The good news: he won't be around in 10 Downing St for too much longer.

The bad news: who replaces him could potentially be worse.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 28, 2006 4:22 AM

I USED to admire TB...

Posted by: freetoBEfree at December 28, 2006 4:53 AM

' I write with great humility as a member of another faith.'

Which faith would that be Tony? It sure aint the one that I belong to.

Posted by: western infidel at December 28, 2006 5:07 AM

PM Blair is obviously reading the propaganda put out by the Muslims. Several of those passages look like 'cut and paste' from a 'know islam' crock that always seems to get in the hands of political leaders. A John Esposito/Karen Armstrong 'talking points' guide to Islam.

When TB was prancing around making sure everyone saw that he had a Koran in his briefcase, and he said he had 'read the Koran,' I knew he was a BS artist. You don't 'read' the Koran as a standalone book. The book is a mess, out of order, no context, endless references that are completely meaningless without background information. It's absurd. And that's how I knew Tony Blair, like George Bush, is a BS artist.

Posted by: John Sobieski at December 28, 2006 5:08 AM

Yes,nothing much has changed for Blair since march 2000:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/694229.stm

In November of this year Blair promised Pakinstan and Afghanistan one £ Billion of UK taxpayers money for spending on islamic schools.

He continues to throw money at similar schools/organisations in the UK.

Whilst for example he is happy to see injured British soldiers return from Iraq/Afghanistan to public hospital beds were they have been attacked by angry 'British' muslims.

Blair is amongst the worst of hypocrites.

Posted by: kasper1062 at December 28, 2006 5:29 AM

Tony Blair might be preparing his future. There could be a lot of nice money from oil exporting nations (you know which ones I mean), if he is willing to go on making speeches like this one.

From what I have heard, the Inuit culture is very tolerant, and so was the Roman empire, as long as you did not openly oppose its official religion. But there is no money in saying that.

Dixi

Posted by: Dixi at December 28, 2006 5:41 AM

My days of giving PM Blair the benefit of the doubt are over. Is he purposely trying to make sure his legacy is absolute failure? What is going on his head? I think I know why Carter is such a twit, but with Blair I just don't understand. Maybe Blair is simply more like Clinton that many of us on the right were willing to admit . . .

Posted by: JSobieski at December 28, 2006 6:01 AM

Tony Blair . . .

. . . a simpleton who does not deserve to lead his nation.

The Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 28, 2006 6:01 AM

The likes of Blair, Bush and Condi are either fools or traitors or both. Either they do not know that Islam is not a religion, but a political movement, disguised as a religion . By supporting Islam they do not realize that they are also supporting a subversive political movement. Or, they realize this but suport Islam anyway for fear or political benefits (after all they are politicians) or both.

Islam has very subtly and deceptively mixed political goals in religious decrees. To support Islam is to support political movements and thus, betray non-Islamic faiths and nations.

Blair, Bush, Condi etc, with all due respect to their political prowess, are ignorant of Islam at best and traitors of the free world, at worst. None of which can be good for the free world.

Posted by: Alert at December 28, 2006 7:04 AM

Some of PM Blair's comments could have come from World History textbooks that my children (or possibly his children) used in high school. In those PC books, phrases such as "Islam arrived in Asia...." and "Islam spread over North Africa..." were used, nice, soft choice of verbs, to denote soothing waves rolling over a beach. Also standard fare were statements such as Blair used in describing the "golden era of Islam," with all of its tolerance, enlightenment, innovation, etc. Of course, no ink was spared in describing the "bloody" history of Christianity. Oh well, such mindless, PC dribble coming from Mr. Blair seems to serve he and the Mrs. very well. This New Year's Eve will be spent in Robin Gibb's (the BeeGees) Miami mansion. Next year, no telling what trillionaire Saudi prince's mansion they may be enjoying to ring in the New Year, along with their friends and fellow Muslim apologists from the Bush family.

Posted by: maryrose at December 28, 2006 7:09 AM

You got a problem with it: become a Hindu.

Posted by: Mother Ecclesiastica at December 28, 2006 06:39 AM

Before people get wrong ideas, Hinduism is the opposite of Islam. Hinduism believs in Sun God, not Moon God. Hinduism considers white pure, not black. Hinduism worships idols, not a stone. In short, Hinduism and Islam are diffeerent as day and night.

Posted by: Alert at December 28, 2006 7:15 AM

"Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking."

Actually, Blair is right about that. Those who opposed the spread of Islam had their breath taken away--permanently. And that's what the Islamists offer us today: submission or death.

By the way, I've heard of Foreign Affairs magazine but I'm not a regular reader. Can anyone speculate what audience Blair was trying to reach by publishing this drivel? Someone above speculated that Blair might be seeking post-government financial opportunities, sort of like James Baker.

Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard at December 28, 2006 8:05 AM

A poster above sticks to such things as color symbolism to differentiate Hinduism from Islam. But surely the main difference is that Hinduism is not a fanatical system of Total Regulation of Life, and while many Hindus are not delighted with Christian missionaries, Hinduism is by far the most tolerant of the world's large religions, and is no threat to anyone. It has no universalist pretensions, and is connected to a particular people who originate in a particular place. No one need be quaking over the possiblity of "today India, tomorrow the world." Sixty to seventy million Hindus were massacred by the Muslim conquerors and overlords, the "wounded civilization" of India was wounded by Islam. Most Hindus in the Western world are relaxed agnostics or atheists, whose self-description of themselves carries no burden of fanatical belief. Though a great deal of Western attention has been given to the supposed fanaticism of the BJP, or to supporters of "Hindutva," the number of such fanatics, and the nature of that fanaticism, has been greatly exaggerated. And some Indians in the West, wishing to fit in, parrot the fashionable views, as they see it, of Wesetern "intellectuals" and make every attempt to distance themselves ostentatiously from what is called "communalism"--meaning, any sense that Hindus have a right to be alarmed and outraged by Muslim behavior, historically and at present, in India. It is something which one wishes, if only for the sake of the Western world, that educated Hindus in the United States, Canada, Australia, and of course Great Britain could overcome, and help rather to teach those True Believers in the Churhc of Total Tolerance that perhaps their faith has become An Article of Faith, and a little skepticism, when it comes to Islam, is in order.

Posted by: Hugh at December 28, 2006 8:11 AM

I would assume Tony al-Britannia is positioning himself for some high paying appearances in Saudi Arabia after stepping down from the PM post.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at December 28, 2006 8:36 AM

When I think of Oxford, that great center of learning, I think of Karen Armstrong, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 28, 2006 8:47 AM

Here is a very important question for America:

Do the posters think that Tony Blair's comments are indicative of UK viewpoints or not?

Posted by: jeffreyimm at December 28, 2006 8:50 AM

Mr. Fitzgerald,
Sir, your grasp of the situation re Hindus is absolute. The "intellectuals" lean to the left, and therein lies our problem. And the BJP, that was described as "fanatic", is now seeking muslim votes. It was the first political party in India to ask apologies from the Pope after he gave his speech in which he quoted the Byzantium emperor.

Regarding Christian Missionaries. India is an ancient country. In the jungles of Central India, there are tribals called as "adivasis". They are described in most Hindu texts and books dating as long back as 5000 years. They did come out time and again to some king or prince's aid, then went back to their jungles. The government of India decided to let them evolve slowly, since these people are completely wild. They love their jungles, and even Hindus avoid their area. One knows one has reached their territory when there is an arrow sticking behind one's back. These aboriginals are the target of Christian Missionary activity. The outer periphery of these jungles is massing with missionaries who want to pull off another Africa. And they have been successful in some places. The missionaries do not target cities, or educated people, they look for tribes. In doing so, they are destroying the small tribal cultures of India. They might think that they will get their Sainthood in Heaven for converting a lot of people, but all they are doing is driving a wedge between their community, and the rest of the people. When I say "rest of the people", I also include Christians of India. The Christians of my city avoid the missionaries like lepers.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at December 28, 2006 8:52 AM

"Do the posters think that Tony Blair's comments are indicative of UK viewpoints or not?" Posted by jeffreyimm.

Well Mr J that seems to be the official position of the Prime Minister which is the official position of the government. If that is not the postion of the population, then get rid of him. I believe that the British form of government allows you to get a new prime minister by use of the "No Confidence" procedure. Here in the US we are usually stuck with a President at least for four years.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 28, 2006 8:59 AM

And some Indians in the West, wishing to fit in, parrot the fashionable views, as they see it, of Wesetern "intellectuals" and make every attempt to distance themselves ostentatiously from what is called "communalism"--meaning, any sense that Hindus have a right to be alarmed and outraged by Muslim behalf.

A couple of winters ago I was up north at the lake snowmobiling. It’s a good lake, 10 miles long and 4 miles wide, and at the time the ice was 2 ft thick and the sledding fast.

Anyway, the lake has a number of bars on its shores and, given the good snow that weekend the place we were in on Friday night was packed. One group looked out of place, their snowmobile suits clearly rentals from a local resort.

Then we heard their English accents. The group included a man and woman of Subcontinental descent. My buddies started egging me on, “Go ahead, APF. Two of them are clearly Jihadists on a mission to blow up the only good snow we've had this year. Go get ‘em!”

Well, I’m not much of a street fighter anymore, but I still like a good gag. The Subcontinentals were clearly Hindu, they were drinking and, even more telling, they were laughing a smiling and enjoying life. A sure sign of non-Moslemhood.

So I elbowed my way into their group (which turned out to be a comptuer software team from London), walked up to the guy and said, “You’re not a Moslem are you? Cuz if you are we have a problem, and you’ve got and even bigger one.”

Silence. The Anglos of the London group were aghast, afraid that fists would fly.

Then the Hindu guy smiled, slapped me on the shoulder and said, “No, I’m not a Moslem. I’m a human. A Hindu.” I responded, “Then sorry about the Moghul.” He retorted, “Not nearly as much as we are.”

Some of the Anglos winced at the impropriety of his comment, forgetting that they were in Northern Minnesota and not London. After another pause, everybody broke out laughing and raised their glasses for a toast.

We had a fine time of it after that icebreaker. Even took a high speed blast together down the lake to their resort to make sure they got home ok. When it’s 2:00 am, dark and 10 below Farenheit with high winds, sometimes greenhorns get lost on their sleds and bad things can happen.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 28, 2006 9:09 AM

Jesus Christ.I would like to comment but this is realy below any commenting.

Anyway-P.S.Richard Lionhart must be 10000 rpm & rising

Posted by: svemirko at December 28, 2006 9:15 AM

P.S.S. I hope that not a single good wasp will get me wrong, but I AM PROUD to be serbian for at least it was declared as enemy by "man" like T.B.

Posted by: svemirko at December 28, 2006 9:19 AM

They might think that they will get their Sainthood in Heaven for converting a lot of people, but all they are doing is driving a wedge between their community, and the rest of the people. When I say "rest of the people", I also include Christians of India. The Christians of my city avoid the missionaries like lepers.
by Arjun

Beatiffuly said.The same thing in entire eastern europe.After fallout of comunism (however I dont belive that communist realy gone, they just mask themselves as democrats-and some ressurected on the west as so called liberals), there was massive invasion of various protestant sects (jehova witnesses 4 example).Moreover they are more agressive in the traditionaly christian communities than in muslim ones.And whats worst,they tend (quite different than say catholic church) to revolutionary deal with ancient christian customs, which largerly help to preserve christian heritage under islamic (or communist) rule.This, as counterreaction, usualy provoke some mistreatment of them, and they than usualy see themselves as martyrs by false (traditional) christians.I think that if some newborn christian from the west wants to by a ticket for kingdom of heaven, should do better if he try among "tollerant" members of religion of peace, more than some ancient tribe of Asia or Africa, or in some willage of Eastern Europe.

Posted by: svemirko at December 28, 2006 9:40 AM

"To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is."...

I thought such statements would only spewed out from those with pigs' brains.

Posted by: FreedomSeeker33 at December 28, 2006 9:47 AM

To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.

I want some of what Tony Blair's smoking.

But seriously, folks, how could he possibly say this with a straight face ? Unbelievable. I only hope he does not represent the people of Great Britain or the country is truly lost.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at December 28, 2006 9:52 AM

Does P.M. Blair have an email address? I'd like to send him a one-page summary of exactly how the Qur'an and shari'a are antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 28, 2006 9:53 AM

Tony Blair is a lazy intelletual who obviously does not understand Islam.

Two basic questions for TONY Blair to answer:

What is reforming about Muhammad's advice to kill former Muslims?

Muhammad's advice to kill former Muslims:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet [Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

What is reforming about Muhammad's beliefs about women being inferior to men?

THE QURAN, 4:34
RODWELL [1]: "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!"

DAWOOD [2]: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme."

PICKTHALL [3]: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great."

Posted by: Johnathan at December 28, 2006 10:00 AM

What is reforming about taking a female child bride of only nine years old?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)."

Posted by: Johnathan at December 28, 2006 10:36 AM

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses/

Go to:

http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm

then scroll down to Tony Blair then click on 'Email' in the third column. This will automatically open an email window from your email program.

Or, go to:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page3.asp

then click on the top line of text in the second paragraph which is headed 'Via email' and it will do the same thing as the first link does.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at December 28, 2006 10:55 AM

Tony Blair is an accomplished liar, he never tells the truth about anything, if he wanted salt on his egg he would probably tell his ugly wife he wanted sugar instead. Tony Blair praises the Koran as "progressive" what is progressive about sexually abusing a nine year old girl and setting up a religion more or less based on paedophilia? Mohammed (pigs be upon him) is no better than Ian Brady.

Posted by: IceDragon at December 28, 2006 11:51 AM

"The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance."

In Saudi Arabia, people ar still being arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned on charges of sorcery and black magic.

Ask an educated Westerner what causes a tsunami or earthquake, and he will say it is a side effect of plate tectonics. Ask a Muslim and he will say, "We are being punished not not being Islamic enough."

Ask a Bedouin, "Why does that airplane fly?" "It is Allah's will." Ask why it crashed. "It is Allah's will."

Saudis raising prize horses or camels will obsess over bloodlines. Yet they marry their children to cousins. And when genetically linked diseases and birth defects pop up, yes, you guessed it, "It is Allah's will."

I can speak only for Saudi Arabia, but the level of scientific literacy is abysmal.

Posted by: jay at December 28, 2006 11:52 AM

Wonder if Tony even opened the blessed quran?

Posted by: MP at December 28, 2006 11:55 AM

PM Blair has simply become a dhimmi.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 28, 2006 11:58 AM

One should not be surprised or even dismayed (insofar as dismay is aroused by unpleasant surprise) by Blair's admiration for Islam -- as long, that is, as one has already been aware of the mainstream (not merely "elitist") dominance in sociopolitico-cultural life throughout the West of PC Multiculturalism.

Posted by: remote_control at December 28, 2006 12:03 PM

IF you read the *entire* text, you will see that ol' Tony ain't quite sincere with respect to his opening remarks. Tony's using a rhetorical device -- something akin to "rope a dope." You do an intro which heaps praise upon praise upon the unsuspecting (get 'em to be all smiles and delights), but this is only so as to rope 'em in -- lure/entice them in -- then, BAM! The cage door shuts -- and you end your speech by trashing them (you wallop them with your concluding remarks). That's the strategy. It's all about survival politics.

Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 12:13 PM

Blair must be talking about some other 'Islam' because the Islam of reality and history AND of current events is one that is "progressive" because it lives by the sword in order to convert as a command DIRECTLY from its quran/hadith unlike other religions which do not have that, which you have to ignore the scriptures in order to kill innocent unbelievers. Islam my dear Mr Blair is a the religious equavalent of what NAZISM is to politics. If you cannot see that then you are truly an idiot. As for science if they love it so much why did it prosper only in Europe and not in the arabic middle east --they had all the same Greek scientific literature that the west had but they didnt USE it like Aquinas and other christians did, who studied it and who others took the scientific method from and applied it to their studies of the natural world around them.

Islam is not a spritual/mystical belief system only like Christianity is....

JESUS AND CONQUEST:

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36)

MUHAMMED AND CONQUEST:

Muhammed said, "Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they ALL surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until ALL opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is NO more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is NO more rebellion, and religion, ALL of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have NO rivals.’”
-------------------------------
from:
http://www.kafirnation.com/myth2.htm

The Jews and Christians were considered evil people because they rejected mohamed as a prophet of god as they knew of the true God and it was rather obvious that he wasn't a prophet sent from Him.

Jesus is the perfect example of love and tolerance

John 8:7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Muhammed was the perfect opposite:

"The Prophet (Muhammad) said: 'Do not stone the adulteress who is pregnant until she has had her child.' After the birth she was put into a ditch up to her chest and the Prophet commanded them to stone her. Khalid came forward with a stone, which he threw at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and he cursed her. The gentle Prophet prayed over her and she was buried."
(Hadith No. Muslim 682)

One would think that in common parlance that to respect someone as a prophet would seek guidance in his teaching.

---
Therefore muslims who want to follow Muhammed MUST stone the adultress and kill the in the name of jihad for Allah (as good muslims do).

JESUS SHOWED MERCY
MUHAMMED SHOWED HATE

END OF STORY
--------------------------------

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Ishaq:324 "He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"

And to the moderate muslims Islam has this to say:

Qur'an:4:95 "Not equal are believers who sit home and receive no hurt and those who fight in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who fight with their possessions and bodies to those who sit home. Those who fight He has distinguished with a special reward."

-----------------
to all jihad watch promotors who celebrate Christmas and to Robert Spencer and staff and everybody on here who is fighting the good fight against this darkness I would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2007.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 28, 2006 12:30 PM

The good news: he won't be around in 10 Downing St for too much longer.
The bad news: who replaces him could potentially be worse.
Posted by: Infidel Pride

Meaning what , that Brown is a more incompetent
imbecile?
I hope he goes ahead with his "changes" regarding
"race hate" laws which might enable us to have the Koran banned !
Happy New Year.

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at December 28, 2006 12:38 PM

Thank you Dominic.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 28, 2006 12:41 PM

IF you read the *entire* text, you will see that ol' Tony ain't quite sincere with respect to his opening remarks. Tony's using a rhetorical device -- something akin to "rope a dope." You do an intro which heaps praise upon praise upon the unsuspecting (get 'em to be all smiles and delights), but this is only so as to rope 'em in -- lure/entice them in -- then, BAM! The cage door shuts -- and you end your speech by trashing them (you wallop them with your concluding remarks). That's the strategy. It's all about survival politics.

from JS

JS:
You are correct that the the remaining text is much better than the widely quoted one paragraph excerpt, but the strategy you suggest is too clever by half. We live in a sound bite world and the remaining text will never be quoted or otherwise cited by anybody.

Is there any evidence that Blair is looking to pull a rope-a-dope? Against whom would such a manuever be made and in what context? More likely, people like Ellison will quote Blair to amplify CAIR's concerns regarding "Islamophobia"?

There is no doubt that Bush and Blair are better than the alternatives. There is also no doubt that the MSM have been relentless in trying to cream those guys when they take even modest steps in the right direction. However, they are still not good enough to prevail in this conflict. Neither one of us should waste time defending these guys anymore, or if we do, the defense should be limited to actions and words that actually help the cause.

If Blair is spending time on a rope a dope that will ensnare a couple of policy wonks/academic types that will go unnoticed by the MSM, his judgment is terrible.

Posted by: JSobieski at December 28, 2006 12:43 PM

Get off poor Bliars back , doesn`t everyone know
he has to cadge holidays from all his "friends".
I think he has his eyes on one of those Palm
Jumeirah homes in Dubai or at least , a decent discount.

http://realestate.theemiratesnetwork.com/developments/dubai/palm_jumeirah.php

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at December 28, 2006 1:02 PM

Hes a muslim posing as a Christian. What a bafoon!

Posted by: jawknee at December 28, 2006 1:07 PM

I agree that Blair's initial favorable (if not servile, fawning) opening statements regarding islam will be the ones read and quoted.

Perhaps it speaks to the world which Tony Blair inhabits -- he's surrounded by extremely hostile, anti-western, pro-Jihadists (not all of whom are Muslim, btw -- there have been any number of Labour party members openly hostile to Blair and itching for his ouster -- I guess that's why he's being kicked out of his own party -- Blair's set to leave in early Spring; an early retreat from office was not his original intention). So I suspect he wanted to announce (or at least hint at) what he really thinks about the problems with Islam and which the West must ultimately face. Maybe this was the only way to get out the message. (I can imagine a very similar scenario occurring here in Canada -- no one willing to come out and state forthrightly what's confronting the West...nearly everyone is in denial...remember, "Islam is a Religion of Peace!!")

I think this should also serve as yet another warning -- look out when the critical mass of pro-jihadists reaches say, 20 percent (which can only be accelerated with rampant Muslim immigration -- again, not that all Muslims are pro-jihad -- but enough are) -- then you'll wind up with the mincing of words of politicos like Tony Blair (and you'll be glad you've even got a tony blair!)

The above is another compliment to Virgil Goode!

Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 1:31 PM

Tony, the speed of transmission of the
Bubonic plague was breathtaking.
So what? Christianity would have spread quicker if it had been spread by the sword!

Posted by: David England at December 28, 2006 1:42 PM

Breath-taking Indeed! Life-Taking!

Posted by: alexon at December 28, 2006 2:01 PM

"abhors superstition"

So jinns are real?

This seven page speech is really marred by these two paragraphs. If they were left out it would be much better.

Posted by: Borg at December 28, 2006 2:08 PM

"I would assume Tony al-Britannia is positioning himself for some high paying appearances in Saudi Arabia after stepping down from the PM post."
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at December 28, 2006 08:36 AM

Unfortunately, this statement rings true. I also did notice the difference in Blair's message towrds the end as opposed to the beginning.

What is also unfortunate is not knowing which part of the speech Tony truly subscribes to. Without knowing that, the speech is useless as is the PM himself.

Posted by: awake at December 28, 2006 2:26 PM

I voted for Blair as International Dhimmi of the Year. That was based on his, hiijacking comment and perversion of Islam comment at a press conference with Bush in the US.

Blairism is Dhimmism. Blair has invited Islam into the West and has been in full coverup mode ever since, as have the other Western elites.

Thus after each attack, they push Muslim immigration, because to stop it would be an admission they were wrong in the first place. They would rather have us die than admit they were wrong.

This is literally true. In 1992, Begala and Clinton called Buchanan a bigot for wanting to stop immigration. After the Feb 1993 attack they didn't stop immigration. Result, they let in 19 Muslim immigrants who killed almost 3000 people. Even the last sentence they call bigoted, because otherwise they admit guilt.

They will do anything to avoid admitting guilt, including establishing Islamic Republics based on Sharia law, which cancels out the deaths of our troops. That was a betrayal of us, our troops, and the people in those countries for whom Bush and Blair say we are now fighting.

The lies and inconsistencies are beyond Watergate proportions. Its now at the level of Hollywood and the Roosevelt administration for denying Soviet genocide in the 1930's and lying to the American people that the Soviet Union was our friend. The Uncle Joe propaganda of Hollywood was the same betrayal then as the Uncle Muhammad propaganda now.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 2:30 PM

I've always thought of Mr. Blair's smile and facial expressions to resemble that of a jack-ass; from this article, I now understand why!

HEE-HAW Mr. Blair!

Posted by: witness at December 28, 2006 2:32 PM

Awake:
About the differences between the opening and closing of Blair's speech. I think the first part is a throw-away. So Blair gives a "Wasn't Islam Wonderful in the Dark Ages!!!" Yeah, rah-rah for Islam -- Back Then. (I just don't believe that Blair is being all "starry-eyed" about Islam's past and being genuine. I think it's a ruse. He's giving his enemies this tribute to a former, idyllic, romanticized, past (and dead) version of Islam so as to be able to come out and critique the Islam of NOW. that was Islam THEN, this is Islam NOW. (I don't think Blair can afford a brutally frank appraisal of the "Religion of Peace" -- without risking race riots.)

Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 2:45 PM

"Blair must be talking about some other 'Islam'..."

Ya think!???

Guess what that "other Islam" is? It is a gigantic, dominant, sociopolitically mainstream holographic reduplication -- sanitized of all defects of course -- of the actual historical (and present) Islam we proud and few Jihad Watchers have come to know. This holographic reduplication has been constructed over a long period of time, at least the past 50 years, and a major portion of its construction has required the contextual matrix of the much broader and more fabulously catastrophic construction throughout the modern West of PC Multiculturalism -- of which the "other Islam" is only, though grievously and dangerously, one major wing.

Posted by: remote_control at December 28, 2006 3:08 PM

Blair is on the bottle I suppose.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at December 28, 2006 3:15 PM

Tony's using a rhetorical device -- something akin to "rope a dope."

I would wager to say that the rhetorical device Blair is using is not the one you think he is using: you think Blair must see evil Islam as plain as the nose on his face just like we Jihad Watchers all see it so obviously; therefore, he must be being cleverly manipulative and disingenuous in his opening remarks, in order to do the rope-a-dope further on.

But the far more plausible explanation here is that Blair believes in the dominant and mainstream paradigm by which the problem of bad Muslims popping up all over the place is addressed: namely, that

1. Islam itself is good.

2. The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and good.

3. The bad Muslims causing trouble are renegades who have "hijacked" that good culture, Islam.

And why shouldn't Blair believe in this paradigm? After all, it is robustly dominant and mainstream, shining like the blazing sun on a clear day all around the West. Blair would have to go profoundly against the grain to challenge it significantly.

Now, granted, Blair has shown a few signs of having inched along the learning curve a tad further than others have, and so the above paradigm is slightly altered to account for this -- but it is not significantly deconstructed as it should be. Blair's alteration would leave untouched the PC givens of #1 and #2, but would tweak #3:

3. Yes, the bad Muslims causing trouble are renegades who have "hijacked" that good culture, Islam, but their alarming numbers and wide geographical dispersion disquiet one to the point that we wonder if there are not some troubling problems growing at the periphery of Islam -- nasty warts and boils and such -- which it would be nice if all the moderate Muslims who exist who, naturally, share our common human values, could please assist us in treating.

Posted by: remote_control at December 28, 2006 3:18 PM

"About the differences between the opening and closing of Blair's speech. I think the first part is a throw-away."
Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 02:45 PM

I can see your point, but the "starry-eyed" intro will be the one prominently featured on pro-Islamic sites. This will only aid in the obfuscation of the truth about Islam and render his speech on the whole, as useless.

(I don't think Blair can afford a brutally frank appraisal of the "Religion of Peace" -- without risking race riots.)
Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 02:45 PM

Well, they can address it now or address it in the near future. Pick your poison. I hope that the Brits are prepared for permanent capitulation to the "Religion of Peace", in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If not, then Blair's obfuscation, intended or not, renders him useless in this war against applied Islam.

Posted by: awake at December 28, 2006 3:19 PM

Historians will look at Blair and say that his government was engaged with the US fighting the War on Terror. Later renamed the War on Islam. So Blair anticipating this agrument says he was inspired by the progessive Koran.

Thus going down in History as one of the best paid Dhimmis that the Muslims conquest of Europe ever had. He paved the way for further Islamification of what was once called Great Britain with the Sharia parliament now based in Londonistan part of the Eurabian Union.

The veil became mandatory dress from Women in 2015 and all non-Muslims now live in ghettos and pay jizya or face decapitation by the Sword of Downing Street. Alcohol, gambling,owning dogs, bacon rolls and the Sun newspaper were all deemed haram.

We owe Sheik Blair alot.

Posted by: raz at December 28, 2006 3:27 PM

The Uncle Joe propaganda of Hollywood was the same betrayal then as the Uncle Muhammad propaganda now.

It was the same betrayal on a moral level; but structurally the two betrayals differ on at least one key point: the pro-Islam propaganda has a rich, long-standing, dominant and mainstream sociopolitical matrix -- PC Multiculturalism -- in which it thrives comfortably and from which it has derived its substance and form.

Posted by: remote_control at December 28, 2006 3:29 PM

Correction to my last post: I didn't mean to so precipitously agree with Old Atlantic about the moral betrayal allegedly perpetrated by Roosevelt. So my beginning should read:

"It may have been the same betrayal on a moral level; but..."

Posted by: remote_control at December 28, 2006 3:32 PM

Politically, Blair is finished. (Near the end of his speech there's a listing of things about what needs to occur for Islam to become "civilized" - stop the victim hood business, for example).

Melanie Phillips in "Londonistan" details what took place after the London bombings in 2005. Blair compiled a list of what he wanted to accomplish --for example: up to 90 day stays in jail for suspected terrorists; deportation of radical Imams; new legislation for newly arrived immigrants (requiring them to know something about British culture); the establishment of task forces to confront Muslim bigotry against Jews; on and on. Everyone of Blair's initiatives was stymied (stymied by members of his own party; stymied by the opposition; stymied by the British pro-jihadist press; stymied by the Lords and Royalty; stymied by the judiciary proclaiming the rights of terrorists (ironically it was the Labour Party which placed judges and human rights law above the elected legislature); and, of course, stymied by the Islamists.

The problems in the UK just grow worse with each passing day. You might as well write the country off (it can no longer be considered an ally in the "war on terror.")

Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 3:35 PM

Why don't he just convert and change his name to Abdu Mohammed Hamza and then he can share fully in such a wonderful and far thinking progressive religion. Please stop desecrating the blood of the brave British soldiers who gave their lives to keep England free from the type of tyranny that Tony so admires. He has to be put right of there on the pedestile with Chirac as true traders of European culture and identity. His words should be taken with as much seriousness as fellow American dhimmi, Jimmie Carter, as a true spineless traitor.

I agree with many of the above posters, Tony is going the same route as Wee Willie Clinton, sniffing out Saudi money as propagandists. What else can they do in this life now that their political feedbag has been taken from them.

Posted by: Briars at December 28, 2006 3:44 PM

I meant to say traitors and not traders although continually trying to sell the ROP brand of Islam does make him a trader of a defective product.

Posted by: Briars at December 28, 2006 3:48 PM

The problems in the UK just grow worse with each passing day. You might as well write the country off (it can no longer be considered an ally in the "war on terror.")
Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 03:35 PM

Agreed. And while we are at it, we must recognize that there are no allies at all. how can one align for a fight against an enigma? The "war on terror" is an overused misnomer. There is no war on terror because terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

If and when it gets properly renamed the "war on Islam", as raz has previously stated, then maybe we can start talking about allies against this common enemy.

By the time that happens, Blair, and probably the entire UK at that point, will be categorically excluded.

Posted by: awake at December 28, 2006 3:52 PM

Lord Haw Haw strikes again. Who writes this stuff for him?

Antidote:

Skeptics Annotated Koran

During question time, the Conservatives should hook this up on a laptop and ask Blair to explain which parts he was referring to.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 4:02 PM

There went all that was left of my admiration for Mr. Blair and his lovely, spellbinding gift of gab. He either has a bogus Qur'an or has never opened, much less read one, making him a blatant liar. Which is it? My guess is that he has never read the first page of the Satanic qur'an. Someone gave him a few talking points, obviously a muslim or islamic apologist, and he played them to the hilt. Why does he pander to muslims while dangerously deceiving the British people about islam? Why does he even talk about islam and the qur'an?

Tony Blair is such a convincing and mesmerizing speaker. His position and his oratorical talents should not be used to palliate and extoll islam. This is criminal, worse even than GWB's pathetic insistence that islam is a religion of peace. I just don't understand why influential people are so determined to defend and laud the most evil heresy ever created. The text of the qur'an, as incoherent and maniacal as it is, makes one physically and emotionally sick. If it was inspiring to Mr. Blair, he's either as evil as muslims or he didn't read it.

Posted by: Susanp at December 28, 2006 4:17 PM

Old Atlantic:

Do you believe the Conservative Party in Britain would be any better than Blair's Labour Party? I believe the Conservatives, headed by Cameron, will be as capitulating and as appeasing to the Islamist extremists as any Labourite (possibly worse.)

Phillips writes: "..what was more notable was the arrival of sectarian politics in Britain, with the emergence of Muslims voting en bloc for candidates on the basis of whether or not they were delivering a Muslim agenda" (p. 163 from *Londonistan*). Phillips goes on to note how specific MPs were targeted for harassment and "campaigns to unseat them." Lorna Fitzsimmons lost her seat (Muslims claimed she was Jewish), as did MacShane, etc., etc. some have been hounded on the streets -- epithets hurled at them, such as "Racist", "Murderer", etc.

All of this has led to an official policy of appeasement which is practiced by all political parties (with the possible exception of the ultra-right-wing, neo- nazi party) and the British Civil Service.

Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 4:38 PM

Forgot to mention: Similar things are occurring in Canada. Thus at the recent convention to choose a new leader for the Canadian Liberal party -- a Muslim group decided to target one of the liberal leadership contenders (so they distributed leaflets alleging that his wife was Jewish); he did not win the leadership of the Liberal Party. The Muslims were voting en bloc for a Frenchman and publicly praying at the convention for him to win (I presume he's pro-Islam). This French candidate, Stephane Dion, won. Dion now leads the Liberal Party of Canada (muslims claim credit).

Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 4:53 PM

The pure unadulterated mind-numbing PC drivel that comes from Tony Blair is absolutely breathtaking. You're right about how parts of this 'speech' could indeed have been quoted from a UK history lesson in terms of it's phraseology. Such revisionist history is to be expected from a state deep in denial and Dhimmitude. Then what else can you expect when to question is treated as heresy against politically correct dogma?

I wonder how Blair can possibly hope to prove that Islam wanted to 'reform' Christianity in the same way that protestantism has? Protestantism was about religion and state being seperate, and about denying catholic dogmas which don't have any actual Biblical basis. Islam is about world domination and oppression. The two movements aren't even vaguely similar in nature.

Tony Blair is completely wrong about Islam, he is wrong to call it a religion, he is wrong to say that the Extremists have misinterpreted Islam. All of the evidence suggests that the majority of Muslims are bad Muslims, they don't know the Koran and Hadith enough to know that it promotes human rights abuses. He sees their wanting democracy as proof as his inane claim that Islam is progressive, instead of actually looking at what the Koran really says. The best thing for Mr. Blair to do is to admit that he made a mistake; that he was right to fight the war, but wrong about Islam. He is right that this war needs to be fought against an evil ideology, the problem is that he has not actually identified the ideology in question.

Politicians like him believe in the PC nonsense, and they spread these beliefs at any and every opportunity. A war does need to be waged, against global nonsense, and that includes Islam and leftism. For sure, it is unpopular to go against PC, but it is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Truthseeker at December 28, 2006 5:11 PM

"Do you believe the Conservative Party in Britain would be any better than Blair's Labour Party? I believe the Conservatives, headed by Cameron, will be as capitulating and as appeasing to the Islamist extremists as any Labourite (possibly worse.)"

J.S. at December 28, 2006 04:38 PM

When I made my original comment, I had been thinking to say something like the Conservatives are just as much Lord Haw Haws as Blair, but I forgot.

"All of this has led to an official policy of appeasement which is practiced by all political parties (with the possible exception of the ultra-right-wing, neo- nazi party) and the British Civil Service."

I agree. The official policy is wait for the "Rivers of Blood". Every institution in society in the Western world has agreed to this. Well, they're here.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 5:29 PM

And those who point out that they are due to Muslim immigration or the Koran are called bigots by the River of Blooders such as Blair. Blairism is the policy of Rivers of Bloods, with the victims called bigots if they complain.

When Muslims did genocide in ages past they didn't think to make their victims call themselves bigots before they were killed. The Left has thought of something new and original.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 5:32 PM

The Tories would be little better than Labour, they haven't recognised Islam as a threat either. While the Cameronites may want to slow down the immigration, they won't do anything to solve the problems we presently face.

Posted by: Truthseeker at December 28, 2006 5:40 PM

I read his article and I see that he doesn't understand the root cause of the problem. He seems to be using the assumptions that poster remote_control lists:

1. Islam itself is good.

2. The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and good.

3. The bad Muslims causing trouble are renegades who have "hijacked" that good culture, Islam.

Okay... I do think he understands the nature of the threat, however.

The problem for all of us is the disconnect between the threat and the cause. If leaders fail to understand the real issues we'll be in a position of reaction and of 'treating symptoms rather than diseases'.

Islam is the disease. Jihadis and religious leaders are simply the vectors. We need this to be understood at high levels of government and from there it needs to be articulated to We The People.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 28, 2006 5:47 PM

Does Tony Blair, or any other Western politician, know enough about Western history to even be able to claim what was and wasn't "progressive" in the 7th century? For crying out loud, the Greeks had democracy and philosophy already ~1000 years before Mohammed even lived and democracy is much more progressive than Sharia law could ever be. Yes, the Greeks also had slavery, but it's not as if Islam ever intended to get rid of slavery, either.

So, Tony, you're basically saying that theocracy is more "progressive" than democracy? WTF is your problem, you idiot? What ever happened to the saying "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt"?

Posted by: venividivici at December 28, 2006 5:48 PM

"One of the striking features of the post-9/11 world is the minimal degree of separation between the so-called "extremists" and the establishment: Princess Haifa, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, gives $130,000 to accomplices of the 9/11 terrorists; the head of the group that certifies Muslim chaplains for the US military turns out to be a bagman for terrorists; one of the London bombers gets given a tour of the House of Commons by a Labour MP. The Guardian hires as a "trainee journalist" a member of Hizb ut Tahir, "Britain's most radical Islamic group" (as his own newspaper described them)"

A victory for multiculti over common sense

By Mark Steyn Daily Telegraph

19/07/2005

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 5:52 PM

Überdhimmy Tony Blair struck again!

You know, sometimes I really wished that people like that were banished to barbaric countries like Saudi-Arabia, Iran or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, just so that they could feel for themselves how "progressive" the qur'an is, and what "tolerance" islam really inspires!

"...the standard bearers for tolerance were far more likely to be found in muslim lands than in Christian lands..."

allright, two things about this claim that sicken me:

1 - the stereotypical view of Medieval Christianity as being nothing more than the Roman Catholic Church at its worst and all of Europe being run by the Inquisition.

...and:

2 - the sheer horrors that befell the Buddhists, Hindu's and all the other polytheists of India because of the "progressive" teachings of islam and islamic law!

To the first point, I'd only like to say; have we forgotten about the oriental Churches and the Church of the East, that had rarely turned to violent persecutions of non-Christians?

The Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church did a lot of missionairy work throughout Asia (mianly Central Asia) until the muslims almost annihilated them in the late 14th century, and not ONCE did they start hatemongering or calling to a "holy war" againest the "unbelievers".

Only a number of Christian and pro-Christian Mongol generals were quite anti-islamic, and I don't need to tell you what the cause of that was!

...and then there's Christian Ethiopia, which impressed even Mohammed himself with its tolerance and hospitality towards the early muslims.

And have the Christian Ethiopians ever persecuted the muslims in their land as much as a number of muslim invaders have persecuted them? (think of people like Ahmad Gragn)

Nope, I don't think so!

I admit that Medieval Roman Catholic Europe wasn't exactly the most tolerant place on Earth, but let's just say that the average muslim ruler wasn't exactly tolerant by our standards either...

And then the second point: the horrors that the Hindu's and Buddhists and in fact all polytheists suffered due to islam.

One of the very most annoying tendencies of these pro-islamic dhimmies, is that - just because islam tolerated Jews and Christians under a lot of conditions - all faiths were automatically tolerated.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

And what's more, this attitude belies the sheer contempt and disregard that islam has always had towards polytheists and polytheism, and the fact that the adherants of any polytheistic religion have absolutely NO rights according to strict interpretation of islamic law.

And then there are the many millions of Indian polytheists that were slaughtered during the muslim invasions and periods of muslim rule in India - the estimations of the complete number of victims vary from 50 million to 80 million!

Not to mention the fact that the Hindu Kush mountain range was actually named after the massacres of Hindus and Buddhists; Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaughter.

And that is confirmed and explained by the 14th century muslim Berber traveller Ibn Battutah, amongst others.

...islamic tolerance, hah!

Posted by: Dae Rolf at December 28, 2006 6:08 PM

As plague states: "The problem for all of us is the disconnect between the threat and the cause."

Melanie Phillips also sees "the most egregious failure by the British political and security establishment" is "the refusal to acknowledge that this is principally a war of religious ideology" (p. 183). She goes on to note that whenever "violence" erupts, the media will "insist that Islam has nothing to do with it." I recall an interview on CBC between a media commentator and an alleged "expert" on Islam, and the commentator was insisting that "religion and culture" are way, way down the list of "root causes." It sounded to me as if the commentator was desperately fearful of causing any offense to Muslims or naming the unspeakable (ie, that the religion of Islam may somehow be implicated with terrorist attacks), and the "expert" vigorously in agreement: "Oh, heavens! It cannot be Islam which is the problem!!"

Until we all (or at least a large number of us) realize that there is a problem within the RELIGION of Islam -- we will not be able to defeat our enemies.

Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 6:21 PM

"Islam is the disease. Jihadis and religious leaders are simply the vectors. We need this to be understood at high levels of government and from there it needs to be articulated to We The People."
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 28, 2006 05:47 PM

Amen to that, brother!!

Posted by: awake at December 28, 2006 6:37 PM

It's a no wonder why this is happening:

Migrants arriving at one a minute

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at December 28, 2006 6:59 PM

Islam is the disease. Jihadis and religious leaders are simply the vectors. We need this to be understood at high levels of government and from there it needs to be articulated to We The People. -Plague

Could I suggest a more colorful comparison? Terrorism is the 'stink', Islam is the 'sh**'.

Posted by: pez at December 28, 2006 7:02 PM

I can not believe what i just read. It is truly sickening.

This looks like something written with a gun pointed at your head.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 28, 2006 7:29 PM

I'm of the conception that Tony Blair is a crypto-muslim.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 28, 2006 8:49 PM

By the way, is it possible that Tony Blair will be remembered as the 21th century's Neville Chamberlain?

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 28, 2006 8:51 PM

When the tide turns, and everyone in Britain regards Islam and muslims as the enemy; I wonder how Tony Blair will explain his praise of the Koran?

Posted by: Voltaire at December 28, 2006 9:13 PM

To some extent, at least, Blair, in his opening, is just sucking up to Muslim sensibilities and those of the PC brigade. The gist of his speech seems to be that Muslims need saving from themselves. Clearly, as with Bush and his 'Islamofascism', he has half a clue as to what is going on, with the statement about the extremists who have hijacked the religion of peace:

"This extremism may have started with religious doctrine and thought. But soon, in offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Wahhabi extremists and disseminated in some of the madrasahs of the Middle East and Asia, an ideology was born and exported around the world."

He just hasn't the breadth of intellect to see the wider picture. I'll be glad when he finally quits, though. His naivete about Islam is unforgivable.

Posted by: wallyUK at December 28, 2006 9:15 PM

"There were basically three nations on earth that would readily come to the defense of Israel militarily in her time of need: the U.S., Britain, and Australia. Britain is now gone, Australia is only two steps behind Britain, and now the hour of testing is upon the U.S....."

Posted by: SouthBeach at December 28, 2006 10:12 PM

I found it!!! This must be it!!! The site filled by the most ignorant people on the internet!!!

Posted by: FatBoy at December 28, 2006 10:41 PM

Personally I've always found the excessive use of exclamation marks by somebody a sign of their incipient insanity.

Posted by: wallyUK at December 28, 2006 11:07 PM

I found it!!! This must be it!!! The site filled by the most ignorant people on the internet!!!

I'm willing to bet that any site you're on becomes, ipso facto, the site with the most ignorant person on the internet.

Posted by: venividivici at December 28, 2006 11:10 PM

Sorry my apologies, that was in poor taste.

Something about hate-mongering sets me off.

I don't know what to think about a forum where statements like "Islam is a disease" gets praise.

Please educate yourselves.

Outta here.

Posted by: FatBoy at December 28, 2006 11:14 PM

Enjoy your twinkees.

Posted by: pez at December 28, 2006 11:18 PM

Fatboy,

Any statement, such as "The sun rises in the east" or "Beef is high in protein" or "There will be a tropical storm in Florida next summer" are only meaningful or meaningless in the context of the evidence for or against them. The immediate dismissal of the statement "Islam is a disease" without an analysis of the evidence for or against it is, pure and simple, ideology. "Islam is a disease" is a metaphor and is subject to the limitations of a metaphor. How about this: "Islam stunts the intellectual development of its adherents and leaves them susceptible to violent utopian fantasies more than any other religion." Please, can you empirically argue with that?

If not, drink a tall glass of STFU, read the items posted here and learn from your intellectual superiors.

Posted by: venividivici at December 28, 2006 11:21 PM

Please educate yourselves.

Outta here.

Posted by: FatBoy

Hang around a while and you'll learn that we're some of the most "educated" people you would ever hope to meet. Perhaps it is you who needs an education. By the way, telling the truth, including an accurate portrayal of history, is not "hate-mongering." It may not be politically correct moral relativism, but hey, not all of us are members of that gang of deluded morons.

Posted by: Susanp at December 28, 2006 11:24 PM

It appears that Tony Blair is positioning himself as another whore for the arab muslims, just like Carter. Money can't buy love for the arabs but it sure can buy many friends. Do you guys think that the rich arabs only build mosques and buy weapons for terrorists? No they are also buying influance.

Posted by: desidude at December 28, 2006 11:32 PM

That dance you just did around "Islam is a disease" was impressive.

"stunts intellectual development" & "violent utopian fantasies" LOL!

Wow. You really lap this stuff up.

I know its silly to even ask on the internet b/c you'll just reply that you've read it all and are an expert, but have you even read about the intellectual contributions in the areas of mathematics and philosophy made under the Ottoman and Persian empires?

You've made the classic mistake of reading about a few nut-cases and forming an opinion based solely on that. Its like if aliens came down one day and formed their opinion of Christianity by examining the KKK.

Posted by: FatBoy at December 28, 2006 11:35 PM

Fatboy,

Please, I don't neet to "read it all" to understand, but I do need to avoid Muslim apologists to get the gist of the story. I think it was JR Dunn who wrote a very grounded critique of the view that any Muslims had anything to do with progress in the arts or sciences, although accomplishments in those areas did occur during Muslim rule, albeit arguably more in contradiction to the zeitgeist than in conformity to it. The idea that Islam has advanced philosophy one iota is laughable. It is arguable that the rats in the sewers of New York City have had more of an impact on the progress of philosophy than any Muslim who ever lived or will live. Apparently, you don't know what philosophy is and you should never even type that word again until you educate yourself in the complete works of Plato, Aristotle and Hegel, preferably in the original languages. If you still think Islam has anything to do with philosophy after that, you may apply for government assistance as someone with permanent brain damage. Tell them venividivici sent you.

The problem with your KKK analogy is that the KKK never represented as large a proportion of the entire Christian world as Muslim terrorists do of the Muslim world. Believe me, I've already run the numbers on Muslim vs. Christian terrorism over the past 20 years and the global likelihood of being killed by a Muslim terrorist is at least 20 times the likelihood of being killed by a Christian terrorist. Prioritization alone makes Islam the more pressing issue. Or, put in what I imagine are terms you'd understand, a secularist is justified in disliking Islam 20 times as much as he dislikes Christianity. The ratio for ideologues will vary from this number according to their ideology.

Posted by: venividivici at December 28, 2006 11:56 PM

Early Islam was strong in math. Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (780-850) was a pioneering mathematician. But the belief system itself tends to suppress academic thought, as those who questioned the questionable teachings of Mohammed were often killed (per the text of the Qu’ran).

Did you know that the ‘Arabic numerals’ were found is pre-Islamic India?

The work of the pioneering Arabs was adopted by the Europeans who moved forward with it as the Islamic world fell into an intellectual slump, from which it has not recovered. The reasons for the slump, in my opinion, can be found in the Qu’ran. Give it a read sometime.

Posted by: pez at December 29, 2006 12:08 AM

Fatboy,

Another thing that comes to mind is that the Greeks have even more claim to having invented modern atomic theory than the Muslims have to having invented anything of use to the modern world, including your precious algebra example. Yet, when Oppenheimer saw the first atomic bomb explode, he didn't quote Democritus. Why in the f should I give two shiats about some basic algebra discovery by some POS Muslim, probably done against the wishes of the local sultan, when I consider the development of algebra overall?

Your entire intellectual edifice, while convincing to you and those like-minded to you, is built on a foundation of sand. Happy New Year!

Posted by: venividivici at December 29, 2006 12:17 AM

venividivici, the odds of being killed by a christian "terrorists" is 1 in 20 of being killed by a muslim terrorists ? that would mean there has to be several people killed a day by christian terrorists. where are the news headlines? where is the proof? did i miss the terrorist christian beheading video, of men waving bibles while shouting "jesus is great" while they saw off a man's head? clue me in.
Another tidbit I learned recently about KKK violence. There are more people killed by islamic jihadists in one day than were killed by the KKK in all their history.

Posted by: desidude at December 29, 2006 12:52 AM

Desi,

I was only using a very conservative figure in that post I made, to set the minimum bar for the Christian/Muslim killing ratio. Honestly, I think the ratio was more like 1000 to 1 Muslim killings vs. Christian killings. Most of the Christian killings were abortion clinic bombings over the past 20 years.

I don't think Christianity is anywhere near as violent as Islam, BTW, even though I don't consider myself a "believer". It's only historical illiterates like Fatboy that make such comparisons necessary.

Posted by: venividivici at December 29, 2006 12:59 AM

Fatboy

For all the claims of Islam to have enhanced the study of Math, it's remarkable that in the Quran, something as simple as division is as royally fucked as it is. This is obvious from the inheritance laws, where, if one uses the Quranic mandates as criteria for divvying up one's property after one's death, there are several scenarios where the inheritors end up inheriting more of the deseased person's property than what he had.

Even the Pentium that had the floating point bug in 1995 didn't make such errors. Meher Hawash notwithstanding.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 29, 2006 1:25 AM

OTP
but this week the BBC is giving an indecent amount of coverage to the current haj, despite the fact that it is hardly news. I sent an e-mail yesterday to radio 5 arguing that they could at least mention that non-Muslims are banned from the Mecca-Medina region, since many of their listeners may not know this. Today the presenter mentioned an e-mail on this subject received yesterday to their Muslim correspondent in Mecca and asked if it was true (it appeared to be news to her) - he confirmed this and hastily changed the subject. It shows that at least the BBC pays some attention to what listeners say and also it's likely that at least some of the Islam-friendly tone of these BBC broadcasts is the result of well intentioned ignorance.

Posted by: wallyUK at December 29, 2006 1:37 AM

I doubt Blair has read that - he certainly did not write it. Then again if he knew about the deep alienation felt across this country after 10 years of his chaotic thinking and jumbled policies each doing a U-turn to chase its own tail.

This man does not remember what he said yesterday or what he might say tomorrow because words are lubricant to extricate himself from every tricky situation. You can see him as a child, a student, thinking he can bamboozle people with syrupy flattery and innocence..................probably like the Portrait of Dorian Gray there is a twisted and gnarled painting in an attic................this "man" is without any morality, and is simply narcissistic treating everyone as an extra in his play................why anyone falls for such a charlatan while blowing off good men is something I cannot understand, but I do think he found it easy to "work" women, they are suckers for this kind of act

Posted by: Voyager at December 29, 2006 3:40 AM

sura 7:176, "his similitude is that of a dog, if you attack him he lolls out his tongue or if you leave him alone he still lolls out his tongue that is the similitude of whose who reject our signs"
There might be some truth in it afterall.
sarc-off.

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at December 29, 2006 5:52 AM

fatboy quoted

I know its silly to even ask on the internet b/c you'll just reply that you've read it all and are an expert, but have you even read about the intellectual contributions in the areas of mathematics and philosophy made under the Ottoman and Persian empires?

for your information fatboy it was Greeks who invented philosopthy not the ottomans also the persian empire was not a islamic empire at the time before it was invaded

Posted by: Greek Gurl at December 29, 2006 9:16 AM

blair quoted

"Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones."

how would blair know islam was tolerent during the middle ages was he alive then did he live under muslim rule?

Art was around before islam existed and as for islam discovering cultures all it did was ever try and destroy culture's

Posted by: Greek Gurl at December 29, 2006 9:27 AM

Tony Blair most definitely WILL be breathless when Muslims cut off his head!

Posted by: LilOleMissy at December 29, 2006 9:48 AM

looks like Blair inserted his arse and mouth in the wrong places when he got dressed that morning.

what an animal, to blatently disregard the suffering of millions over the centuries; as muslims cleanse Basra of christians, crucifying one 14 year old boy, kidnapping and murdering others (including other muslims) and refusing to speak out against the slavery currently practised in the Sudan. By muslims.

Just for a few votes. Disgusting individual.

Posted by: Jerusalem at December 29, 2006 9:53 AM

Outta here.

This phrase was Fat Boy's most telling.

Outta here so as to avoid confrontation with indisputable facts, the Moslems own facts. Outta here to maintain comfort.

Outta here to keep up the holier-than-thou self-satisfaction.

Outta here to go moral preening on safer grounds.

Outta here to not offend anyone except those "bigots" the opinion programmers have inculcated into his incurious brain.

Outta here to maintain his comfortable ignorance, before it's too late.

610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001 * 2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 ** 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1

Outta here has emerged as the biggest single problem on earth.

Incuriosos like Fat Boy should plow through the year/surah string just above and then weigh in on who's ignorant, who's the hate mongerer.

Incuriosos like Fat Boy hate the Truth, hate reality, hate facing up to terribly difficult tasks.

Like billions of people, Fat Boy is askeert. Now that I think about it, there are intellectual cowards, and then there are intellectual pussies.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 29, 2006 10:03 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

Yes, it's easy to see that Fatboy is an intellectual pussy, smug in the knowledge that all the "right people" think like he thinks, without ever coming to the realization that they are not thinking at all, but applying old paradigms to new problems. I had a series of exchanges with some very old, very good friends on Islam and it ended pretty much the same way. Apparently, consorting with someone who didn't take the view that "all religions are equally culpable in spreading hatred", but instead said "Islam is uniquely culpable in spreading hatred" was too much for them. I brought a bunch of facts to the table and all I got in return was rhetoric and wishful thinking. I was inevitably branded a "racist", but never got a response to my question "Were anti-Communists racists?", although the question was perfectly relevant to the issue, since both Communism and Islam are trans-racial ideologies. The Western liberal mind is incapable of even the most rudimentary forms of ideological analysis and, as such, I just ignore it as noise, although I check in with it from time to time to see if it's roused itself from its "dogmatic slumber". It is unfortunate that such people continue to exist, since they make the "endgame" of the war on Terror, i.e. the complete destruction of "political Islam", harder to reach. I actually wouldn't mind rounding them (Western liberals) up first, in order to show the Muslims we (not meaning you personally, but myself and others who don't mind doing "dirty work") mean business. I think it would send a very interesting message to the Koranimals if they saw their Western apologists being mowed down. As a bonus, I don't even get to be branded a racist, since most Western liberals belong to the same race as I do!

Posted by: venividivici at December 29, 2006 10:32 AM

If Blair knew any history he would know of Muhammad Ahmad ibn as Sayyid Abd Allah who declared a jihad, raised an army, and led a successful religious war to topple the secular Ottoman-Egyptian-British military occupation of SUDAN. His principal opponent was General Charles George Gordon whom he captured, and beheaded in 1885 in Khartoum.

He would know that this Muslim upsurge is cyclical and the British were more ready to deal with it before shallow men like himself appeared

The Mahdiyya (Mahdist regime) imposed traditional Islamic laws which would be implemented by Islamic courts headed by various Islamic immams, in accordace with the view of a barely articulated Islamic Republic. The new Sharia courts enforced Islamic law and the Mahdi's own commands. He also authorized the burning of lists of pedigrees and books of law and theology because of their association with the old regime and because he believed that they accentuated tribalism at the expense of religious unity.

In accordance with Islamic dogma The Mahdi modified Islam's five pillars to support the doctrine that loyalty to him was essential to true belief. The Mahdi also added the declaration and Muhammad Ahmad is the Mahdi of God and the representative of His Prophet to the recitation of the shahada. Moreover, service in the jihād replaced the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) as a duty incumbent on the faithful. Zakat (almsgiving) became the tax paid to the state. The Mahdi justified these reforms as responses to instructions conveyed to him by God in visions.

Posted by: Voyager at December 29, 2006 10:47 AM

Bruce Thornton's review of Robert Spencer's "The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion" has an excellent response to Blair's Blabber.

"Such fantastic delusions cannot stand up to the relentless quotations and facts Spencer gathers from Islamic sources."

This quote was made in response to Karen Armstrong's claim that "Muhammad eventually abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Ghandi."

Armstrong, a person who has studied islam for decades and has written several books on the religion, cannot be excused for being ignorant, even if Blair can.

But even if Blair is truly ignorant of the truth of islam, that is no excuse. This is the information age and even if he were just some schmuck in a chat room, it would still be appropriate to condemn him for his ignorance. But not only is he not some ignorant, leftist schmuck in a chat room, he is the leader of one of the most powerful and influential nations on the planet. He cannot be excused for his ignorance.

We must also consider that being the leader of the UK and having access to intelligence files containing comfort shattering facts that we cannot even begin to fathom, that Blair is, indeed, not as ignorant as his statements might lead one to believe.

If that is truly the case, then why does Blair carry on about the greatness of islam and, to him, its apparent supremacy over his current faith? What advantage is there in carrying on this charade? Is he possibly a secret convert to islam practicing Taqiyya?

Could he participating in a polite fiction in hopes of winning muslims over?

Spencer has said more than once that such lies do nothing to prevent violent jihadists from winning more nominal, less involved muslims over to their side. Indeed, it seems that the only thing such incredible lies accomplish is to create a diversion that keeps non-muslims from knowing the real truth of islam.

But then again, maybe that’s what Blair wants?

But is it what the British citizens, er subjects, want?

Perhaps not a certain British man who was recently viscously assaulted by a muslim over some comments his wife to him made about the veil the muslim’s wife was wearing. Amazingly, it is the muslim who assaulted the man who is being charged and not the victim’s wife.

Nothing to do with islam you say, just an average guy fed up with British bigotry?

This would not be the first time that a muslim enraged by a woman’s comments triangulated onto the woman’s husband.

In Canada, the husband of http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=24969 Farzana Hassan Shahid, the new president of the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), was by assaulted by a muslim who demanded the husband “control his wife.”

Of course Sister Leonella Sgorbati and Don Santoro know all about islamic triangulation.

Perhaps Blair is worried about upsetting muslims out fear for more triangulation?

I doubt that is the case, but even if it were, it is still no excuse for his political invertebracy.

It is already proven that acquiescing lies do nothing to appease terrorists, prevent muslims from becoming terrorists, and nothing to protect Westerners and Dhimmis from becoming victims of islamic terrorism. The only thing these lies are good for is making us increasingly vulnerable to jihadi aggression and what good is there in that?

Personally, I think that Blair is a dedicating multi-culturalist, who at times has seen to “seen the light,” but perhaps it was too bright and he is now right back where he started from: not only blind, but deaf and dumb as well.

Posted by: senatortombstone at December 29, 2006 12:00 PM</