So the Muslims refuse to enter a Christian church to weep over the crimes of fellow Muslims. It is hard to conclude other than that they want to conceal the details of who the perpetrators and victims were.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at April 6, 2007 8:49 AM

The slaughter of those innocent children had a religious undertone; ISLAM. And it was Muslims that hijacked that school. How about that?

Posted by: Elric66 at April 6, 2007 8:57 AM

You just know that this guy really wants a memorial to glorify the his Muslim heros who obeyed the teachings of Muhammad.

Posted by: LivingVictory at April 6, 2007 9:00 AM

Yes; sweep it under the rug as if it never happened. Kind of makes it easier to forget it if there are no reminders around, kind of like trying to convince others that the holocaust never happened either. I suppose there are Muslims complaining about Memorials being built to remind us of 9-11 at the WTC,The pentagon, and a quiet farm field.

If these Muslims really felt bad about the Beslan tragedy and thousands of other terrorist attacks in the name of Allah, than they should actually help build memorials as a reminder of these tragedies.

Posted by: Mackie at April 6, 2007 9:02 AM

In case anyone here, there or in Russia still believes that "we all basically are the same deep down inside" and that the troubles the Islamic world has with every other civilization it bumps up against are caused simply by 'misunderstandings' or 'a failure to communicate' -- I'd say this situation should be held up as proof.

Proof of just how fully Islamic believers remove themselves from the community of mankind. Their lack of empathy shows the depth of their belief.

The mullahs have to go. So do the temples. Allah must be shown to be false through physical defeat and the effort must not stop until the name Mohammed carries a stigma in the Islamic world on the level of Adolph or Judas in the western world.

The five pillars of Islam must be pulled down by the failure of the sixth. The temple must be destroyed. We'll have no end to this until we end it.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at April 6, 2007 9:06 AM

"...one of Russia's leading Muslim clerics has accused the Orthodox church of trying to hijack a national tragedy [sic]...

"It is not acceptable to present this tragedy [sic] as the tragedy [sic] of followers of only one religion," Sheikh Ravil Gainutdin, chairman of the Council of Russian Muftis, said in a statement.

"We need a monument on this site that symbolises a national tragedy [sic], without any religious undertones, where everyone can come and shed their tears."

This was a 'tragedy'? A 'tragedy'?

Say it again, Sheikhy? A 'tragedy'?

Katrina was a 'tragedy'; the Asian tsunami was a 'tragedy'; Othello is a 'tragedy'.

Beslan was an atrocity, an outrage, caused by people who shared your belief-system, Sheikhy.

So why should your feelings be taken into account?

Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at April 6, 2007 9:11 AM

""We need a monument on this site that symbolises a national tragedy, without any religious undertones, where everyone can come and shed their tears."

.....no matter what your "religion" is, if you cannot shed tears for hundreds of slaughtered children, you do not belong in the real world...

....tears still flow by Non Jews, when viewing the Holocaust memorials....

....tears still flow in Korea, when viewing the memorial remembering slaughter inflicted by the Japanese....

....tears still flow in the cemetaries on the beaches of Normandy remembering those lost fighting for freedom of all people....

....tears still flow in many memorials and monuments by many people of many beliefs, remembering those who gave their lives or were murdered by others...

....Islams seeks to rewrite history and to erase all memory of those sacrificed in the fight for freedom or to those who were slaughtered by tyrants....

....Islam is destroying books, tapes, films, and written documents relating to history...replacing all with versions of Islamic history...

.....Islam is creeping into your school systems and is forcing Islams ways upon your children...

.....Muslims do not want a recorded memory of Muslims slaughtering children....it might look bad...even if it is true that they did it...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 6, 2007 9:19 AM

In attacking Othodox Christians wo want to build a church to honour these child-martyrs, Muslims in Russia are following in the footsteps of the Communists. That shouldn't be surprising since both Islam and Communism are similar totalitarian ideologies.

Posted by: Provoslavni at April 6, 2007 9:38 AM

sheikh ravil gainutdin and any who think like him can drop dead - NOW. Memorialize this and then go pound sand with your repulsive hateful muhammedan death doctrine.

Posted by: justamomof4 at April 6, 2007 9:55 AM

“We need a monument on this site that symbolises a national tragedy, without any religious undertones, where everyone can come and shed their tears.”

* Right. Perhaps some kind of a plaque that sez something like that:

Tabari IX:69, “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us”- would that be okay, sheik Ravil?

*

You see, the swine who kill us, rape and murder our kids and their teachers have the hide to accuse us! Accuse us, that if we don’t build an ‘inclusive monument’ where the terrorists are also honored, glorified like ‘the magnificent 19' from 9/11,- then we are ‘hijacking a national tragedy’- because Muslims ‘want to come and shed their tears also’…

That’s chutzpah!

Build it, or else…

Stop the planet, I want to get off!

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/06/al-reuters-beslan-memorial-plan-angers-russian-muslim-leader/

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/06/radical-imam-tells-muslims-in-holland-not-to-pay-taxes-to-harm-dutch-state-wilders-calls-for-deportation/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 6, 2007 10:00 AM

And some visitors to this site wonder why people here are so angry... Read It All, as Robert says.

*

Posted by: alexon at April 6, 2007 10:06 AM

There is no respect for the kafir, living or dead in islam, as the kafir is not truly a member of humanity. Only the mohammedans following the way or path of allah are human. All other people who do not hold their doctrine must be dhimmis, slaves or killed. This behavior is sanctified by the koran and the sunnah of mohammed. Dualism, or the exclusion of the idea of a common humanity is the root of their dualistic religious, political and social system.

Posted by: the poetess at April 6, 2007 10:14 AM

I would have thought 'Russian' Muslims woulds have preferred to come and shed blood. Not tears.

Hypocrisy was the pedophile "prophet"'s first major accomplishment.

(I think he even had a mole on his shoulder in the shape of the Arabic word for it.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 6, 2007 10:38 AM

To be fair, a memorial to murdered school children is clearly islamophobic. We should have laws against such provocation.

Muslim sensibilities should never be offended.

Posted by: Celsius at April 6, 2007 10:39 AM

Let’s put sheik au gratin’s ideas to all the memories of man’s inhumanity to man. The holocaust memorial would not mention Nazis or Germans it would just say bad people killing people. This is the way the Muslims sweep their atrocities under the Persian rug and pretend that all religions are engaged in violence while Islam was the most peaceful one because it is the most correct. Take Indian education. All children are not taught the true extent of the Islamic horrors visited upon the simple naive Hindus and Buddhists of India when the Muslim invaded. They are only taught that many of the Islamic rulers were tolerant and respectful of Indian cultures and religions. .

Posted by: desidude at April 6, 2007 11:01 AM

I have tried to identify one thing that does not offend Muslims and I have failed....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 6, 2007 11:34 AM

desidude,

You're right. Looking back, I noticed the Muslim rulers of India were exalted in textbooks I used when I went to primary school (I lived in Chennai for 5 years). And the evil nasty British were given no mercy. All these lies taught in school, as well as Bollywood movies reinforce that view (Good God Mughaal-e-Azam sucked). Okay, the Brits weren't angels but they were better than the Mughal rulers. And the Mughal rulers would probably not put up with an Independence movement as much as the Brits did.

Re. the Russian Muslims-Well I suppose the only good take home message about this announcement about offended Muslim sensibilities is that these guys are not as slick as Western Muslims (oh God I sound like Naseem the gadhi) such as Tariq Ramadan and the likes of CAIR. Makes it easier to identify the enemy.

Posted by: wrathofasma at April 6, 2007 11:36 AM

This is one more of the endless attempts by Muslims to paint themselves be the real victims of any event, despite the fact that the murderers in Beslan were Muslim. If the Muslims want to truly "share" in the tragedy, they could a)build a secular shrine, funded by Muslims, with the names of the victims and a short, truthful account of the event engraved in granite. (I wonder how long that type of commemoration would be allowed to stand?) b) the Muslims could take up a large collection to help the families of the victims, similar to what was done after 9/11. Neither magnanimous gesture will probably be done. It's better for the sheik and his followers to claim to be marginalized, victimized, etc. etc..the same ole,' same ole' for Muslims across the world.

Posted by: maryrose at April 6, 2007 11:44 AM

Hmmmm..."muslim clerics are angry" Seems like I've heard that before somewhere. I'll say it again, "angry muslim" must by be one of the most common two word phrases in the English language. Burn, baby burn!

Posted by: MP at April 6, 2007 11:49 AM

Wrathofasma - Sir, you make an intersting point about the Brits. Throughout WWII, Mr. Gandhi professed to see little difference between British colonialism, and the potential inclusion of the subcontinent into Japan's Greater East Asian co-prosperity Sphere. Luckily for him, Anglo-Indian troops were able to hold the line at the Burmese border. It is not difficult to imagine the reception Mr. Gandhi would have received at his first non-violent protest against the Imperial Japanese Army.

Posted by: MP at April 6, 2007 11:56 AM

" "angry muslim" must by be one of the most common two word phrases in the English language."
..posted by MP

How about "fiery cleric"? When has that adjective been applied to a priest, a monk, a reverend, a rabbi, or any real religion?

Posted by: Infidel33 at April 6, 2007 12:20 PM

In attacking Othodox Christians wo want to build a church to honour these child-martyrs, Muslims in Russia are following in the footsteps of the Communists. That shouldn't be surprising since both Islam and Communism are similar totalitarian ideologies.

Posted by: Provoslavni

Remember.. the Left worships a violent dead guy who went by the name of Che.

Islam worships a violent dead guy who went by the name of Mahomet.

Ergo their mutual affinity.

In the end Islam will consume Western Collectivism, if we don't out an end to this deadly pas-de-deux.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 6, 2007 12:37 PM

Wrathofasma

Main motivation for that was that it was the only way the Congress - otherwise a completely worthless piece of trash - could establish a glory that it has milked for all it's worth for the last 60 years. It's their main appeal to staying in power - not its achievements after independence, which aren't much to write home about. In order to do that, they have to pretend that the Muslim predecessors of the Brits were hunky dory, and that the Brits were the most barbaric rulers that India ever had, and that the Congress - the knights in shining armor - came and rescued the situation.

As a thought experiment, it would have been intriguing for Gandhi to have tried his satyagraha tactics against, say, Aurangzeb. Guru Tegh Bahadur might have been able to teach him a thing or two about how that went. If time machines existed, I'd have loved to use one to swap the Sikh Gurus so that they lived during the Brits, and transfer the entire Congress leadership to the Moghul era, so that they could have gone from cultural Muslims to traditional Muslims to... Muslims. Or chopped heads.

Back on topic: memo to the Russkie Muftis: this is a tragedy for the Russians in general, and the Russian church in particular. It's not your tragedy, just as UA Flight 93 was not a tragedy for Muslims, since the only 4 Muslims on that flight were the hijackers.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 6, 2007 12:39 PM

Fiery cleric? I recollect a few Buddhist monks in Vietnam who did not get too many miles to the gallon.

Posted by: MP at April 6, 2007 12:50 PM

"Fiery cleric? I recollect a few Buddhist monks in Vietnam who did not get too many miles to the gallon.

Posted by: MP "

....hey, I remember these guys!....the reporters were reminded not to stand too close when the cigarette lighter appeared.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 6, 2007 12:53 PM

Once again, Islam demonstrates its shamelessness by trying to infringe upon true victimhood. How dare they exclude 20 million Muslim "victims" (victims of what? Islam perhaps?) they shriek. If they can't have their own shrine then they have to co-opt someone elses. The most disgusting aspect of all this is the fact that it was Muslims themselves who brought about the need for this particular memorial in the first place. Or are we going to hear yet again that it was the evil 9/11 Jews who committed this atrocity as well?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at April 6, 2007 1:05 PM

"Or are we going to hear yet again that it was the evil 9/11 Jews who committed this atrocity as well?"

....Rosie O. has it figured out...she doen't know who did it, but she is sure they were the Republicans...being born fat,stupid, and ugly has affected her judgement..

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 6, 2007 1:51 PM

"Beslan memorial plan angers Russian Muslim leader"

Oh geez, now the Russians have gone and enraged the Muslim leader. Well, it'll be their own fault when the next Beslan occurs in retaliation for planning this memorial. Muslims slaughter Christian children, the Christians build a memorial to the dead children, the Muslims become enraged and murder more. The circle of violence continues.

MP, not only are Muslim clerics the most often described as "enraged" or "angered", they are also the only ones to carry automatic weapons into their place of holy worship.

Posted by: special_guest at April 6, 2007 2:04 PM

The Freedom tower should have only one memorial , a memorial to the hijacking of Islam and the pain that has allegedly caused non Muslims

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 6, 2007 2:18 PM

"It is not acceptable to present this tragedy as the tragedy of followers of only one religion," Sheikh Ravil Gainutdin, chairman of the Council of Russian Muftis, said in a statement.

Posted by: US_infidel at April 6, 2007 3:16 PM

I'm disgusted that anyone would object to a church building a memorial to murder victims.

It's despicable.

Posted by: Josephine at April 6, 2007 3:48 PM

Muslims had a school once....the school had a fire...the Muslims chained the doors shut and refused to allow the little school girls to escape the fire ....because "the girls were not properly dressed as Muslims"...you could hear the little girls screaming for a little while, then there were no more screams as the fire consumed the school...

Muslims are objectionable...indeed...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 6, 2007 4:21 PM

It won't be long before the mufti blames the Jooozzzz...

But isn't there a memorial in the US in the shape of a crescent moon that is 'all inclusive- ' where muslims can come and shed their tears...?'

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 6, 2007 4:32 PM

"But isn't there a memorial in the US in the shape of a crescent moon that is 'all inclusive- ' where muslims can come and shed their tears...?'"

....I think I saw it...it was called a septic tank...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 6, 2007 4:34 PM

"leading Muslim clerics has accused the Orthodox church of trying to HIJACK a national tragedy"

and "ANGER"

Two additional points. The cleric uses the word HIJACK as if the clerics are ignorant that 1000s of planes have been hijacked and blown up by Moslems.

Second, why ANGRY? ANGER is just another excuse for violence. Why not disappointed or wants to be included? Wants to express sorrow or solidarity. Why is every infidel act even building a memorial to people murdered by Muslims a provocation to further anger and rage for Moslems?

Posted by: David England at April 6, 2007 5:10 PM

justamomof4,

Thank you for posting the link to such a powerful google video. It's been sent to all my friends and family lest we all forget what we are up against. It certainly makes the news of jihadis trying to get school bus licenses that much more insidious. Good thing many Americans are armed.

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at April 6, 2007 7:32 PM

What happened in Beslan caused Allah great displeasure but not so sure about 9/11

Posted by: Abdullah at April 6, 2007 8:01 PM

" "angry muslim" must by be one of the most common two word phrases in the English language."
..posted by MP

How about "fiery cleric"? When has that adjective been applied to a priest, a monk, a reverend, a rabbi, or any real religion?
Posted by: Infidel33

How about "outraged"? Always used to describe the feelings of any group of fist shaking muslims anywhere on the planet.

Posted by: Dsinc at April 6, 2007 10:53 PM

What happened in Beslan caused Allah great displeasure but not so sure about 9/11
Posted by: Abdullah

Abdulla, are you standing in for allah?

Posted by: Dsinc at April 6, 2007 10:56 PM

Wrathofasma, I am one of the few Indians who believe that the Brits had positive influence in India. That Brits as rulers were a lot better than the moguls. That the Brits bought positive ideas civilizing ideas to India. They ended the thuggary sect, they opposed sati, and they were opposed to casteism. Their rule was rather benign as opposed to the bloody rule of the various moguls. I ask Indians, would you rather wish that the moguls had ruled India for over two hundred years or the Brits? What would present day India be like, had the Brits never came? With the moguls ruling a vast Muslim Indian empire from east to west with just two small islands of protected dhimmi Hindus in the north and south? Where sharia would be the law of the land? And there would be no bollywood? No, the coming of the Brits to India stopped Islamic expansion. The Muslim now had an enemy that would fight them.
Yes the Brits stole the wealth of India, just as the Muslim invaders stole it. But had the Brits not come, the Muslims would have ended the culture, religion, and the very soul of India.
I

Posted by: desidude at April 7, 2007 12:16 AM

Desidude

You are partly right in that the Brits were responsible for the termination of several Muslim kingdoms in India, such as Murshidabad, Oudh, Mysore,, as well as threatening Afghanistan. Also, the abolition of Farsi as an official language in India by Warren Hastings pretty much ended whatever clout Muslims had, and put Hindus and Muslims on a level playing field, since Muslims never attempted to master either English nor any of the Indian languages other than Urdu. And as you pointed out, it's anybody's guess as to whether Sati, female infanticide, thugee, et al would have been ablolished, even though those practices were non-existant in pre-Islamic India when Hindus were free to make all the rules.

However, the assumption that without the Brits, we'd all be speaking Urdu and grovelling 5 times a day towards the Qibla is without foundation. Despite having a dhimmified ruler like Shahu who tied the hands of his Peshwas and prevented them from conquering the Moghul empire, the Marathas pretty much overran most of India, and pretty much controlled much of the Moghul empire in all but name. There was a combination of several factors that worked against them, such as Shahu outliving Peshwa Baji Rao I, the early death of Peshwa Madhav Rao, the mismanagement by the Marathas of territory they occupied and alienation of other Hindu populaces such as the Rajputs with their high handedness, et al. As a result, they became unpopular outside Marathwada, and that made the job of the Brits in conquering a lot easier.

However, given the above, it would be a mistake to assume that had the Brits never discovered India, it would by now by Islam-free. After all, the Muslims did have a pretty good hold on Bengal, Hyderabad and had taken over Mysore. However, chances are good that in the absense of the Brits, the various rulers, such as Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs, et al would have run things, and there would have been no Congress, and no Muslim League, and no political clout for Muslims. Ergo, no Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 7, 2007 4:18 AM

This won't so much as raise an eyebrow among multiculturalists. Surely there is some rational explanation as to why Muslims couldn't care less about the Beslan massacre but instantly come out of the woodwork when a monument is proposed. Perhaps they did stage massive protests after Beslan, but the Global Right Wing Conspiracy covered it up. You see, the GRWC is so powerful, so omnipotent, that its media blackout covers the entire Internet. The blackout so effective that not even multiculturalists are able to find any trace of any protests. But they know that they happened. They must have happened. They probably happen every time there is a terrorist strike, or some other atrocity perpetrated by the hijackers of the Religion of Peace. If only the GRWC didn't exist, then the whole world would know...

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at April 7, 2007 7:24 AM

This reminds me of a book I recently read, a novel but very perseptive, Age of Tolerance by Glen Reinsford. The muzzies protested the annual 9/11 commemoration services so much it was not only cancelled but turned into an annual service to commemorate how muslims are really the victims and how the rest of us should be more tolerant and understanding. I live in NYC, when you first come out of the subway by Ground Zero there are a bunch of pictures as a tribute to 9/11 victims, rescue workers, families, vigils, etc. The second picture in the row, is of a woman in a hijab with a tear streaming down her face. This is like the nonsense I keep hearing about how there were also many muslim victims on 9/11. Really? Besides the 19 murderers do you need both hands or can an amputee count the number of muslim victims on his fingers? I hope that tribute in Beslan gets built and built huge, if not, one more nail in the coffin for the non muslim world, west, east or anything in between.

Posted by: firster555 at April 7, 2007 8:45 AM

Who would have thought that CAIR had a spokesman in Russsia.

Posted by: RIslander at April 7, 2007 10:51 AM

Anything that causes the divide between Muslims, like this clown, and Christian Russians is good news. I suggest at the front of the Church be a statue of a warrior of Allah, bomb laden, holding a saber to the neck of a child. Let no one forget what happened there so the human sewage that caused this massacre can never can never again plague the human race with thier perverted idealogy.

The Russians need to join their Christian comrades in arms against the Religion of Peace as displayed in this barbaric act.

Posted by: Briars at April 7, 2007 4:02 PM