Israel Is the Victim of Mohammed’s War Against the Jews

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


HAMAS KORANHamas isn’t shooting rockets at the Jews because of persecution, isolation or occupation. The Sunni Islamic terrorist group is doing it for the same reason that Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other in Iraq and Syria. And why its Muslim Brotherhood core group is killing Christians in Egypt.

To understand why, let’s step into a time machine and go back to the spring of 632. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius is engaged in the first of a series of wars with Mohammed’s maddened followers. England is divided into seven quarreling kingdoms. Across the water, the Merovingians are killing each other in ways that would give George R.R. Martin nightmares. Meanwhile in a more civilized part of the world, China’s fading Sui Dynasty fields an army of over a million men in a failed effort to invade Korea.

Back in Medina, Mohammed had come down with the sniffles. He had a fever and a headache and there wasn’t any Tylenol around for miles. Mohammed hadn’t been a very good man and he made a very bad patient. Upon being told that he had pleurisy, he claimed that only people possessed by Satan came down with that disease so he couldn’t possibly have it and instead blamed the Jews for poisoning him.

His own homemade cures, such as bathing in seven skins of water from seven different wells, didn’t help. But before he died, he managed to make the Middle East an even worse place by ordering the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians.

“Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,” Mohammed declared. “If I live, if Allah wills, I will expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.”

There could be only one.

Mohammed didn’t live, but that didn’t matter. His bigotry had long ago been coded into the theological DNA of Islam. Islam isn’t built on matters of the spirit, but the sword. Its theological proof is in the Muslim supremacist subjugation of non-Muslims.

The Bible begins with the creation of the universe. The Koran starts off with curses and threats aimed at non-Muslims and Muslims who aren’t Muslim enough. There is no greater contrast between the sublime and the tawdry than G-d creating the universe and Allah yelling at his followers like a frustrated fishwife with a bad temper.

Over a thousand years later, Muslims are still killing each other, along with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and countless others, to prove that their flavor of Islam is right and everyone else’s religion is wrong.

Theological consensus can only be achieved by the suicide bomber, the sniper, the Sarin nerve gas shell and the death squad. If England and France have come a long way since then, the Middle East hasn’t.  Mohammed’s way or the highway is still the rule of the road. And Mohammed’s way is whatever the man with the most guns and Korans says it is.

Destroying Israel has nothing to do with the so-called plight of the so-called Palestinians. They weren’t an issue in June 632. It was about oppressing and killing Jews then. It’s about the same thing now.

Israel’s critics start the historical record in 1948 while insisting that before that everyone lived in peace. They zoom in on a country that could be dropped into New Jersey without inconveniencing Jersey Shore surfers while ignoring all the Muslims around it killing each other and any surviving non-Muslims that still haven’t run away.

The truth about what is happening in Israel becomes obvious if you pull back to take in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. And after viewing those three bloody battlefields, we can go on a little tour of the region.

In Algeria, Muslims are protesting the possible reopening of a synagogue because it will “Judaize” the country. Most of the synagogues have already been seized and turned into mosques.

In 1994, the Armed Islamic Group vowed to eliminate Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims whom it accused of “colonizing” Algeria. That same year it met with Bin Laden. Its plot to crash an Air France jet on Christmas Eve into the Eiffel Tower was said to have inspired September 11.

Over 1,300 years after Mohammed called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians, Muslims were still carrying out his will.

In Yemen, a handful of Jews still live in a ghetto. Between a third and two-thirds had already died in the 17th century after they were ethnically cleansed due to yet another deathbed decree from an Islamic leader. The dying Imam Isma’il based this on Mohammed’s original ethnic cleansing Hadith from 632.

Events like these were and are the normal course of life for Jews under the shadow of Mohammed.

Hamas is not firing rockets at Jews because of some tricky bit of territory that can be swapped at the negotiating table. Its charter, like the Koran, begins by cursing the Jews. It declares that “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it”.

Not Palestine, Islam. Not the 1948 territories, but everything.  Article Seven envisions an end times genocide that will entirely eliminate the Jews. “The Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”

The source of that is not some distressed refugee from Gaza. It’s another ancient Islamic Hadith.

Ignorance of history is the greatest ally of Islamic terror.

The rockets falling on Jews are only the latest phase in an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing by Muslim colonists against the indigenous peoples of the Middle East. It’s a campaign that long predates any territorial debates about the West Bank and Gaza.

The same is true of September 11 and 7/7, both of which emerged from an Islamic theocratic worldview rooted in the seventh century that predates the United States and the United Kingdom. The causes of Islamic terror are not rooted in the recent present, but the ancient past.

And it is this past and its burden of bigotry that we are fighting.

The world has changed a great deal since June 632, but the Middle East hasn’t. The armies of Islamic raiders have traded camels and horses for pickup trucks. They recite their boasts over Twitter and share their grisly trophies using smartphones. But the fundamental attitude that drives their violence has been preserved in museum quality terror.

Israel’s critics are at war with context. They want to talk about Gaza, not Hamas. They don’t want to talk about the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood which Hamas is part of. They don’t want to talk about the Muslim Brotherhood’s invasion of Israel in 1948. They don’t want to address the Muslim Brotherhood’s declaration that “Jews are the historic enemies of Muslims”. Or its Secretary General’s statement that “Every Jew is a Zionist… the Zionist question is but a Jewish question with all that the word entails.”

“Would they (Muslims) fight the Jews as he had fought them and eject them from the Holy Land… as their ancestors had ejected them from the Arab Peninsula?”Secretary General Salih Ashmawi asked.

Once again everything returned to Mohammed’s original sin of ethnic cleansing.

Instead of pretending that a few territorial concessions by Jews to the regional Sunni Muslim majority will change anything, we have to address the political and religious territories of 632. Unless Muslims reject that ugly act of ethnic cleansing, their cycle of supremacist violence against Jews and Christians will continue.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • marciidavidson

    my classmate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the
    computer . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her paycheck was
    $15495 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit the site C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Flagged …

      • Bill James

        I too.

  • Fred Glass

    They, the Arab Muslims can not “reject that ugly act of ethnic cleansing”. Because it is not based on any rational objective even one of conquest but is based instead on a deep seated resentful envy of a mentally & morally inferior race of people for a mentally & morally superior race of people. This can not be changed.

    • kenaan

      You are absolutely wrong , no place to racial discrimination in Islam .Yusuf Chambers and Yusuf Estes are European generated citizens before they converted to Islam .Abdullah Salam was one of the most significant Jewish scholars in the 7th century , he converted willingly to Islam and became one of Muhammad”s companions.AlBukhari ,Moslem , Abu Dawod , and Altermiddi are the most fluent scholars who kept the narrations of Muhammad sane without altering ,all of them were non Arabs .

      • Webb

        So then if Christian converts to Muslim, should he start fingering his dirt hole with his left hand, going into his wife at age 9, and expect reward of 72 virgin he-goats for fighting against the Jew?

      • bob smith

        If he is “absolutely” wrong then that leaves only that you must be “absolutely” correct.

        HOW FOOLISH OF ANYONE TO PRESUME ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT A MUSLIM SAYS CAN BE REMOTELY CORRECT.

        Your Islam equates to hate and intolerance and like a sickness, it needs to be eradicated as does each and very one of its cult.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Tell that to all the black people you call Abd

        In any case, we’re discussing Islamic supremacism

        • Fred Glass

          Yes, you are speaking of Islamic Supremacism.. I am merely taking your point to the next deeper level, one grounded in the emotions, particularly those of status to feel morally superior to others and in this case when Muslims can not objectively achieve their moral superiority they lash out with vicious hateful resentful envy to those who show them up in such stark relief.

      • Gee

        Liar – Islam is racial discrimination. The word for ‘black’ is the same for ‘slave’. Islam is a fascist cult of psychopathic thieves, rapists, slavers and murderers.

        • Larry Larkin

          “Slave” is a corruption of “Slav” because the muslims took so many out of the Slavic nations of eastern and south eastern Europe.

      • Americana

        kenaan, the point is not that OUTSIDERS are accepted within Islam, rather the question is that Islam must PREVAIL over all other religions wherever Islam is found. If you don’t consider that demand to prevail over all other religions silly, I do. It’s one thing for someone to choose a religion. If a religion is so persuasive and so appeals to the human heart and mind people choose to convert, that’s one thing. It’s another thing entirely to FORCE people to convert or die. That is false proselytization. Converts who choose Islam under those circumstances of death or dishonor are only choosing Islam in order to survive. These various aspects of Islam that are medieval in their character should be eliminated, ELIMINATED IN THEIR ENTIRETY from Islam. This idea of making one world under Islam — the Ummah — is not only ridiculous, it’s FUNDAMENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE in terms of world sociology. Mohammed based everything in Islam on what he knew from the faiths around him, from the sociology around him. The flaws that Mohammed injected into Islam because they reflect the flaws and the bigotry in his reasoning should be eliminated. Islam cannot continue to attempt to prevail in this militaristic, parasitic way.

        • truebearing

          You are trying to make the argument that a wheel doesn’t necessarily need to be round. Wheels are by definition round and Islam is what it is. If you remove Mohammed’s definition of jihad, you remove the purpose of Islam. It is then no longer Islam but a religion without a purpose. I would be thrilled to see you succeed, but you would be dead before you ever altered a single sentence.

          • Americana

            Islam will still be what it was with certain excisions if Muslims decide that’s what it is. You’ve got no claim over determining that because you’re not a member of the Muslim faith. Your thesis is unprovable until it’s proved or not by Muslims who make that decision.

          • 95Theses

            What you are suggesting is akin to removing the Resurrection from Christianity, in which case Christianity would simply cease to exist in any meaningful sense if – for the convenience of plurality and politically-correctness
            – Christians were to excise just so “we can all get along”.

            Good luck with that.

          • John Kerry

            americana is a paid troll banned from various sites. Don’t feed it. Ignore it.

      • jackdiamond

        Supremacism within supremacism. That of Islam over all other religions and Muslims over all the kaffir. That is the topic here. But within Islam, you have the “real” Muslims (Sunni or Shi’a and subsets) vs. the apostates but also the Arab Muslim over the non-Arab. Arabs the “best of all Muslims” “Allah has chosen the Arabs above all others” in the reliable hadiths. Muhammad was an Arab. The Qur’an is in Arabic (the Quraysh dialect). Allah created the Arabic language just for the Qur’an so even the language is holy. Though 80% of the world’s Muslims are non-Arab they have to learn Arabic and recite the Qur’an in Arabic. The bias towards Arabs continues with the modeling Muslims must do of the Arab Muhammad. With the taking of an Islamic (Arab) name when a non-Arab converts. Arab dress. Pilgrimage to Arab lands. With Islam’s requirement of imperial cultural genocide–anything that came before Islam belongs to ignorance and idolatry and the culture that must be recreated is one based on Arab Muslim culture.

        Tabari II:21 “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and
        curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair.’

        Tabari IX:69 “Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us.”

      • carpe diem 36

        so what you are really saying is that there were some insane individuals who became moslems to prove what?? to prove that the moslems are not mentally and morally inferior? just look around. Israel is green, prospering, powerful,innovative and benefits the whole world with their ingenuity. The arab world is ignorant, yellow, primitive, not one good thing came out of so many masses of people. ” Abdullah Salam was one of the most significant Jewish scholars in the
        7th century , he converted willingly to Islam and became one of
        Muhammad”s companions.AlBukhari ,Moslem , Abu Dawod , and Altermiddi are
        the most fluent scholars who kept the narrations of Muhammad sane
        without altering ,all of them were non Arabs “, So one maybe significant scholar had much influence, so what about the billions of those ignorant primitive and backward people? One jew is a good ratio.

      • Drakken

        The fact that you are in the West disturbs me greatly, for you and others of your Islamic ilk are a clear and present danger to us all.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        kenaanite, Current day Slavery in Sudan, enslaves black people.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        May the Golden Arches flag of McDonald’s will fly over Mecca.

        INSHALLAH!

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        May a Muslim leave Islam and not be under threat of death?

  • truebearing

    “Israel’s critics start the historical record in 1948″

    This is the arbitrary starting point for every argument about the legitimacy of “palestine” and the right of Israel to reclaim its historic homeland. One would think there weren’t humans on the planet before then to hear some of their lame arguments. The events of WWII and the immediate context after the war are even treated as obscure footnotes to an irrelevant period where nothing of import occurred. The reason is because the “palestine narrative” falls apart if events pre-dating 1948 are allowed into the discussion.

    The Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Israel to “Palestine,” a latinized version of Philistine, as an act of ethnic destruction, humiliation, and propaganda after the second Jewish rebellion. He renamed Jerusalem too. Hadrian chose the name of an enemy of Israel, and enemies of Israel still go by that false name today. Why is that important? Because not only was the name false, but the Philistines were a European people from the Adriatic region, not Arabs. That doesn’t fit the palestinian narrative very well.

    Muslim conquests of the region brought the Arabs. They practiced the kinds of ethnic cleansing Israel is falsely accused of today. They took the land by force. That was acceptable in the prehistoric times ,before 1948. Why is that okay, but new settlements in the Philistinian…I mean Palestinian territory is an abomination? Because history began in 1948. Anything before that isn’t relevant.

    Daniel nailed the date that the conflict really began, but the Left will never admit that religious beliefs are the reason for anything, and the Muslims feel justified in genocide because Mohammed said it was. Mohammed even lied and told his followers Islam came before Judaism and Christianity. Apparently he felt he had to lie to cover his bad cut and paste plagiarism and twisting of both… but that all happened before 1948, so it doesn’t count.

    The funny thing about the Left and their refusal to acknowledge the relevancy of anything pre-1948 is that they are still following a failed ideology that began 100 years earlier.

    • hiernonymous

      “Mohammed even lied and told his followers Islam came before Judaism and Christianity.”

      Don’t Christians assert that Jesus helped inspire the Old Testament?

      Just asking.

      • bob smith

        Do you realize how irrelevant and idiotic that question is relevant to the issues at hand?

        Are you asking it as a means to distraction of the subject at hand, simple subterfuge? Or are you simply stirring the pot?

        Old Testament or otherwise, how does that question relate to the wonton desires of Islam to eradicate the Jews and Christians?????

        What is it about the facts regarding Islam and it’s death creed to all but it’s sycophants that troubles you such that you must discourse to any alternative path but the path of the facts at hand?

        • mozart

          Ignore him. He is practicing taqiya. He is deceiving, changing the subject, obfuscating. He cannot deal with the unassailable facts presented brilliantly by Daniel
          Greenfield!

          • hiernonymous

            “He is practicing taqiya.”

            You keep saying that about people who are not Muslim. Does that mean that you are practicing taqiyya taqiyya?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            … who say they aren’t Muslim.

          • hiernonymous
          • truebearing

            Prove you aren’t Muslom, now.

          • hiernonymous

            For the entertainment value, I’ll waive the fact that you are, yet again, trying to place the burden of proof on the wrong party. Let’s run with this as you wrote it.

            You’ll have to let me know what standards of proof you’re looking for. Tell you what – prove that you aren’t a Muslim, and I’ll see if I can meet your standards.

          • truebearing

            Non-responsive. Prove it, and stop trying to weasel out of it.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s perfectly responsive: you’ve asked for proof that I am not a particular religion, and I’ve asked you to demonstrate how you would like your question answered. Since your question makes no sense under normal rules of logic – I’m not sure how one would go about proving that he isn’t a particular religion – I’m looking to you for an example of what you’re looking for.

            As a rule, we accept what others say about their beliefs and religion absent proof to the contrary, but, as I said, I’m willing to see where you think you’re going with this.

            Or do you not have any idea of what you’re asking?

          • truebearing

            If you are Muslim, you have an obligation to admit your status as a Muslim, unless circumstances require taqqiya, but since this is merely a comment section and there is no threat, lying isn’t justified, even by the Koran’s twisted definition of sin. Why can’t you simply state whether or not you are a Muslim? Are you a gutless coward?

          • hiernonymous

            Well, that’s a pretty loose standard of proof, but I’ve already said many times that I’m not a Muslim. If that’s all you were looking for, easy enough. I’m not a Muslim.

            “Are you a gutless coward?”

            Why, no. But thanks to several of your recent posts, I won’t need to ask you to provide another example.

          • truebearing

            Now, are you lying? Please provide proof.

          • hiernonymous

            Not so fast, Sparky. You asked me to answer a question, and I indulged you, to the standard you requested. That wasn’t an invitation to impertinence.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            We would accept a Koran BBQ as proof…

          • Americana

            That’s proof of what exactly? How would that prove that’s hieronymous who’s lighting the BBQ? God, this endless quibbling over proof of this or that is bizarre. But it’s all part and parcel of the game, isn’t it?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hiero asked

          • Americana

            That’s not the point. You wouldn’t know that was hieronymous lighting the Qu’ran on fire.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, he might. Our Danny has been a very busy little beaver.

          • Americana

            Oh, no, did some of your army intelligence friends tell you he was checking up on someone w/your qualifications who’d recently retired and was now teaching?

          • hiernonymous

            Surprisingly close.

          • Americana

            Hmmm, well that’s sure fascinating. Good to know to what lengths he’s willing to go to confirm someone’s qualifications for commentary here.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Not really. Someone sent me an unsolicited email with information on Hiero. I looked out of curiosity, but assumed it was fake since it didn’t seem to fit him, but then he threw a childish tantrum on Linkedin so apparently it is him.

            Unless it’s just some weird internet game he’s playing at both ends.

            Stranger things have happened.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Daniel, there seems to be a SW bug on the website OR when I use Firefox which results in some posts having a name of a familiar poster with content that is out of character with the poster.

            Do you have any knowledge of this problem?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I don’t have Disqus access. I’ve seen weirdness before, but it’s completely out of my control.

            Sorry.

          • truebearing

            Wierd games are his forte.

          • Americana

            Given his Linked In profile (I also found it), that quashes all fears about his professional competence to comment. Besides which, it should have been obvious from the nature of his comments, he’s got a very well-rounded approach that covers all the important elements to this conundrum — the military, the historical and the sociological.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            His well-rounded approach consists of lying about Islam and harassing anyone who tells the truth.

            It’s certainly rounded.

          • Americana

            Daniel, you can play word games w/words like ‘scatological’ all you want. His qualifications are pretty unimpeachable as is his historical command of the military events of the various eras. If you want to beat him, you’re going to have to up your game and address those aspects of the situation that hieronymous addresses. Adding that level of detail might make your columns even more interesting. But relying on people here to beat hieronymous simply by quoting Scripture or the Qu’ran? That does not guarantee convincing wins for these discussion.

          • Americana

            He’s a stickler for facts and factual analysis. I’d hardly call that “harassing,” unless one is wrong and one consistently states the same wrong things and uses the same false analysis and justifications. Lying about Islam isn’t revealed to me in his statements. He’s making a distinction between those Muslims who are jihadists and those Muslims who are practitioners of their faith without any other connection to jihad or terrorism. I’m a Roman Catholic. I’ve got no connection to the Spanish Inquisition. That’s basically the difference hieronymous is pointing out about Muslims. Sure, there’s a risk that a Muslim will opt for jihad if they are Muslim. There’s also a risk if someone is Jewish they’ll opt to go to Israel and defend the Jewish state. In fact, we have more than a few Christians and Jews on FPM who do this very thing.

            There is huge variation in opinion about what the aims are of the various jihads and how they interconnect. That’s reasonable in terms of the arguments here. That’s not quibbling. The fact there are some absurdly out of touch jihadists like Abu Bakr al Baghdadi who want to reinstate the Caliphate as if it’s going to solve their Islamic problems is one sign there is no uniformity within Islam on the resurrection of the Caliphate. (Have you seen the Arab governments all enthused over al Baghdadi’s Caliph announcement? I haven’t.) So all other fears about what Muslims want in the Western world should also reflect this indeterminate political present and future. In the meantime, we can continue to shape our societies so they are designed to resist any aspect of Muslim expansion w/which we’re uncomfortable if it were to intrude upon our Western concepts of social democracy.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            He’s repeating the full Saudi line. And deliberately stalking people on the site and harassing them.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Americana

            I don’t see him as representing anything other than the full historical awkwardness behind the current situation. He may well be repeating the “Saudi line, ” but if that “Saudi line” is simply an inclusive perspective that takes all the elements into account of this diplomatic snafu then why is it necessarily considered the “Saudi line?” There again, if he’s effectively INTELLECTUALLY NEUTRAL — which is how I read his comments — then it doesn’t imply anything that he and the Saudis both stress those very same points.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m a Roman Catholic. I’ve got no connection to the Spanish Inquisition.”

            What connections can you find between coercive Christian “inquisitions” and the Bible?

          • truebearing

            You comment here. The scrutiny can’t be all that rigorous.

          • Americana

            Ditto. Double ditto.

          • Americana

            Hmmmm, if you’ve been outed, then that should lay all claims as to your qualifications to rest. There may be an upside to this even if you don’t see it at the moment. No more artificial BS claims of this, that or the other….

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve never worried about what people say about my background. If someone asks, or it’s relevant, I’ll tell them, but whether strangers profess to believe me or not is of really no interest to me. Apart from documenting it in the event of future stupidity, I’ll take no further notice of it.

          • more_common_sense77

            “The brilliant Daniel Greenfield.” Indeed, what a scholar.

          • Judahlevi

            Then why don’t you dazzle us with your brilliance? Go ahead – make my day.

            Oh, I guess (by reading your comments) you are too busy throwing bricks at conservatives and calling childish names to come up with something “scholarly.”

            You don’t even know what the word means.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            moron_sense,

            Correct. Go to the head of the madrassa.

          • Donut Joe

            Not possible to be a Muslim and call someone “Sparky”. Proof of Non-Mohammedanism.

          • Americana

            My brain has obviously fall through the donut hole because I can’t follow your thinking on this. Explain, please.

          • Americana

            FALLEN rather than ‘fall.’

            Apologies. Off, damn spell check, off!

          • truebearing

            I don’t doubt your brain could fit through a donut hole. Now why are you representing yourself as Drakken?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            SW bug on server or your browser. I use Firefox and see inconsistencies in poster and content.

          • truebearing

            I shut everything down and rebooted. It’s fine now.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            In my case just refreshing the page, F5, and reloading ALL the messages should be sufficient – but rebooting does clean up stuff.

          • 95Theses

            The Donut Blackhole :- j

          • Americana

            Ah, so you don’t understand his comment either… Glad to know that someone who’s written 95Theses is also confused…

          • 95Theses

            Hmmmmm. Apparently the cartoon didn’t post. It’s called a joke – something which you were falling all over yourself to defend heirno’s pun, but not willing to practice consistently. Leave it to a liberal, who are generally humorless.

          • Americana

            Oh, I dunno. I thought the 95Theses wisecrack was pretty funny… You know, for someone who obviously doesn’t have a senzahumour! I believe my ‘WONTON’ post has been removed. There again, proof I’ve got funny bones that you obviously don’t appreciate. Hahaha. Go eat some haggis along w/your donut holes.

          • 95Theses

            Sorry.
            The only donuts I do are with my 4WD in the mall parking lot when 6-inches of snow have dropped … and the LEOs aren’t looking. After midnight naturally. :-j

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I’ve done that too. ;-)

            Actually not donuts, but 180 turns.

          • Americana

            I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS SNOW after last winter! Sorry! Don’t wheelies ruin your tires? Maybe on deep enough snow they don’t… but I hate losing the edge. If I do wheelies, it’s going to be on a snowboard.

          • 95Theses

            If you haven’t done donuts in deep snow (desolate parking lot, late at night, no LEOs in sight) you haven’t yet lived.
            You need to add this to your Life List.

          • Americana

            OK, will do! Unfortunately, that weather scenario is coming up for me all too soon… I do like driving on moonlit roads with my lights off when I’m in the backwoods. Going on sleigh rides under those conditions — moonlight on bright white, snowbound roads — is heaven… I’d never want to live anywhere there wasn’t snow. Four seasons gal, all the way!

          • 95Theses

            Horse-drawn sleigh rides? How very Currier and Ives- cool is that! Envy that.

          • Americana

            If you are anywhere near Woodstock, Vermont, call around and see if you can locate a carriage association. There are quite a few driving clubs up and down the East coast and one of the American Driving Association combined driving events is held at the Woodstock Showgrounds. That’s where I learned some of my skills. Try to find someone w/a Meadowbrook cart — sweet feel to it. If you decide to go the winter route and a sleigh ride, take your beaver lap blanket w/you. Vermont will chill your privates to ice cubes.

            Here’s a link to the ADS omnibus that lists shows and farms (let me know if you manage to hook up w/a driver, depending on which state you’re in, you’ll find wonderful rural roads to trek around on):

            http://www.americandrivingsociety.org/06_omnilistings/adsomnibusindex.asp

          • 95Theses

            Wow. More envy.
            In my 20’s (i.e. the last millennium) I was carving out plans to move to Vermont — no lie. And then a several years back I got that some old stirring after watching The Spitfire Grill and discovering in the credits that filming was done entirely in Vermont. The Spitfire Grill is one of my favorite movies, incidentally. I’ll always tell a friend who is about to see it for the first time to be sure to keep a box of Kleenex handy because it could make a stone cry.
            Lucky you.

            Ciaø.

            95

          • Americana

            I’ll try to locate this movie. Thanx for the tip! Just FYI, but if you do investigate Vermont as a place to live, I’ve been told by Vermont friends that drugs are a scourge in the entire state right now. They’re afraid to ever leave their farms because of fears of break-ins and loss of irreplaceable farm equipment. I’m so fed up w/the drugs issue… Vermont is my idyllic state and I’d hoped Vermont would be spared the whole drugs scene.

            If you really do envy me my carriage driving skills, be aware that if you can find a driver near you, those folks always need extra hands. They need help w/grooming, harness cleaning, what’s known as navigating and counter balancing the XC carriages, etc. Introduce yourself if you’re interested in pursuing it. Just realize that horses aren’t quite as Currier & Ives close up. Things can happen very fast and hooves are very hard. Still, if you’re careful and sensible, riding or driving horses are great sports.

          • 95Theses

            My ex-fiancée (2007) owned a horse and I helped out cleaning stables more than once (and just when I thought I found my dream job!), so up-close and personal I have experienced – though that does not include the actual riding of horses. And then there is the expense of boarding etc., etc. But perhaps someday. As it happens, most of my personal library is boxed up along with other belongings because I am preparing to move. Not yet settled on any one property, but rural it will be. And some acreage.

            I checked out the ADS website but every link I clicked on looked like a horse competition of various kinds. Did I miss something?

            Ciaø.

            95

          • Americana

            He’s demanding you to name what you consider acceptable proof of religious status. Sensible. So tell us what you consider is substantive proof.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Counter Taqiyya.

        • Webb

          Good catch on that “Just asking” bullshitt scumbag.

        • hiernonymous

          “Do you realize how irrelevant and idiotic that question is relevant to the issues at hand?”

          Why, no, bob, I don’t. Perhaps you could explain.

          “Old Testament or otherwise, how does that question relate to the wonton desires of Islam…”

          I’m pretty sure that it’s Confucianism that deals with wonton desires.

          “What is it about the facts regarding Islam and it’s death creed to all but it’s sycophants that troubles you such that you must discourse to any alternative path but the path of the facts at hand?”

          OP thought that Muhammad’s attempt to establish Islam’s continuity with the past or, if you want to put it more bluntly, his portrayal of Islam as older than it actually was, represents something of a tradition in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim lineage. If you think that aspect irrelevant, you might address a note to OP asking him not to include that part in future posts and see if he’s amenable.

          • bob smith

            Give your BS a rest.

        • Americana

          I’d stir any old pot if there were ‘WONTONS’ in it! Hysterical. Nothing like a little inadvertent pun to get my brain on the boil… All in fun.

          • bob smith

            Lol…iPad is a pain to type with

          • Americana

            Well, spell check is what sinks me every time… Especially w/my latest laptop. Gets the words right in some instances and makes really hysterical bloopers in other instances! Now you’ve got me wanting wontons for breakfast and I live in a tiny town w/a Chinese restaurant that doesn’t open until their noon time buffet! (Damn you! ;) )

          • bob smith

            Lol…sorry about that…when that buffet opens it’s on me :-)

          • Americana

            PM me your credit card number, pronto, then! ;) My spell check issues are almost to the point where I’ve got to wear my glasses to proofread all my posts since I tend not to enlarge the screen view. I’m tired of adding addendum posts saying look out for this typo and that typo… Besides, it’s not always me. Frequently, it’s Ms. Spell Check.

          • bob smith

            Lol…I share your pane. Between the glasses and this auto correct feature of the iPad what should be routine is not. (No cc today…wife left home with it. I hope she keeps the shopping to a minimum…your Chinese buffet may end up being the bargain of the day for me)
            :-)

          • truebearing

            Truth check isn’t exactly floating your boat either.

          • Americana

            Since you yourself manufacture untruths of all kinds to smear other posters, it’s kind of funny you’d again try to label me a liar. But, of course, whatever floats your boat is copacetic and totally acceptable here because you’re (?).

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Hysterical Bloopers like “the Religion of Peace”.

          • Americana

            I’ve never once written that Islam is the “religion of peace.”

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islam bills itself “the religion of peace”.

            False Advertising.

            BTW, You DID say that the UN has a list of Jewish terrorist attacks. Where is your link to the UN list?

          • truebearing

            What untruths did I manufacture? Are you talking about the software problem that has you posting as “Webb” or “Drakken?” I have some screen shots of it, if you’d like to see them.

            So, it turns out I was right, in as much as you were the fake “Webb.” You were also the fake Drakken today. I wasn’t manufacturing anything. It’s not my fault the software just happened to pick you both times. It is coincidental that in both cases you were arguing with Webb and Drakken and were chosen as the imposter.

            It seems that Hiernonymous owes me an apology for accusing me of lying and being a coward. Since I was right about you being the person actually writing the posts under different names, I’m sure you can understand why I felt it necessary to inform Webb. I didn’t inform Drakken, however, because I wanted to get several screen shots and see what was going on. I hope this makes you feel better knowing I wasn’t setting you up or persecuting you.

          • Americana

            Listen, dumb bunny, other FPMers of whom you “approve,” have told you that’s a system bug of Disqus. So, once again, you ARE LYING ABOUT ME PRETENDING TO POST AS ANOTHER POSTER. Do I need to have them point out again how that Disqus bug works to you when they just did SO? I’ve never, EVER pretended to be anyone else on FPM and I never will. (Never mind me to choose to pretend to be Webb. Oh, lordy, now that would be a post to behold!) Stop the lies about this or I’ll come up w/some other choice phrases for your lying.

          • hiernonymous

            Wrong again. She never posted as Webb. You accused her of posting as Webb. When I asked you to link to the posts in question, you dodged and squirmed for several days, then claimed that the posts were deleted.

            Quite plainly, none of that was true.

            Here’s the lesson for you – when you make an accusation against someone, be prepared to openly support it with the evidence. If you had done so, immediately, honestly, and in good faith, you would have discovered your mistake.

            And, of course, such a glitch does not explain your claim that I used my ninja hacking skills to delete a post that is plainly still there, despite your claim that you went back to check and it had been deleted.

            Your proper response here is “I’m very sorry, both of you, and I’ll be more careful and honest in the future.” It’s not likely to happen, is it?

          • Americana

            Hey, Sharps Rifle man, just as an aside, do you really own a Sharps rifle? Where’d you manage to find it? Hey, if you really live out in the Southwest, you’re not supposed to be eating wontons. You’re supposedly to be having gopher burgers and sautéed steers. Just FYI, don’t be going all multicultural on us!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          It’s kind of an interesting paradox to work out because then you’ll understand Muslim claims with more clarity.

          If Islam is submission to God then Mohamed was partly correct. They did submit to God. The problem is then that Mohamed did not submit to the same god. He submitted to Allah. Mohamed invented something new with “Allah” as the new supreme deity, echoing some aspects of the Biblical texts while claiming to correct others.

          So he can either be right about Christianity and Judaism being “Islamic” in the sense that they served God, but where he invents new ideas that are in conflict he has no evidence whatsoever that he’s restoring anything rather than coming up with a new brand.

          It’s a bit of a word game. Islam the religion was clearly invented by Mohamed. He pretended that he was restoring true religion and that the all of the previous prophets were consistent with his assertions. We know this is not the case.

          Does that rise to the level of calling Mohamed a liar? I think you can call him a liar when you lay out the whole case against him. What exactly he believed is not entirely clear.

      • reader

        Just trolling. Again.

        • hiernonymous

          Okay, well, stop by when you have time to do more.

          • reader

            Hey, if you need to be certified as the most productive troll there is, you can count on me for affirmative references.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Trolling is Hiero’s only real skillset

          • Webb

            I think he’d made a great human shield for a Hamas rocket launch site.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hiero is more like the guy who comes out afterward to justify the human shields.

            It’s a function.

          • hiernonymous

            How do you know, Danny? Been doing a little digging?

          • Habbgun

            Actually Snark is the only Leftist skill set. The rest is corruption and incompetence.

        • Webb

          Hernio is just warming us up for his wife Americana to come on the scene and start shaming us for not teaching poor homeless arabs how to use toilet paper, so that the world can get by their odor and take them seriously when they tell us they are the religion of peace.

          • Americana

            I’m here but rather than teach some Arabs how to use toilet paper, since I’m doing the laundry, I’ll opt instead for telling you to stick a sock in your pie hole… That’ll learn ya!

      • Damaris Tighe

        No they don’t.

        • hiernonymous

          Well, the traditional view of the Trinity is that Jesus was the Word, existing with God since before the Creation. It’s true that there have been Christians who dispute part or all of this doctrine; there were even Christians who disputed the divinity of Christ. But I think it’s safe to say that the idea that Jesus existed before he existed, as it were, is pretty mainstream Christian doctrine.

          http://www.wake-up.org/daystar/wur2012/Feb.htm

          http://books.google.com/books?id=PZsTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q&f=false

          • Damaris Tighe

            I know all that but that’s not the way you expressed it. The Word is eternal so it’s possible to say he inspired the OT. But you specifically said Jesus in order to make the point that Christians have similar beliefs to Muslims. As Jesus is seen as an historical expression of the Word who lived at a specific time, it’s not true that Christians believe that this historical person inspired the OT. Therefore there is no analogy with Muhammad.

          • 95Theses

            You are treating this subject waaaaaay too simplistically. The following is a long scholarly article of which I have supplied a brief excerpt:

            The Only Begotten Son
            (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός)
            Michael Marlowe
            … The meaning of the word μονογενὴς here is not just
            “only” or “one and only,” as in the RSV, NIV, and ESV translations. John is not saying that the Son is “one of a kind.” He is saying that Christ is the second of a kind, uniquely sharing the genus of the Father because he is the only begotten Son of the Father, as in the KJV, ERV, and NASB. In the early centuries of Christianity, this point of exegesis acquired great importance. During the fourth century a teaching known as the Arian heresy (which maintained that the Son was a created being) threatened the Church, and in response to it the orthodox Fathers emphasized that the Scripture speaks of a begetting of the Son, not a creation. On that Scriptural basis they maintained that the Son must be understood to be of the same essence as the Father (ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί). They further explained that when Scripture speaks of this “begetting” it refers to something taking place in eternity, not within time, and so there were never a time when the Father was without the Son …
            http://www.bible-researcher.com/eternal-generation.html
            http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html

            And as to the question of when was Jesus begotten, this is likewise a reference to the resurrection:

            Acts 13:32-33
            32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,
            “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’
            http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+13%3A33/

            The Deity of Christ
            F.F. Bruce and W.J. Martin
            http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/deity_bruce.pdf

          • hiernonymous

            “You are treating this subject waaaaaay too simplistically…”

            You see what happens when people with casual knowledge of a religion start making pronouncements about its beliefs and doctrines?

          • 95Theses

            Yeah, YOU are what happens. From your comments it is abundantly clear that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. I send a couple scholarly articles your way and then you give that lame reply. You’re out of your depth here, sonny-boy.

            Tell the truth: have you ever heard of F.F. Bruce until now?
            Own any of his books, do you? Sure. I’ll just bet you do. If a little knowledge is dangerous, then you must be a walking keg of dynamite.

          • hiernonymous

            I think you misunderstood my comment and my line of reasoning. My point is that if you need to turn to a Bruce to accurately understand the Christian position, how accurate do you think the cottage-industry critics of Islam are?

            And, no, I don’t own any of Bruce’s books. My areas of specialty are the Middle East, Germany, and military history.

            “…sonny-boy”

            Just how old are you?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Other than feeding your obsession, what does that have to do with the fact that Islam is waging jihad not only against the Jewish infidels in Israel, but also against all infidels of all flavors throughout the world?

        Or is it your view that Islam’s jihad is only reactive to America’s interventionist foreign policies, or America’s greedy imperialism, or as a direct result of poverty and despair, or in the case of Israel, only in response to harsh Israeli policies?

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        No, Christians assert that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament about Messiah, who is called the “suffering servant” in the Book of the Prophecies of Isaiah. “And with his stripes, we are healed …”.

        Christianity is a natural outgrowth of Judaism, not supplanting it, but growing out of it. Christian institutions, however, are another matter, and could make a 1000+ comment thread …

        • Americana

          Jews don’t regard Christians in an acceptable light though, Wolf. We are following a somewhat not-quite-copacetic character in Jesus…

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            That’s been true from the beginning. But Israel’s staunchest defenders in the West are Christians who believe that God’s Promises to His People will be kept. It doesn’t matter if Jews find Christians acceptable.

          • Americana

            Well, it matters quite a bit to me, despite the inalienable bond that cements Judaism and Christianity together. See, I’m thoroughly tired of the sociological underlayment of ALL RELIGIONS that gives a religion’s adherents the mandate they are better than other humans. The only religion I know that doesn’t ever fall into that “I’m better than the So-and-So is because…” is Quakerism. And that would be considered a Quackery of a religion by other faiths like Christianity and Judaism. The early Americans originally felt threatened by Quakerism and they actually hanged a Christian woman who converted and became a Quaker. Mary Dyer was hung on Boston Common for being a Quaker. Her death was one of those that finally cemented the American policy of separation of church and state. WHY? Because misinterpretation and misapplication of religion and state religions are very dangerous beasts.

            I am so thoroughly tired of the quackery of this sociological character assassination by first one religion and then the next that I’m about ready to vomit over the Qur’an, the Torah and the Bible and every single booklet the Jehovah’s Witnesses shove in my face. Religions are a crutch for humanity’s hearts and brains. We may need the crutch, but everyone should understand WHAT the crutch is, the PURPOSE BEHIND the crutch, the FLAWS in the crutch and WHY mankind constantly chooses to MEASURE their respective crutches against that of the other culture’s crutch. I’m a Roman Catholic but when I worked at a tiny little riding school in Vermont, the only ‘church’ that was nearby was a Quaker meeting house. I’ve visited enough houses of worship, from Jewish temples to Zoroastrian temples to mosques, I don’t ever look for the differences between the faiths any more. I look instead for the similarities. I see enough of the underlayment of Islam that is similar to or identical to the other faiths that if we could eliminate the jihad philosophy and eliminated the ‘we are the one, the only, the bestest of the bestest’ business, we’d have an Islam that is more humane and poses no threat to other faiths. It’s time to demand that of Muslims.

          • jackdiamond

            Speaking of vomit, do you get paid by the word?
            “we” cannot eliminate the jihad philosophy and “we” cannot eliminate the “we are the bestest business” nor can they for that matter. Islam would vanish. Good luck tidying up the world.

          • Americana

            Go play cards.

          • jackdiamond

            I am and I hold all the aces as far as you are concerned. Congratulations, however, on your ability to hijack another thread and get everyone to do nothing but respond to you and your inane blathering.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I heard your female identity bit a dog – and the dog got rabies.

          • Jeff Ludwig

            They won’t or can’t do that. There cannot be a legitimate interfaith dialogue with Islam. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Jesus said you cannot serve both God and Satan too. I know Rodney King the great non-Quaker theologian said “Why can’t we all just get along,” but, to be kind to Rod, it just don’t work that way….. How does this relate to Greenfield’s article? The hatred for Israel and Jews is so deeply rooted in the history and theology of Islam that looking at differences merely in terms of geo-politics of our era or practical on-the-ground “differences” is trying to find hope for an “agreement” where in fact one of the parties — the Islamic faction — is deeply committed to its hate and destruction irrespective of any ongoing conversation about events on the ground.

          • Americana

            Jeff, that this is going to be an internal fight within Islam. They can make the necessary changes to alter those aspects of the faith but it will require the right person(s) to come forward to accomplish the task.

            As for Greenfield’s article, we can’t look at the Jewish claiming of Palestinian territory for their nation as the ENTIRE Arab rationale for hatred but it is definitely, without doubt, the present underlying reason for the state of affairs between Jews and Palestinians. To pretend otherwise is to be dishonest. Look at what is an ongoing argument on this site, that the Palestinians are ‘Fakestinians.’ I’m sorry, but none of the Jews or Israelis I know would attempt to make that claim. Why is that?

          • reader

            “I’m sorry, but none of the Jews or Israelis I know would attempt to make that claim. Why is that?”

            That’s the perfect argument of someone spreading garbage. Ignorance breeds ignorance. This is no news by any means.

          • Americana

            Sorry, reader, but lies breed far more ignorance than does garbage. Unchallenged lies breed ever deeper and more profound ignorance.

          • Drakken

            What is completely amusing is that you are without any doubt, the most ignorant here. Priceless!

          • Americana

            I’m not the most ignorant, Drakken, THAT’S what’s most amusing though you won’t admit it. Of course, since I don’t have a cutesy anti-Muslim nickname and I don’t spew genocide every other post, you’d like to label me a “pacifist” and an “appeaser” in the great and infamous shape of the British PM who enabled the Nazis. There’s a reverse aspect to this appeaser business and that’s being a war monger. There is no way you can kill enough Muslims to make the world safe for Israel. Will you ever admit that? No. Because you’re the kind of war monger who is trying to sell the world on using every and any type of armaments to control this. Not only is that goddamn idiotic and irresponsible, it’s beyond your military pay grade. Thank god for that. You can drive the conversation toward genocide, you’re not the one who’ll ultimately be the military mind that decides on that step. God help us.

            I’m perfectly comfortable being in agreement w/the ISRAELI MAJOR GENERALS and MOSSAD and SHIN BET folks who tell me they feel they can arrive at defensible borders and other aspects of a peace treaty they believe is at least the first step in a regional solution to the anti-Israeli baloney.

          • Drakken

            How many times do you need to be told that no matter what you of the peace now crowd say about a peace treaty with the pali’s and what a few leftist paid shrills of the left have to say about so called defensible borders. IT AIN”T GONNA FU**ING HAPPEN, so what about that don’t you bloody well get? You call it genocide, I call it what it is, warfare and that is what it is going to take to solve this muslim problem. The reason your so comfortable with a leftist solution is because you don’t have to get your hands dirty.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Those Mossad “folks” happen to work for foreign interests. They have as much credibility as Olmert, Blair or Sarkozy.

          • Americana

            Daniel, NO ONE gets to the top chair at Mossad or Shin Bet unless they’re dyed in the wool Israelis and they’ve got Israeli flags on all their ties. If it were true they were working for foreign interests, the present leaders of those organizations would be denouncing them occasionally, either on their peace web site or in articles. They’re NOT DENOUNCING them, therefore, they consider them legitimately indulging a logical political perspective. If there’s one thing guaranteed in Israeli politics, it’s that voices are never silenced. If someone believes something is wrong, they scream it out loud.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If the former leaders of European countries like the UK and France, not to mention Germany, can be bought off, buying off former heads of security agencies is a snap.

            Ex-military and security people routinely become lobbyists or representatives of various interests anyway.

          • Americana

            No politician I know of is working for interests where he’s not completely comfortable representing those interests. He’s attuned to their political aims and he’s willing to work for the organization to achieve those aims. Same is true for lobbyists, generally they secure jobs at places that suited their PREVIOUS JOB TITLES and PREVIOUS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. So, if an Israeli Major General is working on behalf of a peace organization, generally, you can assume he’s sold on the possibility of that organization achieving a lasting peace. There’s not really anything nefarious in that unless you’re willing to superimpose something nefarious.

          • Drakken

            Money always talks, your bullsh*t always walks honey, it is that simple. That Israeli Major General has been bought and paid for and here you are putting your fingers in yours ears screaming I can’t hear you.

          • Americana

            Nope, no Israeli Major General who still lives in Israel is going to sell out his country. He’s putting his life and the lives of his family and extended family on the line as well as their futures. Money always talks, but there’s different payoff points. To accept payment for something you see as feasible, possible and desirable is far different than selling your soul for something that’s infeasible, impossible and undesirable.

          • Drakken

            Your still singing I can’t hear you and living in denial in spite of the evidence starring you in the face. The ain’t no peace at any price honey. You will never wake up from your peace delusions until a Haji blows something up that you cherish, only then it will be too little, too late.

          • Americana

            You must be a Marine friend of Drakken’s to come in here and start throwing ‘honeys’ at me… I’m quite prepared to draw the line of fire if needed but, for now, I simply see the world’s overall strategy differently than you do. I’ve also seen the failure of Israel’s strategy. Something you’re not willing to acknowledge.

          • Drakken

            I’m still the same charming guy that I always am honey, the only failure that Israel is making is not hammering the dogsh*t out of Gaza and calling it a day. The difference is HONEY, is that your sitting on your nice comfortable couch Monday morning quarter backing things from wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy afar, while I am literally sitting right next to this mess, eating, tasting, seeing and touching it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            How about toots or w h o r e?

            Which do you prefer?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Unless he’s got a home in Paris, another in LA and his kids aren’t in Israel.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Gerhard Schroeder, Tony Blair, Sarkozy…

            I rest my case.

          • Gee

            Don’t know much about either organization. Add that to list of things you don’t have a clue about.

            To get to the top in the Israeli government you must be an extreme leftist – they control the courts, justice system, education, etc.

          • Americana

            Gee, gee, getting to the top of these organizations has everything to do w/one’s POLITICS and not one’s STRATEGIC COMPETENCY? Whod’ve guessed it? Don’t be so inane. If Lefists are what has kept Israel standing through thick and thin and through all those wars, YOU shouldn’t have ANY COMPLAINTS about their performance or their politics.

            Unless, of course, your complaint against these Israelis is that Israel hasn’t committed the necessary genocide to secure all of the supposed ancient Jewish kingdoms for modern Israel? Is that your complaint? That they haven’t fulfilled the Zionist dream of resurrecting the ancient United Kingdom of the tribes of Israel? Since no one really knows the GPS coordinates for the ancient Jewish kingdoms and since it’s going to be aeons before the archaeologists definitively determine where the individual Judean kingdoms were, you’ll be waiting quite a while for confirmation of what you’re entitled to. What if, after all that warring, it turns out that the ancient Jewish kingdoms weren’t quite what they were cracked up to be? You’re just going to say, “Ooops” and hope Israel’s behavior is overlooked by the surrounding Arabs.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            These aren’t the people who kept Israel standing. They’re career bureaucrats associated with the left-wing and for sale to the highest bidder.

          • Americana

            My, we certainly are dismissive of the highest ranking Israeli strategists! So, the Israeli wars have been won by Israelis soldiers and the armored divisions and the fighter jets just happening to hit the right targets at the right time? Why does the Israeli army maintain a general staff then?

            I’m sure if you posed such questions (about their political affiliations and their employers and their honorariums and their funding) to these men on their not infrequent appearances before American Jewish groups they’d tell you they’re not for sale to the highest bidder. The fact you’ll keep repeating this lie forever says more about your beliefs than it does about their beliefs.

            Produce some factual evidence they’re “for sale to the highest bidder” and the fact they’ve “sold out their country.” Now you’ve got me curious what you’ll produce for evidence because I’ve NEVER, EVER seen any such evidence of wrongdoing. Considering the scrutiny under which these men perform, such evidence would inevitably be discovered and they’d be demoted and/or dismissed in short order. It also wouldn’t be something the Israeli army would likely cover up in an attempt to dissuade others from following the same path.

          • Americana

            Please note this story:

            http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/192895/israeli-right-turning-on-security-chiefs-treason/

            From the above link:

            There seems be a growing realization on the pro-Israel right — in some corners of it, at least — that its notions of Israel’s security needs don’t have much support among Israel’s security professionals.

            What the right calls standing firm on Israel’s bottom line, the generals call sabotaging the peace process. What the generals call basic Israeli security doctrine, the right calls left-wing, pro-Palestinian propaganda.

            Reactions from the right to this realization have been pretty much what you’d expect from any self-respecting right-wing ideologue these days: indignant protests that the so-called experts don’t know what they’re talking about. In recent months a growing roster of conservative commentators in both Israel and America have accused the defense establishment as a group or its most prominent members of ignorance, stupidity, disloyalty and even “arguably treasonous” behavior.

            This is a new and disturbing development. It’s enough to recall the response in September 2009 to the United Nations’ Goldstone Report, which accused Israeli troops of war crimes, to remember the onetime intensity of the taboo against questioning the integrity of Israel’s defense establishment. But that was before the political leadership of the Netanyahu era began spinning an ideologically-driven security agenda that was radically at odds with the longstanding doctrines of the defense and intelligence establishment, and the politicians discovered that they couldn’t get the generals and spymasters to tailor their assessments to fit the political winds.

            The security establishment—former heads of the Mossad, Shin Bet, military intelligence and the IDF general staff—began aggressively speaking out around three years ago, some two years into the Netanyahu administration, once they began suspecting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hardline policies on Iran and the Palestinians weren’t tough bargaining positions so much as ideologically-driven recklessness.

            In the first half of 2011, Netanyahu swept out the heads of all the main security branches, including the Mossad, the Shin Bet, the IDF and the national security council, all apparently because the incumbents had refused during internal deliberations to endorse an Israeli military strike against Iran. The months that followed saw a steady stream of public statements from ex-service heads, in speeches, interviews and op-eds, laying out their views on what Israel does and doesn’t need to be safe. Some were directly critical of the government’s policies; others criticized only by implication.

            And for the first time ever, serving agency heads began offering public assessments that were at odds with the prime minister’s stance. In December 2011, Mossad director Tamir Pardo, who had been appointed earlier that year to replace the strong-willed Meir Dagan, told a gathering of Israeli diplomats that Iran did not necessarily represent an “existential threat” to Israel, undermining a centerpiece of Netanyahu policy. In April 2012, IDF chief of staff Gen. Benny Gantz, who had replaced the dovish-leaning Gabi Ashkenazi, told Haaretz that Iran’s leaders were “rational” people who had not yet decided whether to build a nuclear weapon.

            Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/192895/israeli-right-turning-on-security-chiefs-treason/#ixzz37YfAXiwv

          • Daniel Greenfield

            We’ve already had this conversation. You know nothing about Israel or its political currents.

            Nor do you seem to be aware that much of Israel’s security establishment is headed by the left.

          • Americana

            I know nothing about Israel and its political currents? Ooops, I must disavow any and every Israeli friend then as well as the Israeii writers and journalists I know. I also should disavow any knowledge of why I think the Israeli establishment is sort of Leftist and/or centrist. Unlike you, I don’t **necessarily** believe that someone who’s a Leftist is unsuitable to be the director of Mossad or Shin Bet or the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces or any other position in Israel. Anyone and everyone has to convince me of their political perspective based on their own thinking and cultural experiences. The fact the Israeli security folks are mainly Leftists means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things as presented by you. These folks are certainly not going to sell out Israel to the Arabs for the sake of consolidation of Socialist societies. Make some sense on why you believe their Leftist tendencies is so dangerous for Israel because, as I see it, they’ve covered themselves w/glory ever since the Arabs first took up serious arms against Israel and brought Israel through thick and thin.

          • reader

            That’s the perfect reply by someone lacking cognitive skills – kind of like the ones developed by Aristotle and alike:

            http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-people-s-glossary-t42.html#Ari

          • Americana

            Oh, it’s perfectly clear you do none of your own thinking and interpretation if you need to pull out a glossary each and every time. Sorry for you, that must be a PIA.

          • reader

            And how many times did you count I put out a glossary “each and every time”? I thought that it was stereotyping to describe primitive people as counting, “one, two, three, many.” In your case, it did not even make it to “one.”

          • Americana

            I believe I’ve seen you pull this same gambit w/at least one or two others on FPM. I’m wrong on that score? What a terrible, unforgivable thing on which to be wrong. Simply criminal… I feel terrible.

          • reader

            The magnitude of your stupidity is borderline criminal, indeed.

          • Americana

            Since there’s always going to be this gamesmanship by moderators of comments being deleted, it’s rather difficult to maintain one’s position on the slippery slope of each argument. It’s ridiculous though for threads to be managed in this manner because it’s obvious why some people’s comments were deleted vs comments by other posters. If someone’s comments that remain are almost invariably accurate, germane, relatively polite and sensible then those comments that were deleted from that same poster are likely to be similar. Ergo, there is NO logical grounds on which to delete their comments other than to eliminate specific thoughts or specific evidence they’ve brought to bear.

          • reader

            Are you complaining to me about the moderator? I think the moderator is too moderate. We’re down to like 3 trolls flooding every other thread with the same Jew hating drivel and propaganda links from huff-po and truther sites. So much so that about a dozen other people can hardly squeeze anything in. And that’s all you’re here for. Your mind is about as open as the Federal Government on Christmas. So, don’t cry for me, Judenreina…

          • Americana

            You’ve got as much opportunity to “squeeze your thoughts in” as I’ve got. i’m complaining about certain crucial posts being removed by moderators because they are factually DISCORDANT w/the narrative the moderator wishes to see posted. Since the comments sections on these web sites provide literally endless room for commentary, your point is absolutely moot and is total pissiness and silliness. I’m as open to alternative points of view as you could possibly hope to find. You’d better realize that the way to earn my support is w/realistic thinking and realistic presentations of new options for the region and not just the same old same old. I want Israel to survive this century because she’s made the right choices. Not just because she’s been lucky.

          • Drakken

            It all comes down to which side you fall on, there is no neutrality where this is concerned. You either side with the islamaniacs or with the Jews of Israel, it really is a simple choice. So called pacifists always claim to take the high moral ground and they are always buried in it.

          • Americana

            That is not the only choice, Drakken. If that were true, all the Israeli army and intelligence members of the peace group in which I have the utmost faith would relinquish their dedication to peace. These men are not dummies. They’ve seen the worst that the islamaniacs are willing to throw at them and at Israel and they’re still saying peace is possible.

          • Drakken

            You keep repeating the same leftist Peace Now bullsh*t in the hopes that it is true, and it is not, this ends only one way, them or us. Peace is an abstract dream pushed by leftist useful idiots in the hope that it will come true, history has always proved you people wrong. Dead wrong and there are mass graves all over the place that you people are buried in, the unfortunate by product is that you take a lot of good people with you.

          • retired22

            What about Ehud Barak.he would sell the country for the right price!He almost succeeded when he was Prime Minister but Arafat walked away from the arrangement!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            To pretend that the Muslim hatred and persecution of Jews began in the 20th century is dishonest and ahistorical.

          • Americana

            I’ve never said the Arab persecution of the Jews — or any of Islam’s other victimized populations — began only in the 20th century. The Arab persecution across the Arab world began way back when Mohammed first began to get a hankering to become you-know-who and probably existed in a different sociological form prior to Mohammed inventing Islam. But to ignore there are legitimate land issues involved in the Palestinian jihad is to ignore the historical realities of the Palestinian dispossession and the interrelationships between all the Arab ethnographic factions that sold out the Palestinians. To pretend the Palestinians are waging jihad solely for religious reasons (because Islam demands they kill the Jews) while trying to negate their provenance to the land is to lay bare your Zionist claims to the land. Unfortunately, for you and for those who support Zionist claims to the entire land parcel, there is no legal provenance that extends that far back into history, that goes Israel was allowed to come into being to satisfy a claim to a homeland based on Biblical prophesy and general international abuse of Jews within each nation.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Those “land issues” are part of a conflict that dates back over a thousand years. Muslims see it that way.

            Western liberals refuse to see it

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            They aren’t “liberal”, they’re socialists and regressive “progressives”.

            How else would “progressives” side with people who execute gay teens, who shoot girls in the head for wanting an education?

          • Americana

            The original conquerors of the Jewish tribes weren’t Arabs and they weren’t Muslims. The Jewish tribes lost their kingdoms to many different conquerors. Just how far back is one allowed to go to make the claim of provenance over particular regions that have been lost to certain peoples aeons ago? In most cases, conquered peoples simply disperse and go about reintegrating within other nations. Of course, we all know that was a failure for the Jews for all sorts of strange sociological reasons…though mainly because they remained isolated from the people of the nation in which they resided. They never fully integrated, they always held themselves apart because they didn’t realize it put them at great sociological risk of being seen as the outsider, something which always, INVARIABLE happened whenever things got tough. But that leaves the question of what is legitimate provenance for the formerly Jewish lands? it’s certainly not legitimate provenance to point at the Bible because the Bible promises the Jews will get their lands back. In fact, almost more than anything else in the Bible, those repeated promises prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the Bible was human-inspired if the hopes and dreams of a people dominate the themes in the book. It’s like a very serious, very ethical Magic 8 Ball, and it always produces the answer(s) the Jews want. The Bible is a human instrument and as a human instrument, it is fallible in the ways humans are fallible.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And?

            The Arab conquerors colonized land belonging to the Jewish indigenous inhabitants and oppressed them.

            The indigenous peoples retain an inalienable right to their land.

            Your issues with the Bible or complaints about Jews notwithstanding. And if you think that the Bible “always produces the answer(s) the Jews want” you haven’t read it much.

          • mozart

            Your false claim the the Jews and ONLY the Jews do not have a right to their own land in Zion makes you and ANTI-SEMITE.Period.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Pal-e-SWINIANS should have their land – in H E L L – next to muhammed.

          • Americana

            Your argument is antithetical to the truth of national provenance as the world sees it. That’s not my fault. Nor is it the fault of any other nation. Besides which, you’re off the mark since I’m in favor of a Jewish nation in the region. I’m just not in favor of the British government having copped out and having given the Jews every bit of land they lost thousands of years ago (having lost to multiple different conquerors, no less!) simply because the British were being terrorized by Jewish terrorists. Your argument is the equivalent of saying to the remaining Aztecs and Mayans, get your genetic pools together and you’re welcome to Mexico and the Yucatan Peninsula. I guess this makes me anti-Aztec and anti-Mayan as well, huh? The claim of being an anti-Semite, when such a claim is leveled by a Zionist, means someone doesn’t willingly roll over and give the Zionists everything they want against the wishes of the other relevant population in the region. But keep leveling the anti-Semite label at all and sundry, especially at folks like me who would have a Jewish state. The bludgeoning behind the term anti-Semite is something I’ll bear because I see it for what it is — a power play. But, keep playing this game and let’s see what you eventually winnow the Jewish supporters down to, shall we? You have no idea how dangerous the game you’re playing is and what you risk for support for Israel. I support a group of Israelis who are uniquely qualified to say it’s possible to secure a two-state solution. Because they’re not necessarily Zionists in your sense of Zionism is no less valuable to the preservation of Israel.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            To tell you the truth, I’m getting angry at the Left for shoving their collective “religion” at me, and attempting to destroy my country, at the same time. This is the nation that countless American Patriots have shed their precious blood for, including my best friend in Vietnam.

            Call it what you may … Liberalism, Progressivism, Environmentalism … all of the “-isms” have their basis in the writings of one man, Karl Marx. This is the true enemy of humankind, today. This is the “-ism” that must be destroyed. Were I able to travel back in time, I would make it my duty to blow Marx away, to save the future of the human race.

            You call yourself a Roman Catholic, but your problem with faith seems to be the institutional church. Faith in God and Institutions are not one and the same. Once you firmly grasp this simple fact, faith will not be a burden you must bear, but a joy that lightens the weight on your life.

            Demanding that Muslims act like us is like demanding that lions stop eating meat. A Muslim is programmed to hate and kill the infidel, from the very beginning. It’s not going to happen.

          • Americana

            Honestly, Wolf, I don’t have a problem w/the Catholic Church’s dogma and practices. It’s not institutional religion that frustrates me, it’s the war over religions and religiosity because I simply see the similarities in all religions as arising from the same drives within humanity. Faith for me goes well beyond what the Catholic Church might be able to help me divine. The fact every extant religion has striven to answer the moral and ethical dilemmas of human life should be of some hope for those of us who are non-Muslims.

            I’ve had a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses come visit me at my farm for over a month now. They come to visit when I’m still doing chores like feeding and mucking and I’m a total sweaty mess only to then begin asking me if I’m ready for the final days. The couple who speak w/the most are a WW II D-Day veteran and his German wife. She survived a concentration camp. They’re LOVELY people and wonderful to speak with but I’m not so pessimistic as they are. They have been imbued w/the final days concept by the Jehovah’s Witness pastors whose sermons they hear. Many religions do this. I swear if we eliminated all the jihadist preachers, there’d be far less jihad activity. Now that so many Muslims have been inspired by these wacko imams though, the genie is not going back in the bottle until many of these men are dead. That kind of rabidness does no religion a service.

          • Drakken

            Let me enlighten you so a few simple facts that you seem unable or incapable of understanding, Christians/Jews do not in any way, shape or form worship the same God as the muslims, period. and if you picked up a Koran and read it, you would get it, and appeasing these bloody monsters only invites them to further abuse you. So get it through that thick skull of yours, there never has been peace and there never will be peace with islam, so unfu** yourself because singing kumbya and putting a coexist sticker on your prius isn’t going to get the job done.

          • 95Theses

            An Islamic conception of Pieceful Coexistence:

          • Drakken

            Oh that is bloody brilliant! I want one of those for my command vehicle!

          • Americana

            That might draw more fire. Be careful. It is bloody brilliant tho! Graphic designers, you gotta love ‘em! (Hey, I’m one of them.)

          • truebearing

            Well said, but I’m afraid you cast pearls….

          • Americana

            That’s fine. I eat swine. For breakfast and every other meal.

          • truebearing

            i didn’t say you ate swine. in fact, i didn’t say anything but that he was wasting his sagacious words on someone who either can’t or won’t listen.

          • Americana

            I’m willing to listen to anyone who makes political and/or philosophical sense on the issues of the day. Sagacity is like loquacity, very often it’s in the eye or ear of the listener.

          • truebearing

            Only if you lack a moral compass or a clear mind.

            You’re still showing up on my screen as Drakken. I’m not kidding.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            truebearing, It’s a software bug. You need to reload the page and refresh ALL messages. That will fix names and content.

          • 95Theses

            Haha! To her credit!

          • more_common_sense77

            Israel is indebted to Marx for its very existence as an ideological enterprise. All of the early Zionists were socialists of a sort called “labor Zionists.” Look it up. Do you think they were right-wingers?

            You trumpet the fact that you know nothing.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            moron_sense,

            Where is karl marx buried?

            a) Russia
            b) Israel
            c) Britain

            You trumpet your ignorance.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Of course, I don’t think they were on the Right, in the American sense of the term, and Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition could hardly be seen as economic and social conservatives, as we know them. I know about the early history of Israel, because I’ve taken the time to learn about it. And so, your pathetic ad hominem means nothing, because I do know something, what?

            What I admire about the Israelis, today, is an attitude that once was typical of the British, and could be summed up as:

            I say, those chaps over there mean to kill us. What absolute rotters! Shall we have a go at them?

          • Americana

            It is utterly fascinating how the political and philosophical origins of some of these groups have now been flipped by the Zionists of the present day to be inferior philosophies, isn’t it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Israel is indebted to Marx for its very existence as an ideological enterprise.”

            Really? You think the Turks were Marxist too?

            “All of the early Zionists were socialists of a sort called “labor Zionists.””

            Meany people have been infected by Marxist fallacies. Some even recover.

            FDR was clearly bitten by the neo-Marxist bug. Yet he didn’t destroy our nation. Because it was not the only thing happening here in the USA. We might recover too. Are we somehow indebted to Marx too? Of course you are, says every Marxist.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No all the early Zionists weren’t Socialists.

            You trumpet the fact that you know nothing.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Quakerism. Somehow I’m not at all surprised.

            ” I look instead for the similarities. I see enough of the underlayment
            of Islam that is similar to or identical to the other faiths that if we
            could eliminate the jihad philosophy and eliminated the ‘we are the one,
            the only, the bestest of the bestest’ business, we’d have an Islam that
            is more humane and poses no threat to other faiths.”

            That would no longer be Islam then. It would be “similar to other faiths” as you’ve put it. And that’s exactly the sort of thing all that killing and Jihad is meant to prevent.

          • Americana

            Daniel, don’t pump out some stupid BS over my occasionally visiting a Quaker meeting house over the summers when I was teaching riding at this camp in Vermont as indicating I’m a Quaker. I’m not a Quaker. But I certainly wouldn’t hang a Quaker on Boston Common thinking I was protecting the nation! That was the point about my post. That no religion merits being killed off by another religion. Of course, given the conversation, that GOES DOUBLE for the Islamist jihadis who are running around massacring innocents of other faiths and are thereby causing other religions to believe that genocide is their only choice viz Islam.

            Of course an altered, reformed Islam would “still be Islam” if it’s largest body of adherents considered it Islam. Other faiths have undergone reformation and have retained their original identity. You simply want to make the claim that no one will ever successfully reform Islam because it hasn’t happened yet. You’d also like to conveniently overlook aspects of other religions that have allowed such atrocities as the Spanish Inquisition to occur. I’m enough fascinated by history and sociology, I don’t allow myself to gloss over aspects of human history that others would like to disavow.

          • Drakken

            Islam isn’t going to get reformed unless and until it is made to do so by us infidels. Your problem is that you think that islam has the same moral equivalence as us westerners, they don’t and they never will.

          • Americana

            I’ve never suggested they’ve got the “same moral equivalence as us westerners.” Besides, that lack of moral equivalency wouldn’t necessarily be the biggest issue w/managing the Muslim reformation. As for us infidels forcing Islam to reform that would be suspect from Day One. The reform, for it to be meaningful, significant and faith-altering over the long term, would need to come from a Muslim who manages to capture a new aspect of the faith based on content currently within the faith.

          • Drakken

            You bloody well know that will never happen.

          • Americana

            No, I don’t bloody well take for granted that reform will never hit Islam. You take it for granted that reform won’t happen because you want Islam to be seen as this rolling Islamist threat that wants a world Caliphate at all costs. I’m telling you the world Caliphate is an effed up dream that is simply not feasible for the Muslims who are intent on achieving it. We might be faced w/occasional large-scale skirmishes to keep Islam in its place but this whole world, WW III business that you dream about? It’s not going to happen. At least, not as you’re saying it will happen.

            Reform has literally overtaken every single human organization over time. NO human organization has avoided this fate. It’s human nature. It’s sociology. It’s psychology. Everything conspires to alter human organizational pretexts. Islam is no different and the farther removed it is from its original founder, the greater the chance of reformation of the faith.

          • Drakken

            Not all cultures, people and religions are the equally the same, and if you think islam can be reformed, it just ain’t happening and it hasn’t happened since muhamed crawled out of the desert and fucKed his first 9 year old. Islam is on the march and your in denial of just how bloody dangerous it has become.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ..it can be averted by killing the reformers.

            That’s what Wahhabism is for.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The problem is that you’ve gone to the other extreme. You can have an exclusive faith-based monotheistic religion that doesn’t depend on violence. The extreme of irreligious religion is being thoroughly swallowed up by Islam in Europe.

            It isn’t capable of resisting theocracy because it believes in little except the uncertainity of belief.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Europe => Eurabia
            London => Londonistan

          • jackdiamond

            Your problem is you don’t take your religion seriously, the way a pious Muslim does. Nor does it occur to you that other people actually think different than you. Islam has been reformed. In the early part of 20th century Muslim women in big cities weren’t running around in burqas. They were far more Westernized then than now.. It was not a different Islam, it was less Islam. The reform, as Muslims see it, has been the return to the Real Islam (Islam is and always will be the Qur’an and Sunnah, what Muhammad said and did) a reawakening fueled by trillions of petrodollars and a grand vision of Islam dominating the 21st century (over the ruins of the West). Along with the sense that the secular approach failed (all those lost wars against Israel being attributed to Allah not being with us).

            No, Islam has not been “reformed” (in the humanistic way you mean) in 1,400 years. That could tell you something. If you actually read the Qur’an and Sunnah and manuals of law you would understand why. Innovation in religion is a CRIME in Islam. Islam is different than any other religion, it is a total all-encompassing system that is foremost political. It is a State, it is about governing. You might even come to understand that this War in Islam, this Jihad, is an obligation on Muslims till the Day of Judgment. More than that–it is a Right of Allah. A Right of Allah “hukm shari” cannot be changed and can never be overruled by men. It is fixed and non negotiable. It is not something you can reform. Not something you can reform.

            It goes to the very essence, the very meaning of Islam. You do not have Islam without it’s mission. War and conquest is not something tangential. Hating the kaffir because Allah hates them is at the core of Islam. Why? Because we are all renegades. We are all born Muslim and are in rebellion against Allah. We all have to be subjugated to Allah’s laws for our own good, even if by force, even if we have to be killed, this is better than fitna. You think you can just gloss over this? This is Islamic law, all mainstream schools, baby. Show us a recognized form of Islam not governed by Islamic law? Invent one for the Muslims. The only reform of Islam is less Islam and less Islam will only come from non-Muslims not allowing any vestige of shari’a or tolerating any semblance of jihad being preached or promoted. Or it will come as a consequence of the thorough defeat and containment of Muslim states and militants. Right now, we just see the opposite. So, more Islam not less.

          • Americana

            The fact I don’t take my own religiosity as the signifier of what others should require of themselves has no bearing on my awareness of what those sanctimonious Muslim thugs impose on themselves. I wouldn’t have written another post about being tired of this kind of grandiosity of religiosity if I weren’t aware of just how overboard the most fervid of Muslims are willing to go. But just as the Spanish Inquisition eventually burned itself out, so too will this Muslim Burning Man period.

            I’m not going to keep justifying my concept of Islamic reform. I’m well aware just how uphill this Sisyphean task to reform Islam will be for whoever takes it on. If you don’t understand that this current slaughter is liable to produce the kind of REVULSION that produces this kind of Muslim to come forward and renounce these terrible events says more about your lack of faith in humanity than it does your understanding of Islam. Just as with chemistry, there can be unintended consequences if something is added to a volatile, combustible mix and as w/everything human there can be an equal and opposite reaction of an entirely different kind than these Islamists originally intended.

          • Drakken

            Just for some fun historic little factoids for you, the Spanish Inquisition killed less than what happened on 9/11 and the reason it burnt out was that there were no more muslims to throw out or get rid of.

          • 95Theses

            [in the South] you see churches that have deviated from the historic Christian proclamation and who still claim to be in accord with it. But instead of bringing their false theology up against a historic the Word and the Christ who is objectively present in history, and whose words are objectively presented in Scripture, you dump the whole business. You manifest the Hegelian dialectic in your person in that you’re tossing out baby and bath water. In Scripture it says that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, and that we are all one in Christ Jesus. Thus any Christian who claims segregation to be Christian is un-Christian. The way to handle this is not to throw out the Christian faith, but to apply the Christian faith.
            (John Warwick Montgomery-Thomas Altizer debate, from The Suicide of Christian Theology, John Warwick Montgomery, pg. 151)
            http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-CHRISTIAN-THEOLOGY-Warwick-Montgomery/dp/B003WWZE5E

            I think the above citation is especially relevant to the thrust of your objection, that being that because some Christians do bad things – things contrary to the tenets of their faith – the idea that any one faith lay claims to exclusivity is repugnant. When, instead, you ought to have condemned those who hanged Mary Dyer for not applying their faith.

            We don’t judge the validity of a moral principle based on whether or not the advocates of that moral principle live consistently within it — say, as in the moral principle
            that people ought to honor the covenant they made when they took marriage vows. If one breaks the covenant by committing adultery, that we don’t begin arguing that the institution of marriage is immoral do we?

          • 95Theses

            And for educational/entertainment purposes you may find the following debate fascinating. (And if you’re not familiar with the personage of John Warwick Montgomery, I will mention briefly that he is a well-known Lutheran theologian who has authored more than 50 books, amassed an amazing 11 earned degrees, and is quite famous for his many debates with atheists, Muslims and an assortment of heretics.)

            Who was Jesus? John Warwick Montgomery vs. Shabir Ally
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ4KnZwC8uA

          • mikeh420

            Way to make a Blanket Statement.

            You’ve opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

          • Americana

            Explain my statement then, mike, if you’re so sure it’s clear in your mind. Remove all doubt in my mind that your brevity hides a complex understanding of what I’m getting at in my statement.

          • anneeasthartford

            Sure about that?

          • Americana

            Same challenge goes for you, anne, as I posed to mike420. If you feel you understand my statement, write an interpretation and I’ll tell you whether you’ve quite grasped what I’m getting at. What you’ve written gives me absolutely no clue as to whether you’ve gotten the point.

          • anneeasthartford

            Mike is correct. All doubt has been removed.

          • Americana

            Dumb bunny, the challenge is posed once again. Either answer the challenge and remove all doubt in my mind or remain the dumb bunny w/the big mouth who really doesn’t know what I’m talking about.

          • Americana

            Ah, anne exits the conversation Stage Right and simply warns off the entire group. Afraid to put your insights about what I meant to the test? Gutless, I tell ya, gutless.

        • Debbie G

          It is also arguable that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things.
          http://www.amatteroftruth.com/the-creator

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Debbie, is the website you linked to in any way connected with the United Pentecostal Church? Note that I’m not trying to start an argument with you on Unitarian beliefs versus Trinitarian beliefs. I was just curious …

      • john spielman

        The prophysies of the Old Testament were inspired by GOD and many if not most predicted the coming of Messiah who would be God himself ( see Isaiah 53) but also the many Pslams written by King David (cf Psalm 22) and even Genesis chapter 3. infact every book in the Bible has inferences to the Savior Jesus!

      • mikeh420

        More Immoral Relativism.

      • truebearing

        I realize I’m asking the wrong person, but what are you babbling about? What is your source? Why are you trying to distract with irrelevant questions? Why do you revert to your days as a 5th grade hall monitor on every thread? Why do you have nothing positive to offer, ever? Why are you driven by malice? Why do you see truth as something that needs to be obscured? What is your purpose on earth?

        • hiernonymous

          Standard trinitarian doctrine is that Christ existed before the world was created; he is usually associated with the Word. As such, to the extent that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, Christian doctrine holds that he was part of that inspiration. I’ve offered a couple of sources already on the thread; if you find them unconvincing, let me know, and we’ll see if we can find something more to your taste.

          As for the rest of your outburst, I recommend you re-examine your premises.

          • truebearing

            My point was on the actual date of the origin of Islam as a religion on earth. No Christian believes Christianity, as a religion in the temporal realm of earth, pre-dated Judaism. You are confused. I suggest you re-examine your entire life, but most certainly your idiotic conflation of theology with history.

          • hiernonymous

            What do you understand the Muslim doctrine in question to be?

          • truebearing

            You’re off topic, yet again. You questioned my assertion regarding Mohammed’s lie over Islam pre-dating Judaism and Christianity. Then you tried to make the specioius argument that a Christian theological position meant Christianity, the religion, pre-dated Judaism in the minds of Christians. Since the religion of Christianity couldn’t have existed before Jesus was born, and Jesus was a Jew, that proved your suggestion to be ridiculous and showed a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding.

            There is no Muslim doctrine in question. Mohammed lied…unless you want to say lying is Muslim doctrine.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m trying to understand what you think Muhammad to have said and meant. I don’t think that any Muslim believes that there were people wandering around before Muhammad calling themselves Muslims. Muhammad asserted the unity and identity of God, and that the God that tested Abraham was the same God who revealed the Qur’an. By passing the test and being obedient and faithful to God, Abraham was, in Muhammad’s eyes, the first real Muslim. That’s not very different from a Christian retroactively identifying the God of Moses with Jesus as the Word of God – in effect, retroactively changing our understanding of who God was all along. Unless you’ve got a reliable source that I don’t remember or have overlooked, I don’t recall any Muslims ever claiming that Islam ‘predates’ Christianity and Judaism in the historical sense; they would probably tell you that the early prophets were Muslims by virtue of their submission to the Will of Allah.

          • truebearing

            Islam has similarities to Judaism and Christianity because it was a cut and paste copy job, with significant alterations that make it antithetical to both. So mimicking the origin is the easiest thing to do when your religion is the last to appear.

            The claim of Mohammed that Islam goes back to Adam and Eve because they submitted to God is absurd on two levels:
            1) Adam and Eve rebelled and ate the fruit of knowledge. That isn’t submission. They weren’t Muslims then, according to Mohammed’s own rule. Maybe Cain was a prototypical Muslim…

            2) Islam, as a religion, is a lot more than the mandate to submit to Allah. The Koran is a long and contradictory book, plus there are the Hadiths. It is a lot more than one single message. that convolution of violent, ruthless messages can only be contained in a lengthy bastardization of the religions it borrowed from.

            No, Mohammed was a poor theologian. He created Allah in his own angry, bloodthirsty image. Human beings were notorious throughout the Old Testament for not submitting to God. His claim that the key prophets submitted to God, therefore were Muslims is ridiculous and childish. He simply lied to get supremacy, and Muslims have been following his lead ever since.

          • hiernonymous

            Some revere Adam, some revile him. Many people have their personal opinions of the morality of the Old Testament that runs counter to doctrine. I have friends who passionately believe that the story of Job proves that God is sadistic and immoral; does their evaluation render the more orthodox view “bed theology?” What constitutes “good theology?” An account that more closely matches that to which you were acculturated? That which matches the account that God has personally conveyed to you? If you are measuring Islam by how accurately the Bible is reproduced in the Qur’an, then Muhammad was a bad theologian indeed.

            ” Islam, as a religion, is a lot more than the mandate to submit to Allah. The Koran is a long and contradictory book, plus there are the Hadiths. It is a lot more than one single message.”

            And this is not true of Christianity, of Judaism, of Hinduism, of Buddhism? Certainly any attempt to distill a religion to a sentence is going to leave things out. I rather thought the point of the discussion was to examine the extent to which Islam’s ex post facto reinterpretation of previous events was comparable to Christianity’s ex post facto reinterpretation of previous events. I’m sure we can find some differences, but is it a sound basis on which to ridicule the one as absurd and not the other?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “It is a lot more than one single message.”

            Submit to Allah or die.

            #fixeditforyou

          • hiernonymous

            Worship Jesus or burn forever.

            Bonus points for non-functional hashtag. How precious.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Which is more recent, Islamists beheading apostates or Christians burning apostates at the stake?

            Who executed a “witch” most recently?

            Salman Rushdie has a death fatwa, Islamic death sentence for writing a book of fiction.

            Which Christian writer has a death sentence for writing a book of fiction?

          • hiernonymous

            If you’re relying on chronology to differentiate the religions, then the key differences aren’t in the religions.

          • truebearing

            The differences in the religions are in what they teach, and you seem to know little of what Jesus taught. I’m not sure you know much about Judaism, but if you think either are equivalent to Islam, you don’t know anything about any of them.

          • hiernonymous

            When one points out an important similarity between two things, that is not the same thing as arguing ‘equivalence.’ That’s your straw man to beat.

          • truebearing

            Where did Jesus say that? I must have missed it. I can think of many instances where Jesus encouraged people to worship “the Lord,” but not himself.

            He was sent to be the redeemer of man, not the judge. You are confusing what some fundamentalists have chosen to believe as the Gospel. His was a message of forgiveness and compassion, not chucking everyone into h*ll the second they stepped out of line. Maybe your equivalency machine is malfunctioning. Muslims are the ones who see death and torture as the answer to everything.

            Also, Mohammed plagiarized this statement when he claimed Islam began with Adam: “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58

          • hiernonymous

            My response is awaiting moderation. Meanwhile, mull over John 3:16. Heaven is for those who “believeth in him.”

          • 95Theses

            For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

            19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault?
            For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump done vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
            http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+9%3A18-19/

            This question is, what will you do with this Jesus of Nazareth?

          • hiernonymous

            “This question is, what will you do with this Jesus of Nazareth?”

            My own religious beliefs are the sort of thing I talk about with only my closest friends. There are 7 billion experts on the nature of the universe walking the globe, and my own small contribution is to not impose my beliefs on others.

            I’m not hostile to or disdainful of Christianity. But those who dedicate themselves to full-time demonization of a religion could stand to see how their butterknives frequently have two edges.

          • 95Theses

            Well, unfortunately one cannot be indifferent towards Jesus. Especially in light of the fact the Gospels bear witness to Jesus saying things that are unequivocally exclusive in nature:

            Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
            http://www.esvbible.org/John+14%3A16-17/

            43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him …
            65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
            http://www.esvbible.org/John+6/

            I’d say that’s making some pretty strong, unambiguous statements of exclusivity. This is also what is known as the Scandal of the Cross.

          • hiernonymous

            “Well, unfortunately one cannot be indifferent towards Jesus. ”

            Yes, that’s a similarity to Islam – both religions insist that there are no neutrals.

          • 95Theses

            So what. You are only begging the question (which is what I was hoping for!). I.e., is Truth knowable and do we have the epistemological resources to determine what Truth is?
            I say, Yes.
            And you say …

          • hiernonymous

            …that you’d have to make a very, very interesting pitch indeed to suck me into that tired old conversation.

          • truebearing

            Mohammed, if he was actually a real person, used the structure and characters from Judaism and Christianity, but the similarities stop there. Islam is a perversion of both. It is antithetical to both Judaism and Christianity.

            Mohammed’s ridiculous ploy to pre-date Judaism and Christianity with his was nothing more than a cheap theological trick to use on gullible victims. It kind of reminds me of the things you do to try to win a debate.

            You failed to address how Adam and Eve destroyed his Muslim membership boondoggle.

          • hiernonymous

            “You failed to address how Adam and Eve destroyed his Muslim membership boondoggle.”

            No, I didn’t. If you didn’t understand the point, just say so, and I’ll try to find another way to put it.

            “Mohammed’s ridiculous ploy to pre-date Judaism and Christianity with his was nothing more than a cheap theological trick to use on gullible victims. ”

            If you say so. Every doctrine and explanation in every religion is a cheap theological trick to use on gullible victims, according to the followers of other religions. But both religions, after being founded, went back and explained previous matters in the light of the new revelation.

            “It kind of reminds me of the things you do to try to win a debate.”

            In that you see yourself as a gullible victim? Maybe. There seems to be very little that doesn’t “remind” you of some nefarious skulduggery on the part of those with whom you disagree. One trusts that this isn’t leading up to another accusation of my having used my military ninja hacking skills and connections to delete posts whose absence you claim to have verified, and whose presence is awkwardly demonstrable. There’s no telling what you’ll “remember” tomorrow that I said today in a mysteriously unavailable post. Are you sure that this sort of metaconversation is in your best interests?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Don’t Christians assert that Jesus helped inspire the Old Testament?”

        No, only as “God.” IOW if you accept the doctrine of the Trinity by extension Jesus is a member of the “Godhead” and thus part of the ultimate source.

        It’s a little different than revising history and claiming that all prophets were “Muslims.” Although it’s not clear what evidence he had, we know that he’s wrong.

        We know that the Biblical texts are reliably preserved since long before the time of Jesus. We know that Jesus was not a Muslim, even if by that you mean that he was “orthodox” because his doctrines did not align with the Koran as Mohamed claimed they should.

        At best you can defend Mohamed as a boneheaded equivocator. He obviously had no way to know the differences between the Biblical texts and what his contemporaries claimed the texts said. Nonetheless we can prove he was wrong although we can’t prove he was maliciously deceptive. Maybe he truly believed what he said.

        In saying that “Islam came before” he’s not wrong in one sense, depending on how you render the definitions, but then he *would* be wrong about what true Islam is. His Islam certainly did not come before Christianity. And ironically every Muslim alive would be wrong about “true Islam.”

        IOW, his claims can’t be reconciled or even harmonized with forensic archeology.

        • hiernonymous

          “IOW, his claims can’t be reconciled or even harmonized with forensic archeology.”

          Sure – all religions re full of such – the Great Flood, the sun stopping in the sky, three-day-dead people rising from the grave – it’s all taken on faith. As I recall, Muhammad’s out in terms of conflicts with previous scripture is that the scripture is wrong. As with many other things, it’s a cheap rhetorical trick if you don’t believe him, and only good common sense if you do.

          “No, only as “God.””

          Not all Christians would agree with that. Many attach an independent significance to “the Word” and associate “the Word” with Jesus in his pre-incarnation days. Given that Christians fought bitterly over the nature of Jesus – human? divine? both? – one can make broad statements about what the mainstream sects believe, but there’s very little that’s universally agreed.

          “In saying that “Islam came before” he’s not wrong in one sense, depending on how you render the definitions, but then he *would* be wrong about what true Islam is.”

          Well, no, not unless you insist on applying another religion’s account of who and what those people did and were.

          Muslims, by the way, can be equally disdainful in applying common sense. If you really want to see some professional eye-rolling, get a Muslim with the right combination of snark and education started on the idea that the Trinity is, in fact, monotheistic. You have to admit, you must read charitably and be willing to listen to a pretty involved explanation to be willing to accept it. I don’t see much sign of that spirit on this board.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sure – all religions re full of such…”

            The point is that he’s using such statements to replace existing faith in Christianity and Jewish faith in a new religion and by the time the forensic evidence is evaluated we can see that the Christian and Jewish texts can be harmonized with the findings while the Islamic “corrections” can’t. We can confidently infer that Mohamed is not correct. While Christian and Jewish claims remain partially validated while still leaving gaps that require faith.

            Mohamed’s claims have been falsified, not merely unverified.

            “Not all Christians would agree with that. Many attach an independent significance to “the Word” and associate “the Word” with Jesus in his pre-incarnation days.”

            That’s not saying something different than what I said. It’s just a slightly different way of expressing it. Jesus pre-incarnation was eternally a member of the Godhead. That’s fundamental to the doctrine of the Trinity.

            “Given that Christians fought bitterly over the nature of Jesus – human? divine? both? – one can make broad statements about what the mainstream sects believe, but there’s very little that’s universally agreed.”

            I won’t argue with that. And really nobody can prove one way or the other. It’s a combination of POV and faith.

            “Well, no, not unless you insist on applying another religion’s account of who and what those people did and were.”

            He can’t have it both ways. I’m talking about accounts that are verified by forensic archeology. We know that the texts did not change and the claim from Mohamed is that they did and that they once agreed with the Koran. This has been falsified by forensic archeology.

            “Muslims, by the way, can be equally disdainful in applying common sense. If you really want to see some professional eye-rolling, get a Muslim with the right combination of snark and education started on the idea that the Trinity is, in fact, monotheistic. You have to admit, you must read charitably and be willing to listen to a pretty involved explanation to be willing to accept it. I don’t see much sign of that spirit on this board.”

            I guarantee you that I get your point 100%. But you’re not quite understanding the implications of what I’m saying.

            You can’t falsify Christian texts with forensic science unless you insist on rigidly interpreting things as you wish. That’s one standard.

            You can clearly falsify Islamic texts, but they have some of the same kind of wiggle room until they claim to have preserved it whereas the Bible (they say) has not been preserved. This is definitely falsified by the forensic evidence.

          • hiernonymous

            “You can clearly falsify Islamic texts, but they have some of the same kind of wiggle room until they claim to have preserved it whereas the Bible (they say) has not been preserved. This is definitely falsified by the forensic evidence.”

            To which the Muslim responds “that parchment you have in your hand is not the Bible. It’s a false document from the same timeframe.” In other words, the Jews and Christians preserved the wrong stuff. Not sure how you “prove” that to be false, however silly it may seem to the non-believer.

            For that matter, the Muslim can apply the same logic as the Young Earth Creationist – to which, the Almighty can create any physical manifestation of anything He wishes.

            Do I assume correctly that you carefully select the term “harmonize” in order to avoid confronting some glaring inconsistencies between what is reported in the texts and what the physical record reveals?

            “The point is that he’s using such statements to replace existing faith in Christianity and Jewish faith in a new religion…”

            Well, the initial target audience was neither Christian nor Jewish, but clearly any religion with universalist aspirations must intend to replace all other faiths.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “To which the Muslim responds “that parchment you have in your hand is not the Bible. It’s a false document from the same timeframe.” In other words, the Jews and Christians preserved the wrong stuff. Not sure how you “prove” that to be false, however silly it may seem to the non-believer.”

            I’m simply reporting what forensic archaeologists have discovered and how that harmonizes with the claims. Maybe the world was created yesterday or an hour ago and we have had memory planted or maybe I’m imagining everything from some “Matrix” like cocoon.

            So according to this theoretical Islamic apology there were two (or more) efforts going on at the same time. There were the “Islamic” prophets doing their good stuff and then there was a team falsifying evidence and preserving a false canon, generation after generation, so that eventually they could overthrow the “Islamic” prophets and corrupt the world until finally Mohamed comes along and saves religion and so forth.

            I guess if you really want to believe that, it’s up to you. But the problem is that you’ve got to then believe pretty much everyone is in corrupt and dangerous. It’s hard to imagine such belief can live side by side with others in peace, ever, without giving up those beliefs.

            “For that matter, the Muslim can apply the same logic as the Young Earth Creationist – to which, the Almighty can create any physical manifestation of anything He wishes.”

            The “Young Earth Creationist” science that I’m familiar with doesn’t require anything like that. Basically it challenges some of the assumptions about other forensic science.

            “Do I assume correctly that you carefully select the term “harmonize” in order to avoid confronting some glaring inconsistencies between what is reported in the texts and what the physical record reveals?”

            To harmonize is to prove plausibility. It’s not absolute prove but it is a successful defense of claims that something is false.

            The ultimate point is that if we are to be objective and take forensic sciences seriously, that the Bible has a degree of plausibility that the Koran does not. If you’re hyper-skeptical to begin with, that’s not very impressive.

            But consider this: Christians and Jews acknowledge their uncertainty whereas Muslims are exhorted to act on their faith even to the point of killing for it without evidence. The closest that you can come to that with the Bible is going back to the martial law that the earliest generations of Israel’s offspring were to obey. That was never considered law for all time.

            The more familiar you become with the texts and the archeology the harder it is to think that Christianity and Islam have much in common or that Mohamed’s claims were plausible. And because of the implications today, you should care more about it. But if you have materialist explanations for everything and you kind of ignore counterexamples as mere anomalies…you can avoid facing questions about why would should not more vigorously confront an ideology like Islam that is breeding murderous jihadis today and people that want to replace our hegemony if not our constitution ASAP.

            “Well, the initial target audience was neither Christian nor Jewish, but clearly any religion with universalist aspirations must intend to replace all other faiths.”

            Replacing someone’s faith by removing the old one is one thing, replacing someone’s faith by removing their head is something else entirely.

      • 95Theses

        There is evidence of Sharia Law in Ancient Greece.

        • hiernonymous

          Good one! Though are you sure it wasn’t Deuteronomy 25:11-12 in play here?

          11″If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, 12then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

          • 95Theses

            Yeah, I’m sure it wasn’t.

          • Americana

            Now that’s womano a mano combat that would have been funny to see!

          • 95Theses

            But it wouldn’t be much of an arms race.

          • Americana

            ;) ;) It’s pretty terrible there are these soulless M types running around who cannot see the humor in this sort of cartoon.

          • 95Theses

            Not familiar with the term M type. Illuminate me.

            I am an artist, and in addition to graphite portraiture, God has also granted me the ability to draw caricature
            sketches — pretty wicked I might add (so you’d better be nice to me!) Perhaps I will post some once I can afford to purchase a scanner. Anyway, a sardonic sense of humor coupled with a heightened aesthetic creativity allows me to appreciate political and editorial cartoons with greater relish that those humorless M types — whatever that means.

            Ciaø.

            95

          • Americana

            ‘M types’ — Soulless Muslim types w/no sense of humor.

            I’ve always thought it would be hysterical to develop an underground group of Muslim cartoonists who ran around applying cartoon graffiti like some of our greatest cartoonists produce. Can you imagine a Muslim ‘Far Side,’ lampooning everybody and everything?

          • Americana

            David Levine is one of my favorite political cartoonists, ever. We lost one of the greats when he died. Such incredible pen and ink work coupled w/a brilliant and very funny mind.

          • 95Theses

            Yeah. Levine definitely had talent. And I wasn’t aware that he died. That is sad to hear.

            You’ll recognize who this is I’m sure. And while I don’t own a scanner, I can upload a photo of a William F. Buckley caricature I created for some t-shirts when I worked my way through college at a screen-printing shop. Upload coming soon!

            And what, pray tell, is an M type?

          • 95Theses

            Whoops. Forgot this:

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Islamofascists would call the Venus de Milo “Degenerate Art”..

    • Daniel Greenfield

      What’s then ridiculous is that they look at ’48 when it comes to delegitimizing Israel’s core territories, but they ignore ’48 when they’re denouncing Israel over the so-called settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, some of which were there in ’48 and were overrun by the Muslim invaders.

      • truebearing

        Truth is always the first casualty when Muslims and Marxists establish their arguments. They make no attempt to be honest.

        • Americana

          You’re on quaky ground… But then, you know that. And you just don’t care.

          • truebearing

            No I’m not, but if you think you have proof that I am, spit it out. Your opinion is hardly sufficient. I can rest my assertion solidly on the fact that both the Left and Muslims believe the end justifies the means, meaning that lying is acceptable to get what you want.

          • Americana

            Lying is never acceptable to get what you want, whether you’re an individual or a nation. Your assertion that two groups, one political, Leftists, and one religious, Muslims, are willing to lie to get what they want, while pretending that Israelis and Jews won’t lie to get what they want, is what makes your assertions in the previous above post even stranger.

          • truebearing

            Marxists teach people to lie as a means to power. The Koran encourages lying, murder, slavery, etc as a means to totalitarian power. Both have institutionalized lying as an officially accepted behavior. Nothing in Judaism encourages or rewards lying. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments?

            If I had to choose between trusting a Jew, a muslim, or a leftist, I’d trust the Jew every time. Sure, there are people of every ethnicity that may be dishonest, but not even close to the numbers of pathologically dishonest leftists and Muslims.
            My experience in business with Jewish people has been positive, but you better know your stuff because they know theirs. People who claim they got ripped off by Jews are frequently poor businessmen who didn’t do their homework.
            With liberals I have been burned, and they never accept responsibility for their screw ups. If I know someone is a Progressive, I avoid doing business with them.
            I simply don’t do business with Muslims.

          • Judahlevi

            This is why I like applied ethics. It is real world.

            All of the theoretical, politically correct nonsense out there crumbles when faced with real world consequences.

            Reality wins every time.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Taqiyya to advance the goals of Islamofascism are OK.

          • Americana

            It would be exceedingly strange if top-ranked former Israeli ex-military chiefs were lying to advance Islamofascism, don’t you think? Why would they do that? Especially if they’re still living in downtown Tel Aviv? Or Haifa or any number of other Israeli cities?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Yes it would be strange if top ranking Israeli military chiefs would be lying to advance islamofascism.

            Thanks! And Happy Eternal Nakba!

            Any chance you’ll be going to Gaza to be a Human Shield for Hamass?

          • Americana

            So, you’re claiming the ex-heads of Mossad and Shin Bet are not active in the two-state movement? You’re claiming the Major Generals in this group are willfully putting Israel at risk despite all the strategic knowledge they have in their heads? I’d love to see how they’d argue Drakken to the mat, as I have no doubt they would. I’ll visit their site right now and extend an invitation. I meant to do that last week and never got around to it because of packing for a trip…

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What are the views of the CURRENT heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet?

            Get back to us, and I’m STILL waiting for the link to your list of Jewish terrorists from the UN.

            Is your “UN” site still in maintenance mode??

            http://www.un.org/en/

            works for me….

          • Americana

            These folks were in recent office. Current military employees aren’t allowed to indulge their political beliefs in public. These folks haven’t dropped their affiliation w/the two-state solution regardless of what’s going on w/the Islamofascist jihadists. I’m sure they’re busily recomputing israel’s defense posture but they’re otherwise not thinking that the two-state solution is quite as troublesome as you think it is. Of course, they’re CAREER MILITARY PROFESSIONALS as opposed to armchair quarterbacks…

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What happened to your UN list?

            Still getting the “maintenance” page?

            You are NOT the “Americana” from last week.

            But I wish you both Happy Eternal Nakba!

          • Americana

            Still the identical Americana of last week, all claims like yours to the contrary. The Jewish terrorism will always remain part of historical record, all claims to the contrary as well, but, since Daniel won’t let such lists of historical events remain posted, we’ll just have to make references and search out the information on our own. Everyone is well aware of the Jewish terrorism though they’d like it to be considered Jewish freedom fighting. That’s why such lists never remain posted.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Same account “Americana” but a different person yesterday than last week.

            So where is your UN list of Jewish terrorist attacks?

            Still waiting.

            http://www.un.org/en/

            YOU said the UN had a list of Jewish terrorist attacks. Back up your claim. The burden of proof lies on YOU.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’d say the contrary. The burden relies on you to prove those weren’t Jewish terrorist attacks. Please, be my guest and try to pretend that bombing trains and bombing buses are acceptable means of achieving one’s ends. Aren’t the Palestinians still bombing buses today having seen that it worked so well to achieve a state for the Jews?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Aren’t the Palestinians still bombing buses today having seen that it worked so well to achieve a state for the Jews?”

            Of course it’s the fault of the Jews!

          • Americana

            That’s not what that remark implied. Better re-read it for comprehension.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            ‘Violence works. And if Jews win sovereignty, continue the violence until they’re gone.’

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Again you don’t know much about Israel, yet you insist on acting as if your opinions are authoritative.

          • Judahlevi

            It has always been my opinion that leftists have huge, but unsupported and unearned, egos. Humility is not their strong suit. In fact, I don’t think they even believe in the concept.

            They were abused children – what can you say?

          • Americana

            Daniel, produce evidence that those ex-Israeli military men and women don’t endorse a two-state solution as I’ve claimed. Produce evidence of whatever it is you find fault with in my posts rather than just rely on your OWN contradiction of my post as being authoritative proof I’m wrong.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Where is your evidence of the UN list of Jewish terrorist organizations?

            Still waiting for your “maintenance” mode problem to resolve.

            http://www.un.org/en/

            What’s the matter, Taqiyya got your tongue?

          • Drakken

            Those ex military folks are bought and paid for by leftists useful idiots, and your one of them.

          • Warren Raymond

            Mohammedan trolls are quite primitive.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Two-State solution? There already is a Two-State solution.
            1) Israel
            2) Jordan

            Are you looking for a 3, 4, 5 state solution?

            Iraq is breaking up. A sliver of oil rich land for your “palestinians” would be nice – but I expect fighting to break out over who gets what.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There are darn close to 20 states in the region. So when really are they going to be happy?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            They’ll be happy in Islamist Paradise with 72 virging/raisins surrounding them.

          • Americana

            That “solution” was never acceptable to the Palestinian Arabs. You know why it was never acceptable to them and why it was acceptable to the Arabs whom it benefited. Yes, in this case, I’m looking for a three-state solution.

            The childishness of this kind of reasoning is simply ridiculous when even PM Netanyahu doesn’t try to deflect from the reality of the situation by claiming this.Of course, this being an advocacy site, you feel it’s incumbent upon you to lay the groundwork for such sleight of hand in the negotiations.

            As for Iraq breaking up and a “sliver of oil rich land for the Palestinians” being nice, you must not be keeping track of the fact the Kurdish people are the indigenous people of that part of Iraq. It’s NORTHWESTERN Iraq, just FYI, so it’s unlikely they’d ever lop a piece off for their extremely distant, not to say across the RR track, cousins from Palestine. Just how much more complicated you’re willing to let this situation become in order to keep the Israelis theoretically holding all the former slices of their ancient Judean/Samarian pie is something to behold. You don’t just substitute land elsewhere for the original ownership plat. If that’s what the Palestinians are demanding, that’s what is being negotiated. You don’t simply arbitrarily tell the Palestinians, “This is what we’re willing to give you.”

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What your Pal-e-SWINIANS want is a Crime Against Humanity.- and why the Anti-Islamofascist Wall is necessary.

          • Drakken

            The pali’s can demand anything they want to, it doesn’t mean they are going to get jacksh*t.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’d like my own state. I deserve my own state. I’m going to blow up stuff until I get it.

            I don’t have my state yet, I must be a victim.

          • Americana

            The Jews did exactly this so I wouldn’t be too hasty about condemning this as the tactic of choice as if it’s never been done before. The only thing the Jews had post-WW II in addition to their by-then 50 year quest for a Jewish homeland in the region was the horrific addition of the total number of Holocaust dead. That was what sealed the deal.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 7 hours ago: “The Jews did exactly this so I wouldn’t be too hasty about condemning this as the tactic of choice as if it’s never been done before.”

            Uh, no. Again, you truncate history to try so hard to create moral equivalence. If that’s your view, that’s fine but don’t expect that simply repeating yourself is going to convince anyone.

            See, I didn’t go to the sovereign and arrange to buy property and put together a plan where people peacefully gathered together in their cultural homeland. I didn’t try to negotiate in good faith with all of the relevant people and institutions. I just played the victim card and lied my way through everything. But my biggest mistake is that I didn’t go to the OIC and convert. Then I’d be rich.

          • Americana

            True, the first Zionists went wherever they wished within the Palestine Mandate and bought land if they felt it appealed to them and they could persuade the owners to sell. So far, so good. But this process of Zionist land purchasing went on and on and on and made the eventual push for a Jewish state far more complicated in terms of who would be dispossessed. The fact the PERSONAL PURCHASE of PROPERTY is still being perpetuated in ways that will diminish the Palestinian state is what’s at issue. The original Zionist quest for a reasonable life in the place that Jewish families from all over the globe considered to be their home wasn’t an issue. What has become an issue is how the RECREATION or RESURRECTION of the Jewish nation is going to be brought about under the current standards of humanitarian practice. You’ve gotta admit, this is not a straightforward real estate deal.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “True, the first Zionists went wherever they wished within the Palestine Mandate and bought land if they felt it appealed to them and they could persuade the owners to sell. So far, so good.”

            Why else would anyone buy land?

            “But this process of Zionist land purchasing went on and on and on and made the eventual push for a Jewish state far more complicated in terms of who would be dispossessed.”

            Like if Mexicans come in to California and start buying up land? Whitey is then “dispossessed?” Because…collectivism?

            “The fact the PERSONAL PURCHASE of PROPERTY is still being perpetuated in ways that will diminish the Palestinian state is what’s at issue.”

            That’s because there is no Palestinian state. Life itself, each passing day diminishes the viability of the state. That doesn’t mean you need to blame outside forces. What kind of bigot are you that thinks Palestinians are such inferior creatures that everyone else needs to create special rules for them so that they can have their alleged dreams of statehood come true?

            “The original Zionist quest for a reasonable life in the place that Jewish families from all over the globe considered to be their home wasn’t an issue. What has become an issue is how the RECREATION or RESURRECTION of the Jewish nation is going to be brought about under the current standards of humanitarian practice. You’ve gotta admit, this is not a straightforward real estate deal.”

            Basically “reasonable life” is OK if they live as dhimmis. I don’t accept that as reasonable. Apparently you do.

            You’ve confused yourself. You haven’t demonstrated that any Jews have done anything “wrong” or illegitimate. You’re blaming the Jews for being successful and “too” legitimate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You make a very good case for communism. From the perspective of other communists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You don’t simply arbitrarily tell the Palestinians, “This is what we’re willing to give you.””

            No, you can really only do that when you win wars, or to Jews.

          • Warren Raymond

            No solution but the final solution is acceptable to the Palestinian Arabs. That was not understood in the beginning, but now it is crystal clear.

          • Drakken

            The only Monday morning couch potato quarterback is you honey, to put faith in bought and paid spokesmen is the height of utter stupidity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m sure they’re busily recomputing israel’s defense posture but they’re otherwise not thinking that the two-state solution is quite as troublesome as you think it is.”

            Show me their comprehensive plan, including security arrangements for after Israel withdraws. And we’ll check the date on it.

            I doubt there are many Israelis that would not consider the two-state “solution” if they got reasonable assurances.

            Basically we’re telling you that the Palestinians will never be reasonable. Their strategy is to use negotiations as simply one aspect of the war campaign strategy. There is no peace strategy and the efforts to ask for a nation are completely tactical. They don’t want to be accountable. They like sitting where they are, seen as “victims” by the likes of you and many other fools around the world.

            If they were halfway serious at all about building a nation, a real one, they’d work on establishing law and order and other aspects of true sovereignty. Nobody is stopping them from doing that.

            Have you read the Oslo Accords yet? Hmmm?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m looking at the UN for the list of nations that have been sanctioned for human rights violations. The lists I find seem incomplete. In fact I know that they’re incomplete. Weird.

            If you can’t trust the UN, whaddyagonnado? I’m stumped.

          • Drakken

            How many times do you have to be told, a two state solution isn’t going to happen, and you quoting and having faith in the leftist peace now stupidity carries no weight. Your problem is that you refuse to see reality and wish for a peace that is not possible without victory.

          • Americana

            Why do you persist in flogging that old dead horse of yours? That’s **YOUR** opinion, honey, and it’s not an opinion that’s shared by the Israeli Major Generals and the Shin Bet and Mossad directors who devised the latest Israeli Peace Initiative. I have a lot more faith in their overall strategizing than I do in yours. They’ve been in charge of the entire Israeli defense system. You’ve been in charge of much smaller defensive positions. They outrank you, they outgun you in every way..

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your “dead horse” has more spots. Big deal. Still dead.

          • Drakken

            They might outrank me, but they certainly aren’t paid as well as I am either, and I am paid to get results, and so far I have always delivered. Political hacks on the other hand can always without fail, be relied upon to deliver whatever political gobbly gook they are told to.

          • Americana

            Doesn’t matter what you’re paid vs what they’re paid, their responsibilities include planning for scenarios where you’d be playing the tiniest chess piece roles. Your own military responsibilities have likely never even approached what these mens’ responsibilities are for the Israeli state. There’s a reason why those men made it to the top of those organizations, the top military and intelligence operations in the world, and it’s likely not something you could emulate. You might be great at your contractor role, it doesn’t mean you’re the greatest strategist and that your war plans would outclass the war planning of these Israeli military. That’s cold hard Teutonic fact. Doubtless you won’t approve.

          • Drakken

            If I am not up to pare and grade of those that you quote, why am I still here, why is it that I am in charge of thousands and always deployed to where there is a fire? Hmmm If I could only aspire to be paid to be a mouthpiece for Peace Now and every goofy leftist organization for a paycheck. If only! Keep rubbing those ruby slippers of yours together wishing for a peace that does not exist, it actually might happen if you just wish hard enough.

          • Americana

            Name your organizational affiliation (Xe? Reflex Responses?) and how many units are under your command just for interest’s sake. You certainly weren’t in charge of thousands at Balad Air Base. Considering the risk the jihadis posed to that base, why, if you’re regularly “in charge of thousands of contractors” and you’re “the senior tactician who makes the battle plans” weren’t there a substantial number of contractors that went to the relief of that base?” What battles have you “won for the Allies (or whoever) w/those thousands of contractors?”

            Your skills may be very substantial, it still doesn’t make you as capable as those Major Generals and the Mossad and Shin Bet guys who are in charge of tactics and handling of the Israeli forces throughout a major war. I’ve met a fair number of contractors and none of them impress me in the ways the senior leadership Israeli ex-milittary and intelligence guys impress me. You meet these senior Israeli guys in person and you know they’ve been shouldering the weight of the nation. It also doesn’t take more than a couple of questions before their intelligence shines through.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You meet these senior Israeli guys in person and you know they’ve been shouldering the weight of the nation. It also doesn’t take more than a couple of questions before their intelligence shines through.”

            I’m not convinced that you speak for them.

          • Drakken

            I have argued with these peace now activists, political hacks, the bloody lot of them, the funny thing is, they just can’t argue with cold, harsh Teutonic logic and facts. Me taken to the mat? Not bloody likely honey.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana truebearing • 15 hours ago: “Lying is never acceptable to get what you want, whether you’re an individual or a nation. ”
            According to who?

            “Your assertion that two groups, one political, Leftists, and one religious, Muslims, are willing to lie to get what they want, while pretending that Israelis and Jews won’t lie to get what they want, is what makes your assertions in the previous above post even stranger.”

            I think the point was more subtle. Indeed every human has difficulty telling the truth when it conflicts with their self-interest. Some cultures have strong ethical frameworks to discourage lying, to encourage honest self-reflection and also to encourage critics to confront lies and liars. Some more than others.

            Can you understand that?

            What happens is that over time, these very differences do effect each society accordingly. It’s not a commentary on how certain groups contain individuals that are morally deficient. It’s a commentary on end results over time and cultural distinctions.

          • Nabukuduriuzhur

            re: Americana

            The track record of both ISlam and Socialism is copious use of THE LIE.

            Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mohammed, Arafat, were liars of the worst sort. It would be impossible to tell how many thousands each told per week, but their speeches are filled with lies.

          • Americana

            At some point, the analysis of these issues has to get past the point of THE LIES. Your lies as well as their lies. That’s just the facts of life.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Americana LIES?

            LIke her claiming the UN has a list of Jewish terrorist attadcks?

            Yet still unable to substantiate her claim.

            Taqiyyacana, YOU LIE.

          • Drakken

            You believe in the pali lie, hook ,line and sinker and scream and shout it is the Israeli’s fault. The fact is, it comes down to who you support? There is no middle ground here.

          • Americana

            I don’t believe Palestinian lies. But whether you choose to believe Palestinian truths or not is up to your own conscience. There are Palestinian truths that are relevant to one’s interpretation of the current impasse. You ignore them at your peril as does Israel. Of course there is a middle ground. It might be a narrow sliver of ground and it might not be the high moral ground but it is at least neutral. There is always a middle ground of neutrality even if one ultimately has to condemn one side more than the other.

            I don’t listen to the Palestinian propaganda claims when they’re under this kind of IAF bombardment. These kinds of IAF bombing campaigns wouldn’t occur if the Hamas folks weren’t shooting rockets into Israel.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There are Palestinian truths that are relevant to one’s interpretation of the current impasse.”

            Clean hands doctrine. Scale that up to the current conflict and MAYBE you’ll understand.

          • Jack DIamond

            Not just Hamas. JIhad Islami, allied with with Iran, firing rockets from Gaza on instructions from Tehran, as are those coming from Lebanon and Syria, courtesy of the PFLP. Don’t be so provincial.

          • Drakken

            In God (not allah) I trust, all muslims no matter the stripe are suspect. There is no neutral ground honey, and no matter how much you wish and think peace is possible with these Islamic savages, it just not gonna happen. I’ll bet you a cool grand to back it up as well? Care to take me up on that offer honey?

          • Americana

            Drakken, delineate your best strategic plan for Israel and I’ll see whether I feel you’ve got substantive strategic planning underlying your aversion to any peace plan.

          • Drakken

            It is a very simple matter of them versus us, when you kill enough of them, and they scream uncle and sue for peace, you get victory, and without victory, you cannot have peace. That is your problem right there honey, you feel, therefore I am as your policy positions.

          • Americana

            Alright, you’ve begun to frame the Drakken military strategy for achieving a war-based victory peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But writing down, (DRAKKEN) “When you kill enough of them, and they scream uncle and sue for peace, you get victory, and without victory, you cannot have peace.” Doesn’t tell me a damn thing about your war strategy that isolates the Palestinians from support from any other Arab countries if you begin this process of killing off “enough of them.” What happens when that triggers a wider conflict? Still happy to claim you’ll be able and willing to kill off enough of them without rendering the remaining Palestinians in whatever location even deadlier enemies of Israel?

            So, if the above isn’t clear, I’d like to hear you expand on your “kill your way to a permanent peace” plan in more detail.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You want a “moderate” war. Not a great strategy. Better to win or stay home. That’s all he’s saying.

            And in Israel, staying home still leads to war. The most merciful option then is to win quickly and clearly rather than to take a “moderate” (treating it like a tournament that must produce an annual list of winners, or some other insane paradigm) approach to appease Marxists, dupes, etc.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You can’t count on people abiding by treaties when you know they’re not entering it in good faith.

            Get it?

          • Buck Disqus

            You defend marxism and islam by asserting that the author is lying ion the article and that we are lying about them in these comments, and yet you present NO ALTERNATIVE “TRUTHS”, and YOU LIE when you claim we are excusing lies by Israel, of which you present no examples.

            Then you whine like a stoned liberal that “I can’t tolerate either side lying” as if anyone here cares what flatulence comes out of your “even sided” addled weak mind.

            Unless you are (likely) simply a poor excuse for a muslim posing as an “Americana”, like most brainwashed grade school marxists, the only religion you can tolerate and defend is the one that at its greatest glory would cut your head off and use your next as a toilet, yet you weep for it because it’s the enemy of the Judeo-Christian Capitalist West, of which, in your repeated failed attempts to get laid, you have sworn to hairy-armpit girls and transexuals around you that you to are the sworn enemy of.

            You are no more “americana” than islam is a religion of peace.

            Begone with you, unless you care to post some clearly identifiable description of yourself so we can pick you at the barricades, or if more aggressive, at 300 yards through a scope.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Quakey ground at the base of the pillars of Mecca.

          • objectivefactsmatter
    • Lightbringer

      Great historic background, Truebearing. As always, you do your homework and know what you’re talking about.

      • hiernonymous

        Well, except that this bit of homework is pretty cursory, and leaves out some very important parts. For starters, Palestine was the term or one of the terms (depending on the era and nationality of the writer) used for the broad region by many writers of antiquity long before Hadrian’s era, to include Herodotus, Aristotle, Josephus, and Philo, the latter two of whom were Jewish. One of Josephus’s references to Palestine in a sense that was unambiguously referring to the broader land, not simply the land of the Philistines, was a remark at the end of Antiquities about “the events that befell us Jews in Egypt, in Syria, and in Palestine.”

        I recommend David Jacobsen’s article “Palestine and Israel” in the Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research, #313, Feb 1999. It’s available through JSTOR. Here’s an excerpt from his conclusions:

        By the fifth century B.C. the term Palaistine was being used to denote the entire area of the Land of Israel, the traditional area assigned to the 12 sons of Jacob, rather than only the Land of the Philistines or the coastal strip of the Holy Land. Thus, Aristotle’s location of the Dead Sea in Palestine fits into place without having to be explained away as an inaccuracy arising from second-hand transmission (Feldman 1990: 3). Also, Hadrian’s replacement of Judaea by Syria Palaestine may be seen not so much as stemming from Rome’s desire to rub the Jewish nation off the map as from the desire to rationalize the name of the new province, which was much larger than geographical Judaea.

        • Lightbringer

          Very interesting! Thank you for some more very interesting background material.

          • truebearing

            It’s best not to take his word on anything without evaluating his sources. His expert historians were all suspect in their knowledge due to translation issues, etc. He also assiduously avoided including the research of any Israeli scholars.

          • Americana

            It’s best to READ THE MATERIAL and then decide if the scholar makes sense. There are always footnotes and glossary to enable one to check the source material to a farethewell. Just because someone is an Israeli scholar makes their scholarship no less suspect and no less subject to the same verification process as any other scholar’s work. Enjoy, and get back to hieronymous and those of us who enjoy finding new material on the issues if this is something you found valuable to read.

          • truebearing

            You aren’t Drakken, you are Americana. Why are your posts saying you are Drakken?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            truebearing, for some reason, the software that drives this website gets the names of posters wrong.

            If you see content from posters that seems contrary to what you are used to, you need to refresh the broswer, and RELOAD ALL messages.

            A refresh should fix things.

          • Americana

            As for being an expert on anti-Semitism, I’m not even going to answer that pathetic canard. Anti-Semitism is the ploy of anyone who doesn’t feel someone is precisely toeing the line that some Jewish groups or some Jews have drawn in the sand. But I know enough to draw my own lines in the sand and I’ll stand my ground w/another group of equally prestigious Jews/Israelis. These are the former top military men and women of Israel who are more than likely even more prestigious than the Jews you’re trying to elevate above them. I am in GOOD COMPANY and RELIABLE COMPANY. They are not turncoats. They’re not stupid. They’re Israelis to THEIR VERY CORE.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Speaking of pathetic canards – Islamophobia!!!!

            Anyone against Al Qada, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, passenger plane hijackings, Londons 7/7/05 transport bombings, HamASS, Fascist Iran, kidnapping of 300 girls by Boko Haram, bombing of Pan Am 103, cruise ship hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, beheading of Lee Rigby…

            ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!

          • truebearing

            Then why do you source things from anti-semitic sites? it”s your responsibility to assess the veracity of your sources.

          • Americana

            Sites that don’t have large staffs steal material from larger, legitimate sites that do have large staffs and do have web site designers that make complex tabular presentations of information. Larger, official sites often do more coding to material they present that makes it difficult to copy and paste the material. I did a whole lot of work stripping off coding from a couple of very legitimate, absolutely unimpeachable sites to post the very same list as came from the other site. If I’d read through that list and found there were a bunch of additional attacks w/which I wasn’t familiar and I was suspicious that site was padding the list, I likely wouldn’t have posted it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Americana, Where is your list from the UN, the United Nations, from domain “un.org” that you say lists Jewish terrorist attacks????

            Are you STILL getting the “maintenance” page as you claimed?

            http://www.un.org/en/

            The above works for me.

            Did you dog eat your Taqiyya?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Just paste the text you want to use in a simple text editor and it will ignore non-ASCII characters. Then copy the filtered text back in to your clipboard and past it where you want.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They feed from the same trough.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t know if you’re anti-Semitic but based on what I’ve read from your comments I’d say you register strongly as a dupe of neo-Marxism. That can lead to anti-Semitism but doesn’t always

          • Americana

            I’m not a neo-Marxist. I’m not anti-Semitic. I’m not anything of which I’ve been accused on FPM. I simply believe that Israel risks it ALL by keeping the Palestinians in limbo without a Palestinian state. Haven’t you ever met anyone else who believes this? I can hardly believe that’s possible. I know how many people I’ve discussed this with and many of them see the same choices for Israel I do. I am sympathetic toward Israel. She’s in the most difficult diplomatic position in the history of mankind. But making artificial claims of provenance doesn’t negate the reality; rather, it only inflames the situation w/the Palestinians, as well as other Arabs, even more.

            I also am convinced if the Palestinian jihad hadn’t garnered itself such a long history and enormous news coverage, would this push for a Caliphate have even arisen in quite the way it did? If you don’t see the historical evidence for this perspective then you’re closing your eyes and wishing the boogeyman to leave the region. There may be horrific flaws in Islam to which followers of Islam may be blinded, but the Israelis are also blinded by their urge to believe in Biblical prophesy over reality. This is a no-win situation unless there is a diplomatic solution found.

          • NYgal

            You are not neo-Marxist, you are a Muslim practicing taqqiya and pretending to be sort of reasonable. Truth is, just like accommodation and concessions to the Nazis proved to be a mistake, any accommodating so called Palestinians has already been proven to be a grave mistake. You don’t accommodate extreme ideologies, and your Palestinians are such a beast. For every Israeli concession there have been new demands from the Arabs and new violence.

            The only solution to the problem is to transfer Palestinians back to Egypt, from Gaza and to Jordan and Syria from Judea, Samaria and Golan.

            And Israeli Arabs should be given a choice: be loyal to the Jewish state or leave. We Jews have been given that choice all the time, in every country we have lived in. There is no reason not to apply the same rule to Israeli Arabs

          • more_common_sense77

            That worked out wonderful didn’t it?
            This is just an anti-Palestinian website. Its hideous.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What’s wrong with being “anti-Palestinian?”

          • Americana

            Since when have Israeli Arabs tried to betray Israel in vast numbers? If they had, they would have long since been expelled. As for me being a Muslim, no, I’m not. I’m a Roman Catholic who’s got a Jesuit priest in her immediate family and that priest is interested in retaining Catholic access to the Temple Mount for Catholics as well as keeping Temple Mount open to all faiths.

            I’m as reasonable as all the former Major Generals and former directors of Mossad and Shin Bet who presented a new two-state solution to PM Netanyahu in 2011. I’m in good, solid, ISRAELI company as far as my concerns and my belief in a two-state solution goes. Oh, just FYI, but these Israelis aren’t advocating returning Palestinian Arabs to OTHER Arab countries under their new peace plan. Obviously their wisdom and experience outranks yours.
            _____________________________________________________

            http://israelipeaceinitiative.com/israeli-peace-initiative-english/signatories/

            http://israelipeaceinitiative.com/israeli-peace-initiative-english/the-israeli-peace-initiative-english/

            The State of Israel,

            Reaffirming that Israel’s strategic objective is to reach a historic compromise and permanent status agreements that shall determine the finality of all claims and the end of the Israeli Arab conflict, in order to achieve permanent and lasting peace, lasting and guaranteed security, regional economic prosperity and normal ties with all Arab and Islamic states,

            Recognizing the suffering of the Palestinian refugees since the 1948 war as well as of the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries, and realizing the need to resolve the Palestinian refugees problem through realistic and mutually agreed-upon solutions,

            Realizing that wide-scale multilateral economic cooperation is essential in order to ensure the prosperity of the Middle East, its environmental sustainability and the future of its peoples,

            Recognizing the Arab Peace Initiative of March 2002 (API) as a historic effort made by the Arab states to reach a breakthrough and achieve progress on a regional basis, and sharing the API statement “that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties,”

            Therefore Israel accepts the API as a framework for regional peace negotiations and presents the IPI as an integrated response to the API, and as a vision of the regional final-status agreements to be negotiated and signed between the Arab states, the Palestinians and Israel, based on the following proposed principles:

            1) CONFLICT RESOLUTION PRINCIPLES

            The key principle of all regional peace agreements shall be Israeli withdrawals, guaranteed security, normal relations and end of all conflicts, while recognizing the security needs of all parties, the water resources challenges, the demographic realities on the ground, and the interests and needs of the followers of the three monotheistic faiths; Furthermore, the Israeli Palestinian conflict shall be resolved on the principle of two states for two nations: Palestine as a nation state for the Palestinians and Israel as a nation state for the Jews (in which the Arab minority will have equal and full civil rights as articulated in Israel’s Declaration of Independence). On this basis, the following parameters are proposed:

            1a) Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolution Parameters

            Statehood and Security – A sovereign independent Palestinian state shall be formed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on territories from which Israel withdrew. The state shall be demilitarized, exercising full authority over its internal security forces. The International community shall play an active role in providing border security and curbing terrorist threats.

            Borders – The borders shall be based on the June 4, 1967, lines, with agreed modifications subject to the following principles: the creation of territorial contiguity between the Palestinian territories; land swaps (not to exceed 7% of the West Bank) based on a 1:1 ratio, including the provision of a safe corridor between the West Bank and Gaza, under de facto Palestinian control.

            Jerusalem – The greater Jerusalem area shall include the two capitals of the two states. The line shall be drawn so that: Jewish neighborhoods shall be under Israeli sovereignty; the Arab neighborhoods shall be under Palestinian sovereignty; special arrangements shall be implemented in the Old City, ensuring that the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall shall be under Israeli sovereignty; the Temple Mount shall remain under a special no-sovereignty regime (“God Sovereignty”), with special agreed-upon arrangements, ensuring that Islamic holy places shall be administered by the Moslem Waqf, and Jewish holy sites and interests shall be administered by Israel. The implementation of these arrangements will be supervised by an Israeli-International committee .

            Refugees – The solutions for the Palestinian refugees shall be agreed upon between Israel, the Palestinians and all regional parties in accordance with the following principles: Financial compensation shall be offered to the refugees and the host countries by the international community and Israel; the Palestinian refugees wishing to return (as mentioned in UNGAR 194) may do so only to the Palestinian state, with mutually agreed-upon symbolic exceptions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There was a rational (albeit naive) justification for approaching some Palestinian faction with an Oslo Accord style treaty. That would have been the last hope. The last hope has expired.

            Can you comprehend that statement even if you don’t agree?

            It’s paternalistic to make excuses for Palestinians at this point. They can’t even organize a non-violent parade, and although that sounds like a joke, sadly it is not.

          • Americana

            I believe in satisfying the largest number of Palestinians by a peace settlement establishing a reasonable size Palestinian state and letting the die-hard jihadi Palestinians DIE OUT by continuing Israeli military action or by old age. Since an ongoing military struggle is going to continue whatever the political settlement, that’s hardly going Leftist Sophist. If you reduce the number of militants, you are effectively reducing the risk to Israel on all fronts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We’ll call it “North Gaza.” Great idea.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re a little quick to grab the shotgun.

            http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

          • Drakken

            You may believe in your little pink heart that sacrificing Israel for the so called greater good is a wonderful idea, but as history has proved and which you ignore, is once you appease an enemy, he always comes back for more.

          • Americana

            I don’t believe this peace plan involves “sacrificing Israel for the so-called greater good.” This is called having Israel realize that securing her Messianic territorial Biblical imperative is NOT in her best interests. I’ve never heard a Zionist yet who’s making any strategic sense. Talk about unicorns and rainbows…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve never heard a Zionist yet who’s making any strategic sense.”

            To you.

          • Drakken

            I blame the Israeli’s for being far too soft, there cannot be peace without total victory and you can’t get victory unless and until your willing to break things and kill some people. Limited war is less than useless because you always rinse and repeat like the Israeli’s are doing now. So either go big or go home.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There may be horrific flaws in Islam to which followers of Islam may be blinded, but the Israelis are also blinded by their urge to believe in Biblical prophesy over reality.”

            They’ve already achieved their goals. You call them blind because they don’t believe in Islamic sharia and instead reject it. Interesting.

            They have Jews that live their entire natural lives in the land without being subject to sharia. To them, that is winning and that is worth it. That is realistic. It really happens.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I also am convinced if the Palestinian jihad hadn’t garnered itself such a long history and enormous news coverage, would this push for a Caliphate have even arisen in quite the way it did?”

            No, it probably would have happened differently and a lot faster. It would have been easier for the Middle East to get caught up in the Cold War to an event greater extent. That could have worked for or against the Soviets and then for or against whoever prevailed.

            If you think it’s just simply obvious that Israel or support for Israel has made anything worse for us, it’s just another example of myopic thinking.

            How much time have you actually spent studying the history rather than reading over and over again the opinions of people that you already agree with? Who are some of your favorite Middle East historians? You don’t sound a whole lot different than Rashid Khalidi but with slightly toned-down rhetoric.

          • Drakken

            Blah blah blah ex military officials, blah blah blah I believe in rainbows and unicorns, that my dear is your official policy. Because ou believe hey carry some weight, doesn’t make I so.

          • Americana

            Of course it’s so or you wouldn’t attempt to smear them each and every time I bring these folks up by claiming they’ve been bought off by leftist organizations. (What leftists — from exactly which entities — would pay off Israelis to sell out their country? If this were true, there’d be Jerusalem Post stories all over the damn place about this shocking news.) However, they will FOREVER OUTRANK YOU and, in all likelihood, they also OUTTHINK YOU. I have no issue w/the fact these guys are the real deal and that, if they’ve conceived a peace plan, it’s likely got all the strategic elements in place to make the plan work long-term.

          • Drakken

            Israeli politicians are just like the rest of the politicians in the west these days, whoever pays them, that is where their bread is buttered honey, that is the way the world works today. So they outrank me? Big effing deal, I’m still paid far more than they are, and I am paid to get results, they are paid to make speeches.

          • Americana

            You are paid to achieve results on the very smallest portions of the chess board. That’s not the same challenge facing the highest ranking Israeli military chiefs who are responsible for the whole chess board. You are making a totally fallacious comparison between your skill set and the skill set of these other military and intelligence men.

          • Drakken

            Keep believing that sweetheart, your not as smart as you think you are.

          • Americana

            Oh, I don’t worry at all about my own personal smarts and I never make claims about my smarts, you DO. I worry about the SMARTS of those israelis whose opinions and decisions I choose to support who have to make the major long-term political choices to preserve their country. I’m fine w/declaring most of these men to be brilliant, near genius if not better yet. Considering how often the Israelis are lauded on here for their brainiacs and their Nobel prizes, it’d be pretty funny if israeli SLOUCHES were appointed to be in charge of the Shin Bet, the Mossad and the Israeli Army and Air Force. Now THAT scenario would be hard to believe considering just how much depends on the Israeli security and armed forces apparatuses…. If they say something can be achieved as a peace accord that makes strategic sense, I’ll believe them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana truebearing • a day ago: “As for being an expert on anti-Semitism, I’m not even going to answer that pathetic canard. Anti-Semitism is the ploy of anyone who doesn’t feel someone is precisely toeing the line that some Jewish groups or some Jews have drawn in the sand.”
            So anti-Semitism is a myth? Are there anti-Semitic factions attacking Israel?

          • Americana

            Of course anti-Semitism isn’t a myth! We’ve just had, what, 4 or so American Nazis come on here and post obviously anti-Semitic statements? Certainly some groups that are making statements about Israel are anti-Semitic. But some others are merely anti the status quo. Those groups would be fine w/Israel if there were no continuing Palestinian struggle to achieve a Palestinian state. Is it possible to satisfy a larger majority of Palestinians w/a Palestinian state so they desist as a culture from attacking Israel? There’s only one way to find out.

            I don’t consider any of the anti-Semitic groups that are attacking Israel to be of the nature of other groups trying to reach a peace accord. If there were a Palestinian state as a result of a peace treaty between Palestine and Israel but there was Palestinian factional fighting that continued against Israel, that would be a qualitatively different sort of struggle than it is now. I bet you’d hear far fewer voices raised in quite the same fashion on behalf of Palestinians.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Is it possible to satisfy a larger majority of Palestinians w/a Palestinian state so they desist as a culture from attacking Israel? There’s only one way to find out.”

            Been there and done that. No, it’s not possible under the current leadership and maybe not possible under the current culture.

            You obviously no nothing about the Oslo Accords. Not just that “something happened” under that name but you don’t even realize what has been attempted and why.

          • Drakken

            She must be responding to me, or there is a glitch in the system????

          • Drakken

            It’s the trunions I tell you, you know, the little dudes that live in the howitzers. Yes, that was being a tad cheeky. There is a ghost or a virus in the machine creating havoc, I am having a problem with it as well.

          • hiernonymous

            Are you at it again? At least this time you had the good sense to ask, instead of launching into an accusation. Perhaps you’re learning.

          • truebearing

            Yes, get back to you and Hiero, the experts on anti-semitism. You know where all of the biased stuff is, don’t you, troll girl.

          • Americana

            History is just history. Bias is what someone inserts when they wish the history were different than it actually is.

          • Drakken

            You always ignore history in the hopes that it will somehow mysteriously change. How quaint.

          • Americana

            You always want to detail and direct history as you see fit. All the players of today who indulge in propaganda may dominate the history in real time but, eventually, just as it did w/the Nazis, the reality of the historical events and choices will come to the fore again w/enough clarity everyone will see the truth. Propaganda is only compelling false truth when it goes unchallenged by the real truth.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re the one that wants to come up with something “new” that has already been tried under the Oslo Accords framework.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It takes some one or some people to record history. Therefore all historical records are subject to bias. Period.

            Even the scientific method is subject to bias. All we can do is work together in good faith with objective analysis to help refine how we understand historical events.

        • truebearing

          “Jacob Lassner and Selwyn Ilan Troen offer a different view, writing that Jund Filastin, the full name for the administrative province under the rule of the Arabcaliphates, was traced by Muslim geographers back to the Philistines of the Bible.[29] The use of the name “Palestine” in English became more common after the European renaissance.[30] It was officially revived by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and applied to the territory that was placed under the Palestine Mandate.”

          Philo read the Torah in Greek, which calls into question the accuracy of the interpretation. Josephus was a Roman of the 1st Century, therefore potentially biased by spellings and pronunciation of the Romans. Aristotle sounded like anyone describing a place he hadn’t visited. None of these “experts” were Jews who lived in Israel.

          Furthermore, even if these historians were accurate, which is dubious, what isn’t dubious is whether Arabs lived in the area called Palestine during the period in question, or were known then as “Palestinians.” Arabs didn’t arrive until much later during the Muslim conquests, where they took the land by force…which seems to be acceptable if done by invaders before 1948, but isn’t if Jews claim their ancestral homeland after 1948.

          • hiernonymous

            If you’re going to cut and paste wiki, include all the relevant parts. A more complete excerpt reveals that the “different view” alluded to in your quote was the etymology of the Arabic word “filistin,” not the use of the term Palestine in antiquity for the broad area:

            Moshe Sharon writes that when the Arabs took over Greater Syria in the 7th century, place names that were in use by the Byzantine administration before them, generally continued to be used. Hence, he traces the emergence of the Arabic form Filastin to this adoption, with Arabic inflection, of Roman and Hebrew (Semitic) names.[2] Jacob Lassner and Selwyn Ilan Troen offer a different view, writing that Jund Filastin, the full name for the administrative province under the rule of the Arab caliphates, was traced by Muslim geographers back to the Philistines of the Bible.[29]

            Plainly, the term was in use for the broad area long before Hadrian. It’s also worth noting that the elaborate story of Hadrian’s motives is speculative, not something historically soundly established.

          • PAthena

            At the time of Aristotle, the land of the Jews was Judea (from which they got their name).
            The Palestine Mandate which Great Britain was awarded after World War I was to be “the homeland of the Jews.” Winston Churchill took off what was west of the Jordan River to create a kingdom to reward the leader of the Husseini family in Arabia for help against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, by making him the King of the newly created Kingdom of Jordan.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Actually, although all that history is good to know, however, it’s all irrelevant because it has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the reason why the Islamic totalitarian world through their proxy – the so-called Palestinians – are waging a jihad against the infidel Jews in Israel, and that reason is obvious. Indeed, it’s to make Islam supreme, not only with respect to the infidel Jews in Israel, but also in regard to the entire infidel world at large as well. Indeed, that’s the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam. All Muslim strive as a collective in the cause of Allah, which is why life is so cheap in the Islamic totalitarian world relative to life in the infidel world.
          .

          • Americana

            That’s not really the case for the Palestinians. The Palestinians were never after the Israelis to be the supreme world leaders. They just wanted their land back. Totally different from the rest of the wacko Islamists whose aim is the restoration of the Caliphate.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your “palestinians” can get their land back when the Jews of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Khybar, Medina, Mecca get their land back.

          • Americana

            How convenient, yet another reason why the israelis won’t budge on the issue of the right of return and land exchange. Nope, too complex to insist that all these countries participate in an agreement, let’s leave this at the level of each country negotiating the return of Jews and/or Palestinians and the issue of a peace agreement is solely left between Israel and Palestine.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Why shouldn’t Jews from Arab countries get compensation for their lost property?

            Compensate the 800,000 Jews of Arab countries and the 600,000 Arabs / so-called “palestinians” too.

            A population swap. Israel did better in the exchange.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your “paleswinians” have the Right of Eternal Nakba.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The “Palestinians” were terror groups serving various local Arab countries. They still are.

          • Americana

            They’re no more serving various local Arab countries than the Jewish terrorists in Palestine were serving Polish Jews in Poland w/their terrorism. They are doing what they are doing for themselves just as Jewish terrorists acted on behalf of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The fact these Palestinian terrorism groups are receiving support from another Arab nation like Jordan isn’t so that Jordan can then take over the regained Palestinian lands should that ever come to pass. Or is that what you’re arguing? That Jordan **IS DOING THAt, is acting in her own best interests against those of the Palestinians?** In which cue, you’ve shot yourself in the foot w/claiming that Israel is right to be assisting Jordan against the encroaching jihadists under al Baghdadi.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You might want to study up on the origins of the PLO and Greater Syria.

            Unfortunately you seem much more obsessed with Jews.

          • Americana

            I’m obsessed w/the whole freakin’ mess, Daniel, which is only becoming increasingly messier because the Israelis persist in making clear their determination to finalize their Biblical prophesies. The baldness of some of the tactics being used to lay claim to the rest of the Palestine Mandate would be funny if they weren’t so tragically wrong-headed. The fact is that if Israel persists in these strategic aims of hers, it means that Israel is condemning the West, and specifically the United States, to an eternal war of attrition w/the Palestinians. The fact there are ‘greater’ Arab ties in some of the Palestinian terror organizations is really not the most crucial aspect of the PLO and you should realize that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana ObamaYoMoma • 5 hours ago
            “That’s not really the case for the Palestinians. The Palestinians were never after the Israelis to be the supreme world leaders. They just wanted their land back. ”

            Which “Palestinians” are you referring to? What “land” are you referring to? Do you mean certain people that became refugees and angrily tried to fight to get back to their previous private property or are you talking about people that became enraged over “lost sovereignty?”

          • Americana

            Oh, please, let’s not play the “I’m so confused” game…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m asking you to distinguish between land claims and sovereignty claims.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Still no answer?

          • Drakken

            Those effing savages aren’t going to get a bloody thing darling, no matter how much empathy and sympathy you have for them. They are the same whacko muslims as they are anyplace else.

          • hiernonymous

            “Actually, although all that history is good to know, however,…”

            You can’t assemble a jigsaw puzzle if you use pieces from the wrong puzzle, nor if you just cut pieces out of cardboard and crayon them in on the fly.

            I don’t trust people who insist that they know the big picture but get the little pictures wrong, and show no interest in getting them right.

        • Drakken

          At the end of the day, the semantics of it all doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is, who is holding the ground your standing on and what your willing to do to keep it. If the muslims want to continue to fight for it, they can get buried in it or feed the buzzards.

    • 95Theses

      Hey, found a cool map. The 1920 mandate for Palestine, i.e., the original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home.
      (Works neatly into that whole “historical ignorance” thing) ♫

      • truebearing

        Good find! … but alas, it can’t be counted because it was before 1948. Only leftists and Muslims are allowed to go into that forbidden past to support their claims. :)

        • 95Theses

          Lucky for me that I couldn’t care less what they think. Their rules only apply so long as we’re willing to buy into their lies. Liberating, isn’t it?

          • truebearing

            Opposing them is a matter of duty and honor, and a lifelong hobby. They’ll never quit, and neither will we.

          • 95Theses

            Amen!

          • hiernonymous

            That map is a bit misleading. You’ll note that the Mandate for Palestine was written before the eastern extent of Palestine was finally determined, so Article 25 specifically permitted the Mandatory power to withhold application of any of the terms of the Mandate to those parts of the Mandate that lay east of the Jordan River. When the High Commissioner for Palestine requested from Lord Curzon, in August of 1920, permission to extend his authority into Transjordan for the purpose of putting down the unrest attendant to the July expulsion of the Hashemites from Syria, Curzon immediately denied it.

            It’s also worth remembering that the mandate called for a Jewish National Home in Palestine, not the creation of a Jewish state, and several of the provisions of the mandate were aimed at ensuring that nobody could be excluded from Palestine on the basis of their religion, that the waqfs retain their full authority, and that any official written communication in Hebrew or Arabic be replicated in the other.

            It’s important to be precise when we show graphics, in order to avoid drawing unjustified conclusions.

          • Americana

            Interesting facts. If there had never been a Holocaust, would the world’s Jews have been satisfied w/a Jewish national home rather than reconstructing the Jewish state?

          • hiernonymous

            Here’s the conundrum: the Jews, quite understandably (and justifiably, to my mind), want a Jewish state where they can be secure. The longstanding problem to be solved is that of Jewish minorities living at the sufferance of others in a state. No matter how enlightened the political system or society, every host nation (including the U.S.) has, at some point, turned against and oppressed its Jewish minority, usually (though not in the case of the U.S.) violently. So any eventual solution must place the Jewish population firmly in control of the security apparatus of a state.

            But that premise conflicts with some other generally held principles arising in the Enlightenment, if the state is multi-ethnic and multi-religion. If Jews are not a very clear majority, then it is difficult to respect both democratic ideals and satisfy the primary purpose of the Jewish state in the first place.

            Absent the Holocaust, international support for this premise would have been weaker, but Herzl started the project before the Holocaust, because the Holocaust was simply the most egregious manifestation of a long-standing problem. One of the examples we run across is from the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon replaced extremely opprosssive laws restricting Jewish work opportunities, marriage, and financial activities in the German states he conquered with a legal code that made Jews full citizens of their states. When Napoleon was defeated, the various German states re-imposed those laws with a vengeance, and even executed pogroms against the Jews. So the driving force behind Zionism doesn’t rely on the Holocaust for its validity, but it probably did rely on the Holocaust to rally international support for the state.

            But the question you raise is interesting, because it’s related to the problem of the one-state solution: in both cases, the Jews would very likely find themselves either a minority in their state, or at least lacking a very clear majority, and that raises the question of the extent to which such a state satisfies the goal laid out in the first paragraph.

            It’s a tricky problem. My objection is not the existence of Israel, but attempts by the hard-right Israeli factions to colonize Palestinian territories and render peace impossible.

          • Americanas

            That’s the crux of the matter in your last paragraph, hieronymous, though your whole post explains why this particular flavor of Zionism gained so much momentum.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americanas hiernonymous • a day ago: “That’s the crux of the matter in your last paragraph…”

            How so?

          • Drakken

            The pali’s no matter what, will never ever give Israel or the Jews any peace because they want the whole bloody thing, so your going to have to forgive the Jews as they object to their own demise. The rest of the muslim arabs in the region will use the pali’s as a bludgeon and cannon fodder to get at Israel any way they can.

          • hiernonymous

            There are certainly Palestinian factions that are as bent on preventing peace as any Israeli right-wing hardliners. These two factions, who allegedly hate one another with a passion, each enable the other to maintain control of the essential elements of their side’s policies. If the Israelis didn’t try to colonize the West Bank, it would be much more difficult for the extremists to generate support for confrontation. If the extremists didn’t rocket Israel, it would be much more difficult for the hardliners to use the security agenda to push Greater Israel.

            “The rest of the muslim arabs in the region will use the pali’s as a bludgeon and cannon fodder to get at Israel any way they can.”

            Not all of them, but true enough.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ” If the Israelis didn’t try to colonize the West Bank, it would be much
            more difficult for the extremists to generate support for
            confrontation.”

            These so-called factions predated Israel’s control over the West Bank

          • hiernonymous

            That’s true. The issues and tactics of the extremists on both sides evolve as the years go by.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My objection is not the existence of Israel, but attempts by the hard-right Israeli factions to colonize Palestinian territories and render peace impossible.”

            The way that the “hard right colonists” are blocking peace in Gaza?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “My objection is not the existence of Israel, but attempts by the
            hard-right Israeli factions to colonize Palestinian territories and
            render peace impossible.”

            An indigenous people cannot colonize their own land.

          • hiernonymous

            You repeat this as a mantra, but it’s not clear that it’s either true or relevant.

            That the ancestors if the Jews were one of the groups of people occupying a portion of the land in question is one possible consideration of many in determining the right to live in and govern an area. By their own account, the Jews voluntarily abandoned their home to migrate to Egypt. By any usual principles of ownership, they abandoned all right to the land with that act. This is underscored by the fact that, several generations after their departure, they had to employ genocide against the indigenous peoples who had not abandoned their homes in order to carve out their kingdom.

            The logical inference is that the Jews of the time did not believe that being indigenous was the determining factor in ownership of the land. Even more to the point, even if you decide that the Biblical account is inaccurate, that account is the guiding set of principles of that people. Plainly, those who wrote and follow that text accept the principles described, regardless if their historicity.

            You have also never responded yo my request that you articulate the general principle on which ownership of land is determined. On the one hand, in modern times we attempt to discourage conquest by challenging the right to acquire legitimate ownership of land by such means. On the other hand, we also generally acknowledge that there comes a point at which the new arrangement becomes the status quo. I don’t think anyone seriously suggests giving the Netherlands back to Spain, or disassembling the U.S. and shipping those of European descent back to their ‘homelands.’

            If a group of Native Americans came to your home, grabbed you, threw you out on the street, and took up residence, would you be piously insisting that, after all, they were indigenous, and you quite plainly are not, so they can’t be guilty of stealing your home or your land – by definition?

            There are a number of ways to respond to your approach. One is to point out that “indigeneity” is hardly a complete set of principles for establishing ownership rights. Another is to point out that, even on that wholly inadequate basis, Palestinians can also trace ancestry to the indigenous people of the region. If having the Arab conquerors add their genes to the mix somehow invalidates that descent, then any Jews who picked up the genetic heritage of the hosts if their diaspora are equally invalidated. Your “argument” relies on unevenly and selectively applying an incomplete set of principles and then simply repeating it in the face of disagreement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You seem to be falling in to the trap of conflating sovereignty and land use or land ownership.

            It’s absolutely legitimate for Native Americans to grow their culture and work alongside us and become powerful in any lawful way they want. It’s not legitimate to show up without cause and simply kick out a law abiding inhabitant.

            It’s legitimate for Native Americans to participate in our democratic process, to stand up for their constitutional rights and so forth. And if they can muster the resources and overthrow the constitution (good luck with that), then we’ll have to deal with the new sovereign(s) at that time.

            Nobody would accuse the Native Americans of “colonizing the land” if any of those events were to occur.

          • hiernonymous

            The Israeli settlements aren’t lawful.

            “It’s not legitimate to show up without cause and simply kick out a law abiding inhabitant.”

            Exactly. Yet the Israelis do just that. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/02/israel-stop-threatened-eviction-palestinians

            “It’s legitimate for Native Americans to participate in our democratic process, to stand up for their constitutional rights and so forth.”

            The Constitution is a political artifact of the culture that dispossessed them of their land. If Israeli status as “indigenous” gives them the right to ‘reclaim’ land from the Palestinians by applying Israeli rules, there’s no reason the Native Americans should abide by any norms but their own in reclaiming their own lands.

            “Nobody would accuse the Native Americans of “colonizing the land” if any of those events were to occur.”

            No, back in the days that the Native Americans actually had the power to contest the seizure of their lands, the term we used was usually “war.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The Israeli settlements aren’t lawful.”

            By whose law? Saudi? UN? American? Jordanian? Whose?

            “Exactly. Yet the Israelis do just that. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/0…”

            That’s different than attacking Israeli sovereignty. These people have a right to go to court and a right to have their individual claims heard. They should be compensated if they are injured under the law. Those kinds of claims happen frequently even in nations that don’t have ethnic and religious wars going on.

            “The Constitution is a political artifact of the culture that dispossessed them of their land.

            “If Israeli status as “indigenous” gives them the right to ‘reclaim’ land from the Palestinians by applying Israeli rules, there’s no reason the Native Americans should abide by any norms but their own in reclaiming their own lands.”

            What made it their land in the first place? Well in any case, good luck. I don’t think you’re understanding the discourse clearly. I don’t think anyone says that indigenous people can eject others with weaker claims. I think the whole reason that was mentioned was when you characterized the settlements as “colonies.” And in a sense they are, but they’re legitimate because of security needs.

            Individuals are harmed in wars. We have courts for people to make claims and unpack their evidence. If you want to show how something truly remarkable is going on in Israel that makes the “Palestinians” the victims of Israeli “oppression,” you truly have your work cut out for you. I’ve looked. I have a pretty good sense of what you’ll find.

            “No, back in the days that the Native Americans actually had the power to contest the seizure of their lands, the term we used was usually “war.””

            You’re saying that’s a mis-characterization? We settled with those that did not want to assimilate. You’re saying we still got it wrong based on what was possible during those times?

            Justice is a process.

          • hiernonymous

            By the 4th Geneva Convention, to which Israel is signatory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            When all of the facts are investigated and there is a fair hearing, the rest of us can offer public comments about who we think broke any treaties.

          • hiernonymous

            The ICJ has already ruled.

            In 1967, Theodor Meron, the Israeli MFA’s legal counsel, advised the Israeli government that civilian settlement in the “Administered areas” would violate the 4th convention. In 1979, the UN Security Council issued UNSCR 446, in which it stated that the settlements had no legal validity, and which called on Israel to honor the convention. The ICJ issued an advisory ruling in 2004 noting that Israel’s settlements violated the 4th convention.

            I would say that with 47 years of facts, with opinions offered by the UN, the ICJ, and, btw, the Geneva Convention’s contracting parties, that public statements on the matter are neither uninformed nor premature.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I care about those findings, but not as much as you’d like.

            I would say that the investigations are incomplete because the war is ongoing and the issues have not been examined objectively. There is no force to ensure that politics don’t drive these investigations and premature conclusions.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s hard to consider a half century of consistency “premature.” Nor is it clear what additional facts you think might change the outcome. The elements if the convention are clear, and easily observable. They do not contain elements of intent, such that the transplantation of one’s own population into the occupied zone is acceptable in certain conditions and not in others. The area’s status as an occupied zone is not awaiting the clarification of as-yet I revealed documents.

            There may certainly be new revaluations concerning the knowledge and attitudes of the party, such as the 1967 memo Moshe Dayan allegedly wrote acknowledging that the settlements would be a violation of international law, and asserting that the international community would be helpless to do anything about it, but that goes to whether the convention was intentionally violated, not whether it was violated.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There’s always more to know.

            WRT my concerns about Israeli behavior, I don’t expect perfection. I expect wisdom. I don’t see that they’ve done anything unwise in terms of prosecuting this complicated war. Although I might make different choices, I’m not in their shoes either.

            WRT the treaty itself, according to the doctrine of clean hands. there is really nobody that has standing to make any complaints against Israel. Every one of those parties have acted in bad faith. So they’re in breach of the treaty, maybe. I really do not care the way that you expect people to care. I’m not as impressed by international institutions as you are. In theory, it’s wonderful. In reality, they’re all corrupt in various degrees.

            I think Israel should do what it needs to do with a mind to hurt as few innocents as possible and when it can sort out damage claims from individuals, it should try to do that. AFAIK that is what it does.

            I think The USA should do likewise, and often does. I think that the USA is worse than Israel in that regard. And everyone else is even lower on the list. Am I going to go out at sue the others to prove my point? No. I’m not delusional.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s hard to consider a half century of consistency “premature.””

            Consistent lies? Perhaps. Consistency not helpful here.

            We still don’t have all of the facts, and the facts that I can verify persuade me that the Israelis are the ones to support.

            I encourage them to deal with individual claims as best they can and as far as I can verify they’ve done well, though not as fast as claimants would like. But that’s always the case.

            OTOH we’ve poured so much money in to the region on the Palestinian side…I’d really like to see some of that go towards making lives better rather than attacking our ally.

            But I’m not a collectivist. I understand that war forces people to take a collective approach but when possible it’s best to settle up with individuals before the end of the war. Especially since they’re stuck in limbo. Of course we can blame them for that too.

            In any case, relying on corrupted international institutions for objective judgments…you and I are just not living in the same world. I barely trust some American courts, although I honor them. Still there are plenty of cases when I wait for SCOTUS to weigh in.

          • hiernonymous

            The ‘lies’ are consistent with the legal opinion offered by Israel’s own MFA at the outset.

            “We still don’t have all of the facts, and the facts that I can verify persuade me that the Israelis are the ones to support.”

            The question of the legality of the settlements is independent of the question of “whom to support.” One can support Israel without blindly endorsing its every action. One can even support an illegal act as being just in a particular set of circumstances. That doesn’t change the illegality of the act. This is why defendants are invited to present matters of defense and mitigation.

            “In any case, relying on corrupted international institutions for objective judgments…”

            What charges of corruption do you level at the ICJ? The vote on the 2004 opinion was 14-1, with Thomas Buergenthal of the U.S. being the lone dissenter. One might argue that it was to be expected that the judges from Egypt and Jordan would vote against Israel, and arguably those of Venezuela, Russia and China. But Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, Sierra Leone all concurred in the vote, so it’s not obvious that simple national politics played a decisive role.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The ‘lies’ are consistent with the legal opinion offered by Israel’s own MFA at the outset.”

            You need to be more explicit so that I can offer more precise rebuttals. I’m not denying that “bad” things have happened. I’m saying that I understand why treaties are violated some times. And I think that Israel does what they can to pursue the best compromises according to their values, which are consistent with American values.

            If Israel simply wanted to legally and literally abide by all the treaties without regard for human life and the spirit of the treaties, there would be a LOT more dead Palestinians and maybe the war would be over. I’m not judging them for that foolishness because I think they do it for noble reasons.

            “The question of the legality of the settlements is independent of the question of “whom to support.””

            Yes, but it is related. There is no single standard that applies to the situation you want judged. The de facto sovereign is Israel. And the international institutions are easy to corrupt. Especially when your coalition controls a lot of oil.

            “One can support Israel without blindly endorsing its every action. One can even support an illegal act as being just in a particular set of circumstances.”

            Noting that Israel is the de facto sovereign is not blind support. Noting that international institutions are often corrupt is not an observation that comes from blindness either. Some times the rebuttals come from myopia if not blindness.

            “One can even support an illegal act as being just in a particular set of circumstances. That doesn’t change the illegality of the act. This is why defendants are invited to present matters of defense and mitigation.”

            That’s why I already noted that Israel should hear cases whenever possible. And they do.

            “What charges of corruption do you level at the ICJ? The vote on the 2004 opinion was 14-1, with Thomas Buergenthal of the U.S. being the lone dissenter. One might argue that it was to be expected that the judges from Egypt and Jordan would vote against Israel, and arguably those of Venezuela, Russia and China. But Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, Sierra Leone all concurred in the vote, so it’s not obvious that simple national politics played a decisive role.”

            I didn’t say “national politics.” And I didn’t say simple either. Their “findings” are as useful as a NYT editorial. Read and contemplate.

          • hiernonymous

            “You need to be more explicit so that I can offer more precise rebuttals. ”

            I was more explicit – I noted, a couple of posts back, that the legal counsel to the MFA in 1967 offered his written opinion that settlement of the “Administered areas” would constitute a violation of the 4th convention.

            There are many things that Israel does for noble reasons. Trying to avoid civilian casualties when conducting reprisals is noble. It’s not obvious how establishing Jewish settlements in the occupied area could be considered such.

            “Noting that Israel is the de facto sovereign is not blind support.”

            What you are pleased to call “de facto sovereign” is, in this case and under international law, more accurately referred to as the “occupying power.” The concentions – Geneva and Hague – impose certain standards of behavior on the occupying power. Israel is in clear violation of one of those standards. Noting that Israel has the coercive wherewithal to impose its will – i.e., has “de facto sovereignty” – simply means that it is in precisely that position that the conventions were created to govern.

            “I didn’t say “national politics.” And I didn’t say simple either.”

            You didn’t say anything at all, except corrupt. You left me to guess what your vague term might possibly mean, and a quick survey of the literature on studies of bias on the ICJ generally focus on the extent to which judges on the ICJ vote along the lines of the national interests of their own country, on the degree to which they vote in favor of parties with similar economic standing, etc. None of that is ‘corruption,’ per se, but I my admittedly cursory search did not find accusations of corruption against the ICJ. So, again, I ask if you have some specific charge in mind, or if your comment is simply by way of innuendo.

            “Their “findings” are as useful as a NYT editorial.”

            Or would be, if subscribers vetted the NYT editorial staff, granted that staff jurisdiction over certain legal matters, and agreed to be bound by the editorials.

            “Read and contemplate.”

            That’s written in the imperative, though the context makes it ambiguous whether you intended as such. If so, it’s unnecessary – I always do. If you meant that the extent of the usefulness of an editorial or an ICJ finding went no further than to be read and contemplated, I would disagree. There are certainly states – particularly the P5 – with the power to ignore or resist findings. Nonetheless, they serve as the potential basis for UNSC action and for the legitimization of international action.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I was more explicit – I noted, a couple of posts back, that the legal counsel to the MFA in 1967 offered his written opinion that settlement of the “Administered areas” would constitute a violation of the 4th convention.”

            I wouldn’t characterize that as a lie. That’s an interpretation.

            “There are many things that Israel does for noble reasons. Trying to avoid civilian casualties when conducting reprisals is noble. It’s not obvious how establishing Jewish settlements in the occupied area could be considered such.”

            Establishing “control” over strategic areas can lead to stability with less violence than simply bombing everything and everyone that that gives them reason to.

            “What you are pleased to call “de facto sovereign” is, in this case and under international law, more accurately referred to as the “occupying power.””

            They are not occupying another sovereign. They’re occupying an area that they can claim, or give away according to how the negotiations proceed.

            “You didn’t say anything at all, except corrupt. You left me to guess what your vague term might possibly mean, and a quick survey of the literature on studies of bias on the ICJ generally focus on the extent to which judges on the ICJ vote along the lines of the national interests of their own country, on the degree to which they vote in favor of parties with similar economic standing, etc. None of that is ‘corruption,’ per se, but I my admittedly cursory search did not find accusations of corruption against the ICJ. So, again, I ask if you have some specific charge in mind, or if your comment is simply by way of innuendo.”

            If appeasing the OIC and OPEC are considered national interests, I guess we can include that. But some times it’s more complicated and nations go along with EU politics, who also want to appease the OIC and OPEC. In the end nations are interested in their own welfare so we can say that everything is about national interests when nations act. In theory.

            It’s been very clear to everyone since the 1970s if not earlier that oil will be used as a weapon when terror and other tactics don’t work.

            But that’s beside the real point.

            “Or would be, if subscribers vetted the NYT editorial staff, granted that staff jurisdiction over certain legal matters, and agreed to be bound by the editorials.”

            I didn’t say legally equivalent. I’m saying as functionally equivalent. It’s all about politics and rendering opinions. There is no Supreme Court of the World to appeal to when unjust decisions are made. And at this point I’m glad about that because there is no way for “the world” to ensure that such an authority would not be just another political institution. And that is the real point.

            “That’s written in the imperative, though the context makes it ambiguous whether you intended as such. If so, it’s unnecessary – I always do. If you meant that the extent of the usefulness of an editorial or an ICJ finding went no further than to be read and contemplated, I would disagree. There are certainly states – particularly the P5 – with the power to ignore or resist findings. Nonetheless, they serve as the potential basis for UNSC action and for the legitimization of international action.”

            I’m not ordering anyone to do anything. I’m saying that’s what wise actors should do. It’s still just politics. There are dangers to getting it wrong, but there is no ultimate moral authority behind any of it.

            Might does make right in the material world. And we just hope that the powerful people and factions act with “goodness” according to each of our own moral codes and guidelines.

            I think Israel has done some things “wrong” and they’re forced by many other factions in to difficult no win choices. Having worse actors come in and sue them is beyond pathetic. I just don’t respect their opinions. I listen and contemplate but I don’t have to accept their values when I disagree.

            Israel and the USA are the (spiritual) “seat of Satan.” I’ll accept that. Everyone else is worse.

          • Americana

            These colonies are not legitimate based on “security needs.” In fact, because of their locations within Palestinian-dominant territory, they **cause issues** w/their own security needs. Consequently, to be secure these colonies’ status demands that the state of Israel provide them w/Israeli military protection in some cases as well as the bus routes to these settlements requiring FORTIFIED BUSES. **In NO WAY do these colonies serve the security needs of Israel. Rather, they are a security drain on Israel.**

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Following your logic, there is nothing about Israel that is legitimate based on security needs because Jewish sovereignty itself “causes issues.”

            “Consequently, to be secure these colonies’ status demands that the state of Israel provide them w/Israeli military protection in some cases as well as the bus routes to these settlements requiring FORTIFIED BUSES. **In NO WAY do these colonies serve the security needs of Israel. Rather, they are a security drain on Israel.**”

            There are costs associated with just about every human endeavor.

            I think what you mean to say is that your calculations lead you to conclude that they are a net drain or “bad idea.” Your strategy would be something else. That’s not really shocking at this point. You’re repeating the same themes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “By their own account, the Jews voluntarily abandoned their home to migrate to Egypt.”

            Are you talking about Joseph calling his brothers and family to Egypt? They were not “Jews” then. You might call them “Israelis” I guess. Jude was one of the sons.

            “By any usual principles of ownership, they abandoned all right to the land with that act.”

            And they apparently didn’t return until their ancestors left Egypt several centuries later. I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe the “promise land” refers again to later events with Moses, Joshua and so forth.

            And I’ll add that discussing a cultural imperative to pursue an ancient idea is not the same thing as depending on that idea to justify current events. It’s simply explaining the cultural imperative.

            “The logical inference is that the Jews of the time did not believe that being indigenous was the determining factor in ownership of the land. Even more to the point, even if you decide that the Biblical account is inaccurate, that account is the guiding set of principles of that people. Plainly, those who wrote and follow that text accept the principles described, regardless if their historicity.”

            The text is clear that Joseph called the family to Egypt as the result of regional famine. That’s the opening few chapters, not even close to accurate as a summary of the Jewish claims. They’re not even Jews yet! There is no “Judea” for half a millennium still at this point in the texts.

            “You have also never responded yo my request that you articulate the general principle on which ownership of land is determined. On the one hand, in modern times we attempt to discourage conquest by challenging the right to acquire legitimate ownership of land by such means. On the other hand, we also generally acknowledge that there comes a point at which the new arrangement becomes the status quo. I don’t think anyone seriously suggests giving the Netherlands back to Spain, or disassembling the U.S. and shipping those of European descent back to their ‘homelands.’”

            Legal justifications are separate from moral justifications. Conflation leads to deception.

            As far as I can tell, nobody is telling the story of the Jews as a way of maliciously alienating anyone else’s ancestry or history. It’s to explain their own cultural imperatives and to clear up lies that are told by their enemies.

            For example, most “Palestinian” narratives end with the claims that they are the original inhabitants by coopting the history told in the Bible. They claim to represent all prophets, and even the “Palestinian” national movement associated with the Biblical Philistines.

            This is where it’s crucial to clear up this idea about Jesus and others being “Muslims.” YOu want to consider them “Muslims” in spirit, that’s OK. You want to coopt them for changing the facts of history? Not OK. You can disagree, but you can’t make prophets in to Muslims as the foundation for the position that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar. And that is what many cultural jihadis do. That’s where a lot of this rhetoric comes from about the Jews controlling everything. Supposedly the Jews have corrupted all of the science that seems to show the Koran as lacking in credibility.

            Everything that contradicts the Koran is the fault of the lying Jews. That’s the bottom line position of the jihadis, and there are no “moderates” to disagree. There are only apostates who might hide somewhere safe and quietly whisper their agreement with objective researchers. These are not thought leaders in the Muslim world.

          • hiernonymous

            “They’re not even Jews yet! There is no “Judea” for half a millennium still at this point in the texts.”

            Clearly. The point is that if you are relying on the Jewish status of being “indigenous” as the basis for the legitimacy of the claim, the Jewish claim to being indigenous – according to their own accounts – relies on their descent from Joseph & Co from the original inhabitants. If you pick up the story at the point that they actually become identified as Jews, then it’s much simpler – they are foreign invaders.

            “Legal justifications are separate from moral justifications. Conflation leads to deception.”

            Daniel has claimed that the modern Israeli colonization of the West Bank cannot be described as such because “indigenous people cannot colonize their own land.” I leave it to you to determine whether he is making a legal or a moral argument. The examples I gave would be applicable, whichever way you decide.

            “This is where it’s crucial to clear up this idea about Jesus and others being “Muslims.” YOu want to consider them “Muslims” in spirit, that’s OK. You want to coopt them for changing the facts of history? Not OK. You can disagree, but you can’t make prophets in to Muslims as the foundation for the position that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar.”

            You are now the one conflating discussions. Nobody here, as far as I’ve seen, has remotely suggested that the Palestinian claim to legitimacy rests on any religious idea at all, much less the Muslim claim that the Prophets, acting in submission to the will of Allah all along, were Muslims. Completely separate issue. The more conventional view is simply that the Palestinians were the longtime – as in well over a millenium – residents of the land. Again, by any conventional view, possession of a land for over 1000 years is generally sufficient to establish legitimate title to the land.

            Once the discussion gets funneled into dueling indegeneities, the Palestinians claim that they are descended from the original inhabitants, in much the same way that Daniel makes the claim that Jews are descended from original inhabitants. This claim doesn’t rely on religious doctrine. There have been many ways of approaching it. One is simply trying to follow the historical record as best as we can, which suggests that the people living in Palestine by the turn of the last century were a mixture of the descendents of original peoples and of all the conquerors who had subsequently established empires in the region – Jewish, Roman, Greek, Persian, and Arab. Another approach is genetic, and, again, the genetic studies strongly suggest that the Palestinians are, at least in great part, descended from previous inhabitants (mostly converted to Islam in the wake of the conquest).

            “That’s where a lot of this rhetoric comes from about the Jews controlling everything.”

            That’s a pretty unconventional view. A much more usual explanation is that early Christianity and Islam both prohibited usury, but the borrowing and lending of money was absolutely crucial to any large-scale venture, particularly warfare. The relationship between Christian monarchs and Jewish financiers was frequently fraught.

            “Everything that contradicts the Koran is the fault of the lying Jews. That’s the bottom line position of the jihadis…”

            Perhaps so, but it’s not clear how that is relevant to the discussion of the ways in which being indigenous confers some sort of perpetual claim to a piece of ground, what other factors should be considered, and how to play the game of “who is more indigenous.”

            “That’s the bottom line position of the jihadis, and there are no “moderates” to disagree.”

            That’s not true, but that’s also another conversation. I’ll provide one counterexample and pursue that digression no further: http://www.arabnews.com/node/257332

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Clearly. The point is that if you are relying on the Jewish status of being “indigenous” as the basis for the legitimacy of the claim, the Jewish claim to being indigenous – according to their own accounts – relies on their descent from Joseph & Co from the original inhabitants. If you pick up the story at the point that they actually become identified as Jews, then it’s much simpler – they are foreign invaders.”

            Then no human is indigenous to any land. We’re all alien invaders. It’s a question of how far back we can go. It’s perhaps not always an claim of oozing out of local plant life.

            The way that I look at the “settlements” is that Israel is the de facto sovereign. They’re not “settling” some foreign land. They’re settling a land that an enemy also wants to settle. And obviously all the factions want to win. But we don’t refer to UNRWA camps as “settlements” or “colonies” although I guess we could. But part of the legitimacy of those camps is that some of those people can trace their heritage back to the land.

          • hiernonymous

            “Then no human is indigenous to any land.”

            That’s actually true, unless you then qualify what you mean by indigenous. Defining it to one’s convenience isn’t going to fly.

            “They’re not “settling” some foreign land. They’re settling a land that an enemy also wants to settle.”

            The Israelis occupied the land during a war. The Geneva Conventions address that contingency quite specifically. Article 49 of the 4th Convention prohibits the deportation of the resident population, and it also specifically prohibits the settlement of the occupied area by civilians of the occupying power:

            “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

            Israel is signatory to the 4th Convention.

            Both the UN and the ICJ have determined that the settlements are in violation of international law.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I understand this interpretation. It’s a shame the UN and other international institutions are not more useful. I’m sure that the Israelis are interested in a just settlement but they have other priorities during the war. And I think they shoudl endeavor to make peace with any individuals that can show their bona fides with respect to Israel as sovereign. That’s not easy to do.

            Justice is a process. Denying the heinous incitement and actual violence that it leads to while quibbling over the interpretations of multilateral treaties…

            I’m sorry about any victims of anything. The Palestinians are victims of their own behavior. They have not earned sovereignty nor the right to claim that anyone else has oppressed them.

            Maybe we’ll get a chance to judge these things with more clarity when the Palestinians decide to act in good faith and put down their weapons. They need to stop pretending that suicide bombers are “defending” or “resisting” anything.

            I strongly suspect what they want is sharia, which means to most Muslims that non-Muslims may not rule over Muslims or share sovereignty on any land declared to be “Muslim land.” And that’s the biggest reason that all of these claims about whether any particular prophet was a Muslim. It helps them convince more and more Muslims around the world that their cause is just according to sharia.

            Islam is a “totalitarian” ideology. It’s a fully integrated political and religious belief system.

            Maybe some day you’ll prove me wrong when they behave differently. I would welcome that proof.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are now the one conflating discussions. Nobody here, as far as I’ve seen, has remotely suggested that the Palestinian claim to legitimacy rests on any religious idea at all, much less the Muslim claim that the Prophets, acting in submission to the will of Allah all along, were Muslims. Completely separate issue. The more conventional view is simply that the Palestinians were the longtime – as in well over a millenium – residents of the land. Again, by any conventional view, possession of a land for over 1000 years is generally sufficient to establish legitimate title to the land.”

            But that is where the controversy lies. When people lie, or present their views as not only authoritative but as evidence that all who disagree are liars, you’re going to get a reaction from people that care about examining the evidence and explaining the implications of that evidence.

            I don’t see how that makes me guilty of conflating anything.

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t see how that makes me guilty of conflating anything.”

            Because the discussion of the Prophets’ status as Muslims has no bearing on the discussion of rights to the land in Palestine, nor, as near as I can tell, have the Palestinians been basing their claim on such.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Right. It doesn’t. But the Palestinians think that it does because they believe this is evidence that the Jews are lying to everyone. That’s why they have been propagating their “alternative theories.” That’s why these discussions are so common. That also explains in part why so many jihadis and Muslims around the world HATE Israel.

            And I’ll go one step further. It’s not really that relevant if some of them have ancestors that have been living there forever. What’s relevant is that they don’t have sovereignty. They reject the sovereign and come up with fabrications that are designed to make it look like they’ve been an oppressed national movement. This is a total lie, unless you count the true nationalists that were snuffed out by the jihadis.

            Individual genealogy doesn’t even matter. History matters a little if someone is lying about it, because it reveals that they might not be trustworthy. That’s about it.

            Israel is sovereign and the rest is commentary. If you want to help these people settle their disputes, I think the most valuable use of time is straightening out the lies that are most relevant and most likely to incite continuing hostilities. That’s my agenda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Perhaps so, but it’s not clear how that is relevant to the discussion of the ways in which being indigenous confers some sort of perpetual claim to a piece of ground, what other factors should be considered, and how to play the game of “who is more indigenous.””

            Again, it’s about unpacking the facts and contradicting deceptive narratives promoted by enemy factions.

          • hiernonymous

            “Again, it’s about unpacking the facts and contradicting deceptive narratives promoted by enemy factions.”

            That sounds quite refined, but the facts that you are trying to ‘unpack’ are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. That’s a very oblique way of justifying an ad hominem. In essence, you’re trying to argue “the Muslims are liars, so they must be lying about this, too.” Rather than follow you into this digression, I’ll simply point out that it is a digression.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In essence, you’re trying to argue “the Muslims are liars, so they must be lying about this, too.” Rather than follow you into this digression, I’ll simply point out that it is a digression.”

            No, I know they lie about their treaties and lie about events, I know that they lie about history and therefore I’m not included to believe them when they claim to want a state, once I consider all of the known facts. They’ve done nothing to establish good faith, and good faith itself is a Western concept. Why would someone just assume that a bunch of liars are acting in good faith when there is no evidence that they are?

            I don’t say, they’re lying about A and therefore I don’t need to research claim B. I’m saying they lie so much about everything that I’ve investigated that I’m not inclined to trust them to keep promises about the future. That’s not fallacious. That’s just sensible risk management.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s not true, but that’s also another conversation. I’ll provide one counterexample and pursue that digression no further: “http://www.arabnews.com/node/2…”

            These are not thought leaders. And their movement has no discernible traction.

            I’m not attacking them personally, I’m saying they have no effect. If anything, they simply give cover for those that argue Islam just needs time to change. Which also suits the jihadis. Nothing that truly goes against jihad is allowed to live if it is not well protected.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The more conventional view is simply that the Palestinians were the longtime – as in well over a millenium – residents of the land. Again, by any conventional view, possession of a land for over 1000 years is generally sufficient to establish legitimate title to the land.”

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-set-to-accept-kerrys-framework-proposals/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

            Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator over the weekend again ruled out the notion of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Speaking at a Munich conference, on a panel with his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni, Erekat said the demand was unacceptable: “When you say ‘accept Israel as a Jewish state’ you are asking me to change my narrative,” he claimed, asserting that his ancestors lived in the region “5,500 years before Joshua Bin-Nun came and burned my hometown Jericho.”

          • hiernonymous

            He’s claiming descent from the original inhabitants. I think that’s a silly basis for the discussion, but those appear to be the terms both sides want to play with. I don’t see anything in there about the Prophets’ status as Muslims being part of the claim.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t see anything in there about the Prophets’ status as Muslims being part of the claim.”

            I can give you that. I never claimed their spokesman and chief negotiator was the guy that came up with every silly claim ever. Although he’s pretty good at disseminating bullshit, he’s also a decent equivocator.

            Just go to http://palwatch.org or a similar media monitor. But you have to seriously look, not browse for a moment and dismiss with their apologetics.

            Maybe if I get some time I can find something else interesting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s not true, but that’s also another conversation. I’ll provide one counterexample and pursue that digression no further: http://www.arabnews.com/node/2…”

            How many were “displaced” when Israel left Gaza?

          • hiernonymous

            The excerpt you quoted responded to the contention that there were no moderates. Your response addresses something else completely. Could you clarify what you are asking and how it fits into the conversation?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Most of the people we hold up as moderate are either fronting for jihadis or they are marginalized in the Muslim world, often in hiding and under armed protection.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh, I see I used the wrong URL. Sorry. I was responding to the displaced people discussed in another URL you used.

          • reader

            “several of the provisions of the mandate were aimed at ensuring that nobody could be excluded from Palestine on the basis of their religion”

            This is a particularly pointless observation in the entirely pointless post. As we know now, nobody is excluded from Israel on the basis of their religion. We also know that the Jews ARE excluded – particularly from Gaza.

          • hiernonymous

            There’s a world of difference between your failure to see a point and the point not existing.

            The restriction in question is one of several pieces of evidence that the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine is distinct from a Jewish state.

          • reader

            The evidence is right there: there is a Jewish state, and it is the only place in the region where religious freedom is permitted. Talking about failure to see a point.

          • hiernonymous

            “Talking about failure to see a point.”

            Exactly, and let me help you see how you failed. The map in question doesn’t deal with a Jewish state, it deals with the League of Nations mandate. The Mandate article was cited as a piece of evidence concerning the intent of the Mandate.

          • reader

            The Mandate had no intent, dufus. The Mandate was the jurisdiction over the designated area, and its map outlined the jurisdictional borders. It’s telling in that how much of it had been right off the bat carved out and given away to the Arabs, no strings attached. Even before the Jewish interests would be taken up for any considerations whatsoever. That’s what this piece of evidence is of. Any other direction you’ rethinking to twist this to? I noticed a graceful drop of the alleged religious tolerance factor.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Mandate was the jurisdiction over the designated area…”

            …and what the Mandatory power was instructed and entrusted to do with it. The Mandate was not a simple transfer of ownership to the mandatory power.

            It’s actually remarkable how little land was “given away to the Arabs, no strings attached,” given the promises made in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. In fact, the High Commissioner had made his request to extend his authority into Transjordan precisely because the French deposed Faisal and asserted colonial authority over Syria.

            “Even before the Jewish interests would be taken up for any considerations whatsoever. That’s what this piece of evidence is of. ”

            If by that you mean that there was never any intent for Jewish interests to be represented east of the area of the Jordan River, yes, I already said that – in fact, making that point, in the face of a map that shows a Palestinian Mandate that encompasses Transjordan, was the purpose of my first comment.

            “I noticed a graceful drop of the alleged religious tolerance factor.”

            Then you failed to read carefully. As I said before, the citation of the religious instructions in the mandate supported the nature and extent of the mandate. Noting that the state of Israel, created under UN authority some 3 1/2 decades later, permitted and permits individual of all religions to reside in Israel has exactly no bearing on the issue of the nature of the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine being addressed in the Mandate.

          • Americana

            Oh, then you’d better direct your dufus comment at 95Theses then because 95Ts was the first to word a post as such (I spell ‘doofus’ this way):

            95Theses >>>>> truebearing • a day ago

            Hey, found a cool map. The 1920 mandate for Palestine, i.e., the original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home.
            (Works neatly into that whole “historical ignorance” thing) ♫

      • Americana

        This map merely indicates the first post-WW I step of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire by the British and the French, in hopes of preventing the Arab supremacism of the Ottoman Empire surviving the post-WW I period and revitalizing itself. Since the partition plan arising from this map was rejected by the Palestinians, the map really doesn’t mean anything, or prove anything, in the scheme of things. The Balfour Declaration — which is what this map precedes because this map doesn’t show the breakdown of the two states carved out of the white portion of the British Mandate, the Jewish state and the Transjordan state for the Arabs — was also subsumed by the more realistic partitioning of the U.N. post-WW II.

        Time for more research by everyone on a British site about the Balfour Project:

        http://www.balfourproject.org

        • 95Theses

          Thank you. You come to the point very readily.

          November 2nd, 1917
          Dear Lord Rothschild,

          I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

          “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

          I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

          Yours sincerely,
          Arthur James Balfour

          http://www.ijs.org.au/The-Balfour-Declaration/default.aspx

          • Americana

            It’s incumbent upon you to realize there is a difference between this wording: “…in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…” and this wording, ‘a Jewish state.’ There is no intention inherent in those words of Lord Balfour of founding a Jewish state entity. It’s also not permissible to claim the Balfour Declaration wasn’t superseded by the post-WW II partitioning by the United Nations. So to harken back to the Balfour Declaration is to try to flout history as it played out. The Balfour Declaration is no longer the basis for the geographic statehood of either nation.

            I’m glad you look at the Balfour Project site.
            _____________________________________________________

            http://www.balfourproject.org/evaluating-the-balfour-declaration-breaking-the-deadlock-in-the-middle-east/

            From The Balfour Project site:

            Our colonial legacy in Palestine is dishonourable not least because Britain made contradictory promises to the Jews and the Palestinians before and after the First World War. Before the Balfour Declaration in 1915, Britain promised Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, that it would support an independent Arab kingdom under his rule in return for his mounting an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally in the war. The promise was contained in a letter dated 24th October 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, to the Sharif of Mecca in what later became known as the McMahon–Hussein correspondence.

            A year later in 1916, Sir Mark Sykes and George Picot, the French ambassador, concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement, dividing up the middle Eastern countries between France and Britain. Not only were these agreements contradictory, but after the Balfour Declaration (1917), the rights and expectations of the Arabs were ignored.

            Had the British government meant to honour its promises at all? As Balfour himself said in a memorandum of 1919:

            (Lord Balfour)… ‘For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.’[1]

            What really matters now, she concluded, with the words of Naim Ateek, of Sabeel, the liberation theology group of Palestinians in Jerusalem: “What matters about your project is what effect it has on the people on the ground today.”

          • 95Theses

            All that is fine and well. But it is clear that the Brits walked back on some promises they made (or perhaps more accurately, dangled).

            And yet regardless, because I hold to the view — admittedly a minority view (a fact which makes me feel all the more confident) — that the promises made by God to Abraham in regard to the land that his heirs were to come into possession (incidentally, by driving out the then-contemporary inhabitants) are without revocation.

            Romans 11:28-29+
            28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
            http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+11%3A29/

            Genesis 15:18-21
            18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
            http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+15/

            Genesis 17:8
            And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
            http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+17/

            Genesis 23: 30-31
            30 Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land. 31 And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.
            http://www.esvbible.org/Exodus+23%3A30-31/

            Exodus 33:1-2
            The Lord said to Moses, “Depart; go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your offspring I will give it.’ 2 I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
            http://www.esvbible.org/Exodus+33%3A2/

            Note that the borders (roughly) of the land that God promised Abraham are far, FAR larger than any contemporary map of Israel would reveal.

            The crux (if you will) of the matter ultimately lays within whether you accept or reject the proposition that Scripture – even if for the moment I confine Scripture to comprise the Old Testament only – is God’s revealed Truth for mankind.

            I do and for reasons that I am more than willing to go to
            the mat over.

          • Americana

            Well, we all know that Biblical provenance is not proof of provenance just as promises are not all fulfilled despite being stated. That’s the Bible for you, dangling out hope, generation after generation. There are no GPS coordinates inserted in the Bible for clarity for that score. Everyone should also realize that the reference you make was likely meant for the then-Jewish tribes of THAT ERA to successfully drive out the conquerors several hundred years on from their being conquered. It’s NOT an acceptable scenario if it were to occur THOUSANDS of years later, especially not if the nascent Israelis were given a leg up to commit the necessary conquering to regain their thousands-year old ancient kingdoms from other outside forces.

          • 95Theses

            Not one thing you just said refutes that Scripture clearly
            give evidence that the promises of land to Abraham’s descendants are everlasting (which I always thought meant, um … everlasting). I already figured that you would likely reject the notion the Bible is God’s revealed Truth for man.

            You are free to proceed on your premises, and I (and others who share my beliefs) will proceed with mine. But you do not refute claims to land by trying to impose your pluralistic worldview to dismiss the worldviews of others who reject yours.

            Good luck with that, too.

          • Americana

            I’m just letting you know that the Bible would not be able to be presented at the World Court or in any other court as “evidence” of “legal provenance.” Why? Because it’s human literature. It’s not factual. There are no real dates that specify duration, etc. The provenance you claim comes from HISTORICAL RECORDS and those historical records show the tribes of Israel getting conquered multiple times thousands of years ago w/the last gasp of a Jewish rebellion being far too long ago on which to base current provenance claims. Besides, human cultures were very fluid during those centuries w/first this culture reigning supreme in an area only to be conquered by another and then another and then another… That is historical fact that isn’t contradicted by the Bible. The Biblical promises are like a mother telling her kids, “Hang on, we’ll be getting to the McDonald’s in Big Lake in about 10 minutes. You can have your Big Macs then.” It’s not provenance as the world legally understands provenance.

          • 95Theses

            If God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob an everlasting promise that their descendants would inherit a land – driving out other nations before them – well then, who cares what the rest of the world thinks. They can hold World Courts all the live-long day and it won’t change one thing in God’s providential plan. And keep in mind that there is another promise that God gave to Abraham that should make the enemies of Israel quake:

            2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
            http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+12%3A2-3/

            I think it’s wise to play it safe and be in good standing with what God has promised to Abraham and his descendants, Israel. The Sovereignty of God makes world opinion irrelevant. Of course, there will always be unbelievers who disagree. I ignore them. God’s sovereign preordained plan is going to steamroll over the finite, fallen, fickle, fallible beings who shake a tiny fist in opposition to Him.

            At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,

            For his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” http://www.esvbible.org/Daniel+4%3A36/

            Best to be on the right side of history (and the future) – which is to say, God’s side. Again, if one rejects Scripture as God’s revealed Truth for humankind, well then, they do so at their own peril.

            Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
            — Giordano Bruno

          • Americana

            There is as much encouragement for peace in the Bible as there is for waging war against those who have wronged you. If there is going to be liberal use of the Bible to justify what choices are being made by israelis, then there should be recognition of all the facets addressed in the Bible. (I fully realize I’m cheating by bringing in Luke…)

            Psalm 120:6

            In My Distress, I Cried to the Lord
            …Woe is me, for I sojourn in Meshech, For I dwell among the tents of Kedar! Too long has my soul had its dwelling With those who hate peace. I am for peace, but when I speak, They are for war.

            Luke 6:35
            But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

          • 95Theses

            At the very least I think I have achieved something by getting you to consort with your Bible. ;-)

            I’m all for loving one’s enemies (admittedly, one of the most difficult of the beatitudes to get into my own bloodstream), but even that beautiful precept does not revoke God’s promise – everlasting promise – to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of a land for Israel. Something not promised to any other tribe, people, or nation.

            Would love to continue this dialogue, but for now I have annuals and perennials to plant, a lawn to edge, and much mulch to spread.

            Ciaø.

            95

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Bible has Jews in the Land of Israel. No Muslims are mentioned in the Bible.

            Jews are mentioned in the Koran.

            Clearly the Jews were there FIRST.

            Without Jews, there would not be a New Testament or a Koran.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s pretty clear that Muslims are “anti-Christ.” They actively try to replace the Gospel. You can’t teach the Gospel as a Muslim. Period. But they have lots of claims about Jesus.

            I know that’s a loaded term…but what can I say? I can add that some “Christians” are also anti-Christ when they clearly go against the Gospel or the Bible.

          • Americana

            There are other ‘nations’ and ‘ethnicities,’ (the wrong sort of people God’s always warning against), mentioned in the Bible against whom God wishes to empower the right people for one reason or another. Without naming names, I’m pretty sure some of those nefarious, wink wink, nudge nudge comments by God are likely about Palestinians.

    • Jo

      “We didn’t start the fire, it was always burning, since the world’s been turning” lalala:)

    • Bob

      Man working trying to gain a birthright he sold for a bowl of red pottage.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Unfortunately, there is not a single western mainstream media, not even Israeli, that would quote Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 from which the Article 7 of the Hamas Charter comes from

    Political correctness as euphemism for political cowardice http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2014/06/political-correctness-as-euphemism-for.html

    • Daniel Greenfield

      or at least denounce those who do quote it

      • ruthiempatterson

        my Aunty
        Allison recently got a nice 6 month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this website C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

    • Uncle Jay

      great quote, Mladen. May I use it?

    • 95Theses

      Tangentially related:

      The Terrible Logic of Nukes
      2002, August 25 | Charles Krauthammer
      … Nukes do not have to explode to be useful. Their value lies in mere possession. Possession creates an umbrella of inviolability. And there is nothing more dangerous than an inviolable aggressor.
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020902-344059,00.html

    • Garry Dorado Asero Obillo

      Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 from which the quote in Article 7… what was inside of it ?

  • Seymour Friedel

    The problem is the Wests utter denial of the dangers of Islam and the willingness to give them a pass.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      which is rooted in a denial of history

      • Seymour Friedel

        Truly. Churchill had it nailed decades (a century?) ago.

        • Mladen_Andrijasevic

          Indeed.
          On May 2, 1935 Winston Churchill said this in the House of Commons:

          http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1935/may/02/foreign-office#S5CV0301P0_19350502_HOC_289

          “When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand, we apply the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline books. It falls into that long dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

          The confirmed unteachability of Israeli politicians and media
          http://madisdead.blogspot.co.il/search?q=the+unteachability

        • Malik Obama

          I believe he said something against Mohammedanism in the 1890′s.

  • sam000

    Iran is in trouble and under the maximum pressure for it’s nuclear negotiations at July 20, Israel do not tolerate an atomic Iran,
    these are the main reason to attack Israel via proxy,
    Obama has provided the political base for the Mullahs to accomplish their agenda,
    the only serious objection to the Mullahs nuclear arises from Israel,
    The Mullahs want to highlight that , this is the war between Islamic world & Jews!!
    Saudi Arabia is supporting Israel against Iran,
    But, Daniel Greenfield (who is my favorite writer) believes Mullahs propaganda more than the political evidences!! , why?

  • kenaan

    The brave IDF personnel after a siren telling about a Hamas rocket .So you will invade Gaza strip !!!, I think they’ll cut you into slices on their Ramadan meals.

    • Bill James

      You’re stupid.

      “Get down!” is what soldiers do when the signal “Incoming!” is given. You, on the other hand, would stand up and shoot your AK47 on full automatic at the rocket that’s going so fast you can’t see it — shouting ALLAHU AKBAR!

      As to Ramadan meals, history shows that the Israelis shoved your Ramadan up your you-know- where when you invaded them in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982.

      ALLAHU AKBAR!

      • anneeasthartford

        At least they find cover behind a car, unlike the terrorists who find cover behind families.

        • Bill James

          Too true.

      • hiernonymous

        I agree that only an untrained idiot stands up looking around when warning of incoming is given. I remember when I was still in training, we took a short round from a 155mm artillery piece. There were about 15 artillerymen and about 30 cadets at the OP. There was a sound almost like a zipper being quickly zipped up. I never saw any movement – I just looked up, and there were 15 artillerymen flat on the ground and 30 cadets standing around with their mouths open, and then the loudest noise I ever heard in my life. Good on those IDF troops.

        That said, it was the Israelis doing the invading in ’56 and ’82.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          That said, it was the Israelis doing the invading in ’56 and ’82.

          Only if you ignore all the previous attacks on Israel out of Lebanon… which obviously being a terrorist apologist you do

          • hiernonymous

            You’re letting your emotions cloud your reading. Israel invaded in both cases, regardless of what you ignore or don’t ignore. Perhaps you are confused about the difference between attacks and an invasion. I expressed no value judgments concerning whether the two invasions in question were justified.

            My take? 1956 was unjustified and cynical aggression. 1982 was justifiable, but represented poor strategic judgment on Israel’s part. There’s no question that the PLO attacks out of Lebanon were a severe provocation, and that military action to stop it was justified. On the other hand, by remaining in Lebanon so long, and trying to serve as an occupying power in Southern Lebanon long after the PLO was gone, Israel managed to create the conditions for the creation of Hizballah, which eventually made the PLO look like rank amateurs.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Only if you define attacks originating from one country as not an invasion…

            and attacks originating from another country as an invasion.

            You’re letting your emotions cloud your reading.

          • Larry Larkin

            No it wasn’t. I suggest you try reading Nonie Darwish on the subject. Her father was leading terrorist raids out of Gaza and the Sinai well before 1956.

          • hiernonymous

            Was he? I know he organized them, I didn’t know he actually went on the raids. The 1956 war wasn’t about the raids.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It was one of the causes on the Israeli side.

        • Bill James

          That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? 5 million Israeli Jews “invading” 350 milliion Muslim Arabs?

          ALLAHU AKBAR! Abdul.

          • hiernonymous

            In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in conjunction with attacks by Britain and France. I’m not sure what the nature of your education is, but some cursory research will reveal to you that the population of Egypt in 1956 was an order of magnitude off of your figure.

            In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in order to deny the PLO safe haven along its borders. Again, you might want to check the population of Lebanon.

          • Bill James

            “In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in conjunction with attacks by Britain and France.”? “…in
            conjunction with…”?
            Actually, it was “Israel, Britain and France invaded Egypt…etc.” Your bias kind of oozed up, didn’t it?

            http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/suez-crisis
            The Israelis struck first, on October 26, 1956. Two days later, British and French military forces joined them. Originally, forces from the three countries were set to strike at once, but the British and French troops were delayed. Behind schedule, but ultimately successful, the British and French troops took control of the area around the Suez Canal.

            You know what I meant by the 350 million — Israel is completely surrounded by rabid Muslims intent on killing all Jews.

            Adios.

          • hiernonymous

            “In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in conjunction with attacks by Britain and France.”? “…in
            conjunction with…”?
            Actually, it was “Israel, Britain and France invaded Egypt…etc.” Your bias kind of oozed up, didn’t it?

            It’s not clear what distinction you’re trying to draw here. What bias do you think my wording implied?

            At any rate, you yourself note that “the Israelis struck first.” You rather made my point – that 1956 involved Israel invading, not being invaded.

            “You know what I meant by the 350 million…”

            No, not really. You appeared – and the post still appears – to be disputing the accurate observation that Israel launched the invasions in those two wars. How does the population of the Arab world change that fact?

          • Bill James

            Israel has fought five wars since 1947. Which ones does Abdul want to dwell on? A joint invasion of Egypt with France and England over the possession of the Suez Canal and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The other wars started by Muslims invading Israel. Four years after that 1982 invasion (one can argue a thousand WAYS as to why Israel invaded) all 422 million Arabs — Muslims all — were content with the PLO’s covenant to annihilate Israel’s 5 million Jews:
            4/10/88 The P.L.O. Covenant, which says ”that the establishment of the State of Israel is null and void, regardless of the passage of time,” has never been renounced. It is a pledge to annihilate Israel.”

            And we know what Abdul and ALL Muslims believe about Jews. Allah commands them to believe that “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews” Quran 5:82.

            So now we know why Abdul dwells on Israeli aggression. Muslims never want to talk about Muslim aggression and terrorism — that’s how you know you’re talking to a Muslim. But you can’t blame him. Since we’ve had the Internet — a mere two decades — billions of us have been able to access the truth about Islam:
            http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
            -In 1995 there were 16 million Internet users worldwide. On 9/11 there were half a billion. Today there are over 2.8 billion.

            -In 2012 78% of Americans were Internet users.

            -11/21/08 Zogby poll: The web is the most trusted news medium in America — over TV and print combined.

            And this is what we are learning about Abdul’s religion:
            -http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2011_NCTC_Annua… FBI: In 2011 there were 12,533 terrorist deaths; 71% were caused by Muslims.

            -http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists 27 of the FBI’s 29 most wanted terrorists are Muslim.

            -wikipedia has a list of 144 terrorist organizations officially designated as terrorist by various Nations. 124 of them are motivated by religion – 75% of those are Muslim.

            -http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
            The State Department has a list of 56 officially designated terrorist organizations: 43 of them are Muslim, one is Christian, the rest are non-religious in their purpose.

            -Google search “civil wars in the world” and determine who the combatants are. The results show that Muslims are involved in 75% to nearly 90% of them, depending on the study. Muslims fight against all
            religions and cultures, worldwide.

            We can SEE, on the Internet, that wherever Muslims live there is strife. Go to You Tube and search:

            -”American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn”

            -”Graphic video of Australian Muslim Protests turn to riots”

            -”Muslims in (Berlin) Germany: School rioting and welfare”

            -”Graphic video of Australian Muslim protests turn to riots (hate towards us)

            -“Sharia law: Battlefield London”

            -”Muslim behavior in Oslo, Norway”

            -“Second Muslim Night Patrol in Waltham Forest, London”

            -If you don’t have a strong stomach skip this one. Google search http://www.thahop.com/blogs/1/3021/warning-dagestan-massacre-1999” “Dagestan Beheading of 6 Russian Soldiers by Chechen Muslim Mujahedeen Terrorists. The boy in the video begs the terrorists to
            have mercy over him, even though he saw three of his mates beheaded and one shot to death. As part of his beheading, he was being stabbed in the back and neck as he was calling out for his mother.”

            Adios, Abdul.

            ALLAHU AKBAR!

          • hiernonymous

            “Which ones does Abdul want to dwell on? ”

            You’d have to ask him, but that would be some trick, because there is no Arabic name “Abdul.” That’s a fairly widespread bit of ignorance. “Abd” in Arabic means slave or servant. A fairly common naming convention in Arabic is to name someone as “the servant of X,” where X is usually one of the names or characteristics of God. The possessive in Arabic is not indicated by a preposition, but by positioning the thing owned, in the indefinite, immediately before the possessor, which must be in the definite – either a proper name or using the definite article “al.” So “the servant of the most merciful” would be “Abd al Rahman,” which consists of two components: “(Abd)(al Rahman).” In the nominative case, the “al” elides to “ul,”, so it would be pronounced “(Abd )(ul Rahman).” It’s not “Abdul Rahman.” Since God is unique (and arguably a proper name), the definite article is not used, and the name becomes “Abdallah” or “Abdullah.” Now you know enough to avoid one way of displaying ignorance the next time you attempt to be clever.

            I have no doubt that at this moment, the majority of terrorist groups are Muslim. Terrorist groups tend to arise where there is tension and conflict. The Cold War is over, the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction have slipped quietly away, the IRA is quiescent, and Latin America, if not peaceful, at least doesn’t have the Cold War conflict feeding the flames of the FMLN, Shining Path, etc. “Muslims bad” isn’t going to help you understand why things are happening the way they are happening, and won’t help you find a solution – though it will help you justify more wars, if that’s what you’re shooting for.

            As for which wars I am focusing on, I’m not “focusing” on any. OP offered a list of five wars, asserting that they were all invasions of Israel, and I corrected the list to reflect the fact that two were not, in fact, invasions of Israel. Interesting that you take exception to that, or that you interpret that as “dwelling on Israeli aggression.” If you had read more intelligently, you would have seen that in my earlier comment, I noted that the 1982 attack into Lebanon was certainly justified. Do you think I was wrong about that?

            “Muslims never want to talk about Muslim aggression and terrorism — that’s how you know you’re talking to a Muslim. ”

            Is that really an example of the sort of logic you employ? That represents you bringing to bear your best analytic tools on the world around you?

            As for your overwrought excursion into all horrors Muslim, it’s good to see that you are shocked by shocking things. That’s always a good sign. It’s better when you move past simply parading the list and really try to think about what it means. If you want shocking that makes simple beheading look like a walk in the part, google Unit 731. Judging by this post, it should be enough to have you spend the rest of your year raving about the Japanese.

            “Since we’ve had the Internet — a mere two decades — billions of us have been able to access the truth about Islam…”

            Some of us didn’t wait for, and didn’t limit ourselves to, the internet.

          • Bill James

            Abdul employs what is known as “Al-Taqiyah”:

            -The Muslim doctrine of: to dodge the threat; simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war against the enemy; to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries. (Author Dr. Walid, Islamic University; Bharatiya Pragna, June 2000, vol. 6)

            He attempts to divert attention from Muslim crimes agains us by discussing the name “Abdul” — and even on that trivial point he practices deception:
            -”Abdul” (also transliterated as Abdal, Abdel, Abdil, bdol, Ab)dool, or Abdoul
            -”Transliteration” is the conversion of a text from one script to another.
            Abdul attempts to compare the crimes Muslims CURRENTLY commit with crimes other groups commit. This forces him to reach into the past to
            find comparisons because there are no existing non-Muslim groups which commit anywhere near the barbaric crimes Muslims commit TODAY.

            Normally they cite the Crusades during the Middle Ages: “See, you Crusaders slaughtered us too!” True to form, Abdul cites past events to defend Islam: “Terrorist groups tend to arise where there is tension and conflict. The Cold War is over, the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction have slipped quietly away, the IRA is quiescent… blah blah”; he wants us to examine atrocities the Japanese committed 70 years ago. His message is, “Nothing to see here. Muslims are
            just like everyone else. Move on.” And, of course, like all Muslims, he impugns the messenger.

            Muslims can’t stand being criticized. They riot regularly to shut us up. You can SEE them do it. Go to You Tube and search:
            -”American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn”

            -”Graphic video of Australian Muslim protests turn to riots (hate towards us)

            But Abdul doesn’t seem to grasp the significance of the Internet: “Some of us didn’t wait for, and didn’t limit ourselves to, the internet.”

            That’s good. An ignorant enemy is preferable to an informed enemy.

            Here’s why we should thank God for the Internet:
            -11/11 Pew Research poll showed that only 17% of Americans didn’t like Muslims immediately after 9/11.

            A mere 13 years later:
            -7/16/14 http://www.pewforum.org 40% of Americans dislike Muslims more than any other religion. Muslims share the least liked religion with another group, atheists, 41%.

            Here’s what caused that phenomenal shift:
            http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
            -On 9/11 there were half a billion Internet users. Today there are over 2.8 billion.

            -In 2012 78% of Americans were Internet users.

            11/21/08 Zogby poll: The web is the most trusted news medium in America — over TV and print combined.

            Well, let’s move on.
            Maybe Abdul can tell us why Muslims in the Middle East are so primitive even though colonialism ended decades ago?

            Excerpts from the United Nations sponsored 2002 Arab Human Development Report (arab-hdr.org):
            -Only 0.6% of the Arab population uses the Internet

            -Only 1.2% has a personal computer

            -Science and technology output is quantifiable and measurable in terms of number of scientific papers per unit of population. The average output of the Arab world per million inhabitants is roughly 2 per cent of that of an industrialized country

            -Number of research scientists: US 466,211; Saudi Arabia 1,915

            -The Arab region has the lowest level of access to ICT (Information and Communication Technology) of all regions of the world, even lower than sub-Saharan Africa

            -GDP in all Arab countries combined stood at $531.2 billion in 1999 (70% related to oil), less than that of a single European country, Spain ($595.5 billion).

            ALLAHU AKBAR!

          • hiernonymous

            My, you certainly take a scattershot approach to discussion. Let’s try to organize this a bit.
            1. Presumably, you are finished trying to dispute the the accuracy of my observation concerning who invaded whom in 1956 and 1982. Given that this was the extent if the original discussion, the rest is simply digression.
            2. Taqiyya is the Shi’a doctrine of protecting one’s life by denying that one is a Shi’a, or, by extension, that one is a Muslim. One of the more simpleminded approaches that internet warriors take to implement an ad hominem is to claim that their opponents are Muslim (an irrelevancy, but a potent one among the xenophobes), wait for the denial, then announce “taqiyya!” It’s an unanswerable bit of rhetorical gimcrackery.
            3. Talk to me about the erroneous contraction of “Abd al…” into “Abdul” when you’ve learned some Arabic. Aggressive ignorance is still ignorance.
            4. Short version: yes, Muslims are like everyone else. I can’t think of a single culture, religion, nationality, or other identity group that has not proved itself capable of committing horrors when stressed. Stress is not constant, and there is an ebb and flow to these matters. It’s one thing to acknowledge that the Middle East is the location of our greatest issues today, and another entirely to delude ourselves that the reason for this is that a particular culture is uniquely violent. It’s wholly relevant, for example, that in our fathers’ generation, it was Christians engaged in industrial-scale slaughter on an intercontinental scale, including fighting in and through bemused Muslim states and colonies. Picture being a Tunisian as the armies of Germany, Italy, Britain, and America decided to collide in that tiny state. Would he have been justified in concluding that the mass killing, the firebombing, the extermination camps, all proved that Christian culture was the bloodiest on the planet? Better to try to identify the roots of the violence and address them.
            5. It’s not clear what purpose citing 12-year-old internet and computer usage rates in the Middle East is supposed to convey. Note that one impetus of the Arab Spring was the spread of such information systems. Mubarak’s downfall was famously orchestrated on Twitter and facebook.
            6. Several of your statistics seem to be crowing about the comparative poverty of the region. No kidding. Now consider how that information might affect an analysis of the roots of unrest in the region.
            7. You assert that internet access accounts for increasingly negative views of Islam in the U.S. You don’t actually demonstrate this – you might review the principle that demonstrating correlation does not demonstrate causation – but let’s run with that for the sake of argument. Does it follow that the declining approval is a function of access to “the truth,” or is it possible, just possible, that energetic demagogues with an axe to grind find it easy to use the internet to confirm peoples’ biases? I suspect that it is the likes of, say, Pam Gellar, who rely on the power of the internet to distort, rather than reveal, that is more influential in this regard. This goes to my comment, which you apparently did not understand, that there are those if us who embarked on a study of these issues on a serious basis, rather than being spoonfed our opinions by blogs.

          • Bill James

            Abdul seems clueless about the impact the Internet is having on humanity. It is changing the world a thousand times faster than print did:

            Sir Francis Bacon said this of the Gutenberg printing press revolution (AD1440): “It has changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world.”

            On the Internet 2.8 billion non-Muslims can learn about how violent and intolerant Muslims are:
            http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm

            -In 1995 there were 16 million Internet users worldwide.

            -On 9/11 there were half a billion.

            -Today there are over 2.8 billion. 78% of Americans are Internet users.

            -Only 4% of Middle Easterners were Internet users — a mere 18 million.

            While Muslims are forced to reach back centuries for
            examples of non-Muslim crimes matching those which Muslims commit today, the Internet gives us proof that Muslims are as violent today as we once were:

            -8/23/09 BBC Thailand: “Muslims shoot, behead and
            blow up local Buddhists to force them to flee Southern Thailand in order to establish a separate Islamic state.”

            -8/20/10 AsiaNews, Kashmir: Extremist Muslims are demanding Sikhs convert or leave.

            -8/23/10 Reuters: Since 2004 Muslim extremists have killed 4,000 Buddhists in southern Thailand, which they are claiming as Muslim homelands.

            -10/4/11 AFP news, Philippines: “The government had previously warned that Umbrakato posed a serious threat to efforts aimed at ending a Muslim insurgency
            that has left an estimated 150,000 people dead over more than four decades.” Muslim want a separate state.

            -3/15/12 arabianbusiness.com: The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, recently announced that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.“ He is also the head of the Supreme Council of Ulema (Islamic scholars) and of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing of Fatwas for all Sunnis. Sunnis are 85% of the
            world’s Muslims.

            -4/29/12 http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/a…
            Washington Times, Chechnya: Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov publicly announced that the dead women [found dead in forests] had “loose morals” and were rightfully shot by male relatives. He went on to describe women as the property of their husbands, and said their main role is to bear children.”

            -12/23/12 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion…
            Christian faces being wiped out of the “biblical heartlands” in the Middle East because of mounting persecution of worshippers.

            -We can even SEE them in action. Go to You Tube and search “American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn” and “Graphic video of Australian Muslim protests turn to riots (hate towards us) .

            Abdul, of course, will call these facts distortions” (“Those videos are distortions!”).

            Then he introduces an “ebb and flow” theory of
            history in an attempt to conceal the long history of uninterrupted crimes against humanity committed by Muslims. In the case of Judao-Christian Culture the “ebb and flow” theory isn’t all that absurd. Our culture has, in fact, changed. Not that many centuries ago it
            was as primitive as Islamic culture is today:

            -The UN’s Arab Development Report 2002 on books translated per million people: Hungary 519; Spain 920; Israel 380; Arabia 4.

            -http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ The United Nation’s
            Human Development Index ranks nations by life expectancy, literacy, education and GDP per capita. The top 50 encompass 700 million in Judao-Christian
            nations; Muslim nations encompass 5 million people (out of 1.5 billion people).

            -http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_GEM.pdf The UN’s Gender Empowerment Measure ranks
            nations by women’s equality: Muslim nations rank at the bottom.

            -http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001831/183175e.pdf Only 11 Muslim nations (with a combined population of 50 million people out of 1.5 billion Muslims) and Indonesia have a literacy rate of above 90%. 118 nations rank above Muslim nations.

            By the end of this decade over half of mankind will probably have access to the Internet. Almost all will be
            unbelievers. Almost all will have seen the true, ugly, face of Islam revealed on the Internet. Almost all will conclude that we don’t want Muslims anywhere near us.

            ALLAHU AKBAR!, Abdul.

          • hiernonymous

            Speaking of clueless: Srebenica was not centuries ago. The Lord’s Resistance Army was not centuries ago. Omagh was not centuries ago, nor the Greysteel Massacre. Apparently, the internet has presented you an incomplete education.

            Regarding Muslim-Buddhist conflict in Thailand, I notice that you didn’t present the situation in nearby Myanmar, where it’s Buddhists targeting Muslims with violence.

            You also don’t seem to follow conversations, or your own disjointed posts, very well. The rapid growth that you cite is precisely why your quotation of 12 year old statistics when presenting the Arab usage was so misleading.

            Again, you cite statistics revealing poverty and suffering in Muslim countries, but it doesn’t seem to dawn on you that this might just play a factor in the violence and instability in the region. Are you arguing some sort of prosperity theology in which being rich is proof of God’s favor?

          • Bill James

            There’s been a sea change in the past few years.
            Muslims used to post on sites like this and defend their “religion of peace and tolerance” by “explaining” that Quranic commands to cut off our heads — Quran
            (8:12): “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who
            disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” — must be taken “in context” to Mohamed’s effort to defend Islam against aggressors of that era. They’d brag about how much Muslims care for the poor, zakat, (while the Muslim
            poor remain among the poorest on the planet) and how they are tolerant of unbelievers (look up “dhimmitude” to learn that non-believers were/are
            treated as half human in Muslim culture). Then they’d end with the standard BS that “Islam is a religion of
            peace and tolerance” — with a big, teethy Muslim smile.

            It’s finally beginning to sink into their 7th century “brains” that, on the Internet, we can see mountains of evidence proving that their religion was/is the most violent, intolerant influence in the world, that their lies don’t work anymore. Their fall-back strategy, practiced by Abdul, is to attempt to equate their CURRENT rabid violence and intolerance to our culture’s past crimes. They practice this strategy in order to buy time to have Muslim babies — lots of Muslim babies — and overwhelm the native populations with shear numbers:

            -1/30/09 Timesonline UK: Muslim population growth between 2004 and 2008 was ten times greater than the rest of society.

            -8/8/09 Daily Telegraph, London: Europe’s Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015.

            -10/28/10 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/28/ctw.01.html Mohamed now number one name in England.

            -10/28/10 Daily Mail: Mohamed or derivatives of that name is now the number one name in England.

            -9/29/13 http://www.emirates247.k-09-29-1.522770
            “70% of global population growth over the next 30 years will be in Muslim countries”

            -12/15/07 Ottawa Citizen, http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=61b5f488-4e17-4665-a4f8-c1279155c01b
            “We’re the ones who will change you,” declared Muslim Mullah Krekar [a resident of Norway]. “Just look at the development within Europe where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. By 2050 30% of the population in Europe will be Muslim.”

            We’re onto your game, Abdul. We’re tooling up to get you away from us, all 2.8 billion of us — soon to be 4 billion:
            http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/07/china-bans-ramadan-fasting-muslim-province-20147371648541558.html
            China bans Ramadan fasting in Muslim province
            ALLAHU AKBAR! Abdul.

          • hiernonymous

            Oh, dear. When they crack out the first person plural, I’m never sure if I am corresponding with a multiple personality or an elected representative of Western Civilization. I see the same sort of affected grandiosity on the Southern Nationalist Network proclaiming that “we” are going to secede, and soon.

            Claiming that an observation that I offered is the current “strategy” of a group you dislike is not an answer to or rebuttal of that observation. Srebenica by itself is sufficient answer to any attempt to imply that Muslim societies are uniquely violent.

            That you are concerned about immigration and demographic change is plain, but that doesn’t mean I need to join you in frothing hysteria, or trying to engage in lopsided demonization.

            And trying to portray me as a Muslim is another excellent sign that your commitment to accuracy and truth is not what it could be.

          • Bill James

            I condemn, without qualification, the Christian slaughter of Muslims in Srebenica.

            Do you condemn, without qualification, the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 by Muslim terrorists?.

          • hiernonymous

            Of course I do.

            By the way, the headlines this morning are about an attack on a civilian airliner. There’s a lot of fingerpointing among Ukrainians, Russian rebels, and Russia. Will that be making your parade of shocking things?

          • Bill James

            No, but this will:

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/15/report-attacks-by-terror-group-boko-haram-increasing-2053-killed-this-year/
            A new report detailing the extent to which the radical Islamist group Boko Haram is using brutality and murder to spread terror among Nigerian villages reveals that 2,053 people have been killed in 95 attacks in the first half of 2014.
            Human Rights Watch, which authored the report, also said that the militant Islamist group is increasing its use of bombs, detonating 14 explosions that killed 423 people during that same period.

            Can you give us a more recent example of Christian savagery than your last example, which was 16 years ago (Srebenica)? Note that the above slaughter occurred this year.

          • hiernonymous

            The wreckage of MH 17 is still smoking. How much more recent do you want?

          • Bill James

            Abdul is positing, even though MH is still smoking, that Christians are

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, you’re back in the third person? You slipped out of character for a post or two.

            So far, three parties have been accused of the downing. All three are Christian. If that changes, of course my position will change as well. As it stands, there’s no reason to suspect that a Muslim group slipped into eastern Ukraine with a HIMAD system and brought down the airliner.

            Concerning Srebenica – you consider it to be a matter of defense or extenuating that the murdered victims were Muslim? How revealing.

            Apart from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which us between Christians, we have the drug was in Mexico. The Afghan war casualties in 2013 totaled about 5700 (the bulk of which were coalition forces killing Muslims, but let’s just go with it), whereas about 11,700 died in Mexican drug violence. We can go back to May of this year, when Elliot Rodger went on a rampage, killing 6 and wounding another dozen or so. Not sure why you think that the most recent example I offered was Srebenica, by the way. The Lord’s Resistance Army is on the ropes, it seems, but still managed to account for nearly 50 deaths in 2013. If you have trouble understanding how 2013 is more recent than 1995, let me know. The Irish troubles between Catholic and Protestant have also ebbed, but not gone away entirely. Die-hard groups made 30 attacks in 2013, and their efforts continue in 2014.

            People are violent, period. The form that this violence takes is shaped by the means available. I believe that The bulk of terrorist violence is Islamist today precisely because of the relative weakness of the groups involved. Terrorism is an asymmetric tactic, used by those without the means to employ coercive force. On the other hand, consider the most powerful state on Earth at the moment. The U.S. supposedly abhors violence. During my time in uniform, we fought wars in Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and used military force in Haiti. That doesn’t count small scale actions, such as our involvement in the Nicaraguan and Salvadoran civil wars, or our drone wars. This isn’t to suggest that all if these wars were unjustified, and a few were praiseworthy, but all but one were elective. Afghanistan represents the only war in which we were attacked, and even there, we chose to continue hostilities long after the parties responsible for the attack had been killed, captured, or driven out of the country. The single most titanic conflict in history, spanning the globe and resulting in a minimum of 50 million casualties, was fought largely by Christian belligerents, and the notable exceptions, such as Japan, were not Muslim. This strongly suggests that a monomaniacal focus on Islam as the root of the world’s problems with political violence is self-serving nonsense that lets us feel better about ourselves and allows us to avoid the hard work of addressing the structural problems that contribute to widespread violence.

            If you directed your attention at Islamists instead of Muslims, you’d be on the right track.

            I don’t see how anyone could have followed the downfall of Mubarak, Tantawi, and Suleiman and not understand the power of the internet.

            And, by the way, it’s “Akbar,” not “Akabar.” You’re inserting an extra syllable.

          • Bill James

            “If you directed your attention at Islamists instead of Muslims, you’d be on the right track.”

            Tell us, Abdul, were the Arabs who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 Muslims?

          • hiernonymous

            Why, yes, but they were not just Muslims, they were Islamists.

            You slipped out of the third person, by the way. The aggressively ignorant style you’ve adopted is more effective if you don’t slip out of character. It’s a two-item checklist, ma’am – third person, pseudo-Arabic name – so do try to be consistent.

          • Bill James

            Muslims frequently use the Scotsman Fallacy in order to escape responsibilty for their crimes:
            The Scotsman’s Fallacy: A man is charged with murder; his lawyer argues that the suspect is a Scot; he proclaims that “real Scotsmen don’t commit murder and therefore my client can not be the murderer.”

            Their version of it is codified:
            Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 81, Number 763:
            Abu Huraira, Allah’s Apostle said, “When an adulterer commits illegal sexual intercourse, he is not a believer at the time he is doing it; when somebody drinks an alcoholic drink, he is not a believer at the time of drinking; when a robber robs and the people look at him, he is not a believer at the time of doing it.”

            Abdul used the device when he stated, “If you directed your attention at Islamists instead of Muslims, you’d be on the right track.”

            In other words, the Arab’s who the That’s a one-or-the-other answer, Abdul.

            Turkey’s (98% Muslim) PM Recep Erdagon is a more prominent example of a lying Muslim:

            Tell us, Abdul, should religious law be banned at all
            government levels in the U. S.?

          • hiernonymous

            Abdul used the device when he stated, “If you directed your attention at Islamists instead of Muslims, you’d be on the right track.”

            It’s remarkable that you managed to get nothing correct in this sentence. That’s not remotely an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You appear to be better and posting lists than at understanding them.

            The No True Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to make a universal claim – all X are Y, or all X do Y. When challenged with a conflicting example, the individual making the claim simply says “By doing Y, he proved he’s no true X.”

            You’ll note that I’ve advanced no such argument. An Islamist is very likely to be a Muslim – in fact, it would be difficult to imagine a case where he isn’t. He may well embrace non-traditional doctrines, such as Qutb’s take on jahiliya, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a Muslim. The key element of my comment is that while all Islamists are likely Muslims, the reverse is not true, and the reverse is the effective thrust of your approach.

            In other words, the Arab’s who the That’s a one-or-the-other answer, Abdul.

            That was utterly incoherent. From the “one-or-the-other” phrase, I take it that you could not follow my comment, and thought that Muslim and Islamist are presented as mutually exclusive. You know better now.

            Tell us, Abdul, should religious law be banned at all government levels in the U. S.?

            You’ll have to be a bit more specific about what you mean. Do you mean that there should be no laws rooted in religious laws? No “thou shalt not murder,” etc? Or that there should be no laws that have only a religious justification – e.g. “thou shalt have no other gods before me?” Or that there should be no laws that could be considered favoring one religion over another?

            When I was growing up, we still had some overtly religious laws in place. The most notable example I can recall is of the Blue Laws, which banned retail stored from being open for business on Sundays. Restaurants and pharmacies could do business, which probably played a big role in why the pharmacy chains double as convenience stores. If that’s the sort of thing you mean, I would say that such laws have no place on our books, and, to the best of my knowledge, have been successfully challenged.

          • Bill James

            Abdul, do Muslims believe they are committing a crime when they follow their Quran’s command to cut off heads and hands?

            Quran 8:12: “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and
            cut off each of their fingers and toes.’”

            -Google search http://www.thahop.com/blogs/1/3021/warning-dagestan-massacre-1999
            “Dagestan Beheading of 6 Russian Soldiers by Chechen Muslim Mujahedeen Terrorists. The boy in
            the video begs the terrorists to have mercy over him, even though he saw three of his mates beheaded and one shot to death.
            As part of his beheading, he was being stabbed in the back and neck as he was calling out for his mother.”

            -7/18/14 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/us-usa-mosque-philadelphia-idUSKBN0FN2PW20140718
            Two men described as leaders of a Philadelphia mosque were accused of trying to cut off the hand of a suspected thief, whose wrist was sliced so deeply it required hospital treatment, police said on Friday.
            ALLAHU AKBAR!, Abdul.

          • hiernonymous

            Ma’am, if a Jewish person in New York found his wife committing adultery and stoned her to death, would he be committing a crime?

            Obviously, if a person of any religion violates the law in pursuit of an incompatible religious belief, he is committing a crime.

            And, again, the issue is not that Muslims don’t commit crimes, but that Muslims are not unique in doing so. I watched a video today of a group of Israelis gathered on a hill cheering as missiles exploded in Gaza. A 15-year-old local boy just got home from Israel, where he had been visiting family. Israeli policy handcuffed him then beat him until he was unrecognizable. Some of the most horrendous mutilations and tortures that I’ve heard of originate in Catholic Latin America – ever hear of a Colombian necktie (which actually originated in Catholic Italy)?

            What you don’t appear to want to acknowledge is that people are people – they can be violent and vicious, regardless of their religious beliefs.

          • Bill James

            “And, again, the issue is not that Muslims don’t commit crimes, but that Muslims are not unique in doing so”?

            Definition of “unique”: “being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else”
            Abdul — and no Muslim on the planet — will ever accept the fact that Muslim violence is “unique,” even though:
            -http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2011_NCTC_Annua… FBI: In 2011 there were 12,533 terrorist deaths; 71% were caused by Muslims.

            -http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists 27 of the FBI’s 29 most wanted terrorists are Muslim.

            -wikipedia has a list of 144 terrorist organizations officially designated as
            terrorist by various Nations. 124 of them are motivated by religion – 75% of
            those are Muslim.

            -http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
            The State Department has a list of 56 officially designated terrorist
            organizations: 43 of them are Muslim,
            one is Christian, the rest are non-religious in their purpose.

            -Google search “civil wars in the world” and determine who the combatants are. The results show that Muslims are involved in 75% to nearly 90% of them, depending on the study. Muslims fight against all
            religions and cultures, worldwide. They fight in China, Russia, Bosnia, Cyprus, Macedonia, Israel, Pakistan, India, Indonesia-Ambon & Halmarhera, Côte d’Ivoire, Kashmir, Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kurdistan, Kirghizia, Nigeria, Philippines, Somalia, Turkey, Chechnya, Sudan, Yemen, Thailand, Uganda, Dagestan, Azerbaijan, Mali, Chad, Syria, Iran, Libya, Bangladesh and East Timor.

          • hiernonymous

            When you compile – or cut and paste, as the case may be – your lists, do you actually take the time to understand the items on your list? Because there are a few interesting items in there that rather challenge your narrative of Islam as unique instigator of violence. Let’s look at a few:

            - Chechnya. Of course, who the Good Guys and who the Bad Guys are seems to shift with the political winds – I seem to recall that the Chechens were heroes when they were trying to achieve independence during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and people cheered when the elite ariborne forces sent to crush the rebellion had its fourth point of contact handed to it in the first indication of just how far the vaunted VDV had fallen.

            - Bosnia. Sure, the Muslims were involved in conflict in Bosnia. Primarily by being the targets of ethnic cleansing. You conveniently left out just who the aggressor was there.

            - Kosovo. See above, though not as clean – there was an oppression-within-the-oppression twist to this one, as the Kosovars responded to Serb aggression by mistreating the Serb minority within its own borders.

            - Somalia. This one is actually sort of interesting. Prior to extensive American intervention into the Middle East, the Somali war was not in any way religious. It was the story of the fall of Siad Barre and the inability of the clan warlords to set aside their differences long enough to form a stable government. When I was in Somalia in ’93-94, the Islamists were a laughable fringe with no real influence; the players were still the clans and their warlords. But when the U.S., and eventually the UN, pulled out of Somalia, leaving behind a sham of a state, and as AQ and its affiliates were driven from other states, those two factors set up a perfect storm that allowed the Islamists to gain power. In a certain way, it’s like our mass deportations of Central American gang members, which has resulted in Honduras teetering on the brink of becoming a failed state.

            - Sudan. The longstanding civil war between North and South was driven in great part by Khartoum’s attempt to impose Arabic in the classroom and support a dominant Muslim culture. This led the war to be simplified as “Muslim vs Christian” and there was enough truth in it that it wasn’t worth arguing about. But the South won its independence, and is free from the Muslim domination of the North, so everything is peachy-keen, right? Since Islam was the problem, and Islam has been taken out of the picture, we should expect a more peaceful situation in the South than prevailed before, right?

            But not so much. Three years after achieving independence, the Southerners have turned on one another, and are slaughtering one another with the same abandon with which they once slaughtered Northerners. How does that fit into your narrative, ma’am?

            “God (not including Allah) bless the Internet for revealing the true, ugly face of Abdul and his fellow Muslims.”

            Your respect for God apparently does not extend to the 8th (or 9th, depending on your sect) Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

          • Bill James

            Abdul, are these Muslims or Islamists who follow this command?

            Quran 9.29″ “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

            7/18/14 http://news.yahoo.com. Islamist insurgents have issued an ultimatum to northern Iraq’s dwindling Christian population to either convert to Islam, pay a religious levy or face death.

          • hiernonymous

            Islamists.

            Much like Exodus 22:18 (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”), the jizya has long since fallen out of use in mainstream Islam. It has been a couple of centuries since states in the Muslim world collected jizya.

            The conditions that inspired it no longer prevail. In the days of the Caliphate, dhimmis paid the jizya in return for enjoying the right to continue to practice their own religion, the protection of the state, exemption from military service, and exemption from the zakat. There was no comparable right in Christianity; when Christians conquered territories containing people of other faiths, the policy was determined by the conqueror, and could range from a convert-or-die ultimatum or could involve relative tolerance. An example of the latter was Roger I’s conquest of the Muslim emirates of Sicily, following which he permitted Muslims to continue practicing their faith – if they paid a jizya. Roughly a century after the conquest, that tolerance broke down and pogroms against the Muslims began.

    • bob smith

      I hope the idf finishes the job to completion. Death to every member of Hamas is not death enough to any cult more deserving that end. Death to Islam and its followers.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Enjoy your fantasy because you know the reality is very different.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Essentially correct, indeed it gets to the essence of the problem. The only problem in this exposition is giving the impression that the problem of Islam is continual rather than a returning problem. The Islamic Revival of the 70s brought back Islam with all it’s original virulence. As we know, the prior period of Arab nationalism has been superseded by the Islamic Revival. Even the nationalists are not Muslim enough for the revivalists. Ironically they now share a common enemy with Israel.

    The problem with the dominant left is that they are still in the 60s when nationalism drove the agenda for Arabs. They don’t realize that Islam is now the problem even for the secular or nationalist Arabs. They just don’t get Islam and can’t imagine religion being a real motivation. Introspection is a poor tool for understanding another culture.

    • Johnny

      What we have is a left that wants to impose its own cultural norms on society. That makes conventional society the enemy. Now the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and so they end up embracing the enemies of the West.

      Not that they do not believe their own stuff. They will embrace Islam right up to the point where the Koran is the only written document taught in our colleges and the only professors still alive are those who are pretending to be converts.

      • Evermyrtle

        What we have is a Muslim Islamist at the helm and we are going down fast without GOD leading our country. They, in the WH, are like those in Iran, they hate our Savior JESUS CHRIST and have made HIS name illegal anywhere in public life. If the country does nothing to stop them, while we vote, later this year, we will be will be in the hands of Satan’s people.

        Our country has changed completely in the last five years and it has not been for the good! We now have a president who is a Muslin and will sneer at our faith in CHRIST. We cannot survive as a prosperous nation, the way we are going along with the evils of Satan and his Muslims, who have almost taken over our country.

        They believe it is their right to beat their wives for any reason that they choose, they can marry little girls and consummate the marriage when when the girl is six years old I believe. This is animalistic.
        .

        • hiernonymous

          “We now have a president who is a Muslin….”

          You’d think that would be good for the fabric of our society.

          • Americana

            I think some have missed the pun…

          • Drakken

            East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. Islam does not belong in the west and islam is completely at odds and diametrically opposite of us of the west, conflict with islam is always without exception, inevitable.

          • hiernonymous

            It was just a pun.

          • 95Theses

            It was a good pun, that I give you. (Now don’t get greedy.)

          • Pete

            Only if the religions are tolerant of one another.

            If that is not the case it will just cause more strife.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, Christianity and Islam are always going to have issues, because each claims that it represents the sole truth, and each purports to provide the one path to salvation.

            But my post was just a play on words.

          • Drakken

            So with that in mind, where do you think it goes from here?

          • hiernonymous

            Me? Over what sort of time period? In the relatively short term, I think our policies are best aimed at encouraging economic development, because people with decent economic prospects and some hope for the future don’t have to turn to the afterlife for an escape from brutal reality. In the longer run, one trusts that reason will prevail.

          • Drakken

            It would seem that you amongst many believe it is economic and not a religious aspect, unfortunately current events are proving that point to be moot, reason where islam is concerned does not prevail, never has, and never will, but you know this. If ISIS succeeds in taking Jordan, and Israel keeps defending itself, Europe is going to explode and no amount of state control of the natives is going to stop what will come next.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            In the relatively short term, I think our policies are best aimed at encouraging economic development, because people with decent economic prospects and some hope for the future don’t have to turn to the afterlife for an escape from brutal reality.

            Or to terrorism in this life?

          • hiernonymous

            Sure, that’s fair.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Muslim terrorists come from the middle and upper classes… but nice try

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            OBL’s jihad partner, Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor.
            mohammed atta – was an engineer.

          • truebearing

            Boiler plate leftist nonsense, with no evidence to back it up. Wealthy people turn to drugs, alcohol, etc to fill the emptiness in their lives, so economic well being isn’t the panacea you materialists pretend it is.

            What policies of the Left encourage any kind of growth? Name one Marxist/socialist country that has done well economically.

          • hiernonymous

            “Wealthy people turn to drugs, alcohol, etc to fill the emptiness in their lives, so economic well being isn’t the panacea you materialists pretend it is.”

            I don’t think I claimed that wealth solves all problems. But prosperous states are more stable, and their happiness index much higher, than states suffering poverty.

            “What policies of the Left encourage any kind of growth?”

            What does “the Left” have to do with anything I wrote?

            “Name one Marxist/socialist country that has done well economically.”

            I’d have trouble naming more than a couple of Marxist countries, period. As for ‘socialist,’ well, if you think the Democratic Party in the U.S. is socialist, then I suppose that most European countries qualify. The Scandinavian countries have pretty amazing standards of living. Germany has been a consistent economic powerhouse for decades. I’m not sure what any of that has to do with my post, but you asked.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Wealthy Muslims turn to drugs, alcohol, etc like TERRORISM and JIHAD to fill the emptiness in their lives.

            See osama bin laden.

          • hiernonymous

            There’s some truth to that. You’ll find radicals among any elite. I invite your attention to Mr. Engels, associate if ine Karl Marx.

            But those bored elites are both more motivated to rebel in an ideological fashion, and to find receptive ears for their discontent among the masses, when their society is poor, brutal, and/or unjust. Communism found its birth in the horrors of early capitalism, and continued to find broad acceptance in the West until capitalist societies reformed themselves, broadening the middle class and making a prosperous life a realistic goal for all.

            Certainly, it also helped that the Communists were given some countries to ruin, as a salutary lesson in the limits of utopian ideology. I imagine that Communism would have widespread appeal today if it had been everywhere successfully repressed. That is why, by the way, that I think it a bad idea to repress the MB. Islamism will be a potent political force for as long as there is underlying poverty and injustice, and there is no example if it’s limitations. By allowing military dictatorships to overthrow the elected MB government in Egypt, both conditions are simultaneously perpetuated.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Still wrong.

            Communists assumed they would win in Western capitalist countries. Instead they won in backward parts of the world.

            Communism did not emerge from capitalism, but from the collapse of feudalism.

          • hiernonymous

            Communism originated in the most economically advanced country in the world, inspired by conditions associated with working conditions, wages, and the power relationship of labor to capital. It was quite plainly the growing pains of capitalism, not the ‘collapse’ of feudalism, that inspired Marx and Engels. It took root and spread through the industrial economies. That it was the Russian and Chinese governments that proved brittle enough to overcome doesn’t change the origins of the movement, and Mao had to essentially discard basic communist theory and re-write it to fit the rural milieu of China. You may recall that a significant factor in Hitler’s rise to power was that the Communist movement in the backward state of Germany was so influential that the center and right made common cause to defeat a movement that you relegate to the planet’s backwaters.

            In fact, a great deal of time is spent on these boards rehabilitating McCarthy’s reputation on the grounds that Communist influence was far greater in the U.S. than is popularly acknowledged. Was feudalism still collapsing in 1950s America?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Industrialization has lessened the need for labor and weakens the negative influence of greedy unions.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Bad theories will often originate in societies with a leisure class.

            Communism however took over in backward countries rather than the advanced capitalist countries that Marx expected it to take hold in.

            Those are simple facts and I have no idea why you’re even wasting time debating them.

            Communist infiltration of the US was quite real and damaging. That didn’t mean that a Communist revolution was ever viable. The left here won within the system.

          • hiernonymous

            “Communism however took over in backward countries rather than the advanced capitalist countries that Marx expected it to take hold in.

            Those are simple facts and I have no idea why you’re even wasting time debating them.”

            Because you seem to be drawing unwarranted conclusions from selective application of facts. That the Communists reached their greatest extent of power in those states does not establish, as you imply, that Communism was created and spread in response to feudal rather than capitalist stimuli. Communism was quite widespread and mature by the time of the Russian Revolution.

            “Communist infiltration of the US was quite real and damaging. That didn’t mean that a Communist revolution was ever viable.”

            But it does mean that it attracted its recruits in a capitalist, not a feudal, milieu.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You can play as many word games as you like and you can play them with yourself.

            Your habit of arguing for the sake of arguing is really becoming tiresome.

          • hiernonymous

            You made a flawed argument; you didn’t like having the flaws pointed out. You flounce well, though.

          • American Patriot

            What are you talking about, fool? In fact, it was the Communists and Nazis who teamed up to undermine and dissolve the Weinmar Republic in Germany. Despite the fact that they competed against each other for power, the Reds and Browns worked together in different situations. Watch the Soviet Story documentary for the truth on the similarities: http://www.sovietstory.com

          • hiernonymous

            A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Weimar Germany began collaborating with the Soviet Union long before the National Socialists were a significant political force. The first architect of this collaboration was Hans von Seeckt, the effective commander of Weimar’s army. He was a staunch conservative, hated Communism and fought vigorously against the spread of communism in Germany, but nonetheless saw the advantages of cooperation with the Soviets. One if the advantages he articulated was that the establishment of Poland was a threat to both Germany and Russia, and he could rely on the Soviets to cooperate in efforts to eliminate the new Polish state. Again, this is the thinking of an ardent anti-communist who put his country’s security and ambitions over ideology.

            Similarly, cooperation between National Socialist Germany and the USSR reflects common goals, and does exactly nothing to rebut the well-established fact that the center and right in Weimar turned to Hitler in large part out of fear of the communists.

            Von Seeckt, by the way, spent his last professional years advising Chiang on how to defeat Mao; he was the architect of the Nationalist victories that forced the Communists on the Long March.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Marx and Engels?

            That ‘s so last century.

          • truebearing

            Why do the super wealthy support Marxism or terrorism? Why are fabulously wealthy Arabs funding schools that keep Muslims ignorant and fanatical? Why do the elite leftists always betray the revolution for personal gain?

          • hiernonymous

            Probably for the same reason that one found the occasional democratic revolutionary among the aristocrats in the late 18th century, and why they helped bankroll revolutionary behavior. And I can’t think of elites anywhere on the political spectrum that don’t betray their causes for personal gain. That’s human nature for you.

            But of course I’m not suggesting that every individual who becomes wealthy thereby becomes content and immune to antisocial behaviors. I’m observing that populations tend to behave in more rational fashion when the society writ large is prosperous and stable. The U.S. and Europe have their share of nutbags, but it’s much easier to recruit among the disaffected.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Sorry dude, your analogy doesn’t hold water. By far more than it is anything else, Islam is an extremely rabid and draconian form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination, as opposed to being just a so-called religion. Thus, just like in the old Communist Soviet Union where non-conformers were sent to the Soviet gulags, in Islamic totalitarian society non-conformers are routinely executed for apostasy and blasphemy according to the dictates of Islam.

            Meanwhile, Christianity, on the other hand, is just another faith-based religion, and all Muslims are not only waging jihad (holy war) against all Christian infidels alone, but also against all infidels of all flavors throughout the world to ultimately make Islam supreme. Thus, you are still stuck on stupid.

            One of your biggest problems, of course, is your abhorrence of all religions and especially Christianity, because you obviously believe they are all useless and thus a complete and utter waste of time that only leads to conflict. Hence, like a fool you deliberately equate Islam with Christianity to vilify Christians. You can’t help yourself. Indeed, that’s why you put your foot in your mouth. You let your emotions get the better of you.

          • truebearing

            He does it on purpose. He is a sick individual that defends evil wherever he sees it.

          • Pete

            Most religions have issues with most other religions.

            The question is will it be live and let live or will there be force and coercion.

            I see the play on words give the typo.

            People are really raw right now. Things are going to get more heated. For example, Russia is going to enforce some sort of no fly zone along the Russia-Ukrainian border within the fortnight.

          • truebearing

            False equivalency. Islam is a political pseudo-religion with the ultimate goal of world domination and destruction of all other religions and ideologies. Christianity rejects worldly obsessions and is all about living life on earth peacefully. compassionately, and honestly, then living in the presence of God in the afterlife. Christianity doesn’t promise 72 virgins for murdering non-Christians, in fact, it promises some serious punishment for murder of any kind. The two religions are diametrically opposite, as was intended by the evil inspired creation of Islam.

          • Pete

            No comment?

          • hiernonymous

            About what?

          • Pete

            Never mind wrong comment.

          • truebearing

            Making fun of spelling errors again? Nice job, Hall Monitor Boy.

            You don’t like it when people do the same to you, though.

            Too bad it wasn’t an amusing pun.

          • hiernonymous

            You didn’t like it? I’m desolate.

          • 95Theses

            Your woof is warped.

        • anneeasthartford

          I sense though that more Americans who are Christian are starting to stand up and are fighting to take the country back. Look at the recent protests going on with the southern. The taking back has started.

    • El Cid

      Yes. It is continual. The Nazis succeeded in Europe BECAUSE they brought back antisemitism as their core belief and the destruction of the Jews as their core mission. That was something that significant minority of Europeans were able to agree with and still do. That is one of the reasons why Islam is welcome in Europe.

      Islam’s CORE belief is that they need to destroy the Jews. Hence the Nationalist and the “Islamists” and the Jihadists, and the “moderates” all agree that Israel must be destroyed.

      We have come from Brownshirts to Burkas in 75 years.

      • anneeasthartford

        Got to remember that Islam is from Satan the devil himself. It is against BOTH Jews and Christians. The Bible does say that in the end, those who believe in the God of the Bible will win.

      • Drakken

        Islam is not accepted in Europe, it is despised with anyone with two brain cells to rub together and it is the left that has wrought this upon us and it is a situation that soon will be rectified.

    • bigjulie

      Agree! The left believes that, if the “Islamic Revival” actually wins, that they will be “rewarded” for their help and can’t imagine that the Revival will vanquish them, as well! Nothing sadder than a sexually “liberated” leftie stuck in a smelly burkah!

  • JVictor

    Seventh century religious bigotry and jealousy fought with the weapons of contemporary warfare is a terribly lethal combination. Sadly, the importance of history has been lost in the last two generations. Instagram- and Facebook-driven narcissism means that history goes back no further than the last post. Neil Postman’s “Entertaining Ourselves to Death” warned about the combination of mass media and Madison Avenue removing people from reality. Little did he know that the modern information age would be driven by “selfies” where people live in their own little fiefdoms.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      We are losing history and without it, context loses out to the latest meme.

  • Lanna

    It seems we have governments and groups of people, especially Islamic radicals who continually blame others for the problems in the world and use it to divide people and create chaos., the Jews or anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideology…they must create a villain, that’s what Hitler did, Blame the Jews for all the problems. Matt 7 says And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye, that means killing, burning churches, creating poverty for their people and the bad living conditions of war

  • notme123

    Islam is satan’s religion and he is their god. it started thousands of years ago when he rebelled against God, and a third of heaven followed him, and continues on today.

    • anneeasthartford

      AMEN!

    • anneeasthartford

      A false religion started by a false prophet. Jesus WARNED against false prophets BIGTIME!

      • mikeh420

        This one needed no warning. A real prophet does not call himself one.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          But a “prophet” from a murderous cult that calls itself “the Religion of Peace” does.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Islam is at war with the non-Muslim infidel world. It’s not just at war waged against the Jewish infidels in Israel. It’s at war waged against all non-Muslim infidels throughout the world, and its jihad (holy war) is perpetual.

    Indeed, Islam’s Mujahideen fighters have been waging jihad against non-Muslim infidels continuously and by any and all means both violent and non-violent since shortly after 622 AD, the year of the Hijra (the migration), and it is a war that will continue to be waged perpetually against all non-Muslim infidels until Islam has been made supreme throughout the world by the imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) and until all infidels have been subjugated into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., rendered into harsh and debilitating dhimmitude.

    In other words, it is a war that will continue to be waged relentlessly against all non-Muslim infidels unless and until all infidels around the world unite to take collective action to put an end to Islam’s perpetual jihads.

    Thus, the current “objective” of America’s so-called “Realist” foreign policy, which is to always maintain stability in the world no matter what, is a farce because it does nothing whatsoever to address and put an end to Islam’s perpetual jihad. Meanwhile, unless Islam’s perpetual jihad is stopped, it will go on and continue to perpetually plague the world.

  • retired

    Firstly let me give some of my background
    I am a retired printer who had his own commercial printing plant for 40 years.I have dealt with all kinds of characters…..Salesmen,brokers,distributors,independent reps,& a dozen other forms of fast talking slimeballs.I have an in depth understanding of how people think & act!
    posters use superficial arguments to describe these world issues like “Politically correct”,In a”state of denial”,”Don’t understand” & other cute explanations of what is going down.These catch phrases may work with the rank & file true believers & those who are called “low information voters”These people are useful tools & have no real input in shaping events.The top guys who make the decisions know perfectly well what they are saying & doing.
    The answer is not any of the above cliches.The bottom line is collusion, collusion, collusion, conspiracies ,& more collusions.The people on top who call the shots are masters at intrigue, connivery & duplicity!
    The Moslems, as nasty as they are,would have minimal effect in the world by themselves if not for the active complicity of the Western European (EU) Jew hating elites (Orwell called them the “Moneyed Classes”).They are to the Moslem Terrorists what a “Fence” is to a cat burglar.Without the Fence the burglar would have no where to dispose of his stolen loot.Without the European elite(Central Bankers,Financial Oligarchs & Corporatists) the Arabs would not have the material resources to make war on the world!
    They do this because they are power hungry Fabians & as such are also “Social Engineers”.In order to remold the peoples of the world into a form that would be consistent with their worldview they would need to destroy the Nation States & the ideas & traditions to which these Nation States adhere.
    This is the main reason the statist elites encourage the mass importation of 3RD world peoples into Europe & America.Their plan is to dilute & destroy the current cultures & religions of these states. The Arabs & Hispanics are their tools of choice & America & Israel are their top targets!
    PS:My opinion is that they will not succeed,they will go down with everyone else in the financial conflagration they are creating.They will dig a grave for Democracy & Freedom & end up falling into the grave themselves!

    • Damaris Tighe

      You’re right. They see themselves as ‘post-nationalists’ & hate Israel because, unlike other western democracies, it continues to be a self-confident nation. Israel acts in a way that any western state would have done only a few decades ago, before they lost their will to live.

  • Damaris Tighe

    Having read the Koran I agree with Daniel that it’s one long, vicious & bombastic rant. If Satan exists the Koran is certainly the book he would have written. It’s tragic that generation upon generation of children have to be indoctrinated in this manifest rubbish.

    • anneeasthartford

      …..Yet brave Christian missionaries sneak the Bibles in. God Bless their efforts.

  • Rick

    Good article Daniel, but here on FPM, you, Raymond Ibrahim, Caroline Glick, Jamie Glazov, David Horowitz, and so many others are sending this message, mostly, to people who already understand the problem. How do we educate those that believe the lies that the left and the POTUS are spreading to the general public, claiming that Islam is peaceful and a religion of God? It certainly isn’t taught to our children in many schools and universities, so what mechanism can we use to counter these forces and further the truth?

    This worries me greatly, as my daughter will be attending college this fall and majoring in history. Her goal is to teach High School History and I fear she will be misled by leftist and Islamist instructors who want to further their own agenda rather than teach the historical truth, especially as it pertains to Islam and Mohammad.

    If the truth cannot be spread more effectively than the lies and false history, then we have a very huge problem with which to contend.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      the articles on here go far beyond it, pass the articles around,take the ideas and convey them to other people

      • guest

        There needs to be more of an effort to get these articles into places other than this forum where you’re preaching to the choir. Pretty much anything written by you is accurate, but, because it’s posted here, it’s viewed by fanatical conservatie drek.

        • 11bravo

          Not true – see my post above.
          BTW, what is a fanatical conservative?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Many people get their news from social media these days and the articles are ways of conveying ideas for people to use in discussions

      • http://dennisghurst.com/ Dennis G Hurst

        Exactly Daniel … http://dennisghurst.com/

    • Ellen_L

      Introduce her to web sites, books and organizations that have a better point of view. Check out Hillsdale College on line. They offer free courses on history and economics on line and will lead to others. There are others but Hillsdale is probably the least slanted to some particular view point. And they are slanted to free markets and constitutional governance – even to the point of not accepting government funds.

  • PATRIOT.WW48

    Turn mecca & medina into glass, just for starters

  • 11bravo

    I get the feeling the world knows the truth. Obama is a socialist/Marxist. The IRS did in fact go after innocent Americans. The IRS is in fact destroying the evidence as best it can. Socialism doesn’t work ANYWHERE!
    Islam is evil. There are no moderate pious Muslims. Israel is the victim (able to defend itself) of the Arabs/Muslims/Islam. Islam will never be able to coexist without a major reformation – with western civilized peoples. OJ did it. Robert Blake did it. The democratic party has been going further left since W. Wilson’s presidency. Water is wet. Clinton did inhale. Government does nothing well unless it can operate with command and control – like the military is run – which is totalitarianism. Free markets and free people have lifted billions of suffering humans from a life of destitution. Communism has killed 100 million human beings in the last 100 or-so years.
    It still does not help me understand the current self immolation of civilized man – on himself. Jews are especially adept at this.
    I have the feeling Rachel Maddow to George Clooney to Obama, know these truths as well.
    We need the next leader of the free-world (it may not be an American president at this point) to stand up and point out these self evident truths for the rest to follow. I believe civilized man is yearning for it – where, or who, could this leader be – or come from.

  • Lightbringer

    Daniel, all of your work is well worth reading, but this piece is a particular treat. Outstanding piece of historical background, devastating reply to current Israel-bashers. Thank you for writing this, and yasher koach.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      maybe people can make use of it

  • Richard O. Mann

    Dead on truth. But, the truth does not wash with people who hate Israel and the Jews already. This already has a predestined end to it. It is coming fast. It’s going to be ugly and death will be the order of the day for the whole world. But, it has to be.

  • TNT

    Superb piece. It wipes the floor with the amateurish nonsense put out by the jihadic geriatric Robert Fisk in The Independent (UK) yesterday.

  • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

    All the way with the author till I got to the last line; “Unless Muslims reject that ugly act of ethnic cleansing, their cycle of supremacist violence against Jews and Christians will continue.”

    I’m not on board with that assertion because it presupposes that Muslim’s CAN “reject that [Muhammad's] ugly act of ethnic cleansing” But Muslim’s CANNOT reject Muhammad’s command without rejecting Muhammad and that in essence is rejecting Islam itself. That is because Muhammad is Islam’s “perfect man”, its exemplar of the perfect Muslim. You might as well ask a Christian to reject Jesus or a Jew to reject Moses.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It presupposes only that the burden is on them to do so, not that they will do so

      • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

        It presupposes more than that. Implicit to the presupposition is the consequence; the necessity to reject Islam if Muslim’s are to “reject that ugly act of ethnic cleansing”. Muhammad IS Islam. One cannot exist without the other.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Obviously, but it’s important to put the moral burden on them. Otherwise it’s on us

          • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

            I’m in full agreement with the assertion that the moral burden should be put upon them. That said, it is also important to realize what that moral burden imposes, the necessity to reject their ‘religion’. Islam cannot be ‘reformed’, its theological tenets are immovable.

          • vlparker

            Yup. In order to reject jihad and ethnic cleansing you have to reject mohammad and allah. Then it is no longer islam.

          • YouHateMe

            And that is out of the question for most muslims. They leave the plantation, they get the axe.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That’s fine when preaching to the choir. When talking to people who don’t get it yet, this is how to frame it.

          • YouHateMe

            How do you burden a people who care only for what their master instructs? Submit to islam or die/pay a tax? They are fanatical and extreme. They will not be shamed. That is a western value state. These demonically oppressed people will scoff at such notions and continue with the murders.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No, but their supporters and particularly those wavering can be shown that they have no shame.

  • Jo

    Good article. Too bad you won’t find any of it in most of the press and definitely not on TV. Readers usually try to fill the void and post it in comments, giving links to videos and articles like yours, but they are often being removed for being “hateful”. How come even if you give video evidence they still equate the truth about Islam to blood libel?

  • anneeasthartford

    Folks, just ignore any trolls on this thread.

    • Paddy Xtolpho

      Troll, being anyone whose idea you disagree with?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Baddy, I reject the views of the prophet of Satan called Muhammed.

        Can I count you in too?

  • Remembering JDL

    Don’t look for Muslims to reject the ugly act of ethnic cleansing. In the end it’s all about world wide dominance. Islam must stand alone. Embrace Islam or destruction is your fate.
    Daniel, what the world needs is a solution not more historical evidence behind their intensions. Geographical targets is what Isreal is. They’re right in the middle of all the Islamicists and their close proximity makes for a savory target. The solution would be their destruction and that would take overwhelming force directed not at the bit players (Isis or the Hamas foot soldiers. Although Hamas would need to feel the destruction as well. It needs to be centered at Iran and Saudi Arabia. The destruction of those major sponsors would be for the sake of morality. Sure there would still be sporadic episodes of terrorism here and there. But the major brand of terrorism would be dealt a devastating blow. Isreal isn’t capable of that achievement, only the US can. With our current and future leadership that doesn’t look like that will ever happen

  • truebearing

    It is a matter of record that H itler hated Jews. The N azis may have needed a scapegoat for their loss in WWI, but anti-semitism pre-dates the war. Even after the N azis were firmly in control and winning battle after battle, they still persisted in their sick goal of killing all of the Jews. They spread that hatred throughout the Middle East in nations like Iraq and Syria, where the Baathist Party was based on N azism, or in Iran, which was called Persia until the N azis convinced them to change their name to Iran, which incidentally, means “aryan.”

  • YouHateMe

    I could boil the article down a bit further to it’s base: Satan hates God’s chosen and will not stop at destroying them.

  • Paddy Xtolpho

    Israel is ALWAYS the victim… The West is tired of it. We’ve outgrown the Jewish passive-aggressive narcissism. The assumption of magic knowledge, magic perception, magic moral justification, and magic powers to defend the country – fiction! People now laugh at it all like a bad joke heard too many times.

    “Hamas isn’t shooting rockets at the Jews because of persecution, isolation or occupation.” However could you tell, with the persecution, isolation and occupation going on? Touted Jewish intelligence seems to fail at the simplest puzzle, while manufacturing complex labyrinthine matrices of narrative lies to defend devastating cruelty.

    The UN has spoken. Stephen Hawking boycotts you. The Methodists and Presbyterians sell off their shares. The US government isn’t at your backs anymore, and you know it.

    Two-state, now, or let Darwin and Islam handle Israel’s resolution.

    • YouHateMe

      God will recompense. You will witness that unless you change. Israel is not going anywhere and will survive. It is the muslim filth you will see go down in flames. Bank it.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      We can tell because Muslim violence against Christians, Jews and other minorities long predates the 20th century.

      I’m sorry that you insist on defending theocracy and colonialism.

    • UCSPanther

      Happy eternal nakba, schmuck.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Baddy, In case you haven’t heard, Islam is at War with the entire World..

      Islam kills Bahais, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and the wrong kind of Muslim.

      The 8 year Iraq/Iran war proves you wrong.
      9/11 proves you wrong.
      London’s 7/7/05 transport bombing proves you wrong.
      The bombing of Pan Am 103 proves you wrong.
      The Mumbai India massacre proves you wrong.
      The Nairobi Kenya mall massacre proves you wrong.
      The Muslim vs Hindu riots in India prove you wrong.
      The murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt prove you wrong.
      The bombing of churches in Pakistan prove you wrong.
      The bombing of churches in Nigeria prove you wrong.
      The kidnapping of 300 girls in Nigeria by Boko Haram prove you wrong.
      The beheading of Lee Ribgy in London proves you wrong.
      The Muslim rape gangs in the UK prove you wrong.
      The Somali pirates prove you wrong.
      The execution of gay teens in Fascist Iran prove you wrong.
      The stoning to death of Muslim girls by their families over “family honor” prove you wrong.

      Happy Eternal Nakba Baddy!

  • 95Theses

    Ignorance of history is the greatest ally of Islamic terror.

    I have found that the ignorance of history is the greatest ally of a whole slew of problems that plague America. The fantastic lie of an unchallenged historical revisionism that liberals have gotten away with in portraying themselves as champions of civil rights; the irresponsible deception which only liberals have benefitted from by demonizing the moral virtues of capitalism through class warfare; misleading through mendacity in public schools and institutes of higher education by suppressing via intimidation and censorship Conservative worldviews (something which David Horowitz has devoted considerable energy to – academic freedom). All of which are enabled to thrive anywhere and anytime that a public is either ignorant of history through sloth, or are deliberately kept ignorant as a matter of strategy. Though I am inclined to believe that willful ignorance is the worst kind of all.

    First-rate article, Daniel.

    • yohni9

      Surely it is delusional to think that all of this deception is willful, its a deliberate strategy permitted by G-d upon a people who turn away from him. Here in the USA, its marxist progressive socialism unvarnished. This country, along with all of the nations are on a collision course with reality. The Islamic terrorists are practicing genocide as they did from the beginning as you say. The fact remains that the Christian nations, even America which has sheltered the Jews, have turned back to idolatry, serving what our hands have made. The nature of Islam is barbaric, it is a caricature of truth and serves a false god. They will be harshly judged unless they turn away from this false god. Most will not. The west has sold its birthright as a Christian people and our Jewish people need to turn back to the G-d who gave us life as well. All must turn and seek mercy from the One G-d, the G-d of Israel. This is the deception and the evil in western society is to explained by the fact that Christians and Jews have fallen from the faith they once know. Thank G-d there always remains a small remnant. This is our protection against these barbarians. We await Messiah’s coming!

      • 95Theses

        I am compelled to answer you from my Reformed perspective (though I am not amillennial in my eschatology). I absolutely agree with you that God has always kept for Himself – preserved if you will – a remnant, which constitute the Elect.

        I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3. “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4. But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5. So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
        7. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking.
        The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8. as it is written,
        “God gave them a spirit of stupor,
        eyes that would not see
        and ears that would not hear,
        down to this very day.”
        (Isaiah 29:10)

        9. And David says,
        “Let their table become a snare and a trap,
        a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
        10. let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,

        and bend their backs forever.”
        (Psalm 69:22-23)
        http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+11%3A5/

        And again:

        And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again
        take root downward and bear fruit upward. 32. For out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant, and out of Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
        http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+37%3A31/

        And still again:

        22. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being
        would be saved. But for the sake of the elect /strong> those days will be cut short.

        Blessings to you.

        • yohni9

          Today, as in the time of Shaul, also called Paul, there is a remnant saved by grace, just as you quote from Ro. 11. That remnant among the Jewish people are those who know Messiah and await his Kingdom. We are now a couple of hundred thousand worldwide. We are laboring together with those Christians who know G-d in the harvest worldwide. Shalom Aliechem 95Theses!

          • 95Theses

            I’m with you!
            And thank you for one of the best compliments I’ve received while commenting on Disqus. Blessings.

      • 95Theses

        And no disrespect intended by the inclusion of the vowel.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      willful ignorance is its own ideology

    • truebearing

      Well said.

      Charles Baudelaire once said that “ignorance is the worst sin.” The interesting thing about the word “ignorance” today is that we mis-pronounce it and therefore remove the true meaning of the word. We’ve changed the meaning from ‘to ignore” to “not know any better.” That is a 180 degree switch. Is that a collective subconcious attempt to avoid right action? Perhaps the warping of ignorance was the first politically correct assault on meaning.

      • 95Theses

        I’m okay with words changing over time – so long as the intent isn’t to corrupt the meaning, which is the fatal flaw of Post-Modernism. Even words like precarious once meant, “to pray”. But I take your meaning, so to speak.

  • wally

    Allah is a dirty shitter and MoHAMmed is his catamite.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Absolutely right. Daniel Greenfield has told the truth.

  • Americana

    Obviously, this fella ‘retired’ doesn’t know very much about the Quakers if this is his analysis… But, let the conspiracies fly! Obviously, they’re more fun to play around with than the actual realities that this is what George Soros believes based on his life experiences.

  • Smellfungus

    And Israel is always accused of ethnic cleansing…. I wish they would.

  • sammy13

    I cannot dispute the article. However, it would be best to explain that the Koran (according to many sites) was not written down in any particular. Additionally, their Prophet early on got along with Jews and Christians, referring to them as the keepers of the word. Or something like that. He did conquer/organize many Arab nations and bring them under one God (same as the biblical God?). Later, to organize the holdouts, he organized a massive army, and converted by the sword, clear to Malaysia, or thereabouts. And his benevolence towards Jews and Christians did an about face. It also happened that his forces/followers in Northern Africa went North into Spain and beyond (Moorish architecture). Others went to the continent, the underbelly of Russia, etc.

    The caliphate has been declared. Every Muslim’s dream if I understand that correctly. And Islam continues to spread today, sometimes through a particular countries generous immigration policies to escape persecution, or to attract highly educated persons, etc. And sometimes by the sword. Looking at what is happening in Europe today, those countries who welcomed in the Muslims with open arms are now seeing sharia making inroads. A burning ember.

    • montana83

      Understand the Theory of Abrogation. Oh, never mind.

  • Drakken

    That is your problem right there, you cannot or you refuse to discern between right and wrong and instead rely on others to make those determinations for you.

    • Americana

      Boy, do you ever twist and torque someone’s comments to make them fit your worldview! What my above comment states is that I ALWAYS evaluate someone as an individual. No one gets a pass by me simply because they’ve got X-affiliation in their politics or any other sphere. That doesn’t say anything remotely similar to what your interpretation is.

      • Drakken

        Girl, I’m not the one trying to put square pegs into round holes in the firm belief that they will fit, like you are doing darling.

  • steves5687

    Muslims killing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Boko Haram Muslims killing, raping and kidnapping little girls in Nigeria, al Qaeda killing women and children, Taliban slaughtering anyone they see. 200,000 Muslims killed in Syria by Muslims, many by chemical weapons or tortured. Christians being murdered and churches destroyed all over the Muslim world. Heads being lopped off in Iraq by Muslims who promise to take over the world. — and the Jew Hating hypocrites (like today’s radical extremist Democrats lead by Obama) holding Israel to a ridiculous double standard that no one else on earth is held to finally wake up only to protest and condemn one single nation — Israel a Jewish state, which dares to fight back against Muslim terror.

    You know that it’s Jew Hate and anti semitism when they attack the Jews for the crime of self defense while ignoring Muslim atrocities all over the world.

  • David McArthur

    So we have a Zionist and capitalist website, is it any surprise everything on it is a rant against Muslims and socialism.

    • American Patriot

      So you are an Islamist sympathizer and a Communist troll. Is it any surprise that you are part of the international unholy alliance of Radical Islam, Communism and Baathism?

    • 95Theses

      So go back to the bottomless pit, lost-soul troll

  • gailimann

    my classmate’s half-sister makes $73 an hour on the
    computer . She has been out of work for seven months but last month her check
    was $19134 just working on the computer for a few hours. navigate to this web-site
    C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • Yasir

    Do not bracket yourself with Christians to make your voice louder. Jews are the filth of land and need a Hitler’s treatment before their final eradication from Earth on the hands of Muslims.

    • American Patriot

      Hamas and the other Islamists are the real filth of land. Islamists want global totalitarianism and the world will not let them impose their beloved nightmare. Happy Eternal Nakba!

    • 95Theses

      FPM moderator … are you seeing this?

  • williamhcrump

    my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $69 /hour on the laptop . She has
    been laid off for 9 months but last month her pay check was $13409 just working
    on the laptop for a few hours. see this here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • montana83

    David,
    Socialist parties are in bed with Muslims in all Western countries. You must ask yourself why and comes to grips with that.
    You must also know that the Nationalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei ( The National Socialist German Workers Party) was the party of Reichsfuehrer Hitler. Read “The Vampire Economy” by Gunter Reimann to see there was ZERO difference between Communism and the Nazis.
    Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. If you are still a socialist after reading these two books I would be surprised.

  • Bill James

    Some things never change:

    -http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html
    1009 AD: Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, orders the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed.

    -3/15/12 arabianbusiness.com: The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh
    Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, recently announced that it is “necessary to destroy
    all the churches of the region.“ He is also the head of the Supreme Council of Ulema (Islamic scholars) and of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing of Fatwas for all Sunnis. Sunnis are 85% of the world’s Muslims.
    But never forget this: ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE AND TOLERANCE!!!

  • Bill James

    On 9/11 Americans liked Muslims. 13 years later it’s a very different picture:
    -11/11 Pew Research poll showed that only 17% of Americans didn’t like Muslims immediately after 9/11.

    -7/16/14 Pew Research poll: 40% of Americans don’t like Muslims.

    The most plausible explanation for the plummeting reputation of Muslims is the Internet. It is there that we learn of the constant strife that exists wherever Muslims live in significant numbers: civil disorder, riots, constant demands that
    the natives change their culture to accommodate Muslims, honor killing, female
    genital mutilation, murder, terrorism — other than shish kabob their influence
    is almost all bad. In 1990 the world was almost totally ignorant of what Muslims were like.

    In 1990 Muslims felt confident enough to brag to the world that they would only follow Sharia law — “Screw the laws of unbelievers!” They declared:

    -On 5 August 1990, 45 foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights INASMUCH AS THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SHARIA, OR QURANIC LAW. Wikipedia

    But in 1990 how would the world learn of the Muslim plan to subordinate all laws to Sharia? There were only 3 million Internet users then. http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=335

    Eight years later the Muslims were forced to go underground with their ambitions:
    -In June 2008, the OIC conducted a formal revision of its charter. The revised charter set out to promote human rights, fundamental freedoms, and good governance in all member states. The revisions also removed any mention of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Within the revised charter, the OIC has chosen to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law. Wikipedia

    What made them go underground? The Internet. It’s use exploded from 1990 to the present:
    http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm

    -In 1995 there were 16 million Internet users worldwide.

    -On 9/11 there were half a billion.

    -Today there are over 2.8 billion.

    -78% of Americans are Internet users.

    -Only 4% of Middle Easterners are Internet users.

    11/21/08 Zogby poll: The web is the most trusted news medium in America — over TV and print combined.

    Muslims watch the polls closely now, and they can’t be happy about what they see. They’re learning that the more kafir users there are in the world the more of us don’t want Muslims anywhere near us. They’re learning that the real problem isn’t a Palestinian homeland on Israeli land, it’s the Muslim problem lusting for all the land on earth.

  • Inspire

    not a well written article