• 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

Russia: Explosives found in illegal mosque, detonated by authorities

May 2, 2016 11:52 am By Robert Spencer

In the U.S., if you don’t think a mosque is an exact equivalent to a church or a synagogue, you’re a racist, bigoted “Islamophobe.” Meanwhile, in January in Russia, an imam was arrested as weapons and explosives were found in his mosque. In Philadelphia, the Muslim who shot a cop for the Islamic State was a “frequent member” of a local mosque. In Singapore, 26 Muslims were deported; they supported the Islamic State, studied assassination techniques, and recruited in a mosque. That’s all just in January.

Russia illegal mosque

“Illegal Muslim prayer hall blown up in Russia after police find explosives inside (VIDEO),” RT, April 30, 2016:

Explosives found in an illegal Muslim prayer hall near the Russian city of Samara was [sic] eliminated right inside the building. Bomb disposal team deemed it too dangerous to take the explosives out.

The video of the controlled explosion shows a considerable part of the building being destroyed in the blast.

A police dog helped to find a cache with more than a kilogram of explosives of unknown origin. A bomb-disposal expert said extracting the explosives would be definitely unsafe and bomb technicians rolled in a water cannon, a source within Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) told RT.

The federal highway M5 passing right in front of the house was blocked in both directions and people were evacuated from all nearby buildings.

The house was used for gatherings of Salafis, followers of an ultra-conservative movement within Sunni Islam, and it was not registered with the regional Muslim community as an official house of worship.

Inside the house, the FSB’s special forces detained 53 young men, at least one of whom was promoting the Islamic State terror group online.

According to an FSB source, the arrests made at the illegal prayer hall triggered a series of house raids, which helped uncover more explosives, handguns, grenades and ammo….

Share this:

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

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, mosques, Russia Tagged With: Samara


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Alain says

    May 2, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Singaporians are intelligent enough to deport every radical muslims and all other countries should do the very same. I really don’t see why they should use any of our rights and liberties to attack us and creating animosity everywhere they are. They are parasites and the world and especially western countries will be a much better place to live without these fanatic assassins who are not accepting living in peace and harmony, as simple as that !

    • Angemon says

      May 2, 2016 at 12:42 pm

      Where do they send Singapore muslims to? The ones with no other citizenship?

      • Alain says

        May 2, 2016 at 12:53 pm

        Wherever they want, saudi arabia would be a nice place since they worship this stupid sharia and as for me i don’t care , they can go straight to hell where they belong

        • TH says

          May 3, 2016 at 11:46 am

          There are plenty remote islands in the Pacific, some belonging to the U.S. They could be sent to one of them and made do sosme work like agricultural work to feed themselves.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 7:42 am

          Alain posted:

          “Wherever they want”

          That’s not how things work. Suppose they wanted to start sending them to the US. Was the US under any obligation to take them in? Or could the US say “try doing that and I’ll bomb you so hard that 1945 Dresden will look like Paradise by comparison”?

      • Peggy says

        May 2, 2016 at 5:36 pm

        A question for Singapore but they do so you see it’s possible if only we have the will and do away with human rights which these parasites don’t deserve.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 7:46 am

          Peggy posted:

          “A question for Singapore but they do so ”

          Do they? Where are you getting that idea? And let’s imagine that Singapore does do that and that they were going to start packing all of them – all of its muslim population – to, for example, Australia. Is Australia under any obligation to take them in?

    • Mirren10 says

      May 2, 2016 at 4:53 pm

      ”Singaporians are intelligent enough to deport every radical muslims and all other countries should do the very same.”

      This is the sort of glib ‘solution’ that really annoys me. Whilst I agree with, and applaud, the initial premise, the question remains, as Angemon ably notes, **where the hell are we going to deport them to** ??

      Given the laws of civilised countries, under what *law* are we going to be able to deport these people ? (I’m all for changing the law, but this is a process that doesn’t happen all in a minute). Further, even if civilised countries decided, in consensus, to deport mohammedans, the question remains. Where would we deport them to ? It’s no answer to reply, ”why, to the dar al islam”. Suppose mohammedan countries refuse to accept them ? How are you going to force them to do so ? We can’t, of course.

      This is the kind of rhetoric that makes us feel good, but in reality, is the stuff that dreams are made of. I’ll be quite honest here; if there was some method by which we could round up all mohammedans and send them off to the KSA, or Afghanistan, or any other mohammedan shit hole, I’d be all for it. Further, I’d be all for creating a ring fence around all mohammedan countries, denying them access or egress to any Western country.

      But that isn’t going to happen; certainly not in *this* century. I’m with Wellington. We will never be able to deal with islam and mohammedans until it is recognised, throughout the free West, that islam is a pernicious, evil. devil cult, wicked and repulsive, something that should be held in contempt by all decent, civilised people.

      Then, we will be able to deal with it. And that consummation, devoutly to be wished, will be encompassed by exactly the sort of thing that Robert does, and Pamela, and Bosch Fawstin, and Wafa Sultan, and all the other stalwart warriors who fight to reveal the truth. Even the little people, like me, like thousands of others, who do their best to clear away the lies and spin, and spread the truth. Even then, there will always be those who try to whitewash it, just like Nazism, and Communism, and the KKK. But we can *marginalise* it, just like those pernicious ideologies have been marginalised.

      • Peggy says

        May 2, 2016 at 5:39 pm

        It seems that Singapore has found a way to deport them so it’s possible.
        Maybe we should ask them how it’s done and start changing laws to make it possible. Laws are made at a stroke of a pen so let’s start.
        I know it’s not possible to deport them all as we have many converts but we should be able to deport most, stop importing more and when they are not in such numbers any more they will behave. If not, we can put them in prisons if they don’t.

        • Pere LaChaise says

          May 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm

          It ought to be a simple matter to cut off funding of mosques fom Saudi Arabia. That defunding would cripple salafist efforts.
          Oh but I orgt, Saud has bought off all the pols and news clowns.
          The only thing to prevent further spread of the pernicious delusion is a rebel consciousness-raising that bucks mainstream palliatives and causes an uprising of intolerance for it among regular people. Don’t see any governments beside the Russian, Japanese, Chinese and a few others which are not entirely subborned by Saudi corruption. It won’t be easy to change this. A tyrant like a Robespierre or Savonarola will be needed, and the work will be destructive of our civil society. There is no positive outcome from the situation, not in the short term. Maybe 100 years from now, the world will be a safer, more civil place, but the near future appears dismal to desperate. I just hope young people respond to the threat of mohammedanism by embracing vigorous expressions of Christianity and western culture, along with martial arts. The soft West needs to retire.

        • firefoxhits says

          May 4, 2016 at 2:50 am

          Peggy
          The USA already has a law on the books to deal with this near-exact situation, though when instituted and passed with bi-partisan support, was focused on the threat of communism.

          “In the midst of Cold war hysteria, congress passed, the two most controversial bills regarding immigration restrictionism in the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act) and The Subversive Activities Control Act of 1952.” “The government was afraid that they would spread communistic subversiveness ,and destablizie the country.”

          I truly believe that the very real threat to North America by Islamist migrants is being diverted by the liberals and specifically Muslim sympathetic Obama who has a personal stake in his support of Islam; and muslim sympathetic Trudeau who sees his support of Islam as voter strength in his destructive multi-culti beliefs. Regardless of their misguided and nationally destructive motivations and intentional blindness to the horrors of the daily radical Islamic terrorist acts, I believe bi-partisan support could again be realized for a bill to protect democracy against the introduction of any subversive totalitarian or theocratic ideologies or laws that would destabilize the country. Islam, hidden in the guise of a religion, is hell bent on destabilizing and overthrowing every world government and the sooner we recognize and sufficiently guard against it, the sooner that innocent people will stop suffering and dieing.
          You have a great idea – you now need to find someone willing to introduce a bill. Once introduced, I doubt there’d be too much difficulty finding support.

        • Dean says

          May 4, 2016 at 3:21 am

          I wish you were close to feasibility but I don’t think that without a major reformation of American culture will the Dems agree to a rational handling of the problem and many or most Reps aren’t pushing for it. Islam is taking advantage of a corruption of our culture by multiculturalism, moral equivalency and political correctness. Reversing and eliminating those irrationalities from popular cultural acceptance will also be followed with the end of the Muslim threat and invasion.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 7:55 am

          Peggy posted:

          “It seems that Singapore has found a way to deport them so it’s possible.”

          Again, where are you getting that idea?

          “Maybe we should ask them how it’s done and start changing laws to make it possible. Laws are made at a stroke of a pen so let’s start.”

          Do you have any idea of what it takes to create and pass a law in a Western country? Because it seems you don’t. But let’s say that Singapore uses a pen to stroke a law saying that ALL of its muslim population is to be immediately deported to, for example, Australia. Do you presume Australia can do nothing to stop it? Would Australia be doomed to take in ALL of Singapore’s muslim population because a law was made somewhere else saying it had to?

          “I know it’s not possible to deport them all as we have many converts ”

          Then why bother to mention new laws and saying that Singapore found a way to do it? That was the whole context of what Mirren said: you can’t deport them all because some are native converts with no other citizenship. As for foreigners, most countries have laws allowing their removal back to their country of origin, whether because they broke the law or because they have no means of sustenance, and that applie to ALL, regardless of social-economic status, ethnicity or religion. Same for dual citizens – in that case, a citizenship can be forcibly removed and the perpetrator sent back to their other country. But native converts? You’re stuck with those.

      • Alain says

        May 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

        There are none laws that can apply to them and like i said before send them to saudi arabia where they will worship their stupid sharia. They will never accept our ways of life, they are a bunch of ignorants living in the middle age, they treat women like shit,nthey attack us and manipulating our gouvernments by complaining like stupid pussies. Like i said they can go to hell and i don’t care but one thing is for sure, tadical islam have no rights we have rights ok ?

        • Wellington says

          May 2, 2016 at 6:27 pm

          You obviously, Alain, did not read MIrren’s comment closely or astutely enough.

        • Peggy says

          May 2, 2016 at 6:44 pm

          I agree. We’ve been asked by two people so far where to deport them and what if the other countries don’t want them.
          My question to them is how is Singapore doing it? They obviously are so we need to consult with them and do the same.
          Singapore is proof that it can be done so no more we can’t do it. We see that it can be done.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:05 am

          Peggy posted:

          “I agree. We’ve been asked by two people so far where to deport them and what if the other countries don’t want them.”

          And you didn’t answer.

          “My question to them is how is Singapore doing it?”

          Is Singapore doing that? Is Singapore “deporting” its native citizens with no other citizenship?

          “They obviously are”

          Are they? According to whom?

          “so we need to consult with them and do the same.”

          Again, suppose Singapore decided to send all of its muslim population to Australia. Would Australia be forced to take in Singapore muslims?

          “Singapore is proof that it can be done”

          Again, according to whom? Repeating something over an over doesn’t make it true.

          “so no more we can’t do it.”

          How do you propose to do it?

          “We see that it can be done.”

          Again, repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. Also, Singapore hands over prison time for kissing in public. Should you start doing that as well? After all, Singapore is doing it…

        • gravenimage says

          May 3, 2016 at 10:24 am

          Peggy wrote:

          Singapore is proof that it can be done so no more we can’t do it. We see that it can be done.
          ……………………….

          Every news story I’ve seen has Singapore deporting *foreign* Muslims. Here is one such story:

          “Singapore says arrests 27 Bangladeshi Islamists, deports 26”

          http://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-arrest-idUSKCN0UY0TB

          I very much a agree that it should be much easier to deport foreign Muslims–the absurd state in much of the West where murderous Jihadists cannot be deported due to overwrought concerns about the legal systems in the sh*tholes they hailed from is ridiculous.

          But I have never heard of Singapore having deported Muslims who are Singaporean citizens.

          Of course, such deportation *has* occurred historically–Spain and Portugal deported the Muslim invaders, even though some of them had been living there for generations oppressing the native population. Greece did the same some three centuries later.

          That is a different matter, though.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:26 am

          Spain and Portugal got rid of the Moors but allowed muslims to practice their religion. Portugal kicked them out in the late 15th century and Spain in the early 17th century. What most people seem to forget is that when the Moors went so did the Jews.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 7:57 am

          Alain posted:

          “There are none laws that can apply to them and like i said before send them to saudi arabia where they will worship their stupid sharia.”

          What if Saudi Arabia refuses to take them in, as it (alongside other oil-rich muslim naitions) refused to take in Syrian refugees? You’re going to force them?

      • Peggy says

        May 2, 2016 at 6:41 pm

        ”. Suppose mohammedan countries refuse to accept them ? How are you going to force them to do so ? We can’t, of course.
        —————————-

        Did they get permission from us to land on our shores before they arrived? No. One they arrive back to their home countries do we really care if they don;t accept them?
        Most of them have arrived from somewhere so we deport them to where they said they came from. For the ones born in the west we have our Census to tell us what ethnic group they consider themselves to be. We have ways of finding out so they can’t lie.

        • Alain says

          May 2, 2016 at 6:43 pm

          Ah very good, at least one who can understand what i’m saying, it was about time !

        • quotha raven says

          May 3, 2016 at 2:06 pm

          To Peggy, who sez “For the ones born in the west we have our Census to tell us what ethnic group they consider themselves to be. We have ways of finding out so they can’t lie.”

          Not really, Peggy. Many people habitually lie to the Census for all sorts of reasons about all sorts of things, and there are no repercussions. None.

          I’ve yet to see a comprehensive and reliable way of “vetting” followers of Islam. except to quote, over and over, passages from the qur’an and condemn all followers.This is not a pragmatic or indeed ethical way for free societies to fight jihad. Do you agree with our throwing out all our civil rights on the path to a Muslim-free society? Kinda defeats the purpose, non? .

          You are thinking simplistically about an extremely complex issue.

          Cheers!

          quotha raven

        • Pere LaChaise says

          May 3, 2016 at 2:43 pm

          Ethnic group? So Islam is a race as far as you are concerned? You should go back to grammar school. Distaste for Islam is NOT racist – though your prejudices may very well be. I suggest you hold your tongue until you get a clearer picture of what we are talking about.

          For instance, Syria was once the central state of Christendom. Did it ever occur to you that most Christians are not white? That many speak Arabic?

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 7:59 am

          Peggy posted:

          “Did they get permission from us to land on our shores before they arrived? No. ”

          Why didn’t you sent them back when they arrived then?

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:30 am

          “For the ones born in the west we have our Census to tell us what ethnic group they consider themselves to be.”

          What ethnic group is islam again? I keep forgetting…

          “We have ways of finding out so they can’t lie.”

          May I ask which ways would those be? Also, may I suggest you start applying those “ways of finding out” in your law enforcement? You know, to make sure no innocent person was wrongfully convicted ever again.

        • gravenimage says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:05 pm

          Peggy wrote:

          For the ones born in the west we have our Census to tell us what ethnic group they consider themselves to be. We have ways of finding out so they can’t lie.
          ……………………..

          Not really, Peggy. I worked for the Census in 2000 as an enumerator doing door-to-door interviews; then as a supervisor. People could define themselves however they wanted to. In most cases this seemed quite plausible to me; in a few cases it did not. No matter–we took their claims down at face regardless.

          Additionally, this was not always information from the individuals themselves, but from neighbors when the individuals in question could not be located by Census enumerators.

          One salient example–I had one resident described as “Hispanic” by three neighbors, and as “Arab” by a fourth–he noted, in fact, that the individual was often mistaken for Hispanic. I don’t recall the individual’s name at this point–I know it was rather vague to me as to what his background was. Finally my supervisor simply decided that we go with Hispanic because that constituted the preponderance of the answers.

          The fact is that the Census is not really about tracking individuals at all–it is more to track general trends, such as the growth of certain groups in the population or changing neighborhoods.

          It is simply not accurate enough to track individuals.

          Further, save for a brief period during the 1930s, the Census has never asked questions about religion–and even then the question was voluntary.

          There are ways to gain information about individuals through security and law enforcement–but not through the Census except in the most general way.

        • gravenimage says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:06 pm

          Oops–“face” should be “face value”.

      • Budvarakbar says

        May 3, 2016 at 1:56 am

        Cut the whiney BS — deport the RATS to whatever country they or their parents came from — if supposed converts — tell them to pick a country from a short list – and dammit – SEND THEM THERE!

        • Lanya LaPunta says

          May 3, 2016 at 7:52 am

          Actually, any native born mohammedans cannot be deported, under existing law (United States of America juris).

          Therefore, it should prove relatively easy to simply deport those that are not native born. Send ’em back from whence they came.

          On the subject of native born mohammedans … There used to be chain gangs. They are not a long forbidden practice. Chain gangs were utilized, in many areas, until the early seventies.

          Have you EVER (special emphasis added) met a mohammedan willing to work? Especially under severe, labor intensive, almost draconian, conditions?

          So, picture George Kennedy, in “Cool Hand Luke” …. (except in this scenario, it’s a character named Achmed) “My friend Habib can eat a hundred eggs”.

          Then, instead of punishing them by placing them on bread and water …

          Feed them like kings … roast pork loin and bacon to go with Habib’s eggs.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:06 am

          How about India? It has a sizeable muslim population, so I’m sure American, European and Singapore muslims would fit right in…

        • gravenimage says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:08 pm

          I’m sure the last thing India wants is *more Muslims*.

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:34 pm

          India is not under the obligation to take in muslims who are not Indian citizens – that’s my point, GI. If Singapore decided to tell its native muslim citizens to pick a country and leave, and they chose India, India was not obliged to take any of them in. In fact, India shouldn’t take any of them in. Native Singapore muslims are Singapore’s problem, native British muslims are Britain’s problem, French native muslims are France’s problem, etc.

          As I’ve been saying for nearly two whole years now, entertaining the idea you can make your native citizens another country’s problem is showing a dangerous level of ignorance. If a country wants to deport foreigners because of what they *think* (whether it’s because their muslims, or communists, or conservatives, or vegetarians, or scientologists), fine by me – I’ve stated that a sovereign nation should be in control of who they let in or not. But the moment you start booting out *your own citizens* because of what they think, it’s game over. You’re not living in a democracy or republic, you’re living in a totalitarian state. And the morons who go “but Angemon, that would just be applied to muslims and to no other group afterwards” I say “go read a history book you f***ing moron”. There’s no such thing as a “one time deal” when government is involved, there’s only a “precedent”. Case in point: Reagan’s amnesty. It went from a “one-time deal” to “well, Republicans did it, why are they against it now”? The power to was not granted to Reagan but to the office he was in.

      • shortfattexan says

        May 3, 2016 at 8:16 am

        The U.S. Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to belong to any religion they want, as long as they obey the law. I for one do not want to change that.

        But that doesn’t mean we should participate in our own destruction.

        So here’s what I think we should do:

        1. Immediately dismiss all Muslims from Government employ, both civil and military. This needs to be the first step in order to make sure the remaining steps are carried out correctly.

        2. Require visas for ALL non-citizens entering the country, regardless of nationality or duration of stay. Require visa applicants to declare their religion, and DENY visas for all Muslims. Any visa applicant who is a citizen of a Muslim country, was born in a Muslim country, currently resides in a Muslim country, has an Arabic name, or whose parents meet any of the above criteria, but still claims to be a non-Muslim? DON’T take their word for it – send an investigator to their neighborhood and find out what they are actually up to. If they claim to be an atheist, but they were going to mosque last month, we don’t need them in our country. This means that it will take a really long time to process a visa application. Tough luck, deal with it. Require all non-citizens who currently hold a long-term visa to re-apply, and use the above criteria to screen them.

        3. Maintain a very close watch over all U.S. citizens who are Muslims. They have a right to practice their religion (within reason) but we have a right to make sure they don’t start killing kuffars en masse.

        4. Maintain a very close watch over all mosques, madrassas, and “Islamic centers” in this country. Pay attention to what they say, and hold them accountable for it. Pay attention to who attends – if any non-citizen shows up, deport them immediately.

        Obviously, none of the above is possible in the current political climate. But eventually, enough Americans may wake up, and start demanding a change. At least I hope so, because if we don’t, The United States of America is in serious trouble.

        • Pere LaChaise says

          May 3, 2016 at 2:50 pm

          The measures you propose fly in the face of all reason and could never be implemented as they are grossly prejudicial.
          I infer by ‘Moslem country’ you mean one that is dominated by them. Well, what of non-Moslems fleeing them? Like all the Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi Christians fleeing their homeland because the Wahhabis have taken over and are exterminating them? I know Robert Spencer thinks Palestinians don’t exist, but I know some, members of the Orthodox church for maybe 90 generations, who call themselves Palestinians.
          So again, you will have to think a little bit harder here, so as not to make a Fortress America which furhter victimizes those most vulnerable to Moslem depredation.

      • Angemon says

        May 5, 2016 at 7:44 am

        Nicely stated, Mirren.

    • quotha raven says

      May 3, 2016 at 1:46 pm

      To Alain, who sez “Singaporians are intelligent enough to deport every radical muslims”

      This makes absolutely no rational sense to me on two levels:

      First, how does one establish that the deportee is a “radical” Muslim?

      And second, what about all those Muslims who TACITLY support jihad but haven’t come out in any way to indicate that they do so. Is not every single Muslim a potential “radical” or jihad supporter? You know, any Muslim who criticizes or leaves Islam is guilty of apostasy and apostasy, according to qur’an is punishable by death.

      If you read the qur’an, you might conclude that there is no such thing as “radical” Muslim, but only Muslims, who, to identify themselves as such, must believe in the tenets of qur’an, one of which is the duty to wage jihad against the unbelievers.

      My point is not so much about the misuse of the handy-dandy, somewhat deceptive and disarmingly simple term “radical Muslim”, but how one vets and discovers who they are. Seems to me anyone who believes in Mohammad and Allah is potentially a jihadist or a jihad supporter.

      Are you, Alain, proposing to deport all Muslims? How about those who claim they are “lapsed”? How about the necissarily passive women who have never espoused jihad but are a sharia-directed underclass within Islam? I’m just addressing the impossibility of determining exactly who’s who in Islam, especially if one appreciates the prescribed use of various kinds of “takiyya” (deception). How do you propose Singapore does this, and how should we in USA or Europe should make these judgments?

      Cheers!

      quotha raven

      • Dean says

        May 3, 2016 at 2:11 pm

        For every jihadist there are 100 sympathizers waiting for the courage or opportunity to act themselves. Only through a policy of aggressively attacking the violent verses and persistently practicing western policies of free speech and religious criticism, including monthly Mo cartoon contests can the dangerous Muslims be weeded out. They must submit uncompromisingly to western customs or they cannot be trusted. The unlikely reformation of this codification of 6th century Arab customs and prejudices clothed in stolen monotheism for credibility must be forced or we cannot coexist. And none of that is even possible until we reform our own culture eliminating political correctness, multiculturalism and moral relativism.

  2. American Against Islamic Terrorism says

    May 2, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    History Has Defeated Muslims Before

    HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS . . . it worked once in our History . . .

    Once in US history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so “Black Jack” told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a
    lesson.

    Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The US soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were
    terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs’ blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

    All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

    Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won’t make them flinch. They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won’t get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the
    devil.

    • JMB says

      May 2, 2016 at 3:30 pm

      In the mean time has the Canadian PM taken any action over the murder of one it’s citizens by these same Muslim terrorists still operating in the southern Philippines?
      As for General Pershing’s actions, maybe not PC but certainly very effective.

      • Alain says

        May 2, 2016 at 3:42 pm

        You are perfectly right my friend !

      • Budvarakbar says

        May 3, 2016 at 1:58 am

        Why in hell do they have to be PC? — wake up out there people!!

      • Western Canadian says

        May 3, 2016 at 9:54 pm

        Shiny pony, also know as prim minister selfie, is utterly worthless on any and all issues. Shabbily educated and not very intelligent (obama 2.0), with an ego that has to be measured in parsecs. And the mockery of a media, loves to lick his boots.

    • Jack Diamond says

      May 2, 2016 at 3:54 pm

      re: the Pershing story that goes round and round. The only source I am aware of for this episode (correct me if I’m wrong) is Vic Hurley’s “Jungle Patrol” (1938), which does not name Pershing:

      “In 1911, as attempts were made to disarm the Mohammedans, cotta warfare began to flame anew and the juramentados redoubled their efforts to get to close grips with the American soldiers. Jolo, the Moro capital, in American hands, was almost under a state of siege. It was under constant attack on the part of individual fanatics. One Moro penetrated the city walls through a drain and killed seven soldiers in the streets of Jolo before he was dropped by volley fire of the troops.

      For trading purposes, 100 Moros were allowed within the city wall at one time. They were disarmed and searched at the gates by squads of soldiers, and all guard posts mounted four sentries. With all of these precautions, juramentados succeeded in running their crazed course at dreadful, frequent intervals.

      It was Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry who accomplished by taking advantage of religious prejudice what the bayonets and Krags had been unable to accomplish. Rodgers inaugurated a system of burying all dead juramentados in a common grave with the carcasses of slaughtered pigs. The Mohammedan religion forbids contact with pork; and this relatively simple device resulted in the withdrawal of juramentados to sections not containing a Rodgers. Other officers took up the principle, adding new refinements to make it additionally unattractive to the Moros. In some sections the Moro juramentado was beheaded after death and the head sewn inside the carcass of a pig. And so the rite of running juramentado, at least semi-religious in character, ceased to be in Sulu. The last cases of this religious mania occurred in the early decades of the century. The juramentados were replaced by the amucks. .. who were simply homicidal maniacs with no religious significance attaching to their acts.” (Ch. XVII)

    • mortimer says

      May 2, 2016 at 4:44 pm

      The legend about Black Jack Pershing is improbable as the man was very ethical and would likely not consent to such an action.

      • Carolyne says

        May 3, 2016 at 9:44 am

        I agree with you. Gen. Pershing would not tie men to stakes and then murder them. Neither will we. This is just an urban legend. I’ve heard it before.

      • gravenimage says

        May 3, 2016 at 10:30 am

        Yes–this story is almost certainly a myth.

      • Western Canadian says

        May 3, 2016 at 10:29 pm

        This was covered on Front Page Mag very late in February.

        Article follows:

        How American Soldiers Used Pig’s Blood and Corpses to Fight Muslim Terrorism
        Before political correctness, our soldiers were free to fight back.
        February 26, 2016
        Daniel Greenfield

        A century before American soldiers fought Muslim terrorism in the Middle East, they fought it in the Philippines. Their attackers were Moro Muslims whose savage fanaticism appeared inexplicable. A formerly friendly Muslim might suddenly attack American soldiers, local Muslim rulers promised friendship while secretly aiding the terrorists and the yellow left-wing press at home seized on every report of an atrocity to denounce American soldiers as murderers whose honor was forever soiled.
        Much of what went on in that conflict, including the sacrifices of our soldiers, has been forgotten. The erasure has been so thorough that the media casually claims that the American forces did not use pig corpses and pig’s blood to deter Muslim terrorists. Media fact checks have deemed it a “legend”.
        It’s not a legend. It’s history.
        The practice began in the Spanish period. A source as mainstream as the New Cambridge History of Islam informs us that, “To discourage Juramentados, the Spaniards buried their corpses with dead pigs.”
        Juramentados was the Spanish term for the Muslim Jihadists who carried out suicide attacks against Christians while shouting about Allah. American forces, who had little experience with Muslim terrorists, adopted the term and the Spanish tactics of burying Muslim terrorists alongside dead pigs.
        It was a less sensitive age and even the New York Times blithely observed that, “The Moros, though they still admire these frenzied exits from the world, have practically ceased to utilize them, since when a pig and a man occupy a single grave the future of the one and the other are in their opinions about equal.”
        The New York Times conceded that the story “shocked a large number of sensitive people,” but concluded that, “while regretting the necessity of adopting a plan so repugnant to humane ideas, we also note that the Moros can stop its application as soon as they choose, and therefore we feel no impulse either to condemn its invention or to advise its abandonment. The scheme involves the waste of a certain amount of pork, but pork in hot climates is an unwholesome diet, anyhow, and the less of it our soldiers and other ‘infidels’ in the Philippines have to eat the better for them.”
        Colonel Willis A. Wallace of the 15th Cavalry claimed credit for innovating the practice in March 1903 to dissuade the Muslim terrorist who believed that “every Christian he kills places him so much closer in contact with the Mohammedan heaven.”
        “Conviction and punishment of these men seemed to have no effect,” Colonel Wallace related. After a “more than usually atrocious slaughter” in the marketplace, he had the bodies of the killers placed on display and encouraged “all the Moros in the vicinity who cared to do so to come and see the remains”.
        “A great crowd gathered where the internment was to take place and it was there that a dead hog, in plain view of the multitude, was lifted and placed in the grave in the midst of the three bodies, the Moro grave-diggers themselves being required to do this much to their horror. News of the form of punishment adopted soon spread.”
        “There is every indication that the method had a wholesome effect,” Colonel Wallace concluded.
        Colonel Wallace was certainly not the only officer to bury pigs with Muslim terrorists in the Philippines, though he was apparently the only one to discuss it in such great detail.
        Medal of Honor winner Colonel Frank West buried three pigs with three Muslim terrorists after the murder of an American officer. He appears to have done so with the approval of General Pershing. Some stories mention Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry becoming so celebrated for it that he was known to Moro Muslims as “The Pig”. One contemporary account does describe him burying a pig with the corpse of a Muslim terrorist who had murdered an American soldier.
        Rear Admiral Daniel P Mannix III had contended that, “What finally stopped the Juramentados was the custom of wrapping the dead man in a pig’s skin and stuffing his mouth with pork”.
        Media fact checks have claimed that General John “Black Jack” Pershing would not have offended Muslims by authorizing such a course of action and that any claims of his involvement are also a legend.
        General Pershing however wrote in his autobiography that, “These Juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice that the Mohamedans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig. It was not pleasant to have to take such measures, but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.”
        We can be certain then that the practice of burying Muslim terrorists with pigs was indeed real and fairly widespread. Was pig’s blood also used on Muslim terrorists as a deterrent to prevent attacks?
        The Scientific American described just such an event. In a hard look at the area, it wrote of a place where, “Polygamy is universally practiced and slavery exists very extensively. Horse stealing is punishable by death, murder by a fine of fifty dollars. The religion is Mohamedan.”
        A Muslim terrorist, the magazine wrote, “will suddenly declare himself ‘Juramentado’, that is inspired by Mohammed to be a destroyer of Christians. He forthwith shaves his head and eyebrows and goes forth to fulfill his mission.”
        The Scientific American described how a Muslim terrorist who had disemboweled an American soldier was made an example of. “A grave was dug without the walls of the city. Into this the murderer was unceremoniously dropped. A pig was then suspended by his hind legs above the grave and the throat of the animal cut. Soon the body lay immersed in gore… a guard stood sentry over the grave until dusk when the pig was buried side by side with the Juramentado.”
        “This so enraged the Moros that they besieged the city. Matters became so grave that General Wood felt called upon to disperse the mob resulting in the death of a number of Moros.”
        It is clear from these accounts which encompass General Pershing’s autobiography, the New York Times and the Scientific American that the use of pig corpses and pig’s blood in the Philippines was not a legend, but fact. It was not carried out by a few rogue officers, but had the support of top generals. It was not a single isolated incident, but was a tactic that was made use of on multiple occasions.
        American forces in the Philippines faced many of the same problems that our forces do today. But they were often free to find more direct solutions to them. When Muslim rulers claimed that they had no control over the terrorists whom they had sent to kill Americans, our officers responded in kind.
        “Shortly after General Bates’ arrival on the island, the Sultan sent word that there were some half dozen Juramentados in Jolo over whom he had no control. General Bates replied, ‘Six hundred of my men have turned Juramentado and I have no control over them.’”
        Another version of this story by Rear Admiral Mannix III had Admiral Hemphill dispatching a gunboat to shell the Sultan’s palace and then informing him that the gunboat had “turned Juramentado”. As with pig corpses and blood, such blunt tactics worked. Unfortunately political correctness makes it difficult to utilize them today. And political correctness carries with it a high price in American lives.
        It is important that we remember the real history of a less politically correct time when American lives mattered more than upsetting those whom the New York Times deemed “sensitive people” and what another publication dismissed as the “sensitive spirit” of the Muslim terrorist.
        But as that publication suggested, “It is not necessary to go into spasms about the insult to the Mahometan conscience. Every Christian that walks the earth is a living insult to that ‘sensitive spirit’”.
        “The murderer may feel that he is unduly treated by being defiled with the touch of the swine, but he can avoid it by refraining from becoming a practical Juramentado. Our sympathies, if anywhere, are with the innocent pig slaughtered for such a purpose and buried in such company.”
        These days we do not bury pigs with Muslim terrorists. Our political and military leaders shudder at the thought of Muslims accusing us of blasphemy. And so instead we bury thousands of American soldiers.

        About Daniel Greenfield
        Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

  3. miriamrove says

    May 2, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Russians are not PC. So good for them. M

    • Peggy says

      May 2, 2016 at 6:46 pm

      They are smart and they belive in their culture enough to defend it.
      That’sw why Islam will doniminate us unless we do the same.

    • Pere LaChaise says

      May 3, 2016 at 3:02 pm

      Exactly! The West has cut itself off from its roots many times and is all but dead, spiritually. Russians are self-conscious heirs of Byzantium, albeit who have cut off their roots through Bolshevism. But they are not squeamish about violent self-defense and also have a paranoid foreign policy inherited from their quondam overlord Genghis Khan, who said that it’s not good enough that I win, but everyone else must lose.
      Russian hardheadedness will serve them well, while Western bleeding hearts will surrender the fort. But the West cannot learn from a Russia which it despises, and for centuries has shown preference for Moslems who are imagined to be somehow more like us than Eastern Christians. I suspect that Western hatred of Byzantium and Orthodoxy is behind this prejudice. We here imagine Moslems to be like us, circumcised, anti-clerical, anti-sacramental, just a slightly darker version of the modern Protestant.

  4. Guy says

    May 2, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    But… but… investigating mosque’s is WAY-CIST! Tis better to appease our Islamist overlords then be intolerant (sarcasm!)

  5. Shmooviyet says

    May 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    “illegal Muslim prayer hall…”
    OT, I know, but imagine the wailing amongst Western media and leftists over that phrase, let alone the story.

    Fortunately for them, muslims here can pray wherever they please– and the more in-your-infidel-face, the better.

  6. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    if you don’t think a mosque is an exact equivalent to a church or a synagogue, you’re…

    … not qualified to be a bishop, and certainly not an archbishop, at least not one operating in Germany.

    • Alain says

      May 2, 2016 at 3:39 pm

      A mosque is certainly not the same and so is islam anyway. Other religions are tolerants, not islam and also islam is political wich i think is very dangerous and insane to begin with. As for Germany, France,Belgium and many countries of western Europe did a big mistake having so many migrants and not knowing who they are and now losing control. Speaking of mistakes, USA did a very big one eliminating dictators in Lybia and Iraq and letting all this shit happen and finally, isis should be destroyed with a coalition of every countries and give back these countries to their people and send back migrants.

      • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

        May 3, 2016 at 10:00 am

        To expand on your points to full projection, the only way to solve the Moslem problem is to eliminate Islam. All of them must have the belief system deprogrammed from their brains, otherwise there can only be severe trouble, especially in these times of inexpensive WMD weapons.

        • gravenimage says

          May 3, 2016 at 2:08 pm

          I don’t see how Muslims can be “deprogrammed”. Why would Muslims listen to the “filthy Infidels”?

          The only thing that has worked historically, APF, is to isolate Islam.

  7. Jack Diamond says

    May 2, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    How is a mosque different than a church or synagogue?

    Fatwa by Sheikh Yousif Al Qaradawi 10/29/2001 “in the life of the prophet there was no distinction between what the people call sacred and secular or religion and politics, and he had no other place than the mosque for politics and other related issues. So that he would establish this precedent for his religion and for the world. The mosque at the time of the prophet was his propagation center, the headquarters of the State, as it was for his successors, the rightly guided Khalifas, the mosque was the base for all their activities, political as well as non-political…from ancient times the mosque has had a role in jihad for the sake of Allah, resisting the enemies of this religion…”

    Muhammad built a mosque in Medina before he built a house. It was the center of the hijrah, of the jihad, and of the Islamic State. Jihad operations were planned and directed from the mosque. Still are. When Hamas plans attacks or fires weapons from a mosque, when the 9/11 plotters work out of a mosque in Germany, when there are militarized mosques in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan, it is no different than the example set by Muhammad and the “best of Muslims.” It is only shocking to those who think a mosque is like a church or synagogue. Who haven’t witnessed the violence of a stirred up mob after the Friday sermon. In fact, there is no jihad not connected to a mosque, and for good reason. A mosque is a place of worship. It’s just that in Islam worship is a dutiful submission to impose Allah’s laws and carry out his obligations (Rights of Allah upon mankind), like warfare against disbelievers and hating them in your heart. Because the hadith report Muhammad saying– the entire earth had been declared unto him…a mosque.

    • gravenimage says

      May 3, 2016 at 2:30 pm

      Al true, Jack.

  8. underbed cat says

    May 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Shocking, weapons in a mosque….shocking shocking. Or is that 700 year old news?

    • Peggy says

      May 2, 2016 at 6:50 pm

      No, it’s 1400 year old news. I too am shocked.
      The Russians have no problem with having them on the floor face down and hands handcuffed behind their back.
      I wish I was shocked about our police force doing the same. Instead our police force would treat these parasites as victims and make sure that they all made it out of the mosque without a scratch and then called in psychologists to treat them for trauma.

      • Rich says

        May 3, 2016 at 2:12 pm

        Russia is well aware of the world wide threat of Islam and especially it’s threat to Russia’s borders and interior. This is why, with a reasonable administration in place in the U.S., the U.S. and Russia would make great allies. The Islamic threat is growing exponentially, being helped along by liberal government policies of loose or no border controls, moral relativism, multiculturalism and a revival of the Ottoman Empire. Look at the Mideast, Africa and now Europe. Canada and the U.S. are next. Time to drop the Cold War notions about Russia and form an alliance.

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:32 am

          Rich posted:

          “with a reasonable administration in place in the U.S., the U.S. and Russia would make great allies. ”

          The US? How about Russia? Are you aware of the amount of vile, rabid, anti-Western propaganda Russia churns out? Putin holds on to power by claiming that the West is out to get Russia.

      • gravenimage says

        May 3, 2016 at 2:38 pm

        The West *has* shut down Mosques where weapons were found:

        “Three mosques shut down in anti-terror raids as officers seize 330 war weapons”

        http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/623926/Three-mosques-shut-down-in-anti-terror-raids-as-officers-seize-330-war-weapons

  9. Cameron says

    May 2, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    All Mosques should be checked several times a week for explosives and drugs and anything else relevant with sniffer dogs and multiple well armed police

    • Peggy says

      May 2, 2016 at 6:51 pm

      That would be totally insulting and islamophobic. No dogs anywhere near these demons. They can’t handle anything loving and loyal near them.

  10. Mike says

    May 2, 2016 at 11:26 pm

    I know they have undercover agents visiting the mosques in Singapore to listen and look.
    Visiting imams are escorted straight to the airport by the police should their sermon be deemed to “incite racial hatred” – a serious crime in Sg.
    Singapore doesn’t give out citizenship willy-nilly and they are not signatories to any of any human rights agreements that have western countries hamstrung.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      May 3, 2016 at 12:18 am

      They were probably able to deport the latest batch of suspect Mohammedans because said mohammedans did not possess Singaporean citizenship in the first place, and probably not even a permanent residency status.

      Memo to non-Muslim countries: a good place to start pushing back against the Jihad is NOT to grant citizenship to any identifiably-Mohammedan person who has already gotten inside the gates. Residency status should be strictly temporary, for a limited time period, and subject to regular and stringent review. Break the laws in any way, incite jihad, ‘honour’ murder a daughter or apostate child (or merely attempt or threaten to do so) and…OUT they go, with a number nine boot up the backside.

      • Lanya LaPunta says

        May 3, 2016 at 8:07 am

        Why are people so concerned about giving citizenship to mohammedans.

        The best solution is that NO migrants (cannot be racist about this) receives any type of government assistance.

        No government provided food, clothing, shelter, medical care, legal assistance, cash stipend, etc. …. Flat out nothing.

        No mohmmedans will immigrate … and those (mohammedans) here … they’ll self-deport.

  11. dumbledoresarmy says

    May 3, 2016 at 12:13 am

    Agreed. You will note that the Russians used a sniffer dog – or what the Australian army now refers to as an EDD (there is a military abbreviation for everything, these days!), i.e. “Explosives Detection Dog” – and that it was Infidel Man’s Best Friend who wised them up to the presence of criminally-concocted, unstable and improperly-stored explosives.

    “A police dog helped to find a cache with more than a kilogram of explosives of unknown origin.”

    I wonder what would be discovered if, all over the Lands of the Infidels, *all* known and suspected mosques were suddenly surprise-raided and searched, using sniffer dogs? I wouldn’t just use dogs trained to detect explosives, I’d call in all the available dogs from Customs and Contraband as well, to check for traces of illegal drugs. And it might be fun to call up the Cadaver Dogs – dogs trained to detect where *bodies* are buried, too. Search every damn mosque from attic to basement.

    Conduct the raids at a time when there are ‘worshippers’ present. Use overwhelming force. And *every* person present, including the sheikh/s, imam/s and other head honchos such as the financial guarantors, get searched from head to toe, *thoroughly*, including being *sniffed* by the hounds. Just in case they’ve been dabbling in explosives and/ or illegal drugs *elsewhere*, even if such things are not actually found stashed in the mosque. And every person present should be individually interrogated, and background-checked, and their fingerprints and DNA samples taken and checked against the ‘unsolved crimes’ database. Their immigration / citizenship status and any record with the welfare system should be double and triple checked.

    If drugs and/ or explosives and/ or even *traces* of same are found: the mosque gets shut down and demolished, within the day.

    This should be standard procedure whenever a jihad terror attack is carried out (e.g. the attack on Charlie Hebdo), attempted, or detected and fortunately foiled; *all* mosques in the vicinity, or in the affected country, should be raided and searched. If the attackers/ plotters are known, every mosque they are known to have attended – from age 10 on up – should be searched at once, without prior notice, as a matter of course.

    • Lanya LaPunta says

      May 3, 2016 at 8:00 am

      Yeah … good luck on finding a judge that will issue a search warrant.

      The legal system, within the United States of America is overwhelmingly islamophiliac.

      However, even with them not being good little islamophiliacs, serving their mohammedan masters …

      No right thinking judge, with even just one jot or tittle of the constitution would issue said warrant.

      Nice if it could be done … but even a vehement hater of mohammedans, such as myself, believe that would be opening one nasty can of worms.

      What’s next, your home and office?

      • gravenimage says

        May 3, 2016 at 10:34 am

        In many cases there is just cause for suspicion to search Mosques.

        The above story does not say, but it seems pretty clear that Russian authorities had cause to suspect this illegal Mosque, and were not just randomly invading houses willy-nilly until they found a cache of explosives.

  12. dumbledoresarmy says

    May 3, 2016 at 12:27 am

    Memo to *all* my fellow jihadwatchers.

    Every time there is a news report of this kind, featuring the storage of weapons and/ or explosives inside a mosque – or stories about the *manufacture* of bombs, say, inside a mosque – KEEP A COPY of the story.

    Use the original link; make a full copy, at once, of the entire report. Place it in a file. I have a file called “mosques behaving badly” (should be, “mosques being mosques”).

    Whenever, in your respective countries, there is yet another mosque being proposed to be built, and locals are protesting against it: *send them your data file*. So they can point out to the local council that there are, by the law of probabilities, very real Health and Safety issues with having a mosque in one’s town or suburb. It isn’t just the preaching of Jihad, the possibility of someone, or more than one, issuing forth from that mosque to *kill* people – as a teenage Mohammedan did in Sydney, he went to the mosque, was given a gun, and went forth to murder an inoffensive Sino-Australian named Curtis Cheng. It’s the real possibility that the mosque will be used to manufacture and/ or store dangerous substances such as explosives and weaponry and that the manufacture and storage will be done carelessly and in such a manner as to endanger the neighbours… not just from attacks carried out with same, never mind about that, it’s the simple fact that they are being cooked up and stored, because… inshallah fatalism and contempt for Workplace Health and Safety. There is a *pollution* issue. What if the damn thing goes BOOOM because somebody gets the recipe wrong??

    *This* particular lot of explosives, in that mosque, was so unstable, or so unsafely stored, that the Russian army sappers didn’t want to even try to move it outside! They detonated it from a safe distance.

    What’s to say that, if that particular stash *hadn’t* been detected, the damn mohammedans would have blown *themselves* up, sooner or later??… probably sooner. And half the surrounding neighbourhood with them.

    I don’t want a mosque next door Because… I don’t want an illegal *bomb factory* and *munitions dump* next door, run by inshallah idiots!

    • ManchesterLad says

      May 3, 2016 at 6:34 am

      Good idea. Unfortunately in the UK I would be arrested and imprisoned for ‘Islamophobia’ for suggesting such a terrible thing!

    • boakai ngombu says

      May 3, 2016 at 2:47 pm

      a useful suggestion, DD very important, since the umma wants a mosque on every corner

      there could also be setup an international clearing house, so that, should the world go PC (silent) there would be a record

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      May 4, 2016 at 3:44 am

      I will add that even having mohammedan neighbours in the flat or house or unit next door could be hazardous for exactly the same reasons.

      I remember a bloke in the UK who converted to Islam. He brought himself to the attention of the Authorities in some way, and his place of residence was searched. They found **a biscuit tin full of freshly-made explosives** just casually stored in his *kitchen* and they found an *explosive vest*, human bomb, for the use of, hung up in his wardrobe.

      Think about *that* for a moment. If your flat mate or the person across the corridor in the apartment block or the chap over the back fence converts to Islam… or an avowedly-Islamic family moves in… can you be sure, absolutely sure, that they’re not going to be cooking up a nice batch of TATP or suchlike, as per that Al Qaeda article charmingly entitled, in the english edition, “How to Make a Bomb In the Kitchen of Your Mom?”

      What happens if they get the recipe wrong? If they store the stuff wrong? If there’s a fire in the kitchen or the bedroom and the ammo dump or the chemical precursors or the bombs or the biscuit-tin or bucket full of newly-made- explosives… goes up?

      There was another news item I remember, some years ago. From Lebanon. The Israeli press reported it, because they know what goes on over the border; they keep a very close eye. It wasn’t the *mosque*, as such; it was **the imam’s h ouse** that suddenly, one day, ascended skyward in an unplanned explosion, due to unstable items unsafely concocted and/ or stored on the premises.

  13. Dean says

    May 3, 2016 at 3:19 am

    Good for the Russians detonating them in the Mosque whether they were dangerous or NOT to remove. Weak American politicians would insist they be removed whether on not they were dangerous. Every Muslim known to have visited it within the last year should be imprisoned and deported if possible. I think for the Russians the possibility is a certainty, except they may want to punish them in a Russians prison for awhile.

  14. DockyWocky says

    May 3, 2016 at 8:52 am

    If only those Ruski’s blew up the bomb stuff and included the 63 jihadis found in the building, things would be improving.

  15. gravenimage says

    May 3, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Russia: Explosives found in illegal mosque, detonated by authorities
    …………………….

    It’s great that a police dog was instrumental in finding these explosives, as well.

    I hope Russian authorities track down the Imam and all the “parishioners” who attended this arsenal…er, mosque…as well.

  16. Florida Jim says

    May 3, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Surprise, surprise, surprise Muslims lie , cheat and steal they cannot be trusted they are like a foreign democrat saying and doing whatever is necessary to gain a vote and bankrupt a nation, they don’t care they only can think about 4 years at a time while praying no one remembers the last contest and what they promised.

  17. shortfattexan says

    May 3, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    Pere LaChaise says

    May 3, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    The measures you propose fly in the face of all reason and could never be implemented as they are grossly prejudicial.
    I infer by ‘Moslem country’ you mean one that is dominated by them. Well, what of non-Moslems fleeing them? Like all the Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi Christians fleeing their homeland because the Wahhabis have taken over and are exterminating them? I know Robert Spencer thinks Palestinians don’t exist, but I know some, members of the Orthodox church for maybe 90 generations, who call themselves Palestinians.
    So again, you will have to think a little bit harder here, so as not to make a Fortress America which furhter victimizes those most vulnerable to Moslem depredation.

    M. LaChaise

    What part of what I proposed flies “in the face of all reason”? Other than the fact that it offends you. They “could never be implemented”? Only because out Government has been emasculated by political correctness. You may think it’s “grossly prejudicial”, but if I have to choose between survival and coddling your oh-so-delicate globalist sensibilities, I know which one I’m picking.

    “Well, what of non-Moslems fleeing them?” Well, what of them? Did you read what I wrote? It doesn’t seem so. Did I say deny entry to non-Muslims? I did not. I said, if someone is from a Muslim country, don’t just assume that they’re telling the truth when they claim to be a non-Muslim. Verify their claims before we let them in our country.

    As far as making “a Fortress America” and victimizing “those most vulnerable to Moslem depredation” – how is it our responsibility to save the rest of the world? I’m all for helping persecuted non-Muslims around the world, but if we don’t take care of ourselves we won’t be able to help of anyone else.

    • Dean says

      May 3, 2016 at 5:18 pm

      Right now, this moment, the feds are investigating with under cover agents churches that support anti-government right wing causes, so why are Muslims exempted? POLITICAL CORRECTNESS associated with multiculturalism and moral relativism. End that and a robust, unhindered American challenge about everything Islamic inconsistent and incompatible with American values will reveal who are the dangerous Muslims and their sympathizers and supporters.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      May 4, 2016 at 3:46 am

      You wrote – “I’m all for helping persecuted non-Muslims around the world, but if we don’t take care of ourselves we won’t be able to help of anyone else.”

      Yes. Precisely.

      If the lifeboat has a hole in it, what good is it?

  18. Joseph Ellul says

    May 3, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    In Parramatta, Australia, the gun used to assassinate Mr Chan was hidden in the nearby Mosque. Mr Chan was a police Department employee and was gunned down by a 16 year old jihadist.

  19. Peggy says

    May 3, 2016 at 11:06 pm

    GI said:
    But I have never heard of Singapore having deported Muslims who are Singaporean citizens.
    ========================
    Do they actually give any refugee a citizenship?
    If they have their own Muslims I think they would be so well behaved because their laws are very strict.
    I really don’t know if any invader would be allowed to stay there permanently anyway.
    We should all learn from Singapore.

    • Angemon says

      May 5, 2016 at 8:38 am

      Peggy posted:

      “Do they actually give any refugee a citizenship?
      If they have their own Muslims
      ”

      Don’t they? Are all muslims in Singapore foreigners? Not even one native?

      “We should all learn from Singapore.”

      Yes, let’s throw people in jail for kissing in public.

  20. Peggy says

    May 4, 2016 at 1:51 am

    Pere LaChaise says

    May 3, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Ethnic group? So Islam is a race as far as you are concerned? You should go back to grammar school. Distaste for Islam is NOT racist – though your prejudices may very well be. I suggest you hold your tongue until you get a clearer picture of what we are talking about.

    For instance, Syria was once the central state of Christendom. Did it ever occur to you that most Christians are not white? That many speak Arabic
    ==================================
    Feeling better now?
    Everyone here who has been reading my posts for a long time will know that I am a huge supporter of ME non Muslims. So please don’t tell me to hold my tongue.
    Yes, at times a wrong word may pop up but I think we all know that when we talk about ME with digsust we are actually only talking about Muslims there.
    There is no racism intended and I have always said that we should only bring in non Muslims from there so yes, that includes all colours and all languages.
    I think we are in agreement on the subject of Islam, no argument here.

    • Dean says

      May 4, 2016 at 2:31 am

      Distaste for a codification of 6th century Arab customs and prejudices clothed in stolen monotheism is not racist or anti-religious. Multiculturalism is a lie equating primitive cultures with superior western culture that gave birth to the modern age. Everyone is appropriating from the products of the culture that they object to in their prejudiced opposition to so-called white privilege. Put an end to multiculturalism, moral equivalency and political correctness and the Islamic threat will be ended as well. People are neither superior of inferior but that doesn’t apply to cultures. If one isn’t blinded by progressive prejudices and propaganda, the evidence is everywhere they can see. I don’t personally take credit for the culture but I absolutely appreciate it and won’t tolerate the lies against it.

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        May 4, 2016 at 3:56 am

        Actually, Islam didn’t perpetuate all pre-islamic Arab customs. Pre-Islamic Arabia (besides containing many Christians and Jews who seem to have lived pretty much on equal terms with the Arab pagans), had visual arts, sculpture, pet dogs, music, and wine. They were in many ways *ahead* of what they later became, under Islam! Their women were freer before Islam, than after it (think of Khadija herself, who was an independent businesswoman, and of Asma Bint Marwan, who was basically what ancient Celts would have recognised as a bard, performing a valued social function, offering political criticism advice and counsel; she was a married woman and what *we* would call an intellectual/ performance artist). Mohammed killed her…and shocked everyone. He broke with pre-existing customs. Did all pre-Islamic Arab women wear veils? I’m not so sure that they did, given that the Islamic female cover-up is represented in the hadiths as having been instituted to *distinguish* the Muslim women – the women of Mohammed’s new cult – from the non-Muslim women around them.

        • Peggy says

          May 4, 2016 at 4:26 am

          All you have to do is look at Egypt and the civilization that it was before Islam. Woman were equal to men and plenty of female rulers.

  21. Peggy says

    May 4, 2016 at 4:23 am

    Firefoxhits says:

    you now need to find someone willing to introduce a bill. Once introduced, I doubt there’d be too much difficulty finding support.
    =========================
    Sounds simple enough so you wonder why it isn’t being done.
    Hopefully Trump will win and then we’ll have a better chance of sorting all this out. I fear that even if he was to win he will be stopped one way or another.
    Still, let’s pray things change because the alternatives are just too horrible. The alternatives being Muslims take charge or a civil war breaks out.

  22. Peggy says

    May 5, 2016 at 8:54 am

    Angemon says

    May 5, 2016 at 7:59 am

    Peggy posted:

    “Did they get permission from us to land on our shores before they arrived? No. ”

    Why didn’t you sent them back when they arrived then?
    ==================================
    If it was up to me I would’ve. At least now our government is doing exactly that.
    ——————————
    “I know it’s not possible to deport them all as we have many converts ”

    Then why bother to mention new laws and saying that Singapore found a way to do it?

    It’s obvious I was say all. You have even repeated what I said. I never said that Singapore has found a way to deport them all. Did you not notice when I said that Muslims born in Singapore are obviously staying there?
    This is exactly what I said.

    I know it’s not possible to deport them all as we have many converts but we should be able to deport most, stop importing more and when they are not in such numbers any more they will behave. If not, we can put them in prisons if they don’t.
    ==============
    You seem to love distorting what I say in order to discredit it.

    You are always coming back with we can’t do this because of the law etc. When I say that we can if we change our laws and laws are made at a stroke of a pen you take issue with that and say I don’t know how laws are made.
    So now you tell us how laws are made if not by a stroke of a pen. By the stroke of a sword maybe?
    How do we make new laws?
    It looks like you really don’t want to get rid of most Muslims. You keep saying how it cannot be done so we just have to accept it.
    Well many of us won’t accept it because we know that if our government wants to, they can. They can revoke citizenship on character grounds when a crime is committed. They can revoke citizenship on the grounds of belonging to an organisation which is outlawed and they can outlaw any organisation they want.
    How many people are on the watch lists?
    I don’t have the answer but at least I am coming up with ideas. What are you coming up with except ‘WE CAN’T DO IT”?

    • Angemon says

      May 5, 2016 at 10:23 am

      Peggy posted:

      “It’s obvious I was say all. You have even repeated what I said. I never said that Singapore has found a way to deport them all. Did you not notice when I said that Muslims born in Singapore are obviously staying there?
      This is exactly what I said.

      I know it’s not possible to deport them all as we have many converts but we should be able to deport most, stop importing more and when they are not in such numbers any more they will behave. If not, we can put them in prisons if they don’t.”

      As I said (and you conveniently left out, because your MO is to cherry pick what I said and pretend I said something else entirely different):

      you can’t deport them all because some are native converts with no other citizenship. As for foreigners, most countries have laws allowing their removal back to their country of origin, whether because they broke the law or because they have no means of sustenance, and that applie to ALL, regardless of social-economic status, ethnicity or religion. Same for dual citizens – in that case, a citizenship can be forcibly removed and the perpetrator sent back to their other country. But native converts? You’re stuck with those.

      But let’s parse what happened. Alain wrote:

      Singaporians are intelligent enough to deport every radical muslims and all other countries should do the very same.

      Note it doesn’t say “every radical foreign muslims”, just “every radical muslims”.

      Leading me to ask:

      Where do they send Singapore muslims to? The ones with no other citizenship?

      To which you replied:

      A question for Singapore but they do so you see it’s possible if only we have the will and do away with human rights which these parasites don’t deserve.

      See where I’m getting the idea you’re also talking about native Singapore muslims? It’s because when I specifically asked about them you replied that Singapore was doing it.

      Saying “Did you not notice when I said that Muslims born in Singapore are obviously staying there” is back-pedalling, plain and simple because you clearly and unambiguously said Singapore was doing away with Singapore natives.

      “You seem to love distorting what I say in order to discredit it.”

      Nope. See above. I specifically and unambiguously mentioned Singapori citizens with no other citizenship. You wrote, replying to that, “but they do you see it’s possible”. Clearly someone is distorting what you wrote, and it ain’t me.

      “You are always coming back with we can’t do this because of the law etc. ”

      And you have yet to prove otherwise. You never, ever – not even once – made a case to “deporting” native citizens. You always come back to “we can make new laws”, which goes to show how ignorant of the law-making process you are. Oh, wait, I forgot – you’re claiming, against all available evidence, that you’re not referring to nativ citizens. To which I say: don’t you already have laws saying you can deport foreigners and strip dual-citizens of their citizenship? If so, why do you need new laws?

      “When I say that we can if we change our laws and laws are made at a stroke of a pen you take issue with that and say I don’t know how laws are made.”

      Which you clearly don’t. Hence why you’re sticking to the generic “we can make new laws” rather than saying “we can make a law stating such and such and it’s not unconstitutional because such and such and it’ll pass the law making process such and such”.

      BTW, why would you need new laws? Don’t you already have laws that let you deport foreigners? Remember, you said you were not talking about native citizens, so who would those “new laws” you’re generically speaking about encompass?

      “So now you tell us how laws are made if not by a stroke of a pen. By the stroke of a sword maybe?
      How do we make new laws?
      ”

      That’s what I’ve been asking you: how do you make new laws? Do you grab a pen and write something on a piece of paper and that’s it? Or is there an intricate process behind it to ensure the laws are not unconstitutional? Anyway, this is all academical discussion because you never exactly mention which “new law” you have in mind – you might want to give that more thought so next time you can say “we can make a law saying such and such”.

      “It looks like you really don’t want to get rid of most Muslims. You keep saying how it cannot be done so we just have to accept it.”

      The irony here, Peggy, is that you, in your blind rage to smear me, forgot what my stance is (that is, assuming you even knew it to begin with). Anyone familiar with what I post knows that, regarding deportation of muslims and banning of muslim immigration, I’ve always said “that’s great and leaves us only with the native converts”. You’re chastising me for having the same position you’re allegedly subscribing to now (you know, pretending you were not talking about deporting native citizens and meant you needed new laws to deport foreigners, even though you probably have them in place already).

      “Well many of us won’t accept it because we know that if our government wants to, they can. ”

      Can what? Pass a new law? Be a little more specific, please. A law saying what?

      “They can revoke citizenship on character grounds when a crime is committed. They can revoke citizenship on the grounds of belonging to an organisation which is outlawed and they can outlaw any organisation they want.”

      On dual citizens, sure. But what about natives? Remember, you’re supposedly talking about foreigners, not natives. Which law allows a state to strip one’s citizenship?

      “I don’t have the answer but at least I am coming up with ideas.”

      Terrible ideas that you can’t argue for without engaging in personal attacks. Hitler also had an idea – kill all Jews.

      “What are you coming up with except ‘WE CAN’T DO IT”?”

      What a gross mischaracterization of my stance. It’s almost as if you can’t defend your stance or attack mine as it actually is so you resort to strawmen. What am I saying “WE CAN’T DO IT” about? Deport native citizens. Do you think “WE CAN DO IT” (or should I say “YES, WE CAN”)? Because I bet you don’t. Did I ever say Western nations couldn’t pass a bill allowing them to secure their borders or deporting foreigners? Nope. I stated, many times, Western nations have such laws, and they need to start acting on them. There’s no need to create “new laws” to do what current laws already allow you to do. In fact, your claim that I’m saying “WE CAN’T DO IT” only makes sense in the context of “deporting ALL muslims, including natives”, a context you threw out by claiming you were not talking about that.

      Even ignoring your desperate and pathetic personal attacks, your post not only makes no sense but it also drains your previous posts of whatever little sense they had.

      • Peggy says

        May 5, 2016 at 8:18 pm

        Terrible ideas that you can’t argue for without engaging in personal attacks. Hitler also had an idea – kill all Jews.
        ==================
        Are you rally going to throw that in? Surely you are not comparing Muslims to Jews are you?

        I am fully aware how laws are made and you stating that I think you can just scrible something on a piece of paper and make it law is really insulting. We can always inocorporate a referendum in next election to change our constitution in order to allow a new law to be able to pass if the situation is serious.
        Introducting a bill to parliament is something we can easily do and provided the new law isn’t going against constitution it can pass the lower and upper house of parliament in a relatively short time.
        There is always a way where there is a will. Every constitution has had amendments and that’s why I keep saying it can be done. You seem to be of the opinion that what we have now cannot be changed. That’s being negative and defeatist.
        I am not a lawyer nor politician so I can’t tell you exactly what this law would say and how it would work but at least I am willing to offer the idea out there and let the people who are expert in constitutional law see what and how it can be done.
        You asking me to tell you exactly what law is ridiculous for that reason. We can protest and demand that our govenrment listens to us and works on how to achive what we need to achieve but we cannot tell them how to frame new legislation.

        • Angemon says

          May 6, 2016 at 8:36 am

          Peggy posted:

          “Are you rally going to throw that in? Surely you are not comparing Muslims to Jews are you?”

          What are you rambling about now? You seem to be under the impression that your ideas are worth something on the ground they’re ideas. Some ideas are just terrible. Like Hitler’s idea to kill Jews.

          “I am fully aware how laws are made ”

          All you have done is repeat that “laws are made at the stroke of a pen”. That’s NOT how the law-making process goes.

          “and you stating that I think you can just scrible something on a piece of paper and make it law is really insulting.”

          What’s insulting is the way you’re trying to distort what I actually wrote. I asked you this:

          how do you make new laws? Do you grab a pen and write something on a piece of paper and that’s it?

          Instead of answering that question you went on to say it’s “insulting” [to whom?] that I “stated” something I didn’t. Now, are you going to answer my questions or do you plan in playing the victim. Your response is even more egregious because you’re indulging in what you have accused me of doing – distorting what you wrote.

          Peggy says

          May 2, 2016 at 5:39 pm

          …Laws are made at a stroke of a pen so let’s start.

          And

          Peggy says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:54 am
          …When I say that we can if we change our laws and laws are made at a stroke of a pen you take issue with that and say I don’t know how laws are made.
          So now you tell us how laws are made if not by a stroke of a pen.

          Now, how do you make new laws? Do you grab a pen and write something on a piece of paper and that’s it?

          “We can always inocorporate a referendum in next election to change our constitution in order to allow a new law to be able to pass if the situation is serious.”

          Again, generic talk. Change your constitution to what into what? Pass a law to do what? Deport foreigners? Don’t you already have laws in place that let you do that?

          “Introducting a bill to parliament is something we can easily do and provided the new law isn’t going against constitution it can pass the lower and upper house of parliament in a relatively short time.”

          A bill to do what? That’s the elusive point you seemingly have no desire to explain.

          “There is always a way where there is a will.”

          Nope. Try building a stairwell to the moon a,d then come and tell me there’s always a way when there’s a will. Or, since I imagine the analogy will be lost in you, try passing a law saying you can discriminate against people based on what they think and see how that works.

          “Every constitution has had amendments and that’s why I keep saying it can be done.”

          What exactly can be done? Passing a law? A law to do what? Specifics, please.

          “You seem to be of the opinion that what we have now cannot be changed. That’s being negative and defeatist.”

          You’re just saying that because you can’t substantiate your argument into a coherent position. Make a law to do what? All your talk about making laws without ever saying what the laws you want to make are supposed to do will get you nowhere, and pointing it out is neither being negative nor defeatist, it’s simply being realistic.

          Start by substantiating what you want to accomplish and what law(s) you need to do so.

          “I am not a lawyer nor politician so I can’t tell you exactly what this law would say and how it would work ”

          You can’t even say what this alleged law of yours is supposed to do. Not a good start.

          “but at least I am willing to offer the idea out there and let the people who are expert in constitutional law see what and how it can be done.”

          Except for the part you have no idea of what you want to do. “We can make new laws. We need to make new laws”. New laws for what? What are those laws supposed to accomplish? Here, let me help you. If someone wahted to make aspirin illegal they’d go “we need to make a law to declare aspirin illegal” not “new laws are made at the stroke of a pen so let’s get started”.

          See the difference?

          “You asking me to tell you exactly what law is ridiculous for that reason.”

          What’s ridiculous here is that you’re unable to tell what you want this law of yours to accomplish or even the bare-boned mechanism behind it. Right now you’re talking about making new laws for no other reason than the sake of making new laws. Of course, you shot yourself in the feet when you, for the sake or arguing with me, stated you weren’t talking about “deporting” natives, so it’s understandable you won’t say what that “new law” of yours is supposed to accomplish.

          “We can protest and demand that our govenrment listens to us and works on how to achive what we need to achieve but we cannot tell them how to frame new legislation.”

          New legislation to do what? What exactly what is it that you want to achieve? Is it new legislation for the sake of new legislation? Your ranting about “making new laws” rings about as hollow as repeating “yes, we can” over and over. “Yes, we can”? Yes you can what? “We can make new laws”? New laws to do what?

  23. Peggy says

    May 7, 2016 at 1:15 am

    @Angemon, every one of your answers to my is the same. What law, what do you want to do?
    I have already answered that a million times but the fact that you are too stupid to see it is not my problem.
    I want majority of Muslims deported. That;s what I want done. Now how to put that into law is for someone who is qualified to do that.
    This is as simple as I can put it and if you still ask the same question then you truly are either an idiot or a troll who just regurgitates same old crap.
    BTW, introducing news laws is nowhere near building a staircase to the moon so stop dramatizing here.
    Most Muslims haven’t had a chance to become citizens yet so we have at least two years, depending on the country they are in, to go back and send them back. They are invaders, came here on fake grounds and not got citizenship yet. Two years of invaders makes a lot of invaders.
    Send them all back now and if we have a law which prohibits that, that’s the law we can change.

    • Dean says

      May 7, 2016 at 1:43 am

      Citizens have C. rights to free speech and can adopt any ideas and philosophy, but immigrants should be controlled for at least 10 years pursuant to a strict C. compliance agreement if violated is cause for immediate deportation including children that might be born here. And contrary advocacy is cause for immediate. deportation. Present immigration has been setup to make American Welfare Depot for the undesired and dispossessed of the third world and must be changed from top to bottom. All naturalized citizenship must be earned by proof of complete assimilation. Present belief that children born here of non-citizens are natural born is wrong and a de facto process and if congress was sincere about abolishing it could do so through legislation including a requirement that states identify non-citizen births with a special birth cert. with DNA proof if mother is immigrant and citizen father claims paternity.

      • Peggy says

        May 7, 2016 at 7:40 am

        requirement that states identify non-citizen births with a special birth cert. with DNA proof if mother is immigrant and citizen father claims paternity.
        ———————————–
        Obama’s mother was American but then she went and made a baby with that creature.
        Who gets the right to that baby?
        If only he was sent to live with his father and forbidden to come back to the US.

        • Dean says

          May 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm

          You’re changing the subject but Obama is natural born because of his mother but the real father may have been the card carrying communist and later mentor, Frank, who was also Hawaiian American. HIs first Muslim father abandoned the “family” and went back to Kenya so she married another Muslim for Indonesia so Mom had a thing for Muslims or something else since Frank was also black like his alleged father. But until he returned to live with his grandparents and get mentored by Frank he was raised during his most formative years as a Muslim student attending a Catholic School in Indonesia, but I think of him as a spoiled white boy from Hawaii with no personal ID with the black community.

    • Angemon says

      May 7, 2016 at 7:45 am

      Peggy posted:

      “@Angemon, every one of your answers to my is the same. What law, what do you want to do?”

      And yet you never get the hint since you don’t specify what law(s) you want to create.

      “I have already answered that a million times”

      “We need to create laws” is NOT an answer to “create laws to do what?”.

      “but the fact that you are too stupid to see it is not my problem.”

      Peggy resorting to ad hominems to deflect criticism? In other news, grass is green and the sky is blue. Your problem is that you know the messed you talked yourself into – you went from talking about “deporting” native citizens to saying you never said such a thing and it just went downhill from there. Because apparently the world will end if you admit I’m right about something or whatever.

      “I want majority of Muslims deported. That;s what I want done.”

      Why the majority? Why not ALL? Why so “asymptotic”?

      “Now how to put that into law is for someone who is qualified to do that.”

      Don’t you already have laws letting you deport individuals? What if someone qualified to do that tells you “you can’t do that”? And the most important question: what are you doing to get that law passed? Don’t tell me you’re just waiting for someone else to do it.

      “This is as simple as I can put it and if you still ask the same question then you truly are either an idiot or a troll who just regurgitates same old crap.”

      Gee, more insults from the eternally offended Peggy – what a shock… This is the first time you say what you want to create law(s) for. And I had to pressure you a great deal to get an answer. Do you think that a law that punishes people on the grounds of what they profess to think (because, remember, they’d had to admit being muslims to be deported) would be constitutional? You really don’t see the danger inherent in that? I’d expect someone who’s so quick to insult the intelligence of others to have a little more foresight than that. Or maybe you did and that’s why you were beating around the bush.

      “BTW, introducing news laws is nowhere near building a staircase to the moon so stop dramatizing here.”

      Here’s what you wrote:

      There is always a way where there is a will.

      Try building a stairwell to the moon and then come and tell me there’s always a way when there’s a will.

      “Again
      Most Muslims haven’t had a chance to become citizens yet
      ”

      Citation needed. Where exactly are you talking about? Are most muslims in your country people who arrived recently?

      “so we have at least two years, depending on the country they are in,”

      Again, citation and context needed.

      “to go back and send them back. They are invaders, came here on fake grounds and not got citizenship yet. Two years of invaders makes a lot of invaders.
      Send them all back now and if we have a law which prohibits that,
      ”

      Do you? Do you have a law that forbids sending illegals back to wherever they came from? In which country?

      “that’s the law we can change.”

      Change? I thought your shtick was to create new laws. And again, you’re alternating about talking about several countries and just one. How about you stick to your country for starters?

  24. Peggy says

    May 7, 2016 at 11:15 am

    I am not offended, I am frustrated with you. You are like a parasite which just keeps annoying with being a smartarse.
    Obviously I can’t create or amend laws. I am not in parliament so all I can do is make my wishes known and hopefully enough people do the same. Can you make any changes to any laws? If not then why say that I should do this myself?
    I also already said previously that we don’t need to get rid of all Muslims just a majority of them and what’s left will behave. This is a proven fact. When they are in very small numbers they behave.
    You ask me why some and not all. I would love all but that’s not realistic due to certain factors.
    So stop being a smartarse. Either you really don’t understand what I say or you are deliberately going around in circles in order to appear clever or annoy.
    You obviously have me on your radar and every time you see my name here you react badly so you have to write these really lengthy replies which I am quite sure nobody reads because nobody wants to be bothered to read a novel. Tell you the truth I don’t read most of it myself.
    Do you honestly think that anyone really reads your crap?

    • Angemon says

      May 7, 2016 at 12:35 pm

      Peggy posted:

      “I am not offended, I am frustrated with you. You are like a parasite which just keeps annoying with being a smartarse.”

      Better a smartass than a dumbass, wouldn’t you say?

      “Obviously I can’t create or amend laws. I am not in parliament so all I can do is make my wishes known and hopefully enough people do the same. Can you make any changes to any laws? If not then why say that I should do this myself?”

      And here is the dumbassery in action. While I can’t make or change existing laws in my country I can, however, start a movement in and make my voice heard in order to get political representation and strive to make it happen. I think that’s a much more fruitful approach than sitting around making wishes and hoping others do the same, wouldn’t you agree?

      “I also already said previously that we don’t need to get rid of all Muslims just a majority of them and what’s left will behave. This is a proven fact. When they are in very small numbers they behave.i>”

      How do you decide which muslims go and which ones stay?

      “You ask me why some and not all. I would love all but that’s not realistic due to certain factors.”

      Such as?

      “So stop being a smartarse.”

      Again, better a smartass than a dumbass.

      “Either you really don’t understand what I say or you are deliberately going around in circles in order to appear clever or annoy.”

      Nope. You’re all talk, bluster, braggadocio and ad hominems but you can’t crystallize your position into specific, actionable, real-world measures. Which is exactly what I’m on the lookout for.

      “You obviously have me on your radar”

      Whoa, paranoid much?

      “and every time you see my name here you react badly”

      I’m quite certain I don’t reply to the majority of your posts, so what you’re suggesting is blatantly false.In fact, if anyone here reacts badly it would be you. You don’t like to have your posts questioned so you quickly start resorting to smears and insults.

      “so you have to write these really lengthy replies”

      Half or so of them, give or take, are quotes of what I’m replying to.

      “which I am quite sure nobody reads because nobody wants to be bothered to read a novel.”

      Wait, did you graduated magna cum laude from Hesp’s School of Absurd Nonsense? Or is your attention span so short that anything over a few lines long is a “novel” to you?

      Tell you the truth I don’t read most of it myself.”

      Ah, so it’ not that you’re stupid or dimwitted and that shows in your responses, it’s just that you reply without reading what you’re replying to. Which is exactly what I’d expect a stupid or dimwitted person to do. Oh well…

      “Do you honestly think that anyone really reads your crap?”

      Huh, why do you think that even matters? Are you in middle school or something? Is this about who has the most followers or readers? Look, Peggy, there’s no shame in admitting you need to think things through. What I’m asking you are questions you’ll have to answer if you ever decide to move your portly buttocks and actually *do* something instead of hoping and wishing for someone else to do it for you. My advice to you is that you take the criticism you get and use it to improve your idea. Unless, of course, you think you can get a law passed by calling the Constitutional judges “dumbasses” or that “no one reads their crap”. Which wouldn’t surprise me if that were the case.

      • Peggy says

        May 8, 2016 at 12:22 am

        You seriously have a problem.
        You want to turn every post into a long draw out argument. Everything I say you think I owe you an explanation. Do I question you on everything you post? When I do reply to some you put more questions up. It’s never ending with you so just seek help for whatever it is that haunts you.

        Nobody else on this site here keep at someone like you do. The reason you could never be satisfied with anything I post is because you really don’t want to end a discussion or yo want to end a discussion with the other person capitulating or just ignoring you.
        Haven’t you noticed that? That’s a sign of something really disturbing. What are you lacking in your persona life? Validation?

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:45 am

          Peggy posted:

          “You seriously have a problem.
          You want to turn every post into a long draw out argument.
          ”

          By which you mean I use my right of response when you insult me.

          “Everything I say you think I owe you an explanation.”

          Nope. Stop lying.

          “Do I question you on everything you post?”

          Is there anyone forbidding you to do so if you wish?

          “When I do reply to some you put more questions up. ”

          We’ve through this before: replying to a post is not the same as answering a question.

          “The reason you could never be satisfied with anything I post is because you really don’t want to end a discussion or yo want to end a discussion with the other person capitulating or just ignoring you.”

          Oh, you’re a mind reader now? Here’s al alternative (and by “alternative” I mean “real”) hypothesis: you don’t answer my question and instead resort to petty name calling to deflect attention away. Hence I repeat the question instead of being lead by the nose to the kindergarten-grade mud flinging contest you eventually turn discussing of your ideas into. I either read and believe everything you say or I’ll end up being insulted the moment you realize you’ve argued yourself into a corner. Which was exactly what happened here. You went back and forth from “we can make new laws to deport natives” to “f*** it, I’m going to say the opposite that Angemon is saying – I was not talking about deporting native but we need new laws nonetheless”. And now you’re here, still flinging mud, after the dad horse you were beating on was beaten down to atoms.

          “Haven’t you noticed that? That’s a sign of something really disturbing. What are you lacking in your persona life? Validation?”

          More mud-flinging from the dime-store psychologist Peggy, always eager to make up in petty insults what she lacks in logic, reasoning and argumentative skills…

      • Jay Boo says

        May 8, 2016 at 1:05 am

        Deporting Muslims is not totally out of the question.

        Step 1 increase border security.
        Step 2 Deport Muslims
        Step 3 Apologize at the United Nations
        Step 4 Make Muslims wait in line and reapply behind the line of Christians in Egypt waiting on permits to build a new church.

        • Peggy says

          May 8, 2016 at 5:48 am

          Angemon has a huge problem with step 2.
          I am pretty sure he won’t go after you as relentlessly as he goes after me for that. I wonder why.

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:45 am

          Peggy posted:

          “Angemon has a huge problem with step 2.”

          More lies and slander from the crybully Peggy. This is especially egregious after she, on her last post, chided me for being relentless. Of course, hypocrisy is one of her defining features. Did you graduate magna cum laude from Hesp’s School of Absurd Nonsense?

          I’ve said it many times – and I wonder why Peggy “missed” all of them – I have no problems with deporting muslims. The thing is, you can’t deport native citizens. Where are you going to deport them to, their homeland? Not going to happen. Claiming I’m against deportation is a flat out lie. I am, however, aware of who can be deported and who can’t – something that eludes the likes of “Peggy”.

          Where do you plan on “deporting” native converts to, Peggy? No, wait, let me guess your answer: you can make new laws governing that…

          “I am pretty sure he won’t go after you as relentlessly as he goes after me for that. I wonder why.“

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:47 am

          Hmm, the last paragraph was cut out.

          ““I am pretty sure he won’t go after you as relentlessly as he goes after me for that. I wonder why.“”

          Probably because JB is not making the sort of asinine, nonsensical claims you’re doing. For example, he’s not saying you can make new laws to deport native citizens because Singapore is doing. Nor has he insulted me or resorted to petty name calling.

        • Jay Boo says

          May 8, 2016 at 6:06 am

          Look again at the whole group, Peggy

          Notice that, I am merely being a bit facetious here unlike some others who unrealistically think that deporting all Muslims is a simple plan.

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:48 am

          Disregard my last question then >_>

        • Jay Boo says

          May 8, 2016 at 6:13 am

          Peggy,
          I will admit though that Angemon can be a bit relentless.
          But it looks like this time he is letting you have the last word.

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:45 am

          Jay Boo posted:

          “Step 2 Deport Muslims”

          Are you including native converts? If so, where do you suggest deporting them to?

  25. Peggy says

    May 8, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Jay Boo says

    May 8, 2016 at 6:06 am

    Look again at the whole group, Peggy

    Notice that, I am merely being a bit facetious here unlike some others who unrealistically think that deporting all Muslims is a simple plan.
    ===========================
    Are you sure you have read my posts correctly?
    I have stated on more than one occasion that I am aware that we can’t deport ALL Muslims but i suggest most. Most Muslims now in western countries, especially the US and Australia haven’t had a chance to get citizenship yet because they haven’t been there long enough.
    Then we have the ones born here who are supporting IS and especially the ones who have gone overseas to fight. They are the ones we can revoke citizenships and get rid of if we choose but we don’t. We welcome them back.
    Like I also said before, I don’t have all the answers and I don’t pretend to but I am quite sure if we really want to as a collective we can come up with the necessary answers.
    Our elected officials certainly can but they won’t.
    What exactly is wrong with me saying we can chance laws to suit? Which laws cannot be changed and why not?

    • Dean says

      May 8, 2016 at 5:18 pm

      I have posted a change that could affect the processing and status control on future Immigrants including Muslims, but those presently here not yet naturalized are protected by the laws already on the books including immigration policies and legions of attorney will protect their rights. However, we already have many laws dating back to the “communists scare” period that allows monitoring and quick deportation of anyone advocating un-American policies which are not being enforced for political reasons. Furthermore Christian churches are presently under surveillance for right wing agitation so it is not a violation of religious freedom to monitor them and apply the above laws or prevent planned attacks. The only thing that is stopping law enforcement are political correctness advocates and compliant elected officials.

      • quotha raven says

        May 8, 2016 at 6:32 pm

        To Dean -You are absolutely right with every stroke of the pen! Always appreciate your contributions; appreciate this one even more than most . Succinct and clear. I love that in a thinker/writer!)))

        Cheers!

        quotha

        • Dean says

          May 8, 2016 at 8:15 pm

          Thanks. Every time I hear someone say “immigration reform: I don’t think illegal immigrants but the legal immigration policy that needs change from top to bottom and the Muslim problem is only one in a system that is ruining America.

  26. Peggy says

    May 8, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    Jay Boo says

    May 8, 2016 at 6:13 am

    Peggy,
    I will admit though that Angemon can be a bit relentless.
    But it looks like this time he is letting you have the last word.
    ——————————
    Actually no he has replied to me and to you but that’s not important to me.
    There are many posts here and most of us here don’t agree with everything everyone says but none apart from Angemon seems to sink their teeth into anyone and keep on anyone’s back until they wear that person down.
    Does anyone here demand so much justification for other posts? We are all in agreement about danger of Islam and we don’t all the same solutions but none of us get on each other’s back as much as Angemon gets on mine and CBs. Do you really see anyone get the same treatment?
    Am I the only one here who is so different to the rest? I don’t think so.
    It’s just the crazy obsession Angemon has with me.
    Here’s a thought. Do I ever attack his posts the way he does mine? Maybe I just don’t worry about his throughs so I wonder why my saying that most Muslims should be deported brings out so much fury from him. Why is this one thing so important that he has to argue the point so much?
    Is it obsession or just the fact that I dared to write it? You stated the same thing and you didn’t receive this much pressure to justify it.

    • Angemon says

      May 8, 2016 at 8:22 pm

      Would you like cheese to go with your whine?

      Peggy posted:

      “There are many posts here and most of us here don’t agree with everything everyone says but none apart from Angemon seems to sink their teeth into anyone and keep on anyone’s back until they wear that person down.”

      Or so you say. I distinctly remember me and a few others (not you though) routinely taking trolls and islamic apologists to the task. Anyway, one would think that discussing ideas would be a good way to separate the goods ones from the bad ones, or even improving the good ones. But not you, of course. No, you want that what you say to be above criticism. Hence why you’re playing the crybully – you’re the victim here because the big meanie Angemon is being a big meanie by daring to discuss what you say when we should all just “get along”. Ironically, that’s the logic used to tar critics of islam – “we all need to coexist and these mean, bigoted people are just unfairly targeting muslims for the sake of targeting muslims”.

      “Does anyone here demand so much justification for other posts? We are all in agreement about danger of Islam and we don’t all the same solutions but none of us get on each other’s back as much as Angemon gets on mine and CBs.”

      You and CB? The Putin apologists? Really? Am I the only one who noticed, and called out, CB on his hatred of the West and apologism for Iran? I think not. In fact, I know that’s not true.

      Anf, agai, that’s the logic used to tar critics of islam – “we all need to coexist and these mean, bigoted people are just unfairly targeting muslims for the sake of targeting muslims”.

      Plus, you’re leaving out that CB /along with his backup squad) goes out of his way to rub his hatred of the West in my face. Because you’re a crybully trying to play the victim.

      “Do you really see anyone get the same treatment?
      Am I the only one here who is so different to the rest? I don’t think so.
      It’s just the crazy obsession Angemon has with me.
      ”

      That’s what voeg used to say. His ideas, much like your own, didn’t hold up to scrutiny so he tried to play the victim.

      “Here’s a thought. Do I ever attack his posts the way he does mine?”

      Again, voegelian-esque language – it’s not that I’m criticizing what you say in a good-faithed discussion (that you proceeded to s*** on), it’s that I’m “attacking” you”. Again, you’re complaining that I’m willing to discuss what you have to say. Not a good sign.

      But if you want to talk about attacking others, I’d love to hear your explanation to why you’re so quick to forsake discussing your ideas in favour of petty name-calling and cheap smears.

      “Maybe I just don’t worry about his throughs”

      I’m guessing that “throughs” was a typo and you meant “thoughts”? If so, you “don’t worry” to the point you go out of your way to craft a post where you mischaracterize me and my stance. Way to be nonchalant about what I think!

      “so I wonder why my saying that most Muslims should be deported brings out so much fury from him.”

      And here is another post quite similar to voeg’s nonsensical claims and rewriting of history to defend their absurd narrative. First of all, and as I showed above, I called you out on your nonsense about deporting native citizens. You, despite claiming that you don’t care about what I think, went out of your way to deny you ever said that. Second, “fury”? Ha ha, no. Just… no. Prove it, you dime-store analyst. Third, did I ever say I was against deporting muslims? Nope. I was suggesting that before you even started posting here.

      “Why is this one thing so important that he has to argue the point so much?”

      What thing? Saying that you can’t deport native citizens? How many times did you say “Singapore is doing it and we should learn from it”?

      “Is it obsession or just the fact that I dared to write it?”

      Neither, you crybully. You spat out a nonsensical, impracticable idea and I called you out on it.

      “You stated the same thing and you didn’t receive this much pressure to justify it.”

      Seriously? JB stated the same thing as you? When did JB made the claim that Singapore was “deporting” native citizens and that should could learn from it?

      You know, if you placed 1/10th of the effort you put in lying and rewriting history to defame and insult me while pretending to be nonchalant about it into thinking things through you might eventually get a good idea. As it is now all you’ll get is a high blood pressure and an ulcer.

      For (what I hope it’s) the last time: you can’t deport native citizens, Peggy. Where are you going to deport them to, their native country? And I bet you *know* this, hence why, despite your huff and puff about “creating new laws”, ignored what I asked you: if Singapore creates a law saying that they can “deport” native Singapore citizens to Australia, is Australia under any obligation to take them in?

      Of course, there’s always the possibility that you’re just as dimwitted and dull ad you’re trying to pretend. You may genuinely not realize the dangers of granting government the power to do away with citizens based on what they think. You just might be ignorant enough to think “no, it’s all OK, this would just apply to muslims and no government ever would think about using such powers to target political opponents”. If you represent the average citizen in your country, may God have mercy on you.

      • Peggy says

        May 8, 2016 at 8:56 pm

        Seriously? JB stated the same thing as you? When did JB made the claim that Singapore was “deporting” native citizens and that should could learn from it?
        \—————–

        We weren’t talking about Singapore at that point. We were discussing deorting Muslims in general.

        So JB siad

        Jay Boo says

        May 8, 2016 at 1:05 am

        Deporting Muslims is not totally out of the question.

        Step 1 increase border security.
        Step 2 Deport Muslims

        As you see JB was not specified whether they are Singapore Muslims or not so if I was still discussing Singapore Muslims then JB must’ve been as well but this is all you replied to him.

        Angemon says

        May 8, 2016 at 8:45 am

        Jay Boo posted:

        “Step 2 Deport Muslims”

        Are you including native converts? If so, where do you suggest deporting them to?
        ================
        Where is the lengthy reply you normally give? Where is the demand for justification that you normally request?
        That’s what I am talking about. Don’t try to get out of it now by claiming that JB wasn’t talking about Singapore Muslism when we both know that even before anyone mentioned Singapore on different threads you get stuck into me for saying that Muslims should be deported. Singapore Muslims seem to be just a convenient excuse this time for not being consistantly outraged.

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 9:23 pm

          Peggy posted:

          “As you see JB was not specified whether they are Singapore Muslims or not so if I was still discussing Singapore Muslims then JB must’ve been as well but this is all you replied to him.”

          Exactly – JB *didn’t* make the same claim as you. You claimed Singapore was deporting its native citizens. JB *didn’t*. You went on a long, irrelevant tangent about “creating new laws” and I had to inquire about the purpose of those “new laws” several times. JB did nothing of the sort.

          “Where is the lengthy reply you normally give? Where is the demand for justification that you normally request?”

          Oh, the ever-so-insulted Peggy has no shame about lying to my face about what I say. Tsk tsk…

          Here’s an example of how I *actually* answered you before you started going off the rails:

          https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/russia-explosives-found-in-illegal-mosque-detonated-by-authorities#comment-1429572

          https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/russia-explosives-found-in-illegal-mosque-detonated-by-authorities#comment-1429601

          The “lengthy replies” you’ve been getting came *AFTER* you started back-pedalling and trying to cover you ass by piling nonsense after nonsense. Is JB claiming you can create “new laws” to do… well, something, like you did? No, he isn’t, so stop lying and dragging him into this. You made a series of generic claims you could not substantiate. I inquired you about it and you’re now trying to vent your rage gland because you were called out on your nonsense.

          Of course, the *fact* that I asked JB to expand on what he said is of no significance to you because, by itself, it vaporizes your whole narrative.

          Anyway, I’ve indulged your whiny, little, spiteful smear fest long enough. It’s clear you can’t defend your ideas. Heck, you can’t even play the victim properly. Lying about something that anyone following the discussion so far can see it’s false? Pathetic and desperate – the quintessential Peggy. For all your claims of victimhood, it’s you, not I, who are quick to make lengthy posts solely meant to insult and defame others. You crybully you!

          My question remains unanswered: if Singapore creates a law saying that they can “deport” native Singapore citizens to Australia, is Australia under any obligation to take them in? Of course, you’ll never answer it because you know what it means to your stance: you can’t say that Australia is under the obligation to take in Singapore’s unwanted native because, well, Australia *isn’t* and you can’t say Australia isn’t because that means other nations aren’t obliged to take in Australia’s unwanted citizens.

        • Angemon says

          May 8, 2016 at 9:41 pm

          Just so we’re clear: you want someone who acted in a manner very different of your own, to elicit the same reaction from me than you, with your back-pedalling, rewriting of history and petty name-calling, and you want to imply that the difference is proof that I somehow have something against you? If so, you’re insane. You’re no different, in nature, than the people who sanctify Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin – “see what happened? They were shot, and they wouldn’t have been shot if they weren’t black. Clear proof of racism!”. No, they were shot in self-defence by the people they assaulted, not because of the colour of their skin.

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

  • OLD GUY on UK: Woman converts to Islam, distributes Islamic State jihad terror videos
  • OLD GUY on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

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.