"MEDIA SHOULD NOT CALL TERRORISTS "ISLAMIC," GROUP SAYS"

Then I guess we'll just call them Muslims.

Honestly, its a great tactic to silence the world so that it has no way of truly identifying who the Terrorists are.

Its true that not all muslims are terrorists, but a hell of a lot of terrorists are Muslims.

Another tactic that is employed is referring to the Terrorists as Muslim Militants, I guess they think it sounds nicer, it would be along the lines of calling a suicide bomber a "community organiser".

When they are finally successful in suppressing the truth, then the true Jihad begins.

-Ayo Gorkhali

Posted by: Gorkhali at December 5, 2008 5:07 AM

This is islam, period! Muslims are just human beings that has a collective mental illness. It is curable only if islam is eradicated and all imams are removed. This is exactly the same rhetoric they use about us and our different faiths.

The huge difference between islam and the rest of the world is that we REALLY believe in tolerance, human rights, democracy and women's equality.

One thing that has become clear is that islam doesn't fit inside a multicultural society because it really propagates islam as the only culture to be subjugated into.

The inability to think freely without any religious aspects is their weakness and our opportunity to eliminate this ideology. They think that they are free because that's how islam puts it to them. Our freedom is different as we all know.

I really hope that the blasphemy laws will be voted for in the U.N. because it is only then we are going to see how islam and muslims will use it as we all think... killing freedom of speech and continue to mock and eliminating all other religions without anyone daring to react. This is a great opportunity! Don't think for a second that laws and resolutions can't be overturned when it doesn't work.

Posted by: SwedishWiking at December 5, 2008 5:57 AM

CAIR and OIC could be right, had there been no distinction between "practicing Muslims" and non-practicing Muslims AND also between Islamic land and non-Islamic land.

Islamic terrorists are practicing Muslims and a practicing Muslim is vow-bound to annihilate non-Islamic world from the face of "Allah's earth" [whatever it may mean]!

Non-practicing Muslims are always taken aback when challenged by practicing Muslims about the duties of a Muslim as prescribed and described in Qur'an, Hadiths. The silence of non-practicing Muslims in the face of such defiance is a proof that they too support Islamic Jihad and Islamic Terrorists.

Let CAIR and OIC stop meddling in the system of governance elsewhere and stop demanding human-rights and various freedoms unthinkable and taboo in Islam.

As for the champions of human-rights in non-Islamic world everywhere, they have nothing to do but draw attention.

This hypocrisy of Human-Rightists, CAIR and OIC has to be viewed in the light of teachings of Qur'an and Islam.

Please don't hold non-Muslims responsible for the deeds of Muslims.

Posted by: kokamal at December 5, 2008 6:18 AM

When CAIR calls JW/DW a "hatesite", it translates to mean it TELLS THE TRUTH about jihad.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 5, 2008 6:49 AM

Let's see--if a group of "deviant and fanatic individuals" tells the world-at-large that they wage holy war for Islam, and cite religious reasons to justify their actions, then objective journalism must pointedly omit these facts?

Yes, of course, the "martyrs" and "holy warriors" who wage war are mere "criminals"; and their criminal motives have nothing to do with Islam, the Religion of Peace [for the Dead], Tolerance [of Hate and Violence], and of Love [of Carnage and Destruction].

Now I understand. How dare Islamophobes like Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org call these criminals holy martyrs and warriors fighting in the Way of Allah! Since he aids and legitimizes deviant fanatics, Spencer is surely to be numbered among the ranks of criminals. In fact, Spencer is a criminal in greater degree, as Allah Himself says, "Oppression is worse than killing." /sarc

Posted by: John C at December 5, 2008 7:28 AM

ISLAM IS PEACE

SUBMISSION IS FREEDOM

IGNORANCE IS BELIEF

Posted by: John C at December 5, 2008 7:36 AM

Not to worry, Mr. Spencer. More and more people are beginning to see the light. Your loyal friends who post on JW/DW have always known that you courageously speak the truth, in the face of insults and threats.

CAIR is finished. If there is any justice in the world, you will someday be revered as a hero for our time.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at December 5, 2008 7:50 AM

ISLAM IS PEACE

SUBMISSION IS FREEDOM

IGNORANCE IS BELIEF

Posted by: John C at December 5, 2008 7:36 AM

Slogans inspired by "1984."

Orwell inspired by the Nazis. Such as the "Arbeit Mach Frei" slogan over the entrance to Auschwitz.

In many ways, Islam is 7th century AD Naziism.

Posted by: darcy at December 5, 2008 7:55 AM

CAIR and other enemy institutions will do everything in their power to defame Robert and Jihad Watch. About the only thing we at JW can do about it is to moderate our comments so that we don't feed the defamation.

I'm not suggesting censorship or even self-censorship...just an "ethic" in how we approach this. The story needs to be told in all its infamy, but it can be told without - for example - calls for genocide or nuking Mecca.

Even the Prophet's relationship with Aisha - and its effect on perpetuating pedophilia in the Muslim world down through the centuries, can be highlighted in a rational manner, without gratuitous insults.

I find when I'm surfing the net that highly partisan articles have less appeal to me than those that are well-considered and fair-minded...particularly when, in the end, they reach similar conclusions. Do you ever notice that, folks?...How one tends to skim over the extremist rhetoric - even if it's validating to one's own world-view, and yet, how the serious, composed analysis draws you in...?

Posted by: Cornelius at December 5, 2008 8:01 AM

In many ways, Islam is 7th century AD Naziism.
Posted by: darcy at December 5, 2008 7:55 AM

The similarities are just too damn weird. Still, the OIC and CAIR have a point. It's time to tell it like it is. Terrorists are no longer terrorists - they are holy jihadis, carrying out the commands of Mohammed and his celestial buddy, Allah. Just as there is none of that silly dhimmi business with the separation of church and state, there is no separation of jihad and Islam.

Note that Hitler was interested in grabbing more land for the Thousand Year Reich and the history of Islam has consisted of a series of expansions to add more land to the Dar-es-Islam. It's interesting that most Muslims are a little silent as to how these conquered populations all became loyal Muslims.

No German child is given a censored version of the Second World War, but as to what passes for Islamic history in a madrassa..........

Posted by: tanstaafl at December 5, 2008 8:09 AM

These douchehats are just once again proving that Islam can coexist with civilization. They can't handle democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, or freedom of the press. They know that once people take an honest look at Islam (decent Muslims included) and the evil perpetrate in every possible way - which is all they do and all they have ever done - we simply won't tolerate it. The hypocrisy in asking for a soapbox in order to deny good, honest human beings who care about our nations and Western civilization more generally of our right to speak and write the truth about Islam and its monster jihadists/mouthpieces/organizations is stunning. They just make themselves look even more hypocritical when they use CAIR to denigrate Robert Spencer, who they of course claim "libels" and "slanders" them, when in reality that's all CAIR has ever done, along with committing other forms of fraud, and Robert Spencer has ever written anything that coud arguable be construed as untrue, unfair, uncalled-for, or unjustified.

And actually, Ayo Gorkhali, they are all terrorists. Even if they're not all killing people, which of course they're not, if they're abiding by the 4th Pillar, then yes, they are terrorists. "Zakat" means "alms for jihad." It does not mean "charity." Muslims don't believe in charity. Thee has never been a legitimate Islamic charity, and that money can only pass through Muslim hands. In the West they donate it to the Ikhwan, their front groups, and their mosques (99% of the mosques in the West are owned and run by the Ikhwan, btw). So yes, they are all terrorists, unless they're simply cultural Muslims, meaning that they DO NOT practice Islam. But if they pay the zakat, then yes, they are terrorists. Read "Alms for Jihad." It's available as a torrent on isohunt. That was way honest, i.e., hateful.

Posted by: jdamn at December 5, 2008 8:19 AM

Some say their is not such thing as bad publicity. I'm curious as to how this type of article effects JW as far as hits. I hope more and more people are seeing through claims like "internet hate site" when it comes to Islam. Doe's the sitemeter tick up a notch or does it turn people away? My guess is the former.

On the 6th sign in......

Posted by: Abrog8 at December 5, 2008 8:54 AM

CAIR also congratulated the 'Simpsons' producers for last weeks fluff piece on Muslims.

To have CAIR congratulate you for most anything could be the high point of your life...If you are deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid...

Homer reads the Quran...converts...Attempts to explain why Islam is the religion of peace...

Next we will have Homer praying to Mekka five times a day and Marge cooking up variations of falafel dishes. Both mother and daughter will wear a burqa, and Bart will get sent off to a training camp in Pakistan.
There will be entire episode over Homer threatening to blow up Moe's Place over beer sales, not to mention the pork rinds, and sausages at the bar. He will cite verses from the
Quran and examples of Mohammadad to justify his jihad against beer.

Can it really get that silly?...Yep, it already has...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 5, 2008 9:33 AM

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

I think I finally made my folks understand this, over my Thanksgiving vacation. I hope so, anyway. I explained how Islam would complement the advent of the infamous "One World Order/Government". To drive the point home, I'll send the coming year's Ashura photos.

In another key--Could we go about this, in a different way? Can we get numbers, not on Muslims, not on Muslims who believe that violent Jihad can be justified, but rather on how many genuine, proven, and self-proclaimed terrorists there are? Sure, we'll never be able to count the obscure people who aid Jihad, but can we get a head-count of actual Jihadists?

We could make it easy by beginning with a list of the murderers of 9/11, and go from there. We could name names, and give brief accounts of their terrorist actions.

Yeah, I know--What's with the "we" stuff? Why don't I do it, myself, right? ;)

Posted by: Stormwarning at December 5, 2008 10:17 AM

One can reach many conclusions when addressing the concerns about Islam. For me, Jihadwatch helps to bring an awareness of what is going on around us on this ever shrinking planet. Jihadwatch shows the practices,and the acting out of Muslims reading the Quran, and the hadiths and how they apply these teachings of which are on full display everyday here.

Is there a display of anger in what we see and read here,of course there is,because what we see comes into conflict with our Western values,and our Judao Christian values.

We are not defining Islam here anymore than Islam is defining itself right before our very eyes. If we did not read what the Quran teaches then we might reach the conclusion that Jihadwatch was a hate sight,unfortunately everyday we see the overwhelming evidence being played out that defines the teachings found among the 280 surahs that speak to jihad against the unbelievers, the people of the book (Christians & Jews).

We have learned that the words of the Quran are considered pure and cannot be changed, we have learned to understand that fundamental Islam is in the abode of the dar al harb when it comes to the infidel or the kaffir, we have heard the imans,and the clerics, teaching against western values and preaching that Islam will dominate the world.

We have seen the rantings and the writings of Muslims who commit jihad attacks in the name of Islam screaming Allah Akbar. Even Robert Spencers own alma Mater ,Chapel Hill, N.C experienced a so-called misunderstander as he went on his own personal jihad directed at Chapel Hill Students and later we see all his notes written out from the the Quran.

Would, or should it have been defined as hate when people made themselves aware of Mein Kampf and the Nazi determinations of the 3rd Reich?

It would have been better if more understood the aspirations of the fuhrer Adolf Hitler in 1938.

Posted by: Mackie at December 5, 2008 10:24 AM

In many ways, Islam is 7th century AD Naziism.

darcy

Hitler and the Nazi's were students of mysticizm and religion for purposes of developing a strong military regime supported by their own chosen mystic beliefs. They also had admiration for Islam and its followers. Muslims were their steadfast allies.

Would it not only make sense that Hitler and his people sought to understand Islam for their own purposes in helping to build a strong Nazi regime. There are many similarities between Islam and Nazism.

Posted by: Spot on at December 5, 2008 10:35 AM

I don't want this to sound "racist", because I am going to mention a real race in this post, but don't mean to insult or denegrade any one.
In the late sixties/early seventies, local news broadcasters at six and eleven would report about a robbery or fight and mention the perpetrators or suspects as "a 6 foot tall black man" or "three black men escaped on foot", etc. They would also mention "white" man or "oriental", the important thing was that the race was given. Then, slowly and quietly in the mid seventies, the "black" reference was dropped, at times only the names were given. Due to the trend to assert their new found (at that time) racial identity, the black community had taken to naming their children with either african sounding or unusual monickers, and even if the race was not mentioned, you could determine the racial profile by the names in the reports.
In the reports of violent activity around the world today, the reporters call off the names, "Mohamad, Ibn, Ali, Hassan," whatever. And even if there is no name, "suicide bomber", automatically refers to a muslim. Terrorist means islamic terrorist.
Sorry, you can not hide the fact that the general public is going to automatically tie the names and actions to the religion of peace.
How is this my fault? Self preservation requires that I associate the actors to the actions, in order to keep myself alive I must "profile" when in public, when boarding a plane or train or bus, when in a mall, I see muslim, I think "terrorist." I did not create this situation, but I will not fall victim to it either.
Later
Albert

Posted by: GamblersChoice at December 5, 2008 10:39 AM

This is probably a more appropriate place for the link I posted in the thread above. Speaking of hate...

Radical Islam And The Threat To Arab Christians

**Quote:**

"Joseph Puder: Dr. Dawoud, President of the ICU once pointed out to me that his commanding officer in the Egyptian army said to him: "First we will deal with the Saturday people, then with you - the Sunday people." Do you find that attitude prevalent throughout the Arab world?

Joseph Hakim: Yes, I personally heard Dr. Dawoud describe his commanding officer in the Egyptian army telling him that: 'First we will deal with the Saturday people, then with you - the Sunday people.' The Wahhabi extremist Islamic agenda has been bulldozing its way through the Middle East starting from the Saudi territory. They have ethnically cleansed the Jews first in 630 CE, starting with the Khaybar War and continuing until today.
The Christian cleansing began in the Ottoman Empire in 1400's through the 1900's and included genocide against Armenians, Assyrian and Greek Orthodox Christians. Antioch, which is the oldest Christian city and the site of the first church in the world, witnessed the killing and terrorizing of Christians by the Muslims. Many Christians were pushed out of their homes, including my own family, which lived in Antioch, Lebanon until the 1930s. The Christian population in Syria, in 1900, was 90 percent, today Christian account for only 14percent.

Lebanon was 80 percent Christian, today it is down to 30 percent, as a result of Arab Islamic countries secret agenda conceived during the Lahore Convention in the 1960s, to arm the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) with the intent to destroy the Christian community. Still, Lebanon is the only country in the region where the constitution mandates a Christian President. The Taif Agreement engineered by the Saudis in the 1990s, transferred power from the Christian president to the Sunni-Muslim mandated prime minister.

JP: How do you see the future of Christians in the Arab world, especially in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority territories?

JH: Christian minorities in the Middle East are in a critical state, and unless the West can provide security and a strong financial base for Christians, it is doubtful that the Christian communities in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and the Palestinian Territories will survive. If action is not taken immediately, I don't see how the Christians will survive in the next 50 years.

JP: Please describe ways in which Christians are discriminated and persecuted in the Arab Middle East?

JH: Christian neighborhoods are constantly being terrorized. The Arab governments are deliberately discriminating against Christians by barring them from employment in the government bureaucracy. These Muslim governments are focused on destroying solid Christian businesses and businessmen, one at a time. Muslim corporations in Lebanon for example, receive unlimited funds to buy land in Christian neighborhoods. They are also granted most of the major government contracts.

The Muslims are intentionally building the highest mosque illegally, in the center of Beirut, next to a modest size church. While constructing the mosque, a 1500 year-old church was discovered, but that was not a deterrent to constructing the mosque, which is part of a campaign to put an Islamic face on Lebanon.

JP: Can Islam become more "moderate" in the foreseeable future?

JH: It is impossible for Islam to become moderate as long as Muslims believe in the Quran. This holy book promotes terrorism, war, martyrs, murder, torture, thievery, slavery, and intolerance. There is no freedom of choice in Islam, and Muslims are ordered to kill infidels."

//End Quote//

I guess he's actually glanced at a Quran, unlike Taranto and his ilk.

Posted by: Beagle at December 5, 2008 11:11 AM

"CAIR also congratulated the 'Simpsons' producers for last weeks fluff piece on Muslims."

Too bad that I missed that episode of the Simpsons.

I remember another Simpsons episode, where Lisa Simpson scored very high on an IQ test and was sent to a private school. The teachers were incredulous; Lisa got a very high score "for a Christian". In the end, they learned that the test results were wrong and Lisa was no genius.

On the other hand, the Simpsons Movie was panned as "racist" by members of the South Asian community in England, for the following reference (from Wikipedia):

"The Kwik-E-Mart is a fictional chain of convenience stores in the animated television series The Simpsons. [...] The operator of the Springfield branch is an Indian named Apu Nahasapeemapetilon.[1]"

Posted by: CTYankee at December 5, 2008 11:29 AM

Due to the trend to assert their new found (at that time) racial identity, the black community had taken to naming their children with either african sounding or unusual monickers, and even if the race was not mentioned, you could determine the racial profile by the names in the reports.

This of course only happened among the lowest common denominator in the black community. I grew up around and attended private schools with many black kids, almost all of them with English or French names, albeit some of them with interesting orthography. I never knew any with Arabic names. Some of them even referred to black trash as "Jamals" or "Aishas."

This was how Arabic female names came to be associated with stripperdom, prostitution, and, as they made their way into the white trash community, the trailer park. How many of you, before learning about Islam, heard the name "Aisha" and didn't assume it was in reference to a stripper or a prostitute? None? People who give their children Arabic names doom them to a lifetime of degradation.

Posted by: jdamn at December 5, 2008 11:32 AM

"CAIR also congratulated the 'Simpsons' producers for last weeks fluff piece on Muslims." --duh swami

I saw it. I wanted to puke. The general theme was that "all religions are equivalent." Of course the Muslim family was intelligent and reasonable, while Homer was his same old boob self.

Who do you write a complaint to about this Simpson's episode? Can someone find a link?

Posted by: darcy at December 5, 2008 11:36 AM

Its very important do distinguish Islamic terrorism from other types of terrorism, Because if you get kidnapped by a Colombian drug cartel or the Tamil Tigers, chances are if you play it cool you could get released for a ransom or some concession of some sort.

If you get kidnapped by Muslims, you better jump on that AK 47 when you get the chance because they are going to kill you, and you will not survive unless some action is taken to kill the terrorists. The incident in Mumbai is just one illustration.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at December 5, 2008 11:57 AM

Here is the Simpson piece:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/12/04/cair-thanks-fox-for-simpsons-episode-challenging-islamophobia/

In addition to Beagles excellent post above I may add this:

“We teach jihad because it’s part of Islam and we can’t remove it from holy Quran …

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/12/03/pakistani-jihad-mill-“we-teach-jihad-because-it’s-part-of-islam-and-we-can’t-remove-it-from-holy-quran/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 5, 2008 12:27 PM

I'm with Cornelius in asserting the importance of self-moderation of comments here at Jihad Watch. Over the top statements, vituperative harangues, cause self-inflicted harm more than any harm to the real enemy------Islamic supremacism. Such ill-advised comments are used by those who wish to smear or marginalize JW as just another hate web-site, which it most definitely is not. And yet sometimes it's difficult to know if certain language should be used. For instance, "darcy" above referred to Islam as seventh-century Nazism. Well, I agree with this statement. Nazi and Islamic thinking share many things in common, including numerous totalitarian features. I myself have often called Islam "spiritual fascism." I suppose the key should be as much calmness and rationality one can muster at the time of posting, while still determined in an uncompromising manner to convey to all who read one's post that Islam is not just another religion and has many deeply disturbing aspects in it which no informed and sensible person should ignore or try to whitewash. Well, that's my two cents worth for now.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2008 12:34 PM

'MEDIA SHOULD NOT CALL TERRORISTS "ISLAMIC," GROUP SAYS'
Headline from the article.

Well, if the shoe fits, etc., and if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. If not terrorists, then what are we to call them? No, I think "Islamic Terrorists" describes them perfectly. It's important to call things by their proper names.

Posted by: Eastview at December 5, 2008 1:14 PM

You might recall that the Brit's have already implemented these 'recommendations' from their Muslim advisors and no longer call Islamic terrorism by its name, instead they're calling it "unislamic"- hoping against hope that doing it like Ostriches do will make the jihad terror go away.

Good luck with that, Jaqui Smith!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 5, 2008 1:45 PM

Since there is no central authority in the Islamic world to say who and who is not a Muslim, anyone who says he is and quotes the Koran to justify his actions has a good a claim as anyone else - even better than the "moderates" who would deny certain violent Koran verses are to be ignored.

As for hate sites:
While “hate crimes” like all crimes are wrong, hate itself is not always wrong. Indeed, hate is positively the correct disposition toward things truly hateful, like Islamic fundamentalism and its evil seeds Islamic terrorism and Islamic oppression. Now I know Robert Spencer does not want his site to be regarded as a “hate site” – and I wouldn't call it that - but if he were tomorrow to create another site named “HateIslamicFascism.org” with the avowed purpose of generating uncompromising hatred toward militant Islam, Islamic terrorists and their supporters everywhere, I would see nothing wrong in it.

And I don’t see anything wrong in arguing the stupidity of embracing a fascist 7th century cult concocted by an obvious imposter and megalomaniac. In fact, I'd say there's a moral obligation to do so - esp. by public figures who live in secure undisclosed locations.

Posted by: FM at December 5, 2008 2:09 PM

Anything anyone says in criticism of Islam will always be regarded as 'hate' by Mohammedans and leftards. The truth hurts. Deal with it. There is nothing nice to say about an ideology founded on hatred which propagates itself by endlessly violating people's human rights. Islam has not one remotely positive teaching or practice, let alone individual to its credit who is a benefit to this world. So there are two choices: lie or be hateful. I'll be 'hateful' and honest to the day I die, thank you very much.

And Wellington, darcy was being way too kind. First of all, Islam may have originated in the 7th century, but those Bedouins were several millenia behind every civilization (omission of the word "other" before "civilization" intentional), so make it 5000 BC Nazism. And to be fair to Nazism, Hitler had a legitimate education, worked very hard to get to where he was, was democratically elected, not a pedophile, not a polygamist, never committed incest, didn't own slaves, didn't enslave people or denigrate women in every imaginable way, advocated hard work and individual responsibility, was a snappy dresser, and only targeted Jews instead of anyone who took issue with his evil claims, and the Nazis were by and large clean-cut, intelligent, hard-working people, unlike Muslims, who are expressly forbidden from ever engaging in honest hard work and must live their entire lives as parasites, in emulating their Pervert. She was being nice. Islam is so much worse than 7th-century Nazism.

Posted by: jdamn at December 5, 2008 2:32 PM

"CAIR also congratulated the 'Simpsons' producers for last weeks fluff piece on Muslims." --duh swami

I also saw on the show "The Unit" which is a hard-hitting gritty military drama on CBS Sunday nights one show where the American officer with his team infiltrates a Syrian torture prison with a Muslim cleric as a hostage, and at the end, he gives the Muslim cleric a loaded gun. The cleric says, "Don't you worry that I would shoot you?" And the American officer says stupidly, "No, because I know that you're a man of God."

Also, a Radio Shack ad being run for the holidays on TV these days features a pretty white brunette and her obviously Middle Eastern husband and their daughters of mixed race. I doubt the husband is an Egyptian Copt.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at December 5, 2008 2:48 PM

Also, on the TV show NCIS about one year ago (about a naval intelligence group headed by Mark Harmon), they had a story about a Muslim who was (of course) wrongfully accused of murdering some American military man, and at the end, Mark Harmon the lead officer in charge personally carries a Koran over to a waiting car where the Muslim man's widow is sitting wearing a veil, and Harmon oh so respectfully hands her the Koran.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at December 5, 2008 2:51 PM

To CAIR:

Yeah, right...

Posted by: Henrik at December 5, 2008 2:56 PM

jdamn: Well, referring to Islam as spiritual fascism will suffice for me. By the way, you might want to take a second look at Hitler's private life and particularly his relationship with his half-niece, Geli, who committed suicide in 1931. Very strange. Also, when one looks at how Hitler came to power, what with massive intimidation by his Brownshirts at the polls, the repeated invocation of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution and the deep complicity with Nazis by characters like Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, it is only a technically correct statement to maintain that Hitler was democratically elected. Both the true intent and spirit of democracy were violated terribly. As for Hitler not enslaving people, what do you think the concentration camps were? I will make no excuses nor extend any praise to Nazis. Nazism was pure evil.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2008 3:38 PM

Due to the trend to assert their new found (at that time) racial identity, the black community had taken to naming their children with either african sounding or unusual monickers, and even if the race was not mentioned, you could determine the racial profile by the names in the reports.

This of course only happened among the lowest common denominator in the black community. I grew up around and attended private schools with many black kids, almost all of them with English or French names, albeit some of them with interesting orthography. I never knew any with Arabic names. Some of them even referred to black trash as "Jamals" or "Aishas."

Whoa baby, let up for a moment! Associate Justice Clarence Thomas named his son Jamal Adeen.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

Aside from unintentionally casting dispersions on Clarence Thomas, I think I get your point, Jdamn. Parents can be real morons when they name their kids. Witness Demi Moore and Angelina Jolie. This topic has come up before and I’ve written about my Vietnamese coworker who got the bright idea to name his daughter Jedzia, after the character on Star Trek. Another person I was referred to for some matter at work was named Jezebel. And let’s not forget about Queen Latifa, though she probably chose that name herself.

While briefly on the topic of SCOTUS, I just noticed that John Paul Stevens was born in 1920! I’ve got a dollar that says Obama will choose his replacement. I wonder how the good old SCOTUS is doing with all the COLB suits against Obama. I’m surprised Pamela hasn’t posted anything (yet).

Posted by: Richard at December 5, 2008 3:52 PM

Posted by Cornelius,
CAIR and other enemy institutions will do everything in their power to defame Robert and Jihad Watch. About the only thing we at JW can do about it is to moderate our comments so that we don't feed the defamation.

This is a reasonable concern, and for the most part I think JihadWatch posters, and certainly the staff that start the threads, make a point of distinguishing things people cannot control: ethnicity, gender, etc.; from what people can control: ideology, speech, and actions.

I'm not suggesting censorship or even self-censorship...just an "ethic" in how we approach this. The story needs to be told in all its infamy, but it can be told without - for example - calls for genocide or nuking Mecca.

The ethics of this is an interesting subject. My position is that there is a difference between gratuitous calls for violence and stating where one predicts a series of events or actions will lead, based on human nature and objective physical capability.

Extrapolating into the future, based on history and our enemy's words, to outline as clearly as possible what the range of outcomes is, I believe, a moral imperative. This is a special obligation we have to those who may not share the enemy's viewpoint, but allow the enemy to live among and near them.

Obviously, like everyone else who posts here, I think we owe our own culture the same warning. The reality denial surrounding Islamic theology that permeates our political leadership is not a new phenomenon. There appears to be a lot of evidence that similar, though not identical, patterns occurred during the first half of the twentieth century. Had the early warnings of Churchill been appreciated instead of vilified, many tens of millions of lives may have been spared.

I wish I could come to another conclusion about the situation the West and the Muslim world faces today, but I just don't think that's reality. The most aggressive Muslim leadership believes the financial collapse of the United States will allow the rise of a new, more "just" (i.e. brutal) and powerful caliphate. Other's believe their Stealth Jihad will weaken the West's resolve to resist enough that an eventual peaceful takeover will happen. Some of our political and academic "leadership" apparently have convinced themselves that, if they force a failure of the capitalist economic system, a "utopia" of socialism is possible, and its hour is near. I just don't see any of these as realistic possibilities.

What I do believe is that the Muslim world, for all the bravado of their spokesmen, is rapidly sowing the seeds of its own destruction, regardless of our fate. Even if they could wipe the populations of the Great Satan and Little Satan off the face of the earth, it would only insure their destruction. It just doesn't take that many people to man the systems that would do it. And how much restraint do they really expect the Russians to exhibit if it becomes a free-for-all. But, as they continue to say, and demonstrate: they love death more than we love life. What other conclusion can one come to?

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 5, 2008 3:54 PM

Wellington

I agree (and I say that as one who grew up in a noisy, hot-tongued, argumentative family whose Irish and Scottish culture, even three generations away from the Old Country, was very much alive, and who therefore finds it all too easy to react with an outpouring of heated words, on encountering the mindboggling awfulness of so much of the news that emanates from the Islamosphere and from the Mohammedan colonies in the kafir lands).

I think people like me, and like jdamn, sometimes need to take a deep, deep breath, and count to ten, and think about the new non-Muslim visitors, many of them very shy and at the earliest stages of their questioning of the PC 'religion of peace' paradigm, who may be cautiously and curiously 'testing the waters' at this site. They are hesitating in the doorway...some of them may not come in, if there is someone standing on the table waving a glass and declaiming wildly. We don't want to scare them away!

When I first began reading here (after clicking on the link to 'jihadwatch' provided by Bat Yeor on *her* website, which is the one I found first, because I was doing a google search for Jacques Ellul), it was the 'angry' 'gut reaction' postings that were startling, and nearly put me off;

and it was the lucid, rational, informative postings, and those that provided arresting passages from Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith, that led me to decide to stay.

I kept coming back, also, because of the sheer pleasure of Mr Hugh Fitzgerald's comments: there's a man who knows how to channel his anger constructively.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 5, 2008 3:55 PM

"Some say their is not such thing as bad publicity. I'm curious as to how this type of article effects JW as far as hits. I hope more and more people are seeing through claims like "internet hate site" when it comes to Islam. Doe's the sitemeter tick up a notch or does it turn people away? My guess is the former." - Abrog8

You can get a rough idea of how well a site is doing using these sites:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/jihadwatch.org

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/jihadwatch.org/?metric=uv

Lets get jihadwatch out there... tell all your friends

Posted by: futureisbright at December 5, 2008 4:00 PM

..it would only insure their destruction...

Nope, no insurance for that. It would ensure their destruction...

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 5, 2008 4:25 PM

Wellington, I wasn't defending Nazism, nor do I know anything about Hitler's relationship with his niece. It is pure evil, but it is infinitely more civilized, humane, and decent than Islam. No ideology comes close to the evil, the depravity, and the inhumanity of Mohammedanism. Nazism doesn't require all women to live their entire lives as sex slaves, just for one. And Hitler was elected every bit as democratically as Obama or Olmert.

I would rather die in Auschwitz than live as a Muslim woman any day, and I do not say this flippantly.

Auschwitz prisoner: Knows freedom before being shipped off to Hell

Muslim woman: Born in and dies in Hell, never knowing anything approximating freedom, even in the free world, always being the outright property (slave) of some man

Auschwitz prisoner: Lives with hope of liberation, escape, or at least death

Muslim woman: Never knows anything approximating hope, since Islam has only steadily worsened the condition of women over the course of 1400 years

Auschwitz prisoner: Penned-in with friends, by sadistic captors

Muslim woman: Penned-in in solitary confinement, or with (often unwanted) children, by sadistic captor, often locked in a room to starve, legally, by one's slave-owner

Auschwitz prisoner: Separated from family, but able to continue to love them and remember them fondly

Muslim woman: Pimped away by family into incestuous Sharia sex slavery at an always inappropriately young age to someone disturbingly older, for money

Auschwitz prisoner: Branded

Muslim woman: Has genitals cut out w/o anaesthesia or antiseptic, while family members joyously sing sadistic song about mutilation, and in Somalia, add other forms of torture into the mix for kicks

Auschwitz prisoner: Head shaved, forced to wear Nazi prison uniform

Muslim woman: Forced to wear medieval Nazi slave rags and thus be deprived of 100% of one's dignity, humanity, and identity

Auschwitz prisoner: Endures sanctioned starvation and overwork daily, maintaining some semblance of dignity

Muslim woman: Endures sanctioned rape and beatings daily, maintaining zero dignity, being reduced to a mutilated, undead corpse, parasitic sex-slave baby factory

I'd rather be the little girl in the red coat (dead, Schindler's List version) than Aisha any day.

Richard, my point was that the lower-class black penchant for adopting Arabic names comes from prison-dawa culture. People with legitimate educations, or even anyone who's ever read the autobiography of Malcolm X, knows how degrading (enslaving) doing so is as a black person. It essentially consists of taking pride in being/having been enslaved, or being some Arab's bitch. It's disgusting. I'm glad it brands people as trash. Clarence Thomas never felt "black" enough. Incidentally, he never felt 'marginalized' at Princeton like Michelle Obama, which obviously only happened in her mind. That's why he ruined his son's life by giving him an Arabic name. Fortunately, in the Free World, people can change their names, and I hope that kid comes to his senses some day and does so.

Posted by: jdamn at December 5, 2008 4:49 PM

jdamn's compare and contrast with Auschwitz and Islam left out one more difference that makes Islam worse: in Islam, most of the prisoners are also the guards, most of the women are enforcers of the anti-woman evil. When most of your slaves and prisoners are willing enthusiastic supporters of their own slavery, you really have a problem Houston. Nazism never had that advantage, and Islam has hundreds of millions more followers than Nazism ever had!

Can we say "Stockholm Syndrome" and "Kool-Aid"?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at December 5, 2008 5:02 PM

TypePad is getting ridiculous. Can't something be done already!?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at December 5, 2008 5:04 PM

TypePad has stated that the problem is with the configuration of this site. I think at this point they are doing nothing further about their issues serving JW.

I don't know if JW has the IT support to look into the problem from their own side. IIRC, Charles Johnson used to provide this site with IT support, and we all know that's a non-starter.

I changed my TypePad PW as someone suggested. Things did not improve for me. I've become careful to put my comments on a clipboard before I post, and I start adding the 'attempt count' to my post after two attempts.

PITA!
Richard

Posted by: Richard at December 5, 2008 5:20 PM

I never had a problem with TypePad until yesterday. I didn't say anything because I was afraid I would jinx myself. Then I logged in to post at Atlas and it's been happening ever since. It IS ridiculous.

Speaking of bias, my schadenfreude moment of the day: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/03/19676/

The MSM is going down, son! I love it.

That was a good point, DenverRodeo. Auschwitz prisoners never had a supremacy complex about being more enslaved and degraded than other prisoners like Muslim women do.

Posted by: jdamn at December 5, 2008 5:27 PM

If CAIR likes the Simpsons, they are going to love Sands of Passion;

http://nationalbanana.com/#115-110
Top Row, third from the left

These vids are funny - I laughed so hard it made milk come out my nose, and I was drinking beer.

Posted by: Richard at December 5, 2008 5:30 PM

jdamn: I know it wasn't your intention to defend Nazism but that's the way it came across to some extent. Also, if you wish to see Islam as even worse than Nazism that is your right, but I will just look at both of these totalitarian ideologies, call them evil and leave it at that. Positing gradations of evil may interest some, and I even concede that a case could be made for engaging in such analysis, but it's not for me. What I would aver is that Islam is an even more dangerous totalitarian ideology than Marxism or fascism because it is a spiritual, not secular, one and thus can more easily appear innocuous to many, as well as being insulated from criticism precisely because it is a religion, all the while though being the one major faith which is evil, not good.

And I would dispute that Hitler was elected every bit as democratically as Olmert or Obama. There was a crisis atmosphere in late Weimar Germany which included suspension of much of the operation of the Weimar Constitution, SA thugs everywhere intimidating members of other parties and all kinds of blackmailing, including, it seems, with the somewhat senile President Hindenburg having his hand forced in choosing Hitler as Chancellor in January of 1933 lest his son's very corrupt shenanigans be exposed.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2008 6:13 PM

Beagle, Joseph Puder's article got printed in Frontpage. Pretty awesome.

Wellington, Olmert wasn't legitimately elected. There was a three-way tie, the other two guys dropped out, and he just "ascended," when, according to the Israeli Constitution, the Knesset was supposed to hold another vote, but that didn't happen, probably because of the likelihood of him not getting a majority even though he was unopposed. Obama was elected in a "crisis atmosphere" without ever having proven that he was qualified to run. We elected an alien. He wasn't legitimately elected to the legislature either, since he won unopposed, having knocked everyone else off the ballot on technicalities.

My opinion of Islam as being worse than Nazism stems from the way that Islam degrades everyone. It degrades Muslims and it kills all non-Muslims. Nazism was more of a military thing with a focused, genocial bent. It didn't constantly instill its followers with the belief that everyone else is subhuman. There was dignity in Nazism, regardless of how evil it was. Read 'The Silence of the Sea.' Nazism sought to integrate itself into any land it conquered. It wanted, for instance, a new land of artistic genius in France by combining French authorship with German musical genius. Islam destroys everything it conquers. The Nazis wouldn't have destroyed the Baniyan Buddhas or burned every book in the Library at Alexandria because they were 'jahiliya.' Nazism wasn't hell-bent on abusing little girls in every imaginable way. That's really the thing about Islam that sticks in my craw (whatever a craw is).

Posted by: jdamn at December 5, 2008 6:49 PM

STICK IN ONE'S CRAW - "When you can't swallow something, when it won't go down, or you are loath to accept it, it sticks in your craw. The craw is the crop or preliminary stomach of a fowl, where food is predigested. Hunters centuries ago noticed that some birds swallowed bits of stone that were too large to pass through the craw and into the digestive tract. These stones, unlike the sand and pebbles needed by birds to help grind food in the pouch, literally stuck in the craw, couldn't go down any farther. This oddity became part of the language of hunters and the phrase was soon used figuratively." From the "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997).

Posted by: Richard at December 5, 2008 7:25 PM

STICK IN ONE'S CRAW - "When you can't swallow something, when it won't go down, or you are loath to accept it, it sticks in your craw. The craw is the crop or preliminary stomach of a fowl, where food is predigested. Hunters centuries ago noticed that some birds swallowed bits of stone that were too large to pass through the craw and into the digestive tract. These stones, unlike the sand and pebbles needed by birds to help grind food in the pouch, literally stuck in the craw, couldn't go down any farther. This oddity became part of the language of hunters and the phrase was soon used figuratively."

From the "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997).

Posted by: Richard at December 5, 2008 7:26 PM

dumbledoresarmy: You are too hard on yourself. I have found your postings to be, on a regular basis, some of the best informed and best written of any. I have no doubt that there are many fellow JW posters who would second my assessment here. You are correct that Hugh channels his anger marvelously and effectively. So do you.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2008 7:53 PM

jdamn: Well, as I indicated above, I am not interested in discerning various shades of black. But I know that you and I share a great distaste for the aberation which is Islam. What we have in common eclipses our minor, our secondary differences. I will look forward to your future postings as those by someone who is acutely aware of the immense harm that Islam unchecked would inevitably do to the best, the noblest, the invaluable that Western Civilization has forged through the centuries and has bequeathed to all mankind. My best to you and yours.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2008 8:03 PM

Waleed Aly's name might be familiar to some people here. He is the left's favourite Muslim in Melbourne, educated, suave and a footy-lover, and always writes for the Age whenever Muslims are in the news. He wrote about Bombay recently, saying the central issue was Kashmir, which "logically" should be a Muslim country. I read up about Kashmir's history, having been there twenty years ago and finding it a beautiful and peaceful place (when did the Kashmiri Muslims decide they were intolerably oppressed?) The history of the Islamization of Kashmir was awful; quelle surprise. Again I was amazed that Muslims don't seem to realize that they are only Muslim because of threats to their forefathers and forced conversions.
This was a letter in reply:

"I don't believe religion plays much of a role in terrorism. There is nothing "fundamental" in any religion in relation to committing murder. Despite what the Mumbai terrorists may believe and would prefer, they should not be referred to as religious fundamentalists, not should they be referred to as Muslim. They are murderers. In committing these crimes, they have betrayed their religion in a most heinous manner.
As Waleed Aly rightly points out, the attacks were largely political in nature (as is most terrorism).
There is an entrenched tension between religious factions in that region, which would complicate and cloud religious clarity - and violence, in my opinion, is a failure to be relgious.
Until we understand exactly why a crime is committed, we shouln't waste time attacking religion. For all we know, the individual pulling the trigger may not have believed at all."

Mindboggling, yes? The kind of thing I might have been given in my youth as a "clear thinking" exercise, an example of ridiculous thinking put into pompous, self-righteous prose. Yet it sums up very much of what is accepted as reasonable by many, many people. And he would no doubt have been so pleased to see his thoughtful, civilized, high-sounding words in print.

It read as particularly dumb considering I am getting used to the words of the people on this site and their GENUINELY thoughtful analysis. But I suppose the Age is the real world and an expession of what cannot be avoided out there.

Posted by: PG at December 5, 2008 8:12 PM

PG: The letter reads as though it was written by a college educated individual. I note this because Dennis Prager, both an author and a talk show host here in America, whom I consider something of a moral genius, has mentioned many times that the two things most contributing to the stupidity of the modern age are television and what passes for college education these days. George Orwell anticipated half of this particular debacle when he noted that some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals (and by default many shallow folk taught by them) could accept such rot.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2008 9:01 PM

PG -

That's interesting about Waleed Aly, busy making excuses for the inexcusable. (And carefully omitting the fact that in Islam 'religion' and 'politics' are not separated nor separable; that Islam is, as Mr Fitzgerald says, 'a geopolitical cult'. It's very telling that Patrick Sookhdeo, apostate from Islam to Christianity, called his latest book about Islam in the UK 'Faith, Power and Territory'. Islam is all about territory: nailing down more land for allah and the slaves of allah, at the expense of everyone else).

I don't trust Waleed Aly one little tiny bit. He's written a book called 'People Like Us' that (so far as I can see, from a quick look at it in an ABC bookshop and reading a review online) is essentially a thinly-disguised sustained whinge and typical Muslim exercise in playing the victim card, projection, denial of responsibility, and scapegoating, putting all the blame on the non-Muslim world for the so-called 'clash of civilisations'.

(How DARE we try to defend ourselves against Jihad and against Sharia Creep? How DARE we refuse to become Muslim, how dare we refuse to grovel to Muslims and to flatter and stroke them and support them in the style to which they believe themselves to be entitled?).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 5, 2008 11:35 PM

Wellington,

Dennis Prager is fantastic. I saw a youtube of him addressing some forum...I was spell-bound, hanging on every word. "Moral genius" is an interesting choice of words, because I never associated morality with the word genius, but it will certainly do in describing Prager. He does have a way of cutting through the fog, which is the antithesis of the typical academic intellectual.

(6th attempt to post...running tally)

Posted by: Cornelius at December 5, 2008 11:43 PM

Having lived in Muslim countries, I learned that everything in Islam that is good is that which supports Islam and advances it throughout the world. From the viewpoint of Islam, a Muslim is correct when saying Islam is peaceful. Because there is no peace without Islam, therefore Islam is peaceful and everything else is warlike until Islam is present. That is why Muslims never agree to peace treaties unless Islam is completely victorious. Otherwise only a truce or ceasefire can be agreed upon, to be broken once Islamic forces again are ready to fight. What we call terrorism is not terrorism in Islam because actions of the ones we call terrorists are advancing the cause of Islam. We who are non-Muslims are the terrorists because we are opposing Islam. The OIC is correctly arguing, from its Islamic viewpoint, that Islam is not connected with terrorism and that Muslims are not terrorists. In the same way, CAIR is Islamically correct when saying JihadWatch.org is an internet hate site because it opposes Islam. Islam is peace, JihadWatch.org is war. We must be very careful to understand that Islam does not use the same definitions for words like peace as in all other societies. In Islam, "peace" means the "presence of Islam." For most of the rest of us it means "absence of conflict" or something similar. Another example of the need to understand Islam's definitions of words is when the Iranian president says the USA is a terrorist nation. He is speaking correctly as a follower of Islam, in a "peaceful" country (i.e., where Islam is present), about America opposing Islam (America is not Islamic and therefore is a warlike country). More scary is that when he says Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, he is correct because its purpose is to advance Islam. And how might that "peaceful" nuclear program be used? To destroy Israel. Killing Jews is a tenet of Islam, so using nuclear weapons to eliminate them and wipe Israel off the map would be a "peaceful" solution because it supports peace, i.e., Islam. When the Jews exposed Mohamed as a fraud, he never forgave them, and they are still suffering his vengeance. In signing off, I must say that I can't understand why the supposedly intelligent people of the news media, who have reported for many years about problems involving Muslims and their actions to advance Islam, still seem to have no clue about what Islam involves and the grave danger Islam poses to civilization, including the free press. I say to them: RTKS! (Read the Koran, stupid!). Islam is not just a religion; it is an ideology that has been waging war against the world since the seventh century.

Posted by: shallen at December 6, 2008 1:31 AM

shallen,

I am blown away. I have never seen you post here but if this is your first post you nailed it!

For heavens sake: come on over to http://sheikyermami.com/ and do some posing!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 6, 2008 5:29 AM

Very good post Shallen.

It appears that Islam is on the other side of the "looking glass" if you see where I'm going. What is peaceful to the West is terror to Islam and what is peaceful to Islam is terror to the West. Very interesting post and it's just a pity that it isn't on the first page of every newspaper in the Western World for the next YEAR!!

Anyway, calling Muslim terrorists non Muslim is like calling the Crusaders non Christian!
Although we know that Christianity is completely opposite to Islam in its teachings we knew that the Crusaders were comprised of Christians who defended Christianity from the Islamic Aggressors.

And yes, as sheik yer'mami states, here in the UK the government has outlawed the calling of 'Islamic Terrorists' and calls them 'unislamic'. I wonder also when the double-talk police will eventually kick into 5th gear and start calling aggressive lions, non-aggressive and black widow spiders non-poisonous. In fact let's just turn everything around 180 degrees as it would make life oh so much better.......

I'm completely dumbfounded here.

When is this world going to wake up? I feel like Winston Smith for goodness sake living in a perpetual world of 'hate crime' and 'thought crime' and every other crime imaginable.

Until the West breaks with its dependency on Oil then Islamisation wil continue. We are being sold out by our governments. All countries in the West are. They are pandering to the Saudis, to receive their wealth and selling off their cultures in order to line their pockets. It's sickening. There are no reports in the papers of the blatant invasion of Wahabism into the UK. The current argument now is that Faith schools in the UK should now no longer take their pupils based on faith - i.e. it means that the majority of Christian schools must now open their doors to Islam and turn their Christian practices into Islamic ones. This is what the Runnymede Trust never told us. It's all just laughable as if Muslims are going to convert to Christianity in the UK.

However what saddens me is that the public are completely oblivious to the whole thing. Many are completely unaware at the impending doom and destruction of their culture and the coming Islamisation. If one does happen to speak to them about it, then like the good little dhimmified Robots, fed on a diet of the BBC and Major Newspapers, they immediately attack with their new found word "Islamaphobe" like they do with the staple diet words of the uneducated morons of "basically" and "at the end of the day".

What will it take to wake them up? Already the anti Jewish sentiment is growing at the prospect of Israel launching attacks on Iran's Nuclear facilities, even though the fools are completely unable to see that in doing so not only would Israel prevent future Nuclear attack on itself but it would also greatly decrease the likelihood of walking 'nuclear' suicide bombs in the UK and the West that would wreak devastation and massive loss of life.

To make matters worse not only are these Islamic Terrorists, by government decree not to be called such, but instead they call them British citizens when they are clearly not. In fact I'm prepared to say that most of the inhabitants of the UK are merely British by birthright but when it comes to Britishness, love of their Nation and all that Britain is and was, they are merely foreigners in their land of birth with a British passport.

This is why Islamisation is happening at such a fast rate here in the UK as many people in the UK have no foundations as they do not accept where they came from having been fed so much blatant anti western/British propaganda from the left for far too long.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at December 6, 2008 8:15 AM

Shallen's excellent post goes to the heart of the matter-------ignorance of Islam is not only inexcusable but lethal. Sadly, I predict that such ignorance on the part of most in the West, most especially the elites (who, let's face it, certainly have demonstrated massive ignorance in other areas, say the economy as an example), will continue. What will alter this ignorance is not, eventually, the desire to learn more about Islam in an accurate manner, that's not going to happen, but a cataclysmic event, a WMD attack of enormous proportions. Only then might the West finally arouse from its slumber. Of course, if the damn Muslims were smart, they would forego terror (as the West understands it) and only proceed with demographic jihad, stealth jihad. Fortunately, Islam is too trigger happy, so to speak, to have most all its cult followers give up this violent approach. Paradoxically, therefore, continued Muslim violence is probably the only route by which the West will finally emerge victorious against the monstrosity which is Islam. But it's going to be very costly.

Posted by: Wellington at December 6, 2008 11:37 AM

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

And I thank Allah for my AMERICAN guns... And my feminist views!!!!

Posted by: lorfalcon at December 6, 2008 4:38 PM

Can we just call them "Koranically-inspired killers", then?

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 6, 2008 7:46 PM

What I do believe is that the Muslim world, for all the bravado of their spokesmen, is rapidly sowing the seeds of its own destruction, regardless of our fate.
posted above

I agree. As JDamn so aptly characterizes our muslim antagonists, they are parasites. Parasites do not produce anything of value, they only suck the blood and life out of their hosts. When there are no more hosts to sustain them and no more evil infidels to subjugate and terrorize, they will turn on each other as they always have because they are genetically programmed to be murderous, bellicose predators. While cursing, condemning, and denouncing everything Western Civilization stands for, they greedily partake of its endless bounties and call us materialistic, greedy, corrupt, and ungodly for creating the magnificent cornucopia they find so irresistible.

Muslims are consummate hypocrites and so thoroughly befuddled by the ludicrous, insane doctrine of islam that they are incapable of recognizing their own duplicity. Not only does islam turn people into blind, ritualistic, idiots, it causes permanent brain damage.

Islamic terrorists are not capable of destroying America or the West. They could hurt us badly, kill millions of us, but they cannot wipe us out. Islam's past conquests are history; there will be no more conquering muslim armies or a worldwide caliphate. But as long as there is a living, breathing muslim, this dream will never die unless we kill it. Shallen summed it up nicely; semantics are so important in understanding these strange, incongruous people who can't even think beyond the stringent constraints imposed by islam, much less coexist peacefully with or in the civilized world. Despite the dreams, aspirations, and costly mistakes of the social engineering multiculturalists, some groups will never fit in or adapt to a world that does not share their beliefs, and muslims are one of them. We certainly do not need or want them in our world, and we must find a way to get them out of it.

How can the leaders of the West justify the immigration of people who have openly declared war against us? Jihad is an immutable tenet of islam and that makes every muslim an enemy of the West, obligated to overthrow our governments and impose islamic law. I agree that the muslim world has sown the seeds of its own destruction, and the death watch has begun. The endless threats of malevolent muslims are being taken very seriously by some people, who won't sit around forever waiting to be assailed by the barbarians.

Posted by: Susanp at December 6, 2008 10:46 PM

Shallen,

you wrote:

"Islam is not just a religion; it is an ideology that has been waging war against the world since the seventh century."

Exactly.

From Ibn Ishaq's canonical life of Mohammed:

Ishaq: 204 -

“‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?’

‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Shallen - have you read Bat Yeor's 'The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam'?

Jacques Ellul, the great French lay theologian and sociologist (the sociologist bit is important here) wrote a brief foreword for that book, in which he discussed Jihad.

Here is part of that discussion:

"...a major, twofold fact transforms the jihad into something quite different from traditional {non-Muslim - dda} wars, waged for ambition and self-interest, with limited objectives, where the "normal" situation is peace between peoples - war, in itself, constituting a dramatic event which must end in a return to peace.

"This twofold fact is,

'first, the religious nature [of the jihad];

'then, secondly, the fact that war has become an institution (and no longer an "event").

'Jihad is generally translated as "holy war" (this term is not satisfactory);

'and this suggests both that this war is provoked by strong religious feeling, and then that its first object is not so much to conquer land as to Islamize the populations.

'This war is a religious duty.

'It will probably be said that every religion in its expanding phase carries the risks of war; that history records hundreds of religious wars and it is now a commonplace to make this connection. So, religious passion is thus sometimes expressed in this manner. But it is, in fact, "passion" - it concerns mainly a fact which it would be easy to demonstrate does not correspond to the fundamental message of the religion.

'That disjuncture is obvious for Christianity.

'In Islam, on the contrary, jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfil; it is Islam's normal path to expansion. And this is found repeatedly, dozens of times in the Koran.

'Therefore, the believer is not denying the religious message. Quite the reverse, jihad is the way he best obeys it.

' And the facts - which are meticulously recorded and clearly analyzed [by Bat Ye’or] - show that the jihad is not a "spiritual war" but a real military war of conquest. It expresses the agreement between the "founding text" and the believers' practical strivings.

'But Bat Ye'or shows that things are not so simple. Since the jihad is not solely an external war, it can break out within the Muslim world itself - and wars among Muslims have been numerous, but always with the same features.

'Hence, the second important specific characteristic is that the jihad is an institution and not an event; that is to say, that it is part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world.

'This is so on two counts.

'First, this war creates the institutions which are its consequence.

'Of course, all wars bring institutional changes merely by the fact that there are victors and vanquished; but here we are faced with a very different situation. The conquered populations change status (they became dhimmis), and the shari'a tends to be put into effect integrally, overthrowing the former law of the country.

'The conquered territories do not simply change "owners". Rather they are brought into a binding collective (religious) ideology - with the exception of the dhimmi condition - and are controlled by a highly perfected administrative machinery.

'Lastly, in this perspective the jihad is an institution in the sense that it participates extensively in the economic life of the Islamic world.

' Like dhimmitude does....

'But it is most essential to grasp that the jihad is an institution in itself; that is to say, an organic piece of Muslim society.

'As a religious duty it fits into the religious organization, like pilgrimages and so on.

' However, this is not the essential factor, which derives from the division of the world in the (religious) thought of Islam.

'The world [for Muslims], as Bat Ye'or brilliantly shows, is divided into two regions: the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb - in other words, the "domain of Islam" and "the domain of war".

'The world is no longer divided into nations, peoples, or tribes. Rather, they are all located en bloc in the world of war, where war is the only possible relationship with the outside world.

'The earth belongs to Allah and all its inhabitants must acknowledge this reality; to achieve this goal there is but one method: war.

' War, then, is clearly an institution, not just an incidental or fortuitous institution, but a constituent part of the thought, the organization and the structures of this world.

'Peace with this world of war is impossible.

'Of course it is sometimes necessary to call a halt; there are circumstances where it is better not to make war. The Koran allows for this.

'But this changes nothing: war remains an institution, which means that it must resume as soon as circumstances permit.

'I have greatly stressed the characteristics of this war,

' because there is so much talk nowadays of the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam

'that it is necessary to recall its nature, which is fundamentally warlike!" END QUOTE.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 6, 2008 11:40 PM

SusanP wrote:

....Islamic terrorists are not capable of destroying America or the West. They could hurt us badly, kill millions of us, but they cannot wipe us out......

Susan, I seriously beg to differ on what you've written above. Islamic terrorists are certainly not capable of destroying the USA and the West but Islam most definitely is. There is no nation that is capable of going against the USA with a front on attack and winning. However, as Robert's book suggests and many of us already know(especially here in the UK) that Islam will merely take over the West by population.
The more I think about it the more I realise how simple it is for Islam to completely destroy the West. Let me illustrate my point more for you Susan.

1. As Islam continues to grow we see how it starts dictating to us not how it should live but how we should live. Remember past posts of Muslim students in Minnesota having jello banned for containing pork products. Look also at Dr Peter Hammond's book on Slavery and Islam and how he breaks down population growth of Islam in Non Muslim countries into Muslim ones in Africa. Look at the UK, once the home of the British Empire, now being turned into an Islamic state. Already Islam demands that certain schools serve only Halal meats, not forgetting the importing of 5,000 Pakistani Halal butchers into the UK. There are of course many more examples of this.

2. As Islam grows and more Muslims attain positions of power, watch as the pig industries disappear along with alcohol. We will also see more and more churches disappear, while more Mosques are built.

3. The left wing is 100% behind Islam as everyone knows. You will also find as well that the left wing is made up of secularists, atheists, anti-theists, people who are doing their best to destroy morality of the west. Not only is the left comprised of the aforementioned but also the socialists, Marxists, Stalinist, anarchists and nihilists, who would be quite happy to bring society into chaos. This I find exceptionally odd as in a chaotic society, those best equipped for survival within it are in fact the right as they have morals and the strength to overcome anarchy. The left would create anarchy but be the first victims of a lawless society and this is what makes me laugh the loudest. However, I find it very sad that the left, with all its supposed compassion and continuing striving for equality and liberty would even consider siding with them, let alone even getting into any form of communication.

4. As Islam grows, the population becomes the majority, then Islam will be taught to children in schools from a young age and they will know no different. They to will turn into the indoctrinated robots that we see in many Muslim countries and they will be taught and encouraged to spy on their parents if they do not behave well to Islam and Allah. They would become the 21st centuries equivalent of the Hitler Youth. We would see the disappearing of histories and cultures all over the West as Islam takes over, writing its history over ours. After all Susan, if you teach your son that the Roman Empire never existed and when he went to school or any library and saw the same, then why would he even consider that there MIGHT have been a Roman Empire? We will see Islam completely destroy anything it sees as a threat to Islam and by teaching children of the Roman Empire they will see that Christianity was the cause of its demise and this would inevitably be seen as a threat to Islam. There are of course many other historical happenings that would be looked upon as the same. Hitler burned books and tried to wipe out history and Islam will do the same.

The greatest threat we have in this world is not population control, or global warming(if you believe in it that is). Our gravest threat in the West IS Islam and always has been. It despises the West because we are free, we tolerate and we are a libertarian society that sees not just the bad but also the good in people.

This is why we must do everything in our power to stop Islamisation of the West and that's why I've always said that the removal of all Muslims and Islam from the West would be the only way we can stop Islamisation of it. We also have to end our dependency on OIL asap. This is one of the main reasons our leaders are selling us out to Islam.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at December 7, 2008 6:47 AM

SusanP,

I will however add that once Western Civilisation is completely destroyed by Islam then, eventually, sometime in the far future a person will come along, start a movement that sees the oppressive side of Islam and Islam will be destroyed. However, why wait until that happens? Why should we submit our far superior culture to Islam? if it weren't for the West's technological and medicinal breakthroughs, Islam would have died out a long time ago, had we cut them off completely. We should have, in hindsight, done just that as we have kept our greatest enemy alive and supported it in every way possible so as they can completely destroy us. It's madness and nothing less.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at December 7, 2008 7:10 AM

Richard the Lionheart: You paint a very bleak scenario but one that only a fool would dismiss as incapable of happening. I do think there are several other scenarios out there, more optimistic ones to be sure from the Western perspective, but yours should never be ignored. Hope you're doing well, just as I hope Islam isn't.

Posted by: Wellington at December 7, 2008 11:49 AM

Hello Wellington.

I hope everything is good on the other side of the pond and you are getting ready for Christmas festivities? No doubt you are. If there was any time to stamp Christianity in the West no time is better than the present!

The thing is Wellington, no matter how hard I think about Islam, I really cannot find anything positive to write about it. some people say; "What about the curries"? To which I always reply Islam do not hold the copyright on Curry as it is served all over the world.
It is a negative view and I wish I could be optimistic, but really, I can't. I cannot see any common sense coming from Politicians(not that they've ever had any) on Islam. We have an Olympic games coming up WE CAN'T AFFORD and of course will not only make 'bursting at the seams' London even more fuller and dreadful to be in(trust me, travelling on London transport is awful and expensive) but there is the terrorist threat also, especially after the Mumbai horror, being told we would not be able to cope either!
Last but not least on our conversation on Liberalism, or should I say, what you meant by 'old school' Liberalism, before it was hijacked by the left has brought me to reading a book called the Suicide of the West by Richard Koch and Chris Smith. I have only just started, so can't give an overall picture, but I do know that it will be very, very sparse when it comes to Islam and feel that by ignoring this in their book they are ignoring one of the main reason for the death of many of the principles they state as being what made Western Culture what it is.
I do hope I can start posting some optimistic posts in the future Wellington but at the moment, living in Londonistan, there's not really much to be optimistic about, especially with recession just starting.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at December 7, 2008 12:35 PM

Richard the Lionheart, you are certainly correct in your assertion that islam could overtake the West demographically, but I remain optimistic that we will not allow that to happen. Every theoretical scenario you mention is possible but still many years away, allowing ample time for the ignorant to become informed and for the informed to relentlessly defend our civilization. The primary obstacles we face are political correctness, corrupt politicians, and left-wing dogma. I fight muslim aggression big and small every day and will continue to fight it until the day I die. I have taught my children everything I know about islam and muslims and the threat they pose to our way of life. We will never cede our precious civilization to barbarians---never!

In the U.S., there are still vast but populated areas that have not been polluted by the presence of muslims, mosques, and islam's vile culture/ideology. Many Americans have never seen a muslim except on television. The people in areas with large muslim populations have learned first hand all they need to know about islam and muslims and most of them have long since relocated to muslim-free zones. Left-wing NGO's, politicians, and government bureaucrats bend over backwards to accomodate muslims in the name of equality, pluralism, and tolerance but I doubt if they understand islam or the muslim agenda. They see themselves as paragons of virtue on a dedicated mission to stamp out every form of inequality, intolerance, and prejudice that might or might not exist. They are stupid, bleeding-heart liberals and thank God they are still a minority in America, despite the outcome of the recent election.

There are some leftists in cahoots with the muslims, people who would team up with the devil to destroy Western Civilization, esp. America. Revolutionaries are always around, in every generation and in every country, determined to foist a failed and rotten political system on the oppressed masses, to set them free.

There are numerous differences between the U.K. and America but I think much of the damage to the U.K. occurred during Blair's term in office. From the perspective of an outsider looking in and with absolutely no presumptuousness intended, Blair seemed obsessed with "change"; I used to lie in bed at night and watch him wax passionately on C-Span. He was such a gifted orator, like someone else we know, but I could never quite pinpoint the substantive issues that so animated and enthused him. One night it finally hit me: Tony Blair was a nihilist who hated almost everything that defined England and the U.K. He wanted to erase the blackboard and start over with new people, new rules, new institutions, a new national identity, and if at all possible, a blackout of national history. That could be accomplished by teaching revisionist history or by jettisoning history lessons altogether. Blair could hardly accomplish such a feat alone and is only one of many elites with the same goal. Why? I cannot comprehend the rationale behind Blair's or the E.U.'s agenda.

I could be wrong, but it seems that the parliamentary system of government is less representative than our own, empowering legislators to ignore or contravene the will of the governed to a greater degree and for a longer period of time. By the time they can be ousted by new elections, irreparable damage has been done. I finally tired of Tony Blair's eloquent but vapid speeches about the need for change, change, change, change without specificity and along came Barak Obama, another passionate patron of change. I am terrified of what he has in store for this country and I see many similarities in the two men. Of course, Blair isn't entirely responsible for the current situation since mass immigration began long before his time, but he and his political allies are responsible for much of today's mess vis-a-vis islam and muslims.

Maybe I am naive to believe that Americans will not allow arrogant politicians to facilitate the destruction of our country. Maybe we are just as passive and uninvolved as Europeans and we'll sit on the sidelines and complain while muslim immigrants continue to invade our country and dilute our culture with their vile religious practices. Americans are universally accused of being intolerant racists when in fact America was the first, and for a long time, the only truly diverse nation on earth. The truth is, Americans are incredibly tolerant, probably too tolerant but there is a limit to how much crap we will take from hostile alien invaders.

You can rest assured that no school Christmas programs will be scrapped in my neck of the woods to assuage muslim sensitivities, and muslims will not be proselytizing islam in our schools in the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Susanp at December 7, 2008 3:24 PM

Richard the Lionheart: Good to hear from you yet again. I too find it very difficult to say anything good about Islam. To the extent that there is anything in the Islamic faith which is constructive, it can without exception, as far as I can determine it, already be found in Zoroastrianism, Judaism and/or Christianity. I have put the following question here before at JW as I will do so again: What is there in Islam which is good, decent, beneficial and wise which cannot be found in other systems of thought, be they spiritual or secular? I know of no one thing that is exclusive to Islamic theory alone that redounds to its credit.

Oh, by the way, when I referred to myself as a Jeffersonian liberal in a previous post, I should have added, as I will now, that Jeffersonian liberalism is almost indistinguishable from Reaganesque conservatism. Sometimes things are relative, although they never should be in the realm of ethics. Again, take care and let's both of us hope that the bulk of the West will eventually come to its senses about the mortal threat Islam poses to so much we hold dear. Gettin' ready for Christmas and still trying to figure out what special surprises I can get my wife.

Oh, almost forgot, I think Susanp in her posts does make some good points. Jihad Watch is great, isn't it? A wonderful forum where reasonable minds can differ (and where unreasonable minds can occasionally post as well, from time to time, and reveal to all more than they realize). So long for now.

Posted by: Wellington at December 7, 2008 6:30 PM