Don't Muslims keep claiming that they never attack Women and children, yet history and present events say otherwise.

How many times have Hindus been ridiculed on Television? How many times have there been joks about Christ? And yet you don't see any of us running around trying to stab people with a butter knife.

Posted by: Gorkhali at October 21, 2005 8:20 AM

As you say, this attack is part of a pattern. Especially in Upper [southern] Egypt, there have been quite a few murders of Copts, as in Asyut. But the culprit in my view is not only the Muslim fanatic with a knife. The Egyptian govt lets these things happen and the Western press and so-called "human rights" agencies seldom give proper attention to these assaults. Now, without press attention, the Western govts, including the United States and Britain, are not going to do anything to upset the moderate Muslims in Egypt. If Amnesty or Human Rights Watch would shift some of their precious time from blaming Israel for the jihad against it, then they might have time to help the Egyptian Copts, the Blacks in southern Sudan, Kashmiri Hindus, etc. Anyone who claims to expect the UN to do anything to protect the Copts is either a liar or a fool.

I say that things like this stabbing could be stopped if the Western press and govts properly pressured Egypt, etc.

Posted by: Eliyahu at October 21, 2005 8:37 AM

Stop the jizyah to Egypt. It makes no sense.

Posted by: Hugh at October 21, 2005 8:41 AM

The Copts can always try Amnesty International at http://www.amnesty.org/ . Once AI has finished dealing with the terrible conditions in Cuban Prisons (not of course Castro's) and the suffering of refugees in Greek jails, they may have a little time left over to deal with islamic violence. I wouldn't count on it. The Copts are really on their own.

AI used to be the one human rights organisation I felt did some good. I wonder if the Monty Python team would still be willing to support them as they did throughout the 1980s.

Posted by: Sebastien at October 21, 2005 9:06 AM

I've come to understand why kt never comments on these threads: He is busy at islamic forums, castigating those who would celebrate these attacks, and trying to get them back to the correct side of the koran.

...sorry. I know I shouldn't lie about people.

Posted by: Gary at October 21, 2005 9:39 AM

The man shouted "God is great"...

Lie. He shouted "allah'u'akbar".

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at October 21, 2005 9:52 AM

I suggest that Jihadwatch.org start an annual awards ceremony, kinda like the Academy Awards, where the most outstanding Jihadist attacks are nominated, and after winners selected for various categories at an Webcast awards ceremony hosted by Robert Spencer in a tux.

Call the award the Dhimmis, each award a statuette of a crouched, flinching, figure of indeterminate race but probably a Caucasian or Hindu male.

The Dhimmitude Academy could host the show each September 11. Award categories would include...

Best Jihadist Team Leader
Best Supporting Jihadist
Best Killing Technique
Best Jihadist Incident Website
Best Jihadist Incident Video
Best Murder Rationale
Best Infidel Media Coverage
Best Sunnah Emulation

... and so on.

For example, I think that the 2004 Best Killing Technique -- and, probably also Best Supporting Jihadist -- would have gone to that devout activist Moslem in Beslan, Ossetia who skewered the little crying first grader to shut her up. I feel that this Jihadist action really tugged at the audience's heart strings because of the way the dying little girl lay there squirting quarts of blood in front of her horrified classmates, who had lined up on the sidewalk for their first day of school ever.

What drama.

And doggone it, call me a nut but I'm exciteda about the performance of this enterprising young Egyptian Sunni nun-stabber. He'd make a fine nominee for the 2005 Dhimmis, no?

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 10:25 AM

Another brave jihadi following their "golden rule". When enraged, try to find a woman to kill.

Posted by: johnb at October 21, 2005 10:29 AM

The man was obviously demented. No sane, rational Muslim man would deliberately kill a woman. Women are very special to Muslim men. Women are held in the highest of esteem that is why they have to cover their bodies and face. Muslims do not want their men to oogle the Muslim women. Oogling is not allowed in Islam.
This article is an attempt to make Muslims look insane and irrational. We know this not to be true.

Posted by: KingTesticle at October 21, 2005 10:35 AM

Gary: "I've come to understand why kt never comments on these threads..."

King: I've come to understand why you seem to always mention my name no matter where you go. You really have nothing of substance to add to any thread and resort to begging for my input here or there...
Incidentially, I do not comment in these threads since I've already made it clear that individual behaviors, such as this, have nothing to do with Muslims as a whole, and require no further comment from me.

Here's a good article, which I think approaches this issue from a balanced perspective, taking into account cultural, historical and political issues that we, in the West, are not privy to:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2025

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 10:40 AM

OT, but the King of Tolerance keeps running away from me.

From the "SUDAN" Thread:

"King: I accept all experience, positive and negative. In my personal "jihad" to be as fair and balanced as humanly possible, I judge each human being on his/her indivdual merits/demerits."

So, where are the links to pro Jihad websites where you have stated these beliefs of yours to them?

Its only fair, if you are to remain the King of Tolerance, the "Luke Warm Water" between the "Islamic Fire" & "Infidel Ice".

If you are "King of Tolerance", prove it.

Surely, to be soooo knowledgable about Muslims & Jihad you are going to dig a little deeper than coffee mornings with a few Muslim colleagues?

You must accept the "dark side" of Islam exists, (abundant evidence even for you)& therefore, if you are King Tolerance, you would have to confront it on-line, as you confront here. It would be only fair, & your stated Liberal Credentials would make it a necessity - I know how Liberals like to preach to both sides of an argument. Its an international standard & trait for all Liberals.

Post the links to the pro Jihad websites you have confronted the pro Jihad Muslims.

Pretty please.

There's a good chap.

(& until you do, everytime you appear here I am going to ask you the same question over & over & over & over.....)

Links please. Today.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 10:49 AM

Small though it is - here is a welcome bit of anti-dhimmitude from the former Archbishop of Canterbury:

"Muslims and members of other religions should get used to being mocked, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Lord Carey of Clifton said he passionately believed it was good for members of a religion to have their faith criticised on certain occasions."

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/21/nhate21.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/21/ixnewstop.html

Posted by: johnb at October 21, 2005 10:53 AM

albion: "OT, but the King of Tolerance keeps running away from me. From the "SUDAN" Thread.."

King: We are no longer in the "Sudan thread" and I've dismissed you long ago. It seems my dismissal has not sat too well with you as you've obviously curdled like sour milk!

If you chose to utilize your posts to "chase" my in a psychotic fashion, making all sorts of demands, have at it. It will grow tiresome soon enough.

As I've explained to Eliyahu, I owe nothing to anyone other than my opinion, here. Your tantrum-like demands shall fall on deaf ears and really circumscribe your own weakness.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 11:02 AM

Muslim or Coward or Western Hating Liberal?

Your non answer yet again speaks volumes for you, who ever whatever you are.

You claim to be a Western Liberal who wants fairness & tolerance of all views.

If that were the truth you would have a profile on pro Jihad websites.

You do not.

So again I ask you to prove yourself.

Post the links to the threads on pro Jihad websites where you have expressed your views to pro Jihad Muslims.

Muslim or Coward or Western Hating Liberal?

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 11:06 AM

albion: "You claim to be a Western Liberal who wants fairness & tolerance of all views."

King: Right! There's a good chap!

I owe nothing to anyone other than my opinion, here. Your tantrum-like demands shall fall on deaf ears and really circumscribe your own weakness.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 11:17 AM

"... individual behaviors, such as this, have nothing to do with Muslims as a whole."
-- posted by KingTolerance

So then, the events over the last 1,390 years is just one big coincidence, not a pattern.

For example, the killing of 75 million Hindus by the Islamic Moghuls was actually perpetrated by a bunch of Moslems acting as individuals, the battle cries for Mohammedan conquest were ruses, and they had no unifying or systematic principles by which they were operating (i.e., they had no Korans and no Hadiths in their pockets).

Here are some outtakes from the Copt's article to which KingDelusion referred:

******************
Surah 7:156 tells the faithful, "If one amongst the pagans asks you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure."

And that secure place would be Islam, death, or Dhimmitude. This is an abrogated verse.

******************

Surah 6:107: "If it had been God’s plan, they would not have taken false gods, but We made you, not one to watch over their doings, nor are you set over them to dispose of their affairs."

This verse is so abrogated it does not merit comment.

******************
Surah 17:70 declares, "Verily, We have honored every human being."

Such honoring given at the moment of invitation to join Islam. This verse is followed by several promising perdition to those who refuse to convert to Islam.

******************

Surah 5:9 states, "O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity; and let not the enmity of any people seduce you that you deal not justly."

This chapter is filled with verses threatening Jews and Christians by name. Is it a surprise, then, that contemporary Moselms, as a whole, threaten Jews and Christians?

******************

In our just-started Century of Islam, tolerance is fast becoming a synonym for suicide by the slow boat.

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 11:17 AM

The King once again reveals his lack of testicles.

Posted by: KingTesticle at October 21, 2005 11:22 AM

Shaughn: "So then, the events over the last 1,390 years is just one big coincidence, not a pattern."

King: I can match you, scripture quote for scripture quote, bloody incident for bloody incident, where other religions have raped, pillaged and otherwise been applied militantly over the past 1,400 years. The phenomenon is not limited to Islam. I assume you can assimilate a point as easy as this and we need not tit for tat.

Indeed, many awful things have happened in the world "In the name of Islam" but equally, many awful things have happened by others who operate from a different text.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 11:25 AM

KT:
I've read your posts during my many visits to this site, and frankly, find little of substance.
I, too, would like you to link to the jihadist sites wherein you argue the peaceful side of Islam.
Since this peacful side is but a chimera (a sort of Taqiya, if Mr. Webster's opus is not at hand), I fear I'll be waiting a very long time before you comply.
As to the peacefulness of Islamic relations with non Muslim neighbors, one need only look to its evidence in the conquest of India, the destruction of the original indigeneous Christian populations of the Middle East, or the massacres of the Armenians and Greeks under the Ottomans. Oh! were the Ottomans Episcoplalians? (apologies to RS and HF) Perhaps I've been misinformed...
Islam, for all the praise heaped upon it by the dissembling politicos and spokesman such as yourself, is still a primitive tribal cult with barbaric tendancies. For proof I suggest you explain the sadistic murders at Beslan or the cowardly attacks against women, both muslim and infidel. It seems the Jihad is best waged against the weak and innocent. If Dec 7th was a day of infamy, the entire muslim calendar is filled with Dec 7ths, as perpetrator, not as a victim.
It is unfortunate that ignorance parades in the robes of a scholar, or should I say, mullah.

Posted by: jhl952 at October 21, 2005 11:26 AM

Ok. You are a Western Liberal. You come here to confront us because of our negative views & opinions with regards to Islam.

Yet even you must accept that there is some substance to our fears?

So, that said & accepted, you must feel that the pro Jihad Muslims need the touch of your sweet wisdom, you liberal tolerance, the wrath of your self rightous ire when they offend thine eyes & liberal sensibilities?

I work in "communications", shall we say, I have employed various methods to track all postings by King Tolerance on the web.

You only appear here.

Prove me wrong. Post the links to the threads where you have confronted anti Liberal pro Jihadists in their own cyber backyard.

Muslim or Coward or Western Hating Liberal?

Links please. Today.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 11:30 AM

jhl952: "I've read your posts during my many visits to this site, and frankly, find little of substance."

King: Fair enough. Tell me why. I direct you to my post, above, that describes the many instiances of other religions running rough shot over the world in the name of "God." It is not a phenomenon limited to Islam - you know this to be true, it is of substance and is relevant to this discussion if anything is to be resolved.

jhl952: "Islam, for all the praise heaped upon it by the dissembling politicos and spokesman such as yourself, is still a primitive tribal cult with barbaric tendancies."

King: This is substance?? Looks more like opinion to me.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 11:43 AM

Muslim or Coward or Western Hating Liberal?

Links please. Today.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 11:47 AM

KT: muslims good
KT: Christians bad

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 11:52 AM

"I can match you, scripture quote for scripture quote, bloody incident for bloody incident, where other religions have raped, pillaged and otherwise been applied militantly over the past 1,400 years. The phenomenon is not limited to Islam. I assume you can assimilate a point as easy as this and we need not tit for tat."
-- posted by KingTolerance

No tit-for-tat required here, because I quite concede your point above. Also, I regard your rejoinder as irrelevant, misleading, and dangerously reckless.

There are three questions that we should have the utmost urgency about answering now:

1) Judeo-Christianity (and other, more peaceful religions) have no Jihad component; Islam does. What does this mean in an era of mass communications and WMD?

2) Jews quit religion-impelled killing thousands of years ago; Christians quit the habit hundreds of years ago. They evolved and civilized themselves. Yes, there are still wars, but they're about civil hegemony, not religious expansion.

In stark contrast, the Moslems started out with a bang, and they haven't let up on religious killing and expansionism since. No evolution towards civilized behavior has EVER been exhibited. Plus, Islam has several characteristics found nowhere else: jihad, kitman, taquiyya, Manichaeanism, violent supremicism. What do these horrible and shameless facts mean for our future well being?

3) It's an undeniable fact that Islam is a nation. We can argue whether it's a religion, but there can be no argument whether Islam is nationalistic in that it has a military and govenmental dimensions that no other contemporary religion has.

Clearly, and by self-pronouncement, Islam is an aggressively expansionist nationalistic ideology that openly intends terminate all other religions and subjugate all of mankind. That is its express purpose, unchanged for 1,390 years.

What does this portend for our futures? Is tolerance (which has seldom if ever worked in war) the right and proper defense against this onslaught?

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 11:52 AM

LOL. The intellect is overwhelming! Between albion's psychoses and King Tescticle (aka albion) we now have Carolyn grunting. What a toilet, I shall jiggle the handle...

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 11:54 AM

Oh KT, I bet your eyes are rollin' at warp speed.

The time for you to prove that you are equal handed with us is here.

"King: I accept all experience, positive and negative. In my personal "jihad" to be as fair and balanced as humanly possible, I judge each human being on his/her indivdual merits/demerits."

Post the links to the threads where you have confronted anti Liberal pro Jihadists in their own cyber backyard.

Today please.

(Psychotics do not usually stay very calm over this length of time & say please when seeking a straight forward answer)

Jihadwatch Webmaster: Please confirm to KT that I only post here as Albion. Thank you.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 12:04 PM

Some days, I don't know if it's due to a bad night's sleep, or because the old sciatica is kicking up, or if it's just a miserable day weather-wise, I have the overwhelming urge to "throw in the towel". We are provided with a neverending stream of news items here at DW/JW and I swear we're the only ones who are aware of not only the events themselves, but the blatantly dishonest rationales, dichotomy of standards, Hobbesian conditions, unapologetic points of view,unadulterated evil fervor, and pure malicious intent on the one side and catatonic,self-imposed blindness and sheer stupidity on the other. Throw in a dose of obstructionist, enabling, and ridiculously misdirected efforts by disingenuous "progressives" who, sitting in the middle play by two sets of rules which are a virtual mirror image of each other, applying them according to which entity is currently under focus. Actions which would bring down the wrath of the righteous when committed by one party barely merit a blink at most or at worst are vigorously defended and/or lauded when committed by another. Blatant crimes against humanity are given a pass while feverish efforts are undertaken to persecute and prosecute reasonable actions of selfdefense as heinious and intolerable attacks threatening the very existence and safety of the world.

I think man, in his evolutionary journey, has not traveled very far from the caves, savannahs, and trees of his origins. If you look over your shoulder you can still see man's ancestors in the not very distant distance. "Lucy" can still be glimpsed foraging among the outcroppings of what will one day be Kenya, and the stench of rotting marrow wafts through the air from the refuse piles at Neander. Nope, I don't think we've journeyed very far at all yet.

I fear sometimes that "enlightened" men are the exception rather than the rule. We have evolved in plenty of ways, but not in our ability to avoid deluding ourselves. We've learned how to cultivate crops, but not honesty. Brutal acts are easy, brutal self-inspection is still hard.
I hope that "enlightened" man is not an evolutionary mutation leading to a dead branch on the family tree, like A. Robustus and Neanderthal Man, but rather the strong main trunk, but regardless, this tree has quite a bit of growing to do before reaching maturity.

Oh well, they say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I hear Chumbawumpa playing somewhere, "I get knocked down but I get up again, nothings ever gonna keep me down". Enough crying the blues for one day.

Can't stick my head in the oven, it's electric!

(Dusts himself off and rejoins the fight)

OT: www.paktoday.com

Read the editorial by Tashbih Sayyed

"Pakistan Snubs Isreali Aid Offer"

Posted by: t-ham at October 21, 2005 12:05 PM

Shaughn: "Judeo-Christianity (and other, more peaceful religions) have no Jihad component; Islam does"

King: Ah! The "jihad" component to Islam has been used, by militants, to justify their behaviors as they hypocritialy thumb their nose at many other Koranic verses that forbid slaying of innocent people. This militant interpretation has been under question, for a long time, in Islamic scholarly circles.

Shaughn: "Jews quit religion-impelled killing thousands of years ago; Christians quit the habit hundreds of years ago."

King: Does nto excuse them, first of all. Second of all, many in the Arab world may disagree with this statement and feel theat their rights to their land and govenrment free from outside interference is compromised to advance the agneda of Christianity and Judaism. They use Israel as case and point for this. I am not taking a side, I am only pointing out fact here.

Shaughn: "It's an undeniable fact that Islam is a nation."

King: I disagree.

Shaughn: "We can argue whether it's a religion, but there can be no argument whether Islam is nationalistic in that it has a military and govenmental dimensions that no other contemporary religion has."

King: Jews have Israel which fits into the description you have here. Israel is a Jewish state with a national identity, potent military, a ndgovernment. Again, Arabs see it this way, not the way the West sees it.

Shaughn: "What does this portend for our futures?"

King: Our futures are in everyone's hands. The West can be so deaf to the rest of the world that it requires militants to catch our attention. Now they have our attention and we need to be pragmatic in our approach in we are really going to close the rift and live peacefully.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 12:08 PM

KT--the reglions that have a potential tendency to kill others in the name of their God are proselytizing religions. If you're talking about Christianity, the other major proselytizing religion-- sure they used violent means for proselytization in the past, but now they do not now b/c of the teachings of Jesus were emphasized. Reformation was capable of happening.

However, the Quran emphatically says kill unbelievers and lays out a rigid policy for taking over the world through jihad. There is no room for reformation. Even in the 21st century when other cesspools of the past such as India and China are rising up, the Islamic regions are regressing back further into extremism. The rise of technology such as the internet has not brought enlightenment or reformation to those regions. Instead, the internet is a major reason for the expansion and recruitment of the extremists and a tool for spreading the radical ideology.

KT--I'm sure as a liberal you're against people carrying arms. Probably most people in America are against it, but it is difficult to change it because the right to bear arms is in our constitution. Of course, it takes a lot more to change something in the constitution compared to some other ordinary statute. The case with the Quran is worse than the problem with gun control due to the rights granted in the Constitution. These violent and rigid teachings in the Quran cannot be changed!!!!! Even if 95% of Muslims think they should be interpreted differently, in the debates...the literalists always win!! And as any lawyer would tell you...that is what you should expect. Because the letter of the law (quran) is on their side.

Posted by: helox at October 21, 2005 12:09 PM

KingTesticle is not Albion.
Mr. KingTolerance you stand corrected. Once again.

Posted by: KingTesticle at October 21, 2005 12:15 PM

KT:

Why do you ignore Shaughn's clearly stated questions and restrict yourself to a "toilet" remark re about Carolyn, albion and King Testicle?

Posted by: t-ham at October 21, 2005 12:17 PM

Urgent update:
Stabbing of nun sparks tension in Alexandra
By Maamoun Youssef

Egypt - A Muslim student stabbed and seriously wounded a Coptic novitiate nun inside a church in the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria on Wednesday amid tensions about a theatre performance considered offensive by Muslims, a police official said.

Police arrested the male and are now questioning him over the incident, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Father Augustinous, head of the St Gergis church where the attack happened, said the assailant was aged in his early 20s and stabbed the novitiate nun in her chest with a knife as a prayer service finished.

The victim, aged in her mid-40s, was in a serious condition after undergoing surgery on her injured lung, Augustinous said.

A male worshipper behind the novitiate nun was also attacked but suffered a minor injury.

"After stabbing the nun and the other worshipper, the attacker knelt to the ground and prayed as if he was thanking God for finishing a task," said Augustinous, who did not witness the incident but recounted versions of the attack given by other people in the church.

The incident follows a protest on Friday by over 1 000 Muslims outside the church against the distribution of DVD copies of a drama performed inside the church in 2003 entitled I Was Blind But Now I Can See.

The drama features a Christian university student who converts to Islam when a group of Muslim men promise him money.

When he becomes disenchanted with his move, the men threaten him to stop him from returning to his original faith.

Augustinous denied that the church or anyone related to it distributed the DVDs and said the play was performed only once to coincide with the Coptic New Year.

"But the drama was not offensive to Islam, because the converted Christian student was saved by his Muslim friend," he said.

Coptic Christians make up about 10 percent of Egypt's population of 70-million. Christian-Muslim relations usually are fairly smooth in Egypt, though violence flares from time to time, particularly in small southern communities, and some Copts complain of discrimination.

The play and the protest reflect the charged atmosphere between Muslims and Christians in Egypt, where accusations of forced conversions are routine.

In December, angry Copts protested in Cairo for four days and clashed with police when the wife of a priest fled her home in the south to convert to Islam.

She later returned home and resumed practising Christianity. - Sapa-AP

Posted by: have_mercy at October 21, 2005 12:19 PM

KT:

Why do you ignore Shaughn's clearly stated questions and restrict yourself to a "toilet" remark re about Carolyn, albion and King Testicle?

Posted by: t-ham at October 21, 2005 12:17 PM

Possibly because he missed it, but just as likely because KT isn't quite as adept at debate as he thinks he is. Challenge him on a point and, if he responds, it's seldom with anything substantive and sometimes he does little more than stamp his little feet up and down, reiterating his position and trumpeting himself as the most righteous in the land.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 21, 2005 12:23 PM

KT;

What do you mean, "does not excuse them"? Do you mean that if someone sees the error of their ways and corrects their behavior, it amounts to nothing? Even if you don't want to excuse them, fine. The reality is that Jews and Christians do not wage war in the name of religion anymore, but Muslims do. Now. Today. Globally.

Posted by: t-ham at October 21, 2005 12:23 PM

The Copts are the aboriginals of Egypt and, as such, should be given their own homeland.

Surely KT with his penchant for de-colonisation would be in game.

Just ask youself; how long should native Egyptians have to endure a foreign occupier?

Same goes for ALL of N. Africa!

Posted by: John Palubiski at October 21, 2005 12:25 PM

"In December, angry Copts protested in Cairo for four days and clashed with police when the wife of a priest fled her home in the south to convert to Islam."

Correction:

the woman was Kidnaped, druged, raped, video taped, and black mailed.

Posted by: have_mercy at October 21, 2005 12:26 PM

"Ah! The "jihad" component to Islam has been used, by militants, to justify their behaviors as they hypocritialy thumb their nose at many other Koranic verses that forbid slaying of innocent people."
-- posted by KingTolerance

My heart sank when I read this. You, sir, are decoupled from reality.

********************

"Shaughn: "It's an undeniable fact that Islam is a nation."

I disagree."
-- posted by KingTolerance

Six words: Dar al Harb, Dar al Islam.

********************

"Jews have Israel which fits into the description you have here. Israel is a Jewish state with a national identity, potent military, a ndgovernment."
-- posted by King Tolerance

Israel is not a theocracy, just ask one of the millions of hairy a-habs living there.

Moreover, where's the equivalent behavior among Jews living outside of Israel? Jews are model citizens throughout the Western Hemisphere. Moslems are nothing but trouble throughout, er, Dar al Harb.

*******************

"Again, Arabs see it this way, not the way the West sees it."
-- posted by King Tolerance

I'm well beyond the point of giving a goddamn what Moslems think. I have three sons whose future has been made dark by Moslems, so I only care about what infidels think.

I only care whether infidels can be awakened in time to avert our pre-announced and openly planned disaster.

********************

To quote the Butthole Surfers:

They were all in love with dyin'
They were drinking from a fountain
That was pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain

********************

Here come those crazy nuts the death-loving Moslems, KingTolerance.

Equivalence will save us FOR SURE!

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 12:27 PM

PRESS RELEASE Contact: U.S. Copts Association

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Phone: 202.737.3660

Washington, D.C. (10/19/05)—U.S. Copts Association calls on the Egyptian media including al-Midan and al-Asbua’ newspapers to retract recent stories inciting the siege against St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in the Maharrem Bey district of Alexandria, Egypt. 3,000 Egyptian Muslims on Friday, October 14, 2005 surrounded the St. George church in response to several inflammatory editorials.

In the first weeks of October, widely-circulated Egyptian newspapers al-Midan and al-Asbua’ published several articles denouncing the St. George Coptic Orthodox Church for reportedly producing and staging a church play that the papers alleged “insulted Islam and the Qur’an.” The production to which the articles referred was a church play staged once over two years earlier in 2003 for St. George’s parishioners.

The play portrayed a 16-year old Egyptian Christian university student who is coerced by local extremists into converting to Islam. When the boy attempts to return to Christianity, the Islamists threaten him with physical violence. The play, which mirrored the real-life sociopolitical phenomenon of young Copts’ abduction and forced conversion by extremists, referenced neither Islamic theology nor the Qur’an and at the time of its staging in 2003 went unnoted by the community outside the St. George church.

The recent newspaper articles alleging the St. George play’s defamation of Islam incited an October 14, 2005 demonstration that quickly escalated into violent threats and attacks on church property. According to reports from individuals trapped in the church, St. George parishioners congregated in the sanctuary for several hours to avoid confrontation with the angry protestors outside. Although Egyptian police were dispatched to the scene, they remained outside as the protestors—spurred by the inflammatory hate speech of erroneous media reports—shouted threats of physical retribution against the church community.

Observers have suggested the media reports were timed to coincide with this year’s presidential and parliamentary election season in which Egypt’s 12-million-strong Coptic population demonstrated its voting power.

“We’re puzzled by these newspapers’ timing in publishing their inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory editorials,” said Michael Meunier, president of the U.S. Copts Association “The Egyptian media’s use of unfounded rumor and hate speech to incite division within local communities is not only journalistically irresponsible but morally reprehensible. We demand that al-Midan and al-Asbua’ newspapers retract their stories and call on other Egyptian media to publish editorials denouncing this type of tabloid journalism.”

The Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Alexandria has issued a press release expressing its concern over the newspapers’ incitement of the October 14 mob. “For many years, Copts have silently endured the slander of Egyptian media and voiced no protest,” said Diocesan officials. “We reject the media’s attempts to disrupt Egyptian national unity by creating rifts between us and our Muslim brethren… The Church does not condone such division and respects humanity in all its forms.”

Posted by: have_mercy at October 21, 2005 12:28 PM

What does this portend for our futures? Is tolerance (which has seldom if ever worked in war) the right and proper defense against this onslaught?

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 11:52 AM

Shaughn:

That's an excellent observation. Orwell wrote at some length about "intellectual pacifists" toward the end of WW II being little more than isolationists or fascists by default. I have also just finished reading Sam Harris's "The End of Faith", in which he also takes on secular fanatics as well as religious fanatics. But near the end, he examines the illogic of pacifism, citing Ghandi's "advice" to the Jews of Eastern Europe vis the Holocaust: that they should commit mass suicide in protest.

You may or may not recall, but the King, on a recent thread, recommended that if there are moderate Muslims so unfortunate as to find themselves subjected to persecution at the hands of Muslim fundamentalists, should just leave and go find somewhere else where they can live and practice their faith as they wish. Perhaps someone should send a message to Kofi Annan that King has the solution to the Darfur refugee situation, not to mention all the Iranians languishing in the mullahs' prisons (if not dead)for not being Islamic enough, etc..

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 21, 2005 12:35 PM

Hey WD, how have you been? Still fighting the good fight I hope.

KT is actually our own little usefull idiot, hat tip to Lenin. He's a good way to practice arguing/debating our views. Granted, you don't get anywhere with him, unrestricted as he is by messy little things like truth and logic, but I find it really helpful in getting experienced in dealing with those unexpected streaming screamers out of left field. Being prepared for those inevitable gems of logic-impaired argument that blindside you just when you've caused a crack in some apologists armor is an invaluable asset. You don't lose momentum or get diverted/deflected by those motes of insanity when you know they're coming and you aren't suprised by them. Unless they lay a really good one on you and you either break into laughter or get nervous and start hiding all the sharp stuff.

Posted by: t-ham at October 21, 2005 12:36 PM

Carolyn grunting LOL
Why don't you answer albion? It is a resonable question. Do you debate with muslims who hold the view that all infidels have to die or be in subjection to allah? Well do you?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 12:40 PM

"...secular fanatics as well as religious fanatics."
-- posted by waterdragon52

Secular fanatics? That's it! That's what we're dealing with in the form of the liberals/progressives/olympian elitists/socialists/Marxist who would kill us all! And their weapon is the charge of political incorrectitude (aka racism, xenophobia, etc.).

Secular fanatics is a term I've never heard, but should be in widespread use. It could even be plugged as a variable into an equation:

(SecularFanatic+Moslem)*MSM/(Marxism+SocialistGovernment)=EndOfCivilization

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 12:51 PM

KT

Your silence is deafening, though telling.

I have to go and do my duty as a loyal Englishman tonight, & raise a glass or three of Old Speckled Hen to the memory Lord Nelson.

But I will calmly await your post, with links.

Please post the links to the threads where you have confronted anti Liberal pro Jihadists in their own cyber backyard right here KT.

Show us how you have tried to convince them that Islam is a Religion of Peace.

Its only fair, if you wish us to truly believe that you are indeed the King of Tolerance, the "Luke Warm Water" between the "Islamic Fire" & "Infidel Ice".

Links please. Today.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 12:56 PM

reasonable

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 12:59 PM

Palubinski: "The Copts are the aboriginals of Egypt and, as such, should be given their own homeland."

King: "Copts are not ethnically distinct from other Egyptians; they are a cultural remnant..."
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0813491.html

Indeed, they are the remnants of Christians who did not convert to Islam. Their persectuon is real and troublesome. A "zionist" state would be the worst solution.

Shaughn: "You, sir, are decoupled from reality."

King: Not so fast, this argument is still two-sided as far as I can tell:
"the definition of jihad did not change; what did change was the definition of the enemy. The jihadist caravan took a new sharp and dangerous turn that would bring it into a total confrontation with the world community. Although transnationalist jihadis, like Al Qaeda, were a tiny minority within the jihadist movement, their actions plunged the whole movement into an existential crisis."
http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=78&num=20431

Shaughn: "Israel is not a theocracy, just ask one of the millions of hairy a-habs living there."

King: Self defeating epithet notwithstanding, Israel is not a theocracy but is a zionist state.

Shaughn: "Jews are model citizens throughout the Western Hemisphere. Moslems are nothing but trouble throughout, er, Dar al Harb."

King: I assume you've met each and every Jew and Muslim in the world to make such a wide statement.
In fact, I disagree. I know several Muslims who are, by all definitions, model citizens. Three of the folks I know come directly from the M.E. and seem to thrive peacefully.

Shaughn: "I'm well beyond the point of giving a goddamn what Moslems think."

King: This is obvious and a shame.

Shaughn: "Equivalence will save us FOR SURE!"

King: I prefer to call it pragmatism & intellecutal honesty. You aint gonna chage the religion of almost 1/5 of the globe's population, you cannot put all of those people under your one umbrella.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 1:03 PM

WD: "the King, on a recent thread, recommended that if there are moderate Muslims so unfortunate as to find themselves subjected to persecution at the hands of Muslim fundamentalists, should just leave and go find somewhere else where they can live and practice their faith as they wish."

King: Please find and post the comment.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 1:08 PM

KT

pragmatism & intellecutal honesty

(intellectual, for the second time of correction)

To have both qualities to the fore as a liberal minded Westerner, you would have to be even handed with both sides of an argument.

Please post the links to the threads where you have confronted anti Liberal pro Jihadists in their own cyber backyard right here KT.

Show us how you have tried to convince them that Islam is a Religion of Peace.

Its only fair, if you wish us to truly believe that you are indeed the King of Tolerance, who's character abounds with "pragmatism & intellecutal honesty".

Prove to us that you are indeed the "Luke Warm Water" between the "Islamic Fire" & "Infidel Ice".

Links please. Today.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 1:17 PM

According to this Copt blogger, 15,000 Muslims are now laying seige to the church:

http://freecopts.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Suzan at October 21, 2005 1:18 PM

find it yourself, King. I took you to task over it on that thread, but you were too engaged with a few other bloggers here to notice.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 21, 2005 1:19 PM

KT's hypothesis is an interesting one:

That islam is unconnected with violence. That its teachings are not violent, that all aggression, oppression, domination, triumphalism, are the effect of poor interpretation, of the evils of madmen, of individual monsters rather than that of a concerted thesis designed to, eventually, by one manner or another, force all human activity and thought under a repressive, aggressive, unforgiving meme that limits rights of free thought, inquiry, women, homosexuals (for clearly the dead can have no rights) and, of course, all those failing to accept its - notably - black banner.

Now let's pretend for a moment that he's correct, and use a moment to draw a parallel.

***

I collect newspaper clippings about dogs that shoot men.

It's rare. It's bizarre. It's notable. It's possible. It happens. A dog, overexcited. A hunter, careless. A weapon, loaded. The dog steps on the gun. Dog "shoots" man.

Now, how is this relevant, you may ask?

Because dogs don't usually shoot men. Men - all humans - shoot dogs now and then, when there is no recourse. (Almost as if the dogs had been offered to change their behaviour, and refused...I'm certain there's a religious parallel in there somewhere.)

But dogs never - or very rarely - shoot men. It's as though dogs don't have the same range of behaviours as hunters, or that they don't know how to use guns. In short, it's inimical to their nature - they are unable to do so, or they might start.

***

It is, similarly but for different reasons, exceeding rare for a nun to stab a muslim. But of course, there ARE nuns. There ARE muslims. The intersection of their probability (that is, the rate at which they should bump into each other in a crowd or population) is the same as the reverse: muslim-nun, nun-muslim. Same chance.

And, yet, no one ever hears of a nun stabbing a muslim.

Well, why not? Surely any two such individuals, randomly drawn from within their groups, ought be similar, save that half all muslims are female while all nuns are. They come from the same country. The same neighbourhood, perhaps. One might speculate that their economic realities are not the same, save that many nuns take vows of utter poverty, which is not religiously true of islam, to say the least. And yet: nuns don't stab people.

So why DON'T nuns stab people? What is wrong with them? Surely they realize that they're oppressed? Surely they're just people too? Surely they don't presume that their moral perspective is different or somehow (shudders) BETTER than muslim assailants of their own person? Why, how veritably dare they be so tolerant, so nice, so "smiley" and forgiving (save to those whose knuckles they bruise)? How DARE they serve a deity promoting such values, at coarse indifference to the feelings of the majority population? Have they no shame? No honour? Persist they in their shirk?

(Now, see how easy jihadism is?)

Surely, they ought to realize that they, too, are used by an uncaring and oppressive regime - but one with totally secular interests, we are assured by KingIntolerance, of course - and ought to behave in the manner of the average of the population?

And what, moreover of countries that do NOT encourage such radicalism? Where such radicalism is clamped down on, which, we are reliably assured by other apologists, includes Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan. What of them? What corrupt "regime" is so using islam to divert attention away from its own evils? How can it, when it is clamping down on such radicalism?

So, to connect with the dog example above, might it not be that nuns also don't shoot people, not because they don't know how, but because it's inimical to their very nature? At a moral level, rather than one of ability.

Normally two wrongs do not make a right.

How is it that they do so in the illogical lexicon of the purportedly educated?

Prophet Geoff
Beer Be Upon Me

Posted by: Geoff at October 21, 2005 1:25 PM

Palubinski: "The Copts are the aboriginals of Egypt and, as such, should be given their own homeland."

King: "Copts are not ethnically distinct from other Egyptians; they are a cultural remnant..."

It almost smells like he's saying that the Copts SHOULD be islamic, no? The scent of you-don't-have-the-right-you're-just-like-me de toilette.

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at October 21, 2005 1:27 PM

Indeed Prophet Geoff

We are not worthy

Beer Be Upon You Forever

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 1:31 PM

KT: "I know several Muslims who are, by all definitions, model citizens. Three of the folks I know come directly from the M.E. and seem to thrive peacefully."

This number seems to keep changing. Why is that?

Post links to your no-doubt well defined and polemic attacks on jihadists on their websites. Today.

KT: "You aint gonna chage the religion of almost 1/5 of the globe's population, you cannot put all of those people under your one umbrella. "

Oh? Who here is doing that? I'm quite content to live-and-let-live, if only islam can do the same. I do indeed appreciate that some brands of islam are peaceful. But first, let them hear Christians proclaim what they believe in their countries out nice and loud without laying seige to their churches nor killing them.

The onus is on the oppressor, not the oppressed, to change.

Prophet Geoff
Beer Be Upon Me

Posted by: Geoff at October 21, 2005 1:32 PM

Helox: "KT--the reglions that have a potential tendency to kill others in the name of their God are proselytizing religions. If you're talking about Christianity, the other major proselytizing religion-- sure they used violent means for proselytization in the past"

King: A fact that still resonates in the Muslim world, Helox. Moreover, while proselytizing in the Christian world is not necessarily violent any longer, it still is prevelant. Deep rooted distrust is still felt in parts of the world over this.

Helox: "now they do not now b/c of the teachings of Jesus were emphasized. Reformation was capable of happening."

King: Equally so in Islam. There are many, many verses that prohibit murder, mistreatment of humans, wreaking havoc on the Earth, and so on. It seems that the darker side of Islam has been brought to the forefront by certain Muslims to serve their political agendas.

Helox: "However, the Quran emphatically says kill unbelievers and lays out a rigid policy for taking over the world through jihad."

King: A self-defeating militant ideology not held by most Muslims. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i07ae.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i07af.html

Helox: "The rise of technology such as the internet has not brought enlightenment or reformation to those regions. Instead, the internet is a major reason for the expansion and recruitment of the extremists and a tool for spreading the radical ideology."

King: I see this as a function of being oppressed by corrupt dictatorships who, until now, have managed to censor much of the media in the Muslim world. Since the institution of the internet and satellite, the networking of pissed of "jihadists" who are cultivated in these repressive "cesspools" is fascilitated.

Helox: "KT--I'm sure as a liberal you're against people carrying arms."

King: Rather presumptuous on your part. I own a gun, legally, but do not carry it.

Helox: "The violent and rigid teachings in the Quran cannot be changed!!!!! Even if 95% of Muslims think they should be interpreted differently, in the debates...the literalists always win!!"

King: OK, then. What about the many other clearly violent verses in the Bible? Those who ignore them do so as heretics upon your description here. This is my point! How can you have obviously violent verses in your own scripture, yet, denounce other scriptures as violent and world dominating?

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 1:33 PM

WD: "find it yourself, King. I took you to task over it on that thread"

King: You're a liar. That's not what I posted. I figured you'd balk when I asked you to fetch it.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 1:35 PM

Geoff: "It almost smells like he's saying that the Copts SHOULD be islamic, no?"

King: I pulled a quote from a website - that's why I have it in "". Not sure what you're smelling other than your upper lip.

By the way - your dogs shooting men analogy....No.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 1:39 PM

KT

pragmatism & intellecutal honesty

(intellectual, for the second time of correction)

To have both qualities to the fore as a liberal minded Westerner, you would have to be even handed with both sides of an argument.

Please post the links to the threads where you have confronted anti Liberal pro Jihadists in their own cyber backyard right here KT.

Show us how you have tried to convince them that Islam is a Religion of Peace.

Its only fair, if you wish us to truly believe that you are indeed the King of Tolerance, who's character abounds with "pragmatism & intellecutal honesty".

Prove to us that you are indeed the "Luke Warm Water" between the "Islamic Fire" & "Infidel Ice".

Links please. Today.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 1:40 PM

KT is important not because he is cogent, not because he is intelligent, not because he is rational. KT is important because his stubborn irrationality is the majority view out there among Westerners.

t-ham wrote: "I have the overwhelming urge to "throw in the towel". We are provided with a neverending stream of news items here at DW/JW and I swear we're the only ones..."

Sadly, we are a very small minority still. The vast majority around us are, more or less, like KT.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 21, 2005 1:45 PM

King: "A fact that still resonates in the Muslim world, Helox. Moreover, while proselytizing in the Christian world is not necessarily violent any longer, it still is prevelant. Deep rooted distrust is still felt in parts of the world over this."

Prevalent? (Incidentally: "Prevelent?" Get a dictionary, you jihadist buffoon. Don't "perseverate" in your ignorance.) Sure. That's why we hear so much about them. Incidentally, that's a very old and ridiculous islamic conceit, KT. I'm not surprised you've heard of it. And you feel this justifies murder? I see.

KT: "I pulled a quote from a website - that's why I have it in "". Not sure what you're smelling other than your upper lip. By the way - your dogs shooting men analogy....No."

Well, quote selection is important, KT. Wouldn't want people to draw the impression that you're using a source in defense of your own opinions, no? Like deliberately misquoting them where everyone can see.

Prophet Geoff
Beer Be Upon Me

Posted by: Geoff at October 21, 2005 1:49 PM

Oh, forgot - I was also amused to see KT desperately trying to dictate analogies to me. =) It's not for you, moron.

Sad.

Prophet Geoff
Beer Be Upon Me

Posted by: Geoff at October 21, 2005 1:51 PM

Suzan, I wonder where the MSM is on that story?
The Copts are under siege. That should be news!

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 1:58 PM

Dr. Pepper: "KT is important because his stubborn irrationality is the majority view out there among Westerners."

King: No, I represent many "new thinking" westerners who are now able to see the globe, and how the West has both improved and meddled with it.

Dr. Pepper: "Sadly, we are a very small minority still. The vast majority around us are, more or less, like KT."

King: And you shall always stay in the minority, where most bigots usually hide.

Geoff: "Prevalent? (Incidentally: "Prevelent?" Get a dictionary, you jihadist buffoon. Don't "perseverate" in your ignorance.)"

King: Back to the risible foraging for grammar and spelling. Yawn.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 2:06 PM

King: "Copts are not ethnically distinct from other Egyptians; they are a cultural remnant..."

That is not true. Egypt experienced massive Arab immigration/colonization after the Muslims conquered it. There were also influxes of slaves of many different races and ethnicities. Egypt used to call itself The United Arab Republic which shows how must of their population thinks of themselves.

The Copts of today are those that did not generally intermarry with the conquerors/colonists or their slaves. They have their own language in addition to their own religion. They are every bit a distinctive ethnic/cultural group as are Native Americans.

Carolyn: The latest on the church seige is that the Egpytian Army has been called in to quell the rabid Muslim crowds. I suspect the we will soon see mass murder and pogroms against Coptic neighborhoods and businesses in retaliation for the uppity Copt dhimmies daring to step out of their Stepin' Fetchit roles.

Posted by: Suzan at October 21, 2005 2:14 PM

Guys,

Do not center the whole debate on that fool. The only thing that might be able to change his mind is seeing his Lord, Muhammad, suffering the firemants of Hell... Then he may try to spin it. There is no hope for these people. They grow up with the "Us against them" mentality. Please do not give him the satisfaction of believing that he is defending his religion and waging Jihad using “Ada’f el-Iman” or the weakest faith which is concept that a Muslim must oppose the “Munkar” or vice by means of violence which is the strongest faith and if he cannot, he may oppose it with his speech or in his heart.

Instead, let him get frustrated that he cannot wage his weak-faith Jihad until he convenes a council of Pakistani hackers in his mother’s basement to attack this site or send a threatening letter to Mr. Spencer, which I do not doubt that he does on regular bases under a pseudonym.

Posted by: have_mercy at October 21, 2005 2:19 PM

Have Mercy! LOL, I'm not a Muslim, Jihadist, or of the "us vs. them" mentality. Quite the contrary, I am on your side, only wishing to see you put down the brass knuckles before you go beating up the entire schoolyard out of your own fear.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 2:22 PM

If this link works, here is the story about the nun's stabbing. From a Copt blogger,
http://freecopts.blogspot.com/2005/10/coptic-christians-in-alexandria-egypt.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 2:25 PM

On a separate note, I see that Fjordman did post today, so maybe news of his demise is premature.

The fact that he wasn't shut down overnight indicates to me that the Peoples Socialist Republic of Norway isn't muzzling him, so if he quits it must be some personal consideration.

Just wait. One day it'll be the Islamic Republic of Norway. Won't that be something. And they're much better looking than the Chechens or Bosians!

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 2:29 PM

From the al-Reuters link-

The police arrested the attacker and said the injuries he had caused were not serious.

From the Free Copts link-
They attacked a nun several times by a knife from the back and one piercing stab on her chest. Also they severed one of her fingers. She was rushed to the hospital where she underwent an emergency surgery. Her condition is serious. Another man was also stabbed, but his condition is stable.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 2:33 PM

Why would Fjordman be muzzled? I do not understand.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 2:33 PM

Guys,

Do not center the whole debate on that fool. The only thing that might be able to change his mind is seeing his Lord, Muhammad, suffering the firemants of Hell... Then he may try to spin it. There is no hope for these people. They grow up with the "Us against them" mentality. Please do not give him the satisfaction of believing that he is defending his religion and waging Jihad using “Ada’f el-Iman” or the weakest faith which is concept that a Muslim must oppose the “Munkar” or vice by means of violence which is the strongest faith and if he cannot, he may oppose it with his speech or in his heart.

Instead, let him get frustrated that he cannot wage his weak-faith Jihad until he convenes a council of Pakistani hackers in his mother’s basement to attack this site or send a threatening letter to Mr. Spencer, which I do not doubt that he does on regular bases under a pseudonym.

Posted by: have_mercy at October 21, 2005 2:51 PM

The Copts are indeed an Ethno-religious community which is distinct. Most Copts, at least to Egyptian eyes, look very distinct. Although few members of other Christian communities such as Syrian, Armenian, Greeks, Italian, French, and English that have settled in Egypt in the not too distant past have been folded into the overall term Coptic by Muslim ignorance, over 98% of Copts would pass a genetic screening to establish their Ancient Egyptian origin. Reading the accounts of the Muslim conquest and the long occupation establishes that whole populations in certain districts of Egypt were wiped out and replaced by Arab or Berber tribes. In fact the facial features that people associate with modern Egyptians are not Egyptian, but may appear similar due to their North African (Berber) origin. Copts as a community on the other hand, stayed by Sheri’a mandates separate from the racial influxes because a Coptic Christian man cannot merry a Muslim woman, and any Coptic women taken by Muslims is lost forever to her Community. Also, inter-denominational rifts kept Copts from marrying foreign Christens.

Posted by: have_mercy at October 21, 2005 2:52 PM

Kt's back to the whining about his poor spelling rather than having anything meaningful to add. Which is about normal.

Yawn.

Seriously.

Prophet Geoff
Beer Be Upon Me

Posted by: Geoff at October 21, 2005 2:58 PM

Folks, I think KT's obstinance and ignorance is poignantly exemplified in this one single exchange with Shaughn...

Shaughn: "Judeo-Christianity (and other, more peaceful religions) have no Jihad component; Islam does"

King: Ah! The "jihad" component to Islam has been used, by militants, to justify their behaviors as they hypocritialy thumb their nose at many other Koranic verses that forbid slaying of innocent people. This militant interpretation has been under question, for a long time, in Islamic scholarly circles.

CORNELIUS: I'd like for KT to show us his evidence of how in Islamic scholarly circles "this militant interpretation has been under question for a long time."

Posted by: Cornelius at October 21, 2005 3:00 PM

Places you DON'T want to go on vacation due to potential for religious extremist violence
resulting in your body being turned into a pink mist, your liver left swinging from the chandelier;

Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh: Marauding bands of Orthodox Coptic nuns concealing
belts of c-4 embedded with ball-bearings and nails
have struck with out warning

Bali: Buhddist monks concealing machetes beneath their saffron robes randomly decapitating westerners sipping Mai-Tais on local beaches

All southern Thai beach resorts;Methodists disguised as Presbyterians kidnapping tourists
holding for ransom, otherwise cut off hostages
nose and ears

Sailing in the strait of Mollocca not recommended: Hassidic Jewish pirate ships ply the waters off Singapore
plundering booty and drinking fine jamaican rum..

(for complete list , see State Dept. bulletin #39-c)

Posted by: otterfisher at October 21, 2005 3:07 PM

KT,

you are so right, muslims are extremely respectful of their "people of the book" brethren and hold Jesus in the highest of esteem. Why christians and muslims had worked so well together to bring justice to palestine and to make peace with israel. witness the oslo accords and the important contributions made by arab christians to the palestinian cause. for this the muslims of the palestinian territories are extremely grateful to their christian neighbors.

compare this brotherly love with how the slightest "offense to sensibilities" between christians and jews, especially between the vatican and the state of israel, results in inflammed rhetoric spiraling out of control until jews and christians are at the cusp of killing each other in the streets.

this pair (bonus, all in one link!) of articles should clearly punctuate the corretness of the moral equivalency in your hypothesis. by their fruits shall ye know them. as robert is so fond to say, read it all.

Posted by: Lisa at October 21, 2005 3:07 PM

Ok KT

You purport to speak for Muslims & Islam, posting your experiences with them, knowledge of their opinions & beliefs here in your own inimitable style.

Apart from your coffee mornings with your Muslim colleagues, just how much knowledge of what the Jihadists are saying do you have, first hand?

Have you actually been to any pro Jihad websites & actually read for yourself what they are saying, why they are saying it & exactly where they believe their authority for those thoughts & deeds is being taken from?

If you have not visited any of those sites, then all your arguments here are flawed because you only have one side of the story.

If indeed you are a liberal, a true liberal, you would have sought "balance" by seeking out the whole truth for yourself, from their side as well as here.

And if you had been to those websites, entered the comments sections, read what was being written by pro Jihad Muslims, then surely, as a liberal, you would have had to confront them there & then about their "misguided" interpretations of Islam? Attempted to reason with them, to convince them life long Muslims that they had it all wrong, that Islam is a Religion of Peace? Surely.

Let the Court here note, that by his actions of il-liberally only seeking to denigrate & "educate" one side, (US) he is not a Western Liberal, he is, in fact, a Western Muslim Appeaser, a Western Hating Liberal.

A true Dhimmi.

And in the absence of any evidence to the contrary for my accusations from you KT, you are dismissed, for this evening.

(unless of course you post the links to the threads where you have confronted anti Liberal pro Jihadists? No? didn't think so.)

But I will be back. It is you that is on the hook here, for all to see.

And now I am off to raise a glass to Lord Nelson.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 3:08 PM

CORNELIUS: I'd like for KT to show us his evidence of how in Islamic scholarly circles "this militant interpretation has been under question for a long time."

King:

Abdul-Moti Bayoumi, of the Islamic Research Center at Cairo's al-Azhar University, mainstream Islam's top seat of learning, says for jihad to be legal, it must fulfill several conditions.

Among them: a Muslim should not provoke the aggression; a Muslim should only fight the one who fights him; and children, women, and the elderly should be spared.

"There is no terrorism in jihad or a threat to civilians," Bayoumi said.

Based on that interpretation, Bayoumi said the suicide attacks in the United States were unjustified and therefore considered by Islam as "terror acts."

But he said the attacks against Israelis are acceptable because Palestinians don't have the high-tech weapons like Israel's.
(...)

The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Sheik, sharply disagrees. He declared in April it is "strictly forbidden in Islam" and that "the one who blows himself up in the midst of the enemies is also performing an act contrary to Islamic teachings."

Suicide bombers, the theologian added, should be buried without Islamic ritual and away from other Muslims.

The opposite view is taken by Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian clergyman highly respected among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. While condemning the attacks in the United States, he said rulings against suicide bombings were issued by "people who are alien to Sharia (Islamic laws) and religion."

Sheik Ikrema Sabri, Jerusalem's top Muslim cleric and an appointee of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, took a similar line - bombings in Israel yes, elsewhere no.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i07ae.html#example2

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0721/p15s02-lire.html

http://www.islamfortoday.com/elfadl01.htm

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 3:22 PM

Before flying off the handle about the Israel issue, I remind you that the perspective in the Islamic world, especially in the Arab, Islamic world, is that Israel is an illegitimate state that displaced millions of Palestinians who currently live without their own homeland with no rights. I do not, never have and never will condone suicide bombings by Palestinians and I do not support the killing of Palestinians by the Israeli government either.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 3:30 PM

"The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Sheik, sharply disagrees. He declared in April it is "strictly forbidden in Islam to blah blah blaaaaaah..."

Say, ain't the Grand Mufti the very same Moslem cleari who in a radio address a couple of months back quoted the Koran called for Jihadists to bash in the heads of Jews?

And, it seems like every day I'm hearing about what's strictly forbidden in Islam to exlpain away some Moslem atrocity against an infidel. Acting as an individual and not on behalf of the this great "religion" as a whole, mind you.

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 3:40 PM

EWS REPORT U.S. Copts Association

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PHONE: 202.737.3660

Web site: www.copts.com Email: copts@copts.com

Alexandria, Egypt (10/21/05)—Over 10,000 Egyptian Muslim protestors and Egyptian police on Friday, October 21, 2005 surrounded the Mari Girgis (St. George) Coptic Orthodox Church in Muharram Bey street, Alexandria. The violent protestors were incited by October media reports alleging a church play had “offended Islam.”

According to reports from U.S. Copts informants at the St. George Church, since 12:00 PM CMT over 10,000 Muslim protestors have flooded the streets outside the building, trapping inside the church three priests and 70-100 Coptic youth. The protestors, armed with Molotov cocktails and other weapons, brandished copies of the Qur’an and demanded that St. George priest Father Antonious convert to Islam.

Officials deployed approximately 1,000 soldiers from the Egyptian army and seventy armored vehicles to help subdue the mob. Soldiers released tear gas and fired live bullets to disperse the thousands chanting in the streets.

Friday’s protests come after initial street protests one week earlier and the Wednesday stabbing of a Coptic nun by a Muslim student.

Protestors were responding to several inflammatory newspaper editorials alleging the St. George church had produced a stage play that “insulted Islam and the Qur’an.” The production to which the articles referred was a church play staged once over two years earlier in 2003 for St. George’s parishioners and which referred to the modern political problem of Islamic extremism, referencing neither the Qur’an nor Islamic theology.

Copts, the indigenous Christians of Egypt, number approximately 15 million people and constitute between 12-15% of the Egyptian population.

Posted by: have_mercy at October 21, 2005 3:42 PM

if we adhere to KT's moral equivalency, there should have been mass rioting in times square upon the release of Jesus Christ, Superstar and with the exhibition of the christ piss for insult to christianity and the bible.

Posted by: Lisa at October 21, 2005 3:50 PM

Lisa: "if we adhere to KT's moral equivalency, there should have been mass rioting in times square upon the release of Jesus Christ, Superstar and with the exhibition of the christ piss for insult to christianity and the bible."

King: Really? How did you come to this conclusion based on what I've written above?

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 21, 2005 3:53 PM

KT sez:

"...Have Mercy! LOL, I'm not a Muslim, Jihadist, or of the "us vs. them" mentality. Quite the contrary, I am on your side...."

What a pathetic liar you are! A clear case of Flatulenza Islamica by a Jihadiot in a mental vacuum who insults my moniker by relating it to his "mammy"-. Yeah mate, I know you have that race-chip on your shoulders and you are being followed by a 'moon-shadow', like "Yussuf Islam". Your ' Mammy" at least had a much more positive image than 'Muslims"

Here she is:

http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/mammies/.

As for equivalence:

You know the SS was also a 'tiny' minority among the Nazis, (just like the Gestapo) so we can't really tar them all with the same brush. And all those tolerant Germans! I dare-say they were more tolerant than KT at any given time!

KT: You are making a fool of yourself every-time you post here.
Banging your head on the floor of the mosque does not increase your "intellectual honesty" - But consider yourself lucky you know how to spell it: 70 % of Mohammedans around the world are illiterate, and their leaders make sure it stays this way.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 21, 2005 4:17 PM

KT, it is the obverse of your assertion that we can not impose value and moral judgment of our ideology to the reaction to an event of others who ascribe to a competing ideology without first understanding their perspective, which then in your moral eqivalency validates such reaction. In the most simplistic of terms that even you should understand, if they can't act like us, then why can't we act like them?

did the events i refer to require a massive police response to quell the angry mobs reacting to an artistic offense?

Posted by: Lisa at October 21, 2005 4:29 PM

KT, you probably never even took the time to read the two articles I posted for you... written from the perspective of those most intimate with the events and not some Copt living in the plush surroundings of Rolling Hills Estates, a very exclusive suburb of Los Angeles, where the most visciously violent acts he probably every encountered where kids throwing water balloons and eggs at passing cars on Halloween.

Posted by: Lisa at October 21, 2005 4:35 PM

'and not some Copt living in the plush surroundings of Rolling Hills Estates, a very exclusive suburb of Los Angeles, where the most visciously violent acts he probably every encountered where kids throwing water balloons and eggs at passing cars on Halloween' ~ Lisa

Lisa, you should add: .... for the moment.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/community/listofCAcenters.html

Posted by: Gary at October 21, 2005 4:59 PM

There's a reason equivalence and equivocate come from the same word.

**********************

e·quiv·o·cate intransitive verb
1. To use equivocal language intentionally.
2. To avoid making an explicit statement.

See Synonyms: lie.

Posted by: Shaughn at October 21, 2005 5:14 PM

I'll have to side against the majority opinion on this board by stating that I think KingTolerance is neither crypto-Muslim nor self-hating Western liberal, but a next generation artificial intelligence program developed at MIT that, ELIZA-like, mimics human speech- not by actually thinking, of course, but simply by reformulating every sentence it's read in the manner of a commited, impervious-to-all-evidence multi-culturalist (emphasis on the cult) instead of a Rogerian therapist as in the days of old. That's why, whenever presented with contradictory evidence to its claims of Muslim peaceableness, the KingTolerance program either ignores it or reformulates the evidence as if he were questioning its truth (an algorithmically trivial process) but never really absorbs it in any coherent way until about a couple of weeks later when his programmer has had time to put out a new version of the software.

A couple of months ago the KingTolerance program asserted that Muslim savagery and aggression were the results of living under corrupt dictatorships and had nothing to do with religion. Now it uses religion to claim that contemporary Muslim barbarism is in fact un-Islamic!:

Abdul-Moti Bayoumi, of the Islamic Research Center at Cairo's al-Azhar University, mainstream Islam's top seat of learning, says for jihad to be legal, it must fulfill several conditions.

Among them: a Muslim should not provoke the aggression; a Muslim should only fight the one who fights him; and children, women, and the elderly should be spared.

But he said the attacks against Israelis are acceptable because Palestinians don't have the high-tech weapons like Israel's.
(...)

The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Sheik, sharply disagrees. He declared in April it is "strictly forbidden in Islam" and that "the one who blows himself up in the midst of the enemies is also performing an act contrary to Islamic teachings."

The opposite view is taken by Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian clergyman highly respected among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. While condemning the attacks in the United States, he said rulings against suicide bombings were issued by "people who are alien to Sharia (Islamic laws) and religion."

The program focuses on the question of killing of innocent civilians (a conceptual category al-Qaradawi actually says does not exist within the borders of Israel) and rightly notes that in general Islamic law forbids killing of non-combatants (though the definition of non-combatant within Islam varies and seems to be a shrinking one lately) but does not talk about the subject of jihad and dhimmitude, and how Muslims are enjoined (indeed, required!) to wage unending warfare against the unbelievers until they are converted, killed, or enslaved (i.e. the "protection" women and children can expect as non-combatants under Islam). The program thus does not seem to understand that there is no contradicition between unending warfare against the unbelievers (what the people on this site actually care about) and offering nominal protection to civilians; this is probably the result of a faulty logical operator, though, and I'm sure will be corrected by the program's creator when version 1.2 is released in 2 weeks.

In the meantime, though, I would suggest the creator of the KingTolerance program incorporate more information from the Encyclopedia of Islam (the article on jihad would be a good place to start) and quite insulting the intelligence and learning of most of the people on this board with such insipid displays of knowledge with regards to Islamic law and theology.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at October 21, 2005 6:09 PM

Helox: "The violent and rigid teachings in the Quran cannot be changed!!!!! Even if 95% of Muslims think they should be interpreted differently, in the debates...the literalists always win!!"

King: OK, then. What about the many other clearly violent verses in the Bible? Those who ignore them do so as heretics upon your description here. This is my point! How can you have obviously violent verses in your own scripture, yet, denounce other scriptures as violent and world dominating?

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Helox: I hope you are right about the potential for reform in Islam KT. My understanding is that although the Bible has violent verses, Christiantity was able to reform by following the nonviolent example of Jesus Christ, it's main prophet. The Quran is the highest authority and Muhammad's actions (as recorded in the Hadiths) were also violent. So, how would you delete all the violent aspects of the religion? Under what authority? It is very difficult, almost impossible. I would like to hold the optimistic view for reform, but I don't see where it is going to come from.

Posted by: helox at October 21, 2005 6:13 PM

Hey guys, it doesn't take any "testicles" to preach to a choir, which in essence is just what the majority of posters on Jihad Watch do, and when another voice shows up, all of the brave choir members, jump up and down in unison and support, thumping their chests and barking chimp like at the interloper (even when that interloper is on their side, at least as far as an opinion of Islam is concerned).

I've had at least one post here yanked by some Board Nanny, because I dared speak out of turn about some subject.. yet I too am, as per the current definition, an unabashed "Islamophobe", the treatment received here by "outsiders", the other, regardless of how they stand on Islam as threat is despicable, and frankly immature and childish, it certainly does have an impact on visitors to this site, and that impact is not favorable or sympathetic. KJ has also felt your wrath and the barb of the immature and irrational tongue, the childish taunts.

All one need to be is a concerned (about Islam) liberal and visit the hate and bile spewed by Gary, Susanp, kepha and albion etc towards LIBERALS and it is enough for a person to turn around and revisit their assumptions and opinions.

Youse guys, spend more time and energy and waste more words in infantile rants against "liberals" and "leftists" and in the process make enemies out of allies, but it sure does feel good doesn't it?

A moderate Muslim who read your self righteous rants, would be appalled. You hate and demonize atheists and leftists, yet the only people who have given their lives, risked all and stood up to the Muslims are atheists and leftists (spell Sina, Warraq, Fallaci, Fortuyn, Hirsi Ali here), they have risked more and given more than any of you righteous, belligerent and "brave" Jihad Watchers have ever or will ever do.

Truth is that most of you are bad news, and bad PR for the cause, and like it or not you sound just like the Mohammadans over at Ummah.com or any other of the Muslim sites, that likewise shout down or censor and ban the dissident voice.

Here's a challenge for you brave ones. Log onto Liberty Forum and show us your own testicles (or ovaries as the case may be) that forum is populated, nay dominated, by Muslims, skinheads and even Christian (lots of Catholics) who share your same values about homosexuals, the pro Choice crowd, feminists, Lefties, Liberals, multicult and PC, with one exception they are almost all adamantly and vehemently anti Zionist and antisemitic.

Fact is when they aren't ranting about Jews, Likkudites, neo cons and Zionists, they sound remarkably like Jihad Watchers.

So prove to us that you all (such as Albion) are endowed with testicles, and log on to LIbety Forum, defend yourself and give 'em hell.

Now a message for KT, Helox post above is spot on, Christianity and Judaism have, as Mr Spencer said, gone through a humanizing period, however Islam hasn't, and considering as many a Muslim scholar has told me, Shari'a is writ in stone, Islam is incapable of change, for even to suggest change is deemed apostasy (leaving Islam) and the penalty for that is grave.

And for Helox, et al, Christianity still has it's own share of troglodyte theocrats, Christian mullahs in the making, who would if they could get away with it, inflict on America the same type of Shari'a like government (Mosaic or Noachide laws) as the Mullahs of Iran or the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.And yes they would, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell,Lou Dobson come to mind immediately as does that most powerful New LIfe Church in Boulder , Colorado.

The only thing restraining these tyrannical theocrats is the fact that they don't have the power to inflict their will, they would if they could, and they will when they can, they have said so from their own mouths.

I use to, but no longer, refer people to this site, for the simple reason that the majority of posters are ill tempered, irrational, self righteous and infantile. You guys are bad news, and worse you are divisive, it might be some form of orgasmic relief to vent, but you only serve to make rational people concerned about the insidious and pervasive influence of Islamism, look as intolerant, infantile and irrational as you.

I had one dude hurl the dismissive ad hominem that Spencer was a "neo con", which is far from the truth, but true enough when he allows irrational and immature posters comments to stick and stay, while deleting and censoring the posts of more rational and reasonable posters, who just might deviate an iota from the party line.

Mr Spencer says he is not responsible for content of comments, but again that is not quite true as he can and does either directly or through Board Nannies, delete comments (which are not necessarily foul mouthed,flames or inflammatory) but which just happen to deviate from the party line and consensus.

I'm surprised that KT's posts aren't deleted, but then again he is an outnumbered foil against which the righteous can vent.

On the other hand, King Tolerance, I do have serious questions for you, and although as a liberal I can appreciate your dedication to tolerance, you do seem to be ignorant of Islam, the reason why I'm an "Islamophobe" (using that term for lack of another) is precisely because I am a secularist, atheistic, liberal, a person who knows that if the least suffers and is denied the rights of the majority, then in the end all suffer, including me.

The reason I can't advocate for or defend Islam, is because I KNOW and am clearly certain, that such an "even handed" policy is suicide.

That which others would do unto me, is just cause for me to do unto them. Muslims do not permit freedom of speech, nor freedom to be an atheist or blaspheme their scriptures, religion or prophet.
Why should I accord them that which they will not accord me.

As an atheist gentile I could live, and even prosper in Israel, I dare say I could even blaspheme YHVH and the Torah and Prophets, but I know better than to try that in a Muslim country.

A non Muslim in a Muslim country suffers indignities and dhimmitude, An Arab in Israel has freedom and prosperity that a non Muslim could never enjoy in a Muslim country. In fact a Muslim is better off in Israel, and the west, than they are in their own society, yet they fail to appreciate that, in fact the true muslim must seek and work to convert Dar al Harb, into a miserable Dar al Islam. And even that doesn't stop the civil strife and sectarian violence, as Muslims historically and persistently have waged fratricide amongst themselves over power and religoius purity.

And those are facts my friend.

Posted by: Nariz at October 21, 2005 7:19 PM

Nariz at his best!

You are right! This is not about left and right. This is Islam against the rest of the world.

Yet, a lot of posters here feel let down by the left: The animosity between the 2 camps is mind-boggling and self-defeating when seen from outside the US. Here in Australia -oh wonder- we have seen the labor leader sound just like the ruling conservatives when it comes to Islam: "Don't like our laws? Ship out!" So there's hope.

Yes, I also have a dislike for the bible-bashers, but they have not invaded us and they don't threaten to cut my throat. They can be ridiculed and so they are!
Compare that with Denmark where you have thousands of Islamo- infil-traitors protest (and make death-threaths ) against people at a regional paper that printed cartoons of prophet Mo!

If we learn anything from King troll, it is simply that even the most absurd, the most irrational and stupidest deflection and obfuscation is used to somehow make "all religions violent"-
that is clearly not the case, but in dealing with a Mohammedan we are not dealing with rational people.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 21, 2005 7:44 PM

Giaour...Nariz sounds just like you. Did you compose all that or was it off the top of your head? I hope you are done because I got a headache on that last post. It's not so much what you said as all that snarling and heavy breathing in the background. You have touted "liberty forum' before. I went there the first time you mentioned it but they would not let me in. I dont understand the value of interacting with the riotous people you mentioned. What is yer average skinhead going to teach us about Islam?
And as for KINGKY...I already know him as a loud mouth who cant back up what he says. I didn't make that up, he proved it to me. He has no credibility but he is still good for a chuckle.

Posted by: duh_swami at October 21, 2005 7:56 PM

Nariz,

Great post, thank you. For the reasons you state, RS has threatened in the past to shut down the comments.

The JW/DW site is of the best I have found that agreggates the news of Islam from various sources. There are some other good sites out there that have simillar contents in their main items, in fact many are crossed linked, but because their comment participation does not even approach the volume of comments posted here, I rely on this site as my primary source. With all the comments posted here, one does get to know the personality behind the pseudonym, and there are some of them, for the very reasons you state, I ingnore totally there comments for I believe they do in the long run detract from the site. KT is just plain fun to toy with.

Some time ago, I wanted to get an Arab/Islamic perspective on a certain news event from Al Jazeera. At that time I had been frequenting that news site and knew its URL well.

One day, I entered in all haste a .com instead of a .net in the URL and ended up at this Muslim run hate site. What an eye opener that was for me, reading the made-up discussion topics, and the anti-everything except Islam posts.

I showed my ovaries and posted, argued, debated and after a while gave up because the effort was futile. Talk about un-censored hate and censorsed reason. Many of my post were not only deleted after review, but if they whatsoever contained certain key words, the post operation would fail. A warning to those that do post ref="http://www.aljazeera.com">there: IP address are logged and visible, do not post unless you go through a public anonymizing proxy. Remeber what happened to our Coptic friends in New Jersey.

Posted by: Lisa at October 21, 2005 8:10 PM

Nariz brings up many interesting points. I assumed that Robert's purpose for this site was to provide a non-ideological forum for infidels against jihad. Whether you are liberal or conservative is meaningless, the only ideology that matters is that you are anti-jihad, anti-dawa, and anti-apologia Islam.

It's almost an unwritten rule that there is to be no Israel bashing on this site mainly because they are fighting the same battle as we are. That rule should be extended to liberals. They are not our enemies. Those who are willing to read the foundational texts, the history of jihad, and the testimonials from ex-Muslims should not be shunned just because they see some value in multiculturalism. After all, the policy of this site is not to condemn multiculturalism as a whole, but to condemn its excesses pertaining to Muslims who wish to use it as a weapon against the West in order to further their sharia driven agenda.

Liberals are not hopeless when it comes to learning the truth about Islam. KJ is about as liberal as they come and he knows that Islam is a unique problem, distinctly different from the excesses of other religions, with an expansionist doctrine that at its core is utterly different from other missionary religions such as Christianity and Buddhism. Arguing over who is the bigger dhimmi, Clinton or Bush, is really beside the point. The fact of the matter is both those on the moderate left and right in the public sphere are ignorant of the threat of an expansive Islam. The far left and the paleo-con/Arabist/and far right are supporting the jihad. They need no convincing, their minds were made up as soon as they saw the new noble savage (far left) or as soon as their Saudi checks cleared (Arabist right). They are marginal anyways. Trying to convince the readers of "Counterpunch" and "American Conservative" of the threat of an expansionist Islam will be about as productive as trying to convince the denizens of "Liberty Forum". Let's work with the moderates on the Left and Right who are willing to atleast read the material with a critical mind.

I'm a long time lurker at this site and I really enjoy it. But I would hate to see it go the way of Little Green Footballs where it becomes an echo chamber for Bush, Hanson, and Hitchens. Luckily, those people aren't popular among most of the posters here so we won't have to worry about that. But we should worry about the comments becoming unreadable (like at LGF). The entries at LGF are invaluable as are the entries here, but the comments here are often interesting as well.

Let's keep it civil and not get bogged down with someone who is not willing to read the original sources in their entirety, the history of jihad, or testimonials of ex-Muslims. This is not John Esposito or Karen Armstrong's blog so the platitudes that "every religion has its fanatics", that "Islamic fundamentalism is a reaction to Western imperialism (past and present)", "there are many good verses in the Qu'ran", "there is no Qur'anic injuction to commit terrorism", and my personal favourite, "we should not label Muslims as The Other" simply do not wash. Once these platitudes are uttered the debate is over. Feel-good-isms like "We are all God's chillun" cannot be substituded for cold hard facts that prove the exact opposite for Islam.

Posted by: igor at October 21, 2005 8:55 PM

Got a gun to your head making you read the comment section? I get a lot from the comments, and superior- ass complaining is why RS considers closing the comment section.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 9:40 PM

I've had at least one post here yanked by some Board Nanny, because I dared speak out of turn about some subject
That would be RS himself.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 21, 2005 10:08 PM

And those are facts my friend.

Posted by: Nariz at October 21, 2005 07:19 PM

Giaour, I don't know why you ran off and changed your name; your Marxist bullshit is impossible to disguise. I've read so many of your anti-capitalist tirades, I know them by heart.

You exemplify the "angry liberal", and are a perfect example of why I consider left-wing fanaticism just as dangerous as Islamo-fascism. Yes, you agree that jihad presents a threat to the West, but most of your liberal comrades appease, coddle, mollify, and generally suck up to muslims and Islam. Liberalism's first cousin, Communisim, invented the inimical concepts of political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, and moral relativity, which have permeated Western societies and made it impossible to engage in rational discourse about the deadly threat of Islam.

This pernicious disease has spread to Conservatives and will soon kill us all. When it is "politially incorrect" to even raise an issue for discussion because it might "offend" some ethnic or religious group, how will we ever deal with the problem of Islam?

In another thread you made the statement : "America was founded on multiculturalism.", or something to that effect. America was NOT founded on multiculturalism. Multiculturalism in America began after the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, authored by the king of self-hating liberals, Ted Kennedy. He will be remembered in history books for changing the face of America, and not for the better. Multiculturalism will destroy America and it will destroy Europe if it is not stopped. It has decimated every country that ever allowed it to take hold, as history attests.
.

Posted by: Susanp at October 22, 2005 12:45 AM

Most left-wingers who post here (Giaour, Timbo, KJ, etc.) are not shy about pushing their own personal political hobby-horses ad nauseum, so I don't understand why they get upset when others do the same.

It's funny how all the Islam-critical sites are always mobbed by whiney leftists who complain about "rightwingers" dominating the talkboards and pushing them out.

I don't know of a single Islam-critical site started by or maintained by Leftists. They just don't exist. Oh and shame on you Nariz/Giaour whoever you are, for claiming that Hirsi Ali and Pym Fortune and Ibn Warraq are "leftists." (The latter claim is especially laughable for those who know Ibn personally.)

They've all been demonized as "right-wingers" for ages. Hirsi Ali had to leave her Marxist party and hook up with a "right-wing" party in order to be heard because the Marxist one kept censoring her opinions about Islam (wow what a surprise! A Marxist party censoring things!)Most of Pym Fortune's obituaries identified him as a "far-rightist." I know because I read them.

Maybe it would be a good idea if the Leftists who complain here would start their own Left-oriented, Islam-critical sites and talkboards to show us righties how it's so much better done by them?

O wait, that would take hard work, initiative, stick-to-it-iveness, willingness to stick your neck out for unpopular opinions, wouldn't it?

Never mind, my bad!

Those don't seem to be left-wing traits.

Posted by: Suzan at October 22, 2005 1:14 AM

The List - Top 10 Worst Liberal Senators led by:

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.)
Age: 73
Eighth term. Won 73% of vote in ’00. Seat up in ’06.
ACU rating: 3%
Liberal Credentials: The iconic liberal has served 42 years in the Senate, compiling a record as a pro-abortion, anti-war ideologue. But Kennedy might be best remembered for his role at Chappaquiddick.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9791

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 22, 2005 1:40 AM

Suzan:

I believe the Left is still recovering from Christopher Hitchens who has a lot to say on the new Lwft`s sleeping in bed with Islam.

George Galloway Is Gruesome, Not Gorgeous
Now, watch me debate him.
By Christopher Hitchens
http://slate.msn.com/id/2126121/?nav=navoa

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 22, 2005 1:47 AM

shame..alexadnria was found from alexander the great as a city of great enlighment. It hold on for thousend years. The greek habitants of this town transformed this piece of land in a centre for arts and literature, and now?

The muslims destroyed that find city. Despite the copts, also the greeks who live there for 2500 years are under prosecution. Copts shall not ask for their own land but they shall ask muslims to leave egypt and go back from where they came from.

Posted by: chris at October 22, 2005 3:48 AM

A distinguished panel of former leftists discusses the torturous journey of leaving the Left. More>
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19901

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 22, 2005 6:59 AM

Helox: I hope you are right about the potential for reform in Islam KT. My understanding is that although the Bible has violent verses, Christiantity was able to reform by following the nonviolent example of Jesus Christ, it's main prophet. The Quran is the highest authority and Muhammad's actions (as recorded in the Hadiths) were also violent. So, how would you delete all the violent aspects of the religion?

A good question. Also, since this is Dhimmi Watch, what about Dhimmitude? We all agree on this site that we need separation between church and state if we are to have just and peaceful government. However, Muslims do not on balance share this opinion:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=813

How can Muslims be convinced that their religion allows secular government, separate from religious authority?

Posted by: Viking5 at October 22, 2005 7:35 AM

KT: Indeed, they are the remnants of Christians who did not convert to Islam. Their persectuon is real and troublesome. A "zionist" state would be the worst solution.

Of course, of course.

Away from the manger - a Christian-Muslim divide
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

While it's almost impossible to find a Christian who's prepared to go public in airing such grievances, Samir Qumsiyeh, a journalist from Beit Sahur, is a notable exception. Last month he was quoted by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera as saying that Christians were being subjected to rape, kidnapping, extortion and expropriation of land and property.

Qumsiyeh, who was not available this week for an interview because he was out of the country, heads a local TV station called Al-Mahd [Nativity]. In a daring step, Qumsiyeh drew up a list of 93 cases of anti-Christian violence between 2000 and 2004.

Yes! Their persecution is real and troublesome

Posted by: Cynic at October 22, 2005 7:59 AM

"Why would Fjordman be muzzled? I do not understand."
-- posted by KingTolerance

The modern liberal welfare state is predicated on Marxist principles, one of which is control of public thought so as to preserve decision making prerogative to the olympian elite. For example, that function is largely fulfilled by the MSM here in the U.S.

Scandinavia has advanced well into the process of self-destruction by way of self-loathing liberalism. Understandably, the self-congratulatory leaders who have arranged this debacle are quite sensitive to criticism. Their sstern order to the public is to keep silent and wait to witness the inevitable transformation of Moslems by integration and enlightenment.

Put another way, the natives are being told to tolerate reprobate behavior, or else. Accept childish and murderous and rapacious double standardism, or else.

The closest thing to a free and open discourse on Islam in Europe is in the UK and Holland. Holland had Fortuyn/Ali/Van Gogh; England had its 7/7 high jinks and the attempted mass murder two weeks later.

But the tolerant among us need not worry: The UK is rushing through a law to make it a felony to criticize Islam (hate crime).

Posted by: Shaughn at October 22, 2005 12:23 PM

"liberal or conservative is meaningless, the only ideology that matters is that you are anti-jihad..."
-- posted by Igor

No way.

Liberalism (an ideology more honestly called Leftism or Marxism) is the fever swamp in which Moselm encroachment flourishes. One only has to look at the map and a newspaper to see that.

Marxist ideology naturally aligns with Islamic ideology: centrality of authority, suppression of invidualism, active promotion of self-censorship (and governmental censorhip, where feasible), rule by olympian elite, articial constraints on free markets, redistribution of income, and so on.

So criticism here of Marxism is highly in-context.

Igor, can you please tell me what you call a "non- idological" public discourse would be? And, was your call for this an active prmotion of self-censorship?

Posted by: Shaughn at October 22, 2005 12:41 PM

9/11 was LESSON TIME -- what lesson did you learn on that day?

I recognize Nariz's tone from his posting above and think, 'There, but for the grace of 9/11, go I... '

I have mentioned in some of my posts that I am a lifelong registered Democrat, still somewhat liberal on some counts, but I have absolutely had it with the Left in America... I fear far more from their erosions of the true spirit of our Nation than I do from the extreme right wing idealogues who would hijack it if they could...

After 9/11 I was forced to examine the uncomfortable reality that many of the planks of my former liberal political ideology had been RESPONSIBLE for many of the most grievous failures and flaws in the US... I had to face the facts that through my "liberal" naiveté I had supported causes that had TOTALLY BACKFIRED, and had failed utterly. 9/11 pointed out that I had foolishly embraced ideas which had weakened our nation, and encouraged our enemies...

Unlike Nariz, rather than digging my heels in even further and denying the UNDENIABLE, I began in earnest to examine the links between liberal/socialist western policies and the erosion of Western willingness and ability to defend itself against outside attack.

9/11 was the line in the sand... I don't care what blather someone wants to spout now about "follow the money" or Halliburton or "Western Imperialism" or American hegemony -- blah blah blah... If you send pious followers of your hatred filled religion to MY SHORES, if the Muslim wants to come here to lecture US about "tolerance", if the Arab wants to indoctrinate his children to kill citizens of MY COUNTRY while standing in his Muslim Sh*thole maintaining that he's got the line on perfection and that WE had better change or else...

Sorry, dude. I don't care what transgressions, real or imagined Americans are supposed to have done -- It's time to kick someone's ass for having the affrontery to imagine they can "communicate" with us in this manner...!

Nevertheless I can't bring myself to join the party of Tom Delay, George Bush, and Pat Robertson...

But Nariz, I think what you're encountering is that most here are probably FAR FAR more worried about the likes of what inanity would flow from John Kerry, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Bill 'let the good times roll! UBL -- who dat?" Clinton, Tom Daschle, Senator 'our troops are like Nazis" Durbin.... Got it?

Thanks for coming to realize that Islam poses an existential threat to your existence. Thanks for facing reality, that is! On that we can agree -- everything else is petty in comparison.

As for SOME of the points made in Nariz's posting above -- I am certain that more restraint could be used here to help prevent alienating potential readers -- that would be a good thing -- and I will try to restrain myself in that direction...

But the starkness of the matter is all too clear to me... If someone comes here and reads the posts and comments and gets sidetracked by some of the more colorful posts, or still concludes that it's all the West's fault, or that this is somehow about Halliburton and Western imperialism -- Well there's nothing new in that, and little can be done...

I also think it's a severe exaggeration to allege that postings here are capable of driving visitors back into the fantasist fold... They can/will face the reality that confonts us, or they can't/won't...

In fact, if 9/11, and the endless outrages Muslims continue to hurl at non-Muslims STILL don't rouse such persons, I'm not sure that reading sites like this will have positive impact on such visitors, no matter what the content of the comments section... Either they will understand the world around them, or they will continue to embrace fantasies and conspiracy theories about it... They will awaken proactively, as did I with no additional footnotes to 9/11 needed! or they will come to understand their folly when the Saracen's knife is on their throat --Perhaps it is impossible for certain people to take their heads out of their fairy tale clouds to face the extremely ugly Islamic fascist reality that's descending on the world... That is dangerous for us all!

As for comparing posts here to the posts of fascist Muslims at various fascist Muslim sites ? THAT is pure baloney! Such a comment has little merit --

Finally, I am not prepared to let the treasure bequeathed to me of our national US heritage, bought with the blood and sacrifice of our ancestors, to go without a fight. Arguments for moderation at this site, while meritous, are slightly out of place, don't you think?

Comparing the actions of vile Muslim hate sites which are successfully recruiting jihadis from our midst and worldwide to conduct MURDER WORLD WIDE, when compared with this humble little site, this happy site... -- Nariz -- get a grip !!! Like King-troll-who-rants -- your attempts to equate this site with the Jihadi sites is WACK!

Posted by: jsla at October 22, 2005 2:08 PM

"...the Western govts, including the United States and Britain, are not going to do anything to upset the moderate Muslims in Egypt."
-- posted by Eliyahu

Thus, by their very nature, the putative Moderate Muslims (an elusive beast, indeed) is a key element within the Moslem Strongarm that uses constant, low-intensity threat to extort supremacy.

Posted by: Shaughn at October 22, 2005 2:46 PM

Pointing out the venom that leftist academia is poisoning thousands of student's minds with is 'hatred and bile.'

That's the kind of reasoning that prevents the Left from seeing the jihadist threat, nariz.

And giaour was here? I missed the anti-Christians hysterics.

Posted by: Gary at October 22, 2005 2:55 PM

The title of the article says it all:

"Muslim Stabs Nun in Egyptian Church."

Open Invitation to Karen Armstrong: Please Comment on this Article!

Posted by: Archimedes at October 22, 2005 7:14 PM

Do the Koran, Hadith, and Sira justify this Muslim's actions? Of course. Does Islam allow for freedom of expression? Of course not.
Check out Arlandson's discussion of Mohammad's "Dead Poet's Society." http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm

Posted by: Archimedes at October 22, 2005 7:23 PM

"King: Rather presumptuous on your part. I own a gun, legally, but do not carry it."

- bit of a worry from a closet Jihadi who has argued on this site that its OK to have sex with nine year old girls - because Mohammed did.

"King: OK, then. What about the many other clearly violent verses in the Bible? Those who ignore them do so as heretics upon your description here. This is my point! How can you have obviously violent verses in your own scripture, yet, denounce other scriptures as violent and world dominating?"

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)"

- I argued KT to standstill on this point back on DAwa in Canada on the Oct 11 thread. Rather than debate me - he just wrote me off with a comment.

KT I like the verse you have quoted - note the place - "purged from Israel" - ISRAEL - which is why I'm not scared of a Jew on a Bus, or a plane, or a niteclub, or a Cafe in the West. Thankyou KT for proving my point on these verses which you dismissed out of hand - that these verses were commanded to Jews in Israel - that's VERY clear. Also - did you ever wonder why they were commanded by God to do such things - so that there society would not be corrupted - unlike our own society in the West today - corrupted by PC "Multi-culturalism" where you can no longer argue a point on logic and merit as you will offend someone else's beliefs.

Now KT - what about all those generic Hate and War verses in the Koran. I asked you to show me how they are specific to a time and place...

I'm still waiting.....

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at October 23, 2005 2:04 AM

While it is most amuzing to me (and others) to see how my perspective on this site brings out the most cheap, guttersnipe rhetoric, I do feel that I need to shovel off the rubbish from time to time to remind you all that my position is valid and based on sound fact. Not the fact you want to hear, mind you, which is the ire is so high and the debate so, so poor.

Islam, as a whole, is at a critical point in its history. I believe radical, militant sects of Islam have an iron grip on the religion and the people who practice it. This "grip" is bolstered by corrupt governments and mullahs who work in tandum to preserve their respective positions of power. On the one hand, you have ultra-wealthy monarchs or dictators who retain their positions of power with the political and financial backing of western governments like yours and mine. This, in and of itself, is problematic enough as these "leaders" could not care any less about their domestic governing duties, which they leave to the mullahs. On the other hand, you have a layer of the most corrupt, sadistic mullahs who actually hold power over their masses by making sure people follow every dot and comma of the radical Islamist agenda. Stepping out of line is met with the most dire consequeces, as you know.
Under such conditions, the most oppressive, repressive and otherwise inhumane conditions exist - conditions which breed hate, anger and volitility that can be directed in any one direction at a moment's notice. All it takes is one venom filled homily and a crowd can be whipped into a frenzy for almost any reason. There is method to the madness...

Proof of my position has been continually posted on this website but consumed by most of you as yet more proof that it is Islam, alone, turning a blind eye to the myriad of other real conditions that are in place to allow radicalism to prevail in some places. Conditions like mullahs chastizing earthquake victims in Pakistan, since they cooked duruing the day in Ramadan, or even masses in Egypt being whipped into a frenzy by a local mullah and told to seige a Coptic church and provoking a military response. Such mullahs are unquestioned and uncontrolled by government, and their ultra-extreme versions of Islam are forced to the masses as a means of control.

I point to history for lessons. History has shown us that it is NOT religion alone, but rather, a cluster of similar conditions that allow radicalism to prevail. All religions are capable of producing radical doctrine and followers who either consume it by choice or by force. This is fact.

Situations like dictatorships, power grabs & corruption all go into the pot. After a healthy dose of theocracy/clerical governance is injected into this mixture, you end up with one hell of a repressive, dark, and omnipotent government. Indeed, Christianity has emerged from this, for the most part, but remnants still exist. Islam must follow this same lead and it is beginning to do so in some ways.

What we are seeing is a mass exodus of many Muslims from their repressive, oppressive and otherwise shitty situations in their homelands which are scarred by war, dictatorship and radicalsm. Most of these people immigrate to western nations where they settle and live peaceful, quiet lives. Many assimilate into their host countries and want nothing more than to live quietly.

I do not, nor ever did, reject that there are jihadists in our midst. I also wish to see these people neutralized for they are neither Muslim nor worth anything. They create chaos wherever they go and we must be rid of them. They are among the most intolerant, non-religious people in the world and their actions have been denounced by countless other Muslims. They focus on select verses in the Koran (many of the verses I see flung around here) and ignore the many others which promote peace and tolerance so that their evil agendas can somehow be vindicated.

Lastly, I also acknoweldge that the West (and former USSR) has had its hand in creating some of the conditions from which radicalism has been born. The west has provoked and enhanced wars in the M.E. and has supplied money and arms to assist in the slaughter of millions of Muslims - some of which has been rather recent - all for the sake of tactical advantages on oil reserves. The US ini particular also funded the madrassas in Pakistan in order to create militant extremists needed to fight off the Red Army in Afghanistan. Who do you think became the Taliban???? Once the USSR left Afghanistan, the Taliban filled the vacuum left by the US's refusal to help and one of the most extreme governments ever seen on this plaet took control of a country, hosting every thug in the world.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 23, 2005 2:08 PM

KingTolerance and his ilk represent exactly we're all up the river without a paddle.

Hey, KT, guttersnipe or no, why is it you're always left to making excuses for the latest monkey business perpetrated by Moslems?

How can you reconcile Moslem observance of the Koran and the Sunnah, which call for mass murder of infidels, pedophilia, theft, and so many other fine qualities?

Posted by: Shaughn at October 23, 2005 3:16 PM

KT,

Take this as constructive criticism, not as ad-hominem, you got some real problems. Look at the opening of you last post,

While it is most amuzing to me (and others) to see how my perspective on this site brings out the most cheap, guttersnipe rhetoric, I do feel that I need to shovel off the rubbish from time to time to remind you all that my position is valid and based on sound fact.

In one sentence you have (1) summarily dismissed the opinion of all others, irrepsective of whether such opinion is based upon sound research, upon a commanding knowledge of facts, literature or history, or upon personal experience or plain old hatred and bias; and (2) summarily established yourself as the factual and moral authority beyond reproach. The rest of your lengthy post bleats out time worn platitudes and the most superficial analysis of current history. Most of yor posts, when not engaging in childish name calling with another equally guilty of the same, exhibit this same bleat of rants and raves. When your are pressed for substantiation adn corroboration of your assertions, you turn tail and hide, only to re-appear elsewhere with yet more groundless bleating. Can there remain any doubt why many do not take you seriously? [As an aside, oher such posts, not just yours, suffer from the same fatal defect.]

Akbar Ganji is an jailed Iranian dissident who at one time was intstrumental in bringing forth the Islamic Revolution in Iran. In this article reviewing his Letter to the Free People of the World, it states:

Ganji exposes the ideological nature of the Islamic regime, the way it has used Islam as an ideology to gain and maintain power. Citing Arendt and other Western thinkers, he demonstrates that the regime owes more to modern totalitarian ideologies such as fascism and communism than to Islam and Islamic traditions. He thereby helps to restore dignity to the religion that in his youth he had helped to confiscate.

But Ganji goes beyond religion, ethnicity, or nationality in recognizing universality of concepts such as democracy and human rights. Thus he brings Iran back to the world, allying himself with democratic elements in his country no matter what their creed, and drawing freely upon the writings of democratic thinkers in the West.

Ponder those words carefully.

Here is a book review of the recently published OUT OF RUINS, A NEW IDENTITY, a post WWII history of Europe. The following excerpt from the review triggered some deeper thought.

The death of Stalin in March 1953 prompted hopes that the Soviet Union could be reformed, because there was plenty of evidence that the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat was an imperial project of an authoritarian state. Nevertheless, many Western leftists continued to believe in the communist movement long after those living within the socialist experiment had given up on it.

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 4:38 PM

Lisa: "Take this as constructive criticism..."

King: When I see you 'policing' this website for some of the blatant hate being peddled, only then will I consider your "constructive criticism," thanks anyway...

Besides, after you chastize me of name calling and summarily establishing myself as correct, you simply resort to the same.

Lisa: "When your are pressed for substantiation adn corroboration of your assertions, you turn tail and hide.."

King: Do I? Here I am, as I've been for months. Try again...

Lisa: "Can there remain any doubt why many do not take you seriously?"

King: Oh, I KNOW why it is! It is rather difficult to take anything other than your own opinion seriously when you are embroiled in broad paintbrush platitudes of your own, hating each and every Muslim on the face of the earth. I only say that not all Muslims are like this, and in return, I am dismissed as not serious.

Now that we're back to the beginning of my previous post, it is most amuzing to me (and others) to see how my perspective on this site brings out the most cheap, guttersnipe rhetoric.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 23, 2005 7:50 PM

Nariz posted:

"All one need to be is a concerned (about Islam) liberal and visit the hate and bile spewed by Gary, Susanp, kepha and albion etc towards LIBERALS and it is enough for a person to turn around and revisit their assumptions and opinions."

As you do not live in England & do not suffer the damage to your country, heritage & culture that the English have suffered because of LIBERAL sensibilities & policies since 1960 I make no excuse for daring to call a spade a spade.

This is my country & I will call it as I see it - much to the International Left Wings annoyance at hearing the truth about their complicity & naivety & treason with regards to Islam in my country.

Yes, treason.

As much as you detest my opinions, they are based on my experiences living as an Englishman in England.

The days when the English are dumbed down by Liberals shouting "Bigot" Racist" Fascist" for expressing the truth as they see it are rapidly coming to an end.

Fighting Jihad isn't a Left Wing / Right Wing thing?

Don't be so naive - everything political in the Western World is covered & affected by which side of the political fence you stand, & in my experience its only the Liberal Left Wing that pretend otherwise.

Now KT, where are those links?

Posted by: albion at October 24, 2005 6:40 AM

Pathetic, KT, absolutely patehtic, if that is the best you can do, next time try some neurosynaptic activity, you will find it to be quite invigorating.

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 1:32 PM

King Tolerance - I do not post hear. However, I am a regular reader of the sight. I am getting very sick of your hijacking of threads. You are a liberal relativist and an apologist - in short, you are a complete idiot. Stop posting here please, you have nothing to add to the site that is of any value whatsoever, you sound like the typically brainwashed BBC viewer or Toronto Star reader.

Your arguments are not even arguments, all you succeed in doing is murk up the waters and confuse issues.

Again, King Tolerance, kindly piss off of this website, you are a fool.

Posted by: The_Mountie at October 24, 2005 2:46 PM

To the infant known as King-Troll-Who-Rants --

Were you the "toddler" in whose diaper the grenade was found? I seem to remember reading another post at this site which documented such an event... and reading your childish blather above, and realizing you must have something extremely uncomfortable jamming up your rectum, I just thought it may have been you?

Just wondering!

Posted by: jsla at October 24, 2005 2:58 PM

King_Tolerance is merely a typical slow to understand Liberal. People like that only understand things fully for the brief moments before the scimitar comes down and the lights go out.

Posted by: The_Mountie at October 24, 2005 3:10 PM