A spokesman for the Iranian atomic agency has announced that Iran is “ramping up enrichment of low-grade uranium and will pass the limit it is allowed to stockpile under the nuclear deal in 10 days…. in the latest blow to the nuclear deal agreed between Tehran and world powers in 2015.”
Surprise! It never occurred to vacuous globalist leaders that jihadist-driven Iran is capable of lying about its real intentions in luring in support for its Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Nuclear Deal).
“Iran says it will break the uranium stockpile limit agreed under nuclear deal in 10 days,” by Frederik Pleitgen, Nada Bashir, Hira Humayun and Bianca Britton, CNN, June 18, 2019:
Iran is ramping up enrichment of low-grade uranium and will pass the limit it is allowed to stockpile under the nuclear deal in 10 days, a spokesman for the Iranian atomic agency announced Monday.
During a news conference at the Arak heavy water reactor facility, Behrouz Kamalvandi said that Iran had increased low enriched uranium production fourfold and would exceed the limit of 300 kilograms by June 27, in the latest blow to the nuclear deal agreed between Tehran and world powers in 2015.
“If Iran feels that the sanctions have been reinstated or not lifted, Iran has the right to partly or on the whole suspend its commitments,” Kamalvandi said, referring to sanctions that were lifted as part of the nuclear deal but have since been reinstated by the US. The Trump administration withdrew from the pact in May 2018.
However, he said, there was still time for European countries to save the nuclear deal if they “abide by their commitments.”
After exceeding the limit, Iran will accelerate uranium enrichment to 3.7%, Kamalvandi said — above the 3.67% mandated by the nuclear deal…..
Buraq says
Advice to the clerical clowns in Tehran: Don’t play poker, you’d lose!
CRUSADER says
Whether it would be 10 years or 10 days…. Iran’s clerics were aiming at this same resolve.
Axis of Evil and Terror continues, despite political winds.
Real question is how the Obama Administration hoodwink most in the West — when the Iran Nuke deal was faulty, RevGuard and Hezbollah terrorist operations (despite Christianblood’s objections over this characterization) were getting funded by monies handed over and attributed to yet not associated with the criminal regime which overthrew the Shah, Arms were trafficked into Syria — which has become a Shi’a Land-Bridge, Biden countenanced back-deals, and Uranium One was a major matter of treason and not petty grift.
lebel says
Didn’t the US say the deal was bullshit and withdrew from it? Can’t the Iranians just do the same thing and no longer consider themselves bound by it?
I know they’re disgusting Muslims and that the same rules don’t apply but still
CogitoErgoSum says
True. The rules that apply to Muslims are a bit different from the ones that apply to infidels and dhimmis. Muslims are superior and everyone else is inferior. Has that not been the Islamic way of thinking since the time of Muhammad? There are rules for the lower forms of life and then there are rules for the best of people. There are people and then there are vile creatures who just think they are people but really are not. Please feel free to correct me (and the Quran) if this is not so.
Christianblood says
lebel
You are right. Why should Iran be a hostage to a nuclear deal that Trump and everyone else left? The EU says they are still in the deal but in effect they left it as well.
Darryl Kerney says
Iran a hostage ?
To a deal with the evil capitalist satans that they got the better end of that anyone who’s not an idiot knew they would never honor ?
The shiites who have a long history of hostage taking and extortion ?
The one’s who scream death to America every friday ?
They’re the hostage to the deal that gave them far more than they expected ? That they never had any intention of complying with…
Wow.
Those poor little apocalypse craving darlings must be so offended.
christianblood says
Darryl Kerney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGrocf0Tmxg&feature=youtu.be
gravenimage says
Poor Iran! The mean Americans didn’t like Iran violating the treaty, so the Mullahs have every right to violate it–or something…
Angemon says
“Why should Iran be a hostage to a nuclear deal that Trump and everyone else left?”
Yes, why should Iran be “hostage” to a very favorable agreement that they were never intending to upheld to begin with? Won’t someone think of the poor, little, wide-eyed genocidal, Christian-murdering Iranians?…
“The EU says they are still in the deal but in effect they left it as well.”
Citation needed.
gravenimage says
Of course, lebel would never believe that Muslims should have to behave as anything but supremacist thugs.
lebel says
If I make a deal with Gravenimage and she decides she no longer wants to be a part of it, I am apparently still bound by it…..until maybe Gravenimage decides I’m not?
It’s not clear exactly how it’s supposed to work but you do as we say and we do what we want, got that Muslim?
Chand says
This tank, bristling with weapons, drives up to this guy sharpening a knife by the road. The tank commander yells at him: “Stop it! That is displaying violent attitudes! Put it down, terrorist! You are endangering the neighbourhood! Stop or I’ll blow you away!!”
The guy with the knife replies: “but I only want to defend myself with this knife as it is a rough neighbourhood…..”
Maybe he wants a knife to feel safer, to try and have what others have. By starting with a knife. Others have a lot of nice weapons, Cruises, Tomahawks, drones, ICBMs, mid range nukes, MOABs, daisy cutters, what have you. they can be delivered by stealth submarines, bombers. From those fantastic invincible juggernauts of warfare, the aircraft carriers. They’ll be having missiles in space too.
“No, No! Drop the knife! Hands up! You are dangerous!”
Can someone please explain why on earth can Iran not have what others have?
You got a six shooter. I want one too, man!
On what grounds does Iran not have the right to possess nukes? If that is what they want.
One might answer: “They’ll use it on Israel. Or Saudi Arabia”.
Is Iran that nutty? They’ll be obliterated themselves……
Well, one can say that the reason Iran shouldn’t have the bomb is that an Arabian holy book from the 7th century says: “kill kafirs”.
But then Pakistan has it. Why weren’t they stopped?
Angemon says
“Can someone please explain why on earth can Iran not have what others have?
You got a six shooter. I want one too, man!
On what grounds does Iran not have the right to possess nukes? If that is what they want.
One might answer: “They’ll use it on Israel. ”
You just answered your own question – why should a rogue state, the number-one terrorism sponsoring state in the world, be allowed to have nukes when they’ve states, time after time, they’re hellbent on using it against Israel?
“Is Iran that nutty? They’ll be obliterated themselves……”
Yes, they are “that nutty”. They’re shia twelvers – they believe that the mahdi, who is hiding in a well, will come and defeat the enemies of islam once muslims are subjected to heavy persecution. Nowhere it says that the persecution must be unfair – as far as they’re concerned, when Israel (or whoever they use their nukes against) nukes them back, the conditions for the reappearance of the mahdi are fulfilled.
Even if you’re one of those angry atheists who claim that all religions teach the same but despises Christians and Jews – and especially Jews – while praising muslims and, in defiance of all facts and logic, doesn’t believe that Iran will start a nuclear war (on the grounds they must not be “that nutty”), what do you think is the worst case scenario when a nation that’s been historically hostile to America and has supported many terror groups, religious or otherwise, almost as hostile to America as them can get their hands on nuclear weapons?
Chand says
No, I’m only kiddin’. I know the answer to why Iran shouldn’t have nukes. ‘Cause Big Boss with the Big Guns says so. Might is right, every time.
Demsci says
Lebel, I hate to say it, but you bring up a legitimate point, or question at least. On France TV a Frenchman also brought up this point. Indeed is sounded quite clumsy and hypocritical when USA spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said that USA expected Iran to abide by a deal USA itself had abandoned.
And quite frankly, I think it will be well nigh impossible to stop this regime, when it stays in power, from getting the nuclear weapon. In fact I am amazed that they don’t have it already. I am convinced that Iran would cheat on the nuclear deal when ever it could. And would say something like” we don’t have to keep Promises to infidels”. And the IAEA control is far from foolproof IMO.
And sooner or later there will be a nuclear war is my fear. And big areas of Earth will be devastated and long term uninhabitable, with enormous recessions following. And if mankind can develop fast enough, it should head for space, to create multiple planets to live on. Because the atombomb cannot be dis-invented.
The justification of delaying a regime like Iran’s from getting a atom bomb seems to me that the regime believes both in judgement day and heaven after life, combined hell after life for infidels. That is something the communists of the USSR and now China and North Korea did/ do not believe.
We know a bit the motivation of suïcide bombers and the octogenarians in Iran look like big time suïcide bombers to me.
And I think that had Hitler and the Japanese had possessief the atombomb in 1945 they would have used it, as in that year they themselves were losing irrevocably. I think they would have taken down the rest of mankind with them. Same as what I would expect a losing Iranian regime would do.
Demsci says
But look, Lebel and Chand. There is the argument of self defense (of the threathened countries). And of defense of the peace and ever growing prosperity of the world.
And there is the argument that Iran’s regime WITH a nuclear bomb is a big threat to that. They ARE guilty of plenty of violent rhetoric with “Death to Israel, death to America” and plenty of behaving like an ideological expansionist movement, rather than just a country promoting it’s national interests.
I think a comfortable democratic majority in Western Democratic Nations for decades chose, if possible, to prevent, or delay, their possession of nuclear warheads on long distance Missiles.
Obama tried the benevolent way to stop them, but the regime stayed as hostile expansionist and death-Chanting as ever. And won’t you give the regime the respect that they mean (to do) what they say? I do. Would you have the West to gamble on the regime’s future behavior? Isn’t that criminally reckless?
And why would you hold only Western governments accountable for all their policies?
And then not the Iranian regime, which has been caught in much deceit, much hostile intention and actions, and which still keeps pursuing these policies despite it being super desastrous for their own people.
The regime is a collection of learned men, not a collection of mindless Apes who are not capable of smarter more beneficial policies. They too make choices. But like Saddam Hussein they seem to choose stupidly and suïcidal.
CogitoErgoSum says
I’d say the main reason Iran should not have nukes is the same reason why NO country should have nukes. They are too dangerous to the existence of mankind. Any government run by sane human beings should be trying to eliminate all nuclear weapons and not seeking to increase their numbers in the world. But then Iran is not currently under the control of sane human beings — which is another reason the Iranian government should not be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons.
Keys says
Don’t forget that the “deal” was made, not just with the USA, but with several other countries, as well. Only the USA backed out for good reason, not the other countries.
Don’t forget that every Friday in the Iranian mosques there are prayers of Death to Israel and Death to the USA, the great Satan.
Don’t forget Iran’s “mischief in the land” (taking American hostages from their Embassy, still holding American hostages, killing Americans during the Iraq War, mining the Gulf, providing weapons to their proxies, they are Muslims, …..).
Don’t forget Iranian leaders have publicly pronounced the annihilation of Israel within 25 years.
Don’t forget that Iranian leaders believe in the 13th Imam, who will begin the Second Coming for the annihilation of all infidels.
Don’t forget that Zia of Pakistan promised the Reagan Administration that they were not developing “nukes”. When Pakistan got them, Zia said that it is permissible to lie for Islam.
Iran has enough non-nuclear energy to last centuries, so why do they need nuclear !
Don’t forget “Never again !”
gravenimage says
I see that Islamophiles lebel and Chand are both wringing their hands over the injustice of Muslims not being able to nuke the filthy Infidels.
inaleyen says
Why should Iran be bound by a treaty that the Trump administration has rescinded? As far as “terrorist states” is concerned, look no farther than the Kingdom of “Sordid” Arabia. Saudi Arabia ‘s sponsoring of Islamic terrorism, brutal aggression in Yemen, and violations of human rights do not elicit condemnation from Trump, Kushner, Pompeo, and the war-mongering walrus, John Bolton.
gravenimage says
Another fan of the vicious Mullahs, I see.
Angemon says
A terrorist state breaking their word? I’m shocked, SHOCKED!!!!!
Christianblood says
Angemon
Iran should have left the deal a year ago after Trump let it! They were wrong in expecting the EU vassals would stand up for the deal but they were wrong! BTW, Trump and all US presidents bow down to and dance with Saudi tyrants and are even transferring nuclear technology to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f35TUFmCtYY
gravenimage says
christianblood keeps posting this thing, but he either ignores or lauds Putin when it is pointed out that he is doing the same.
No Infidels should consider Saudi Arabia, Iran, of any other Muslims to be allies.
And christianblood has also said that the barbaric Iranians are the most civilized people, even when they are hanging gay people and stoning women to death. *Ugh*.
lebel says
“No Infidels should consider Saudi Arabia, Iran, of any other Muslims to be allies.”
You should probably tell your Government to stop working with the Kurds then.
CogitoErgoSum says
Once again I find myself in agreement with Lebel when he says the U.S. government should stop working with the Muslim Kurds. The Quran tells Muslims not to take “infidels” as friends and allies. “Infidels” should be aware that any alliance made with Muslims will be temporary and any “friendship” will quickly come to an end once the Muslims determine they are no longer able to gain any benefit through deception of the “infidels.” As long as Muslims accept the words of the Quran as being eternal truth this will always be so. Any alliance made by non-Muslims with Muslims should be made with the ultimate goal of replacing the Muslims with other more dependable non-Muslim allies.
gravenimage says
We should certainly be cautious with the Kurds, who have a troubling Islamic history. They have certainly of late been generally better than their creed, though–especially facing down ISIS.
That last alone surely makes lebel hate them.
Angemon says
Christianblod posted:
“Angemon
Iran should have left the deal a year ago after Trump let it! They were wrong in expecting the EU vassals would stand up for the deal”
Huh, what? Are you so detached from reality you wouldn’t find a fact even if it bit you on tyhe nose and stayed there to the rest of your life?
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-vows-to-uphold-iran-nuclear-deal-as-trump-raises-pressure/
In any case, you’ve previously said of the EU what muhhamad was to prude and shy to say of bacon – why are you now expecting the EU and European leaders, which you have accused of enabling islamic terrorism, to defend and enable an islamic terror state?
“but they were wrong! BTW, Trump and all US presidents bow down to and dance with Saudi tyrants””
How would you expect an elected leader to treat the leader of an allegedly allied nation? Heck, even your precious little Putin, tyrant as he may be, sucked the dick of Erdogan and Abbas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQRh9ogFLXg
“ and are even transferring nuclear technology to them.”
What are you so afraid of – that the Saudis get the bomb before your precious little Iran, the world’s number one terrorism-sponsoring state, does and, because of it, Iran can’t nuke Israel?
Walter Sieruk says
Now that arrogant and defiant Islamic “Republic” of Iran has quadrupled its stockpile of uranium in their hostile and aggressive jihad-minded quest to obtain more nuclear weapons. Therefore sanctions against that “mullah regime” of Iran are both appropriate and necessary.
About those economic sections against that heinous “mullah regime” that is in power in Iran on Monday 4/22/19 the US Secretary of State ,Michael Pompeo spoke of that brutal and oppressive tyranny which oppresses the people of Iran and said “We will not appease their oppressors as that t last administration did .” Pompeo then stated “We will support the Iranian people.”
As far back as on Tuesday, 2/5/ 19 in his second State on the Union a speech President Trump spoke of that Islamic tyranny of Iran as well as those in total power and complete of that tyrannical rogue state. For the President declared “It is a radical regime, they do bad, bad things.”
Moreover, an author of an article on a Freedom Site, Dariush Afshar, had explained the reality of the situation well when he wrote that the “People of Iran who fight for freedom in Iran and abroad put a huge gap and draw a prominent line between Iran and the Islamic regime in Tehran.”
This is sadly and tragically the terrible reality of this Islamic tyrannical regime of Iran. This Islamic tyranny has been well nicknamed “the mullahs regime” in which them mullahs and ayatollahs as well as other fiendish and fanatical Muslims in power have a strong and awful control of the Islamic regime of Iran and through their band of Islamic state “police” , who are called the “Revolutionary Guards “come down hard human rights of the Iranian people . Therefore, the Iranian people who are trapped and forced to exist in this Islamic tyranny live in terrible fear of the mullahs and others in power in Iran. This is a tragic and sad reminder of the wisdom that was printed in the periodical of Benjamin Franklin which is entitled POOR RICHARDS’ ALMANAC that reads “Those who are feared are also hated.”
With all this above information ,it should be added that the actual word “Republic” has on origin the Latin meaning “Of the people” With the mullahs ayatollahs in so much power and even influencing the parliament of this Islamic regime is tyranny is hardly a real republic .Furthermore the ruthless gang of thugs who are the stooges of those Muslim clerics, called the “Revolutionary Guards,” those Islamic State “police” come down hard on the human rights and freedoms of the Iranian people. Therefore the people do have the right to overthrow a tyranny. This reality had even been expressed and described by men of great intelligence .For example the philosopher .John Locke. This is wisdom that mullahs and other villains in power in that Islamic tyranny don’t want the Iranian people to know about or understand.
Furthermore about this tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran which has the official title of “The Isla mic Republic of Iran” and also about the chief and head Imam, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had a strong hand in establishing this so called “Republic “ The very actual essence of that Islamic tyranny ,Ayatollah Khomeini had made in known that “The Islamic Republic of Iran would be Islamic and nothing but .He declared ‘What the nation wants is an Islamic Republic . Not just a Republic, not a democratic Republic, not a democratic Islamic Republic. Do not use the word “democratic” to describe it. That is the Western style. ‘” [1]
[1]`THE HISTORY OF JIHAD by Robert Spencer, page 318.
In addition, a former Muslim revealed an important reality when he wrote “The Islamic republic of Iran exists and operates as what every fundamentalist dreams of, an Islamic state ruled by sharia …” He further exposes that “What followed its establishment was the inevitable consequence and inexorable logic of its Islamic premise; state terrorism, a merciless tyranny.” [1]
Furthermore, in the book entitled HOW ISLAM PLANS TO CHANGE THE WORLD, by William Wagner on page 208 the reader is informed that “The creation of the Islamic republic in Iran has had the effect that many from that country have become disillusioned with Islam and are looking to leave Iran. ” This is a point worth pondering.
[1] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM by Ibn Warraq page 347.
Christianblood says
Walter Sieruk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2FKn4aMOoQ
Angemon says
Christianblood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQRh9ogFLXg
gravenimage says
Yes–Putin is also playing footsie with Islamic dictators.
I find it foolish when any Infidel does this–but christianblood lauds this when it is Putin.
CRUSADER says
Pick up a copy of this book by
Andrew F. Krepinevich:
” 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century. ”
http://www.miwsr.com/2009/downloads/20091104.pdf
Andrew Krepinevich, a proponent of “futurism,” begins by explaining and validating his methodology. First, he reminds us of military disasters—for example, Pearl Harbor and the Blitzkrieg inflicted by the Germans in 1940—which could have been avoided, had futurists’ advice been heeded. Then, he offers us “The Street- fighter State”—a futurist vision he first published after exploring a possible U.S.-Iranian conflict.1 He also draws attention to the inertia of bureaucratic, often cliquey, change-resistant military establishments; but he does not explore the outcome when futurist views gain overwhelming support. The now discredited “domino theory,” which predicted the inexorable spread of communism, authenticated wars in Korea and Vietnam, but bequeathed a strange legacy: defeated North Korea remains a problem; triumphant Vietnam does not.
The ghost of Vietnam—which haunts Americans today, just as the War between the States did a cen- tury earlier—appears fleetingly in this book. There are only two Vietnam references in the index: pages 17 (blame falling on politicians) and 18 (delay in training adaptation). This illustrates the widening division between the older, reactionary generation of military futurists (including Krepinevich himself), and today’s history-conscious thinkers, who more readily espouse crisis avoidance strategies. Despite their differing philosophies, both groups must address the same problem, which Krepinevich has clearly defined:
Today the United States confronts a very different set of enemies—radical Islamists and hostile nuclear rogue states like North Korea (and prospectively Iran)—than it did during the Cold War. And China’s rise to great power status, which some view as a positive sign, raises eyebrows in the Pentagon, where Beijing’s ongoing military build up is a source of growing concern. How do these new rivals, who culturally are quite distinct from the Cold War-era Soviets, see themselves advancing their agenda? What means will they use to achieve their goals? And when will they make their move? (13)
The core of the book—as the title suggests—is the seven deadly scenarios that may challenge the U.S. government in the next decade, but it is misleading to say that it “explores war in the 21st century.” Broadly speaking, the seven scenarios coalesce in the years 2012 to 2016, and none features the “surprise inherent in war” to which Krepinevich often refers; each examines a familiar worry. That said, the author has woven an impressive body of fact and opinion in each scenario and produced sharp moments of crisis.
The author is a West Point graduate and a Harvard Ph.D. with twenty-one years of military service. A prominent academic, journalist, and government adviser, he has recently focused his thoughts on threat assessment. Consequently, his meticulously detailed scenarios include credible personalities, careful na- tional mood assessments, and broader social and economic influences. Each scenario presents a logical se- quence of events—but are they realistic? And what will we gain from them?
***
somehistory says
There was never an intent to keep the deal, whatever the other countries involved did or did not do.
It’s like a guy with a gun to the girl’s head saying, “Don’t scream and I won’t hurt you.” She agrees to not scream and he does what he intended to do.
moslims lie. All moslims lie. There is not one that is truthful. They cannot remain moslim and tell the truth.
So, when the moslim ‘leaders’ in Iran said they wouldn’t do this or that, they would wait x number of years before doing this or that, it was all just a mountain of lies to deceive the gullible…and the not-so-gullible o…to induce those nations into giving them what they wanted.
One of the biggest clues, besides the islam thingy, was the fact that they would do their own “inspections” to make sure they followed the rules of the deal. That’s like giving the keys to the prison cells to the felons with the promise that they would not use them to escape.
This thing they are saying now is just another pretense in order to get more of what they need to make their weapons they intend to use against those they hate.
Keys says
The proud deceit of Iran:
OK, world of kafirs, you’ve got 10 days to do what we want, or else we will start doing what we are already doing.
gravenimage says
Iran violates Nuclear Deal, in 10 days “will break the uranium stockpile limit” agreed upon
……………….
As they always intended to.
No Muzzies Here says
The deal that Obama made with Iran was never intended to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons. Both Obama and the Iranians knew that.
I’m betting that this latest action is blamed on Trump by the American left.
gravenimage says
Right on all points.
lebel says
“I see that Islamophiles lebel and Chand are both wringing their hands over the injustice of Muslims not being able to nuke the filthy Infidels.”
Has GI ever been able to make a coherent argument without ad hominem attacks? I have never seen it.
Demsci says
Or you have never acknowledged it.
Demsci says
It is not as if you yourself was just only trying to have a polite conversation. Or asking for it. I see you as the PRO voker, and GI as the RE actor.
lebel says
I am fine with polite conversations with polite people. It’s difficult to be polite when GI reduces everything you say to “dishonest lebel is angry that filthy infidels are aware of muslim deception, bad Dhimmis!” . Second point, I have been insulted constantly on here and rarely return the favour. When I do, all of sudden jihadwatchers come out of the woodwork outraged. Third, I try and bring evidence and reason. For example, in this thread my point is that it makes little sense to leave a deal and then call out people for doing the same thing. Has GI provided any counter-arguments? of course not, she never does and she likely never will.
Demsci says
I suppose it is the way of the internetworld. When one of us goes to LoonWatch the opposite happens, in the sense that pro- and anti-Islam posters change places.
But I for one do appreciate it when opponents try to argue THEIR viewpoint. It makes US stronger. I find it brave, that is, if you mean what you say, and do not have ulterior motives.
I mean, who do you think visits this website and who do you want to influence? Do you think Muslims visit this website? And are you trying to be useful to them? Even though you are massively outnumbered?
For comfort; noooooo, the insults won’t stop, but ……. time and again it is you who gets the lionshare of responses and attention. We and you exchange good challenges, it should be good for your knowledge and skills too. It is sort of a trade off.
About relation to this thread:
For what it is worth, I already said that you did bring in an at least logical argument, or question, one that I heard many times online and personal and which I find difficult but stilll possible to answer well.
Now, will quiet descend on this thread? because the caroussel of articles goes on quickly and attention moves on fast and furious.
gravenimage says
No, it is not “reason” to applaud Iran having violated this treaty and further enabling its nuclear weapons program.
Unless, of course, one is for Iran nuking its neighbors–including democratic Israel.
lebel says
“I mean, who do you think visits this website and who do you want to influence? Do you think Muslims visit this website? And are you trying to be useful to them? Even though you are massively outnumbered?”
It’s a good question, why don’t Muslims come here? I think it’s a bit too toxic here probably. After all, getting called a pedophile worshipping terrorist and having people excuse mass murder against your co-religionists can get old after a while. By the way, I think this is the main difference between sites like loonwatch and jihadwatch. No one makes excuses for mass murder against non-Muslims on loonwatch. You just need to go back to the Christchurch thread to find it on jihadwatch.
Demsci says
Thanks for reply. But I reject your suggestion about excusing mass murder of Muslims by this site wholesale. The owners, moderators, writers never do that. The most prolific posters, the vast majority of the others, would never do that.
Maybe there is such a website as a toxic website, and I found LoonWatch to be pretty much one.
But JW I see as “the prosecutor”, the District Attorney’s Office. Which brings constant indictments against Islam and individual Muslims and Islam apologists regarding their declarations and actions. With plenty of evidence and arguments.
In the broader context there are multiple outlets and influential persons, organisations that act in defense of Islam and Muslims. Robert Spencer, the “prosecutor” is outrageously outnumbered by them.
You should not demand impartiality or even exclusive civility from this site, it’s the “districts attorney’s Office.”
But I was rather hoping that as in a democracy, as in a real trial, even the prosecutors can sit back and let the defense of Islam and supposedly misbehaving Muslims and their allies speak and give their arguments.
With the aim of convincing part of the jury, any neutral visitors, perhaps doubting watering, lukewarm Muslims, that the defense is right, has the best evidence, arguments.
Yes this is a great website for doubting Muslims, we hope they check it out more and more. To hear from all sides, not just Islamic propaganda. And it would be your job to defend Islam and part of Muslims that are constantly indicted here to influence them. Very tough for you. But brave.
gravenimage says
lebel wrote:
“I mean, who do you think visits this website and who do you want to influence? Do you think Muslims visit this website? And are you trying to be useful to them? Even though you are massively outnumbered?”
It’s a good question, why don’t Muslims come here? I think it’s a bit too toxic here probably.
………………..
What tripe. Certainly, one often finds Muslims commenting here. Here is one, from just a few days ago, on the “Nigeria: Muslims storm church choir practice, kidnap 19 Christians, murder one” thread:
“Muslim2019 says
Jun 14, 2019 at 6:35 am
It is the doctrine of Christianity that will be crushed, it was crushed as a theocracy by your own hands in Europe and when Jesus peace be upon him returns he will break the cross and kill the swine. …”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/nigeria-muslims-storm-church-choir-practice-kidnap-19-christians-murder-one#comment-2109590
lebel considers opposing such horrors “toxic”, but has no problem with those who embrace them.
Here’s another one, on the “Palestinian Authority TV teaches children that Jews are’the most evil among creations’”:
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Nov 22, 2018 at 12:54 am
FYI, True God is not one of the spirits, He created all, including the satan you call Holy Spirit inspiring vile Jews to do all evils and you to lie. All of you will be casted into hottest lake of hellfire burning forever together with the satan.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/11/palestinian-authority-tv-teaches-children-that-jews-are-the-most-evil-among-creations#comment-2019980
There are, of course, many more.
lebel says
” Robert Spencer, the “prosecutor” is outrageously outnumbered by them.”
I think he is winning. You guys are winning, do you not see that? more than 50% of people in the West would today agree with much of what Robert Spencer is saying.
gravenimage says
If people in the West are coming to recognize the threat of Islam, that is a good thing.
The idea that suffering over 35,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11 and the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is “winning” is a very odd claim, though.
I think this is more an implication that Infidels should now shut up.
Ultimately, of course, the goal for Anti-Jihadists is to be free of the threat of Jihad.
E T says
Do I think Muslims visit this website, yes, although it must be terribly painful to have a dialog with all the half-witted women, you know their minds are “deficient”, they need to be smacked, and made to sit on the floor on their straw mat.
Muslim would not want to read this “toxic” site, hell no the Quran is depressing enough or perhaps they would rather read what Nidal Mohamed Sakr, another absolute darling of the Religion of Pices has to say.
gravenimage says
🙂
E T says
Religion of Pieces, as in blowing people up or carving, you know what the cowards do all in the name of Allah.