“The suspect, identified in the newspaper report as Ali M, reportedly said he would target French landmarks including the Eiffel Tower, Louvre and ‘cultural events that take place in the south of France in which thousands of Christians gather for a month.'”
Remember: opposing this is “hatred” and “bigotry.”
“Terror plot targeting Eiffel Tower, Louvre foiled, French police say,” FoxNews.com, July 9, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
French authorities say they foiled an Islamic terrorist plot reportedly targeting the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and a nuclear power plant last year.
The revelation comes as the country unveiled new anti-terror rules which included a proposal to ban terror suspects from leaving the country if it is thought they intend to fight abroad, The Telegraph reported.
French authorities revealed they arrested a 29-year-old Algerian butcher living in southern France June 2013, after they found coded messages between him and a high-ranking Al Qaeda member discussing how “to conduct jihad in the place you are currently,” according to Le Parisien.
The suspect, identified in the newspaper report as Ali M, reportedly said he would target French landmarks including the Eiffel Tower, Louvre and “cultural events that take place in the south of France in which thousands of Christians gather for a month.”
The father of two reportedly had signaled his willingness to travel for training before returning to France to “await your instructions,” the Telegraph reported.
French police say they arrested him a month before he was to travel to Tunisia, and then Algeria for training.
“There are doubtless others on our soil programmed to harm French interests,” French anti-terror judge Marc Trevidic told Le Parisien.
The new legislation, which will be presented in parliament, will also force internet providers to block Islamic hate propaganda, and allow investigators to use pseudonyms while undercover on anti-jihadist sites, The Telegraph reported.
Note the politically correct moral equivalence.
BlueRaven says
“The new legislation, which will be presented in parliament, will also force internet providers to block Islamic hate propaganda,”
alarming and dumb.
Robert Treat Paine says
Actually, it is ‘alarming and dumb’ to block the hate sites. Think about it. If I know which sites to watch, and can discern who is on them, I have a built in list of suspects and bad guys.
Why force the closure of information and basic intel?
Wellington says
Yes, mindless moral equivalence yet again but, on a significantly ironic note, how appropriate that the 29 year-old Algerian arrested is a butcher.
David says
Being that the suspect is a butcher he should have his head removed from his shoulders.
john spielman says
you know, IF the Islamic terrorist DID blow up the Eiffel Tower or the Louvre (hopefully no injuries ) the French people would hopefully rise up in righteous anger and kick all islamists out of the country and forever speak the truth openly about islam, this fascist religion of death and destruction !
Fran800 says
I doubt it.
Wellington says
To the extent that your are correct, and I think you probably are, it is due to the mindless political correctness and multiculturalism of our age.
Western Civilization is easily the most successful and productive civilization of all time, but unfortunately there was born amidst it, with all its extraordinary and multifaceted accomplishments, a mindless self-abnegation because of liberty badly understood (and liberty made Western Civilizaton great more than any other factor) and which ignorance the intellecual elite of the West have embraced with, quite ironically, an almost total mindlessness.
Compounding all this is the unparalleled affluence achieved by Western Civilization, which makes those brought up and living within the Western orb, and who are not students of history, highly likely to take for granted. Not a good combo.
Meanwhile, the decrepit Islamic world, parasitical as ever, is preying like a cockroach upon Westerners in the West who badly understand what made the West great. Exhibit #1 here, I submit, is currently occupying the Oval Office.
Charles Martel says
Well said Mr Wellington. Such a very clear and perfect summary of the peril that the western world finds itself in. It’s inability to understand the peril now, is of course the reason that it finds itself in this peril. It is ignorance of history – its own history what’s more. I salute you Sir.
Uri says
Thank god the great ass clown Dubya is gone – tho his mistakes live on
ERic says
So true Wellington.
gravenimage says
All very true, Wellington.
Kasey says
All the Islamists???? would that mean most of them & if you include their tacit supporters? This could be hard without stocking a major bloodbath throughout of all France in the process. It may be too late!
voegelinian says
No need for a “bloodbath”; funny how people go straight from point B to point Z (genocide) without considering we still have the option of D (Deportation). No doubt this latter would involve some violence, because Muslims would generate such; but this could be controlled to a minimum. The longer the West waits on this, however, the higher the chance that minimum will increase. A good indication that the West will wait almost too long is the fact that even in the coalmine among the canaries (i.e., in the Counterjihad) one finds so many demurrers of option D.
gravenimage says
Kasey wrote:
All the Islamists???? would that mean most of them & if you include their tacit supporters? This could be hard without stocking a major bloodbath throughout of all France in the process. It may be too late!
………………………
Kasey—with respect—why is it that so many Westerners appear to consider any defense *against* Islamic savagery to be a potential “bloodbath”, but appear to be much more sanguine about the spectacle of Jihadists blowing up Western cultural landmarks—and presumably murdering innocent Westerners in the process?
Tradewinds says
What do you think would happen to the Muslims in Europe if they ever succeeded in blowing up the Eiffel Tower and/or Louvre?
Wellington says
Not much I fear, as Fran800 has already indicated.
Tradewinds says
Don’t know – that could be a game-changer.
Wellington says
If only.
PJG says
Nothing would happen to them apart from a few “sad” looks.
Angemon says
Tradewinds posted
“What do you think would happen to the Muslims in Europe if they ever succeeded in blowing up the Eiffel Tower and/or Louvre?”
Their leaders wail on and on how muslims were the true victims, claimed they feared unfair retribution and ask for police protection in mosques while the followers would feel emboldened, celebrate on the streets the victory against the kuffar and prepare more similar attacks.
gravenimage says
Very true, Angemon.
umbra says
Aside from landmarks, if these terrorists did succeed in blowing up a nuclear power plant and cause a subsequent level 7 nuclear incident, then the poo is going to hit the fan.
Petey says
Same thing that happened on Sept 11, the media would analyze this to death with the ultimate conclusion that it is our fault because we are a predominately christian society; and we are not doing enough to resolve the Israeli Palestinian question. Plus were not doing enough for the poor muslim immigrants who feel alienated in our society and our governments will throw more money at them and become more ruthless in putting down protests by labeling the rest of us as racist! Our politisions may even go into mosques the next week and physically apologize.
tpellow says
Supplementary.
“Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled, say French police”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2686541/Islamist-plot-blow-Eiffel-Tower-Louvre-nuclear-power-plant-foiled-say-French-police.html#ixzz3716WNupx
bernie says
In 1994, Algerian terrorists hijacked a plane in Algeria and planned to fly it into the Eiffel Tower. However, they needed to land in Marseilles for refuelling, at which time French Special Forces burst into the plane and killed all the hijackers. I’m not sure if any passengers were killed, but the French counter-attack was lauded as a success overall.
Nonetheless, it seems that for years the French were warning the U.S. that Islamic extremists were planning to carry out suicide terrorist attacks withing the U.S. by flying planes into major buildings, but those advisories were not taken very seriously until 9/11.
PJG says
The Daily Mail article said that the police “stumbled” upon the evidence. Well, one can’t always hope that police will stumble along, successsfully foiling all terrorist plots for an indefinite period of time. Terror plots, foiled or not, are designed to wear us down psychologically, as Brigadier Malik so clearly explained, so as to pave the way for the ensuing decisive military defeat. Any treasured Western buildings will probably then be safe, and refashioned to suit the victors. But not now; now they are splendid targets.
Slobbering fits says
Wont belong before someone complains about restraint of religion and anti Islamic bigorty .How do they justify such anti Islamic actions stopping jihad ?
Patriotic Canadian says
Sickening that France takes in these people, give them a great opportunity to live a great life and they turn around and want to blow up France s most famous monument. The timebomb is ticking Europe, time to step up 10x. They are not grateful for anything. I’m not racist, Islam is not a race and they kill one another over their insane religion.
Tradewinds says
“Insane” is right. Islam is a religion for psychopaths and looney-birds. Which pretty much describes the members of CAIR.
David says
I think we in the West should show Muslims the gratitude we have towards their religion by destroying Mecca.
Aion says
Remember, people act like we’re nuts when we point out that they were going to target our cultural heritage, our art, temples, museums and so forth and try to destroy it. Its what they did to the pagan Arabs, the Christian Arabs, the Copts, Greeks, Assyrians, Aramaeans, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Berbers and everyone else. If you deny they are planning it for us you are nothing but a liar.
Beagle says
Jonah’s tomb yesterday. The IS is destroying and looting its way through antiquity as well as the present.
Charli Main says
All care must be taken by the French intelligence services not to appear racist and Islamophobic. It would seriously compromise the ” human and religious rights” of all those Muslims living in France, if only Muslims were monitored.
To exhibit PC MC fairness, all Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jews living in France also need to be closely watched.
You just cannot take it for granted that these folk ” are not programmed to harm French interests”
shortfattexan says
Actually, to ensure that the French are not bigots, they need to watch very closely all Christians and Jews, being as intrusive as possible, and restricting people’s rights at every opportunity. If there is any manpower left over they should also watch the Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists.
But under NO circumstances should the authorities EVER investigate any Muslims. Because that would be racist.
onisac says
Clearly terrorists have thought though defending against arrests at all levels. The west hasn’t the wisdom to pursue terrorists at any level.
Guess who will be successful, at this rate?
Silvia says
Listen guys, although I do have the tendency to be pessimistic, I really don’t think the muslims will win the battle against the west. They will lose but Europe will experience a lot of shit till then.
The reason I think this is because
1) It’s already started.
2) They are coming face to face with muslim barbarity every day, in person, and they are seeing it all over the world. The governments and the leftist, treacherous media can’t hide it anymore because of the net.
It’s boiling already. Many do realize what the dangers are.
How Europe will save itself without sending most muslims back to the hellholes they came from? That, I don’t know.
voegelinian says
There’s only one way, given the nature of the problem: Deportation.
voegelinian says
I note to my ongoing and increasingly wearied dismay how I was having to fend off CJ Softies even two years ago (let alone longer ago than that; I guess I’ve kind of gone numb and glazed over with time and the sheer repetitive recalcitrance of Softism), where an Allen Bell (remember him? I wonder what happened to him…?) evinced asymptomatically spastic reflexes not appreciably different from those of other more veteran and stalwart JWers.
Judi says
Eric Allen Bell – very popular on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/EricAllenBell
Lots about him on Google.
gravenimage says
Voegelinian wrote:
…all the while crickets chirp from the silence of Champ, gravenimage, Wellington, and Mirren. Thanks a lot guys. If they do see fit to add their two cents, they’ll probably only do so to take a pot-shot at me…
………………………………………
Voegelinian, I have *never* ‘taken a pot-shot at you’. I have disagreed with you from time to some on this is that discreet matter, but I have always done so respectfully.
Moreover, I have often said how much I respect you as a thinker, and that I read your blog regularly.
And the truth is that I have defended you many times here.
Your assumption that if I do not comment on some thread that I am somehow perforce siding against you is way off base.
There have also been times when some trolls such as Rezali Mehil or Mazo have made absolutely *vile* comments about me, and no one, including yourself, has come to my defense.
But then, I don’t believe that anyone is bound to—nor that everyone who might has necessarily seen the comments in the first place. Some, also, may just think that I’m doing fine on my own.
I’m trying to catch up, but my posting has been spotty because I have been so busy in my personal and professional life of late.
I had intended to comment on the story above—because I am so concerned about the threat to our great cultural heritage from Jihadists—but had not yet had time to do so.
By the way, I have already upset Philip Jihadski in part for not having commented on a disagreement between the two of you a week or so ago that I had also missed, and then appeared—as he saw it—to take your side on an issue that I had never become aware of, and am still vague on the specifics.
The fact is, I don’t actually believe the two of you are all that far apart on this issue. Philip Jihadiski wrote:
I have made it abundantly clear that I support deportation of ALL self-professing Muslims that are not US citizens (permanent residents, visitors, students on visas, etc.)…
………………………………………
I also agree that the whole of the Ummah *qua Ummah* in the West represents a threat—and Robert Spencer himself has noted the phenomenon of Muslims taking out citizenship in the West and frequently lying in their oaths.
And no, I don’t think it is appropriate for anyone to refer to another Anti-Jihadist here as “Jackass”—whatever the disagreement.
But I’m afraid you have tended to stoke disagreements at times yourself—bringing them up sometimes when they are off-topic.
And no, this is *not* my taking a pot-shot at you—this is just a long standing disagreement in approach between us.
I know you have retorted (I’m paraphrasing here) that the threat facing the Counter-Jihad is so dire that we do not have time for such niceties—but I, with respect—believe that we do not have the luxury of alienating our allies.
It is not somehow wishy-washy for me to say that I respect everyone involved in this ongoing dispute—it is the honest truth.
I have always endeavored to be as reasonable and fair as possible, and to focus on the content of a poster’s comments.
I will continue to follow your generally excellent comments, and to defend them, applaud them, or—at times—differ with them accordingly.
But you must also know that there will be some in the future that I am bound to miss. Feel free, as here, to bring them to my attention—but *don’t* assume that I have been ignoring or snubbing you if I have not seen them yet.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“There’s only one way, given the nature of the problem: Deportation.”
Imagine that a native american who can trace his lineage back to pre-colombian times converts to islam. Where would you deport him to?
voegelinian says
What a silly question. Muslims subscribe to an ideology that a) believes in a higher allegiance to the Umma and to the Dar-al-Islam, and b) cultivates a conscious and richly articulated — and violently and deceptively promoted — sedition against all non-Islamic polities. As such, it doesn’t matter what provenance a Muslim has, convert or not: they have elected to join an ideology that mandates unlimited warfare against all non-Islamic provenances and that is now waging war against us, now killing us, and it is reasonable to suppose plans to try to kill us more catastrophically in the coming decades.
But you should know this already. It aggrieves to have to remind people in this small venue one expects to be up to speed on this unique danger the free world faces.
Angemon says
As the saying goes, you sure like the sound of your own voice. But you’re fear mongering instead of answering my question. FYI, i doubt anyone here forgot the danger islam poses but even if anyone did, it’s irrelevant. You’re assuring us that deportation is the only answer that will work. So, where you would deport the native american revert to?
Oh, and since you seem to think that anyone who calls him/herself a muslim should be treated like they’re bin Laden reincarnated, can you assure us that in islam, like in any given ideology (and no, that’s not a fallacy), there isn’t a myriad of different levels of adherence? Can you even tell the difference between islam and muslims?
Finally, regarding your suggestion of deportation. How do you think the ummah would react to that? Because we know how acceptive the ummah is of the so-called “palestinians”. If Israel wasn’t a Jewish state muslims wouldn’t give a rat’s ass to the “plight” of the “palestinians”. I think i remember something in islamic eschatology about muslims being persecuted just because they’re muslims. Do you even know what “blowback” means?
Semeru says
Firstly angemon writes
“Imagine that a native american who can trace his lineage back to pre-colombian times converts to islam. Where would you deport him to?”
To which plonker jihadski responds
Excellent. Surgical and unassailable. Nice.
So jihadski is a loud mouthed softball anti-jihadi.
There is only one answer to anemones question and it is fairly easy, send them to the emerging caliphate.
Zero tolerance to islam is the only was to stop the scourge of islam.
In Islam nationalism is forbidden, and that moslems are called to be loyal to the ummah first, religious their identity is by far a more important source of identity than national origin. Therefore anemones hypothetical native american when converting to islam is rejecting and wiping out his heritage, and is swearing an alliance to forces that are working for the destruction of america.
Angemon says
ASSemeru posted:
“There is only one answer to anemones question and it is fairly easy, send them to the emerging caliphate.”
First of all, notice how ASSmeru here comes in out of the blue and starts referring to me as “anemone”. You see, we have a bit of history going on. It goes like this: ASSemeru lies, makes dumb, uninformed comments and i curb stomp his ass to the curve. That happened often enough to have him making up lies about me, which i asked him to apologize for, which he has yet to do so. Now, he absolutely loathes me for it, which leads to him going out of his way, even if it means to contradict himself, to try to argue against whatever it is i’m saying, which ends up with him making up more lies and getting curb stomped to the curve, which in turn makes him hate me even more. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.
Now, why is that important background knowledge? Because ASSemeru has a history of fiercely defending islam and muslims – even when the issue is the disgusting and potentially dangerous practice of drinking of camel urine – and he’s here talking like he’s the #1 counter-jihadi (let’s overlook the fact that he once tried to prove he was not a muslim and failed his own test). Like i said, he has no problems with contradicting himself as long as that means he can argue against whatever i’m saying at the moment.
Now, two-faced turncoat dumbass over there suggests sending someone who is of American citizenship to a non-existing country just because he converted to islam. For now, let’s overlook the myriad of issues that make his suggestion the leftist wet dream and focus on what it means coming from someone who has a history of defending islam and muslims. We have al-Baghdadi claiming a caliphate and asking muslims to join him. We have a staunch defender of islam and muslims here telling us “yes, yes, send your muslims to the caliphate”. Notice that what’s implied there is the recognition of the caliphate as a state or nation. As it stands now, the so-called “caliphate” is a bunch of quran-thumping desert robbers setting camp in Iraq and Syria and saying they own the place. Mr. Spencer stated on several occasions that the caliphate is not taken seriously even by muslims all around the world and that its only chance of legitimacy lies in making it a viable state. For which they need, among other things, manpower. So we have a self-proclaimed caliph asking muslims to join him in the fight against infidels and we have a staunch defender of islam telling to deport muslims to the “caliphate”, which he sees as a viable state. My friends, ASSemeru is not interested in defending Western countries from islam and muslims, he’s interested in cementing the caliphate as a viable state. That’s why he went from white-knighting islam and muslims to defend voegelinian’s “total deportation” idea. It’s not because he cares about western civilization, it’s because he wants the caliphate to succeed. In fact, even voegelinian is surprised with ASSemeru’s attitude:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/australian-muslim-convert-infidels-dirtiest-filthiest-most-disgusting-people-to-walk-the-earth-awlaki-taught-pure-islam/comment-page-1#comment-1085331
“Semeru also recently advocated deporting all Muslims; probably the oddest thing he’s ever said”
“Zero tolerance to islam is the only was to stop the scourge of islam.”
Eh. It’s always funny to see a mahommedan engaging in taqyyia.
“In Islam nationalism is forbidden, and that moslems are called to be loyal to the ummah first, religious their identity is by far a more important source of identity than national origin. Therefore anemones hypothetical native american when converting to islam is rejecting and wiping out his heritage, and is swearing an alliance to forces that are working for the destruction of america.”
Since you seem to be keen on recycling voegelinian’s “Black and White” demagogy, this question goes for the both of you: where do people like islam-critic secular muslim Athar Khan, who asks for a reformation in islam to repudiate things like the misogyny and homophobia present in islamic orthodoxy, fit in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjRvFN4n070
The only thing you got right is the part where you say it’s my hypothetical native american. And i never said he rejected or wiped out his heritage, i only said he converted to islam, dumbass, so your answer is null and void. I told you before: stop posting during ramadan, the hunger makes you even stupider than normal.
voegelinian says
Angemon wrote:
“But you’re fear mongering instead of answering my question.”
I answered the question.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“I answered the question.”
Nope. You didn’t answer any of my questions. You told us how terrible islam is and tried to patronize everyone. You know, for someone who talks about “Total Deportation” as being the only viable option you don’t seem willing to discuss it. I’d expect the exact opposite: you offer us a polemic “solution” so you should be seizing every chance you get to explain it to the most microscopic detail and try to sell it to us. So, where would you deport the native american to?
voegelinian says
Angemon:
My answer to your question was clearly implicit in my comment. I will make it explicit for you now, since you seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort yourself:
Short answer: to the Dar-al-Islam, his new motherland as massively and explicitly mandated by the Islam he has chosen to join.
Explanation:
An American Indian (I don’t like using the PC MC term “native American”) who converts to Islam has by that conversion joined a cult that mandates that the convert betray any non-Islamic allegiances he formerly had — including culture, religion, nationality, family and society — and as part of that betrayal to fight (in any of myriad ways not all of them involving physical violence) against all non-Muslims for the goal of conquering the Earth. As part of this betrayal-cum-sabotage, Islam inculcates a sociopolitical/religious patriotism for the Dar-al-Islam, which has its original ideological basis in the supposed desideratum of Mohammed to conquer the Earth for Allah, and its subsequent concrete basis in the real empire (greater than Alexander the Great’s) which Muslims managed with astounding speed to conquer through violent expansionism. The supremacist expansionism still remains the heart and soul of Islam, of course; and so too does the Dar-al-Islam as its geopolitical expression. Islam demands that every Muslim have exclusive allegiance to the Dar-al-Islam, and that only if circumstances force him (such as his weakness relative to the power of the Kuffar-du-jour), to pretend he can assimilate and have allegiance to any polity that is not in submission to Allah and His Prophet.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“My answer to your question was clearly implicit in my comment. I will make it explicit for you now, since you seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort yourself”
Once again, nope, you didn’t answer my question. And you don’t answer it either in your latest fear-mongering display of simplistic black-and-white mentality because my question isn’t “why do you consider islam to be dangerous?”. I’m not inquiring you regarding the nature of islam, i’m inquiring you regarding the application of your solution to the islamic problem. So, where would you deport the native american (or american indian, as you seem to prefer) convert to islam to? To the caliphate, like dumbASSemeru suggests? To the lovely seaside country of Dar-al-Islam? Oh, wait, none of those are real countries. Still waiting for your answer to that.
“An American Indian (I don’t like using the PC MC term “native American”) who converts to Islam has by that conversion joined a cult that mandates that the convert betray any non-Islamic allegiances he formerly had”
And that is the black-and-white mentality i talked about. Unlike you seem to think, not everyone who converts to islam does so knowing that islam mandates warfare against and subjugation of non-believers. Not everyone who converts to islam automatically turns into a red-eyed, bearded, turban-wearing, foaming at the mouth, explosive belt wearing, scimitar swinging jihadi going after your neck. There are muslims who just want to live their lives in Dar al-Amn and don’t want to kill you for not being a muslim. Is that concept so hard for you to understand? In fact, have you ever met a muslim IRL? Do you have muslim co-workers? Because i’d love to see you having to interact with a muslim on a daily basis.
FFS, i posted a video where a muslim criticizes other muslims precisely for hiding the unsavory aspects of islam and asks for a reformation to repudiate those very aspects. Did you miss that or did you decide to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your black-and-white narrative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjRvFN4n070
Are you that deluded that you won’t let facts interfere with your story? Face it, your jig is up. You wail on and on how total deportation is the only answer but you refuse to discuss the legality of it, or the morality of it, or practical examples of its application. You have nothing to stand on other than your “you guys here forget that islam mandates conquer of non-believers” tiresome tirades which are irrelevant because no counter-jihadi will ever say otherwise.
So, where would you deport the native american to? If you need more information about him, he wants to go to a university with a history of preference for minorities and since racial preference was abolished he decided to opt for religious minority status.
voegelinian says
Angemon replied:
voegelinian posted:
“My answer to your question was clearly implicit in my comment. I will make it explicit for you now, since you seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort yourself”
Once again, nope, you didn’t answer my question.
Apparently, Angemon did not read the very next paragraph I wrote after the one he quoted. It’s astonishing he would miss that, which was, in fact, an explicit answer to his question. His question was:
“Imagine that a native american who can trace his lineage back to pre-colombian times converts to islam. Where would you deport him to?”
I said, in my second paragraph which Angemon ignored:
“Short answer: to the Dar-al-Islam, his new motherland as massively and explicitly mandated by the Islam he has chosen to join.”
He asks, “where would you deport him to?”
I answer, “to the Dar-al-Islam”.
Then he has the gall (or the brain damage) to claim I didn’t answer him. Not only did I provde the short answer above — I went on to take the time and trouble to provide a longer explanation of the short answer.
One can only conclude he is trolling. Meanwhile, Philip Jihadski weighs in with his belligerent and spiteful abuse against me (one can almost see the spittle of anger management rage from his lips as he types); and all the while crickets chirp from the silence of Champ, gravenimage, Wellington, and Mirren. Thanks a lot guys. If they do see fit to add their two cents, they’ll probably only do so to take a pot-shot at me.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Apparently, Angemon did not read the very next paragraph I wrote after the one he quoted. It’s astonishing he would miss that, which was, in fact, an explicit answer to his question. His question was:
“Imagine that a native american who can trace his lineage back to pre-colombian times converts to islam. Where would you deport him to?”
I said, in my second paragraph which Angemon ignored:
“Short answer: to the Dar-al-Islam, his new motherland as massively and explicitly mandated by the Islam he has chosen to join.”
He asks, “where would you deport him to?”
I answer, “to the Dar-al-Islam”.
Then he has the gall (or the brain damage) to claim I didn’t answer him. Not only did I provde the short answer above — I went on to take the time and trouble to provide a longer explanation of the short answer.
One can only conclude he is trolling.”
OK buddy, you had too much juice for lunch, so go take your pills and take a nap. What can i say about voegelinian’s latest tirade? Only that he finally snapped and lost his already tenuous grip on reality. The problem with his “i gave angemon the answer he asked for and he ignored it” narrative is that it’s an absolutely wretched lie. Here’s what i said regarding dar-al-islam:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/french-police-foil-jihad-plot-targeting-eiffel-tower-louve-nuke-plant/comment-page-1#comment-1086525
“So, where would you deport the native american (or american indian, as you seem to prefer) convert to islam to? To the caliphate, like dumbASSemeru suggests? To the lovely seaside country of Dar-al-Islam? Oh, wait, none of those are real countries. Still waiting for your answer to that.”
As you can see, i called him out on his answer. Dar-al-islam is a term used by Muslim scholars to refer to those countries where Muslims can practice their religion freely. It’s not a real country, and I’d expect voegelinian to know that. And yet, he has the gall (or the brain damage) to claim I ignored his answer. Or maybe he’s just trolling 😉 Dar-al-Islam isn’t a country any more than Candyland, Westeros or the Mushroom Kingdom so no, he didn’t answer my question: where should America deport a Native American convert to islam to? Is dar-al-islam located in Saudi Arabia? In Iran? Syria? The new self-proclaimed caliphate? The no-go zones in Britain or Sweden where islamic law rules? Where would you deport the native american to? In that context saying “dar-al-islam” makes as much sense as saying “to somewhere else”.
But since you’re so convinced that dar-al-islam id the way to go, i’d like you to answer a few question regarding dar-al-islam:
1 – When was dar-al-islam founded?
2 – By whom was dar-al-islam founded?
3 – What’s dar-al-islam’s official language(s)?
4 – What’s the currency used in dar-al-islam?
5 – What’s the exchange rate between the aforementioned currency and $US or €EUR?
6 – What’s the capital of dar-al-islam?
7 – Who is the current leader of dar-al-islam?
8 – What are dar-al-islam’s borders?
9 – Can you name some of dar-al-islam’s biggest cities?
10 – Can you ensure us that dar-al-islam would accept every single muslim kicked out of any country under your “total deportation” act?
11 – Bonus question: how ridiculous do you think your “deport them to dar-al-islam” so-called answer was? 😀
Now, lying regarding something i said and that can clearly be debunked on this very topic is something i expect from ASSemeru but i’m surprised seeing it coming from voegelinian, the self-proclaimed know-it-all. Or maybe i shouldn’t be surprised at all, in hindsight he proved beyond any doubt to be as much of comical relief as dumbASSemeru over there.
Now, there are several reasons to why a total deportation of muslims would make the problem worse, and i’ll gladly discuss them with anyone advocating total deportation of muslims. However, voegelinian has refused to do so every time i called him out on one of them.
Further on, voegelinian goes and posts this:
“Meanwhile, Philip Jihadski weighs in with his belligerent and spiteful abuse against me (one can almost see the spittle of anger management rage from his lips as he types); and all the while crickets chirp from the silence of Champ, gravenimage, Wellington, and Mirren. Thanks a lot guys. If they do see fit to add their two cents, they’ll probably only do so to take a pot-shot at me.”
Maybe it’s just me, but i don’t see PJ’s posts as containing “anger management rage”. I see them containing indignation at someone who is stubbornly avoiding to face the shortcoming of his idea while stubbornly insisting he’s right. As for Champ, gravenimage, Wellington or Mirren10, those are all long time respected regulars. I doubt any of them has anything against you but if you’re going to pout over their silence and accuse them of probably taking pot-shots at you rather than supporting your position then maybe you should start thinking the problem lies on you on your side.
What did we learn from all of this? That voegelinian, being the narcissistic prick that he is, likes to act like he knows everything and patronize those who disagree with him. He convinced himself that total deportation is the only solution and that’s it, there’s no talking him out of it. There’s no talking about it either, as he proved every time i asked him about it about the shortcoming of his idea. The more I argue and use facts or hypothetical situations to explain why he is wrong, the more he is convinced that what he believes is right and only the smartest people can see that beyond the pilling up of facts and evidence that proves him wrong.
Or maybe he snapped because my “you probably never met a muslim IRL” quip hit closer to home than i expected. Seriously, imagine him having to deal with with a muslim co-worker on a daily basis. I smell a sitcom…
My question remains unanswered: where would you deport the american native convert who just wanted to get accepted at a university to?
gravenimage says
Angemon wrote:
Finally, regarding your suggestion of deportation. How do you think the ummah would react to that?…
Do you even know what “blowback” means?
………………………………..
Angemon—with respect—I’m not sure we should base our policies on how the Ummah is apt to react.
After all, their reactions are based on bullying and intimidation.
As for “blowback”—sure, we would be targeted if we deported Muslims, but we are being targeted *now*.
That “blowback” can be for almost anything—having troops in Saudi Arabia when they asked us to protect them from the depredations their fellow Muslims, the support of Israel, or the vaguest attempts to defend against Jihad.
And in this hypothetical case, they would be targeting us because we would not allow their coreligionists, as they see it, behind enemy lines—the enemy, of course, being us.
Now, as I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean that I believe that some sort of mass deportation of Muslims is necessary.
I believe we need to carefully vet any immigration from Dar-al-Islam, and mostly allow those refugees *from* Islam—such as threatened Christians and other Infidels—sanctuary.
As for Muslims already here, I believe they should e carefully monitored—including Mosques and Madrasses, and that *any* move toward support of Jihad should involve the full weight of Western law coming down on them like a ton of bricks, including full investigation of family, associates, Imam, and Mosques.
And this should be followed by trials, serious prison sentences (which should not just be opportunities for “Prison Da’wa”), and—yes—deportation where appropriate.
I don’t believe we have to change Western laws—just start enforcing them vigorously.
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“Angemon—with respect—I’m not sure we should base our policies on how the Ummah is apt to react.
After all, their reactions are based on bullying and intimidation.
As for “blowback”—sure, we would be targeted if we deported Muslims, but we are being targeted *now*.
That “blowback” can be for almost anything—having troops in Saudi Arabia when they asked us to protect them from the depredations their fellow Muslims, the support of Israel, or the vaguest attempts to defend against Jihad.
And in this hypothetical case, they would be targeting us because we would not allow their coreligionists, as they see it, behind enemy lines—the enemy, of course, being us.”
You’re right, no individual, organization or country should choose their policies based on their popularity or lack of it. With that said, and in this particular scenario (voegelinian’s Total Deportation), the reaction of the ummah should be one of the factors taken into consideration, if for nothing else than assessing security threats to citizens abroad.
When i mentioned blowback I wasn’t solely thinking on an increase of “radicalization”, even more insecurity for americans working abroad (particularly in muslim-majority countries), economical sanctions (like an increase in oil prices) or government members with critical knowledge joining the enemy. I was also thinking on the fate of the deportees. voegelinian insists that all muslims need to go to fix the islamic issue in the US (or any given nation), and that includes members of the native population who converted to islam, regardless of what they know about jihad or the mandatory warfare against non-muslims. That’s exile or banishment, not deportation, and it opens a very dangerous precedent. If the situation of the “palestinian” “refugees” nowadays serves as an example then in a few decades we’d have several millions of american deportee descendants living in muslim majority countries not only being brainwashed since birth to hate and despise non-muslims but also being told that they’re american (no muslim-majority state would ever grant them citizenship, with the excuse that it’s to avoid the dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland) and that they should do whatever they can to return to their homeland and destroy those who expelled their ancestors. All this while having the OIC countries in the UN doing whatever they can to ensure the new wave of jihadis would “return” to the US. In such a scenario would the US welcome a “two state” solution?
No, voegelinian didn’t give much thought to his “total deportation” theory. That’s why his default response to any question about it seems to be something along the lines of “islam is bad and it mandates subjugation of non-believers and that’s why you can’t trust a muslim and you need to get rid of all of them because you can’t tell the difference between a jihadi and a nominal muslim, who just so happens it doesn’t exist and it’s just the invention of softies who don’t have the stomach to do what it must be done and want to feel good about themselves”. I call that fear-mongering. The idea that there’s no way to tell the difference between muslims who want you dead and muslims who just want to live their lives while obeying the law of the land is rubbish, of course. For example, last year Abdirizak Bihi, an american-somali muslim community leader, was accused of “islamophobia” by CAIR for saying that somali youths in his community were being radicalized and seduced to join al-shabaab – where does mr. Bihi fit in voegelinian’s “you can’t trust any muslim” narrative? While there are no mind readers and we can’t tell for sure what’s on someone else’s mind – they can be smiling in our face while cursing us in their heart – people simply don’t say the shahada and immediately go out and buy fertilizer to make a bomb. “Radicalization” is a gradual process that takes place over time (well, except maybe for prison converts) and usually there are telltale signs that someone is entering the danger zone, like suddenly growing a beard, start carrying a quran around or start wearing a niqab. For example, regarding 9/11, the Fort Hood massacre and the Boston bombings, we know now that authorities either disregarded warning signs or didn’t know what they meant when they were told. And we’ve been seeing reports of muslims in western countries arrested on suspicion of trying to support or join terrorist organizations or plotting to commit terror attacks almost on a daily basis so the authorities are managing to single out “radical” muslims when they try to act. No, if the general public knows what to be on the lookout for then chances are that someone somewhere will notice that something is not right.
Other than that, his line of reasoning is dangerously close to how totalitarian or fascist states acted in the past, deeming a group as being “the enemy” and employing an “us or them” mindset to coerce people into accepting things they would consider abhorrent under normal circumstances. People in 1930’s Germany didn’t all wake up one day thinking “You know what? That Hitler guy might be on to something. Let’s go sterilize retards, get rid of disabled and gypsies, ghetto the jews and conquer Europe”. They were assured over and over that jews, gypsies, disabled and retards were to blame for everything wrong in Germany and that in the long run they’d spell the end of Germany so people eventually either embraced the nazi POV or were too afraid to speak against it. This might seem an unfair comparison because Judaism doesn’t have the aggressive, supremacist nature of islam and gypsies weren’t flying planes into buildings to kill non-gypsies but, like i said, it’s all about the MO and the opening of a dangerous precedent. Who gets to say that a certain ideology is dangerous? How dangerous must an ideology be in order to get its adherents banished? Get rid of all the muslims because you can’t tell who’s dangerous and then who’s next? Hispanics? Blacks? Jews? Right-wingers? NRA?
As for the rest, we’re on the same wave-length. Stop all muslim immigration, get non-muslims from muslim countries to tell their stories to the public, keep tabs on muslims who are already here (even native converts), persecute hate-preaching imams under the full extent of existing hate-speech laws even if (or should i say especially if?) they’re spreading hate in islamic double speak language, get working on achieving energy independence and get the general public to know the full islam, not just the “you have your religion and i have mine” hacked version they’re being sold on. I bet most people in Western countries who defend muslims as being unjustly “persecuted” are useful idiots who know nothing about muhammad and islamic orthodoxy other what they’re told by muslims. Dr. Bill Warner has the right idea: if people want to feel good about themselves by protecting a group they perceive as being persecuted then we must provide them an alternative to muslims:
gravenimage says
Semeru wrote:
Zero tolerance to islam is the only was to stop the scourge of islam…
………………………
Given that Semeru’s usual stance here is that of Muslim *apologist*, it seems likely that his weighing in on this discussion—a long-standing disagreement on tactics by respected posters here that has, disturbingly, become increasingly rancorous—is merely to stoke that disagreement, rather than to actually add anything useful.
voegelinian says
Continuing the discussion with Angemon and Philip Jihadski: They balk at my answer to the question — To where would you deport a Muslim convert whose national/cultural provenance is a non-Islamic land? — when I replied “to the Dar-al-Islam”.
The chief objection they seem to have with this answer is that supposedly the Dar-al-Islam is not a geographical location to deport people to. Of course, no map is going to label the Muslim-majority nations organized in the latter half of the 20th century under the aegis of the Organization of Islamic Conference (more recently renamed with sinister friendliness as “Organization of Islamic Cooperation”) which has 56 member states (though a small few among those 56 — e.g., Uganda, which only has over 12% Muslim — are not Muslim-majority) as “Dar-al-Islam”. Nevertheless, the Dar-al-Islam is a real geographical-geopolitical-theological concept in Islam, initimately and directly tied to Islam’s supremacist expansionism which had the concrete result of Muslims actually creating an empire within the first century after Islam began (the 7th century) — an empire which was broader than the Roman Empire or Alexander the Great’s Empire, stretching from Insulindia (the SE Asian archipelagos) at the Pacific extreme clear over to Morocco and Spain at the Atlantic extreme — with massive lurches of expansion as the centuries advanced and as Islam’s supremacist expansionism continued apace (though with complex setbacks now and then) at various points north (e.g., Byzantium) and south (sub-Saharan Africa).
For approximately the first millennium after the initial spectacular imperialist conquests of the 7th century — i.e., roughly the thousand years spanning from the 7th century to the 17th century — the Dar-al-Islam was geographically real. Just because a geographical concept does not conform to our Western definitions; and just because its real expression in time and in space may be ragged and amorphous and often shifting, this doesn’t mean that it’s not geographically real. So it’s not a matter of the false dichotomy of whether the Dar-al-Islam is real or whether it’s a fictitious imaginary concept: it is a fanciful concept, but that concept has resulted in — and has been a primary motivator and expression of — the violent conquest and occupation by Muslims of real geographical territories during Islamic history. And not only has the concept resulted in such real geographical expression, it continues to motivate real dangers in our time — viz., terrorism and stealth jihad — dangers which are not static, but are metastasizing and portend horrific worsening in the decades ahead for the West (and for the Rest of the world).
My answer, then — “Deport them to the Dar-al-Islam” – can’t be objected to on the basis of the idea that it doesn’t physically exist. The objection may be more cogent if re-phrased along the lines of something like: “The Dar-al-Islam cannot be a place to deport Muslims to, because it’s too ragged in terms of boundaries and conventional international agreement, etc.” But this objection can’t rule out deportation as an impossibility; it can only, at best, try to object on the basis of optimal practicality.
So, my answer — “Deport them to the Dar-al-Islam” – is possible, though it may be difficult (a different objection from the one so far strenuously asserted by Angemon and Philip Jihadski).
Its possibility has been facilitated by the OIC. I.e., the place “to where” we would deport Muslims would be to a massive swath of land that remains the legacy of Islam’s initial imperialistic expansion (what historian Ben Simpfendorfer calls “the Islamic Corridor” stretching from Indonesia to Morocco). Just because this massive swath is ragged (to a great extent due to the “meddling” of Western Colonialism and the map-drawing by the West coincident with its voluntary dismantling of its own Colonialism after WW2), and some of the member nations may be dubious candidates, doesn’t mean it does not include and/or embrace a vast space – indeed comprising millions of square miles — one could deport Muslims to. The free world would have to come to a collective decision of the precise boundary of it, as part of its general consensus on deportation in the first place.
And as I already have mentioned and articulated more than once on this thread, Islam mandates for every Muslim that they owe and devote their true allegiance to the Dar-al-Islam, in a context of mandating for every Muslim a seditious and belligerent opposition to any polity on Earth that is not submitting itself to Allah and to His Prophet. Because of this latter point – joined at the hip with the metastasizing terrorism and stealth jihad that is attacking and killing us now and portends horrifically worse in the future – it would be reckless folly for the free world to treat any Muslim who seems to have a provenance outside of the Dar-al-Islam — whether on the basis of our grievous mistake in fallaciously granting him citizenship or on the basis of some aboriginal claim (such as Angemon’s example of the “native American” who converts to Islam) — as somehow exempt from this dangerous sedition which his own Islam mandates against us.
voegelinian says
I wrote:
“For approximately the first millennium after the initial spectacular imperialist conquests of the 7th century — i.e., roughly the thousand years spanning from the 7th century to the 17th century — the Dar-al-Islam was geographically real.”
Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Dar-al-Islam ceased being geographically real after the 17th century. What I was getting at in that particular paragraph was the active and successful expansionism during that millennium (which ability increasingly deteriorated thereafter, mainly due to the stupendous progress of Western geopolitical superiority, but also due to Islam’s inherent inability to be self-sustaining without a vast cultural and physical infrastructure of non-Muslims upon which it can be parasitic — an infrastructure spanning different the civlizations Islam had attacked and occupied) beginning to become depleted well before the 17th century).
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Dar-al-Islam ceased being geographically real after the 17th century.”
Oh, so it was a real place before the 17th century? And it didn’t stop ceasing after the 17th century? In that case, you should be able to answer these questions:
1 – When was dar-al-islam founded?
2 – By whom was dar-al-islam founded?
3 – What’s dar-al-islam’s official language(s)?
4 – What’s the currency used in dar-al-islam?
5 – What’s the exchange rate between the aforementioned currency and $US or €EUR?
6 – What’s the capital of dar-al-islam?
7 – Who is the current leader of dar-al-islam?
8 – What are dar-al-islam’s borders?
9 – Can you name some of dar-al-islam’s biggest cities?
10 – Can you ensure us that dar-al-islam would accept every single muslim kicked out of any country under your “total deportation” act?
11 – Bonus question: how ridiculous do you think your “deport them to dar-al-islam” so-called answer was? 😀
Going by your latest description of dar-al-islam (“the Muslim-majority nations“), you can’t deport anyone there anymore than you can deport anyone to the Commonwealth of Nations or the European Union. I need a name of at least a country to where you would deport muslims to, including the americans who converted to islam.
Semeru says
So what is preventing angemons hypothetical american indian convert to islam, from
#1 plotting a radiological bomb (“dirty bomb”) attack (José Padilla)
#2 making video tapes for al quaeda threatening the United States with terrorist attacks. (Adam Pearlman)
#3 fighting against US troops (Adam Pearlman)
#4 sniping innocent people and holding a city in fear (John Allen Williams)
#5 conspiring to attack military facilities in the Los Angeles (Kevin James)
#6 attempting to murder a critic of islam (Colleen LaRose)
#7 Plotting to attack New York’s Long Island Rail Road system (Bryant Neal Vinas)
Between 1997 and 2011, 171 individuals were either convicted of islamic related offenses within the U.S. civilian or military court system. Converts to Islam comprised almost a quarter of these individuals, or 40 out of the 171 convicted.
How does angemon know that his hypothetical american indian does not hold a grudge against the white man, and converts for the same reasons as the african american.
Angemon says
DumbASSemeru posted:
“How does angemon know that his hypothetical american indian does not hold a grudge against the white man, and converts for the same reasons as the african american.”
Like I said before, it’s MY hypothetical native american, dumbass. If i said he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college that means he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college. Also, what’s being implied here is that african-americans convert to islam only because they have a grudge against the “the white man” – that’s not very flattering of islam, is it? It’s very telling though – people convert to islam because they have a grudge against white people. And that’s coming from a muslim islamic apologist who recently tried to defend the practice of drinking camel piss.
In any case, the dumbass is too stupid to realize the gist of my point and why i choose a native american. The camel piss must be getting to his brain.
Semeru says
So angemon is now going to attempt to move the goal posts
Like I said before, it’s MY hypothetical native american, dumbass. If i said he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college that means he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college.
But angemon,s hypothetical native american has no reason to convert to islam to get minority status, because he already qualifies for american indian minority status.
So angemons hypothetical red indian convert lied, maybe he converted because like many afro americans do not like the white man.
Please note, I said many afro americans do not like the white man
To which angemon responds
Also, what’s being implied here is that african-americans convert to islam only because they have a grudge against the “the white man” – that’s not very flattering of islam, is it? It’s very telling though – people convert to islam because they have a grudge against white people
Well I guess that angemon has not been doing his homework.
Here are a few black jihadists who make millions with their grudge against whites, and their violent lyrics
Wu-Tang Clan
Jay Z
Public Enemy
Snoop dog
Ice cube
Dr Dre
Ice t
Just take a look at some of the shit Ice T spues out with his 1993 song “Cave Bitch” an all-out attack on white women where they are degraded and he suggests that blacks should kidnap white women and hold them for ransom., with an introduction performed by Khalid Abdul Muhammad; in which he states: Give me a black goddess sister I can’t resist her. No stringy haired, blond hair, blue eyed, pale skinned buttermilk complexion. Grafted, recessive, depressive, ironing board backside straight up and straight down. No frills, no thrills, Miss six o’clock, subject to have the itch, mutanoid, Caucasoid, white cave bitch..
Then there is this classic by Khalid Muhammad go to 6:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztSzoh8N6es
A little more about black moslem hate towards whites
http://4freedoms.com/group/us/forum/topics/a-patriot-s-prayer?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A108379&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A1416
And that’s coming from a muslim islamic apologist who recently tried to defend the practice of drinking camel piss.
If moslems want drink camel piss it is entirely up to them, the same goes for hindus who drink cow piss, or non moslems who drink their own piss. If the practice was so harmful, explain why it has been practiced in many different cultures for thousands of years
Angemon says
ASSemeru, i told you before: stop posting during ramadan, the hunger makes you even stupider than usual.
Like I said before, it’s MY hypothetical native american, dumbass. If i said he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college that means he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college. Here’s what i said before:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/french-police-foil-jihad-plot-targeting-eiffel-tower-louve-nuke-plant/comment-page-1#comment-1086525
“So, where would you deport the native american to? If you need more information about him, he wants to go to a university with a history of preference for minorities and since racial preference was abolished he decided to opt for religious minority status.”
How am i changing the goalposts when i’m only reiterating what i said before your dimwitted dumbass tried to high-jack change my narrative and change it to hate against “the white man”? Ignorant dumbass, I’m the one presenting the hypothetical case so i call the shots on it. It’s the case of a native american who converted to islam to get into college. Not that it changes anything, the issue at hand here is to where this convert would be deported to in voeg’s “total deportation” “solution”, and the cause of the conversion is irrelevant.
As for your rambling about hate rappers making millions with songs glorifying hate against the “white-man” they’re completely irrelevant to the issue at hand: where would the native american be deported to?
But there is another blatant lie by semeru poorly hidden in plain sight. Here’s what the liar says it happened (my emphasis):
“ So angemons hypothetical red indian convert lied, maybe he converted because like many afro americans do not like the white man.
Please note, I said many afro americans do not like the white man
To which angemon responds
Also, what’s being implied here is that african-americans convert to islam only because they have a grudge against the “the white man” – that’s not very flattering of islam, is it? It’s very telling though – people convert to islam because they have a grudge against white people”
Now, let’s see what i replied to (my emphasis):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/french-police-foil-jihad-plot-targeting-eiffel-tower-louve-nuke-plant/comment-page-1#comment-1087427
“How does angemon know that his hypothetical american indian does not hold a grudge against the white man, and converts for the same reasons as the african american.”
Now, do you see “many afro americans” in there? Neither do I. ASSemeru here is trying to re-write history and claiming that he said “many african-americans” when he’s in fact making an assumption about ALL african americans.
Finally we have this little nugget of distilled stupidity:
“If the practice {drinking camel piss] was so harmful, explain why it has been practiced in many different cultures for thousands of years”
Notice the false premise here: ASSemeru is the one making considerations about the harmfulness of drinking camel urine. He’s also using a textbook example of argumentum ad populum to make his defense of drinking camel piss: “many cultures did it, so how can it be wrong”? That’s a sheep-like mentality, no wonder he’s a muslim – many people in the world are, so how can it be wrong? Just kidding, the poor sod probably had no choice in the matter.
Also, newsflash, in the grand scheme of human history it weren’t that many cultures drinking camel piss. Those living in areas where camels are indigenous may have done so, but that leaves out Europe, North and South America, the Arctic and the Antarctic, and parts of Asia and Australia. And it gets even less if you rule out people who dropped their culture, embraced islam and started drinking camel piss afterwards.
Now go eat a ham sandwich and think about what went wrong in your life to get you to defend drinking camel piss.
voegelinian says
Angemon wrote in response to my post of July 13, 2014 at 9:58 pm:
“Oh, so it was a real place before the 17th century? And it didn’t stop ceasing after the 17th century? In that case, you should be able to answer these questions:
1 – When was dar-al-islam founded?”
etc.
I can answer his questions by simply copy-pasting from the very comment I wrote to which Angemon is responding. I.e., the answers to his rhetorical questions are already in the post he apparently already read.
Example:
…the Dar-al-Islam is a real geographical-geopolitical-theological concept in Islam, initimately and directly tied to Islam’s supremacist expansionism which had the concrete result of Muslims actually creating an empire within the first century after Islam began (the 7th century) — an empire which was broader than the Roman Empire or Alexander the Great’s Empire, stretching from Insulindia (the SE Asian archipelagos) at the Pacific extreme clear over to Morocco and Spain at the Atlantic extreme — with massive lurches of expansion as the centuries advanced and as Islam’s supremacist expansionism continued apace (though with complex setbacks now and then) at various points north (e.g., Byzantium) and south (sub-Saharan Africa).
And:
Just because a geographical concept does not conform to our Western definitions; and just because its real expression in time and in space may be ragged and amorphous and often shifting, this doesn’t mean that it’s not geographically real. So it’s not a matter of the false dichotomy of whether the Dar-al-Islam is real or whether it’s a fictitious imaginary concept: it is a fanciful concept, but that concept has resulted in — and has been a primary motivator and expression of — the violent conquest and occupation by Muslims of real geographical territories during Islamic history.
And:
Its [i.e., deportation’s] possibility has been facilitated by the OIC. I.e., the place “to where” we would deport Muslims would be to a massive swath of land that remains the legacy of Islam’s initial imperialistic expansion (what historian Ben Simpfendorfer calls “the Islamic Corridor” stretching from Indonesia to Morocco). Just because this massive swath is ragged (to a great extent due to the “meddling” of Western Colonialism and the map-drawing by the West coincident with its voluntary dismantling of its own Colonialism after WW2), and some of the member nations may be dubious candidates, doesn’t mean it does not include and/or embrace a vast space – indeed comprising millions of square miles — one could deport Muslims to. The free world would have to come to a collective decision of the precise boundary of it, as part of its general consensus on deportation in the first place.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“I can answer his questions by simply copy-pasting from the very comment I wrote to which Angemon is responding. I.e., the answers to his rhetorical questions are already in the post he apparently already read.”
Nope. Rehashing irrelevant crap won’t make it anymore relevant. It’s funny though, you only quote my first question and act like you answered all of them. I see no mention of currency or exchange rate, no name of the current leader of dar-al-islam, no official language, nothing. Just rehashing irrelevant crap while claiming it holds all the answers.
Get one thing into your head: dar-al-islam is the name given to any place where muslims can practice their religion freely. It’s not, and it never was, a real country by itself. You can say that the muslim empires throughout history were real (because, well, they were), and they were dar-al-islam (because muslims were free to practice their religion in them – let’s overlook the sunni and shia conflicts) but you can’t say that dar-al-islam was the muslim empires throughout history. Why? Because muslims have been able to practice their religion freely in other places besides muslim empires.
gravenimage says
Thanks for your reply, Angemon. You wrote:
You’re right, no individual, organization or country should choose their policies based on their popularity or lack of it. With that said, and in this particular scenario (voegelinian’s Total Deportation), the reaction of the ummah should be one of the factors taken into consideration, if for nothing else than assessing security threats to citizens abroad.
When i mentioned blowback I wasn’t solely thinking on an increase of “radicalization”, even more insecurity for americans working abroad (particularly in muslim-majority countries), economical sanctions (like an increase in oil prices) or government members with critical knowledge joining the enemy.
……………………………….
This is true. But consider—Muslims have threatened Infidels abroad over such matters as banning minarets (the Swiss), or opposing Jihad in Mali (the French), or opposing Jihad in Afghanistan (Britons, Australians, Americans).
The fact is that *any* attempt by Infidels to oppose Jihad or resist the imposition of Shari’ah law will likely result in pious Muslims threatening said Infidels both in their own country and abroad.
The is, in fact, what they count on—that we will cave to the diktats of Islam because we will be threatened with violence if we do not.
More:
I was also thinking on the fate of the deportees. voegelinian insists that all muslims need to go to fix the islamic issue in the US (or any given nation), and that includes members of the native population who converted to islam, regardless of what they know about jihad or the mandatory warfare against non-muslims. That’s exile or banishment, not deportation, and it opens a very dangerous precedent. If the situation of the “palestinian” “refugees” nowadays serves as an example then in a few decades we’d have several millions of american deportee descendants living in muslim majority countries not only being brainwashed since birth to hate and despise non-muslims but also being told that they’re american (no muslim-majority state would ever grant them citizenship, with the excuse that it’s to avoid the dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland) and that they should do whatever they can to return to their homeland and destroy those who expelled their ancestors. All this while having the OIC countries in the UN doing whatever they can to ensure the new wave of jihadis would “return” to the US. In such a scenario would the US welcome a “two state” solution?
……………………………….
Re your scenario above, I’m not sure that, as awful as the current “Palestinian” situation, that it would necessarily have been better for Israel had all of those violent Muslims who fled Israel anticipating her destruction returned to wage Jihad from within. It may well, in fact, have been *much worse*.
More:
No, voegelinian didn’t give much thought to his “total deportation” theory. That’s why his default response to any question about it seems to be something along the lines of “islam is bad and it mandates subjugation of non-believers and that’s why you can’t trust a muslim and you need to get rid of all of them because you can’t tell the difference between a jihadi and a nominal muslim, who just so happens it doesn’t exist and it’s just the invention of softies who don’t have the stomach to do what it must be done and want to feel good about themselves”. I call that fear-mongering.
……………………………….
I don’t actually see how this is incorrect. This *is* what islam mandates—though not every Muslim is personally engaged in the application of this mandate.
Nor, of course, do they have to be: most Muslims still consider the waging of violent Jihad to be Fard Kalifia rather than Fard Ayn—which means that so long as *some* members of the Ummah are so engaged, that the obligation is met.
How many Muslims not engaged in Jihad would *actually defend* the West and her values against the depredations of Islam? From what we’ve seen, I’m afraid that number would likely be *very few*.
While I do not advocate for a policy of total deportation, as I’ve noted, I believe that there is ample proof that the larger a Muslim population an Infidel nation has, the greater danger of violence and calls to impose Shari’ah law there will be.
Ultimately, at around 50%, Muslims typically make the final push for full Islamization. We are seeing this now in the horror of Nigeria. I don’t believe that pointing this out is fear-mongering—anymore than Robert Spencer pointing out the dangers of Jihad to begin with.
More:
The idea that there’s no way to tell the difference between muslims who want you dead and muslims who just want to live their lives while obeying the law of the land is rubbish, of course.
……………………………….
Actually, Robert Spencer has brought up many times the difficulty in determining “moderate” Muslims from potential or actual supporters of Jihad.
Certainly, Ms. Nawaz—the Muslimah in Britain recently caught on her way to the Jihad in Syria with 20,00 Euros stuffed down her knickers, had previously appeared entirely moderate in her dress and activities.
And many people consider Muslims like Imam Rauf to be a moderate, as well, even though he is an advocate of the imposition of Shari’ah law in the United States.
Further, polls in the West consistently indicate that a rather disturbingly high percentage of Muslims consider violent Jihad and the imposition of Shari’ah to be desirable.
And in the United States, it has been found that up to 85% of Mosques are “extremist”—hardly a “tiny minority”.
Certainly, not every Muslim is an “extremist”—but determining who is and who isn’t really *is* a bit trickier than you seem to think.
More:
For example, last year Abdirizak Bihi, an american-somali muslim community leader, was accused of “islamophobia” by CAIR for saying that somali youths in his community were being radicalized and seduced to join al-shabaab – where does mr. Bihi fit in voegelinian’s “you can’t trust any muslim” narrative?
……………………………….
I have not been able to find much on Mr. Bihi save his comments on Somali Muslims in America going off to wage violent Jihad back in Dar-al-Islam.
He may well be against Jihad on principle—or he may believe that at this point that this bit of “fast Jihad” is an embarrassment—certainly, we’ve seen this before.
We’ve also seen Muslims disagree on this point—hence, CAIR’s criticism of him.
There really do appear to be a handful of Muslims who oppose Jihad—and Mr. Bihi may be one of them.
But sadly, they are *very* few and far between.
Zuhdi Jasser appears to be a genuine “moderate”—but he has so little influence on his more orthodox coreligonists that when he was ousted from Mosque, he hasn’t been able to find another Mosque that will so much as allow him to join.
I believe you were the one who also mentioned Athar Khan as an example of a moderate Muslim calling for the reform of Islam—I have seen him interviewed by Michael Coren on Sun TV. In his case, though, he has described himself as a “secular Muslim”—in other words, he is a Muslim *apostate*, and not really Muslim at all.
More:
While there are no mind readers and we can’t tell for sure what’s on someone else’s mind – they can be smiling in our face while cursing us in their heart – people simply don’t say the shahada and immediately go out and buy fertilizer to make a bomb. “Radicalization” is a gradual process that takes place over time (well, except maybe for prison converts) and usually there are telltale signs that someone is entering the danger zone, like suddenly growing a beard, start carrying a quran around or start wearing a niqab.
……………………………….
Sometimes this is the case, Angemon. But Jihad Watch is also full of cases where new “reverts” to islam went from zero to Jihad in a surprisingly short period of time.
Certainly, any Muslim who suddenly becomes overtly “more religious” is apt to be e a danger—but not every Jihadist evinces these signs.
More:
For example, regarding 9/11, the Fort Hood massacre and the Boston bombings, we know now that authorities either disregarded warning signs or didn’t know what they meant when they were told. And we’ve been seeing reports of muslims in western countries arrested on suspicion of trying to support or join terrorist organizations or plotting to commit terror attacks almost on a daily basis so the authorities are managing to single out “radical” muslims when they try to act.
……………………………….
This has mostly been true—*so far*. But the cost and energy necessary to monitor potential Jihadists is *enormous*—and the United States has a Muslim population of a little over 1%.
And, as you noted, there are those Jihadists who fall between the cracks. Now, if security—and Western society in general—were less—were less pc, it would be less of a problem. But the fact is that no outfit is apt to be infallible.
And this is an even greater danger in countries such as those in Europe that are approaching double-digit Muslim populations.
More:
No, if the general public knows what to be on the lookout for then chances are that someone somewhere will notice that something is not right.
……………………………….
Certainly, having an informed Infidel population—as, say, in Israel—is a huge help. But it is not absolute proof against Jihad attacks.
It is disturbing, also, to realize that a growing Muslim population *requires* that kind of vigilance—certainly, this is not the case with followers of any other mainstream faith.
More:
Other than that, his line of reasoning is dangerously close to how totalitarian or fascist states acted in the past, deeming a group as being “the enemy” and employing an “us or them” mindset to coerce people into accepting things they would consider abhorrent under normal circumstances. People in 1930′s Germany didn’t all wake up one day thinking “You know what? That Hitler guy might be on to something. Let’s go sterilize retards, get rid of disabled and gypsies, ghetto the jews and conquer Europe”. They were assured over and over that jews, gypsies, disabled and retards were to blame for everything wrong in Germany and that in the long run they’d spell the end of Germany so people eventually either embraced the nazi POV or were too afraid to speak against it. This might seem an unfair comparison because Judaism doesn’t have the aggressive, supremacist nature of islam and gypsies weren’t flying planes into buildings to kill non-gypsies but, like i said, it’s all about the MO and the opening of a dangerous precedent. Who gets to say that a certain ideology is dangerous?
……………………………….
Actually, I believe it is rather the other way ’round—Islam is more a violent and supremacist creed like Fascism. I don’t believe that calling Islam dangerous is any more “fascistic” than saying that Fascism itself was dangerous.
More:
How dangerous must an ideology be in order to get its adherents banished? Get rid of all the muslims because you can’t tell who’s dangerous and then who’s next? Hispanics? Blacks? Jews? Right-wingers? NRA?
……………………………….
As I’ve said, I’m not for mass deportation, in any case. But being Hispanic or Black is *very* different from embracing a violent, oppressive, and supremacist creed.
Robert Spencer often points out that Islam is not a race—instead, it is an ideology.
More:
As for the rest, we’re on the same wave-length. Stop all muslim immigration, get non-muslims from muslim countries to tell their stories to the public, keep tabs on muslims who are already here (even native converts), persecute hate-preaching imams under the full extent of existing hate-speech laws even if (or should i say especially if?) they’re spreading hate in islamic double speak language, get working on achieving energy independence and get the general public to know the full islam, not just the “you have your religion and i have mine” hacked version they’re being sold on…
……………………………….
Sounds good to me, Angemon.
Angemon says
gravenimage wrote:
“Re your scenario above, I’m not sure that, as awful as the current “Palestinian” situation, that it would necessarily have been better for Israel had all of those violent Muslims who fled Israel anticipating her destruction returned to wage Jihad from within. It may well, in fact, have been *much worse*.”
I was not implying that Israel should have taken the “refugees” back. I was pointing out that the arab and muslim nations refuse to grant citizenship to the “palestinian” “refugees” instead preferring to have them around living in terrible conditions to use as a throwing weapon against Israel, and that’s probably what would happen to the american muslims kicked out of the US.
“I don’t actually see how this is incorrect. This *is* what islam mandates—though not every Muslim is personally engaged in the application of this mandate.”
And that’s the part that escapes voeg. Not everyone who converts to islam knows it and not all those who actually know act upon it. But according to him, the solution is to give all the boot throwing away the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Even if he could deport or exile all muslims in the US what would stop people from converting online or while traveling abroad and live as secret muslims plotting to bring down the government and replace it with sharia?
“How many Muslims not engaged in Jihad would *actually defend* the West and her values against the depredations of Islam? From what we’ve seen, I’m afraid that number would likely be *very few*.”
That raises a question: why? Is it because they’re pious muslims who wouldn’t mind being ruled by islamic law or because most converts are people who for whatever reason already had a “i hate the world” mindset before converting? I’m guessing that it’s the former for muslim immigrants and the later for native converts.
Keep in mind the whitewash of islamic history going on nowadays, with the goal of lulling infidels and gullible converts into complacency. We’re supposed to believe that jihad is going to the gym, or getting to work on time, and that islamic empires throughout history have always been wonderful multicultural paradises where everyone lived in peace and freely practiced their religion and worked together for a better future, so if we in the west were to live under islamic rule that could be a good thing.
OK, i’m oversimplifying but my point is that if most muslims in the west wouldn’t do much to defend the land they live in it’s not necessarily because all of them want to impose draconian limb-chopping and adulterous-stoning sharia law. Some might be doing it out of gullibility, ignorance and good intentions – a dangerous combination.
But the problem in defending the west from islam isn’t with muslims as much as it is with self-loathing westerners.
“And in the United States, it has been found that up to 85% of Mosques are “extremist”—hardly a “tiny minority””
And what did the authorities do with that information? Are they monitoring mosques and paying attention to ties with terrorist organizations?
“Certainly, not every Muslim is an “extremist”—but determining who is and who isn’t really *is* a bit trickier than you seem to think.”
Yeah, i may have oversimplified that. But still, rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty instead of being given the boot for something they might not know or believe in.
You know, maybe we can get muslim countries to help with that. Hey, they wanted to make a blood test to identify gays, maybe they can make up some sort of test to identify pious muslims from hypocrites who don’t want to kill and be killed in the name of allah. I mean, such a test would be in their best interest – letting a hypocrite kiss the black stone? Blasphemy!!!
(j/k)
“There really do appear to be a handful of Muslims who oppose Jihad—and Mr. Bihi may be one of them.
But sadly, they are *very* few and far between.
Zuhdi Jasser appears to be a genuine “moderate”—but he has so little influence on his more orthodox coreligonists that when he was ousted from Mosque, he hasn’t been able to find another Mosque that will so much as allow him to join”
That raises a question – are they few and far between because, well, there are few “moderates” or because those who share their views don’t want to rock the boat and get the same kind of public revile people like mr. Jasser, or mr. Fath in Canada, or any muslim asking for a genuine reformation, get from organizations like CAIR?
While as things stand now they don’t have theological support for what they profess, there’s nothing wrong in supporting them if they want a genuine reformation of islam and a repudiation of the parts that go against the Human Rights Charter. As for me, i tend to agree with mr. Ali Sina – get muslims to realize that a highway-robber, child-rapist and assassin can’t possibly be a messenger of god and that islam is a front for arabic imperialism.
“This has mostly been true—*so far*. But the cost and energy necessary to monitor potential Jihadists is *enormous*—and the United States has a Muslim population of a little over 1%.”
Voeg’s theory would be even more resource-draining, if not outright impossible. Like i said before, kicking all muslims out wouldn’t ensure that natives wouldn’t convert to islam, let’s say, on-line, or while travelling abroad, or after reading any given book that portraits islam in a favourable light (dawah artists are experts at moulding islam to fit whatever tingles their audience’s fancy). It would require 24/7 vigilance over virtually every single people in any country adopting it.
“Actually, I believe it is rather the other way ’round—Islam is more a violent and supremacist creed like Fascism. I don’t believe that calling Islam dangerous is any more “fascistic” than saying that Fascism itself was dangerous.”
I wasn’t talking about islam, i was talking about voeg’s suggestion. He suggests we assume all those who call themselves muslims are a clear and present danger and that whoever suggests otherwise is a “softie” risking the lives of innocent people. That reminds me of what Goering said in the Nuremberg trials:
“[…]the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
After kicking muslims out, what assurances would we have that the same reasoning won’t be used to persecute political dissidents?
“As I’ve said, I’m not for mass deportation, in any case. But being Hispanic or Black is *very* different from embracing a violent, oppressive, and supremacist creed.
Robert Spencer often points out that Islam is not a race—instead, it is an ideology.”
Yeah, i might have hyperbolized a bit in there 😉 But still, my point stands: what’s stopping the ruling power of persecuting any given group and making them go the way of muslims in voeg’s “solution”? In the worst case scenario, discriminating against based on race wouldn’t be that much of an issue. Well, not according to people like Al-Sharpton, who portrait America as an horribly racist country, or the muslim dawah artists who falsely claim that islam is the religion of the black man. Should white americans assume that all african-americans have a grudge against white people and are possible reverts to islam, and kick them all? Remember, this is an hypothetical situation following voeg’s “total deportation” “solution” – like i said, radicalization doesn’t happen overnight, and the germans in the 1930’s didn’t simply wake up one day thinking the nazis were right. Like Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Semeru says
gemon Like I said before, it’s MY hypothetical native american, dumbass. If i said he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college that means he converted to get minority status and assure a place in college. If you need more information about him, he wants to go to a university with a history of preference for minorities and since racial preference was abolished he decided to opt for religious minority status.”
As said before, he does not need to convert, as minority status for red indian has not been abolished
How am i changing the goalposts,?i>
Here
I’m the one presenting the hypothetical case so i call the shots on it. It’s the case of a native american who converted to islam to get into college.
But there was no mention your lying convert intending to get into college when you first introduced him
Not that it changes anything, the issue at hand here is to where this convert would be deported to in voeg’s “total deportation” “solution”, and the cause of the conversion is irrelevant.
Did voegelinian write “solution” or did you add it so as to imply that he is a nazi and is proposing a final
As for your rambling about hate rappers making millions with songs glorifying hate against the “white-man” they’re completely irrelevant to the issue at hand:
Not if I am making a comparison with your lying native american
where would the native american be deported to?
And like I said previously Deport them to the emerging caliphate.
But there is another blatant lie by semeru poorly hidden in plain sight. Here’s what the liar says it happened (my emphasis): “ So angemons hypothetical red indian convert lied, maybe he converted because like many afro americans do not like the white man. Please note, I said many afro americans do not like the white man
How can I be lying,when
Please note, I said many afro americans do not like the white man, I was referring to the sentence preceding, and not to what I wrote in a earlier comment, where I quite wrongly tarred all afro americans with the same brush
Finally we have this little nugget of distilled stupidity: “If the practice {drinking camel piss] was so harmful, explain why it has been practiced in many different cultures for thousands of years”
Drinking Camel piss or cow piss is no more harmful than eating meat from camels or cows
The potential danger is when the piss/meat comes from an infected animal Also, newsflash, in the grand scheme of human history it weren’t that many cultures drinking camel piss.
No, but that did not stop people from drinking cow piss or even there own
Now go eat a ham sandwich and think about what went wrong in your life to get you to defend drinking camel piss.
One moment,I am not only defending drinking camel piss, I am defending hindus who drink cow piss and any body else who drinks their own piss in the belief that it will help to cure them. angemon asked voegelinian
When was dar-al-islam founded?”
Voegelinian gave a long and boring answer, when he could have answered that Dar al Islam was founded once moslems started stealing other peoples property, but was not defined until almost a century after Muhammad.
I shall not bother with angemon other questions, because I think that voegelinian chose of where to send then was not the best of choices, as it is very hard for many non moslem to comprehend the concept of Dar al Islam.
Angemon is bullshitting
Get one thing into your head: dar-al-islam is the name given to any place where muslims can practice their religion freely…. Why? Because muslims have been able to practice their religion freely in other places besides muslim empires.
This is not true,if a moslem is able to pray freely in secular or un-Islamic, then the place he prays, whether his home or mosque is regarded as Dar al Islam, moslems praying is much like dog pissing so as to mark their territory, and as the pack expands, so does the territory.
Dar al-Amn “house of safety” refers to the status of Muslims either in the West or other non-Muslim societies.This region usually refers to countries where Muslims have the right to practice their religion. Many countries with Muslim minorities have been declared as Dar al-Amn at different points in time.
Angemon says
ASSemeru wrote:
“As said before, he does not need to convert, as minority status for red indian has not been abolished”
God, you’re stupid. Go have a bite to eat then go check what “hypothetical” means in the dictionary. My hypothetical situation, my rules.
“But there was no mention your lying convert intending to get into college when you first introduced him”
And i gave the reason why he converted the next time i brought him on as flavor text dumbass. It’s not changing the goalpost when i point out that you’re wrong and reiterate what I said in the past.
Listen, i know you probably just heard of the concept of “changing the goalpost” but stop throwing it around when you don’t know what it means. It makes a -999 INT show up above your head and turns you into even a bigger laughing stock.
“Did voegelinian write “solution” or did you add it so as to imply that he is a nazi and is proposing a final”
Is that supposed to be a question, dumbass?
“How can I be lying,when
Please note, I said many afro americans do not like the white man, I was referring to the sentence preceding”
More lies from ASSemeru. Here’s what you wrote before:
“Please note, I said many afro americans do not like the white man
To which angemon responds”
So, i’m responding to your previous sentence? No, i was responding to when you implied all african-americans converted out of hate against the white man. Doesn’t bode very well for islam when grievance and hate-mongering are what makes people convert, does it? It means that islam fails as a religion and should stopped being treated as one.
“Drinking Camel piss or cow piss is no more harmful than eating meat from camels or cows”
Buddy, you drink whatever piss you want to drink, be it camel, cow, dog, cat or human. And that’s probably the reason you’re comparing drinking urine with eating meat, which is completely different – when you drink urine are consuming something that has been rejected and excreted for being not needed or for being toxic.
“ Angemon is bullshitting
Get one thing into your head: dar-al-islam is the name given to any place where muslims can practice their religion freely…. Why? Because muslims have been able to practice their religion freely in other places besides muslim empires.
This is not true”
Not true? Really, dumbass? According to you, muslims have only been able to practice their religion safely inside muslim empires? Oh, i see, you finally realized no one takes anything you say seriously and just decided to roll with it…
“Dar al-Amn “house of safety” refers to the status of Muslims either in the West or other non-Muslim societies.This region usually refers to countries where Muslims have the right to practice their religion. Many countries with Muslim minorities have been declared as Dar al-Amn at different points in time.”
Dumbass. Any place where the lives and possessions of muslims are legally safe and they are legally allowed to follow their religion is dar-al-islam. Muslim-majority states aren’t necessarily dar-al-islam either.
voegelinian says
Angemon wrote:
voegelinian posted:
“I can answer his questions by simply copy-pasting from the very comment I wrote to which Angemon is responding. I.e., the answers to his rhetorical questions are already in the post he apparently already read.”
Nope. Rehashing irrelevant crap won’t make it anymore relevant.
That’s a tendentious objection. Angemon hasn’t adequately demonstrated that my response was “irrelevant”. Just saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.
It’s funny though, you only quote my first question and act like you answered all of them.
That’s because they were all rhetorical questions with the same function — to attempt to answer the question in Angemon’s favor — that the Dar-al-Islam is not a geographical place to deport Muslims to. Again, the portions I copy-pasted and reposted already deal with that assumption of Angemon’s, to which he has not provided an adequate objection.
Get one thing into your head: dar-al-islam is the name given to any place where muslims can practice their religion freely. It’s not, and it never was, a real country by itself.
I already deal with this specious problem of the Dar-al-Islam being “not… a real country by itself” (again, in the portions I copy-pasted and reposted, further fleshed out, of course with the remaining context whence I excerpted them) — to which, again, Angemon has provided no adequate objection.
Angemon says
Oh, wow, voeg is pulling all the stops to pretend he actually answered my questions.
“That’s a tendentious objection. Angemon hasn’t adequately demonstrated that my response was “irrelevant”. Just saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.”
Actually, i have. Just saying i didn’t doesn’t make it so 😉
“That’s because they were all rhetorical questions with the same function — to attempt to answer the question in Angemon’s favor — that the Dar-al-Islam is not a geographical place to deport Muslims to.”
It isn’t. Dar-al-islam is a concept meaning a place where muslims are safe and can practice their religion freely.
“Again, the portions I copy-pasted and reposted already deal with that assumption of Angemon’s, to which he has not provided an adequate objection.
I already deal with this specious problem of the Dar-al-Islam being “not… a real country by itself” (again, in the portions I copy-pasted and reposted, further fleshed out, of course with the remaining context whence I excerpted them) — to which, again, Angemon has provided no adequate objection.”
Blah, blah, blah, now you’re just blatantly lying. Not only you failed to prove that dar-al-islam is, or ever was, a real place, with well-defined borders and history (hence why you refused to answer my questions and tried to pass them off as being “rhetorical”), you’re claiming i “provided no adequate objection”. This is a biased affirmation, you’ll never accept anything i say as being an “adequate objection”. But here’s what i said regarding your idea that dar-al-islam is, or ever was, a real place:
“Get one thing into your head: dar-al-islam is the name given to any place where muslims can practice their religion freely. It’s not, and it never was, a real country by itself. You can say that the muslim empires throughout history were real (because, well, they were), and they were dar-al-islam (because muslims were free to practice their religion in them – let’s overlook the sunni and shia conflicts) but you can’t say that dar-al-islam was the muslim empires throughout history. Why? Because muslims have been able to practice their religion freely in other places besides muslim empires.”
Now voeg, here’s a world map:
http://lyricsofmoviesongs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/World-Map.jpg
Would you kindly locate dar-al-islam in there?
voegelinian says
Angemon quoted gravenimage:
“This *is* what islam mandates [referring to how I described what Islam mandates for every Muslim — viz., to wage war by hook or by crook with the aim to subjugate all Mankind to Allah and His Prophet and to eventually kill all who resist this grand supremacist expansionist project]—though not every Muslim is personally engaged in the application of this mandate.”
Then Angemon wrote:
“And that’s the part that escapes voeg. Not everyone who converts to islam knows it and not all those who actually know act upon it.”
And this is the part that apparently escapes Angemon: I don’t assert that “all Muslims are” anything. I assert that even granting the existence of innumerable Muslims who are somehow not working for Islam’s supremacist-expansionist project (as described above within the square brackets), their existence is of no use to our #1 priority, the protection of our societies from the Muslims who are working for that project, because (as Robert Spencer has repeatedly reminded us) we cannot tell the difference between these two demographics with adequate reliability to make such a distinction useful.
Secondly, gravenimage’s apparently total agreement with my more recent post on another thread (see link below) indicates that her locution quoted above here — “though not every Muslim is personally engaged in the application of this mandate” — is not meant in the same way as Angemon would mean it: viz., that such a hypothetical presumption of the existence of that type of Muslim who is not “personally engaged in the application of this mandate” is of any use for our #1 priority, the protection of our society from the Muslims who threaten it (and whom — to repeat for the umpteenth time over the years — we cannot adequately distinguish from those who supposedly do not threaten it).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/paris-savage-anti-israel-rioters-trap-hundreds-of-jews-in-synagogue/comment-page-1#comment-1087591
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Then Angemon wrote:
“And that’s the part that escapes voeg. Not everyone who converts to islam knows it and not all those who actually know act upon it.”
And this is the part that apparently escapes Angemon: I don’t assert that “all Muslims are” anything. I assert that even granting the existence of innumerable Muslims who are somehow not working for Islam’s supremacist-expansionist project (as described above within the square brackets), their existence is of no use to our #1 priority, the protection of our societies from the Muslims who are working for that project, because (as Robert Spencer has repeatedly reminded us) we cannot tell the difference between these two demographics with adequate reliability to make such a distinction useful.”
Oh really? Then you might want to update your blog because i just checked one of your latest entries and, as it stands now, it says you see no difference “between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims”:
http://hesperado.blogspot.pt/2014/07/misleading-distinctions.html
“he #1 impediment to the West waking up is our indulgence in artificial distinctions. Three distinctions predominate:
1) between “extremist Islamism” and Islam
2) between Islam and Muslims
3) between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims.
The West will not fully wake up to the problem of Islam until it stops making all three false distinctions.”
I also saved a screenshot. You know, just in case 😉
“Secondly, gravenimage’s apparently total agreement with my more recent post on another thread (see link below) indicates that her locution quoted above here — “though not every Muslim is personally engaged in the application of this mandate” — is not meant in the same way as Angemon would mean it: viz., that such a hypothetical presumption of the existence of that type of Muslim who is not “personally engaged in the application of this mandate” is of any use for our #1 priority, the protection of our society from the Muslims who threaten it ”
Pffft. Typical voeg, pretending i said or meant something else other than what i actually said or meant. In my country, that’s called “lying”. Tell me one thing dumbass, did i say muslims who don’t want to impose sharia or blow themselves up are, or should, be used to fight “extremists”? No, i said several times that there are muslims who just want to live their lives according to the law of the land. Period. I never said, or meant, that we should use them to fight against “radicals”.
Also, which is it, dumbass? Either there are muslims who just want to live their lives according to the law of the land or there aren’t, so make up your mind and stop talking about “hypothetical presumption of the existence”.
Finally, and again, stop trying to claim you know what people meant or not in their posts. gravenimage’s agreement with you on an unrelated post means nothing more than that – gravenimage agreed with you on something that’s unrelated to here. But since you went there and even linked to the post, i shall point out that according to it you’re saying that there are no “moderate muslims, just jihadis trying to appear harmless. But you just said you could grant “the existence of innumerable Muslims who are somehow not working for Islam’s supremacist-expansionist project“. So which is it, dumbass?
gravenimage says
Philip Jihadski wrote:
This post is directed at GravenImage, and in particular, the latest round of back and forth with Angemon, I think, directly above this post.
Graven? Look – you’re clouding the issue with more nonsense re: “possibly there are moderates, not everybody is an overt Jihadi, the Palestinians, etc.”
_________________
Stop it. Just stop it.
……………………………………..
I’m not at all sure how this is “clouding the issue”, Philip. What did I say that was nonsense? These are all points that Angemon raised, and that I addressed. I did so respectfully and—I believe—quite clearly. If you believe I was unclear on any point, I will be glad to clarify.
I guess my point re “possibly there are moderates, not everybody is an overt Jihadi, the Palestinians, etc” would boil down to this: I believe that having a large Muslim population *is* a danger due to the baleful creed of Islam, and generally speaking, the larger the Muslim population, the greater the danger. That does not mean that every Muslim is a danger—but certainly, the ideology of Islam is.
I’m not sure I *can* “just stop it”, and still oppose Jihad. I also fail to see—maybe I’m missing something?—how this differs from Robert Spencer’s stance, or, indeed, your own.
More:
The issue is very, very simple, and one needs to stick to simple facts.
1.) American citizens cannot be deported. Get that through your head. This is US law, and nothing else matters. Check the law yourself, and you will find that this is the case. I’m not doing your homework for you.
……………………………………..
I’m at a loss, Philip. I’ve never made *any* of the assertions you are claiming I’ve made here. Perhaps you’re thinking of another poster?
I’ve never said that American citizens can be legally deported—nor that they should be deported.
In fact, I wrote this on the subject on this very thread, a few comments above:
“…I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean that I believe that some sort of mass deportation of Muslims is necessary.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/french-police-foil-jihad-plot-targeting-eiffel-tower-louve-nuke-plant/comment-page-1#comment-1086920
And that applies, as implied, both to those who are American citizens and those who are not.
I’ve made this point many times—I’m not sure why you believe my stance is just the opposite.
Now, I do believe that non-citizen Jihadists who have been convicted of plotting or committing violent Jihad should be deported after serving their sentences—but I don’t believe I differ from Robert Spencer in this regard.
More:
2.) Voegelinian insists, in opposition to US law, that ALL MUSLIMS MUST BE DEPORTED, regardless of whether they are US citizens or not. This is unlawful, illegal and seditious. Get this through your head. Everything else is irrelevant. Degrees and levels of Mohammedist threat to others in the USA is also irrelevant to this point.
……………………………………..
I must respectfully disagree that Voegelinian’s opinions on this issue—ones with which I have, incidentally, disagreed many times, quite openly—are now the only issues of importance on Jihad Watch.
I don’t think that could be said for the opinions of *any* poster here, certainly including my own.
I *do* believe that Islam continues to represent a global threat—I believe, in fact, that this is the whole point of Jihad Watch, whatever differences of opinion may be ongoing in the comments threads at any given time.
More:
3.) His(Voeg’s) continued obfuscation of this most simple point is the cause of his being labelled The Jackass. Any lessening of the use of this moniker – like the whip with the donkey – only further encourages him and enables him.
____________________________
……………………………………..
On another thread, I merely ventured that I thought the use of name calling might be somewhat less professional an approach than addressing the content of another poster’s comments.
You may, of course, disagree.
As for your simile, I would never whip a donkey—the humane treatment of animals is quite important to me.
More:
Now stop it. Stick to the very simple issue at hand, look at the law, and, like the Jackass, answer the simple question:
“To where do you deport an American born and bred citizen who happens to be a Muslim? America?”
Don’t say Dar-al-Islam. We’ve already been over that, and any reference to that at this point will be met with absolute, full-on ridicule.
……………………………………..
Actually, Philip, you have *never* been over this issue with me, because I have never made such claims in the first place.
I have agreed with some points that Voegelinian has made over the years—but I have also quite openly *disagreed* with him on many points, including every point you bring up, above.
I’m not at all sure why you seem to think I am arguing for these points. Perhaps you could cite some specific comments of mine that have led you to believe this?
voegelinian says
gravenimage wrote (in response to Philip Jihadski):
“…Voegelinian’s opinions on this issue [i.e., total deportation of Muslims from the West]—ones with which I have, incidentally, disagreed many times, quite openly…”
She may have openly disagreed with this many times, but I don’t ever recall her actually going into detail about why she disagrees with my argument on this (since usually I don’t merely assert “Deport All Muslims” but usually I go into great detail explaining why I think this is necessary). It would be interesting to hear a detailed objection from someone who conducts themselves intelligently and maturely (as gravenimage tends to do), for a change.
voegelinian says
Angemon quoted me:
I don’t assert that “all Muslims are” anything. I assert that even granting the existence of innumerable Muslims who are somehow not working for Islam’s supremacist-expansionist project (as described above within the square brackets), their existence is of no use to our #1 priority, the protection of our societies from the Muslims who are working for that project, because (as Robert Spencer has repeatedly reminded us) we cannot tell the difference between these two demographics with adequate reliability to make such a distinction useful.
Then Angemon wrote:
“Then you might want to update your blog because i just checked one of your latest entries and, as it stands now, it says you see no difference “between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims”…”
Angemon then links to my blog, then quotes from it to try to prove his point:
“[T]he #1 impediment to the West waking up is our indulgence in artificial distinctions. Three distinctions predominate:
1) between “extremist Islamism” and Islam
2) between Islam and Muslims
3) between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims.
The West will not fully wake up to the problem of Islam until it stops making all three false distinctions.
However, none of this that Angemon quotes of my words from my blog proves his point that, quote — i just checked one of your latest entries and, as it stands now, it says you see no difference “between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims”
First, no where in that blog essay do I say I “see no difference” between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims”. I only said we, the West, have to stop making a distinction between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims. Angemon still can’t seem to wrap his head around the difference between
1) claiming there is no difference
and
2) pointing out that even if there is a difference, it is a useless distinction since we cannot put it into practice with sufficient reliability — a problem that becomes especially important when it concerns our #1 priority, our society’s safety from the dangerous Muslims.
But all this was already clear from the comment Angemon thinks he is cogently disputing. It’s getting tiresome to have to keep repeating myself to Angemon, who cannot grasp elementary points repeated and reworded to him over and over. And it would be nice if some other JWer weighed in here to point this out also. I won’t hold my breath, though.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“First, no where in that blog essay do I say I “see no difference” between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims”. I only said we, the West, have to stop making a distinction between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims. Angemon still can’t seem to wrap his head around the difference between
1) claiming there is no difference
and
2) pointing out that even if there is a difference, it is a useless distinction since we cannot put it into practice with sufficient reliability — a problem that becomes especially important when it concerns our #1 priority, our society’s safety from the dangerous Muslims.”
What a load of crap. Voeg’s blog states that he sees no difference “between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims”, not”well, there are differences but we just can’t tell them”.
“But all this was already clear from the comment Angemon thinks he is cogently disputing. It’s getting tiresome to have to keep repeating myself to Angemon, who cannot grasp elementary points repeated and reworded to him over and over.”
HA! This is coming from the guy who wants to ban all muslims, including native converts, to dar-al-islam, even though he’s been told over and over that dar-al-islam is a concept and not a real place. Since he claims in his blog that there’s no difference between islam and muslims I can only conclude that he must be afflicted with a pathology that prevents him from telling the difference between abstract concepts and the real world.
“And it would be nice if some other JWer weighed in here to point this out also. I won’t hold my breath, though.”
You know, this is not the first time you act like other JW regulars have the duty or obligation to come in and defend you. Nor it’s the first time you place their absence in a bad light. If the situation you got yourself into can be described as “well, it sure would be nice if someone else were to agree with me, but i’m not holding my breath” then you might want to take a look back and see what you did wrong.
So voeg, before you repeat your debunked crap and claim it’s relevant, where would you deport a native american convert to islam who can trace his lineage to pre-Columbian times?
Here’s a world map. Hope it helps:
http://lyricsofmoviesongs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/World-Map.jpg
voegelinian says
Angemon wrote:
What a load of crap. Voeg’s blog states that he sees no difference “between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims”…
Angemon himself quoted from my blog. His own quote of my blog has no statement by me saying that I “see no difference” between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims — it only recommends that the West stop making the distinction between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Angemon himself quoted from my blog. His own quote of my blog has no statement by me saying that I “see no difference” between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims — it only recommends that the West stop making the distinction between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims.”
OK buddy, you can pretend that saying the distinction between “dangerous muslims and harmless Muslims” is “artificial” and “false” is the same as saying that that the difference between “dangerous” and “harmless” muslims is “real” in your own free time. For now I’d like to have an answer to my question: where would you deport a native american convert to islam who can trace his lineage to pre-Columbian times? Dar-al-islam? Here’s a world map. Point out where dar-al-islam is:
http://lyricsofmoviesongs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/World-Map.jpg
gravenimage says
Angemon, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. You wrote:
gravenimage wrote:
“Re your scenario above, I’m not sure that, as awful as the current “Palestinian” situation, that it would necessarily have been better for Israel had all of those violent Muslims who fled Israel anticipating her destruction returned to wage Jihad from within. It may well, in fact, have been *much worse*.”
I was not implying that Israel should have taken the “refugees” back. I was pointing out that the arab and muslim nations refuse to grant citizenship to the “palestinian” “refugees” instead preferring to have them around living in terrible conditions to use as a throwing weapon against Israel, and that’s probably what would happen to the american muslims kicked out of the US.
……………………………….
Well, that might be—and if so, it would be for exactly the same reason. The “Palestinians” are used as a perennial weapon against Israel—the only “refugee” group that has been “refugees” for over sixty years.
These “refugees” left Israel voluntarily, but *actual* Jewish refugees—900,000 of them—ousted from Dar-al-Islam at around the same time have long since been fully assimilated by Israel—even though she is such a tiny nation, and was so impoverished at the time.
More:
“I don’t actually see how this is incorrect. This *is* what islam mandates—though not every Muslim is personally engaged in the application of this mandate.”
And that’s the part that escapes voeg. Not everyone who converts to islam knows it and not all those who actually know act upon it. But according to him, the solution is to give all the boot throwing away the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Even if he could deport or exile all muslims in the US what would stop people from converting online or while traveling abroad and live as secret muslims plotting to bring down the government and replace it with sharia?
……………………………….
I’m not sure Voegelinian has missed that point.
And certainly, there are “reverts” who convert to Islam because they think it’s “exotic”, because they met a “nice” Muslim guy who insists on it, or because they consider it “transgressive”—just as some individuals joined the Nazi Party in order to “network”, or because they thought the uniform looked cool, or because their best school-friend Hans just joined.
But in neither case do these “casual” converts render the ideology itself benign.
Then, in the scenario you posit—yes, secret Muslims could continue to plot against the West.
But they would not be able to openly use Da’wa, nor build supremacist Mosques, nor use stealth Jihad to infiltrate the courts and schools.
More:
“How many Muslims not engaged in Jihad would *actually defend* the West and her values against the depredations of Islam? From what we’ve seen, I’m afraid that number would likely be *very few*.”
That raises a question: why? Is it because they’re pious muslims who wouldn’t mind being ruled by islamic law or because most converts are people who for whatever reason already had a “i hate the world” mindset before converting? I’m guessing that it’s the former for muslim immigrants and the later for native converts.
……………………………….
Certainly, polls rather consistently show a disturbingly high level of support for Shari’ah law among Muslims in the West—and many Muslim posters weighing in here have expressed their desire for it.
I believe, also, that a certain percentage would also be acting out of fear of their more devout coreligionists.
But in the end I’m not sure the specific motives matters beyond a point—I think we’re agreed that only a very few Muslims would actually come to the defense of civilized Western values—and surely this is deeply troubling.
More:
Keep in mind the whitewash of islamic history going on nowadays, with the goal of lulling infidels and gullible converts into complacency. We’re supposed to believe that jihad is going to the gym, or getting to work on time, and that islamic empires throughout history have always been wonderful multicultural paradises where everyone lived in peace and freely practiced their religion and worked together for a better future, so if we in the west were to live under islamic rule that could be a good thing.
……………………………….
This is *very* true, Angemon. A big strategy is to lull Westerners into the idea that Jihad and Shari’ah are really quite benign—and infiltrate to such an extent that when it is revealed that they are *anything* but benignant that it will be too late.
More:
OK, i’m oversimplifying but my point is that if most muslims in the west wouldn’t do much to defend the land they live in it’s not necessarily because all of them want to impose draconian limb-chopping and adulterous-stoning sharia law. Some might be doing it out of gullibility, ignorance and good intentions – a dangerous combination.
……………………………….
Of course, remember that “good intentions” in Islam are anything that advances that terrible creed.
But even if you take into account some Muslims who may have swallowed their own Taqiyya, I still very much doubt that a significant part of the Muslim population is apt to wake up and decide that Islam is threatening their new homes and that they are going to defend civilized Infidels values. Historically, this has *never* happened.
More:
But the problem in defending the west from islam isn’t with muslims as much as it is with self-loathing westerners.
……………………………….
This is very true. If Westerners themselves did more to affirm their own societies’ values, then Islam could not possibly have made such inroads.
More:
“And in the United States, it has been found that up to 85% of Mosques are “extremist”—hardly a “tiny minority””
And what did the authorities do with that information? Are they monitoring mosques and paying attention to ties with terrorist organizations?
……………………………….
Well, in some case they are. But in all too many case, they are at pains to avoid doing anything that might appear in any way “Islamophobic”—however great the threat.
More:
“Certainly, not every Muslim is an “extremist”—but determining who is and who isn’t really *is* a bit trickier than you seem to think.”
Yeah, i may have oversimplified that. But still, rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty instead of being given the boot for something they might not know or believe in.
You know, maybe we can get muslim countries to help with that. Hey, they wanted to make a blood test to identify gays, maybe they can make up some sort of test to identify pious muslims from hypocrites who don’t want to kill and be killed in the name of allah. I mean, such a test would be in their best interest – letting a hypocrite kiss the black stone? Blasphemy!!!
……………………………….
Of course, if Muslims ever did develop such a test, they sure wouldn’t let the “filthy Infidel” have access to it.
They’d just use it to further persecute and terrorize the “insufficiently islamic”…
More:
“There really do appear to be a handful of Muslims who oppose Jihad—and Mr. Bihi may be one of them.
But sadly, they are *very* few and far between.
Zuhdi Jasser appears to be a genuine “moderate”—but he has so little influence on his more orthodox coreligonists that when he was ousted from Mosque, he hasn’t been able to find another Mosque that will so much as allow him to join”
That raises a question – are they few and far between because, well, there are few “moderates” or because those who share their views don’t want to rock the boat and get the same kind of public revile people like mr. Jasser, or mr. Fath in Canada, or any muslim asking for a genuine reformation, get from organizations like CAIR?
……………………………….
I think it’s a combination of things—the fact that most Muslims really do support Jihad and Shari’ah; that there are those who don’t actively seek it, but would not fight to oppose it, but would passively accept Shari’ah if it were imposed and their Infidel neighbors persecuted and murdered; and then of the tiny number who really do oppose it, abject fear of what their more orthodox coreligionists would do to them.
In the end, though, that leaves us with malevolence, apathy, and, *at best*, cowardice in all but a handful of cases.
This is, incidentally, a lot of what you found in Fascist Germany, as well—a nasty combination.
And who is Mr. Fath? I’m not sure I’m familiar with him.
More:
While as things stand now they don’t have theological support for what they profess, there’s nothing wrong in supporting them if they want a genuine reformation of islam and a repudiation of the parts that go against the Human Rights Charter.
……………………………….
Sure. The only problem is that Infidels tend to believe that there are vast numbers of reformers and “moderate” Muslims.
Robert Spencer has noted this phenomenon.
Whereas, as I noted, Zuhdi Jasser is considered so “fringe” that that he can’t even find a Mosque that will allow him to join. Yet these same few appear on talk shows all the time, as though their coreligionists considered them anything but apostates.
In the end, they are mostly talking to Infidels about how “moderate” islam is, or might become—and not to Muslims at all.
Which, of course, leads us to something far more common than actual would-be reformers—and that is the Taqiyya artist—the figure who *poses* as a moderate in order to whitewash Islam. You mentioned this phenomenon yourself earlier.
More:
As for me, i tend to agree with mr. Ali Sina – get muslims to realize that a highway-robber, child-rapist and assassin can’t possibly be a messenger of god and that islam is a front for arabic imperialism.
……………………………….
I don’t believe the problem is that most Muslims are unaware that the “Prophet” was a caravan raider, pedophile, and mass-murderer—I believe most Muslims are *all too aware* of this.
If they were not, then you wouldn’t find so many pious Muslims emulating just this behavior, robbing Infidels, “marrying” nine-year old children, and waging violent Jihad against the Kuffar.
I believe main goal should be to get civilized *infidels* to realize that he was a highway robber, a child rapist, and an assassin—something most decent Westerners don’t want to believe about a “religious” figure.
More:
“This has mostly been true—*so far*. But the cost and energy necessary to monitor potential Jihadists is *enormous*—and the United States has a Muslim population of a little over 1%.”
Voeg’s theory would be even more resource-draining, if not outright impossible. Like i said before, kicking all muslims out wouldn’t ensure that natives wouldn’t convert to islam, let’s say, on-line, or while travelling abroad, or after reading any given book that portraits islam in a favourable light (dawah artists are experts at moulding islam to fit whatever tingles their audience’s fancy). It would require 24/7 vigilance over virtually every single people in any country adopting it.
“Actually, I believe it is rather the other way ’round—Islam is more a violent and supremacist creed like Fascism. I don’t believe that calling Islam dangerous is any more “fascistic” than saying that Fascism itself was dangerous.”
I wasn’t talking about islam, i was talking about voeg’s suggestion. He suggests we assume all those who call themselves muslims are a clear and present danger and that whoever suggests otherwise is a “softie” risking the lives of innocent people. That reminds me of what Goering said in the Nuremberg trials:
“[…]the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
……………………………….
One difference, of course, is that Muslims *really are* attacking us—this is no Fascist ploy.
I believe that warning about the dangers of Islam are a reality—not something made up by the government to control Westerners.
We, in fact, have quite the opposite problem—that the authorities don’t much want to acknowledge the threat of Islam at all.
More:
After kicking muslims out, what assurances would we have that the same reasoning won’t be used to persecute political dissidents?
“As I’ve said, I’m not for mass deportation, in any case. But being Hispanic or Black is *very* different from embracing a violent, oppressive, and supremacist creed.
Robert Spencer often points out that Islam is not a race—instead, it is an ideology.”
Yeah, i might have hyperbolized a bit in there But still, my point stands: what’s stopping the ruling power of persecuting any given group and making them go the way of muslims in voeg’s “solution”? In the worst case scenario, discriminating against based on race wouldn’t be that much of an issue. Well, not according to people like Al-Sharpton, who portrait America as an horribly racist country, or the muslim dawah artists who falsely claim that islam is the religion of the black man. Should white americans assume that all african-americans have a grudge against white people and are possible reverts to islam, and kick them all? Remember, this is an hypothetical situation following voeg’s “total deportation” “solution” – like i said, radicalization doesn’t happen overnight, and the germans in the 1930′s didn’t simply wake up one day thinking the nazis were right. Like Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
……………………………….
I have quoted Neimöller myself here—I am certainly familiar with him.
Maintaining one’s own moral standing—especially in the face of abject evil—*is* extraordinarily important.
It is also possible, though, to be so concerned that *any* action on one’s part is apt to render one morally equivalent to those who are truly evil that it becomes impossible to oppose evil itself.
Speaking of WWII and the Nazis, there is a big push right now of revisionist history where the Allies are being castigated for having opposed Hitler—the idea that it was the Allies who “incited” Hitler in the fist place, and the idea that our fighting back constituted “war crimes”.
I believe that it is important to maintain the moral high ground vis-a-vis Islam—but the fact is that, just as with Fascism, we *have* the moral high ground.
That doesn’t mean that—as with the West during WWII—that there isn’t room for improvement.
But if we believe that we cannot oppose Jihad—or even openly point out its horrors—because if we do, we are poised to become nothing less than Fascists ourselves, then we are apt to have a very difficult time of things indeed.
Angemon says
gravenimage, i’m getting mixed messages from you. I’m against voeg’s “total deportation” theory not because i believe that “moderate” muslims represent the true nature of islam but because it’s illegal, seditious, and it would mean setting up a repressive totalitarian regime with the excuse of protecting against an repressive totalitarian regime. It’s not that he wants to deport all foreign muslim inhabitants even if they didn’t break any law (although that by itself would be reason enough), it’s that he wants to “deport” native citizens who didn’t break any laws for supposedly being “dangerous” and he cynically claims it’s with the intent of “protecting” the general populace. You do that and it’s game over. You give that kind power to anyone and it won’t be just the muslims who are getting the boot. No, you’ll live in a perpetual state of fear, always looking out for who’s the next group that the powers that be, eager to perpetuate themselves in the top of the food chain, will claim to be “dangerous” and needs to be kicked out to “protect” the citizens.
Perhaps voeg has some sound arguments on his side but if so he’s keeping them very well hidden. I’d say it’s far more likely that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that voeg justifies his stinking diatribes with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad consequentiam.
Those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who claim that the noxious product of his work would carry on into the future even after voeg himself is long gone, we have an obligation to do more than just observe what voeg is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to plant markers that define the limits of what is acceptable and what is not. We have an obligation to make a cause célèbre out of exposing his bons mots for what they really are. And we have an obligation to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community.
Look, if there’s anything to be learned from interacting with and questioning him is that voeg is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to voeg is recognition from his peers. Why? I think PJ’s right on the money: narcissism.
Having endured voeg’s morally crippled gibber, I can say with confidence that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. We were not put here to transform our society into a pig-headed, totalitarian, repressive, fear-mongering police-state, as voeg might contend. Think about it. Voeg wants to kick all muslims out of any given country, including native converts, but he’s unable to tell where they’re supposed to be “deported”. Does it look like he gave it any thought? No, he just recycles his canned “if you don’t agree with me you’re a danger to our society” speech to try to silence critics. How is that different from trying to silence people like Mr. Spencer, or Pamella Geller, or Raymond Ibrahim, by calling them “racists” or “islamophobes”?
gravenimage says
Voegelinian wrote:
…I don’t merely assert “Deport All Muslims” but usually I go into great detail explaining why I think this is necessary). It would be interesting to hear a detailed objection…
…………………………
Sure. Firstly, I believe we have an over all *excellent* legal system—perhaps the finest in the world, when it is consistently applied.
I believe that it has mostly stood us in excellent stead down through the years—and I would have to see that something really was no longer serving us before I would suggest pushing for a change.
I’m proud of the safeguards for minorities and the individual in American law and consider them very important.
I believe that the main problem right now is that we are not applying the laws that we do have very consistently.
Then there is the law of unintended consequences—while I certainly don’t believe the panicky idea that we would suddenly start deporting ethnic minorities or gay people, as some have feared, almost any change does bring some unforeseen consequences. I don’t believe we need to gamble with this.
Then there is the fact that many Westerners *still* don’t fully understand the threat of Islam—so I think that trying to convince the public that full deportation is necessary (something I don’t hold in the first place) before many people even recognize Islam as an existential danger would just be apt to make it a much harder sell.
I think a lot of people—and I’m not just talking dhimmi tools or those in deep denial—would be *very* resistant to the idea.
Then there is the legacy of the Japanese internment camps during WWII. I realize that this *is not* directly analogous, but for a lot of people it might seem similar.
One main reason it differs is because while there were *no* cases of sabotage by Japanese-Americans, there have, of course, been many cases of Jihad, planned Jihad, and calls for Jihad by Muslims in the United States. Still, I think all too many well-intentioned Americans would make the analogy.
Now, it is not impossible that a time might come when mass deportation *would* be our only option—for instance, I’m not sure that the Spaniards would have had an alternative after the Reconquista even if they had wanted one.
And yes—the deportation was, in essence, to Dar-al-Islam—most of the Muslim population was shipped across the Straights of Gibraltar to what Morocco whether they had any specific ties there or not.
I would not necessarily be averse to the stripping of citizenship under *very specific* circumstances—such as individuals who had taken the oath of citizenship *while plotting violent Jihad*—in other words, it if can be showed that they specifically and knowingly lied.
I don’t believe that this is such a radical suggestion—and it one shared by other commenters here such as Dumbledore’s Army.
I do believe, however, that native born or long-term naturalized Jihadists would become much less of an issue and would be something we could handle if we were more consistent in going after Jihadists to begin with.
I think the first thing to do is to *slow* the influx of Mohammedans—a version of George Bush’s idea of carefully vetting potential immigrants from countries that sponsor terrorism (almost entirely Muslim nations) would be an excellent start.
We have to slow or stop Muslim immigration before we find ourselves in the position of many European nations, with an increasingly violent and supremacist Muslim population approaching double digits.
I would, of course, give priority to immigrants who are endangered—and that would mostly mean Christians and other Infidels at risk *from* islam.
Then, I think we should be a lot more explicit with all immigrants as to what we expect—let then know what our laws are, and that horrors like waging and funding Jihad or practicing polygamy, pedophilia, or Honor Killing will not be countenanced.
That way, no Muslim can claim ignorance of our civilized laws.
All in all, this would make it a *lot* more difficult for them to target us, and would, I believe—along with tight and non-“politically correct” security—prove sufficient to the task.
I know you likely disagree with me—but I think we should give our current laws a consistent shot at the problem before looking for other solutions.
voegelinian says
gravenimage wrote:
These “refugees” left Israel voluntarily, but *actual* Jewish refugees—900,000 of them—ousted from Dar-al-Islam at around the same time have long since been fully assimilated by Israel…
Careful, gravenimage, you might arouse the crude and belligerent mockery of Angemon and Philip Jihadski, as you have dared to imply that the Dar-al-Islam is an actual place from where people can be ousted…
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Careful, gravenimage, you might arouse the crude and belligerent mockery of Angemon and Philip Jihadski, as you have dared to imply that the Dar-al-Islam is an actual place from where people can be ousted…”
Would you like some cheese to go with your vintage whine? Unlike you, I won’t act like I know what’s on other people’s mind, but i said it before: muslim-majority countries can be considered dar-al-islam, so if GI is using the term dar-al-islam as a blanket term meaning all the muslim majority nations where jews were expelled from or muslims expelled to (GI specifically mentions the expel of the moriscos from Spain in the 16th century- which of the current muslim-majority countries existed back then?) then i have no objections to it.
You, on the other hand, refused to name any country where you intended to expel native american citizens to and went as far as to claim you answered my questions regarding the foundation date, founder, currency, etc, of “Dar-Al-Islam”. You even claimed i either had brain damage or was trolling for refusing your answer. Clearly it’s not the same situation and you should be ashamed of trying to play the victim again. Can narcissists even feel shame, or admit they do?
You criticized GI (among others) for not jumping into the argument, as if somehow they were obliged to come to your aid. Now GI expressed her opinion and guess what? GI clearly disagrees with your “total deportation is the way to go” theory – at least while there are other solution on the table – and no amount of “bogeyman” tales about how myself or PJ might act will change it.
voegelinian says
gravenimage quoted Angemon (square brackets mine):
“You know, maybe we can get muslim countries to help with that [i.e., with a test to determine who is really a Muslim and who isn’t]. Hey, they wanted to make a blood test to identify gays, maybe they can make up some sort of test to identify pious muslims from hypocrites who don’t want to kill and be killed in the name of allah. I mean, such a test would be in their best interest – letting a hypocrite kiss the black stone? Blasphemy!!!”
……………………………….
gravenimage answered:
“Of course, if Muslims ever did develop such a test, they sure wouldn’t let the “filthy Infidel” have access to it.
They’d just use it to further persecute and terrorize the “insufficiently islamic”…”
Not only that; in addition, we who have been studying Islam should know that it wouldn’t be reliable for two reasons:
1) we must assume Muslims are lying to us before we assume they are telling the truth in order to help us
2) even if they were telling the truth about such “test” results, we must assume it would not be useful to us for our purpose — to ferret out the dangerous Muslims, since Muslims for centuries have been attacking each other on the basis of a paranoid fanaticism that tries to discern who is a “pure” Muslim which, as we who have been studying Islam should know by now, does not mean that the ones victimized by such internecine fanaticism are any less dangerous to us, the Kuffar, than the ones persecuting their fellow Muslims.
voegelinian says
gravenimage, in discussing Zuhdi Jasser, you failed to bring up a sordid fact about him that we should always bring up whenever anyone touts him as a moderate: on a television panel show, he abused the courageous freedom fighter Wafa Sultan with a veiled threat of the punishment for her apostasy. His mask slipped that day, but he readjusted it after that “wardrobe malfunction”; and guess what, it worked — even those in the Counter-Jihad like you forgot it.
voegelinian says
gravenimage quoted Angemon:
…people simply don’t say the shahada and immediately go out and buy fertilizer to make a bomb. “Radicalization” is a gradual process that takes place over time (well, except maybe for prison converts) and usually there are telltale signs that someone is entering the danger zone, like suddenly growing a beard, start carrying a quran around or start wearing a niqab.
then gravenimage replied:
“Sometimes this is the case, Angemon. But Jihad Watch is also full of cases where new “reverts” to islam went from zero to Jihad in a surprisingly short period of time.
“Certainly, any Muslim who suddenly becomes overtly “more religious” is apt to be e a danger—but not every Jihadist evinces these signs.”
This is a woefully insufficient reply to Angemon’s point. As Raymond Ibrahim has shown, the Al Qaeda manual instructs its operatives to pretend to be moderate in behavior and outward appearance — i.e., to fool gullible people like Angemon. The deadly risks from such gullibility endanger all our lives, and we have every reason to suppose such deadly risks are going to to increase in the years and decades ahead.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“This is a woefully insufficient reply to Angemon’s point. As Raymond Ibrahim has shown, the Al Qaeda manual instructs its operatives to pretend to be moderate in behavior and outward appearance — i.e., to fool gullible people like Angemon. The deadly risks from such gullibility endanger all our lives, and we have every reason to suppose such deadly risks are going to to increase in the years and decades ahead.”
Pfft. Another unprovoked personal attack from mr. mind reader over here. Apparently, not wanting to deport native citizens of any given country who didn’t break any laws means i’m “gullible” and i’m endangering everyone. Not only that, he presumes to know that i’ve fooled and trust al-Qaeda operatives. Tell me mr. “Angemon either is a troll or has brain damage because he didn’t accepted my response”, which of the people i know and trust are al-Qaeda operatives pretending to be moderate? That also includes non-muslims – going by your narrative and behaviour, chances are you believe muslims are passing themselves as non-muslims to “fool gullible people”.
Also GI replied to what i said, so i’ll judge whether GI’s response was “woefully insufficient” or not.
gravenimage says
Voegelinian, I had assumed that Angemon’s reference to a Muslim “test” was at least partially tongue-in cheek, so I replied accordingly.
You are, of course correct in your additions, though.
More:
gravenimage, in discussing Zuhdi Jasser, you failed to bring up a sordid fact about him that we should always bring up whenever anyone touts him as a moderate: on a television panel show, he abused the courageous freedom fighter Wafa Sultan with a veiled threat of the punishment for her apostasy. His mask slipped that day, but he readjusted it after that “wardrobe malfunction”; and guess what, it worked — even those in the Counter-Jihad like you forgot it.
…………………………………….
I’ve actually done a fair amount of digging around on Zuhdi Jasser—usually it doesn’t take much to find that many “moderate Muslims” aren’t really all that moderate.
I have thought that perhaps Jasser was the exception that proved the rule—not that he has much influence, in any case.
Here’s what Robert Spencer had to say about him two years ago:
t would the media and the fond, self-deluded folks on the Right do without Zuhdi Jasser? They would have to convert to Islam themselves to provide the “moderate Muslims” they assume exist and upon whom they place so much hope. Jasser is no doubt a capital fellow, but his Islam, unfortunately, is entirely eccentric and unrepresentative of any genuine currents within Islamic tradition or the Muslim community in the U.S. today…
What indeed? Given his utterly unrepresentative status in the Muslim community, Jasser is misleading at best, and contributes to false hopes and complacency at worst.
It’s good to see one person standing up to evil indeed. I am just unwilling, unlike you, to pretend that he is anything more than one person, or to base any hopes or policy upon the wonderful fact of his existence.
And what indeed would you do without him?…
Even worse, also among the group protesting in support of the NYPD was the false “moderate” Tarek Fatah, who exposed himself as an enemy of those who are truly interested in defending human rights against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism when he savaged the courageous freedom fighter Wafa Sultan…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/man-bites-dog-36-muslims-demonstrate-in-favor-of-anti-terror-efforts-world-swoons
This would seem to imply that Zasser is mostly a danger because credulous Infidels believe he is representative than for the actual *content* of what he has said.
From this, it looks as though it was fake “moderate” Tarek Fatah who abused Wafa Sultan.
If Zuhdi Jasser *also* abused and threatened Dr. Sultan, I can assure you I wouldn’t have forgotten it.
I might, however, have *missed* it.
I dug around, but have been unable to find any more information on this.
If you have a link to more information of this egregious behavior on Zasser’s part, I would be very grateful.
More:
gravenimage quoted Angemon:
…people simply don’t say the shahada and immediately go out and buy fertilizer to make a bomb. “Radicalization” is a gradual process that takes place over time (well, except maybe for prison converts) and usually there are telltale signs that someone is entering the danger zone, like suddenly growing a beard, start carrying a quran around or start wearing a niqab.
then gravenimage replied:
“Sometimes this is the case, Angemon. But Jihad Watch is also full of cases where new “reverts” to islam went from zero to Jihad in a surprisingly short period of time.
“Certainly, any Muslim who suddenly becomes overtly “more religious” is apt to be e a danger—but not every Jihadist evinces these signs.”
This is a woefully insufficient reply to Angemon’s point. As Raymond Ibrahim has shown, the Al Qaeda manual instructs its operatives to pretend to be moderate in behavior and outward appearance — i.e., to fool gullible people like Angemon. The deadly risks from such gullibility endanger all our lives, and we have every reason to suppose such deadly risks are going to to increase in the years and decades ahead.
…………………………………….
Yes—there are also those Jihadists who *deliberately* go out of their way to appear “moderate” in order to fool the credulous Kuffar—going about clean-shaven, sans Hijab, or even drinking and patronizing strip clubs.
But my response to Angemon was long and detailed, and I believe I made the point that you cannot always tell dangerous Muslims from outward appearance of dress, demeanor, or public behavior.
That I did not specifically mention deliberate deceit—though I have mentioned it many times before—does not, I believe, render my reply “woefully insufficient”.
Moreover, if I want to add something to what others have replied in response to a poster’s comments, I usually just do so—without castigating the shortcomings, real or imagined, of the others who have already contributed.
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“I had assumed that Angemon’s reference to a Muslim “test” was at least partially tongue-in cheek, so I replied accordingly.”
You assumed right 😉
duh_swami says
The malevolent spirit of Allah has possessed many kuffar who already have holes in their aura. Some are very opinionated, and some have political power, nearly all believe Islam has nothing to do with anything negative, and if you think it does, you are a filthy Islamophobe, a racist, a bigot, and an all around bad person, who needs to be smashed by any means possible. When you see that oozing from any kuffar, know that it is Allah expressing himself through them.
Don’t stand too close, Allah has a tendency to splatter.
John Magee says
“Cultural events that take place in the south of France in which thousands of Christians gather for a month.” We can assume this threat means the pilgrimages to Lourdes by Catholics or the Protestant Community Taizé where Protestants gather during the summer for retreats. Both of these places represent peace and miracles as well as hope both concepts are alien to the Koran and Islam. Islam is pure evil. This is just the beginning. What will the reality of Islam in France and Europe be like in 30 years?
Jaladhi says
The only people in the world who only want to destroy everything connected with culture and civilization are MUSLIMS and nobody else. They have no capacity to think for themselves rather than rely solely on MO/allah and his SS agents, the imams. Of course allah has forbidden them to think for themselves as he has already done for them. Brain dead morons!!
Darragh McCurragh says
While so far police and intelligence services have been extremely lucky to detect all plots against nuclear facilities and while pride probably made the World Trade Center a target instead of a US nuclear power plant, one of these days some terrorist attack (or some undercover operation of a state at war with another) will succeed to blow up a nuclear plant. In many cases a rocket propelled grenade might be enough. However, depending on how the wind blows, this can mean the death of thousands of citizens immediately and crippling disease for hundreds of thousands.
Champ says
Voeg wrote:
“…and all the while crickets chirp from the silence of Champ, gravenimage, Wellington, and Mirren. Thanks a lot guys. If they do see fit to add their two cents, they’ll probably only do so to take a pot-shot at me.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks a lot guys? Well, since *you* brought it up …
I’m trying to remember the last time you defended me when I needed a hand …it’s been *forever* since you’ve helped me in a pinch. In fact, about two years ago–maybe longer–I recall sending you a private email asking you why you stopped defending me, and your uncharitable response was, “well, you always handle things really well on your own” …something to that effect.
Soooo, maybe you should take your own advice. Besides, what I observe more and more, from you, is that you give as good as you get in your dispute with PJ and Angemon.
Sorry, no help from me …you will have to handle this battle with them on your own. Perhaps others will lend a hand, but I’m fresh out of sympathy and support.
Champ says
I wrote:
“…is that you give as good as you get in your dispute with PJ and Angemon”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Above examples include: “brain damage” to Angemon..and this to PJ, “see the spittle of anger management rage from his lips”
How do you expect things to improve when you keep leveling insults?
Go ahead and claim that I’m taking a pot-shot at you, but this is what I observe from YOU.
Fine–keep the battle going, for all I care, but don’t cry for help from me as if you expect me to feel guilty. I don’t. You have created your own mess, and now you need to clean it up yourself.
And I don’t see PJ or Angemon asking “US” to help them with YOU.
Champ says
And I don’t see PJ or Angemon asking “US” to help them with YOU.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Correction: more like **EXPECTING** “US” to help them with YOU.
voegelinian says
Champ,
The examples you cite of my indiscretions come after innumerable attacks on me by Philip — in addition far worse than any I have done here which you note.
voegelinian says
P.S.: When I say “innumerable”, I mean on several other threads other than this one.
gravenimage says
French police foil jihad plot targeting Eiffel Tower, Louvre, nuke plant
……………………
The most recognizable and beloved symbol of France, perhaps the greatest depository of art in the entire world—worthless “Jahillya”, all of it, as pious Muslims see it—and the desire to use Infidels own technology against us as a weapon.
And while *this* Jihad plot was foiled, there will no doubt be many, many more.
Davegreybeard says
What a fascinating, enlightening and entertaining discussion!
Beverages of your choice all around – you to Hesp, tabs on me.
I’ll have a “Devastator” from the Wasatch Brewing Co. A most excellent dark ale, quite fitting for conversations such as this.
Davegreybeard says
Sounds like good stuff, Philip. I’d join you for one in the morning to get the day going.
Where are you off to next? Back to China?
Dave
Mirren10 says
Voegelinian, stop behaving like a petulant baby.
No-one on this website is obliged to dive in and ‘defend’ another poster, unless they personally feel it is right to do so. And, incidentally, when was the last time **you** defended anyone ? (Not that I feel you **should**).
I have, at various times, defended another poster, because I agreed with them, or for other reasons. I have never defended another poster because that poster told me, or insinuated, I had an **obligation** to do so.
You need to get over yourself, mate. This isn’t kindergarten, we are all adults here, and discussion/debate isn’t about (certainly shouldn’t be) ‘siding’ with someone.
I will agree with someone, if they say something I agree with, irrespective of whether or not that someone has made multiple comments I **disagree** with. Equally, if I disagree with someone, I will say so, whether or not that person has made multiple comments I **agree** with.
To make silly comments about your anger because regular commenters don’t ”have your back” is really babyish. I don’t have anyone’s ‘back’ unless I agree with what they say. This is what adults do.