• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Islamic State blows up baby in explosives training demonstration

Jul 13, 2015 5:23 pm By Robert Spencer

jihadichild74The Islamic State excels at finding new and innovative ways to demonstrate its savagery. “ISIS Breaks Own Cruelty Record: Blows Up Baby for Demonstration,” by Hillel Fendel, Arutz Sheva, July 13, 2015:

In arguably one of its cruelest acts yet, the Islamic State (ISIS) has reportedly blown up a baby as part of a demonstration showing how to handle explosives. So reports The Clarion Project.

The unparalleled incident took place in Diyala Province, eastern Iraq, this past Friday, according to Sadiq el-Husseini, Security Committee Chairman of the province on behalf of the anti-ISIS forces there. He recounted the event to the local Arabic-language A-Sumeriah News.

“The organization booby-trapped the baby in front of dozens of armed ISIS men,” el-Husseini said, “and then detonated it from afar.” He explained that the purpose of the operation, including the rigging of the baby and the detonation of the explosives attached to it, was part of an ISIS training exercise teaching various booby-trapping techniques.

“The organization doesn’t care about the most basic human values,” said el-Husseini. “Their crimes are incalculable, and the blowing up of the baby is the best proof of the threat of ISIS ideology to the state.”

The baby’s father was apparently executed some weeks ago, after being accused of taking part in the killing of an Islamic State member….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) Tagged With: Sadiq el-Husseini


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. rev g says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    That’s sad. The media is too busy condemning flags to ever report it.

    • Oliver says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      I agree that it is sad. But you are wrong- the media is not too busy condemning flags. IT ( THE MEDIA) IS TOO BUSY CONDEMNING ISRAEL;P THE U.S. AND CIVILIZED PEOPLE .

      • Kepha says

        Jul 13, 2015 at 9:50 pm

        Oliver, don’t you know that ISIS is the latest manifestation of the Third World’s noble quest for dignity, liberation, and social justice? All it’s doing is practicing revolutionary catharsis on retrogade classes. [SARC]

    • Orto says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 3:07 am

      No doubt ISIS are a bunch of psychopaths.

  2. Qur'an is Haram says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 5:48 pm

    When are people going to say ‘enough is enough’? What will it take?

    • clap says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 7:00 pm

      When babies are blown up in their own back yards, they might start complaining.

      • Kepha says

        Jul 13, 2015 at 9:54 pm

        Clap, the folks who ignore ISIS atrocities don’t complain when we tear up babies or poison them with saline solution in clean, well-lit places in these United States. It’s called a wymyn’s right to choose, and it has been decreed a right found in the penumbra of the U.S. Constitution (it even trumps that black and white business of government shall deprive no-one of life without due process of law).

        Believing firmly that such things can indeed happen here if we aren’t vigilant is one reason why Uncle Kepha does not oppose the death penalty for certain crimes (once truly proven beyond the shadow of doubt).

        • duh_swami says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 7:10 am

          Natures finer forces. ‘Life’ does not begin at conception, ‘Life’ per-existed, what begins at conception is ‘living’…

          It’s hard for know it all people, to understand, that what is developing in the womb from conception forward is a living being, a human being. It is alive, it is human, and it is an entity, meaning, ‘in existence’, a living human in existence is a being, a human being. That’s a whole lot more than the short sighted belief that it is just a clump of tissue. There is never a time from conception forward, to old age and death that we are not ‘living human beings’…
          If it is wrong to willfully kill a human at one stage of development, it is just as wrong to kill at any stage of development…

      • Januk36 says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 1:54 am

        I’m not religious but just a (disgusting) rermark: How is the blowing of the baby worse than routinely chopping, slicing and dicing of the unborn ?

        The media here brought some articles very recently that the “left” is fighting for legitmizing the abortion of babies with the wrong sex.

        I’m sorry for seeming off-topic but you cannot face the realities out there if you can’t face the reality within yourself.

        • Bartender says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 3:12 am

          Yes it is off-topic and you are disgusting to equate the two. 100 undifferentiated cells with fewer brain cells than a fly is quite different from a fully formed and delivered baby but I bet you could care less about the science.

          You are just like the left, trying to apologize for the brutal, Muslim Killers who tie explosives to babes and blow them up and trying to say it is the same as early-term abortions. And since we do abortions we are just as bad as ISIS.

          No we are not just as bad as ISIS, you moral-equivalence moron.

        • Proud Pork Fan says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 3:26 am

          @ januk36 you are disgusting you ISIS apologist. I bet you think that Christianity are is a million times worse than Islam because of the Crusades too.

  3. don vito says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    If true, despicable!

  4. Cormac mac Airt says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    Meanwhile the spiritually sick Pope is busy admiring blasphemous crucifixes from Marxists.

  5. Jaladhi says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    OMG, these people are hideous monsters and cannot be called human beings. This is what Islam does to human beings – converts them into monsters and they call it a religion of peace – religion of hate, rape and murder is more appropriate name!!

  6. abad says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    Barbarians. Not even human beings. They have NO conscience of any kind. Completely devoid of any moral/ethical compass.

    Monsters.

  7. JamesonRocks says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Savages! Just when I thought these assholes couldn’t do anything new to surprise and shock… Savages!

  8. Westman says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    Where is that Red Line??

    There will never be a way to eliminate Daesh short of the same callousness. The West has permitted the problem to reach unmanageable proportions; beyond the realm of past warfare.

    There are only two ways Daesh can fail; world-wide boycott or annihilation. Since Daesh has oil to sell, it can overcome any boycott by appealing to human greed. That leaves only the destruction of Daesh without regard to whether innocents are present or not; making the assumption that those who are slaves or adherents to Daesh demands are already lost and will die under Daesh.

    The West is not prepared to accept the role of undiscriminating destroyer, so the carnage and slaving will continue until some entity is willing to take the role of annihilator. The willful lies and Dhimmitude will continue.

    • gravenimage says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 10:43 pm

      Westman wrote:

      There will never be a way to eliminate Daesh short of the same callousness.
      ………………………..

      I’m sorry, Westman—I respectfully have to disagree. The civilized West has never engaged in this kind of savagery, and we would not be defending our values if we did.

      Now if you mean that we should robustly defend our values in the face of this barbarism—as we did against the Fascists—then I heartily agree.

      • TheBuffster says

        Jul 13, 2015 at 11:55 pm

        I’m with you, Graven!

        If Westman means we might have to bomb the hell out of places where the Islamic State and other such groups are, which means collateral civilian damage – including children – that’s a necessity of stopping these monsters. But you don’t deliberately target children and other non-combatant civilians… although… if they’re going to be rigging babies and children with bombs, those who face that threat will have to be become suspicious of every little kid and baby wandering around unattended. It *will* make children and babies targets, which is part of the horrific “beauty” of this tactic. Either you succeed in blowing up an unsuspecting enemy with children or, once the enemy has caught on, they’ll be paranoid about kids and sometimes shoot kids who turn out not to be wired.

        And then, as with Hamas putting their control centers and weapons and missiles in hospitals and schools and residential areas, the people who wind up shooting the kids in self-defense get all the bad publicity while, somehow, the fact that the terrorists rigged the situation in the first place fades from attention.

        It’s a great way to demoralize the enemy, making them have to target children.

        But I would not recommend that we try to become as callous as the enemy. The only reason we deserve to win is because we’re fighting to keep freedom and decency alive.

        Maybe Westman simply meant that our soldiers might have to become willing to shoot little kids if they have reason to think they’re wired. Like in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese did the same thing – wired babies with bombs.

        Better a dead baby that a dead baby plus a dead you and others.

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 3:08 pm

          Agreed, Buffster. This is similar to the tactic used by Hamas and the other Jihadists of hiding in civilian buildings or using playgrounds and hospitals as rocket-launching sites, then falsely claiming that Infidels are deliberately targeting such places. They care nothing for the deaths of their own civilians, including children—it is the Israelis and other decent Kuffar who care.

          Jihadists have rigged women in Burqas, kids, and donkeys with explosives, and are now moving on to babies.

          And this is not the first time—remember the Muslim couple who filled their baby’s formula bottle with explosives and tried to board an airplane?

          “Baby bottle ‘used as bomb'”

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/08/baby-bottle-used-as-bomb

          God, I hate Islam.

  9. David, Thailand says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    Can’t see Ayatollahs Obama and Cameron doing much about it, because the IS can fight back.

  10. David, Thailand says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    This returns to the age-old ethical argument, how many innocents are you prepared to kill in order to save at least ten times that many innocents from being killed?

    Western Answer: None.

    • Angemon says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 8:04 pm

      Swedish answer: The ones doing the killing of innocents are themselves innocent victims of violence therefore we must protect them and give them more social benefits upon their return.

  11. voegelinian says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 8:04 pm

    “Islamic State blows up baby in explosives training demonstration”

    PC MCs look at this data and say: “How terrible! We need to step up robust measures against the Tiny Minority of Extremists who have nothing to do with Islam while attacking those who, by expanding their dismay beyond this Tiny Miniroty, dare to be alarmed at the systemic dimensions of this problem which the mountains of data out there indicate!”

    Counter-Jihad folks say: “How terrible! This shows how sick Islam is, and how sick all Muslims are for continuing to enable this mosntrously wicked ideology!”

    Asymptotics in the Counter-Jihad say: “How terrible! This shows how sick Islam is, and how sick the Large Minority of Muslims are (not counting all those multitudes of Muslims who are “ignorant of Islam” or “lax” or “scared to leave Islam” etc.) — but let’s be careful about tarring all Muslims with the same brish and attack any fellow Counter-Jihadists who show signs of “bigotry”…!

    • Angemon says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 8:08 pm

      And narcissist racists wanting to ride the tail coats of those better then them rail against the ones they’re supposed to be fighting alongside with while trying to further their agenda of pretending to be the almighty know-it-all go-to gurus.

    • vlparker says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 10:05 pm

      Why would you care? The little boy was probably a muslim, too. This should be right up your alley. One less muslim in the world.

      • voegelinian says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 2:17 pm

        I don’t advocate genocide of Muslims, and never have. That’s a monstrous (albeit implied) strawman.

    • gravenimage says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 2:01 pm

      I’m tired of Voegelinian’s sniping at the supposed shortcomings of his fellow Anti-Jihadists, but to characterize him as “racist” (what race is Islam, again?), much less that he is cheering the murder of a baby, is completely off-base.

      • voegelinian says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 2:21 pm

        gravenimage never seems to tire of the sniping against me by Angemon and her friend Philip Jihadski, which (as can be seen here, for the 1000th time) is based on the same PC MC anxiety about “racism” (falsely imputed, as is the hallmark of PC MC), which is the #1 reason why our West remains myopic to this horrible, metastasizing problem that besets the world.

        I guess gravenimage has priorities…

        • Angemon says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 4:40 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “gravenimage never seems to tire of the sniping against me by Angemon and her friend Philip Jihadski”

          And you say that, with a straight face, even though GI spoke in your behalf despite all the crap you pulled with her. You should be kissing the floor she walks on and thanking her for her (seemingly) endless patience, but it seems the Goddess of Gratitude was not kind to you.

          “which (as can be seen here, for the 1000th time) is based on the same PC MC anxiety about “racism” (falsely imputed, as is the hallmark of PC MC)”

          Nope. As I pointed out to GI, it’s easy to make the case that you see the islamic problem in a racial fashion. Heck, you even project that onto others – according to you, the PC MC crowd thinks of muslims as “brown people” who need to be protected, even though you can’t explain why that “protect the brown people” feeling doesn’t extend to non-muslim “brown people”.

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 9:41 pm

          Good God, Voegelinian, I just came to the defense of your views, specifically addressing something Angemon (and another poster) said in reply to your comments.

          I knew, of course, that this would be a thankless task. I only went ahead because I have a sense of fairness, and stick to my principles whether the individual in question is likely to appreciate my actions or not.

          I agree with you (to a point) about the whole PC “racism” issue—certainly, I believe many of us have been falsely accused of “racism” when our only concern is the incursions of Jihad.

          My only issue with you—besides the personal insults, of course—is that I do not believe you help put across your case when you are so disparaging of others whom you are trying to convince of your position.

      • Angemon says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 4:27 pm

        gravenimage posted:

        “I’m tired of Voegelinian’s sniping at the supposed shortcomings of his fellow Anti-Jihadists, but to characterize him as “racist” (what race is Islam, again?)”

        I’m not saying islam is a race or that the CJ is a race related thing, I’m saying that voeg sees the islamic issue in a racial fashion. He went as far as to say he was waiting for the day “profiling will be more rational, and granularize the physiognomic factor — not eliminate it, just fine-tune it; since we already know (cf., the 911 hijackers) that Muslim attackers can also try to blend in appearance-wise).“.

        If he doesn’t frame islam on a racial context, why then suggest that the physiognomic factor should play a role when looking for muslims on jihad, even though he acknowledges they can blend in appearance-wise? If they can dress, shave and comb their hair in kuffar fashion, then the physiognomic factor can only center on racial features. One of his previous bans was due to him saying that muslims weren’t human – Goebbels would be proud. Can you assure me, in face of that, that there’s no way he sees it in a racial fashion?

        Also, while I don’t believe he cheers the killing of babies, muslim or otherwise, I’ll point out (again) that he has no problems in standing on the still warm bodies of innocent victims to try to further his agenda and pretend he’s a better alternative to the front-face figures of the CJ movement.

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 12:00 am

          Angemon wrote:

          gravenimage posted:

          “I’m tired of Voegelinian’s sniping at the supposed shortcomings of his fellow Anti-Jihadists, but to characterize him as “racist” (what race is Islam, again?)”

          I’m not saying islam is a race or that the CJ is a race related thing, I’m saying that voeg sees the islamic issue in a racial fashion. He went as far as to say he was waiting for the day “profiling will be more rational, and granularize the physiognomic factor — not eliminate it, just fine-tune it; since we already know (cf., the 911 hijackers) that Muslim attackers can also try to blend in appearance-wise).“.

          If he doesn’t frame islam on a racial context, why then suggest that the physiognomic factor should play a role when looking for muslims on jihad, even though he acknowledges they can blend in appearance-wise? If they can dress, shave and comb their hair in kuffar fashion, then the physiognomic factor can only center on racial features.
          ………………………………..

          Angemon, Robert Spencer—despite his very Anglo-Saxon name—is of largely Middle Eastern heritage, and he wears a beard (albeit a very well-trimmed one). He has said many times that he does not mind if he undergoes extra scrutiny at airports and other security check-points as a result.

          My understanding is that Israel does practice profiling—looking for elements such as untrimmed beards and skull caps and Niqabs, of course, but also people with Middle Eastern looks, just because these people are statistically more apt to be Muslim.

          This is the case even though many Arab Christians and Sephardic Jews share these traits.

          This combination of tactics—of which physical traits is only a small part—have been highly effective in dealing with Jihad terror plots. I do not believe them to be racist.

          More:

          One of his previous bans was due to him saying that muslims weren’t human – Goebbels would be proud. Can you assure me, in face of that, that there’s no way he sees it in a racial fashion?
          ………………………………..

          Yeah, that was particularly unfortunate phrasing, and I can see how Marisol Seibold acted as she did. But I believe Voegelinian (he was posting under another username at the time) was referring to those practicing the hideous *ideas* of Islam; I don’t believe it was a racial reference at all.

          But this is another indication that Voeg can be prickly, and certainly does not always take pains to make sure his ideas are carefully communicated.

          More:

          Also, while I don’t believe he cheers the killing of babies, muslim or otherwise, I’ll point out (again) that he has no problems in standing on the still warm bodies of innocent victims to try to further his agenda and pretend he’s a better alternative to the front-face figures of the CJ movement.
          ………………………………..

          I knew that was vlparker’s comment, and not your own, Angemon. I don’t have as jaundiced a view of Voegelinian as you do, but he does tend to alienate people. Often this seems deliberate.

          More:

          Nope. As I pointed out to GI, it’s easy to make the case that you see the islamic problem in a racial fashion. Heck, you even project that onto others – according to you, the PC MC crowd thinks of muslims as “brown people” who need to be protected, even though you can’t explain why that “protect the brown people” feeling doesn’t extend to non-muslim “brown people”.
          ………………………………..

          With respect, Angemon, I believe this *is* a factor. Robert Spencer has noted this phenomenon as well, where certain groups appear to rank higher on the “politically correct” scale than others, where people of color trump those of European background, and Islam trumps such groups as gays and women.

          Here’s an interesting article on the subject by Daniel Greenfield, a frequent contributor to Jihad Watch, at FrontPage Magazine:

          “Muslims Trump all Other Minorities Because of Victim Value Index”

          http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/252184/muslims-trump-all-other-minorities-because-victim-daniel-greenfield

        • Angemon says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 6:07 am

          gravenimage posted:

          “This combination of tactics—of which physical traits is only a small part”

          Which is not the same as focusing only on physical traits.

          “But this is another indication that Voeg can be prickly, and certainly does not always take pains to make sure his ideas are carefully communicated.”

          Backpedaling does seem to be his bread and butter – “Oh, I wrote such and such but I clearly meant something quite different”.

          “I don’t have as jaundiced a view of Voegelinian as you do, but he does tend to alienate people. Often this seems deliberate.”

          It’s not a jaundiced view. His callous indifference to the suffering of others and his overall view of people as tools to be used as he pleases and disposed off once they outlive their usefulness are particularly infuriating – this is not the first or second time that he, on the aftermath of another particularly egregious barbarity perpetrated by muslim terrorists acting upon islamic orthodoxy, tries to further his agenda by demonizing specific users or making general statements against the “asymptotic and PC MC”. Not a drop of empathy for the victims, just another chance for him to try to pretend to be the almighty guru of the CJ movement, despite all evidence to the contrary.

          “Here’s an interesting article on the subject by Daniel Greenfield, a frequent contributor to Jihad Watch, at FrontPage Magazine:

          “Muslims Trump all Other Minorities Because of Victim Value Index””

          That article strengthens my point – voeg is wrong, plain and simple, when he says that the leftists think of muslims as “brown people”:

          “The angriest groups, the ones with the newest rawest edge make the cut. A propensity for violence helps. Ergo, Muslims win.“.

          Of course, facts won’t matter to him – he already has his mind made, and anyone thinking anything else than “leftists like muslims because they see them as ‘brown people'” is wrong and need to be publicly vilified.

        • voegelinian says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 8:49 pm

          I had a series of essays on my blog revolving around the problem of Muslim Profiling, and one reader (who called himself “Mr. X”) had so many minute objections tightly wound up in a ravel of complex incoherence, I had to devote a couple of essays to him. Many if not most of the points discussed in those two essay are important, but for now I’ll only key in on one.

          This Mr. X character balked at my argument for Muslim Profiling that includes racial data (but is not limited to that — I don’t think italics are sufficient to stress this important subsidiary point; more like a ballpeen hammer upside the stubbornly obtuse head) and attempted in various ways to refute me. One amusing contradiction he revealed unwittingly, when he would spend lots of time trying to argue (or more often, just claiming) that it is impossible to tell the difference between, for example, a Jordanian and an Austrian at an airport, let alone between an Egyptian and a Mexican, etc. — and then suddenly turned around and childed me for being unable to tell that Cat Stevens (aka Yusuf Islam) is a Cypriot, not a Greek.

          As I noted at the time:

          “Mr. X affects to possess an unusual talent for granularization, claiming to be able to easily tell the difference between a Cypriot and a Greek… for a person as aware & knowledgeable of such fine physiognomic differences as those between Cypriots and Greeks, you seem otherwise oddly resistant to incorporating that kind of awareness & knowledge into a profiling methodology. I mean, if you are so good you can spot the difference between a Cypriot and a Greek at an airport, then surely you can tell the difference between, to pluck one example out of a fez, a Jordanian and an Austrian at an airport.”

          Or a Libyan and an Italian; etc.

          I added:

          “Or he accepts the viability of granularization, but otherwise emotionally wishes to obfuscate it because he wants to avoid the collateral damage of innumerable non-white non-Muslims who hail from Muslim milieus around the world: we have Filipinos who may be either Muslims or non-Muslims, as well as Indonesians, Thai, Indians, and various black Africans, etc. This is a genuine problem for profiling, but it does not necessarily rise to such formidable dimensions that we should pre-emptively and impulsively reject all racial profiling in any and every context, as Mr. X would demand.”

          Further reading:

          Muslim Profiling Revisited and “Mr. X” — Conclusion
          http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2009/03/muslim-profiling-revisited-and-mr.html
          Muslim Profiling Revisited (and my ongoing exchanges with “Mr. X”)
          http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2009/03/muslim-profiling-revisited-and-my.html

          Not to mention:
          Muslim profiling needs racial profiling
          http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/01/muslim-profiling-needs-racial-profiling.html

          And an essay which at its conclusion contains a list of links to many other essays on this topic:

          The ethnic physiognomy of Muslims
          http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2010/11/ethnic-physiognomy-of-muslims.html

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 10:53 pm

          Angemon, I’ve never believed that Voegelinian has advocated focusing purely on physical traits—I’ve read the essays he’s linked to previously.

          And I do think that part of the attraction of Islam for the “politically correct” is that it is a “minority” faith—even though, of course, one finds Muslims of all ethnicities, including those of European heritage. (Just as one finds many Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Hispanic Christians, but it is often considered a “European” faith.

          But just as with profiling, race is only one aspect of “political correctness”, as Greenfield makes clear.

          Anyway, interesting to read the replies from you and Voegelinian. Thanks.

  12. Jan Aage Jeppersen says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    Blowing up babies in explosives training demonstration is an old established tradition. Some say it is barbaric, but how can that be when the moral leader of the free world 70 years ago decided to demonstrate the effect of a new type of bomb by killing 3,401 innocent Japanese schoolchildren?

    But as the president of the bomb making state explained, the target of this first demonstration was an important Japanese Army base, and they began the war. So nothing to see here and we have hardly done it since then.

    • gravenimage says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 11:23 pm

      What witless false moral equivalence. Americans did not deliberately target children. We were defending against aggression from Fascists, and we stopped responding militarily as soon as they vowed to stop attacking them.

      We then set about rebuilding Europe and Japan—the most generous action of any victors in history.

      Japan is now a civilized, vibrant society. Would this be true if they—and Europe—had continued under the brutal Axis?

      As this poster would have it any defense against the savagery of JIhad would itself be considered immoral. How twisted.

      • TheBuffster says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 12:40 am

        Thank you, Graven, for that response to Jan.

        The Americans did not use the bomb in order to “demonstrate the effect of a new type of bomb by killing 3,401 innocent Japanese schoolchildren” as Jan put it. The Japanese refused to stop fighting. The Americans wanted to put an end to it. They were going to have to send a lot of troops into Japan to fight on the ground, and the Japanese were ready to fight to the end. They had already shown their suicidal will to conquer or die for their fatherland. And if our men had gone in there the Japanese soldiers, the civilian population, and the American soldiers would have endured a protracted battle and the horror of ongoing conventional warfare.

        WWII was a humongous drain on everyone involved. America wanted to have it over with. Unlike the Japanese, Americans were not eager to die in battle for their country or some emperor.

        So Truman decided not to let any more of *our own* people die in the fight. He would use the bomb. And note that the Japanese still weren’t willing to surrender after the first one. The Americans had to use a second. And then the war was *over*, reconstruction could begin, and Japan ceased to be a threat to the Eastern world.

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 3:24 pm

          Great post, Buffster. All of your comments are spot on.

          And a more general observation: have you ever noticed that the more appalling the headlining story, the more likely it is that we will find apologists engaging in ludicrously false Tu Quoque?

      • Jan Aage Jeppersen says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 6:04 am

        Thanks for reply.

        You claim: “Americans did not deliberately target children.”
        If you chose to drop a nuclear bomb over a city centre, known to have 65 schools and mostly populated by women, children and elderly, and not over the military barracks with about 25,000 enemy troops, we are talking war crime and not unavoidably collateral damage.

        Had the bomb been dropped over the military barracks I would agree with you that Americans did not deliberately target children even if a number of children were killed. I am not questioning the right of democracies to defend itself against totalitarian movements such as fascism, communism, Japanese imperialism and Islamism all of them fighting without regard to the civilized laws of warfare and routinely committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. But I am questioning the wisdom of using the same barbaric methods as the enemy as we did 70 years ago, especially when it is not necessary to win a war.

        Let me quote my sources:

        Headline in article written 6 August 2013 2013 by Greg Mitchell:

        “Sixty-Eight Years Ago: Truman Opened the Nuclear Era With a Lie About Hiroshima. He claimed Hiroshima was “a military base.” When tens of thousands of women and children had just been incinerated.

        And so, from its very first words, the official narrative was built on a lie, or at best a half-truth. Hiroshima did contain an important military base, used as a staging area for Southeast Asia, where perhaps 25,000 troops might be quartered. But the bomb had been aimed not at the “Army base” but at the very center of a city of 350,000, with the vast majority women and children and elderly males.

        In fact, the two most important reasons Hiroshima had been chosen as our number-one target were: it had been relatively untouched by conventional bombs, meaning its large population was still in place and the bomb’s effects could be fully judged; and the hills which surround the city on three sides would have a “focusing effect” (as the target committee put it), increasing the bomb’s destructive force.

        Indeed, a US survey of the damage, not released to the press, found that residential areas bore the brunt of the bomb, with less than 10 percent of the city’s manufacturing, transportation and storage facilities damaged.

        There was something else missing in the Truman announcement: because the president in his statement failed to mention radiation effects, which officials knew would be horrendous, the imagery of just “a bigger bomb” would prevail for days in the press. Truman described the new weapon as “revolutionary” but only in regard to the destruction it could cause, failing to even mention its most lethal new feature: radiation.”

        (Greg Mitchel is the author of more than a dozen books, including Atomic Cover-Up (on the decades-long suppression of shocking film shot in the atomic cities by the US military) and Hollywood Bomb (the wild story of how an MGM 1947 drama was censored by the military and Truman himself).

        Link: http://www.thenation.com/subject/nuclear-arms-and-proliferation/

        Quotes from article 6 August 2014 by Conrad Quilty-Harper.
        Headline: “The 3,401 Hiroshima children who went to school and didn’t come back.”

        “69 years ago today the US dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. Two fifths of the population of the city was killed by the blast, burns and subsequent radiation.

        US researchers later visited the city to measure the effects of the bomb and found that dead school children were one of the best indicators for its effectiveness. Headmasters of the 65 schools they visited had kept good records and these were of special interest to the researchers.

        Here’s a list of schools which were closest to ground zero. …”

        Link: http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 3:27 pm

          More false Tu Quoque. The claim that Japan would have surrendered at some point anyway is questionable—it probably would have taken a land invasion of Japan, which, with Japan’s suicidal mind-set, would likely have been far more costly—not just to US troops, but to the Japanese themselves, including children.

          This is not just speculation. School teachers had been falsely told that American troops were brutal, and so when they reached outlying islands they often found that these teachers had led entire classes full of children in committing suicide.

          And what about your sources? Greg Mitchell is an Anti-American hard leftist who criticized the distribution of the Anti-Jihad film “Obsession”. Conrad Quilty-Harper has claimed that the West is anti-Muslim unless it indiscriminately takes in “refugees” without concern for whether they are dangerous.

          Notice that this apologist has not actually condemned the barbarism in the story above. I wouldn’t hold my breath on his doing so.

      • Jan Aage Jeppersen says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 7:18 am

        I claim that the use of nuclear bombs against Japan was not necessary and did not cause the unconditional surrender of Japan. Don’t rely on my assessment. Listen to the words of an American war hero, General Eisenhower:

        “During his [Stimson’s] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”

        “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing … I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon,” Eisenhower said in 1963.

        And Eisenhower was far from the only person in authority who knew the fact coming to the conclusion that the “bomb” was not necessary to win the war and save American lives. Never the less this necessity myth lives on in the heads of many Americans.

        Let me refer you to an article by the Institute for Historical Review: “Was Hiroshima Necessary?”

        http://www.ihr.org/

        • Angemon says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 8:47 am

          Jan Aage Jeppersen posted:

          “I claim that the use of nuclear bombs against Japan was not necessary and did not cause the unconditional surrender of Japan. Don’t rely on my assessment. Listen to the words of an American war hero, General Eisenhower”

          Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, you know?

          Fact is, the Japanese military was convinced that ketsu-go, a decisive battle, a last stance, would take place on their main islands, and they were gearing up and preparing to fight it. They truly believed that the Allied forces would invade their islands and that they could make them pay so dearly that they would have no choice but to leave them be. The Japanese had conventional aircrafts and submarines set up for suicide attacks (they calculated they could destroy up to a third of the invading force before it reached the mainland), and they set up militias to fight alongside the military in the defense of their homeland. This was after *months* of regular air bombings (which, by the way, killed more civilians that the two atomic bombs combined – you might want to look into it), which severely damaged their major cities, and a naval blockade that made food and fuel increasingly scarce. They were so willing to surrender that, even after the two atomic bombs were dropped, the military wanted to pursue the ketsu-go option – it took the unprecedented intervention of the Emperor to break the deadlock. And even then, a die-hard group of army officers attempted a coup to stop the surrender broadcast from being made.

          What do you suggest Truman should have done? Launched a land invasion, which would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives, most of them Japanese civilians? Should he have ordered the air bombings and the blockade to continue instead, hoping the Japanese would surrender before they were bombed back to the stone age or starved to death?

          If you’re going to feign outrage, reserve some of it for the Japanese leadership which stubbornly refused to surrender for months, even though it was painfully clear the war was lost long ago. They needlessly sacrificed many of their own citizens, civilian and military, as a consequence of refusing to accept the futility of their situation.

          While we’re at it, should I presume that you are similarly against the entire Strategic Bombing Offensive? It seems to me you’d have to be in order to be consistent in your philosophy.

        • TheBuffster says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 11:48 pm

          Thanks for that, Angemon.

          If they hadn’t bombed Japan, my dad would have most likely been involved in the invasion that would have ensued. He was on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.

          The Japanese were as fanatical as any jihadi.

        • Angemon says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 8:15 am

          TheBuffster posted:

          “If they hadn’t bombed Japan, my dad would have most likely been involved in the invasion that would have ensued. He was on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.”

          You father (and all other servicemen) dodged quite the bullet there. According to Major Mark P. Arens 1995’s V [Marine] Amphibious Corps Planning for Operation Olympic and the Role of Intelligence in Support of Planning (written in fulfillment of a requirement for the marine corps command and staff college):

          “The major failure of intelligence concerned the Japanese capability for suicide attacks. In spite of countermeasures, the suicide attacks directed against the U.S. task forces and transport areas would unquestionably have been serious and would have caused severe losses. The kamikaze attacks against the U.S. fleet at Okinawa came after the aircraft flew more than 500 miles over open ocean. Many inexperienced pilots lost their way and never reached the American fleet. This great distance also allowed the fleet to receive early warning from picket ships and scramble fighters to engage the kamikazes. Bad weather in the target area also hampered the kamikaze pilots from acquiring their targets. With all of these difficulties, the Japanese ratio of planes launched to planes successfully striking their targets was 1 in 9. The Japanese flew 1,840 “special-attack” planes during the battle for Okinawa. A ratio of 1 in 9 would equate to approximately 202 planes striking their targets. The U.S. Navy reported 192 ships hit by kamikaze planes during the battle of Okinawa; of these, 15 were sunk.

          Although the damage inflicted by the Kamikaze planes was superficial, they managed to kill 12,300 American servicemen and wound 36,400. For the defense of Kyushu the Japanese were to employ upwards of 10,000 kamikaze planes. Although the Japanese staff planned for a hit ratio of 1 in 9, many believed that they would be far more successful. The special attack aircraft would have to fly less than 100 miles to their target with almost the entire distance spent over land masked by terrain. The U.S. fleet would have very little warning time to intercept the aircraft. Anchored troop transports, just off the coast, would be easy targets as they unloaded their cargo. It is highly probable that the Japanese suicide attack hit ratio would have been higher, probably closer to 1 in 6 or 1 in 7. At these ratios, 1,400 to 1,600 kamikaze aircraft would have hit American ships. With their targets being transports, the casualty rate per hit would have been higher than at Okinawa where destroyers were the primary target. In addition to the kamikaze aircraft, the U.S. fleet also would have had to deal with all of the Japanese Navy’s special attack boats and midget submarines. Even if the suicide attacks were only marginally successful, the U.S. attack ratio would have eroded still farther. If the Japanese did succeed in delivering 1,500 hits against the transports, the mythical “Divine Wind” may well have blown again, turning away another invasion fleet.”

          And:

          “Many historians use the casualty estimate that was briefed to Truman in June 1945 to claim that the projected low casualty rate of 25,000 dead did not justify the use of the atomic bomb. However, those casualty estimates were based on an April 1945 estimate of Japanese force strength of around 229,000. By July 1945, that force had almost tripled to 657,000. With this sizable ground force supported by the special attack forces, it is easy to reach a total casualty figure of close to 500,000 Americans. This is the same number used by Truman in later accounts in his diary to justify the use of the atomic bomb. In addition to U.S. casualties, the Japanese on Kyushu would likely have suffered upwards of 2,000,000 military and civilian casualties. These projected figures for Kyushu far exceed the casualties inflicted by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which ended the War with Japan. “

        • TheBuffster says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 9:16 am

          Thanks for that information, Angemon.

          It’s pretty sobering to realize that if those bombs hadn’t fallen and my dad’s carrier had had to get involved, I might not be here.

          Not long after the bombs fell, his carrier did anchor off the coast of Nagasaki. I’m not sure what they were doing there.

        • Oliver says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 6:20 pm

          To JAJ:

          When I was 17, my first boss (at a full time job) was a man named Mr. O’Connor.

          Mr. O’ Connor, during WW2 ( this was 20+ years after WW2-so recent- by historical standards) was a MARINE OFFICER.

          his unit was to be in the 1st or 2nd wave -IF THERE WAS TO BE AN INVASION OF THE JAPANESE HOMELANDS.

          In the pre-invasion planning meetings- he ( and his fellow officers) TO EXPECT VERY HIGH CASUALTIES, AS THE JAPANESE WERE NOT WILLING TO SURRENDER, AND WOULD SOONER FIGHT TO THEIR ( AND THE AMERICANS) DEATH AND FOR THEIR EMPEROR, THEN SURRENDER.

          His view- better them ( the Japanese) then American GI’s.

          i agree.

        • Rev g says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 6:57 pm

          Hindsight. People often use it to attack forgone conclusions

        • Rev g says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 6:58 pm

          It’s often bullsh*t, or political.

    • Angemon says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 9:00 am

      Jan Aage Jeppersen posted:

      “but how can that be when the moral leader of the free world 70 years ago decided to demonstrate the effect of a new type of bomb by killing 3,401 innocent Japanese schoolchildren?”

      Would you prefer that they be raped and used for bayonet practice, like at Nanking?

      • gravenimage says

        Jul 15, 2015 at 3:37 pm

        Angemon wrote:

        Would you prefer that they be raped and used for bayonet practice, like at Nanking?
        ………………………………

        Very important reference, Angemon, and one I was going to mention.

        Just as with Jihdists, our Fascist Japanese enemies *actually did* target babies.

  13. Cecilia Ellis says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    Dear God! What unleashed evil! Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said, “The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.” So much for the savage, Islamic society; there is no iota of morality in Islam; and for those who proffer reformation of the Islamic ideology, let them know: Nothing in Islam is redeemable! This story should be the lead on every news media program immediately . . . but it won’t.

    • Linde Barrera says

      Jul 13, 2015 at 10:55 pm

      To Cecilia Ellis- Thank you for quoting that great Lutheran theologian, Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As for IS rigging explosives on a defenseless innocent baby, would any amount of torture be too good for them? Not very Christian of me to say it, but I won’t apologize. My Christian conscience cries out for justice.

  14. Bonny says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    Okay,

    I just finished reading the Quran (in English). Its definitely a terror manual (if followed word by word). When Muslim apologists talk about the controversial verses in Quran, they say that the Hadith must be referred for context. I tried to do that too. But for most of the verses, the context in Hadith is more terrifying than the actual verse in Quran. Its terrifying to know that that Muslim kids are taught this book in Madrasas since childhood.

    This is child abuse at its best.

    • Jenny H says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 am

      I sympathize. It’s such hard work trying to get through that dreadful “literary masterpiece”. Maybe it’s better in Arabic. If a similar book was produced today, surely it would be banned for its revolting contents.
      It’s so sad and disgusting about the baby, and disturbing about the implications for the future. What of the baby’s mother and other family? Probably irrelevant to ISIS.

  15. vlparker says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    But don’t you dare call them savages.

  16. mortimer says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    In Islam, vengeance is personal and familial. ISIS is normative, standard Islam fully applied in all its particulars.

    Anyone who thinks this is not normative Islam, is thoroughly duped by Muslim disinformation.

  17. gravenimage says

    Jul 13, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    Islamic State blows up baby in explosives training demonstration
    ……………………………

    *My God*—what savages. *This* is Islam without the mask.

    And note the message here—it is not just that they murdered this little baby—horrifying enough—but that the demonstration was how to rig a babe in arms with explosives. This means they have the murder of more little babies planned.

  18. George Romero says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 5:12 am

    Barak Hussain Obama declared that this act of barbarity must be challenged and the perpetraitors will be bought to justist.The people who reported the outrage will be severely punnnised and the baby’s family will be sent an invoice for the damage that it caused in the ”blowing up” of peacfull muslim property.

  19. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 6:57 am

    Islam is a religion of mercy
    this is not islam
    Please, read him
    Please do not grievance Islam

  20. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 6:58 am

    Islam is a religion of mercy

    • Qur'an is Haram says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 8:33 am

      Mercy for the Muslims, not mercy for the kafirs (non-muslims). You pray 5 times a day for the kafirs to be punished hideously by allah.

      You are not fooling anyone here. ISIS is following perfectly the example of mohammed from a literal reading of the texts.

    • Champ says

      Jul 15, 2015 at 4:46 pm

      Islam is a religion of mercy

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Oh, because memememmeeemme says so …

      Are we to ignore the mountain of evidence which proves otherwise? No way!

  21. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 7:01 am

    this is not islam

  22. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 7:03 am

    please read about islam

    • TheBuffster says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 7:33 am

      MemeMeme, you said “Please read about Islam.”

      Many of the people here have not only read *about* Islam, but they have read the Koran and the Bukhari Hadith and the writings of the scholars and jurists of Islam.

      Have you?

  23. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 7:05 am

    There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah

    • TheBuffster says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 7:37 am

      That’s nice, MemeMeme. You’re testifying to a bunch of Kafirs. I’m sure it would win you points with Allah, if he existed.

      What is your proof that Allah exists and that Muhammad was his messenger? Why do you believe in that?

    • Pork Rind Addict says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 9:04 am

      memememe Allah doesn’t exist. Mohamed lied. There was no gabriel. No flying horse. To marry a 6 year old is a horrible crime. Mohamed was a psychopathic mass-murdering liar.

    • rev g says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 10:07 am

      allah is satan

    • Champ says

      Jul 15, 2015 at 4:42 pm

      There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      And I’m the Queen of England, so there …

  24. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 7:11 am

    Islam is not a religion bombings

    • TheBuffster says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 7:44 am

      Islam is a religion of conquering the unbeliever, once the Muslims are strong enough to do so. It is required of you.

      But when you are in a weak position, you can pretend that Islam is a religion of peace until the time comes when you are strong and have a chance to conquer and subdue the unbelievers under Sharia law.

      If you don’t know this, you really ought to read your Quran and the Bukhari Hadith and the “Life of Muhammad” for yourself. Then maybe you’ll understand why we unbelievers feel so hostile towards Muhammad and Islam, as it is written.

  25. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 7:13 am

    There are those who blows up and say I am a Muslim, but Islam is not Hedda

    • Champ says

      Jul 15, 2015 at 4:47 pm

      memememe is another lost cause serving an evil cause: islam.

      Tsk, tsk!

  26. memememe says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 7:15 am

    No grievance Jesus Christ does not like injustice

    • gravenimage says

      Jul 15, 2015 at 4:34 pm

      Here’s a load of Taqiyya from memememe:

      Islam is a religion of mercy
      this is not islam
      Please, read him
      Please do not grievance Islam
      ………………………………….

      Funny how that “mercy” has resulted in Muslims slaughtering millions of Infidels and “apostates” over the past 1400 years. But then, the sanguinary “Prophet”, on whose model this butchery is based, described his being sent as a “mercy to mankind”.

      More proof that pious Muslims use words differently than we do.

      And “please do not grievance Islam”—does memememe mean that we should do nothing to give Muslims grievances? We all know what happens when Muslims feel aggrieved—they engage in more hideous violence. And what aggrieves them? Many things, including, of course, openly noticing how violent Islam is…

      More:

      Islam is a religion of mercy
      ………………………………….

      That “mercy” has also resulted in over 26,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11.

      More:

      this is not islam
      ………………………………….

      Actually, this horrifying story is perfectly in line with orthodox Islam. The “Prophet” had a nursing mother with a sleeping baby at her breast assassinated (her “crime” was criticizing Muhammed’s violence).

      A pious Muslim recently butchered an entire household of children in Israel, including cutting the throat of a three-month old baby girl.

      What the Islamic State is doing is practicing the purest form of Islam—hence its unholy attraction for so many pious Muslims.

      More:

      please read about islam
      ………………………………….

      Many of us here have done *exactly* that—read the Qur’an, the Hadith, and Sira; the bloody history of Islam; compendiums of Islamic law such as The Reliance of the Traveller; commentary from Muslim clerics both historic and contemporary; and the daily flood of news of Muslim savagery all over the world.

      Reading more about Islam is *exactly* why so many of us here are convinced it must be opposed by all decent people.

      More:

      There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah
      ………………………………….

      That would be the Shehada, the testament of every believing Muslim—it is also the slogan on the flag of the Islamic State, the same entity that butchered this poor little baby.

      The fact is that the horrifying Muhammed was a warlord, pedophile, rapist, caravan raider, slaver, and mass murderer. *That* is who Muslims follow and consider their ideal man.

      More:

      Islam is not a religion bombings
      ………………………………….

      And yet, bombings are one of the favored forms of waging violent Jihad. Actually, though, Islam is equally a religion of beheadings, stoning, and other savagery. Bombings are only one ugly tactic among many.

      As the Buffster notes, pretending Islam is a “religion of peace” and that violence is not Islamic is only Taqiyya used to fool the hopeful Kuffar.

      More:

      There are those who blows up and say I am a Muslim, but Islam is not Hedda
      ………………………………….

      I did some digging around, but was unable to find a translation for “Hedda”. In any case, memememe’s meaning is clear; but it is also obvious that he is being mendacious. Just more of the claim that pious Muslims acting violently in the name of their faith are not real Muslims.

      Were this the case, why isn’t memememe rushing over to the Islamic State—or at least down to the local Mosque—to tell his coreligionists that they are all wrong about waging violent Jihad in the name of Islam?

      Because, of course, this message is not intended for them—it is just intended to lull Infidels such as ourselves into a false sense of security. He has the wrong audience here, of course—we are all too aware of how violent Islam is.

      More:

      No grievance Jesus Christ does not like injustice
      ………………………………….

      memememe is not, of course, actually referring to Jesus Christ at all, but rather to the monstrous Islamic “Isa”. And what does “Isa” regard as injustice? Not murdering babies in the name of Islam, certainly.

      Instead, “Isa” in the last days offers those who have believed in the actual Jesus Christ a choice: convert to Islam or die. What “Isa” considers “injustice” is believing in the Prince of Peace.

      Altogether, a dispiriting outing by this hamfisted Taqiyya artist. But then, Muslims cannot really counter the growing mountain of proof of the savagery of Islam—the only Infidels they can convince are those who are already in deep denial.

      • Jack Diamond says

        Jul 15, 2015 at 5:27 pm

        He either means Islam is not Hedda Gabler, which is true, or he meant to say “ridda” and not “hedda” for apostasy in Islam. We await the Muslim World to pronounce takfir upon all those apostate ridda jihadis–who are in fact the “best of Muslims” and the ones most like Muhammad and his Companions, which is why waiting for that to happen is like Waiting for Godot and not Hedda Gabler at all.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 10:36 pm

          As for killing children, we know it has been Mullah-approved for Israeli civilians, men women and children, to be “legitimate” targets of death, there also are fatwas allowing the indiscriminate killing of millions of American men women and children (ex. the Saudi imam Nasr Al-Fahd sanctioning weapons of mass destruction to avenge “10 million dead Muslims” to “pay evil with evil”).

          Quote: “And so it is allowed to throw at them, that is the Kafirs [unbelievers] with fire, snakes, scorpions while using the catapults. It is also permissible to smoke them, open water on them in order to drown them, destroy their buildings on top of them. Since in the meaning of Tabyeet is that if you kill, do it well …And it is permissible to kill them therefore even if amongst them are women and children since this is included in (the Islamic legal teaching called) Tabyeet.”

          As far as women and children and the “rules” of jihad, they are more like suggestions
          since there are no consequences for their breach. Nothing done to the kaffir in jihad
          is truly prohibited. “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321)

          Not only can children be killed because they are among them (and definitely can be killed if they are seen to fight in word or deed with the Muslims); the reason women and children are not killed is…because they are valuable to sell, rape, enslave, as property.

          “As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for woman and children and they constitute property for Muslims.” (Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad, p. 28.

          Such is the mercy of Islam.

        • TheBuffster says

          Jul 16, 2015 at 12:05 am

          “He either means Islam is not Hedda Gabler, which is true…”

          😀 😀 😀 !!!

          “…which is why waiting for that to happen is like Waiting for Godot and not Hedda Gabler at all.”

          😀 😀 😀 !!!

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 11:02 pm

          Guys, the term “Hedda” does show up in numerous posts about Islam, particularly those from Indonesia, it seems. I just couldn’t find a translation. Still, the meaning was pretty clear.

          Still bs, though…

  27. Jan Aage Jeppersen says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 10:49 am

    This is a reply to Angemons posting, July 14, 2015 at 8:47 am

    Angemon starts with a question: “Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, you know?”

    It is only a logical fallacy if authority bases its assessment on questionable or incomplete facts or if the conclusion does not logically follow from the facts.

    You are not even referring to an authority or a historical source but claim to know the position of the Japanese military. Unless this is an example of divine revelation you must have your so called facts from the annals of history.

    The most trustworthy authority in possession of all the facts and experts to evaluate those facts was in my opinion the US Strategic Bombing Survey. After studying this matter in great detail, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey rejected the notion that Japan gave up because of the atomic bombings. In its authoritative 1946 report, the Survey concluded:

    “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms …
    It seems clear … that air supremacy and its later exploitation over Japan proper was the major factor which determined the timing of Japan’s surrender and obviated any need for invasion.

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

    In a trenchant book, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock concludes that the bombings were not only unnecessary, but were based on a vengeful policy that actually harmed American interests. He writes (pp. 124, 132):

    “… By April 1945, Japan’s leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States’ insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him …

    Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America’s national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas.”

    The unusual goal of a war as the unconditional surrender of the enemy may be seen as a policy of revenge. In this case I think that there was another more important reason: To calm down the suspicious Stalin whose worst nightmare was a situation where the Western Allies made a separate peace with Germany and attacked the Soviet Union together with the remains of the German army. Maybe Stalin remembered the pragmatic statement made by Senator Harry S. Truman in the Senate one week after Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941:

    “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.”

    Here two other assessments from US military leaders who nobody suspects of being bleeding hearts liberals:

    General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: “My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender.”

    General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.”

    Is it not a greater fallacy to assume that none of the quoted experts knew what they were talking about? And that you know what the truth is out of the blue?

    If it is true that there was no military reason to nuke Japan, then there must have been a political reason, because no democratic leader kills civilians just for the fun of it. Two reasons seem likely. First, to evaluate the effect of the new weapon when used against a city. More likely, to send a signal to Stalin that the US had a new powerful weapon and were not afraid to use it even if it was not necessary to win the war. In this scenario the bombs were not the last shots of the Second World War but the first in the Cold War.

    At the end you ask me a question:

    “While we’re at it, should I presume that you are similarly against the entire Strategic Bombing Offensive? It seems to me you’d have to be in order to be consistent in your philosophy.”

    Your assumption is correct. The carpet bombing of cities with little or no military value in Germany and Japan was a war crime, terror against civilians, and the Allies implicitly admitted this, because no Germans were indicted at the Nuremburg Trials for ordering the systematic bombing campaign against British cities in the Battle of Brittan in the summer of 1940. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a war crime because the target was military and carried out after a formal declaration of war was delivered. In China and during the war Japanese troops committed numerous war crimes, and crimes against humanity, especially against prisoners of War, but that is another story.

    • Proud Pork Fan says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 1:00 pm

      The Japan bomb drop has nothing to do with today’s Jihad and the jihadist that blew up a baby.

      I am not going to re-adjudicate history in the comments section of a blog, but they attacked us at Pearl Harbor and to end the war we used a WMD that had just been invented. If it was right or wrong can be debated but even if it was wrong DO 2 WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT? In other words, does that make it correct that ISIS blew-up the baby? If not then shut your trap.

      That happened 72 yrs ago ISIS is committing atrocities TODAY. That makes it more relevant, don’t you think? If you don’t think so, you are wrong and you need to account for 1400 yrs of Muslim butchery.

      Trying to apologize for the Muslim war criminals who just blew-up the baby is sick. Nice try, you must be proud of yourself.

      • voegelinian says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 2:24 pm

        Yep. That voluminous comment by “Jan Aage Jeppersen” (if that’s his real name, I feel sorry for him) is a tissue of Tu Quoque fallacy. Not to mention that he’s implicitly advocating the West should never have fought to defeat the horribly evil Axis Powers.

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 15, 2015 at 5:13 pm

          All very true, Voeg. Most of Jan Aage Jeppesen’s comments about Islam online are in his own native language, but here is one of his comments from another recent threat on Jihad Watch.

          In it, he posits that the two possible outcomes for the surge in fundamental belief, violence and Jihadist terror are both ultimately benign—either that Islam will collapse on its own or that its devotees will adapt to the values and norms of the Western world.

          Never mind that neither of these outcomes seems to be in the offing. And would they be? Neither has happened before in the long and ugly history of Islam.

          In fact a majority of Muslims in the West openly support the imposition of Shari’ah.

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/kuwait-mosque-bomber-screamed-allahu-akbar-before-detonating-his-explosives/comment-page-1#comment-1258619

          He also refers to islam approvingly as a “once great and powerful Civilization”—never mind that this “civilization” was built on conquest and enslavement.

          Not only is he whitewashing the horror of Islam, but is implying that whatever threat might exist now is actually waning.

          And Voeg, you noted, “not to mention that he’s implicitly advocating the West should never have fought to defeat the horribly evil Axis Powers”—this is quite true.

          There is another point, as well. which I believe is most salient—when he claims our opposition to the Axis was not moral, he is implying by extension that any opposition to the evil of Islam would be equally wrong.

          Whatever Jan Aage Jeppesen’s agenda here is, he is no Anti-Jihadist.

    • Angemon says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 1:06 pm

      Jan Aage Jeppersen posted:

      “It is only a logical fallacy if authority bases its assessment on questionable or incomplete facts or if the conclusion does not logically follow from the facts.”

      Nope. The textbook example would be:

      X is an authority on a particular topic
      X says something about that topic
      Therefore, X is probably correct.

      That is exactly what you’re doing here.

      “You are not even referring to an authority or a historical source but claim to know the position of the Japanese military.”

      Are you refuting that the Japanese military were not hellbent on having a “Last Stand” on their homeland? That they were not preparing themselves for an Allied invasion of Japan?

      “The most trustworthy authority in possession of all the facts and experts to evaluate those facts was in my opinion the US Strategic Bombing Survey. ”

      Not Harry Truman, the person tasked with making that call?

      “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms”

      On July 27 1945, the Allies demanded “unconditional surrender by Japan” and said that “the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”. Japan rejected surrender and Hiroshima was bombed. Japan was given another chance to surrender, but refused and Nagasaki was bombed. Still, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings (not to mention the Soviet invasion of Manchuria – until then, the USSR was the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact) the Japanese government refused to surrender. On August 14, Korechika Anami (the War Minister), Yoshijiro Umezu (Chief of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff and member of the Supreme War Council), and Soemu Toyoda (Chief of Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff) were still arguing that there was a chance for victory.

      “Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge”

      No, it wasn’t. Germany surrendered unconditionally. Why should Japan be given a different treatment, especially when the US had the moral and military position to demand it? Unconditional surrender was meant to ensure Japan did not profit in any way from the war and would be brought down to the point where it would be unable to wage aggressive war again, a policy that came as a result of the lesson learned from the aftermath of the Versailles treaty.

      “Here two other assessments from US military leaders who nobody suspects of being bleeding hearts liberals:”

      Not bleeding heart liberals, but unacquainted to the Japanese spirit of the time. They’re seeing things from their perspective and education, not from the Japanese viewpoint.

      “General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: “My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender.””

      And regardless of what his staff thought, Japan refused to surrender when given the chance. How do you account for that?

      “Is it not a greater fallacy to assume that none of the quoted experts knew what they were talking about?”

      Once again, appeal to authority.

      “And that you know what the truth is out of the blue?”

      Huh, you haven’t actually refuted anything I said regarding the Japanese stance – they were hoping for ketsu-go, a decisive battle against an Allied land invasion. So far, you managed to prove that, in hindsight, some of the Allied commanders believe Japan was ready to surrender (even though they refused to do so when they had the chance) and it took the intervention of the emperor to break the deadlock, even after the two atomic bombings. And even then, a group of die-hard army officers attempted a coup to stop the surrender broadcast from being made (look up the Kyujo incident) – clearly that screamed “we’re ready to surrender, guys”!

      “If it is true that there was no military reason to nuke Japan, then there must have been a political reason, because no democratic leader kills civilians just for the fun of it. Two reasons seem likely. First, to evaluate the effect of the new weapon when used against a city. More likely, to send a signal to Stalin that the US had a new powerful weapon and were not afraid to use it even if it was not necessary to win the war. In this scenario the bombs were not the last shots of the Second World War but the first in the Cold War. ”

      This is revisionist history, and you should feel bad for engaging in it.

      “At the end you ask me a question”

      I asked you more than one question. I specifically asked you what you suggest Truman should have done. Even removed from the pressures Truman faced in 1945 you were unable to give a single serious, convincing, reliable and less costly alternative.

      And frankly, I don’t really see how WWII is related to the barbarities devout muslims are committing nowadays (I mean, other than witless false equivalence) – care to explain that?

      • Jan Aage Jeppersen says

        Jul 14, 2015 at 6:33 pm

        Thanks for taking the time to write an extensive reply.

        However, we are not getting closer to finding common ground in the interpretation of history here.

        This is not a textbook example about relying on authority and therefore committing a logical fallacy.

        What I am saying is that X is recognized by the government as experts on the subject and given full access to all relevant documents and time to examine everything before carefully drawing a conclusion.

        X concludes that from a military standpoint it was not necessary to nuke Japan to win the war.

        Therefore, X is probably right in its assessment. The more so because I have been unable to find leading officers who after the war, came to a different conclusion. The only group of people who claimed that the decision to nuke Japan was necessary and saved lives are the political class of decision makers.

        In a serious discussion it is your task to point out where X (The US Strategic Bombing Survey) made mistakes or used faulty data or refer to later studies by official groups of experts who came to a different conclusion.

        You have not done so. All you have done is pointing out the fact that some groups in the Japanese military believed in the doctrine to fight to the last man. And the fact, that some members of the government also believed in applying this honour codex of the warrior.

        Also you refer to President Truman who made the political decision to nuke Japan and evidently lied to the American people by calling Hiroshima a “military target” to morally justify his decision. He must have known that he was ordering the Air Force to commit a war crime and tried to justify it with a lie.

        It is the exception and not the norm that presidents admit mistakes. President Obama is not an exception. Regardless the number of serious crimes and barbarity committed by Muslims in the name of their religion Obama insists that Islam is a religion of peace and claim that the perpetrators have misunderstood their peaceful religion. He is in denial of facts and causality as well as president Truman was when claiming the necessity to nuke Japan to win the war.

        You end with a strawman argument and question:

        “I asked you more than one question. I specifically asked you what you suggest Truman should have done. Even removed from the pressures Truman faced in 1945 you were unable to give a single serious, convincing, reliable and less costly alternative.”

        I already gave you the best possible answer to that question by quoting the US Strategic Bombing Surveys conclusion:

        “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

        Finally you ask a question of the relevance of this discussion in the given context:

        “And frankly, I don’t really see how WWII is related to the barbarities devout muslims are committing nowadays (I mean, other than witless false equivalence) – care to explain that?”

        The relevance should be clear from my opening statement in my first provocative and ironic comment:

        “Blowing up babies in explosives training demonstration is an old established tradition. Some say it is barbaric, but how can that be when the moral leader of the free world 70 years ago decided to demonstrate the effect of a new type of bomb by killing 3,401 innocent Japanese schoolchildren?”

        Killing children without a very good and compelling reason, and that include abortion without indication, so called free abortion, is always morally wrong in my book. That’s my philosophy; maybe you have a better one?

        There were no compelling objective reasons to nuke Japan and killing scores of children, born and unborn, because the Japanese problem would have solved itself by being a little bit more patient, that is the conclusion of the most trustworthy survey made by experts in 1946.

        There could however have been subjective reasons to use the new nuclear weapon, that is political reasons, and those we can only speculate about, because they were never spelled out and explained.

        I don’t see a rational way to bridge our different assessments of the historical facts, so let us just say that we agree to disagree on this subject. Thanks for the discussion.

        • Angemon says

          Jul 14, 2015 at 8:25 pm

          Jan Aage Jeppersen posted:

          “This is not a textbook example about relying on authority and therefore committing a logical fallacy.

          What I am saying is that X is recognized by the government as experts on the subject and given full access to all relevant documents and time to examine everything before carefully drawing a conclusion.

          X concludes that from a military standpoint it was not neessary to nuke Japan to win the war.

          Therefore, X is probably right in its assessment.”

          Like I said, a textbook example of appeal to authority.

          “In a serious discussion it is your task to point out where X (The US Strategic Bombing Survey) made mistakes or used faulty data or refer to later studies by official groups of experts who came to a different conclusion.”

          Or, you know, look at how things happened – the Japanese refused to surrender before the first bomb when they had the chance, refused to surrender after the first bomb and even after the second bomb their decision makers were hellbent on having a last stand and gearing up for it. They even attempted a coup to prevent the surrender from being broadcast.

          “You have not done so. All you have done is pointing out the fact that some groups in the Japanese military believed in the doctrine to fight to the last man.”

          Not “some groups” – the decision makers. As far as I can tell, there was no organized group worthy of that name opposing the war.

          “Also you refer to President Truman who made the political decision to nuke Japan and evidently lied to the American people by calling Hiroshima a “military target” to morally justify his decision.”

          Hiroshima was an industrial center and had a major military headquarters. Field Marshal Shunroku Hata, the man tasked with defending Southern Japan in case of a land invasion, was stationed there, alongside an estimated 50,000 men. It’s not Truman who lied about Hiroshima’s military importance.

          “You end with a strawman argument and question:

          “I asked you more than one question. I specifically asked you what you suggest Truman should have done. Even removed from the pressures Truman faced in 1945 you were unable to give a single serious, convincing, reliable and less costly alternative.”

          I already gave you the best possible answer to that question by quoting the US Strategic Bombing Surveys conclusion”

          You seems to have missed a key point in that:

          “ it is the Survey’s opinion ”

          It’s an opinion, not a certainty. I asked for a serious, convincing, reliable alternative, not a “let’s do nothing and hope for the best” scenario. As I said, the Japanese were hoping for a land invasion to make their final, bloody stand. Crafts were being prepared for suicide attacks, hoping to destroy up to a third of the invading force before it made it to the shore, and civilians were being recruited into militias to fight alongside the military. It would be Okinawa from one end of the island to the other.

          “ that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.””

          That’s just wrong. I concede that an argument can be made that it was the Soviet’s declaration of war and not the atomic bombings that brought Japan down – after the Hiroshima, the troops were still on their positions, looking at the sea and expecting an invasion, just with another bombed city behind them – and Hiroshima, when compared with other cities who were subjected to conventional bombings, wasn’t that much destroyed or had that many casualties. The Japanese military might believe they could stand their ground against one enemy attacking from one side, but not against two enemies attacking in a pincer movement. In such a scenario, the bombs would allow them to save face – they lost to a new, miraculous weapon, not to a conventional opponent.

          “The relevance should be clear from my opening statement in my first provocative and ironic comment:

          “Blowing up babies in explosives training demonstration is an old established tradition. Some say it is barbaric, but how can that be when the moral leader of the free world 70 years ago decided to demonstrate the effect of a new type of bomb by killing 3,401 innocent Japanese schoolchildren?””

          So witless moral equivalence it was.

          “There were no compelling objective reasons to nuke Japan and killing scores of children, born and unborn, because the Japanese problem would have solved itself by being a little bit more patient, that is the conclusion of the most trustworthy survey made by experts in 1946.”

          That’s their belief, but it doesn’t add up to how the Japanese acted. And, in case you missed it, they didn’t drop the bomb to specifically kill schoolchildren, so your witless moral equivalence falls short.

          “There could however have been subjective reasons to use the new nuclear weapon, that is political reasons, and those we can only speculate about, because they were never spelled out and explained.”

          No subjectiveness required – Japan was told to surrender or face obliteration. They didn’t surrender.

          “I don’t see a rational way to bridge our different assessments of the historical facts”

          You’re not exactly assessing facts. You’re taking a post-war report that gives no certainties and claiming it’s the final word on the subject. I’m pointing out how the Japanese actually acted and how they forced Truman’s hand.

        • voegelinian says

          Jul 16, 2015 at 2:04 pm

          “The more so because I have been unable to find leading officers who after the war, came to a different conclusion. ”

          Jeppersen might try looking up General Curtis LeMay. Before or after he tries getting out of the paper bag he has put himself into.

  28. rev g says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 11:18 am

    Thanks Cecilia and everyone else. I just got down to this post in my email and you all had it well-covered.

  29. asdf says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 11:27 am

    “I’m barack obama, and I support this atrocity.”

  30. gravenimage says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Thank you, Mr. Spencer. This was hardly the only instance of dishonesty on the part of the appalling Muslim apologist “Stardusty Psyche”.

  31. gravenimage says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    I rarely comment on posts that have been removed, but I will make an exception here, since I had already planned on replying. “Stardusty Psyche’s” false moral equivalence could not be more absurd—he is referring to a historical incident which took place *3500 years ago*, and is, moreover, an account in a book whose veracity he has never recognized.

    The idea that Jews and Christians belong to faiths which sacralize the murder of infants could not be more grotesque. Leaving aside the issue of theology, what Jews and Christians are deliberately targeting babies? None at all.

    Would that this were true of Islam…

    • voegelinian says

      Jul 14, 2015 at 2:36 pm

      It also reveals the thought process of the Lefttst atheist (as StardustyPsyche was), where a simple idea fossilized as an ancient historical and anthropological artifact looms so large in his mind as a haunting presence only because of his hatred of Judaeo-Christianity (a hatred one reasonably supposes has psychological and familial sources), that he can so glibly put it on the same level as the grotesquely ghoulish acts of murder and torture, perpetrated by Muslims, not in the realm of ideas or in the pages of dusty ancient texts, but in real life this week, as part of nauseating volcano of horrible acts we have seen perpetrated around the world for years — a volcano, moreover, that shows no signs of subsiding into dormancy, but is getting worse every day.

      • Mirren10 says

        Jul 15, 2015 at 11:41 am

        Yippee !

        The repellent ‘sp’ is gone ?

        But is he back already, under the name of Jeppersen ?

      • gravenimage says

        Jul 15, 2015 at 5:33 pm

        Excellent post, Voeg.

        And while “Stardusty Psyche” is gone from Jihad Watch, there are many more of his ilk, including Jan Aage Jeppersen.

        They do not actually appear to be the same poster—the latter has been sounding off about Islam for quite some time in his own native language—but they are not dissimilar types, and I’m sure we will have to deal with much more of their false moral equivalence and apologia for evil in future.

  32. Victoria says

    Jul 14, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    This doesn’t seem to follow Islamic law. Children without pubic hair are supposed to be taken as slaves, not killed. What is the Islamic justification for this? Because, in all its atrocities, ISIS always follows Islamic law…

  33. voegelinian says

    Jul 15, 2015 at 1:20 am

    “I prefer to test my ideas in the cauldron of my detractors. I revel in the criticisms because that is the true test of my ideas…can they withstand the harshest criticisms of my most vociferous detractors? ”

    What “Stardusyt” means is that he practices the integrity of the examined life, in robust participation with his detractors — selectively — adroitly avoiding issues, threads, questions and challenges that would expose his agenda of subversive sophistry.

    I’ve discussed this before at length many times, including here:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/the-myth-of-islamic-science/comment-page-1#comment-1266923

    And here:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/the-myth-of-islamic-science/comment-page-1#comment-1266875

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Boycott Turkey on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • Mojdeh on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Jack on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.