That was fast!

No lie Everiste!

The Palestinians have created a top-to-bottom terrorist society. They are enemies of not only Israel but the US and the entire West.

Instead of coddling the Islamo-fascist terrorists and making endless excuses for them, we should be waging total war against them.

“The amount of donations raised during the campaign reflects how much support there is for Hamas among Palestinians, and how much the Palestinians support the resistance option,”...

Doesn't he mean "a tiny minority of extremists support the resistance option?"

Because that's what the New York Times says.

I have a question; does the separation fence leave all of Jerusalem in Israeli hands? If not, why not?

The strong turnout was seen as backing for Hamas’ violent ideology

An improvement.

Evariste - my understanding is the fence will surround all of Jerusalem and not cut through the city as suggested by the '67 "border" never recognized by the Islamist barbarians.

#5 evarist

Jerusalem is the 17th holiest site in Islam.

#3

we should be waging total war against them

Ican appreciate the sentiment, but realistically that would go over like a fart in a space suit.

#5 evariste

Yes, Jerusalem stays in Israeli hands.

Send a donation to the IDF or to Magen David Adom or some other worthy Israeli charity. Everyone should contribute what he or she can to offset these Islamazoids.

And this news article would be a good comeback the next time some LLL sheds crocodile tears about how financially desperate the poor terrorist-enabling Pals are. They apparently have excess money to donate to blow up more Jews. F*ck 'em all.

Sorry, forgot your 'e'. What's wrong with me today? Is the mind control ray malfunctioning?

Whole enterprise stinks to me of money laundering. Consider the 'power-sharing' arrangement between Hamas and Arafat reported last week.
Arafat is sliding a pile of cash across the table to Hamas to keep them active and keep them focused on killing jews and not him. This 'fund raising' is a sham.

/one opinion

Thanks Colt, ibrodsky. I was worried about that.

Charles, clean up on the Moonbat thread. 324 & 325.

Strangely, it's you again. ;-)

((
(^.^)
(")")

Do not discuss this!

Comment #17 is not to be discussed by order of the temporary permanent military governor as an emergency measure until civil order can be restored.

If i hear Bush call them the religion of peace(of sh-t) again i may just not vote.i am sick of it call a spade a spade..it's the west (what's left) vs islam..PERIOD!!!!...EOM...thats all folks...wake up and smell the coffee

Bastard!

lmao :-)

evariste,
Powderfinger,

LOL

Don't you luv dat widdle bunny wabbit?
I recently learned that they don't lay eggs ;-)

OT

Every Mosque a recruitment station - every young Muslim a soldier.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Five Britons appeared briefly in a high-security court on Saturday charged with an array of terrorism-related crimes after what was depicted by the authorities as the biggest antiterror sweep in Britain since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. Four of the men — Jawad Akbar, 20; Omar Khyam, 22; Waheed Mahmoud, 32; and Anthony Garcia, 21 — were accused of conspiring to cause an explosion as part of a plot hatched between Oct. 1, 2003, and March.

A 17-year-old, whose name is being withheld because of his age, and a Canadian, Mohammed Momin Khawaja, have also been charged with taking part in the plot.

. . . In a separate hearing on Saturday, a 39-year-old Frenchman, Jacques Karim Abi-Ayad, was charged with possessing documents "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit" terrorist acts.

Anybody visiting LGF from Sugar Land/Stafford area in Fort Bend county?

Yikes! Since Ed Moran is our resident storm-watcher, I'm expecting him to follow up with "Not no more they ain't."

OT: BBC Arabic asked questions about whether Iraqis viewed the pulling down of the Saddam statue on April 9th as an act of liberation or an act of occupation.
The results are suprising...

[Link: armiesofliberation.blogspot.com...]

...considering the source.

LOL!

Model4, lol.

Model 4

LMAO!

I thought the Quad Cities were the 17th holiest site in Islam. Or was it Champaign-Urbana? I get so confused.

#31 Steve Miller

I thought it was the People's Republic of Cambridge, MA.

Evariste,

A personal question that I am sure you've already answered. As a Palestinian, how do you feel about the constant bashing of Palestinians on this board - JordEgyptians, etc? Do you generally agree with what is said about Palestinians/Muslims on this board as well as the pro-Israel stance? Thanks.

I just paid for a subscription to PlayGoy for Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah and Hamas.

Let's be honest. Hamas is broke. This is good news.

While all of Houston Metro area still seeing severe storms, all tornado warnings have expired.

Manly flooding, and isolated tennis ball sized hail still possible.

This article on the surface is disgusting. However, I think it is also an indication of how the sources of funding for terror have dried-up. With the overthrow of Saddam, so too went a large portion of Palestinian (?) terror funding. They now need donations from the public?

Must suck to be a palestinian terrorist these days.

Abu Maven-fuck 'em :-) yes, I pretty much agree with nearly everything that's said about "my people". I'm not a huge fan of blowing up da Jews. I quit believing in Allah at a very early age.

Diversion. Iran has more than replaced all previous funding sources.

OT:

The memo has been released check FOX and /or CNN

#33 Abu Maven: For the record, I coined the term "Jordyptian" to note where these people actually came from (Jordan, Egypt). It's bashing as much as it is to call people from Korea "Koreans." If a person claims to come from Narnia and proceeds to use this as justification for murder, I'll take exception to that too.

#38 Mr Pol

Why would they bother with a diversion?

Ed Moran: I know I don't know all the in jokes here yet, but, please, what is "manly" flooding? ;^)

Agreed, I thought Jordyptian was the funniest thing I ever heard when I first read it on here ;-)

Evariste #37,

Interesting. I have dated a few non-religious Muslim women post 9/11, and gotten into some political discussions. Basically, no matter how coherent I think my points are, they were usually met with the following response (or some variation thereof):

"Everything you say is totally reasonable, I cannot think of a reason off of the top of my head why I disagree. You're a lawyer, so you're better at arguing. Still, I disagree."

It leads me to believe that our perceptions of political situations are hopelessly entangled with our own identities and interests, and that there is little hope for objectivity. And so I wonder how objective I myself am being....

You seem to buck the trend, however. Of course, there are plently of Jews on the Palestinian side as well.

#41 Thom™

#44 Abu Maven: I'd be interested in knowing what a "non-religious Muslim" is. Is it passed on by genes, bug-bite or sexual contact?
/sorry, honest. Pet peeve.

Of course, there are plently of Jews on the Palestinian side as well.

I wish they'd stop doing that, it's not very helpful :-)

#41 Thom™

I'd guess to make the Sunnis think they're really contributing to, and thus their interests are represented by, Hamas.

Model,

Respectfully, I disagree that "Jordyptians" is not an insult. First, Palestinians themselves would find the term insulting. Second, it is also a political commentary regarding their entitlement to their own state. That said, I myself am fully in Israel's corner.

What is a non-religious Muslim? One is a doctor and says flat out that she does not believe in God. The other is Turkish, but educated in an American university. Says she believes in Allah, but never attends a mosque or anything. Most of her friends are the same way. Like any American kid, basically, who doesn't attend church or temple.

Non-religious Muslims certainly exist. Don't forget, for the vast majority of Islamic history, the religion hasn't been too bad (I am cringing waiting for replies to that comment).

It is the Saudi-propagated Wahhabism that has revived the long dormant tradition of jihadism.

evariste:

Please consult the following Arabic source and verify if the following attachment is correctly translated:
[Link: www.kitabat.com...]

Radio Fallujah
Fallujah Radio, April 9, 2004:

The Lions of Islam are coming, shaking off the dust of humiliation and defeat. Let the criminal forces of the USraeli aggressors be defeated.

Here is Fallujah,
Our children woke up in the middle of the night to the sounds of the axis of evil aeroplanes dropping cluster bombs on our homes, in the hope of breaking our resolve to defend our families. What they aren't aware of that they are facing the fearless Iraqis who have fought repeated wars against foreign attempts to dominate Iraq. We are never reluctant to sacrifice ourselves in facing the Jeudo-Christian crusaders waiting outside Fallujah.

We are living the age of high-tech developments and vibrant press. The age of TV pictures and electronic reporting, which were unavailable in previous Iraqi wars. We support the International Media in transmitting live pictures to the world of the US human right's violations in occupied Iraq. The Iraqi people are raising their voices demanding that the USraeli occupiers must leave our beloved Iraq; excluding those Iraqi traitors who sold their honor for US$$$.

The mutiliated bodies of Fallujah and of Iraqi children have been shown on your TV screens. There is no excuse for saying that we haven't heard or known of the cowardly American genocides in Iraq. They are aiming to put out the flame of Iraqi revolution using their latest killing machines. Their cruelty reveals their weakness and desperation. They will soon curse the day the evil forces decided on sending them to die on Iraqi soil.

They thought it will be easy to establish in Iraq prostitution houses similar to the ones they are having in Kuwait and Qatar. Iraq will be like a fire hurricane that destroys their evil intentions. We hold all Americans responsible for sending the killers and thugs across the oceans. Let history witness the USraeli genocide against our people.

The civilized world can't pretend that it didn't know of what has happened in Iraq.

Arabs can't pretend that they haven't seen what has happened to the Iraqis.

Our Intellectuals can't pretend that they havent read the newspapers.

Leaders of the world can't hide their heads in the sands or lie about American criminal 'democratic' practices. No one can hide the news of American mercenaries and thugs (private armies) that are sent to slaughter our children.

Please let them know, that we are a nation that will never accept to sumbit to any power; except to the Almighty God.

We are not like their Donkeys, infesting the so-called Iraq Governing Council.

Let them know that we have dignity, honor, pride that can't be dented by British, American, Israeli or foreign thugs and mercenaries.

Victory to Al-Mehdi Army

Victory to the Iraqi resistance

Victory to all those carrying arms to defend Iraq dignity

One God, One nation, One homeland

One criminal enemy that deserves no mercy for its crimes.

Victory in unity to free Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------- ---------------
Excluding Kurdish areas, America never had even 50% Sunni/Shiite support for Bush-Bremer's "nation-building" folly. Three weeks ago, Cal Thomas (may someone deflate his coifed pompador), accused his hitherto beloved GWB, of seeking neo-Nixonian "peace with honor" in Iraq. On Monday morning, ALL the right wing radio commentators will address the issues of whether or not Bush-Rice-Powell enabled potential Iranian Shiite sovereignty over 90% of the Mideast oil fields, and whether or not it was the Bush-Rice-Powell destructive-engagement with Shiite [bigoted word]s that caused this calamatous jeopardization of American security.

I maintain that, by either establishing Islamofascist-constitutited pseudo-states - the Khomenist entity, the Saud entity, the proto-provincialist (of Iran) entity (Iraq) - voided legal-international recognition of their respective territorial-demographic entities. By default, attendant sovereignty of said entities must revert to the Anglo-American Powers who held lawful title prior to the subversion of international law by the [bigoted word]s. Further, as said Islamofascist entities export terror from their occupied lands, they are deemed: terror-entities, subject to annihilation. Given that title over the oil fields must revert, forthwith and henceforth, to Anglo-American interests, any aggressive act against said oil fields, which would impose transient hardships on American and other peoples, is an act of war.

#49 Abu Maven

(Sorry, couldn't let this stand :-)

Don't forget, for the vast majority of Islamic history, the religion hasn't been too bad (I am cringing waiting for replies to that comment).

Which part of history? The bit where Mohammed slaughtered entire Jewish tribes? Or when the first calpihs killed or expelled all non-Muslim tribes in the hijaz? Or when the Muslims invaded Europe and dhimmitised entire regions? Or when they invaded India ("Hindu Kush" translates to "Hindu slaughter", or "slaughter of Hindus")? Or when they sacked Constantinople? They've been comparatively quiet since 1683, but they continued to treat the minorities in "their" lands like shit.

And all of that happened before Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab started writing in the mid 1700s.

#50 Camel Prophet

Did you translate that? I'm impressed :-)

OT: Richard Clarke has sold the movie rights to his book. Unbelievable. And to think I called him a whore!

Sony buys movie rights to Clarke's book

#51 Colt,

Perhaps you are right. But I am currently reading Hatred's Kingdom by Dore Gold and he takes the position I espoused. Describes jihad as the long-neglected duty prior to the rise of Wahhabism. I do not mean to sound like a relavist, but remember that plenty of atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity as well. One could list them sequentially like you have just done and it would not paint a pretty picture.

Are you confident that, excluding Wahhabism, the religions are substantially different in how much violence they've produced?

The truth is this money raising drive is a sign of pure desperation by Hamas. They are going to Gaza City residents who are pretty broke because their other, real channels of money raising have been cut off, by Israel, by the EU, by Britain, by the USA, etc.

This is a sign of weakness, not strength.

I have read that a signicant number of Palestinians have ancestos that came from in the Houran area of Syria as well.

So, you all might want to toss in "Syrian" to the Jordeyptian phrase.

Nevertheless, they are there and Jews are there. Both have to share the land, somehow. Two people, two states. Too bad the Palestinians don't seem to agree.

Zak

"the religions are substantially different in how much violence they've produced?"

Interesting question. Whatever the answer, there is no question that this violent Islamic phase will pass, probably in our own lifetime. It will be roundly defeated like all fascisms before it were defeated, like Nazism and communism were defeated by civilisation.

#54 Abu Maven

I guess an obvious difference is that the violence can not be removed from Islam, simply because that's what Mohammed did. Once you start cherry-picking what the Prophet did on the orders of Allah... Well, how can you?

One could list them sequentially like you have just done and it would not paint a pretty picture.

True enough, but a list of non-martial achievements would put the Muslims to shame.

Are you confident that, excluding Wahhabism, the religions are substantially different in how much violence they've produced?

Frankly, no. I'm not enough a historian to be confident in that. What I will say is that Islam started (and continues to be) first and foremost a martial religion, and will therefore continue to produce violence. The same cannot be said for Christianity.

#55 JJ

Don't be fooled - Iran is picking up the slack.

The fact is, Islam pretty much began with a slaughter of Jews, the Jews of Medina.

And even though the Crusades were bloody, they were actually in response to initial Islamic conquests of what had formerly been Byzantine-Christian conquered territories.

What happened to the Buddhist that used to live in what is now Afghanistan? Obliterated. The slaughters of Hindus as Muslim armies pushed into India. We musn't forget these crimes against humanity and let Islam off the hook just because Christianity doesn't have a perfect track record either.

Its true that the borders of Islam have always been bloody, but if you look at the big picture, this empire has no choice but to settle down and moderate itself and become democratic. It will do so, bit by bit. The jihadists know this but are desperately trying to stop it hapenning in Iraq, since once Iraq become a democracy the Middle East might just topple like dominos under a wave of reforms that will bring it into the civilised world.

Its just a matter of time.

Camel Prophet, do you have a direct link to that article? Your link goes to a list of them. I did a find-in-page for "radio" in arabic, found a Radio Fallujah transcript and read it, but it wasn't what you have. Then I looked in the archives for 4/9 and 4/8 (your date is 4/9). 4/9 was the same as 4/10's, and 4/8 wasn't the one you have. So I can't find it. It sounds about right, but without seeing the original article I can't tell you for sure.

So do you also have a problem with the Moorish rule of Spain? Or when the Christians retook the Iberian peninsula and said, "Look at all of these books, now we finally have something to ban," and killed off the usurers?

Unless you're looking at reasons to justify genocide, I don't see any point in painting a revisionist picture of Islam. Just know that what they're now is clearly barbaric.

Religion of Peace™?

Cult o' Death!

If the west is to win this war, we MUST inject a new meme into the memsphere. Religiocide.

Somehow the Jihadists have managed to associate themselves with minority racial movments and have therefore been able to cast about accusations of racism and promotion of genocide.

Genocide is the attempt to eliminate a particular race from the face of the planet. I would conjecture that no one on this site has any problems with Christian Arabs.

Religiocide is an attempt to wipe out an idea. This can be accomplished by either changing the minds of the believers, or by killing them.

I don't think that modern ethical society would cringe too badly about the potential of commiting religiocide. Just ask the Branch Devidians about that. Also, the war on Drugs could be seen as a form of attempted religiocide.

The sooner we get this meme out there and get it multiplying among the population, the sooner we can get this war over with.

evariste: could you wish for world peace now please? I'm sure Charles is capable of delivering:-)

33: I am not so sure, have you considered that the US could again become a bipolar power, with the Nation of Islam as the opposite pole? That's one of my biggest fears.

#49 Abu Maven: I appreciate what you're saying, though obviously I don't agree. No one can see into my mind or my heart enough to call me a liar when I know there's no insult intended. If someone wants to see a word, any word, as insulting, that's a choice they make for themselves. They can choose to be insulted, but not to say I'm being insulting. Now obviously something like "scum" would be beyond dispute.

Islam is a faith, so I don't think it fair to assign it to someone (or for someone to claim it for themselves) if they don't believe in it. The doctor is an Athiest (or agnostic). There are millions of them, and it doesn't seem fair to make the claim they are Muslim. The female would likely have been killed by Muhammed himself unless she changed her ways.

Don't forget, for the vast majority of Islamic history, the religion hasn't been too bad

I'm sorry man, but the truth is that the religion has always been vile, though many who believed it to varying degrees may well have been saints. I would ask that you consider seperating the two for the purpose of your evaluation.

This is where the belief is so important. A Muslim, by the teachings of the religion, believes in the legitimacy of Muhammed's teachings and example. I'd equally reject someone's claims to not believe in the legitimacy of the teachings and examples of Christ, yet tried to claim to be a Christian.

A Muslim knows that Muhammed raped, plundered, tortured, murdered and broke oaths. Please, spend some time with the central documents of Islam before coming to conclusions. Once you have, you'll know that Jews are to be murdered by Muslims until the end of time. I presume you think this was a bad thing when Hitler advocated it, yet something causes you to excuse it when it comes from Islam. All people of all faiths are to be conquered and enslaved, subjugated, murdered or converted. This is not a philosophical or historic perspective for a Muslim, it is the will of an all-powerful and all-knowing god.

But tell me what you think of this conversation with a three-year-old girl. (real player video) (text) This isn't some whack-job's basement, this was televised at least nationally from Egypt with pride. There is nothing said that is contradicted by the teaching's of Islam. This is what a real child, and millions of children are learning. You don't have to hate them, but I hope you'll hate the filth being pumped into their hearts and heads. And I hope you'll realize what people who actually believe it are capable of. No one's squeamishness at confronting Islam is going to comfort a single one of its victims, which number in the millions in the '90s alone. Not by people perverting the faith, but by people who are following it devoutly. No reformation is possible as long as we keep excusing this.

twisterella-nah, I'm anti world peace sweetie :-) I don't think it's a desirable state for humankind. That's like being against death! Death rocks. It creates natural selection, which creates evolution.

I don't see how Jordyptian could be insulting except to oversensitive, diversity-training molded western ears.
As a Palestinian it just sounds like being called a local Arab. That's all Palestinians are, local Arabs. Big deal. What's so offensive?

oops, JJ #55 I meant--

all: I need a taxonomy of trolls-- I think Liberalhawk from WoC could be classified as a demi-troll, in that it is so enamoured of its own voice that it cannot accept empirical data-- am I correct?

#54 Abu Maven 4/10/2004 06:18PM PST
Are you confident that, excluding Wahhabism, the religions are substantially different in how much violence they've produced?

Same old equivocation song.

Produced 3000yrs ago? Egyptians / Zorastrans
Produced 2500yrs ago? Romans / Pagans
Produced 2000yrs ago? Romans / Jews
Produced 1500yrs ago? pagans dismantle western romans
1300yrs ago? Islam's subjugation of the arabian penninsula
1000yrs ago? caliphate in spain
900-700yrs ago? 1st crusade against muslim sack of Jerusalem. 2nd-8th Crusades
500yrs ago? Spanish Inquisition. Catholic / Protestant wars. Ottomans Turks sack Constantinople.

And the last 400yrs have been filled with a slew of local religion-based killing.

But it's been pointed out many times here. Just pointing to all the border conflicts based on muslim vs anybody wrapping around the Earth from Algeria to Thailand overturns the nonsense of any equivocation argument.

It matters not one whit what other major religions did hundreds of years ago with steel and hot iron. It matters ENTIRELY what Muslim Radicals are doing TODAY and TOMORROW with modern explosives and their quest for WMD.

I just watched a program on Palestinian television which really gave me an insight to Islamic thinking about the Jews.

a 20 minute show was dedicated to explaning that the Quran believes that the Israelites "broke their covenent with god" and that Islam is the replacement covenent - this is classic replacement ideology.

Islam will never accept a sovereign Jewish nation-state because this wrecks its central tenet- that it has come to replace the Jews and eliminate them. Israel kind of flies in the face of all that and makes their claim look pretty idiotic.

#54 Abu Maven: You're not looking at the issue from the angle I am. Please try it for a while, and see if it suits you. Yes, plenty of atrocities were committed in the name of Christianity, primarily by illiterates that were being manipulated by their leaders. Same goes for Islam.

Now please list the atrocities that were committed that were in keeping with the teachings of Christ. I trust we don't have to abuse LGF's bandwidth by listing the atrocities that would be perfectly in keeping with the teachings of Muhammed.

As literacy and printing spread, Christians better understood Christianity, which has resulted in basically no such thing as religious war from Christians. Literacy and printing spreading to Muslims will inform them that they have the sacred duty to make war on all Infidels.

O evariste, That is so true! Death rocks, evolution rolls!

viper: I'm sorry, but I don't think religocide can be structured as a meme.

*I am not so sure, have you considered that the US could again become a bipolar power, with the Nation of Islam as the opposite pole? That's one of my biggest fears.*

Nah, I can't see that hapenning. There is no comparison. The world's greatest superpowers and its allies will always be totally superior to a gang of murderous jihadists.

Look what happened with Lybia, and this is just the start. The Middle East will be de-radicalised. Probably so many of its inhabitants are sick to death of being fed the same hateful idiotic propaganda and dream of western freedom and prosperity.

The West is going to win. Its already winning.

#74 twisterella

An example then. Had Hitler given Jews the option of giving up their religion to live, then that would have been religiocide instead of genocide. The Inquisition would be an example of religiocide, since it could not posibly have been genocide.(had nothing to do with race.)

Did no one read the Belmont Club thread yesterday-- Wretchard makes the point elegantly, that Islam is trapped in a tribal timewarp. It needs to evolve. But how do we encourage this evolution, um, accelerate it?

*genocide.(had nothing to do with race.)*

genocide is not necessarily based on race. Genocide simply means a mass murder of a people. In Rwanda the genocide was not racially based, but instead was based on tribal hatred.

*It needs to evolve. But how do we encourage this evolution, um, accelerate it? *

Destroy the Islamo-fascists and democratize the Middle East.

re: Christianity and Islam, comparative violence.

I think the argument thus far fails to take in to account that Christianity helped transform a barbaric and tribal Europe into an enlightened civilization (Bigel not withstanding), while Islam transformed the remains of Persian and Greek civilization into barbaric tribalism. The "golden age" of Islam was the last of those civilizations, sputtering out before the Sunnis quashed dissent and free thought. In the last centuries we have seen the further retrenchment into the Wahabbis.

It is not so much the sum total as the trend - in that Christianity and Islam are diametrically opposite.

Kerry trying to cash in on American casualties

Of course, the best nugget is buried in the last paragraph.

"We can still do this for a simple, basic reason," says Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a Kerry confidante on foreign policy. "Which is that the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese cannot afford to have chaos in Iraq and a civil war four months from now…. We just have to give them a chance to act in their self-interest and not make it impossible."

I know, how about an oil-for-troops program?

Couldn't one argue that Islam today is going through a phase similar to Christianity in the Middle Ages?

* Reactionary
* Agressive
* Violent
* Territorial ambitions
* Extreme

No.

evariste:
Oops! Actual posted date above is: April 4 (no link).

I believe that Iran's official propaganda agency, IRNA, whitewashed Rafsanjani's declaration of war against America, at Teheran University's Friday ("death to America") Prayers:

[Link: www.albawabaforums.com...]

ABSTRACT: Rafsanjani: Iraqis must punish the wounded US animal

In a Friday 09.04.04 sermon observed by tens of thousands at Tehran University, former President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani called on the Iraqis to teach the wounded American animal a lesson so that it won't attack others. He also mentioned that it will be a disaster to the whole world if the Americans were allowed to win in Iraq. He continued that the Americans have fell in(to) quagmire and is trying to get out of it. There were the usual Chants of Death to America, Death to Israel.

Drudge links to IRNA, and would certainly look into a whitewash of this kind (see "Rafsanjani" 1,2):

[Link: www.irna.ir...]

Did Rafsanjani, the thief who stole over $2,000,000,000 from the Iranian treasury, in khalifa-khummus (Cartoon "Allah" allows Mohammed and his khalifas, 20% of all treasury funds), issue an authoritative JIHAD-FATWAH against America, while American troops are under fire from terrorists under JERUSALEM-FORCE control? If so, that is an act of aggressive war. The US could respond decisively without a declaration of war. And given that said conflict is terror-war, the US could and should respond pre-emptively and disproportionately.

#82
Are you suggesting that every religion should get a chance to "discover" itself, at the expense of other people's lives?
Gee, maybe the guy down t eblock wants to start a cult - you want to be victim #1 ?
Besides, Islam has been enslaving and murdering people for over a thousand years. Time to stop.

CP-there's no article titled Radio Fallujah on 4/3-4/9. فلوجة راديو Can't find it :-(

Steven Den Beste has a new post out talking about the media and the bias it introduces into the news:

Fog of War

#77 twistarella: Ah, that's the $64,000 question. There've been a few angles discussed, none of them a clear winner so far. The best bet would be the abandonment of the religion totally, the adherents chosing another or none at all.

In the history of religions (remember, we're talking about people who actually believe them), there have been all kinds of reformations and off-shoots, but as far as I know, all of them keep coming back to the core teachings of the religion. Sooner or later, someone stands up and says "But waitaminnit.... Jesus/ Bhudda/ Moses/ Muhammed said..." and the fold is brought back closer to the core. "You are a false Imam to speak in opposition to Muhammed!" Everyone flips open their Koran to page 297 to read along, and voila.

Leaving the Koran and other writings intact means that Islam will always come back to the teachings and examples of Muhammed. Might take 10 years, might take 200, but it will happen. Even the Episcopanglicans are having trouble with the "This Bible here is pretty much full of shit" approach. However, I don't see how the Koran can be edited. It probably would have been done more easily earlier in history, but too late now.

I'm curious about the "Satanic Verses" angle, though admittedly the name is pretty much pulled out of the air from Rushdie's infamous book. My limited understanding was that he was challenging Islam on the basis of Muhammed's own claim to be possibly possessed by a demon. It would take a better scholar than I to know if the history could be constructed so that the horrid phase of Islam (the first of course being pretty gentle and beautiful) was a time of testing and failing of Muhammed, so those aspects are not instructive. Then later he got his groove back, renounced all the intolerence, and cruised on skyward to his raisins.

Then there's the possibility that all the horrors could be constrained to the time of Muhammed and those specific circumstances alone, much as I can say "Of course you shouldn't kill people, but in a war, that's different." But then the teachings that were to stay in place in perpetuity (killing Jews until the end of time for instance) would have to be addressed. And of course there could be a disconnect with the positive aspects. "So the command to charity and the haj only applied while Muhammed was alive?"

Bottom line though, you can't take a loaded revolver from the hands of a child, empty the bullets, and give it all back. He's gonna figure out how to reload the thing, and quicker than you might imagine. Islam's gotta get gone or reformed, or it won't be viable as a faith, or won't be viable to exist among civilized, tolerant ways of life.

#56 Zakwich (formerly Sword of Sharon) : Oh yeah, Syria! (smacks forehead). That's the "ian."

#82 JJ: No. Read the Koran. Christians had many of those traits, Christianity had none. And I don't think we're going to allow the Scientologists a millenium or two of bloodshed before saying they've got to stop.

*Are you suggesting that every religion should get a chance to "discover" itself, at the expense of other people's lives?*

I can't see where you got that from. I am trying to find historical ammunition to prove that Islamo-fascism can be defeated.

*Islam had enslaving and murdering people for over a thousand years. Time to stop.*

Of course. This is what I am saying.

So if I read some of you guys correctly, you are basically saying that so long as Islam exists, this war will exist? Are you saying Islam is not reformable?

We need to do a big production movie based word for word on the Koran. I wonder how many westerners would be understanding after seeing that movie.

#91 JJ

Now that really is the trillion $ question, isn't it...

The test is being performed in Iraq. If Iraq succeeds, then Islam has a chance. If it fails, then all hell literally breaks loose.

JJ (#91)

Are you saying Islam is not reformable?

Islam probably is reformable but I don't believe we're going to see that happen in our lifetime.

#91

"Islam reformed is Islam no longer"

Earl of Cromer---First British Viceroy of Egypt

Hamas' real world view.

What is the state of mind of the Palis? Here is how their state of mind is explained by Tashbih Sayyed, an American of the Muslim faith
[Link: www.paktoday.com...]

An anti-Semitic state of mind is incapable of accepting a Jewish presence in their midst.

Over fifty years of one sided campaign to present Jews as occupiers of holy lands, killers and murderers of innocent children and enemies of Islam has turned the Arabs of the refugee camps into a revenge seeking, hate filled souls. Today's Arab personality is composed of a number of ingredients, a) a false sense of betrayal b) a false sense of being oppressed, c) manipulated holy scripts d) A false sense of being wronged and d) a burning desire to get even with the world that has "imposed Jews on them."

The militant Islamists have convinced their world that the Jewish state is created to weaken the world of Islam. The militant Islam is driven by the sense that the honor of their faith depends on the outcome of this latest battle.

[Militant Islamists' ] belief that the destruction of Israel will once and for all reopen the road to their eternal domination over other faiths is shatter proof.

This mission in the garb of "Palestinian resistance" or Intifada has successfully connected this Arab Israeli dispute with the universal militant Islamist movement of establishing Khilafah. It brought back the memories of humiliation of losing the Ottoman Empire in 1924 and identified that "shame" with the establishment of Israel."

Palestinians have never given up on any one of their demands, beginning with their right of return to their "ancestral homes," although a majority of them have never lived in Israel. Arab exclusiveness prevents them from accepting the reality that the Jews have an ancient and divine right to the holy places including Jerusalem.

#91 JJ

As unpleasant as many of the things which were done in the name of christianity over te years, those things were done based upon violent interpretations of a facially non-violent scripture.
The Koran, on the other hand, preaches violent conquest of all others, mandating killing or forced conversion of all pagans and mandates dhimmittude and a "protection racket" over jews and christians, with an end game of total conquest by Islam. Neither Jeudism nor christianity were ever so .. ambitious..., that's some pretty tough langauge to "reform".

Are you saying Islam is not reformable?

I don't think so, although I outlined some possible approaches above.

#92 Viper: That's an awesome idea! It would work too, especially with the Koranic verse #s being discretely shown at the bottom of the screen. The howling would be legendary, until someone started looking them up.

The test is being performed in Iraq. If Iraq succeeds, then Islam has a chance. If it fails, then all hell literally breaks loose.

I don't think that follows. All I can see that doing is giving Iraqis a chance to leave the faith. The climate for reform would be better, but again, is this realistically possible? And of course everyone deciding to lay low and knock off the jihad for a while is not the same as a reformation.

#82 JJ

One can argue anything, but for reasons too tiresome to enumerate I disagree. However, if one assumes that Islam is in the position Christianity in the Middle Ages it is irrelevant because the "Medieval Christians" in this instance have nuclear weapons and are attempting to get biologic weapons that could kill hundreds of millions if not billions. We do not have centuries for Islam to "evolve". Futhermore even a cursory reading of Western History reveals that wars played a decisive role in that evolution - with nukes in the balance we cannot play around.

The Middle East is grotesquely overpopulated and the population and its growth are supported by Western technology that their culture has not evolved to deal with.

Frankly, I do not see Islam per se as the threat that most on this board do. If they had a few decades to build forces they could become a serious threat. IMO the real threat is confrontation between the West and China over oil supplies. The Muslims and the Chinese together would be a serious threat and there is a very real possibility that we could see that begin to develop in the coming decade.

Hamas officials on Saturday refused to say how much money they had collected, but there were reports of individual donations of up to $50,000.

Even if that's true, which I doubt, the Intifada is costing the Palestinians $11 billion, so they're probably a few shekels short. How foolish they are.

Indeed.

How long has it been now since Arafat turned down statehood? 3.5 years?

Intifada was a good idea why?

Powderfinger

It was a good idea because it let the Jew haters come out of hiding and express their ideas of a world withouyt Jews without fear of repurcussions.

What kind of society do we want? Canada yesterday "tolerated" the return of the remaining members of the Khadr family (the father was "al Kanadi", a senior operative killed recently in Pakistan). They are back in Canada for one reason, to avail themselves of free health-care. They have now also openly admitted, that they are an "Al Qaeda family" on CBC television. The leftist dupes lapped it up, as usual.

Canada is beginning to examine the concept of revoking citizenship. We are coming around, but it is a fierce struggle here against the combined forces of the Utopian hard Left, and the truly nihilistic forces of Islamism.

AG

Severe weather at your house?

Not that bad, actually. Just hard rain. Nothing too bad.

The Palestinians want to destroy Israel but can't.

The Iraelis could destroy the Palestinians but won't.

That is the equation that governs the dynamic relationship between the two sides. It doesn't appear that any of the variables have budged.

And in other news....

Homes are anti-war billboards...Boulder residents protest war on their garage doors, walls

Fred

*The Muslims and the Chinese together would be a serious threat and there is a very real possibility that we could see that begin to develop in the coming decade.*

That to me seems a very unlikely scenario, since the Chinese are most unsympathetic to the jihadist cause. The jihadists may well push the Chinese into an alliance with the US, if only China could stop threatening Taiwan.

*the "Medieval Christians" in this instance have nuclear weapons and are attempting to get biologic weapons that could kill hundreds of millions if not billions.*

No question about it, agreed. I'm just looking for possible long term strategies too.

#98
The Koran, on the other hand, preaches violent conquest of all others, mandating killing or forced conversion of all pagans and mandates dhimmittude and a "protection racket" over jews and christians, with an end game of total conquest by Islam.

There is no question that dhimmitude - or as I see it, an Islamic imperial apartheid system for Jews and Christians- is an end goal for jihadists, as well as a global Islamic state. The thing is, they can never acheive this, the power is with the West, and the question for me is, how should it be used to defeat the threat.

#viper 93
*The test is being performed in Iraq. If Iraq succeeds, then Islam has a chance. If it fails, then all hell literally breaks loose.*

I also see a make-or-break situation in Iraq, with global implications.

Me either, nothing but hard rain, some wind, and lightning.

The Woodlands had the baseball sized hail, and Schulenburg reported many vehicles and homes damaged by 3 inch hail.

OT - BUT VERY IMPORTANT:

Please, everyone, read the PM's wonderful essay in today's (tomorrow's) Observer.

Why We Must Never Abandon this Historic Struggle in Iraq by Tony Blair

CHARLES - This calls for its own entry, I think. It's brilliant. I know Bush shares the same view, but it is a shame he can't write/speak like this. (Or, if he can, he it's a shame he isn't doing it. We need him).

OK then. I wish I could be so sure. Is Charles sure that we're going to win?

Let's say John Kerry is elected, and we return to a national policy of liberal multinationalism. The oncoming demographic collapse of Europe, coupled with the high replacement rate of fertile muslim immigrant populations could replace a single state Europe with a nation of Islam. Islam is already hugely successful in the ME and Africa. Let's say also that we pull out of Iraq, cut and run. What happens to Iraq? Instant Iran?

I still need a troll taxonomy, surely such a thing exists?

evariste:
Thanks. The message sounds real, but without verification, I have to treat forum posted info. of that nature, as fiction. What about the Rafsanjani material?

Why Islam cannot reform:
[Link: www.faithfreedom.org...]

Re. newly declassified Aug. 2001 memo:
[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Big deal. GWB took a 26 day vacation - 2nd longest in Presidential history - after the memo made the rounds. Notwithstanding what he claims, he would have read it. His interest at the time was in healing his rift with the house of Saud parasites. He worked at that, while fly fishing around Crawford, Texas. After 9-11, he delivered "islam is peace" and pre-emptive exhoneration to his Saud pals:
[Link: www.cleveland.com...]

The Bush regime was a Party to the squelch of the 9-11 Lawsuit which named the Crown Prince of the Saud entity, and several members of the royal family. GWB is well aware that said royals, began their financing of Pakistan's "islamic bomb" immediately after King Fahd was given the title: "Defender of the Holy Lands (al-Haramain)." And every senior Wahabi cleric, fatwahed for Taliban. Saudi-American relations are based on unilaterally beneficial relations between American elites and the Saud entity. American people get nothing out of this brazen breach of public trust.

By the way, this is why Richard Clarke's good-bad book is getting good word of mouth:

"...When he (Bush) focused, he asked the kind of questions that revealed a results-oriented mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper-sticker description of the problem. Once he had that, he could put energy behind a drive to achieve his goal. The problem was that many of the important issues, like terrorism, like Iraq, were laced with important subtlety and nuance. These issues needed analysis and Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom. Bush was informed by talking with a small set of senior advisers."

"Bumper-Sticker" logic: like "islam is peace."

No war President has ever been reduced to under 30% support before. GWB will be lucky to have that by the end of April. Whoever wins in November, will wear National Security Directives around their necks, for their entire Presidency.

*Let's say also that we pull out of Iraq, cut and run. What happens to Iraq? Instant Iran?*

Yup.

Tony Blair's piece is excellent.

Evariste are you really a Palestinian Arab? Do you have any family living in Israel or the mideast? What made you become sympathetic to the Israeli side in the conflict?

Kevin V, excellent article. Thanks for the link.

Let's say also that we pull out of Iraq, cut and run. What happens to Iraq? Instant Iran?

That would probably be the "good" outcome. Probably a combination of civil war within the ethnic factions (and within those factions themselves) coupled with both overt and covert actions by the other players in the region. Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia for sure have scores to settle and territories to gain. Could be a whole Sunni/Shia rolling regional smackdown.

Of course by that point, the US, Europe, China and the USSR would have an interest in the outcome...

And Israel might well say "What the Hell?"

That kind of religious/resources vaccuum and disruption in that sensative area would be something to behold. Things could theoretically settle down peacefully, but there's all kinds of triggers just waiting to be tripped.

There should be a way to hack Hamas and send all their funds to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Talk about poetic justice ...

USSR

Let the Howard Dean mocking begin. I earned it.

I see only one slight problem with Blair's piece.

He write at the end:

"But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists...?"

100% correct.

But before he wrote:

"It would be about pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the Palestinian issue..."

Tony should remember to ask the same question about the Palestinian issue - "when they call for a Palestinian state next to Israel, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists...?"

I prefer the corrupt PA to the honest, murderous fanatics of Hamas. The corruption will slow down the killing a bit. It was always pointed out by the pointy heads just how honest the Viet Cong, Mao's army, the Red Army, Fidel and his cohorts were compared to the corrupt reactionaires we supported.

Evariste are you really a Palestinian Arab? Do you have any family living in Israel or the mideast? What made you become sympathetic to the Israeli side in the conflict?

Yes. of Palestinian muslim stock. I have extended family in Israel and Jordan. No one event made me become sympathetic to the Israeli side, but just gradually understanding things. In general, I'd attribute it to disliking watching my fellow Arabs running around filthy and unshaven shouting ugly slogans in support of murdering innocents while Jews built a prosperous, healthy society and showed at every step how much they love life, and how empty the protestations of Zionist oppression by my fellow Arabs were.

Re Arafat's "Communist" guest: the PA's Islamofascist constitution, effectively outlaws communism as an ideology. What a dhimmi!

Is Colin Powell a dhimmi? Judge for yourself, from his Saud-centrist slaveography, "My American Journey":

Later that day (pre Gulf War1), President Bush and Scowcroft spoke with Prince Bandar, my old racquetball partner, now Saudi ambassador to the United States. They wanted Bandar to understand the threat his country faced and to know that we were prepared to come to its aid. Afterward, Scowcroft called Cheney at the Pentagon. Bandar was coming over, he said, and we were to give him another dose of reality. On his arrival at Cheney’s office, Bandar played his usual Americanized, jaunty fighter-pilot role, drinking coffee from a foam cup and stirring it with a gold pen. Ordinarily, we addressed each other in terms bordering on the obscene, with my printable favorites including “Bandar the Magnificent,” and “Bandar, you Arab Gatsby,” while he called me “Milord.”

And during the GW1 buildup:

At one point, Prince Bandar warned me, “No Bibles.” “Are you kidding?” I said. We were being inundated with Bibles from religious groups, and I could imagine the military trying to tell these folks, “The Arabs will take your sons, but not their Bibles.”

“Saudi customs officials will have to confiscate the Bibles,” Bandar insisted. We finally worked out a deal whereby we flew the Bibles directly to our air bases, while Saudi officials looked the other way.

Then Bandar informed me that no religious services could be held on Arab soil for our Jewish troops. “They can die defending your country, but they can’t pray in it?” I asked.

“Colin, be reasonable,” he answered. “It will be reported on CNN. What will our people think?”

We found a practical solution. We planned to helicopter Jewish personnel out to American vessels in the Persian Gulf and hold Jewish services aboard ship.

Bandar also worried about crucifixes. I told him our soldiers would be ordered to wear them inside and not outside of their T-shirts.

Yassuh, Massuh. I step'n fetch it fer yo' suh, Yassuh!

#113 Camel Prophet

Whoever wins in November, will wear National Security Directives around their necks, for their entire Presidency.

Oh my G-d I can't believe that that statement just came from you of all people! CP you can't be serious. Have you been paying any attention to what JF'inK has been saying for the last year? He's actually gone on record stating that we should deal openly with the fucking mullahs! "Open dialog" and all that crap (not to mention his "Sadr is a legitimate voice" Bullshit from this past week). And his admiration for the French approach to foreign policy, and his vow to only work through the UN?

Are you letting your hatred of W cloud your reasoning like an L³? There's a f-cking reason that the mullahs and Nasrallah, proud terrorist leaders all, have gone on record pulling for a Kerry triumph.

I'm shocked.

/jaw on the floor

#123, Camel Prophet. Did you manage to catch any of the propaganda that was coming out of Iraq during GW1? If you did, what did you think of it?

It's hard to find the two faces of a religion (peaceful vs. radical) when the only thing being seen and read are in reality very barbaric.

I constantly battle in my mind a desire to paint most Muslims as radical and unwilling to reason beyond their pride. Why can’t there be two nations living next to each other in peace? Why does Israel have to be driven into the sea for there to be peace in the region?

Every day Muslims are reminded how evil Israel and westerners are. Ravi Zacharius, an evangelist stated that it is almost impossible to talk them about positive aspects of western culture in such a way that they would deem it as reasonable. He goes further to say you can't convince Muslims that you came to know truth or understand meaning while you were in America during a visit. Muslims wouldn't accept that as a valid experience because the thought process must have been tainted by western culture in some way, which is evil.

How do you change an entire belief system of an entire religion?

I have more questions

It seems so easy to deride the expression
"Islam is a Religion of Peace" and so easy to overlook who coined the phrase.

The same source that laments that the West-of-Jordan Arabs are 'poor, alone and humiliated"
Humiliated, that is, by the nasty Jews stopping them at checkpoints to search for bomb belts.

The source of these observations being . . .

Well, one that it is considered indelicate to identify.
The initials are GWB.

tasty beverage #124:

Relax, there have been Congress-run Presidencies, before (post-Monica' Clinton for one).

Google (advanced: "all the words") "Matt" "Welch" "Bandar" and, on reading Welch's attachments, you will lose respect for GWB. Any residual support will be purely strategic. You will lose that when his polled support goes into free-fall this week. Therefore: focus on American national security, and strip private benefit out of the Presidency.

What about the fact that GWB's "Mideast democratic initiative," which effectively legitimated Iran's fixed elections, would have led to eventual political unity, which would have made Iraq a province of Iran? Shiites - those bloody savages - form demographic majorities in 90% of the Mideast oil patch. And you don't see American national security implications, in Iranian control of same?

I can't stand Kerry, but you have to deal with the fact that he is going to win in November. The trick is to back him into the hard-line corner, viz the Islamofascist menace. Dhimmi Carter once threatened the nuclear annihilation of North Korea. Any Congress leveraged President can be pressured to adopt the same posture. Congress will be the real battleground this Fall. Post-Bush Republican could dominate. GWB support will be a fatal liability. He's history.

Democracy is people power. Bush-Rice-Powell are self-interested parasites, like Cheney, who pocketed $60,000,000 from his GW1 contacts.

When oil-patch, rich kids lose hitherto doormats like Cal Thomas, the game is nearly over. Cal Thomas on the "interim constitution of Iraq":

[Link: www.townhall.com...]
...That a single Ayatollah - Sayyid Ali Hussaini Sistani - could delay the signing of the document and many of his followers still express reservations about the size and role of the Kurdish population in a future government signals that the interim constitution may have less cohesive power than American officials think...

...As with Vietnam, there is tremendous political pressure to put something in place in Iraq for which victory, or "peace with honor," can be claimed. America's enemies know this, and so they might agree to sign something they plan to renounce later for the purpose of getting the United States to withdraw its forces and make a takeover that much easier...

1. Bremer can't nation-build Iraq, when NGO and contract workers fear for their lives.
2. US troops can't pacify a country when majorities in all but one section, will not report placement of Road Side Bombs.
3. US cannot be accepted as an honest broker, after the Bush government effectively abolished Secularism in Iraq.
4. American security cannot be maintained, when Bush indulges Iran's military-political pilgrimages (10,000 persons per day) to Iraq.

Dollars for dimes says that "60 Minutes" will have a story on GWB's scandalous jeopardisation of American security, tomorrow. Newsweek has GWB at "42%" and declining rapidly. Its over.

Time to say it: BUSH BLEW IT! Now popular sovereignty reasserts.

#60

That's not strictly true. Mohammed never killed the Jews of Medina. Mohammed killed the Jews of Yatrib, and then renamed the city Medina. Jews have had a continuous presence in the Saudi Peninsula for millennia, a fact often obscured today.

The Saudis, who to this day will not admit Jews into their country, together with their ancestors are responsible for the destruction of the Jewish communities of Yatrib, Aden, Hejaz, Hadramaut, etc.

I love it. Soon the Hamas will be selling indulgences. They have all the earmarks of a religion that pimps for political gain.

-----Consider the Roman Catholic Church and how it funded all its political exploits.

And people of many faiths still tithe, and are totally ignorant of where their money goes. What is the difference?

No, all these desert monotheistic patristic religions have a lot in common. Money, power, deceit.

/libertine

This is why I advocate transfer of all nazi arabs and muslims from Israel (including gaza and the west bank).

civilised people are not condemned to live with filfthy terrorists. The terrorists can be removed.

back on thread:

I gave at the mosque

Ziggy cartoon quote:
"Give 'til it hurts"
-- Ziggy:"It never hurts"

Modern quote:
"Give til it hurts some Jews"
-- Hamas:"It doesn't hurt enough"

#115 bobbie 4/10/2004 08:20PM PST
Evariste are you really a Palestinian Arab? Do you have any family living in Israel or the mideast? What made you become sympathetic to the Israeli side in the conflict?

"Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy", I expect. ;)

#122 evariste 4/10/2004 08:39PM PST
...In general, I'd attribute it to disliking watching my fellow Arabs running around filthy and unshaven shouting ugly slogans in support of murdering innocents while Jews built a prosperous, healthy society and showed at every step how much they love life, and how empty the protestations of Zionist oppression by my fellow Arabs were.

Like I said! ;)

#127 Jabberwock 4/10/2004 09:02PM PST
It seems so easy to deride the expression
"Islam is a Religion of Peace" and so easy to overlook who coined the phrase.

... The source of these observations being . . .

Well, one that it is considered indelicate to identify.
The initials are GWB.

Those words, incorrect as we know them to be, kept hundreds if not thousands of arabic muslims from being killed on US streets in the days following 9/11.
That, and the shoring of the economy while the wreckage still burned were the KEY reasons for those words.
It wasn't dhimmitude. It wasn't ties to Saudi $$. It was a President attempting to stabilize his country on the brink of War.

Those words have remained the byword, until such time as we are finished positioning (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, out of Saudi) to remove the House of Fraud.

Rayra, LOL!

Mohammed killed the Jews of Yatrib, and then renamed the city Medina.

Nope - other way around. "Medina" is an Aramaic word for "county" or "district." The Arab name of the city was already Yatrib, but the Jews called it "the City" in their vernacular (like saying "the Big Apple").

So one of the holiest cities in Islam is known by its Jewish name. heh.

PS Camel Prophet, you're full of shit.

Yehudit #139:
You don't matter, you self-important low-life. You are not a scholar; you are a filthy Peace Now liar. Skank out of here for another 6 months. For the open-minded, here is a reminder that all muslims are under shariah obligation to commit genocide:

Bukhari Hadith, Book 4, Chapter 18, #68
"Narrated Aisha, 'When allah's apostle returned on the day of the battle of al-Khandaq (Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, 'You have put down your arms! By allah, I have not put down my arms yet!' Allah's apostle said, 'Where should I go now?' Gabriel said, 'This way,' pointing to the Banu Quraizay."

MOHAMMED'S GENOCIDE SUNNA, OF THE JEWS OF BANU QURAIZAY
By IBN ISHAQ (8th Century, CE)

"...The apostle sent Ali forward with his banner and the men hastened to it. Ali advanced until when he came near the forts he heard insulting language used against the apostle. He returned to meet the apostle on the road and told him that it was not necessary for him to come near those rascals. The apostle said, 'Why? I think you must have heard them speaking ill of me,' and when Ali said that was so he added, 'If they saw me they would not talk in that fashion.' When the apostle approached their forts he said, 'you BROTHERS OF MONKEYS, has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?..."

"The apostle passed by a number of his companions in al-Saurayn before he got to Banu Quraizay and asked if anyone had passed them. They replied that Dihya bin Khalifa al-Kalbi had passed upon a white mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He said, 'That was (angel) Gabriel who has been sent to Banu Quraizay to shake their castles and strike TERROR into their hearts...'" "The apostle besieged them for twenty five nights until they were sore pressed and god cast TERROR into their hearts."

"Now Huyyay b. Akhtab had gone with Banu Quraizay into their forts when Quraysh and Ghatafan had withdrawn and left them, to keep his word to Ka'b b. Asad (Banu Quraizay chief); and when they felt sure
that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them, Ka'b said to them: 'Oh Jews, you can see what has happened to you; I offer three alternatives. Take which you please. 1. We will
follow this man and accept him as true, if by God it has become plain to you that he is a prophet who has been sent and that it is he that you find mentioned in your scripture; and then your lives, your property, your women and children will be saved. They (the tribe) said, 'We will never abandon the laws of the Torah and never change it for another...'"

"Sa'id (one of Mohammed's companions) asked, 'Do you covenant with allah that you accept the judgement I pronounce on them?' (looking) in the direction of the apostle not mentioning him out of respect, and the apostle answered, 'Yes.' Sa'id said, 'Then I give judgement that the men should be KILLED, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives."

''...The apostle said to Sa'id, 'You have given the judgement of allah above the seven heavens.'"

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina (originally the Jewish town of Yethrib) in the quarter of al-Harith, woman of Banu al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of allah, Huyyay bin Akhtab and Ka'b (their chief). There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka'b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By god it is: DEATH!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them."

"...Aisha said: 'Only one of their women was KILLED. She was actually with me and was talking with me and laughing immoderately as the apostle was KILLING her men in the market when suddenly an unseen voice called her name. 'Good heavens,' I cried, 'What is the
matter?' 'I am to be KILLED,' she answered. She was taken away and beheaded. Aisha used to say, 'I shall never forget my wonder at her good spirits and her loud laughter when all the time she knew that she would be KILLED.'"

GENOCIDE CONVENTION, 1946

Article II
In the present Convention, GENOCIDE means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily of mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculate to bring about its physical destruction in whole of in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) GENOCIDE;
(b) conspiracy to commit GENOCIDE;
(c) direct and public incitement to commit GENOCIDE;
(d) attempt to commit GENOCIDE;
(e) complicity in GENOCIDE.

YEHUDIT IS AN ARAFISH WHORE, WHO COMES HERE EVERY FEW MONTHS TO AID AND ABET ARAB GENOCIDE.

Camel Prophet, you're out of line. Don't be abusive toward Yehudit!

#128 Camel Prophet

Relax, there have been Congress-run Presidencies

Like the entirety of the 90's, when the Republican-dominated Congress failed to force Clinton's hand with regards to Al-Qaeda, even after the attacks on our Embassies and the USS Cole?

you will lose respect for GWB.

CP: I am not a Republican, and W is not a sacred icon. But you are not taking into account the "rallying" force that a President can bring to bear on a given situation. Do you really see John Fucking Kerry as a man who can "rally the troops"?

Message to Camel Prophet: Kerry is a fucking Traitor. Our military men know this. Can you honestly see ordinary soldiers lining up behind a communist tool like Kerry and his Fonda Friends?

Please listen to me Camel Prophet: IMO you are more knowledgeable than anyone on this blog about Islamofascism, but right here you need to recognize that your anger is misplaced. You should be more alarmed by a Kerry presidency than a Bush presidency, because a Prez Kerry will signal to the islamofascists that "we have surrendered, do your worst".

The pathetic words that W would pause and say, (in sickening deference to Political Correctness), "Islam is peace";--- Kerry would implement --- "No one must say Islam is NOT peace, as that is a Hate Crime, and we will not engage in hate speech." blah blah blah....our cheeks are spread wide....

A JF'inK presidency is cultural suicide.

I can't stand Kerry

Well you and me both. But I would hope that you recognize the next level where this scumbag is concerned. He is the Islamofascists' lottery ticket.......consult with Europe and the UN about what to do next.....they say they want to kill us??!! Well we'll just have to rectify that with a conference, and several meetings with "the Hizb'Allah" (hands wringing)!

Never.

/aside from our differences, I ♥ you CP, and Happy Easter

Evariste, since you are Palestinian Arab, you can answer this question. How many Palestians, to a larger extents Arabs, do you think share your point of view.

It is difficult to figure this out. There are always righteous people who explain to us that a majority of Muslims are moderates (how I dislike this word!) who don't share the views of the bunch of extremists we always see chanting murderous slogans. But...but...well, to me, I fear this romantic aproach is flawed. I know many Arabs, the wealthy and well educated type (I am a doctor working in a big teaching Hospital in Paris, where lots of Arabs are trained). What strikes me is these guys, altough not religious at all and apparently 'Westernized', seem to believe that Islam is the ultimate Truth and that Israel is an abomination. Islam and the hatred of the Jews appear to be deeply engraved in their culture.

Hmmm.
USraelis has quite a ring to it, it's a badge that I for one would be quite proud to wear.

#139 Yehudit,
re Yatrib, Medina

Yatrib soon became known as Medinat al-Nabi, the City of the Prophet, and by contraction as Medina or the city.

[Link: appliedphilosophy.mtsu.edu...]

Some 200 miles to the north and east lay the town of Yathrib - later called Medina by the Muslims.... On September 24, 622 they were joyously greeted at the outskirts of the city which has ever since been called Medina -- The City.

--pp 36-37,The Middle East: A History, by Sydney Nettleton Fisher

The name (al-Madinah, the city, i.e. of the Prophet) was acquired after Muhammad had spent the last yen years of his life (622-632) in it.

--- p. 188, The Near East in History: A 5000 Year Story, by Philip K. Hitti.

The great, outstanding historian, Philip K. Hitti, an American of Arab ancestry, who has spent his life explaining Arab history, points out that the name changed to al-Madinah. When Philip K. Hitti speaks of Arab history, I can believe it.

Yehudit, I believe that you have it wrong. The name was Yatrib; it changed to al-Madinah in honor of the prophet of Islam who established himself there.

Yehudit, I am not endorsing anything else that Camel Prophet says, certainly not his ad hominem attacks against you or any other poster, and certainly not his bigotry against the whole ummah, one-fifth of humanity. But on this matter of the name of the city, it was Yatrib first, and it became Madinah later, and he is correct on this matter of fact, and you are in error IMO. I don't see how I can conclude anything else when an eminent historian like Hitti says so.

#140 Camel Prophet

I appreciate your post of part of the Genocide Convention. I am ashamed to say I have never read it before. I have now googled it and read.

IMO it is horrendously overbroad and we are susceptible to being "hoist by our own petard".

A few things come to mind.

1. The Arabs, especially the PLO and Hamas have been guilty of "genocide" vis a vis the Jews since '47, but have been given a pass.

2. As long as the west attempts to live by this document we are doomed to defeat by the fast breeding Muslims ("our children are our weapons").

3. Since "inciting" to commit genocide is an international crime that our government has bound itself by treaty to prosecute, important free speech issues are involved.

4. At some point it will become necessary to ignore or abrogate this document if the West is to survive. I would imagine that the fact that the Arabs have already done so vis a vis the Jews and Christians in their midst would serve as justification for that abrogation.

We live in interesting times.

Camel Prophet: that kind of language toward Yehudit is not OK. You owe her an apology.

Camel Prophet, time to tighten up a few bolts before you fly to pieces. Your insights into Islamism to not carry forward to contemporary American politics. You are looking through an oriental mirror.

re: Camel Prophet v. yehudit

While Cp's response was over the top, I think it is wrong to ignore yehudit's initial comment (in #139) as it was not exactly conducive to reasoned discourse, to wit:

PS Camel Prophet, you're full of shit.

"Why can't we all just get along." /R. King

“I give them 50 shekels ($11), and I feel so sorry because I can’t give them more,” said Khalil Hassouna, 45, a father of 12 who earns 850 shekels ($190) a month working as a night watchman.

"Shekels for Hamas," now that's f-u-n-n-y. By the way, anybody notice how quiet it's gotten after Yassin was off'ed?

Abu Maven (from another thread):

most often non-Muslims converted to Islam peacefully, generally to avoid being dhimmis and thus having to pay the tax

As Viper pointed out, what is the penalty for not paying the tax? Is it "a peaceful gift" when you give me your wallet because of the knife I have against your throat?

Anyway, to get back to the main point, from what both of you seem to be saying, Islam is simply unsalvageable because Mohamed was a violent military commander. Thus, Islam is rotten at its very roots, so even if there are some interpretations that are more peaceful, that's basically irrelevant because Mohamed advocated jihad.

No, no, no. I must not have been expressing myself very well, but this is not what I've been saying. Muhammed could have been a neurosurgeon for all I or anyone else cares. What you do not seem to address, forgive me if it's been overlooked, is that Muslims are believers. Muhammed and the Koran are manifestations of an all-powerful and all-knowing god's will and guidance. This cannot be reduced away, and have Islam still remain a faith.

When a member of the fold tells you "Jesus/ Bhudda/ Muhammed said..." this is speaking from a position of moral, divine religious authority. It is not the same as "My neighbor Fred says the Ford Taurus is the best car for your money." Not even close. Now if Muhammed had started off as a bandit and warlord, then Allah guided him to a life of peace or justice, the story would be completely different. The story instead is that the way to barbarity, atrocity, hatred and lust is the fullfillment of Allah's desire for his followers. To act like Muhammed is to be aspired to. This isn't some esoteric abstraction, it is the central, literal aim of the religion. Muhammed's depravity was smiled upon and directed by Allah, and thus this is the path to please this god and enter its paradise. These teachings are in each and every form of Islam known to me, unless there's one out there that doesn't view the Koran as holy and infallable.

In other words, all hopes for a so-called "Islamic reformation" are for naught, right? ...

Had you hd a chance to read this post? I think it's a fair attempt at answering your questions.

Abu Maven

The most surprising part of Gold's argument is that he cites Bernard Lewis for the proposition that Islam was generally *not* spread by the sword. Rather, Gold claims, most often non-Muslims converted to Islam peacefully, generally to avoid being dhimmis and thus having to pay the tax.

Well, the borders of Islam were spread by the sword, or threat thereof.

As for the conversions, the life of a dhimmi was absolutely horrific. The jizya was bad enough, but when there are rules that say you cannot pray loud enough that a passing Muslim can hear, or when Muslims can (and will) beat you in the street because they feel like it, conversion might seem like a good way out. That, of course, doesn't factor in the irregular pogroms, mass slaughters, expulsions, and (however "un-Islamic") a choice of conversion or death (Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492 were given that choice by the Lybians in the mid-1500s; the al-Mohads were notorious for forced conversions; etc).

Gold is right, the Wahhabis looked at the above and said "this isn't sufficient". But the above is the "nice bit". The moderate bit. That says a lot about the Wahhabis, but it says a lot more about Islam's general record.

...Islam is simply unsalvageable because Mohamed was a violent military commander. Thus, Islam is rotten at its very roots, so even if there are some interpretations that are more peaceful, that's basically irrelevant because Mohamed advocated jihad.

The Hadith (the sayings of Mohammed) are extremely important to Muslims. The Prophet was, after all, the Prophet of Allah. How can anything he (and, therefore, He) says be wrong?

Model4 basically covered this - I don't need to expand on #151.

In other words, all hopes for a so-called "Islamic reformation" are for naught, right[1]? Because the religion is rotten at its very core, there is no room for such a positive development[2]? I wonder, then, what do you think will be the ultimate outcome in this struggle[3]? It seems that those of us clinging to the naive hope for some sort of reformation are just being unrealistically optimistic[4]?

1. There's no reason not to hope, but every reason to think such attempts will fail. If the central figure of a religion, acting as the hand of Allah, spread the faith at the point of a sword, how can the religion be reformed? One cannot Tipex out the bits one does not like (and that is said specifically in the Koran/Hadith - don't ask me for the reference, though evariste will back me up on that).

2. The improvements would go against the core so, at best, a schism would be inevitable, but I can't see it ever getting to that point.

3. Us or them. I couldn't expand further, I just don't know enough.

4. The Mufti of Italy is a good example of a moderate Muslim - pro-Israel, anti-Osama, pro-US, etc. But smarter people than me believe that, in a head-to-head with the jihadist scholars of Islam, our Italian would lose.

charles #147:

Yehudit comes here every few months to insult and cause mischief. Do you think she is looking for respect.

Another concern: the cultural-unification of Mideast Shiites poses a catastrophic threat to the Free World. I know you have faith in the President, but even his supporters should consider the implications of impending political unification of bloodthirsty Shiite elements, who reside in 90% of the Mideast oil patch, and support Teheran's "death to America" government. This problem is the inevitable result of GWB's alliance system, which is supposed to yield: peace and security. In fact, it can produce nothing but buildup for war and permanent jeopardy, especially when Iran develops Pakistan supplied, nuclear-jihad technology.

If GWB goes into public opinion freefall - which I believe will begin this week - it should be taken as a window of opportunity for those who want hard measures applied to the global-genocidal juggernaut of islam. Congress is full of Republicans who are not wrapped up in GWB's "islam is peace" ground propensity, which involves searching for allies anywhere in the Mideast and, once he finds them, give them anything once they make shallow commitments to support US security objectives.

I see a lot of pessimism and lashing-out at LGF. If people here would get into a post-Bush mindset and endorse policy implementation that goes beyond his self-destructive alliance system - as declared in Powell's infamous "Stay the Course" speech, they will get a dose of confidence. Hopefully, State Department' operational and field command of the counter-terror operations in Iraq, will collapse this week.

BUSH BLEW IT.

Here is my repost, as per Colt's suggestion:

#57 Model,

No, not at all. I am posting to find out what other non-idiotarians think, certainly not to tell you what to think. I did read most of your posts on the other thread (not all of them), but now I have fully caught up. I was being pressured by my militant Hindu girlfriend ;) to stop typing and eat brunch...

I understand your view. You are stating that Mohamed's fundamental views are so militant that there is simply no way of getting around them, or attempting to reform Islam because it is in fact rotten to the core.

Frankly, I am in over my head speaking about religious teachings, but is it not true that Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." But all we hear about these days is "turn the other cheek." I suppose you will respond, however, that Jesus' overwhelming message was peace, whereas Mohamed's was war. But is that a matter of fact or just interpretation?

Model, you seem to think I am a troll incognito, but that is not the case. What I like about this board is that here we can be honest, unlike the rest of this Orwellian world where "Islam means peace." I agree with the fundamental premise of this board, ie, Islam is a not merely a religion, but a political belief system aiming for total world domination. And that's true, at least of the Wahhabis and their neo-Wahhabi ilk.

But I wonder if there is no room for hope. As I previously explained, I know plently of Muslims who don't buy into it all, yet still believe in Allah. If such a transformation could happen in Turkey, why not elsewhere? And if one cannot raise this possibility with other fellow non-idiotarians without having his bona fides challenged, I wonder how anyone not so predisposed to our views could find this board to be the open and tolerant place we hope it to be.

By the way, if I haven't responded to any of your particular points, please let me know which one. I am trying :).

You are stating that Mohamed's fundamental views are so militant that there is simply no way of getting around them, or attempting to reform Islam because it is in fact rotten to the core.

Have you still not read this post, despite my repeated attempts to get you to do so? If you haven't, it seems like misdirected effort to answer your questions. If so, why do you take a post that says Islam might be able to be reformed, should be reformed, offers possible paths to reform... and yet continue to say that I think "there is simply no way of getting around them, or attempting to reform Islam?"

Can you not see why this is puzzling?

Yes, I've read it. You state:

1) "The best bet would be the abandonment of the religion totally, the adherents chosing another or none at all."

2) "Bottom line though, you can't take a loaded revolver from the hands of a child, empty the bullets, and give it all back. He's gonna figure out how to reload the thing, and quicker than you might imagine."

So, apparently for you the "bottom line" is that Islam cannot be reformed. That would appear to be consistent with my summary of your view:

"You are stating that Mohamed's fundamental views are so militant that there is simply no way of getting around them, or attempting to reform Islam because it is in fact rotten to the core."

What I am missing? You throw out a couple of possibilities, and ultimately conclude that the "bottom line" is that all such attempts will fail.

#156 Abu Maven: What you are missing is that
1) This is but one option of multiple ones presented. If I believed it were the only option, the others wouldn't have been presented.
2) This makes the direct case for the need for reformation. Let's take a closer look though, at how very selectively you chose to quote me. What is the very next sentence that you left off?

Islam's gotta get gone or reformed, or it won't be viable as a faith, or won't be viable to exist among civilized, tolerant ways of life.

If intentional, that's a disgusting tactic. I specifically state the need for reform, you choose to say I feel otherwise, and then deliberately omit my own words that back my own claim.

I suppose you will respond, however, that Jesus' overwhelming message was peace, whereas Mohamed's was war. But is that a matter of fact or just interpretation?

Wouldn't reading the life and teachings of both clear this up? Wouldn't it be a worthwhile investment? A lot of people these days (not necessarily yourself) you will have to admit are projecting upon Islam and Muslims what they wish to believe about them. Almost overnight an industry sprang up trying to find equivalence between Christianity and Islam, while deliberately ignoring the text of Islam and the teachings of its most respected scholars and imams.

There is no parallel or equivalence between Hinduism and Christianity, but no one seems to give a damn about this. So why the big production involving Islam?

If such a transformation could happen in Turkey, why not elsewhere?

Turkey has an army standing by ready to turn its arms on its own government, so fearful are they that it will become more Islamic. Most Muslims visiting the more cosmopolitan areas of Turkey are amazed at how un-Islamic it is. More a heritage than a belief.

But for the purposes of my main argument, it's counterproductive to say "The actions of these Muslims reflect upon Islam." Same as it would be to say "That Christian commits adultry, and that Hindu eats cheeseburgers." This comments on the level of belief, commitment or fallibility of particular followers, not the teachings of the faiths themselves.

Seriously, (as if all the rest weren't) how dangerous an ideology was put forth in "Mein Kampf?" If I find a person who buys into it, yet hasn't murdered a Jew yet, will you use this to justify the ideology as benign and open to many peaceful interpretations? Or will you say it is dangerous and vile at its core, no matter what?

I dont get involved with individual posters bashing each other. I think that is puerile.

I also think it is ridiculous when Charles has to step in and be referee.

I think we are all on the same team here. Let's behave that way.

/grandma cookies will be witheld if no one behaves

Model,

Damn -- I am on your side in this debate!!! I am not engaging in "disgusting" tactics. Simply trying to understand if there is any reasonable alternative other than the elimination of the Islamic faith entirely. Again, as best as I can tell, your view is that hopes for any such reformation are likely to fail. I am *not* disagreeing with you on that point, or attacking you in any way for holding that view, just honestly trying to explore how others view the situation. I am on the fence here, just looking to discuss.

As to your point about reading the history and teachings of Mohamed and Jesus, well, my time is limited, so I was looking to see what others think. As I have mentioned, I have read a bit on the subject. One book worth reading is Transcendental Tempation by Paul Kurtz, which tracts the historical record of numerous religious figures.

I also mentioned that Jesus uttered is some pretty militaristic things about "bringing the sword" and not peace. So my point was that perhaps it was the priests who have emphasized the "turn the other cheek" message above and beyond the more militaristic stuff that Jesus was supposed to have said.

As to your point about distinguishing between the teaching of the faiths themselves and the actions of the believers, I don't think it is as tidy as you claim. For instance, I fully consider myself to be a Jew, even though I don't believe in God, let alone the specific teachings of Judaism. So I don't see why someone who says she is a Muslim (although an atheist) should not be considered a Muslim. Nor do I see any reason to suggest that friends of mine who consider themselves Muslim, believe in Allah, and yet do not believe in conquering the Dar al Harb should not be considered Muslim as well.

In fact, these are the very people I think we should hope can start defining and modernizing the faith in the future. After all, if taken literally, Christianity is anti-homosexual, believes all Jews will either go to hell or be forced to convert, right? And, from what I have read, the Hebrew Bible is full of violence as well. And yet both Christianity and Judaism have evolved away from that somewhat. I recognize that Islam is a little tougher of a nut to crack, but not sure that it is not impossible.

#159 Abu Maven: Some good points to consider, and I appreciate them.

I also mentioned that Jesus uttered is some pretty militaristic things about "bringing the sword" and not peace. So my point was that perhaps it was the priests who have emphasized the "turn the other cheek" message above and beyond the more militaristic stuff that Jesus was supposed to have said.

How many total did Jesus put to the sword? Zilch. Most religions talk in vague terms, which can be interpreted in many ways. Taken in total, it's impossible to take Jesus' message as a militarist one, though not as pacific as has been emphasized. Remember who his Father is, and it ain't Santa Claus wearing a different hat.

As for "was supposed to have said," it has to be kept in mind that this concept does not exist in the minds of believers. Same goes for the other major religious figures. If that's the case, what stays in the religion, what goes? Who decides but the individual man? And if man makes that decision for himself, what place or point is there for a god?

I fully consider myself to be a Jew, even though I don't believe in God, let alone the specific teachings of Judaism.

That's fine. Well, it's not my place to say if it's fine or not, but it's something I can concur with. But this is because being Jewish is passed on by the blood, it isn't just a religion. Thus it's quite possible to be a Jewish Athiest or agnostic. It is not possible to be a Muslim or Christian one, because these are purely faiths to be willingly adopted. Some people falsely call Islam and Christianity "races," and I'm sure you see the folly of that. More widespread is the same deceit that the two are ethnicities. It does make sense to say that someone is in a Muslim country or has a Muslim heritage, but this is not the same as being Muslim. When you know people that call themselves Muslim, but don't believe in the teachings of their faith, we're nearing the point of linguistic collapse. When I said "nearing" I meant "acre," and when I said "point" I meant "Hi-def television." You may want to explain why the two of us aren't Muslims since, like your examples, we too don't believe in or follow the Koran.

Christianity is anti-homosexual, believes all Jews will either go to hell or be forced to convert, right?

The first part is incorrect. Christianity is against homosexual acts. The second part there are varying schools of thought on, the one I was brought up in saying that Jews are God's Chosen, and have their own covenants and form of worship to follow. But even were this not the case, it doesn't matter compared to how Islam deals with this. Christianity teaches that everyone (Jews included) are free to make their own choices without coercion. There is no forced conversion. When I eat a pot-roast or a ham sandwich, it isn't meant as an insult or challenge to Hindus and Jews. It's just a different faith, and they likewise respect my choice to follow my own peaceful path and answer for it personally. Islam, from its core on out forces hatred, persecution, forced conversion and death to be applied to the non-believer.

The Old Testament does have plenty of violence, but there are no standing orders to war with other faiths, tribes or nations. Thus religious Jews can and have peacefully co-existed with all who wish peace with them for millenia. As for how it has changed to get away from some of the stricter prescriptions and proscriptions, that's a topic I hopefully will find time to explore in the future. Christianity, of course, rewrote the rules without discarding them.

But most of this can easily be explained by my questioning that you didn't get around to answering:

How dangerous an ideology was put forth in "Mein Kampf?" If I find a person who buys into it, yet hasn't murdered a Jew yet, will you use this to justify the ideology as benign and open to many peaceful interpretations? Or will you say it is dangerous and vile at its core, no matter what?

#143 David 'Parisian Insider'-almost none, I'm sorry to say. I've met one person like me, coincidentally also a Palestinian muslim. It seems to reject Islamic supremacism you have to reject Islam itself, there's no conception of anything but a umma:dhimmi relationship between Islam and Christianity and Judaism, the only other religions that Islam will nominally recognize. Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, whatnot: it's in the Koran. Convert or die.

Model,

Thanks for the response. I agree with much of what you say, but still think people are entitled -- and in fact should be encouraged -- to define themselves as "Muslim" without subscribing to everything that may or may not be in the Koran. One of my Muslim friends says she considers herself "culturally Muslim," and that her parents are the same way. In other words, they enjoy hanging out with other Muslims, though they don't attend mosque or pray regularly.

As far as am concerned, hey, that's great. If American society continues to evolve such that the term "Muslim" does not necessarily mean jihadist who wants to conquer the Dar al Harb, but instead includes people who consider themselves "culturally Muslim", then that's good news for all of us. If the peaceful Muslims who I know are allowed to "count" as Muslim, and thus be a "voice" of the Muslim community, then we are on the road to progress and perhaps debate, self-questioning and self-doubt within the Muslim community. I think that is what Pipes' project is all about. If we don't permit that, then we are stuck with CAIR and its ilk as the only "Muslim voice." Not good.

As to the Mein Kampf stuff, I think you are again begging the question. You are implicitly defining as "Muslim" only those who buy into the ideology. Agreed, from what I know, there should be no apologizing for some of the dangerous stuff in the Koran. That said, I'd rather count as "Muslims" the many people -- like Irshad Manji -- who do not buy into it.

#161 evariste
I think that you have put your finger on the main problem for kafirs in relation to Islam: the best Jews and Christians can hope for under Islamic rule is dhimmitude, and for those not considered people-of-the-book, the choice is just convert or die.

This gives rise to the hope among kafirs that Islam will take a step in one direction or another; but it is not clear what is the step that will bring tolerance.

I see that Abu Maven and Model4 are discussing whether and how Islam might be fixed.

Here is an article by Daniel Pipes, dated less than a week ago, called Fixing Islam
[Link: www.danielpipes.org...]

It starts with a book review of the small book
Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies by Cheryl Benard,
available in full at RAND's Web site.

Pipes says that Ms. Benard divides Muslims into four groups: Fundamentalists, Traditionalists, Modernists, and Secularists.

Which of these groups is most suitable to ally with? Modernists, says Ms. Benard, are "most congenial to the values and the spirit of modern democratic society." Fundamentalists are the enemy, for they "oppose us and we oppose them." Traditionalists have potentially useful democratic elements but generally share too much with the fundamentalists to be relied upon. Secularists are too often anti-Western to fix Islam.

However, Pipes doesn't hold out much hope of anything beneficial coming out of the modernist movement within Islam.

doubting only her enthusiasm for Muslim modernists, a group that through two centuries of effort has failed to help reconcile Islam with current realities. H.A.R. Gibb, the great orientalist, condemned modernist thinking in 1947 as mired in "intellectual confusions and paralyzing romanticism" Writing in 1983, I dismissed modernism as "a tired movement, locked in place by the unsoundness of its premises and arguments." Nothing has changed for the better since then.

Instead of modernists, I propose mainstream secularists as the forward looking Muslims who uniquesly can wrench their co-religionists out of their current slough of despair and radicalism. Secularists start with the proven premise of disentangling religion from politics; not only has this served the Western world well, but it has also worked in Turkey, the Muslim success story of our time.

Only when Muslims turn to secularism will this terrible era of their history come to an end.

Notice that Pipes is putting his hope not in all Muslim secularists, but in those he calls "mainstream" secularists. Here is the difference.

Secularists again split into two. The mainstream (like Ataturkists in Turkey) respects religion as a private affair but permits it no role in the public arena. Radicals (like communists) see religion as bogus and reject it entirely.

In other words, the hope is from those Muslims, like the followers of Kemal Ataturk who founded modern Turkey, who respect religion as a private affair but do not permit it a role in the public arena, and who are not communists or radicals or atheists or anti-Western according to Pipes.

This agrees with one item in Ms. Benard's program: support secularists on a case-by-case basis.

Not all secularists; just some secularists. They both agree on this.

Both Pipes and Benard agree on these program items, in opposition to both fundamentalism and traditionalism:

Delegitimize the immorality and hypocrisy of fundamentalists. Encourage investigative reporting into the corruption of their leaders. Criticize the flaws of traditionalism, especially its promoting backwardness.

As to the disputes between fundamentalists and traditionalists, both Pipes and Benard agree on what to do:
Back the traditionalists tactically against the fundamentalists. Consistently oppose the fundamentalists.

And both Pipes and Benard agree on this aspect of the program:
Assertively promote the values of Western democratic modernity. Encourage secular civic and cultural institutions. Focus on the next generation. Provide aid to states, groups, and individuals with the right attitudes.

This is a proposed grand enterprise of Western civilization at this time: fixing Islam. Or rather, encouraging Islam to fix itself, with some non-neutrality by us as concerned kafirs.

Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. It's a gamble I think.

re #163, here is the link to the RAND publication, by RAND's Cheryl Benard, available on-line as a pdf document, that Pipes reviewed

[Link: www.rand.org...]

Abu Maven and Model4
I think that the more relevant question of our time is not whether Islam is good or bad, or violent or non-violent -- not, as Charles Krauthammer says, futilely trying to get at the essence of an abstraction, and not as Pipes says by digging into the Koran to characterize Islam for all people for all time -- but what to do about the present situation.

Understanding what the Koran says, and how people are interpreting it, can be a means to arriving at a strategy, but the important thing is our needed strategy not the study of the Koran and Hadiths and the interpretations past and present. What do we do now is the real question?

The items in Ms. Benard's book are a proposal to consider (see #163 for Pipes' summary, and #164 for the full RAND publication by Benard) for what to do about fixing Islam.

#165 EE: Unfortunately there's the very real risk the approach is just a bandaid. You can lock a junkie up for a few days and he won't shoot up. You can threaten the alcoholic with the loss of his job or marriage, and he'll swear up and down he's a changed man. But turn him loose and watch him revert to form. Religions are constantly evaluated and tested against their sources of legitimacy, which means in ten years or one hundred we'll see someone challenging the current authority based on the words of the Koran itself. Same as happens with other religions.

A temporary attitudinal adjustment of the flock won't address the underlying issues, and considering the numbers and spread of Muslims ought to be factored in. Everyone could feel safer if a mechanism for reform surfaces during the current period of crisis. This might save us from a following one with direr consequences.

Hmmm, although a temporary softening of the practice of the faith could conceivably create a climate more benificial for a lasting reform mechanism to be discovered and widely adopted. I just think it more likely for the reform to come from desperation and necessity than a period of moderation and peace.

while there are many Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, many more who define themselves as Christian choose to ignore parts of it and hold with a non-literal interpretation, at least in everyday life; for example, to discount, for practical purposes at least, that the Earth is immovable, or that the world was created in 7 days.

Why shouldn't we encourage such non-literalism in Islam, and why is it impossible to sustain?

(it kind of makes me glad to be a Hindu, tongue in cheek of course. too many conflicting accounts to have any one, true, book that causes inconvenient problems later on.)

doomer-

Why shouldn't we encourage such non-literalism in Islam, and why is it impossible to sustain?

We should encourage it (some people like Irshad Manji and Abdul Hadi Palazzi are taking that ball and running quite a ways with it). The problem is that part of Islam's claim of legitimacy is that its prescriptions are supposed to just be repeats of the original Bible and Torah, which are supposed to have been corrupted by the Jews over time. The Koran, on the other hand, is supposedly unchanged, and unchangeable. That is why 99% of muslims will always consider Irshad Manji and the like apostates, no matter how much they insist they are muslims.
Even non-Islamist muslims are Islamic supersessionists.

which are supposed to have been corrupted by the Jews over time.

[and on purpose, which is evidence to muslims of Jews' evil nature-they dared tamper with Allah's word!]
There's a special word for the action of people who try to reinterpret the Koran: "bid'a". It means innovation, and it's one of those sins that are considered "irtidad", or apostacy, and justification for the death penalty, if you do not renounce your statements.

I give them 50 shekels ($11), and I feel so sorry because I can’t give them more,”

The Palestinian currency is also called the Shekel?
No. So is this an Israeli arab? Arafat never thought to set up their own currency? Think about it. He could put pictures of his warrrior waifs on the back, his mug on the front. He could back it with gold, and then whenever an LLL or other supporter keeps one as a talisman/fetish etc. it increases the relative value. ( By keeping it outta circulation.) Or is that just with stamps?

Gee, what was the ancient Palestinian currency called,
oh yeah, ....