuming that the soldier really did know this was the Qur'an -- he says he didn't but the military "rejected the claim" -- this story illustrates many things.
1. While the President and the military brass are anxious to deny that the War On Terror has anything to do with Islam, many rank-and-file soldiers can't help but notice that the fiercest enemies they encounter are also the most devout in their Islam, and that the jihad terrorists quote the Qur'an copiously to justify their acts of violence.
2. That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur'an as target practice is unfortunate. If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies. This is not the same thing as the Dinesh D'Souza argument that we must not speak about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, because doing so will turn "moderates" into "extremists" -- D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime. But that is not the same thing as avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.
3. The reactions of Major General Hammond and his staff were understandable, but excessive. They don't want to alienate people they believe they have won over, or whom they hope to win over, in Baghdad. They had to disavow this soldier's action. However, kissing the Qur'an and begging for forgiveness -- and holding an apology "ceremony" in the first place -- are gestures that spring from a misunderstanding of how they are likely to be perceived by the "tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony."
Major General Hammond is anxious to show that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Fine. But to kiss the Qur'an and to beg for forgiveness are signs that one accepts its authority and the authority of those before whom one is begging. Coming from non-Muslims, it is likely that they will be interpreted as gestures of submission, and the submission of non-Muslims to Muslims is a significant concept in Islamic law -- although I am sure Major General Hammond and his staff are unaware of this. Given that, is it wise to be giving such impressions? Are such impressions not likely to create even more tension in the future?
4. "Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident 'aggression against the entire Islamic world.'" This is simply hysterical. It was a boorish, stupid act, but it was a boorish, stupid act by one individual soldier. If he has shot up a Bible, Christians who knew about the incident might have regarded him as something of an idiot, but that would have been the end of the story. No apology ceremony, no military brass kissing the book, nothing.
Of course, we are not engaged in a war in a country where the majority of people revere the Bible, but that doesn't completely account for the difference. The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this can never be discounted. Major General Hammond and his staff are trying to head that off. That's fine, but it also just plays into the mentality that to riot and kill because of something like this is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to it. At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything." But we are a long, long way at this point from that kind of common sense.
"U.S. soldier uses Quran for target practice; military apologizes," from CNN, May 17 (thanks to JS):
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A soldier used the Quran -- Islam's holy book -- for target practice, forcing the chief U.S. commander in Baghdad to issue a formal apology on Saturday.Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, apologized to leaders in Radhwaniya, in the western outskirts of Baghdad, for the staff sergeant who was a sniper section leader assigned to the headquarters of the 64th Armored Regiment. He also read a letter of apology by the shooter.
It was the first time the incident -- which tested the relationship between U.S.-backed Sunni militiamen and the military -- was made public since it was discovered May 11.
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."
Another military official kissed a Quran and presented is as "a humble gift" to the tribal leaders.
The soldier, whose name was not released, shot at a Quran on May 9, villagers said. The Quran used in the incident was discovered two days later, according to the military.
Hammond also read from the shooter's letter: "I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together. ... My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious."
A tribal leader said "the criminal act by U.S. forces" took place at a shooting range at the Radhwaniya police station. After the shooters left, an Iraqi policeman found a target marked in the middle of the bullet-riddled Quran.
Copies of the pictures of the Quran obtained by CNN show multiple bullet holes and an expletive scrawled on one of its pages.
A military investigation found the shooter guilty and relieved him of duty; he will be redeployed to the United States for reassignment away from the 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, a U.S. official said.
"The actions of one soldier were nothing more than criminal behavior," Hammond said. "I've come to this land to protect you, to support you -- not to harm you -- and the behavior of this soldier was nothing short of wrong and unacceptable."
Officials said the soldier claimed he wasn't aware the book was the Quran. U.S. officials rejected the claim.
Tribal leaders, dignitaries and local security officials attended the ceremony, while residents carried banners and chanted slogans, including "Yes, yes to the Quran" and "America out, out."
Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world."
Posted by Robert at May 18, 2008 8:11 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
At least the soldier knows the enemy.
Posted by: pulsar182![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 18, 2008 8:15 AM
/Hammond also read from the shooter's letter: "I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together. ... My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious."/
Reading aloud that statement from the shooter tells me how little Hammond understands the people he is trying to reach with his apology. They would have no desire to hear from the shooter. They want to have the shooter put to death.
at May 18, 2008 8:31 AM
This is nuts.......
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."
Another military official kissed a Quran and presented is as "a humble gift" to the tribal leaders."
This now looks like total submission...the soldier shot a book.....for crying out loud ...If he had shot a Bible (I am a Christian) I would think okay this guy is a bit off.. and pray for him..but would not start a verbal war over this or call to arms...Christians from all over the world to arms, that is what I see happening, they islam......will now use this to fuel there insanity from evey corner of the world....... I am ashamed of that officer..(I am an ARMY mom, I also have 3 nephews that have been deployed )
Posted by: mountiangirl at May 18, 2008 8:39 AM
Maybe he actually read it? Found it was not holy and decided to make it hole-y.
Posted by: Borg at May 18, 2008 8:39 AM
And was it in Arabic? If not it isn't a real koran anyway, is it?
Posted by: Borg at May 18, 2008 8:45 AM
There are many reasons for morale problems among soldiers who have served in Iraq. These problems can be found among those who have returned, including the tens of thousands who have decided to leave the active army (the army now needs 15,000 missing captains), as well as those who are now eager to get out of the National Guard and the Reserves, and have no intention of extending their service, having discovered that their government has ignored their justified assumptions about what it was they were signing up for, and exploited to the fullest its legal, but morally unjustified, ability to make them return, and return again, to Iraq.
But surely one of the reasons is that the officers and men are not fools, and they cannot forever deny the evidence of their senses. The meretriciousness of most Iraqis, the whining about getting ever-more money, and ever-more of the most advanced American equipment, the sly attempts to extract whatever they can from the endless cornucopia that America offers, the unwillingness of Iraqi officials to spend any of their gigantic oil surpluses, the treachery and cowardice of so many Iraqis who repeatedly leave the Americans to do the main fighting -- and fighting not for "a free Iraq" but rather, persuading them, those long-suffering Americans, to fight against now this faction, on behalf of this other faction, and now against that group, on behalf of that other group, all of which is designed to further not the nation-state of Iraq but, rather, this group of Sunnis or that group of Shi'a.
Those who make the policy for Tarbaby Iraq, never seem to ask themselves exactly how, in the overall scheme of things, in the Jihad that proceeds, for example, in Western Europe not mainly through terrorism but through deployment of the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest, whatever happens in Iraq will indeed make the world-wide position of Infidels better, and render the Camp of Islam more divided, more demoralized, and hence weaker.
Those who serve or have served in Iraq, if they are not to fall into a slough of despond, or begin to embrace conspiracy theories, need to make sense of their own experience, and the failure of some of their officers to allow them to make that sense, to see connections, to grasp the nature of Islam and its effect on the minds and hearts -- the essentially unwinnable minds and hearts of Muslims in Iraq, some of whom may need the Americans, and thus become temporary, and at times, for the more sentimental soldiers even quite touching, "allies" in this or that local fight, but in the broad scheme of things, are not and cannot be permanent allies of Infidels, to the extent that they take their Islam seriously.
The over-reaction by General Hammond, no doubt justified by some as necessary Realpolitik, in fact confirms Muslims in their sense of superiority. The soldier's apology was enough. The rest of it - the supine uriah-heepish behavior, the Qur'an-kissing, and so on, will disgust many soldiers. And should.
And some of those soldiers, having learned about Islam and the kind of society it produces, will return home, and begin to look at the texts, learn the tenets, read up on Muslim conquest of non-Muslim lands and the subjugation of non-Muslims over 1350 years, and will constitute a core, on hopes, of the resistance to those who, in this country as in Western Europe, wilfully ignore Islam as an ideology because they are fearful of what they might find out, or what might be demanded of them, were those whom they presume to instruct and protect were to find out about Islam.
One more reason for soldiers to be demoralized, and one more reason for those who have returned from Iraq to come back, implacably determined to learn why the "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations" project, the dreamy idea of "bringing freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, was a Fool's Errand, and they, who were not fools, had to pay much of the price.
It is right to be horrified by the squandering of resources -- men, money, materiel, morale -- in Tarbaby Iraq. It is not right to conclude that Islam is not a problem. It is because Islam, a Total Belief-System, is a permanent problem that it would be inteligent to leave Iraq, in order to allow the pre-existing fissures so beautifully present in Iraq, as practicaly nowhere else, to widen and deepen and, if we are lucky, to be a permanent fault line between the Sunnis and the Shi'a, and will cause both Iran, and Suadi Arabia and other Sunni states, to spend their money, their men, their materiel, in a conflict without -- for them, and not at that point for us -- end.
Posted by: Hugh at May 18, 2008 8:53 AM
I consider the over 11,000 terrorist acts by Mohammedan an aggression by the entire Islamic world against the rest of the world, so screw their hypersensitivity.
As for El President Heir Bush’s futile quest to bring "freedom" to fascist loving tribal throw backs... well, let's just say, I don't see his offspring donning Body Armor to go over there and do their share.
at May 18, 2008 9:14 AM
>At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything." But we are a long, long way at this point from that kind of common sense." -- RS
Uh Huh. We have to stop letting Islam get away with it's insanity, in the same way we don't allow Nazis their specific insanities.
at May 18, 2008 9:22 AM
If the man who kissed the Quran was not a Muslim, then that Quran would also have been defiled ? Or is that now an approved submissive gesture ?
Posted by: M Al-Content at May 18, 2008 9:33 AM
"Tribal leaders, dignitaries and local security officials attended the ceremony, while residents carried banners and chanted slogans, including "Yes, yes to the Quran" and "America out, out."
Isn't that special!
*
"Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world."
Oh, brother. The Ummah needs to get over itself. Sadly, I don't think this is going to happen without a WW3.
at May 18, 2008 9:50 AM
The military needs some real officers. A new Patton, Pershing, or Bradley would be useful, as would a real President.
However, in today's emasculated, ____less Army they wouldn't last very long.
I can hear the conversation now.
Soldier A: "You shot a Quran, and you're going home?"
Soldier B: "Yeah."
Soldier A: "Does anybody have a Quran I can borrow?"
Posted by: Pelayo at May 18, 2008 9:51 AM
Whoa! You might catch some flak for saying that, camesawconquered!
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 9:52 AM
OMG!!! On the strength of an ISLAMIST finding a "Cur-on" TWO DAYS LATER, at a shooting range, all this happened??? A soldier's record now has a "black mark" on it and officers of the US military PUBLICLY and abjectly "kiss arab ass"??? As a vet, this completely turns my stomach!!! The suicidal disease of PC, multi-culturalism has been enforced on our troops now, because our government is too STUPID to see the obvious!
I honestly and fervently pray, to God, for our nation!!! The dhimmi polititions are bent on our nation's destruction!!!
at May 18, 2008 9:54 AM
Kissing a Qur'an. The horror of that is stomach-churning.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 10:27 AM
"Get your filthy kuffir lips off that Quran".
But all that bowing and groveling is just fine...we like that part.
This is exceedingly disgusting. Almost like Bush kissing the king. Worse than that since the General is in a war zone.
This general should be reassigned as well. I wonder if he got permission from higher ups to conduct this semi religious ceremony.
I wonder if it came to him from higher up to kiss the Quran? To beg for forgiveness, to bow and scrape before the representatives of Allah. This technique works well for Bush...Kissing and groveling, an essential part of surrendering to Islam...
at May 18, 2008 10:35 AM
After digesting the story of this incident, I can only say I am left with a true feeling of celebration. In our culture I can take any book, and I am speaking as a Christian, use it for target practice but still my only ‘crime’ would be littering for not cleaning up the range of my debris afterwards. Not only can I take the shot for any reason including hate, I am protected by our inspired constitution. There is no comparison. I am committed to celebrating, appreciating and fighting for western culture. It is easy to lose sight of what we still have.
Posted by: PraiaFlamego at May 18, 2008 10:49 AM
This is for all those that support staying in Iraq today….
I don’t hold this soldier responsible. The man was there to fight a war, but our leaders won’t let them. So they act out, and who would blame them? Perhaps shooting the Quran might seem rash to some people sitting at home (however not me), but in the eyes of that soldier, on the front lines, he was letting out some steam. This is a war zone where people are killed everyday, yet the idiots who run this war don’t understand that. I blame Bush for this. I blame Cheney for this. I blame all those people who continue to defend this strategy, and defend us staying there. If you are not going to allow our troops to fight, then get them out. They are not stool pigeons for your geopolitical games, and stop using excuses like “If we leave the liberals will win”. Well if the liberals, or the jihadist win, then whose fault is that? Yours! You guys came up with this idiotic strategy, you guys trumpeted it, you guys attacked everyone who wanted out by calling them every name in the book, and for all that you have Gen. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond kissing the dam Quran, and asking for forgiveness from his Islamic masters. This makes us look stronger? How? The forces Islam are winning the dam war and you guys don’t realize it.
Any doubt I had about leaving Iraq is now dead. The people running this war are clueless and are not prepared to win anything. I want out now. Our troops do not deserve this.
“In our Country... one class of men makes war and leaves another to fight it out.”
William Tecumseh Sherman
at May 18, 2008 11:01 AM
Ol Sheikh and Bheik Hamadi al-Qirtani shouldn't get all lathered up about a copy of the Qur'an being shot. He JUST KNOWS that the original is in Paradise, far beyond the range of any kuffar rifle!
It might have gone a bit better with the locals if the soldier had used a teddy bear named Mohammad for target practice instead of the Qur'an. Just a thought...
Posted by: Lex at May 18, 2008 11:04 AM
Whoa! You might catch some flak for saying that, camesawconquered!
Possibly, but the essential point is that we have to see things through Muslims' eyes and if they saw us acting with impunity against their religion, they would have more respect for our strength. It's obvious that our notions of tolerance and mutual respect are not getting through to them and never will get through to them, except minimally at at a pace and depth that leaves us exposed to their irrationalism.
Posted by: venividivici at May 18, 2008 11:14 AM
"Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States.."
Spoken by secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice, on the eve of the Koran riots.
http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/20/abu-hamza/
at May 18, 2008 11:19 AM
Well, veni, since basically everyone commenting on this article is saying that, don't worry about it!
"It's obvious that our notions of tolerance and mutual respect are not getting through to them" veni
As RS says, Islam is the world's most intolerant religion. Which it is. And the Qur'an is eternal and immutable (never changes) and is the literal word of God. So, realistically speaking, there will NEVER be our "notions of tolerance and mutual respect getting through to them." To think otherwise is running a fool's errand.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 11:21 AM
Our tolerance for the Intolerant (Islam) is imbecilic and shameful. "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." --Thomas Mann
Stop the Islamization of our Nation.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 11:29 AM
"Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States.."
-- a statement by Condoleezza Rice quoted above
The "holy Koran"? It may be "holy" to Muslims. Is Condoleezza Rice a Muslim? Does she speak for 300 million Americans, 298.5 million of whom are not Muslims and who do not regard the Koran as "holy"? Has this become the Homeric epithet of choice?
As for this "disrespect" business -- my, a whole lot of people are suddenly bringing this word into common usage. Barack Obama breaks with Jeremiah Wright not because of his 20 years of ranting, but because, in his recent appearances and discussions, he showed "me [Barack Obama] disrespect." This is the "you dissin' me" charge that apparently has been spreadinig throughout the land. Respect, or what used to called lack of respect, are both earned. They are not simply automatic. Condoleezza Rice has no business speaking for the United States of America, and its 200-year history, in her dreamy belief that no "disrespect" for the "holy" Koran "has...ever been" or "ever...will be" tolerated. Does she know what is in the Koran? Does she think it a book worthy of "respect"? Why? Because some parts of it are not bad? Because if fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong, as used to be said, than more than a billion Muslims must also, assuredly, be right?
Where is the discussion of the actual contents of the Qur'an, based on some demonstrated familiarity with its text, and with its effect, through time and space, on the minds of Believers, and hence on the history of the world?
This kind of remark shows, once more, that we are led by people who perfectly embody the decline (if not yet the fall), the degradation of the demogratic dogma that has been repeatedly warned about, over the past century, by everyone from Henry Adams to Ortega, warnings that have heedlessly been ignored.
Posted by: Hugh at May 18, 2008 11:29 AM
Our tolerance for the Intolerant (Islam) is imbecilic and shameful. "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." --Thomas Mann
Stop the Islamization of our Nation.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 11:30 AM
Everything Hugh said is what I would have meant by writing
Mr. Spencer,You lost me at #2.
I will not regard a book with reverence it isn't due, neither should our soldiers, statesmen or average citizen. The contents of the book in question is THE doctrine of the enemy who wants us to submit or die. Having recognized that fact, I will not ask anyone to feign reverence - ever.
Posted by: justamomof4 at May 18, 2008 11:31 AM
"Because if fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong, as used to be said, than more than a billion Muslims must also, assuredly, be right?"
That is "Argumentum Ad Numerum," a logical fallacy. And here's my favorite riposte to that fallacy:
"Eat dung. 50 billion flies can't be wrong!"
at May 18, 2008 11:37 AM
2. ...This is not the same thing as the Dinesh D'Souza argument that we must not speak about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, because doing so will turn "moderates" into "extremists" -- D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime. But that is not the same thing as avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.The Koran can be read in the same spirit ancient writings of other religions can be read, and are read by most reasonable and intelligent people, as the then current interpretation of events and ideas, not necessarily as how they would be viewed today in light of present modern day knowledge. As such those text should be revered for their historical context, and valued for those who strove very long ago to make sense of a world, and their deity, from what scant knowledge they had at the time. This in itself is worthy of respect, which includes the Koran, same as it is afforded to the Bible or Baghadavita. They are historical works, and valuable as insights into historical events and minds. As a matter of respect, no one should desecrate any ancient writings, anymore than anyone should burn books of knowledge no matter how faulty. The Koran deserves this respect as a matter of honoring its historical context and the respectful wishes of people who sincerely believe in their religion.
What makes the Koran more problematic is that modern day Muslims, a fairly large population of the world, still hold these Koranic writings as if they were the 'actual words' of their deity, Allah, which cannot be interpreted by modern reason on any level except to fully submit to their dictates, as if they were the 'uncreated' word of Allah. There are reform movements within Islam that say many passages of the Koran that are violent and out of touch with modern reality should be reexamined, and perhaps dropped or at least reinterpreted. Muslims against Sharia have a long list of such passages that are in question. http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
The violent passages cannot coexist with the peaceful ones, no matter in what context they are taken (except historical, same as for other religious books), without causing a split mind, such as tormented by twisted invert logic, the kind that can accept that 9/11 was a "US government conspiracy" while at the same time lauding the "Magnificent 19" for their acts of Jihad against the West. That is beyond deceitful, it is stupid. This 'split mind' necessarily pits K2:256, peaceful verse that "there is no compulsion in religion", with the many violent ones (K47.4, 9.5, 9.29, 33.61, 24.2, 16.107, 8.12, etc.) which clearly dictate Allah's instructions to cause fear and terror in the non-believers, and often to do so with violence. Only a split mind can find solace in such a twisted book, especially if there is no abrogation by later verses of earlier ones, where reason must be suspended (into stupidity) in order to believe Allah's uncreated word. Any normal and intelligent natural person is instantly revolted by this, and perhaps the soldier accused of shooting the Koran had read it. Many of us have read it, and are revolted by the assault on reason by the Koran's contradictory texts. But it still does not excuse such behavior, because it is disrespectful of the historical context of what had been written down as the Koran during the early Caliphate period. One should respect all religions, if they are not cults, and this disrespect of a holy book of Islam should not have happened. It was wrong.
That said, violence against a holy book is not on the same level as violence against other live human beings, and though the soldier's act is regrettable and condemnable (if true), it registers far lower on the scale of atrocities, since it was against an inanimate object. What the 'true believers' do to other human beings, alive people, men, women, and children, in the name of their Koran, an inanimate object, is a far greater crime. Theirs are crimes against humanity. We who are not of split mind (invert logic) can clearly see disrespect is not a major crime against humanity, while calls to violence by Jihadists in the name of Allah, such as called by many verses within the Koran, are serious incitement to criminal activity of the worst kind. For this infringement of disrespect for another's religion, the soldier (if found guilty) should be reprimanded and instructed to know better, however punished, but it is not a crime for which severe punishment such as crimes against humanity would warrant. The difference is a crime against an inanimate object, the Koran, versus a crime against live human beings, Koranically sanctioned fear and terrorism. Excessive punishment makes no sense here. Still, if true, it was wrong, and boorishly stupid to do it. He should have known better, even if he disagrees with the contents. We are better.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 18, 2008 11:41 AM
Tribal leaders, dignitaries and local security officials attended the ceremony, while residents carried banners and chanted slogans, including "Yes, yes to the Quran" and "America out, out."
TA TA!!! SEE YA!!!!!!
"Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States.."
-- a statement by Condoleezza Rice quoted above
Well Madam Secretary, how about disresprect for the holy Bible? Do you remember the siege of the Church of the Nativity, in which the church and its contents were vandalized by Palestinian terrorists? Who in the US government called any of this a crime against Christianity? Did Arafat or his minions pay for their "crime"? NO!!!!
Posted: August 28, 2007
11:41 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem
In a meeting today with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert granted permission for terrorist leaders expelled from Israel after seizing Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity in 2002 to return to Bethlehem, top Palestinian sources told WND. The terrorists, members of Abbas' Fatah militias, long have been accused of engaging in campaigns against Bethlehem's Christian population.
"This is a victory for the Palestinian people and for the Fatah militias. It is a very happy day," Jihad Jaara, the exiled director of the Nativity siege told WND.
Jaara was the Bethlehem-area chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group at the time of the siege. The Brigades, Fatah's declared military wing, took responsibility for all suicide bombings in Israel the past two years.
WND first reported three weeks ago Israel was studying allowing the exiled Bethlehem terrorists to return.
In 2002, members of Jaara's group and other terror organizations holed up inside the Church of the Nativity while fleeing a massive Israeli anti-terror operation. Israel surrounded the church area but refused to storm the structure. Gunmen inside included wanted senior Hamas, Tzanim and Brigades terrorists reportedly involved in suicide bombings and shooting attacks. More than 200 nuns and priests were trapped in the church after Israeli hostage negotiators failed to secure their release.
The siege ended after 39 days when mediators agreed 13 senior terrorists would be deported to European countries, 26 would be transported to the Gaza Strip and the remaining gunmen would be freed.
The Nativity Church, one of the most sacred sites in Christianity, is the believed birthplace of Jesus.
According to media reports, the terrorists left the church in shambles.
Four Greek monks told the Washington Times the Palestinian gunmen holed up with them seized church stockpiles of food and "ate like greedy monsters" until the food ran out, while the trapped civilians went hungry. The terrorists also were accused of guzzling beer, wine and Johnny Walker scotch that they found in the priests' quarters.
A Roman Catholic priest told the Times some Bibles were torn up and used as toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed.
Posted by: PMK at May 18, 2008 11:44 AM
It's also called Argumentum ad populum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Here's another favorite riposte, courtesy Anatole France:
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Are you listening, France, the country, to your brillant countryman?
Your comment was also brilliant, Mr. Fitzgerald. I'm copying it for my bulletin board.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 11:45 AM
MAYBE he kissed the Qur'an after he just finished a ham and cheese sandwich swished down with a glass of fine merlot.
at May 18, 2008 11:45 AM
I just hope that the Quran was all he kissed, but kissing the Quran is actually symbolic of kissing something else.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 18, 2008 11:48 AM
called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world."
It is precisely this kind of medieval logic that has to be addressed in our global rhetoric.
While the underlying behavior was undoubtedly “offensive” it is not in any rational sense of the word “aggression” against any one person much less the entire Islamic world.
Posted by: The Real Sporer at May 18, 2008 11:52 AM
There is a distinguished precedent for using the Koran for target practice. Ibn Warraq in Leaving Islam writes of the Ummayad Caliph Walid II who “is said to have stuck the Koran onto a lance and shot it to pieces with arrows”. He was “an intensively cultivated man, he surrounded himself with poets, dancing girls, and musicians, and lived the merry life of the libertine, with no interest in religion.”
My kind of Caliph.
Posted by: RBLA at May 18, 2008 12:04 PM
If I were a muslim, a dirty, filthy, rotten, muslim killer, like the general, kissing the Quran, would be a larger insult than shooting hole in it...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 18, 2008 12:07 PM
called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world."
Unbelievable!! Boy they are full of themselves.
I am SO sick of their hysterical victimization cries. Someone please put them out of their misery then ;o)
As to the kissing of the koran, that just makes me heave.
Posted by: gymgal at May 18, 2008 12:18 PM
Bibles found in the possession of visitors to Saudi Arabia are routinely confiscated by customs officials, and in some cases copies allegedly have been put through a paper shredder, according to religious rights campaigners.
Reports from the Islamic world of the abuse of Bibles and other items important to Christians emerge from time to time, but generally have little impact - in contrast to the waves of Muslim anger of Koran desecration.
It's a very well-known fact in Saudia Arabia that if you have a Bible at customs when you enter the airport, and if they find a Bible, Bible is taken and put in a shredder.
If you have more than one Bible you will be taken into custody, and if you have a quantity of Bibles you will be given 70 lashes for sure - you could even be executed.
smuggling Bibles is a crime equal to rape, murder, armed robbery, and in Saudi Arabia you get the same punishment," he said - the death penalty.
While Bible scholars say the Bible is written by men who were inspired by God, Muslims believe the Koran is "the copy of an original that is sitting in heaven, and has been sent down [by revelation to Mohammed]." Its words having come "directly from Allah. That's why they are so mad when they think something [unseemly] is being done to the Koran."
A Muslim will never keep a Koran at ground level.
Reverence for the Koran stands in stark contrast to some Muslims' feelings about the Bible, however.
The Koran is "confusing" In places (sura 29:46-47) it appeared to urge Muslims to respect the Bible and those who believe in it; elsewhere it exhorts them to fight those who don't accept Islam until they pay tribute and accept inferior status (sura 9:29-31).
Robert Spencer says that a devout Muslim might very well mistreat a Bible, because traditional Islamic theology regards it as a corrupted and unreliable version of the genuine revelations that were given to Moses, Jesus, and other Prophets."
Robert has also noted that in sura 9:30 the Koran says those who believe Jesus is the Son of God are under Allah's curse.
"Throughout history, most Muslim theologians have held that the New Testament has been tampered with since it teaches that Jesus is the Son of God."
Some of the more notorious reported incidents of Muslims abusing Christian symbols implicate Palestinian radicals, including the trashing of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002; and the desecration of Maronite churches in Damour, Lebanon in 1976.
In the Damour episode, Yasser Arafat's PLO killed more than 500 of the Christian town's inhabitants before turning it into a stronghold, and used the interior of the St. Elias church for a shooting range,
Posted by: Mackie at May 18, 2008 12:18 PM
How many times have we heard of sunnis attacking shia mosques with bombs or shias attacking sunni mosques with bombings. How many qurans are blasted and burnt then? I do not see any handwringing by Mahometans over those poor abused korans then, or maybe I missed it.
When a mosque being used as an armory has its munitions mishandled and they explode, how many korans are damaged then? I do not see those Imams and mosque officials banning and making sure that their "houses of worship" are not being used in a way that puts their precious korans at risk.
If these Musslemen do not give a crap about their "holy" koran why should people who do not share their religious bent care?
Posted by: stickman at May 18, 2008 12:30 PM
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers." -JW
What a f....ed-up moron! He has let the complete Free-world down.
Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world." - JW
Amazing, how quickly the camel abusers sending sublime signals to the Muslim world for the next Friday "evil worship" prayer meetings and to perform American flag-burning ceremony. Thanks to our General Al-Hammond, we will see more hate-America speeches on coming Friday.
Hammond sounds similar to Mohamond when you prefix it with Mo. What a pathetic jerk!
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at May 18, 2008 12:37 PM
"Robert has also noted that in sura 9:30 the Koran says those who believe Jesus is the Son of God are under Allah's curse." --Mackie
I really hate the Koran. I hate it so much.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Condi.
*
"Ibn Warraq in Leaving Islam writes of the Ummayad Caliph Walid II who “is said to have stuck the Koran onto a lance and shot it to pieces with arrows”. --RBLA
LOL. What century was this advanced Caliph?
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Battle_of_Tours
“But it still does not excuse such behavior, because it is disrespectful of the historical context of what had been written down as the Koran during the early Caliphate period. One should respect all religions, if they are not cults, and this disrespect of a holy book of Islam should not have happened. It was wrong.”
No disrespect..I disagree. And here is why...
(1) It is not his holy book. I should not have to respect something that calls for my destruction. Now that does mean I have the right to charge into a Mosque and attack a Quran I do not own, but if it is MY Quran that I paid for, I have every right to do with it what I please.
(2) I understand there are different rules in the military, and thus the soldier must follow orders, thus if there was an order that solders must not do this then he should be punished. However, that does not mean we should defend such orders. The order is stupid and wrong headed. That book calls for the destruction of our civilization. We would be foolish to think such orders will prevent our troops from reading the dam thing and getting angry as hell.
(3) It is a war zone. Our troops have been put into an impossible position. This soldier no doubt is sick in tired of paying respect to a philosophy that kills his fellow soldiers each day. It is the teachings in the Quran that kills our troops, and this soldier no doubt wanted to let off some steam. It might start unnecessary battles, but what do people expect in war? Would people rather he just go into the local Iraqi mosque and kill the Imam who preaches death to his comrades each day? Would people rather he just take gun blow his own brains out? Would people rather he just quit the military all together? My point is this...we are asking too much from our troops. We want them to fight against an enemy we can’t name. They want to vent their frustration at having to deal with Muslims each day and they have no where to turn. So he shot a Quran..it no doubt made him fell better and took some pressure off. Good for him…
Folks it is a war. The day we put our troops lives behind a so called holy book (that calls for our destruction) is the day this country deserves what it gets.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 18, 2008 12:43 PM
one would hope it was in the upper left pocket of a "insurgent's" shirt.
Posted by: Winged_Hussar at May 18, 2008 12:44 PM
Correction above...notice the word "NOT"
"Now that does NOT mean I have the right to charge into a Mosque and attack a Quran I do not own, but if it is MY Quran that I paid for, I have every right to do with it what I please."
at May 18, 2008 12:49 PM
Folks it is a war. The day we put our troops lives behind a so called holy book (that calls for our destruction) is the day this country deserves what it gets.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Very profound, great comet.
at May 18, 2008 1:01 PM
There is a difference between an apology and groveling. General Hammond, a fine and brave man I'm sure, unfortunately did not make the distinction in this case. Kissing the Koran is way over the top and, speaking personally, full of symbolism I find repellent.
I might add, for what it's worth, that with events like this I find myself moving ineluctably closer and closer to the position of those like Hugh and greatcometof1577. To wit, America and Americans are far too good to be wasted on the Islamic world, a world which seeks earthly domination, rarely shows gratitude and one which can't even get along with itself. Yep, getting closer and closer to the "let them rot" position, though this approach is not without problems of a different kind.
Posted by: Wellington at May 18, 2008 1:05 PM
(1) It is not his holy book. I should not have to respect something that calls for my destruction. Now that does mean I have the right to charge into a Mosque and attack a Quran I do not own, but if it is MY Quran that I paid for, I have every right to do with it what I please.
You are right on all three counts, Greatcomet, but the gist of mine above is the 'split mind' mentality under which Islamists are forced to operate. They want to project this same irrationality on us, which we find unacceptable. Indeed this is a War, though it remains unnamed as such, though our noble troops are on the ground in harm's way. If Muslims want to believe their Koran is holy. no skin off our nose, but they cannot apply their rules to us, especially since (as you point out) their 'holy' book is a war manual with an imperative to destroy us. However, if the military leaves this War unnamed, then it must operate under the guise that it respects Islam, though it is irrational to do so. And while we are in this irrational mode, desecrating their 'holy' book serves nothing to advance our cause, and may even strengthen the enemy's resolve. Better to be cool headed about it, though for a soldier on the front line this goes against reason, than to sink to the level of Muslims (Saudi destruction of bibles, for example), since they are clearly inferior as a people, and we are better. But once the War is named, then no holds barred, and we can desecrate their 'holy' books just as they had desecrated ours all throughout history. But we are better than them. And 'stealth' can work both ways to our advantage.
As far as our personal possessions of Koran is concerned, do with it as you will. I do not destroy books on principle, but that does not mean others have to obey my sentiments on the matter. ;)
BTW, their mosques are battle stations in their War against us, so attacking, especially when fired upon, is fair game. When this War is finally named, it will be a standard part of the operation against Islamic Jihad.
at May 18, 2008 1:08 PM
As for El President Heir Bush’s futile quest to bring "freedom" to fascist loving tribal throw backs... well, let's just say, I don't see his offspring donning Body Armor to go over there and do their share.
His offspring haven't gone over there? Well, they should, just like Clinton sent Chelsea over to ride in those planes bombing Serbia, Reagan sent Ron Jr. down to Grenada, Carter sent Chip to rescue those hostages from Iran, LBJ sent Lynda to Vietnam, and Truman sent Margaret to Korea.
Oh, wait. None of those happened, did they?
Never mind.
Posted by: Bigfoot at May 18, 2008 1:11 PM
LOL. What century was this advanced Caliph?
Posted by: darcy
I believe he lived about 740. The "impiety" of certain Ummayyad calphs was one of the propaganda points used by their Abbasid opponents. Of course, the Abbasids were just as impious but they managed to disguise it better.
There may have been sincere Muslims who really bought into all of Muhammad's balderdash, but Islam in general was simply a convenient cover for the greed and lust of a small conquering elite.
Posted by: RBLA at May 18, 2008 1:12 PM
Anyone who becomes an enemy over the abuse of a book ... has been an enemy of the West all along. Acts such as the defiling of the quran serve to draw those enemies - as yet undetected - into the open where they may be destroyed. The sooner, the better.
We are being lead, today, from the executive branch to the most senior levels of our military, by people who have never been in a fight of any kind - let alone, won one.
Posted by: HotSpur at May 18, 2008 1:22 PM
This soldier gets it.
And he was shooting at the correct target for a change.
We are in an ideological battle, and the enemy is a doctrine -- the doctrine of mohammedan supremicism certainly, and ultimately mohammedanism itself.
One can humpher and phumpher about the "reform" that we never see happening in any substantial way. The best we can hope for is that some of the mohammedans will get sufficiently involved in material well being to ignore and forget, or at least put aside, the more bloody minded aspects of their doctrine.
This soldier should be patted on the back.
He gets it in a way that our politicos don't -- deep in his gut.
============
The biggest difference between this war and previous ones is that our soldiers in previous wars were taught to be aware of, and have contempt for the enemy's motivating doctrine and philosophy.
Nazism, fascism, communism, slavery etc ...
In this war, they are being told to show all sorts of respect and deference for the enemy's motivating doctrine and philosophy.
It's impractical and stupid.
It makes me think that the central tenets and premises of mohammedanism are comfortable for our alleged "leaders" and "representatives".
I.e.
- Magical subjectivism - there is no reality. Wishin' makes it so. Everything we see is something allah just dreamed up.
- Authoritarianism - What is true is whatever the authorities tell you is true.
- Tribalism - The group above the individual.
... and so on.
You show me one person, prominent in western political life today who doesn't hold to these tenets and I'll eat my hat.
at May 18, 2008 1:29 PM
"aggression against the entire Islamic world."
From the Jaipur 'mujaheddin' who just blew up 80 people and maimed and mutilated a few hundred:
Citing from the Koran and the Hadith, or traditions of the Prophet, the Indian Mujahideen argues its actions have theological legitimacy. Scriptural calls for forgiveness relied on by the Deoband clerics, it says, are only relevant after a decisive military victory. Dialogue, it continues, is futile: “there is no existence of compromise between a believer and a non-believer.”
Islamic law, the e-mail asserts, allows the use of collective retaliation against civilians if they are infidels. Given that “a single [Muslim] home is attacked by thousands of [Hindu] terrorists, [a] single woman is raped by hundreds of men,” it becomes legitimate for “the mujahideen to go to any extent or use anything to crush the dignity and power of the enemy.”
The essence of this is that whatever an infidel does can be interpreted as a 'transgression' which brings out the fanatical muslim mobs. These people believe this is a 'way of life'...
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/05/17/moes-jihad-continues/
at May 18, 2008 1:29 PM
darcy,
Well, veni, since basically everyone commenting on this article is saying that, don't worry about it!
Yep, seems to be the consensus of the commenters. I'll keep company with JW readers any day of the week. I've been visiting the site for just over two years and have learned more than I ever would have thought there was to know about Islam. And all of that learning has driven me to the conclusion that shooting a Koran up is a fine way of saying what you think of a book that calls non-Muslims scum and damns us to an eternity of hellfire.
Posted by: venividivici at May 18, 2008 1:37 PM
Hugh wrote:
"But surely one of the reasons is that the officers and men are not fools, and they cannot forever deny the evidence of their senses. The meretriciousness of most Iraqis, the whining about getting ever-more money, and ever-more of the most advanced American equipment, the sly attempts to extract whatever they can from the endless cornucopia that America offers ... ."
In the episode entitled "Groundhog Day" of the PBS series "Carrier" (about the life aboard a US aircraft carrier on a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf), the carrier comes upon a iraqi dhow in distress. A boat is dispatched to assess the situation, and the sailors find the dhow is taking on water. So the carrier loads 2 high-capacity water pumps aboad a helicopter, which flies the pumps to the dhow. All this effort is to no avail, as the dhow eventually sinks. When the rescued iraqis from the dhow are aboard the carrier & before they are even settled in, their first words addressed to the American sailors are ... (Prepare yourselves.)
"We demand compensation for our lost boat!"
Unbelievable, by our standards. But quite normal by muslim standards. But when you come right down to it, why shouldn't they make completely unreasonable demands on the Americans? After all, we are paying for everything in sight in an apparent effort to win iraqi hearts & minds. Good luck with that.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 18, 2008 1:44 PM
"Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States.."
Spoken by secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice, on the eve of the Koran riots.
http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/20/abu-hamza/
And this:
"In his statement, Buckner stressed that the U.S. military respected Islam and the Koran."
at May 18, 2008 1:46 PM
I have been in favor of abandoning this sinking ship called Iraq, for a long time. I prefer they make the abandoning a 'strategic tactic', and not a surrender. Bush should have won the war when he won it. That was when the statue tumbled, and Saddam was dug out of his spider hole. Beyond that has been folly, expensive folly at that in terms of lives and money,
This General is in a war zone. Things change rapidly. Today he apologizes, and tomorrow he kills the same people he just apologized to.
This is insanity in action. I am sure the involved muslims see it like that as well. Why should they believe this kuffir muslim killer? If I was a muslim participant in this ceremony, I would walk out of the place in disgust, especially after the phony (they were not fooled) Quran kissing. I would go home and oil up my gun, just in case I needed it...
at May 18, 2008 1:48 PM
Do us , the real believing mulsims , a favour and declare war on Islam so that the spine less rulers and politicans we have can have no excuse to lick your bottoms as the the mulsim masses will take them to task once and for all
Thats why I'll vote for Robert , Hugh and his ilk as the next president of the United States , since once you openly decalre war on Islam , there will be no turing back! and that'll be just the favour we need from you.
Just the spark that will bring the revival of the Muslim Ummat. Insha Allah
at May 18, 2008 2:02 PM
PakRocks...The western powers will not declare war on Islam and muslims can thank Allah for that.
All aid and trade, with Islamic countries would stop.
The west would seize the oil and get it for free as a spoils of war. The US has a law called 'Trading with the enemy act'. This would make it illegal to do any kind of trade with Islam or Islamic countries bye-bye McDonnalds. The west would also freeze any muslim assets including the Saudi's. The west may feel free, under a declared war against Islam, to level Mekka. And it will get worse than that. All those billions of muslims wont prevent that, or be able to mount much retaliation. Most of them live in jungles and have to wait weeks for a bus.
I really don't think you want the US to declare a war against Islam...It's bad for everyones business...
at May 18, 2008 2:28 PM
PakRocks
"Thats why I'll vote for Robert , Hugh and his ilk as the next president of the United States , since once you openly decalre war on Islam , there will be no turing back! and that'll be just the favour we need from you."
Please!!!! No one will declare war on you. They would probably just stop giving you guys money and free gifts, buying your one product (oil), preventing you from immigrating (aka invading) to the west, however they will pump in lots of "evil" propaganda like equal rights for women, secular government, freedom of speech and freedom of religion etc to the Islamic world.
Who would be against treating women equal to men under the law? Who would be against freedom of speech and religion?
PakRocks are you against equal treatment of women under the law, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion? Is this something that would cause a war between our civilizations? That you would kill over to prevent?
at May 18, 2008 2:34 PM
These problems can be found among those who have returned, including the tens of thousands who have decided to leave the active army (the army now needs 15,000 missing captains)
~ posted above.
US Army Status of Captains
1992: 4,568 losses 32,393 total = 14.1% loss rate
1993: 4,918 losses 30,083 total = 16.3% loss rate
2000: 2,690 losses 21,348 total = 12.6% loss rate
2001: 2,808 losses 21,627 total = 13.0% loss rate
2005: 2,908 losses 23,181 total = 12.5% loss rate
2006: 2,752 losses 24,936 total = 11.0% loss rate
2007: 2,737 losses 24,732 total = 11.1% loss rate
Average Captain loss rate from 1990-2007 = 11.7%
US Army Status of Majors
1992: loss rate of 12.2%
1993: loss rate of 11.9%
2000: loss rate of 6.5%
2001: loss rate of 7.6%
2005: loss rate of 6.6%
2006: loss rate of 6.6%
2007: loss rate of 6.1%
We can only have 15,000 missing Captains if we start counting them from the year 2000 well before the Iraq war and even then its only 13,895 not 15,000, and as you can see more losses took place in the non-war years and more losses took place during the Clinton admin.
In 2000 we had a total of 21,348 Captains and by 2007 that number has increased to 24,732 how can that happen when there is this mad exodus.
You can also see that Major losses are along the very same lines, more losses during non-war years and the Clinton admin with just average losses during the Iraq war.
If this war is so unpopular as the MSM and others attempt to suggest, then why is military recruitment always hitting there goals at 100% or above and I don’t buy the unproven misnomer that the military has suddenly lowered their standards to meet said goals in this all volunteer American military.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at May 18, 2008 2:55 PM
"so that the spine less rulers and politicans we have can have no excuse to lick your bottoms as the the muslsim masses will take them to task once and for all."
-from a posting above
1) There is on going mutual "bottom licking", which involves globalist leaders worldwide, who only regard those muslim masses or the free populations of the world(free of "submission" that is) as useful tools or cannon fodder for the fulfillment of their own aims.
2) The moderators at this site have in no way advocated or "openly decalre war" on this belief system. What they have always done is highlight the attitudes,predictable responses,and historical track record of subjugation of non-muslim people,which spring from the Quran,Hadith,Sira. Of course,in the minds of many muslims,even revealing these sources and their effects on modern day practitioners,is tantamount to oppression of islam because that potentially restrict it's spread. A point this poster illustrates perfectly.
3)There shall never be a united world "Ummat" due to the vast cultural and economic differences which exist even within various nations which possess a majority muslim populace. A divided house will never stand and will devolve into sectarian civil strife.
4) Should this conflict ever take the shape of the strict adherence along those lines which this poster advocates,the unfettered unification of Kafir states,power,economic resources,withholding of aid,weapons,technology,and interment of and deportation of all deemed to fit the profile,would alter the course of this conflict like nothing else ever could. This is a pipe dream for all involved.
Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at May 18, 2008 2:59 PM
If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies.
Anyone who shows himself as our enemy as a result of someone shooting at the Qur'an is already our enemy, as that person in effect has demanded of us to respect the scriptures of his so-called religion, or else. Our failure to comply merely makes the person reveal himself as our enemy. Thus, the Qur'an shooting should be a good thing, as it will provoke our enemies to reveal themselves.
I'm surprised that Spencer considers this Qur'an shooting incident an "unnecessary provocation", since it is no more an "unnecessary provocation" than the Danish Mohammad cartoons were, and Spencer apparently has no problems with posting these on his site.
D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime.
I'm glad to hear that Spencer has now realized that ignoring and denying the truth is never an effective strategy. Since Spencer's repeated challenges to Muslims to work for Islamic reform have in fact been expressions of Spencer himself outwardly ignoring and denying the truth, as they have suggested that Islamic reform is possible when in reality this is not the case (something Spencer himself undoubtedly realizes), his recent epiphany suggests that the nonsensical challenge is now a thing of the past, at least if Spencer will practice what he preaches and not merely continue to ignore and deny the truth against his own better judgement.
Posted by: anonymous at May 18, 2008 3:51 PM
"Thats why I'll vote for Robert , Hugh and his ilk ,
Pat l think Robert is too kind for president, and Hugh would be more suited, l think he would love to push the red botton on the sauds. lol
at May 18, 2008 4:08 PM
Anonymous:
Hi! I know who you are, but never mind.
I'm glad to hear that Spencer has now realized that ignoring and denying the truth is never an effective strategy. Since Spencer's repeated challenges to Muslims to work for Islamic reform have in fact been expressions of Spencer himself outwardly ignoring and denying the truth, as they have suggested that Islamic reform is possible when in reality this is not the case (something Spencer himself undoubtedly realizes), his recent epiphany suggests that the nonsensical challenge is now a thing of the past, at least if Spencer will practice what he preaches and not merely continue to ignore and deny the truth against his own better judgement.
I see you've been reading Lawrence Auster, a man who relentlessly attributes to me positions that I do not hold, and who professes to know what I believe better than I do. That's his business, but in any case, there is no denial of reality by me here at all. This is what is known as calling a bluff. I explained here what I am doing when I call for Islamic reform:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/020749.php
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 18, 2008 4:12 PM
ZenaWarriorPrincess:
I love Hugh, but I would never vote for him for President.
And as for me, kind or not (most would say not), if nominated, I will not run, and if elected, I will not serve.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 18, 2008 4:13 PM
In Vietnam, I think you had to shoot your own foot to go home. I predict more holes in Qur’ans.
Posted by: pez at May 18, 2008 4:14 PM
If the guy did this, and then LEFT the book behind, he's a moron.
You're supposed to take your target with you as a way to demonstrate your ability.
Leavng it behind was littering.
But, somehow this stinks of the faux Gitmo Koran flushing.
Perhaps a set-up by a local psyops jihadist to intimidate the infidels and see how quickly and deeply and serviley they grovel.
If the latter, they now know all too well.
at May 18, 2008 4:32 PM
Sparring over the Koran, and the General's kissing it is gross, is like the Three Stooges scenes where Moe holds Curley's head at arms length while he swings at open air. Sure, sometimes they'll land a lucky shot, but this is a war we are calling, not them. Destroying Korans will not help us, nor will kissing it. Let them revel in their evil book, and it should not be our business to help them. Ours is to reveal the powers of our freedoms against their slavery.
Remember the immortal words of Maxwell Smart of Control: "We are the power of niceness over the power of evil." Kaos and Islam share a common faith in the power of evil. But 'niceness' will win, and we had been very nice to them so far, though they keep flailing their arms at us. If one day we decide to not be nice anymore, then evil will feel our sting, all the way down to Mecca and their oil wells. The only niceness that does not help us is letting them migrate to our countries, so they can turn the free world into Lebanon. That 'niceness' should stop.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 18, 2008 4:32 PM
Mr. Spencer says...
"And as for me, kind or not (most would say not), if nominated, I will not run, and if elected, I will not serve."
Is someone marching through Georgia?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7-9fZd_6nk
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 18, 2008 4:42 PM
1) Better to keep it, read it (with study aids, like Spencer's blogging the Qur'an), and teach others about Mohammad's charlatanry.
2) A Qur'an in non-Arabic language is not the Qur'an according to most Islamic apologists.
3) Mine stays on the bottom shelf, and I always carry it with my left hand.
4) If you are patient, you can pick them up on ebay and used book stores pretty cheap, sometimes for about the same price as a good target.
at May 18, 2008 5:05 PM
Kissing the Quran? How unsanitary. Better yet, how insanitary. LOL!
Either way it's a bad idea.
Posted by: champ at May 18, 2008 5:29 PM
darcy,
Well, veni, since basically everyone commenting on this article is saying that, don't worry about it!
Yep, seems to be the consensus of the commenters. I'll keep company with JW readers any day of the week. I've been visiting the site for just over two years and have learned more than I ever would have thought there was to know about Islam. And all of that learning has driven me to the conclusion that shooting a Koran up is a fine way of saying what you think of a book that calls non-Muslims scum and damns us to an eternity of hellfire.
Posted by: venividivici at May 18, 2008 1:37 PM
Hey! I agree! Je suis d'accord! I agree!
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 5:43 PM
PakRocks said:
once you openly decalre war on Islam , there will be no turing back! and that'll be just the favour we need from you. Just the spark that will bring the revival of the Muslim Ummat. Insha Allah
My thinking on this one is: approximately 1300 years of history says there's no turning back. So let's call a spade a spade and get on with it. There can be only one....
To Profitsbeard: I agree. This whole thing stinks of a set up.
Additionally, a few months ago I was seriously considering earning a Master's Degree in International Diplomacy with a core in terrorism. I ultimately decided against it because at my age, going $30K into debt isn't financially sound, but also because I felt I'd just be beating my head against the wall of PC multi-culti BS. This incident confims I made the correct decision.
at May 18, 2008 5:45 PM
Didn't you see this:
"Robert has also noted that in sura 9:30 the Koran says those who believe Jesus is the Son of God are under Allah's curse." --Mackie
I really hate the Koran. I hate it so much.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Condi. --Darcy
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 5:46 PM
The quran,cartoons, and teddy bears are just a few of the coming excuses
RADICAL ISLAM OVERRUNS LONDON STREETS - Coming To Your Town Soon!!! And you dhimmis want to kiss that book!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZNx0xHe0p0
at May 18, 2008 5:50 PM
Yeah, hi, Mohammedan al-"anonymous."
RS is all about Truth. You are all about "taqiyya."
Bravo Mohammed cartoons! MORE Mohammed cartoons! Because: They tell the Truth about evil Islam.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 5:53 PM
Hey al-"anonymous." I've bought a little paperback Koran. And I can do ANYTHING I want with it! So, I'm your enemy! Good! COME AND GET ME!
P.S. There's a big thunderstorm coming this evening. I'll leave it out on the ground in the rain! LOL. Oh, it'll get a lot of mud and insects on it, too! Well-deserved!
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 6:02 PM
Darcy:
"Anonymous" is not a Muslim, but someone who has been misled by some people who appear bent on portraying me, for some reason, as an enemy, and in doing this have not hesitated to stoop to attributing to me beliefs and positions that I do not hold, and hunting for "contradictions" in my positions that do not actually exist.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 18, 2008 6:04 PM
When you kiss the Quran, don't forget to slobber. No one will want to kiss that particular Quran again...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 18, 2008 6:06 PM
OK, RS. He's a Muslim Apologist. I get it.
Could it be Esposito? Karen Armstrong? Dhimmi D'Souza? Doug Hooper?
Whoever it is, can't be too bright. Obviously.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 6:11 PM
Do us , the real believing mulsims , a favour and declare war on Islam so that the spine less rulers and politicans we have can have no excuse to lick your bottoms as the the mulsim masses will take them to task once and for all
Thats why I'll vote for Robert , Hugh and his ilk as the next president of the United States , since once you openly decalre war on Islam , there will be no turing back! and that'll be just the favour we need from you.
Just the spark that will bring the revival of the Muslim Ummat. Insha Allah
Posted by: PakRocks at May 18, 2008 2:02 PM
LOL! "Pak" doesn't "rock," btw. In fact, it's Barbarian cr-**. Get it? Oh, and there is no "allah," you pagan worshipper of a rock moon deity! So funny - you worship an inanimate rock!
at May 18, 2008 6:18 PM
Darcy,
No, no one like Esposito or Armstrong either. This person is from the group that believes that because I do not say that all Muslims are evil, I am soft on jihad, and they pretend that I say we should not resist jihadist activity in the U.S., but should rather wait passively for Islamic reform, which is so far from what I actually say as to border on libel.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 18, 2008 6:19 PM
And as for me, kind or not (most would say not), if nominated, I will not run, and if elected, I will not serve.
Cordially
Robert Spencer,
Robert there is nothing wrong with kindness, it actually to me would be more brave to face them like you do with your interviews, but l can see, l think you have a kind heart by the way you are trying to teach Muslims that their creed needs to be changed,
as well as exposing the violence within islam.
there is a saying from an author that escapes me, about being able to sleep at night because brave men are able to do violence to keep us safe. ..author of Animal Farm.
at May 18, 2008 6:35 PM
Zena -
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
at May 18, 2008 6:39 PM
So what does Al Arabiya do? Shoot up it's own Koran to take pictures then proceed to whip the Islamic world into a frenzy.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29997_Al_Arabiya_Goes_Nuts_Over_Koran_Shooting#rss
Posted by: Sounder at May 18, 2008 6:59 PM
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."
from the news article
This humiliating prostration by the General probably occured many times in the medieval period when non-muslims were living in infidel ghettos under muslim rule. It begins with some muslim accusing an infidel of a "contrived" offense against Islam, and the lives and welfare of all residents of the ghetto are immediately at risk. Trying to avert the slaughter of his constituents, the dhimmi representative desperately pleads for foregiveness and mercy from their muslim masters. Classic Dhimmitude. History keeps being repeated and we learn nothing.
Posted by: norman at May 18, 2008 7:16 PM
Exactly what are we fighting for?
If we kiss the quran, and grovel, why are we over there?
The quran is the reason the jihadists are fighting us.
at May 18, 2008 7:38 PM
interestingconundrum,
We are spreading democracy by winning hearts and minds. And by rebuilding their infrastructure. And paying jizyah. And groveling. And kissing the Qur'an.
Also, it is part of a reciprocal population exchange. We send our best young men and women over there to fight and die and kiss the quran, and they send their young shahids and wannabee shahids over here to study how to appropriate our technology to be better terrorists and terrorist supporters.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 18, 2008 7:53 PM
Also, it is part of a reciprocal population exchange. We send our best young men and women over there to fight and die and kiss the quran, and they send their young shahids and wannabee shahids over here to study how to appropriate our technology to be better terrorists and terrorist supporters.
--Posted by: Concerned Citizen
Personally I would love for this to work. But despite all our 'nice' good intentions, there is a major obstacle. The Koran.
No matter how much goodness and largess, including financial aid and immigration quotas, we throw their way, the result will always be soured by their religious Cult of Islam. Only as apostates can they better themselves out of the mind killing machine of 'inshallah' Mohammedan fatalism, not to mention they revert at any moment into the sudden Jihad syndrome.
This is a losing game that has no end. Perhaps future administrations will finally call it quits on this loss, as any gambler (who is not a suicidal loser) will quit a losing hand, and stop this kissy kissy Muslim stuff. They do not enrich our lives, and their religio-Cult does not allow them to enrich their own. They, the 'best of all people', are losers. We have to know when to quit this losing game. My hunch is we'll be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of the year, and if we ever go back, it will not be with 'niceness'.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 18, 2008 9:23 PM
I'd bet Mike Spann and Pat Tillman are so proud of his grouping, screw the higher ups.
Posted by: AMartinez at May 18, 2008 9:46 PM
In the same week President Bush pleads to the Saudis, an American General pleads to the Iraqis.
Contrast with Simo Häyhä, a Finnish shootist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä
"...During the Winter War (1939–1940) between Finland and the Soviet Union, he began his duty as a sniper against the Red Army. Working in temperatures between −20 and −40 degrees Celsius (−4 and −40 degrees Fahrenheit), and dressed completely in a white camouflage suit, Häyhä was credited with 500+ confirmed kills against Soviet soldiers... ...All of Häyhä's kills were accomplished within 100 days prior to injuries caused by an enemy bullet. Häyhä's record of an average of 5 kills a day, almost one kill per daylight hour of the short winter day..."
Häyhä was PRAISED by his leaders.
Posted by: Charles Bogle at May 18, 2008 9:52 PM
Battle_of_Tours,
There was a bit of sarcasm in my post (actually I tried to reach 100%).
"No matter how much goodness and largess[e], including financial aid and immigration quotas, we throw their way, the result will always be soured by their religious Cult of Islam."
Agreed. Cut them off. In every way. I agree with the Qur'an on this one. We cannot be their friends or protectors. Not under the current circumstances, and without significant reform, possibly never.
And no apologies.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 18, 2008 10:27 PM
Robert -
My guess is that "anonymous" used to have a different moniker, and that he's been a regular on Jihad Watch, right?
Posted by: champ at May 18, 2008 10:32 PM
LOL - thanks for the youtube link, Concerned Citizen! Bravo!
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 11:07 PM
Robert -
My guess is that "anonymous" used to have a different moniker, and that he's been a regular on Jihad Watch, right?
Posted by: champ at May 18, 2008 10:32 PM
I wish he'd tell us, champ. I have no idea.
Posted by: darcy at May 18, 2008 11:11 PM
Hey, darcy. I think anonymous might be cantor, but I'm not entirely sure. They each have similar writing styles, but only Robert knows for sure; and if it isn't cantor, then I apologize ahead of time.
Posted by: champ at May 19, 2008 12:47 AM
Darcy and Champ,
No, no, this is someone else, but as long as you have brought up that guy, why don't you ask him to Get A Life?
I can't fathom why someone would spend all his time hunting up contradictions in my work -- contradictions which would dissolve quickly in a good-faith discussion, but obviously he is not willing to have that -- rather than just doing the job better if he thinks it can be done better.
And that goes for his friend Auster also. Instead of sniping, I suggest their time would be better spent actually fighting the battles they claim I am not fighting -- and note that as they do so they buttress their claim with falsehoods such as their claim that I want the West not to resist the jihadists, but to sit by passively and wait for Islam to reform. This is a false and fantastic claim, and I am simply puzzled as to why they would even want to spend time making it instead of fighting the fight themselves. There is plenty, plenty of room in this struggle for more anti-jihadists.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2008 8:10 AM
Oh, and by the way, I am told he keeps whining that he is banned here, but he is not banned. If he keeps up this sort of thing, he will gain a reputation for honest dealing to rival that of "An American."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2008 8:20 AM
"Oh, and by the way, I am told he keeps whining that he is banned here, but he is not banned" --RS
Another hint. Is it "Andrew" from the other day?
Posted by: darcy at May 19, 2008 8:38 AM
Darcy
No, but never mind. If this person does not wish to be known, I will not be the one to do the honors.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2008 9:24 AM
Wow...could we cave-in any more easily? When will they apologize for burning our flag? Oh...and don't forget to kiss it first...
Posted by: USMCGunner at May 19, 2008 9:26 AM
Darcy,
I suspect someone on this thread under another moniker:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011577.php
...which is also illustrative of the attempts to maneuver Robert's well-established position by the disciples of Auster.
"Cantor" has denied to Champ on his site that he was posting as "anonymous", his site which is dedicated to desperate grasping in an attenmpt to prove an inherent contradiction in Robert's and Hugh's position. He also likes to post the JW comments in his work and then illustrate how embarrasingly doltish we all are.
He is certainly a legend in his own mind, if nothing else.
Regards.
Posted by: awake at May 19, 2008 9:38 AM
By the way, I meant Cantor isn't banned, although he claims to be.
Of course, the author of the above Anonymous comment isn't banned, either.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2008 9:42 AM
Mr. Spencer,
Thanks for the great website. I think your videos are right on the button. Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Rod Neilson
at May 19, 2008 9:51 AM
I agree with Robert on a number of points here.
Juvenile stunts such as shooting a Quran are not the way to bring people's attention to the problems in Islam. It's unfortunate because, quite likely, the soldier in question had risked his life in the interests of defending his country, and now all that is being overshadowed by all this fuss.
Regarding Cantor, I have argued many times that he should focus his attention on critiquing apologists, not on nitpicking at Spencer.
Also, the idea that Robert would somehow improve his presentation by sweepingly declaring all Muslims or Islam as "evil" is absurd. This would come across as hysterical and unconvincing, particularly to those reasonable non-Muslims who are still relatively uninformed. Such overreaching claims could also be rebutted easily by any well-schooled apologist, who could cite many counterexamples (nice verses, nice Muslims) to falsify the claims.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at May 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Spencer provides me with a link in which he quotes himself saying the following:
"Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible" (my emphasis).
Here, Spencer explicitly admits that he would never say that Islamic reform is impossible, meaning that he does claim it could be possible, even as he admits that it is not likely.
For the record, I don't actually believe that Spencer himself personally has any hopes for Islamic reform to occur - on the contrary, someone with as much knowledge of Islam as Spencer necessarily has to know that Islamic reform is impossible. Which begs the question why Spencer is so reluctant to actually admit that this is true. Instead, rather than stating in unambiguous language that Islamic reform is impossible, and that no matter what they say or do, so-called Islamic reformers will necessarily leave us disappointed since as Spencer undoubtedly know there is no potential for reform in Islam, Spencer first informs us of the unlikelihood of Islamic reform, but then all of a sudden challenges Muslims to work for Islamic reform, thereby suggesting that however unlikely it may be, Islamic reform is possible!
Ultimately, the issue is not about whether or not Spencer believes that Islamic reform is possible, but about why Spencer insists on challenging Muslims to work for Islamic reform when the challenge itself implies that Islamic reform is possible or else would be meaningless, and why Spencer persists in doing so even after he has been made aware of these implications.
Hey al-"anonymous." I've bought a little paperback Koran. And I can do ANYTHING I want with it! So, I'm your enemy! Good! COME AND GET ME!
Darcy seems to have misunderstood my message completely. What I was trying to convey was that I believe that Spencer is wrong when he claims that the Qur'an shooting will "turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies". The way I see it, anyone who starts behaving as our enemy as a result of our failure to show respect for the Qur'an was already our enemy, and only revealed himself as an enemy when we faildc to act in accordance with his implicit demands.
Bravo Mohammed cartoons! MORE Mohammed cartoons! Because: They tell the Truth about evil Islam.
I agree.
Posted by: anonymous at May 19, 2008 12:04 PM
Anonymous:
Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff."
Meanwhile, I understand the competition for market share, but I myself have an immense distaste for friendly fire. I do not engage in criticism of those with whom I share a general vision, even if we disagree on some particulars. While I have no hope that you, Auster, or Cantor/Television/Remote etc. etc. etc. will ever get a clue that the jihadists, rather than me, are the ones we should directing our efforts against, I will say that your commenting here -- while you are not and will not be banned -- is not particularly welcome. No one is forcing you to read this site, and I encourage you to go elsewhere.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2008 12:12 PM
anonymous -
Would you like the honors of disclosing your identity? Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
Posted by: champ at May 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:
"Here, Spencer explicitly admits that he would never say that Islamic reform is impossible, meaning that he does claim it could be possible, even as he admits that it is not likely."
OK, so now at least we have an agreement on what Robert's position is as stated by himself.
Anonymous also wrote:
"For the record, I don't actually believe that Spencer himself personally has any hopes for Islamic reform to occur - on the contrary, someone with as much knowledge of Islam as Spencer necessarily has to know that Islamic reform is impossible."
OK, but for the record, no one actually cares about what you think Robert's position really is, especially in spite of what he has explicitly stated his position to be.
The ability to know another's inner thoughts is indeed an impressive ability. It is also presumptive and arrogant. So, since 'anonymous' can't
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)