• 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

Polish convert to Islam: “We will hold mass executions in St. Peter’s Square”

Aug 6, 2015 6:18 pm By Robert Spencer

St Peters SquareThe Islamic State has previously vowed: “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah.”

“Polish male convert for ISIS: You will die like all infidels,” RMF FM 24 (translated by Weronika Kania), August 5, 2015:

National radio RMF FM has recently publicized parts of interview with the Polish jihadi named Adrian Al N., in which he describes his journey to Syria and escaping the Polish service services before reaching his destination and adopting the new name Abu Bakr Al Sham. In the latest interview with the weekly ABC magazine, the convert confesses: “I will fight and become a martyr if necessary.” He also makes predictions of a “cruel judgement” and the transition of the war into European territory.

He also makes an appeal to the readers: “Convert while you still have the time and before we come to your homes to check your faithfulness to the Only God. If you fail to do so, you shall die like all infidels. Such is the law of Allah. We shall win and come over to Rome. We will hold mass executions in St. Peter’s Square.”

The interview carried out with the Polish jihadi is the first clear testimony of the participation of Polish nationals in the Islamic jihad led by ISIS. The man is one of up to 10 Polish converts who are now directly cooperating with the Islamic State or fighting within its ranks. Polish security services are aware of their existence.

The interview content reveals the amount of anger boiling inside the individuals who join Islamic terrorist organisations: ‘This world is full of hypocrites pretending to be religious people. You’re saying that we’re killing? You are killing us every day! A single day does not pass without you launching another crusade against Muslims. You’re killing our women and children and destroy the lives of entire communities. In the name of what? You have started war on our territory and now are crying that we wish to bring it over to yours? Consider this when you still have the time. It’s a war.”

The interview was carried out outside Polish territory. The jihadi is convinced that he does not intend to come back to the native country. He determines: “I will remain in the Islamic State and will be serving my brothers.”

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: converts to Islam, Featured, Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), Poland Tagged With: St. Peter's Square


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Angemon says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 6:34 pm

    You have started war on our territory and now are crying that we wish to bring it over to yours? Consider this when you still have the time. It’s a war.”

    Dude, you have a caliph and a caliphate – you can drop the “self-defence” sham.

  2. jayell says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    “We shall win and come over to Rome. We will hold mass executions in St. Peter’s Square.”

    I wonder how they’d react if someone gave them a taste of their own medicine, offering ‘like’ for ‘like’, as it were? For example, suggesting sending a plane across to Mecca and dropping a bomb or two on their holy ‘mosque’ (or whatever they call it) there? We couldn’t claim that it’s the law of OUR God, because we’re told that He doesn’t go in for things like that, but it seems that it would certainly be on Allah’s wave-length. In any case, as our friend said, it’s War.

    • Huck Folder says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 8:45 pm

      It’s called al-Latrine.

      (Hence: Piss Be Unto HIM).

      • jayell says

        Aug 7, 2015 at 4:23 am

        Well, one of our islamic friends who was going to leave a car-bomb outside a London night club said that he thought the UK was ‘like a toilet’. So your comment is perfectly fair!

    • Greyhound Fancier says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 9:48 pm

      One day the Mohammedans may regret backing us into a corner such that we must turn the black rock of Mecca and other pagan paraphernalia of theirs to glass.

    • Peggy says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 10:15 pm

      The Pope should say “Shut up because you are in our country and we are the ones who are in a position to hold mass executions in the square, not you”.
      Now that would put the fear of God into these Satanists.
      But, we all know that the Pope is hoping that he will be spared if he goes along.

    • voegelinian says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 2:31 am

      We must stop thinking Muslims will change. More instructive and useful are the horror movies of zombies who keep coming and don’t stop to think and wake up no matter how forcefully repelled. At a certain point, one simply has to concentrate on repelling, not changing hearts & minds. My advocacy of total deportation will be seen as the most humane. Trust me.

      • PRCS says

        Aug 7, 2015 at 5:30 am

        Once again, Hesp, where do you propose our government should deport millions of Muslims in America (yes, millions–many born here) to, exactly?

        And what if these mystical places say, “no, we’re not taking them”?

        What then? What’s game plan B?

        We can’t even deport the millions of illegal aliens here to their home countries.

        • Peggy says

          Aug 7, 2015 at 7:48 am

          Of course you can. Who’s going to stop you? You have a strong military and I am sure there would be many who would like to join them to fix this problem.
          But there is no will to do that.
          As far as where to deport them. Who cares? Put them on ships and they can become refugees in Muslim countries.

        • PRCS says

          Aug 7, 2015 at 9:33 am

          Peggy,

          I don’t know where you live or the laws there.

          Who’s going to stop our country from doing that? Well, specifically, those tasked with supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution and the laws which flow from it.

          American born citizens CANNOT have their citizenship forcibly stripped and CANNOT be deported against their will for any reason.

          Immigrants who become Naturalized U.S. Citizens–except for four specific offenses–CANNOT be either arbitrarily Denaturalized or deported against their will. Being a Muslim is NOT one of those offenses.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 7, 2015 at 11:55 am

          “Once again, Hesp, where do you propose our government should deport millions of Muslims in America”

          What do you mean “once again”? You say that as though I haven’t answered that dim question multiple times already. There are millions of square miles of land held under Muslim domination. All American Muslims could be deposited in the Sudan. I would even advocate we pay for parachutes, for a soft landing, and a backpack for each Muslim ejected with a boot out the hangar doors — a backpack containing water, food supplies (Underwood devilled ham sandwiches–yum!), first-aid kits, Playboy magazines, and complimentary Bibles. FUCK SAKE USE THE NOODLE GOD GAVE YA.

        • PRCS says

          Aug 8, 2015 at 2:04 am

          Your response demonstrates your childishness and stupidity.

          http://bmkllp.com/newsletters/immigration/loss-of-citizenship-for-u-s-born-citizens/

          http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

          http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartL-Chapter2.html

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 8, 2015 at 5:48 pm

          “any eligibility requirement for naturalization that was not met can form the basis for an action to revoke the naturalization of a person. This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution.”

          All Muslims qualify for that last one. By virtue of being a Muslim, and as long as they are Muslim, they not only fail to have attachment to the U.S. Constitution, they are positively at war against it and all the citizens under it.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 7:53 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “By virtue of being a Muslim, and as long as they are Muslim, they not only fail to have attachment to the U.S. Constitution, they are positively at war against it and all the citizens under it.”

          a couple of posts ago you said this:

          “Total Deportation would not be “merely for their beliefs”Total Deportation would not be “merely for their beliefs””

          Do you even try to keep track of what you write? You’re just as dull as the people in the left who can’t make the distinction between islam and muslims – islam mandates muslims to wage war against non-muslims, but one’s self-identification as muslim is no guarantee that he follows, or even knows, all islamic tenets. There’s no quiz or test of knowledge required when converting to islam. And I suspect your reply will be some sneer, reeking with spite and disdain, like “Asymptotic Angemon presenting a variation of the ‘Muslims who don’t know their Islam’ meme, let’s all point and laugh” because that’s all you, much like leftists, got: spite, disdain and attempted ridicule – facts, logic and reason are on the other side.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 2:55 pm

          Peggy said:

          “As far as where to deport them. Who cares? Put them on ships and they can become refugees in Muslim countries.”

          Eminent common sense, responding specifically to the inane “where to?” question (not to the other questions that question is through inept sophistry cloaking) — a common sense evidently lacking in so many no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:06 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “Eminent common sense, responding specifically to the inane “where to?” question (not to the other questions that question is through inept sophistry cloaking) — a common sense evidently lacking in so many no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists.”

          Wait – grabbing a bunch of, let’s say, American citizens and dumping them on some other country is what passes as “common sense” to you? I take it you’re OK with Fidel cleaning up Cuban prisons and sending the prisoners to the US then…

      • cranky.white.woman says

        Aug 9, 2015 at 12:46 pm

        That’s what I’d like to see as well. Just send the lot of them back to their Islamic hellholes, and send the western converts with them. Unfortunately, that won’t happen, so we need to be prepared to defend ourselves against those savages.

  3. Westman says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    “…Consider this when you still have the time. ”

    Dear delusional Abu Bakr Al Sham,

    I would submit that if your little group of Daesh mental defectives ever tries to take over Italy the Mafioso will take care of you. They don’t like anyone affecting their businesses and they are not appeasing liberals. And if further help is needed, the West will move in unity to finish the job. Come on over and meet your Houris.

  4. abad says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Sad.

    I’m 1/4 Polish (my mother’s side) and Poland has had bad luck historically – Hitler in most recent memory – the one thing it does not need is Islam.

    • Huck Folder says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      And Hitler’s then BF Stalin.

      Don’t forget the decades in the communist wilderness.
      Unless you are a communist?

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 7, 2015 at 2:38 am

        Good catch. There were countless anti-Communist anti-Nazis throughout Eastern Europe — and FDR hung them out to dry to kowtow to “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Diana West has detailed meticulously the sordid details, which challenge the received “court history” hagiographic of FDR.

    • The Doctor says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 3:32 pm

      No nation, people, planet, or universe needs Islam.

  5. Adorable_Atheist says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    The fiery rhetoric is impressive as always from those cowardly moslems.

  6. Jon Hammond says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Muslim converts seem to be the worst of the bunch when it comes to Islam and they suffer delusions of grandeur. I suspect that the majority of Muslim converts are mentally ill with a dark fetish for barbaric violence which is why they are so abnormally attracted to Islam rather than to other far more peaceful, civilized religions. After all, what could possibly be appealing about Islam to a normal human being? Absolutely nothing as far as I am concerned.

    • Paul says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 9:06 pm

      They do seem to be eager to prove a point. I remember reading something
      by Dr Ali Sina in which he commented that he always got a sense of pure
      evil emanating from Muslim converts in his debates with them and they were
      the most dangerous people of all, not something he really sensed with people
      who were born into Muslim families. I think that was after the horrific murder of
      Lee Rigby in Woolwich.

    • Frank says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 2:35 am

      After all, what could possibly be appealing about Islam to a normal human being? Absolutely nothing as far as I am concerned.
      Oh yes!.
      First af all, what is a normal human being?
      And secondly, being a muslim
      i can rape, I can steal, I can kill anyone I choose for whatever reason I might think of.
      Who are we talking about? Psychopaths, pure and simple!
      If I were one, I’d choose to be a muslim.

  7. Pumbar says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    So he’s staying out there? After three months of washing soiled jihadi undies and cooking halal baked beans things may be different. He probably has no arabic: he’ll be a shaheen or a returnee in three months and no one will cry when he gets danced around the backstreets of the rougher parts of Warsaw.

  8. Voytek Gagalka says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    Being a Pole myself I knew not from yesterday that some Poles were (are) crazy. But I did not expect that they are crazy as this dude! Delusional and murderous moron!

    • Peggy says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 10:18 pm

      There are evil people in every country and they are the ones converting.
      Doing Satan’s will is the reason these morons convert in the first place. It’s just a pity that the overwhelming majority of normal people in the west don’t start bashing these idiots. Put some fear into them and watch them settle down.

  9. Cecilia Ellis says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    “Convert while you still have the time and before we come to your homes to check your faithfulness to the Only God. If you fail to do so, you shall die like all infidels. Such is the law of Allah. We shall win and come over to Rome. We will hold mass executions in St. Peter’s Square.”

    Let’s see, Abu Bakr Al Sham, the Basilica of St. Peter holds over 60,000 people. St. Peter’s Square holds about 400,000, which does not include the numbers which might extend far down the converging streets. That’s a lot of people. How many people can fit into the area surrounding the Ka’aba? Let’s see, that would be about 48,000 right now. Then there’s Medina, where Muhammad is buried at Al-Masjid an-Nabawi. It has a capacity of about 600,000, which increases to about one million during the Hajj. Now that’s a lot a people, too. So, on a clear day, make your move, Abu, and we will make ours . . . two for one. Since you are Sunni, we will leave your Islamic Iranian enemy alone . . . just for Israel to take care of alone. There are not enough virgins in your Paradise to accommodate all of you in such a short time; so, get in line to take a number. Such is the law of the West.

    • Greyhound Fancier says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 10:06 pm

      It would be amazing to see what would happen to the Mohammedans once their “holy places” were destroyed. Would anything suffice to bring them to their senses?

      • Cecilia Ellis says

        Aug 6, 2015 at 11:07 pm

        “Would anything suffice to bring them to their senses?”

        Greyhound, chances are that the only thing that would bring them to their senses is that they see that Allah is no god and Muhammad is no prophet. They will only see this in defeat, because Allah “fights with them.” When Allah fails, Muhammad fails. When Muhammad fails, all who seek to emulate him have lost their “perfect man.” The illusion then fades into reality. How that happens and when it happens, I do not know . . . but it will happen.

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 7, 2015 at 2:40 am

        1400 years of history indicates a resounding No.

        • Cecilia Ellis says

          Aug 7, 2015 at 11:08 am

          You do make a good point there . . .

  10. gravenimage says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    Polish convert to Islam: “We will hold mass executions in St. Peter’s Square”
    ……………………………..

    Awww–aren’t the dreams of pious Muslim converts inspiring? sarc/off

  11. EYESOPEN says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    “… Consider this when you still have the time. It’s a war.”

    Yeah you pos. It’s a war that was started by Mad Mo over 1400 years ago.

  12. tiredofstupid says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    HEY BIG NEWS I just got a personal from the angel gabriel himself–He said -and I quote-It’s sweet raisins not doe eyed virgins and I don’t give permission–ALLAH

    • Cecilia Ellis says

      Aug 6, 2015 at 11:12 pm

      🙂

    • duh_swami says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 8:47 am

      Allah’s Paradise is the only place in the universe you can find raisins with big boobs…Allah thinks of everything…

      • Cecilia Ellis says

        Aug 8, 2015 at 12:34 am

        Duh_swami, do you think maybe Allah abrogated that raisin verse and gave Muhammad something better, after hearing Muhammad complain that if he did all that killing, raping, and pillaging, all he would get would be a lousy box of Del Monte dried grapes?

  13. G179 says

    Aug 6, 2015 at 11:21 pm

    Too bad, he must have read the wrong Quran!

  14. Jay Boo says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 1:42 am

    Mo-Bama and Head Bump Hillary — Please speak up.

    What do we have to do burn a Quran to rouse their ire?

  15. Diana says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 3:07 am

    We really shouldn’t be surprised that this nut-job is expressing views like this, after all there’s nothing quite like the zeal of the newly converted. And such good role models for him to follow!
    Most reasonable people can probably see that he was only ever ättracted to the so-called religion of peace perpetrated the psychopathic, plundering, profiteering paedophile (p!iss be upon him) because this tragic Pole must have had a pre-existing psychological problem. Proof positive of this primitive, perfidious pathology has been provided for over 1400 years now.
    Ah islam – I say it is indeed the religion of p’s

  16. dumbledoresarmy says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 3:17 am

    After reading this diatribe, can any person possessed of common-sense deny that at its core Islam involves the wholesale worship of Thanatos? That it is not simply a Death Cult, but a cult of Murder, of human sacrifice on the grand scale? **It’s all about the killing**.

    Those muslimahs prancing about our streets, so faux-demure in their Slave Hoods that deceptively mimic (but are utterly different in meaning from) the nun’s wimple, or deliberately spreading terror when they wear the Slave Mask, are proudly advertising their membership in the Religion of Murder. Theft, slavery and rape, too, ad nauseam..but mainly, at the beginning, middle and end, MURDER.

    • My Shari'a Moor says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 8:34 am

      dda…THANX!
      It’s always a delight to read your INFORMATIVE posts!
      Yes, Islam personifies “thanatos” (G. – murderousness & death) & engenders an abject “thelema” (G. – an evil state of being) here on Earth!
      Highest regards,
      MSM

    • The Doctor says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 3:37 pm

      A nun’s habit looks dignified and modest. A burqa looks like a bin bag.

      • Wellington says

        Aug 7, 2015 at 10:46 pm

        I would comment further along these lines to the effect that a nun’s habit is not dispositive of a sartorial representation which is a symbol of a threat to liberty, contra most definitely a burqa.

  17. Carl Clark says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:30 am

    ISIS / ISIL are an insult to Islam, while their hypocritical leaders, rape children, rape young men, take drugs and alcohol, loot and pillage money from poor people, are given millions by the rich Arab states in blackmail money, they showcase the murders and tortures of homosexuals, thieves, prostitutes pedophiles, all things they are doing while drug and alcohol fueled all the brothers of Satan

    • My Shari'a Moor says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 8:45 am

      @Carl Clark…What?
      How can IS/ISIL/ISIS leaders be regarded as having somehow insulted Islam when those mugz eagerly UPHOLD Islam’s BASIC tenets!
      Their DEGENERATE acts have EVERYTHING to do with fell, foul Islam, of course!
      IS’ “limping-leader” (Al-Baghdadi) has TWO degrees in Islamic juriprudence (he’s an IMAM!), FFS!
      So, READ the Koran &/or FADE!

      • Carl Clark says

        Aug 7, 2015 at 10:30 am

        I have read the Koran, interesting biography of someone who is a good storyteller who said half way through Allah has changed his mind ??? if Allah is the one true God then he gets everything right from the start, he is not like us humans, his mind is unique and right ? or is he human like us nipping out to a cave with his scribe to complete his bestseller ? the story also is mixed with taking things from other religions which suits certain people, he is certainly enterprising and saw the value in getting others on his side. It is true that many Christians and other religious bodies have their fair share of abusers the Catholic Church being among the worst of the criminal fraternities, we were not meant to have temples or buildings Jesus said that from the start, where 2 or 3 gather that is my Church, Christianity took many things from the Jewish faith and later added and left out what they desired and what they objected to.I am not having a go at any religion but to say the leaders of ISIL / ISIS uphold the basic tenets makes a mockery out of Islam, where does it say stone to death women, it says treat all women with respect or have I got that wrong, the criminals on the ground listen to the leaders therefore guilty of murder, does it mean to be a good Muslim you have to murder the weak and vulnerable? it does in the Bible or does Allah read the Bible and think thats a good one I will slip it into the Koran? you know as well as I do if you know the Koran, Mohammed changed his stance to violence and punishing those outside Islam the more powerful he got, he replaced peaceful Sura’s with more provocative ones that instigated taxes on those non Muslims and punishments were devised out of his human mind and his advisors and not from Allah. You see where it gets us to now days? here in the U.K there is a hatred of Islam because of ignorance and those in ISIS and ISIL are doing the job that propagandists in the U.S & Israeli military and governments were doing up until recently. ISIS / ISIL are the best thing that ever happened to the west as they can now put all Muslims in the same boat and tar them all with the same brush, this is the beginning of the end for Islam as we know it, the west will support the Shia’s into dividing the Islamic world while demonising the Sunni’s Takfiri’s Wahibi’s and Salaafist;’s among a few including their Arab allies in the house of Saud,Qatar and U.A.E. America are sitting back and rubbing their hands while passing money out to all of the above. The more money they got the more damage they can do to each other which is the whole aim of the west chaos, conflict and war = money and lots of it. I once said to a packed Mosque in Iraq why do all Muslims not get together you would be able to deal with the west on better terms if you were united, you would be in a much stronger position militarily, you would all have a Nuclear deterrent, you would be the driving force in the world if united behind one banner, there were 76 groups from different countries in the Islamic world within five minutes many groups were arguing while trying to eject Shia’s who the others did not class as Muslims, twenty minutes there were several fist fights, the first deaths by stabbing occurred twenty five minutes into the Islamic conference of the nations, gunmen from two groups started firing at each other and finally two suicide bombers killed and wounded 442 people, this happened several years ago, the American advisors I had travelled there with said it went as planned and we did not have to lift a finger……… my point is religion is dead and buried if violence, hatred, human or civil rights are abused then it is a false religion with false teaching no God would allow this to happen to his creation? do you think Allah / God created a perfect human being to then destroy it no but we are given the choice and we choose to kill maim and destroy each other with hatred in our hearts, the leaders of the Churches, Mosques, Temples and Synagogues are the teachers who have failed we are all bothers and sisters ? everything Allah / God does is for his glory and mercy to shine on this earth and be an example to others to follow his ways. We have not learned and we never will that is the one mistake God / Allah made he gave us a choice and given that choice we will always pick the wrong path.

        • gravenimage says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 1:15 am

          Carl Clark wrote:

          ISIS / ISIL are an insult to Islam, while their hypocritical leaders, rape children, rape young men, take drugs and alcohol, loot and pillage money from poor people, are given millions by the rich Arab states in blackmail money, they showcase the murders and tortures of homosexuals, thieves, prostitutes pedophiles, all things they are doing while drug and alcohol fueled all the brothers of Satan
          …………………………..

          Apart from the references to drugs and alcohol–which, incidentally, I have never heard of ISIS using–all of this is perfectly Islamic.

          In fact, the idea that ISIS is fueled by un-Islamic drugs and alcohol does not hold water at all:

          “ISIS cracks down on cigarettes and alcohol: Extraordinary pictures emerge of hardline jihadists piling whisky, beer and tobacco onto bonfire”

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2860615/ISIS-cracks-cigarettes-alcohol-Extraordinary-pictures-emerge-hardline-jihadists-piling-whisky-beer-tobacco-bonfire.html

          More:

          I am not having a go at any religion but to say the leaders of ISIL / ISIS uphold the basic tenets makes a mockery out of Islam, where does it say stone to death women, it says treat all women with respect or have I got that wrong,
          …………………………..

          Yes, you *do* have that wrong. Qur’an 3:43 condones wife beating. And stoning women is sacralized as a part of Islam in the Hadith; the baleful “Prophet” himself had women stoned to death.

          More:

          the criminals on the ground listen to the leaders therefore guilty of murder, does it mean to be a good Muslim you have to murder the weak and vulnerable? it does in the Bible or does Allah read the Bible and think thats a good one I will slip it into the Koran? you know as well as I do if you know the Koran
          …………………………..

          That’s *exactly* what the Qur’an says–Qur’an 9:5 says to kill the Infidels wherever you find them.

          More:

          . , Mohammed changed his stance to violence and punishing those outside Islam the more powerful he got, he replaced peaceful Sura’s with more provocative ones that instigated taxes on those non Muslims and punishments were devised out of his human mind and his advisors and not from Allah.
          …………………………..

          What makes you think that the early Suras are “from Allah”, and latter ones are not? As Islam has it the latter verses abrogate the earlier ones. Certainly, pious Muslims don’t believe that the earlier, weaker Suras are the only ones that should be attributed to Allah–far from it.

          More:

          You see where it gets us to now days? here in the U.K there is a hatred of Islam because of ignorance
          …………………………..

          You call anyone ignorant who does not adhere to your very un-Islamic claim that only the less violent scriptures are authentically Islamic? What rot.

          More:

          ..and those in ISIS and ISIL are doing the job that propagandists in the U.S & Israeli military and governments were doing up until recently.
          …………………………..

          What crap. The usual claim–that is was only the filthy Infidels–especially the perfidious Jews–that give Islam a bad name. Ignore those over 26,000 Jihad terror attacks…

          More:

          ISIS / ISIL are the best thing that ever happened to the west as they can now put all Muslims in the same boat and tar them all with the same brush,
          …………………………..

          What crap. No pious Muslim rejects Jihad and the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law.

          More:

          this is the beginning of the end for Islam as we know it, the west will support the Shia’s into dividing the Islamic world while demonising the Sunni’s Takfiri’s Wahibi’s and Salaafist;’s among a few including their Arab allies in the house of Saud,Qatar and U.A.E
          …………………………..

          What genuine Infidel rants about the Shia? Only Sunni Muslims do this.

          More:

          America are sitting back and rubbing their hands while passing money out to all of the above. The more money they got the more damage they can do to each other which is the whole aim of the west chaos, conflict and war = money and lots of it.
          …………………………..

          What crap. Muslim-on-Muslim savagery, including the Sunni/Shi’ite split, predates the existence of the United States by 1100 years. The idea that this is all fueled by the bad ol’ West is absurd. Moreover, even today many Americans are still completely ignorant of the doctrinal fault lines of Islam.

          More:

          I once said to a packed Mosque in Iraq why do all Muslims not get together you would be able to deal with the west on better terms if you were united, you would be in a much stronger position militarily, you would all have a Nuclear deterrent, you would be the driving force in the world if united behind one banner…
          …………………………..

          What Infidel would be allowed to address a Mosque in Iraq? And what Infidel would counsel the unification of the Muslim world so that they can threaten the West with nuclear violence? Pretty iffy…

          More:

          twenty minutes there were several fist fights, the first deaths by stabbing occurred twenty five minutes into the Islamic conference of the nations, gunmen from two groups started firing at each other and finally two suicide bombers killed and wounded 442 people, this happened several years ago, the American advisors I had travelled there with said it went as planned and we did not have to lift a finger………
          …………………………..

          More crap–the idea that the sanguinary violence of Islam is all the fault of America could not be more ludicrous.

          More:

          my point is religion is dead and buried if violence, hatred, human or civil rights are abused then it is a false religion with false teaching no God would allow this to happen to his creation?
          …………………………..

          This describes Islam to a T…

    • PRCS says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 9:42 am

    • Avenger says

      Aug 9, 2015 at 3:39 pm

      Carl look at prior caliphates, they all tortured and slaughtered just like ISIS today but without the modern shared visuals.

      Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of in ISIS.

  18. Luke Ahead says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 5:30 am

    Perhaps, it’s not a good idea to let these people spread propaganda on a democratic radio is it? I’m for shutting them down and ridding them of access to our media. They will speak to our military and intel only.

  19. Athiest Kufar says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 7:54 am

    Every atheist and agnostic holds in their hearts Jewish christian values. If they say they don’t they are lying. They just need to live in a non Christian country to find that out. Atheism is not a religion. It is only the disbelief in god or gods. Many Christians and Jews are atheist or agnostic but that doesn’t stop them from having Christian Jewish values. Atheist and agnostic are critical thinkers this is why they reject the belief in god or gods. The consequence of this philosophical position is that all religions are man made. It is secularism that allows the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion .. What unites Atheists is the notion of freedom from religion. We don’t want religion pushed down our throats What must unite everyone is exactly what Robert Spencer states in everyone of his speeches and discussions. The protection of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.and conscious Some Atheist are stuck in the idea of religious relativism. That is to say that all religions are man made and therefore they are all nonsense. However religions are not all the same far from it because there is one religion or cult that wants to kill everyone starting with Atheists This is not the first time that a religion wants to kill Atheists The threat of death is a powerful one. The Jews have been living with this threat since Mohamed. That is a long time to be constantly threaten by annihilation. and genocide. The lack of rationalism by fanatical Muslims is something difficult to overcome. Bill Warren states that this battle can’t be won with a war. It is a war of truth and ideas. Robert Spenser states the same thing. However how many people need to die before the tide turns. Iran will get the bomb, the deal is meaningless for the Iranians.and for the west as well. There is no happy ending in the theological end game. So when it comes down to them or us. I know what side I am on. I also believe that the first nuclear war will happen in the middle east. When there is no Messiah that arrives on white horse. Islam will be dead.

  20. dh_swami says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 9:11 am

    The Polish jihadist is blood thirsty like his god, Drac’ullah, the blood sucker. When you pledge allegiance to Drac’ullah, getting bit on the neck is shahada, initiation into the ‘Order of Naspheratu’…
    A wooden stake driven into the heart of the beast kills it…I always carry a sharp stake with me just in case I’m attacked by one of Drac’s apprentices, called jihadists. There’s nothing an aspiring jihadist hates more than bring stuck in the chest with a wooden stake by an infidel…Dr Van Helsing told me that……

    • NorthStar says

      Aug 7, 2015 at 10:23 am

      Please. Dracula was from Valachia, present Romania/Bulgaria, not Poland.

      • duh_swami says

        Aug 8, 2015 at 7:36 am

        Haha…’Drac’ullah’ is my invention… I’m going to apply for a patent…I also invented sarcasm and ridicule…I already have patents on them, but anyone is free to use them.

    • voegelinian says

      Aug 8, 2015 at 4:38 pm

      Peggy,

      “When I said who is going to stop us I meant that those laws must be broken for the sake of survival.”

      No need to break any laws. If one looks at the behavior of police and intelligence agents over the decades in America or Australia (or any Western polity), one could document hundreds (if not thousands of times) where they treated citizens in ways that would appear illegal — but which were mandated by exigent circumstances where criminals (and/or terrorists) were endangering lives in public places.

      If, for example by way of analogy, there is an ongoing crisis where an undetermined number of individuals (during the crisis, nobody knows if it’s one or a dozen or more individuals) are shooting from high and low places in a busy city center at random people. As the crisis unfolds, the murderous individuals have already killed 49 random people on the street, in cars, even through windows of various office buildings and cafes, etc. There is every indication the mass murders will continue, if not increase.– and perhaps escalate into use of bombs or even some forms of chemical or biological WMDs. Now, in this unstable, metastasizing context of utmost deadly urgency, police and intelligence personnel will do any number of things against citizens:

      1) Commandeer whole offices, suites, apartments, shops, etc. without a warrant.

      2) Prevent free access of public spaces in order to cordon off zones to set up perimeters for safety and opposition to the murderer(s).

      3) Commandeer vehicles.

      4) Round up and detain various individuals and search their persons and belongings, without a warrant.

      etc.

      If a person presented with this analogy merely looks at the behavior of the police & intelligence personnel, but discounts (or ludicrously minimizes) their whole raison d’être — the mass-murderous emergency I described — then of course they could find legal fault with such behavior. That is what the ADs (Anti-Deportationists) do whenever Total Deportation is discussed. Their only saving grace is the fact that the emergency of Muslim invasion is so sprawling, complex, multi-layered, and protracted it allows people wiggle room to get away with minimizing its horrific deadliness against our societies. One of course expects PC MCs to exploit this wiggle room; one however does not expect, and one is dismayed to notice, when people even in the Counter-Jihad do the piggly-wiggly all day long.

      • Angemon says

        Aug 9, 2015 at 7:47 am

        voegelinian posted:

        “No need to break any laws.”

        Of course, you never actually explain how that works – if there is no need to break any laws, one would expect you to come and say something like “such and such laws allows to do this and that”. But you never did that.

        “If one looks at the behavior of police and intelligence agents over the decades in America or Australia (or any Western polity), one could document hundreds (if not thousands of times) where they treated citizens in ways that would appear illegal — but which were mandated by exigent circumstances where criminals (and/or terrorists) were endangering lives in public places.”

        Pointless sophistry – either you can explain what laws you’d resort to or not.

        “If, for example by way of analogy”

        Unless your analogy ends up with everyone professing a certain ideology being deported, it’s not an apt one.

        “If a person presented with this analogy merely looks at the behavior of the police & intelligence personnel, but discounts (or ludicrously minimizes) their whole raison d’être — the mass-murderous emergency I described — then of course they could find legal fault with such behavior.”

        No one would find any legal fault if the police limited themselves to uphold the law – you know, what they swear to do when they take up the job. What you’re suggesting is the same kind of mentality that ends in public lynching. It’s the same reasoning that lead to pogroms in the medieval era – people getting sick for no apparent reason, Jews must have poisoned the well, kill them.

        “That is what the ADs (Anti-Deportationists) do whenever Total Deportation is discussed.”

        Can you point to an “anti-deportationist” doing that somewhere? I’m guessing that no, you can’t – you just need to lie about what others say or do as to make your stance seem palatable.

        “One of course expects PC MCs to exploit this wiggle room; one however does not expect, and one is dismayed to notice, when people even in the Counter-Jihad do the piggly-wiggly all day long.”

        One would not expect someone who spent years (and with no end in sight) attacking and deriding people like Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Jamie Glazov, etc, to claim to be a part of the CJ movement.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 3:11 pm

          What’s the specific law allowing a policeman to kill a person? What was the law specifically allowing the American government under FDR to round up American citizens and put them in camps until WW2 was over? Did (do) either of those actions require any new laws or rewriting of laws? What causes those actions to be legally allowed? (I suspect of Angemon actually goes through the process of thinking about these questions — rather than devising sophistry against me in the interest of his ethical narcissism — smoke will begin to come out of his ears…)

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:21 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “What’s the specific law allowing a policeman to kill a person?”

          Unless you’re suggesting the police should come and kill all muslims in the US, that’s a red herring.

          “ What was the law specifically allowing the American government under FDR to round up American citizens and put them in camps until WW2 was over?”

          Again red herring – if FDR had deported them, you might have had a point there. Since he didn’t…

          “Did (do) either of those actions require any new laws or rewriting of laws?”

          Again, what do they have to do with expelling native citizens from their country of origin? It’s like you can’t answer a simple question and need to throw irrelevancies around, like a monkey with its feces, hoping something sticks…

          “What causes those actions to be legally allowed?”

          Policemen who kill someone in the line of duty are held accountable for their actions – they can’t go around shooting people. And Reagan, on behalf of the US government, apologized for the internment of the Japanese people. Also, many of those in the camps went there willingly. Finally, many Japanese-Americans fought for the US during WWII – only a small percentage of the Japanese-American population was actually interned.

          See, that’s what happens when you resort to sophistry – you get the rug pulled out from under your feet and you fall ass-first in the ground, hurting your neck in the process.

          “(I suspect of Angemon actually goes through the process of thinking about these questions”

          I didn’t because, like I said, they’re irrelevant to what you’re proposing. Like I just proved.

          “rather than devising sophistry against me”

          Projection. Sheer and unadulterated projection.

          “in the interest of his ethical narcissism — smoke will begin to come out of his ears…)”

          Ad-hominem.

          So, are you going to make a case for yourself or are you sticking to irrelevancies and sneers that add nothing to the discussion?

  21. mike says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    This nut seems to forget that no one would be doing anything to these stinking barbarians if it wasn’t made necessary as a self defense measure from them.

  22. Peggy says

    Aug 7, 2015 at 10:33 pm

    PRCS says

    August 7, 2015 at 9:33 am

    Peggy,

    I don’t know where you live or the laws there.

    Who’s going to stop our country from doing that? Well, specifically, those tasked with supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution and the laws which flow from it.

    American born citizens CANNOT have their citizenship forcibly stripped and CANNOT be deported against their will for any reason.
    ==========================
    I know the laws about that because they are the same here in Australia, BUT, seeing how this is war, desperate times require desperate measures.
    They don’t play by the book so if we must play by the book then we are finished.
    When I said who is going to stop us I meant that those laws must be broken for the sake of survival. If you want to make an omelet you must break a few eggs.
    If we in the west decide collectively that this is the only way to deal with it, it won’t matter if we break these rules. We don’t have to take ourselves to trial over it. The only way to win a war is by not being shackled by laws which our enemy doesn’t live by.
    I can’t see any other way for our own survival.

    • PRCS says

      Aug 8, 2015 at 2:53 am

      The logical course is to enforce laws against sedition and treason, and to so thoroughly expose Islam’s true teachings and it’s ultimate goal that a nation’s “unbelievers’–including its gutless leaders–will not only no longer accept excuses and obfuscations by Muslims and their Western enablers but will publicly challenge them to defend the indefensible and to finally turn against them.

      It is essential that every challenge to Muslims in the West must cite their own texts and the law of the land against them.

      Advocating to defy the West’s relevant laws puts one in the same league as its Muslim antagonists and leads to anarchy.

      Imagine what a great day it will be when Tony Abbott publicly tells Muslims in Australia that he’s read Qur’an and it’s unequivocally obvious to him that specific tenets of that complete way of life–as written– are antithetical to the very concept of democracy and are incompatible with the Australian Constitution and laws.

      • Peggy says

        Aug 8, 2015 at 4:34 am

        So you think that we can somehow convince them about how horrible Islam is and argue our point successfully.
        We will never be able to do that with these nutters. They love the brutality of Islam. They love the idea of being dominant over others so we will never be able to argue anything successfully.
        They know what their unholy book says and they love it.
        As far as us being able to control them using our laws is concerned, well that’s only wishful thinking. There are many ready to take the place of the one we kill or imprison. It will never end until we get rid of them. Cutting Cancer bit by bit does not cure a person. You have to cut it out completely.
        So we have to get rid of majority of Muslims at least.
        Think about it and you will see that your way will not work.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 8, 2015 at 7:51 am

          Peggy posted:

          “So you think that we can somehow convince them about how horrible Islam is and argue our point successfully.”

          I’m pretty sure that when PRCS wrote “The logical course is to enforce laws against sedition and treason” he didn’t mean “we need to convince muslims that islam is a bad idea”…

  23. DP111 says

    Aug 8, 2015 at 5:50 am

    Polish convert to Islam: “We will hold mass executions in St. Peter’s Square”

    He should look around the world. For the last two decades it is the Islamic world that is being bombed and burnt. There is a slight lull at the moment, interspersed with just drones, but this period will come to an end when a new president comes to DC.

    • Wellington says

      Aug 8, 2015 at 11:57 am

      That’s because that’s where the terror emanates from, much of it Muslim on Muslim killing and maiming. Islam is a completely screwed up religion which is replete with intolerance and violence. It is a burden to all mankind. Wise up and figure out where the true fault lies.

  24. Peggy says

    Aug 8, 2015 at 7:59 am

    I’m pretty sure that when PRCS wrote “The logical course is to enforce laws against sedition and treason” he didn’t mean “we need to convince muslims that islam is a bad idea”
    =================
    I know what he/she meant but we can’t round them all up.
    Like I said there will always be more and more to take the place of the one we get. It’s too late for that now.
    We have to get as many out of our countries out as we can.

    “It is essential that every challenge to Muslims in the West must cite their own texts and the law of the land against them”

    I understand this to mean that we should be able to win an argument, hence convince them that they are on the wrong path.
    Maybe I misunderstood this sentence.

    • Peggy says

      Aug 8, 2015 at 8:01 am

      This was a response to Angemon re: PRCS’s comment.
      ==============

      This was a comment to me from PRCS

      “It is essential that every challenge to Muslims in the West must cite their own texts and the law of the land against them”

      • PRCS says

        Aug 8, 2015 at 1:08 pm

        You can’t control people’s thoughts, and trying to convince Muslims that their complete way of life is idiotic and wrong is, generally, a waste of time.

        The notion that millions of them can be deported from Western nations–against their will– merely for their beliefs just isn’t going to happen.

        If not prohibited by foolishly enacted laws–Islam must endure the same public critique, criticism, and legal restrictions on its practice as any other religion in order for an informed and motivated public to finally and assertively push back and for government to punish those who act out those of Islam’s commands which violate the law.

        That Islam defines Muslims as “the best of people, raised up for all mankind” with the rest of us being “the vilest of creating beings”, along with its many other supremacist teachings, should be loudly, frequently, and publicly denounced as politically incorrect, morally outrageous and personally offensive.

        My primary copy of Qur’an, “THE MESSAGE of THE QUR’AN”, provided by CAIR, devotes almost an entire page in justifying the amputation of thieves’ hand(s).

        Islam’s own texts must be used by an informed public to challenge and discredit Muslim excuses and obfuscations and to proclaim that while Muslim’s are entitled to their religious beliefs–offensive as they are to the rest of us–those beliefs will not be allowed to go further than just that.

        I’m a he; retired military, and I live in California.

        • Peggy says

          Aug 8, 2015 at 9:58 pm

          I understand what you are saying but informing the public is not enough because we, as the public, don’t have any power. We think we do but in reality we don’t. What power do we hold over Obama or anyone like him? You can vote against the Democrats but Republican politicians are not going to go against Islam either. What power do you really have?
          We disagree on the method. At this time I can’t see anything working because the media is in bed with Islamists too.
          We have to get the message out any way we can ourselves and then if it takes a revolution so be it.
          If it is going to take a revolution then there is no point in allowing Muslims to stay. We must deport as many Muslims as we can because in fifty years time we are going to be in the same situation again. They breed like rabbits and they will be more rabid.

          Allowing them to stay is just too dangerous.
          Obviously you and I are going to agree that there is a huge Muslim problem in the west but disagree on the solution.

        • PRCS says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 12:42 am

          “we, as the public, don’t have any power”

          Peggy, I hope you will agree: that statement also means the general public doesn’t have the power to initiate or carry out either mass deportations or the cessation of Muslim immigration into Western nations.

          The revolution, IMO, needs to one in which Islam and its adherents are fully marginalizes; shamed, if you will, to the point of either leaving Islam or Western nations.

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 8, 2015 at 4:13 pm

        “The notion that millions of them can be deported from Western nations–against their will– merely for their beliefs…”

        Notice how these ADs (Anti-Deportationists) create straw men. Total Deportation would not be “merely for their beliefs”; it would be based on the mass-murderous military sedition which has already murdered our citizens, has already plotted dozens of mass-murderous plots we reasonably count as actual (for that was their intent), and plans horrific mass-murders using WMDs against us in the future, which we reasonably conclude we will be less likely to prevent if we allow Muslims to remain and continue to aggrandize and infiltrate. The phrase “merely for their beliefs” is asinine and misleading, and an outrage considering what Muslims have already done and said (including those who lie about their intents) and what they plan to do against us.

        • Wellington says

          Aug 8, 2015 at 7:02 pm

          Yeah, you’re at it again, voegelinian. And so I would put to you this SPECIFIC query: How many American federal judges do you think would agree with you about mass deportation of Muslims from America? Don’t waffle here. In rough percentage terms, how many federal judges would go along with you here on mass deportation from America of Mo’s followers?

          I say none (and even if there were one or two, which quite frankly I doubt, it would still prove my overall point).. What say you?

          I say this: You “get” Islam very well, but your solutions for dealing with this monstrosity of a religion lie in the land of high theory and gross ignorance. And therefore, I submit, you are ultimately of no use in dealing in a practical and legal way with the great menace which Islam poses to free societies like America.

          And don’t ignore my chief question, that being how many federal judges would go along with your idea of mass deportation? Oh yeah, don’t dodge this. DON’T DODGE THIS!

        • prcs says

          Aug 8, 2015 at 8:48 pm

          Here’s my response to the voeg (who has gone by numerous handles here over the years) yesterday concerning his deportation “program”.

          PRCS says
          August 7, 2015 at 5:30 am
          Once again, Hesp, where do you propose our government should deport millions of Muslims in America (yes, millions–many born here) to, exactly?
          And what if these mystical places say, “no, we’re not taking them”?
          What then? What’s game plan B?
          We can’t even deport the millions of illegal aliens here to their home countries.

          Note his selective response:

          voegelinian says
          August 7, 2015 at 11:55 am
          “Once again, Hesp, where do you propose our government should deport millions of Muslims in America”
          What do you mean “once again”? You say that as though I haven’t answered that dim question multiple times already. There are millions of square miles of land held under Muslim domination. All American Muslims could be deposited in the Sudan. I would even advocate we pay for parachutes, for a soft landing, and a backpack for each Muslim ejected with a boot out the hangar doors — a backpack containing water, food supplies (Underwood devilled ham sandwiches–yum!), first-aid kits, Playboy magazines, and complimentary Bibles.”

          Only a moron would propose such a preposterously stupid and obviously illegal final solution for serious adult consideration. Note, too, although I’ve asked him many times, he doesn’t have a plan B. He also doesn’t explain how our government will be convinced to violate the U.S. Constitution and American law in order to round up 2-3 million Muslims in order to get them to the airport.

          And, yes, he knows full well that punishments–where warranted–are meted out to individuals–in this country–for criminal acts they have personally committed or facilitate–after their day in court; not for those whose beliefs; however vulgar we know them to be–have not crossed the line into criminal action.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:08 am

          Another straw man from the AD (Anti-Deportationist) Wellington. I have never claimed the Total Deportation meme was doable today, or tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow; as he so solemnly implies I have. In 1750, there were various individuals and groups who dreamed of the abolition of slavery, and in various ways agitated for the idea. In 1750, someone who accepted the perpetual fait accompli of slavery would rhetorically challenge a proto-Abolitionist in virtually the same way Wellington challenged me here, thinking he had won the debate by pointing out the present inertia to the ideal. But those abolitionists pushed and pushed the meme, decade after decade, generation after generation; and finally after more than a century, their dream came true. But such dreams will likely never come to pass if nearly everyone dismisses them out of hand, and even opposes them. Imagine of the nascent Abolition movement were filled with pessimistic naysayers who gnawed away at the dream, the meme, from within. The eventual abolition of slavery likely would have been significantly retarded, if it ever even came to pass.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 7:56 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “Another straw man from the AD (Anti-Deportationist) Wellington.”

          That’s a blatant lie – Wellington is not anti-deportation, and you know that, given that he told you that before. What he is against is your idea of “total deportation” mainly because a) – where are you going to “deport” an American citizen to, and b) the Western law system says “innocent until proven guilty”, not “we have no evidence that you’re guilty, but you’re guilty just the same because we say you’re thinking of committing a crime, even if we can’t prove it”.

          The one making strawmen here is you, voeg.

          “ I have never claimed the Total Deportation meme was doable today, or tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow; as he so solemnly implies I have.”

          He doesn’t. Another strawman.

          “ In 1750, there were various individuals and groups who dreamed of the abolition of slavery, and in various ways agitated for the idea.”

          Completely irrelevant.

          “In 1750, someone who accepted the perpetual fait accompli of slavery would rhetorically challenge a proto-Abolitionist in virtually the same way Wellington challenged me here, thinking he had won the debate by pointing out the present inertia to the ideal.”

          Another strawman – Wellington is not relying on any “inertia”. He’s asking you about the law and the Constitution from where it stems.

          “But those abolitionists pushed and pushed the meme, decade after decade, generation after generation; and finally after more than a century, their dream came true.”

          Again, irrelevant. It’s “All men are created equal”, not “we don’t like those guys, so let’s kick them out”.

          “ But such dreams will likely never come to pass if nearly everyone dismisses them out of hand, and even opposes them. Imagine of the nascent Abolition movement were filled with pessimistic naysayers who gnawed away at the dream, the meme, from within. The eventual abolition of slavery likely would have been significantly retarded, if it ever even came to pass.”

          Irrelevant, yet again. A more apt analogy to what you’re suggesting would be nazis in pre-WWII Germany: Nazis pushed their “racial superiority” meme on and on until they got their “final solution” – first forced sterilization, then euthanasia programs, and by the end they were gassing people in camps.

          You managed not only not to respond to Wellington’s question, you also managed to lie about him in the process. Let me refresh your memory – here’s what Wellington asked:

          And don’t ignore my chief question, that being how many federal judges would go along with your idea of mass deportation? Oh yeah, don’t dodge this. DON’T DODGE THIS!

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 7:43 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “Notice how these ADs (Anti-Deportationists) create straw men.”

          I doubt anyone here is “anti-deportationist” – they just know who can and who can’t be deported.

          “Total Deportation would not be “merely for their beliefs””

          Yes, it would – by your own admission.

          “which we reasonably conclude we will be less likely to prevent if we allow Muslims to remain and continue to aggrandize and infiltrate.”

          There you go: the deciding factor is belief – you’re a muslim, therefore you got to go because other muslims have done wrong.

          “The phrase “merely for their beliefs” is asinine and misleading”

          No, it’s a concise representation of your stance.

          “and an outrage considering what Muslims have already done and said (including those who lie about their intents) and what they plan to do against us.”

          What happens in a court of law when you can’t prove that a given individual broke the law, or plans to do so, or exhorted or facilitated others to do so? Do you blame it for what others did? Do you assume he’s plotting to break the law and punish him anyway? That is the kind of mindset we’ve seen in totalitarian regimes, and to which you often gravitate into.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm

          prcs says

          August 8, 2015 at 8:48 pm

          Here’s my response to the voeg…

          Note his selective response…

          Yes, I have to select out one canard at a time. It doesn’t make the selected canard any less of a canard. In times past, over the years on Jihad Watch comments (under my many “handles”) and on my blog and Gates of Vienna blog, I have taken the time and trouble to go down these rabbit trails of canards thrown up by the asymptotics. I’m too weary and disgusted usually these days to do so. After all, it didn’t seem to do any good to the asymptotics when I did take the time and trouble — they just kept coming like madly chattering, carrot-chewing rabbits.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:09 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “Yes, I have to select out one canard at a time. It doesn’t make the selected canard any less of a canard.”

          Except you never made the case to why it’s a canard in the first place. It’s as if you’re trying to “push” the “meme” that any criticism you face it’s an “attack” or a “canard”, and hoping people buy into it…

          “In times past, over the years on Jihad Watch comments (under my many “handles”) and on my blog and Gates of Vienna blog, I have taken the time and trouble to go down these rabbit trails of canards thrown up by the asymptotics. I’m too weary and disgusted usually these days to do so. After all, it didn’t seem to do any good to the asymptotics when I did take the time and trouble — they just kept coming like madly chattering, carrot-chewing rabbits.”

          And therefore, rather than quitting altogether, you selectively quit…

        • gravenimage says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 11:14 pm

          Voegelinian wrote:

          Another straw man from the AD (Anti-Deportationist) Wellington. I have never claimed the Total Deportation meme was doable today, or tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow; as he so solemnly implies I have. In 1750, there were various individuals and groups who dreamed of the abolition of slavery, and in various ways agitated for the idea. In 1750, someone who accepted the perpetual fait accompli of slavery would rhetorically challenge a proto-Abolitionist in virtually the same way Wellington challenged me here, thinking he had won the debate by pointing out the present inertia to the ideal…
          ………………………

          Voeg, your characterizing the very principled Wellington’s position as analogous to that of someone resisting the abolition of slavery is grossly unfair.

          I know you might just say that you were discussing tactics–but were this the case you could have picked a less morally loaded comparison.

          Your positing that mass deportation–that would have troubling implications re the American rights of the individual–is the automatic ideal of the Counter-Jihad, but that certain members simply don’t have the courage or vision to pursue it, is pretty questionable.

          Again, I think it is possible to differ with people without misrepresenting their positions–or worse, their characters.

  25. Peggy says

    Aug 8, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    Wellington says,

    “How many American federal judges do you think would agree with you about mass deportation of Muslims from America? Don’t waffle here. In rough percentage terms, how many federal judges would go along with you here on mass deportation from America of Mo’s followers?

    I say none (and even if there were one or two, which quite frankly I doubt, it would still prove my overall point).. What say you?”
    ———————————–
    Seeing how I started the idea of mass deportation here I feel I need to point something out.
    You’re are right, not many judges, if any at all, would agree to deport Muslims but we all know that our laws are working AGAINST us on this one and that could mean our demise.
    So if this is not a solution, what is? We know that we can’t control them with our laws now because they backfire on us. We need to change laws then.
    Our huge mistake was allowing so many in so reversing that is obviously part of the answer. No country in the world has been able to control them when they start multiplying so much s what makes us think that we can control them unless we have less?
    I feel that these are legitimate questions and unless we have answers to these questions we can’t even begin to fix the problem.

    If the laws are working against us then we must either change them or ignore them.

    • Wellington says

      Aug 8, 2015 at 11:07 pm

      Here, Peggy, is the solution, which I have outlined many times here at JW: 1) Islam must once and for all be seen and described as the gigantic negative which it is. Even assuming mass deportation is the answer and is realistic (it isn’t), this simply could not happen if Islam is not first widely viewed, including by the bulk of America’s elites in the media, academia and the political realm, as the repressive, totalitarian, freedom-crushing ideology which it is; 2) prosecute any Muslim who violates American law while trying to fulfill a dictate of their faith which violates American law (e.g., death for apostasy or honor killings); 3) find whatever legal pretext out there to halt further Muslim immigration to America; 4) definitely do everything possible to wean America off virtually all Middle Eastern oil—-this would include exploring other energy options but also not demonizing fossil fuels which get way too much of a bad rap; 5) pass anti-Sharia legislation, as some state legislatures have already done, but do so with religiously neutral language, which is very possible to do; 6) encourage many Muslims to leave their fraudulent faith with safe havens for many who do, especially women, because, as you know, Islam is the religion where you can check in but you can’t check out.

      If all this were done, Peggy, Muslims would become as marginalized as Communists, Neo-Nazis, KKK members and other losers along these lines. Yes, they could still believe what they wanted to, just as those others I mentioned do, but massive ostracism and ridicule would be par for the course and the rest would take care of itself. This is just a brief summary of what I have proposed many times, but it’s enough for now.

      • Peggy says

        Aug 9, 2015 at 3:43 am

        I totally agree with exposing Islam for what it is. We need to get the media to agree here as well which we all know is a huge task.
        But even if we succeeded in this Muslims are not like KKK. Muslims are more than ready to die for their cause and will continue to launch terrorist attacks against us.
        How do we have a free society when our people are going to get blown up at football games, train stations, bus stops, cinemas and schools? KKK didn’t practice suicide missions so as vile as they are they were never as dangerous as the Muslims. At the same time there will always be peaceful members of that cult where there were no peaceful members of KKK so we could go after all of them.
        Just take a look at Lebanon. Lebanon was a predominantly Christian country until they started taking in Palestinian “refugees”. They quickly multiplied and started terrorist activities and look at Lebanon now.
        I would love if we could keep them in check using our laws but I am afraid that no matter how many we take out there will always be many more ready to take their place wearing that suicide vest or carrying a pressure cooker bomb.

        I really believe that even if all the people know how vile Islam is it wouldn’t stop them from launching terrorist attacks on our soil. They don’t make friends with us anyway and don’t care what we think of them. They will continue to hold positions in society and government so we have to deal with them and have to be courteous to them. So how is exposing them going to stop them?

        We can always outlaw Islam but that would only drive it underground and they would still be just as dangerous.
        Sorry, but I can’t see any other solution but deportation.

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 9, 2015 at 4:18 am

        Yes Peggy, many of these Counter-Jihad people here evidently have no idea of the horrific magnitude of the problem which Muslims present. They treat it as though it were a static problem of the proportions of urban crime or something. I can understand PC MCs thinking that way; but it’s surreal when such Counter-Jihad people as Wellington and Angemon (et al.) promote their sanguine view of the problem whilst sitting smack dab in the midst of this raging volcano of data about bloody Muslims on fire with Islam — metastasizing, volatile, systemic, incapable of being adequately distinguished in terms of the ridiculous parsing game of Harmless vs. Dangerous..

        The closer you are to the truth, the more your Denial twists and turns out of joint to stave it off…

        • PRCS says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 7:04 am

          Voegelinian, the official JW mind reader, once again offers up his favorite straw man; that many here—with not the slightest evidence to support his imagined claim—asserts that many here have no idea of the horrific magnitude of the problem which Muslims present.

          One wonders if–in order to get the ball rolling–he has submitted his mass deportation scheme to his elected representatives and if he’d be willing to share their responses here.

          Love to see them, Hesp.

        • Wellington says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 12:25 pm

          Echoing PRCS, I am fully aware, voegelinian, of the horrific magnitude you speak of. Fully aware. But my solutions for dealing with it are not yours and thus you, quite erroneously, conclude that I must not be as aware as you are of the magnitude of the problem we face. But I am.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 2:48 pm

          PRCS says

          August 9, 2015 at 7:04 am

          “Voegelinian, the official JW mind reader, once again offers up his favorite straw man; that many here—with not the slightest evidence to support his imagined claim—asserts that many here have no idea of the horrific magnitude of the problem which Muslims present.”

          My impression about many in the Counter-Jihad may be mistaken; but it’s not a “straw man”. It’s my impression about how many in the Counter-Jihad estimate the problem of Islam. After reading their words (and hearing them) for years, I conclude that many of them don’t appreciate the full magnitude of the problem. That conclusion I have come to is my impression after weighing the evidence of their words over years. It’s not a “straw man”.. A straw man is when you misconstrue the other person’s position they have put forth in an argument — as, for example, when someone here implied that I expect Deportation to happen today or tomorrow or this week, when not only have I never said that, I have repeatedly, expressly said otherwise.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:01 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “My impression about many in the Counter-Jihad may be mistaken; but it’s not a “straw man”.”

          It is mistaken, and yes, what you said is a strawman – when you go and say that people are “anti-deportionists” you’re outright lying.

          “ It’s my impression about how many in the Counter-Jihad estimate the problem of Islam.”

          No, it’s your one-note speech – that people who disagree with something you say do not comprehend the problem of islam, that are just playing “jihad roulette” with the lives of innocent people.

          Truth is, those whom you regularly deride, sneer and lie about have proposed measures far more feasible than your “pushing a meme now to get results generations away, despite that the situation is so immeasurably dire that we need to do something today so we’re not dead tomorrow”.

          “After reading their words (and hearing them) for years, I conclude that many of them don’t appreciate the full magnitude of the problem.”

          I believe that a more accurate description would be that you read, listen, ignore and willingly misrepresent them. The people you claim don’t understand the magnitude of the issue have proposed measures that could be adopted on the very short term. Your “solution” is “pushing” a “meme” for which you have no legal standing hoping that decades, if not hundreds, of years from now it’ll come to pass. What makes your standing ever worse is that you could very well see the solutions others have brought for as a stepping stone to “push” your “meme”. But no, it’s all or nothing with you – whoever isn’t on board with everything you say must be bullied into silence.

          “That conclusion I have come to is my impression after weighing the evidence of their words over years. It’s not a “straw man”.”

          It is.

          “A straw man is when you misconstrue the other person’s position they have put forth in an argument”

          Like, for example, when you declare that those who disagree with you are “anti-deportationists” when you know fully well that they’re OK with deportation, just not with your blanket scheme, for reasons that have been repeatedly explained to great detail, and for which you never had proper replies.

          “as, for example, when someone here implied that I expect Deportation to happen today or tomorrow or this week, when not only have I never said that, I have repeatedly, expressly said otherwise.”

          This is what happens when someone runs around in circles while trying to kick dirt on other people’s eyes – eventually they dive, eyes first, into the cloud of dirt they kicked up. The people who, according to you, don’t get the magnitude of the problem of islam in the West have brought up solutions that could come to be in the short term while you, being the only one who fully comprehends the direness of the situation we’re in, are content with magical thinking (saying something over and over, hoping it comes true decades, if not hundreds of years from now).

        • PRCS says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:00 pm

          Well, Hesp, Wellington does make clear that you have indeed misconstrued his position.

          So, will you be sharing those responses from your elected representatives with us any time soon? After all these years of harping on the subject, you have made them aware of your plan, right?

          And when do you anticipate the parachute drops will begin?

  26. Peggy says

    Aug 9, 2015 at 8:34 am

    PRCS said:

    “One wonders if–in order to get the ball rolling–he has submitted his mass deportation scheme to his elected representatives and if he’d be willing to share their responses here.”
    =========================

    Please don’t take this as a sign that I a sticking up for anyone but I would love to respond to this.
    Our elected representatives are the problem and for sure they will never agree to this, but we don’t agree with what they are doing either.
    We elected them to represent us but instead they only represent their interests. We all agree that they are the problem so we need to get people who will represent us properly to take their place.
    Maybe then they will be on the same page as us and realize that getting rid of as many as possible is the answer.
    Do you honestly believe that we can control how many we have in our country now? I don’t.

  27. Peggy says

    Aug 9, 2015 at 8:59 am

    I’m not the only one who thinks deportation is the answer.

    • Angemon says

      Aug 9, 2015 at 10:39 am

      You know that appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy, right? In any case, where would you deport native citizens to? And under what legal framework? It’s not a matter of thinking whether deportation is a solution or not, it’s a matter of pragmatism – looking at what can, and can’t, feasibly be done.

      • Wellington says

        Aug 9, 2015 at 12:21 pm

        You so totally destroyed voegelinian’s arguments, Angemon, that I really have nothing to add except that voegelinian should take on yet another name. Charles Dickens is my inspiration here and thus I would suggest “Artful Dodger.”

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 2:51 pm

          Wellington ignores my repeated responses to these canards in the past (where would you deport native citizen Muslims to?) etc. He pretends like I haven’t already responded to them multiple times. Or he has Alzheimer’s and forgot.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:04 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “Wellington ignores my repeated responses to these canards in the past (where would you deport native citizen Muslims to?) etc.”

          This is classic voeg: “No, no, I’ve already answered that many, many times in the past. Also, there’s no need for me to repeat what I said or even link to one of the the many times I answered that – just trust me on this one”

          “He pretends like I haven’t already responded to them multiple times.”

          Another voeg staple: the mind-reader.

          “Or he has Alzheimer’s and forgot.”

          And another classic, for the hat-trick: the ad-hominem.

        • Wellington says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 4:34 pm

          Actually, voegelinian, I have never emphasized “where would Muslims be deported?” I have rarely mentioned this and only in passing. My main points have revolved around 1) the unconstitutionality and illegality of mass deportation; and 2) its being unnecessary. At least if you’re going to knock me down, knock me down for what I have written and not what you think I have written. Yes, you could get at least this much correct.

      • Peggy says

        Aug 9, 2015 at 5:14 pm

        I think it’s as much a fallacy as Muslims expelling non Muslims from ME. Where do you think these refugees are going?
        We can expel the Muslims too and they can become refugees in Muslim countries too.
        They don’t play by the rules so why should we? We can easily change the law to allow it. Legal framework doesn’t exist now but it can if we have the will. Who is going to stand up to the US and other western countries if we change our laws?
        The reason I am suggesting deportation ( I know we can never get rid of them all but we can many) is because of what happened to Lebanon and what is happening to Europe now. It is far too dangerous not to change laws.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 9, 2015 at 7:14 pm

          Peggy posted:

          “I think it’s as much a fallacy as Muslims expelling non Muslims from ME.”

          I think that if you’re comparing some people being in favor of something they can’t successfully argue or explain with people being driven out of their homes you have issues.

          “Where do you think these refugees are going?”

          Certainly not to wherever it is you’re suggesting American muslims being parachuted into.

          “We can expel the Muslims too and they can become refugees in Muslim countries too.”

          If any decides to taken them in. What you seem oblivious to, Peggy, is that you’re opening the door to a totalitarian system – after muslims, who’s next?

          “They don’t play by the rules so why should we?”

          Fine, why not go all the way and simply force muslims to convert out of islam or kill them on the spot? Since you’re bent on emulating the islamic state you might as well go all the way.

          “We can easily change the law to allow it. Legal framework doesn’t exist now but it can if we have the will. Who is going to stand up to the US and other western countries if we change our laws?”

          Yadda, yadda, yadda. One of the things I’ve never seen a proponent of “total deportation” explain is how they’d do that.

          “The reason I am suggesting deportation ( I know we can never get rid of them all but we can many)”

          I thought it was called “total deportation” because it encompassed all muslims.

          “is because of what happened to Lebanon and what is happening to Europe now. It is far too dangerous not to change laws.”

          Again, do you know how laws are passed and how they can be changed?

  28. voegelinian says

    Aug 9, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Well, well, well. Just down the hall and to the left (past the broom closet), in another thread, a Jihad Watch reader “Lee” wrote:

    Lee says

    August 6, 2015 at 11:36 pm

    …

    …consider that here in Australia a poll was taken for the ABC (our national broadcaster) in June on *stripping citizenship* from Jihadis AND their supporters, and deporting them all.

    The pollsters found (much to their chagrin) that voters of ALL parties overwhelmingly SUPPORTED stripping citizenship, and kicking Jihadis and their supporters OUT.

    Wow; if so, it’s nice to know that people outside of Jihad Watch are more anti-Muslim than many of the the JW CJers seem to be!

    And even gravenimage, who has never taken her friends Angemon and Phillip Jihadski to task when they have attacked me repeatedly for my Total Deportation advocacy, suddenly gave a thumbs up to this:

    gravenimage says

    August 7, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Good news from Down Under, Lee.

    Glad to see that even with the hard leftists Greens that a majority want to see Jihadists deported, and that with the other parties such support is much higher.

    However, I’ve grown jaded over the years, as wearily and warily embattled as the eye-twitchingly aggrieved Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus of the original Pink Panther; ever on the lookout for, and never surprised when I find, the inevitable asymptotic loophole. Here, it’s more evident in gravenimage’s careful delineation of “Jihadists” whose citizenship we would strip and whose 5-times-a-day prayer asses we would send packing; while Lee is in this comment a bit more generous with his locution, not merely singling out “Jihadis” but also, with his all caps emphasis “AND their supporters”. In a subsequent comment, Lee fleshed out this vague term “and their supporters”:

    (The proposed citizenship-stripping law is for terrorists, terror suspects, and any supporters, who hold dual citizenship with a foreign country, or those with sole Australian citizenship who can access foreign citizenship through their parents or grandparents).

    That sounds great, as long as these meticulous citizenship qualifications happen to embrace the vast majority of Muslims in Australia. I would ask Lee (and all those fellow Aussies he reports resoundingly supported this) a hypothetical question that could be revealing: What if it happened to be that the vast majority of Muslims in Australia did not fit these qualifications, but were native born Australians or otherwise exempt from, and could thus wiggle out of, the stipulations of this proposal? Crikey, then you’d be up a creek.

    While I began to breathe a sigh of relief as I read Lee’s final paragraph —

    Once the first Muslim is stripped of citizenship and deported, that’s the thin edge of the wedge inserted. We Aussies will push the rest out the door, as none can renounce Muhammad’s Jihad against us, and almost all are either born overseas, or have parents/grandparents who were.

    — he had to go and add that ending remark: “…and almost all are either born overseas, or have parents/grandparents who were.” Which brings me back to my question again: What if “almost all” happened to be born in Australia and did not have parents/grandparents who were born overseas? Would that make their Islam suddenly, magically harmless?

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/08/islamic-state-murders-19-girls-for-refusing-sex-with-jihadis-peddles-sex-slaves-like-barrels-of-petrol#comments

    • Angemon says

      Aug 9, 2015 at 7:20 pm

      voegelinian posted:

      “And even gravenimage, who has never taken her friends Angemon and Phillip Jihadski to task when they have attacked me repeatedly for my Total Deportation advocacy, suddenly gave a thumbs up to this”

      Where “attacked” means “criticized”. And why should GI be obliged to take me, PJ or anyone else who criticizes you? How about you spend less time culturing your sense of entitlement and more in open, good-faithed discussion?

      “While I began to breathe a sigh of relief as I read Lee’s final paragraph —

      Once the first Muslim is stripped of citizenship and deported, that’s the thin edge of the wedge inserted. We Aussies will push the rest out the door, as none can renounce Muhammad’s Jihad against us, and almost all are either born overseas, or have parents/grandparents who were.

      — he had to go and add that ending remark: “…and almost all are either born overseas, or have parents/grandparents who were.””

      Why? Isn’t that the case?

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 10, 2015 at 12:27 am

        “This is a completely false, and you know it, Voegelinian. Even though I disagree with you on some points, I have defended you on dozens of occasions, particularly if I thought your views were being unfairly mischaracterized. ”

        Sure, on occasions that didn’t have to do with the topic of deportation. But I’d hardly say it was “dozens” — if we’re referring to Angemon and PJ. I can’t think of more than 3 or 4 instances, frankly.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 1:57 am

          “As for the substance of the issue in Lee’s post, the idea that I have suddenly changed my views is quite inaccurate. ”

          I didn’t say gravenimage had suddenly changed her mind on deportation. I was pointing out the inccnsistency in her failing to defend my advocacy of it after countless attacks on me in countless different threads for that position — then seeing her so enthusiastically express thumbs up for it in that one comment.

          I also recall another FOP one day suddenly blurting out a quite robust expression of support for deportation:

          Mirren10 says

          June 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm

          Indeed. I’m with voegelinian, **all** of them should be deported, except those who publicly apostasise, and integrate themselves fully to **our** way of life.

          Ah, those were the days…

      • gravenimage says

        Aug 10, 2015 at 3:15 pm

        Voegelinian wrote:

        “This is a completely false, and you know it, Voegelinian. Even though I disagree with you on some points, I have defended you on dozens of occasions, particularly if I thought your views were being unfairly mischaracterized. ”

        Sure, on occasions that didn’t have to do with the topic of deportation
        ……………………………………………

        Actually, this is not the case. I have on occasion felt that your views on deportation were being misrepresented, and have said so. That does not mean that I have to agree with you on all points myself regarding the subject.

        More:

        But I’d hardly say it was “dozens” — if we’re referring to Angemon and PJ. I can’t think of more than 3 or 4 instances, frankly.
        ……………………………………………

        Good grief. I think it has been many more times, but unlike you, I have not kept track of every post on this by now tedious subject. But the implication that my main role at Jihad Watch should be following this spat around the threads defending you is an odd one.

        And at this point you have insulted *each other* quite egregiously–it is not all one way. And no–at this point I don’t know who started it, nor does it matter to me all that much.

        I have always said that I believe we can disagree with each other respectfully on how best to fight the threat of Islam.

        More:

        “As for the substance of the issue in Lee’s post, the idea that I have suddenly changed my views is quite inaccurate. ”

        I didn’t say gravenimage had suddenly changed her mind on deportation. I was pointing out the inccnsistency in her failing to defend my advocacy of it after countless attacks on me in countless different threads for that position — then seeing her so enthusiastically express thumbs up for it in that one comment.
        ……………………………………………

        I will defend you when I consider it called for, Voegelenian–though it is notable that you seem to need this more than any other poster here. But this *does not* mean that I am bound to defend every aspect of your advocacy of deportation, because I don’t agree with all your points. I have said this on innumerable occasions

        More:

        I also recall another FOP one day suddenly blurting out a quite robust expression of support for deportation:

        Mirren10 says

        June 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm

        Indeed. I’m with voegelinian, **all** of them should be deported, except those who publicly apostasise, and integrate themselves fully to **our** way of life.

        Ah, those were the days…
        ……………………………………………

        I like and respect Mirren greatly–she is one of my favorite posters here. But–as with yourself–I don’t feel myself bound to agree with her on every point, nor would I expect her to agree with me in all ways.

        As I’ve said, I think we need to vigorously pursue many other tactics in the fight against Jihad–all ones that are currently lawful and within the purview of our Constitution (and British law, in the case of Mirren). *If* these tactics prove unequal to the task, then I will consider your suggestion. We are nowhere near that point yet, in my estimation.

        You can, of course, disagree.

    • gravenimage says

      Aug 9, 2015 at 7:28 pm

      Voegelinian wrote:

      And even gravenimage, who has never taken her friends Angemon and Phillip Jihadski to task when they have attacked me repeatedly for my Total Deportation advocacy, suddenly gave a thumbs up to this
      ………………………………………

      This is a completely false, and you know it, Voegelinian. Even though I disagree with you on some points, I have defended you on dozens of occasions, particularly if I thought your views were being unfairly mischaracterized. I have, in fact, defended you more than any other poster here. All I have received in return for this is abuse.

      For instance, I just found to my shock that you had sneeringly implied on another thread that I was too stupid to know what “scores of times” meant. And why? I use this phrase periodically here, and have never given any indication that I am ignorant of its meaning. This is just gratuitous belittling on your part.

      As for the substance of the issue in Lee’s post, the idea that I have suddenly changed my views is quite inaccurate. I have long held that naturalized Muslims convicted of Jihad should be stripped of their citizenship and deported after their prison sentences. Dumbledore’s Army and I, particularly, have had quite a number of exchanges about this very topic.

      More:

      Which brings me back to my question again: What if “almost all” happened to be born in Australia and did not have parents/grandparents who were born overseas? Would that make their Islam suddenly, magically harmless?
      ………………………………………

      Of course not. But the idea that mass deportation is the only alternative to letting native-born Jihadists run rampant without consequences is quite false. We can vigorously prosecute such Jihadists, and should. We don’t have to change our laws to do this.

      More:

      Here, it’s more evident in gravenimage’s careful delineation of “Jihadists” whose citizenship we would strip and whose 5-times-a-day prayer asses we would send packing
      ………………………………………

      This is not a small distinction for me. My only substantive disagreement with your deportation scheme is two points: I don’t believe that native-born citizens can be stripped of their citizenship as laws currently stand, and while I believe that Muslim immigration should end today, I don’t believe it is possible to deport Muslims who have not been proven in a court of law to support Jihad.

      I believe changing our laws to allow this would be a last resort, and one with potentially very troubling consequences. I don’t believe we need to change our laws in this way to fight Jihad in a robust manner.

      You can disagree with me without misrepresenting my position–but I doubt you ever will.

      • Angemon says

        Aug 9, 2015 at 7:48 pm

        gravenimage posted:

        “But the idea that mass deportation is the only alternative to letting native-born Jihadists run rampant without consequences is quite false. We can vigorously prosecute such Jihadists, and should.”

        Which is pretty much my stance on the issue. If they have another citizenship we can kick them out with great prejudice. If not, they can face trial for treason. Of course, as you point out, I’m talking about people for which there’s actual evidence of engaging in, or supporting, jihad, as opposed to voeg’s totalitarian thought police.

        “I believe changing our laws to allow this would be a last resort, and one with potentially very troubling consequences.”

        Indeed. Voeg seems to share the shortsightedness so prevalent in leftists. Which is only fitting, since he seems to share their totalitarian nature and play-book.

        “You can disagree with me without misrepresenting my position–but I doubt you ever will.”

        The thing is, GI, he doesn’t want to disagree with you, or anyone else for that matter. What he wants is to be right, no matter what, and silence any dissenting voices via public shaming and peer-pressure. If that means lying about and misrepresenting others, so be it.

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 10, 2015 at 1:30 am

        “I just found to my shock that you had sneeringly implied on another thread that I was too stupid to know what “scores of times” meant. And why? I use this phrase periodically here, and have never given any indication that I am ignorant of its meaning. This is just gratuitous belittling on your part.”

        I don’t know what thread that would be. The only thread I found where that phrase was used had me using it first, in response to a commenter named “Ernie”. I used it twice. Then Angemon used it four times in one of his typically voluminous rabbit-trail-ridden pieces of mean-spirited sophistry against me. Then Mirren used it once. That’s it.

        Full thread is here:

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/boston-marathon-jihad-murderers-mother-non-muslims-will-burn-in-flames-of-an-eternal-and-terrifying-fire-an-otherworldly-flame-inshaallah/comment-page-2#comment-1241019

        My comment first using it there is here:

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/boston-marathon-jihad-murderers-mother-non-muslims-will-burn-in-flames-of-an-eternal-and-terrifying-fire-an-otherworldly-flame-inshaallah

        The pertinent quote being:

        voegelinian says
        May 20, 2015 at 3:13 pm
        “Phillip Jihadski’s attacks on me by the dozens, even scores (= times 20) over the years…”

        If this is the thread gravenimage is referring to, I can’t see how she would glean all that negativity she gleaned from it — to wit:

        “…you had sneeringly implied on another thread that I was too stupid to know what “scores of times” meant.

        I wasn’t even responding to gravenimage at the time! In fact, I distinctly remember typing that and wanting to spell out that scores means “times 20” because I wanted to emphasize the high numbers. I wasn’t trying to sneeringly imply that gravenimage is stupid or anything else of that sort.

        If gravenimage is thinking of another thread backing up what she found, it would be nice if she would post it, so I could respond better to a rather inflammatory allegation like that.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 6:19 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “Then Angemon used it four times in one of his typically voluminous rabbit-trail-ridden pieces of mean-spirited sophistry against me.”

          I’m not the one who suggested that GI was too stupid to know what scores meant, so how many times I used it is irrelevant – you just needed to shoehorn a petty insult against me. In any case, are you feeling ill? You forgot to shoehorn in “asymptotic”, “attack” and “softy” as well.

          “If gravenimage is thinking of another thread backing up what she found, it would be nice if she would post it, so I could respond better to a rather inflammatory allegation like that.”

          Classic voegelinian: others must link to whatever it is they reference but he’s never expected to do the same. Like, for example, linking to one of my alleged “attacks” from 2013, despite his claim that I’ve been “attacking” him for years – I’ve asked his to back that claim for months and got nothing. One would think he’s lying through and through…

        • gravenimage says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 3:39 pm

          Voegelinian wrote:

          “I just found to my shock that you had sneeringly implied on another thread that I was too stupid to know what “scores of times” meant. And why? I use this phrase periodically here, and have never given any indication that I am ignorant of its meaning. This is just gratuitous belittling on your part.”

          I don’t know what thread that would be…

          If gravenimage is thinking of another thread backing up what she found, it would be nice if she would post it, so I could respond better to a rather inflammatory allegation like that.
          ……………………………………….

          Voegelinian, it does not surprise me that you have forgotten deprecating me–given that the post above is full of denigrating comments about Angemon, as well. And no, I don’t know at this point who began flinging insults.

          You replied to me here, just a few days ago:

          “…When I make a parentheitcal, extremely elliptical snide aside that happens to mention Angemon or Phillip Jihadski’s name, they alight upon me and write voluminous retorts — and literally scores of times (that’s times 20) I have ignored these completely. That means they are doing this to me 20 times more than I am doing it to them (and their manner and tone is blatantly more insulting than mine to theirs) — but somehow, this quantitative and qualitative difference means nothing to you or the other Jihad Watch friends of Angemon & PJ.”

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/08/choudary-spencer-and-jasser-battle-it-out-on-jihad-in-chattanooga-on-the-glazov-gang/comment-page-1#comment-1276608

          If you consider me too dimwitted to know the meaning of “scores of times”, I’m not sure why you would want me defending you, in any case.

          But look–the story above shows the nature of the horrific threat we *all* face from Islam–would this pious Jihadist care about whatever small disagreements we might have with each other while he is beheading us in St. Peter’s Square? I think not.

          I would still like to see us standing together against a threat as vicious as this one, rather than spatting with each other.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 4:47 pm

          “If you consider me too dimwitted to know the meaning of “scores of times”, I’m not sure why you would want me defending you, in any case.”

          I didn’t intend that explanation to imply you were stupid. I was just reiterating, emphasizing the point of the quantity, in addition to the quality, of the attacks on me by your friends — both of which constitute the far more important point I was making (as opposed to the non-existent insult you imagined I made against you).

        • Angemon says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 5:10 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “I was just reiterating, emphasizing the point of the quantity, in addition to the quality, of the attacks on me by your friends — both of which constitute the far more important point I was making”

          Let’s see: complaining about how others “attack” you and getting gravenimage’s attention is what you call “the far more important point” you were making. I’d say that educating newbies and coming up with feasible ideas to combat stealth jihad would be the most important point one could make on this site, seeing how it’s called “Jihad Watch”, but hey, I have my priorities, you have yours.

        • gravenimage says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 9:41 pm

          Voegelinian, I will accept that your point was not meant to be insulting, if you say so.

          Then you go on, however, further on this thread, to complain that pointing out my incessant errors (as you see it) is worse than eating glass. Good grief…

      • Champ says

        Aug 10, 2015 at 2:14 am

        For instance, I just found to my shock that you had sneeringly implied on another thread that I was too stupid to know what “scores of times” meant. And why? I use this phrase periodically here, and have never given any indication that I am ignorant of its meaning. This is just gratuitous belittling on your part.

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

        Gravenimage, I have experienced voeg’s gratuitous belittling, as well. With you he implied that you were “too stupid”, and with me he stated that I was a “brainless cheerleader.” Neither of us deserve his ridicule and abuse.

        • gravenimage says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 3:42 pm

          No, you don’t deserve this, Champ. You yourself stood up for Voeg many times, over the course of years.

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 10, 2015 at 2:37 am

        “But the idea that mass deportation is the only alternative to letting native-born Jihadists run rampant without consequences is quite false. We can vigorously prosecute such Jihadists, and should.”

        The point of my post to Lee, which should have been clear from my full argumentation, was my massaging and teasing out of it the broader problem from mere “Jihadists” to the broader demographic of Muslims. I mean, that’s what all these years of our learning about Taqiyya and Stealth Jihad and False Moderates have been about have they not? Remember Lee’s “AND their supporters” which clearly adds on more Muslims in addition to the Jihadists. The point I was massaging and teasing out was — how many Muslims does this mean, and how do you decide this kind of parsing taxonomy? This has been thematic for me for years, ever since I fondly recall Spencer repeating over and over how (to paraphrase) “we have no reliable way to distinguish between the jihadist and the harmless Muslim”. If we have no reliable way, then on what basis does one so glibly decide which Muslims to target? The deadly potential of Muslim Roulette will not end well if we keep playing after-the-fact whack-a-mole, just barely trying to keep one step ahead of them with our sting ops.

        So why graven is formulating her response to me as though all we are talking about is the “Jihadists” and not the broader demographic of Muslims, is baffling.

        I have just spent about an hour going through, and responding to, the first four paragraphs of graven’s response to me — and they are compromised by misunderstandings and mischaracterizations and a red herring or two. It doesn’t bode well for reading the remainder.

        • gravenimage says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 3:51 pm

          Voegelinian, I agree that the issue is more than just one of *violent* Jihad–the threat includes funding of Jihad, “hate” preaching, and stealth Jihad. I have always said this.

          That does not mean that I agree with you on all aspects of your mass deportation scheme.

          I have been in no way inconsistent here.

          You wrote:

          I have just spent about an hour going through, and responding to, the first four paragraphs of graven’s response to me — and they are compromised by misunderstandings and mischaracterizations and a red herring or two. It doesn’t bode well for reading the remainder.
          ……………………………..

          Voegelinian, if you think so little of what I have to say, then you need not spend so much time addressing it.

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 4:56 pm

          gravenimage says

          August 10, 2015 at 3:51 pm

          “I have been in no way inconsistent here.”

          Yeah, I already adverted to that, way back in my original post:

          However, I’ve grown jaded over the years, as wearily and warily embattled as the eye-twitchingly aggrieved Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus of the original Pink Panther; ever on the lookout for, and never surprised when I find, the inevitable asymptotic loophole. Here, it’s more evident in gravenimage’s careful delineation of “Jihadists”

          So, no need to point that out.

          (Then subsequently, when you began going down the garden path of focusing exclusively on “Jihadists”, I tried to steer you away from that back onto the point I was making which you were apparently supposed to be responding to…)

        • voegelinian says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 5:03 pm

          “Voegelinian, if you think so little of what I have to say, then you need not spend so much time addressing it.”

          I explained in detail why each of the four paragraphs constituted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations. I have found yet more today. It’s proving to be an inordinate expenditure of time, merely having to clarify and re-explain things that should have been evident the first time around. I don’t think gravenimage is doing this on purpose, as I think Angemon is.

          Between gravenimage’s garden paths and Angemon’s rabbit trails, I’m having a lovely time of divertissement, but I really do have better things to do… like eating glass…

        • Angemon says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 5:18 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “I explained in detail why each of the four paragraphs constituted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations. I have found yet more today. It’s proving to be an inordinate expenditure of time, merely having to clarify and re-explain things that should have been evident the first time around.”

          From what I’ve seen, you get this a lot – you say things and then you have to backpedal and say that what you meant was in fact something else entirely different. Your communication skills seem to be in par with allah’s:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/is-allah-the-worst-communicator-ever

          “I don’t think gravenimage is doing this on purpose”

          And you say this despite GI recently protested against your characterization of her mental acuity…

          “as I think Angemon is.”

          You couldn’t go without shoehorning another smear, could you? It’s stronger than you – those who criticize you need to be squashed like bugs.

    • Wellington says

      Aug 9, 2015 at 9:00 pm

      No one, voegelinian, has defended you here at JW more than has gravenimage. You have sunk to a new low in your castigation (and distortion) of her. Shame on you.

      • voegelinian says

        Aug 10, 2015 at 1:36 am

        You guys can’t read basic English. As I already said:

        “gravenimage, who has never taken her friends Angemon and Phillip Jihadski to task when they have attacked me repeatedly for my Total Deportation advocacy”

        I wasn’t referring to her coming to my defense against other people, but her surreal failure to come to my defense after relentless, myriad attacks on my by Angemon and PJ. It’s doubly surreal for Wellington and gravenimage to deny this. Occasionally I run across ancient threads where I am expressing my dismay at gravenimage for this — even many moons ago, this has been thematic. It’s fucking …. did I say “surreal” already? Yeah, that.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 10, 2015 at 6:27 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “I wasn’t referring to her coming to my defense against other people, but her surreal failure to come to my defense after relentless, myriad attacks on my by Angemon and PJ.”

          Actually, GI spoke on your behalf to both myself and PJ. I know you’re an execrable human being who’ll say anything to play the victim (much like muslims), but you seem to forget that others can see what GI wrote as well. Do you own stocks in a shovel company or something? I’m asking because all you’re doing is digging yourself deeper…

          Also, by “attack” you mean “criticism” – you work on the same grounds as Goebbels: repeat a lie long enough, etc.

      • Champ says

        Aug 10, 2015 at 2:38 am

        No one, voegelinian, has defended you here at JW more than has gravenimage. You have sunk to a new low in your castigation (and distortion) of her. Shame on you.

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

        You’re completely right, Wellington. But you will *never* get voeg to see what you and I see. Not ever. He is a right fighter, and he only cares about being right and his own point of view. It’s very hard to argue with a right fighter, and you can forget about ever trying to win an argument with someone like that.

  29. PRCS says

    Aug 9, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    *stripping citizenship* from Jihadis AND their supporters, and deporting them all.

    Yep, with you on known jihadists.

    And what, pray tell, would constitute their “supporters”?

  30. Peggy says

    Aug 9, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    Angemon sais:

    “Again, do you know how laws are passed and how they can be changed?”

    Yes I do. I already explained that our present government won’t go in that direction but that’s because they don’t represent the will of their people.

    “If any decides to taken them in. What you seem oblivious to, Peggy, is that you’re opening the door to a totalitarian system – after muslims, who’s next?”

    Nobody. We don’t have problems like this with any other group and our laws are in place to protect and punish the guilty no matter which religion they are.
    We can pass a law that Islam is NOT a religion but a dangerous cult and immediately stop allowing Muslims in and start deporting the ones not born in our country. Next wave of deportation should be first generation born with migrant parents and they can go either to the country of their parents’ origin or just simply become refugees and look for a place in any other Muslim country. I don’t care if some Muslim countries won’t take them. Do they care where non Muslims end up if they are lucky enough to escape?

    This can be done if there is a will.

    Just a question. Are you actually in favour in keeping all the Muslims we have now? I am not clear on that point.
    Do you honestly believe that we can control what we have?

    I know we both agree that Muslims are very dangerous to us and will become even more dangerous as the numbers grow by rapid breeding and importation of more but we don’t agree about how to solve the problem.

    Please take a look at Sweden, France Uk and expecially the Balkans. This is what we’ll end up with if we don’t reduce their numbers. We cannot control them so we must get rid of them.
    I am terrified for our children and grandchildren.

    • Angemon says

      Aug 10, 2015 at 6:22 am

      Peggy posted:

      “Yes I do. I already explained that our present government won’t go in that direction but that’s because they don’t represent the will of their people.”

      That doesn’t answer my question, and you know it (or you should know). How did that work out for the “Occupy” movement? You know, the 99%? Whether you want to face it or not, there are laws and procedures in place, and simply saying “the laws can change” is not the same as knowing how laws are made and passed.

      “Nobody. We don’t have problems like this with any other group and our laws are in place to protect and punish the guilty no matter which religion they are.”

      Really? You talk about “punish the guilty” after suggesting to deport anyone who’s a muslim, regardless of their citizenship? Are you going to deport a 3-month-old infant? What’s he/she guilty off?

      And the supreme irony of it all is that you don’t understand the position you placed yourself into – you suggest deporting anyone calling themselves a muslim because they cause problems (whether or not any given individual has caused any problem seems to be of no importance), but you fail to realize that, if such a law was already in place, you, by saying “our present government won’t go in that direction but that’s because they don’t represent the will of their people” set yourself up to be the next in line. What’s stopping the powers that be to deem a political adversary as much of a dire a threat as muslims and handing out the same treatment?

      “We can pass a law that Islam is NOT a religion but a dangerous cult and immediately stop allowing Muslims in”

      Which is what I stated several times before.

      “and start deporting the ones not born in our country. Next wave of deportation should be first generation born with migrant parents and they can go either to the country of their parents’ origin or just simply become refugees and look for a place in any other Muslim country.”

      And there goes the rule of law and the core of Western law systems. As for going to wherever their parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents, were born, that’s the same mindset that’s trying to get 3rd or 4th generation “palestinians” into Israel – I, for one, want no part in it.

      “I don’t care if some Muslim countries won’t take them. Do they care where non Muslims end up if they are lucky enough to escape?”

      Again, if you’re going to use what muslims do as measuring stick, why not simply force them to convert and kill on the spot those who refuse?

      “This can be done if there is a will.”

      Magical thinking, at best. Laws, procedures, etc.

      “Just a question. Are you actually in favour in keeping all the Muslims we have now? I am not clear on that point.”

      Ah, going for the cheap smear – I see voeg rub off on you. I’m in favour of what I’ve been in favour. Public exposure of islamic tenets, halting muslim immigration, kicking out those who can be kicked out if they break the law, and if native converts try to go jihadi, they should be put on trial for treason.

      “Do you honestly believe that we can control what we have?”

      If you can’t control them how do you expect to kick them out? Are they going to willingly make a beeline for the planes where they’ll be parachuted from, right after the laws magically change because people what them to change?

      “I know we both agree that Muslims are very dangerous to us”

      Apparently not – apparently, you think that I’m in favour of keeping the muslims we have, which I wouldn’t be in favour of if I thought they were dangerous.

      “and will become even more dangerous as the numbers grow by rapid breeding and importation of more but we don’t agree about how to solve the problem.

      Please take a look at Sweden, France Uk and expecially the Balkans. This is what we’ll end up with if we don’t reduce their numbers. We cannot control them so we must get rid of them.”

      Again, if you want to “get rid of them”, the simpler solution would be to shot them on the spot. What are the UN going to do, invade the US? With what army? Historically, as long as tyrants and dictators stick to their own country and people, other countries don’t really care how many they torture or kill. England and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland, not because the German government was killing “subhumans” and political opponents.

      • Peggy says

        Aug 11, 2015 at 11:23 pm

        “Just a question. Are you actually in favour in keeping all the Muslims we have now? I am not clear on that point.”

        Ah, going for the cheap smear – I see voeg rub off on you.
        ——————————————-
        Actually I wasn’t going for that. I was really confused about it but it seems that when asked to clarify a position you interpret that as a chep smear.
        I think that by now you know that I don’t go for cheap jabs.
        I will grant you that with the present batch of politicians a bill like that would not even be introduced let alone passed but that doesn’t mean that if situation changes it won’t.
        Also, seeing how we cannot possibly tell which Muslim is ok and which is dangerous just waiting for them to wage an attack and then deal with them is never going to fix the problem.
        I have already said that our laws are not working for us. Your way isn’t going to work for that reason.
        We’re not dealing with organized crime to which we can make significant damage and weaken them. We are dealing with suicidal maniacs in their millions.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 12, 2015 at 3:17 pm

          Peggy posted:

          “Actually I wasn’t going for that. I was really confused about it but it seems that when asked to clarify a position you interpret that as a chep smear.
          I think that by now you know that I don’t go for cheap jabs.
          ”

          You implied I was in favour of such and asked for confirmation.

          “I will grant you that with the present batch of politicians a bill like that would not even be introduced let alone passed but that doesn’t mean that if situation changes it won’t.”

          Hold that thought.

          “Also, seeing how we cannot possibly tell which Muslim is ok and which is dangerous just waiting for them to wage an attack and then deal with them is never going to fix the problem.”

          Which was not what I suggested, was it? Frankly, all you’re doing now is repeating voeg’s bullet points without all his quasi-obfuscating verbosity.

          “I have already said that our laws are not working for us. Your way isn’t going to work for that reason.”

          You mean the laws which are not being applied are not working? I wonder if it’s because they’re not being applied. And, back to the thought on hold, if we can’t get our current laws to be applied, what makes you think that we can get any sort of anti-constitutional law approved? If you’re going for the magic umbrella of “the situation can change” wouldn’t it be easier to expect that the situation changed enough as to get current laws properly applied rather than hoping to pass anything anti-constitutional?

          “We’re not dealing with organized crime to which we can make significant damage and weaken them. We are dealing with suicidal maniacs in their millions.”

          Which brings back a point you saw fit to ignore: how would you get them on the planes from which you’d have them tossed from? Would they willingly and peacefully make a single line and enter the airships out of their own free will?

  31. PRCS says

    Aug 9, 2015 at 9:45 pm

    Sorry for the cut and paste, but here’s the scoop on denaturalization/deportation of Naturalized US Citizens:

    http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

    Although rare, it is possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have his or her citizenship stripped through a process called “denaturalization.” Former citizens who are denaturalized are subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Natural-born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will, but may choose to renounce their citizenship on their own.
    This article covers the grounds for having one’s citizenship revoked, the basics of the denaturalization process, and defenses to denaturalization.
    Grounds for Denaturalization
    1. Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts: You must be absolutely truthful when filling out paperwork and answering interview questions related to the naturalization application process. Even if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) fails to recognize any lies or ommissions at first, the agency may file a denaturalization action against you after citizenship has been granted. Examples include failure to disclose criminal activities or lying about one’s real name or identity.
    2. Refusal to Testify Before Congress: You may not refuse to testify before a U.S. congressional committee whose job it is to investigate your alleged involvement in subversive acts, such as those intended to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government. This requirement to testify in order to maintain citizenship status expires after 10 years.
    3. Membership in Subversive Groups: Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda.
    4. Dishonorable Military Discharge: Since you may become a naturalized U.S. citizen by virtue of serving in the U.S. military, your citizenship may be revoked if you are dishonorably discharged before serving five years. Reasons for dishonorable discharge, which must follow a general court-martial, include desertion and sexual assault.

    The Denaturalization Process
    Denaturalization, in which a naturalized citizen is stripped of his or her citizenship, is a process that occurs in federal court (typically in the district court where the defendant last resided) and follows the standard rules of federal civil court cases. As such, it is not an immigration case even though it affects immigration status.
    Naturalized citizens found to be in violation of the terms of citizenship must leave the country. Children granted citizenship based on their parent’s status may also lose their citizenship after that parent has been denaturalized.
    As with any other civil case, the denaturalization process begins with a formal complaint against the defendant, who may respond to the complaint and defend himself or herself at trial (or hire an immigration attorney). The defendant has 60 days to file an answer to the complaint, where he or she may claim the action is based on wrong information or that the statute of limitations has expired, for example.
    The U.S. government has a high bar for proving a defendant meets the criteria for denaturalization (a heavier burden of proof than most civil cases, but not as great a burden as criminal cases), according to the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual:
    “Because citizenship is such a precious right, it cannot be taken away unless the government is able to meet a high burden of proof… Accordingly, a case should only be referred for denaturalization where there is objective evidence to establish that the individual was not eligible for naturalization, or procured naturalization by willful concealment or material misrepresentation.”
    If your U.S. citizenship is revoked, you may be deported soon after the verdict is issued.
    Appeals & Defenses
    As with other types of court cases, individuals whose citizenship is revoked may appeal the decision if there is reason to believe the lower court made legal errors. Also, those facing denaturalization are not considered to be “concealing” relevant facts if there was no inquiry about them or if there is a lack of evidence pointing to an intentional concealment of relevant facts.
    For example, a naturalized citizen belonging to the Communist Party was asked if he belonged to any organization advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government, answering “no.” Unless there is sufficient evidence that this person knew the Communist Party engaged in such activities, he did not conceal any relevant facts. However, failure to mention an association with Al Qaeda (or any other terrorist organization) is considered concealment of relevant information.

  32. Owen Morgan says

    Aug 9, 2015 at 11:34 pm

    Any danger that this headcase was “converted” in prison?

  33. voegelinian says

    Aug 10, 2015 at 2:47 am

    Boy, I’m sure glad Peggy came back to comments. I hope she sticks around and participates as much as possible, and continues to stand up for herself amid all the mean-spirited sniping at her from supposed allies.

    • Angemon says

      Aug 10, 2015 at 6:32 am

      voegelinian posted:

      “I hope she sticks around and participates as much as possible, and continues to stand up for herself amid all the mean-spirited sniping at her from supposed allies.”

      What, you turned on her? I mean, you’re the only mean-spirited side-sniper around here – you routinely go out of your way to deride and misrepresent people like Robert Spencer, Jamie Glazov, Hugh Fitzgerald, Raymond Ibrahim etc., plus an untold number of commentators. Remember that time when you claimed Robert was hoping the islamic state would condemn beheadings? Or when you claimed Jamie was a leftist?

  34. Peggy says

    Aug 12, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    Angemon said:

    “Which was not what I suggested, was it? Frankly, all you’re doing now is repeating voeg’s bullet points without all his quasi-obfuscating verbosity”.
    =================================
    I am not repeating anyone’s ponts. These are my own thoughts and if someone else posted similar then it’s a concidence. When I repeat someone else’s quote I make it known that I am doing that.
    —————–

    “We’re not dealing with organized crime to which we can make significant damage and weaken them. We are dealing with suicidal maniacs in their millions.”

    Which brings back a point you saw fit to ignore: how would you get them on the planes from which you’d have them tossed from? Would they willingly and peacefully make a single line and enter the airships out of their own free will?
    =============================

    No, I would not expect them to be willing to go but enforcing an order like this would require law enforcement agencies.

    Even if our laws were applied properly it would still not be enough. We are only going to grab the ones who have already committed a crime and one of them can kill many of us. For every one we get how many more are going to step up and continue the work? We can;t even tell which ones are dangerous and which are not. It is a well known fact that once they reach a certain percentage we have lost.
    Now they are at around 3% at best in Australia and we have huge problems already. They are quite capable of doing a lot of damage so at what point do we finally understand that we have to do more than just act once an attack has happened?
    Yes, they monitor them and foil some plots too but can we live like this forever? Can we live always having to worry about the next plot which won’t be discovered in time? I truly believe that once we start deporting the more recent arrivals they will see that we mean business.

    • Wellington says

      Aug 12, 2015 at 10:27 pm

      If our laws were applied properly, Peggy, and a proper knowledge of how iniquitous Islam is was the “received wisdom,” accompanied by the other suggestions I made to you other day, it would be enough. Besides, and I say this as a lawyer, under American law mass deportation of Muslims is about as feasible as having Martians come from outer space and take them away. Voegelinian doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.

      Real problems require real solutions. Mass deportation of Muslims from Western nations is nowhere near a real solution. Oh yes, deportation of the worst and most criminal Muslims, OK. But mass deportation of Muslims just isn’t going to happen. The West is stuck with these losers and we’re going to have to deal with them as I have already outlined.

      • Peggy says

        Aug 12, 2015 at 11:08 pm

        I totally understand what you are saying I just don’t agree that we can control these savages.
        No matter how many we get more and more will take their place. This means that we are going to live with this problem forever.
        Also, I wasn’t talking bout the laws we have now. Obviously we can’t do much with that. I was talking about changing the laws. Even a constitution can be changed if we have the will to do it.
        I am also a realist and the sort f people we have in government all over western world no attempt will be made to change anything so we will have to work within the law and hope that we can make a difference.

        Now, terrorist attacks have been taking place for a long time. Why aren’t we any closer to fixing this problem? We are catching them and prosecuting them. Some we kill in action but more and more keep coming and a lot more will come in the future.
        This is what I mean when I said that our current laws are not working and won’t work.
        I really don’t see any results.
        I am sick of living like this. Always worried if my kids are going to be blown up when they use public transport or go to a football game. We never had such concerns when I was growing up.

        • quotha raven says

          Aug 12, 2015 at 11:20 pm

          Peggy – I sense your frustration and the onset of panic, and I completely understand it and feel it myself. You are right: it’s been years and years since 9-11-01, and terrorist acts only seem to multiply all over the world. The most horrifying thing is that our western governments seem only to foment and encourage and support them.

          I accept that Voegilinian’s suggestions are impractical and completely unconstitutional for us in the USA, and to deport all the muslims from any of our western countries is not do-able. I’ve come to think that it’s really all about globalism, erasure of sovereign nations and one-world government, which I first became aware of when George Bush Senior first used the phrase “New World Order”.

          I sincerely believe that bankers and gun runners are now in the catbird seat, and the rest of us can just take a long walk off a short pier, every kind of blather notwithstanding. Cheers! Quotha R

        • Wellington says

          Aug 12, 2015 at 11:54 pm

          If we have the will (and knowledge) Peggy, we can control the Buttlims (I call them this because they pray with their asses in the air). The corner of corners that must be turned Is that Islam has to be seen as a giant negative, as worthy of being classed with other totalitarian ideologies like Nazism and Marxism. Not there yet. Better to get there sooner rather than later.

        • quotha raven says

          Aug 13, 2015 at 12:05 am

          Wellington – Of course you are right. Normal people, though, like me in USA and Peggy in Australia, are simply appalled after so many years of escalation instead of containment at the very least. That’s where a lot of us ordinary individuals stand, Darling Wellington. There I said it.You always have a perspective I appreciate. Cheers! Quotha R

    • Angemon says

      Aug 13, 2015 at 10:11 am

      Peggy posted:

      “I am not repeating anyone’s ponts. These are my own thoughts and if someone else posted similar then it’s a concidence. When I repeat someone else’s quote I make it known that I am doing that.”

      Yes, you are, and no, it’s not a coincidence seeing how he spelled them out for you.

      “No, I would not expect them to be willing to go but enforcing an order like this would require law enforcement agencies.”

      Again: if current laws are not being applied, and if you ever came to a position where you’d be able to a) pass new laws and b) make sure those new laws would be applied, wouldn’t it be easier to just start making sure the existing laws are being enforces?

      “Even if our laws were applied properly it would still not be enough.”

      Hmm, never took you for a precog…

      “We are only going to grab the ones who have already committed a crime”

      Isn’t that how the law system works? Punish those who commit a crime, or try to. What is the alternative, mob justice, like in muslim countries, where the mere accusation is worth a death sentence?

      “and one of them can kill many of us.”

      One person can kill many, whether that person is a muslim or not. Since not all murderers are muslims, going by your logic, you’d have to consider everyone suspect. Do you want to “deport” everyone?

      “For every one we get how many more are going to step up and continue the work?”

      I don’t know – how many?

      “We can;t even tell which ones are dangerous and which are not.”

      That goes for every single person you come across on the street on a day-to-day basis regardless of race or religion – you can’t tell who’s dangerous or not, and there’s no particular merit in applying that logic to a small niche of the population. Heck, you can’t even tell who’s a muslim or not. Rounding up all self-professed muslims and parachuting them into Sudan would be no assurance that the % of muslims would decrease drastically.

      “It is a well known fact that once they reach a certain percentage we have lost.”

      Yes, I’m sure that Italy Greece, Spain and Portugal are islamic nations through and through…

      • Avenger says

        Aug 14, 2015 at 12:02 am

        Greece, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Armenia lost millions of their people reclaiming their native lands from Turks or muslim arabs. Do you want this nation to go through the same nightmare these countries went through Angemon?
        I agree you can’t deport, jail, throw from airplanes etc. Muslims now but how the dynamics of civility would change if there were one or two devastating terror attacks equal or larger than 911.
        For instance a jihadi dirty bomb killing thousands in Chicago and at the same time a mass slaughter of school children in Texas by ISIS. Do you think Americans would just go to work the next day and then watch the nightly news? Don’t think so.
        There would be a nation wide march on mosques with rifles and gasoline in hand.
        Muslims would defend themselves well at first, being they are also well armed but soon we kafirs would route and slaughter them. The women and children left could change their faith or ask for deportation to Libya.
        This is why Obama and the Muslim brotherhood really wouldnt want any terror attacks on U.S. soil now, they’d be snuffed out. Give them a few decades of intense Muslim immigration and more infiltration of Muslims in government then they would have a chance of national control.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 14, 2015 at 9:40 am

          Avenger posted:

          “Greece, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Armenia lost millions of their people reclaiming their native lands from Turks or muslim arabs. Do you want this nation to go through the same nightmare these countries went through Angemon?”

          No, I don’t. But saying that after a certain % we lose is demonstrably wrong.

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

  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • curious george on Israel At A Crossroads?
  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)
  • Vladimir on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests

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.