| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
CAIR continues its efforts to limit free speech and open discussion about Islam and the elements of Islam that give rise to terrorism. From the Washington Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:
A local radio talk show host touched off complaints from an Islamic civil rights organization yesterday after repeatedly describing Islam on the air as "a terrorist organization" that is "at war with America."The organization, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), asked the station to take disciplinary action against Michael Graham, who hosts WMAL-AM's late-morning call-in program.
A station executive, Randall Bloomquist, said yesterday that Graham's comments were "amped up" but justified within the context of the program. He said the station, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., had no plans to reprimand Graham.
The show host touched off the flap during a discussion of the Muslim community's response to recent acts of terrorism. Graham suggested the fault lies with Muslims generally because religious leaders and followers haven't done enough to condemn and root out extreme elements. "The problem is not extremism," Graham said, according to both CAIR and the station. "The problem is Islam." He also said, "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."
CAIR denounced the comments yesterday as "hate-filled" and "Islamophobic" and asked its members to contact the station's advertisers to express their dismay.
"It's amazing," said Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's communications director. "I talked with Mr. Bloomquist and asked him if he would reprimand someone who used the n-word on the air. He said yes. I asked him if he would reprimand someone who read [approvingly] from the [anti-Semitic] 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' He said yes. So I asked him if he would do the same if someone had called Islam a terroristic organization. Well, he said, it's all about context, but he never quite explained it to me."
Added Hooper, "The First Amendment allows people to be idiots and bigots. All you can do is embarrass people and have them defend their reputation. If WMAL doesn't feel embarrassed and doesn't want to defend its reputation in the face of anti-Muslim bigotry, then there's not much we can do about it."
The question is: what is Hooper doing, what is CAIR doing, what are Muslims doing to fight terrorism within Islam? Not just words, but deeds. If they are indeed doing little or nothing, on what grounds can they protest rhetoric such as this?
ADDENDUM: Here is Graham's explanation of his words:
If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder -- and the scoutmasters responded by saying "Could be" -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.
Posted by Robert at July 26, 2005 11:16 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
At last a man who takes a stand and his bosses have the courage to stand by him.
I love Michael Graham and Americans please please take to the street in millions if anyone dares to take action against him
Posted by: SaveEurope![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 26, 2005 11:48 AM
Yo! Hoopster,
Too bad about that 1st ammendment thing, eh!
Well, as soon as my free Qur'an arrives, I plan on excercising MY first amendment rights, too.
I'll send you some pictures, bro.
And about that perpetual scowl on your face. Have you tried whole prunes?
Posted by: PRCS at July 26, 2005 11:54 AM
Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughtered in the land.”
Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
He also said, "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."
Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.”
Qur’an 2:191 “Slay them wherever you find and catch them, and drive them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter.”
Posted by: jingoist at July 26, 2005 12:05 PM
HA HA HA The truth is reeeaally inconvenient, isn't it Doug?
Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 26, 2005 12:07 PM
Added Hooper, "The First Amendment allows people to be idiots and bigots.
Yes, Hooper, lucky for you.
Posted by: DCWatson at July 26, 2005 12:12 PM
CAIR denounced the comments yesterday as "hate-filled" and "Islamophobic" and asked its members to contact the station's advertisers to express their dismay.
Let's call Saudi Arabia and Palestine and express our dismay over the maggots at CAIR and their constant harrassment tactics.
I would urge all Americans and people of conscience to send polite comments to the tyrants and terrorists and express to them how tired you are of the whiney employees at CAIR, some of whom are straight out of refugee camps and haven't yet learned to act with anything that resembles class and grace.
What a way for Hooper to win everyone over, by calling them idiots and bigots. I wonder if any of these CAIR buffoons have ulcers and the green apple splatters from all the stress that a free speaking nation puts on them. They are attempting to defend the indefensible, and they're doing a lousy job.
at July 26, 2005 12:21 PM
And about that perpetual scowl on your face. Have you tried whole prunes?
No, he'll probably blame a Jew for putting a curse on him, like Mohammed did when he couldn't satisfy his dozens of sex slaves every night.
Posted by: kj at July 26, 2005 12:33 PM
Hooper -frustrated by that thing called 'freedom of speech especially when used by the non-dhimmi and non-jihadists
truth can be very powerful (and destructive at times) which is what c.a.i.r/hooper, et al really fear
bet on call for "shariya laws" in USA to follow
Posted by: PCKills! at July 26, 2005 12:36 PM
The truth hurts doesn't it Hooper?
Here is the website for WMAL if anybody's interested.
Posted by: Giggle-Puss the Brave at July 26, 2005 12:47 PM
CAIR's goal in shutting down any and all criticism of Islam may ultimately be successful in the long run. The immediate aim of harassing Michael Graham falls into a predicable pattern of threatening the livelihood of anyone who might dare to point out Islam's responsibility for the blood-lust it has unleashed on Western societies. Whoever the next Michael Graham might be already knows the trouble which will accompany their comments should they be critical of the murderous "religion of peace." Unfortunately, advertisers also know that CAIR causes trouble and one things advertisers fear most is negative publicity. For CAIR, the long term aim is to silence all criticism of it's terrorist-supporting agenda as well as to silence all criticism of the murdering ideology called Islam.
Posted by: MJ at July 26, 2005 1:01 PM
The first thing about quitting smoking or alcohol, is to admit you have a problem/addiction.
The muslims need to simply stand up and say "HI, my name is Muslim and I am addicted to terrorism."
Then we can start to discuss a treatment option and therapy venues.
Posted by: Gorkhali at July 26, 2005 1:02 PM
Thank you Giggle Puss...
I e-mailed my support for Mr. Graham's right to free speech.
I suggest we all do the same to counter the CAIR offensive.
Posted by: jawa at July 26, 2005 1:05 PM
The Protocols is a Czarist fabrication which purports to document a covert Jewish conspiracy to control the world. As we well know, there IS such a religiously-based conspiracy, but it is neither secret nor Jewish.
In fact, it is interesting how some of the canards which have long been hurled at the Jews turn out to apply to this other conspiracy. For instance, the notion that the Jews can't integrate into other countries--and represent a threat to them--because their primary allegiance is to their religion. When given the opportunity, Jews have had little difficulty in fitting in to the larger society, but it would be more difficult to make this claim about Muslims in Europe, in particular, the current crop of young people, who declare that their religion comes before all else.
An associated charge is that Jews are internationalists who feel that they have more in common with other Jews in foreign countries than they do with people in their own countries. This is perceived as a potential danger, as iniquitous, conspiratory Jews are said to be spreading their tentacles throughout the world. Again, totally bogus, but while such a charge has nothing to do with real Jews (as opposed to "the Jews" of irrational fantasy) it does pertain to at least a portion of Muslims who have succumbed to the lure--and allure--of violent jihad. And you can't get more international than the jihad, which aims to make Islam the dominant power in the world.
But I guess Ibrahim Hooper would call me an Islamaphobe for making these observations.
at July 26, 2005 1:14 PM
Michael Graham fires back at CAIR
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
CAIR WANTS MY JOB! Well, they're still at it. In today's Washington Post-Democrat, CAIR continues its attack on me and on the idea of free speech. Perhaps the funniest part of this hit piece is when CAIR's spokesflak, Ibrahim Hooper, expresses his astonishment that talk radio hosts are allowed to make controversial statements...on the AIR! He expresses his regret that, other than attacking me personally, there's really not much CAIR can do.
Yeah, too bad America ain't like Saudi Arabia (where CAIR gets part of its funding), right Mr. Hooper?
Meanwhile, neither the Washington Post-Democrat nor the folks at CAIR offer any facts to contradict my "controversial" statement that Islam, as it is constituted and practiced today, provides theological comfort and cover for terrorism. While I've spent my time (see below) quoting facts, poll results and headlines, they've been screaming that I'm a bigot and should be silenced by my employers at 630 WMAL.
Well, here's another fact to add to the mix: Mr. Hooper STILL will not come on my show. He's been invited to co-host the show for an entire hour, but refuses to do so. Why? Is it because he doesn't want to answer questions about the actions of prominent imams, particularly the Wahhabis and Salafis who support CAIR? Is it because he can't answer the question "If the problem is 'extremism' and not Islam as it is currently constituted, why are ALL of the suicide bombers Muslim? Is that just a bizarre coincidence?"
Or, and this is my theory, is it that Mr. Hooper doesn't want to answer questions about CAIR itself? About its board members who've been convicted of crimes related to terrorism and thrown in jail? Or its members convicted of fraud, or who've been deported, or who have been linked by the FBI to the first World Trade Center bombing?
Or maybe he doesn't want to hear me, yet again, read the public statements of support for Hamas from its past and current leadership?
As one emailer pointed out late yesterday: "Michael, you might be in trouble for linking Islam and terrorism, but nobody can argue if you talk about the connections between CAIR and terrorism." Good point, as you can see here.
Obviously, I will have a lot more to say on today's show.
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CAIR, PART I: Read about this "moderate" Muslim organization.
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CAIR, PART II: Here's still more fascinating information about the folks trying to get me fired.
THE TRAGEDY OF ISLAM: For those of you looking for my column referenced in the Washington Post-Democrat this morning, here it is:
I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could possibly lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:
Islam is a terror organization.
For years, I’ve been trying to give the world’s Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American’s complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9/11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting “asalaam alaikum,” taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.
Immediately after 9/11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that “Islam is a religion of peace.”
But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean “nobody.”
Certainly not the group of “moderate” Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question “Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam,” they could not answer “Yes. Always.” Instead, these “moderate British Muslims” had to answer “It depends.”
Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you’re killing Jews.
That is part of the state of modern Islam.
Another fact about the state of Islam is that a majority of Muslims in countries like Jordan continue to believe that suicide bombings are legitimate. Still another is the poll reported by a left-leaning British paper than only 73 percent of British Muslims would tell police if they knew about a planned terrorist attack.
The other 27 percent? They are a part of modern Islam, too.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is outraged that I would dare to connect the worldwide epidemic of terrorism with Islam. They put it down to bigotry, asserting that a lifetime of disinterest in Islam has suddenly become blind hatred. They couldn’t be more wrong.
Not to be mean to the folks at CAIR, but I don’t: Care, that is. I simply don’t care about Islam, its theology, its history—I have no interest in it at all. All I care about is not getting blown to smithereens when I board a bus or ride a plane. I care about living in a world where terrorism and murder/suicide bombings are rejected by all.
And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can’t, because “moderate” Muslim imams keep telling me they can’t. “We have no control over these radical young men,” one London imam moaned to the local papers.
Can’t kick ‘em out of your faith? Can’t excommunicate them? Apparently Islam does not allow it.
Islam cannot say that terrorism is forbidden to Muslims. I know this because when the world’s Muslim nations gathered after 9/11 to state their position on terrorism, they couldn’t even agree on what it was. How could they, when the world’s largest terror sponsors at the time were Iran and Saudi Arabia—both governed by Islamic law.
If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder—and the scoutmasters in charge simply said “Could be”—the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago.
Today, Islam has entire sects and grand mosques that preach terror. Its theology is used as a source of inspiration by terrorist murderers. Millions of Islam’s members give these killers support and comfort.
The question isn’t how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.
As I’ve said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true “religion of peace.” I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. I believe they want peace.
Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.
Many Muslims, I believe, know this to be true and some are acting on it. Not the members of CAIR, unfortunately: As Middle East analyst and expert Daniel Pipes has reported, “two of CAIR’s associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large.”
But Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf admits what CAIR will not. He’s called for a jihad against the jihadists. He’s putting his life on the line (Islamists have tried to assassinate him three times) in the battle to reclaim Islam and its fundamental decency.
He remembers, I’m sure, that at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West.
Let’s hope Islam can now find the strength to save itself.
Posted by: DCWatson at July 26, 2005 1:20 PM
I heard the show this morning...Hooper never answered a question - an beautiful example of takiyya. Hooper equated one "Christian" abortion-climic bomber to all of the "Muslim" terrorist acts. This argument of equivalence does not hold.
Several callers to the show identified themselves as "Muslim Americans"....that is exactly the problem! They are Muslim first, not Americans! Until there are Americans who happen to be Muslims (or any other designation), we in the USA have a major problem.
I would love for the interviewers of these Muslim Apologists to be more demanding in posing questions when these apologists state: "Islam is against all acts of terrorism" and "Islam is against the killing of innocents?
Next step should be to have the apologist to define 1. an act of terrorism and an innocent in Islam being followed up with 2) Was 9/11 an act of terrorism in Islam? and Can a non-Muslim killed in a terrorist act be an innocent in Islam?
Hooper repeated that Muslim Organizations have come out against all of these acts of terrorism...but was he ever asked which one of these numerous acts of terrorism he is against?
The interviewers never take the much needed next step - until we know what the terms/phrases really mean, we are talking across each other and there is no true communication which is the purpose of takiyya since it covers up the true goals of Islam.
Hooper gives good takiyya!
Posted by: peri at July 26, 2005 2:13 PM
I sent emails to his bosses and the one advertiser listed on CAIR's site last night. Muslims are flooding them with complaints; let's try to outnumber them!
We need to show our support for the few public voices that have finally said "to hell with political correctness"; our very survival is at stake! Does CAIR think Islam has a monopoly on hate?! Hate oozes from the Qur'an, the Hadith, the filthy mouths of the Islamic clergy, and every mosque in the world, aimed directly at us and CAIR accuses Graham of promoting hate?!!! What a joke!
Posted by: Susanp at July 26, 2005 4:23 PM
Hooper looks like a right smug git.
Posted by: TooBad at July 26, 2005 5:14 PM
Where can we e-mail to support Graham, the station, the network and the advertisers.
They all have my support.
Posted by: dby at July 26, 2005 5:18 PM
Oh the irony.
CAIR-Canada managed to intimidate the Government run CBC and since the 9/11 attack the
CBC sterilizes their reports ,in fact , the CBC archives are void of any mention about the 19 hijackers being Muslims.
The crusade by CAIR was so effective that when 120 Imams in Canada met to sign a declaration
to placate Canadians that they denounce all suicide bombers and terrorist professing to be Muslims and that Islam is a faith of Peace , it was that exact intimidation that forced the CBC to post their Headline as "Muslim clerics meet to denounce violence" .
For almost 4 years now CAIR,CAIR Canada and all the other idiot Org's have insisted that Muslims have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack or any other terrorism World wide , NOW that the sacm has been uncovered these same groups are insisting they must aid the Police to purge these Muslims that practise a twisted version of Islam from their Mosques and communities.
Nice to see that they still think that they are the "Good" Muslims and it's "Those" people down the road that are the trouble makers.
at July 26, 2005 8:15 PM
This guy got balls. Just wondering why there are not many more coming out with the truth. Its long overdue, isn't it?
Posted by: Terminator at July 26, 2005 9:03 PM
DCWatson,
…at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West.
Hmm…Christianity saved (from itself?) by Islam! That’s rather intriguing…And why Islam -the saviour of the West- had been somehow unable to save itself and had to degenerate to such a miserable thing it has been for the past four centuries ?
Seriously now, the history of the West is certainly a history of many recurring crisis, but except a few instants when it was almost conquered by Islamic armies, it was hardly ever at the “verge of collapse”.
Still, it would be interesting if you could tell us the time, circumstances and character of that “verge of collapse” from which Islam saved the West.
“Bastion of rationality and tolerance”…?
Could you be more specific about that “rationality” claim?
Islam certainly had its moments when it picked classical Greek concepts, or Indian mathematics but it never had the intellectual vigour to develop them into its own Enlightenment.
Islam was as much marked by irrationality as the
West perhaps more so. The difference is that while the West during the middle ages honed its tools of rationality and logics which enabled it to apply it to the physical reality and eventually invent science Islam was never able to expand the treasure of knowledge it found in the cultures it fought and destroyed. It had its share of great thinkers and a (very few) tinkers, but it never ignited a revolution of thought.
As for Islamic “tolerance” it is a greatly misunderstood, overrated and misused notion. In fact, a myth. Suffice to say that it was never tolerant enough to suspend even for one “great historical moment” dhimmitude, slavery and jihad against all its neighbours. But I think you may be interested to read Bernard Lewis - one of the greatest living (Western) authority on Islam. You may find him more convincing than me (or your current sources of information)
at July 26, 2005 11:08 PM
"He remembers, I’m sure, that at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West."
This is not our DC Watson.
Posted by: jawa at July 26, 2005 11:14 PM
I am confused. People simultaneously call Lewis a dhimmi and recommend reading him...what the hell is going on? Or, Hugh, is it that he comes close to pinpointing the truth and backs away?
RSVP!
Peace
Posted by: Tushar Saxena at July 26, 2005 11:25 PM
Hey guys n gals....I just took the suggestion and dropped off an email to the program manager of WMAL....read:
"Sir, I'm quite aware that my email will be in the minority as I'm completely in support of Mr. Graham's comments. This does not entail, of course, like he has mentioned, any hate of real peaceful Muslims. I am glad that you are standing behind Mr. Graham. In our PC-infected times, an honest conscientious analyst like Mr. Graham is a refreshing touch from the deceiving propaganda (ignorant or wilful) emanating from the media.
In light of this criticism of Mr. Graham by CAIR, I would like to narrate to you an interesting incident in India a few days back. There was a very small circulation of a certain book containing sketches of some of the most famous people in the world, contemporary and of yore. A pencil sketch of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was also included in the book. The book claimed a modest distribution of about a few hundreds in the city of Meerut, northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. A local Muslim complained to the police that a sketch of Muhammad was a sickening blasphemy to Islam and that it offended the sensitbilities of Muslims. The cops immediately arrested all the publishers as well as compiler of the book. This state of Uttar Pradesh is ruled by a Chief Minister who is a muslim-appeaser par excellence.
Now, why did I choose that particular incident? Simply to outline that if common Americans and the media are not careful to safeguard their own rights of free speech and expression, the condition might well denigrate to that in India, which, is a Hindu-majority state. None of you should give in to these demands on the banner of "bigotry, hatred" etc. We know that Hitler was wrong...not because he spewed anti-semitic hatred, but because his theories were wrong...about the so-called "aryan" race which doesn't exist, and on the nature of Jews which was completely forged and based on such depravities as the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hating Hitler simply because he was Hitler is like putting the cart before the horse. Therefore one common misconception has been borne into our heads in the guise of a "tolerant" idea - non-criticism of particular communities or ideologies.
In the end what I mean is that, as long as its based on pure facts, it should be admissible, even though it be offensive to some (you cant please everyone).
Thank You, sir
Sincerely
Tushar Saxena
PS - Please continue to stick with Mr. Graham! "
Whaddaya think Susan?
at July 26, 2005 11:42 PM
Tushar, I think that's great! Thanks.
Posted by: Susanp at July 27, 2005 12:08 AM
You can vote for Graham to be kept on at www.wmal.com.
So far he has 60% support!
at July 27, 2005 7:46 AM
when Muslims try so desperately to explain away Muhammad’s atrocities, they are attempting to show that Muhammad fits in with Christian moral standards. But such an attempt is absurd. Muhammad killed countless people (torturing many of them), robbed people, married thirteen women (one of them a juvenile), took part in the slave trade, and permitted women to be beaten by their husbands.[35] When he is judged by the standards laid down by Jesus, Muhammad fails miserably. Thus, when Muslims find themselves defending the moral character of Muhammad, they may be doing so because they find the moral standards of Jesus more compelling than the moral standards of Muhammad, and they may be consciously or unconsciously trying to replace the spotted life of Muhammad with the spotless life of Jesus. If so, it is time for Muslims to look to a different messenger, one who is truly worthy of our admiration, praise, reverence, and worship.
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/content/view/61/42/
at July 27, 2005 8:20 AM
Saladin, 1a, Queen of the Sahara: Where are you when I need you?
Please post your homoerotical depiction of 'prophet Mo' once again? Remember? The one about his 'fragrant sweat' etc.etc. Can anyone dig it out of the archives?
Really mate, that was precious. Have you reached puberty yet, Ia? Are you lying awake night dreaming about such a man and how he's going to do it to you?
Posted by: Terminator at July 27, 2005 8:45 AM
From post above: "If so, it is time for Muslims to look to a different messenger, one who is truly worthy of our admiration, praise, reverence, and worship. "
Indeed! I would also like to re-claim the term "INFIDEL" for OUR side... Although I am not a Christian, I am filled with admiration for Christ's teachings, his tolerance, and hist forebearance. If that isn't a belief system worthy of a following, I don't know what is. Even if the rabble of Islam numbers itself above 1 billion souls, I find it UNACCEPTABLE to be labeled by them "unbeliever" or "infidel"... This is similar to the KuKluxKlan calling their black victims "racists."
Islam is the ideology of hatred, of lack, of nihilism. Islam is the religion of intolerance, violence, and world domination. They make no bones about it - so called moderate or self proclaimed radical -- they all want Islam to prevail over ALL, and for everything else to be swept away -- These aren't 'believers' -- these are stormtroopers bent on world subjugation and dominance. Muslims degrade and destroy all they touch with their lies, hatred, and poisonous fangs...
Posted by: jsla at July 27, 2005 12:59 PM
I'm late getting here today. I also blogged this one early this morning. The Islam-BSA analogy is an interesting one.
Posted by: WatchfulEye at July 27, 2005 8:31 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)