The blood thirsty savages. The Islamic psychos the progeny of Mohammad the first savage and barbarian. The first Islamic terrorist and thug.

Posted by: savsiv at November 11, 2008 2:07 PM

You only assume it was than muslim who murder him it could have being non-muslim who did it as well.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at November 11, 2008 4:31 PM

" . . . it could have being non-muslim who did it as well."

And what other assumption do you suggest, mr defenderofislam? It is possible that it was a marxist, Christian or Jew, but highly improbable as the jihadis have been targeting the Buddhist kafirs for quite a while now per the instructions of their blessed prophet and his blood thirsty moon-god.

Posted by: the poetess at November 11, 2008 4:56 PM

The Buddhists of Thailand revere their king and believe he has supernatural powers. If he has such powers, this might be a good time for him to use them to rid his kingdom of the demons of islam.

Posted by: the poetess at November 11, 2008 4:59 PM

No DefenderofIslam:

It is always the Mohammedans who commit these barbaric and violent crimes. Yes that is your sick and demented religion that is what every one knows. The psychos of Islam. Islam the pathetic, murdering criminal religion whose prophet Mohammad was the first Islamic terrorist, pedophile, rapist, thief and liar. Ha ha what a moron he was and those who follow him are as sick as him. All terrorists are Mohammedans who follow the criminal religion of Islam and their criminal warlord and thug Mohammad. Bunch of losers.

Posted by: savsiv at November 11, 2008 5:11 PM

You only assume it was than muslim who murder him it could have being non-muslim who did it as well.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at November 11, 2008 4:31 PM

lol

Nope, it was a Mohammedan. Of course. Only Mohammedans are murdering Buddhists in Thailand. ONLY MOHAMMEDANS. Just following your "Kill the Infidels" nazi ideology, you know.

Posted by: darcy at November 11, 2008 5:31 PM

Well we all know that it's because those Buddhists are zionist oppressors.

Especially those rural banana farmer types.

The school girls are particularly avid zionists.

Posted by: joeblough at November 12, 2008 12:33 AM

I have a sneaky suspicion that Buddhist Thai in the south may be quietly arming themselves. Before long, the desire for vengeance will kick in and you'll hear the Muslim minority howl in pain.

Posted by: Kepha at November 12, 2008 7:02 AM

There might have being non-muslim who want his money
or his wife might want him dead to be able to marry someone also. You must keep than open mind on this.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at November 12, 2008 7:07 AM

DefenderofIslam;

No it is always the Murdering blood thirsty Mohammedans who commit these hate and despicable crimes against Buddhist and the rest of the non Muslims. Mohammedans are the murderers and all TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS. That is your rubbish religion called Islam.

Posted by: savsiv at November 12, 2008 8:36 AM

-I've lived in Thailand several years. Drive-by shootings on motorcycles are common over there, and have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. They are mostly vengeance acts, often related to mafia activity.
Maybe this case is different, but nothing in that piece suggests it has anything to do with Muslims.
The fact is you can find hired guns easily in Thailand and, for quite a modest fee, get anybody annoying out of your life for good.

Also, don't go think Thai "Buddhists" don't kill : They hire people to do it.

As much as Islam really is a threat to Western democracies, and as much as Muslim separatists in Thailand really are dangerous lunatics, you guys at JihadWatch are starting to discredit yourselves by seeing, or suspecting that you see, angry blood-thirsty Muslims under every rock.
(Your coverage of Obama's campaign, peppered with hints and suggestions that he might have a hidden Islamic agenda, was particularly lame.)

Please keep with the facts : We need JihadWatch to be a credible voice.

Posted by: Raman at November 12, 2008 10:54 AM

Raman:

I'm not sure that it is so much a matter of "seeing ... angry blood-thirsty Muslims under every rock" as developing and expressing a reasonable set of expectations.

If there is some set of facts other than one simple assertion on your part, that we should know about, point them out.

Otherwise, with a constant stream of stories of mohammedan mayhem and bloodshed coming out of south Thailand, it is the reasonable assumption, when one hears of a shooting there, that it is the mohammedans at it again.

So far as B.O.'s "hidden Islamic agenda" we will see.

So far it looks like the staff he will be assigning to middle east matters all have a pronounced and fairly obvious pro-islamist bent.

His position on Pakistan and Afghanistan has yet to be revealed. There is no strong reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, as he has so far shown no understanding of the problem -- and no strong intentions about defending freedom or the west.

One thing you cannot say about B. Hussein is that he is a strong pro-west/pro-freedom guy. Quite the contrary.

These days it is better to err on the side of caution and assume the worst.

It is guaranteed that counter-jihaddists of whatever stripe will be condemned as morally corrupt and stupid maniacs regardless of what we say. So why play Republican and bend over backwards to "be nice"?

Let the other side prove that one or another murder wasn't done by the mad jihaddi's.

It's better that we be firm in our convictions and consistent in our expectations.

Posted by: joeblough at November 12, 2008 12:14 PM

«Otherwise, with a constant stream of stories of mohammedan mayhem and bloodshed coming out of south Thailand, it is the reasonable assumption, when one hears of a shooting there, that it is the mohammedans at it again.»

It is only the "reasonable assumption" if all you ever read about Thailand concerns the Southern Muslim insurgents. "A lot" of violence, unrelated to Islam or Muslims, goes on in that region.
So my only point is the following : Whereas nothing in the article points to the shooter being Muslim, Thailand does have a long and very eventful record of such drive-by shootings related to organized crime and petty vengeance.

Again, it may just be the case that the shooter was an angry Muslim. Nothing says he was, nothing says he wasn't.
But it seems to me that this fact should be more thoroughly researched before being posted here as if it obviously were so.

-Otherwise, JW stands to lose credibility.-

JW, like other websites, is already targeted as a "fascist" blog. And "islamolucids" (such as myself) already have a very rough time trying to present our case, even when it is based on undeniable, verifiable facts.
So let's not add easily refutable insinuations, and give munitions to dhimmis and jihadists.

...
Same with Obama. Articles that denounce the fact that so or so among his aides was once seen in the company of so or so, who is known to have maybe once known a member of such or such Muslim organization... Well, that kind of allegation just helps reinforce the idea that some people will go to any length to depict him as a potential terrorist, or a stealth jihadist.

Again, I'm preoccupied that outlets such as JW stay well-researched, thoroughly fact-based and balanced. Even if that means re-publishing 1 or 2 fewer articles per day. Otherwise, we (the islamolucids) are shooting ourselves in the feet.

Posted by: Raman at November 12, 2008 12:41 PM

Raman

If you really are as intelligent as you sound, what are you doing in a religion that is made up of bits and pieces of Judaism and Christianity. A religion not based on a loving God, but based on a hateful and vengeful godlet. Whose prophet was a misogynistic,cruel and wicked person. A religion invented 600 years after Christ, and 4000 years after Abraham, by an illiterate peasant who could not even write his own book.
I just wondered. All over the world young women are raped, have acid thrown on them, are stabbed, burned,kidnapped, married off to dirty old muslim men.
The only place Christians are safe is in non-muslim countries. Muslims come to the West and try to force their ugly culture on us!
NOO thanks!

Posted by: jimmicrackcorn at November 12, 2008 8:56 PM

Thanks for saying I sound intelligent.

But what exactly makes you think I'm a Muslim, when I've written that : «Islam really is a threat to Western democracies» ?

If you need to know, I'm a militant atheist, whose positions on the subject of religions are very similar to those of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Michel Onfray.

Posted by: Raman at November 12, 2008 9:17 PM

Oh, I think I get it :
Was it the term "islamolucid" that made you think I was some kind of Muslim reformist ?
If so, please know that "islamolucid" is the equivalent of "islamo realist", which is often used by R. Spencer, and which means people not deluded by the lies surrounding Islam.

The term "islamolucid" was coined by the authors of the website Point de Bascule, which is the equivalent of JihadWatch in Quebec.
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/

Posted by: Raman at November 12, 2008 9:22 PM

Organic crime is everywhere now. Where I live we worry about the violion in mexico crossing the broder. The local international crime lord tell me they arenot going to help the drug gang that control all illegal drug in that nation as they are going against international crime org rules it they murder
than america in america the america special force will hunt then down than deal with then. The Internation Criminal Org is alreadry have than replacement gang to take over the drug traffic in that nation. Basic the Mafric from Italy cannot effective do crime in China as he stand out like a sore thumd in china those he let the chinese crime orginate do the crime in china where they make cheap
mark off of western good which other middleman tranship to europe which in turn they sell.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at November 12, 2008 10:17 PM

Yes all terrorist are Mohammedans, they follow their leader the first Islamic terrorist Mohammad. The prophet of Islam was the greatest criminal par excellence. He was the greatest pedophile, the greatest rapist, the greatest mass murder, the greatest robber, the greatest liar, the greatest mass rapist of women and children and the greatest illiterate.

Posted by: savsiv at November 13, 2008 9:42 AM

Raman

point taken: Muslims do not have a monopoly on organised crime.

However: wherever there are significant populations of Mohammedans, all over the world, there also appear to be very large numbers of Mohammedans up to their necks in every conceivable variety of organised crime, fraud, drug trafficking, armed robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, pimping and sex slaving, you name it; mostly targeting non-Muslims. The Taliban makes money from drugs; so does Hezbollah.

The distinction between organised crime plain and simple, carried out by this or that group of Mohammedans for fun and profit, and organised crime as a subspecies of, or money source for, Jihad, carried out by Mohammedans for fun, profit, and the Dominance of Islam over what is Not-Islam (or over other Muslims deemed insufficiently-Islamic and therefore legit. targets), appears to be very, very blurry.

Consider this story

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023219.php#comments

and reflect on the following piquant detail:

"Another suspect, Djamel Badaoui, 31, was sentenced to five years. The court ruled he was in charge of "seizing goods" — notably by extorting money from prostitutes on three occasions, to fund terror attacks."

Or this article,

http://www.australian-news.com.au/Tim_Priest.htm

by a retired Australian policeman, recounting what happened once Australia reached a 'critical mass' of Lebanese Arab Muslims: an explosion of extremely (indeed, uniquely) violent organised crime, engaged in everything from car theft andcar ''rebirthing' to drug trafficking to systematic, open extortion of businesses such as nightclubs, and open, brazen attacks on police and non-Muslim Australian citizens.

What is particularly interesting is when he starts discussing the very real difference, observed and experienced by himself while a serving police officer, between the Asian (Chinese/ Vietnamese) gangs/ organised criminals and the home-grown groups such as the bikies, on the one hand, and organised crime as practised by Muslims, on the other.

Going by analogy with Tim Priest's experiences in Australia after the Mohammedan population attained 'critical mass', I would hazard a guess that there are, in Thailand, two species of organised crime-and-corruption: the home-grown species carried out by non-Muslim Chinese and Thais; and then, within the majority-Muslim regions - but also operating beyond those regions - the extra specially dirty and ultra-violent Muslim species, which is, perhaps, just Jihad by any other name.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 14, 2008 1:21 AM

There are muslim who are not very good muslim who do engage in orginate crime as there are christian who arenot very good christian who engage in orginate crime.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at November 14, 2008 3:56 AM

DefenderofIslam : «point taken: Muslims do not have a monopoly on organised crime.»

Sorry, but that is not my point at all.

My point is that, for this article, nothing says Muslims are involved. Yet JW posts it here suggesting that it can only be them.

If this proves wrong, JW stands to lose credibility, and will make itself vulnerable to criticism.
Muslims cause enough mayhem as it is, that JW doesn't need to relay news that could potentially give munitions to people all too eager to go : «Ha ha! You see, they're making up stuff !»

I have no qualms about JW pointing the finger at Islam's terrible ideology and the absurd violence it creates... Indeed, I want JW, R. Spencer & all to remain credible voices.

When R. Spencer gives lectures in universities, what makes him convincing to people on the fence about these issues is that he keeps with the facts.

So let's keep with the facts.

Posted by: Raman at November 14, 2008 12:01 PM