"because God wants you to do it"

Yes, because Arabs invented a Religion of Jihad in which "God" specifically OK's and even commands the killing and conquering of others.

Please read: "Arabs and Aztecs." It's brief, immensely readable, and you'll enjoy it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1146091/posts

Posted by: darcy at August 27, 2008 9:50 AM

Talk about cutting through the bullshit...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CC3232FA-B5F4-4C4E-A050-73218C9473EB

Posted by: Cornelius at August 27, 2008 10:02 AM

This should be sent to all our email lists, we cannot let the Obamanation become POTUS.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 27, 2008 10:05 AM

The filth surrounding Obama like flies never fails to amaze yet he denies their sordid existence and his mesmerized following no looker see them. God help us!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 27, 2008 10:06 AM

Darcy: Fascinating article you posted. I find this part worth highlighting:

"Their conclusion, in the words of one, I.M. Al-Rawandi, is that the life of Mohammed chronicled in the Sira (the official Islamic hagiography) is a baseless fiction. It was made up. He never lived in Mecca, and if he lived at all, he was a bandit chieftain named Ubuâl Kassim (Mohammedis not a name, it a title meaning The Praised One) who lived in what is now southern Jordan.

An additional conclusion is that the Koran is made up as well -- stories and quotations from scores of varying sources and authors stitched together over a century or two after the Conquest.

This is why the Call to Jihad is hard-wired into the Koran. Jihad is why Islam exists. The Moslem religion was invented by Arabs in order to claim their conquering of other peoples and religions was ordained and approved by God."

Posted by: johndoe at August 27, 2008 10:07 AM

johndoe - it makes sense to me!

What did you think of the Aztec comparison?

Posted by: darcy at August 27, 2008 10:37 AM

'God wants you to do it...'

This kind of talk should get someone a bed in a mental hospital, and a lifetime supply of Thorazine..

Darcy...Thanks for the Aztec link. I have read Wheelers stuff before. He's usually right on the money...

I always wondered how many warriors it took to keep those 20,000, some report 80,000, victims in an orderly line. They must have known what was in store for them...

The idea that Islam was made up, including Mohammad, has crossed my mind before...
Fiction made reality for fun and profit...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 27, 2008 10:40 AM

"This is why the Call to Jihad is hard-wired into the Koran. Jihad is why Islam exists. The Moslem religion was invented by Arabs in order to claim their conquering of other peoples and religions was ordained and approved by God." --From "Arabs and Aztecs"

Anyone know what RS thinks of this thesis?

And what about the idea that Mo may have been invented just like we KNOW the Koran was?

After all, the "Great and Terrible Oz" was just a buffoon (or, as Dorothy put it, a "humbug") behind a curtain!

Posted by: darcy at August 27, 2008 10:44 AM

I tend to believe in the historical Muhammad, just as I believe in the historical Jesus (though I certainly reject the miracles portrayed in the gospel that defy the laws of nature).

The Sirat Rasul and the Ahadith are valuable tools in the exposition of Muhammad's pronounced moral failings. Apologists for Islam often deny the legitimacy of the Sirat Rasul for exactly that reason.

These two sources of scripture comprise an indispensable component of Islamic law and ethics. Our cause is best served by exposing their intolerance and hate...rather than denying their validity as historical fact.

Just an opinion of course. If someone came forward with irrefutable proof that Muhammad never existed, I would shout it from the roof-tops. But then again, can one prove a negative?

Posted by: Cornelius at August 27, 2008 10:51 AM

Darcy

It's a fitting comparison. Both the Aztecs and Islam are examples of an entity feeding parasitically off the subjugation of the outgroup(s). Without that exploitation and enslavement of the other,it cannot persist.Like a true parasite, it has no creative roots of its own. The Spanish were seen as gods by the Aztecs, who had lost all rational intelligence by that time. Hopefully, Islam, with its superstitious psychosis, will implode when faced with reason and sanity.

Posted by: johndoe at August 27, 2008 10:54 AM

Jihad must continue forever so that the door to Allah's paradise and access to the fab 72 is always open...With actual peace, that door shuts...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 27, 2008 11:17 AM

“White people don't feel bad, whatever you do to them, they deserve it, God wants you to do it and that's when you cut out the nose, cut out the ears, take flesh out of their body, don't worry because God wants you to do it."

Al-Mansour - Dude, I don't want to be the first to tell you, but Mohammed was white and the requirements for the Caliph include being white.

Just thought you might want to know.

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 27, 2008 11:28 AM

About the Aztec thing, watch Apocalypto, even if you don't like Mel Gibson it is a good movie about that awful culture.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 27, 2008 11:38 AM

Khalid Al-Mansour's bio has even more interesting connections than indicated:
"an internationally acknowledged advisor to Heads of State and business leaders in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America. He has been actively involved in structuring investments and joint ventures worldwide for over 35 years. Dr. Al-Mansour was also responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal's investment company."

This would be the "one of the world's richest men"
alluded to above.

Prince al-Waleed, of course, the notorious da'wa dispensing moneybags who offered $10 million to the Mayor of New York after 9/11 only to blame the attack on American policies and support of Israel; who gave $27 million to Palestinians in a fundraiser for suicide (homicide) bombers; who supports CAIR; who gave $20 million to Harvard & Georgetown Universities "for expansion of the Center of Christian Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University and the establishment of four professorial chairs at Harvard University." He's also with the World Economic Forum and "the 'West Islamic World Dialouge'- a Saudi run initiative designed to promote Islamist economic interests...the directors of the group are the usual suspects - aka Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal whose Kingdom Holding Company funds suicide bomber families, and Prince Turki Faisal Al Saud, whose Center for Research and Islamic Studies could more aptly be dubbed Da'wa Inc." --(Militant Islam Monitor)

So, you see, Mansour is connected. Of course he could get Obama into Harvard Law and of course Bill Clinton would listen to his sage advice.

Posted by: Nick Danger at August 27, 2008 11:39 AM

tanstaafl , I am always amazed at blacks who have sold out to their slave masters, the moslems.
The very ones who had the slave markets.
And you are correct about Mo being white, I'll bet a few heads explode with that knowledge.
On the other hand, they just rewrite history like they try to do with a "black Jesus".

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 27, 2008 11:44 AM

Thank you, thank you, thank you Amanda.

You have brought to light the answer to one of those pesky mysteries that plague us, and which sometimes remain unexplained even unto death.

LET ME EXPLAIN!

In Spain there is a nursery rhyme which goes like this:

"Los Murcielagos vendrán.." (The bats will come..)
"..y te desnarizorejarán.."(..and cut your nose and ears off..)
"..e irán..." (..and go away...)

I can see it now...the Muslim bogeyman in Spain and mothers threatening their wayward children...

Who knew?...I certainly didn't! Thank you again!

Posted by: eliXelx at August 27, 2008 11:47 AM

No wonder the Anasazi disappeared.
20,000 children murdered a year....wouldn't take long to get rid of an entire population.
This is the parallel to islam, not so much the sacrifice of "others" but the blood lust. The worship of death as opposed to a good life.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 27, 2008 11:51 AM

Obama doesn't have skeletons in his closet - it's an entire graveyard.

Yes, check out Apocalypto - not exactly a fun movie to watch, but the scenes of the ritual sacrifices are just amazing.

And the Spanish brought to the New World guns and smallpox...

Posted by: HOV Dummy at August 27, 2008 12:03 PM

HI Folks,,

After reading Arabs and Aztecs,, you gotta read,,

The Myth of Mecca,,

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

woweeeee

)0(
solsticewitch13

proud pagan kuffar,, hardy har har,,

Posted by: solsticewitch13 at August 27, 2008 12:07 PM

Remember Step 1:

Allah is not God.

Posted by: mike trivisonno at August 27, 2008 12:27 PM

"The Moslem religion was invented by Arabs in order to claim their conquering of other peoples and religions was ordained and approved by God."

Since the already established view of the origins of Islam is that Mohammed and his band of merry men were Arabs who wanted to kill and steal land for the sake of spreading their religion, I don't see much of a difference between this view and the one quoted above that's supposed to be earth-shatteringly new.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 27, 2008 12:38 PM

Am I the only one to hear this speech as talking about white people cutting up black people (as you do), rather than the other way round?
And I do hate that style of ranting when they alternate a sinister low tone with an angry bellowing howl. So hard to sleep through.

Posted by: StephenA55 at August 27, 2008 12:43 PM

Nick Danger, thanks for doing the backgrounder for Al-Mansoor.

To me, all of Obama's criminal and terroristic associations he's made over the years points to a man who at the very least hates the U.S. and the west in general to the distinct possibility of being a sleeper agent for Islam.

And if he is the latter, there is no one to stop once he gets into power.

Posted by: waltc at August 27, 2008 12:55 PM

I have little doubt that islam is man-made, by Mohammed. islam's origins are relatively recent -600 AD. This is well after the advent of written history. In fact, Mohammed's exploits were actually recorded contemporaneously. (In contrast to Jesus, whose story was written several hundred years' after he lived.)

One historical bit of information about Mohammed that I find illuminating is the fact that he used and collected swords. Several of his swords (as many as ten) reside in museums around the Middle East. Mohammed named his favorite blades - I recall that one of his sword-names translated into English as, 'Sharp'. Other of Mohammed's swords were named for the battles in which he used or captured them.

Where islam is concerned, it is as if some highwayman, some raider, recorded a set of commandments for his fellows ... improbably, the brigands adopted the code and it has become what, today, we call 'islam'.

Just imagine: in theory, at least, one could visit a museum and actually hold a sword that Mohammed had admired - and used to slay his fellow man.

This man, Mohammed, is the founder of a religion?

Posted by: HotSpur at August 27, 2008 1:36 PM

If White people are going to get their noses chopped off, could we start with the self loathing white liberals who have helped cause this mess in the first place.

Posted by: Celsius at August 27, 2008 1:38 PM

No one has yet explained how Al-Mansour and Obama came to know each other, if in fact they did. Why would Al-Mansour go out of his way to write a letter, why would he write it to Percy Sutton, and how did Al-Mansour know that Sutton had any connection to Harvard Law School.

This is a bit strange.

Posted by: sonomaca at August 27, 2008 1:53 PM

It is hard to tell who is worse: Khalid al-Mansour, or the raving dhimmi Joseph Biden who calls in the supposedly hallowed halls of the US Senate for the US to put the entire Serbian people into the Nazi-style death camps, and then reveals the motivation behind his sadistic genocidal attitude toward this small Christian people not one of whom had ever spilled 1 drop of American blood, not even in self-defence: he publicly boasted that the crucifiction of Serb Kosovo and replacing it with the evil Albanian "Kosova" will improve the relations between the US and the Muslims, that is, the likes of Khalid al-Mansour.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at August 27, 2008 2:00 PM

Aside:

'45 scribes recording, automatically, Mohammed's every word'

Could this be the origin of the expression, fond of latter day hooligans, '45 calipher automatic'?

Posted by: HotSpur at August 27, 2008 2:05 PM

How long b4 this story reaches MSNBC?

Posted by: Ruebacca at August 27, 2008 2:41 PM

Johndoe, not only did Perv Mo never live in Mecca, but Mecca was NEVER a real trading post, cosmopolitan hub, or anything other than a settlement of Bedouin tents, if that: http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1122&Itemid=0

If you just look at a map it's pretty obvious that this is the case anyway because it makes no sense that anywhere but a port city would be a trading hub, especially given the harsh geography of Arabia.

While you're checking that one out, read IIM's article on how Jerusalem was never a Muslim holy site either: http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1477&Itemid=0

That's more obvious, since Muslims never claimed that Perv Mo ever did anything in Jerusalem but tie his horse to the gate of the Temple Mount while he took a piss. Yeah, there's the ascension, but I don't even think that Muslims buy into that because Perv Mo said repeatedly that he couldn't perform miracles. They just want an excuse to overrun everyone else's holy sites like they've been trying to do in Rome and Kasmir since forever.

And Cornelius, two points:

1) Not believing in Jesus' miracles is a perfectly valid line of thinking, but it's important to note that, while there is no historical evidence of anything Perv Mo ever did except take a step (we have a footprint) and destroy the Kabaa (since all the old idols are gone), the crucifixion of Jesus - which Muslims of course deny (more Muslim 'history') - is the single most verifiable fact from ancient history because numerous sources, both Jewish and Roman, have nearly identical accounts of it.

2) "Our cause is best served by exposing their intolerance and hate...rather than denying their validity as historical fact." I agree that this approach is quite useful, using the texts themselves to refute Islam, but I also think that questioning the validity of the content is useful too. Calling a mass murderer, rapist, slave-owner, looter, pedophile, misogynist, incestuous psychopath who survived his entire life as a parasite, who messed up every single scientific, historical, and mathematical statement he ever made on the record and contradicted himself all over the place a "prophet" is ridiculous. He was not a prophet. He could not have been a prophet. Not only was he not superhuman, but he was patently subhuman. Once non-Muslims understand that it will be the undoing of Islam. Of course, at the end of the day we have to go with whatever approach the Christian concensus takes, since Christians are the only ones who are organized enough, have the money, the clout, and the political pull to undo Islam. Without the Christians we're just a ragtag bunch of folks all yelling at each other. The Christian consensus is also the best weapon in Zionism's arsenal, more powerful than the Jewish lobby by far...but don't tell that to Judeophobes because the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' their other fabricated, crazy-ass 'holy book,' told them otherwise.

Even if Islam wasn't originally made-up, it existed as a game of telephone for 200 years before being chronicled by mostly Persian scholars who had no real interest in presenting the truth or any connection to the history, none of which was ever recorded anyway. It's especially ridiculous to me that some Hadith are considered 'authoritative' and some aren't, when the reality is that they all existed through a chain of oral transmission, regardless of whence some jackass claimed they may have originated, so that some of them have any semblance of 'authority' is a pretty deluded way of looking at reality, one which completely disregards the art of historical detection. What's so incredible about the Bible is that it's identical everywhere you find it and always has been, and the Dead Sea scrolls proved that it had always been so.

The only thing that makes me question whether or not the Koran has some basis in 7th-century Arabia is how ridiculous it is. I mean, if it were completely made-up (obviously the content is the rantings of a wackjob, but it's the textual basis I question), it seems like it would be presented in some chronological or other logical order, it wouldn't be so repetitive, and it wouldn't be so incomprehensible. Like, given 200 years to work on it, you would think they would have made some real arguments - ones that aren't based in logical fallacies and unsubstantiated statements - for at least some of the statements made in it, like checked them with the Bible so as to not confuse Jesus and Esau and Mary with Miriam and set them all in the same millenium, same continent, same Testament, or reworked the math so that 1/3 + 2/3 + 1/8 doesn't = 1, or maybe checked Aristotle's work so that the earth wouldn't be flat. Literally 1/5 of the original Arabic text is impossible to translate into modern Arabic or ancient Syriac or anything because nobody has any idea what it says. It just seems like it wouldn't be so ridiculously RIDCULOUS if they had just made it up with no textual basis.

Hot Spur, Muhammad's life, sayings, etc. were not recorded. Yes, 600 AD was well after the advent of writing, but those Bedouins were illiterate, and those who weren't wrote what they could on bones and leaves, etc. Remember that Antiquity had completely bypassed them - there had been for centuries democracy, libraries, universities, incredible architecture, etc., and not just in the Western world but also in Egypt (which was Rome), India, Persia, etc. Aisha even said, genius that she was, that she let a goat wander around in her room and he ate most of what was written on leaves. The rest existed in the backyard and was weathered, stolen, chewed on by dogs, or just disappeared. The Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira all survived through oral tradition, at least 99% of it. The scriptural bases of the Koran were mainly from Persia and Syria, way outside of Arabia, so they were obviously made-up or orally transmitted and then written decades later.

We got way off-topic. I also wanted to say that, while Obama is obviously an affirmative action admit to Harvard Law, since he was educated in a madrassa and believes that there are 57 states, I actually find it completely plausible that the Nation of Islam or any of his other 5th column terrorist connections - all of which go back to his college days - could have played a role in his admission. He got crappy grades at a 3rd-rate college. My dad spent months in Yale Law's 'maybe' pile after being the first one in his family to go to college, having received excellent grades on a full scholarship to Princeton, serving 2 tours in Vietnam as an officer, and being a 4-time war hero by the age of 25. NO WAY was Obama legitimately admitted to Harvard Law.

Posted by: jdamn at August 27, 2008 4:00 PM

Is this speech legal? Is it not classed as a "hate" crime? Swoon.

Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England at August 27, 2008 4:30 PM

Muslim Obama supporter declares white people deserve and want to have their ears and noses cut off, and that Muslims shouldn't worry, "because God wants you to do it"

So then god wants you to incite a race war?

Yes? No?

And if the white people you have in mind are muslims, then according to your statement, they still "...deserve and want to have theirs ears and noses cut off ...;" is that correct?

And just who will do all this "cutting," you?

So then, you are conspiring to incite a race riot at the very least and are in fact a potential co-conspirator in a criminal assult with intent to comit murder -- if this comes to be.

Well "whitey," what are you going to do about it?

Posted by: witness at August 27, 2008 6:39 PM

A Muslim skeleton in Obama's closet. Not surprising, since many Muslims and Obama supporters are mindless zombies.

Posted by: Balrog at August 27, 2008 6:40 PM

I tend to believe in the historical Muhammad, just as I believe in the historical Jesus (though I certainly reject the miracles portrayed in the gospel that defy the laws of nature).

The Sirat Rasul and the Ahadith are valuable tools in the exposition of Muhammad's pronounced moral failings. Apologists for Islam often deny the legitimacy of the Sirat Rasul for exactly that reason.

These two sources of scripture comprise an indispensable component of Islamic law and ethics. Our cause is best served by exposing their intolerance and hate...rather than denying their validity as historical fact.

Just an opinion of course. If someone came forward with irrefutable proof that Muhammad never existed, I would shout it from the roof-tops. But then again, can one prove a negative?

Posted by: Cornelius at August 27, 2008 10:51 AM

Don't believe in miracles eh?

Consider this one -- here it is nearly 2000 years later and two relatively obsucure individuals who put forth some ideas are STILL the center of attention!

Most of the younger generation don't even know who Elvis was; never heard of the Beatles, and couldn't name the last three Presidents of the US if their lives depended upon it.

If you want to see a real "miracle" all you have to do is drop a pen on the desk!

Not kidding! It has to do with the EXACT gravitational acceleration -- change it by a fraction of a percent and live on this planet ceases to exist.

You should visit a nuclear accelerator sometime and look at some of the research going on right now -- you will see some honest to gosh "miracles" that make "walking on water" or "turning water into wine" look like child's play.

Historically, both Jesus and mo did exist and there is plenty of evidence outside the particular scriptures to end that old argument -- even hostile evidence.

Anyway kids, fasten your seat-belts because this scary ride is going to get very interesting, very quickly!

Posted by: witness at August 27, 2008 6:51 PM

Wrong Khalid Al-Mansour, do we get a retraction?

Posted by: MorrisMinor at August 27, 2008 9:11 PM

Jdamn,

Your comment was awesome! What a great summary of of the basic flaws of islam.

Hope to see more your insights in the future.

Posted by: boneshack at August 27, 2008 10:32 PM

Raymond, Celsius, Witness,

If you listen carefully to the video above, you will find that Mansour is saying that God turned the children of Ham black and that white people can do anything to them, such as cutting off noses, etc.,
Not saying that black folks should do that to whites.
Such dementia is beyond criticism, but I think some have understandably misinterpreted his rant.
Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: StephenA55 at August 28, 2008 9:25 AM

"Am I the only one to hear this speech as talking about white people cutting up black people (as you do), rather than the other way round?"

Posted by: StephenA55

Now that you mention it, it could be taken that way. Serves the same purpose of pitting black and white against one another.

I'm puzzled by your parenthetical "as you do". Does this mean "you" (Muslims) do?

Posted by: Abscedere at August 28, 2008 9:43 AM

Obama is Christian Sunni!

Posted by: American at August 28, 2008 10:00 AM

"I'm puzzled by your parenthetical "as you do". Does this mean "you" (Muslims) do?"

No not at all. It's a slang expression in England.
Meant to be ironic. A bit like saying 'As if we (white people) would.'

Posted by: StephenA55 at August 28, 2008 12:13 PM

The nabified one, that's just me nabi ZK (pbum), agrees Stephen. It is quite clear. He makes a criticism of the Church fathers in regard to Apartheid, saying that they, the fathers, believed that black people are the descendants of Ham and cursed and therefore whatever whites did to them was OK. He has a strong moral argument. It is difficult to defend Apartheid or any Church structures which supported it.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Posted by: zonie kafir at August 28, 2008 4:30 PM