That's all leftists (or whatever you want to call them) ever seem to do: call you racist. Every single time I've debated such a person, I've been called a racist along with a host of other titles, such as Nazi, fascist and asshole.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 17, 2006 8:05 AM

From the article sidebar: "Foreigners only allowed in to work, not live off benefits"

Now that IS definitely a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Caroline at June 17, 2006 8:28 AM

Minister in the Swedish government and member of the ruling Social Democratic Party: We will become Islamized
(translation from Swedish is mine)

"We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and the Muslims because when we will become the minority they will be like that towards us."

Jens Orback, minister in the Swedish government, 2004

The original quote in Swedish:

"Vi måste vara öppna och toleranta mot islam och muslimerna för när vi blir i minoritet kommer de att vara det mot oss."

http://icevikings.blogspot.com/2006/06/minister-in-swedish-government-and.html

Posted by: IceViking at June 17, 2006 8:49 AM

The left at least in this era has no substanial ideas so they name call. Everything is racist this and racist that. Their rhetorical maturity level is about the same as four year engaging in potty talk and calling you a boo-boo head.I am ever so sick and tired of this rhetorical pig-swill.

Yes confront this head on or better yet kick them out of the way, with martial law if necessary. I say to the leftist children; the adults are having conversation, please go outside and play and if you are good, later on you can have a threat.

Most of the left are insolent, over grown children, unfit or real life and real world. It is time to grow up and come of fairy land even if you are 60 year old graying decreped left over from the generation of 68 . Marxism, Maoism and the rest of the leftist philosophical dung is the pedantic fantasies of mental midgets and over grown child. Play time is over, losers.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at June 17, 2006 8:49 AM

"later on you can have a threat."

Was that a Freudian slip?:-)

Posted by: Caroline at June 17, 2006 9:07 AM

Opps, not a freudian slip, more like an early morning blunder.

As for above post about one Jens Orback, wow they really are dumber then I thought in Sweden. I should probile hurry up and visit the ancestral haunts before its is all gone, the village church burned up as so much pre-Islamic Jahillya.(The graves of my ancestors trashed, like those of the Armenians)So sentimential I am. On the other hand I don't wan't to get robbed and beaten by maurading Somalis youths in Sweden; oh wait I can just stay home in the People's Republik of Minnesota and enjoy the exact same experience.I see over on Jihadwatch the robbers will be getting reinforcements. Goody.

Good luck with that whole Muslims will be merciful, because we where merciful thing.It has never happened before, but you never know, you might get lucky,be that one time in a million. It would be funny if the consequnces of such idiocy weren't so tragic and dire, the blood of many will on the hands of Jens Orback and the rest of Dhimmirats.Have a nice day.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at June 17, 2006 9:29 AM

Too late. The French are already demographically doomed by Islam.

Posted by: Celsius at June 17, 2006 9:52 AM

IF this measure has any real meaning, the French will riot against it, and, in true French fashion, it will be repealed.

Oh, the French. Couldn't happen to a better people. Ever since the English beat them at Agincourt in 1415, the French have been a disgruntled bunch.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 17, 2006 9:58 AM

This crying "racism" tactic, used by Islamist groups and their mostly leftist allies, needs to be, as Robert says, confronted head-on. Criticize their leftist*-Islamic ideology, and predictably you will be accused of criticizing skin colour. (Ironically enough, this accusation of racism is in nearly all instances directed at white people, i.e., it is systematic discrimination against whites, i.e., racism. Of course, proponents of this ideology insist that they are not racist and that no other group but whites is or has ever been racist. To hold such a view comfortably, it helps to be ignorant of world history).

*BTW, I am "left" of centre on many issues (and I have many friends who are left, blah, blah, blah), though I think the categories left and right are not all that informative generally. They are informative, however, in regards to support for Islam (among non-Muslims) and use of political correctness in a skewed way (i.e., rigged against non-Muslims, and white westerners), which is predominantly (not exclusively) a trait of those who support leftist political parties and ideologies.
_________________________________________________

Ah, what the heck. This is as good a place as any to post the Koranic insults for the umpteenth time on JW/DW:

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (some Christians and/or Jews were) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); are like frightened donkeys chased by a lion (74:50-51), are like cattle—nay, worse than cattle (7:179), are like dogs (7:176); they (idolators) are unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103, 10:100); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); Allah sends devils against them to make them do evil (19:83); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89), liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (5:53, 7:178-179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), among the lowest (58:20); the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

In reading those insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief is the worst crime)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers

Whew! I'm so relieved that Islam does not discriminate on the basis of race*, but only discriminates on the basis of adherence to Islamic religious-political-militaristic-legalistic ideology.

*Actually, Islamic tradition and law do discriminate in a manner that is Arab supremacist (i.e., it has ethnic-racial supremacist elements, the most notable being its preference for black and white slaves, as opposed to Arab slaves), but this is not consistently supported by the Islamic texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira).

Posted by: Archimedes at June 17, 2006 10:16 AM

We it comes to some in the left, one should do an Ann Coulter. hit them head on with as much emotion and argument as you can.

Her new book is number one in sales this week.

Hit them head on, call them ignorant, traitors and communists!

Many are but don't want to be called that.

Make fun of their silly Che shirts.

Celsius, you are wrong! there is still time left for France and Islam is waking up the vast and silent majority. They jumped the gun at 911, too bad!

I have met the true future of France, a young couple with four children, from a small French town, sees the danger of Da'wa and is ready to vote!

Viva la france! the world is with you.

Posted by: El Cid at June 17, 2006 10:31 AM

Jesus Christ Supercop writes: "Every single time I've debated such a person, I've been called a racist along with a host of other titles, such as Nazi, fascist and asshole."

There really is no way to debate with such people. The purpose of the yelling, screaming and name-calling is to cut off debate and muzzle you. As we saw during the riots of the 1960's, all attempts to conciliate such radicals failed.

You have two choices. You can either (a) stoop to their level (raise your voice too and call THEM human trash, human filth, vermin, fit for extermination, etc.), or (b) just have the cojones to just ram them aside and get them out of your way.

Approach (a) is more fun, and something they never expect. My attitude is, Hey, you keep saying we're Nazis and fascists, why don't we demonstrate to you what real Nazis and fascists would be like, by calling for your systematic extermination?

But elected officials aren't allowed to have as much fun as Ann Coulter, so approach (b) is more appropriate and more dignified.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 17, 2006 10:37 AM

10 years is too long. We all know that. You can't let a North-African Muslim come to France, give him a work-permit and kick him out after 10 years if he has always done the 'right thing'... 10 years gives them entitlements, it also gives them time to -possibly- marry somebody with a French passport, so this is just a bit of huff & puff by Szarkosy, but no real substance.

4 years max, then they must not be allowed back for the next 4 years, that might make it harder. But 10 years makes no difference at all in reality...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 17, 2006 10:56 AM

"Make fun of their silly Che shirts." --El Cid.

OT.

Yes, you reminded me of an article I read last year titled "Che Guevara: The Killing Machine" by Alvaro Vargas Llosa (National Post, Sept. 20, 2005). The author writes about how Che Guevara was actually a cold-blooded murderer, and yet he is revered as some kind of hero.

"In April, 1967, speaking from experience, Guevara summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his "Message to the Tricontinental: "...hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine."""

I thought some of the similarities between Guevara and Mohammad were striking.

"...Che's lust for power had other ways of expressing itself besides murder. In 1958, after taking the city of Sancti Spiritus, Guevara unsuccessfully tried to impose a kind of sharia, regulating relations between men and women, the use of alcohol, and informal gambling--a puritanism that did not exactly characterize his own way of life. He also ordered his men to rob banks..."

Posted by: Archimedes at June 17, 2006 11:36 AM

Every single time I've debated such a person, I've been called a racist along with a host of other titles, such as Nazi, fascist and asshole. -Jesus Christ Supercop

If a debate degenerates into name-calling, as they often do, it is usually pointless to continue. Name-calling is usually a defensive tactic of someone who knows they are losing the argument, but refuse to be swayed (or they are just a stupid person).
Often it is best not to overwhelm anyone with data, nor to argue from opinions. Use facts and uncontested sources. The simple casual mention of 'Aisha's marriage to Mohammed (Ahadith Sahih Bukhari 7:62:65) or Jihad equalling war and not 'spiritual struggle' (4:52:42) or a similar thing can be quite disarming by itself. Cast such a terrible weapon into the conversation as if it is common knowledge then continue on to something else. Let the fact do the work.
Be prepared to support yourself with citations and references, otherwise the effect will be lost if they demand such. If your mind goes blank, either say "I read about it recently. I'll find the source and get back to you." or give a vague reference "Aisha said so in the Hadith."
This type of argumentation sometimes gets around the defenses of people who have already built up a resistance to a point of view. If they wish to contest what you say, make them argue against facts and not against you.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at June 17, 2006 1:04 PM

That approach won't work. They'll simply respond that the Quran can be interpreted in multiple ways, and that only the fake Muslims who use Islam as an excuse for terrorism will read the violent passages. If they're "clever," they can say that I don't understand the Quran anyway because I'm not a Muslim (they, on the other hand, understand it perfectly). They may also point out that the Bible says the exact same thing somewhere, or that Christians used to do this and that a thousand years ago.

Citing news articles is not a good idea either. If the article is about, say, an honor killing, they'll write it off as an isolated incident that could have been done by anyone, regardless of religion or nationality. If you ask them to consider the viewpoints of the opposing side by linking to a site like Jihad Watch, they'll dismiss it as biased and fascist right wing propaganda faster than you can blink.

If you try to use logical thinking (which is what I like to do), they'll just pump out moral/cultural equivalency arguments until they reach the point where they can start calling me a racist who spends his Sunday afternoons playing with SS dolls. They will also, without failure, mention that they know a few Muslims who are nice people, and therefore any argument I make is null and void.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 17, 2006 1:17 PM

JC Supercop,

Debate them anyway, to as large an audience as possible.

A lot of the counterattacks you're listing are reasons to debate, not disengage from it. The whole point of Islamic apologists' evasions and counterattacks is to discourage us. We should up the ante, not back off. This is like a tug-of-war where if one side eases up, the other side wins. As long as Islamic propagandists are lying in the media, we have to keep pointing out the facts and telling people to read the Koran for themselves so that they can make their own judgement. Eventually, the public will catch on, but not if we let the Islamist propagandists control the game.

Posted by: Archimedes at June 17, 2006 1:59 PM

JC Supercop,

Generally I agree with you.
I agree that in the short term well informed anti-anti-Islamists will dismiss or 'reinterpret' the facts, citations, whatever. The hope is that a seed of doubt can be formed. Knowing the interpretations of well respected Muslim scholars of defend your point helps. Knowing the Bible and biblical history backwards and forwards helps against "the Bible teaches the same thing" arguments. Knowing "Christian" history also helps. Don't try to defend the indefensible. If a "Christian" did something wrong, admit it. I once was talking to a very hostile person who became my friend because I agreed with him that what a Christian had done, that other Christians were defending, was wrong.
I cast my net wide hoping for many fish, but I am happy if I catch just one. This method has worked for me, but I am willing to learn others. Keep going. Endure–despise the shame.

In any case, may you always have the right words for the moment.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at June 17, 2006 2:13 PM

No need to write off France. They are far closer to rock bottom than the UK. As any recovering alcoholic can attest, he needs to wake up in the gutter, caked in his own vomit before realizing there is a problem. This point is not far off.

The predicted US bombing of Iran before the mid terms should be the catalyst required for the carbeques to start again. This will be the start of the long road back to recovery.

When the illegals chucked out start finding their way to Bethnal Green and Bradford, maybe the UK will start to take the problem seriously.

As for Sarkozy's limited immigration plan. Its just smoke and mirrors. Quite apart from the fact that there are bilateral agreements with so many 3rd world nations with 'special' clauses, (Here is a recent example concerning Senegal http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20060606.WWW000000349_sarkozy_propose_un_accord_bilateral_au_president_senegalais.html )

that it will not make the slightest dent in the problem.

Whoever wins the 2007 elections here will be presiding over the chaos of a nation falling apart financially and socially.

In this kind of context, anything can happen.

Posted by: Sebastien at June 17, 2006 3:28 PM

It is never easy when dealing with individual cases – but with the former immigration laws all of Algeria would have eventually been able to immigrate to France - where every family member can bring a family member and so on and so on!

One minute they are the poor immigrant who just wants a job and a better life and next – it will be – Oh, we don’t like your way of life here in France – France needs to be more Islamic – perhaps we can find other things to do with those wine growing regions.

Enough is enough!

Most don’t see education as important, customs and Islam trump all – so many live off the state. The main ambition for their children – is to marry the child off the cousin in waiting in Algeria /Morocco – and the new (many times uneducated) spouse is brought up to France and they all live on state benefits together and whole cycle is repeated.

Who is paying for this?
The French have the right to say NO!

Posted by: Pass It On at June 17, 2006 4:24 PM

St. David, King of Georgia suggests, "Often it is best not to overwhelm anyone with data, nor to argue from opinions. Use facts and uncontested sources."

Sorry, but as someone who has tangled with these multiculturalist folks on Internet newsgroups, I can tell you that your approach doesn't work. The reason is that they keep reverting to tu quoque: They keep changing the subject to Timothy McVeigh, or abortion clinic bombers, or Vietnam, or "Israel's genocide of the Palestinians," or Bush's alleged stealing of the 2000 election, or the atom-bombing of Hiroshima, or slavery in the antebellum South. I can't make Islam the issue, because they keep making the U.S. and Israel the issue.

What all the discussions always boil down to is this: Does the United States, with its own flawed past, have the moral right to criticize the Muslim world? What right does the Western world have to judge anybody?

To answer that takes a whole lot of world history and a whole lot of moral philosophy--multiple college courses would be required to answer it. Frankly, it's a question that is beyond the scope of Jihad Watch. But every time I've tried to have a serious discussion about Islam with multiculturalists, that's where it always ends up.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 17, 2006 5:11 PM

Steven L.,

You're right, JC Supercop is right, and St. David is right. That doesn't change the fact that we need to keep at those Islamists and their sympathizers/apologists. The more we work on them, the more difficult it will be for them. There is the donkey work of just hammering away at them in discussions, articles, debates, etc., and there is the strategic work in planning, reassessing and isolating weak points in our arguments as well as theirs, organizing, etc. At the same time as we are debating them, we are providing examples for others who already suspect that Islam is a problem and are not prone to multiculturalist flights of fantasy and knee-jerk PC prejudices. I do believe these debates do have an impact on our opponents, even though the last thing they'll do is acknowledge that during the discussion. It takes a while to sink in. What we are arguing publicly now is the basis for what will be argued further 2 years, 5 years, 10 years from now.

I believe that saying and doing nothing would be much, much worse.

Posted by: Archimedes at June 17, 2006 7:09 PM

Steven L.; J.C. SuperCop, et al-

Skip the moral philosophy angle or attempting to reason with those who believe only in one thing:

the suicide of the West, if they are technically "Westerners"-

or:

the annihilation of the West- if they are not.

Reduce every argument to Survival.

Nothing else ultimately matters.

And human survival means nothing without intellectual survival.

A free mind is essential for any meaningful life.

But Islam forbids human intelligence from developing beyond the dogmas of the 7th century tyrant Mohammed. Under threat of ritual murder.

Hit the naive suckers back hard with simple, unpleasant truths about Islam:

Founded by a murderous, raping, lying, child molestor.

Built on slaughter, theft and genocide.

And proud of it.

If the people you argue with want that kind of absolute, intolerant, murderous, theocratic Nightmare State to conquer their Civilization and themselves, then the hell with them.

And move on to someone whose survival instincts haven't withered to a useless, vestigal nub.

The main problem ewith this mindset seems to be a form of self-loathing nihilism posing as open-mindedness. (So open their brains fall out, as my first [and last] year Latin teacher used to say.)

Some people are hopeless, gutless, and want "peace" at any price, -even that of their liberty, dignity and humanity.

Slaves in larval form.

Show them contempt, if sense won't work.

It is far too late to waste breath (or key strokes) on such cowering, a-historical fools.

May their deaths be as painless as possible once their invited-in Muslim conquerors arrive, but this entire "type" only slows the Resistence to Islamic Imperialism by their fatal wishful thinking.

Bid them good luck, and find functioning minds to encounter, ones with a shred of self-defensive juice still left in their sluggish veins. A transfusion of passion and a concise exposition ("Mohammad was a pedophile warlord") of the threat we face may revive them.

If not, don't force feed those who say they aren't starving. Let them fade away in their immaterial fog.

Millions marched meekly to the death camps, pretending it was utterly incredible and impossible for other fellow beings to be so inhuman as to kill them... for no reason other than their mere ethnicity.

Their epitaphs were written in indifferent smoke.

Over Auschwitz. And scores of other camps.

Islam is Nazism with a "God".

The most dangerous despotism.

Who cannot see it are lost.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 17, 2006 7:31 PM

Steven L.,

You could ask them to assume that the US, Bush, Zionists, European colonialists et al. are all wrong. Does that make Islam right?

To be honest, I rarely mince words with full-blown politically correct multiculturist types. Most of my conversations are face to face with people who get their information from TV news. For these people, using a few uncomfortable facts often works. Usually, I save these snippets of facts for co-workers and acquaintences when the occassional mention of Islam or terrorism comes up. A few well orchestrated facts can often help tilt the views of the nominal "anti-Islamophobe". One must choose one's tactics and weapons for one's opponent. I am doing what little I can where I am to change the tide of public opinion. I cannot change the whole nation or West, but I can get a person here and there to agree with me.

Some people really wish to be blind. Some people really hope that "Islam is a religion of peace" so much that they will parrot this statement while their wife is raped and their throat is cut. If all you are getting back from them is "straw men" arguments and "wild goose chases" they are probably unlikely to change. I usually throw them something I think may eventually cause them to pull their head from the sand. After that I brush them aside until they wish to talk with me and not at me. I generally debate people on such serious matters if I think they may be open to change and new ideas. It is pointless to debate a wall. Why attack Constantinople first? Conquer Anatolia first, it is easier. In any case, we cannot simply stay home and farm while they prepare for war. If you are able to disarm an Islamic apologist or Muslim, and your method goes against all I have said, then I am with you.

If they keep trying to say we are the same as them, their culture is as valid as ours, their religion is as valid as whatever we hold, debate is difficult. If you yourself are a relativist, it can be nearly impossible. To argue with those who keep trying to say everything is equivalent and "Who am I to judge?" it is best to attack first the concept that all truth is subjective. If you can get them to admit that 'feeding hungry orphans' is objectively better than 'murdering the innocent', you might be able to make headway with them.

When I debate on a subject, I always approach the matter with the possibility that I could be wrong. If I am wrong or misinformed, I am willing to change. It is silly to expect others to change if we are unwilling. This openness is often disarming. I don't change my views easily, but I have made a couple radical "lose my job and place to live" type decisions because I became convinced that what I believed was false. Don't expect people to casually change their whole worldview because of one debate or blog. Keep in mind: The very person that is is throwing tu quoque arguments at you today may be your ally ten years from now.

My original point attempted to say that arguing from personal opinion ("But Islam makes me sad.") is a very weak strategy that will open you up to being labeled a racist bigot. Taking the effort to learn a little about the subject so that you are able to present a few points that are objective will give a much stronger offense while being less prone to being labelled. Some people will label you regardless.

My hope is that someone reading this on the sidelines, afraid of having their good name smeared with the label fascist, will decide it is more important to stand for truth and decency than to live in fear of labels. I am giving them a place to start.

Choose your battles, retreat if necessary, but never surrender the truth.

I apologize for the long Off Topic.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at June 17, 2006 7:47 PM

Regarding the issue of attempting to change the minds of lefties .
In my private thoughts I often stage these arguments in my head with many moonbat -inclined friends , armed with information from JW.
Unfortunately , I usually chicken out because I can see their utter refusal to listen to any debate is so ingrained, the lefty cliches roll out so automatically from them ( Bush, Oil, "bible is just as violent" Abu Graib etc.. ) that I give up before I begin.
eg one night this week I attended a farewell dinner for a friend off to the USA . He nominated a local vegetarian restaurant. Even the decor was cliched "moonbat " with a donation station and info on ( I kid you not ) " Orphan Rumanian Bears ". ( what a burning issue in the world today -start a college fund for orphan foreign bears- what about our local , domestic bears ? they have to fend for themselves, obviously. )
Anyway , aside from the guy leaving I knew nobody and wasnt prepared to alienate the whole table of ( all younger ) people when the topic got onto world affairs and the anti-US rhetoric flowed. I bit my lip.
However I have noticed one bright hope of late.
With some there is a kind of wavering of the voice in mouthing the platitudes, or their attacking "statements " end in a slight upward inflection as if questioning their own rhetoric, ever so subtly. As if a teensy doubt is starting to permeate the PC-ness. As if repeating their mantras will make it true.
I think a few , or maybe more than a few , more statements from Islamic " spiritual advisors " extolling jihad,( Bashir and JI ) a few more local honour killings, a gas attack or two, and these cracks will become a floodgate.

I think Leftism is like drug/ alcohol addiction. The subject has to want to change. Until then change cannot be imposed from outside.

Posted by: protestcat at June 17, 2006 11:16 PM

Bravo profitsbeard well said and very true.

Islam is Nazism with a "god"

May I reprint this, I would like to add it to the cards I leave to my fellow New Yorkers.

Posted by: El Cid at June 18, 2006 12:05 AM

That's all leftists (or whatever you want to call them) ever seem to do: call you racist. Every single time I've debated such a person, I've been called a racist along with a host of other titles, such as Nazi, fascist and asshole. Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop

I understand your anger and angst and I feel it, and have felt it as well, but truth be known..the reason there has been social problems, and that which accounts for the rise of the "left" is the fear and intransigence of the majority.. which in the U.S. is white, Christian, (Republican), and male. that is a fact.

If it weren't for white male slave holders there would not have been a civil war. Were it not for the intransigent and fearful whites there wouldn't have been a "civil rights" problem. If it weren't for fearful white men, women would not have had to militate for voting and equal civil rights.. and so it goes.. now that whites and blacks are enfranchised the need to discriminate (safely) has turned on the gays and "feminists" aka "abortionists".. and on it goes.

We are at a precipice, and we need EVERY person who values freedom to stand with us in a voice, but what do we have instead, we have Karl Rove, George W. Bush and the "Conservatives" declaring war (not on Islamists) but on fellow tax paying democracy loving citizens.. the gays.

You, this administration, and "conservatives" are the dumbest creatures on earth..you turn people who would naturally be allies into enemies.. and that is pure plain stupid.

Yes Supercop, if I quizzed you I would probably also call you a NAZI, a fascist and a racist. You have too many fears, too many druthers and too much on your plate.. there is only one concern that is valid, and that is will there be a viable future? And if there are a bunch of Spanglish speaking gays walking around, I don't give a rats you know what, just so long as there is still a secular constitution of something called the united states of America, and one which continues to guarantee and ensure the rights and freedoms of all those who would give their all to protect and defend those rights and freedoms (which does exclude the Muslims).

Posted by: Nariz at June 18, 2006 12:05 AM

Nariz shut up and fight for your civilization.....

You would be the first one beheaded by the Jihadists.

We are fighting for our survival, do you want to be the enabler of the Islamic Nazis?

Step aside or join the fight!

Posted by: El Cid at June 18, 2006 12:21 AM

El Cid-

El of course.

(But I think a capital "G" in "god" makes people notice the incongruity more...)

I'm now going to put on my old Miklos Rosza soundtrack to the movie "El Cid" and remember when defending your Civilization against barbarians was still considered normal.

As the Spanish say (which fits Islam's modus operandi perfectly):

"Hurtar para dar por Dios."

(To steal in order to give alms [to God].)

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 18, 2006 1:15 AM

"Islam is Nazism with a "God"."

- profitsbeard

Well put, mon ami! I recently said the same thing on sciforums.com: islam is fascism on God. I think this is resoundingly true. It doesn't necessarily have to be all islam - but that's the prevailing wind.

There's a tragedy of the commons issue behind that as well - that 'great quiet majority' of the ummah, losing nothing themselves, say nothing at increasing islamicization and the oppression of the kufr - for people have other things to do and, really, doesn't every theist desire to be closer to God? How better to do so than revert a bit to the old ways? A culpable silence reigns.

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at June 18, 2006 2:50 AM

OT

If it weren't for white male slave holders there would not have been a civil war.

-Posted by: Nariz at June 18, 2006 12:05 AM

The US Civil War was not begun over slavery.

Northern states wished to buy Southern raw materials below market value and then sell finished goods to the South above market value. The South was retaliating for this injustice by buying and selling goods in Europe at market value. It was more cost effective for Southern states to trade with Europe than with New York or Boston! The North decided this was intolerable and began to blockade major Southern ports, which led to armed conflict. It's in the History books.

Slavery was an issue exploited by both sides during the war to foster support for their side. About 20 years after the war technology would have caused the end of plantation slavery anyway.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at June 18, 2006 9:37 AM

I think this bill is an attempt of French politicians to look like they are seriously dealing with immigration issues while guaranteeing themselves ten years to hope the problem goes away.

We are at a precipice, and we need EVERY person who values freedom to stand...

There are as many conservatives about ignorant of the malicious nature of Islam as there are liberals. I hope we can wake up both.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at June 18, 2006 9:49 AM

Gracias, señor, profitsbeard.

My ancestors were spanish military, I grew up with the stories of El Cid as told by my Grandfather. I can't help but resist.

Spain was unified by the threat of Islam, both saved and contaminated in it's struggle of liberation from the so-called golden age of Islamic rule. In reality it was a nightmare that softened only because Spain's Muslims were to few and divided to be extreme.

If it weren't for the inicial resistance of the martyrs of Cordoba and Pellayo, Islam would have been able to destroy and digest Spain as it did the rest of the ancient world.

"The city of Córdoba was the setting for an unusual historical drama that unfolded between the years 850 and 859, when forty-eight Christians were decapitated for religious offenses against Islam. More striking than the number of executions were the peculiar circumstances surrounding them. For one thing, as the sources unambiguously demonstrate, the majority of the victims deliberately invoked capital punishment by publicly blaspheming Muhammad and disparaging Islam."

This will to resist was started on by Pelayo, a century earlier and carried on by defenseless civilians who mad fun of Mohammed in spite of the risk to their lives.

They speak to us from the distance past, Resistance, Resistance Resistance!

I can trace my lineage to the area around Valencia going back hundreds of years and I know that my last name comes from Castilla vieja, my grandfather claims that we fought in the reconquista, but there is no way of knowing.

In any case, here I am in the 21st century fighting the same enemy.

Posted by: El Cid at June 18, 2006 10:43 AM

you could tell the apologists for Islam:
--the whole history of Islam is a history of imperialism, mass murder, and exploitation of dhimmis
-- traditonal Arab society is much like apartheid, although based more on religion than on skin color
-- historically, the Arabs and Turks were equal-opportunity enslavers, they were ready to enslave anybody. Is that progressive?

--How can you believe anything that Arabs or Muslims say, when their culture and politics is based on lying extravagantly, much more so even than the deceitful EU politicians??

--do you know what dhimmi means?? Do you know what jizyah means??

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 18, 2006 1:55 PM

Prophet Geoff,

Welcome back. Check us out at http://www.islam-watch.org/ if you have not already done so.

-Arch

Posted by: Archimedes at June 18, 2006 2:11 PM

El Cid, good posts.

Posted by: Archimedes at June 18, 2006 2:14 PM

Thank you Archimedes, your are too kind, I humbly struggle to write posts without major grammatical errors. Still, the words come from my heart and are dedicated to my children and grandchildren.

For their future, one free from sharia and Islamic domination!

I walk in the footsteps of my ancestors. Who once freed Spain in the greatest resistance to the Jihad.

Posted by: El Cid at June 18, 2006 10:50 PM

Geoff-

Maybe we need to start calling jihadists "sonderkommandos", as well?

(Just re-reading "Night" by Elie Wiesel. It sounds less and less like the past, and more and more like the future.)

El Cid-

"Mas vale saber que haber."

(Wisdom is worth more than wealth.)

As another Spaniard said:

Those who do not digest history are forced to re-eat it.

It will be a bitter repast.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 19, 2006 1:12 AM