Digg terrorism

Tom Friedman says the State Department should produce an annual War of Ideas Report that would put the harsh glare of attention on those who use their words to incite terrorism, those who make excuses for terrorism, and those who bravely oppose it.

A fine idea. But I don’t think the State Department is who should do this.

Bloggers should. News organizations should follow. And I’d be delighted to see religious leaders join in.

This seems like a fine project for Global Voices or such a group.

Why not create the Digg of terrorism: We all get to nominate examples in each of Friedman’s categories and we all get to vote them up to the home page.

We all link to the worst of the worst to turn the spotlight on it.

Those who can volunteer to translate the offending material.

We convince news organizations to get RSS feeds of terrorism Diggs and report on those who are inciting and supporting the terrorists.

We pepper those associated with these inciters and excusers — their governments, their religious leaders, their media outlets — with protests: The whole world is watching.

The point is not to stop the speech. The point is to expose the speakers. And why rely on a government body, especially the U.S. State Department, to do this. Rely instead on the civilized citizens of the world.

Why, it even comes with cute slogans suitable for T-shirts: Digg out terrorism! Digg terrorism a grave! Digg dirt!

: Friedman preaches a wonderful sermon in that column:

Sunlight is more important than you think. Those who spread hate do not like to be exposed, noted Yigal Carmon, the founder of Memri, which monitors the Arab-Muslim media. The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or explain them.

“Whenever they are exposed, they react the next day,” Mr. Carmon said. “No one wants to be exposed in the West as a preacher of hate.”

We also need to spotlight the “excuse makers,” the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed….

Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the “truth tellers.” Every week some courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers’ words also need to be disseminated globally.

Digg it.

Digg terrorism

Digg terrorism

: Tom Friedman says the State Department should produce an annual War of Ideas Report that would put the harsh glare of attention on those who use their words to incite terrorism, those who make excuses for terrorism, and those who bravely oppose it.

A fine idea. But I don’t think the State Department is who should do this.

Bloggers should. News organizations should follow. And I’d be delighted to see religious leaders join in.

This seems like a fine project for Global Voices or such a group.

Why not create the Digg of terrorism: We all get to nominate examples in each of Friedman’s categories and we all get to vote them up to the home page.

We all link to the worst of the worst to turn the spotlight on it.

Those who can volunteer to translate the offending material.

We convince news organizations to get RSS feeds of terrorism Diggs and report on those who are inciting and supporting the terrorists.

We pepper those associated with these inciters and excusers — their governments, their religious leaders, their media outlets — with protests: The whole world is watching.

The point is not to stop the speech. The point is to expose the speakers. And why rely on a government body, especially the U.S. State Department, to do this. Rely instead on the civilized citizens of the world.

Why, it even comes with cute slogans suitable for T-shirts: Digg out terrorism! Digg terrorism a grave! Digg dirt!

: Friedman preaches a wonderful sermon in that column:

Sunlight is more important than you think. Those who spread hate do not like to be exposed, noted Yigal Carmon, the founder of Memri, which monitors the Arab-Muslim media. The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or explain them.

“Whenever they are exposed, they react the next day,” Mr. Carmon said. “No one wants to be exposed in the West as a preacher of hate.”

We also need to spotlight the “excuse makers,” the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed….

Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the “truth tellers.” Every week some courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers’ words also need to be disseminated globally.

Digg it.

  • anne

    LGF has been shining a light on these words of hate from mosques throughout the world for a couple of years now.
    Of course to some people that makes it a hate site — in a completely illogical way.

  • Mike

    You’re not talking about publishing a list, are you?
    Would you vote the top 100 offenders onto the home page?

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Mike:
    Touche.
    I was actually thinking I should make a list of the 100 People Who Make America Great. ;-)
    Sorry, but Bernie’s not making my list…..

  • David

    Best post in quite a while. By the way, the young man who treated the assasin that shot him would make my list.

  • tonynoboloney

    Jeff, Great idea!! We could start with a few frequent apologist posters at this site.

  • penny

    Agreed, Jeff. I suggest adding to Bernie Goldberg’s 100 list as most of the dopes on it “use their words to excuse terrorists”.
    Amen to that, tonynoboloney. That swarming threesome has ruined every comment thread with their hackneyed apologist dribble.

  • owl

    Yes. Also it is hard to discuss this subject without mentioning LGF, who has been doing this job almost solo. I see him labeled a hate spreader. So be prepared if anyone dares.
    Ignoring your jab at Bernie, this was a great post Jeff. Shine a light on it.

  • Franky

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/
    “New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank — both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States — have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.”
    Would the Saudi Arabian government and this Israeli think tank also qualify as “excuse makers”?
    Freidman et al want to bury the causes of terrorism because they know they were warned that terrorism would grow as a result of the invasion of Iraq but chose to ignore the warnings.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Refusing to demonize the coreligionists of our enemy makes us apologists for terror, eh?
    You guys are probably really good at playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Anne,
    Ah, yes, LGF–where they celebrated the death of a human rights activist (Rachel Corrie) by dubbing her “St. Pancake” and posting hate-filled diatribes towards her and other evil peacemongers.
    Yeah those guys are real humanitarians…

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Oh, and about Memri.
    Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

  • penny

    Hilarious. The apologist swarm descends on cue.
    Another comment thread shot to hell with the same old cast of characters.
    Too funny.

  • billg

    The cause of terrorism, Franky, is the existence of perverted killers willing to commit acts of terror. If a political grievance was enough to cause people to become terrorists, most of us would be terrorists. The only reason to “understand” the alleged causes of terrorism is to help find and eliminate terrorists.
    Even without terrorism, the goals of Bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists are completely unacceptable. No one has a right to stand by idly and allow these medieval thugs to establish even more despotic anti-human theocratic regimes. We have too many already: Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. When some malevolent Islamic thugocrat whines about how the West is propping up Arab dictatorships, just remember that the kind of democracy he wants was perfected by the Taliban. If those bastards are so worried about Arab democracy, why aren’t they fighting for it in Cairo or Riyadh or Tripoli or Damascus instead of suckering teenagers into blowing themselves up in Baghdad and Israel?
    Either you’re for democracy or you’re not, Franky. If you’re for it, there’s no future in trying to understand and placate people who want us dead. If you really do want to placate them, then you’re on their side.

  • Angelos

    I nominate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) for suggesting we bomb Mecca.
    That should keep our troops and our civilians overseas nice and safe.

  • Eileen

    Ditto, Penny. The ‘others’ should be arriving shortly.
    Great idea, Jeff. Include photographs or tapes, last known addresses, like underneath rock number 12, cave number 15, etc.
    Here are two great sites which underscore that Islamofascism is merely ‘all about Iraq’:
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
    http://www.mapreport.com

  • Gunther

    An enemies list. What a great idea! There’s nothing that says “democracy” and “freedom” like a carefully maintained list of people who’s opinions and thoughts are undesireable.

  • Eileen

    Regarding garnering support from ‘moderate Islam’, this poster from LGF says it best:
    “I wish some world leader (Bush or Blair) had the guts to say, “The big black rock you worship gets turned into dust in one week unless we are handed Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, and the four remaining suspects from the London bombings. Any more funny stuff like these bombings and we’ll take that as a refusal of our terms and conditions, and move on to what we can blow up in Medina. The clock starts now.”

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    (And the irony of promoting hate-filled websites as an antidote to hatemongering sails right over poor Eileen’s head!)
    While we’re at it, can we get the last known address for the authors of Thereligionofpeace.com?
    One of our future ideas for this site is to delve into Islam itself and ask whether the violence we see today is rooted in the history of the religion or its interpretation. Most of the academics who engage in this, and there are not many, encounter enormous intimidation from the Islamic community and feel it quite necessary to use pseudonyms for their own safety. With that in mind, we are mildly determined to remain anonymous for the time being.
    Oops. Maybe not. I guess what’s good for the gander isn’t necessarily good for the goose as well…

  • Eileen

    Yeah, Jersey, I know ‘first hand’ about “encountering enormous intimidation”. Seems to be working, eh? :)

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Eileen,
    Huh?

  • billg

    People who want to lay responsibility for terror at the feet of its victims — terror’s apologists — need to explain why the price of tolerating their alleged beliefs is an equal toleration of their actions?
    What someone says or thinks or believes is none of my business. I really don’t care. But their actions are very much my business, regardless of their claimed motivation. A murderer who wraps hmself in the cloakings of his professed faith is no less a murderer. The salient point, the only point, is his existence as a murderer. What he says he believes is not worth a second’s thought.
    (In truth, terror’s apologists in the West are simply allowing their naivete to be played and jerked around by the killers. They can recognize someone who, like them, hates the West when they see them.)

  • Skate

    Penny wrote, “Agreed, Jeff. I suggest adding to Bernie Goldberg’s 100 list as most of the dopes on it “use their words to excuse terrorists”
    Penny, I don’t think you get Jeff’s position on Goldberg’s list, which is really a fully partisan list of 100 people Goldberg disagrees with.

  • http://moveleft.com Eric Jaffa

    George W. Bush said in his second inauguration speech that we need to spread freedom to remove the root causes of terrorism.
    Is Bush one of the excuse-makers?
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.transcript/
    “We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny — prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder — violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders and raise a mortal threat.
    There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.”

  • Ray in Virginia

    LGF was and is still a great source of stories of “Muslims Behaving Badly and the People who Apologize For Them.” Charles always seems to be scouring the wire services and news reports from around the world for this sort of thing. Nobody else that I’ve heard of or browsed does this as consistantly or as often as he does, to this day.
    Still, LGF has lost me a bit in some ways. I’m not ready to bail on Charles yet, but it does feel like the year or so before the election that he switched from cataloging exactly what Jeff is talking about as his primary blog theme to a more political commentary and mocking people he disagrees with. Nothing wrong with that (gotta love free speech), but sometimes when the domestic political snarkiness reaches high levels I miss the old LGF.
    As for the argument about Iraq/Afganistan causing terrorism, I find myself always going back to some vague feeling about a woman being raped and people saying it was because she wore a tight sweater. At the core I find it to the the same argument and equally repellant.

  • Eileen

    Yes, Ray, except in this case she [also] got gang raped by a swarm because her Cousin wore a tight sweater.

  • Skate

    “Hilarious. The apologist swarm descends on cue.
    Another comment thread shot to hell with the same old cast of characters.”
    I’d love to see a debate on the merits here. Your post is self referentially ironic since you are part of the “same old cast of charaters.”
    The idea of a exposing terrorist supporters is an interesting and appealing one. The JDL has been effective in exposing Nazi sympathizers, but there is sometimes some controversy to their methods.
    I think the comment forums here at BuzzMachine have shown us the peril of the idea of exposing terrorists with a dedicated website: it instantly turns into a WOT version of the communist black lists. Already, Penny has proposed to put Bernie Goldberg’s right wing smear list on such a website, showing that the temptation to turn such a tool into a partisan political weapon is unavoidable.
    Just on these forums, a number of frequent posters have called various other posters “terrorists” without reason now that terrorism is the new Red Scare.
    There are real terrorist advocates and radical priests who advocate murder who deserve to be exposed, but I think the tone of this thread shows that a website to “expose terrorists” is likely to be misused by an unthinking “angry mob” with a lynching mentality. Just watch what certain right wing posters say on this thread and judge for yourself.

  • http://oodja.blogpost.com Jersey Exile

    Ray and Eileen,
    A fairly offensive analogy for two countries where women’s rights are now eroding daily.

  • penny

    There’s nothing that says “democracy” and “freedom” like a carefully maintained list of people who’s opinions and thoughts are undesireable.
    Hey, Gunther, there is nothing inherently wrong with lists. No one is proposing “hit”(as in Mafia) lists, for God’s sakes. If you can list the 100 brightest mind’s in American why can’t you list the 100 stupidest? If Bush can be Hitler, why can’t Michael Moore be Krusty the Clown?
    Eileen, if you agree that a certain swarm shoots the hell out of comment threads for sport, why do you keep engaging the usual suspects? I appreciate the things you write, but I don’t get it?

  • Tom Gwynn

    LGF and the phrase “a great source” do not belong in the same sentence, unless that sentence is “LGF is a great source of misinformation, outright lies, and overt racism.”

  • Skate

    Penny wrote, “Hey, Gunther, there is nothing inherently wrong with lists.’”
    Your idea of using Bernie Goldberg’s political hit list as a list of terrorist supporters shows us the danger of enemies lists. Even in the serious, life and death issue of terrorism you could not resist the temptation to use a list of “terrorism supporters” as way to get back at your political enemies. That is what is wrong with this particular list.

  • Skate

    Eilleen quoted an endorsed “”I wish some world leader (Bush or Blair) had the guts to say, “The big black rock you worship gets turned into dust in one week unless we are handed Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, and the four remaining suspects from the London bombings. Any more funny stuff like these bombings and we’ll take that as a refusal of our terms and conditions, and move on to what we can blow up in Medina. The clock starts now.”
    If anything is likely to make terrorism worse is is threatening to blow up holy sites. Your endorsement of this idea would seem to show that you aren’t interested so much in preventing terrorism has in having a self righteous stance.
    Friedman proposed “an annual War of Ideas Report that would put the harsh glare of attention on those who use their words to incite terrorism.” Ironically, the proposal to blow up a holly site that you endorsed is guaranteed to incense and incite terrorists. Its not like Moderate Muslims are going to say, “Oh, now that you are threatening our most holy sites well roll over and do what you want.’ Your endorsement easily qualifies to get you on the list of people inciting terrorism

  • kat

    We could call the list a fatwa and thus make it politically correct.

  • Snoopy

    How anyone can support or agree with bombing religious sites is barbaric. All of you who agree with this stance are just as barbaric and mentally simplistic as terrorists. Why don’t you expose and talk about the reason why this is happening to us? It’s about our policies in support of Israel. You would think that people (in this case Jews) would learn about being opressed and not treat Palestinians the same way. Talk about how settlers demonize Arabs…talk about ow Jews demonize Arabs.
    Wake up!!!
    Stop demonizing Muslims and start learning about the policies that the American (my country) supports–to the point as to sacrifice our youth.
    For who? Learn about how Great Britian supports these same policies.
    I am not condoning blowing yourself up. But I am not naive enough to realize that something must be wrong when someone is willing to throw rocks at tanks and blow themselves up. Don’t blame the victim…blame the situation and the policies that breed this.

  • Dak

    Billg….If a political grievance was enough to cause people to become terrorists, most of us would be terrorists.
    PRICELESS!!!!!!!

  • Eileen

    So I suppose we should adopt all the apologists’ ‘suggestions’ for how to make nice, OBEY all terrorist fatwahs and clerical deadlines, wait to get blown up or dhimmitized; i.e., capitulate all the way to the Caliphate.
    I’m sure that would work really well in the minds of some.
    The terrorists can issue threats and ACT ON THEM daily all over the world, but far be it for us to issue one of our own.
    The world is finally waking up to this grim reality: Islamofascists will NEVER be satisfied until all the Joos are dead and the caliphate is in place throughout the world.
    The world isn’t going to allow that to happen.

  • Kat

    Yes, Snoopy, it’s all about policy–muslims want to dictate the policies of all countries worldwide. If we do what they demand, allow sharia, kill all the Jews, Arabize Darfur and don’t call it genocide, same in Thailand–just a bit of ethnic cleansing-
    http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=THAI.HTM
    -and the terrorists will quit
    gutblowing–everything rosy,comfy and cozy as long as policy is determined by muslims. Screw that!! What breeds gutblowers is ISLAM!! Islam also breeds poverty, illiteracy, slavery, intolerance, etc.

  • Dak

    talk about the reason why this is happening to us? It’s about our policies in support of Israel.
    and what bred all this?
    http://savedbygraceministries.injesus.com/Groups/ViewMessage.cfm?MessageId=3B006ZER&UCD=60h
    (all of the following is excerpted from the above site)
    “In the 20th century alone:
    1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.
    2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.
    3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.
    4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.
    5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.
    6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.
    7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world’s 57 Islamic nations.
    8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.
    9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.
    10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.
    11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia’s expense.
    12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.
    13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.
    14. During Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.
    Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?
    Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: “The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism.”
    It took many years of in-depth historical study and a few “working vacations” to the Middle East before I realized a simple and alarming fact. When Christians murder or do violence on behalf of their religion they do so in violation of the precepts of their faith; when Moslems do so they are acting in complete accordance with the precepts of their faith. After years of preaching tolerance toward Islam, I was forced to confront yet another painful truth. it is suicidal behavior to extend tolerance toward those who refuse to extend the same towards you. It is perhaps the strangest manifestation of American political life that we who call ourselves liberals can embrace a cowardly and morally bankrupt philosophy of cultural relativism that produces the following result; that we end up supporting those who are sworn to destroy every freedom and every real and time-tested principle that we hold dear. Having had to squarely face the reality of the hate, oppressiveness, blindness, filth, hypocrisy and poverty, both physical and spiritual, that pervades the lands where Islam reigns, I can come to no other conclusion but this: Islam is deadly poison to any progressive and free society. The two cannot coexist within the same space. We need to enforce a physical separation between ourselves and Islam or else reconcile the West to a fight to the death.”

  • Franky

    Is it even surprising these days that a chance to compile lists of other posters on buzzmachine is the wingnuts first reaction to Friedman’s proposal?
    Not serious people.
    billg,
    “The cause of terrorism, Franky, is the existence of perverted killers willing to commit acts of terror. If a political grievance was enough to cause people to become terrorists, most of us would be terrorists.”
    Undoubtedly these are perverted killers, but our ability to root them out is that much harder when we continue to antagonise the muslim world that we will need to help us. By reducing it to simply “perverted killers” it makes no reference to the fact that our actions in Iraq are creating new killers.
    A betting man would say that Osama is on the Afghani/Pakistani border – yet we can’t get any help from the locals because they’re convinced that we have declared a war on islam. They got that idea through the pointless war in Iraq, the abuses in Abu Ghraid (and 3…2…1 cue winger outrage of the reporting of Abu Ghraid rather than condemnation of those who committed the torture), among others. That we don’t even have the support of much of the rest of the west hardly improves our hand.

  • HA

    Jeff,
    As others already pointed out, LGF has been doing this for years. Unfortunately, as an independent white American blogger, Charles Johnson is predictably demonized as a racist by apologists for Islamic terrorism like Jersey Exile.
    However, there are others who are no so easily dismissed. Check out Faith Freedom International which is run by ex-muslim south Asians:
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/

  • Dak

    THE SWORD
    OF
    MILITANT ISLAM
    http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

  • Scot

    Who needs a State Department when you have BLOGGERS? In fact who needs journalism or even government spokespeople?
    BLOGGERS are going to set the record straight and then take out the terrorists.
    You go man.

  • penny

    A thoughtful summation, DAK.
    Islam is deadly poison to any progressive and free society.
    An perfect example of Islam just being Islam. These kids aren’t being executed by civil courts. Their religion put them to death.
    Islam has bloody borders”…..Bernard Lewis

  • Franky

    The funny thing about LGF is it is exactly the same type of site that Memri and LGF want to draw attention to but in Arabic. I don’t know if Charles is racist and nor do I particularly care – but he certainly runs a website where unashamed racists feel at home to regularly post.
    I wonder if some moron in Saudi Arabia translates LGF in to Arabic and then goes on forums to say this is how all in the west talk about muslims?

  • Skate

    Dak linked to “THE SWORD OF MILITANT ISLAM” which says, among other things, that Islam “It is the most violent and intolerant faith that has ever been presented to mankind! ”
    Dak, are you endorsing this hate site? That little bit of false hyperbole is just one example of what is on that site.
    I don’t endorse Islam, but the site you linked to is a bigoted hate site. This just emphasizes the problems with the idea that Jeff is proposing. I think it would be great to translate and expose extremist hate sites and expose them to the light of day. But how do we also filter out the anti-Islamic sites like the one you linked to? Or do you endorse the views of that site, Dak?

  • Dak

    Franky says: our ability to root them out is that much harder when we continue to antagonise the muslim world that we will need to help us. By reducing it to simply “perverted killers” it makes no reference to the fact that our actions in Iraq are creating new killers.
    TOTAL BS
    There will never be significant Muslim help for us. Was there any “Muslim help” any of those in the list of 20 above?
    Those who do help are not considered good Muslims by Islam.
    It is foolish to worry about offending your enemy who is trying to kill you.
    It is my OPINION, Skate and a few other apologetics here have been engaged practically 24/7 to try and influence public opinion. Constantly harping on a single theme…that it is our involvement in Iraq that is causing the atrocities committed by the terrorists. Plants? Ultimate aim to create citizen pressure for withdrawal..something terrorists would certainly appreciate.
    It’s not like Islamics have always been peaceful except for the last few years since we were in Iraq.
    Given the exreme and endless violence of Islamic history, that premise is preposterous!

  • billg

    A reminder for those who argue that “our” support for Israel breeds terrorsim:
    The only people who have a legitimate gripe about Israel are the Palestinians who were booted out. If someone kicks you out of your house — I’m speaking in a very literal sense here, not at all metaphorically — and moves in, you’ve got a reason to be angry. Ignore all the religious mumbo-jumbo. If someone did that that you, you’d be mad, too.
    No other Arabs, no other Muslims, have a legitimate stake in that game. Muslim Arabs in Algeria, for example, going off to kill Europeans and Americans is no more justified than it would be for Catholic Anglo-Saxons in Iowa going to Algeria and planting bombs because the Moors invaded Spain several centuries ago.
    Arabs have spent the last 60 years allowing themselves to be suckered by corrupt and indifferent politicans who have learned how to play the Palestinian card to keep their repressive con games going for another day. That, not Western support, is what props up Arab dictators.
    And it hasn’t done the Palestinians a damned bit of good. Just ask one.

  • Kat

    Skate–do you mean to say you endorse militant islam?? Dak linked to a site about MILITANT ISLAM not moderate islam. Militant islam is at war with the world and need to be exposed for what they are–genocidal imperialists.

  • Skate

    Dak wrote, “It is foolish to worry about offending your enemy who is trying to kill you.”
    It is more foolish to make more enemies of people who outnumber you. We are not at war with all of Islam, though you would have us be.
    Oh, and thank for reminding me! This post, and all of my posts, represent my opinion.

  • kat

    All Charles does is link to muslim atrocities of the day. Is that racist or informative?? He isn’t running some leftist be kind to terrorists blog.
    Faramin has one of those.

  • Dak

    Are they giving “facts” that are not true, Skate?
    Or are they presenting a collection of ugly happenings that are true? If what they relate is true, it is not the site that is hateful.

  • kat

    Since when do muslims outnumber us?? That will only happen if we allow the ethnic cleansing and genocide that allah commands.

  • Franky

    “There will never be significant Muslim help for us. Was there any “Muslim help” any of those in the list of 20 above?
    Those who do help are not considered good Muslims by Islam”
    So Dak you too believe that we will be in Iraq for the rest of eternity – because you know, no muslims will ever help us (despite first gulf war utterly disproving that fallacy).

  • Skate

    Kat wrote, “Skate–do you mean to say you endorse militant islam?? Dak linked to a site about MILITANT ISLAM not moderate islam. ”
    Actually, no it isn’t. The site Dak linked to considers
    all of Islam to be militant. It is a hate site.
    Dak still hasn’t answered whether he endorses the “THE SWORD OF MILITANT ISLAM” hate website. Do you, Kat? You are defending it.
    Here is another choice quote from the site that I do not endorse “But one thing is for certain. Whoever wrote this sick collection of madness must have had his brain baking far too long in the hot desert sun of Arabia! The name “Mohammed means “Highly Praised” [or was he "Highly Crazed"]. “
    I don’t endorse Islam but I also don’t endorse crazed hate sites.
    This post represents my opinion.

  • Franky

    billg,
    Your comments on Palestine seem correct to me, esepcially how corrupt governments have used the issue to their benefit. But I would add one point that I think you’re missing: within Islam it is the duty of every muslim to support any other muslim people being attacked. This of course does not justify Egyptians sneaking in to Israel to murder civilians in the name of Palestine but does explain why the plight of the Palestinians (as was plight of Afghanis and Bosnian muslims) was so felt by muslims across the world – even non-arabs such as Indonesians will speak on the subject.
    So if this government was serious about destroying terrorism it would of demand a fair solution to the israel/palestine problem, a fair solution being 1967 borders. With that sore taken care of, Osama would find it a lot harder to recruit.

  • Skate

    Kat wrote, “Since when do muslims outnumber us?? That will only happen if we allow the ethnic cleansing and genocide that allah commands.”
    Hmm, I guess you didn’t go to the website that Dak and you are defending. It says,
    “1.4 BILLION Muslims in the World/280 Million Americans/5? Million Israelis Surrounded by 350 Million Arab Muslims!!!”
    Are you
    sure you want to piss the rest of them off? Doesn’t sound like a good military strategy to me.
    This post represents my opinion.

  • Kat

    Charles, for instance links to this. Is that what you call racist, exposing ourenemy for what they are–evil murderers?
    http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072205.html
    {What can we learn from all this?
    Jihadists hardly target particular countries for their ìunfairî foreign policies, since nations on five continents suffer jihadist attacks and thus all apparently must embrace an unfair foreign policy of some sort.
    Typical after the London bombing is the ubiquitous Muslim spokesman who when asked to condemn terrorism, starts out by deploring such killing, assuring that it has nothing to do with Islam, yet then ending by inserting the infamous ìbutî ó as he closes with references about the West Bank, Israel, and all sorts of mitigating factors. Almost no secular Middle Easterners or religious officials write or state flatly, ìIslamic terrorism is murder, pure and simple evil. End of story, no ifs or buts about it.î
    Second, thinking that the jihadists will target only Israel eventually leads to emboldened attacks on the United States. Assuming America is the only target assures terrorism against Europe. Civilizations will either hang separately or triumph over barbarism together. It is that simple ó and past time for Europe and the United States to rediscover their common heritage and shared aims in eradicating this plague of Islamic fascism.
    Third, Islamicists are selective in their attacks and hatred. So far global jihad avoids two billion Indians and Chinese, despite the fact that their countries are far tougher on Muslims than is the United States or Europe. In other words, the Islamicists target those whom they think they can intimidate and blackmail.
    Unfettered immigration, billions in cash grants to Arab autocracies, alliances of convenience with dictatorships, triangulation with Middle Eastern patrons of terror, blaming the Jews ó civilization has tried all that.}
    Excellent article!!
    Well, Skate, I don’t endorse militant muslims–so why don’t nice, moderate muslims issue a fatwa against the militants?

  • Dak

    A thoughtful summation, DAK.
    Thank you, Penny :-)…but that summary is not mine.
    I thought it was thoughtful too, which is why I quoted it. (Just want to set the record straight, and give credit where due)
    As mentioned, that entire post was excerpted, (even the end summary)

  • Skate

    Dak wrote, “Are they giving “facts” that are not true, Skate?
    Or are they presenting a collection of ugly happenings that are true? If what they relate is true, it is not the site that is hateful.”
    Well, Dak, here is one of the so-called “true” facts on the website, the one I already quoted and you ignored when you made your post,
    “It is the most violent and intolerant faith that has ever been presented to mankind! ”
    Really, Dak, never in the history of the world has their been a more violent and intolerant faith? BS.
    I don’t endorse Islam, but hate sites don’t help the WOT, they only fan the flames higher and higher–like you are doing.
    This post represents my opinion.

  • kat

    Yes, but islam is also at war with infidels worldwide–billions of them. Islam’s war is not with only America–America is just the biggest block to a world caliphate. Muslims make no secret that they want their shit flag flying on Pennsylvania Avenue and Downing Street. Poor bastards don’t realize we’ll be flying the stars and stripes over Mecca before that ever happens and islamism will be in the dust bin of history like all the other ‘isms’.

  • billg

    Franky,
    First, we’ve ticked off some Muslims because we retaliated for attacks on our soil. If some more are ticked off because we took out Saddam, too bad. If someone wants to characterize the removal of Saddam as a war on Islam, then they’re embracing Saddam as a legitimate part of Islamic culture. In my book, anyone who does that deserves to be warred against. (Of course, most of that polemical claptrap is coming from rather secular types who simply use it to manipulate more ignorant Muslims to do their dirty work. Or not so ignorant Westerners who constitute a fifth column in their own society.)
    Second, if we are, in fact, creating “new killers” in Iraq it is only because those killers, in acts of free will, decide to kill us. One might as well have argued that invading France in 1944 would only cause Hitler to kill more Jews. Iraq is full of tens of millions of people who are not trying to kill us. Therefore, it is false logic to assert a cause-and-effect link between our presence there and the nurturing of more terrorists. In any case, it makes no difference. People choose to become killers for their own reasons, and once that decision is made, they are enemies of civilized people and must be eliminated. Anyone who kills because we removed Saddam and are trying to bring democracy to Iraq has no legitimate grievance.
    Third, I don’t care if uninformed and bigoted peasants along the Afghan/Pakistani border think we’ve declared war on Islam. We haven’t, no more than warring on Hitler’s Germany was a war against Lutheranism or the war against fascist Japan was a war on Buddhism and Shintoism. We’ve declared war on people who declared war on us. Their alleged faith is immaterial. (Although the longer the great legitimate mass of Islams on this planet do little or nothing to convince the rest of the planet that they really don’t believe an attack on killers who happen to be Muslims is not, in fact, an attack on Islam, then the worse things will get.)

  • Skate

    Penny wrote, “Muslims make no secret that they want their shit flag flying on Pennsylvania Avenue and Downing Street. Poor bastards don’t realize we’ll be flying the stars and stripes over Mecca before that ever happens and islamism will be in the dust bin of history like all the other ‘isms’.”
    Your hate speaks for itself.
    This post represents my opinion.

  • penny

    Kat, I pose the same question to you that I did to Eileen that knowing that the same swarming apologist moonbats on cue and for sport ruin comment threads with their redundant innane dribble, why do you respond to them item for item?
    It’s so obvious they are game playing. The fact challenged mantras never change. They seek to control not participate. Anyone following Jeff’s site over time sees the pattern. Intelligent discussion deteriorates.
    I’m all for freedom of expression with people whose motives are genuine. But, this little coven isn’t genuine. And I’ve suspected that two of them are really one person as “they” eerily arrive in a pair and play tag team.

  • Dak

    within Islam it is the duty of every muslim to support any other muslim people being attacked.
    You’ve made my point!!! That is why jihadst from everywhere are entering into Iraq. Not because they are radicalized over our policies for Israel, but because they are doing jihad…they MUST do jihad, according to their religion.
    Wherever we fight terrorists, fight Muslim radicals, we will find jihadsts.
    My point why it is foolish to expect help from moderate Islam….and why they have been quieter than one can reasonably expect on these matters.
    The terrorists are Muslim, and it seems, Muslims are duty bound to help other Muslims (even terrorists)!

  • billg

    Franky,
    …within Islam it is the duty of every muslim to support any other muslim people being attacked.
    The same could be said about almost any religion. But, that precept is typically ignored in civilized cultures. When I lived in the Arab Middle East, I didn’t see anyone rushing out to help their Muslim brothers in Iraq. I didn’t see Hamas or Hizbollah terorists sneaking into Damascus to attack the keepers of Syria’s political prisoners. I didn’t see Muslim legions and Muslim money flowing in to ease the suffering of Palestinians in the camps on the edge of town. I’ve never seen a single Muslim go off to Saudi Arabia to combat that nation’s gross and barbaric oppression of Muslim women.
    This business about Muslims supporting Muslims is just a useful club used by Arab politicans and terrorists to beat on gullible and guilt-ridden Westerners.

  • Kat

    Skate–yes, when I hear mullahs speak of islamizing America, I hate them. Guilty as charged.
    However, I am not Penny. Just because you operate under several handles(you killed off poor chris for making a booboo)does not mean that I do. I write only under kat, unlike you who possesses several identities to help you fight for the terrorists.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Disney Nut

    Instead, How about a frank conversation about the root causes of terrorism and what we can do to solve them. Do that and the source of local support for the terrorists will dry up. Right now we’re just being reactionary and not addressing the reasons we’re beign attacked.

  • kat

    In other words, allow muslims to dictate foreign policies of all countries.

  • Franky

    billg,
    You’ve been very vocal about what rights we have to declare war on other people – yet you seem unwilling to look at it from how the rest of the world see it and what they think are justifications for delcaring war on us.
    We invaded another country that posed no threat to us, was not related to the war on terror – is it inconceivable to you that other people would see that as an act of empire? But I fear this will simply become a circular argument as you’ll simply claim you don’t care what they think – well you should because every threat we create is one more threat to us here.

  • Skate

    Penny wrote, “I’m all for freedom of expression with people whose motives are genuine. But, this little coven isn’t genuine. And I’ve suspected that two of them are really one person as “they” eerily arrive in a pair and play tag team.”
    Well, Penny, you convienienly give yourself and your friends a free pass. You are your own little coven, in fact so much so that I confuse you three sometimes. It seems your support for freedom of expression is limited to those views you like. You
    like Elieen, who calls people “terrorists” at the drop of a hat, as does Kat. And you call people who disagree with you a “Trolls” and tell them they should stop posting.
    It would appear that you want freedom to express your opinion and to be the arbiter of who shall be considered to have “genuine opinions.”
    Rather than spending time trying to supress speech you disagree with, why not try and spend some time making clear arguments in favor of your opinions? If you had valid points to make, that would work to support your position.
    Unlike you, I support your right to speech, even though I disagree with you. I even support Eileen and Kat’s right to free speech–of course it helps that their extremist views are rather obviously that!

  • Franky

    no, billg not every religion holds that tenet so centrally. The entire concept of jihad comes back to the defence of the religion from outside attack.
    That is why arabs travelled to Bosnia, to Afghanistan etc, sharing no similar language nor ethnicity but sharing the same religion.
    No one disputes that arabs should have solved their own problems, but the fact that it was muslim oppressing muslim would diminish the call to jihad.

  • Kat

    You say iraq was no threat. I disagree. I do not think we should wait for the next attack. Clinton did that and look what it got us–more terror.
    http://archives.warroom.com/abcnews-1999.mp3
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

  • Franky

    skate,
    As loath as I am to ask, for the sake of all of us don’t answer Penny. Penny repeatedly tried to provoke you (probably me as well) on this thread and was being ignored – even by the other wingnuts (she even highlighted the part that was meant to provoke, following the typical low IQ theory that if you highlight text it must be really really smart). She got exactly what she wanted when you replied.

  • Dak

    I don’t endorse Islam
    You spend 24/7 excusing the inexcusable. I knew nothing of Islam, and other than wanting the terrorism stopped, literally had no opinions on it when I first started reading the comments on this site. Then I started researching on Google for answers to your ridiculous assumptions that US policy is the reason Islam wants all infidels dead which I find they’ve wanted from before the time the US even existed – so much for blaming it on our policies.
    “There are many Muslims who believe that the idea that all other faiths have been ìabrogatedî and that the whole of mankind should be united under the banner of Islam must be dropped as a dangerous anachronism. But to the Islamist those Muslims who think like that are themselves regarded as lapsed, and deserving of death.”
    And..
    Thanks to some unpolitically correct sites, and reading some posters here, I learned a lot about this Islam and what I learned would make any sane person puke!
    This from a poster on another site: is it true Skate? If not, we need a web site to post the truth…all of it..good and bad, so we know what is true and what is not.:
    the only sin egregious enough to keep a muslim out of Paradise is the practice of polytheism and in Islam, polytheism includes Christianity because Islam considers the Holy Trinity to be three separate deities. Islam not only condones rape, polygamy, murder, genocide, slavery, torture, terrorism, lying, plundering and pillage, and thievery, IT DEMANDS THESE ATROCITIES. Bestiality, incest, and pedophilia aren’t compulsory, but are allowable and not considered sinful.
    Islam enslaves women but men are free to commit every perversion and sin known to man, as long as they play by the rules set forth by Islam. For every filthy, despicable, immoral act they engage in, there is a ritual and a prayer to the god of death and bloodlust to sanctify their heathen practices.
    UGH!
    As for the premise there were no terrorists in Iraq before we drew them there…another poster asked you…it made no difference you are like talking to a wall.
    “Skate–if there were no terrorists in Iraq how did over a million people die at the hands of thugs and terrrorists during Saddam’s reign? Do you consider the following terrorism? Obviously you sanction such deeds seeing as you are against the removal of your buddy, Saddam and terrorist thugs.
    The following were routine in Iraq under saddam:
    * Medical experimentation
    * Beatings
    * Crucifixion
    * Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
    * Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife
    * Spraying insecticides into a victim’s eyes
    * Branding with a hot iron
    * Committing rape while the victim’s spouse is forced to watch
    * Pouring boiling water into the victim’s rectum
    * Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
    * Extracting teeth with pliers
    * Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents
    And the terrorism went on……………….but this wasn’t terrorism and the victims deserved to be in those mass graves.”

    Is THIS what the jihadst flock to Iraq defend????????? Because the US got rid of the terrorist that pertrated these unspeakable horrors!!!!!??????

  • Eileen

    Wow, it didn’t take Penny long to out him/herself.
    Now that *is* hilarious. A coven! Yep, Kat and I are part of that evil Satan, the U.S.!!!
    From the site written by ex-Muslims provided by HA (an excellent collection), faithfreedom.org:
    “…For non-Muslims, self-preservation dictates that it is essential to become familiar with the actual teachings and example of Muhammad. Even if you donít know your own religion very well, or if you have no religion at all, each of us had better become knowledgeable of the philosophy and people bent on killing, converting, or enslaving us all. Without that armor of truth, our societies, cultures, and nations will eventually fall to Islamís methods and tactics. *NO ONE should listen to the taqiyya (misinformation) constantly issued by Islamic apologists and propagandists. Each of us needs to take personal responsibility to know and understand the enemy seeking our demise*….
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/VernonRichards50722.htm

  • Skate

    Franky wrote, “Penny repeatedly tried to provoke you (probably me as well) on this thread and was being ignored – even by the other wingnuts (she even highlighted the part that was meant to provoke, following the typical low IQ theory that if you highlight text it must be really really smart)”
    How dare you ask me that, Franky! You Troll!! Don’t ever address me again!!! Er, sorry, I must have been channeling ;-)
    I would hope that my post was reasoned and not what she was looking for…Sigh.

  • Skate

    Dak wrote, “Then I started researching on Google for answers to your ridiculous assumptions that US policy is the reason Islam wants all infidels dead ”
    Show me were I said that. I didn’t and you can’t. Try using quotes of things I have actually said rather than making things up. Then maybe we can have a debate on the issues and not on your preconceptions.
    “You spend 24/7 excusing the inexcusable”
    Again. Examples and quotes, please. No more making sh*t up.

  • Eileen

    And in aid of learning about Muhammad, here’s the challenge offered by the EX MUSLIM owner of faithfreedom.org:
    “I CHALLENGE Muslims
    I receive many mails from angry Muslims who sometimes beg me and sometimes order me to remove this site. None of that has any effect on me. I consider both pleading and bullying, the signs of psychopathology, a personality disorder affecting all the followers of Muhammad.
    If you disagree with my site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as bully or as victim, I invite you to disprove my charges against Muhammad and Islam. If you can show that what I say is unfounded I promise to remove this site not before confessing that I was wrong and Islam is a true religion. I will also pay
    $50,000 U.S. dollars
    to anyone who can disprove my charges and prove Islam is a true religion in an objective (not subjective) way. This is to thank you for showing me the right way. Hey, what is $50.000 dollars compared to being burned and tortured by a sadistic deity?
    The challenge is:
    Disprove my accusations against Muhammad.
    I accuse Muhammad of being:
    a rapist
    a pedophile (had sex with a child)
    an assassin
    a mass murderer
    a ruthless torturer
    a lecher
    a misogynist
    a narcissist
    a thief and plunderer
    a cult leader
    a mentally deranged (was paranoid, heard voices, hallucinated of seeing jinns, Satan and angels, used to think he had sex with his wives when he did not, suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies).”
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
    Clearly the web site’s still goin’ strong.

  • billg

    Franky,
    >>You’ve been very vocal about what rights we have to declare war on other people…
    No, I haven’t. I’ve argued that we have every right to declare war on anyone who wars against us. We’ve declared war on terrorists who happen to claim to be Muslims. If other Muslims have been suckered into believing that means we’ve also declared a war on Islam, they are tragically wrong. Equating a war on terrorists with a war on Islam is tantamount to declaring Islam is a religion of terror.
    But, look back to my statement that I care about people’s behavior, not their beliefs. If you want to kill me, you are my enemy. If you are sincere in your beliefs and those beliefs motivate you to want to kill me, you are still my enemy. Perhaps I should work harder to understand those beliefs but how, and why, would that motivate me to acquiesce to your compulsion to kill me?
    >>We invaded another country that posed no threat to us, was not related to the war on terror – is it inconceivable to you that other people would see that as an act of empire?
    I disagree that Saddam’s Iraq posed no threat to us and was unrelated to terror. Regimes like Saddam’s are the root cause of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terror. While Saddam may have posed no direct threat to us in 2001, he did so in the past and wanted to do so in the future. Along with his brother Arab tyrants, he certainly was responsible for aiding, abetting, and nurturing terrorists, and for creating a repressive and dead-end society that fertilizes the soil of terror. (And, he certainly did pose a direct threat to the people of Iraq. The West cannot continue to honestly profess adherence to modernity and democracy if we do nothing to lift the oppression and stop the killing that has characterized most Arab societies for decades. To turn our heads away from it, to argue that we should tend to our own problems, letting Arabs contend with their problems while we possess the means to assist them in eliminating their oppression is an act of simple, self-serving racism.)
    >>The entire concept of jihad comes back to the defence of the religion from outside attack.
    My point is that Muslims are just as hypocritical as the rest of us. Most of them no more follow the tenets of their faith on a day-to-day basis than do Christians in the West. The typical use of the concept of jihad has, for years, been simply as a cynical device to justify action undertaken for other reasons. To be precise, politicians and terrorists kill people and call it jihad.
    But, even if all Muslims were devoid of hypocrisy, even if legions of them honestly took up arms against the West in a jihad because they believed Islam was under attack, what difference would that make? Should we, then, kill ourselves to save them the trouble just because they are sincere?
    In point of fact, there is no war on Islam. If some Muslims perceive it that way, they are wrong. We should not put ourselves at greater risk because they’ve made a mistake.

  • Kat

    Yeah, but I think there’s a fatwa on the guy’s head.

  • Kat

    One of the things I saved when I started to educate myself after 911. Till then I truly believed in that islam is peace stuff. I went to university and was told it was all the Jews’ fault. Boy did I get a rude awakening when I bought a copy of a koran, which I, by the way, desecrated on the first anniversary of 911.
    {THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE
    It is very apparent that certain elements of the Islamic faith are hell-bent on dominating and usurping the areas in which they have settled, in total disregard to the sovereignty of those places and the feelings or wishes of the populations. The worst aspect of this action is that these groups seem to have no regard or respect for human life in their pursuit of their ambitions.
    The great lie propagated by Muslim spokesmen is that Islam is a peaceful religion. This could not be further from the truth. Of all the major religions of the world, Islam is the only one that promotes or condones the denigration and subjugation of women, severe physical mutilation for even minor offences, mutilation of women’s genitals for no reason and many other unsavoury and barbaric practices that have no place in civilised society.
    There are constant reports of insurrections and revolutions by Islamic separatist movements all over the world. The crisis in Kosovo was caused by Islamic terrorists wishing to control what was and still is legally a part of Yugoslavia. Not content with literally forcing the annexing of Kosovo with the connivance of NATO, Albanian Islamic terrorists are also attacking Macedonia, trying to take control of parts of its sovereign territory because of claims that ethnic Albanians live there. Currently there are Islamic insurrections occurring in the Indian state of Kashmir, the Indonesian province of Aceh, in the Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Israel, Morocco and many other places.
    It is blatantly self-evident that wherever Islamic fanatics operate, there is carnage, death and destruction. Apart from Kosovo, the burning and complete desecration of the major cities of East Timor, the killing of innocent tourists in Algeria and Egypt, the massacre of people of other religions in Aceh and Nigeria, the kidnapping and murder of innocent hostages by the Abu Sayyaf Islamic separatists in the Philippines are stark proof that human compassion and mercy are not in the lexicon of these groups.
    Maybe I am seeing too much in this but there seems to be a common modus operandi in the way some Islamic groups set about their quest to take over territory. They often start by demanding the right to follow their religion without hindrance, which is generally accepted in most parts of the world. They then populate the areas with Muslims, usually still not a problem in most places.
    Once they have the numbers, the fundamentalists then demand the imposition of draconian Sharia law, which is quite repugnant to most people of democratic persuasion, even many Muslims. Then they will demand political autonomy or even complete secession from the host country. If, unsurprisingly this is rejected, they form terrorist armies or militias such as in Kosovo, East Timor, Nigeria and the Philippines and they start insurrections, resulting in the murder of non-Islamic people and causing untold grief and destruction.
    This has been seen in the French city of Lyons, where large numbers of Muslims have settled. Now that they have the numbers, these people are now seeking a degree of autonomy from French law and have demanded that French police refrain from entering the “Muslim” areas after 6pm each day and at no time on their holy days. Of course the French authorities have dismissed such demands out of hand, but it is really only a matter of time until the Muslim populace there grows to an extent where they totally control who represents them in government and then the face of traditional France will be irrevocably changed. Even worse, they may even mount an insurrection to achieve their goals.
    A very pointed example of this invasion by stealth was seen in Australia recently in the Sydney suburb of Auburn, which has a large Muslim population. Islamic community leader and Imam of the local mosque, Sheik Hilaly, demanded that a Muslim candidate be automatically given electoral preselection over his opponent in the Labor Party, rather than submit to the normal ballot process. Premier Bob Carr instantly rebuffed this demand, stating that preselection is a democratic process and is not decided upon ethnic or religious criteria. Sheik Hilaly was most indignant and indications are that there will be a Muslim based backlash against the ruling Labor Party in the next state election.
    This sort of Islamification is being attempted in many parts of the world where compassionate countries have granted safety and refuge to Muslims claiming to be refugees. Once established in these countries, the Muslims then attempt to impose their culture and religion onto the greater community, or even worse, demand autonomy and ultimately secession from their hosts. Kosovo and Macedonia are two prime examples where civil wars have erupted because of this. A group in England called Al-Muhajiroun which means “the emigrants” in Arabic, targets university campuses in search of recruits and urges the creation of an Islamic state in Britain.
    One of the most disturbing aspects of militant Islamism is the utter fanaticism of its adherents. This is graphically portrayed by the wanton destruction of all statues in Afghanistan by the ruling Taliban organisation, who claimed they were un-Islamic, therefore had to be eliminated. Totally ignoring pleas from all over the world to preserve these historic and unique artefacts, some dating back to the seventh century, the Taliban vandals systematically destroyed irreplaceable artworks because of their incredibly stupid and misguided religious zealotry.
    The utter repression practised by the Taliban was just mind-numbing. When the Taliban took control of Kabul in 1996, they imposed the most draconian and literal interpretation of Muslim Sharia law. Alcohol was strictly forbidden, as were most forms of entertainment, including movies and music. All statues and images were banned. Women were forbidden to work, girls were forbidden to attend school beyond the age of eight and men were forced to wear beards and pray in mosques. In fact women were forced to wear head to foot covering when in public and were not allowed out of their houses unless accompanied by a male. The death penalty was automatically imposed for murder, as was the amputation of limbs for theft. Merely the preaching of any religion other than Islam was strictly forbidden and was punishable by death and any Muslim converting to another religion, even voluntarily, faced the death penalty.
    Many Islamic groups are now demanding to impose a mild form of this barbarism in the countries that gave them refuge in the name of humanity. It is important to resist this concept, as any changes to the law or territorial sovereignty must be made with the free and willing consent of the population by democratic means, not by terrorism or coercion. If Islamic fundamentalists desire to live under Sharia law, there are a number of Islamic nations in the world where that can go. If they wish to reside among people of other religions, especially in secular sovereign nations, they do not have the right to demand that those people live under intolerable, repressive or extreme religious laws in a fundamentalist Islamic state.
    The latest in a long line of Islamic orchestrated atrocities occurred on the morning of Tuesday 11 September in New York, where a well coordinated attack using four hijacked passenger aircraft culminated in the destruction of the World Trade Center and partial damage to the Pentagon. The horrendous numbers of innocent people killed was eventually determined to be in excess of 3000. There can be no excuse made for the perpetrators of such a callous and murderous attack, which could only be described as an act of war. One interesting aspect was the constant denial by Osama bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar and the demands for proof of bin Laden’s complicity in the attacks. However in a videotape made in October 2001, bin Laden literally admitted to having masterminded and organised the attacks on the USA, so he condemned himself by his own words.
    After some weeks of unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to stop harbouring Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of these atrocities and his al-Qaeda terrorist network and hand him over to the USA for trial, on 08 October 2001 the USA and its ally Great Britain responded by launching an attack on that country. With very little loss of life to the civilian Afghan population and almost no casualties for the US and British military, this short war resulted in the defeat of the Taliban and the installation of an interim government headed by Hamid Karzai, who has expressed his desire to transform Afghanistan into a tolerant and democratic country.
    After surveying the problems caused in so many countries by Muslim fanatics, the only conclusion that any sensible person could arrive at is that these lunatics have a completely different value on human life, as seen by the murderous acts of suicide bombers in Israel, who deliberately target innocent women and children and the Abu Sayyaf Muslim separatists in the Philippines, who kidnap and execute many innocent people merely to make a point.
    Therefore it is obvious that the Muslim fundamentalists cannot be treated in the same manner as those who subscribe to the sanctity of life. It is apparent that these murderous barbarians only understand one language and that is one of death and destruction, therefore it is incumbent on the civilised world to dispatch these people to the same place as their victims, and as quickly as possible.
    General Norman Schwarzkopf of Gulf War fame had the right perspective when asked if there was any room for forgiveness towards the people who have harboured and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. Schwarzkopf’s answer was short and to the point. He said, “I believe that forgiving them is God’s function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting.” }

  • Skate

    Eileen wrote, “Clearly the web site’s still goin’ strong.”
    That doesn’t mean that the quoted statements are right. Frankly, god-approved mass murder is a staple of the the bible in the Old Testament. Fortunately, the New Testament is more on the humane side, but for almost all Christians, the Old Testament is still major part of their religion (the only placewhere the Ten Commandments are, don’tchaknow…)
    I don’t endorse Islam. I think its biggest issue for Americans is its tendency for Theocracy, where the state and religion are one. However, there are lots of peaceful Muslims around and your are just going to stir up a hornets nest if you go around dissing all of Islam. What do you hope to accomplish? Are you going to kill or convert all Muslims? Isn’t that what you say is so bad about Islam, that they want to kill, convert or subdue all of us?

  • Angelos

    I declare Eileen to be:
    a rapist
    a pedophile
    an assassin
    a mass murderer
    a ruthless torturer
    a lecher
    a misandrist
    a narcissist
    a thief and plunderer
    a cult leader
    mentally deranged
    I offer her $1000 if she can disprove these claims, to me.
    But then again, she’s too dim to realize that this is impossible.
    Maybe she and penny and kat can start a private chatroom named “How to prove a negative” and discuss amongst themselves.

  • Franky

    skate,
    they dribble as they write – you expect them to react to reason? That’s like waving a book in front of the eyes of rabid illiterate – a demonstration of reasoned argument is to them a taunting of all they can’t do.
    These are people who will spew racism all day and then do all the can to discredit any poster because the act of arguing is too advanced. As they possess no facts nor ability they continue to invent rules for this forum as if anyone with a brain would let them decide anything – remember these rules are only to allow them to speak unmolested by facts.
    A number of tried and tested tactics:
    1) accuse different posters of being the same person. Don’t know why this one is so popular, but as night follows day they’ll do this. I was accused of being Faramin by one of the geniuses on the basis that Faramin and Franky both begin with F. Remember: nothing gets past these keen eyes.
    2) accuse posters of being from abroad, as if that had anything to do with anything. At this point, they’ll take on the plural voice of “we” (as in “we don’t want you here”) as if any country in the world would be so impoverished as to let these windbags represent them.
    3) wonder out loud when Jeff should start thinking about banning individual posters. You understand they’re not actually advocating it, just thinking aloud. Did I mention they’re cowards?
    4) any insult directed at people they dislike, no matter how lame, will cause them to come running, like bullying children, with their “lol” “rofl”, so poster1 writes: “Franky that’s really stupid.” Eileen/Kat/Penny will immediately post: “lol. rofl. tears are streaming down my eyes that was so funny”
    5) Anything written that doesn’t support Bush makes you a terrorist. Look out for grammatically challenged uses of the word terror: “terrortalk” “terror trash” “terror posts”. They may not know many words, but they sure not what to do with the little they do know. See also calling people anti-semitic.
    6) contact the CIA about posters (don’t laugh, one of them seriously threatened that).
    7) Another fave is to post pages and pages from favored wingnut sites lgf, frontpage mag, http://www.islamkills.com http://www.ihateragheads.com and then feel they’ve made some wonderful point as if by the very act of “Copy” “Paste” they’ve overcome the obvious defencies of a poor education.
    Because they’re so consistent in the applying of these rules I’m guessing there must be a manual written in crayoned diagrams somewhere around.

  • Eileen

    Based on the news I see every day, I’d say the hornet’s nest is *already* stirred up.

  • kat

    Yep, Skate goes after Christians rather than address islamic terrorists. Hell, Skate, atheism has killed more people than all religions combined, but the terrorists aren’t atheists so let’s stop with trying to absolve murderers.

  • Dak

    Yup, a Muslim is allowed, even encouraged to lie. Doesn’t seem like much at all is off limits in this “religion”
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=178
    Muslims will loudly trumpet the “logic” and “rationality” of Islam while simultaneously defending their faith with circular reasoning and other errors of logic. This is why Muslims can, without any apparent irony, claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”, even when the testimony of both history and current events bellows the opposite. For most Muslims, the idea that an infidel could reject Islam because of a sincere concern for knowing the truth is absolutely inconceivable. Hence, the infidel must be lying when he or she present facts and arguments against Islam, and the infidel must be an especially tricky liar when the facts and arguments cannot be answered by the Muslim. Hence, the resort to taqiyya to turn aside infidel lies so that the logic of truth, a priori defined as anything Islamic, will stand firm.
    a Muslim, if necessary, may eat pork, drink alcohol, and even verbally deny the Islamic faith, as long as he does not “mean it in his heart”. If the end result of the lie is perceived by the Muslim to be good for Islam or useful to bringing someone to “submission” to Allah, then the lie can be sanctioned through taqiyya.

  • http://www.memritv.org Cog

    Just an FYI, Google is testing a next generation translation technology that will translate Arabic into near perfect English.
    Cant happen quickly enough in my opinion. Maybe they could use a beta tester.

  • Skate

    Kat wrote, “Hell, Skate, atheism has killed more people than all religions combined, but the terrorists aren’t atheists so let’s stop with trying to absolve murderers.”
    Really? Are you sure about that? Shouldn’t you be trying to stop atheism instead, since you think it the bigger killer?
    BTW, quote where I have absolved terrorists. I haven’t and you can’t.
    I see you are running into trouble, you can’t attack what have actually said so you just make something up.

  • John

    Bravo Jeff!
    Damned good idea!
    You’re smarter than you look :)

  • Skate

    Dak quoted, “Hence, the infidel must be lying when he or she present facts and arguments against Islam, and the infidel must be an especially tricky liar when the facts and arguments cannot be answered by the Muslim”
    All religions are immune to logic. You must have blind faith in your religion and believe it no matter what.

  • Eileen

    Fabulous, Cog!

  • Franky

    Of course
    I forgot the last rule
    8) invent quotes and atrribute them to other posters even though everyone has eyes and can clearly see on nowhere on the thread was that said. Then when called to show where one said that, indignantly claim that you have better things to do. Did I mention that they’re liars?

  • Skate

    Franky, don’t forget where they make an outrageous statement like:
    “1. Line up the Sunnis/Sharia law driven crazies/Salafists/Baathists/Wahhabists/Islamofascists wherever they exist across the globe and ‘deal with them’. They are all warriors for Allah.”
    and then deny they meant the plain and obvious meaning…

  • Skate

    …because it’s not like we can just go back and see for ourselves what they said…

  • Dak

    Kat…re your long post…Yes, they infiltrate, then turn on their hosts. Even moderate Muslims who don’t support that Islam should be taking over all other religions, and who might love their new host country, face:
    “But to the Islamist those Muslims who think like that are themselves regarded as lapsed, and deserving of death.”
    Which certainly means the host country could never trust ANY of it’s Muslim citizens especially while it has a large population of radical Muslims to intimidate.
    “At best, they are passive supporters of fundamentalist and militant Islam and hope for the eventual destruction of Israel”
    Certainly, up to a few weeks ago, I was totally in the dark about what they really were like. If all knew the true facts, no country that wanted to ensure it’s survival would allow Muslim immigration like has been going on. Those of us who have are paying the price now.
    http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=96325
    Physical jihad against the disbelievers becomes OBLIGATORY in four cases, which are:
    1. When the Muslim is present in a jihad situation.
    2. When the enemy has come and attacked a Muslim land
    3. When the ruler mobilizes the people, they must respond.
    4. When a person is needed and no one else can do the task except him. ”

  • billg

    One more thing, Franky:
    You asked, about the invasion of Iraq, “is it inconceivable to you that other people would see that as an act of empire?”.
    No, of course, I can conceive of that. But, I ask you, are you arguing that perception, warranted or unwarranted, justifies terrorism? Are you saying that anyone who believes any given action of the U.S. is an “act of empire” is justified in killing Americans?

  • Dak

    Muslims are allowed to treat the infidels well, if it benefits them, but they are NOT to forget that the main obligation of a Muslim is to overthrow the infidel’s government and impose the Shariah.

  • Dak

    Did I mention that they’re liars?
    says….Franky
    “taqiyya”? – No, that’s for Muslims.

  • Eileen

    Right, Dak. And as to your above list regarding jihadi obligations, if they are not able-bodied, or otherwise participating in ‘combat’ roles, they are nonetheless REQUIRED to provide weaponry, money, food, shelter, or other assistance in (reachable) neighboring countries where jihad is active, etc.
    This is the source, I’m sure, for GWB’s warnings regarding “and if you harbor a terrorist, or if you provide comfort to a terrorist, etc.” I’m sure they *really* hate GWB for understanding all about their sharia law.
    I pray that Muslim leaders don’t make the tragic mistake of ‘mobilizing’ and calling their minions to ‘respond’ en masse. [Unfortunately, we see way two much evidence of that already.] And if the apologists are smart, they’ll work on coughing up the terrorists in their midst instead of wasting our time.
    The gig is up.
    A HUGE THANK YOU TO KAT!!!!!, and to ALL other posters around here who have been helping us become educated, particularly regarding matters where our collective necks are literally on the line.

  • Franky

    billg,
    Of course not – but in your posts you’ve been identifying enemies you feel threaten the world and quite rightly. I’m asking you to consider that the invasion of Iraq looks like to most of the world as well as a good chunk of this country is empire-building, i.e. so now these people feel justifed in attacking us, just as you feel justified in attacking those who threaten you.
    Is this cowering before terrorists? of course not, because there was no reason for us to invade Iraq. But it’s a person way out there who believes we can do as we please throughout the world, such as invading other countries and simply claim the argument of American exceptionalism (we can do no wrong) and not expect consequences.
    There are enough people out there who wanted to kill us before 9/11 and who are still trying without us having to create new enemies.
    You can say that they were wrong to be our enemies for the Iraq war all you like, but you’re not going to get much agreement beyond right-of-center blogs. This is the real world where the actions of our government has conseqeucnes and one of those as regards Iraq has been to make us less safe.

  • Franky

    It’s like a hate-filled orgy of wingnuts here, each poster stroking the others as they all get closer to their joint climax of bile.
    Swing on wingers!!!!!

  • vnjagvet

    Franky, Skate, Billig, Cog, Kat, Dak, et al:
    Having reviewed this string of over 100 comments, I am not clear on what your respective positions are on Jeff’s suggestion.
    It seems to me that his idea is a good one. All of you should be in favor of it. Rather than calling each other names, you could find articles supporting your respective positions and get them out for all to evaluate.
    Friedman cites MEMRI. Is this a valuable tool? Why? Why not? Is it biased? To what degree and on what side?
    What about the tool cited by DAK extensively in these posts? Valuable? Biased? Why? Why not?
    How could an interested citizen researching the question of which Muslems preach jihad against the U.S. and its Allies find reliable information?
    To what sources do legislators, law enforcement and security people and other policy makers look to inform themselves?
    What Jeff is suggesting here are potential answers to these questions. What is wrong with that? None of you seem to be interested in this question. Is that because it is a bad idea?

  • Dak

    Franky, less safe? Oh pl-e-e-z-e, – Suddam didn’t have riacin factories for the fun of it. (Well, to him, using such things clearly were fun.)
    Now he’s in a cell being fed Doritos for treats. Can’t help but think about the families of those he perpetrated his atrocities on and how frustrated they must be. Justice is slow.
    Eileen, I think you are right on about GW’s warnings.
    It’s clear GW doesn’t spend his days preoccupied with the interns.
    The spotlight has to shine on what Islam is really about. I didn’t know any of this just weeks ago, and since the main media is too politically correct and can’t ruffle certain feathers, it’s up to blogs and websites.
    When the majority of folks find out how much has been hidden, and that the main papers have failed to report it, the massive immigration and what the consequences to other countries of such a policy are turning out to be, American citizens will be furious. TV and newspaper will be seen as even more irrelevant.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    What Jeff is suggesting here are potential answers to these questions. What is wrong with that? None of you seem to be interested in this question. Is that because it is a bad idea?
    At the very beginning of this thread I linked to a story from the Guardian back in 2002 which questioned Memri’s objectivity when dealing with the Arab media, only to be drowned out by people who can’t think past their party’s talking points.
    If you are truly serious about whether Memri can or should be trusted as our “ear on Islam,” then I suggest you start there. Whether you decide the Guardian to be a reputable source or not on this matter (its Leftist bias is undeniable), even so you must agree in principle that it can’t possibly be a good idea for us to get all of our Arab news filtered through any one website.
    Again–who watches the watchmen?
    Many Arabic news websites already offer English editions: Al-Jazeera, for instance. But why go to the source when you can have hatemongers cherry-pick the absolute worst bits and present it as “mainstream” opinion in the Muslim world?

  • Dak

    vnjagvet, I found out it isn’t WHICH Muslims preach jihad. I found out Jihad is an OBLIGATION of ALL, (as in each and every) Muslims when another is being attacked. I gave the links to such info, and to his credit, Franky even admitted it this is true. That is why they stream into Iraq today.
    Which is why no moderate Muslims, when there are big groups of radical Muslims around, can be trusted to be loyal to their host country. Their first duty is to Islam..or they are considered lapsed, and the punishment can be death.
    THIS is what mainstream TV and papers hide about those coming into this country?
    Jeff’s call is a WAKE-UP call for sure.

  • vnjagvet

    JE:
    Thanks for the response. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to get some sort of gatherer like Jeff is suggesting which identifies the various sources, their pluses, minuses, biases, etc.?
    I don’t know enough of the technical aspects of accomplishing this, but it seems that such a compendium would be valuable.
    In the U.S. we have come to know the general editorial positions of the various newpapers and magazines, various columnists, and the like. We even have a pretty good idea of the positions of the European mags and papers. But we have little idea of the subtleties of various organs of the Islamic World.

  • Dak
  • Franky

    Jersey,
    History repeats itself. Imagine these poor folk above as Russian when the Protocols of Zion came out (“I demand every Jew hand over those who are eating Christian babies”), then they would have been Germans, their ear to the wireless waiting to hear what their feelings are towards the Russians (“I demand every Russian apologise for secretly desiring to rape German women”) and now we have their present incarnation “I demand every muslim apologise for the attacks in Iraq”.
    There are frightened people who seek to lash out at others throughout the ages. Their fulfilment is usually found in apocalyptic clashes of civilizations, a conflict that gives their empty lives meaning.
    Hence people here (who you just fucking know live in some cattleprod town) can begin to believe in the importance of their own lives if they can convince themselves that really Osama wants to get them – as if Al-Qeada would even bother looking on a map for them.
    The more things change and all…

  • Angelos

    A HUGE THANK YOU TO KAT!!!!!, and to ALL other posters around here who have been helping us become educated…
    Holy shit that was the funniest thing I’ve ever read. I did a true spit-take.
    Note to self: don’t drink wine while reading the lunatic rantings of the Estrogen Triumvirate of kat, eileen, and penny.
    It must really hurt when you three try to think.
    But that’s OK, you can always fall back on the winger conversation-stopper. When you run out of lies and misinformation, call comeone a traitor or an apologist.
    Meanwhile, in the real world, we have to deal with the problem your boy George has gotten us into.
    See, thinking about world with an America-centric view is fine when you’re American. So you can sit here all day and yammer on about we’re for freedom and they’re terrorists. But really, don’t you think they’re talking about our imperialism, and how we killed 25000+ innocent Iraqi cilivians in our carpet bombing?
    The ONLY difference between you and them is where you were born. That’s it. To pretend otherwise is stupid. Might as well be talking Yankees v. Red Sox. All accident of birth.
    Kat – born here, brainwashed Christian, wants to kill Muslims.
    Mustafa – born there, brainwahsed Muslim, wants to kill Christians.
    Ultimately, the little experiment in nation-building will fail. So after we’ve spent a trillion dollars, and lost 5000+ American soldiers, we’ll be back at square one.
    No safer, no better off.
    Just bankrupt.
    And with a decimated military, because only the gung-ho will join. A lot of people who may have considered service to pay for college, or maybe as a solution to an aimless life (an old clichÈ, I know), will look at this war-mongering fustercluck of an administration and say “hell to the no.” Not even the Guard can meet its recruiting goals. That’s a sign if there ever was one.
    So I guess all the kids who are not signing up, and all the parents who arennt letting them sign up to die for President Douchebag, are traitors too? Or have they realized that this isn’t about freddom at all?
    And speaking of dismal recruiting numbers, where are the 101st Fighting Keyboarders when you need them? Let’s go, Operation Yellow Elephant is in full effect!

  • vnjagvet

    DAK:
    Assuming you are correct, then doesn’t Jeff’s suggestion make sense?

  • Kat

    vnjagvet –Yes, I think it is a good idea.
    Memri simply translates–if Arabs don’t want hatred exposed they shouldn’t say in Arabic what they really mean.
    There are sensible muslims to link to–not many but there are some like Muqtedar Khan.
    Here are a couple of his articles to start with:
    http://www.ijtihad.org/intolerance.htm
    http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm

  • vnjagvet

    Angelos:
    50,000 American soldiers, huh? How do you figure that?
    Were you among those that predicted a quagmire and 10-20,000 casualties in Afghanistan before our troops went there?
    Were you among those that predicted Sadaam’s vaunted troops would inflict a bloodbath in Baghdad during early days of the invasion? That there would be more than 50k casualties then?
    Now the Islamic jihadists are attacking primarily Islamic women and children, and when our troops get in the way, it is generally coincidental. Did you ever predict that? When? What is your strategy?
    Do you stand with the French and German approach? Exactly what do you think that is? Is it coherent? Is it consistent? How would it work?
    What exactly are your alternatives to control these suicidal youngsters?
    Why do you want to discuss these issues and not the ones that Jeff proposed?
    Just wondering.

  • Dak

    vnjagvet asks: Then doesn’t Jeff’s suggestion make sense?
    To translate Arabic sites? (I believe someone said Google is working on that)
    Yes!
    To shine the spotlight on websites that support terrorism, and those that don’t?
    Yes, so far it would seem to make very much sense. Let the truth out.
    Lies will not survive this kind of openness on the internet.

  • Dak

    Kat, re: http://www.ijtihad.org/intolerance.htm
    Hope there is sincerity there and he isn’t really urging #8 behavior on Shorrosh’s list of 20!

  • kat

    I agree with you. I have been fooled before thinking someone was sincere and then been burned. At least he isn’t advocating gutblowing. That’s a start.

  • Ptolemy

    Reports of two-dozen Egyptians murdered by terrorists by the Red Sea with over 100 wounded. Egypt might need to rethink its support of Isreal and stop offending all those muslims. You know, get to the root cause of the violence.

  • Franky

    Angelos says: “5000+ American soldiers”
    Then vnjagnet responds: “50,000 American soldiers, huh? How do you figure that?”
    Too stupid to read? Check
    Lie about other people’s words? Check
    If you are too stupid to read and lie about other people’s words you may just be a wingnut.

  • Angelos

    I’ll add:
    -I supported the mission to Afghanistan, and the aborted attempt to find OBL and other Al Qaeda higher-ups.
    -I knew, just as anyone with a clue knew, that Iraq had no army of which to speak. The same type of underpaid and underfed slaves that were happy to surrender the first time. Other than his immediate circle of “elite” Guard, there was zero chance of any serious military resistance. Remember, this was the guy who was such a big threat to us…
    Remember, this was supposed to cost $2 billion dollars, tops. Then Georgie refused to send enough troops, and then turned around and told the public that the generals agreed we don’t need any more.
    EVERYTHING you have been told by the Bush Administration is a lie. From day one. When will you people get that through your thick skulls?
    Is it that hard to admit you’re wrong? Are have you also been brainwashed into thinking that any faltering in your support of Dear Leader amounts to treason? Put the Coulter books down and step away from the Faux news.
    It’s OK to say, you know, this part of the plan could have been executed better. This part could have been planned better. This was OK. This was just stupid. Really, just because your president has no intellectual capacity…
    A key question, that no winger friends of mine have been able to answer without stammering like idiots: if you had been told the truth, that this invasion planned all along, that it is all about using our troops and our taxpayer dollars to create the neocon version of a new world order, and that Iraq is just the first step in an operation that will cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, would you have supported it?

  • billg

    Franky,
    I don’t especially believe in American exceptionalism, but I do believe in democratic exceptionalism. That is, democracies are the only legitimate governments, that the existence of undemocratic regimes threatens, to one degree or another, the security of democratic states, and that democratic states and their citizens have an ethical obligation to encourage the spread of democracy. I also believe that modern authoritarian regimes, like Saddam’s, are essentially immune to internal revolt. That’s vitally important because, the consequence of that, of course, is that some external impetus must be involved in their elimination.
    Assertions that Saddam posed no direct threat to us — usually meaning he lacked the capacity to nuke NYC — ignore the threat his regime, and others, pose to the spread of democracy, to the lives of Iraqi’s, to the security of the Middle East, and to his role in spawning terrorists.
    A key point is that the existence of corrupt authoritarian Arab regimes is the fundamental impetus for the rise of both Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorists. As long as those regimes exist, they will spawn and fertilize more terrorists.
    At the heart of the argument that we should have left Saddam alone, and, by extension, the other Middle East despots, is the notion that it is acceptable for Arabs to suffer under their tyranny. Many in the West apply this same twisted logic to Africa. An expectation that the people of a region or continent are fit only to suffer in oppression, disease and poverty strikes me as the epitome of racism. Yet this racism is the driving force behind much of the anti-war, anti-globalization, etc., sentiment that drives many members of what passes for the Left. (BTW, if being a life-long Democrat makes you a leftist these days, then I’m one. But the Dems have sold their souls to the loonies, and the Republicans have sold theirs to the religious bigots.)
    The spike of terror we see in iraq is driven by the intention of terrorists leaders to make Iraq play the role that the Taliban’s Afghanistan played: a cooperative safe haven for terror. The solution is to eliminate them in Iraq and, subsequently, repeat the process in any other country they attempt to subvert to their needs.
    It is a given that actions have consequences. So does inaction. You have to make a choice. Inaction in Iraq would not have made use safer. When you oppose enemies who want you dead, one of the consequences is that they will fight back and put you at risk. That is one of the inevitable consequences of war. But, as the West learned in 1939 and throughout the Cold War, some battles must be fought and won regardless of the risk.

  • LT

    Wow…
    LT
    yep i’m still here

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Inaction in Iraq would not have made use safer.
    Actually America was much safer with Saddam contained. Your Nazi analogy is tired and inaccurate–in 1939 Adolph Hitler was not the leader of an impoverished Third World nation encircled by the world’s most powerful military with no armed forces of his own to speak of to harass even his neighbors, let alone the United States or the West. No one was advocating the “appeasement” of Saddam, merely debating as to whether to increase or decrease the intensity of the siege Iraq had been under for the entire decade following the First Gulf War. Saddam was always an enemy to radical Islam–with our blessing, money, and weapons he fought for most of the 1980′s against fundamentalist Iran, and then himself later became the target of dissatisfied Shiite terrorists and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda.
    Saddam was at heart an Arab nationalist, not some jihadi trying to restore the Muslim caliphate, and had he not made the idiotic blunder of invading Kuwait back in 1990 it’s very likely that today he’d be one of our staunch allies in the “War on Terror”, like Uzbekistan’s dictator Islam Karimov (whose crimes against his own people are equal to and in some cases even rival Saddam’s but are conveniently overlooked since he has allowed American troops to use his country as a base of operations). His much ballyhooed connections to terror so authoritatively announced by the likes of Christopher Hitchens paled in comparison to that of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and inexplicably now include terrorists opposed to the Iraqi regime who took haven in the no-fly zones of Kurdistan and elsewhere.
    And spare me the “we did it for humanitarian reasons” nonsense–while it is true that the Iraqis suffered terribly under Saddam, their deliverance from his dictatorship was merely an incidental good that arose from our invasion. Even then, whatever warm and fuzzy kudos such an act earned us in their hearts and minds has long since been pissed away by more than two years now without dependable electricity and a security situation which gets worse and worse, not better.
    And I’m not pulling this out of my ass, either. I am involved with an organization that trains Iraqi librarians in the summer in Amman, Jordan, and with each successive year the mood has steadily degraded from elation and gratitude to extreme frustration and barely-repressed anger. Saddam is a historical footnote to these people–now they have turned their ire towards the foreigners who run their country from Saddam’s former palaces and who interrogate and torture Iraqis in Saddam’s former prisons.
    You may think that an electrical grid which operates a few hours a day in the sweltering heat of the Middle East and checkpoints that can turn your 10-minute commute into a three-hour odyssey are simply the price to be paid for your multibillion dollar experiment in global social engineering, but the Baghdadi in the street is increasingly not buying it. And in the end it’s what he thinks (unfortunately the women of Iraq no longer matter, since our botched occupation turned the country over to reactionary fundy nutjobs who think females who venture outside the house unaccompanied by a male relative are sluts. Yay, democracy!)–not you, or Thomas Friedman, or Jeff Jarvis–that ultimately matters.

  • kat

    I wish to submit this article. Why does the MSM only dwell on Christianity with regards to this topic, yet Islamic Sharia law, demands the death penalty . Under the Iranian penal code, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be executed. Where’s the outrage, people? Where are all these do gooder organizations? Is this not terrorism? We argue about marriage for them–what about the right to breath? But islam is peace.
    http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2005/07/21/1

  • Kat

    I wonder of Jersey Exile recommends this book to muslims.
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/MuslimGuidelines.htm

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    I found out it isn’t WHICH Muslims preach jihad. I found out Jihad is an OBLIGATION of ALL, (as in each and every) Muslims when another is being attacked. I gave the links to such info, and to his credit, Franky even admitted it this is true. That is why they stream into Iraq today.
    So that explains why my hummus and tabouli wrap made me feel a little queasy the other day–the nice Moroccan lady who makes it was OBLIGATED to carry out jihad on my gastrointestinal system.
    My God, man. Have you ever even met a Muslim?
    Your faulty intelligence about jihad also conveniently ignores the fact that Islam is one of the most decentralized religions in the world. There is no Pope, no Archibishop of Canterbury, no formal clerical hierarchy that all Muslims are obligated to obey. Fatwas and calls for jihad are routinely made by individual imams and routinely ignored by others. While back in the day the Caliph could have with some justification claimed to speak for all of Islam, there is no one even remotely approaching such a preeminence in the Muslim world today.

  • Dak

    Angelos asks: “if you had been told the truth, that this invasion planned all along, that it is all about using our troops and our taxpayer dollars to create the neocon version of a new world order, (total BS – we are stopping terror while we still can!) and that Iraq is just the first step in an operation that will cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, would you have supported it?”
    Blowing up the trade center brought war to our shores. It drove home how essential it was to put a stop terrorism before we no longer can. Many Americans understand now, more with each terrorist act, that all the money in the world won’t matter if the Islamics get their desires met.
    How much easier – and cheaper – it would have been to operate from the air only, and never let let a precious American soldier touch a foot on the ground.
    No doubt, there are Muslim minds that can’t understand that since we have the power to send every Muslim to their great orgy in the sky with a few big bangs, why we don’t.
    Does anyone doubt that terrorists would not do it to us? ..are even eager to?
    Our country has born the loss of it’s own children, to save the lives of Muslim children….and all Muslim innocents who surely would be killed if we finished this in an easier cheaper manner.
    And we do this, even as terrorists purposely TARGET our innocents.
    Yes, Angelos, sometimes it is hard, and getting harder to remember why we make the sacrifices we do….when we could get the job done in a much less expensive way.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Dak,
    Great argument, wrong country. Explain to me why we’re not occupying Saudi Arabia and Pakistan right now, if your logic is not just so many empty talking points.

  • Dak

    Jersey Exile..in answer…
    To remain a Muslim, a Muslims loyalty can never be to the infidel….immigrants must remain loyal to Islam, not their host country.
    See the item Kat put the spotlight on:

    But, you know this, I am sure. “taqiyya”

  • Dak

    JE ..re: great argument and wrong country:
    GW says he will root out terror and terroristic supporters. I am not privy to his plan. I trust he will get to all of it.

  • Franky

    “A key point is that the existence of corrupt authoritarian Arab regimes is the fundamental impetus for the rise of both Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorists”
    You would be hard pressed to find a major middle eastern government with less ties to terrorism. And people around the world know this so they don’t believe that was the reason we invaded anymore than I do.
    “the notion that it is acceptable for Arabs to suffer under their tyranny. Many in the West apply this same twisted logic to Africa.”
    A couple of things – first if the government is not victim to the same twisted logic, why is it not invading Zimbabawae? Secondly, these people have to do it themselves. Go back to the French Revolution and St. Just’s famous comment “no loves an armed liberator”
    And billg, I can’t beleive you compared Iraq to Afghanistan. Yes the two are similar because WE TURNED IRAQ IN TO THE NEW AFGHANISTAN – we made it a failed state where the most violent groups could set up shop and recruit among the population.
    Flypaper strategy? Well that doesn’t make any sense either because surely if that was our plan, we could have stayed in Afghanistan and the logic of this plan means the terrorists would have followed us there.
    It also cotnradicts the supposed humanitarian goals of our mission – what great people we are to turn a horrible but essentially peaceful society in to a battleground for as merciless civil war. No wonder they’re thanking us with bombs.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Dak,
    The same argument was made (and is still made) of Catholics, and yet somehow America’s Catholic population manages to negotiate matters of faith without invalidating their loyalty to the U.S..
    Too much has been made of taqiyya by people who don’t seem to understand that virtually every believer of an exclusionary religion engages in the exact same practice on a daily basis. For example, our current President back in the 1990′s used to like to make public comments about how the Jews were going to Hell, whereas nowadats he’s rather mum on the subject.
    Have his beliefs changed? Almost certainly not, as it’s a standard point of “born-again” doctrine that those who aren’t saved aren’t getting into Heaven when they die. But Bush as a public figure is obligated to engage in dissimulation or taqqiya in order not to offend the Jews, Catholics, and many non-Christian voters among the American populace.
    People who think that every Muslim they meet is practicing taqqiya to conceal their murderous impulses has seen one too many Hollywood movies.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    GW says he will root out terror and terroristic supporters. I am not privy to his plan. I trust he will get to all of it.
    Hey, at least you’re honest about it. Most Iraq hawks when faced with this question start sputtering about practicality and feasibility, as if either was a consideration when we rolled into Baghdad.

  • billg

    Jersey Exile:
    I clearly made no Nazi analogy with Saddam’s regime. Try reading it again, this time with comprehension in mind.
    When you do that, you’ll see that I clearly said that the West learned in 1939 that going to war against your enemy is the only responsible option after that enemy has already attacked you. Would you propose that we stand by idly and let ourselves be massacred? (Frankly, it seems you, like many others, are deluded by the notion that understanding why a person wants to kill you obligates you to stand defenseless against them. Worse yet, a lot of you poor souls believe that understanding something will make it go away. Nothing you can say, explain or understand about terrorists will make them stop hunting you or make them go away. That’s because their creation and their existence owes nothing to your lack of understanding.)
    It isn’t relevant if Saddam was actually an Arab nationalist. Nehru was an Indian nationalist. Hitler was a German nationalist. No one deserves praise or censure for being called a nationalist. What Saddam was, and is, is a murderous genocidal thug. If you think being an Iraqi nationalists excuses all that, then you are clearly on the wrong side of this equation.
    Read what I’ve posted. I’ve argued that the simple existence of authoritarian Arab regimes, such as, but not limited to, Saddam’s, is direcctly responsible for the creation and continuance of both Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorists. Without those regime, no terror. As long as those regimes persis, terror will persist and Islamic terrorists will try to kill us.
    and, please, if you’re going to lie about what I said, do try to be a little more adroit. I did not say “we did it for humanitarian reasons”, as your falsely quote me. We did it for our own best interests, which is exactly the way democracies should act.
    By the way, I lived in Amman for a few years in the 1990′s. Just maybe I’ve a bit more experience there than provided by your involvement with a summer school for librarians. I found them nice people, but indoctrinated in the lies told by Arab governments.
    Get this straight: Islamic terror is not the West’s fault. Islamic terror is solely the responsibility of Islamic terrorists. They exist because Arab regimes provide the putrid soil that allows to to take root. If you want to argue otherwise, at least admit whose side you’re really on and come clean with your hatred of your own culture.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    I wonder of Jersey Exile recommends this book to muslims.
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/MuslimGuidelines.htm

    Again, Kat, no one person speaks for all of Islam. And moreover it sounds like this guy doesn’t speak for all that many Muslims–only one library in all of North America has this item in its collection, and you can’t even order it on Amazon. Google the book’s title and the majority of hits come from Islamophobic websites who quote the text extensively as “proof” that Muslims are inherent violent and untrustworthy, but no scholars of any repute whatsoever have cited this work whatsoever on Google Print, Google Scholar, or any of the proprietary databases indexing religious or political periodicals.
    Real influential book you’ve got there. Sounds like the only people it’s been reaching are people like you.

  • billg

    Franky,
    I did not discuss why we invaded Iraq. i said corrupt Arab regimes are responsible for the creation of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorists. I did not say Arab regimes merely have ties with terrorism. I clearly made a direct cause-and-effect link between these regimes and both fundamentalism and terror. If Saddam is successfully replaced by an unoppressive democratic regime, then that will be one less regime giving birth to terror. (And, as I indicated, assertions that Iraqis and other Arabs are not ready for democracy are both false and racist. Pay attention: I said they can’t remove their oppressive governments, so arguing that they “have to do it themselves” is just a cheap way of avoiding your responsibility for their fate.)
    I don’t know why the West hasn’t removed Mugabe. I wish they would, along with all the other African thugs. (For myself, I’d prefer to see the UN reformed to proactively foster democracy, given an armed force, and enabled and encouraged to use that force appropriately. That was my preferred alternative to the American invasion of Iraq. Bush had a prime opportunity to convert the UN into something other than a morally inept aid agency.)
    Nor did I compare Afghanistan to Iraq. I said terrorists want to make Iraq the same kind of base as they made Afghanistan.
    And did I say anything at all about humanitarian goals, supposed or otherwise? We act, as we should, as every state should, in our own interests.

  • Kat

    {no one person speaks for all of Islam} these days the terrorists seem to and the moderates aren’t objecting.
    Jersey- (Published 1993 by the Islamic Assembly of North America):Are you implying this is a terrorist organization?

  • billg

    what’s more, Franky, why is Zimbabwe at all relevant to this issue? We are under no obligation to meet your standards for moral consistency and perfection. Why should we be? Our obligation to advance our own self-interest takes precedencce.
    It’s all just one more standard, tired, scarecrow trumped up by one more alienated Westerner. If you expect people to behave with perfect consistency, you’d better join a monastery.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Billg,
    Read my post more carefully about Amman: I was reporting the feelings of Iraqi librarians who were in Jordan for a summer training session, not of Jordanians (whom quite frankly I know nothing about). The only thing the Iraqis there were happy about was being able to get out of their country for a short spell. Again, yay democracy!
    As for your Nazi analogy: call it a Nazi analogy, call it a Hitler analogy, call it a World War Two analogy, call it a Neville Chamberlain analogy for all I care–the important part of your analogy is that it doesn’t work. 1939 was about Hitler being rewarded by the West for his aggressive behavior. How does that apply in any way, shape, or form to Iraq in 2003?
    If you really want to invoke WWII, a Pearl Harbor analogy makes more sense, except for the fact that our going after Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11 makes just about as much sense as if we’d declared war on China on December 8th in 1941.
    And since when did it become the policy of the United States to overthrow foreign governments if they weren’t democratic? Now democracies are just swell, but don’t kid yourself about their immunity to dangerous behavior–it was democracy in Germany that brought Hitler to power, after all. And if we’re about to transform the Muslim world by enforcing a “democracy only” rule, someone sure as hell forgot to mention that talking point to the Royal House of Saud.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    No, Kat, I’m saying that you can hardly hold up a book that has no circulation whatsoever as an indictment of mainstream Muslim culture. Prove to me that every Arab immigrant has a copy of this book in their living room and then we’ll worry about who published it and why.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Our obligation to advance our own self-interest takes precedence.
    Actually I agree with this point 100%. I just don’t see how invading Iraq advanced our self-interest at all. It’s made us less safe insofar as it has polarized millions of moderate Muslims against us (whereas our original foe, Al-Qaeda, was at most a 30,000-member organization) and drained our national coffers to the tune of $1 billion a day–money that could be spent not only on securing our borders and transporation systems here at home but funding police and fire departments, as well as schools, basic scientific research, and public libraries.
    So not only are we not any safer from terrorism as a result of this invasion, but we’re more likely to get robbed, have our houses go up in smoke, or wallow in ignorance as well. Go team!

  • Dak

    from JE: The same argument was made (and is still made) of Catholics, and yet somehow America’s Catholic population manages to negotiate matters of faith without invalidating their loyalty to the U.S..
    Catholics aren’t told to “negotiate” by becoming terrorists whose purpose it is to blow themselves and American innocents up to gain complicity. Catholics would expect punishment (to land in hell) for doing such a thing. Islamics are told to expect a reward … to land in the arms of 72 virgins.
    To even have to point such an obvious thing out is beyond ludicrous.

  • HA

    Jersey Exile,
    Why is it that real-life moderate muslims contradict your multi-cultural fantasy world? What do THEY know that you don’t? Why is it that truly moderate muslims like Irshad Manji so often find themselves under death treat?
    Which is why I don’t understand how moderate Muslim leaders can reject, flat-out, the notion that religion may also play a part in these bombings. What makes them so sure that Islam is an innocent bystander?
    What makes them sound so sure is literalism. That’s the trouble with Islam today. We Muslims, including moderates living here in the West, are routinely raised to believe that the Koran is the final and therefore perfect manifesto of God’s will, untouched and immutable.

    To be sure, I stand with those who insist that certain Koranic passages are being politically exploited. Damn right, they are. The point is, however, that they couldn’t be exploited if they didn’t exist.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-manji22jul22,0,1520327.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Dak,
    You’re joking, right? Here’s a reading from the vast genre of anti-Catholic literature produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
    “[A]n acquaintance told me of a recent conversation between a Protestant relative of hers and a Roman Catholic. The Catholic said, ‘I would like to see the blood of Protestants flow down the streets of this city.’ The Protestant was rightly surprised and said, ‘How can you say that, we are friends and you know that I am a Protestant?’ The Catholic responded, ‘Yes, I know, but the greater the sacrifice, the greater the reward.’ Since they teach Catholics from childhood on, that to kill a Protestant is to do God a service. we had better be careful how we put Catholics in public office.”
    Sound familiar?

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    HA,
    I have nothing but sympathy and solidarity for those who would speak their mind about any religion, as not only am I a Catholic in bad standing myself but I have an ancestor who was burned at the stake by the Inquisition for daring to dissent from Church doctrine. He, too, found himself the target of death threats by zealots as he fled across Europe in search of a sanctuary where he could read and write and philosophize in peace.
    Contrary to what you’ve insinuated, I never claimed that Islam didn’t have its dangerous radicals–who of course should be opposed as the backwards and barbarous savages that they are–merely that they do not speak for the majority of Muslims, many of whom are much more interested in making an honest living in this life than blowing things up or threatening people for blasphemy.
    Unlike many of my liberal allies, I am 100% committed to free speech, however far down the rabbit hole that takes me. I’m not sure who it is you meant to have this argument with, but it sure as hell ain’t me.

  • billg

    Jersey Mike:
    I don’t blame those librarians for wanting to get out of the country for a while. must be pretty worrisome with all those Ba’athist leftovers and all those foreign invaders running around killing people. You know, the guys coming across the Iranian and Syrian borders to kill Iraqis and Westeners. I guess you don’t call them invaders, eh? Probably brave Arab nationalists and some such other nonsense.
    And, since when was 1939 a year when Hitler was rewarded for his behavior? That’s the year WW2 began: Hitler attacked Poland and Britain went to war. Some reward. Why should I pay attention to you if you can’t even get your facts right?
    You seem to believe that one man — Bin Laden — is solely responsible for terror. Hence, you argue, the attack on Saddam was wrong. But, you’re wrong. Islamic terror has been around for decades: the PLO, the PFLP, the DFLP, etc., etc. Taking out Bin Laden will not end terror. Only ending the terrorists and reforming the states that produce terrorists will end terror.
    Nor did I suggest it should be U.S. policy to overthrow foreign governments. That’s just one more misrepresentation ofmy comments. It should be U.S. policy to encourage the existence of democratic governments. I don’t need to defend Bush in Iraq to argue that regimes like Saddam’s are the root cause of Islamic terror and must be brought down.
    I’ve repeatedly explained what I believe is the impetus for Islamic terror and what must be done to end it. You have not responded to those points. You’ve merely used this platform to regurgitate the usual irrelevant rants. It is my impression that you’re more interested in parading your own alienation and self-hatred that your are anything else. Until you offer your own explanations for islamic terror and propose ways to end it, there’s no purpose in this exchange.

  • billg

    >>I just don’t see how invading Iraq advanced our self-interest at all…
    Well, do you or don’t you agree that regimes like Saddam’s are the root cause of islamic terror? If you agree, then it is only logical that replacing them with democratic regimes will reduce terror.
    I can’t help it if you believed Bush’s lies about how quickly things would happen in Iraq. Reforming Iraq will take a long time, and the bad guys will fight back, because your enemies always fight back when you go after them. Better than capitulating to them.
    Let me tell you this: Any Muslim who is willing to kill, or supports those who are willing to kill, because non-Muslims like the U.S. and UK are in Iraq — infidels atttacking the home of Islam and all that — is already lost to modern civilization. People who are willing to die and kill because they believe some piece of land is holy, or sacrosancr or promised to them by God — Arabs, Jews, Christians — are locked in a hopeless primitivism that has no place in our world.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Billg,
    I’m still puzzled as to why you think 1939 has anything to do with the current situation. I know full well what happened that year, but I thought that your point was that Hitler would never have gotten into a position to invade Poland had we not consistently appeased him in hopes of satiating his hunger for Lebensraum.
    If you were simply trying to say that we should declare war on people who attack us, well then did you really need World War II specifically to make that point? War is almost always the natural outcome of an unprovoked attack. But it is you who continues to dodge the relevant question: okay, 1939, Hitler invades Poland–so did we respond by declaring war on Greece in hopes of toppling the Nazi Empire by osmosis?
    The man who declared war on us on 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. And yet the former is allowed to run free–within the territory of an “ally”, if you believe Porter Goss!–while the latter awaits justice in a jail cell. I mean, dude, WTF? Can you honestly tell me at this point that all of this is still part of the master plan, and that the War on Terror is proceeding swimmingly?
    Yes, let’s invade every country in the Middle East except the ones harboring bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, because no one will see that batshit crazy strategy coming, will they! Genius.
    “I don’t need to defend Bush in Iraq to argue that regimes like Saddam’s are the root cause of Islamic terror and must be brought down.”
    What? Saddam was the antithesis of Islamic terror. We specifically built him up as a BULWARK against the fundamentalist Muslim state of Iran. How much more diametrically opposed to the truth could this statement of yours possibly get? While it’s true that Islamacist terrorists tend to direct their ire at the various Arab strongmen lording over the police states of the Middle East, may I remind you of who cuts these repressive regimes enormous checks every year to maintain the awful status quo?

  • Franky

    Dear billg,
    You’ll have to excuse me misreading your posts but I have as our friend Saddam might say the “mother of all hangovers” (whiskey-redbull cocktails make you feel like death warmed over? who’d thunk it?)
    One thing that we keep going around on that I’m still not clear on is how Saddam’s state was “the root cause of islamic terror?”
    I can see that you say the general political status quo in the middle east is causing terrorism, but i think what both Jersey and I are struggling over is why we picked Iraq when all the other states seem like so much better candidates, with so many more direct links to terrorism.
    I would also dispute your assertion that every muslim fighting us in Iraq is lost – those who travel to Iraq to fight, but native Iraqis fighting against an occupation did not have to be lost to us.

  • billg

    Jersey Exile:
    My point about 1939 is simple: Hitler attacked and waged war on the rest of Europe. Once done, the only viable option for Europe was to wage war on Hitler. The parallel with today’s terrorists, who are making war war on all of Western modernity, seems obvious. If you are attacked, you must defend yourself by attacking and eliminating your attacker.
    The business about appeasement is irrelevant. The only thing that would have prevented Hitler from going to war in 1939 was his elimination in 1938 or earlier. He came to power fully intending to make war on Europe no matter what Europe might try to do to understand or influence him or how their policies might change, just as today’s terrorists intend to make war on us no matter what we may do to placate or influence them. I do not believe any policy stance by Europe could have kept Hitler from war. I do not believe any policy stance by the West — even if we accede to their demands to pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., and abandon Israel –will have any impact on the behavior of terrorists.
    Beyond that, the applicability of the Hitler parallel is limited. Hitler commanded a state that made war. Defeat that state and the war ends and will not be revived. On the other hand, today’s terrorists are created by the conditions that exist in most Islamic regimes. To have a chance of eliminating terrorists, therefore, the cultures that create and nourish them must be eliminated. It makes no difference if a ruler is working with or supporting terrorists are not. Their mere existence as perpetuators of oppressive, stifling, hopeless societies is responsible for the anger and nihilism that drives people to terror. War is not the only way to eliminate and reform these regimes, but it is a viable method.
    Again, Islamic terror directed at the West did not begin with Bin Laden, or 9-11. It has been going on for decades. September 11 was only when most Americans started paying attention. If Bin Laden was captured or killed tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on Islamic terror.
    As for your contention that we supported Saddam against Iran during the Cold War, sure we did. That doesn’t mean I agree with that, or that it has anything at all to do with the fact that regimes like Saddam’s created terrorists. You won’t score points off me by making silly assumptions about my thinking. I’m interested in ending terrorism. That doesn’t mean I need to defend every American policy decision of that last 50 years. Unlike some folks who drink at the Indymedia trough, i like to think for myself.

  • billg

    Franky,
    Did I say Saddam was the root cause of Islamic terror? No, I did not. I said repressive Islamic regimes, including Saddam’s, are the root cause of both Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terror. The point is rather obvious: You can’t eliminate terrorists without eliminating or reforming the cultures that create them.
    I’m not interested in rehashing the reason Bush invaded Iraq. it isn’t relevant to my views on ending terror. I agree with little of what Bush does. But, I see no reason to change my views on terror because some of them happen to coincide with his. It is my impression, however, that you and many others are much more interested in using Iraq as a club to bash Bush than you are about ending terrorism.
    I question how many Iraqis are actually fighting the U.S. because we are occupiers. I’m more inclined to think they are leftover Ba’athists fighting to restore another Ba’athist regime. Anyone else who fights because they believe in the teachings of radical Islamic fundamentalism is, in fact, already lost to modernity. Modern civilization and their view of life are completely incompatible. We cannot simply leave them alone to manage their own affairs, as we might some other religious groups, because they are not benign. They are hostile and aggressive.

  • Dak

    billg..It’s useless and tiresome. I think they are planted here.
    Jersey Exile brings up a piece of poop that was hashed and rehashed before on other threads: a story about someone’s acqaintance decades ago overhearing a wacko that happened to be Catholic say he wanted to see Protestant blood run …and thinks we are to take that as the backbone of Roman Catholic ideology today!!!!!!!!!!
    Here’s a reading from the vast genre of anti-Catholic literature produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
    “[A]n acquaintance told me of a recent conversation between a Protestant relative of hers and a Roman Catholic. The Catholic said, ‘I would like to see the blood of Protestants flow down the streets of this city.’ The Protestant was rightly surprised and said, ‘How can you say that, we are friends and you know that I am a Protestant?’ The Catholic responded, ‘Yes, I know, but the greater the sacrifice, the greater the reward.’ Since they teach Catholics from childhood on, that to kill a Protestant is to do God a service. we had better be careful how we put Catholics in public office.”
    The fact that we don’t have masses of Roman Catholics running around the US today being directed by the Roman Catholic Church to kill us …is completely lost on Jersey Exile.
    Because an ancient wacko – overheard by someone’s acquaintence decades ago.. said the Church said “the greater the sacrifice, the greater the reward.” Jersey Exile translates that to mean the Church Doctrine supports the wacko’s claim that the Church teaches
    ….to kill a Protestant is to do God a service. (slandering the Catholic religion by getting it confused with Islam’s modus operandi) and that We had better be careful how we put Catholics in public office.”
    And this absurdity was thrown at us before!
    He’s got worse problems than a hangover.

  • Dak

    JE writes: Yes, let’s invade every country in the Middle East except the ones harboring bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, because no one will see that batshit crazy strategy coming, will they! Genius.
    Now we get to the REAL reason these plants (in my opinion) are here to convince as many as possible that we shouldn’t be in Iraq, and why they keep hammering on the ludicrous claim that our actions in Iraq the past the two years is the origin of a terrorism policy spanning centuries.
    They can only lose the battles undertaken in Iraq. They are desperate for the fight to go to the mountains where Bin Laden hides in his lice infested caves. There our troops would be at a distinct disadvantage to the guerrilla fighters and jihadsts.
    The poor jihadsts now have to flock to Iraq, where they are met on terrain advantageous to OUR troops.
    “The terrain in Iraq, whether it be the hard-pan desert or the primative mud and cinderblock urban settings, is an American generalís dreamscape.”

  • Franky

    Well I’m sorry it ends this way as I was hoping to have a reasonable conversation with a supporter of the war but to be accused of being “much more interested in using Iraq as a club to bash Bush than you are about ending terrorism” sort of means such reasonableness is not to be found here.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Dak,
    Jersey Exile translates that to mean the Church Doctrine supports the wacko’s claim that the Church teaches….to kill a Protestant is to do God a service. (slandering the Catholic religion by getting it confused with Islam’s modus operandi) and that We had better be careful how we put Catholics in public office.”
    Wow, did you ever miss the point of THAT post! I was attempting to demonstrate that everything posted in this thread and others at Buzzmachine by the Islamophobic wing as conclusive “proof” of the average Muslim’s inherent violent and untrustworthy nature was also said about Catholics when they were the dangerous new immigrant menace (and in Colonial times and the early years of the Republic we had the Germans–read some of Ben Franklin’s racist screeds about how they would never be able to assimilate into American society for a good laugh…or cry).
    Did you actually think I was attempting to slander the Catholics with some kind of lame moral equivalency argument? That’s a hoot!
    No, friend, my point was that demonization of the other is not a new phenomenon for us Americans. And of course it becomes so much easier, when a group of immigrants is associated with a certainly kind of antisocial or criminal behvaior (however rightly or wrongly) to then go the extra yard and blame that group’s culture at large for allowing and/or fostering such behavior in the first place.
    Nineteen terrorists can thus ruin the prospects of millions of Muslims simply looking for a better life in the West, just as a few lawbreaking anarchists and communists made it that much harder for my Italian ancestors to make their way here in the U.S. (and lead to fearmongering hysteria like the arrest, trial, and execution of Sacco and Vanzetti).
    Just because I don’t want Muslims who come to this country in search of the American dream to endure the ill treatment my great-grandfather and grandfather received–my Pop-Pop was so traumatized by his childhood that he vehemently rejected every aspect of his Italian heritage, and even as an old man refused to eat pasta–doesn’t make me somehow “soft on terror.”

  • Eileen

    Well I must say *some* have done a pretty good job in their efforts to divert the thread to anything BUT the topic at hand: a proposed format for chronicling those who support Islamofascism, those who act as its apologists in an effort to excuse it, and those in the Muslim world who speak against it.
    Hell, don’t you know EVERYBODY practices taqqiya (category number two, above) – including, *of course*, GWB. Forget the fact that it is engrained in Islamic law and scripture: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html
    Ignore. Obfuscate. Mislead. Lie.
    Let’s *especially* talk about Iraq [as if THAT had anything to do with 9/11 and/or countless other terrorist actions occuring across the world every day], Zimbabwe, U.S. ‘mistakes’ in the WOT, purported comparisons between Catholic and Muslim immigrants??? (as they claim Not to be making equivalencies of any kind); indeed, anything *but* the topic at hand.
    You will never find these people actually speak against terrorism with even a scintilla of the conviction or mental gymnastics they undertake when attempting to divert the discussion to Bush bashing, Iraq as the current example of all U.S. ills, and anything *but* Islamofascism. They always try to obfuscate and change the channel toward their own aims. Terrorism is always our fault. We ‘created it’ due to foreign policy and every other piece of tripe they attempt to drag into the discussion. If after 8 months of listening to them I’d ever heard anything *else*, I wouldn’t have concluded, as I did long ago, that they are – also in ‘my opinion’ – taqqiya plants.
    Maybe it’s time to repeat Rubin’s statement via Friedman: “We also need to spotlight the “excuse makers,” the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed…”
    And maybe it’s time to repeat the words of an EX-MUSLIM: “NO ONE should listen to the taqiyya (misinformation) constantly issued by Islamic apologists and propagandists. Each of us needs to take personal responsibility to know and understand the enemy seeking our demise.” http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/VernonRichards50722.htm
    After all, if even one Iraqi librarian is the least bit dissatisfied, isn’t THAT the *real* issue we need to discuss? Don’t poor Muslims simply need to flock to the U.S. in droves to eat their hummus with our tender acceptance, respect and peace? And if they give up their hummus, *of course* it will *also* CLEARLY be the fault of those awful western rascists and Islamophobes.
    You bet.

  • Eileen

    Make that TAQIYYA, a word I should also learn to spell properly.

  • Dak

    JE says: “I don’t want Muslims who come to this country in search of the American dream to endure the ill treatment ….
    It’s not about what YOU want, or what THEY want.
    It’s about protecting America.
    It doesn’t seem Muslim immigration has been a benefit to ANY country. They have enjoyed the hospitality then turned on their hosts in Holland and all over the world.
    From what I have learned about Islam from sites such as this, I think any country is crazy to willingly let those belonging to such a violent murderous ideology cross it’s borders.
    Definitely the world needs to be warned using as another here said…
    a proposed format for chronicling those who support Islamofascism, those who act as its apologists in an effort to excuse it, and those in the Muslim world who speak against it.

  • Dak

    JE says: “I don’t want Muslims who come to this country in search of the American dream to endure the ill treatment ….
    It’s not about what YOU want, or what THEY want.
    It’s about protecting America.
    It doesn’t seem Muslim immigration has been a benefit to ANY country. They have enjoyed the hospitality then turned on their hosts in Holland and all over the world.
    From what I have learned about Islam from sites such as this, I think any country is crazy to willingly let those belonging to such a violent murderous ideology cross it’s borders.
    Definitely the world needs to be warned using as another here said…
    a proposed format for chronicling those who support Islamofascism, those who act as its apologists in an effort to excuse it, and those in the Muslim world who speak against it.

  • Dak

    FROM Jersey Exile: terrorists can thus ruin the prospects of millions of Muslims simply looking for a better life in the West…
    FROM: http://www.islamundressed.com/#_Chapter_26
    the more educated and affluent Muslims usually wear Levi jeans while shouting ‘death to America ‘. When the frenzy is over they can often be found cueing up at Western embassies, hoping for a visa to immigrate in search of a ëbetter lifeí.

  • Eileen

    I so loved the New York shirt worn by one of the London ‘martyrs’. Islamofascist rallying cries:
    “Bloody them into bankruptcy”.
    “Win the West, win the World”.
    And now WE need to reevaluate. “Give us your tired, your poor [Muslims], your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”?
    Not at the expense of our own breath.

  • Eileen

    P.S. Stay safe, LT. As ever, you and Howard are in my prayers.
    G’night.

  • Eileen

    One more thought.. I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to chronicle category three, even though it would make us ‘feel good’ to know that they exist. Islamofascists are already tracking, intimidating and killing those who speak against them.
    On the other hand, there’s strength in numbers..
    For them, too.
    Don’t know.

  • Dak

    I had the same thoughts about number three Eileen.
    On another board, a poster said:
    “Acharya S., who is leading a similar campaign against christianity, always appears on talk shows and even has her pictures published on her website, and people don’t try to kill her because its her freedom of expressing what she believes in. When will muslims become civilized?”

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    It’s not about what YOU want, or what THEY want.
    It’s about protecting America.

    Sorry, chief–last time I checked we were still more or less a democracy. What I want does matter. So does what Muslim-American citizens want (and in States where they have a significant impact on the vote, such as Michigan, what they want matters a heck of a lot). Contrary to what the Bush administration and conservative pundits seem to think, you don’t get to suddenly invalidate the rights of your fellow Americans just because you’re a coward.
    It doesn’t seem Muslim immigration has been a benefit to ANY country. They have enjoyed the hospitality then turned on their hosts in Holland and all over the world.
    Bullshit. Most Muslims are hard-working, law-abiding citizens. Get out of your underground bunker and meet a few of them, why don’t you? My neck of the woods has seen a huge influx of Moroccan immigrants, who apart from each working multiple minimum-wage service jobs that no “real” American would deign to work manage to put themselves through college or technical school at the same time. They’re also some of the best neighbors you’ll ever have (especially when they invite you over for dinner!).
    Yeah, they’re a real blight on the American dream.
    From what I have learned about Islam from sites such as this, I think any country is crazy to willingly let those belonging to such a violent murderous ideology cross it’s borders.
    They said that about the Germans in Colonial times and the Catholics in the 1800′s and early 1900′s, and yet somehow America not only survived these “barbarian” hordes but became all the stronger for it. So, too, will Muslims leave a positive contribution to the American tapestry that will long outlast the individual acts of a handful of criminals and zealots.
    But it’s just so much easier to live in fear, isn’t it? Well, congratulations–you’ve done exactly what the enemy wants you to do.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    “Acharya S., who is leading a similar campaign against christianity, always appears on talk shows and even has her pictures published on her website, and people don’t try to kill her because its her freedom of expressing what she believes in. When will muslims become civilized?”
    Oh, no–Christians would never try to kill or threaten infidels and unbelievers…
    Except for maybe the O’Hair family.
    And of course there’s nothing to see here, either–just good, God-fearin’ Christian folk burning crosses on peoples’ lawns and spraypainting a few swastikas here and there.
    If you think Mohammed has the monopoly on religious nut-jobs, then you’re woefully mistaken.

  • Dak

    There are Christian nutjobs…but they are not commanded to be nutjobs by Rome or any other major ideology.
    It is not a condition of Christianity to either convert people or kill them.
    It’s Islam, NOT the others, terrorizing the World, and it’s Islam whose basic doctrine teaches “convert or die”.
    The KKK, though it contained Christian nutjobs…they were just that…nutjobs.
    The KKK wasn’t sanctioned by Rome or any other major religion.
    And from those sites studying the Law of Islam, it seems those nice moderate Muslims you speak of, if they don’t support the nutjobs are considered by Islam to be apostates..bad muslims.
    Let a few radical Muslims get established nearby them, and they will HAVE to join the nutjobs to remain Muslims. Is it not the Islamic law to support (do jihad when needed) the terrorist convert or die mantra.. under penalty of death?
    America does not need this within it’s shores.
    Anyone that wants to be TOTALLY SHOCKED by learning what Islam is REALLY about, like I have been these past weeks, the following are good places to start.
    http://faithfreedom.org
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13532 (five step solution – scroll to bottom)
    http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

  • Dak

    But it’s just so much easier to live in fear, isn’t it? Well, congratulations–you’ve done exactly what the enemy wants you to do.
    No, Jersy Exile, not allowing more Muslims that hate us within our land (like those I read about doing a jiggy in the deli near ground zero as the towers came down) means NOT living in fear or turning into a police state, by losing the liberty our forefathers fought to give us.
    Now we get baggage checks, soon we’ll hear “papers please”. No, keeping those who hate us out of here is the much better alternative.
    And,in my opinion, it’s you that has been doing work for the enemy these weeks.
    If that were to turn out to be true, maybe one of these days, you’ll get to sign on as American Exile.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    The KKK wasn’t sanctioned by Rome or any other major religion.
    Considering that one of the Klan’s primary targets was the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic immigrants, it would have been pretty amazing if the Pope had sanctioned them. (!)
    Seriously, dude–instead of spending your time rotting your brain on those hate sites you listed, why don’t you crack open a history book or two?
    And of course the Klan was sanctioned by many conservative white Protestant religious groups in America, but there as well as among radical Muslims the problem of combatting the Christian zealots lies in the fact that Protestant religion is much more decentralized than Roman Catholicism or the Anglican Church. A hate-filled church full of bigots may have nothing to do whatsoever with another church of the same denomination, and there is virtually no way to “punish” said group for espousing extreme or violent beliefs, since most Protestant church organizations are voluntary associations.
    If you want to combat radical Islam, you have to do it at the mosque level (because that’s the basic unit of religious and scholarly authority) and not try to go after all billion practicing Muslims, because that’s as dumb and counterproductive as persecuting all Christians for abortion clinic shootings. By all means maintain a “HateWatch” for Muslim extremism, but when you use a zealot’s statements to indict all believers you’re not helping anyone’s cause–least of all the cause against future terrorism.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    No, Jersy Exile, not allowing more Muslims that hate us within our land (like those I read about doing a jiggy in the deli near ground zero as the towers came down) means NOT living in fear or turning into a police state, by losing the liberty our forefathers fought to give us.
    Now we get baggage checks, soon we’ll hear “papers please”. No, keeping those who hate us out of here is the much better alternative.

    What about the Muslims who don’t hate us? Hmm. I sure wish there were some way of determining which immigrants really want to be here in the United States and which don’t…
    Oh wait, it’s called a CITIZENSHIP TEST. Last time I checked these things were fairly rigorous (I have a friend born in Mauritius who was trying for his citizenship over a ten year period, and this guy was a former Jesuit priest who spoke like ten different languages).
    As for immigrants who are not citizens–as long as they obey the law, they can feel however they want about America. Freedom is meaningless unless you allow the basic right to dissent. Conpspiracy of course is another thing entirely and again already punishable by law.
    And, in my opinion, it’s you that has been doing work for the enemy these weeks.
    I never said you were doing the enemy’s work, merely that you are reacting exactly the way a terrorist wants his victims to respond. You might want to be careful whom you accuse of collaborating with terrorists, too, as there are more litigious souls than myself out there who’d gladly sue your ass for libel if you said the same to them.
    If that were to turn out to be true, maybe one of these days, you’ll get to sign on as American Exile.
    I was born an American and I’m damned proud of my country. But I’m not going to stand by and let yahoos like you piss away everything great about America because they got spooked by a few thousand angry zealots. If you can’t deal with that why don’t you leave then?

  • Dak

    but when you use a zealot’s statements to indict all believers you’re not helping anyone’s cause–least of all the cause against future terrorism.
    Not just a zealot. Islam doctirne itself!
    You cannot deny, “Islam commands “convert the infidel or kill him” and to kill apostates.
    The Islam doctrine has convert or kill (or make a dihimmi or whatever) as every Muslim’s MOST important obligation.
    Denying that? A simple Yes or No will do.

    When the radicals demand jihad of the moderates …they HAVE to comply or die.

  • Dak

    Piss away everything?
    “Everything is already getting pissed away”…have you noticed what we have to put up with now…we all have to get searched everywhere we go. We are losing our liberties, becoming a police state…all over Muslims.
    Accomodating a Muslim presence means a police state.
    I am not willing to give up our liberties, so that people that hate us can come here.
    Better: Only one way traffic between us and Muslim countries…OUT!