| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Diana West speaks truth to power yet again in the Washington Times:
Now they want to put him to death — Mohaqeq Nasab, the Afghan editor already sentenced to two years hard labor for "blasphemy" against Islam. Now, Afghan prosecutors want to put him to death.Why? The Muslim editor of Women's Rights magazine published articles in post-Taliban Afghanistan that criticized aspects of Islamic law, including the penalties of stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, and death for leaving Islam.
"Sometimes the whole religion and the rules of the religion were attacked," explained Muhammed Aref Rahmani, who sits on Afghanistan's council of Islamic scholars.
Attacked? "For instance," Mr. Rahmani told the Chicago Tribune, "he says one woman should be equal to one man, as a witness in a case, which is completely against our religion."...
So much for post-Taliban — and, come to think of it, post-Operation-Enduring-Freedom — life in Afghanistan. Maybe the more useful exercise here is not to wonder how we became midwife to a theocratic police state but to see what we can learn from it. One thing is clear: where Islam is protected from so-called blasphemy, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech — let alone women's rights — are not....
For example, the Islamic furor over a dozen Mohammed cartoons published in a Danish newspaper — and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's refusal to meddle with his country's freedom of speech — continues to rise up the food chain, from death threats and street riots, to ambassadorial protests, to heads-of-state deliberations at the December OIC meeting in Mecca.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's reaction not only sums up the official Islamic response but is also highly significant given Turkey's bid to become the European Union bridge between the West and Islam. On a recent trip to Denmark, as recounted in the internet edition of the Turkish newspaper Zaman, Mr. Erdogan addressed the Mohammed-cartoon issue, saying, "Freedoms have limits, what is sacred should be respected." As columnist Mustafa Unal put it, Mr. Erdogan "indicated that respect towards what is considered sacred is more important than the freedom of expression."
Meanwhile, Denmark's Berlingske Tidende, via the blogger Fjordman (fjordman.blogspot.com), reports that the 56 countries of the OIC have now written the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to "help contain this encroachment on Islam, so the situation won't get out of control." In response, U.N. commissioner Louise Arbour emphasized her "regret" over "any statement or act that could express a lack of respect for the religion of others." Which sounds like the Danes are in U.N.-trouble. But what about the statements or acts — from censorship to death sentences — of the religion that encroach on the rights of others? That's a question no one dares to ask.
I'm asking. At least.
Posted by Robert at December 10, 2005 4:58 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The concept of democracy, one man, one vote, the right to choose, the protection of a constitution and the law means one thing in the West and another in Islam as do the concepts of freedom of personal choice, freedom of speech and all the rest. The Soviets called their totalitarian cultures democracies the Nazis allowed the vote as does Fidel Castro and up-coming tyrants: a label does not a democracy make.
More than a thousand years of ingrained Islamic Sha'ria will not be erased by a few thousand Western soldiers; a revolution must come from the hearts of the people involved in the target culture.
Posted by: epg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 10, 2005 5:37 AM
Democracy works, that is why all those people flock to the West! not long ago,women could not vote, it comes in stages. mullah's fears that the locals will keep on demanding more freedoms as time goes on, just as those in China will expect more as more of the middle class increase and education. its when you get do gooders liberals into power.. you have to keep working at democracy and freedom.
Posted by: Lulu at December 10, 2005 7:07 AM
Amen Lulu,
We're told that the struggle against Islam is not a Left-Right issue, but why is it that Diana West just happens to write for a conservative newspaper (the Wash Times)? Why is it the Danish gov't defending such intellectual freedom just happens to be conservative?
In fact, if one looks closely at all the op-ed commentators, internet bloggers, university professors and politicians who are willing to speak out honestly and forthrightly about Islamic intolerance, we find with very, very few exceptions they come from the Right of the political spectrum.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 10, 2005 8:33 AM
Isn't it time for the UN to declare Islam as being "hazardous to people and other living things" Of course, I won't hold my breath.
It is time for the West to start another "Crusade".
Posted by: learjet0450 at December 10, 2005 9:12 AM
It is time for the West to start another "Crusade".
Posted by: learjet0450 [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 10, 2005 09:12 AM
learjet it has begun,
Posted by: Lulu at December 10, 2005 9:18 AM
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Everybody out! NATO, US troops, Australian troops, all of them, out now!
This is the sort of shit that brave soldiers died for - and continue to die for - when removing the Taliban?
Fuck em all. If any group in Afganistan causes trouble in the future, send in the B52s with daisy cutters. No more troops on the ground here, ever again.
The lives of these people are simply not worth the sacrifice.
What a fucking disgrace.
And the UN thinks it is important not to commit "religious defamation" so don't look to that bunch of no hopers for help.
at December 10, 2005 9:35 AM
Mr. Erdogan considers that respect for what he considers sacred is more important than my freedom of expression.
Well fuck you Erdogan, and the Quran you rode in on.
Posted by: Anthony at December 10, 2005 9:38 AM
If you are concerned about freedom of expression, read this.
And contact your Congressperson immediately.
An internationalist assault on the sovereignty of the United States and the privacy of U.S. citizens is currently awaiting action by the full Senate.
The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime is being aggressively pushed by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), who reported the treaty out from his committee in early November. That should come as little surprise, in that Lugar has also been a leading proponent of the better-known Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), another key building-block in the structure of world government.
Originally conceived as a tool to facilitate international cooperation in the pursuit of computer hackers and the like, the Cybercrime Treaty evolved during 15 years of negotiations to encompass any criminal offense that involves electronic evidence -- which in the 21st century is essentially limitless.
As written, it could require more surveillance on Americans who have been accused of violating the laws of foreign countries -- even if they haven’t violated U.S. law. Treaty cheerleaders paint menacing pictures of hackers and child pornographers. But in reality the Convention is drafted so broadly that it encompasses virtually every area of law where the possibility exists of computerized evidence. That could affect thousands of innocent people, including not only political dissidents, but also the politically incorrect.
Fortunately, one heroic, albeit currently anonymous, conservative senator has placed a “hold” on this Cybercrime Convention, a procedural maneuver that prevents an immediate, unannounced vote on the floor of the whole Senate. Conservatives concerned with sovereignty and the Bill of Rights need to both become aware and raise others’ awareness of the dangers posed by the Cybercrime Treaty, lest the Senate acquiesce in this subjugation of Americans to European-style “hate speech” laws through an electronic back door.
Lugar’s pro-treaty rhetoric belies the broad, expansionary nature of the treaty. He claimed last year, in opening the sole hearing on the treaty, that "Prompt ratification . . . will help advance the security of Americans." That is simply not the case when one considers that the treaty could allow European or even Chinese Communist agents to electronically spy on innocent Americans.
And make no mistake, greater control over what we do on the Internet is the goal of the Eurocrats so enamored with global government. This is what Council of Europe Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio had to say in mid-November at the “World Summit on the Information Society,” hosted by that great human rights champion, Tunis: "The Information Society is clearly in need of a global governance mechanism. The Council of Europe, with its unchallenged human rights expertise, political consultation structures, and solid relationship with civil society, must be party to discussions undertaken at every step of the way concerning internet governance and human rights,” she said.
The European view of “human rights” includes the shielding from mere criticism of certain protected minorities such as abortionists, third-world immigrants, and homosexuals. The London Times reports that the European Commission has announced its first list of mandatory continent-wide criminal laws and will soon seek to add speech-based crimes such as incitement to hatred to the list. (France has in the past fined California’s Yahoo! for an American customer’s auction of a vintage Nazi war medal.) De Boer-Buquicchio and other Eurocrats regard the Cybercrime Treaty as one of those “global governance mechanisms” by which to enforce these views. She even went on to press for greater ratification of the Cybercrime Treaty in the very same speech.
And so it is no wonder that many leading conservatives have called on the Senate to hold serious, open hearings on this treaty. Leaders from American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, and Free Congress Foundation, among others, wrote to the Senate in June urging real hearings on these important concerns.
But despite these concerns, Lugar has put the treaty on the Senate calendar without conducting serious, probative hearings or investigations, calling only pro forma hearings and inviting only treaty supporters from the Justice and State Departments to testify.
It’s little wonder that the hearings were rigged. An open discussion of the issues at stake could cause many senators to cast a skeptical eye on the treaty, raising as it does many bipartisan concerns similar to those that have stalled expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act in the upper body as of late. Though the treaty is replete with mutual assistance in electronic surveillance, not one of the articles mention privacy.
Most egregious in Lugar’s ratification report to the full Senate is the voluntary declaration that foreign governments, under the fig leaf of “urgency,” be able to order American law enforcement agencies to enforce their orders without judicial review. So even though these foreign orders may be opposition to the U.S. Constitution, no U.S. judge will be able to enforce the Constitution to prevent it. The treaty also has no “dual criminality” requirement, which means federal law enforcement agencies could be investigating Americans for constitutionally-protected activities which offend European sensibilities.
Even worse, the Cybercrime Treaty is open to all nations to ratify. That means a future leftist President could even allow Communist China to sign on to the treaty and direct U.S. law enforcement to investigate Chinese dissidents, even Americans, based in the United States.
The Convention on Cybercrime would be highly detrimental to American sovereignty and free people everywhere. The Senate should under no circumstances blindly approve such a document.
Mr. Plummer is policy director for Liberty Coalition.
at December 10, 2005 10:28 AM
EPG-
The revolution will never come if all the reformers are killed off.
Send your rep a message, tell them about this outrage, the US and other countries can (and should) exert pressure on the Aghan government.
Make it clear that such persecution will result in a drop off in aid, international investement, etc.
Posted by: treehugger at December 10, 2005 11:31 AM
If your really pro-freedom of speech even when it hurts other peoples sensibilities, why do you oppose holocaust denial or hatred of jews by some misguided Muslims ? or support Abu Hamza and Umar Bakri etc or people who attack the western way of life?
Why dont you support their right to freedom of speech instead of campaigning against them and seeking to get them banned?
If you truly believe in freedom of speech you should believe in it for those who disagree with your views
I personally think that it is a mark of civilized people that they refrain from saying what will upset others and spreading hatred regardless of their religion, race or gender
Posted by: rumi at December 10, 2005 1:18 PM
rumi
Shouldn't you have your nose pasted to the floor and butt up in the air right about now? For it's submission time to your imagined god. But I’ll educate you before you begin your 7th century ritual.
It's obvious you haven't a clue about the posters here or western values in general. I assure you every poster here supports the right of you and you're ilk to say anything you like as long as it isn't incitement to violence.
Unlike in your fascist dream world, freedom of speech in our world works both ways. And that's a bit of the magic our world possesses that the muslim world will never have. Yes, we will endure the rantings of your mentally impaired mobots, but they will be challenged anytime they commit a crime against our people, values, or way of life.
For you see, this is how a successful civilized society works. All ideas can be expressed and debated. Ideas that are validated through debate are then accepted and implemented. Ideas that are rejected in this process are discredited and thrown into the dustbin.
The opposition you see to your death cult brethren is not for them speaking their views; it is our civilized way of rejecting those views. There is no need to cut out one’s tongue or behead someone for voicing an idea contrary to societies norms like there is in muslim societies.
The opposition you see to Islam is because people have rejected this belief system and found it incompatible with OUR way of life. And if this vocal rejection upsets you and your death cult followers, then get the fuck out of our society for you are not wanted here if you can’t live by OUR rules.
at December 10, 2005 2:53 PM
Anthony:
You took the words right out of my mouth! By the time I got to your post, I was so angry that my eyes were begining to turn red--then I read your post and my blood pressure came down a little.
I am ready for THE GAMES TO BEGIN! I want an all out WAR against these Muslim Scum Bags. I am tired of this PC crap--and my father would be turning over in his grave by now if he knew how the United States and other western nations were responding (my father was retired Navy 20 years--10 reserve). Like my dad always said for the Scum Bags of the earth--Dig a trench.....line them up....and mow them down! Stop feeding these human cockroaches!
(My dad was a young sailor on the Quincy during WWII and he talked about that Arab Shit coming on board and how they had to slaughter the animal (type I don't remember) for the Great Sand King to eat!)
Posted by: rumoret at December 10, 2005 2:57 PM
"sounds like the Danes are in U.N.-trouble. "
Switzerland seems to have done just fine out of the UN. Perhaps the Danes should consider leaving this less than illustrious syndicate...
Posted by: 3812Michelle at December 10, 2005 3:12 PM
"if one looks closely at all the op-ed commentators, internet bloggers, university professors and politicians who are willing to speak out honestly and forthrightly about Islamic intolerance, we find with very, very few exceptions they come from the Right of the political spectrum."
-- from a posting above
It would be truer to say that the most outspoken people in Europe have found echos, and a welcome when necessary, in parties deemed not of the left. But if one examines the expressed views on matters other than Islam of, inter alia, Pim Fortuyn (who felt he had to start his own party), of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of Oriana Fallaci, of Alain Finkielkraut, of Bat Ye'or, one would have to stretch things to describe these as people "coming from the Right." They come from nowhere but themselves. Some may join a party, some may never join but find that this or that party (usually quite a small one) is willing to give them a place, others remain resolutely without any easily discernible political orientation.
They are appalled by the menace and instruments of Jihad. They are appalled by what Islam teaches, inculcates, and is incapable of doing otherwise, whatever the constant allusion to non-existent "reform" -- the mechanism by which that "reform" would take place never quite articulated -- by various Muslims and apologists for Islam. But "of the Right"? Why? Are their views on economic and social matters otherwise "of the Right"? In what way do Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, Will Cummins, Kirby-Smith, Yvan Rioufol, or for that matter Magdi Allam, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, appear to warrant the description "come from the Right"?
Would it not be better to stop trying to inject this note on every conceivable and some not-conceivable occasions, and to try to win to the Jihadwatch point of view as many people, of whatever label or non-label, as can possibly be persuaded through the marshalling of evidence, the use of logic, the appeal to sweet reason and common sense and a knowledge of history? Why drag in "Left" and "Right" when it does not help, but only divides, hinders, offends here and offends there. Why?
Posted by: Hugh at December 10, 2005 3:12 PM
Bravo Diana! Think many Posters are losing the point - WE SHOULD ALL BE SUPPORTING MOHAQEQ NASAB
EDITOR OF WOMENS RIGHTS NEWSPAPER!! This guy is in danger of torture & worse while we debate if
going into Afghanistan was right thing to do...
Situation is already 'fait accompli' [a thing done] and WE OUGHT TO BE BLASTING OUR LEADERS FOR
NOT MAKING AFGHANISTAN A SAFE PLACE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS!!
at December 10, 2005 3:43 PM
"...respect towards what is considered sacred is more important than the freedom of expression."
In totalitarian systems, that's an absolute given.
Posted by: scaramouoche at December 10, 2005 4:52 PM
What does Hamid Kharzai to all this?
Posted by: foreign devil at December 10, 2005 6:22 PM
Tree Hugger
A fascinating article!
In the midst of this islamic jihad. we forget that the Eurocrats aims is to control everything from the size and shape of a carrot grown in rural France to the postings on this website.
Leaving a world full of Zombies who Are not allowed to do or to think anythimg without their approval.
Sounds a bit like islam to me.
at December 10, 2005 6:30 PM
i agree with chevalier, who agrees with treehugger. the cybercrime treaty is a TRUE THREAT to americans. please re-read treehugger's post and take action. unless a DUAL CRIMINALITY amendment is added to this motion, it is not accepable as written.
Posted by: Jim at December 10, 2005 7:49 PM
"Rumi" sez:
...If your really pro-freedom of speech even when it hurts other peoples sensibilities, why do you oppose holocaust denial or hatred of jews by some misguided Muslims ? or support Abu Hamza and Umar Bakri etc or people who attack the western way of life?
Why dont you support their right to freedom of speech instead of campaigning against them and seeking to get them banned?
If you truly believe in freedom of speech you should believe in it for those who disagree with your views
I personally think that it is a mark of civilized people that they refrain from saying what will upset others and spreading hatred regardless of their religion, race or gender
Posted by: rumi at December 10, 2005 01:18 PM
Free speech and democracy works for like-minded people in a civilized society.
It doesn't apply to barbarians who incite violence, genocide and subjugation in the guise of religion or any other totalitarian ideology.
Subversion, sedition, the perversion of our laws in order to destroy our society, enslave the population to forcibly convert or kill them, the destruction of our economy and the replacement of all that with the "Kaliphate" and the sharia, that will not happen. We are not stupid or 'liberal' enough to allow an Islamic takeover through the backdoor.
It is Islam that will be destroyed in the process.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
at December 10, 2005 8:01 PM
In the old days, we had a saying: Sticks and stones will break my bones, but WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME.
But Rumi believes "If you truly believe in freedom of speech you should believe in it for those who disagree with your views"
EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
BUT **NOBODY** HAS THE **RIGHT** TO NOT BE OFFENDED.
LIFE AIN'T FAIR. GET OVER IT.
Posted by: Jim at December 10, 2005 8:05 PM
Hugh,
Left vs. right is relevant.
No one on the left will ever support your point of view. Not Noam Chomsky, not Michael Moore, not Howard Dean. Not George Galloway. Not Cynthia McKinney.
Why? For whatever reason, carrying a membership card of "the left" requires a belief that light skin is wrong, dark skin is right. Christianity is wrong, Islam is right. Sharon is wrong, Abbas is right.
End of story. Nothing more to discuss. Don't bother me with logic. Next topic.
One cannot believe otherwise and still be on "the left."
For whatever reason, being on the "right" does not involve such rules of membership.
Posted by: kamala at December 10, 2005 9:24 PM
OT (but not completely)
Check out this posting by Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley.
'An Islamist threat like the Nazis'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050912-122024-9420r.htm
at December 11, 2005 12:16 AM
In response to Hugh, kamala writes that "left vs. right is relevant" in the debate over Islam (et al).
I have to disagree. Pluralistic democracies are by nature susceptible to a "divide and conquer" strategy. On this issue of opposing jihad, we can ill afford to play into our enemies' hands by making "left vs right" relevant any more than we can afford to make this a partisan issue.
Just as you fear a monolithic "Left", there are many regulars to this site (perhaps currently perceived as just to the left of center) who fear a monolithic "Right" which would require "rules of membership" on religious & social issues ... especially when some on the right suggest that the Islamists might go away if only we would embrace their "moral" stances on pornography, gays, decadent art, etc. (thinking of recent Savage Nation comments here).
Left & Right are subjective, linear terms that were coined by the French in an effort to broadly categorize the diverse political groups which were evolving in the early history of their democratic, representative governance. They were utilitarian terms whose purpose was to divide into camps people who previously had not even been allowed into the same campgrounds.
Today, application of these terms is based wholly upon the observer's perspective on particular (often fashionable) issues. What is "left" or "right" tends to shift with the times ... often steered into pigeon-holes by those who use these labels most loudly.
Such terms are blunt instruments born of pluralism and shaped by the dynamic of democracy. As such, they represent foreign concepts to our common totalitarian enemy, but concepts they will nonetheless gladly help us to turn on ourselves.
It is our common values of pluralism, representative democracy, and (yes) secularism that we should emphasize and seek to strengthen in our effort to build a unified defense.
at December 11, 2005 3:10 AM
the notion of a political spectrum ["left" - "right"] is one of the ways in which people are confused. For instance, many things said today by many leftists were said in the 1920s and 1930s by many rightists.
Posted by: Eliyahu at December 11, 2005 4:02 AM
epg:
No, those concepts you listed are not understood differently in the West and in Islam. The West created those concepts: democracy, freedom of speech, constitution, voting rights, etc. In Islam they do not exist, period. They never have.
Soviet "democracy" was an out-and-out lie, not a particular understanding of that concept; and yes, Fidel's Cubans have equal voting rights, but nobody votes "freeley." There's no real choice, everybody knows the vote is stacked from the very beginning, yet folks go to the polls because those who refuse to vote are blacklisted. Everybody votes out of fear. When voting day comes, you just do it, it's a rite you've learned to perform since childhood, and after voting you go crazy and hedonistic, fiesting on fresh seafood, alcohol, and dancing--Fidel loves it that way.
at December 11, 2005 1:28 PM
I am afraid that I must disagree with a number of the posts here.
The Left is a major cause of the problems that Europe and to a lesser extent the US now faces.
Consider the Islamic fundamentalist agenda:
No rights for women
criminalising homosexual behavior
the end of the rule of law and the myth of human rights
Imposition of Sharia law
Why is it that the Left and the media so avidly support a group that so openly espouses view which if the were put forward by a native European would see them in jail with the press baying at their door.
The answer I believe is simple. The Left has seen ever sacred cow discredited for the last fifty years, Stalin was a tryant who killed more russians than Hitler, the communist system failed from within because it was fundamentally flawed and demoracy is now seen as the only successful system. The result is a search for anything that challenges the system that has proven the most successful in history at raising up the poor and providing freedom from want for the vast majority.
At least in the UK, the Left and a large part of the UK media never consider the success of the system in which they are priviliged to live. Rather they blame it for all the world's ill's; the real reason that Africa is sinking deeper in to povety is not western oppression, but the fact that the aid money, the equivilent of at least three Marshal Plans has been squandered by corrupt governments.
The Arabs hate us because they are poor and neglected. Nonsense, only Richard Reid (The Shoe bomber) could be said to come from a poor background. The majority of Islamic terrorist are from middle class backgrounds, educated to degree level and have been exposed to what they see as a corrupt western society. They hate us because we are successful and that challenges the most basic part of their belief system. If they are following the True prophet why are their countries so weak and corrupt.
If there is to be any hope for the future of our civilisation we must not underestimate this threat because if we do then we should be rightly damned by the generations that will face the consequneces of our failure.
Each of us has a duty to challenge this attitude wher ever and when ever we see it. Whether it is the idiot at a dinner party who needs a lesson in history, or an outrageously biased piece in the media. If enough of us start to speak out then we may tip the balance and allow our childern to enjoy the same priviliges that we have.
It will not be easy and I will admit that I have often made the terrible error of getting angry about some outrage and then keeping silent. I no see that that time has long past.
Fight the good fight
Posted by: Aetius at December 11, 2005 8:51 PM
Since when in the name of God (and NOT allah) has Islam EVER respected anything sacred to those who are non-Islamic? Never??
To most human beings, human life is sacred and represents all that is sacred. Has Islam ever respected life itself?? Is there anything that has ever made a bigger travesty of the sanctity of life itself??? (No).
Islam respects its own ideals which are antithetical to human life. Slaughtering human beings like cows and chickens is what Islam holds 'sacred'. Islam is theerfore not only disrespectful it is absolutely, inherently and intrinsically OFFENSIVE IN THE EXTREME!
The Turkish Prime Minister has turned humself into a one-man comedy routine a la Red Skelton's Klam Kadiddlehopper suggesting that non-Muslims respect sacredness vis-a-vis Islam. You can bet your bottom dollar Muslims will never find anything 'sacred' in the non-Islamic world.
at December 12, 2005 10:27 PM
a note to Rumi:
Islam is built upon the destruction of human life and all human freedom. Respect is both alien and anathema to Islam. Islam was set up to slaughter everyone on the world who is NOT Muslim. Don't ask anyone to 'respect' murder and those who conspire to commit it.
Why should we have respected the Nazis? Was Hitler a respectable human being? Not to anyone who values human life.
In fact, Islam itself is absolutely incapable of the respect it now demands from everyone else. Muslims must be aware of this. There is no point in mincing words. Islam is a killing machine that is beyond the bounds of respect. Islam doesn't even respect life itself (to state the obvious).
Islam as such is a grave danger to all of humanity. As was the Third Reich.
Islam will have to be destroyed. There is no alternative. It cannot even be modified.
We are past the point where "respect" has any relevance here, since it cannot save the lives of those targeted by Islam for murder.
at December 12, 2005 10:50 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)