Harry's Place

The slow jihad fellows and their enablers are the main reason that the Americans and British should withdraw asap from the Middle East and Afghanistan. The pattern was apparent during GWB’s days; to buy some peace for the troops posted abroad, Iman Bush spread all kinds of inanities about Islam, that it was a religion of peace, that only a small minority of Muslims ached to kill infidels – which may well be true – but just one filty jihad pig with proper ammunition has already killed or maimed about fifty people. The fucker was a sicko, but the see no evil regime concerning Islam, that is current in the US ensured that the Army brass would rather wait for Hasan to act than shoot him in the head and dump him somewhere as any manly army would have done. They don’t want the leftists and CAIR stepping on their fat pensions. This is the sorry state that the armies of the West have come to. The Americans are better off going home and locking the Muslims out.

“The fucker was a sicko, but the see no evil regime concerning Islam, that is current in the US ensured that the Army brass would rather wait for Hasan to act than shoot him in the head and dump him somewhere as any manly army would have done.”

Due Process and innocent until proven guilty are evil things. They should be disposed of starting with the commenter I am quoting. I think he’s guilty of something given the angry tone of his post and spelling that is far worst than my own despite my being learning disabled. As a former member of the same elite unit as GWB, Dan Quayle, and the East Sprague Street killer, I know these things and cannot be challenged as criticizing the military is unpatriotic even if we “don’t want the leftists and CAIR stepping on [our] fat pensions.”

Christ dude, I am learning disabled, yet smarter than you.

The majority of these stereotypes come from false depictions of Islam as a fundamentalist, extremist organization bent on world domination through sharia law.

Would that such depictions were entirely false. In his book, The War of Ideas, Walid Phares exposes the massive smokescreen that the Jihadis have constructed to anaesthetise the moral senses of those who they wish to suborn and conquer – that’s both reformers in Muslim countries and academics and Muslims in the West. Only by owning up to the whole truth about Islam’s founder, its history and the influence of its doctrines on the behaviour of its followers will Muslims learn through contrition (as the West has done re its many failings), the humility that they need to take their part in the modern world. I have never heard contrition from even the most moderate Muslim.

Shah may be on that road, but he is barely halfway there. I do not blame him, for the whole truth is not what you will get from the MSM, academe and least of all those wolves in sheep’s clothing – the Jihadis.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. – W.B.Yeats

It’s a shame that in the US, the murderers faith, values, history, own statements and associations will be ignored and whitewashed. In the US you are officially not allowed to have a reasoned debate about Islam with the facts as you know them any more than a white person is allowed to drop the N-Bomb. You can expect ‘everyone’ to violently agree that this was a poor broken man driven past his limits by the horrid war on Islam, and by implication, Israel.

History Punk, since you so much smarter than me, spend some time reading the The War Of Ideas by Walid Pares (listed in the above post), or Islamic Imperialism by Efraim Karsh. And I stand by what I say, an operationally ready army must not tolerate traitors in its midst.

This American muslim is, I hope, the decent man he
appears to be.

Why anyone needs religion, other than as a social
tradition, beats me.

However, the history of islam is littered with rather more
betrayals & lies than even Christianity.
And lies are officially part of the jihadi’s armory.

I suggest any muslim who wishes to live peacefully
seriously gets involved in a muslim reformation,
or better still, gets out of this backward & unnessary
religion altogether.

an operationally ready army must not tolerate traitors in its midst.

Do you consider Naveed Ali Shah, who (I presume unlike you) is serving voluntarily in the US military in Iraq, a traitor?

What pissed me off is this: This guy evidently was proselytizing to his patients, cheering on suicide bombers, and mouthing off about United States policy to his colleagues. He was even reportedly known to the FBI. But if any action was taken up to the very second he started shooting, he would have been the subject of whining about Islamophobia if he was drummed out of the Army.

At least someone is thinking clearly about this.

Mr. Lieberman said that if news reports were true that Mr. Hasan had turned to Islamic extremism, “the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most-destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11.”
“We don’t know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act,” Mr. Lieberman added.

The lawmaker said he would begin a Senate investigation aimed at uncovering Mr. Hasan’s motives and asking “whether the Army missed warning signs.” He also called on the Pentagon to begin an independent investigation to determine whether “warning signs were missed.”

Mr. Lieberman said preliminary evidence suggested that Mr. Hasan had denounced the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “In the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech,” the senator said. “If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125769764441836773.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

Oh dear…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

From cjcjc’s link.

It was the latest in a series of “red flags” about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America’s largest military installation, on Thursday.

Well, damn.

A strange, strange day when Mesquito is acting as a voice of reason. This thread started miserably, and I have every fear it’s going to spiral downwards.

What pissed me off is this: This guy evidently was proselytizing to his patients, cheering on suicide bombers, and mouthing off about United States policy to his colleagues. He was even reportedly known to the FBI. But if any action was taken up to the very second he started shooting, he would have been the subject of whining about Islamophobia if he was drummed out of the Army.

I forgot to add: When his cousin was bitching to journalists about the harassment Maj. Hasan was subject to, it was almost certainly blowback from running his stupid, fanatical head about U.S. policy.

President Obama invoked the Fort Hood shootings in an emotional appeal to Democrats to pass health care reform today, contrasting the sacrifices of soldiers with political positioning.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/11/president-raises-fort-hood-in.html#ixzz0WIJ3gtT9

Alcuin is correct, I am certain Naveed Ali Shah is a brave soldier and a good American Muslim, however I must have read different version’s of the Koran and Hadith than he has, I must have, it is the only explanation I can come up to explain the contradiction, pick up any English translation of the Koran, open it randomly and there is a very good chance that on the page you have opened someone or something will be admonished, damned, cursed or sent into Hellfire.

It is true, try it if you don’t believe me.

It is statistically impossible for all Muslims to be terrorists, it is statistically impossible for all Muslims to be supporters of terrorists but that doesn’t mean that Islam is a benign ‘religion of peace’, the actions of “Islam”, the words of “Islam”, the stated goals of “Islam” are there for all to see, it is not as opaque as some would have us believe, it is all written down in their holy scriptures.

Now if someone can tell me which copy of the Koran, the copy that contains all the love and peace and tolerance, I can purchase then I will go out today and but it.

“I was raised in a good Islamic household and, until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, I never really believed that Muslims could be evil in the name of their faith. Though my early life was sheltered, I’ve learned a lot in the years since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”

I assume from that statement that he does now realize that Muslims can be evil in the name of their faith.

It’s a pity a large part of the Left don’t realize it also.

A word to the “Left” it is possible for these Islamist Maniacs to be driven solely by what they believe to be an order from “god” an order to kill or convert all Humans, it is possible that these Islamist Theocratic Lunatics are acting like savages because they truly believe in the supremacy of their religion and are not just reacting to the “lefts” greatest of sins, oppression.

Bin Laden is not a marxist, you know, the Taliban are not communists, you know, Hamas are not progressives, you know.

No, in fact you don’t know, do you, that’s the problem.

I am an athiest. I have contempt for all religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology (which is more of scam than a religion), etc., and, given the threat of contemporary Islamism, probably more a bit more for the religion that it purports to represent than the others. But it is hardly fair to the other Muslims, the vast majority of peaceful, productive, patriotic – i.e. ordinary – Muslims, to be villifying them on the basis of what the radicals are doing in thier name. Hate the movement. Mock the religion. Destroy the terrorists. But fight a just and careful war. Naveed Ali Shah is an honorable man.

I’d like to know how pointing out that Naveed Shah is a loyal American will help us prevent the next jihadist attack? What tools do postings like this give us that would be useful in helping us distinguish between those Muslims who’ll go ballistic and those who won’t?

What kind of world have we created when someone who is obviously unstable, has given multiple warning signs of being psycotic, and who is on the record as expressing extreme hated of non-muslims, cannot be denounced and removed from his armed forces position?

We need a ’surge’ here at home.

This guy was a major. He’d joined the army right after highschool, had been in the armed forces for 20-odd years, had recieved multiple promotions, had had his entire education paid for, and yet on the cusp of middle age had yet to see a single day of combat.

It is true that Naveed Shah is far from the only moderate in the U.S. army.

But it is also true that Hasan is probably not the sole Muslim fanatic lurking in its regiments.

It has also come out that Hasan had frequented the same mosque and the same ’spiritual advisor’ that three of the 911 highjackers had frequented.

Anaximanders other sandal as usual is dead right.

The problem all liberal democracies have is,
should you tolerate the intolerant ?
And if so , how far.

Good Left/Liberals take righteous delight in denouncing
& abusing white (mainly working class) racists.
But then they did not suffer the inconveniences of
mass immigration.

But what is their response to misogynist blacks who
father whole tribes of children by assorted mothers,
& leave society to pick up the terrible price ?

What is their response to exponents of the religion of
peace who riot, burn books, murder family members ?

In each case it is a deafening silence, followed by
the construction of more social housing, often with
lavatory facilities no Western would use.

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks sharia law
is the answer. Probably he went to one of those
comprehensive schools where he was taught how evil
Westerners are, & how muslims invented everything.

Let’s face it. Mass air transport & mass immigration
have brought together large numbers of people who are
best kept apart.

I’m very happy to have black & brown friends who
share Western values – I dined with a secular Pakistani
last night.

But should my wife’s acquaintance “X”, a Kurd, live here?
She calls the UN the “Jewnited nations”, & says that the
CIA were behind 9/11, when no Jews turned up for work.

What about a white British convert I know of
(brother in law of discreet ex muslim). He went to Afghanistan
to kill our troops. Shat himself. Is back on the dole & is waiting
until his daughter is 8 – when he owns her under Sharia law -
he’s then taking her to the Yemen, if he can kidnap her
from his estranged wife.

Why should anyone of any political persuasion defend
these people ?

To the muslim world, we are weak, & lack the courage of our
convictions.

mesquito,

Obama is not the only one using this for political purposes. I am sure you have seen the hard Right columnist Jerome Corsi’s filth over at World Net Daily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=115230

“This is the sorry state that the armies of the West have come to. The Americans are better off going home and locking the Muslims out.”

There was a time when I would have ridiculed this sort of ‘America First’ islolationism but its beginning to look more sensible by the day.

From Britain’s perspective, we should be honest about the reality of the terror threats we face. These aren’t Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives slipping into the country via Calais. They aren’t people with any direct or indirect contact with Osama or Iran. They dont even need particularly significant financial resources and build bombs out fertiliser or even flour. Their great strength is their sense of purpose and faith. They are BRITISH muslims moving quite legally between the United Kingdom and Pakistan. Some will have recieved training in Pakistan, some may never of even left the UK. We are talking about Somali refugees with legal asylum status in Britain. We made the mistake of seperating the decades old immigration issues from the terrorist ones. The terrorist threat is homegrown and the sooner we recognise this the sooner we can determine foreign policy priorities. Just to play devils advocate here, honestly, can we really ask soldiers to give their lives supporting a corrupt Afghan government and womens rights? Its becoming increasingly clear to me that notions about human rights will always be a complete and utter nonsense in this part of the world. Is spending money and lives policing Afghanistan really a better use of resources than properly policing the UK?

Kyle, you should not have contempt for Religions. They may all be false, but the fact that they are so pervasive illustrates a deep need (flaw, if you like) in the human psyche. Judaism and Islam both grew out of a warrior culture – Moses, Joshua, David and Mohammed were brutal, ruthless warriors. Buddhism does not even have a God, so you may consider it to be a philosophy, rather than a religion.

Religions exert considerable power over people, as such we must take them seriously. The ruthless Islam supplanted the gentle Buddhism in most of central Asia, and Christianity in the Levant, North Africa and south east Europe – you cannot ignore that. Such power shows how effective Islam in particular is as a weapon, one used repeatedly by both the pious and the cynically acquisitive.

As far as Christianity is concerned, if you were to take it out of Western culture and history, the result would be unrecognisable. Much of our Law depends on the Christian world view. And you do not have to be a Christian (in the religious sense) to appreciate Christ’s extraordinary and unique impact as a moral philosopher.

I only ask these questions because I am not sure anymore. We have been in Afghanistan for longer the duration of the Second World War. Since 2001, the current Afghan government has become more sectarian, more corrupt and more abusive in terms of human rights. The security situation for our troops and allies has got worse since liberation, the UN has just effectively withdrawn. Not a single other European country is going to commit significantly more troops than it already has. Honestly, I cannot see any sort of ‘end game’ here.

Obama’s Cater-esque reluctance to make a decision brings shame to him and brings danger to our troops. What an arse, probably still working out how the decisions will effect poll ratings.

So Murphy: Barack Obama and Jerome Corsi are exploiting this outrage for political purposes. What does that have to do with me?

I misread Murphy’s comment, so my previous comment makes little sense.

His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting

>> I am an athiest. I have contempt for all religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology

As much nonsense as believing all religions lead to Jainism.

Something has me puzzled Gene, why do you feel it necessary to push the “don’t blame all the Muslims” argument, when a Christian fanatic kills a Gynecologist do you feel the same urge to defend all Christians?

What is it about Islam that makes the “left” so quick to offer mitigation in its defense, what is it about Muslims that make the “left” act so defensive?

Do you not think that if the American people were really that bigoted against muslims then 911 would have resulted in a genocide on the streets of the USA.

Muslims attacked America on 911 Gene, it wasn’t Bhuddists, Hindus, Jews or Father Christmas, it was muslims, insane maniacal muslims granted but muslims non the less.

If the left cannot accept that simple fact then they are in a very dangerous delusional state of mind.

Millions of Muslims support the ideology espoused by Bin Laden, that’s Millions not hundreds or thousands but Millions, being nice and progressive to these millions will not, as the left truly believe, result in their enlightenment it will only confirm their delusions of grandeur and the righteousness of the cause, these maniacs believe “god” has given them a divine mission and they will gladly kill anyone to fulfill that mission.

Large sections of the “Left” are in denial in regards to Islam, just as they were about communism, there are good non violent muslims, sure there are, but Islam is not a “religion of peace” it never has been and all the wishful thinking on Earth isn’t going to change that fact, it is an imperialistic supremacist ideology, you know, the type of ideology that the “left” are supposed to hate.

Ask yourselves this Mr Lefties, do you really believe that Islam has spread so far because it came in peace?

As for Jainism that would be the only religion I would ever consider reverting to, I am an Atheist and my non-belief is as real as any theists belief, so I demand respect for my non-belief from all the religious humans on earth, that’s OK isn’t it.

Wonder if the Islamist Theocratic Lunatics or indeed any religious lunatic would give me a big Hug for my heartfelt unbelief, would they treat me as they would any other Atheist and not like they treat the ‘fanatical’ ones.

I never really believed that Muslims could be evil in the name of their faith

Anyone can be evil in the name of their faith. And Islam is an evil faith so more Muslims are going to be evil in the name of their faith than are Christians, Buddhists and so forth.

Navid Ali Shah sounds like a very decent man. However, just as – and we “Islamophobes” are continually told this as if we didn’t know -Muslim terrorists do not represent all Muslims, decent, secularised Muslims don’t either.

It isn’t non-Muslims that need convincing Islam is a religion of peace – it’s Muslims who seem, in significant numbers, to get their religion so very wrong.

A strange, strange day when Mesquito is acting as a voice of reason. This thread started miserably, and I have every fear it’s going to spiral downwards.

I wish that just once you’d take your self-righteous overweening sanctimoniousness elsewhere.

Moreover the coming storm of wishy washy faux liberal hand wringing is going on about the inevitable crackup of a man in a stressful job. A man who by the way had never been deployed overseas. As if the sheer merits of having a stressful job are some kind of warped excuse. People picked on him because he was Muslim. So he unloaded on 40 people…..?

Lots of jobs are stressful from oncologist to burn ward nurse to firefighter to crane operator to air traffic controller. Are we supposed to ‘understand’ the next time some day care worker kills a dozen children because, hell, we’ve all been there..damn those brats are a pain…?

I don’t doubt Islam’s capability to twist a vulnerable mind; few religious ideologies are filled with such hatred and violence. This guy probably felt that he was doing ‘god’s’ work and looked forward to virgins, waterfalls and non-intoxicating wine in paradise.

However, my own gut feeling is that he was deranged; in the same way that many deranged people think their god wants them to kill.

This is unlike the 9/11, 7/7 or Madrid bombings where the perpetrators calmly committed their evil with much planning and forethought. Where they were organized, coached and coordinated by Islamist organizations and supported by Islamic scholars.

If that had been the case here, then his handlers would have made better use of their ‘asset’ to inflict far more damage to their enemy than a simple shooting spree.

It is also very important for all ‘Islamo-sceptics’ to understand that the overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars believe that killing your countrymen is un-Islamic. Therefore, the 7/7 and Madrid bombing were almost certainly un-Islamic. However, the question of 9/11 is grey as the victims were not the killers’ countrymen. That boils down to the very subjective definition of ‘innocent’ as Islam forbids killing ‘innocent’ people.

However, we must nevertheless understand that many scholars believe that Islam condones and actually demands that Muslims join their ‘oppressed’ brethren and fight the ‘oppressors’ in OTHER lands. So for example, there is nothing un-Islamic about British or American Muslims, going to Iraq or Afghanistan and fighting their former countrymen. Indeed, many scholars consider this to be a duty.

It is important to understand these subtleties. I know from experience that Muslim scholars are very slippery. They will stress how un-Islamic killing sprees such as this are, yet they’ll play-down the Muslim duty to leave one’s homeland in order to fight it.

Something has me puzzled Gene, why do you feel it necessary to push the “don’t blame all the Muslims” argument, when a Christian fanatic kills a Gynecologist do you feel the same urge to defend all Christians?

We have and we do. There are people who comment here who claim that religion and the religiously-inspired are responsible for more than their fair-share of misery in the world and abortion doctors getting shot up in the US by extremist Christian fruitloops has been cited as evidence. The rational among us point out that non-religious types do bad stuff too, and the fact some nutcase does something horrific citing X as his/her motivation might tell us something significant about X or it might not. The perpetrator of said act might just be a bit of a sick bastard and/or clinically insane, in which case it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to attribute great significance to X, whether X is a declared religious allegiance or a dislike for Mondays.

a dislike for Mondays.

Thanks for reminding me. Only 88 minutes to go.

There’s blood on your hands….

Specialist Ali Shah’s peace is all spin and fluff…so much Islamochaff; it singularly fails to deal with the substantive problems of Koranic invocations, the appalling role model provided by Mohamed, nor of the undoubted fact that much backwardness, violence and strife in the World is very directly informed by this. Indeed it’s the major part of why Afghanistan is a pre mediaval shit hole.

The article states he is writing in a private capacity, so I’m curious, what does a US Army ‘Muslim public affairs specialist’ actually do?

Does the US Army employ Buddhist public affairs specialists too, if not why not?

“It is also very important for all ‘Islamo-sceptics’ to understand that the overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars believe that killing your countrymen is un-Islamic.”

It is Not “killing your countrymen is un-Islamic.” But Killing other Muslims that is un-Islamic, isn’t it?

Killing Jews, who wouldn’t convert, in Mohammed’s Arabia wasn’t seen as un-Islamic was it, or was it just the killing of the good Jews who paid the protection money seen as being un-Islamic?

Are there no murders in Islamic countries? Does the home of Islam Saudi Arabia not really chop peoples heads off, with most of the ‘chopees’ being muslim?

Sunni’s killing Shia in Iraq is not seen as being un-Islamic is it? In fact sunnis killing shia anywhere is not seen as being un-Islamic is it?

In fact is Shia killing Sunni seen as being un-Islamic, was the Iran/Iraq war a purely un-Islamic war.

Depends on which flavor of Islam one likes I suppose.

“There are people who comment here who claim that religion and the religiously-inspired are responsible for more than their fair-share of misery in the world ”

And they are 100% correct “religiously-inspired” people ARE responsible for more than their fair share of misery in this world, as far as I am concerned they are. Religious people are supposed to be well, err “RELIGIOUS” aren’t they, they are supposed to be all peaceful and holy and all round good guys, aren’t they, well from where I am sitting they don’t have a very good track record on that front, do they.

I will have to try and stop coming here, to this place, it is really starting to depress me.

What a vile centrifugal cesspit for racist commentators Harry’s Place has become.

The article states he is writing in a private capacity, so I’m curious, what does a US Army ‘Muslim public affairs specialist’ actually do?

Does the US Army employ Buddhist public affairs specialists too, if not why not?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that he is a “Muslim public affairs specialist” as opposed to what he is– a public affairs specialist who happens to be a Muslim?

What a vile centrifugal cesspit for racist commentators Harry’s Place has become.

johng, what do you think of Muslim extremists who say Muslims who serve in the US or UK military are infidels? I believe you could find some in the Stop the War Coalition. Are they equally vile and racist?

“What a vile centrifugal cesspit for racist commentators Harry’s Place has become.”

So says a vile communist supporting scumbag, a man whose beloved comrades write the most disgusting Jew hating bile since the 1930s nazi’s, Jew hatred his Islamist comrades spew about almost daily.

The Malignant Left, they disgust me.

“johng, what do you think of Muslim extremists who say Muslims who serve in the US or UK military are infidels? I believe you could find some in the Stop the War Coalition. Are they equally vile and racist?”

Excellent use of the Decent Debating Technique.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/decent-blitzkreig.html

Decents 1 johng 0

What is going to happen when populations in the west finally refuse to accept the “religion of peace and love” dogma? I think that time is rapidly approaching, and the public are beginning to sense that this official piety is not even believed by those in government who preach it to the rest of us. Who, we now know, always had a vested interest in fending off any scrutiny of what they were really doing, and who they were really doing it for.

What a vile centrifugal cesspit for racist commentators Harry’s Place has become.

The thing about that is, the comments at HP, on this issue at least, tend to be where the general public is, so at least you’re able to see how ordinary people see an incident like this. Doesn’t make it not racist and not vile on occasions, but it’s more a real snap shot of how people are thinking.

The problem with the extreme far left sites is it’s often a different universe. Which is fine if that’s what you want, but you’re not really gonna have your ear to the street.

This all reminds me of a mock headline that perfectly captures liberal unreality.

Muslims Fear Repercussions From Tomorrow’s Train Bombing

It has become extraordinarily difficult for western governments to sweep the islamic provenance of terror attacks under the carpet. And this is largely due to the fact that the terrorists latched on to their duplicity before we, the voters, did. More than ever the attackers take specific measures to ensure that their handiwork can not be written off as accidents, or the actions of an isolated deranged nutter. This is why they deliberately do an end run around the authorities with a pre-recorded video tape, released on the web. And this is why they stage multiple attacks at the same time. They want us to be in no doubt about who, and why.

@Anaximanders other sandal

“It is Not “killing your countrymen is un-Islamic.” But Killing other Muslims that is un-Islamic, isn’t it?”

It depends on whether the country is defined as the Dar al-Harb, ‘House of War’ or Dar al-’Ahd, ‘House of Truce’ (or one of the other various Islamic definitions in-between). The way a Muslim deals with his or her ‘countrymen’ depends upon the Islamic definition that he or she believes applies to them.

“Killing Jews, who wouldn’t convert, in Mohammed’s Arabia wasn’t seen as un-Islamic was it,…?”

Muslims would say that that was an example of Dar al-Harb.

“Does the home of Islam Saudi Arabia not really chop peoples heads off, with most of the ‘chopees’ being muslim?”

That is simply sharia law. The hudud punishment of decapitation for certain crimes is advocated in the Qu’ran.

“Sunni’s killing Shia in Iraq is not seen as being un-Islamic is it?”

No, for some Muslims it is not as the Shia are considered to be apostates and therefore perfectly ‘killable’.

“In fact is Shia killing Sunni seen as being un-Islamic,…?”

In the Iran Iraq war the Shia Iranians would claim that they were defending themselves against an aggressor and non-Islamic regime.

“Depends on which flavor of Islam one likes I suppose.”

Here you hit the nail on the head. There is no one Islam. There are thousands. Islam is not a hierarchical religion. There is no equivalent of a Pope or Arch Bishop to tell Muslims what Islam is. Therefore, Islam can be whatever a Muslim thinks it is.

The problem with that situation is that the Qur’an is considered by Muslims to be a medieval ‘tape-recording’ of god’s voice, relevant for all time. And that text contains an inordinate amount of incitement to hatred, intolerance and violence. Add to this the hadith and you compound that incitement. Then consider that for Muslims, Mohammed is the perfect human being that they should emulate. And I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you what an appalling example he was.

Therefore, we will never escape the probability that a proportion of Muslims will always have a deeply unpleasant worldview.

The point I was making (and that I believe you missed) concerns The Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims we hear so much about.

They would almost overwhelmingly renounce Fort Hood, 7/7 and the Madrid Train Bombings. And only a tiny proportion of that group of would consider that 9/11 was Islamic.

But quite a few of them would quietly condone Muslim Americans and Muslim British nationals joining the ‘jihad’ in Iraq against their countrymen.

Judaism and Islam both grew out of a warrior culture – Moses, Joshua, David and Mohammed were brutal, ruthless warriors.

Joshua, David and Mohammed arguably were warriors, but Moses, a warrior? If memory serves, (and I stand to be corrected in some of the details) the story relates that Moses fought one war, after being attacked in the desert, by having Aaron and Levite apparatchiks help him to keep his arms raised toward the sky until the battle was over. Some warrior. And where does Solomon fit into Judaism’s brutal and ruthless warrior culture?

Gene, Shah is a good man in a difficult position. I plead stress brought about by unemployment for my stupid rant. The pertinent question is this: why are Muslims like Hasan given such leeway? Would a Christian be allowed to carry on like Hasan? Its a certainty that he would have been cashiered long ago. That however is not the worst of it. Even now, some careerist must be bulleting a report on lessons learnt, the thrust of which is the compelling need for more diversity and sensitivity training on Islam. The situation in the West now, parallels that of the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s, when perfectly sane men like Andrei Sinyavsky and Nathan Sharansky were sent to asylums for reeducation.

No sooner had I mentioned ‘careerist’ and ‘diversity programs’ than Gen Casey pops up as a caricature. The man is keener on diversity and sensitivity than winning wars.

this is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are futile, and a waste of blood and money – the refusal to acknowledge the nature of the enemy because it you know would ruffle a lot of feathers is just one reason among many why the fight there is wasted. The US Army is run along PC multiculti know-nothing-about-Islam lines, like the BBC and well everything else in the Western world. The US Army would rather get its own killed than you know be seen as racist by the multiculti brigade (ie most of the Western world), and nothing is going to change. Hello look who’s in the White House.

Sun Tzu observed that in order to defeat the enemy you had to know him and that the battle is won or lost before it is fought, indeed the battle has already been lost, one reason is a refusal to know the enemy.

And why do we not want to know the enemy (no not all Muslims, but the religious dogma of Islam)? Well wishful thinking for one and fear of offence are obvious factors. Also sinister anti-Semitism is a shared value among Islam and European cultures, hence a natural affinity to the Jew-haters of Islam. The thing the Jew-hating Westerners don’t understand, you can cheer the jihadists on in their war against Israeal but they hate you anyway and want to kill you too. You are just their useful idiots, but you’re still next in line…

Gene is always so predictably pathetic after every major jihad attack (at least on Western targets which is what makes the news), when jihadists kill non-white people as they do every day, it’s like whatever..What I mean by Gene’ predictable knee-jerk Pavlovian response to every jihad terror attack on Western targets is to bring up a total irrelevancy – namely a genuinely moderate Muslim in the same boat (the US Army in this case) who is an examplar of moderation and deceny. As if this proves what? that Islam is moderate? Uh no it doesn’t, Gene can continue to bring up individual examples of moderate Muslims from all walks of life – there are plenty of them – yet this does not change the fact that Islam is not moderate and in fact is inherently extremist. The texts in Qu’ran and Hadith and the life of Mohammed don’t change because of moderates who happen to be born in the Muslim community. Gene doesn’t understand this and never will. After Tel Aviv or Pittsburgh or Paris are hit by a nuclear bomb from a Muslim terrorist entity motivated solely by Muslim teachings and the life and teachings of Mohammed himself, Gene will be sure to bring up the story of some moderate Muslim in uh Highgate and the Chicago suburbs who is just horrified by the nuclear holocaust against several hundred thousand non-Muslims and it would be sincere in the case of genuine moderate Muslims – however it won’t change the fact of a nuclear holocaust by Muslim terrorists if it happens, or the fact that their motivations happen to have everything to do with Islam.

Characters like Gene will continue to blabber on in the default knee-jerk Pavlovian refusal-to-face-facts mode come hell or high water, and we are already at the gates of hell, thanks in part to the refusal to acknowledge what Islam actually is.

Does teaching assistant johng mean “centripetal” rather than “centrifugal”?

No wonder Gameboy failed his viva.

“And why do we not want to know the enemy (no not all Muslims, but the religious dogma of Islam)? Well wishful thinking for one and fear of offence are obvious factors. Also sinister anti-Semitism is a shared value among Islam and European cultures, hence a natural affinity to the Jew-haters of Islam. The thing the Jew-hating Westerners don’t understand, you can cheer the jihadists on in their war against Israeal but they hate you anyway and want to kill you too. You are just their useful idiots, but you’re still next in line…”

??????????

“Gene can continue to bring up individual examples of moderate Muslims from all walks of life – there are plenty of them – yet this does not change the fact that Islam is not moderate and in fact is inherently extremist.”

Yes, you can prove that Muslims aren’t all extremists with evidence, but that proves nothing, since Larry Moonsong has said so.

garry day, I realise you don’t understand, and never will. Even though you accurately quote me (well done, that gives you an edge over your fellow dhimmis who usually just lie about what I write) you don’t get that there is a difference between the religion of Islam and moderate Muslims. The moderates are moderate inspite of Islam. Gettit? no of course not. There are moderate Muslims but Islam is not a moderate religion. Understand now? No I bet you don’t. I know it’s very difficult for many people to get the crucial difference between them, moderate Muslims and the immoderate Muslim faith. For dhimmis it is quite literally impossible.

Larry Moonsong

“Gene can continue to bring up individual examples of moderate Muslims from all walks of life – there are plenty of them – yet this does not change the fact that Islam is not moderate and in fact is inherently extremist. The texts in Qu’ran and Hadith and the life of Mohammed don’t change because of moderates who happen to be born in the Muslim community.”

Well said.

I have an employee who admitted to voting BNP. He is a thoroughly decent chap and doesn’t appear to be a bigot, racist or extremist.

Maybe he’s typical of the Vast Majority of Moderate BNP Supporters who are not racist or extremist:-

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/who+voted+bnp+and+why/3200557

So applying Gene’s philosophy on the relationship between The Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims and Islam, it would be wrong to condemn the BNP ideology because of a minority (44% according to the Channel 4 poll) of racists.

We don’t need to look quite so hard for peaceful Christians, Buddhists, Jews or Hindus. Peaceful is the default in religions other than Islam.

Anaximanders other sandal – didn’t want to read and not post; excellent points made by yourself and yes, it is depressing, but we me must continue to keep up the fight in exposing all of this. Hopefully some of the idiotic “appeasers” from the left will be among the lurkers and might actually realise how dangerously stupid they are being.

Islam is not a peaceful religion and this myth needs to be shattered. Yes, there are many, many, many peaceful muslims but that proves nothing – the religion itself promotes a poisonous idealogy and until this is accepted the threat will continue to grow because how can solutions be developed when the parts of the “politically correct” “pro-multicultural” authorities will not acknowledge the true nature of the problem. The real UK terrorism threat, as Kilroy-Silk said on Question Time, is not from Afghanisation or some faraway land, it is HOMEGROWN.

Kelaosdfhg
9 November 2009, 2:21 pm
————-

Fully agree with you there.

The armed forces are being deployed, ostensibly against the fountainhead of terrorism, and the story goes that this is a geographic location in the subcontinent.

But the source is not a physical location at all. It is a book, upon which is predicated an entire religion, polity, legal system, and code of warfare. That war is mandatory, eternal, and here. And whereas the majority of western muslims are not engaging in terrorism, that does not make them peaceful, or progressive. It makes them passive, acquiescent. It isn’t the same thing.

We don’t need to look quite so hard for peaceful Christians, Buddhists, Jews or Hindus. Peaceful is the default in religions other than Islam.

Who’s looking hard? It’s quite easy to find Muslims like Specialist Shah in the US.

Hell, there were Muslims for McCain-Palin.

“Peaceful” or not, is not very relevant here.

Committment to the rule of law is the relevant thing.

You don’t defeat terrorism, gun crime, or any other assault on society using peaceful passive acquiescent people, who never say, or do, anything. You can only do it with the assistance of people who actively uphold the common law. Such people are assets. We have almost none in the UK.

What is it that makes specialist Shah look like an asset? All he cared about during the attack was his own family. All he cares about now is publishing something, anything, that passes muster, depending on who is winning right now, but also mollifying everyone else, just to keep on the safe side. Calling something tragic, saves you from having to say it is outrageous, or unjustifiable.

And this is where I agree with Gene, though I think he will not like my rationale. It is quite easy to find muslims like Shah, all over the western world.

And this is where I agree with Gene, though I think he will not like my rationale. It is quite easy to find muslims like Shah, all over the western world.

And unlike you, Monty, Shah is spending a year in a dangerous place, away from a family he deeply loves, to serve his country– and, if you live in the UK, your country too. What are you doing?

Right back at you Gene.

Right back at you Gene.

You’re the one who’s disparaging him and questioning his motives– not me.

I take it we’re all happy about this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/09/racist-attacks-students-city-university

No I’m not. There is nothing to be happy about.

But that is because I’m not tribal. I do not regard such violent acts as a strategic victory, for someone who is “on my side”. I regard them as an assault upon the civil society in which we all live. If they, the crooks, win, we all lose. This is why British people tend to shop criminals to the police. And this is why most British criminals find short shrift from their fellow countrymen, whether they be witnesses or juries.

No I’m not. There is nothing to be happy about.

But that is because I’m not tribal. I do not regard such violent acts as a strategic victory, for someone who is “on my side”. I regard them as an assault upon the civil society in which we all live. If they, the crooks, win, we all lose.
This is why British people tend to shop criminals to the police. This is why getting caught with a bucket of drowned kittens gets you busted. And this is why most British criminals find short shrift from their fellow countrymen, whether they be witnesses or juries.
This is widespread among the British population. It is like a genetic marker of a civil society. It is a measure of all the stuff no-one gets to do in front of me, without repercussions.

And in a significant sector of our population, it’s missing.

Sorry for the double post. It happens around here.

Ian Rush seems to have gone to ground. Dogmatic lackeys tend to do this, when their doctrine gets shredded in front of them. They don’t know what to say next, because they never knew what to say in the bloody first place. Unrehearsed, they go silent.

YOOOO HOOO!