"Meanwhile, the former head of Britain's SAS has revealed that Britain is not adequately prepared for a Mumbai-style terror attack. He said hundreds of civilians would have been massacred if such an assault was carried out in this country."

Well, you better start preparing yourself because there's no doubt it's going to happen. The only question is when.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 8:25 AM

Wow, I only had to sign in to TypePad 4 times to post the above.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 8:26 AM

Source

Posted by: S at November 30, 2008 8:43 AM

"He is alleged to have confessed that he received weapons instruction at a training camp in Pakistan-administered Kashmir."

would this camp be one of those camps the US Predator Drones are attacking that the Pakistani government complains so bitterly about?...

Posted by: pulsar182 at November 30, 2008 9:29 AM

Darcy with the US having better gun laws for citizens, l would like to think these islamic bastards would be dead in their tracks before they did much damage.
What l dont like to see with the msm types is that it does not take that much planning to go and kill unarmed civilians. how much cowardice do islamists have to display before the msm says so?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 30, 2008 9:41 AM

Rober:
Will India go to war with Pakistan? I'm suspecting that a mixture of interest and honour will compel the Indian to resolve many 'issues' with Pakistan once and for all.
Also what will the American and NATO role should a war break out? My guess is that the Americans and Indians under the cover of the nuclear deal negotiations also broached the Pakistan topic and came to certain understandings.

But again I'm speculating

xavier

Posted by: xavier at November 30, 2008 9:46 AM

Rober:
Will India go to war with Pakistan? I'm suspecting that a mixture of interest and honour will compel the Indian to resolve many 'issues' with Pakistan once and for all.
Also what will the American and NATO role should a war break out? My guess is that the Americans and Indians under the cover of the nuclear deal negotiations also broached the Pakistan topic and came to certain understandings.

But again I'm speculating

xavier

Posted by: xavier at November 30, 2008 9:46 AM

Rober:
Will India go to war with Pakistan? I'm suspecting that a mixture of interest and honour will compel the Indian to resolve many 'issues' with Pakistan once and for all.
Also what will the American and NATO role should a war break out? My guess is that the Americans and Indians under the cover of the nuclear deal negotiations also broached the Pakistan topic and came to certain understandings.

But again I'm speculating

xavier

Posted by: xavier at November 30, 2008 9:47 AM

"Meanwhile, the former head of Britain's SAS has revealed that Britain is not adequately prepared for a Mumbai-style terror attack."

no one ever is...but you can be very watchful and hopefully the Muslims may trip themselves up before they kill again...

The Muslims have begun a countdown to the final showdown...every new day brings more Muslim attacks in more places....always with the same result...massive death to humanity, destruction of property, and ruin to civilization...

Did you ever notice that the Muslims always cry "victim" after being counterattacked?

Who can say what will happen tomorrow?

Posted by: pulsar182 at November 30, 2008 10:33 AM

"But that fact and its implications you will not find discussed in any of the endless media dissections of this jihad attack."

Is it worth complaining to the media? Has anyone complained about the fact that they are being utter cowards and avoiding the real issue... that the Islamic 'holy' texts are responsible for this mindless murder

Posted by: futureisbright at November 30, 2008 10:36 AM

xavier,

India will not go to war with Pakistan.

Pakistan, however, may go to war with India. If only to "prove" that the government still has control over the country. Deflecting attention in this manner could have substantial internal benefits for Zardari and company. Especially if they play the victim card as succesfully as they have done in the past ("Oh look, big bully India beating up on poor little innocent Pakistan!"). The morons at Foggy Bottom fall for that every time.

Posted by: pravasi at November 30, 2008 10:51 AM

I believe Darcy is right... it's not if but when.

And I hope Zena turns out to be right when terrorists strike here.

It's all about preparedness... training.

It's not about hoping somebody will trip up before an attack is made.

What happens tomorrow is what we allow to happen tomorrow.

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 11:38 AM

Meanwhile the Times of India proudly announces that "IT's war!"

But then fall flat on their faces by announcing,
"Terrorists have no religion. Political bickering on this issue is divisive; what India needs now is unity."

Posted by: michael calvert at November 30, 2008 11:55 AM

The media doesn't like to use the words Jihad or Muslim Extremists because it may OFFFENNDD a certain group of people. Meanwhile, they can say whatever the want about Christians.

Christopher Hamilton
The Right Opinion, for the Right Wing

Posted by: Christopher Hamilton at November 30, 2008 12:17 PM

I find Yusuf Ali's commentary on the verse Mr. Spencer quoted interesting. Notice Qur'an invokes the Law and the Gospel:

YUSUFALI: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an..."

Ali (commentary) #1362: We offer our whole selves and our possessions to God, and God gives us Salvation, i.e., eternal freedom from bondage of this world. This is the TRUE (EMPHASIS MINE) doctrine of redemption; and we are taught that this is the doctrine not only in the Qur'an but of the earlier Revelations, - the ORIGINAL Law of Moses and the ORIGINAL Gospel of Jesus. Any other view of redemption is rejected by Islam, especially that of corrupted Christianity, which thinks that some other person suffered for our sins and we are redeemed by his blood. It is our self-surrender that counts, not other people's merits. Our complete self-surrender my include fighting for the cause, both spiritual and physical. As regards, actual fighting with the sword there has been some difference in theological theories at different times, but very little in practice of those who framed these theories." Ali goes on.....

What I find interesting is the notion (apparently?) in Islam of "eternal freedom from bondage of this world."

Obviously I am not a Christian. What does the Bible say about bondage and liberty? Clearly idolatry is sin. The First Commandment reads:

Exodus 20:1: "Then God spoke all these words, saying,

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

"You shall have no other gods before Me.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

"but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Loving God and keeping His commandments is freedom. Idolatry (living an utterly sinful life) is bondage.

The Psalmist wrote:

Psa 119:43 And do not take the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, For I wait for Your ordinances.

"So I will keep Your law continually, Forever and ever.

"And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.

"I will also speak of Your testimonies before kings And shall not be ashamed."

According to the Qur'an, unlike the Bible, it seems there is no redemption or liberty on this earth, but bondage. Only in the afterlife, according to Islam, is there liberty and redemption?

How then can we in anywise worship the same God?

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 12:50 PM

Here in American, I don't think the American Sheeple has even noticed this atrocity. Most people don't even remember 9/11. They are more concerned about some sporting event or a few pennies more added to the price of eggs.

So, in a way, terrorism fails because people are so stupid, they don't even get terrorized.

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at November 30, 2008 12:50 PM

What an interesting holiday! My entire family lives with their heads safely buried in the sand! We talked about this issue a bit. Some actually said, "They will never do that here". Some got hostile when I proposed the idea that this sort of violence is inherent Islamic behavior supported by Quranic verses, and Islamic tradition. I ended up just laughing out loud at them in the end. I just don't get how intelligent people can't see the forest for the trees on this issue. People just refuse to look at this as a connected collection of events supported by religious theology, they only see a tree here, and a tree there, but never put the vast collection of trees standing side by side as a forest. These blinders enable them to willfully disregard the next logical step, which is where do all these roots get their sustenance to norish the trees? What is the common thread here? It takes willful ignorance not to see the forest, make no mistake about it. Anyways I'm preaching to the choir here, which is refreshing for a change. It will take many attacks like this inside the US to remove the blinders. Islam is a death sentence for western culture and democracy. It is time to blame our government for allowing Islaic inflitration into the west. It is the job of the government to protect its citizens, no matter how ignorant they choose to be. When the attack comes the government needs to be held to account.

Posted by: ethoman at November 30, 2008 12:52 PM

An interesting point. In the book of John, Jesus allegedly said the following about bondage:

Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Maybe devout Muslims like Yusuf Ali, are slaves to sin, bondage and idolatry. Maybe this is why Y. Ali wrote, "God gives us Salvation, i.e., eternal freedom from bondage of this world." Perhaps Yusu Ali lived a life filled with sin and bondage? Otherwise why did he write this?

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 12:58 PM

Have listened off and on over the weekend to the talking heads in the MSM as well as to "experts" on terrorism. All of them have danced around the matter of pointing to the "but for" cause of the tragedy in Bombay (Mumbai). The "but for" cause is, of course, Islam. But for Islam none of those people massacred would now be dead. But for Islam none of the killers would have done what they did (ditto for 9/11 and thousands of other atrocities committed by Muslim terrorists).

Until Muslims across the world address the pathologies that exist in their religion instead of denying that they do (a key point, as I understand things, in Robert Spencer's approach to dealing with the enormous burden Islam is to the entire world), then nothing of substance which should occur will occur. Also, until non-Muslim elites in the media, politics and academia cease ignoring the gigantic Islamic elephant in the room, it will be far more difficult to prevail against Islamic supremacist designs. If you can't even name the enemy, how in the hell are you gonna' lick 'em?

Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2008 1:03 PM

Ethoman,
Mumbai was discussed at the table, for a minute. For me, it was hard to sleep that night. I send elected officials my opinions on a regular basis, including on Mumbai, and a few of my e-mail buddies also. A relative replied to never send her 'stuff like this' again. Nope head firmly in the sand. Our homegrown liberals and most Muslims suffer from the 'Pleasantville' syndrome: nothing exists outside what I believe to be true.

Posted by: Civilus Defendus at November 30, 2008 1:10 PM

"But that fact and its implications you will not find discussed in any of the endless media dissections of this jihad attack."

ethoman- I feel your pain. Interesting that you use the forest through the trees metaphor..

see Mark Steyn use of same at NRO article today arguing to attack the ideology- not your typical MSM and NRO type dissection called "It's Not the Cold War- Updating Strategy to Fight the Ideology"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTk5YzgwZDc3NTliMDAwM2QxOGNjOWRmNTZjZTZmNDY=

Typepad is thine enemy arrrrrgh.....

Posted by: USorThem at November 30, 2008 1:11 PM

What an interesting holiday! My entire family lives with their heads safely buried in the sand!

You too!!?...We need a sand shovel and a bucket.

My sister even said, she was going to 'stick her head in the sand' and vote Obama...

I think this is a situation where we are all in the same boat, the boat is sinking, and 95% of the people in it refuse to bail water.
We could just throw them overboard, but we are too civilized for that...

That means the 5% that will bail, have to bail ten times as much as the others. That's not fair, but if the 5% don't, the boat will sink.

Most of the posters here, and anti-jihadists everywhere are the 5%. Our work is cut out for us...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 30, 2008 1:13 PM

Looks like they killed less westerners than they were aiming for.

Really, this is a strike at the Indian economy that thrives on tourism

Posted by: islamfactor.org at November 30, 2008 1:24 PM

Some thoughts on weapons and training:

http://freemendo.typepad.com/

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 1:31 PM

"But that fact and its implications you will not find discussed in any of the endless media dissections of this jihad attack."

MSM is scared to get bombed and/or have their heads chopped off if they were to name Islam as the criminal minded element behind terrorist attacks.

Posted by: JC at November 30, 2008 1:32 PM

"But that fact and its implications you will not find discussed in any of the endless media dissections of this jihad attack."

MSM is scared to get bombed and/or have their heads chopped off if they were to name Islam as the criminal minded element behind muslim terrorist attacks.

Posted by: JC at November 30, 2008 1:33 PM

WildJew
"Obviously I am not a Christian. What does the Bible say about bondage and liberty?"

John "the truth will set you free" ;
"I am the way, and the truth and the life"

"I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."
(concept developped by greatest catholic theologian St Thomas Aquina)

Allah is nothing but a pagan god that was worshipped in Mecca during Muhammads time

Posted by: Péguy at November 30, 2008 1:42 PM

undaunted: Thank you again for valuable information, this time provided by the link in your 1:31 P.M. post. The better armed the average law-abiding American is, all other things being equal, the better off America will be. I would encourage many who post here regularly to take a look at your sound, straight-forward advice on what kind of gun a particular individual might want to own. Take care, my friend.

Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2008 1:48 PM

Thank you for the link, USorTHEM.

Posted by: jdamn at November 30, 2008 2:06 PM

Undaunted,
If you take a certified class from the State of Utah (Bureau of Criminal Identification) to get a concealed carry permit, the permit is HONORED in 34 states.

We have beefed up our inventory and will be at a nearby Utah carry class.

Thanks for being there, Undaunted. Are you in WA State?

Posted by: Civilus Defendus at November 30, 2008 2:08 PM

Well Maybe Britain isn't prepared for this kind of attack cause of nanny gun control and general disdain for the military, which are hardly unique or modern in England.
Of course, Pakistan is involved over their heads like they are involved in the Taliban and the Kashmiris groupd of Muslim killers.

Posted by: MorrisMinor at November 30, 2008 2:10 PM

see Mark Steyn use of same at NRO article today arguing to attack the ideology- not your typical MSM and NRO type dissection called "It's Not the Cold War- Updating Strategy to Fight the Ideology"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTk5YzgwZDc3NTliMDAwM2QxOGNjOWRmNTZjZTZmNDY=

Typepad is thine enemy arrrrrgh.....

Posted by: USorThem

I agree about the Typepad. Thanks for this Mark Steyn piece. I have a couple of areas where I differ with Mr. Steyn:

Steyn wrote:

1) "On the other hand, whether or not Pakistan’s deeply sinister ISI had their fingerprints all over it, it would seem unlikely that there was no external involvement. After all, if you look at every jihad front from the London Tube bombings to the Iraqi insurgency, you’ll find local lads and wily outsiders: That’s pretty much a given.

"But we’re in danger of missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the ideology.....

{While I would agree, ideology is central, that Pakistan's deeply sinister ISI might have had their fingers all over it is not irrelevant. As one former Israeli prime minister put it before a post 9/11 Congressional Committee:

"The first and most crucial thing to understand is this: there is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for any length of time without the regimes that aid and abet it, because, as you well know, terrorists are not suspended in mid-air. They train, arm and indoctrinate their killer from within safe havens in the territories provided by terrorist states...." In other words, there is likely an address here. It might well be our "ally in the war on terrorism," Pakistan. --- wildjew

2) Steyn wrote: "So Bush is history, and we have a new president who promises to heal the planet, and yet the jihadists don’t seem to have got the Obama message that there are no enemies, just friends we haven’t yet held talks without preconditions with."

While the prospect of a President Obama is truly frightening in many ways, Bush is not history. Barack Hussein Obama, is in many respects, the natural culmination of President Bush's policies. Bush has not defined the enemy.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 2:25 PM

Wild Jew: You're correct in stating that Bush has not defined the enemy but what Western or any non-Muslim leader has? Some heads of state (like Bush) are prepared to go after, hunt down and kill Islamic extremists wherever they can be found. Other leaders won't even do this. Neither group of leaders, though, will call a spade a spade and point the finger to the real culprit-------Islamic doctrine. Have a time horizon when this might occur? I hope it's sooner rather than later. As for Obama, he may or may not fall into the category of leaders Bush is in but I have no doubt that he will not be the pioneer among Western leaders who just comes out and names the real enemy------Islam itself. The self-destructive subterfuge continues because most of the world is still not prepared to acknowledge that a religion can be evil.

Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2008 3:03 PM

Wellington, with all due respect, you are making excuses for President Bush. Bush is the leader of the free world. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, just as Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's watch. The leftist / socialist FDR stands head and shoulders above Bush as a war time president; in terms of defining the enemy.

Bush has done little more than appease our enemies. Bush makes a distinction between jihadist killers -- good jihadist murderers and bad jihadist murderers. Palestinian and Saudi jihadists are good jihadists in Bush and Rice's eyes. Al Qaeda jihadists are bad jihadists.

Let's face it, Islam declared war against America and the west. Bush hides this fact from the American people, to his eternal shame and discredit.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 3:32 PM

"Some got hostile when I proposed the idea that this sort of violence is inherent Islamic behavior supported by Quranic verses, and Islamic tradition." --ethoman

I dig you, ethoman.

Pathetic, isn't it? Yeah, all you can do is laugh at the ignorance. And cry.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 3:32 PM

Typepad is thine enemy arrrrrgh.....

Posted by: USorThem

Yeah - Is there going to come a time when one doesn't have to sign in 6 times to post a comment? Is there hope? Anyone?

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 3:34 PM

Let's face it, Islam declared war against America and the West. Bush hides this fact from the American people, to his eternal shame and discredit.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 3:32 PM

Agree. There should have been missiles a-flying on September 12. And wha'd we get? "Islam is a religion of peace." It's truly incredible.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 3:37 PM

Other leaders won't even do this. Neither group of leaders, though, will call a spade a spade and point the finger to the real culprit-------Islamic doctrine.

Posted by: Wellington

What you and other defenders of President Bush have difficulty coming to terms with is the following. It is up to the leader of the free world to set the standard; to define the enemy. It's on Mr. Bush's shoulders to define this infernal enemy Wellington. Bush chose to be President of the United States, the most powerful position on the face of the earth. Bush has obligations. Bush has failed in his primary duty as a war time president. He has utterly failed to identify our enemy. I expect a "man" as leader of the free world; not an equivocator. Bush is no longer hiding in the National Guard. He is leader of the free world. Hiding is not an option.

Please do not make excuses for this. It doesn't matter what other pathetic leaders fail to do. It is inexcusable what Bush failed to do. One day, I pray this man will be tried by a Higher Court for his negligence and his criminal acts against the land, the people and the God of Israel.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 3:43 PM

Here we have a woman that is more a man than the 'man' in the Oval Office. What he's done (or failed to do) is criminal:

"....This intellectual disarray was perhaps nowhere more evident than in Bush's refusal to define the enemy in the war. The men who attacked the US on September 11, 2001, were more than simply terrorists. They had a plan and a cause: They were Muslim jihadists. And they were not the ideological fringe of the Islamic world. Their beliefs are propagated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and are advanced in the most prestigious academies in the Islamic world.

By claiming that the enemy in the war is generic "terror" rather than a worldview embraced by millions of people throughout the Islamic world, Bush made it impossible for his advisers to develop a coherent strategy for war. He also denied the American people the tools necessary for understanding either the meaning of the struggle or the necessity of fighting it. He deprived the public of the basic intellectual framework for understanding for instance why he decided to imprison terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199612962&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 3:59 PM

Wild Jew: I wasn't making excuses for Bush. I was just trying to define the two types of non-Muslim leaders that we have in the present time. Some won't even pursue the damn Islamic terrorists. Others, like Bush, will. Both groups of leaders have failed to define the enemy, something I most definitely fault Bush for, though I will cut all non-Muslim leaders some slack (not too much though) because Islam hides behind its religious veil and people are loathe to call a religion rotten to the core (it was very easy to call Nazism evil and even to this day there are many rubes on the Left who still say idiotic things about Marxism, such as maintaining that it is good in theory, but a religion evil?-----oh no, that can't be) . This has to change if freedom and democracy are to win out over the most diabolical form of totalitarianism even conceived.

Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2008 3:59 PM

Wellington, unlike Islam, Nazism has or had no supernatural deity. Why was it easy to call Nazism evil and not traditional or fundamentalist or orthodox Islam? Jihadist Islam is far more evil than Nazism ever was. Isn't it? The Nazis did not send their young men and women on martyrdom or suicide / homicide missions. Not even the Nazis were this culturally perverse and savage.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 4:05 PM

I agree that Bush didn't define the enemy properly. But blaming him for this is like condemning George Washington for not freeing the slaves.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 30, 2008 4:07 PM

Jihadist Islam is far more evil than Nazism ever was. Isn't it? The Nazis did not send their young men and women on martyrdom or suicide / homicide missions. Not even the Nazis were this culturally perverse and savage.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 4:05 PM

Uh, I'd say they are the same. "Young [Nazi] men and women" were completely indoctrinated by the Nazi ideology - "Nazi Youth" and "young" Nazi men and women escorted Jews and others into the ovens. Yeah, Nazis were "perverse and savage," no doubt about it. Perhaps the Nazis didn't have suicide missions because there were a limited number - not a billion like the expendable Mohammedans.

I consider Naziism and Islam to be one and the same.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 4:18 PM

I agree that Bush didn't define the enemy properly. But blaming him for this is like condemning George Washington for not freeing the slaves.

Posted by: DenverRodeo

You are right. That was a great moral failure on Washington's part. I think Washington was a man of moral courage. Bush is not in my view.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 4:24 PM

In some respects, Washington reminds me of King David in terms of his courage. Bush is NO David.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 4:25 PM

DenverRodeo - I read this online about George Washington and slavery:

"It has been argued that Washington did not speak out publicly against slavery, because he did not wish to create a split in the new republic, with an issue that was sensitive and divisive."

So, how is this analogous to Bush not condemning Islam? After all, we're not a "new republic."

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 4:28 PM

I consider Naziism and Islam to be one and the same.

Posted by: darcy

OK. I won't argue the point. I believe Islam is far more dangerous than Nazism. We'll see. I take the jihadists at their word. They tell us often, "Jews and Christians love life. We love death." This has staggering potential as the Muslim world acquires weapons of mass destruction. Where is the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) in light of this ideology of death worship?

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 4:31 PM

darcy,

"It has been argued that Washington did not speak out publicly against slavery, because he did not wish to create a split in the new republic, with an issue that was sensitive and divisive."

So, how is this analogous to Bush not condemning Islam? After all, we're not a "new republic."

Not everything in an analogy has to fit exactly. My analogy meant to show that Washington, like Bush, was just going with the general flow. At the time of Washington, only a tiny minority were agitating for condemning slavery. Same today. Only a tiny minority is agitating to condemn Islam, from what I can tell.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 30, 2008 4:41 PM

"I believe Islam is far more dangerous than Nazism." --Wild Jew

It is because there's millions more Muslims than Nazis.

The Nazi goal was to extinguish everyone but the "Aryan race." How is this ideology any different than the Muslims' goal to extinguish everyone but Mohammedans? It isn't. They are both Supremacist.

But, the HUGE difference between them is that Islam's got a billion followers, with representatives found in every country in the world. The Nazis were only in Germany.

Numbers.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 4:42 PM

At the time of Washington, only a tiny minority were agitating for condemning slavery. Same today. Only a tiny minority is agitating to condemn Islam, from what I can tell.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 30, 2008 4:41 PM

Right.

But, it's not like people didn't understand slavery back in the 1700's. They did. Unlike people in the 21st century who are ignorant about Islam's texts and tenets, having absolutely no idea of what Islam commands. Like Bush. Look, I didn't know ANYTHING about Islam on September 12, either.

But I do now. And so should the President of the United States and gazillions of other Americans, besides.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 4:52 PM

darcy, another difference between Nazism and Islam is that Nazism was only about 30 years old, a very recent creation and only lasted a little longer.

Islam has 1400 years under its belt, which makes for deeper psychological fanatical brainwashing, and more of a heritage for Muslims to be "proud" about.

Same goes for Communism. It was amazing how much brainwashing Communism was able to do, causing people to fight revolutions, governments to fall, millions to be rounded up and killed -- and it was only like 50 years old (or even just a couple of years old, when you consider the time of the Russian Revolution).

Islam was in a slump for a while, but now it's regaining its second wind. And most of our societies are pretty much blind to this.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 30, 2008 4:59 PM

It is because there's millions more Muslims than Nazis. --- darcy

I'm not sure I must concede your point. It's not about numbers. Numbers are not relevant. Islam has a God or god if you will. An ideology that has a supernatural deity, in my view, is far more dangerous. These millions of people are willing to fight and die for their God.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 5:02 PM

Darcy, I read William Shirer's seminal work, "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich." Adolf Hitler was a fanatic, granted. But even Herr Hitler had his pragmatic moments. When faced with an impossible situation, Hitler could be compelled to back down as I remember.

I see no pragmatism in these jihadist killers. Do you think these killers in Mumbai, India could be bargained with?

Come on Darcy. Please wake up.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 5:12 PM

"Numbers are not relevant." --Wild Jew

What? What do you think "Stealth Jihad's" all about?

Demographics are relevant as all-get-out. Why do you think Dearborn is now Dearbornistan? Numbers. It's the immigration of millions of Mohammedans and their subsequent numerous offspring that are destroying Western Europe.

It is "god." As Peguy said above, "Allah is nothing but a pagan god that was worshipped in Mecca during Muhammads time."

Posted by: Péguy at November 30, 2008 1:42 PM

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 5:14 PM

Come on Darcy. Please wake up.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 5:12 PM

Uh, excuse me. Don't tell me to "wake up." I'm totally awake. That's out-of-line. Soooooooooo out-of-line.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 5:17 PM

Stalin was permitted to be an ally in WWII, though Churchill saw the coming evil of communism in him. FDR played along, to put it mildly. How many millions died because of that?

FDR and Eisenhower cost the lives of around 3M Jews in the last months of the war because they played politics and gave supplies to Monty. History shows us that had Patton been given those supplies, the war would have been over by the end of '44.

Truman played politics and fired MacArthur. That stupidity brought to pass the separation of the peninsula at the 38th parallel, the enslavement and deaths of millions, and the Kim family of despots.

Nixon and Kissinger played the PC card and the result was a couple million slaughtered in the killing fields of SE Asia.

Wild Jew, you wear your Bush Derangment Syndrome like a crown when you should wear it like a dirty diaper... something that stinks and needs to be flushed. He hasn't done everything right. Neither has he failed as you've ranted... again.

I'm with Wellington.

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 5:27 PM

Nazism has it all over Islam. They actually both have a theology, btw. People ignored Nazism's 'theology' because it was ridiculous, but it was, if anything, far less ridiculous than that of Islam. They both had supremacist deities who had a chosen people, but Nazism's God had an ideology and he stuck to it and didn't contradict himself all over the place.

Compare the founders: Hitler was a snazzy dresser. Hitler was a hard worker, while Mo lived his entire life as a parasite. Hitler put together his manifesto in short order, while Mo didn't even really finish his given 23 years. Hitler's manifesto is succinct, fairly logical (if full of outright lies and a few major logical fallacies), and not very repetitive, while the Koran, well... Hitler wasn't a sexist or a pedophile or a rapist, he didn't commit incest or rape a little retarded girl, or anyone else for that matter, and he treated his concubine very well. Hitler stressed education and self-determination. Hitler put country first. Mo was such a degenerate that it's not remotely fair to compare him to Hitler. Hitler was democratically elected, while Mo came to power by killing, raiding, and looting unarmed civilians. Nazism, while evil, disgusting, and intolerable, was just a reworked, modern Islam that had to appeal to a far more intelligent, far more civilized, outbred, self-determined, educated people.

They were both self-interested, unscrupulous, genocidal fascists and cult leaders, and that's where the similarities end. There are a whole bunch more terrible things to be said about Mo.

As for their texts, sure, they both contain absolutely nothing but lies, errors, distortions, logical fallacies, racist hatred, supremacy, and genocide, but Mein Kampf lacks the sick hang-ups about pedophilia, incest, slavery, every form of sex crime, gender apartheid, extreme and unprecedented oppression of women, torture, parasitism as a career, the art of lying, and a deep contempt for honest hard work. Believing Mein Kampf requires a high degree of indoctrination and a large dash of evil, but unlike the Koran, believing it doesn't necessitate that one lack the common knowledge and logical faculties of a reasonably intelligent 5 year-old or an insane degree of misogyny.

Posted by: jdamn at November 30, 2008 5:28 PM

We didn't really need anything from Nazi Germany. Ditto for the Communist world during the Cold War. But the West and other nations (e.g., Japan) need Middle Eastern oil big time. Any President of the United State before he would denounce Islam, which I still maintain is harder to publicly criticize than other totalitarian ideologies PRECISELY because it is a religion, would have to take into account the enormous economic consequences of doing so. Not to do so would be foolish in the extreme. This is not meant as exculpation of Bush but rather as partial explanation for his and other non-Muslim leaders' actions. I do believe though by now that Bush could have said something along the lines of what Robert Spencer has and that is that Muslims themselves must correct the deeply dysfunctional aspects that emanate from their religion instead of continuing to deny that they are there in the first place. Also, behind the scenes, all Western leaders should have by this date found various excuses for almost eliminating Muslim immigration to the West. This has not been done and it is shameful and stupid that it hasn't.

P.S. TypePad sucks.

Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2008 5:28 PM

Darcy's right. Islam is taken semi-seriosuly because of numbers, but also because it has been around much longer and because people are more ignorant of it. Wellington's right about the fact that it is harder to discredit Islam because (a) the threat of death, and (b) the false belief that Islam is a religion. It isn't, and certainly no more so than Nazism, which also has, though not strictly speaking since they both lack a reltaionship between God and man, an arguable theology. None of these reasons are logically valid, nor do they make Islam any less wrong, unacceptable, dangerous, or ridiculous than Nazism.

Undaunted, it can be argued pretty convincingly that we nuked Japan to scare Stalin. I believe that was at least part of the reason.

Posted by: jdamn at November 30, 2008 5:36 PM

Also another big difference was that nazism "worhiped" an idea of a pure Aryan race, while Islam worships five times a day a moon rock and calls it "God".

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 30, 2008 5:44 PM

Darcy, numbers are not relevant to the extent that we cannot allow ourselves to be afraid to tell the truth because of large numbers.

Or can we Darcy?

Do the numbers frighten you into submission Darcy?

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 5:58 PM

I think you're right, jdamn.

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 5:58 PM

i would like to think that obama has the guts to press the button when islam finally delivers a nuke to the usa . the only solution is to leave the muslim world a radioactive dust bowl

Posted by: crusader at November 30, 2008 6:01 PM

And thanks to whoever edited my 5:27 comment.

Pssst: we're being watched.

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 6:01 PM

Wild Jew, you wear your Bush Derangement Syndrome like a crown when you should wear it like a dirty diaper... something that stinks and needs to be flushed. He hasn't done everything right. Neither has he failed as you've ranted... again.

I'm with Wellington.

Posted by: undaunted

Undaunted? You are undaunted by what? As I understand it undaunted, this so-called Bush Derangement Syndrome that was coined by "W" apologist Charles Krauthammer, applied to leftists that hate Bush for whatever leftist reason.

The term cannot possibly apply to me as I am a thirty seven year + registered (conservative) Republican who voted for this traitor in 2000; sadly. I know a conservative when I see one. George W. Bush is no conservative undaunted.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 6:05 PM

You're nuts, Wild Jew.

Please don't address me again. Thanks.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 6:05 PM

Please don't address me again. Thanks.

Posted by: darcy

OK.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 6:07 PM

Darcy's right. Islam is taken semi-seriosuly because of numbers.....

Posted by: jdamn

Jdamn, I've seen seas and seas of Muslims chanting, "Death the the Jews! We are going to drive the Jews into the sea!" etc.

I've seen this with my own eyes and yet tiny, tiny Israel -- surrounded by millions and millions of angry, chanting Muslims -- fought these SOBs by the millions and defeated them; once in only six days these great multitudes bowed the knee to tiny Israel. But for immoral American diplomacy, Israel would have wipped out Egypt's Third Army.

Yet the great America is afraid of a few million Muslims? The mighty, mighty America is cowed by numbers? America, the mightiest power on the face of the earth, is afraid of the numbers.

Pathetic! Worse than pathetic! America does not deserve to survive given this cowardice.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 6:17 PM

"Any President of the United States before he would denounce Islam...would have to take into account the enormous economic consequences of doing so. Not to do so would be foolish in the extreme. This is not meant as exculpation of Bush but rather as partial explanation for his and other non-Muslim leaders' actions."

It's true. Western Europe would fold overnight, as all their oil comes from the ME.

Products that must have oil: All flat screens (computer/monitor/TV), soap, laundry detergent, pharmaceuticals (medicines), surgical equipment, paints, varnishes, plastics (credit cards and a million other things), batteries, cement, wire (insulation), herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer. Without oil, WE cannot manufacture these things themselves.

Most of our oil comes from Canada, however. Along with ourselves, Mexico, and Venezuela. We wouldn't be as bad off without Saudi oil as Western Europe.

However, if the Mohammedan countries didn't have oil, we wouldn't give them the time of day, and Islam would not be a problem.

Posted by: darcy at November 30, 2008 6:24 PM

Yea, what Darcy said.

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 6:30 PM

And, Wild Jew; you, sir, are no one I want with me in a fight.

You are wild, by admission, when you could be wise, by choice.

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 6:35 PM

And, Wild Jew; you, sir, are no one I want with me in a fight.

You are wild, by admission, when you could be wise, by choice.

Posted by: undaunted

Thanks for the vote of confidence undaunted.

Posted by: Wild Jew at November 30, 2008 6:50 PM

You earned it.

Posted by: undaunted at November 30, 2008 7:07 PM

Wild Jew: I believe we are on the same page more than might appear to be the case at first glance. Often internecine fights here at JW occur because of arguments over tactics, even though overall strategy respecting what to do about Islam, deeply disturbing as this religion is, remains a constant. Darcy and undaunted, assuming they don't mind my speaking for them, don't have a problem with your deep scepticism of the Islamic faith. Your assessment of Bush, however, which you're certainly entitled to, seems to be the rub in this particular imbroglio. May I suggest you let it rest. It's OK for posters at JW, who recognize the enormous menace which is Islam, to have disagreements over how exactly to deal with it.

Speaking only for myself, I see President Bush as as the best example in intelligent form of the first stage response to Islamic supremacism in the modern age. It's deuce difficult for most folks to conclude that a religion is replete with nefarious elements. Even sensible Western scholars of Islam, individuals like Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis, think there is a good Islam lurking out there somewhere. I don't accept this, but I do accord such persons the right to be heard in a respectful manner. In light of this, I think it more understandable that an American President, at this point in time, would not challenge all of Islam but rather only its most extreme elements, while still maintaining that Islam is a great and noble religion. Practical considerations, very important practical considerations, make this stance even more comprehensible, even though, I would maintain, ultimately erroneous.

Dealing with evil, pure malevolence, is something that rhetorical folks like you and I will take on early, being possessed, if I don't sound here too self-acclaiming, of knowledge and insight that the bulk of humanity, for practical reasons aplenty, have not yet digested into their collective gut. And so it is the case, in microcosm, with an American President named Bush, who can't bring himself, as you and I have, to conclude that an entire religion can be screwed up to its very core. You may rightfully say that we don't have the luxury of time for leaders to appear with great political skill to act upon what many JW posters already know, but wishing something to be the case won't make it so. I see untold number of tragedies unfolding in future history before final realization will occur, down to the very aggregate soul of mankind, that Islam is a religion like no other and that it must be eliminated as a serious approach to the eternal question of why there is anything rather than nothing. My best to you and yours as we continue to fight the monstrous reality which is the Islamic faith.

Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2008 7:25 PM

Darcy's right again. We need energy independence first. We're not afraid of Muslims. We're afraid of not having oil. And by numbers, I meant that there are more of them than there were Nazis. I also said that it has to do with the fact that Islam is semi-ancient and has "legitimacy" through false memes that idiots believe. I believed them until about 9 months ago and I'm intelligent, educated, and semi-well-read. It's very easy to avoid the truth about Islam. It's damn near impossible to have a real conversation with anyone about it except on the Internet.

Posted by: jdamn at November 30, 2008 7:31 PM

"In light of this, I think it more understandable that an American President, at this point in time, would not challenge all of Islam but rather only its most extreme elements, while still maintaining that Islam is a great and noble religion."

So let me get this straight: An American President, most powerful person in the world with the most responsibility for our wellbeing, must take baby steps and have his hand held until he can have his "great religion of peace" milk bottle weaned from his lips, while an ordinary guy on the Internet (Wellington) and many other ordinary folks like the rest of us here have no problem walking tall like a normally intelligent adult in our understanding of Islam.

Gotcha.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at December 1, 2008 2:44 AM

DenverRodeo: What would you have done by now had you been in the Oval Office these past seven years instead of Bush? Remember, you would be the most powerful person in the world and statements by you would reverberate worldwide. Please also note that I mentioned that scholars of Islam like Pipes and Lewis still think there exits an Islam that can be rescued. Even Robert Spencer has called upon Muslims to address the pathologies in their religion rather than give it up (my preference and I guess yours).

Posted by: Wellington at December 1, 2008 6:07 AM

Well said, Wellington.

Posted by: undaunted at December 1, 2008 10:55 AM