• 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

Australia: Muslim who screamed “Allahu akbar” after murdering police official regularly attended mosque

Oct 5, 2015 11:45 am By Robert Spencer

“Police have given no information on the shooter, who media reports said regularly skipped school to pray at a local mosque.” This presumably is the mosque that authorities raided with permission. Probably the raid focused on whether there were weapons inside, and/or visible signs of ties to the Islamic State or al-Qaeda. Did investigators also look into what is regularly taught at this mosque, and who regularly listens?

Farhad Mohammed

“Australia police probe motives of teen gunman,” AFP, October 5, 2015:

SYDNEY: Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Monday it was still not clear if the teenager who shot and killed a man outside a police headquarters was a self-motivated “lone-wolf” attacker.

Police have not identified the black-clad assailant who shot 58-year-old finance worker Curtis Cheng in the back of the head outside New South Wales state police headquarters in suburban Sydney on Friday.

This is an odd statement. Earlier stories readily identify him as Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad.

The teen, who authorities said was born in Iran of Iraqi and Kurdish background and had no criminal history prior to the incident, was killed in an exchange of fire with police.

“In terms of these so-called lone wolves, it is too early to comment or really for me to say at any rate to what extent this individual who murdered Mr Cheng was self-motivated, self-activated,” Turnbull told reporters.

“There is a lot of work being done to investigate this murder,” said the leader, who on the weekend said the attack “appears to have been an act of terrorism”.

Authorities have searched a mosque the shooter is believed to have attended, and Turnbull stressed that Australian Muslims were the country’s “absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of extremist violence”.

Great. What are they doing to help?

“All of us need to be very aware of the way in which radicalisation can occur … communities at every level, from families all of the way up, should be alert to what young people are doing, what influences are impacting on young people,” he said.

Police have given no information on the shooter, who media reports said regularly skipped school to pray at a local mosque….

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: Australia, Featured, mosques Tagged With: Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, Malcolm Turnbull


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Daniel Triplett says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 11:56 am

    Uniformed cops storm in, then everyone goes silent and “peaceful.”

    They need some undercover ops.

    • Jay Boo says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 1:22 pm

      You can bet that those pressure cookers in the basements of mosques are not for cooking.

      Our governments should require every so-called mosque (AKA Jihad recruitment center) in the West to disclose in writing how many assault rifles and how much bomb making material they store on site.

  2. Benedict says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 11:58 am

    Deport the entire family from where they came

  3. underbed cat says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 11:58 am

    Police officer slain in Lake Villa IL….a while back while chasing three men who seemed suspicious. Strange investigation going on and not too much news. He was in pursuit, it was near a school, and some large storage tanks that were shown when the news first hit, in early Sept. Police Depts. across the country should be notified of the calls of Isis….to go after police and military..this message may or may not have been given to all Police Depts. some of which, due to diversity and non threat policy making may even have a staff or leadership from muslim community. I am not implying this for Lake Villa, just stating current reality. There could be a conflict if they support sharia law.

  4. Jay Boo says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Koran Krazy
    In searching the mosque did investigators happen to find any (“Texts”) — that would instigate such an attack.

    • underbed cat says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      All across western countries, organizations have been effective in supressing information which may expose the true doctrine. They call it hate speech….and the purpose is to help create a caliphate. So it is good to hear that in Australia that even though they watch their words that may provoke, they are still smart enough to search a mosque, that is a good step..I wish this were true for the U.S.

      • umbra says

        Oct 5, 2015 at 12:37 pm

        Nothing meaningful is likely to come out of this. At present, even though all persons convicted and imprisoned for terrorism charges in Australia are ROP types, the media and government refuses to investigate (much less acknowledge any possible problem with) islamic motivations in terrorist acts committed by ROP followers. It is as if that 15 year old terrorist attended an sing along kumbaya class on a Friday afternoon and then decided to got shoot someone.

  5. John Alexander says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 12:36 pm

    Another thing reported on ABC was that the murderer’s famnily and friends were “resentful of the attention they were getting”. How could that be if they are ashamed of him? It can only be because they approve.

    We need to identify the threat. Check this out:

    There’s something lacking in the fight against Islamic terror. We have this vast military, economic and intellectual superiority but we can’t seem to land a decent punch. Nobody thinks that we are any closer to victory than we were on September 12th, 2001. And that’s after the sacrifice of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. How can it be that the whole struggle seems unwinnable? As usual the ruthless truth is very simple.

    If we want to battle Islamist terror in the certain knowledge of victory there is really just one thing we need to do. The single prerequisite of success is to admit that Islam itself is the enemy.

    It’s from a great piece about beating the Islamists at: http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/10/prerequisite-of-victory.html

  6. Jay Boo says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Politically Correct (Substitution) Syndrome

    A fictional character in a TV Series crime drama (I forget which one) was reportedly known to use the phrase “The Lamb of God”.
    Oooooh How ominous.

    Why not Allahu ackbar?

  7. Jay Boo says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Call it what it is

    The vampire may not desire his stake of death but, it would not be earnest to state he did not earn it.
    The maggots of Islam will crawl back into the dirt, as the sun rises on Muhammad’s bony corpse and his putrid coffin of vile verse.

  8. Mirren10 says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Turnbull is either an idiot, or his advisory team is failing to keep him informed.

    IS have **ordered muslims in the West to carry out lone wolf attacks**.

    Self motivated ? Self activated ? No. This evil little turd was doing, not only what the *koran* commands, but what IS commands.

    Politicians . They are going to be the death of us all.

  9. abad says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    Deport them. Muslims do not belong in Australia.

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 3:12 pm

      Most Muslims just wanna have a shrimp on the barby. Crikey Akbar!

  10. Truth Seeker says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    So he went to a Mosque? Big deal. I go to a Mosque, I go to many mosques, I live amongst tens of thousands of Muslims. Whats your point? What if he regularly attended the supermarket for his shopping? Should that imply some kind of “link” between supermarkets and criminal behaviour?

    If you think Mosques preach hate, go and visit one. You wont find any hate being spread. and you know it robert. But since you are clearly a bigot, the truth is of no interest to you, you just seem intent on spreading hate,

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 3:13 pm

      Ah, do you hear the telltale tinkle-tinkle of the front door? We have a customer.

    • CogitoErgoSum says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 3:56 pm

      Truth Seeker, most Christians would be able to tell you that when asked which commandment is the greatest, Jesus said it is to love God with our whole heart, our whole soul and whole mind … and that the second is like unto the first ….. to love our neighbor as ourselves.

      I am curious to know whether you have heard such as this ever preached inside a mosque? What would you say are the two greatest commandments of Allah that should be taught in every mosque?

      • Truth Seeker says

        Oct 6, 2015 at 11:25 am

        Yes I have heard similar in every Mosque I have ever been to. Kindness, respect, helping you’re fellow man are all huge aspects of Islam which unfortunately Robert Spencer never mentions.

        Robert takes particular aspects of verses, clips the rest off, mentions it totally out of context, then shows the verse as some kind of justification for violence in the Quran. He’s not stupid, hes a very smart, manipulative man, a bigot but intent on spreading his hate through misquoting, and spreading misleading propoganda.

        In terms of religious text based violence, I am assuming you have never read the bible, as you have not made any mention of the numerous appalling violence mentioned in the bible. Why is this?

        • Angemon says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 4:19 pm

          Truth Seeker posted:

          “Robert takes particular aspects of verses, clips the rest off, mentions it totally out of context, then shows the verse as some kind of justification for violence in the Quran. He’s not stupid, hes a very smart, manipulative man, a bigot but intent on spreading his hate through misquoting, and spreading misleading propoganda.”

          And, of course, you don’t actually “contextualize” the allegedly “clipped” verses – they’re “misquoted” because you say so, and we just have to take your word for it.

          “In terms of religious text based violence, I am assuming you have never read the bible, as you have not made any mention of the numerous appalling violence mentioned in the bible.”

          Nice sleight-of-hand, bub, but if you want to talk about “religious text based violence” regarding the Bible you’d need to point out to groups nowadays committing violence and justifying it with Biblical texts. If you want to go with the dead horse of “but there’s violence in the Bible” then what you have is a fistful of nothing because the Bible does not have an open ended, universal command mandating Jews and/or Christians to wage warfare against non-Jews and/or non-Christians because of their religion.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 1:18 pm

          “Truth Seeker” wrote:

          Robert takes particular aspects of verses, clips the rest off, mentions it totally out of context, then shows the verse as some kind of justification for violence in the Quran.
          ………………………..

          And yet, it is not just “Islamophobes” like Robert Spencer who considers the verses of the Qur’an justification for violence–but *pious Muslims themselves*–to the tune of over 27,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11.

          What doesn’t “Truth Seeker” take this up with devout Muslims?

          And notice, “Truth Seeker” does not consider pious Muslims murdering police officers to be “hate” at all…

    • Peggy says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      And how many mosques are teaching that violence is not acceptable and not Islam sanctioned?
      What exactly are the sermons about? If they use the Koran then they have to be teaching hate and death because that’s what the Koran is full of.

      • Truth Seeker says

        Oct 6, 2015 at 11:43 am

        Most I have been to recently have advised against groups that spread violence in the name of faith.

        The sermons can be numoerous, from the benefits of marriage to the rewards of studying hard and pushing yourself to excel in education, to respecting parents and elders, to working to improve your community, to even minor issues like the importance of cutting you’re front lawn regularly and keeping you’re local environment clean.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 6:39 pm

      “Truth Seeker” wrote:

      So he went to a Mosque? Big deal. I go to a Mosque, I go to many mosques, I live amongst tens of thousands of Muslims. Whats your point? What if he regularly attended the supermarket for his shopping? Should that imply some kind of “link” between supermarkets and criminal behaviour?
      …………………………………….

      Did Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad murder in the name of Bi-Lo or Safeway? Did he claim to be one of “Australia’s Fresh Food People”? Did he scream “Extra Value for You!” as he killed?

      Of course not. He killed in the name of Islam, screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as he did so.

      More:

      If you think Mosques preach hate, go and visit one. You wont find any hate being spread. and you know it robert. But since you are clearly a bigot, the truth is of no interest to you, you just seem intent on spreading hate,
      …………………………………….

      I guess “Truth Seeker” does not consider Hizb ut-Tahrir–which has regularly preached at the Parrametta Mosque–to spread hate. This Jihad terror group held a demonstration in Sydney *in favor* of the Charlie Hebdo Jihadists. They described the massacre of these cartoonists and journalists as a “cure”.

      The Parrametta Mosque also has links to a Da’wa group recruiting for the Islamic State.

      I suppose “Truth Seeker” fails to consider any of this hateful.

      Does he consider the slaughter of a police accountant to be hateful? If so, he certainly does not say so. But he considers it “spreading hate” to dare point out the Islamic basis for this murder.

      • Angemon says

        Oct 5, 2015 at 8:48 pm

        gravenimage posted:

        “Does he consider the slaughter of a police accountant to be hateful? If so, he certainly does not say so. But he considers it “spreading hate” to dare point out the Islamic basis for this murder.”

        Nope, all he cares about is disassociating islam with islamic-motivated crimes by whatever means necessary. I think the “Truth” in his moniker pertains, not to conformity with fact or reality, but to islam – how many muslims have you seen using “the truth” to describe islam? “May allah open your heart and show you the truth”, “Jews and Christians rejected the truth”, etc.

        • dumbledoresarmy says

          Oct 5, 2015 at 11:51 pm

          Angemon.

          That is a very important reminder of the nature of Islamspeak.”

          Just as, in Islamspeak, ‘justice’ = ‘sharia’ (or, “in conformity with the sharia’), ‘truth’ or ‘the truth’ = “Islam’.

          Conversely, ‘falsehood’ and ‘ignorance’ = ‘anything not-Islam’.

          Non-Muslims are ‘ignorant’ because they are not Muslim.

          Muslims regard themselves or are taught to regard themselves as special superior people in possession of special superior ‘knowledge’, the ‘light’ of Islam. They are the enlightened or illuminati, and everyone else who doesn’t appreciate the sheer ecstatic wonderfulness of Submitting to allah, keeping underaged sex-slaves, taking a child bride, beating your wife, hating dogs, and not just hating music, art and statues but attacking and destroy same (and killing artists, sculptors and musicians as opportunity presents), not to mention hating and killing Christians, Jews, buddhists, etc, is ‘ignorant’.

          Even if an Infidel has read and understood and knows all the canonical texts of Islam and their most Islamically-respected interpreters back to front in the original languages, that Infidel will still be accused of being ‘ignorant’ because that Infidel continues to refuse to become a Muslim.

          Being non-Muslim = being Ignorant.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 11, 2015 at 9:19 pm

          All true, Angemon and DDA.

      • Truth Seeker says

        Oct 6, 2015 at 11:32 am

        He may have claimed he is doing it in the name of Islam, just as many western killers, including US terrorists (marines/army) who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan slaughtered many civilians whilst claiming they were doing it in in the name of Jesus, God, and other such nonsense. I’m sure the bible does not condone the killing of civilians, the spreading of racism and hate, and bigotry, yet many many (devout) christians do just this, you se some of the most vile racists in the USA claiming to be doing gods work. Even the Klu Klux Klan racists claim to be doing gods work, claiming to be devout christians.

        So next time a Muslim carries out an act of violence “in the name of Islam”, understand that these are misguided hate filled individuals, using religion to justify their hate, just as many hate filled christians and jews use religion to justify their bigotry and hate.

        I dont expect to be allowed to comment on here for much longer as the right wing anti-muslim sites quickly block Muslims from debate as the hatred and dishonesty of these sites is pretty quickly exposed by Muslims.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 4:35 pm

          Truth Seeker posted:

          “He may have claimed he is doing it in the name of Islam, just as many western killers, including US terrorists (marines/army) who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan slaughtered many civilians whilst claiming they were doing it in in the name of Jesus, God, and other such nonsense. I’m sure the bible does not condone the killing of civilians, the spreading of racism and hate, and bigotry, yet many many (devout) christians do just this, you se some of the most vile racists in the USA claiming to be doing gods work. Even the Klu Klux Klan racists claim to be doing gods work, claiming to be devout christians.

          So next time a Muslim carries out an act of violence “in the name of Islam”, understand that these are misguided hate filled individuals, using religion to justify their hate, just as many hate filled christians and jews use religion to justify their bigotry and hate.”

          Very keen on false equivalence and tu-quoquery, aren’t you? Answer me this: does the Bible have an open-ended commandment mandating Jews and Christians to wage warfare against non-Jews and non-Christians until they convert, pay a poll tax or die? Does the quran have such a commandment? As for the KKK, didn’t other Christians opposed them and pointed out that they were in fact going against what the Bible teaches? Weren’t the KKK a minority? Where’s the equivalent muslim movement against, all the islamic terror groups worldwide fighting to impose sharia law? How is it that all over the world – north to south, east to west – muslims “misinterpret” islamic orthodoxy in the exact same fashion? Why is it that the islamic state gathers a great deal of support among muslims worldwide? Also, where are the Christian of Jewish groups equivalent to the islamic state? You know, since you’re droning on about Biblical inspired violence – seems like you should be listing a few of them.

          “I dont expect to be allowed to comment on here for much longer as the right wing anti-muslim sites quickly block Muslims from debate as the hatred and dishonesty of these sites is pretty quickly exposed by Muslims”

          Oh, please – as long as you mind your language and don’t, for example, call for genocide you won’t blocked from posting here.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 1:23 pm

          “Truth Seeker” wrote:

          I dont expect to be allowed to comment on here for much longer as the right wing anti-muslim sites quickly block Muslims from debate as the hatred and dishonesty of these sites is pretty quickly exposed by Muslims.
          ……………………….

          Actually, trolls are seldom banned here unless they are threatening.

          But then, Muslims cannot be expected to understand freedom of speech.

      • Truth Seeker says

        Oct 6, 2015 at 11:49 am

        Ironic you mention Hizbut Tahrir. I used to go to some of their lectures when I was at Uni, I attended lectures from as many groups and religions as I could, I loved the fact you gain so much knowledge from them. Hizb never once preached hatred. They raised many interesting issues, some I agreed with, others I did not, but nothing they said made them sound like they were extreme. I’ve spoken to and debated Hizb supporters over the years and these are good people, passionate, with good intentions, I may not agree with everything they say, but I can tell you now they have NEVER EVER spread violence or supported it, quite the contrary, they often spoke out against violence in the name of Islam.

        I find it VERY hard to believe they would have supported the charlie hebdo killings as those actions are totally in contradiction to islam. If you have evidence they did, please share it.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 4:46 pm

          Truth Seeker posted:

          “I find it VERY hard to believe they would have supported the charlie hebdo killings as those actions are totally in contradiction to islam.”

          Lol! Good joke, mate! Please, muhammad ordered those who criticized or mocked him to be killed – the muslims who murdered the CH staff were not acting against islam, they were acting according to it:

          Ibn ‘Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, “Who will deal with her for me?” A man from her people said, “I will, Messenger of Allah.” The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, “Two goats will not lock horns over her.”

          Ibn ‘Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity.

          “If you have evidence they did, please share it.”

          Ah, classic leftist/islamic apologist tactics – you say whatever you want without providing a shred of evidence to back it up, but you’re always eager to demand others for evidence of what they say.

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 4:54 pm

          Truth Seeker insists Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a benign organization, but he offers no proof of this egregious claim. He likely is one of those people who actually believes a Muslim who insists that “Islam does not teach the taking of innocent life!” — not bothering to parse the screamingly obvious kitman there (hint, hint: the use of “innocent”), or too illiterate about the problem of Islam to even know about it. So when those nice & clever HuT reps he spoke with “often spoke out against violence in the name of Islam”, Truth Seeker’s Mo-Dar was set so low, a passenger jet could fly through it n a brilliantly beautiful, sunny day in September of 2001.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 1:42 pm

          “Truth Seeker” wrote:

          I find it VERY hard to believe they would have supported the charlie hebdo killings as those actions are totally in contradiction to islam. If you have evidence they did, please share it.
          ……………………………..

          Why do these Muslim apologists even both with their witless Taqiyya?

          The blatant evidence is here:

          “Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks a ‘cure’, says leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia Ismail Alwahwah”

          http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/charlie-hebdo-terrorist-attacks-a-cure-says-leader-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-australia-ismail-alwahwah/story-fni0cx12-1227182578266

          “THE leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia has described the callous killing of Charlie Hebdo staff by Parisian Islamic terrorists as a “cure”.

          Ismail Alwahwah, who also attended rallies with Martin Place gunman Man Haron Monis, wrote a lengthy diatribe on the attack in which he claimed the attacks were a reaction to “daily humiliation” of Muslims and “insults to their book and prophet”.

          The Bankstown man – whose organisation describe themselves as a “political party whose ideology is Islam” – headed his vile article “Commentary on Charlie Hebdo and the physical law of compression” and used scientific analogies to justify the brutal slaughter.

          “The pressure — is responsible for triggering the explosion, the cure has always focused on eliminating pressure or reducing it,” he wrote….”

          In other words, if you ‘filthy Infidels’ dare to criticize the violence of Islam, then we are permitted to murder you with impunity.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 4:47 pm

          Haven’t read the whole threat to see if someone addressed this but the founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir was Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahani. The first thing to note about this group is that its purpose is to establish the Caliphate universal and Sharia law. The second thing is to quote Nabahani to see what he is all about. He wrote a book called–wait for it–“The Book of the Islamic State” in 1953. Let’s see what he says about violence in the name of Islam.

          pg. 112, 113, and 117
          “The foreign policy of Islamic states must be to carry the Islamic mission to the world by way of holy war. This process has been established through the course of the ages from the time the apostle settled down until the end of the last Islamic state which was ruled by Islamic law. This process has never been changed at all. The apostle Muhammad, from the time he founded the state in the city Yathrib, prepared an army and began holy war to remove the physical barriers which hinder the spread of Islam.”

          Nothing extreme about that. Nothing violent about that.

          “He (Mohammad) subdued the tribe of Quraysh as a body, along with other similar groups until Islam prevailed all over the Arabian peninsula. Then the Islamic state started to knock at the doors of other states to spread Islam. Whenever it found that the nature of the existing system in these states was a barrier which prevented the spread of the mission, they saw it as inevitable that the system be removed. So holy war continued as a means of spreading Islam. Thus by holy war, countries and regions were conquered. By holy war, kingdoms and states were removed and Islam ruled the nations and peoples.

          “The glorious Qur’an has revealed to Muslims the reasons for fighting and the ordinance of holy war and it declares that it is to carry the message of Islam to the entire world. There are several verses which command the Muslims to fight for the cause of Islam. Therefore, carrying the Islamic mission is the basis on which the Islamic state was established, the Islamic army was founded, and holy war was ordained. All the conquests were achieved accordingly. Fulfilling the Islamic mission will restore the Islamic state to the Muslims.”

          There’s more: pg. 113, 114, and 115,
          “If holy war is the established, unchangeable means of spreading Islam, then political activities become a necessity before initiating the fight. If we besiege the infidels, we would call them to embrace Islam first. If they accept Islam, they become part of the Islamic community, but if they reject Islam, they have to pay the poll-tax. If they pay it, they spare their blood and properties, but if they refuse to pay the poll-tax, then fighting them becomes lawful.”

          pgs 115 and 116
          “The Islamic system is a universal system, thus it was natural that it would spread, and natural that countries would be conquered. Here the apostle is receiving from Muslims the pledge of ’aqaba the Second, making a pact with him to fight all people. Those Muslims were the core of the army of the Islamic state whose military task was to carry the Islamic mission. The apostle of God had designed the plan of conquest before his death, then after him, his successors undertook the responsibility of implementing this plan when they started conquering the countries. Later, the Islamic conquests followed successively on this basis. People’s resistance or rejection does not matter because the Islamic system is for all people in all countries.”

          People’s resistance or rejection does not matter because the Islamic system is for all people in all countries. Those are the “good intentions” the poster is referring to.

          Nabahani and al-Baghdadi, peas (sic) in a pod.

    • Mirren10 says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 7:15 pm

      So, ‘truth seeker’ (haha), what do you have to say in reply to gravenimage’s excellent points ?

      I’ m waiting with bated breath for your spirited and salient response …

      • Truth Seeker says

        Oct 6, 2015 at 11:33 am

        I have responded sir, but I dont believe I will have the right to respond as I expect to be blocked soon.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 1:46 pm

          Well, this is grimly hilarious–why, yes, I would respond, but i’m sure you mean “Islamophobes” will no doubt soon prevent me from speaking…

          What absolute rot. The fact is that it is Muslims who violently crush freedom of speech–like “Truth Seeker’s” beloved Hizb ut-Tahrir, who laud the Charlie Hebdo murderers.

    • Mirren10 says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 7:22 pm

      One further point; if mosques are spreading loving kindness to all, as you insinuate, and this murdering pos regularly attended, how come it didn’t rub off on him ?

      Wait, I know; he was ‘radicalised on the Internet’…

      But how come the loving teaching in the mosque wasn’t enough to turn him away from ‘radical islam’?

      Qustions, questions, questions. But you’ll never ask yourself any, will you, chumbawumba ?

      • gravenimage says

        Oct 5, 2015 at 8:43 pm

        Mirren wrote:

        But how come the loving teaching in the mosque wasn’t enough to turn him away from ‘radical islam’?
        ………………………

        Excellent question, Mirren–and one we should *always* ask. The truth is that it is almost always the most devout Muslims who engage in violent Jihad.

        Of course, I think it no more likely that “Truth Seeker” will answer your questions than he will mine…

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 5:24 pm

          So while Mirriam and gravenimage are in the neighborhood, what do you think of your friend Angemon balking at my statement that Western authorities should randomly search mosques, rather than waiting after the fact?

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/australia-muslim-who-screamed-allahu-akbar-after-murdering-police-official-regularly-attended-mosque/comment-page-1#comment-1304841

        • Angemon says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 5:46 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “So while Mirriam and gravenimage are in the neighborhood, what do you think of your friend Angemon balking at my statement that Western authorities should randomly search mosques, rather than waiting after the fact?”

          balking:

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/balking

          1.
          to stop, as at an obstacle, and refuse to proceed or to do something specified (usually followed by at):

          Did I stop you from doing anything? Did i stop mosques from being searched? Of course not. What you’re doing is loading the question – trying to portray what I said in the worst possible way to make Mirren (do try to look at usernames every once in a while) and GI give the answer you want. Because that’s much more important to the CJ movement than debunking the obfuscation emanating from “Truth Seeker”. Priorities, priorities…

          What do you think about what I said – i.e., why don’t you say something rather than going out of your way to get a reaction from third parties? Do you know the legal framework required for law enforcement agencies to search anything, randomly or not? Or do you think that law enforcement agencies simply do whatever they damn well please because they’re the law and are, therefore, unconstrained by it? Do you agree with what I said about muslims simply meeting and preparing for jihad someplace else if they know that the mosque they hangout on could be searched at any given time? Silly me – you’re not one to argue ideas based on their merits and shortcomings, hoping that a reasonable discussion, in good faith, will offer solutions for said shortcomings. No, what you want is what you’ve asked for scores, if not hundreds, of times over the last year and so – that people take your side against anyone who even thinks about criticizing anything you say. Because that’s all this is to you – a game where you say whatever it is you need to say to get your daily fix of narcissistic supply.

          Of course, you conveniently leave out that I have, on several occasions, suggested, besides halting muslim immigration into Western countries and deportation of foreign muslim criminals (alongside stripping of citizenship for those sporting a dual nationality), that mosques should be subjected to surveillance 24/7 – I’d say that, in the long run, that would prove more fruitful than random searches, wouldn’t you?

        • Mirren10 says

          Oct 7, 2015 at 11:44 am

          ” … what do you think of your friend Angemon balking at my statement that Western authorities should randomly search mosques, rather than waiting after the fact.”

          I think, that as Angemon suggests, mosques should be under surveillance 24/7.

          However, I would also say that yes, the law *ought* to be changed, to allow for random searches of mosques; whilst, as Angemon notes, that wouldn’t prevent murderous muslims from plotting jihad elsewhere, it would render vicious kutbhas more problematic.

          But, for either of those things to happen, Western governments will have to accept that *islam* is the murderous creed that fuels these people, and *mosques* are one of the most important places they fill up from.

          Neither of those things are likely to happen soon. Unfortunately, much more blood will have to be spilt, in the name of islam, before the West finally does what has to be done.

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 7, 2015 at 7:20 pm

          Mirriam wrote, in response to my comment —

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/australia-muslim-who-screamed-allahu-akbar-after-murdering-police-official-regularly-attended-mosque/comment-page-1#comment-1305373

          — and in response to Angemon’s response to my comment —

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/australia-muslim-who-screamed-allahu-akbar-after-murdering-police-official-regularly-attended-mosque/comment-page-1#comment-1305385

          — after I asked her and the other Friends of Phillip —

          ” … what do you think of your friend Angemon balking at my statement that Western authorities should randomly search mosques, rather than waiting after the fact.”

          — the following, by beginning thusly:

          I think, that as Angemon suggests, mosques should be under surveillance 24/7.

          Mirren must think I don’t want the West to surveil mosques 24/7. Of course I do. How is that an argument against the fact that we need to do random searches of mosques before Muslims do anything? (Note for sophomores: just because something is not doable currently because people don’t want to do it for various reasons — doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.)

          Mirren goes on:

          However, I would also say that yes, the law *ought* to be changed, to allow for random searches of mosques; whilst, as Angemon notes, that wouldn’t prevent murderous muslims from plotting jihad elsewhere, it would render vicious kutbhas more problematic.

          First, notice that the “However, I would also say…” — with the “However” and the “also” clearly indicating that she meant that beginning sentence about 24/7 surveillance to be some sort of counter-argument to my expressed desire that I’m pushing out there as a concerned member of the canaries-in-a-coalmine spearhead called the “Counter-Jihad”, that the West go further before too many of us get mass-murdered. Is the attempted counter-argument here predicated upon the notion that 24/7 surveillance is good enough, that it can substitute for a program of random searches? How would that be the case? (And are we on the Angemon Team even sure that 24/7 surveillance of religious houses of worship of one religion passes our anxious concern for legality… any more than random searches? But that’s the kind of question I only append tangentially, peripheral to my main point — but which Angemon typically would seize upon as a red herring to try to drag me down into one of his thousands of rabbit holes.)

          Second, Mirriam’s supposition that we would have to change laws is a common misconception. That is only the case regarding a people, organization or group that is not currently waging war against us by a combination of mass-murdering us & plotting to mass-murder us even more horribly in the near future (if they can), as well as sabotage & sedition in the forms of stealth jihad. Once we factor in that horrific fact, we would not need to change any laws to do what it takes to defend ourselves. It’s a matter of perception, not law. The Western Mainstream persists in refusing to see that Muslims are mass-murdering us and trying to deceive us about that mass-murder as part of a world war they are now waging against us.

          And apparently Angemon and Mirriam agree with the Western Mainstream on this. And, on behalf not only of my endangered life and the endangered lives of my loved ones, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens – but also in the name of all the millions of victims of Islamic Jihad whose anguish and torture has cried out and is now crying out — I find Angemon’s and Mirriam’s softness deeply dismaying and offensive.

          Mirriam goes on:

          “But, for either of those things to happen, Western governments will have to accept that *islam* is the murderous creed that fuels these people, and *mosques* are one of the most important places they fill up from.”

          Well, of course. That’s one of the functions of the Counter-Jihad (if not the most important function) – in the context of the “battle spaces” of the war of ideas (in Frank Gaffney’s apt phrase), to spearhead the shift in paradigm in the broader societies we all live in throughout the West, among all the fellow citizens we have faith in to wake up and increasingly put pressure on their representatives in government, news media, academe, and popular culture of arts & entertainment.

          But that’s not likely to happen when so many in the Counter-Jihad put so much energy into putting the brakes on that psychological & intellectual vector.

          “Neither of those things are likely to happen soon. Unfortunately, much more blood will have to be spilt, in the name of islam, before the West finally does what has to be done.”

          Flowing from the logic of what I noted in my previous statement before this last quote, Mirriam seems to be regarding the overall process of the Problem Currently and the Ongoing Development of Change in the Future as a kind of climate phenomenon that will just occur beyond our will and efforts, as though sociopolitical change is not happening under our feet, as though the people don’t contribute to that change, as though the Counter-Jihad, through its spearhead role in the war-of-ideas has no effect. In fact, it does have effect; and if the Softies like her and her friends Angemon and the rest of the FOPs (Friends of Phillip) enjoy any sway, that effect will tend to serve to reinforce the ongoing retardation of the overall West which would guarantee that the dismal picture Mirriam paints, of blood, tumult, terror and disarray throughout the West, will be worse rather than better through the West waking up sooner rather than later to treat Muslims as the purveyors of the war against us that they are.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 7, 2015 at 8:15 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “Mirriam wrote, in response to my comment — ”

          The comment where you badgered her to say something about what I said. She did, and let me guess: you didn’t like what she had to say because she did not outright repudiate what I said and now you’re just going to nitpick and squirm around to undermine her. Because you’re a petty, vindictive person.

          “— after I asked her and the other Friends of Phillip — ”

          Huh, PJ’s been gone for a while now. Maybe you should stop thinking about him – I doubt he’s thinking about you anyway.

          “Mirren must think I don’t want the West to surveil mosques 24/7. Of course I do. How is that an argument against the fact that we need to do random searches of mosques before Muslims do anything?”

          Let’s see: the idea of surveillance is not let the target know you’re on to them so they carry on their business as usual – basically handing them rope to hang themselves. Now, this part is tricky and hard to grasp, so please, bear with me. If you let a mosque know that they can be searched at any random time, chances are, they’re not going to carry on their business as usual and will, instead move their business elsewhere.

          Since you’re very keen on comparisons (and because I also lack the time and crayons to put it in a way even you can comprehend), imagine two fishermen. One of them drops a net on the bottom of the lake, on an area where schools of fish go through everyday, and sits quietly, keeping an eye on the sonar, waiting for the right moment to pull the next up. The other grabs a spear and every five minutes places his head underwater and shouts “I’M ON TO YOU, FISHES!!! i’M GOING TO GET YOU”.

          Which one do you think would bring home the better haul?

          “And are we on the Angemon Team even sure that 24/7 surveillance of religious houses of worship of one religion passes our anxious concern for legality… any more than random searches”

          What “Angemon Team” would that be? Me thinks you’re quite a paranoid individual. And an ill-informed one, at that – go ask a law enforcement agent what are the requirements for surveillance and for a search.

          “But that’s the kind of question I only append tangentially, peripheral to my main point — but which Angemon typically would seize upon as a red herring to try to drag me down into one of his thousands of rabbit holest”

          We get it – you don’t really know, or care, care how feasible your “ideas” are. All that matters is that you have the semblance of a solution. And those infidels who question you about it? Lie about, and slander – all of them.

          “Second, Mirriam’s supposition that we would have to change laws is a common misconception.”

          Let me guess: you’re not going to point us to an existing law and tell us how it applies to this situation. Instead, you will, theatrically, remind us of how dire the situation is, and therefore laws don’t apply – no need to change laws if you simply ignore them, right?

          “That is only the case regarding a people, organization or group that is not currently waging war against us by a combination of mass-murdering us & plotting to mass-murder us even more horribly in the near future (if they can), as well as sabotage & sedition in the forms of stealth jihad. Once we factor in that horrific fact, we would not need to change any laws to do what it takes to defend ourselves. It’s a matter of perception, not law. The Western Mainstream persists in refusing to see that Muslims are mass-murdering us and trying to deceive us about that mass-murder as part of a world war they are now waging against us.”

          Called it. You have no logic or arguments behind you, Nayirah – appeal to emotions is a logical fallacy. But hey, the whole problem started because existing laws are not being enforced – certainly ignoring a few more laws can fix it, right?

          “And apparently Angemon and Mirriam agree with the Western Mainstream on this. And, on behalf not only of my endangered life and the endangered lives of my loved ones, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens – but also in the name of all the millions of victims of Islamic Jihad whose anguish and torture has cried out and is now crying out —”

          Not an argument, Nayirah – again, appeal to emotions is a logical fallacy. Unless you’re going to argue that randomly searching mosques (because that was the matter at hand, remember) can prevent your doomsday scenario better than what I suggested, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

          “I find Angemon’s and Mirriam’s softness deeply dismaying and offensive.”

          Again, spin doctor here is assuming things to be true without ever proving them. How and why I being soft? How and why is Mirren (for f***’s sake, voeg, get the name right) being soft? I don’t know, I suspect Mirren doesn’t know either, and Dr. Mind Reader here is not going to dignify us with an answer. We’re soft because he says so, and that’s it. In any case, that has nothing to do with the matter at hand – discussing the merits of randomly searching mosques. Apparently, he forgot all about it. Or maybe not – why argue for his case when he can simply slander the other parties and hope people will be, for whatever reason, as outraged as he’s pretending to be? Which, again, it’s exactly the MO of leftists and islamic apologists (“drawing muhammad? Why, I find that to be deeply dismaying and offensive!”).

          “Well, of course. That’s one of the functions of the Counter-Jihad (if not the most important function) – in the context of the “battle spaces” of the war of ideas (in Frank Gaffney’s apt phrase), to spearhead the shift in paradigm in the broader societies we all live in throughout the West, among all the fellow citizens we have faith in to wake up and increasingly put pressure on their representatives in government, news media, academe, and popular culture of arts & entertainment.

          But that’s not likely to happen when so many in the Counter-Jihad put so much energy into putting the brakes on that psychological & intellectual vector.”

          Translation “My ideas are not getting any traction here, therefore the CJ movement is wrong. Only I am right, and anyone saying anything different from whatever it is I say is, by definition, completely wrong and needs to be slandered and belittled into oblivion”.

          “Flowing from the logic of what I noted in my previous statement before this last quote, Mirriam seems to be regarding the overall process of the Problem Currently and the Ongoing Development of Change in the Future as a kind of climate phenomenon that will just occur beyond our will and efforts, as though sociopolitical change is not happening under our feet, as though the people don’t contribute to that change, as though the Counter-Jihad, through its spearhead role in the war-of-ideas has no effect.”

          Again, you have no idea how things work in the real world. Just repeat the same thing over and over, and it will certainly come to pass, right?

          “In fact, it does have effect; and if the Softies like her and her friends Angemon and the rest of the FOPs (Friends of Phillip) enjoy any sway, that effect will tend to serve to reinforce the ongoing retardation of the overall West which would guarantee that the dismal picture Mirriam paints, of blood, tumult, terror and disarray throughout the West, will be worse rather than better through the West waking up sooner rather than later to treat Muslims as the purveyors of the war against us that they are.”

          Translation: “These people here – Mirren, Angemon, Philip (let’s call them softies) – are not toeing my line, and therefore they’re wrong – they are lowly, uneducated peons who are trying to bring on the end of the world as we know it. No, you don’t need to discuss whatever they say, all you need to know is that I’m right and I have the magical solution that will fix everything, but you need to help me here – you need to go and bully them. Go on, insult them, humiliate them, do whatever it is necessary to get them to stop posting, and everything will be just fine”.

          899 words and all you had to say about the matter at hand was that you also think mosques should be under surveillance – even though you brought forth an idea that would basically nullify the goal of 24/7 surveillance. The rest was sophistry and slander, even though Mirren agreed with random mosque searches.

          And you wonder why no one takes your side – why would someone do it if they know beforehand that they might get a swift kick to the teeth?

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 7, 2015 at 7:39 pm

          Important, regrettable (but remediable) typo in my last sentence above:’

          “that the dismal picture Mirriam paints, of blood, tumult, terror and disarray throughout the West, will be worse rather than better through the West waking up sooner rather than later”

          that phrase should be “later rather than soon“.

        • Mirren10 says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 7:30 am

          Voeg, I answered your question, and all I got in return was a diatribe about how ‘soft’ and stupid I am.

          I can’t be bothered to parse your invective bit by bit; in any case, Angemon has done that admirably.

          I will, however, reiterate the point of law involved here. Western law does not allow for random searches of premises, houses, or any buildings owned by companies, corporations et al, unless the police can show evidence that wrong doing is being committed, and can then apply for a search warrant.

          That *is* the law as it stands, whether you like it or not. In order to allow the police to make random raids on mosques in general, the law would have to be changed.

          I’m not going to get into deportation of all muslims, but again, the law as it stands, will not allow it.

          I’m all for changing the law, with regard to muslims, and frequently push this in letters to the ‘powers that be’. You could do the same, and perhaps you do.

          But your reply to me, was, as Angemon says, a load of bullshit sophistry and wishful thinking, larded with sly innuendo and and accusing me of taking positions I have not, in fact, taken. Is this how you argue away from JW ? If it is, I should think the response is similar to mine. Bullshit.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 1:52 pm

          I believe Mosques should be under surveillance, as well.

          And I think they should be searched when there is specific suspicion.

          There is nothing “soft’ about this stance.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 1:55 pm

          And I should add that such searches should *never* be carried out with the notification and permission of those searched–this defeats the whole purpose and makes a mockery of the whole exercise.

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 3:38 pm

          Mirren said:

          “Voeg, I answered your question, and all I got in return was a diatribe about how ‘soft’ and stupid I am.”

          That’s patently not “all” she got from me. I presented a detailed, meticulous, lengthy argument — I showed her the respect of doing so. And she insults me by mischaracterizing what I did.

          “I can’t be bothered to parse your invective bit by bit”

          Other than my sentiment I expressed which constitutes 1% of my post, it’s not “invective”. Again, brazen, wildly inaccurate mischaracterization of what I did.

          “I will, however, reiterate the point of law involved here. Western law does not allow for random searches of premises, houses, or any buildings owned by companies, corporations et al, unless the police can show evidence that wrong doing is being committed”

          — or unless those who would be searched are part of a literal army waging literal war against us, during which war they have literally mass murdered us, are mass murdering us now, and portent horrific escalation of mass murder in the future. Mirren left that little detail out.

          And so, this is what I get when I ask for actual arguments from these FOPs (Friends of Phillip): mischaracterizations of what I said in my argument (and mischaracterizations of my argument itself), moving of goalposts, and ignoring key points I brought up. No wonder these people esteem Angemon so much.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “That’s patently not “all” she got from me. I presented a detailed, meticulous, lengthy argument — I showed her the respect of doing so. And she insults me by mischaracterizing what I did.”

          Bollocks, voeg – almost all of your post was simply a smear piece on me and Mirren.

          “Other than my sentiment I expressed which constitutes 1% of my post, it’s not “invective”. Again, brazen, wildly inaccurate mischaracterization of what I did.”

          Again, bollocks – almost all of your post was simply a smear piece on me and Mirren.

          “— or unless those who would be searched are part of a literal army waging literal war against us, during which war they have literally mass murdered us, are mass murdering us now, and portent horrific escalation of mass murder in the future. Mirren left that little detail out.”

          No, voeg, she did not. She told you the law as it stands now. If your argument is an appeal to emotion – which is a logical fallacy – then you have no argument.

          Let’s see:

          – As Mirren noted, the law, as it exists, forbids the measure you want to enforce

          – You stated that the laws don’t need to be changed

          Ergo, the measure you want to enforce can not be enforced because it’s forbidden by law. You can repeat over and over your copy/paste bullet point of “a literal army waging literal war against us, during which war they have literally mass murdered us, are mass murdering us now, and portent horrific escalation of mass murder in the future” – that in no way invalidates the existing law nor what Mirren stated.

          But, of course, you won’t let mere, petty “facts” or “laws” prove you wrong – you said what you said and you’re going to keep repeating it over and over as if it were true, because that’s your shtick.

          “And so, this is what I get when I ask for actual arguments from these FOPs (Friends of Phillip): mischaracterizations of what I said in my argument (and mischaracterizations of my argument itself), moving of goalposts, and ignoring key points I brought up.”

          Really? This is the closing argument of a post dedicated to mischaracterize what Mirren said? A bucketful of projection? Let me remind you of your words:

          Second, Mirriam’s supposition that we would have to change laws is a common misconception.

          Mirren said, in response:

          I will, however, reiterate the point of law involved here. Western law does not allow for random searches of premises, houses, or any buildings owned by companies, corporations et al, unless the police can show evidence that wrong doing is being committed, and can then apply for a search warrant.

          That *is* the law as it stands, whether you like it or not. In order to allow the police to make random raids on mosques in general, the law would have to be changed.

          To which you replied:

          — or unless those who would be searched are part of a literal army waging literal war against us, during which war they have literally mass murdered us, are mass murdering us now, and portent horrific escalation of mass murder in the future. Mirren left that little detail out.

          Your argument can be accurately summed up as this: laws don’t need to be changed because they can be ignored. There’s a name for people who disregard the law – criminals.

          Which posts were moved? I don’t know and I suspect you won’t explain it – as usual, you just say whatever you please and act like it’s the truth. Your so-called “key point” that Mirren allegedly ignored? A logical fallacy. You’ve got nothing, and rather than cutting your losses and going home you prefer to lash out at those who actually know what they’re talking about. And yet, you wonder why people think you hate them…

          “No wonder these people esteem Angemon so much.”

          And here it is, the core issue: your whole problem is that people here don’t trip over one another to unconditionally defend whatever it is you say and, instead, prefer to look at what both sides say and *gasp* arrive at their own conclusions. All that JW and the CJ movement in general is to you is a tool to get your daily fix of narcissistic supply. There are people here smarter, more eloquent and better at expressing themselves than you, but you don’t consider them as allies nor try to learn from them – no, you consider them as rivals for the “esteem” of other users, and that explains your decade or so here of constant side-snipping, derision and outright demonization of people like Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Jamie Glazov, Fjordman, etc., while giving islamic trolls a free pass.

          This is why you’re a detriment to this site and the CJ movement in general: you’re just riding the bandwagon for your own personal gain. And anyone who gets in the way of the praise you feel entitled to, as Buffalo Bill would say, “gets the hose”.

        • Mirren10 says

          Oct 8, 2015 at 4:35 pm

          ”And so, this is what I get when I ask for actual arguments from these FOPs (Friends of Phillip): mischaracterizations of what I said in my argument (and mischaracterizations of my argument itself), moving of goalposts, and ignoring key points I brought up. No wonder these people esteem Angemon so much.”

          Just let me transpose that.

          And so, this is what we get when we ask for actual arguments from voegelinian. Mischaracterisations of what we have said in our arguments, and mischaracterisations of our arguments themselves, moving of goalposts, and ignoring key points we have brought up. No wonder voegelinian denigrates and misrepresents others so much; it absolves him of the painful process of actually examining his own ‘arguments’ in the light of facts and realities.

        • Mirren10 says

          Oct 9, 2015 at 3:53 pm

          I also said, that I was all for *changing* the law, with regard to muslims, and in fact have spent a considerable amount of time, writing letters to that effect.

          You totally ignored this point.

          I also suggested *you* could do the same, if you were truly interested in changing the ‘zeitgeist’. Again, answer came there none.

          My conclusion, therefore, agrees with Angemon. You are not truly interested in what the CJ movement stands for. I regret saying this, because I have, in the past, enjoyed your posts, and have expanded my knowledge through them, and your blog. Although once I read your attacks on JW commenters therein, I started to drastically revise that conclusion.

          Sadly, voegelinian, I think you have twisted everything around in order to soothe/smooth your own ego, and pay off scores against those you think ‘have done you wrong’.

          In your mind, it really is, *all about you*. And that is just sad, and a damn shame.

      • Truth Seeker says

        Oct 6, 2015 at 11:38 am

        Why did the messages of love and peace not rub of on this man? I dont know. I dont know him personally or the background to what led upto his crime so I cannot comment. But I have visited Mosques all over the world, Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan, Indian, Scotland, Wales, England, I live in central England in a large Muslim community of over 250’000, we have many mosques from all the different sects in Islam, i regularly attend many, as the nature of my work means I work all over the city, and I can honestly say I have never once come across any Imam preaching hatred, or violence, or terrorism, or any of this nonsense. Thats not to say it may not happen. But I can only speak from experience and can say the Mosques I have been to preach nothing but peace, tolerance, respect, honesty, hard work and strong family values.

        • Joseph says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 1:59 pm

          @ Truth Seeker
          Islam is so full of love and peace that the M.E. is a paradise, NOT. Oh wait…you’re going to blame it on the West or Israel.
          The fact is the Muslim world is better at killing its own people than the West.
          Fact is Islam embraces rape, torture, murder and a whole list of other atrocities.
          Fact is if Islam was peaceful then it should be able to live in harmony with the rest of the world.
          Fact is Truth Seeker……YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

    • Angemon says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 8:42 pm

      Truth Seeker posted:

      “So he went to a Mosque? Big deal.”

      It should be – whatever mosque he attended should be throughly investigated.

      “What if he regularly attended the supermarket for his shopping? Should that imply some kind of “link” between supermarkets and criminal behaviour?”

      Kick up sand much? Supermarkets usually don’t have people preaching a religion who mandates its adherents to hate people because of their religion. But try tweeting your red herring to Obama – he’s very keen on false equivalences.

      “If you think Mosques preach hate, go and visit one. You wont find any hate being spread”

      Who are we going to believe, you or our lying eyes and hears? You or the lying muslim countries who shut down mosques for preaching “extremist” views? Since you apparently know what ALL mosques in the world preach, can you point me to one that doesn’t start its prayers saying that Jews angered allah and Christians are “misguided”?

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 8, 2015 at 1:26 pm

      Truth Seeker wrote:

      So he went to a Mosque? Big deal. I go to a Mosque, I go to many mosques, I live amongst tens of thousands of Muslims. Whats your point? What if he regularly attended the supermarket for his shopping? Should that imply some kind of “link” between supermarkets and criminal behaviour?
      ………………….

      Actually, it turns out this pious Jihadist got his weapon from his Mosque:

      “Australia: Jihad murderer got his gun at mosque”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/australia-jihad-murderer-got-his-gun-at-mosque/comment-page-1#comment-1306300

      Is “Truth Seeker” still going to claim that there is no link between this Mosque and violent Jihad?

  11. Westman says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 1:37 pm

    Calling this a “raid” would be the equivalent of inviting someone into your house and then saying they have broken-in. The “mosque the shooter is believed to have attended” bit also sounds fishy; now they don’t know his name or which Mosque he attended? Is this politics tailoring the news?

    “..In terms of these so-called lone wolves, it is too early to comment or really for me to say at any rate to what extent this individual who murdered Mr Cheng was self-motivated, self-activated..”

    Such a nuanced dance to avoid even hinting at any possible motive. We’re supposed to believe the allahooey lackbar screaming was simply the latest in-crowd slang expression, like, man, it’s dope? Some things don’t change in the MSM.

    https://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/b5a1a8fiuaes1bb.jpg?w=952&h=636

  12. Angemon says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    The teen, who authorities said was born in Iran of Iraqi and Kurdish background and had no criminal history prior to the incident, was killed in an exchange of fire with police.

    Oh, you mean the “black-clad assailant that has yet to be identified”?

  13. voegelinian says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    This presumably is the mosque that authorities raided with permission. Probably the raid focused on whether there were weapons inside, and/or visible signs of ties to the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

    Overheard on the police radio clipped to one of the investigator’s belts inside the mosque.

    “See any visible weapons or suspicious chemicals?”

    “No, sergeant. Nothing out of the ordinary…”

    “What’s that you picked up?”

    “Oh this? Oh it’s nothing — just a book filled with instructions to kill us because we’re all filthy.”

    “Right. You can place that back on the podium — very gingerly, now, detective, we wouldn’t want to disrespect their religious artifacts.”

    “So I guess we’re done then, sarge?”

    “Yes. Nothing to see here. Let’s move along now.”

    “Right.”

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      When I first heard that Australian police had raided the Mosque, I applauded the move–and said so several times in JIhad Watch comments.

      It’s only today that I read that police had given notice to the Mosque leaders and *asked permission* to conduct the raid. I can see it now–“sure, you can come by–just give us a couple of hours to ‘tidy up'”.

      “Australia: Police get permission from mosque leaders to raid mosque in investigation of jihad murder”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/australia-police-get-permission-from-mosque-leaders-to-raid-mosque-in-investigation-of-jihad-murder

      • voegelinian says

        Oct 5, 2015 at 7:18 pm

        Authorities in all Western countries should be randomly searching mosques before Muslims do anything — should have been doing this years ago. As long, that is, as we continue to do nothing fundamental about the ongoing, larger issue of Muslims living and aggrandizing in the West at all…

        • Angemon says

          Oct 5, 2015 at 8:53 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “Authorities in all Western countries should be randomly searching mosques before Muslims do anything”

          Brushing aside your ignorance on the matters of police procedure, wouldn’t that lead to muslims preparing for jihad elsewhere? You know, somewhere where the police wasn’t as unexpected as the Spanish Inquisition?

  14. DeMolay says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    Just as well all these crimes in the name of Islam don’t have anything to do with Islam.
    If they did, politicians may have to actually do something about it then.

    /sarc

  15. Angry Aussie says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    Here’s the Chairman of Parramatta Mosque just spreading kind words of peace. Enough said.

    http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/parramatta-mosque-leader-lashes-out-at-tv-cameraman-in-wake-of-street-murder/story-fni0cx4q-1227558011921?sv=2f3e90091a81bddb836f3499d43d52d1

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 6:49 pm

      Thanks for sharing this, AA–it does not surprise. And notice that this is not a new phenomenon–nearby residents note how aggressive the Mosque attendees are.

  16. sahani says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    Muslim intentions are clear to destroy you and your nation and take over your land and property and make it like middle east . We fools still finding out what are their intention . Their intentions are well worded in book .

  17. gravenimage says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    Australia: Muslim who screamed “Allahu akbar” after murdering police official regularly attended mosque
    ……………………

    So Mosque leaders can’t do the usual–claim that the Jihadist only attended occasionally–or even that no one in the congregation could remember him at all–which would imply that he was a “lone wolf”.

    And the fact is that this Mosque was very much on the terror radar even before this latest Jihad atrocity:

    More:

    Authorities have searched a mosque the shooter is believed to have attended, and Turnbull stressed that Australian Muslims were the country’s “absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of extremist violence”.

    Great. What are they doing to help?
    ……………………

    Well, they’re complaining about the police for daring to investigate Jihad terror.

    Parramatta councillor Shahadat Chowdhury warns of “overzealous policing”. He said said he supported “anything that the police are doing that will make us safer” but stressed only a ‘‘very small minority’’ of people in the community were ‘‘causing this trouble’’.

    “In the past in my experience there was a backlash towards the community, especially the Muslim community, which is unfair”…

    “We need cooperation and understanding rather than being stigmatised and vilified and pointed at by the rest of society.”

    Yeah–how dare the ‘filthy Infidels” consider Muslims the perpetrators of Jihad terror…

    http://www.parramattasun.com.au/story/2568120/terror-raids-the-community-reacts/

    More;

    “All of us need to be very aware of the way in which radicalisation can occur … communities at every level, from families all of the way up, should be alert to what young people are doing, what influences are impacting on young people,” he said.
    ……………………

    Yeah–but about when–as is so common, as here–it is the family and the community doing the “radicalizing”?

  18. R Davis says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    JUST TO SAY THAT NO ONE IN AUSTRALIA BELIEVES THIS STORY
    AND THEY HAVE LET IT BE KNOWN LOUD AND CLEAR.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 9:06 pm

      What, exactly, is consistent Muslim apologist R Davis saying that no one in Australia believes?

      That a pious Muslim would kill an Infidel police officer, and would try to kill others? That he would scream “Allahu Akbar” while doing so?

      Unfortunately for R Davis, there is video footage of him doing so:

      http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/watch-video-final-moments-of-jihadi-dancing-joyously-shouting-allahu-akbar-as-he-executes-aussie-police-worker.html/

  19. carpediadem says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    What are they doing to help?

    well the Australian Grand Mufti – who speaks no English – is a great friend of Hamas.

    Isn’t that helpful?
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/australias-grand-mufti-meets-hamas/story-fndo28a5-1226545439343

  20. sidney penny says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    “Authorities have searched a mosque the shooter is believed to have attended, and Turnbull stressed that Australian Muslims were the country’s “absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of extremist violence”.”

    Yes if you are a partner you help

    The PM did not say what help Australian Muslims are giving to combat this “type of extremist violence””.”

    or for that matter any violence or threats of violence.

    There is no help from Australian Muslim or Muslims anywhere.

    Only whining and playing the victim.

  21. Dave J says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 10:47 pm

    The mosques that these “lone wolves” attended should be charged with aiding and abetting, then shut down. All mosques and madrases should be monitored for jihad support speech – then shut down.

    It is insane to allow the preaching of “Death to all Infidels” in the Infidel’s own country.

  22. BC says

    Oct 6, 2015 at 6:15 am

    I am sure he was full of joy at the thought of coupling with those 72 virgins, he clearly wanted to get shot by the police or he would have got well away. Just another example of a person made crazy by studying the Quran

  23. Infidave says

    Oct 6, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    Still not enough innocent deaths yet? All good. Now we are going to engage muslim leaders to help solve the problem. How pathetic.
    Once again “He was not known to us” even though he left a mosque before he committed the murder.
    I imagine the next attack they plan they will tell the jihadi not to say “allahu akbar”. Then they can definitely say “nothing to do with islam”.

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

  • Meena on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with

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.