It’s Not the ‘Occupation’ —- It’s Islam

ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS-CONFLICT-KIDNAPPINGThe bodies of three murdered Israeli teenagers, 16-year-old Naftali who liked to play basketball, 16-year-old Gilad who had just finished a scuba diving course and 19-year-old Eyal with his guitar, will be met by the same ghastly parade of pallbearers who accompany every victim of terrorism.

The reporters will scribble down something about “settlements” and the “Cycle of Violence.” The diplomats will urge restraint and remind everyone that the only solution can be found through negotiations with the terrorists. And the pundits will put it all into perspective burying them under layers of words and weighting their coffins down with stones of forgetfulness.

But all the empty words about the “Occupation” and the “Cycle of Violence,” the invocation of a peaceful solution that is always about to arrive, but never does, and the maps that cede more territory to terrorists are addressing a problem that doesn’t exist.

It’s not about physical territory. It’s about spiritual territory. It’s not about nationalism. It’s about Islamism.

It’s not about the “Occupation.” It’s about Islam.

“I raised my children on the knees of the [Islamic] religion, they are religious guys, honest and clean-handed, and their goal is to bring the victory of Islam,” the mother of one of the Hamas killers said.

Not a Palestinian nation. Not a Two State Solution. Not forty percent of this and sixty percent of that.

The victory of Islam.

Naftali, Gilad and Eyal were murdered for the same reason that countless people have been killed in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan.

Not to mention the United Kingdom and the United States.

They were murdered in the name of a religious war that has been going on for over a thousand years. Muslims did not suddenly begin killing Jews in 1948 or 1929. They did not begin killing Christians over American foreign policy or the oil business.

Muslims did not begin killing Jews and Christians over foreign policy. They began persecuting and killing their Christian and Jewish neighbors because their religion told them to.

Hamas, the terror group that murdered the three teens, is not a Palestinian nationalist organization, though it occasionally plays the part. Its charter begins with Allah and ends with Allah. Article Five of its charter states that the group extends to “wherever on earth there are Muslims, who adopt Islam as their way of life.”

Its goal is to create an Islamic state. Everything else is secondary.

The Hamas charter describes it as part of the worldwide “Muslim Brotherhood Movement.” Brotherhood terrorists kill Jews in Israel for the same reason that they kill Shiites in Syria or Christian Copts in Egypt.

Article Seven of the Hamas charter concludes with the infamous Islamic Hadith which proclaims that the Muslim end times will come only when “Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

Aside from the obvious genocidal bigotry, this is a quote from a text that is over a thousand years old. Its author was not preaching the mass murder of Jews because of settlements in the West Bank. At the time Muslims had subjugated and ruled over the Jewish population of the Middle East. The Jews were no threat to them. The idea of a Jewish army was as ridiculous as traveling to the moon.

The hatred that leaks out of that text has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Islam.

The insistence on a foreign policy explanation for Muslim anti-Semitism is as ahistorical as claiming that Hitler only hated Jews because of the Yom Kippur War. Except that at least both of these events took place in the twentieth century. Islam has been hating and persecuting Jews for over 1300 years before the rebirth of the modern State of Israel.

There are two ways of looking at the worldwide plague of Muslim terrorism. One is to treat every Islamic conflict with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and a dozen other religions as being due to some local political grievance of recent vintage. The other is to understand them as local expressions of a historical religious war and the continuation of the wave of conquests that made Islam into a worldwide religion.

We can be like the six blind men feeling around the Islamic elephant and assuming that its trunk and tusks are entirely separate phenomena. Or we can open our eyes and see the elephant in the room.

Hamas’ charter begins with the Koran’s praise for Muslims “as the best people” and damns Christians and Jews to be “smitten with abasement” for having “incurred the wrath of Allah.”

This is not a statement of Palestinian nationalism. It’s Islamic supremacism.

There is nothing negotiable about supremacism. Supremacism cannot be appeased. Supremacism does not want a piece of the pie. It wants the whole pie. The allies learned that the hard way with Hitler. So did the countless kingdoms that attempted to live in peace with the armies of the Mohammedan conquerors.

If Israel had never existed, Hamas would still exist, just as the other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood exist elsewhere throughout the Middle East. Even if Zionism did not exist, the Muslim Brotherhood would persecute the Jews under its control, just like the Christians in Egypt and Syria.

If Netanyahu, Sharon, Begin and a thousand other Israeli villains of the apologists of Islam had never been born, the followers of Mohammed would have gone on killing Jews just as they had for over a thousand years.

If the blue and white had never waved over Jerusalem, if Jews had remained as downtrodden and persecuted in the lands of Islam as the Copts and the Zoroastrians, Naftali, Gilad and Eyal would still have been murdered by two killers who were raised by their mothers to usher in “the victory of Islam.”

There is no political solution to a supremacist conflict. There is no amount of withdrawals that can make bigotry go away. If a thousand years of Jewish humiliation and persecution did not satisfy the ancestors of the murderers of those three teenagers, how will handing over part of Jerusalem do the job?

Solutions begin with truth. The truth is that Islamic violence against Jews is not recent or exceptional. The murder of Jews by Muslims, whether in Israel or Belgium, is not any different than the Muslim butchery of Christians. Hindus, Buddhists and even minority Muslim splinter faiths. These conflicts cannot be resolved through appeasement. They can only be addressed through resistance.

It is not the victims of a thousand year old supremacist campaign who need to appease their conquerors. It is the conquerors who must come to terms with the horrors that they have inflicted through a campaign of colonialism and ethnic cleansing and seek the forgiveness of their victims.

There can be no peace until Muslims understand that the Mohammedan conquests were a genocidal atrocity that destroyed entire peoples and cultures. Only then can they honestly condemn ISIS for trying to repeat those atrocities. And only then will they be able to live in peace with the rest of the world.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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

  • Douglas J. Bender

    Islam will never be at peace with the non-Muslim world until it has conquered the non-Muslim world. Then the non-Muslim world can live in dhimmitude or be exterminated.

    • Judahlevi

      You are right. The only way Islam will ever get past this is to mature into a true world religion and recognize religious freedom. Give people the freedom to choose the worldview they desire, not the idea of “convert or die.”

      Right now, it is almost more of a ‘cult’ than a religion.

      • Jack Diamond

        You premises are all wrong. Islam cannot “mature” into something it is not. Islam means submission. A Muslim is a Slave of Allah. Where do you get the idea there is freedom involved? Don’t you know that Allah has rights too that supersede yours? The first wars in Islam after Muhammad were to force people back into Islam who attempted to leave..by killing the “traitors” by the tens of thousands. Without convert die or live as subjugated inferiors paying the State the punishment tax(es), there would have been no “Islamic world” as we unfortunately know it.

        • Americana

          If a Muslim arises who convinces other Muslims that Allah most appreciates those who come to him willingly then the seed of a Muslim reformation will have been planted.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Once again, I appreciate your idealism. But the Muslim you speak of would be killed …

          • Americana

            Islam is a human invention and it will fall to the same human desires and motivations that subvert and change other human inventions. The trajectory of Judaism was effectively altered forever by the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth. The very same thing will happen to Islam. It’s merely a matter of time.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I’m not sure if you’re calling Christianity an “altered Judaism” or reformed Judaism here. Are you saying that Islam needs a Jesus?

          • Americana

            Jason, I’m not at all thinking Judaism was reformed per se by Jesus. As for what I think would happen if someone came along who was Muslim but whose core values were like those of Jesus, it should be obvious I think it would serve as the catalyst for an Islamic reformation. After all, Jesus somehow superseded his Judaic faith that was a perfectly good, acceptable faith seen from the vantage point of his time. He had his reasons. There’s no reason that same emotional lightning bolt can’t strike within Islam.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Danny Boy, where is your list of Irgun terrorist attacks – compared to Islamofascist attacks on people all over the world.

            Get to work yob.

          • Americana

            As I said, you didn’t say you wanted me to go ahead and post a link.

            Here’s a list that goes farther back in time:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L
            _____________________________________________________

            Here’s a rather weird list from 1944-1948 that includes what legal events transpired around the terrorists:

            http://iamthewitness.com/doc/B

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            9/11 Troofer website? Not Danny Yobs UN website?

            What is the Jihad coming to?

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I know Daniel Pipes hopes that a more moderate reformed Islam will emerge.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The trajectory of Judaism wasn’t altered. Instead a new religion was born. New religions have been born out of Islam, but they remain marginal because of its violence.

          • jackdiamond

            Let’s just ignore 1400 years of history and put our hopes on a fata morgana. The real Muslim reformation is the salafism you’ve been seeing. I don’t think we have time to wait for your wistful “seeds” to germinate.

          • Americana

            We don’t have to ignore 1,400 years of history. We simply have to react in the most historically appropriate way.

            Using nuclear bombs isn’t called for despite lots of people on here saying we should nuke them out of existence.

          • Webb

            She’s a lying conniving old crunt, Jack. Don’t believe her. Nukes are definitely called for because it’s time to nuke them out of existence. Nothing else can be done.

          • Americana

            Your usual webbinaire, short, to the point, tactically dumb as a box of rocks.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            A box of rocks hammered out from the kabbah?

          • Americana

            If you get into Mecca and manage to hammer out some rocks form the Kabb’ah, you’ve got more luck than sense.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            A Hellfire missile targeted on the Kabba would simplify the task.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Can an Infidel enter Apartheid Mecca?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Fascist Iran needs to be nuked out of existence.

            Especially with its Nuremburg style fascist rallies that call for Death to America and Israel.

            Or at least the flag of Fascist Iran should be painted on the street of Times Square so people can walk on it.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Ignore those who yell “nuke ‘em.” You and Daniel were having a civil and detailed discussion.

          • jackdiamond

            and the most historically appropriate way would not be to put our hopes in your reformation and to take Muslims at their word about their beliefs and goals.

          • Americana

            I take those Muslims engaged in jihad at their word. I don’t throw all the other Muslims around the world in the same dysfunctional sphere as the jihadists. Islam has flaws which were designed to accomplish specific social and sociological goals. As long as Muslims are not expressing those sociological goals, they are not in the same category as the jihadists.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Cowardly Danny Boy, where oh where is your list of Irgun terrorist attacks that dwarf the number of Islamofascist terrorist attacks on people all over the world?

            Google got your forked tongue?

          • Americana

            As I said, you didn’t say you wanted me to go ahead and post a link.

            Here’s a list that goes farther back in time:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
            _____________________________________________________

            Here’s a rather weird list from 1944-1948 that includes what legal events transpired around the terrorists:

            http://iamthewitness.com/doc/Bunche.Report.on.Zionist.Terrorism.in.the.Near.East.htm

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            iamthewitness is a 9/11 Troofer website.

            Thanks!

            BTW, as a test of your honesty and sanity, who hijacked 4 passenger planes on 9/11/01 and lied to the passengers that if they didn’t resist they would be safe – and flew the hijacked planes into buildings???

          • Jack Diamond

            Jihad does not have to mean the sword, though physical jihad is the highest form. It can be waged by the tongue (or media), by wealth, by migration and colonization, or just by “smiling in your face and hating you in our hearts.” How do you know they do not have those “sociological goals”? Do you seriously think a good Muslim does not believe in the commands of Islam? Or maybe you profess ignorance of those commands. Show me the Muslims who renounce such things as the implementing of Allah’s laws. There is not even a serious challenge to jihadist theology from them, for good reason. In what way is Islamic law compatible with free societies or human rights as we know them? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the UN supposedly represents the Muslim world, 56 countries. They favor Shari’a law for Muslim countries. They endorse the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights which effectively renounces the UNDHR and recognizes “human rights” for Muslims only when they do not contravene Shari’a. These are orthodox Muslims, not “extremists”, and the supposed responsible leaders of the Muslims. Oh, and they also favor imposing Islamic blasphemy laws on the free world, campaigning to criminalize free speech about Islam as a hate crime. How are their goals any different than those of the jihadists, ultimately? The differences are merely tactical. The only Muslims who fit your category are the barely practicing Muslims or the fewer and fewer who are ignorant of what their religion really teaches.

          • Keith

            You continue to hope for that at the same time if you look out of your window you might see some flying pigs. More likely I would think

          • Americana

            Perhaps we should invent flying pigs and send them over the borders to convince the Muslims it’s really time to make peace, not war.

          • Keith

            Good one

          • Americana

            It would make for a very effective sh*tstorm if we prepared them w/the proper diet beforehand.

      • BagLady

        On the head, a cult. Not all Muslims, I hasten to add, but the hordes of uneducated poor young men of the Middle East facing a bleak future. There are quite a few European wannabe Jihadis too, growing up in European towns but attending the mosque on Friday, listening to the rantings of some ‘imam’ on government benefits.

        It will all pass, one way or another. We are not about to face a future under Sharia Law. To even suggest such a thing would be stupid.

        “Cycle of Violence,” the invocation of a peaceful solution that is always about to arrive, but never does”

        … because no-one wants to give an inch and so the ‘cycle of violence’ goes on. What ‘operation’ does Netanyahu — who you surprisingly describe as an Islamic apologist — have in store this time round? How many Palestinians will pay for this terrible murder?

        Catch the actual culprits and try them. Punishing the entire population can bring nothing but more bloodshed and tears all round.

        • Americana

          Bag Lady, you’ve hit the nail on the head in this post. I hope the Israelis feel they’ve captured the right Palestinians and have sufficient proof to try them. I wish the car hadn’t been burned out but I’m sure their forensic techs will go over it in great detail and if there’s anything to be found, they’ll find it.

          • Webb

            I don’t know, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki really got the Japs to focusing on a solution in a hurry.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Actually the motive force for Islamist groups has been from the middle and upper classes.

          Lots of second and third sons. Lots of wealthy elites who go to London and New York and come home dissatisfied and looking to do something more.

          It will all pass, one way or another.

          Unless it doesn’t. The Iraqis though Al Qaeda would pass. The Roman Empire thought Islam would pass.

          • Madame_deFarge

            Isn’t it always like that? Rich man’s war, poor man’s battle.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The poor rarely have the time for all this stuff. If you work day in and day out, you don’t have time for a lot of Koran readings.

      • Habbgun

        Religions don’t mature.They are a form of revelation. Judaism did not become a humane religion it always was. Abraham was known for kindness. Allah for war. Nothing will change that. If something can the whole basis for the religion is false. It is not eternal.

        • Americana

          In that case, if Judaism arose from kind and humane behavior, how is it that Abraham nearly sacrificed his son Isaac to God but then claimed he’d been given a revelation that allowed him to set aside the knife? (Mighty convenient revelation, I’d say!) Abraham was a proto-Jew and Judaism as a faith was many hundreds of years in the future. Some would say his revelation was his own heart speaking to him saying, “Don’t do this.” If he’d gone ahead and sacrificed his son, what would have happened w/the sacrificial practices in Judaism? I’d say there were revelations along those lines throughout the region because of the terrible practices of the time. Humanity will win out over time.

          From a Jewish history website: http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm

          Isaac was the subject of the tenth and most difficult test of Abraham’s faith: G-d commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering. (Gen 22). This test is known in Jewish tradition as the Akeidah (the Binding, a reference to the fact that Isaac was bound on the altar).

          But this test is also an extraordinary demonstration of Isaac’s own faith, because according to Jewish tradition, Isaac knew that he was to be sacrificed, yet he did not resist, and was united with his father in dedication.

          At the last moment, G-d sent an angel to stop the sacrifice. It is interesting to note that child sacrifice was a common practice in the region at the time. Thus, to people of the time, the surprising thing about this story is not the fact that G-d asked Abraham to sacrifice his child, but that G-d stopped him!

          Judaism uses this story as evidence that G-d abhors human sacrifice. In fact, I have seen some sources indicating that Abraham failed this test of faith because he did not refuse to sacrifice his son! Judaism has always strongly opposed the practice of human sacrifice, commonplace in many other cultures at that time and place.

          • Habbgun

            I truly believe you are on the autistic spectrum … maybe something such as aspergers. I do not wish to have any interaction because I do not believe it can be fruitful. I will not insult you. I will simply ask that we ignore each other.

          • Americana

            That’s fine by me, Mr. Aspergers. I don’t wish to have any interaction w/you because I consider you to be someone who cheats his way out of discussions by concocting total falsehoods to denigrate his opponents. It’s a shame you’re so dishonest but c’est la vie in FPM land. I won’t reply to you unless you state something so outrageous I can’t help myself.

          • SCRE W SOCIALISM

            Danny Boy cried
            “I consider you to be someone who cheats his way out of discussions by concocting total falsehoods to denigrate his opponents.”

            We’re STILL waiting for you to follow through:

            “Do I need to again post the official United Nations list of the hundreds
            of Jewish terrorist targets and the assassinations of British soldiers
            and diplomats undertaken by the Irgun before the British conceded?”

            What’s taking you so long? Need help from the UN Human Rights Council or the national Socialist Workers Party?

          • Americana

            Well you didn’t ask me to post those Jewish terrorist attacks again so I didn’t. Of course, I’ll oblige you now that I know you want to read through the hundreds of attacks.

            Here’s the list:

            http://iamthewitness.com/doc/Bunche.Report.on.Zionist.Terrorism.in.the.Near.East.htm

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            That’s your list? From a 9/11 Troofer website?

            LOL!

            Where is Danny Yobs list from the UN – NOT from some 9/11 Troofer website.

            Your link should be from domain “un.org”.

            Try again Troofer wh ore of Islamofascism.

          • Habbgun

            Help yourself. Disprove my point.

          • hiernonymous

            Nobody owes a defense of their character to you or any of the reason-challenged who rely on character assassination to compensate for defects in their ability to make an argument.

            When I see such nonsense directed my way, I know that my opponent is desperate, but not serious.

          • Habbgun

            You may think that. I have never said that to anybody here but this one. It is what I believe based on how she writes and responds. If you think grinding people is an argument go ahead and do it. That is why they call it trolling.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Nobody owes a defense of their character to you or any of the reason-challenged who rely on character assassination

            Yet you keep demanding that other people defend their character from your personal attacks…

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your ludicrous posts assassinate your own character.

          • hiernonymous

            Case in point. Well done!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It still won’t be at peace. It will go on fighting itself.

  • guest

    How is it that a religion can get so fouled up
    and end up with what’s going on here?

    You almost get the idea that it has something
    to do with religion itself.

    • daodao

      Religions that believe that they are the only true way and that only their believers can achieve salvation inevitably behave in this way. Exactly the same things that Greenfield has said about Islam apply to Christianity. In terms of historical fact, Christians have been responsible for the deaths of far more Jews than have Muslims. Hitler was the greatest Crusader in history.

      • Judahlevi

        This is another poor moral equivalency argument. With Christianity, it ‘matured’ centuries ago and gave up on the idea that people should be converted by force. Islam, on the other hand, is making this argument today – in the real world. There is no comparison.

        As for Hitler, the only G-d he believed in was himself. He was not a “crusader”, he was a megalomaniac bent on world domination and lebensraum. Christianity, as I understand it, does not teach that one should murder Jews. Islam, on the other hand again, does and continues to do so today.

        I would take Christians as neighbors any day versus Muslims.

        • mollysdad

          This is absolutely correct. I say this as a Christian.

          Islam is the only religion in the world which has an open-ended precept that the Muslims must wage war on all the world in order to subjugate it under the rule of Islam.

          Here comes the surprise. Judaism and Christianity share one and the same precept of holy war (milkhemet mitzvah) against Amalek, and it was this which validated Pope Urban II’s call for the First Crusade. Unfortunately, the crusaders never learned the lesson that Christians can properly wage holy war only in alliance – or at least in sympathy – with the Jews. On the contrary, they were hostile to Jews, and with tragic consequences.

          The halakhah declared by the Beit Din includes three mitzvot concerning the existential enemy of the people of God. As far as Christianity is concerned, they are binding on Jews (and persuasive for the rest of us) because Jesus commanded his fellow Jews to do and observe whatever the Beit Din tells them to do.

          Milkhemet mitzvah is emphatically not a war to convert the world. It is waged only at the exterminationist enemies of the people of God and for the purpose of their utter destruction. An example of recent implementation is the execution of Adolf Eichmann.

          • Judahlevi

            Milkhemet mitzvah is a defensive war rather than a discretionary one. I am not sure what the Christian view of this “commanded” war is, but we would be happy to get all of the help we can.

          • mollysdad

            The Christian view of milkhemet mitzvah isn’t different from the Jewish, as Jesus confirmed the entire Law but made no comment on the mitzvot concerning warfare.

            I think you will find that milkhemet mitzvah comes in two versions. One is a war for the defense of Israel, and it is a temporal war to be waged according to the international law concerning armed conflict.

            The second version is a holy war to execute the herem of destruction upon Amalek. Who Amalek is must preferably be determined judicially, for Amalek is defined in terms of his characteristic crime of genocide where the victim group is either the Jews or the Christians (because the Christians maintain the memory of the name of Israel – see Psalm 83).

            He can also be identified in any infidel who wages war against Christians or Jews and declares it to be holy. For in the eyes of God it then is holy, and He fights on that basis.(Exodus 17).

      • johnlac

        Well, for one thing many Christians who didn’t obey Hitler, like Bonhoeffer, were killed. Many Nazis wanted to eradicate Christianity in favor of Nazism. Secondly, there aren’t now Christians killing Jews. Muslims are killing Jews. If there were groups of Christians persecuting Jews, like might be happening in Ukraine, they should be vilified like the Islamists. In short, no reasonable Christian persecutes Jews.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        … did apply to Christianity. The failures of Christianity are well known facts of history. Today’s problem is Islam.

        I have no problem with a review of Christian history (without the absurd exaggerations). Modern Christians have moderated; Islam has gone in the opposite direction and it’s sinking fast.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        He was a crusader, yes. But he didn’t crusade for Christ, or the Church. His crusade was on the world, in favor of himself, and his own power …

    • Judahlevi

      The ‘religion’ is a huge part of the problem.

    • anonymous

      Mohammed was possessed by Satan and his teachings are demonic worship..

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s power at work here. Religion is just a tool. Just like social justice is a tool for power in the tyrannies of the left.

    • liz

      It has a lot to do with religion, but some religions are more fouled up than others – namely Islam.

  • Judahlevi

    Part of this maturation process by Islam and Muslims needs to include a recognition of freedom of thought (which includes freedom of religion). This is a universal human right which is not being respected in Muslim countries. This must change.

    Muslims are on the path to war. They need to wake up, because if they don’t, war will come and they will lose – just as the anti-Semite Hitler lost. It will be that devastating.

    • Mohammed Waza Asswad

      “…Part of this maturation process by Islam and Muslims needs to include a
      recognition of freedom of thought (which includes freedom of religion)….”

      Yes, but…

      The most cunning of them recognise they cannot allow freedom of religion – because that would spell the death knell of islam itself. Who in their right mind , havig been given a free choice – would willingly choose islam? (nb. I said ‘right mind’ – not so called ‘reverts’ afflicted by defective mental processes which allow them to deny the obvious to themselves.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        They can’t even allow freedom of religion because Islam would collapse into schisms. They only maintain control over Islamic orthodoxy through brutal terror.

        • Americana

          This remark is a bit off target don’t you think considering Islam is already shattered into a few sects?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I think Daniel would argue that it would break into more sects.

            Islam is shattered by sects, but both sects have the same goal. It’s just that each sect wants to be in the lead …

          • Americana

            Yes, Wolf, I see that. But that’s also why the Caliphate is a failure even before it’s hatched. Have you read ANYWHERE that all the other jihadi groups are piling on all enthused about al Baghdadi’s representative having declared the Caliphate? Have you read anywhere that they’re enthused thal Baghdadi has been declared Caliph just because he and his men got to a certain geographic point first? I sure haven’t. Thank god for selfishness and self-aggrandizement because these are what will sink these guys, in the short term as well as the long term.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Caliphate is always bound to be a failure. Totalitarian systems don’t last. But they can still destroy entire cultures and civilizations along the way. As Islam has before.

          • BagLady

            Only if you have politically correct ‘humanists’ paving their way; seeing their suffering and inner soul. Not their fault, move over, make room, open your doors say hello and welcome new neighbour. Just always remind him whose culture this is. Whose country this is. Whose laws must be followed.

            I live in the Third World and those are the rules. Why don’t you impose them in the West instead of pussyfooting around the ‘race’ laws?

            You are not in danger, you just think you are. Propaganda is getting you all worked up, like the boogeyman’s coming to get you. Shame on you Mr Greenfield for spooking your readers.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Because the Third World believes in itself. The West doesn’t.

            That is why Islam overran the remnants of the Roman Empire the first time around.

          • Americana

            No, the Muslims overran the remnants of the Roman Empire because those were remnants and they organized no large-scale, cohesive defense of a very permeable border.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Actually it was because those remnants were constantly fighting among themselves and culturally degenerate.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Thank God for the Crusades, which were a reaction to the destruction of the “remnants” …

            … of course, the sacking of Constantinople didn’t help things …

          • mozart

            Keep the BAG on your head at ALL times, lady. You are a scion for Pislam. Mr. Greenfield is eons and mountains above you in intellect, insight and courage. You were outed as a serious anti-Semite on other sites and in your comments on various articles on sites that work to prevent another genocide, especially against the Jewish people. No one should engage you on any discussion since you essentially disqualified yourself from non-violent humanity.

          • Webb

            Exactly. Thanks. I’ll bet she’s as ugly outside as inside.

          • BagLady

            See previous post and, yes I am as you say.

          • BagLady

            Mr Greenfield may well distinguish himself in that area but you don’t and that’s what should concern you. Doy not pray to your God to be a nicer person?

          • mozart

            I actually have all the credentials, advanced degrees, dozens of honors and decades of experience, likely equaling or surpassing Mr. Greenfield. I post and will continue to post the truth about you because your taqiya is little known in the West and I am doing a mitzvah to innocent posters exposed to your brand of genocidal anti-Semitism.

          • BagLady

            The truth as you see it you mean. Carry on my dear. Do your worst. I should give a monkey’s…

            Dozens of honours eh? Where I come from it takes four years hard graft to get one Hons which, with your dozens, would make you around 150 years old. That makes sense and would account for your failing faculties.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            His readers don’t have the ability to think for themselves? Is that what you’re saying?

            And what would you say to the United States if we closed off the borders, deported all illegals, and reminded legal immigrants “whose country this is, and whose laws must be followed”?

          • BagLady

            I think you would find your foreign travel rather curtailed as foreign governments ALWAYS play tit-for-tat.

            I was crossing an African border and an Irish man was just ahead of me in the ‘visa’ queue. He was charged $25 but I was charged $50. They like the Irish, apparently. Probably to do with the porous border and easy access to England. Who knows. I do know that in Dublin you are hard pressed to find a reasonably priced room since all small hotels seem to have been turned over to Social Services to house immigrants.

            Every country can afford, and benefit from, a certain number of immigrants. Too many and we feel over-run and our genetic xenophobia kicks in.

            Sure you should control your borders and make everyone toe the legal line. Closing them altogether would not work on many many fronts.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Then, let’s play “tit-for-tat” with, at least, the Mexicans. We will adopt their immigrations laws and customs. If their military units move across our border and open fire on our territory, we shall respond in kind.

            Tit-for-tat …

            Check out New Zealand’s immigration policies. We accept only those people with skills that will benefit our society, and who wish to become Americans … culture, language and values. The rest go …

          • tamimisledus

            You ” … have done the uni degrees and majored in logic.” (as below)

            One of the most serious failures in reasoning is an attempt to use this kind of claim to authority.
            The comment above alone shows this part of your education to have been a total waste.

          • BagLady

            Indoctrination spares no man.

            A young American man stood in the bank dressed in the garb of a Sadhu sect, his nether regions swathed in a white loincloth. His forehead daubed with holy colours. A chain hung around his waist and he wore no shoes. In other words he looked like a total jerk.

            After a few moments at the counter he raised his voice in protest: “YOU CAN’T DO THAT!” He turned in desperation, searching the sea of deadpan faces of patient customers, thinking the law of his land must prevail and would spring to his defense. Ha.

            There is only one way to avoid propagandist brainwashing and that is to keep moving.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And so, you would have us keep moving because Mr. Greenfield’s writings are “propagandist brainwashing”?

            I find his writings to be of immense value. In his views, I find a kindred spirit. Why should I “move on”?

          • tamimisledus

            Well, that must imply that you have never moved.

          • J.B.

            So you admit islam has transformed Britain into a third world country, or you forgot your phony bio?

          • BagLady

            Did I say that? Where? My phony bio? My bio is always phony. Isn’t yours? Only a fool would hand their real name and post code to an internet site.

            I don’t recall singling out Islam as the culprit. I thought I said immigrants in general. What care I for their beliefs, it’s the sheer numbers and the empowerment they feel as they enter en-force that concerns me.

            I bet in the US doctors aren’t kicking old dears off their patient lists to make way for the newcomers.

          • aspacia

            They are in the UK. BL, go away and take a few valid university classes to learn how to critically think.

          • BagLady

            Wasn’t that precisely what I was saying. Good grief aspacia, I am English. Don’t you think I know what’s going on at home?

            I have done the uni degrees and majored in logic. Good enough?

          • aspacia

            There have been several thousand terrorist attacks since 9/11 BL, and this is a fact, not propaganda. Read MEMRI and several other sites that document what Muslims claim they will do in the name of faith.

          • BagLady

            Leaving aside your negative semantic prosodies, there have indeed been many thousands of attacks since 9/11. Shall we look at the death toll? Put them into categories – children, women, old folk, fighters?

            Exxon-Mobil and BP aren’t wearing sackcloth and ashes over the appalling loss of innocent lives. Things have never looked so good.

            Iraq is spewing oil like never before. Obama’s negotiations with Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (Tapi) are going splendidly. Pretty soon our troops will be lining the pipelines while all around them Jihad rages. Women will continue to be marginalised and what’s left of the infrastructure will collapse. Corrupt politicians will continue to receive ‘aid’ and western corporations will laugh all the way to the bank.

            Putin will have to be dealt with of course. We’ll have to slaughter a lot of Ukrainians before we get control of that pipe. Kyiv is making headway in that direction I see.

          • Uncle Jay

            That is not true. Totalitarian regimes do last a long time. Ask anyone who lived under Hitler, Stalin or Fidel Castro.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You left out the imperialist sociopath totalitarian muhammed.

          • simoneshelly

            M­ my buddy’s sister makes $87 every hour on the internet . She has
            been unemployed for 6 months but last month her payment was $19402 just working
            on the internet for a few hours. go right here M­o­n­e­y­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Take your ads and …

          • aspacia

            Hitler lasted from the 30’s to 45, not a long time. USSR 80 years, again not long. Cuba is slowly changing to capitalism, freedom as it allows Cubans to immigrate to the USA

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islam is a failure. Read the news for the latest atrocity from the oxymoron calling itself “the religion of peace”.

            Islam should sued for dishonesty and False Advertising.

          • BagLady

            Let’s take a wander through the annals of the Nobel Peace Prize for some oxymorons.

          • J.B.

            You spend as much time claiming islam is not a threat as you do claiming Psuedostinians are a displaced people. Who do you think you are going to convince?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Not to the extent that it would be. The Bahai would be a lot less marginal if they were functioning in open societies.

            Meanwhile the Wahhabis have been quite effective at driving out all “innovation” to revert Islam to their idea of what it used to be.

          • liz

            Of course Islam is already shattered – thus the brutal fighting for control that is already ongoing. You are the one who’s off target here.

          • BagLady

            Their fighting forces will implode although they are getting worryingly more well trained. Makes you wonder where the trainers are coming from.

            Is it, as Obama describes, like bashing moles popping up from their holes or will they coalesce into a mighty force of niihilists dropping nukes as they go about Mohammed’s business, forcing the ladies to wear black?

            Can’t see it myself. The likes of Kim Kardashian and Posh Becks would never stand for it and, as far I can see, that’s where the power lies in the west.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There are Kim Kardashiians and Becks in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The elites always find a way to look good and break the rules. It’s everyone below who suffers.

            No one is going to drag off a Saudi princess or the daughter of a Revolutionary Guard general.

          • Americana

            Oh, then how is it a Saudi princess was beheaded a few years ago?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Daniel Greenfield • 7 hours ago: “Oh, then how is it a Saudi princess was beheaded a few years ago?”

            Obviously they have to work within the system, but they don’t live by the same rules as the plebs.

          • BagLady

            Yes but that was her own family’s doing so it didn’t matter. Honour was saved.

            How about the Saudi princess who likes to shop in London. She is soooo rich, no-one ever asks her for cash and she now owes $millions to various luxury shops in the city. More fool them.

          • aspacia

            That was years ago and she committed adultery, violated the Qu’ran. What crime did the recently kidnapped girls commit?

          • BagLady

            You are right. Saudi princesses swan into London and Paris, run up $million dollar debts in the posh shops and then go home without paying. No-one stands in their way.

          • mozart

            Keep the BAG on your head at ALL times, lady. You are a scion for Pislam. Mr. Greenfield is eons and mountains above you in intellect, insight and courage. You were outed as a serious anti-Semite on other sites and in your comments on various articles on sites that work to prevent another genocide, especially against the Jewish people. No one should engage you on any discussion since you essentially disqualified yourself from non-violent humanity.

          • hiernonymous

            Trying to discredit the individual rather than the argument is an abdication of reason.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I’m sorry to hear you announce that you’ve abdicated your reason.

            I should have liked to have met you beforehand.

          • hiernonymous

            As always, if you think I have committed such a fallacy, point it out and we can evaluate it.

            “I should have liked to have met you beforehand.”

            That explains a great deal.

          • BagLady

            Now then Mr Greenfield. I got the impression hienonymous was sticking up for me. Makes a change on here and I’d rather you didn’t join the hypocrites.

            Perhaps you were temporarily overcome by mozart’s sycophantic compliments. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

            mozart makes the most outrageous and insulting remarks to me on here with wild claims of anti-Semitism without once ever citing an actual post that “outs” me as one.

            I believe in law one must use citation or say the word ‘allegedly’ before expressing personal views that can ruin a girl’s reputation.

          • mozart

            According to you ONLY the Jews do not have a right to their own homeland in Israel. THAT makes you antisemitic, period.

          • mozart

            You are quite incorrect. Practitioners of taqiya such as the “BAG” need to be outed as antisemitic propagandists for jihad. The ancient mental disease of antisemitism has taken, in more recent times, the format of taqiya and extreme leftist opposition to the State of Israel as a Jewish State. Discredit, demonize, dishonor, dislocate or simply dis anything related to Jews or their historical and moral right to live in peace in their ancient homeland. The “BAG” draws her sick inspiration directly from the Koran’s lines about killing Jews, et cetera. I have read many of her posts on this site and other Israeli/Jewish friendly media where she always posts antisemitic dribble cloaked in taqiya.

          • hiernonymous

            Taqiyya is not a generic term for lying in the cause of the religion. Taqiyya is a doctrine, primarily Shi’a in origin, that permits a Muslim to deny or disguise his religion if he is in significant physical danger. It emerged in the early days of the Sunni-Shi’a split, when Shi’as were being persecuted, and it was determined to be acceptable to deny that one was a Shi’a.

            If baglady says something incorrect or hateful, it’s perfectly appropriate to point that out. If she is simply taking positions on controversial issues that you don’t happen to agree with, that’s another matter.

          • mozart

            I am fluent in the languages involved and I have graduate degrees in the related cultures. I know EXACTLY what taqiya IS AND how it is applied today. You are misleading in your partial description above, which is another form of taqiya – lying, misleading ANY
            infidel for the cause of Islam.

          • hiernonymous

            If you want to argue from authority, I too speak Arabic – though I wouldn’t call myself “fluent” – and I, too, have a related graduate degree, followed by a training residency in-country of a year and another decade of professional work that included extensive travel and long-term stays in the region. I’m not misrepresenting taqiyya. Most Sunnis would give you a blank stare if you even raised the issue, and not because they were practicing taqiyya.

          • mozart

            Shame has nothing to do with it. You, “Americana” and “Baglady” are against Israel and I simply outed you as the enemy of my people that you are. You are British Muslims practicing deception, as instructed by your guidance.

          • hiernonymous

            Wow – you managed to get an amazing amount wrong in a very small space. Kudos for efficiency, though not accuracy. I’m not British, I’m not Muslim, and I’m not against Israel. It’s remarkable that you’d jump to such conclusions, given how recently you started posting – at least, under this nick.

          • 2jackets

            Ah but taqiya REQuires British Muslims -if the situation demands it- to deny they are British Muslims! ANd you just denied you are – so……
            (The lead character from The Life of Brian understood this conundrum when his protestations that he was not the messiah were met with “..only the true messiah denies his divinity!”)

          • mozart

            Just cutting to the end of the chase. This site, FPage is run by David Horowitz, a dedicated pro Zionist-Israel supporter and a fighter AGAINST antisemitism in ALL its forms. You are obviously NOT a supporter of said ideals. You speak Arabic, you said not fluently. That very likely means that you pray in Arabic = Muslim. I have never read one of your posts that supports Jews, Jewish Israel, Zionism or is AGAINST antisemitism – in all its forms. Until then weather you are British or not, is of no consequence.

          • hiernonymous

            “You speak Arabic, you said not fluently. That very likely means that you pray in Arabic = Muslim. ”

            What a bizarre example of illogic. The only reasonable conclusion that you can reach from the fact that I speak Arabic, but not fluently, is that it is not my native language. Beyond that, you’re imposing your own biases irrationally.

            “I have never read one of your posts that supports Jews, Jewish Israel, Zionism or is AGAINST antisemitism – in all its forms.”

            “Never” isn’t much of a qualifier for someone with a posting history of 36 posts stretching over all of 2 months. Be that as it may, your logic is faulty. If I had never once in my life written a post that “supports Jews, Jewish Israel, Zionism, or is AGAINT antisemitism,” you could not draw a rational inference concerning my position vis-a-vis Israel based thereon. Again, you’re filling in gaps with your own imagination.

            “Until then weather you are British or not, is of no consequence.”

            Actually, it’s quite consequential. Your readiness to assign British nationality to me on the basis of no evidence whatsoever demonstrates a faulty logical process, which you’ve continued with your linguistic and political assessments.

            You probably need to ratchet back your assume-o-meter a few notches.

          • Jack Diamond

            The term may be primarily Shi’a but the concept is Islamic period. The Sunni doctrine is called Muda’rat, it means deception, trickery, concealing and one of the targets mentioned for muda’rat is the kafir. It does not originate from the Sunni-Shi’a split. Its references are the Bukhari hadith where Muhammad says “we must deal with our enemies with smiles on our faces and curses in our hearts” and his saying “war is deception.” He made an example of this in the hijra and conquest of Yathrib. Deception to protect a Muslim or the religion is Qur’anic. 3;28 let not believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers…except by way of precaution that you may guard yourselves against them.” Guard yourself against them is taqiyya or muda’rat, which can even include denial of the faith if need be (16:106). Deception goes far beyond matters of physical danger. It is a weapon of deceptive negotiation, deceptive oaths, deceptive accusations…whatever helps remove the obstacles to the spread of Islam is protecting Islam and the Muslims.

          • hiernonymous

            I will take it that we both understand that taqiyya is a specific Shi’a doctrine, and that the term is being misused by those who try to paint is as a general acceptance of deceit. So let’s move on to the separate concept you raise. A couple of comments:

            First, the instructions you cite are generally offered in the context of the importance of being honest, and the Muslim is being told when an exception to this policy is acceptable. It would be remarkable if war were not an exception, and given that the Meccans were actively waging war on the Muslims at the time the Qur’an was being written/revealed, it would be further remarkable if the issue were not addressed. Can you imagine being required, for example, to truthfully respond to an enemy’s questions concerning your troop dispositions, future plans, etc? It would be absurd.

            Christian doctrine contains a similar exception. The Bible, like the Qur’an, contains may exhortations to truthfulness. It also contains an exception that is commonly cited by Christians, based on the example of Rahab, who concealed the three spies sent to scout out Jericho. She actively lied to the ruler of Jericho about the men, claiming that they had left when, in fact, she had hidden them on her roof, and she is praised for having done so.

            As for your contention that Muhammad was practicing deception in Yatrib, that’s a rather long jump to a conclusion. The more conventional understanding is that Muhammad was invited to Yathrib in order to serve as something of an arbiter among the quarreling tribes there, and that he did so admirably. Over time, as he attracted followers in the city, many of those who had earlier invited him saw his growing power base as a threat, which led to tension, confrontation, and conflict, and is marked by a somewhat darker turn of the passages of the Qur’an written/revealed at that time. There’s nothing to indicate that Muhammad went to Yathrib under false pretenses, or with any intent of lying to the tribal leaders there in order to lull them. His intent, open from the beginning, was to spread the message of Islam to all who would listen, and the sort of conflict that eventually erupted looks inevitable in hindsight, but there’s no indication that any of those inviting him to Yathrib were unaware of his religious message.

            It would be more accurate to suggest that a fanatical Muslim who wants to justify deceitful behavior can find doctrinal support for doing so, just as a fanatical Christian could do so. It would not be accurate to suggest that there area billion Muslims who see themselves as at war with the rest of the world, and consider themselves enjoined to lie to infidels as a matter of course. (I would also note that not all Christians and Jews seem to feel themselves as bound by the commandment against false witness as they should be.)

          • Jack Diamond

            Quite the contrary. Muhammad made a pact with the Aws and Khazraj, a Pledge of Loyalty reported by Ibn Ishaq by 75 men that was a military pact to fight the “red and black”, the Jews and Quraish. There is no question, the term used is “blood and destruction.” Muhammad had determined the fate of the Jews of Yathrib yet he then went to Yathrib and pretended friendship to the Jews and revelations in their favor. This was deep deception. You are mistaken about the hijra and the doctrine of hijra, the model for which is the first migration (and conquest) of Yathrib. The migration to Yahtrib, its conquest by migration, and establishment of the Islamic State was fully intentional and has passed into Islam as doctrine. Islamic migration and establishment of the Islamic State is part of jihad and is war and is regarded as such by Islamic scholarship.

            Segregation from non-Muslims is Qur’anic (ex. 58:22; 5:51) and Muhammad is quoted saying “I am innocent of free of any Muslim that lives amongst the Pagans/non-Muslims.” Migrating to the land of infidels is not permitted (except to save ones life) unless it is collective hijra to establish Islam. The model, Muhammad’s conquest of Medina/Yathrib, is considered a jihad, to establish the religion of Islam. It is even broken down into steps: the first act establishing a mosque as center of authority, tamkeen, establishment & consolidation; Ta’leff al Qulub reconciliation of hearts, to win favor with non-Muslims, favorably dispose them to Islam (deceive), infiltrate their institutions; l’dad, preparation, access to installations of the enemy, multiplication of numbers of Muslims to become a majority. There was nothing innocent about Muhammad’s intentions in Yathrib.

            So, no I did not agree with you that takiyya was a specific Shi’a doctrine, just the term was usually Shi’a, not the doctrine. And “to guard one’s security” using takiyya or mud’arat is an acceptance of deceit. Absolutely. This can extend to oath taking or faking one’s allegiance. Or making false accusations (think of all the false accusations of blasphemy in places like Pakistan, done for the greater good of Islam). The same reason the Treaty of Hudaibiyah is invoked when Muslims mean an agreement can be broken as soon as it favors the Muslims to do so. Arafat invoked it after Oslo. This is also a form of Islamically sanctioned deceit.

            I could also mention that Allah is called in the Qur’an “the best of all deceivers.”

          • Jack Diamond

            and before you object about a billion Muslims not being at war… I am talking about Islam as distinct from Muslims here. But however many Muslim people follow or don’t follow the doctrines of this religion, or even know them well, Islam does mean submission–not choice– and good, pious Muslims are obligated to believe in these doctrines. We, at least, should know what those doctrines are.

          • hiernonymous

            How did you conclude that the red and black referred to the Jews of Yathrib and the Quraish?

            First, note that the phrase is not used by Muhammad nor is it a direct report of the negotiations, it is reported in the context of one of those present making sure that those taking the pledge understood the gravity of what they were doing.

            Here is Guillaume’s translation of Ibn Ishaq on the matter (204):

            “Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qataada told me that when the people came together to plight their faith to the apostle, al ‘Abbaas b. ‘Ubaada b. Nadla al Ansaari, brother of B. Saalim b. ‘Auf, said ‘O men of Khazraj, do you realize to what you are committing yourselves in pledging your support to this man? It is to war against all and sundry.”

            Guillaume then footnotes the phrase “all and sundry” thusly: “Lit. ‘red and black men’.

            So, no, Ibn Ishaq’ Sira doesn’t state or imply that Muhammad was secretly planning war against the Jews of Yathrib.

            Consider also that Muhammad was not invited to Yathrib because the Banu Aws and Khazraj were in opposition to the Jews, and they were seeking his support against them. On the contrary, the Aws and Khazraj were fighting each other, and the Aws in particular both had Jews among them, and were supported by at least two of the significant tribes of Jews of Yathrib at the battle of Bu’ath that exhausted both parties and led them to seek mediation.

            The so-called “Constitution of Madina” was also quite up-front about laying out the relationships of Muslims and Jews, and establishing their responsibilities for mutual defense.

            So, no, if you want to follow Ibn Ishaq as your authority, he supports the conventional view that the conflict between the Muslims and the Jews arose in Madina, rather than reflecting a deceitful prior plan put into execution after their arrival.

            As for the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, there is no casual disregard for honoring a treaty. As you are fond of Ibn Ishaq, turn to p. 540 of the translation I’ve linked above, and you’ll find that he recounts in some detail the attack by the Quraishi-supported Banu Bakr on the Khuza’a, allies of Muhammad, which constituted a serious violation of the treaty. The Quraish recognized this, and sent Abu Sufyan to Madina to try to negotiate an extension of the treaty, but Muhammad would not see him.

            “I could also mention that Allah is called in the Qur’an “the best of all deceivers.””

            You could, but it wouldn’t be appropriate in this context. The verse you’re describing describes how those plotting to kill Jesus were themselves tricked. The word used in the Quran, makireen, is the plural noun form of the word makr, which is translated in my Hans Wehr (the standard Arabic-English dictionary, if you’re not familiar with it) as ‘cunning, craftiness, slyness, wiliness, double-dealing, deception, trickery.’ Naturally, the word you choose depends on your agenda. The point made in the Qur’an is that there is no point in trying to outwit God because he is craftier than any who might try. However you wish to translate it, Muslims do not see God as Loki.

          • Jack Diamond

            Do you speak as a Muslim when you say that? You sound like one.

            The first refutation would be common sense. The terms mentioned concerning Hijra are based on the Hijra to Medina and come from juristic directives from Islamic scholars as to its purpose and its steps. The fact Muslim leaders like Arafat mention the Treaty of Hudaibiyya to indicate they are not bound by the terms of treaties with the kaffir when it is in the Muslims interests, shows how Muhammad’s example is understood, even today. He signed a 10 year treaty and broke it in 2 when his forces were strong enough. Thereupon, he conquered Mecca and imposed Islam on the whole population. Which was the goal in the first place.

            Trickery and deceit abound with Muhammad. He summons Nu’aym and tells him to “go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit.” He allowed a lie to be told to commit the assassination of Ka’b bin Ashaf whose poems anger Muhammad. Muhammad bin Maslama said “would you like that I kill him? Then allow me to say a (false) thing (to deceive him).” Muhammad responds “You may say it.”

            Imam Ghazzali, the great Muslim scholar: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” Promoting Islam is the highest goal and deceit is sanctioned (because the truth would forewarn) and always has been: “Verily we smile for some people while our hearts curse those same people.” This is pure duplicity. Islamic scholars (the Ulama) at IslamicQA give orthodox answers on matters of jurisprudence:
            Q. “When is deliberate ambiguity permissible?”
            A. “The Arabic word tawriyah (deliberate ambiguity) means to conceal something. deliberate ambiguity is permissible if it is necessary or if it serves a shar’i interest.” And here is the model of conduct for Muslims.
            {Bukhari reports Muhammad said “By Allah and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something better
            than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath” (v7b67n424) } That alone is license to deceive and for any Muslim’s oath to be considered suspect.

            The scholars at IslamQA say regarding migration
            “(Muslims) should live there (dar islaam) and not go to live anywhere else except to go to another place which is under Islamic rule where they may be better off. This is like the case of Madeenah after the Hijrah of the Prophet…when the Islamic State was established there.
            …the basic principle is that it is haraam to settle among the mushrikeen and in their land. We advise you, as others have, not to go and live in a kaafir country, unless you are forced to go there temporarily, such as seeking medical treatment that is not readily available in a Muslim country (or doing business) Shaikh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen sayd “Settling in a kaafir country poses a great danger.”

            Abu Daw’uad Hadith 2645 reports Muhammad saying “I am innocent or free of every/any Muslim that lives amongst the Pagans/non-Muslims.” in no.2789 “whosoever collegiates or aggregates with non Muslims and lives with them, he is one of them.” (a Kafir and apostate). BUT no.3453 “Migration will continue until the sun rises from the West. Hijra would not be stopped
            until repentance is cut off and repentance will not be cut off until the sun rises from the West.”

            Hijra does not mean a change in residence or location. It means a transformation of that society through seizing political power and changing customs, behaviors, and laws in favor of Islam. Hijra is preparatory to Jihad. Besides the 5 pillars of Islam are the 5 charges: : to assemble; to listen; to obey; to migrate; and to wage jihad. “O people immigrate, holding onto Isam, for Hijra (migration) is to continue as long as jihad continues” (kenz al Umal). We in the West are living with the reality and nightmare of this doctrine, especially the besieged countries of Western Europe where the Muslim population is such that it is asserting itself.

            “In the Hijra (Muhammad) accounted for every detail, he arranged for the route and the guides, the companion, the places he and his companions would hide and
            he used caution and secrecy. He applied this to all his military campaigns like Badr, Uhud, the Ahzab and others. The Holy Qur’an contains full explanations on the conditions for victory and empowerment (Nasr and
            Tamkeen) to all Muslims as per Sura 24:55 Allah has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth…as for the material victory causes we note the following:
            l’dad (Preparedness in numbers and means) as per Sura 8:60 And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles,
            artillery etc) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy…The Messenger implement all of what is stated to the fullest extent and the minutest detail in all stages of his mission and military campaigns.” IslamQA

            As for the Pledge of Aqaba, the night of the pledge Muhammad left Mecca with his uncle Abbas bin Abdel-Muttalib. Abbas spoke at the gathering, he asked them (the Arabs of the two tribes) if they knew what they were supporting and pledging loyalty for. He informed them they were pledging loyalty to fight the red and the black. Ishaq:204/TabariVI:134 Abbas the uncle of the Prophet said: ‘Men of the Khazraj, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes,’ they answered. ‘In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging ourselves to wage war against all mankind.’

            The red and black indicate non-Arabs and Arabs, that the reference to the Red meant the Jews of Yathrib is clear from the reply: A delegate Abu Haitham tells Muhammad “O Apostle of Allah, between us and the
            Jews are ropes (links, ties) we are about to cut those.”
            They worried Muhammad could change his mind, return back to Mecca and leave them with broken relationships with with the Jews and the Quraish for having given Muhammad refuge. Muhammad responded with a clear answer: “Blood, blood and destruction, destruction!” This was a declaration of war long before Muhammad reached Yathrib. Secretly, he makes this pledge then publicly befriends the Jews as if they have nothing to fear from him. He may have hoped the Jews would convert to his religion but he also had a Plan B. He needed the Jews and did not want them refusing him as had the people of Ta’if (wisely). He bought time to establish his community. He drew up a peace pact with the Jews and included them in his fraternal Charter at the same time he had the Arab tribes end their alliance with the Jews. And what did happen? The honeymoon ended, the Muslims grew in strength, got the upper hand, destroyed the Jewish tribes of Yathrib leading to the end of Jewish life in Arabia, period.

            Allah the best of deceivers? “But they (the Jews) were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers (Wamakaroo wamakara Allahu waAllahu khayru al-makireena)! S. 3:54; cf. 8:30) “So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme (Wamakaroo makran wamakarna makran), while they perceived not.” S. 27:50 Miim-Kaf-Ra = To practice deceit or guile or circumvention, practice evasion or elusion, to plot, to exercise art or craft or cunning, act with policy, practice stratagem.

            “Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people plotted against him ‘to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.’ i.e. I DECEIVED them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah,with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)

            “And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.” S. 14:4

            I don’t think this is so complicated. .

          • hiernonymous

            Here is how Carimokam dealt with the scene you describe:
            “Do you speak as a Muslim? Because you do sound like one.”

            What sort of nonsense is that? If I intended to speak as a Muslim, I would have identified myself as such. Presumably, you understand that, and your real question is simply “are you a Muslim?” Apart from being irrelevant, consider how silly that question is, in the context of this conversation. Having made clear that you believe that all Muslims are under a positive obligation to deceive the infidel, I invite you to pursue the dreary permutations of any possible response to your question on your own.

            As for the pledge, your “blood, blood, destruction, destruction” translation seems a bit off. Since you haven’t offered a link to the original Arabic, I can only speculate that you are encountering an issue with the fact that Arabic does not employ the verb “to be” in the present tense. By way of illustration, “the book the red” would be the way Arabs say “the red book;” “the book red” would be translated as “the book is red.” This seems to be how Guillaume took it, and is supported by the commentary in Carimokam (203, coincidentally):

            “Abu l-Haytham…interrupted him and said, “O apostle, we have ties with other men (he meant the Jews) and if we sever them perhaps when we have done that and God will have given you victory, you will return to your people and leave us?”

            The apostle smiled and said, “Nay, blood is blood and blood not to be paid for is blood not to be paid for. I am of you and you are of me. I will war against them that war against you and be at peace with those at peace with you.”

            Even though this dialogue passage is clearly a polemic invention of a later age, what kind of war was Muhammad suggesting? What did this pledge of war mean? Ibn Kathir believes the pledge “seems to advocate defensive war.” Michael Lecker is of the opinion that the pledge of war did not promote bloodshed. He holds that the later source documents portray a more accurate view of history, associating the pledge with tribal loyalty, not war. He believes the older sources include added interpolation. He also concludes that there was no intention of breaking relationships with Jews at the second pledge.

            When it comes to deception during conflict, I’m still waiting for you to explain how the Muslim approach is different from others. I already noted the example of Rahab. During WWII, are you suggesting that Judeo-Christian values were violated by, for example, the Allies’ creation of a fictitious army under Patton, which was intended (successfully, as it turns out) to cozen the Germans into believing that there was a second invasion force prepared to strike east of the Normandy beaches? Misleading the enemy in conflict is, as near as I can tell, a universal characteristic.

            “I don’t think this is so complicated.”

            Obviously. Things tend to get more complicated as you learn more about them, though.

          • Jack Diamond

            “It was narrated by Ka’ab ibn Malek that Mohammad assured them he won’t abandon them ever and told them “It is for blood “blood” and for destruction “destruction” I am of you and you are of mine. ” –Translated from the original Arabic in Fiqh Al Sira p149, reported as authentic by the hadith scholar Nasiruddin al-Albani:
            … بل الدم الدم والهدم الهدم ، أنا منكم وأنتم مني ، أحارب من حاربتم وأسالم من سالمتم (صححه الألباني : فقه السيرة ص 149)

            Abu al Haytham said, “O Prophet, there are pacts between us and some Jews which we are going to denounce. Should your cause succeed later or among your own tribe, would you return to them and leave us alone?” Muhammad smiled and said, “No! Rather, your blood is my blood and your destruction is my destruction. You are of me and I am of you. ”
            http://prophetictimeline.wordpress.com/category/makkan-era/

            The exact terms “blood blood destruction destruction”
            also comes from a scholar of Shari’a law for 15 years named Sam Solomon in his book “Al-Yahud.”

            I’m not interested in changing the subject to a discussion of Christianity or any other rationalizations for the fact Islam sanctions deception to further Islam.
            Judaism and Christianity do not have doctrines for lying, nor is their God bragged about as a good liar.
            The question as to you being a Muslim had to do with your apologetics for the religion (and the knee-jerk “but what about Christianity?” deflection). It’s not that I care one way or another.

            I take it you now have a better understanding of Hijra and what it exists for.

          • hiernonymous

            ““No! Rather, your blood is my blood and your destruction is my destruction. You are of me and I am of you.””

            That is a better translation of the sense of the Arabic, and in no way implies any intent of harm to the Jews of Yathrib. That is a statement of mutual loyalty. Much better.

            “I’m not interested in changing the subject to a discussion of Christianity or any other rationalizations for the fact Islam sanctions deception to further Islam.
            Judaism and Christianity do not have doctrines for lying, nor is their God bragged about as a good liar. ”

            Well, wait, which is it? You’re not interested in changing the subject to a discussion of Christianity, or Christianity has no comparable doctrine?

            “The exact terms “blood blood destruction destruction”
            also comes from a scholar of Shari’a law for 15 years named Sam Solomon in his book “Al-Yahud.””

            Yes, I became aware of its source as soon as I saw the reference in the Alfred Guillaume citation to the capitalization being “ours” instead of “mine.” I realized that I was debating Sam or David Stewart second-hand. If I wanted to browse an anti-Islam blog, I’d hardly need your help. Your scholar of shari’a offered a poor rendition, for reasons mentioned in my last post and confirmed by inclusion of the Arabic in this. Your selection continues with “I will war against those who war against you, I will be at peace with those who are at peace with you.” Hardly a statement of aggressive intent against anyone not harboring aggressive plans of their own, and nothing about the recent history of Yathrib suggested that the Jews were likely to engage in a Jew on non-Jew fight in the city. Again, you fail to show that the actual passage supports your assertion that Muhammad’s initial understanding with the residents of Yathrib was in any way underhanded.

            “The question as to you being a Muslim had to do with your apologetics for the religion (and the knee-jerk “but what about Christianity?” deflection). It’s not that I care one way or another.”

            So you want to single out Islam as uniquely “deceptive,” you are so concerned about a possible “change of subject” that you want to do it without reference to the other religions – but you have time and tolerance for an excursion into personality? Okay.

            It’s interesting to see an objection to an extremist view of a religion characterized as an apologia. I suppose that the moderate is the enemy of the zealot on both ends if the spectrum.

          • Jack Diamond

            The first two citations had nothing to do with Sam Solomon. It was a pact of war and clearly Muhammad was asking the Arabs of Yathrib to break their alliance with the Jews. They went with Muhammad because of their rivalry with the Jews, who did better, were wealthy, better educated. A career of banditry and looting was just around the corner. How Islamic law views the Hijra and how that understanding became doctrinal, confirms the other point I was making, So does the extensive basis for deception.that is allowed in Islam, a fact of some concern to non-Muslims today.

          • hiernonymous

            Except that two of those Jewish tribes were allies of the Banu Aws against the Khajrat in the most recent war. It seems more likely that they “went with” Muhammad because they hoped to end the internecine fighting that had exhausted them in Yathrib. Oaths of loyalty do tend to focus on swearing that the parties will stand by one another in the event of conflict; that’s what they’re for. When a U.S. officer swears to defend the Constitution against all enemies, that doesn’t suggest that he has a devious plot in mind to create such an enemy. You’ve highlighted an oath of loyalty between Muhammad and his followers that commits him to treat those who attack his allies as enemies, and those who are at peace with his allies as friends. That sounds like a pretty routine alliance. So far, to make it sound more sinister, you’ve relied on an unsupported and unconventional reading of “red and black men” in a much-criticized early biography that doesn’t attribute those words to Muhammad, and to a flawed presentation of a phrase he used in concluding an alliance with 75 members of the Yathrib tribes.

            “So does the extensive basis for deception.that is allowed in Islam, a fact of some concern to non-Muslims today.”

            Circular reasoning – it’s a matter of concern because some are concerned about it? Jesus didn’t provide a lot of advice to his followers about how to conduct affairs of state, wage war, collect taxes, etc, because there was no point in his ministry in which Christians were being called on to carry out such activities. We know that the “Judeo-Christian” God was approving of both violence and of deceit when it served the purpose of his chosen people; it’s hard to understand portrayals of Islam as uniquely violent in the face of Joshua, or uniquely deceitful in the face of Rahab. There’s less – but not no – codification of such matters in the holy scriptures. Judging by the behavior of the three peoples today, it’s hard to say that Muslims are more deceitful – did the CIA not just recently announce that it was going to stop using vaccination campaigns as covers for its covert activities?

          • aspacia

            Temper, Temper!!!!! LOL. hier, read or debate Spencer, ME media and Islam’s religious leaders claim as either you or Muslim theologians misinterpret doctrine.

            Obviously, you have a smattering of ME knowledge, similar to many pseudo intellectual theologians, but I tend to judge people, their faith, their culture by deed, not superfluous academic jargan, and I am a retired academic who takes graduate classes for fun and enlightenment.

          • hiernonymous

            “Temper, Temper!!!!!”

            ?

            “Obviously, you have a smattering of ME knowledge…”

            Obviously.

            “…similar to many pseudo intellectual theologians…”

            Oh, dear. I’m afraid I must defend myself here. I’m no theologian.

            “…but I tend to judge people, their faith, their culture by deed, not superfluous academic jargan…”

            I’ve spent sleepless nights wondering how you judged people. I’ll be sure to watch that superfluous jargan.

            “…and I am a retired academic…”

            That’s interesting. What was your field? What did you do?

            “…who takes graduate classes for fun and enlightenment.”

            That’s always a good thing to do.

          • aspacia

            Okay hier, but how does this excuse Muslim lies about it be a religion of peace and its followers butchering nonMuslims. That is they lie.

          • hiernonymous

            In all the time I spent as a non-Muslim in Muslim lands, I was never once butchered. They weren’t lying to me, at any rate.

          • aspacia

            h, BL has discredited herself by being a Muslim apologist and the fallacy is ad ahominem.

          • hiernonymous

            “… the fallacy is ad ahominem…”

            Where and how?

          • aspacia

            I taught Argument and Evidence-Rottenberg’s text is great..

          • hiernonymous

            You taught one course? You were an adjunct?

          • BagLady

            Hamas most certainly is shattered. Having joined forces with Fatah they have made no political gains whatsoever. The people have been losing confidence in their promise of a better life and, just maybe, this accounts for their recent rocket attacks.

            Bringing on an attack from Israel will muster the people behind their protective shield and regain support.

            Pure speculation though.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islam is already shattered into a few MURDEROUS sects.

            sunni vs shiite vs salafi vs wahabbi.

            See the 160,000+ dead in Syria – that’s Arabs killing Arabs.

          • truebearing

            Does any Muslim sect allow freedom of religion? Or freedom of any kind? Islam means submission. That should be your first clue.

          • BagLady

            It does indeed mean submission. Submission to God not your next door neighbour.

    • Dyer’s Eve

      Your last paragraph may well be very prescient. Hitler sought a new world order. He certainly got one, but it wasn’t the new world order he was after.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      Hitler wasn’t fighting a paper tiger. We used to be able to drop nuclear bombs. Now we agonize when a female soldier finger shoots a man’s private parts. Do they fear us?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        We’ll wake up when we win a culture war at home.

        • Matt E

          We’re getting annihilated right now in the culture war. It’s not even close. We need to sneak in a Santorum or perhaps Cruz. But it ain’t happening.

          • SCREW S OCIALISM

            Hillary is imploding – even the MSM is on her case.

          • Matt E

            Hillary is a non-entity. But the difference between Hillary and much of the GOP establishment is nil. I am a conservative Republican and have never voted for a Democrat, but in many ways Bill Clinton was a better President than Dubya (despite his coarsening of the culture and his moral relativism on the Middle East). Of course, Clinton had a great GOP Congress that was responsible for much of the good stuff.

            Hillary is a non-talented, unaccomplished nothing.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I like Cheney – the most influential and smartest Vice-President ever.

          • Americana

            Vice Pres. Cheney was far too invested in traditional American Middle Eastern strategies allied w/our militarism. Yeah, we won all the battles and we’re losing the war.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islam is losing the war. Every Islamofascist attack creates more “islamophobia” AKA disgust with Islam.
            The day is coming when a global war against Islam will commence. Islamists are doing everything possible to trigger that war.

          • J.B.

            No NEAR Eastern strstegy Cheney was “invested in” was traditional, you pathetically stupid trolltard.

            Islam is pure evil and it is the inspiration for all Psuedostinian evil.

          • Drakken

            Spoken like a typical air headed peace now activist. You win wars when your enemy screams uncle or is all dead.

          • Matt E

            I liked Cheney at the time. But he was wrong on strategy. The correct strategy was to remove Iran’s regime and to end all Muslim immigration to the United States. Policy wise, Cheney unfortunately got it wrong

          • Nabukuduriuzhur

            Ron paul prevented Santorum from being the candidate by refusing to quit. He siphoned off several percentage points every caucus and primary. The guy has no morals.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            MORON Paul thinks that Fascist Iran has a right to have nukes – despite Fascist Irans calls for Death to America.

          • hiernonymous

            He was morally obligated to see that Santorum got the nomination?

      • BagLady

        When did we ‘enjoy’ a culture of casually dropping nuclear bombs and can you tell me please what has been the long term effect of the dropping of these little bomblets?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Imperial Japan to surrender, unconditionally.

          Peace until Islam returned to its roots of death and destruction where ever it exists.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The alternative was a prolonged campaign in which Japanese generals seriously considered fighting to the last man, woman and child.

          Fewer people died than in the firebombing of Tokyo. And an extended war would at the very least have leveled every Japanese city killing far more people.

          • Geppetto

            And far more American and alied troops.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Yes of course, but I don’t expect liberals to be swayed by that

          • hiernonymous

            Perhaps you should try asking someone you think is liberal instead of assuming you know the answer.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If you want me to ask you something, just ask.

          • hiernonymous

            You’ll have to decide who fills that bill for yourself.

          • Nabukuduriuzhur

            True.

            The estimate of an invasion of the Home Islands was 7 million civilians dead and 1 million allied troops.

          • J.B.

            The Japanese Generals planned to fight to the last man, woman and child even after the second A-bomb was dropped. Emperor Hirohito had to intervene and override them. Dropping the bombs saved millions of lives. Truman did the moral thing by dropping them. Casualty estimates for US forces was from 125,000 to 1,000,000, and 25% of casualties tend to be fatalities. Truman would have rightly gone down in American history as a monster if he’d allowed that many Americans to die even though he had a weapon that could end the war. He made the only decision a rational and decent man could have.

            Skag Lady and all the other anti-American lefties who whine about the nuking of Imperial Japan do so out of sheer ignorance and blind hatred.

          • aspacia

            The estimate was a million Allied deaths. Too many scream regard nukes, and I lived in Nevada, the nuke practice grounds. There were no effects from these bombs, as least scientifically, LOL albeit emotionally the libs have fits.

        • JJF

          “what has been the long term effect”… the total destruction of Japanese militarism, the evil violence of the code of Bushido and conversion of Japan into a peace-loving nation. Got that??

          If doing the same to Islam produced the same result I can’t see any argument against it.

          • Americana

            HOW RIDICULOUS. This would be the most dangerous military precedent the world has ever opted for in order to gain a millennial advantage that would eventually have caused the full nuclearization of the Muslim world. Go ahead and keep advocating this, see what happens. Lordy, but the insanity can get deep in here.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islam, the “Religion of Peace”?

            HOW RIDICULOUS.

          • J.B.

            The islamic world will not go nuclear if it gets nuked. Read up on what nuclear weapons do to their targets, you hopeless moron.

            Now go cook your islamopithecine hubby some falafel before he gives you another well deserved beating.

          • aspacia

            Americana,
            When a group or country picks a fight its citizens should not cry when their nose is bloodied. Islam picked this fight and we need to finish it, but not with an invertebrate leader.

          • JJF

            Oh crap! What’s your solution- more appeasement?
            Go feed that crocodile.

        • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

          We dropped two on Japan and it’s cured them of a militarist disposition.

          We promised to drop more. Remember MAD? Mutual Assured Destruction meant that if we were attacked by nuclear weapons we would incinerate every man, woman, and child living in enemy lands. People used to believe us; they used to fear us; and no one attacked us with nukes nor suicide bombers.

          What do we do now? Now we drop rice. Yes, rice! The first thing Bush did after 9/11 was drop rice through out Afghanistan including behind enemy lines. I turned to my co-working and said what kind of war is this? Do you think that FDR, the day after Pearl Harbor, turned to Eisenhower and ask: are the Japanese hungry?

        • Webb

          The Japs settled right down. Either letting their own guts out or surrendering. I prefer letting out of guts for our enemies.

          • Americana

            The “Japs” were one nation under one Emperor. His word was law. How connected at the hip are all the Muslim countries? Where would you decide is the spot for the nuclear hits — everywhere there is currently an ongoing jihad? So, some would be directed at North Africa, some at Indonesia and Palestine? (How would you notify the true non-combatants, the Christians and so on, whose native country it is that they must leave because the West has decided to set off a nuclear device?) Oh, you think the Israelis would like a nuclear device set off right next door? No, the Israelis wouldn’t like it because it hits too close to home. The Palestinians would then recognize that Israel had put the kibosh on nukes next door and would redouble their efforts. There is no greater idiocy than someone who’s looked only so far down the road of their tactical selection because it looks, historically, to be just the right thing.

          • Webb

            Notify the non-combatants? Hawph!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            A nice spot for a retaliatory hit is MECCA – that is Islams pressure point.
            The people best equipped and most knowledgeable about ending Islamofascism are Muslims of various stripes.

          • Nabukuduriuzhur

            The Israelis for about 20 years have developed battlefield nuclear weapons. No fallout from something 1 or 10kt.

            One of the more nasty ones is a neutron bomblet that wipes out living material in an 1100m radius, but has little effect outside of 1500m. While an armored vehicle crew would likely not be affected (unless they had their heads outside the hatches), it would be very effective against infantry.

          • Americana

            http://books.google.com/books?id=QFemJs_jlvcC&pg=PA499&lpg=PA499&dq=neutron+bomblets+used+in+infantry+battles&source=bl&ots=J9MlcHNtKn&sig=rogbRNnsV8sdPZiKSTlebCgEDL4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CB-0U5H1LYqMqgae-YDgBQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=neutron%20bomblets%20used%20in%20infantry%20battles&f=false

            I don’t think tactical neutron bomblets are quite as easily used on the battlefield as you’re making it sound. This is an older article but it explains the risks very well. it might solve one battle, it wouldn’t solve the overall tactical situation if both sides had these neutron bomblets.

          • Webb

            Like they notified the non-combatants in the WTC?

          • Americana

            The WTC happened after 30 plus years of the U.S. fostering unproductive peace talks to achieve a Palestinian homeland. The Palestinians followed a plan of an ever increasing terrorism scale just as the Jewish terrorists had pursued. I’ve always wondered, if the Jewish terrorists hadn’t had any luck forcing the British into giving them a homeland in 1947, at what point would the Jewish terrorists have said enough is enough as far as spilling blood goes? Especially after the Holocaust, what or WHO was there that stopped some of the more atrocious Jewish terrorism plans that were formulated but never acted upon? In the case of a mass poisoning plan, it was possibly government operatives who revealed the plan to British authorities. But what if they hadn’t?

            The Arabs know they’re using the term ‘Holocaust’ for their own situation only because the word itself is a testament to the extent to which European Jews suffered under the Nazis. Is there incredible crassness in Arabs using the term? Absolutely. But the world knows the reality as do the Arabs even if they continue to promulgate the myth that the Holocaust is a lie. Like the Arab professor who recently took one entire college class to the Holocaust Museum and who was subsequently fired by his university, there are Palestinians who are making strides in acknowledging the true circumstances of why Israel came to be and the blood price that was paid. I see some hope in such an event. There is no way those students will pretend that the Holocaust never happened. There’s no way to recover all those Jewish lives lost to the Holocaust. There’s only the opportunity to figure out how to save lives in this situation.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakam

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Webb • an hour ago: “The WTC happened after 30 plus years of the U.S. fostering unproductive peace talks to achieve a Palestinian homeland. The Palestinians followed a plan of an ever increasing terrorism scale just as the Jewish terrorists had pursued. ”

            So now everything really is all about The Fakestinians. It sounds like we’d better nuke that place for the sake of the greater good.

          • Americana

            Osama bin Laden made it very clear that 9/11 was on behalf of the Palestinian jihad. It’s always been very clear that what the U.S. is facing is the Palestinian jihad.

            We may be facing a different internationally complex jihad in the future, but, for now, our concern should be settling the Palestinian jihad.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            OBL invoked American troops in Saudi Arabia too.

            OBL hated the Saudis, hated shiites.

            Pal-e-SWINIANSM is a Crime Against Humanity which murders people all over the world.

            A Pal-e-SWINIAN assassinated US Senator and Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

            Pakistanis murdered Hindus in Mumbai India.

            Iraq and Fascist Iran had an 8 year war – one million people died (that’s Muslims killing Muslims).

            Islam is at War with everybody.

          • J.B.

            OBL lied about the Psuedostinians, which is why he never spent a penny of his millions on them. Jihad is 1400 years old, you lowlife.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 9 hours ago
            “Osama bin Laden made it very clear that 9/11 was on behalf of the Palestinian jihad. It’s always been very clear that what the U.S. is facing is the Palestinian jihad.”

            He said quite a few things. As I’ve told you, Israel has been the most visible salient in the clash of civilizations since the 1920s. However, it’s far clearer regarding OBL that he was motivated far more by infidels coming in to “defend the holy mosques” while his “troops” got the brushoff from his own king. Who to attack first? The king, or the infidels? He never attacked Israel AFAIK. He was OK with the Fakestinians working that front.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We may be facing a different internationally complex jihad in the future, but, for now, our concern should be settling the Palestinian jihad.”

            Well, maybe. But maybe the reason they’re saying that is because they have no intention of actually stopping and that’s just a go to Islamic grievance for now.

            You are extremely naive about international relations and how sovereignty is actually achieved in order to become an international player. The Fakestinians are not sovereign over anything. They’re fake militants using fake grievances. They have not built any state institutions. They’re simply militant jihadis and supporting institutions (for jihad, not statehood). And if you believe otherwise at this point…you need to relearn quite a bit before you understand very much about how the world works at the level of international relations of sovereign nations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And one thing people often forget it that if OBL was concerned about judging our “justice” from any perspective other than sharia, he would have had some gratitude about our support for Afghan jihadis against the Soviets. Yet that is seemingly nothing to him and just an example in his mind of Allah forcing the hand of the infidel. They don’t use that argument in reverse and simply say that Allah is rebuking them when the infidel punishes them, now do they?

            Grow up. You’re such a dupe.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Any peace talks with Pal-e-SWINIANS is unproductive when Pal-e-SWINIANS say one thing in English and say uncompromising things in Arabic.

            It’s called Taqiyya – lieing for now to until Islam is strong enough to abrogate previous agreements with Infidels.

          • Americana

            So, if lying isn’t a highly legitimate tactic used by decent human beings, why is it it’s OK for the Israelis and Zionists to lie about there being no indigenous Palestinian Arabs? Because the Jews are the better of the two peoples?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Infidels are better than Islamofascists.

            Taqiyya is a tactic used by Muslims world-wide to advance Islam. The “Religion of Peace” is Taqiyya.

            The “Religion of Peace” meme fails when one looks at 9/11, Syria where 160,000+ Arabs have killed Arabs, Fascist Iran, truck bombings, 8 year Iraq/Iran war, boko haram, ISIS, hamsss, hezbullah, London transport bombings, poison gassing (a WMD) of the Kurds of Halabja Iraq, use of poison gas in Syria. suicide bombers.

          • J.B.

            Why do you lie about having aPsuedostinian hubby, Haji?

          • Jack Diamond

            “The WTC happened after 30 plus years of the U.S. fostering unproductive peace talks to achieve a Palestinian homeland.” Everything is only about Israel and the United States support of Israel, and we are to blame for 9/11. You’ve swallowed Palestinian propaganda hook line and sinker. That is your entire know-nothing point of view. Know-nothing about Islam, know-nothing about the doctrine of jihad, know-nothing about the example of Muhammad, know-nothing about 1400 years of warfare waged against non-Muslims, know-nothing about the doctrine of hijra (migration), know-nothing about the Islamic reasons Al Qaeda gave for their war straight from the Qur’an, know-nothing of the global nature of the modern jihad funded by a ten trillion transfer of wealth (based on accident of geography) since 1973 to the oil kingdoms of Islam which is conducted by doctrine and not at all dependent on the creation of Israel nor would cease with the annihilation of Israel or any Palestinian Statehood. You even ignore the world-view evident in the Hamas Charter that links it to the Muslim Brotherhood International and the global Islamic struggle.

            Here are some Palestinians on just how local their “struggle” is: “Yes, we all need to fight the jihad locally, yes there is Shia Hezballah and Sunni Hamas. My goal for now is to liberate Palestine. In Iraq, the mujahideen must rid the region of American occupation. There is the fight against traitor governments like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but its the same fight. The defeat of the anti-Muslim world…we are in World War Three. The Americans are doing everything to prevent Islam to emerge as the world superpower..there is one basic fact and that is all groups have the same goal and we know that Allah will bring victory to the believers, and I am telling you that you are fighting Allah,not Islam and Allah is invincible.” Abu Mosaab, Islamic Jihad

            “There is one fight for all Islamic resistance and that is the fight for Islamic rule and all the signs prove that we are going towards a comprehensive confrontation…the victory will no doubt be to Islam and the defeat to the US and its allies. This is a world war.” Ramada Adassi, Al Aqsa Brigades, interviewed by Aaron Klein

            The implication that the United States “deserved” 9/11 (had it coming) and deserved it because of the righteousness of the Palestinian jihad, is despicable, intellectually corrupt, and only worthy of contempt.

          • Americana

            There’s no implication in my statement that the U.S. “deserved 9/11 (had it coming)” because of our support of Israel. The point you should take away from my statements is that we were forewarned by Osama bin Laden many times and we didn’t find ways to move the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks forward. There is a difference between capitulation and appeasement and reasonable assessment of the Palestinian situation. You can’t pull these propaganda coups like claiming there was never a nation of Palestine in order to prevent the creation of such a nation. There are indigenous Palestinian Arabs who’ve got PROVABLE PROVENANCE in the region for many generations. The Israelis can’t — POOF! — make such evidence of their cultural presence disappear. Nor can you wage the kind of propaganda war that says Israel is entitled to that entire region because it belonged to two Jewish kingdoms that were conquered and obliterated thousands of years ago.

            There are three narratives coming from the Palestinians and only one of them is worth pursuing for Israel, that’s the creation of a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. The other two narratives, which are considered to be total anathema to Israelis, are the total elimination of Israel from the region or the subsuming of Israel into a one-state solution w/a mixed population of Palestinians and Jews. There are some who are beginning to state that Israel has settled the Palestinian areas in ways that make a two-state solution impossible at this point. (That’s only true if Israel won’t allow for Israelis to be divested of their illegal homes on Palestinian land. I’m not sure why that can’t be dealt w/by compensating those settlers who would lose their homes under a new two-state solution.) Can we pursue the two-state solution without jeopardizing Israel’s security? We certainly can because that’s what we’ve effectively got now so Israel’s continuing denial of its feasibility is simply not an honest appraisal of what can and can’t be done.

            I’ve never denied there’s a push by some jihadist elements for regional hegemony. But your hysterical claim is that the worldwide Caliphate is in the immediate future simply because these vainglorious fools from ISIS and ISIL and Al Aqsa Brigades say that’s what they want. These jihadists will make a lot of statements about their intentions, but what they wish for is not militarily feasible for them at present. You claim omniscience about all things Islam as if that’s the key to strategizing for the West. How many hadiths does one need to read that denigrate kuffirs and Jews and assorted other lesser beings before it’s clear what the problems are w/Islam? You’re not more of a military and sociological strategist simply because you bring quotes from the Al Aqsa Brigades and every other jihadist into this conversation. i’m well aware of what their aims are for the present as well as for the future. But the Western and infidel worlds have managed to live alongside Islam for 1,400 years and we’re not suddenly faced w/annihiliation simply because they’re chanting this utter BS. What have been their victories so far? They’ve beaten villagers and small army units. They’ve careened over vast tracts of relatively deserted, lightly populated land and taken some of the principal cities in Iraq because the Iraqi army fled. The battle within Islam has really only just begun w/this push in the Middle East for a Caliphate.

          • J.B.

            Islam is evil and your Psuedostinians don’t have anything to do with the origin of jihad.

            Go F yourself, scumbag.

          • Jack Diamond

            What was demonstrated to you clearly was that even Palestinian terrorists regard their jihad as just one among the many in the larger struggle. Just as Hamas identifies itself with the International Muslim Brotherhood (the Brotherhood was not founded over Israel it was founded over the abolishment of the Caliphate).

            Al Qaeda’s threats and declaration of war mentioned a variety of complaints about America being in Muslim lands, bringing injustice to Muslims, including supporting Israel and puppet governments. Even if their war WERE because of support for Israel, so what? But you could just as easily say it was because America imprisoned the Blind Sheikh, since bin Laden et al demanded his release or else. The list of grievances are endless and grow with every thing Americans do to protect themselves. These, of course, are pretexts. Taking the war to America was planned in jihadist conclaves going back decades. For one reason only, America was the reigning superpower and the obstacle to the domination of Islam in the 21st century, exactly the viewpoint of the Palestinian jihadists quoted.

            Bin Laden wrote his Islamic defense for 9/11 in a piece called “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West.”

            See if his justifications have ANYTHING to do with Israel or the Palestinians or would be any different should neither have been in existence…

            “There are only three choices in Islam: either willing
            submission, or payment of the jizya thereby physical, though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam, or the sword–for it is not right to let him live (an infidel). The matter is summed up for every person alive; either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (Note–What does this have to do with any specific political grievances? This is permanent eternal
            religious war)

            “Muslims and especially the learned among them, should spread Sharia law to the world, that and nothing else…(Muhammad:)”I have been commanded to battle mankind until they declare there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…He
            also said, per Berida..”Call them to Islam, if they respond (convert) accept this… if they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya…if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them. Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority, corporeally if not spiritually? Yes.”

            “In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the
            infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Shari’a from being publicly voiced among the people as was the case at the dawn of Islam…They say that our Shari’a does not impose our particular beliefs upon others, this is a false assumption. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others.”

            “Offensive Jihad is an established and basic tenet of this
            religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most
            deluded. Divine foundations that are built upon hating the
            infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace
            Islam or pay the jizya with willing submission and humility. The
            Prophet was “sent in the final hours with the sword so that none
            is worshipped but Allah alone, partnerless.”

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            1.4 billion Muslims can never defeat 6 billion Infidels.

            Every Islamofascist terrorist attack builds more disgust with islam and its teachings.

            It’s like Islam is on a suicide mission – the payoff will be the utter destruction of Mecca – for starters.

          • J.B.

            Islam is evil and your Psuedostinian hubby is an animal.

          • Webb

            Thermobaric weapons for near targets, nuclear weapons for far.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dummy,

            Dropping nukes (or whatever) deters the people you destroy, and deters the people that don’t want to be next on the list.

            They know we’re infiltrated by stupid communists that whine every time we lift a finger against them. That’s what encourages them. They want to use the leftists as the leftists are using them against “capitalism.”

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Red/Green Axis of Evil – two groups who are natural enemies due to basic views of human behavior, are united in a marriage of convenience due to the enemy of my enemy is my friend for now play.

          • J.B.

            Hirohito’s word was not law, you ignorant trolltard. His military council could override him with a unanimous decision.

            Don’t worry about where the nukes should be dropped, effendi.

    • Americana

      I agree, Judah. Islam has always provided an ‘out’ for those who refused to convert — paying the jizya. All Islam needs to do is take that one step further and realize that without religious conversion that is undertaken by someone’s own free will, Muslims will have converts who are not sincere.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Islam doesn’t care about freedom of individual will. It’s not an individualistic religion. It wants total social compliance from everyone.

        • Americana

          Islam may not care about freedom of individual will but HUMANS do care about free will, especially if they’re convinced they’ve got a better idea. This source of free will would be the lynchpin for those seeking to reform Islam. There will always be people who fight for free will. Look at how many Muslims have left Islam and are fighting against it. That’s what Judah and I are talking about — the INEVITABLE, TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE that is inflicted by people on all their social contracts. You claim it can never happen but there have already been a couple of instances where it has happened in Islam. We need a leader who can begin the process.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I appreciate your idealism, but I believe that it’s not realistic. The savages in Islam will always defeat the transformative thinkers.. Islam, itself, needs to be defeated so that those who are different can thrive.

            But the seeds of defeat for the Islamic idealist is to be found within their own religion … within the Koran, itself. I don’t hold out much hope that anything will change.

          • Americana

            You may be right, Wolf, however I don’t think it’s doing any harm to try to plant the seed of transformation. After all, the worst of the imams are successfully planting other seeds — jihad and martyrdom and so on. Who knows where someone might come from who has the heart and the will to change Islam for the better? Surely there must be a Muslim who finally witnesses a killing that disturbs their soul to the point where they acknowledge there must be a better way of proselytizing and practicing their faith.

          • jackdiamond

            and that Muslim leaves Islam, openly or secretly. Shall we go down the list of Muslim “reformers” (the handful) who actually confronted the verses of the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad who were murdered as apostates by the pious?

          • reader

            I don’t believe in “idealism” of someone who claims that Caliphate gave the Arabs jurisdiction over the entire region. It is an islamonaziism supporter. A little takiya is always in order, when a proverbial slip of a tongue is detected.

          • jackdiamond

            Who cares what you believe. “The whole earth has been declared unto me a mosque” (Sahih Muslim b004 n1062).
            The only religion recognized by Allah is Islam (Qur’an 3:19, 3:85). It is Allah and His Messenger who are the “Islamonazi.”

          • reader

            Yes, they are. What’s your point?

          • Jack Diamond

            When I saw your post for some reason it was identified as “Americana” which is whom I thought I was responding to. There’s so much traffic on this thread mistakes inevitably happen.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The software that drives this website is buggy. Messages under one name sometimes appear as another poster.

          • hiernonymous

            So you objected to the poster, not the post? Interesting.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I noticed some similar mislabeling myself of posters whose names were in grey.

          • Americana

            What insanity is this, reader? Surely you read English, don’t you? I like tacos, not taqqiya. Sharpen up on your English and you might eventually be able to slap a correct interpretation on my posts. Until then, lay off the taqqiya sauce…

          • reader

            It looks to me like you like both. Deny and deflect. Not too complicated.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Some people want free will. Others want to be told what to do. Still others want to tell everyone what to do.

            That’s an ongoing pattern in human history.

            Islam is a system built for telling people what to do and killing those who resist. The violence locks people in.

          • Judahlevi

            The “violence” may lock people in at the moment, but not forever.

            There is no way to ‘defeat Islam’ without moderation. You cannot kill every Muslim or have every Muslim revert. Just as Christianity modified itself with the recognition that forced conversion conflicts with the human nature of free will, so will Islam.

            The seeds are planted by events such as 9-11. Yes, the jihadis celebrate it, but there are many Muslims who understand the folly of taking on the advanced West. The tide will turn at some point in the future.

            Human nature always wins over totalitarian ideologies.

          • Americana

            I agree, Judah. I admire someone who’s able to state so forthrightly the truth of the matter. The fact Christianity went through a similar trajectory is being totally ignored by those who’d like to portray these events as something else. I can only hope that the sanity of your POV begins to take root amongst all this other hysterical ranting.

          • rxpc

            I would like to believe that what you say is true, Americana and Judahlevi, but I think it is woefully naive. Human nature did not defeat Hitler; overwhelming force of arms defeated him. I could list many other examples, but I think you get the point. As to the comparison of Islam and the Protestant Reformation, Christianity had within it the seeds of its own enlightenment. Islam does not. There is no room in doctrinal Islam for free will or a personal relationship with G-d. It asks only that its adherents submit to the totality of Islam. Failure to submit results in punishment up to and including death. It suffocates what we call “human nature” and leaves nothing but fear and destruction in its wake. Can Islam reform? I guess anything is possible, but I doubt it will occur when Islam is ascendant. Unfortunately, I think it will only occur if Islam is utterly defeated as a religion and a world view.

          • Judahlevi

            Human nature did defeat Hitler on two counts. One, the desire for freedom over enslavement. Two, the inherent knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. Both parts of human nature were integral in defeating Hitler and motivating the forces needed to do so.

            One cannot “suffocate” human nature, but humans can be killed. As I mentioned, the seeds of the destruction of Islam as a radical religion have already been sown. It may seem to be ascending, but the apex is in the past, not the future.

            Islam will be defeated in its radical form and the victor will be human nature.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Followers of Islam who kill people all over the world while braying “ala akbar” do more to build resentment and disgust with Islam than anything an Infidel could ever say..

          • Judahlevi

            Exactly.

          • Americana

            I agree completely, Judah. I believe as you do the better, higher aspirations and qualities in human nature will eventually win out over the more inhumane.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Why do you believe that Islam, which is not even a religion, needs to be reformed, which, by the way, is impossible? I mean if we listen to you, the only reason they are violent is because Israel harshly oppresses Muslims. Indeed, according to you, Israel harshly oppressing so-called Palestinian Muslims is the root cause of the global jihad.

          • Americana

            Islam, whether you approve of it or not as a religion, is classified as a religion. Denigrating it and ridiculing various points of its tenets isn’t terribly productive in the anti-jihad sphere as I see it. Why do I think Islam needs to be reformed? It’s obvious. Why would you doubt a religion needs reform when it’s allowing adherents to use all sorts of terrorism measures to achieve political and sociological aims? You’ve made the claim that Islam cannot be reformed because it was supposedly divinely inspired so there are all sorts of prohibitions against altering God’s words. But everything that is constructed by humans can be deconstructed by humans. Religions are no different than any other social construct. They’re just a touchier thing to fiddle with because of their very nature.

            I didn’t say the Israeli-Palestinian situation is responsible for the global jihad. What I’ve said is the Palestinian jihad has been thoroughly publicized for several decades and it’s been the source of **inspiration** for several of these other jihads. As for whether or not you consider the Palestinians are truly repressed, let’s see you live in a zone which you are forbidden from leaving, in which you cannot buy all the goods you may wish, where your house can be taken from you by the powers that be and be demolished, where you may not have access to medical care despite serious illnesses and on and on… Denial of what the situation involves simply doesn’t work to solve the impasse.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islam is subject to examination and ridicule as any other religion is.

            People should be able to write books about it, draw pictures of figures in Islam without fear of murderous attacks.

            The problem with Islam is that it expects others to respect it while it does not respect other religions.

          • Jack Diamond

            It’s like talking to a machine

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Islam, whether you approve of it or not as a religion, is classified as a religion.

            Only by who, leftwing loons like you and other gullible useful idiot morons who readily accept Islam’s claim to be a religion on face value without knowledge of what Islam actually is? However, any so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers isn’t a religion in my book, as that is the definition of a cult. Any so-called religion that obligates all Muslims to wage jihad against other religions and infidels under the penalty of death for blasphemy in order to make itself supreme above all other religions, isn’t a religion, that’s a cult. Any so-called religion that forces all adherents to totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, under the penalties of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy isn’t a religion but a very rabid totalitarian cult. Speak for yourself when you claim that you consider Islam to be a religion, because anyone who understands what Islam actually is most certainly does not.

            Denigrating it and ridiculing various points of its tenets isn’t terribly productive in the anti-jihad sphere as I see it.

            I know exposing the reality of Islam to the light of day is Islamophobia according to the Marxist totalitarian left of which you are a card carrying member.

            Why do I think Islam needs to be reformed?

            You can think it like a loon all you want, but the fact of the matter is Islam can’t be reformed. Indeed, anytime I hear some moonbat like you say that, I immediately know I’m dealing with an idiot where Islam is concerned. But nevertheless why do you believe it needs to be reformed, because according to you Muslims are just reacting to Israeli aggression, poverty and despair, greedy American imperialism, and American interventionist foreign policy? Otherwise, if we listen to your insanity, Islam is a so-called “religion of peace”.

            Why would you doubt a religion needs reform when it’s allowing adherents to use all sorts of terrorism measures to achieve political and sociological aims?

            First of all, Muslims aren’t radicals and extremists perpetrating terrorism for various causes. That nonsense is the nonsense of PC multicultural loons. Muslims are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), waging jihad, which is a holy war waged by all Muslims in one form or another, either violently or non-violently, against infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme. As waging jihad is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and because Islam is a so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent as in AQ and ISIS, or non-violent as in the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Nevertheless, according to what you always write, Muslims are just reacting to Israeli aggression. Indeed, that is the root cause of the global jihad according to you. So why all of a sudden are you contradicting yourself?

            Moreover, any so-called religion that advocates both violent and non-violent jihad (holy war) be waged against all infidels to make itself supreme throughout the world isn’t a religion but a cult, and the last time I checked cults can’t be reformed.

            But everything that is constructed by humans can be deconstructed by humans.

            Well that’s where you are wrong, the Koran according to Islam is constructed by Allah (God) and is therefore divine, and any mere mortal man perceived as attempting to alter just one single word of it, is automatically instantly killed. Not to mention that even if it were possible for the Koran to be altered and its not, there still isn’t any hierarchal system to disseminate those reforms down to individual Muslims. Good luck!

            Moreover, Islam is not even a religion and even if it were, just because Christianity was reformed, doesn’t mean that any other religion can be reformed.

            Not to mention that Islam has already been reformed, as initially it was a religion that was modeled off of the many other religions present at the time it was first created in Mecca by Muhammad. However, after the Hijra in 622 AD, where Muhammad and his early followers were cast out of Mecca by the Meccans and forced to migrate to Medina, Muhammad became totally obsessed with exacting revenge and turned to politics and jihad at that time, and at the same time reformed Islam into what it is today, which is a very totalitarian cult that aims to subjugate all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, through jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme. Indeed, it is Muhammad’s revenge for the Meccans rejecting his religion and for being cast out of Mecca by the Meccans.

            In addition, the doctrine of abrogation, which is universally accepted by all Muslims throughout the Islamic totalitarian world, proclaims that all the latter issued verses of the Koran, i.e., those verses issued by Muhammad later on in his career, abrogate, i.e., supersede and replace, all earlier issued verses of the Koran in which they conflict with and contradict.

            Thus, all latter issued verses of the Koran that originate from after the Hijra, abrogate, supersede, and replace all the earlier issued verses of the Koran that were issued in Mecca at a time when Islam and Muslims were still peaceful.

            Moreover, the infamous sword verses of the Koran, because they were some of the last verses issued by Muhammad in his career shortly before his death, abrogate, override, supersede, and preplace all other verses of the Koran in which they conflict with and contradict.

            Now, of course, Muslim stealth jihadists always make it a practice to cite peaceful Meccan verses of the Koran that have all been abrogated to demonstrate that Islam is a so-called “religion of peace” to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels exactly like you.

            Religions are no different than any other social construct.

            You are a Marxist totalitarian. In other words, you have replaced Jesus Christ with Karl Marx, and like all delusional Marxist totalitarians, you don’t have the first clue about actual religions and least of all what actually constitutes a religion.

            I didn’t say the Israeli-Palestinian situation is responsible for the global jihad

            Apparently, you don’t read your own post. Give me a break.

            What I’ve said is the Palestinian jihad has been thoroughly publicized for several decades and it’s been the source of **inspiration** for several of these other jihads.

            No that’s not what you said! You are now trying to walk it back. Go read your own unhinged posts. You turn every topic about Islam into the so-called Palestinians being repressed by the infidels in Israel because you are totally obsessed with apologizing for permanent and perpetual jihad, while demonizing and vilifying Jewish infidels. Indeed, you are a totally obsessed Muslim apologizer and Jewish infidel demonizer.

            As for whether or not you consider the Palestinians are truly repressed,

            Show me just one Islamic totalitarian hellhole on the planet that isn’t also totally repressed. They are repressed all right, but not because of the Israelis, but by Islam and its Sharia. Indeed, Islam is an extremely rabid form of totalitarianism that controls every single aspect of Muslims’ lives down to the smallest details, including the way that all Muslims must clean themselves after defecation. Even the way females must be circumcised. It’s sick! Yet, you are addicted to vilifying and demonizing Jewish infidels, while at the same time always apologizing for Muslim jihadists, and that kind of indicates to me that you have a deep seated hatred for Jews among other unhinged things.

            As for whether or not you consider the Palestinians are truly repressed, let’s see you live in a zone which you are forbidden from leaving, in which you cannot buy all the goods you may wish, where your house can be taken from you by the powers that be and be demolished, where you may not have access to medical care despite serious illnesses and on and on…

            Actually, all of that’s absurd, as that is the normal condition in all Islamic totalitarian hellholes in the world let alone in the disputed territories. Nevertheless, the situation in the disputed territories in Samaria and Judea is largely a product of the perpetual jihad the Islamic totalitarian world, per their proxies the so-called Palestinians, are waging against the Jewish infidels in Israel. I mean if the children you raise to be jihadists murder young teenagers in cold blood, then it means you are also guilty, and as a result just getting your house demolished is a small price to pay for your own personal acts of jihad. Not to mention that their houses get immediately rebuilt in any event. As for as the medical care being denied and the rest of your garbage, that is complete and utter propaganda used by you to vilify and demonize Jews. Apparently, there is a lot of anti-Semitism involved in your own personal demonization of Jews as well.

            Denial of what the situation involves simply doesn’t work to solve the impasse.

            Blowing the situation way out of proportion while at the same time ignoring the perpetual jihad the so-called Palestinians are waging against the Jewish infidels, doesn’t work either and indicates rank antisemitism and bigotry.

            Not to mention that the Jewish infidels in Israel have no other choice in the matter but to defend themselves from jihad, because if they ever make the mistake of surrendering to the forces of jihad, there will be a blood bath consisting of only Jewish blood, and the few that survive will be forced into harsh and degrading dhimmitude, just like all infidels are today that are forced to live under harsh Sharia laws. Apparently you hate Jewish infidels in Israel so much that you want them to be forced to live under harsh Sharia laws. Oh well, your motivation in coming through loud and clear.

          • truebearing

            How do you reform it? Edit out the teachings of Mohammed? Eliminate Sharia? What is left if you do? Maybe the Islamic Reformation should include an admission that the whole thing was a bad cut and paste plagiarism of Judaism and Christianity.

            Who is going to live long enough to do this reformation? What you propose is apostasy, the worst sin in Islam. The penalty is death. Of course, death is Islam’s solution to most things it doesn’t accept.

            Martin Luther faught with the Catholic Church over a variety of issues with the corrupted church, but none as serious as advocating slavery, murder, etc. He didn’t rewrite the Gospels, either. He pointed out how the church wasn’t adhering to them. In fact, he was trying to reform the Catholic Church, not Christianity. His theological interpretation of the teachings of Christ was a break from catholicism, but in no way a reformation of the Gospels themselves. He advocated a direct relationship with God and believed Grace was ultimately the path to heaven. The timeliness of Gutenberg’s printing press spread those ideas, and the availability of readable Bibles, but the Christian teachings remained entirely the same.

            Try doing that with the teachings of Islam. You couldn’t, for the simple reason that the stated goal of Islam, domination of the world via destruction of all other religions, would have to be reformed first, which would leave Islam without a purpose. Jihad would have to be entirely retooled. it would make far more sense for Muslims to become Jews or Christians at that point.

          • truebearing

            Christianity did not go through a similar trajectory. That isn’t possible given the fundamental differences between the teachings of the two religions.

            Not only are they not on a similar trajectory, they weren’t remotely similar in origin. Mohammed was a bloodthirsty, ruthless, psychopath. Jesus was an enlightened being. Mohammed taught his followers to murder, rape, keep slaves, etc. Jesus taught people to have compassion on others, even enemies.

            There are no instances of Christian armies invading countries like India and slaughtering 90 million people.

            Once Bibles were available in the native languages throughout Christendom, people began to reform themselves, not Christianity. When Muslims follow the teachings of Mohammed, they go out and begin killing, raping, beheading, etc. Hardly the same result, is it?

          • Nabukuduriuzhur

            The book of Ezekiel describes the destruction if Islam.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Book of Ezekiel AKBAR!

          • Americana

            Oh, now that’s something to really hang your strategic hat on! Ezekiel, he’s the go to prophet for 21st c. warfare…

          • ObamaYoMoma

            There is no way to ‘defeat Islam’ without moderation. You cannot kill every Muslim or have every Muslim revert. Just as Christianity modified itself with the recognition that forced conversion conflicts with the human nature of free will, so will Islam.

            Islam is not even a religion. I mean I would not even consider any so-called religion that kills all apostates and all blasphemers to be a religion. Indeed, that’s the definition of a cult if you ask me and because Islam is extremely totalitarian, it is an extremely totalitarian cult as opposed to being a so-called religion. You can’t reform a very totalitarian cult.

            Meanwhile, the Christian reformation was only possible because there was an already established Papacy, i.e., a hierarchy, to filter all reforms down to the masses. In Islamic totalitarian society, however, there is no such internal infrastructure to universally filter down any possible reforms to the masses.

            Not to mention also that the text of Islam contained in the Koran, according to Islam is the direct verbatim text of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Thus, the text of the Koran is considered to be divine by all Muslims, and because it is considered to be divine by all Muslims, they believe it is absolutely flawless and perfectly just.

            This is also the reason why Muslims also fully intend to replace all laws that emanate from mere mortal man with Sharia, because Sharia emanates divinely directly from Allah and is, indeed, the “will of Allah”.

            Finally, any mere mortal man perceived by Muslims as trying to alter just one single word of that divine text contained in the Koran would be instantly executed for blasphemy. Hence, since it is impossible for the Koran to ever be altered, it is impossible for Islam to ever be reformed.

            Indeed, we have no other choice but to destroy that ideology before it destroys us, and thus there are only two ways to go about it:

            1) to kill all Muslims until there are no more Muslims and hence no more Islam. An extremely violent, incredibly messy, and very bloody way to go about it.

            2) to render the Islamic totalitarian world defenseless and in total abject poverty to make it incapable of waging jihad aggressively, then by total and complete isolation. Since Muslims are incapable of producing anything on their own thanks to Islam, in a matter of a few generations Islam would become discredited in that society.

            Of the two available viable options, I prefer the latter over the former although it is far riskier because I don’t like the idea of all that blood, all that gore, and all that violence. The only other option, of course, is to bury our respective heads in the sand.

          • truebearing

            You can’t equate Islam with Christianity. In fact they are diametrically opposed in what they teach. Islam is a political warrior cult that sees destruction as the solution to everything. Christian Gospel is all about love, forgiveness, and compassion. Christianity didn’t modify the teachings of Jesus. What happened was that Christians began following the teachings more faithfully. Much of that can be attributed to the Reformation and the invention of the printing press, which encouraged individuals to develop a personal relationship with God and made it possible for them to buy Bibles translated into their native languages. Before that, the Bible was only available in Latin — a language few understood — which meant priests interpreted the Gospel, sometimes with a decidedly political bent.

            The Islamic Reformation we are seeing is the exact opposite. The hate, intolerance, and manifest destiny embedded in the Quran is inspiring a growing army of Islamists.As opposed to Christians, who became more tolerant, forgiving, etc, when exposed more directly to the Gospel of Christ, Muslims become more violent, intolerant, and power-mad the more devoutly they adhere to the teachings of the Quran.

            Islam is far more accurately comparable to N azism. They are on the same evil plane. Both were created by evil to manifest evil.

          • Judahlevi

            Assuming you are correct, then how do you defeat Islam when nearly a billion people in multiple countries practice it?

          • truebearing

            First, don’t let it infect countries it hasn’t already infiltrated, but assuming that isn’t possible, defeat political correctness so it doesn’t become a springboard for Sharia.

            Second, deprive the Islamists the weapons and money they need to win. That is a difficult task, given the willingness of our enemies, Russia, China, and Obama to arm them, but at very least, we shouldn’t help them. Stopping aid to all Islamist regimes would be a good start.

            Third, extreme vigilance. We need to keep out economy and military strong, but that means educating people to modern reality, which has proven to be difficult. Requiring all young people to serve in the military would be a great way to redirect our aimless youth and increase military readiness.

            Fourth, establish very strong alliances and help them become stronger. We can’t defeat Islam all by ourselves.

            Make energy independence for ourselves and our allies a top priority. Depriving Islamic states of oil revenue will deprive Islamists of food, ammo, and weapons.

            Don’t waste time or resources rebuilding offending nations. Destroy the enemy and get out, unless it is an allied country. Make it hurt and do it fast.

            Begin arresting traitors and seditionists. People who openly advocate overthrowing this country should be dealt with harshly.

            Perhaps the most important thing we can do is to return as a nation to our spiritual roots. This is, after all, a struggle of good vs evil.

            It is likely that the struggle with islam will be long and require great endurance, but we may find that a significant defeat of the radical elements will actually be welcomed by those trapped in Muslim societies and they will see a reason to abandon Islam, or reform it, but we won’t be able to escape war with the Islamists. They have already declared it.

            Personally, I believe there will be world war that will engulf the entire world. Nuclear weapons will be used, as will chemical and biological. Islamists will intentionally start it. The failure to confront evil early will result in fighting it after it reaches full strength, just like in WWII.

    • Matt E

      Fine, but they should go through their separation process in separation from the West and from Israel.

    • Evermyrtle

      Enough hate against a society to kill children, for payback, is nothing more than pure raving insanity. Where in this world can you find such hate? Look not further than Islam peace loving people! They they hate, tare in constant outlook for someone they hate, that they can destroy. Their greatest hate is for our Savior who did not lift a finger to save HIS life, HE did it for HIS people to save us from our sins, to pay the price of our sins. What do they have that can come anywhere near to matching our LORD JESUS CHRIST?

      • JJF

        Rubbish- Islam’s greatest hate is for 1. Jews 2. Kuffar 3. Atheists 4. Other muslims
        Islam reveres JC as a prophet, you silly christian. Read the koran, educate yourself.

        • guest

          Rubbish yourself JJF***wit. Talk to a Coptic Christian and find out how much the devil reveres JC. Educate your own self.

          • JJF

            Isa Ibn Maryam ( Arabic: عيسى, translit.: ʿĪsā ), known as Jesus in the New Testament, is considered to be a Messenger of God and al-Masih (theMessiah) in Islam[1][2]:30 who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā’īl) with a new scripture, al-Injīl (the Gospel).[3] The belief that Jesus is a prophet is required in Islam, as it is for all prophets named in the Qur’an.

            Did I say islam was good to christians? NO!
            The people of the book are subject to islamic terror and murder as are ALL other kuffar.
            Read and learn.

        • jackdiamond

          Jews followed by Christians, who are kaffirs and guilty of shirk according to the Qur’an. Islam reveres Jesus as a Muslim prophet who will return to destroy Christianity (break the cross) and end the jizya (protection status for Christians). Shall we go through all the quotations how Allah (and therefore Muslims) are to have hate and enmity for Christians? Islam steals Jesus, steals the Bible and its prophets (abrogates it), steals the Holy Land, supplants Judaism and Christianity–denies Father and Son explicitly. The Muslim murder spree against Christians in Muslim majority countries speaks for itself, allahu akbar. Of course, you already admit Islam hates the rest of the non-Muslim kuffar world.

          • JJF

            Fully agreed. Even though in theory islam tolerates christians and jews (people of the book), in practice they are slaughtered at every opportunity.

            Muhammad was very big on plagiarism and not so good on originality…

        • Geppetto

          Islam hates CHRISTians. Read the news and educate yourself. What is happening to the Christian communities and churches in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, etc. In Saudi Arabia. Mecca, to Islam what the Vatican is to Christianity, there is not one Christian edifice of any kind though there is allegedly talk about such between a Saudi ambassador in Cairo and the Coptic Pope.
          http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/454/0/-first-church-in-saudi-arabia-after-reports-of-momentous-accord-with-egypt-s-coptic-pope
          Read this and note that there has been no confirmation from Saudi sources.

          Islam is no friend of Christianity despite how they might feel about Jesus Christ.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Mecca is Islams weak point.

            Infidels MUST threaten Mecca with retaliatory annihilation if the West suffer a nuke attack.

          • Webb

            Good idea. I vote for pre-emptive retaliation. As in “Mecca? What Mecca?”

          • JJF

            Absolutely true but my point is that Islam HATES every non-muslim (and some muslims of the wrong sect).
            Despite muslim claims to “no compulsion in religion” this is of course a lie, in accordance with taqiyya. As you say nothing but islam is tolerated in Sodomised Arabia and no kafir is allowed in Makkah/ Madinah.

            My education re islam is very thorough; christians get slightly better treatment as they can elect to 1. convert or 2. accept dhimmi status or 3. die.
            Atheists & others are given option 3. only!

        • Nabukuduriuzhur

          JJF, you haven’t read the Q’uran then. Christians and Jews are held to be Islam’s enemy. Muslims are ordered to do number of horrible things to them, from maiming to murder.

          • JJF

            Indeed I have read the Book of Death. Jesus is the second most important prophet of islam and a muslim–

            Isa Ibn Maryam ( Arabic: عيسى, translit.: ʿĪsā ), known as Jesus in the New Testament, is considered to be a Messenger of God and al-Masih (the Messiah) in Islam[1][2]:30
            {Isa=Jesus, Maryam=Mary}

            I omitted some of the People of the Book, ie christians.

            BUT at least they get the choice of conversion, dhimmitude or death; whereas for atheists and others its only option 3!

            Hope you and Evermyrtle learned something from this…

  • RatedBestComment

    I’m afraid nothing will stop them from their madness because it is prophesied by the creator God that they were to be “wild men” unable to get along with others, and as someone pointed out, even with each other.

    So stand aside and watch the fireworks.

  • MN dude

    well said

  • Jimmy J

    Actually, this war started in heaven when Satan rebelled against God.

  • Michael Garfinkel

    Greenfield is right, of course, as “the bloody borders of Islam” have always contained a War of all against all. Still, I do think there is exists in Islam a particular antipathy toward Jews.

    In any event, one can make the case easily that the recent release of Arab prisoners at the behest of John Kerry pretty much sealed the fate of these three Israeli boys.

    Perhaps now we will see, at long last, a modicum of justice.

    Hamas must be destroyed, root and branch. Is there finally the will to do so?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Islam hates Jews because their religion usurps Judaism. But Islam also hates everyone else. There’s no religion that Muslims don’t hate, including other Muslims.

      • Michael Garfinkel

        Bellum omnium contra omnes.

        Again, the question remains: Will Israel summon the will, finally, to act decisively?

        • Michael Garfinkel

          Already, Obama (the future will not belong to those who slander the prophet), and the UN are calling for “maximum restraint,” and there are reports that the Israeli cabinet is divided.

          If there is again a failure of will, there will be many more unspeakable tragedies.

          • liz

            And as usual, the failure of will is perpetrated by the leftists.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Tune out the neo-commies.

        • Americana

          I’d say Israel should summon the will to act decisively and insist all those Israelis in West Bank settlements come back inside Israel’s borders. Let’s see what happens from that.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They did that in Gaza. The rest is Hamastory.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            “Americana” uses the term “Israel’s borders” as if he has the first clue of what he’s talking about. He doesn’t.

            Expect more of this kind of white noise; it is intended to obfuscate the issue – to muddy the waters.

            It is clear that Israel, and perhaps the West itself is confronted by a war of annihilation; nothing short of the destruction of the entire terrorist infrastructure will suffice.

            Now is the time for Israel to act.

          • Americana

            My comments are not white noise. That’s the trouble w/what you’re selling. You’re creating a narrative of white noise that doesn’t precisely match the situation. Your claims are entirely one-sided, for whatever reason, and you fail to have any real overview.

            As for this sales pitch of yours that the West is involved in a religious fight to the death, let’s settle the Palestinian-Israeli situation and see where the West stands viz Islam. It’s going to be very tough to guarantee the “destruction of the entire terrorist infrastructure.”

          • reader

            “The sales pitch” must be in your talking points bulletine. Hops from one thread to another. Judenreina is selling Obama’s line that the war is over just because he said it, even though the jihadists are only beginning to warm up.

          • Americana

            I’ve never claimed the war is over. I simply consider it’s a different battleground than what you’re claiming.

            Let’s settle the Palestinian-Israeli situation and then see where we’re at w/the issue of jihad agains the U.S. My POV is pretty simple. We face the Palestinian jihad. We are not facing the Tamil Tigers, we’re not facing the Indonesian Hot Shots, we’re not facing the Serious Saudis and so on.

          • reader

            You want to settle the situation by cleansing the Jews from the land. I want to setttle the situation by the Jews decicively defeating the Muslim Brotherhood creation HAMAS and the KGB creation Fatah. So, Judenreina, I don’t see how we can see eye to eye on how to settle it.

          • Americana

            I’ve never suggested that. What I have suggested is that the greatest likelihood to me of Israel pacifying the Palestinians is to give them a reasonable percentage of their former homeland instead of pretending that Israel owns it all and should own it all.

            I count myself among those Israelis who believe this two-state solution is feasible, many of whom are the highest ranking generals in the Israeli armed forces and other Israelis who’ve been the directors of the Shin Bet and the Mossad. Having someone like you who disagrees w/me weighs very little in my opinion as to whom to trust to make the right decision. They have fortified me in my belief that the two-state solution is the most just. The fact their solution is the most just is the reason why it stands the greatest chance of guaranteeing peace over the long term.

          • reader

            “I count myself among those Israelis who believe this two-state solution is feasible”

            I’m confused. Your earlier appearances on this site featured claims that the US should stop supporting Israel, because Ben Laden attacked the US because of Israel. Now you’re claiming to be an Israeli?

            “pacifying the Palestinians is to give them a reasonable percentage of their former homeland instead of pretending that Israel owns it all and should own it all”

            This is nonsense wrapped in a lie. Hence, I don’t believe it. You are a liar. You want Judenrein.

          • Americana

            I’ve never said the U.S. should stop supporting Israel. What I’ve said, and what you’ve continually misrepresented, is that the U.S. should insist on Israeli adherence to political behaviors likely to contribute to a peace agreement.

            What does this mean? No settlements. No buying land en masse from Palestinians anxious to get their money out of the situation because they see no end in sight. No muddling over where settlements are allowed and where they’re not. Shall I go on?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Do you think that Jerusalem is a settlement?

            Do you feel that there should also be no Muslim settlements?

            Do you oppose Qatar funding Muslim settlements?

            What are your feelings on towns of Arab Israelis? Or is your ban only for Jewish Israelis?

          • Americana

            The original United Nations partition plan had wanted Jerusalem under a Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. That may well have been one of the reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War.

            You’ll have to forgive me if I request clarification of your “Muslim settlements” and “Qatari funding of Muslim settlements” questions. As stated, there’s not enough clarity for me to respond to your questions. No way can I respond to your questions w/that open-ended of a rhetorical slant.

            Did you word them this way on purpose? In future, i’ll point out when you’re asking me rhetorical, baiting questions and you’ll have one subsequent opportunity to clarify your questions within a reasonable framework. You’re a writer. I’m a writer. I expect you to adhere to reasonable standards for ethical behavior in debates.
            _____________________________________________________

            From Wiki:

            The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

            The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6] With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

            Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.

          • reader

            “That may well have been one of the reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War.”

            It was not a “Civil War,” it was the genocidal war of aggression, the Arabs being the aggressors. There was only one reason for it: the rejection of the Partition and the expected genocide of the Jews. Once the Arabs started the war, they affectively forfeited any legal claims on Jerusalem or any other property for that matter – just like the Germans did. They just got away with that – and that was the biggest mistake made by the Jews.

          • Americana

            Ah, yes, it was just a WAR then. Perhaps I misunderstood the early dispersal of Jews within the Palestine Mandate as being indicative of the same colonization that the present Palestinian Arabs are upset about. Please refer to the maps in this Wiki link:
            _____________________________________________________

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–1948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine
            _____________________________________

            Geographic situation of the Jewish zones

            Map of Jewish settlements and roads in Palestine by 1 December 1947

            Apart from on the coastline, Jewish yishuvim, or settlements, were very dispersed. Communication between the coastal area—which was the most developed in terms of Jewish settlements—and the peripheral settlements was carried out by road links. These road links were an easy target for attacks, as the majority of them passed through or near entirely Arab localities. The isolation of the 100,000 Jewish people in Jerusalem and other Jewish settlements outside the coastal zone, such as kibbutz Kfar Etzion, halfway on the strategic road between Jerusalem and Hebron, the 27 settlements in the Southern region of Negev[38] and the settlements to the north of Galilee, were a weak strategic point for Yishuv.

            The possibility of evacuating these difficult to defend zones was considered, but the policy of Haganah was set by David Ben-Gurion. He stated that ‘what the Jewish people have has to be conserved. No Jewish person should abandon his or her house, farm, kibbutz or job without authorization. Every outpost, every colony, whether it is isolated or not, must be occupied as though it were Tel Aviv itself.[32] No Jewish settlement was evacuated until the invasion of May 1948. Only a dozen kibbutzim in Galilee as well as those of Gush Etzion sent women and children into the safer interior zones.[39]

            Ben-Gurion gave instructions that the settlements of Negev be reinforced in number of men and goods,[38] in particular the kibbutzim of Kfar Daromand Yad Mordechai (both close to Gaza), Revivim (south of Beersheba) and Kfar Etzion. Conscious of the danger that weighed upon Negev, the supreme command of Haganah assigned a whole Palmach battalion there.[40]

            Jerusalem and the great difficulty of accessing the city became even more critical to its Jewish population, who made up one sixth of the total Jewish population in Palestine. The long and precipitous route from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, after leaving the Jewish zone at Hulda, went through the foothills of Latrun. Then, the 28-kilometre route between Bab al-Wad and Jerusalem took no less than 3 hours,[41] and the route passed the vicinity of the Arab villages ofSaris, Qaluniya, Al-Qastal and Deir Yassin.[42]

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It wasn’t a civil war. It was an invasion involving multiple countries and overseen by UK officers

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The British were also defeated in that the expectations of British elites that the Israelis, including survivors of the Holocaust, would be massacred without the “protection” of the British.

            How sad for the British. /sarc

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Five Arab armies, none of which was the army of “palestine” attacked Israel – and were blocked and defeated.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Some people describes Jews living in Jerusalem as making a settlement. I’m asking whether you agree with that.

            I’m also asking whether you only oppose the creation of new Jewish towns or also the creation of new Muslim towns.

            I think that’s simple and straightforward.

          • Webb

            Uh, you are definitely not a writer. So that’s what you’ve been thinking. That’s a laugh and a half. Where did you get that idea?

          • reader

            “No settlements. No buying land en masse from Palestinians anxious to get their money out of the situation because they see no end in sight.”

            It’s unheard of that somebody would make a souvereign nation to ristrict property rights of its own citizens – unless you’re a islamonaziism peddler. And that’s who you are.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Yes. Pal-e-SWINIAN Nakba will be Eternal.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Savage, your pal-e-SWINIANS thought they could sell their land to Jews and that land would later be returned to them by invading Arab armies.
            Didn’t work out quite the way your pals expected.

          • Drakken

            What fu–ing part of there will never be peace with those goddamn muslims of the West Bank and Gaza aren’t you quite getting? They will never stop their war(jihad) with the Jews until either the jews or the muslims are dead and gone, my money is on the Jews of Israel and get my complete support. I keep telling you, put your money where your mouth is and go there and support your Islamic friends.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Muslims can’t get along with fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, and “some people” claim that Israel is the problem, ya gotta laugh

          • Webb

            Yes please, do go on and on and on. Why would you ask such a silly question? You’re the most popular commenter on this site, that’s easy to see. Enlighten us some more.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Americana needs Nakba.

            Eternal Nakba.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Americana first claimed to be British, then a dual national Brit/American, now an Israeli.

            Americana is 100% full of Shiite.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You can count yourself as one of the dhimmis who is welcome to submit to the religion of plane bombings, plane hijacking, 9/11, stoning to death of girls over family honor, execution of gay teens, summary execution of opponents and dragging the bodies of the dead through the streets of gaza.

            Please continue to submit to Islamofascism.

          • Webb

            They’ve whored themselves out to the traitors in Israel and the evil NGOs. Your kind of people — the Synagogue of Satan.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            There can be no peace with pal-e-SWINIANS as long as they are brainwashed to die for their terrorist religion and expect the West to weep over dead pal-e-SWINIANS who die during jihad.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You can’t settle the Israeli-Paleswinian dispute when there is a sunni-shiite dispute, an India-Pakistan dispute, a Russian-Chechin dispute.
            Wherever there is Islam, there is Islamist terrorism and steps are taken to resist and defeat islamofascist terrorism.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            It is painfully obvious that the only way to “settle” the Palestinian-Israeli situation, to use your unfortunate phrase, to the satisfaction of the Palestinians, is to destroy the Jewish state, if not the Jewish people themselves.

            The Palestinians have been proceeding along these lines since before the Partition of 1947.

            So, your position is clear, although you haven’t intended to make it clear.

            Sell out the Jews, and Islam and the West can, at long last, coexist in relative peace.

            Here, at least, we have something other than white noise from you.

          • Americana

            No, you’re mistaken. But, of course, you KNOW you’ve gone and GARFINKLED my statements. Either respond to my statements as written or don’t refer to my posts. I’m tired of these blowhard misstatements by folks like you.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            Well, some things are abundantly clear – you’re not just mistaken in your views, they’re the views of a nasty and petulant child.

          • Webb

            Don’t forget retarded.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I prefer that Israel continue to thrive and the Pal-e-SWINIANS continue to internalize ETERNAL NAKBA.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “Your claims are entirely one-sided, for whatever reason, and you fail to have any real overview.”

            Pot. Kettle. Eurabia.

            Lets see Eurabia continue to champion people who bomb London transport on 7/7/05, behead Lee Rigby, openly threaten the UK and Eurabia with 9/11 scale atrocities.

          • Americana

            What do those events have to do w/Europe? Rather those are related to the British presence in Afghanistan. Well, let’s see the British royal family sent their younger son to be a helicopter pilot in Afghanistan and had many thousands of troops there in some of the most hard-fought areas. So that explains the bombing of London and the beheading of Corporal Lee Rigby.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            How does that explain the beheading of Rigby? Rigby’s killers weren’t Afghanis. They weren’t retaliating for attacks on their clan. It’s true many in the UK opposed British policies. Leftists, for instance, call Blair a war criminal but they don’t behead UK soldiers. They debate the issue and advocate new policies. What explains the beheading of Rigby?

          • Americana

            Corporal Rigby’s unit had already been to Afghanistan and they were ready to be redeployed to Afghanistan. His killers were two British Muslims who were jihadists and who knew Rigby’s unit had been in one of the toughest of the Afghan provinces. Just because Corporal Rigby’s killers slew him in England doesn’t mean they weren’t participating in the Afghan jihad.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            If there were no Islamists and no Islamofascist terrorist mosques preaching jihad in the UK, Lee Rigby would still be alive.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Ah, so it’s Islam. That’s the title of Daniel’s article. Thank you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Your mistake is limiting the Jihad to Afghanistan. The Jihad is everywhere

          • Jack Diamond

            The note by the murderer handed to a bystander to explain himself did not talk about Afghanistan. It quoted the Qur’an over and over i.e. “to fight Allah’s enemies is an obligation” “fight the disbelievers nearest to you let them find harshness in you” and references to general “invasion” of Islamic lands. Any resistance to Jihad or Islam is always regarded as a provocation by the infidels, an aggression and act of war even if it is in self-defense; something that will just make the Muslims angry, only create more enemies etc. Their excuses for killing us are endless but they always come down to the Qur’an and the fact we are infidels and their enemies forever. The fact we exist and stand in their way of “dominating and not being dominated.” No one owes an explanation for why we and the British were in Afghanistan to these savages or their apologists. We were there because they brought us there.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You are making the case for the expulsion of Muslims and their religious institutions from the UK.

            Is that your goal?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Muslim presence in the UK is the reason Islamofascist atrocities are committed in the UK.

            No radical Islamist in the UK. No more Islamofascist outrages in the UK.

            Are you OK with Danish/European cartoonists drawing a caricature of Muhammed – a caricature that lampoons the claim the Islam is the “Religion of Peace”?

          • Drakken

            The fact that your fellow leftist flooded Britain with the 3rd world is what lead to that acts of Islamic jihad. There will be more of it, much more.

          • Webb

            Britain should hang you for treason for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Or I’d enjoy seeing Mr. Rigby’s family lay hands on you. Your heart is much filthier than I had imagined, but here you are finally. Satanic to the core.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your rationalization of British Muslim attacks on London lend support for the expulsion of Muslims from Britain.

          • Drakken

            It is a very simple equation, you either side with western civilization, pssst, Israel is of Western Civilization, or you side with the Islamic savages, there is no longer any middle ground, so I would chose wisely for there is no do overs.

          • Webb

            Your comments aren’t white noise, they’re cacophonic and evil. You are demon infested and Satanic to the core.

          • mozart

            You are a female British Muslim practicing Taqiya. You are a liar, a bigot, an anti-Semite and quite incapable of neutral, logical reasoning. Your choice of “Americana” as a username is on its face a deception. You are violent, mostly with words and NO ONE should waste their time engaging you.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I disagree. Run “Americana” down into a weeping, defeated wog. We all must confront and defeat Islamofascist EVIL.

          • hiernonymous

            What a remarkably boorish post. Shame on you.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            If Muslims can’t get along with fellow Muslims, how can you posit that Muslims could get along with NON-Muslims?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Endless war. This “Obama-like” gesture would be seen by the PALs as surrender, on Israel’s part.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I’d say that Muslims should insist that all Pal-e-SWINIANS should return to their ancestral homes in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and restart their lives that exemplify the best examples of “the Religion of Peace”.

            Or Eurabia can continue to welcome the Islamist hordes that have made Eurabia the cauldron of insanity it is today.

          • Webb

            I’d say Israel should kick all the raggedy-ass muslims out of the West Bank. Who let them muslie pedophile worshipers settle there anyway? That was a bad idea.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        I wish the software that drives this website was updated to fix the problem where names of posters are not correct. This problem didn’t exist months ago.

    • BagLady

      “In any event, one can make the case easily that the recent release of
      Arab prisoners at the behest of John Kerry pretty much sealed the fate
      of these three Israeli boys.”

      Please God, do not let Michael Garfinkel be a judge.

      The two teenage suspects in the photo do not look like long term, middle aged men recently released after years of incarceration. They look like a couple of thugs if, in fact, they turn out to be the actual murderers and not just a pair of loud mouthed idiots throwing stones.

      Cases have a tendency to get very murky when politics sticks its dirty paw in the bucket and I dread where this is going.

      • Michael Garfinkel

        The issue is not “what they look like,” the issue is that they have already been identified as Hamas operatives.

        Not incidentally, as a general rule, if one rewards behavior, one can expect to see more of that behavior. This applies to kidnapping and murder as well.

        In your remarks, you say you “dread where this is going.”

        I would suggest that the discovery of the murdered boys was dreadful, as has been the brutal killings of thousands off men, women and children in Israel at the hands of these vicious terrorists.

        I’m afraid we have passed “dreadful” a long time ago.

        Again, the issue must be resolved; the entire terrorist infrastructure must be extirpated, finally.

        • Americana

          I’d say it’s time for the Israelis to withdraw behind the separation wall and stop colonizing ‘Greater Israel’ courtesy of the Israeli Army.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I’d say it’s time for Islamofascists to withdraw behind the separation
            wall of Mecca and stop colonizing dar al-Harb (the non-Muslim world).

          • Drakken

            What you have to say is immaterial, reality is a much more reality based solution than your emotions and feelings.

  • Bamaguje

    As we’ve seen several times over, appeasement doesn’t work, but only serves to feed Islamic supremacism and embolden Jihadists.
    The only language Muslims understand is a superior capacity for violence, and an unhesitant resolve to use it in crushing their barbaric Arab hate cult.
    We infidels should no longer hold back, but use the immense power at our disposal (military, technological, economic, cultural etc) to wipe out the devl!sh Arab pseudo-religion.
    That’s what Muslims would do if they were stronger than us.

    • Americana

      Yeah, right. Go ahead and bang the war drums ever louder and keep raising the ante. I’d never vote for such a ridiculous war and neither would anyone I know vote for such a militarily insane adventure.

      • Drakken

        Appeasement always leads to a bloodier war later, so you go ahead and ignore reality until it bites you, the rest of us see what is coming and what it will take to end it, if your too squeamish to handle it, get out of the way and let those who know what needs to be done.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          I’d prefer that “Americana” serve as a Human Shield.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The banging in your head is from the ISIS jihadis in Iraq and the 160,000+ dead in Syria (Arabs killed by Arabs).

        You constantly amaze us with your progressively blind comments.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    That’s getting to the essence of the matter, past the obscuring details and accidental trappings of time and place.

    We here among the choir appreciate and applaud the message. To the rest of the world I have just one question: can we talk about Islam now?

    • BagLady

      Can we talk about Islam?

      Let’s face it Mohammed –pbuh — is probably the most powerful politician of all time. Contradicting his word is a crime against God and the punishment for that is death. Simple as…..

      Muslims live with this fear. They do not contradict His Word — pbuh — except maybe in their hearts. Until this fear is conquered and Muslims learn to question The Word, there is little hope of harmony.

      (Hope other faiths do their bit of questioning too)

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        I wish this view could be discussed in mainstream venues without being dismissed out of hand. I still meet people who don’t know Mo was a political and military leader. You’re right, we have to welcome a questioning-exploring discussion.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The problem is that it’s more than an internal fear. It’s an external fear.

        Islam has avoided change through the use of force and blasphemy codes. It’s still doing so. Its external wars are also internal wars to suppress dissent and maintain the old ways.

        When Al Qaeda flies planes into the World Trade Center, it’s doing it in part to threaten any Muslims who might question.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        muhammed, pestilence be upon him, was one of the most evil people ever. His followers have had 1,400 years to wage war on the land – murdering millions and millions of people over 1,400 years.

      • Drakken

        The fact that you use words of admiration to the devils so called profit says it all.

  • JVictor

    Greenfield is exactly right; this is not a conflict over physical territory, it’s a conflict over spiritual territory. The apologists for Islam who point to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as evidence that the Jews were directed to participate in genocide are missing the point. Space will not permit the complete explanation here; however, the extreme short-hand explanation is that Jehovah was making sure that the bloodlines for Messiah would be pure so that there would be no question that a descendant of Abraham and Sarah would be the One Who would be the Son of Promise. There are spiritual forces that have co-opted billions of lives for more than 7,000 years in an attempt to thwart Jehovah’s plan for Israel and the Son of Promise. How else can the other-worldly hatred that foments from the mouths and actions of people who commit such atrocities against the Jews be explained?

    Be advised, civilized Western world. You owe your existence to the influence of Jews and Christians who were willing to sacrifice their lives and their fortunes to escape the throes of the religious tyranny exhibited by the Mohammedans, as they were called hundreds of years ago. The Muslims of today are fighting the same ideological war that started in the 7th century using the weapons of modern warfare. They seek one of three things: your money, your allegiance, or your lives. Quite honestly, it’s easier for them to kill you than to keep up with you. Never give in.

    • Habbgun

      Yes and it was brutal warfare. The Mohammedan says he loves death more than life but it is a romanticized death. Those that defeated the Islamists let them know that they did not love a slow, miserable death one bit.

    • hiernonymous

      “The apologists for Islam who point to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as evidence that the Jews were directed to participate in genocide are missing the point. Space will not permit the complete explanation here; however, the extreme short-hand explanation is that Jehovah was making sure that the bloodlines for Messiah would be pure so that there would be no question that a descendant of Abraham and Sarah would be the One Who would be the Son of Promise.”

      So genocide is okay, if it’s done to keep bloodlines pure? So we fought on the wrong side in WWII?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        “So we fought on the wrong side in WWII?”

        I guess that explains your position on Hiroshima and Dresden.

        • Americana

          That’s simply a rhetorical question. Since you love asking rhetorical questions yourself, I’d lay off the misinterpretation.

        • hiernonymous

          I guess it would, had I taken a position on Hiroshima and Dresden. You’re not the most careful reader.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Genocide and ethnic cleansing us called for by Islamofascists.

            See Syria where 160,000+ have died with Arabs killing Arabs and ISIS killing Muslims who disarmed and surrendered in Iraq.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I’m a careful reader of character.

          • hiernonymous

            No doubt you imagine yourself to be. Perhaps that explains your propensity for responding to topical questions with attacks on the character of your correspondent, rather than with a reasoned application of logic and supporting facts. It’s been instructive observing your posts today, for example.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Pot. Kettle.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Your claim that you ask topical fact-based questions based on logic is either a failure of perspective or honesty.

            I honestly don’t know which one if it is.

          • hiernonymous

            Then examine your premises.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You wouldn’t like them. There’s no foot baths.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah.

      • Drakken

        You call it genocide, I call it warfare.

        • hiernonymous

          What, keeping the bloodlines pure is “warfare?”

          • Drakken

            You and I differ on how wars should be fought, I use history as a guide of what works.

      • JVictor

        If it was a simple matter of survival of the fittest, then you would be correct. However, you’re not even close. It is a spiritual battle, not a physical battle. That’s the hardest thing for way too many people to come to grips with. Once people admit that it’s a battle for spiritual territory, then it all makes sense.

        • hiernonymous

          I rather thought that being on the right side of the spiritual battle implied an abhorrence of genocide.

          • JVictor

            After the arrival of the Son of Promise? Absolutely. Prior to that, Jehovah made it very clear how important it was for the descendants of Abraham and Sarah to maintain the purity of their bloodlines.

          • Drakken

            Plays at semantics, it is a simple matter of who wins, makes the rules.

  • Hank Rearden

    “Now you see what we are up against.”

  • tommo2

    There is a case for Israel to invade Gaza and take it back under their control. The malignant, vile Palestinians would be sent back to where they belong in Jordan. No country should have to put up with sustained terrorist attacks and the abduction and murder of their citizens by a bunch of Arab thugs.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There’s little question that Gaza should be annexed.

      • Drakken

        Gaza should get the Carthage treatment, why would you want a hostile population inside of your borders who will give you nothing but problems.

        • Webb

          2 thumbs up! Fuel air, fuel air, fuel air, WHOOF!

    • Americana

      There’s no reason whatsoever for Israel to invade Gaza and take it back under their control. There is also no reason to keep pretending that the Palestinians aren’t exactly where they belong — in Palestine. Making this fatuous claim of “sending them back to Jordan where they belong” is a Zionist rationale for taking their land that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. And it certainly doesn’t hold up in a dialectical argument over what the situation is on the ground in Israel.

      If there were no settlers in the West Bank, there’d be no way for the Palestinians to seize Israelis, would there? With the Separation Wall and everything, the Palestinians would have to run an extremely sophisticated kidnapping operation to successfully kidnap Israelis from within Israel.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        There is no such place as Palestine and the repeated attacks on Israel are an obvious reason for taking control of territory run by terrorists.

        • Americana

          If there were no such place as Palestine, where did all those quintillions of pounds of rock and stone come from? You play stupid and I’ll continue to play stupid.

          • liz

            You don’t know much history.

          • Americana

            You’re willing to misrepresent history. I’m part of the historical crowd that sees Zionist claims over the Palestinian geographic footprint for what they are.

          • liz

            The “historical crowd” who considers leftist propaganda history.

          • Americana

            Not at all. Those historians who are willing to look at the ENTIRE SOCIOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT behind a situation like that of the Barbary pirates would see their piracy as playing a role above and beyond their religion. They were primarily economic raiders. They didn’t try to reestablish the Caliphate’s reach… Are the Somali pirates the same ones who are involved in al Shabaab? NO. Same difference in this case of the Barbary pirates. They were PIRATES who happened to be MUSLIMS.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Or we can look at what the Barbary pirates actually said, instead of trying to find sociological constructs that will undo what they said.

          • Americana

            That WASN’T a statement by the Barbary pirates. That was the POLITICAL statement of an Arab ambassador throwing up his hands and saying, “Hey, it’s out of my hands!” Surely you see the difference in meaning given the two different circumstances.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            He wasn’t saying it was out of his hands. He was saying that in Islam the behavior of pirates was justified and acceptable.

          • Americana

            Daniel, you can quibble as much as you want. The reality of that statement is that the Tripolitan ambassador was saying it was an endemic problem and not one that they could tackle because it was too entrenched.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The reality is you’re ignoring what he said and replacing it with what you wanted him to have said.

          • Americana

            No. I’m interpreting the reality of what he said because you like playing mind games over words. The Tripoli ambassador’s remark is identical in nature to every diplomatic contretemps where the ambassador couldn’t and wouldn’t promise anything would be done by his government because it would be politically too unwise to upset the financial applecart.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I’m not playing mind games. I’m offering a direct quote.

            You keep trying to make a historical quote go away because you don’t like it.

            Facts don’t work that way.

            “The Tripoli ambassador’s remark is identical in nature to every
            diplomatic contretemps where the ambassador couldn’t and wouldn’t
            promise anything would be done by his government because it would be
            politically too unwise to upset the financial applecart.

            You mean like the time George W. Bush told the Mexican ambassador that Evangelical Christians had the right to take anything they wanted from Catholics?

            Nations that aren’t run by crazy bigots don’t talk that way and you know it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Fascist Iran is run by crazy bigots who even hate fellow Muslims from the wrong side of the Koran.

          • Americana

            Ambassadors talk that way when they know they’re facing a lawless territory where they’d be unable to change anything. Look at how many European pirates went to work for the Barbary corsairs… That ambassador was saying the problem was too big to handle. Full stop.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ambassadors talk that way when they have complete and total contempt for the people they’re talking to.

            And that contempt emerges from the Koran.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            We see how any British pirates work for Al-Jazeera and PressTV.

          • Drakken

            You are entitled to your own opinions, but Hunyuk, you are not entitled to your own facts. There is nothing to interpret, the Barbary pirates said what they said and here you are trying advance modern thinking into an ancient discussion. Your understanding and knowledge of history is seriously flawed and outright bloody wrong.

          • Webb

            Give it up, dipstick. You don’t have a chance. You’re intellectually unarmed.

          • Americana

            Daniel, Daniel, you KNOW that’s what he was saying. Don’t try to play coy w/the situation just because you can or I’ll simply say ‘you’re a fool’ and walk away from this aspect of this discussion and I’d be justified in doing so.

          • Webb

            The lights are on, but nobody’s home.

          • Americana

            (Ooops, ignore the post below since it belongs higher up in the thread.)

            No one can deny that the United Kingdom of the Jewish trebles was defeated multiple times and there was a Jewish diaspora from Judea thousands of years ago. Since that final conquest, there has never been a JEWISH NATION in that region. The Jews may consider that they owned that land in absentia, but that is NOT SOMETHING that is internationally recognized against the provenance of the land rights of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs.

            I’m not sure what the cutoff point would be for international human rights lawyers to make a claim stick that the Jews were owed the rights to that region. But I’m pretty sure, you’d be laughed out of court if you tried to present a case for the Jewish nation being awarded all that land over the right of the indigenous Palestinians. No one who’s at all acquainted w/international law believes that Israel has a case for repossessing all that region. The fact the British caved in under Zionist terrorism pressure along w/the pressure from high-ranking Jews within her aristocracy is what has produced this present snafu.

          • reader

            “that is NOT SOMETHING that is internationally recognized against the provenance of the land rights of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs.”

            Judenreina has just superseded the United Nations – not that I am a big fan. Note to everybody: if you want any ruling on any international dispute, Judenreina is your go to judge – kind of like Obama, who it strongly admires.

          • Drakken

            The UN does not carry any type of weight other than whisper in the wind, at the end of the day, the guy carrying the sword makes the rules.

          • reader

            Absolutely. But if the UN Security Council holding the binding Partition vote is not internationally recognized, what is? My answer is – our Judenreina. She has granted herself the unlimited powers to internationaly recognize or otherwise. I hope, all of you people have duly noted.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I don’t think you understand what the term indigenous means.

            Invading and settling a country does not make you indigenous.

            The Arab invaders are not indigenous. They are colonists and settlers.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Arab invades are imperialists who impose their culture on the indigenous people.

            Sort of like the English and the Spanish of Europe.

          • Americana

            My, but you’re on shaky ground having brought up the whole subject of who invaded and who settled a country considering the “original Israeli settlers” had no personal historical rights of provenance within Palestine within a few generations. Trying to sell the perennial Israeli God-given land rights might appeal to and work with a certain crowd, Daniel, but it won’t carry any weight w/the world’s international legal eagles or the power brokers of the world. Biblical platitudes should be seen for what they are — human inspired attempts at taking the edge off events. Those Biblical platitudes are not the equivalent of charters or treaties. Israel should recognize that she’s been given a chance to resurrect herself; not been given the chance to exterminate the Palestinians and exterminate the Palestinian rights to their land. Israel poses as much of a risk to herself as the Palestinians do.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re the one talking about the Bible. I’m pointing out that your claim that the Arab conquerors are an indigenous people is just historically inaccurate.

          • Americana

            Now you’re going to argue over who’s indigenous and who’s not? Indigeneity has been discussed at the U.N. and I’d say the Palestinian Arabs were on their collective minds during the discussion of indigeneity. Especially since the Israelis began to sell this particular historical line of bulloney factoids about their presence in the region trumping several thousand years’ presence of other cultures and ethnicities.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The UN is a Muslim club. But then organizations tend to be on the side of the colonizers.

            Israel’s presence didn’t trump that of other cultures and ethnicities. You don’t see Israel kicking out the Circassians or Armenians or Samaritans.

            It’s the Arab Muslim conquerors who have a problem with Israel.

          • Americana

            How is the United Nations a Muslim club? How is it you see that organization which formed as colonialism was waning is representing colonizers over the indigenous?

            The Palestinian Arabs certainly should have a lot to regret about how they handled the situation before and after partition but so do the Israelis. Was it that the long build up of Zionism purchases left the Palestinian Arabs in ignorance of what eventually would happen w/the land given to each side? Considering the complexities of trying to partition around the vastly spread out colonies of nascent Israelis, the partition plan made no sense whatsoever. That was the first tactical error in this whole diplomatic snafu. The second tactical error was in not maintaining Jerusalem as an Open International City, with force if necessary.

            If you don’t recognize that both sides are at fault for the current mess, then either you don’t read both sides of the history or you’re simply incapable of the humanity of seeing the dispossession from the Palestinian perspective. I can’t read about this situation without being torn between the horrors of the post-Holocaust survivors being given a chance at a new life in Palestine only to read about the Palestinian Arabs fears about losing their homeland and I realize there is justice and injustice on both sides.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Muslim power in the UN is due to Muslim colonialism.

            Maintaining Jerusalem as an open city would require an army of occupation.

            Do you really think that’s a good idea?

            Would you like to see a family member serving in what would be a permanent Iraq War?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The UN is a Socialist dictatorship club too.

            You can see how low the UN has become when currnet day slaver Sudan sat on the UNHRC in judgement of other countries.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Are you saying that Islam is older than Judaism or Christianity?

          • Drakken

            The worlds little legal beagles carry no weight, the guy with the sword does. It is that bloody simple.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Keep the sword out of the hand of Fascist Iran.

            DEATH to Fascist Iran!

            LONG LIVE PERSIA!

          • Americana

            You are courting disaster w/your militarism.

          • Drakken

            You are courting disaster by siding with the sub human Islamic savages amongst us. History is always written and the rules always made by the strong, not the vanquished with an ax to grind.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islam is courting disaster with it’s jihadi militarism.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “You are courting disaster w/your militarism.”

            You were of course referring to al qada, hamass, hezbullah, boko haram, ISIS, Fascist iran.

          • hiernonymous

            But by that definition, the Jews are not indigenous to Israel.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You ignore the fact the the Jews were in the Land of Israel BEFORE Muslims came on the scene in the 7th century and began their imperialist invasion of the Middle East and North Africa..

            .

          • hiernonymous

            When the Muslims came along, the land was firmly (well, actually, not so firmly – they’d just snagged it from the Persians) in the hands of the Byzantines. Perhaps we should give it to Greece?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            By their own account, the Jewish people were formed in Israel, before being enslaved and returning.

          • hiernonymous

            “Invading and settling a country does not make you indigenous.”

            By their own account, the Hebrews invaded and settled the region. With that in mind, can we return to the question of what general principle underpins a Jewish claim to some sort of ancestral right to the land?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            By both their own account and the secular non-biblical account, the Jews originated in Israel.

          • hiernonymous

            By secular accounts, they can be traced back to a corner of that land. It would be an exaggeration to say that this establishes that area as their point of origin.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Can you please let me know when in history there was ever a nation known as Palestine?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Thanks. There goes your claim to be Neutral.

            Are you bright enough to acknowledge that the Jews were in the land of Israel before muhammed came on the scene in the 7th century?

          • Americana

            I’ve got no problem w/saying the Jews were in the region in the 7th century BC. That’s the seventh century BEFORE CHRIST… That’s a long, long, long time ago and it doesn’t indicate that the nation that existed those thousands of years ago has the God-given right to insist on being recreated thousands of years afterward just because God (aka, some big mouth among the ancient Jews) opened his mouth and promised the Jews they could return at some point to Israel.

            Thank god, history has a fairly definitive record about what happened way back when, otherwise you’d be claiming Israel maintained hegemony over that region despite being conquered. Of course, there were two Jewish kingdoms at the time that were conquered, so perhaps that should be used as the basis for today’s LAND GRANT to Israel which would mean that Israel only gets part of the land to which she claims she’s entitled?

            After all, I’ve got a former co-worker who’s paying for Jewish archaeologists to conduct the Tel Rehov archaeological dig each year in Israel. The aim of the dig is to try and establish many different aspects of the ancient Jewish kingdoms…

            From Wiki:

            The archaeological record indicates that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged in theEarly Iron Age (Iron Age I, 1200–1000 BCE) from the Canaanite city-state culture of the Late Bronze Age, at the same time and in the same circumstances as the neighbouring states of Edom, Moab, Aram, and the Philistinian and Phoenician city-states.[9]The oldest Hebrew text ever found was discovered at the ancient Israelite settlement, Elah Fortress,[10] which dates to between 1050 and 970 BCE.[11]

            Israel had clearly emerged by the middle of the 9th century BCE, when the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III names “Ahab the Israelite” among his enemies at the battle of Qarqar (Kurkh Monolith, 853), and the Mesha stele (c. 830) left by a king of Moab celebrating his success in throwing off the oppression of the “House of Omri” (i.e. Israel).[12] The Tel Danstele tells of the death of a king of Israel, probably Jehoram, at the hands of an Aramean king (c. 841).[12]

            From the middle of the 8th century BCE Israel came into increasing conflict with the expanding neo-Assyrian empire, which first split its territory into several smaller units and then destroyed its capital, Samaria (722). Both the biblical and Assyrian sources speak of a massive deportation of the people of Israel and their replacement with an equally large number of forced settlers from other parts of the empire – such population exchanges were an established part of Assyrian imperial policy, a means of breaking the old power structure – and the former Israel never again became an independent political entity.[13] This deportation gave rise to the notion of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

            Judah emerged somewhat later than Israel, probably no earlier than the 9th century BCE, but the subject is one of considerable controversy and there is no definite answer to the question.[14] The recovered seal of the Hebrew King Ahaz (c. 732 to 716 BCE) identifies him as King of Judah.[15] During the reign of Hezekiah (c. 715 and 686 BCE) a notable increase in the power of theJudean state is reflected by archaeological sites and findings such as the Broad Wall and Hezekiah’s Tunnel in Jerusalem.[16]Judah prospered in the 7th century BCE, probably in a cooperative arrangement with the Assyrians to establish Judah as an Assyrian vassal (despite a disastrous rebellion against the Assyrian king Sennacherib). However, in the last half of the 7th century Assyria suddenly collapsed, and the ensuing competition between the Egyptian and Neo-Babylonian empires for control of Palestine led to the destruction of Judah in a series of campaigns between 597 and 582.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jews were in Israel BEFORE Islam was invented by the prophet of Satan called Muhammed.

            Islamist invaders think they have a Koranic right to retain their booty – but it doesn’t work that way.

            And if Israel were the problem, then Muslims would be living in peace with their non-Jewish, non-Zionist neighbors.

            But Muslims are at War with EVERYBODY. That’s why fools like you side with Islamists/Muslims/Islamofascists.

          • Americana

            It doesn’t matter that Islam is the younger religion. The two Jewish kingdoms were conquered millennia ago and the Jewish populations were dispersed. Trying to claim that the Israelis were the indigenous people from the entire and are the only ones w/land rights simply is not how the legal system works. Yet this is 99.99% of the argument being presented in this thread.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Jews are certainly more indigenous than the Arab conquerors whom you tried to claim were the indigenous people.

          • Americana

            Their indigenousness is highly disputable considering how long they’d been gone from the region…

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Jews were there first. The Jews predated Islam. The Israelis are not the unarmed Jews of Medina.

            You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Jews were there first. ”

            That’s not even a fact by their own accounts. Did you mean to write “earlier than the Muslims?” The Jews were just one of a long line of conquerors of the region. Why do their rights trump all of the others?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Before illiterate muhammed dicated his conflation of Judaism, Christianity and Paganism.

            Why should Islamist imperialism trump all other claims?

          • hiernonymous

            As paganism preceded Judaism in the area, if your depiction of Islam as partly pagan in nature is accurate, that would rather bolster the Muslims as the earliest claimants to the region. Sure that’s the path we should take?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Endorsing territorial claims based on religion rather than nationhood or ethnicity.

            How very Sunni of you.

          • Drakken

            Because the Jews conquered Israel and have kept it, and will keep it through force of arms. Frankly I am very surprised the Israeli’s use half azz measures to do so.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Jewish people formed in Israel. Their birth took place there.

          • hiernonymous

            Yet Joshua had to conquer its indigenous peoples to establish their homeland.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Joshua was a descendant of the indigenous people who had been enslaved.. It was an internal war between indigenous peoples.

          • hiernonymous

            Plainly, Joshua’s people were not indigenous to the regions whose inhabitants they had to slaughter to acquire.

            By their own account, didn’t the Hebrews leave the region voluntarily and seek refuge in Egypt? How does their subsequent enslavement give them title to their neighbors’ lands and lives, and, for that matter, how does a nomadic people retain title to land they abandoned? Would you argue that the Seminoles retain title to China, for example, as well as much of Florida?

            Keeping in mind that we are accepting the Israelites’ own account of the matter for the sake of argument.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Assuming you rely on the bible for your history, the Jews as a people emerged in Israel, they were then enslaved and returned to the land they had come from.

            Whether or not you think they had the right to drive out the Caananites is immaterial to the fact that both of them were the indigenous peoples.

            You might equally waste time debating whether the Iroquois were right to war with other Indian tribes, but not that they were an indigenous people.

            Finally, if you’re going to rely on the Bible for history, you might as well accept that the grant of the land was by Divine command.

            If you don’t, you can always default to the conventional secular historical explanation that the Jews were a Caananite people that were never in Egypt.

            Either way the Jews are the indigenous people of the land.

          • hiernonymous

            By the Biblical account, some 70 families left the region voluntarily to seek better opportunities in Egypt. The first question for you would be: having abandoned their homes voluntarily and moved on, by what principle do you suggest that they retained any ownership interest in the land they abandoned?

            Then, in Egypt, they remained for many generations, so long that their numbers increased to the point that Pharaoh was frightened that his own people might be overwhelmed, and he enslaved them. This throng then escaped Egypt and set to wandering. The second question I would ask you: many who take your positions on this matter argue that the bulk of the displaced Palestinian refugees are simply descendants of those who were originally displaced from their homes, have never lived a day of their lives in Israel, are more properly viewed as citizens of the surrounding countries in which their parents and they have lived for 2-3 generations now, and have no “right of return.” If you agree, then by what principle would the people of the Exodus be entitled to return to Canaan, murder the people living there, and occupy those dwellings as their own?

            “Finally, if you’re going to rely on the Bible for history, you might as well accept that the grant of the land was by Divine command.”

            The Bible is an account of a people’s own history as told by that people. It’s use both helps understand how that people chooses to see and justify itself.

            “If you don’t, you can always default to the conventional secular historical explanation that the Jews were a Caananite people that were never in Egypt.

            Either way the Jews are the indigenous people of the land.”

            The conventional secular view places them as early inhabitants if a small corner of that land. It does not conclusively establish that they originated there, and it rather strongly suggests that others were in most of that land earlier. Nothing about that suggests an original occupation of all of modern Israel, much less “Greater Israel,” nor does it demonstrate that all of the Russians, Germans, Moroccans, Americans, etc, that rushed to the region in the 20th century to claim ownership on the basis of religion or ethnicity are somehow the true heirs to the land.

            Which brings us to the question that you have avoided raising: what is the general statement of the rule you are invoking to establish that the Jews have a right to the land, and the Palestinians none? What is the principle you are invoking?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They weren’t gone. They were oppressed and reduced in number. Occasionally they were massacred, but they returned.

          • Americana

            Daniel, the tiny fragment of a Jewish population that remained were not the owners nor the rulers of that region. Therefore they were not a nation in possession of that land. Having a fragmentary population doesn’t give one the rights of a former indigenous ethnic group given the time which they were gone from the region… Several thousand years equals >>>> not indigenous.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Your argument is that if an indigenous population is repressed and dispossessed that they cease to be the indigenous population?

            I doubt you’ll find anyone to sympathize with that ridiculous position.

          • hiernonymous

            So you’ll be turning your residence back over to the Native Americans? Most Americans I know consider themselves the rightful owners of their turf, and if it isn’t by right of conquest followed by longevity, what is the basis of their claim?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jews were in Israel before Muslms came on the scene.

            Native Americans lived in the Western Hemisphere before European invaders “discovered” America.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Another irrelevant diversion from Hiero. What a surprise.

            Do you deny the indigenous status of American Indians?

          • hiernonymous

            Why, no. That’s precisely why I am asking you your opinion of the basis for the U.S. being a legitimate state. Doesn’t the land, by your reasoning, belong to the earlier people?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Minorities are always at a disadvantage – until superior firepower negates jihad and islamofascism.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Jews were never gone from the region.

          • hiernonymous

            The Jews conquered the region from its indigenous people and managed to hold onto it for a while before being defeated, subjugated, and, after the revolts, scattered. The Romans conquered the region, held onto it for a while, and their successors traded it back and forth with the Persians. The Arabs conquered he area and held onto it for a while, then passed it on to their successor state. The British conquered it, held it quite briefly, then passed control to a newly established state.

            It’s not obvious that the claims if one conqueror trump those of another. If Israel’s initial conquest was legitimized by long residence, then so was the Arabs’. If you disagree, what is the general principle you are applying to the situation?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Jews had been one of the indigenous peoples even before the conquest.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Jews are back in Israel and well equipped to defeat its attackers.

            I concede that there can be compensation for the Jews from Arab lands who were forced out, in fear for their lives in Arab/Islamist dictatorships.

          • Drakken

            Your point is immaterial, the land goes to those who conquer and keep it.

          • Drakken

            To the Victors go the spoils, and your pali friends are going to run into that problem soon enough, much to their chagrin and horror.

          • Americana

            Well, we’ll see, won’t we? I think it’s indicative of something very insidious that there’s talk of the victors getting all the spoils. Especially since the way the game has been played, it’s easy to see why everything has transpired as it has. Lots of extremely kooky and unpredictable things await Israel if she attempts to overstep herself in such a dramatic and self-aggrandizing way that she’d “win all the spoils” and, if she does overstep, it won’t be forgotten by any of the Arab or Muslim nations. I believe Israel has limited opportunities to make things right. You believe what you wish. Perhaps we’ll find out before we die what the outcome is and which one of us was right.

          • Drakken

            Islam one way or another is coming to a clash with the west, Israel, is part of the west, those goddamn muslim savages you have empathy for are not and never will be. The Victors in the end write the rules, not little puzzy leftist like you who got their precious feelings hurt, and your going to find this out the hard way, as it always does.

          • Stosh777

            Americana, you need to understand that Palestine is very small payback for the oppression your kind has inflicted on the Jews for over a millenium. Both European Christians and Arab and other Muslims have murdered, raped and stolen from the Jews living in their lands in an endless cycle. Now the Jews finally have a land where they are sovereign and can defend themselves, and you don’t like it. You don’t get to make yourselves feel big by abusing a minority in your midst. Tough.

            To make whole just what has been stolen from us over the past 1000 years (not to mention the murder and rapine, which you can never repay) believe me, Palestine would just be a small downpayment.

            My suggestion is for the Muslims and Christians to find a place to resettle the Arabs who cannot live in harmony with the Jews in Israel, just as Israel resettled 850,000 Jews who were hounded out of their communities in the Arab world after the founding of the state.

          • Webb

            There won’t be any muslims left alive to forget, you blackhearted wretch.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Arab and Muslim nations don’t forget anything. They still want Spain…

            They also want all of Israel

            History didn’t begin in 1948

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Zion, unlike Palestine, actually existed making its footprint far more legitimate than that of a bunch of Muslim colonists

          • reader

            These stones come from the place that never had a people called “Palestinians.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Israel.

            Palestine was never a country. Israel was.

          • Americana

            Oh, so Israel is the first country ever to be given perennial land rights over a particular set of GPS coordinates for as long as the Earth exists? No matter that Israel vanished as a country in the Middle East as it was conquered and reconquered and conquered again by other cultures? It was always Israel but the Arabs who were there never knew it was Israel?

            You’re arguing over a question of ownership and national status that would never even be allowed to be presented in a court of law, Daniel. Why? Because no such land rights exist w/that understanding of perennial provenance. The only reason Israel exists is that the British caved and gave Israel the opportunity to regain a toehold in the region after years of terrorist attacks.

          • reader

            Steven Plaut has long ago addressed your circular logic:

            http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10295

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Historically speaking, Israel existed. Palestine did not.

            Arm waving is not going to make that go away.

          • Americana

            Arm waving is not going to make the various intermediate kingdoms that ruled over ancient Israel after the two Jewish kingdoms were conquered go away either. Both ancient Jewish kingdoms were conquered otherwise the ancient Jewish diaspora wouldn’t have begun. History is a wicked stickler for facts, isn’t it?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            None of those kingdoms were Palestine. So you’re back to Square One.

          • Americana

            Not at all. The United Nations recognizes indigenous peoples and the rights of those indigenous people to their homeland of residence even without a declaration of statehood. In this instance, of the face off between Israelis and outside Zionists, thank god for that.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Conquerors and colonizers aren’t indigenous people. Certainly not more so than the peoples who were there before them.

            You’ve given up insisting that Palestine existed before. Now you’re trying to claim that its existence is based on some indigenous Palestinian people. Except that the area was ruled by Arab and Muslim conquerors.

            Until Israel liberated those territories in 67′, they were held by colonial Arab-Muslim states.

            It’s like trying to recognize the Pied-Noirs as the indigenous people.

          • Americana

            I haven’t given up anything of the sort. I simply understand that the Palestinian Arabs that lived there under the Ottoman Turks were indigenous people who didn’t have a separate and unique government in the form of a nation. That doesn’t mean anything other than that they lived under an entirely different system of rule. The fact you put so much emphasis on this falsehood of being a NAMED nation means that you’re staking everything on a status that is superseded by what the United Nations recognizes as indigineity, a definite and understanding under which Palestinian Arabs definitely qualify.

            The Pied Noirs were eventually recognized as a tribal nation and given adequate land in compensation in several reservations. Blackfeet is not their own given name, FYI.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There was never a Palestine as a nation, therefore there can be no Palestinians. There certainly is no basis for insisting that the territories of this imaginary kingdom should coincidentally be limited to Israel alone, rather than any of the neighboring Arab countries.

            …you may want to look up Pied Noirs. It’s not what you’re thinking.

          • hiernonymous

            “There was never a Palestine as a nation, therefore there can be no Palestinians.”

            So, employing that logic, there are no Kurds. The Basque are really Spanish? The Uighurs figments of our imagination? The Germans were fictional until 1871, when the formidable ambition of Bismarck finally gave meaning to the word in all of the old texts? The Boston Marathon was attacked by Russians, because, absent an independent Chechnya, there are no Chechens.

            That’s a curious notion of identity you have there.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Pal-e-SWINIANS are Arabs from Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon.

          • hiernonymous

            Non sequitur. At issue us not what you think the Palestinians are, but Daniel’s logic in insisting that they cannot be Palestinian without a Palestinian state. Have anything to add on that, beyond simpleminded portmanteaux?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Arafat was born in Egypt, yet he claimed he was an indigenous “palestinian”. Claiming being a “palestinian” is quite flexible.

          • hiernonymous

            Still avoiding the issue.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Yes you are Hiero. You should really stop avoiding the issue.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay, let’s not avoid it. You said:

            “There was never a Palestine as a nation, therefore there can be no Palestinians.”

            If your basis for asserting that there are no Palestinians is the absence of a Palestinian state, then do you deny the existence of Kurds?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            G-d Bless the Kurds.

            They aren’t savage killers like your Pal-e-SWINIANS or al qada, hamass, hezbullah, boko haram, fascist iran.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ethnicity and language. The Kurds are a distinct ethnic group.

            Arabs who happen to be living in shifting borders, but are part of regional clans that cut across them, do not become Palestinians because their masters and yours in Riyadh find it convenient to use them as living weapons of Islamic colonialism against an indigenous minority.

            Sorry.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, they became Palestinians by generations of residing in Palestine.

            It’s not clear how you think that an individual who one year self-identified as “Russian Jew” and the next year as “Israeli” as a consequence if a 20th century political movement is somehow more legitimate than someone who self-identified an “Arab Christian/Muslim in Palestine” one year and a “Palestinian” the next as a consequence if equally 20th century political movements.

            BTW, that snarky aside “and yours” is a good example of the sort of cheap personal comment, the absence of which would greatly improve the quality of your posts and of your arguments.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Since there’s no such nation as Palestine and no such people distinguished by ethnicity or language, you’re back to Square One.

            A Jew in Russia, like an Armenian in Russia, did not lose the rights to his homeland.

            BTW whine less, it’s an accurate description.

          • hiernonymous

            There quite plainly is a nation of Palestine. A significant group of people who self-identify as a nation, who share a sense of a common past and of a common future are essentially how a nation is defined. Ethnicity, language, and religion are commonly factors that contribute to a sense of national identity, but they are not part of a checklist that determines whether such an identity is “valid” or not. Even Daniel Pipes recognizes that, and as far back as 1989 he wrote an article identifying the French overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy in Syria in 1920 as the point at which a Palestinian national identity was created. He thought that this identity might prove fragile, but he acknowledged its existence.

            Bottom line: you are engaged in the transparent task of attempting to put a questionable claim beyond question by defining one of the competing parties out of existence. There were plainly people already living in the land that became Israel, and many of them were killed or driven out in the subsequent war to establish a new state where they lived. This does not imply that I think Israel has no right to exist, but it does imply that there is more than one set of legitimate interests and grievances that must be considered to achieve a just and lasting settlement of the issues, and simply declaring that the Palestinians “don’t really exist” is an ostrich’s approach, at the most charitable.

            “BTW whine less, it’s an accurate description”

            If inventing command associations is your standard of accuracy, that goes a long way toward clarifying your idea of “journalism.” Thank you for that clarification.

          • reader

            They’re not entitled to their state and to somebody else’s property just because they conveniently declared themselves a people.

          • hiernonymous

            Whether they are or not is not the issue I raised.

          • reader

            The issue? You have many issues – all over the place, in fact. Please don’t raise them, you’ll run out of space.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You can raise the white flag.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Paleswinian terrorists and Chechen terrorists – united in jihad and terrorism.

          • hiernonymous

            So they do exist!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            They exist only as murderers, terrorist – like the Mafia.

          • reader

            The Uighurs were the Uighurs. The “Palestinians” were Syrians, Egyptians and Beduins. In pre-1967 Gaza and West Bank they did perfectly well without being “Palestinians.” It’s the KGB invention.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Uighurs were the Uighurs. ”

            Not according to the logic Daniel has presented. No Uighurstan, no Uighurs.

          • reader

            No, it’s not. He emphasized ethnic and linguistic basis.

          • hiernonymous

            Not until two hours after that post. Chronology matters in following a conversation.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Chronology like Jews were in the Land of Israel before the imperialist Muslim invaders.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If your only basis for a national identity is a supposed nation that never exist then you self-invalidate.

            There’s no ethnic or linguistic basis for a Palestinian claim.

            That leaves a non-existent nation.

          • hiernonymous

            “If your only basis for a national identity is a supposed nation that never exist then you self-invalidate.”

            “Nation” and “state” are not synonyms.

            So, essentially, you are nominating yourself as the arbiter of what constitutes valid bases for identity? Ethnicity and language can be contributing factors, but are hardly exhaustive. Americans began identifying themselves as such before they had a state, and there were no linguistic or ethnic distinctions of note. Palestinians certainly originated in a distinctive geographical area that was neither Egypt nor Transjordan, though certainly Gaza has strong historical ties to Egypt.

            It is also interesting how aggression can serve as a catalyst to nationalism. The Germans have existed for millennia as a nation, but there was no (or little) corresponding sense of nationalism, no idea that their nation should be a nation-state. The French humiliation of the Prussians at Jena, and the ensuing defeat of Prussia, sparked a German nationalism that led to the formation of Germany. There is little doubt that being dispossessed of their homeland served as a catalyst to a sense of Palestinian nationalism that was previously lacking. Certainly, the idea of a Palestinian nationality is no more recent than the idea of Israeli nationality. There was obviously no Israel in 1947.

          • reader

            There was no idea of a Palestinian nationality in 1947. Even the PLO founding by the KGB, which came about after the Arabs lost their war of aggression of 1948, did not constitute any Palestinian nationality. PLO was founded to drive the Jews out.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The PLO was founded to make Islam look bad and give regressive progressives a hobby.

          • hiernonymous

            “There was no idea of a Palestinian nationality in 1947. ”

            Actually, the idea of political independence for Palestine by name had been submitted to the League of Nations as early as 1921, but no matter. Your comment contradicts nothing in my post; my comment indicated that Israeli identity was also a function of the first war.

            “PLO was founded to drive the Jews out.”

            And those whom the Jews had driven out certainly developed a keen sense of nationalism. Turns out that they didn’t share your casual attitude toward their homes.

          • reader

            By name? In 1921 The Jews called themselves Palestinians. Before the war, the Jews have driven out nobody. Those who came fresh settled on the land bought by the Jewish Agency, much of it being lost after the war, as some of it would be left outside the Israeli border. The Arabs were aggressors. They lost. Why are they better than the Suddetten Germans, exactly?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            my comment indicated that Israeli identity was also a function of the first war.

            The first war with the Caananites, Moabites?

          • hiernonymous

            As a rule, the adjective “Israeli” refers to the state of Israel, which has fought no wars against Moabites or Canaanites, and the citizens of that state. To avoid confusion, I will use the term Israelite to refer to those who invaded the Region and wrested it from its inhabitants.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Israel existed in various incarnations throughout history.

            The proper usage is the modern State of Israel.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Palestinians originated in the same places that all the Arabs did. They were part of the waves of Arab migration, which in some cases postdated the Jewish immigration.

          • hiernonymous

            “Palestinians originated in the same places that all the Arabs did.”

            That’s a curious contention. Of course, part if your confusion may lie in the ambiguous nature if the term “Arab.” If you mean it in its strictest ethnic sense, then the Arabs originated deep in the Arabian peninsula, and while there is undoubtedly some of that Arab blood among the peoples of all places conquered during the initial Muslim conquests, the Palestinians are not primarily Arab in that sense. In the more usual sense of Arabs as speakers of a common language, it is nonsensical to speak if a common place of origin for them.

            “…which in some cases postdated the Jewish immigration.”

            And in more cases did not.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There are no Palestinians. There are extended Arab families that moved around the area.

            I understand your confusion though.

          • hiernonymous

            “There are no Palestinians.”

            I have met far too many Palestinians to take your word that they are imaginary.

          • Drakken

            The victors decide what the rules are, not a so called world body called the UN.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Cries of Islamophobia aren’t going to make the fact that Jews were in the Land of Israel BEFORE muhammed (spit) came on the scene with his mish mash of Judaism, Chritianity and Paganism.

          • Drakken

            History always goes to those who win it.

          • Drakken

            The so called court of law is what the victors say it is.

          • Americana

            There is always a way round an intractable problem.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The solution is Nakba. Eternal Nakba.

          • Drakken

            And it is always solved through force of arms.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You would have preferred that your na zi socialists were the victors?

            Cry yourself to sleep.

          • Drakken

            Useful, leftist, idiots always without exception, learn the hard way. History is never kind to the weak, feckless and Quislings.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jordan is Pal-e-SWINE. Israel and Jordan are your extant two-state solution.

          • Americana

            That’s the BRITISH solution to the forced question of a Jewish state which was undertaken because of pressure from Jewish terrorists. That’s hardly the legitimate solution.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jewish terrorists? Like the terrorists who bombed London transport on 7/7/05, who beheaded Lee Rigby, who openly threaten 9/11 scale massacres in the UK and Eurabia, who place bombs on passenger planes like Pan Am 103, who shot police officer Yvonne Ridley, who stalk and rape British girls?

            Oh. the above atrocities weren’t committed by “Jewish terrorists” but bye YOUR follow Islamofascist terrorist filth.

            Happy Eternal Nakba!

          • Americana

            Do I need to again post the official United Nations list of the hundreds of Jewish terrorist targets and the assassinations of British soldiers and diplomats undertaken by the Irgun before the British conceded? I certainly can if you need to refresh your memory.

            You must be so proud of those Jewish killers to pretend that they never existed. I’ve never excused Palestinian terrorism but it has ramped up over the years because they’ve never been given a homeland and they’ve been gobbled up piecemeal by the Israelis. You can evade the reality of the Jewish terrorists achieving what they wanted by employing terrorism, but in a discussion like this one, the unpleasant reality of Jewish terrorism deserves to be mentioned. It doesn’t deserve to be swept under the table, whether it’s a negotiating table or not.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Please do. Lets tally what the Irgun did compared to what Arabs/Muslims and British have done ALL OVER THE WORLD.

            The British? Think of the Revolutionary War in America and the War of 1812.

            The Israelis did convince the snide British to lower their flag and pack up and leave, and the British expected the Israelis/Jews to be massacred as they were in WW2 – without the “protection” of the British. Especially considering that the Israelis were left unarmed – facing the armies of 5 Arab nations.

            G-D Bless Czechoslovakia for supplying Israel with weapons to defend itself.

          • Americana

            There’s absolutely NO COMPARISON between the situation facing the two. It wasn’t known that colonization would necessarily displace umpteen hundreds of thousands of various Native Americans as was guaranteed would happen by granting the nationhood sought by the Jews. The first Americans had no idea what the population sizes were for the various Indian tribes, having only acquaintance w/those tribes at the edges of the Eastern coast. Those Jews who came to Palestine were aware the likelihood was they’d be displacing umpteen hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs if they managed to get a nation declared for themselves.

            The British didn’t want to do what it would have taken to maintain peace in the Palestinian Mandate once the Jewish terrorism began. Was it Jew hatred that caused the British to withdraw leaving Israel defenseless? I’m sure it was far more that the U.K. felt the Israelis wanted their freedom and now they’d been given it w/all its attendant risks. After all, the British had planned on an orderly and long-term withdrawal of forces to prevent just such a catastrophe.

            Be proud you achieved the state of Israel. Don’t be necessarily proud of everything you did to get there. Of course, there was nothing like the stimulus of being aware how many millions of Jews had died in the Holocaust for the Jews in Palestine to feel the pressure to have a homeland declared. There is no blame attached to that need of a safe homeland. There is blame attached to the European countries not having allowed their Jewish populations to emigrate. There’s no point whatsoever in comparing what the Muslims do/did elsewhere in the world to what Muslims do/did against the Jews in Palestine. We’re talking about what went on between the Palestinians and the nascent Israelis. If you think the Palestinians haven’t copied what the Israeli terrorists did, you’ve got another think coming.

            Here’s a list that goes farther back in time:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L
            _____________________________________________________

            Here’s a rather weird list from 1944-1948 that includes what legal events transpired around the terrorists:

            http://iamthewitness.com/doc/B

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Thanks again for supporting your claim with 9/11 Troofer site “iamthewitness”.

            LOL!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The British didn’t just withdraw. They invaded. And when their puppets lost, they considered making that invasion more overt. There were aerial battles between British and Israeli aircraft.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Were the pilots of the British aircraft Arabs or Brits? I’m guessing the pilots were Arabs.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Please continue supporting your claims by referencing 9/11 Troofer site “iamthewitness”.

            LOL!

          • American Patriot

            The Jews are the indigenous people of the Holy Land, Moronicana. Meanwhile, you only blame the United States for alleged flawed actions committed against its Native American population. You never blame Canada, the Latin American and Caribbean countries for atrocities committed against their indigenous populations, who were also Native Americans. Many flawed actions committed in those countries were worse than in the United States, yet, you give those countries a free pass while blaming only the United States. Typical leftist. I bet you supported the Communist Sandinista persecution of Nicaragua’s indigenous Miskito people during that country’s civil war in the 1980s. Where is your outrage over those atrocities?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Spanish are guilty of imperialism and genocide in Latin and South America.

          • Webb

            So you and Hernio want Israel to give land up for those dirty people to live on? It ain’t ever gonna happen. They’re a backward people who go out of their way to be filthy, and this is the best they’re ever going to have it. What part of that don’t you understand?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Let’s not forget the British officers leading some of those armies.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bagot_Glubb

            I believe there were some Brits who backed Israel.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate

            ‘Wingate was also noted for his support of Zionism. A highly religious Christian, Wingate saw it as his religious and moral[7] duty to help the Jewish community in Palestine form a Jewish state. Assigned to the British Mandate of Palestine in 1936, he set about training members of the Haganah, the Jewish paramilitary organization, which became the Israel Defense Forces with the establishment in 1948 of the state of Israel.[8] Wingate became known to the Jewish men he commanded during the Arab revolt as “The Friend”.[9]’

            G-d Bless Orde Wingate!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Wingate made a huge contribution. So did Colonel Patterson.

            But by the time the war rolled around, the authorities were on the side of crushing Israel under the Socialist Labour party and British officers were sent in to see it got done.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Danny Boy, And tell us who bombed London transport on 7/7/05, who spit on British troops in Luton, who beheaded Lee Rigby, who shot Yvonne Ridley to death, who operated rape gangs in the UK, who openly threatens the UK with 9/11 scale massacres?

            http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/30/e3/30e3182ad92786172e85c8d0241d554a.jpg?itok=V11tEd5D

            I look forward to your response.

          • Americana

            Who operated rape gangs in the U.K.? That’s gotta be a Robert Spencer “Islamic sexual slavery” special. Provide me w/links, please. Don’t bother putting up the links if the Muslims were simply OPERATING PROSTITUTION RINGS. Prostitution rings are not Muslim sexual slavery, no matter how you twist the words and their definition.

          • Drakken

            Do you see those very same muslims doing it to one of their own? No you don’t, you see those bloody savages doing it to ours. I can bloody well guarantee you that if that happened to one of mine, there wouldn’t be a muslim left to prosecute.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I Insult Islam and its prophet of Satan called Muhammed.

            Freedom of Speech.

            No Freedom of Jihad.

          • Drakken

            My, my, my, what a nice target rich environment that is. They even were nice enough to bunch up for a nice chat with a M-134.

          • Drakken

            Eff the UN, those effing bloody savages that you have empathy and sympathy for deserve to be wiped out to the last man. We are sovereign citizens of sovereign countries, not world citizens. The muslims lost the land in wars they started and the way they are doing things, they deserve to lose a lot more than land.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The creation of the Hashemite kingdom had nothing to do with any so-called Jewish terrorists.

      • tommo2

        Gaza did belong to Israel before the country was divided to give a homeland for Arabs who claimed to be Palestinians. It was thought that the two nations would live side by side in peace without taking into account the jihadi nature of Islam that perverts every Muslim country today to the extent that they can’t live with themselves let alone with other races and particularly Jews.

        It is Palestinians themselves that say there is no such tribe and claim Jordan to be their true home. Arabs in Palestine adhere to the title because it identifies them for special western consideration like aid and the excuse for useful idiots like you to take out your Jew hate on Israel believing that Palestinians are being some how oppressed by their neighbours.

        The brutal killing of the three Jewish boys is an act of war and Israel should now proceed to annexe Gaza to protect her citizens and clear the land of these barbarians.

      • Drakken

        If there were no more pali’s, there would be no more problems, simple math.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Muslims in the UK are responsible for the many horrific deaths in terrorist attacks IN the UK.

          • Americana

            Those terrorist attacks in the U.K. are because of “terrorism” those British Muslims feel have been meted out to Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. British troops have been in both countries.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Thanks for making the case that Muslims in the UK are a traitorous, murderous fifth column.

          • Webb

            To the gallows with you traitorous witch!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Webb AKBAR!

        • Americana

          I’d be careful where you’re going w/this… The reverse is also true, and just as happened w/the sociological trauma surrounding the partition and then the declaration of Israel as a nation, you might really discover you’ve driven up Palestinians fears in a direction you’re going to regret.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islamofascist attacks on Infidels world-wide are creating an “islamophobia” that is going to trigger a Nakba that Islam is going to regret for all time.

            How many Infidels have to die until the lie of the “religion of peace” is going to be beaten back?

          • Drakken

            You bloody wog supporters never understand until the end, your on the wrong side of things. You either side with the West, or you side with the muslims, there is no longer a middle ground to stand on.

          • Webb

            Ohhhhh, I’m shaking in my boots at your pissbag threat, witch.

      • Webb

        If there were no muslims in the west bank there’d be no way for them to seize Israeli kids and murder them, would there?

    • BagLady

      How does Jordan feel about that? Hasn’t it done its share already in easing your burden? Every Palestinian ‘refugee’ I know has a Jordanian passport, though they may live elsewhere on work visas. What are you suggesting here, a one state solution with no Arabs in the equation?

      Hardly surprising — rationally speaking — that some moderate Arab thinkers argue that it could have been a ‘false flag’ situation and that the ends justifies the means, horrifying though that sounds.

      It wouldn’t be the first time such things have happened in the interest of the bigger picture.

      However, I am deeply saddened that these three innocent boys weren’t found alive. I was hoping against hope they were being held to ransom or that some perv and them holed up in his farm.

      At the same time, my heart goes out the families of those seven young Palestinian men who have so far paid the ultimate price for someone else’s crime.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Is it really someone else’s crime when you support an ideology that is responsible for it?

        Were the civilians who died in Hiroshima or Dresden paying for someone else’s crime?

        • hiernonymous

          “Were the civilians who died in Hiroshima or Dresden paying for someone else’s crime?”

          Did all of the civilians who died in Dresden and Hiroshima support the ruling ideology?

          And that’s assuming that you accept the military necessity of either or both attacks.

          • reader

            Incredible sensitivity from Karl Marx’s admirer. Dialectics.

          • hiernonymous

            Still butthurt, eh? I’d say you’ll get over it, but I don’t think you will.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Classy rhetoric from a classy guy who spent weeks complaining about personal insults directed at him.

          • Americana

            If someone’s classy rhetoric continues to receive the ultimate in nastiness in response, the occasional lapse is going to be well justified. As for someone who can discuss endlessly w/very little nastiness shooting out of his mouth, I’d say if there is a collective effort to ramp up the nastiness in order to quell someone’s voice, their target’s change in tone might well be justified.

            As someone who’s been referred to as ‘Americunta,’ I’m just sayin’ the nastiness isn’t simply endlessly swallowed.

          • reader

            That’s a good one. Thanks for sharing.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Poor Hiero. Always the victim.

          • Webb

            Your mom shoulda swallowed.

          • Americana

            Your mum probably should have swallowed too. It would reduce the crudeness in the world.

          • SCR EW SOCIALISM

            But you’re British.

          • Americana

            I’m a dual national. Since we’ve got a ‘special relationship’ and I don’t have to worry about the American Revolution disrupting that, I’m fine w/being both British and American.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You can hate yourself for being both a collaborator and an imperialist.

            Lucky you.

          • Americana

            I don’t hate my status on either score.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            So you are proud to be a collaborator and an imperialist?

            You would make a good Muslim and/or Fascist.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            At least here you see how people honestly see you.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You first said you were British – not claiming to be a dual national.

            Somehow I believe you are full of Shiite.

          • Webb

            Then the British should hang your for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by cheering the murder of Lee Rigby. A lot of good Brits would volunteer to pull the lever.

          • Webb

            Nawwwwww . . . Say it ain’t so. Who would call a heinous witch something like that, now?

          • hiernonymous

            He’s not resentful of a personal insult. That’s not my style. I’m glad you recognize that.

          • reader
          • hiernonymous

            Okay.

          • reader

            sorry.

          • hiernonymous

            For not understanding? That’s okay. It was a natural mistake. “Butthurt” is a colloquial expression for someone who is nursing a resentment.

            Unless you decide to reveal your gender, “straight” doesn’t really convey much.

          • reader

            Oh, not another skin rash… Aren’t you the one butthurt about some here not being resentful? Tell me more about your graceful idioms, so nobody here would suspect your IQ being about as low as that of Obama’s and Kerry’s.

          • hiernonymous

            “Aren’t you the one butthurt ”

            Obviously not.

            Unless you actually have something topical to contribute, I’ll let you continue to express that resentment to your heart’s desire.

          • reader

            You keep saying that, and yet you’re the one who keeps trying to look smart. The more you’re trying, the more awkward it comes out. Topical.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I’m not sure if that’s more insulting to Hiero or Kerry.

          • reader

            Well, as someone not resentful of a personal insult – as he put it – I’m perfectly happy with non-precision [carpet] insulting.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So long as they aren’t flying carpets. That might be Islamophobic.

          • reader

            There’s always the danger of another riot just around the corner.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Three Mo cartoons and a little Hashish and it all goes south.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Do you support the military necessity of the Battle of Lexington or was that just more Tea Party American warmongering?

            We might as well go back to the source of your grievance.

          • hiernonymous

            Nice diversion. I didn’t express a grievance, I asked you a question.

            I notice that you didn’t actually answer it, by the way. Did all the civilians who died in Dresden and Hiroshima support the ruling ideology? Your response to that question will help you find the answer to your own.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Dresden and Hiroshima were cities in nations that declared War on the US, Britain, SU.

            The bombing of Dresden followed the bombing of London,
            Coventry, Warsaw, Shanghai.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m not sure I’m following your intent here. Are you suggesting that Dresden was revenge? Are you saying that it was a deterrent, a warning to the Germans not to bomb any more cities? Are you suggesting that once we are at war, that everyone in the enemy’s country is fair game for whatever we choose to do with them? Or that they become so if their government commits an atrocity first?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Dresden and Hiroshima were cities in nations that declared War on the US”

            Do you really find this so confusing?

          • hiernonymous

            I find it incomplete. Finish the thought and it can be evaluated.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Try a remedial reading comprehension course.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s not a novel so it’s bound to be incomplete, but it’s not confusing.

          • hiernonymous

            The incomplete part: what conclusion did you draw from the fact that they were cities in states that declared war on the U.S.?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            WTF? Please elaborate.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s not a difficult question. I am asking what conclusion he draws from the fact that he cited. Is he suggesting that all civilians in all territory subject to the rule of a hostile government are properly eligible for any sort of violence whatsoever? Something short of that?

            He offered as an explanation a fact that, standing alone, is not explanatory.

          • Drakken

            I am suggesting that once you go to war, all is fair game.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You express your grievances by way of leading questions.

            So do you feel that George Washington was a war criminal?

          • hiernonymous

            I’ll be happy to answer that question, after you’ve addressed mine.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Failing and stalling.

          • hiernonymous

            True, but I’m trying to give him a chance.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            More failing and stalling from hiernonymous.

            Ask Danny Yob for help.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re not even making sense.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Still stalling for time? Grasping for straws?

            Epic Fail.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You keep saying that, but it never turns out to be true.

          • hiernonymous

            You still haven’t answered the first question.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The nuking of Hiroshim and Nagsaki had the desired effect.

            Imperialist Japan agreed to surrender, unconditionally, as its ally national Socialist AKA naz i Germany did back in May 1945.

          • hiernonymous

            And Dresden? Did that have the desired effect?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Dresden was payback by the British for the bombing of Coventry.

            Superior firepower ended WW2 – first in Europe, then in Asia.. The desired effect.

          • hiernonymous

            That was a sweet dodge. The question wasn’t about some generic form of application of force, it was the air raid on Dresden. What was the desired effect of that raid, and was it achieved?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Bombing did have the desired effect. It was one of the events that caused national Socialist Germany to collapse and surrender, unconditionally to the US, UK and SU.

            Threatening the retaliatory destruction of Muslim-Only apartheid city of Mecca, MIGHT cause Muslims to think twice before attacking Infidel cities.

          • hiernonymous

            Again, you dodge. The issue isn’t “bombing” in general, it was the Dresden raid. Dresden stands out in WWII history for a number of reasons, and was highlighted by the OP. You aren’t being asked about Schweinfurt or Berlin, you were asked about Dresden.

            Your assertion is questionable, but we’ll defer that conversation until you either stop avoiding the question, or simply announce that your aren’t going to answer it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Dresden was bombed by the British – in retaliation for naz i Socialist bombings of Britain.

            If history is a “dodge”, you have a problem with history.

            The other “dodge” is that national Socialist / na zi Germany DID comply and surrendered, unconditionally on May 7, 1945 to the US, UK and SU.

          • hiernonymous

            “Dresden was bombed by the British…”

            …and the Americans. It was a combined raid that included hundreds of aircraft from each air force. U.S. participation was well over 500 aircraft, IIRC.

            “If history is a “dodge”, you have a problem with history.”

            No, retreat into generalizations to avoid discussing the specific case in point is the dodge.

            “The other “dodge” is that national Socialist / na zi Germany DID comply and surrendered, unconditionally on May 7, 1945 to the US, UK and SU.”

            That’s relevant only if you are arguing that it was Dresden that brought that about. In fact, there’s little indication that the strategic bombing campaign did much to force either Germany or Japan to surrender. But you’re digressing – what was the military objective of the Dresden raid?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Bombing Dresden was another crushing blow to national Socialist Germany to convince it to surrender to the Allies.

            The V2 rockets that na zi Germany was launching were efforts to turn the tide of the war. They didn’t succeed and just made the Brits and the Americans angrier and out for naz i blood.

            If naz i Germany didn’t surrender when it did in May 1945, one of the fission bombs might have been dropped on it too.

            The nukes on Imperial Japan convinced it to surrender, unconditionally.

          • hiernonymous

            “The V2 rockets that na zi Germany was launching were efforts to turn the tide of the war. They didn’t succeed and just made the Brits and the Americans angrier and out for naz i blood.”

            Correct. Terror bombing rarely had the expected impact, whether it was the Germans or the Allies conducting it. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head was the Dutch surrender early in the war. The Dresden raid didn’t occur until February 1945. It was plain by that point that mass bombings of German cities weren’t going to appreciably change the timetable of the war.

            “If naz i Germany didn’t surrender when it did in May 1945, one of the fission bombs might have been dropped on it too.”

            Dropped on what? It didn’t really make much difference if Germany surrendered by that point – its capacity to resist was destroyed, its cities occupied, its communications and political structure destroyed. What pathetic last-stand type of resistance might have remained would not have been large enough or coherent enough to attack with an atomic bomb.

            “The nukes on Imperial Japan convinced it to surrender, unconditionally.”

            You might want to do some reading on that. It’s an interesting story, and not quite as simple as *WHOOM* – “Oh, my, we give.”

            Still, the argument in favor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is more compelling than the argument for Dresden.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialist Germany did resist – up until May 7, 1945.

            If it surrendered earlier, millions of lives could have been saved.

            The sooner Islamofascism is defeated, the more lives will be saved – on all sides.

          • hiernonymous

            “Socialist Germany did resist – up until May 7, 1945.”

            Yes, that was rather my point. The unrelenting bombing campaign did nothing to break the German will to resist.

            And it was “National Socialist” Germany. Attention to detail.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            If not the bombing, perhaps the Peace Quilt convinced Socialist na zi Germany to surrender, unconditionally?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            ” The unrelenting bombing campaign did nothing to break the German will to resist.”

            Really? So what caused national Socialist Germany agree to surrender unconditionally? Strongly worded letters from Stalin?

          • hiernonymous

            Allied soldiers swarming the streets of Berlin.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Soviet Socialist soldiers swarming the streets of Berlin.

            The Socialist Hitler/Stalin non-aggression pact of 1939 was broken by the national Socialists.

          • hiernonymous

            The Soviet Union was part of the Allies. But, yes, it was Soviet soldiers swarming the streets of Berlin that brought the surrender.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Still, the argument in favor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is more compelling than the argument for Dresden.”

            The two aren’t remotely comparable.

          • hiernonymous

            Perhaps, perhaps not. They’ve been compared here because of the following post:

            Daniel Greenfield BagLady • 8 hours ago
            Is it really someone else’s crime when you support an ideology that is responsible for it?

            Were the civilians who died in Hiroshima or Dresden paying for someone else’s crime?

            Apparently, there was some point of comparison that linked them in your mind.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Payback for the deaths of civilians in London, Coventry, Warsaw, Shanghai.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re conflating moral culpability and strategic necessity.

            The argument had shifted and your attempt to pretend otherwise is more dishonest than usual. Even for you.

          • hiernonymous

            Another predictable resort to character assassination. You introduced the comparison of the two. Nothing about the direction of the conversation had moved us away from the original point of comparison that you introduced, to wit, the moral implications of the use of large-scale indiscriminate violence against civilian populations.

            Dresden and the atomic bombings are quite regularly compared, by the way. That two items are compared does not imply identity, it implies points of relevant similarity. Both Dresden and Hiroshima involved the targeting of civilian populations. Further similarities are that they took place toward the end of wars whose outcome had long ceased to be in doubt. There is debate over the military utility of the attacks, both in terms of the strategic outlook – did the attacks hasten the end of the war – and more operational – did the attacks have legitimate military targets? They’ve been compared in other ways – for example, Bomber Command openly acknowledged in its instructions to its airmen that one of the goals of the Dresden raid was to make sure that the Soviets understood the power of Allied airpower; in short, to at least some degree, the civilians in Dresden were targeted as a deterrent, not to their own government, but to the government whose postwar enmity was already anticipated. Similarly, the argument has often been advanced that a significant motivation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were related to the Soviets, in two ways. First, there was a desire to impress upon the Soviets the import of the new weapon, particularly given the preponderance of land power the Soviets enjoyed over the West in Europe. Second, with the war in Europe over, the U.S. was having second thoughts about having called for Soviet assistance in the Far East, and wanted to curtail the war before significant Soviet participation gave them the right to a partition of Japan as had happened in Europe.

            It’s fascinating that you think there were no points of comparison, and still more interesting that, when it was pointed out that you raised the subject, your instinct was not to use reason, but to launch, again, into another attack on character. It’s a second-rate tactic.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Bombing Dresden was good. It was one of the events that drove national Socialist Germany to surrender unconditionally.

            The naz i air attacks on London did not have the desired effect of causing the British to capitulate.

          • hiernonymous

            So you recognize that air attacks couldn’t break tha British will to resist. You also know, or should know, that the Germans endured a far worse pounding from the air and never, at any point, showed any indication that the air campaign was breaking their will to resist. The Germans, in fact, resisted until Allied soldiers physically occupied the Reich and brought the war literally to Hitler’s doorstep. Yet you assert, without a shred of evidence, that Dresden was significant in bringing about German surrender. Can you support that, or do you just sort of “know?”

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            If national Socialist Germany was able to continue to bomb England things might have been different. But thankfully they gave up. And the combined air forces of the Americans, British were able to decimate Socialist Germany. Dresden was one of many targets that cumulatively contributed to the defeat of Socialist Germany. No place in national Socialist Germany was safe.

          • hiernonymous

            “If national Socialist Germany was able to continue to bomb England things might have been different. ”

            But they weren’t.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Again, thankfully National SOCIALIST Germany gave up on its bombing campaign of Britain.

            You should read about the Battle of Britain.

          • hiernonymous

            Good advice. When you take it, you’ll discover that the Battle of Britain was a very specific event involving the failed German attempt to crush the RAF preparatory to Sea Lion. If you kept reading, however, you’d discover that the Battle of Britain transitioned into the Blitz, and the Germans never really completely abandoned the bombing of Britain until she lost the airfields and launching points that enabled the attacks. In 1944, Germany even tried to step up the campaign again, culminating in the Little Blitz.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The fact remains that national Socialist Germany failed to overrun Britain. The destruction and loss of life got Britain to seek revenge.

            Too bad the UK has lost its way today.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, Germany failed to overrun Britain. This supports the conclusion that terror bombing has little or no legitimate military usefulness.

          • reader

            “So you recognize that air attacks couldn’t break tha British will to resist.”

            There is a big difference between the Nazis bombing UK and the Allies bombing Germany. Luftwaffe was designed for tactical operations only, completely lacking any strategic bombing capabilities. They were simply incapable of inflicting Dresden-like devastation to anybody.

          • hiernonymous

            Dresden and Hamburg were planned in large part by studying the effects of German attacks on Britain. The Germans lacked long-range bombers, but that is irrelevant here, as they held French airfields and could range their entire target set with the aircraft available. They could more than make up in sortie frequency what they lacked in individual airframe bomb capacity.

            Contrast that, for example, with Operation Matterhorn. The latter was conducted using the heaviest and longest-ranged piece of bombing technology of the war, the B-29, but because of the distances involved, the bombers were able to average only about one sortie per airframe per month, and the operation failed to achieve much success.

          • reader

            Rubbish. Not only Lufftwaffe lacked the range, they could not carry a fraction of the load carried by the B-series bombers over Germany.

          • hiernonymous

            You might want to spend some time reading about the sortie rates, numbers of raids, and damage done before rubbishing the truth. Let’s look at what you said:

            “Not only Lufftwaffe lacked the range…”

            I addressed this. The Luftwaffe flew from bases in Norway and France that gave them access to their target set. The length of Britain’s furthest N-S extent is a bit under 700 miles. The range of the HE-111 is about 1,400 miles. With bases to north and south, there is exactly no place in Great Britain that the Luftwaffe could not hit. But let’s not speak hypothetically. We know that, besides burning out much of London and most of central Conventry, Hull was hammered. The industrial midlands was hit, with Leeds being the target of no fewer than nine raids during the Blitz. Liverpool was struck repeatedly, and Manchester was particularly hard hit.

            Still want to claim the Luftwaffe lacked the range?

            “…they could not carry a fraction of the load carried by the B-series bombers over Germany.”

            And if you’d read carefully instead you’d have seen precisely that point addressed in my previous. In addition to re-reading that post and thinking about the sortie rates that proximity permitted (if you dig deeper than Wiki, you might find that the same aircraft participated in multiple sorties against London, for example, on single days of the Blitz, a trick you won’t find repeated by many 8AF B-17s), I will add that the Germans, when they shifted to population targets as targets, rendered the bomb capacity of the bombers largely irrelevant, as they relied quite heavily on incendiaries, which in turn relied on submunitions only a few pounds apiece.

            Again, if you review the actual damage done to British cities, you’ll find that some lost over 80% of their residences to these planes that couldn’t reach them and couldn’t care a fraction of their own country’s bomb weight.

          • reader

            Right. First of all, the range affects fighter cover. Secondly, your comment about frequency supposedly compensating for the load is utter nonsense. Luftwaffe did not have enough assets to turn up frequency and compensate for the lack of load. You only have so much fuel and there’s only 24 hours in a day. The entire premise is insane. To essentially argue that tactical bombers could be effectively used as strategic ones is simply preposterous.

          • hiernonymous

            There are a couple of ways to address your range fixation. One is to note that the Bf110 escort fighter had a range equal to the bombers. When the 110 proved inadequate, the bombers shifted to nighttime raids. For precision bombing, night raids would be a disadvantage, but for incendiary terror bombing of cities, worked just fine. The Germans used radio beacons to guide their bombers.

            The shorter response is that they actually conducted the bombing, which is pretty irrefutable proof that they had the range to do so.

            As for multiple sorties, I invite you to research the Blitz. You will find that the German approach was around-the-clock attacks and did, in fact, involve multiple sorties. It’s not hypothetical.

          • reader

            Ur… wait. I said that you can’t compare the Nazis bombing the UK to the Allies bombing Germany. Your response: 1. The fact that the bombing took place is the proof – that you can, apparently. 2. Of course, you can’t compare tactical bombers with the strategic ones.

            Hmmm….ok, then.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hiero’s mind is like the Twilight Zone. Arguments fall in and emerge turned inside out.

          • reader

            What can I say? Dialectics works like a charm. That’s what it’s there for.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to be confusing the comparison of the airframes themselves with your contention that the German aircraft could not be used to comparable effect. Plainly, the German aircraft were used to comparable effect in the case of the UK. If you are finished insisting that the Blitz was impossible, or that the effects of the Blitz were less devastating than they were, well and good.

          • Webb

            Dresden? A beautiful thing. Too bad you weren’t in the center of it all so you could give us a smokin’ hot firsthand report. Cheerio old boy!

          • hiernonymous

            That was Kurt Vonnegut.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            American POW Kurt Vonnegut survived the bombing of Dresden.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, he did. And he wrote a book about it. Looks like Webb got everything he asked for. Wins all around.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Yes, a fact based account involving space aliens.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Except for Webbs wish that you were in Dresden at the center for the bombings.

            I agree with Webb. The fewer apologists for islamofascism the better.

          • hiernonymous

            If by that you mean that you two wish me dead, that does little to convince me that yours is the voice of reason.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I introduced the comparison in terms of the moral culpability of the bombed. You’ve tried to reintroduce it in a debate over the strategic necessity of the bombings.

            It’s not a personal attack to point out that you routinely engage in this sort of goal shifting dishonesty.

            It’s fascinating that you think there were no points of comparison

            Another dishonest strawman from a dishonest troll.

          • hiernonymous

            “Another dishonest strawman from a dishonest troll.”

            DG: “The two aren’t remotely comparable.”

            If you meant to limit your comment, you did not do so. It’s unseemly to blame your own lack of clarity on others and accuse them of dishonesty. It’s becoming a habit with you.

            You are also trying to create an artificial distinction between the moral culpability of the bombed and the justifications offered for bombing them. The conversation has never strayed from the root idea of whether the bombings in question were justified.

            I note that you never addressed the question of whether you believe all of those killed supported their ruling ideologies. Slip your mind?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The retaliatory bombing of various cities in national Socialist na zi Germany was one tactic to bring it to its knees, to defeat it and end the War in Europe.

          • hiernonymous

            And a couple of obvious questions about that tactic are: was it successful, and was it morally justified?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Yes and yes. It was WW2 – a war against Fascist Socialism.

            You can google World War 2 for the details.

          • hiernonymous

            When examined as a struggle among ideologies, WWII is more generally considered a struggle against Fascism. The Socialists fought on the side of the Allies, however temporary the alliance turned out to be in some cases.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The comment addressed the current topic, not every possible point of comparison.

            Since they’re all cities, that’s obviously a point of comparison.

            But that kind of reasoning is blatantly dishonest trolling.

            You are also trying to create an artificial distinction between the
            moral culpability of the bombed and the justifications offered for
            bombing them.”

            You don’t understand the difference between the strategic reasons for bombing a target and the moral debate over whether the people being bombed deserve it?

            I have trouble believing that anyone involved in these issues could be that thick, so again you’re just trolling.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Dresden was in na zi Germany. All of Germany was a target. Payback is a bitch. That’s why na zis scrambled to surrender to the Allies, fearing how they would be treated by Stalins armies who wanted revenge for Stalingrad.

          • hiernonymous

            So you are suggesting that the appropriate moral framework here is revenge. It will be interesting to see if Daniel agrees.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Dresden was part of an overall strategic policy. Trying to segregate it from the rest of the policy is foolish and misguided.

            If you want to know more, you can always read up on Sir Arthur Harris.

          • hiernonymous

            I have, thanks. Neither the U.S. nor the UK treated Dresden as just another raid.

            And “Bomber” Harris might not be your best go-to guy for an ethical defense of terror bombing.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Ethics were trashed by Socialist Germany.

          • hiernonymous

            They managed to trash ours, too?

            (I’ll assume that by “Socialist Germany,” you mean “National Socialist Germany.” By way of helping you understand your error, it would also be incorrect to describe the German Democratic Republic as “Democratic Germany,” no matter that the word “democratic” appeared in its name.)

          • Daniel Greenfield

            A poor analogy that’s par for the course from you.

          • hiernonymous

            Noticeably absent from your swipe is any reasoning demonstrating that the analogy was poor. Given that any “socialist” element of the party died along with Ernst Roehm & Co on 2 July 1934, the analogy is pretty fitting.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re not too clear on what Socialist policies involve.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Died? Hardly. National SOCIALIST Germany continued to call itself National SOCIALIST Germany until May 7, 1945.

          • hiernonymous

            Scroll to the comment on the GDR. Digest.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Read about the National SOCIALIST and Soviet SOCIALIST AKA hitler/stain non-aggression pact of 1939 and the later invasion and division of Poland between the two Socialist entities.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

          • hiernonymous

            How is that relevant? Finish your argument.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The hilter/stalin pact of 1939 was a Socialist agreement where both criminal Socialist entities would nvade and take over countries – not inteferring with each other – until national Socialist Germany broke the pact and attacked fellow Socialist Soviet Union in 1941.

            WW2 was a Socialist War – of competing imperialist Socialist entities..

          • hiernonymous

            The conquest of territory is not an inherently “socialist” undertaking. The U.S. did not become a socialist state when it conquered the Philippines. The Molotov- Von Ribbentrop pact does not demonstrate that the two countries shared a political or economic philosophy any more than it demonstrates that they shared a language.

          • Drakken

            There are no ethics in war, never has been, and it is only in the modern age has there been a attempt to define it. In the end there is only Victors and vanquished, and how you get there is immaterial.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Bomber Harris provided an ethical defense of human civilization.

            We could use him today.

          • hiernonymous

            Harris continued to advocate for area bombing even after his own air commanders realized that it was militarily useless and morally questionable.

            We could use him today? How? Is there a civilian population you think needs terrorizing?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            We could certainly use him a lot more than we can use you.

            It’s been a long way down from the Greatest Generation that saved the world to the likes of you.

          • hiernonymous

            Considering the source, you couldn’t have paid me a higher compliment.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You admitting that you are an ideological brother of the defeated na zis of 1945.

          • hiernonymous

            Oh, brother.

          • Webb

            Yup, you could’ve hopped right up onto the gallows with your Nuremburger pals, happy to share in their fate for being the more ethical military men. I’d be proud to spring your trapdoor!

          • hiernonymous

            And?

          • Webb

            And go have a cold Guinness Extra Stout to reward myself for ridding the world of a worthless pos terrorist.

          • hiernonymous

            Shocking.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Yes, no doubt you consider yourself to be on a higher moral level than the WW2 GIs.

          • hiernonymous

            That would be a curious conclusion.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            But all too typical.

          • hiernonymous

            Agreed.

          • Webb

            Yes readers, poor Hernio’s show here is over. He groaned, farted, and died, but he doesn’t realize he’s dead yet. Like Anton Chigur told Carson Wells, Hernio should admit his situation because there would be more dignity in it.

          • hiernonymous

            “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”
            – Mark Twain

          • Webb

            Ethics? Oh, you want us to play you a dirge on our violins while you hector us. Maybe after we play for the death camps . . . But we’ll wait for your lecture on those places and ideas.

          • hiernonymous

            Are you one of those people who thinks that in any conversation about any ethical dilemma, any opinion on the morality of a given act must be preceded by an exhaustive list and discussion of every act that could be considered as bad or worse? Sorry, that’s generally a diversionary tactic. The death camps were an atrocity without parallel, but their existence does not render all other discussions meaningless, nor is there a reason they need to be invoked in every conversation. Your reasoning here isn’t clear.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ” Sorry, that’s generally a diversionary tactic.”

            And yet you engage in it all the time.

          • hiernonymous

            Really? Feel free to point it out when you think you see it, and I’ll consider your point.

      • Drakken

        Now there is a good little commi as you are, giving moral equivalence to Islamic savages that don’t deserve it. Your lucky that I am not in charge, there would be no fakestinians.

      • tommo2

        The Middle east is in flames and you say ‘the means justifies the end’? I hope you remember that when they come for your family.

      • Webb

        How bout all those poor young fellows crucified? Yer black little heart go out to their families, too, SkagLady? Picking out sympathy cards?

  • kasandra

    Excellent column. Should be mandatory reading at the White House and Department of State.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The only mandatory reading at State is Noam Chomsky

      • liz

        Besides Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Alinsky.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          And let’s not forget Zinn

  • Rosasolis

    This is a very informative article for those who still believe that all Palestinians
    are anti-Semites. Many Palestinians are Christians, and as true believers seek
    and acknowledge the writings in both the Old and New Testiments in the Bible.
    Although most of these Christian communities are being forced to live under
    difficult circumstances, often as 2nd. rate citizens, they support the El Fatah
    administration in the West-bank. This group has also Christian representatives,
    who are working for a peaceful solutions for Israelis and Palestinians.
    But as practically the entire Middle-east and Africa is now exploding under
    the new Shi-iet and Sunni War, it is alas inevitable that this should now spread
    to Israel.
    With the modern inventions such as the commuter social sites, and new
    Islamic magazines, the jihad is now quickly spreading throughout Europe,
    and is recuiting several young, unemployed men and teeners, to be sent out
    and trained to fight in the Jihad for the “Ultimate Goal” — World Domination,
    as written in the Koran.
    I have just heard the following on our National radio news (Netherlands):
    that our airport and border officials will be providing more control to prevent
    new recuits to leave — or return to this country. Israëls Prime-minister
    has issued a plan to built even more settlements. This will no longer work to
    stop any more Islam terrorism in Israel!
    I think that now is the time for Europe (and Israel) to start planning for a
    new Crusade….before its too late!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s important to remember that minorities living under Muslim rule have to find ways to conform and show their loyalty.

      So Jews living in Iran denounce Israel. Until they can escape to Israel or the US.

      Christians living under PLO rule have to play the game. Some go full Stockholm Syndrome. Others however are just trying to survive under Islam.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    I’m just thankful that there are a few people like Mr. Greenfield who have the intelligence, informed diligence, and courage to tell the truth. I’m also thankful that there are outlets to publish articles like this one. I wrote an article “Arab Rage,
    Unrest, and Anti-Americanism Is Nothing New” that appeared at FrontPageMag.com on January 30, 2013. It traced hostilities between the Arab world and the U.S. back to our founding era and the John Adams administration. Prior to that, while we were still British colonies, the mother country had to deal with the thieving, murderous North Africans (Arab states lining the Mediterranean Sea). Mr. Greenfield provides even more of an overview. Without this contextualizing, we will always be misunderstanding these events, just by seeing them as somehow “local.” The Islamic world is the implacable enemy of every other belief system in the world, and is committed to Islamic supremacism. Any other view is a misinterpretation, and actions based on some other view cannot lead to satisfactory results.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s a great article and well worth reading for the history.

      • Americana

        So you agree w/his premise — that these North African pirates were committed to jihad war agains America? What a HOOT. It might be great reading for the historical components, not so much for its theoretical construct of jihad against America. I can just see those North African PIRATES being major jihadis… NOT.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          You can deal with the history or choose to ignore it

          http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~argyll/From%20JOHN%20ADAMS%20And%20THOMAS%20JEFFERSON.pdf

          In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams sat down with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, to discuss the unprovoked attacks of the Barbary pirates on American ships. Jefferson and Adams were understandably confused as to the motivation for the pirates to attack American ships when the Americans had no quarrel with them. They recorded Ambassador Adja’s response to their inquiries; in a letter to Congress, Jefferson and Adams noted “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

          • Americana

            When the Tripolitan ambassador said that he was effectively saying his Caliph had no way to rein in these pirates and that therefore the Caliph wasn’t to blame for the depredations on American shipping. Do I need to go find the corollary to the ambassador’s statement — that the Caliph was refusing to pay reparations or make any promises that he’d make war on these pirates to beat them back and defeat them?

            Here’s an interesting bit of information from Wikipedia — that several nationalities including the Dutch and Sephardic Jews from Spain became Corsairs and even sometimes converts in order to sail w/the Barbary pirate fleets.

            ____________________________________________________

            (WIKI) The first half of the 17th century saw the peak of Barbary raiding. This was due largely to the contribution of Dutch corsairs, notably Zymen Danseker(Simon de Danser), who used the Barbary ports as bases for attacking Spanish shipping during the Dutch Revolt. They cooperated with local raiders and introduced them to the latest Dutch sailing rigs, enabling them to brave Atlantic waters.[16] Some of these Dutch corsairs converted to Islam and settled permanently in North Africa. Two examples are Süleyman Reis, “De Veenboer”, who became admiral of the Algerian corsair fleet in 1617, and his quartermaster Murat Reis, born Jan Janszoon. Both worked for the notorious Dutch corsair Zymen Danseker.

            And here’s a bit about the larceny that the Barbary pirates levied against American shipping. Follow the MONEY is a good thing to remember when talking about PIRATES:
            ___________________

            Until the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, British treaties with the North African states protected American ships from the Barbarycorsairs. Morocco, which in 1777 was the first independent nation to publicly recognize the United States, became in 1784 the first Barbary power to seize an American vessel after independence. The Barbary threat led directly to the creation of the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States managed to secure peace treaties, these obliged it to pay tribute for protection from attack. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual expenditures in 1800.[21] The First Barbary War in 1801 and theSecond Barbary War in 1815 led to more favorable peace terms ending the payment of tribute. However, Algiers broke the 1805 peace treaty after only two years, and subsequently refused to implement the 1815 treaty until compelled to do so by Britain in 1816.

          • liz

            Nothing of what you just quoted changes the self declared justification by the Muslims themselves – their religion. So what if money was involved? The Saudis are rich and justify their support of terrorism for the same reasons as the Muslim pirates did – religion.

          • Americana

            You’re wrong, liz, and every single historian in the world says you’re wrong. Historians would suggest that whatever influence the Emirs and the Caliphs had over the Barbary pirates would be minimally exercised. Why? Because this was the economic lifeblood of the region. Whether this was based on religion or not, it was effectively being waged because it was the financial bloodstream for the region. If it were religiously based, then why did the Corsairs offer the opportunity for Dutch sailors to join in the plunder without converting to Islam?

            As for claiming there is widespread support among all Muslims for world-wide jihad, I’d suggest it’s baseline. It definitely doesn’t reach into the coffers of the International Muslim nations beyond those who are finagling jihad movements hoping to control their outcome and their reach as in Pakistan. Whatever Saudi involvement there is in the Palestinian jihad, you’ll notice that they aren’t active in other jihad endeavors like in Indonesia and the Philippines. Why? Because the Saudis are fundamentally NOT in the Caliphate-making business. Individual Saudis may be in the Caliphate-making business, but the Saudi ruling family as a political entity — the Saudis who trace their bloodline back to Mohammed — they’re not working for a Caliphate.

          • liz

            The Saudis aren’t in the Caliphate making business?
            You are truly a dupe of their stealth jihad.
            Why then are over 80% of mosques in America, funded by Saudis, teaching and disseminating radical jihad, America hating poison?
            Saudis are Wahabi, which as everyone knows is a virulent form of Islam. Wake up!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re reading his mind. I’m quoting what he said.

            We can debate his hidden motivations, but his diplomatic position was that non-Muslims could be raided because of the Koran.

            Trying to brush that way ignores the fact that this was considered a legal justification in his mind.

          • Americana

            No, I’m not mind reading in the least. I’m simply more attuned to diplomatic nuances than you are and I’m more willing to recognize there are diplomatic situations that defy political control.

            That was a DIPLOMATIC EXPLANATION that was given to the Americans. Don’t nitpick over what is patently clear simply because you want to misread the situation to your advantage. No Muslim ruler had a way of quelling the Barbary pirates. Even if fatwas had been issued, these Barbary pirates would have ignored them. So, if they were committed to a life of crime, how would the Tripolitan diplomat have exculpated his ruler from any blame? “Sorry, they are renegade Muslims who are out of our control.” That’s basically what he said. Take it at face value. Think of them as the Al Capones of the Muslim world. Not all Muslims are law-abiding.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Telling the Americans that they could be raided because they were infidels was not “diplomatic”.

            It was the legal basis for such actions.

            He may not have been able to stop the Barbary pirates, short of paying them, but why would he have even wanted to.

            Islam conveniently redirects internal enemies to external non-Muslim targets. It works well.

            Just ask the Saudis.

          • Drakken

            You do bloody well realize the Barbary pirates were defeated by force right? Hence why Lt Presley O’Bannon took Tripoli and why Marine Corps officers carry the Mameluke sword. It was because islam gave them license to do as they please to us infidels you ignoramus. Yeah, your diplomatically attuned alright, just like our current state dept, out to lunch.

          • Webb

            You aren’t more attuned to squat. You’re simply delusional. That’s what I hear from mental patients — that they’re more attuned or that they have a 6th sense. You’re schizophrenic, and that doesn’t mean you have a split personality. It means you suffer from delusions. It explains why you think you’re a writer. You’re nothing.

      • Jeff Ludwig

        Thanks. Your reply is very encouraging.

    • Americana

      Give me a break. Your article traced “hostilities between the Arab world and the U.S. back to our founding era.” Tell me another long line of dialectical swill. Those “thieving, murderous North African” were PIRATES just as some Somalis and other nations are now PIRATES. The fact they are backed up the Muslim creed wouldn’t change their line of work.

      As for them being anti-American in the 1800s, they might have adopted anti-Americanism if America had chosen to no longer ply those waters w/her merchant ships but trying to claim they’d take their **anti-Americanism of the day** and try to blow up the White House in the 1800s???? It would NEVER, EVER HAVE HAPPENED. Why? Because there is a difference between what the U.S. stands for now and what we stood for then.

      • liz

        You so miss the point. It doesn’t matter what America stood for then and what it stands for now. Muslims always have and always will hate all non-Muslims, period.
        It’s in their “marching orders” from the Prophet himself. They don’t need any other excuses.

        • Americana

          I’m not missing the point AT ALL. I’m not going to stand for this kind of HISTORICAL SILLINESS in an attempt to fortify claims that Muslims everywhere and throughout time have been at war w/the West and aiming for a world-wide Caliphate. ***Those Barbary pirates were merely pirates.*** They might have been Muslims, but their main aim in life was earning a living not proselytizing to crews on American merchant vessels. No one is going to get away w/labeling those Barbary pirates as committing jihad in the sense of today’s Palestinian jihad. It’s just not an ACCURATE HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION of what went on then and what’s going on now.

          • jackdiamond

            They were pirates for reasons of Islam, they were pirates for the same reason Muhammad was a pirate (he funded his army raiding caravans, selling captured slaves..there is a chapter of the Qur’an called “Spoils of War”). From the statement of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on Barbary: “The Ambassador (of Tripoli) answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

            The Qur’an also allowed the Dey to deceive in negotiation and break any treaty when it was to the advantage of the Muslims. He said as much and did as much. This is Islam, not “pirate-talk.”

          • jackdiamond

            It was the direct experience of Islam as well as study of the Qur’an that led to John Quincy Adams famous statement “the precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.” And it wasn’t just material taken or held for ransom, Americans were sold into slavery and disappeared just as millions of Europeans were in raids up and down Europe by Muslim “razzias” over generations.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Thanks Jack I was looking for that quote when I wrote above (and before I read you post). Glad your on the job!

          • Webb

            Sure it is, you insane slunt. You’re just too stupid to realize it.

          • liz

            I suspected you were a split-personality from your other self contradictions. Now I know for sure!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “slunt” LOL!

          • liz

            You’re ignoring the evidence presented to you that those pirates were not “merely pirates” -they justified themselves with their religion, just as they do now.

          • Americana

            I’m not ignoring that information. That information is simply immaterial to their business aptitude. They were PIRATES and they were JOINED BY WESTERN PIRATES who knew a good business plan when they saw one.

          • liz

            Just like today Muslims are joined by leftists who know a good political tool when they see one.
            They are after power and they use their religion as a justification for it. It’s not “immaterial” when it gives them an excuse and perpetuates the criminal behavior.

          • Americana

            Oh, please god, would this political idiocy STOP. I simply have to laugh in frustration when I read posts like yours above, liz. It’s laughable what is being sold as the current political bedfellows du jour. It’s nonsense.

            What was the attempt by the Russians to create fifth-coumnist havoc on behalf of Russia is now being misrepresented as the tactics of choice of Western Leftist politicians. The two situations are entirely distinct and so suggesting there is a corollary between Russian use of Palestinians and Western use of Muslims within the U.S. political system aren’t comparable.

          • Atikva

            Go laugh somewhere else, you are boring.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            liz AKBAR!!!

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            A, I have no problem with asking for an accurate record. But let’s look at the context.

            From 1500 to 1800, Muslim raider captured 1 million Europeans and enslaved them. They’ve even reached Ireland and Iceland but it was mostly in the Mediterranean. They also enslaved blacks (far more than Europeans did), Slavs (often bought from other whites) and Hindus.

            Islam obviously plays a role. Mohammad was a raider; he even raided the caravans during the holy month. Religion justified his actions. It did so for the Barbary pirates also. There is a letter from Jefferson to Adams where they are nonplused over the religious aspects of the pirates rationalization.

            Now, you point out that this wasn’t part of a conquest and that’s often true. But Muslim use Islam to underwrite their actions.

            Update: see Jack Diamond’s post earlier today. He said it better.

        • Madame_deFarge

          Those who put everything into nice neat little compartments can’t seem to grasp that Islam has no borders. That, after all, is the one reason they are still operating.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        It’s relevant because their actions were justified by their creed. When entire societies can endorse the murder and enslavement of others because of a religion, it’s no longer just a crime issue.

        • Americana

          That’s not accurate, Daniel, and you know it. The Somali pirates of today weren’t doing it for Islam but for themselves. These are the same criminal elements that have always operated in that part of the world. You do a disservice to anti-jihad by making such fatuous claims. There may be jihadis who are enslaving and subduing entire regions but they’re operating under a different plan than the Barbary pirates were and are operating.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Mohammed was also doing it for himself. The Nazis were also doing it for themselves.

            Ideology doesn’t mean unselfishness.

            A KKK member who robs a black man however is doing it for himself, but he does it with the justification of a belief system.

            The pirates who attacked Americans believed they were entitled to do it because of their belief system

          • Americana

            Look at the issue this way, if the Barbary pirates and the Somalis weren’t/aren’t following through on their god-demanded pursuit of converting everyone to Islam and extending the Caliphate, then they wern’t/are not really performing jihad on behalf of Islam, are they?

            There is a DIFFERENCE between individuals who are Muslims who are into a criminal enterprise vs those Muslims who are pursuing the overall SOCIO-POLITICAL INTENTION of radical Islamists.

            No, Mohammed was pursuing the largest scale of ideological footprint because he was COMPETING against Judaism and Christianity. The financial success that went along w/his conquests was different than the simple, straightforward economic interests of the Barbary pirates. I don’t care how long you argue this point, you’ll lose.

          • Webb

            You’re not being argued with; you’re being laughed at because an insane person like you can’t be argued with. Everyone who has ever come on here day after day persisting at making laughingstock of themselves has eventually gone away, and you will too. To take a line from No Country For Old Men, You’re so crazy you don’t have any idea how crazy you are. I’ll give you a hint: “COMPETING against Judaism and Christianity,” is really the icing on your nuthouse cake. I admit that it’s fun to watch you crazies fall by the wayside, because you represent the delusions of Obama and the State Dept.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Extending the Caliphate is done by subjugating non-Muslims in various ways. Raiding was the original way.

            The pirates are doing what Mo was doing.

          • Americana

            Daniel, sometimes you try to simply cheat your way to dialectical victory. Some people might cheer you on w/this behavior. I’m not quite as tolerant of historical misstatements. The pirates never subjugated the lands they raided in any significant way. They came, they stole, they LEFT.

            No, these pirates aren’t doing “what Mo was doing.” Because they aren’t extending the Caliphate. They’re keeping to their own little corner of the world. They’re doing what the Barbary pirates have always done — they’re coming, they’re stealing and they’re leaving to go back home. Wake me up when they try to hit up coastal Spain and set up Muslim footholds.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Nomadic assaults begin with raids. You build your forces by chipping away at the enemy and amassing spoils.

            Whether or not you ever control any territory permanently through Islamic governance, you are imposing the ‘bandit law’ of tribute on non-Muslims.

            Controlling navigational areas through raids very much extends Islamic influence in a mercantile culture.

            That is why airline hijacking became a tactic of choice.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Mohammed the land pirate is the inspiration for the Muslims sea pirates. Attack the unbelievers and steal their goods.

          • Drakken

            There is no bloody difference between what the Barbary pirates did and what the effing skinnies are doing to today. It is obvious you don’t know or understand history to save you azz and it shows.

      • Jeff Ludwig

        You are trying to make too many points at one time, and are tangled up in your own thinking. If you are attacking a ship carrying the flag of a particular country, you are attacking that country. The U.S. sent in Stephen Decatur and a contingent of marines to stop the piracy. Obviously, Jefferson believed it was anti-American.

  • Johnnnyboy

    I am not convinced that the Jews (or Israel) are the good guys in the Middle East because I suspect their are no good guys. But what seems wildly obvious to me is that no workable peaceful arangement can be had with the Islamic populations so long as they carry their current cultural tendencies. Yet we have this endless cycle of people who imagine they can negotiate a peace that both sides can live with. No chance of it, not really, not in the current situation.

    • liz

      Why does peacefully living on land you have a legal right to make you a not so good guy?

      • Americana

        These boys were living in a West Bank settlement. Ergo, they weren’t entitled to that land.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          No they weren’t.

          http://cifwatch.com/2014/06/16/cif-watch-prompts-indy-correction-to-claim-that-abducted-teens-were-settlers/

          http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/06/26/economist-is-latest-to-falsely-claim-3-kidnapped-teens-are-settlers/

          The term settlement also has very little meaning.

          I have no idea why you believe that territory that Israel lost in one war and won in another war is somewhat off limits to Jews, while no such limitation applies to Muslims.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Refugee camps don’t have multi-story builldings that are decades old.

            They have tents.

        • Webb

          What you’re really saying is that they weren’t entitled to live. You no good effing sob.

          • Americana

            Blow your bile elsewhere. I didn’t say anything of the kind. Not being entitled to that land is NOT the equivalent of “not being entitled to live.” But go ahead w/your addled, pissant rants, it’s not important to point out your fallacious misrepresentations of what people write.

          • reader

            Judenreina does not like for the Jews to live in the Caliphate. Tell me if it’s the misrepresentation too.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Are you entitled to the land you live on?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Blow yourself up in a workplace accident in Mecca.

          • Drakken

            The Israeli’s are entitled to the land because they took it ny war your islamic friends started, to the victors go the spoils.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Americana, Please go to Pal-e-SWINE on a Human Shield Tour. Think of Saint Pancake..

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          You’re Pal-e-SWINIANS are occupying land in Israel. Ergo they aren’t entitled to that land. Perhaps they are entitled to land in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq,.

        • ohreli

          Whose land it is is obviously a great political controversy. Who one sides with usually coincidences with how far back historically one is willing to “draw the line.” Having said that however, in what other conflict does not being “entitled to that land” justify kidnapping and murder?

        • Drakken

          There it is, your Islamic sympathy card being played.

        • Atikva

          There is no “West Bank settlement”. There are Judea and Samaria, two provinces that bear the names of their Jewish founders. The islamo-socialists had to rename them to try and hide this obvious fact, which makes the Arabs’ claim utterly ridiculous.

          Jordan, who had occupied these provinces for some 20 years, may have had a claim over them after its botched invasion of Israel which allowed the Jews to liberate Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Jordan chose not to do it to allow the “palestinian” myth to take shape, which has been accepted only by the ignoramus and the feeble minded.

          Israel should have annexed Judea and Samaria instead of allowing these savages to invade them – with the appalling results we have seen for the past 5 or 6 decades.

          You know what? Your sanctimonious rhetoric makes me sick. Have the decency to put a lid on it at a time when the anger is mounting in the minds of all decent people.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The Israelis are no more the “good guys” than the Americans or the Brits or the French. We’re all flawed and we all contribute to our problems.

      But we do face a real enemy.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        This would be a good subject for another article, Daniel. The “Good Guys” vs. the Real Enemy

        • Daniel Greenfield

          We’re people, not ideals. The Alinsky game is to insist that we should be ideals and if we’re not, then we’re no better.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I understand. The closest I’ve ever seen anyone to being an ideal is my good wife. But it’s her occasional “moments” which remind me that she is, indeed, human.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Socialists are, and side with the Real Enemy.

          See the Red/Green Axis of Evil.

    • Webb

      Let me clarify it for you. Would you rather be dropped off in Gaza or Tel Aviv?

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Tel Aviv, of course. If I was dropped off in Gaza, I would want a full combat loadout …

        • Webb

          That’s a good hint for JohnnyBooby, Wolf, but I still don’t know if he’ll be able to figure it out. Let’s give him a little more time . . . He’s probably consulting with the Darwinists right now.

          • Drakken

            Darwin loves folks like Johny. Time is something that we are rapidly running out of.

  • Rondo

    The problem with “radical Islam” is the problem with Islam.

    Many are afraid that if Islam is the problem there can be no solution. That terrifies them. So they do all they can to avoid engaging with the evidence that Islam is the problem.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That’s very true.

      People prefer to phrase a problem in solveable terms. They would rather do that than deal with a big scary problem.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        I noticed that also. When talking with people, I have a hard time getting them to face reality and define the problem. I argue that before we can even talk about alternatives to deal with the problem, we have to research the religion and culture. I ask the other person to just stay in the research phase without trying to “solve anything,” to facilitate the learning process.

        It’s extremely hard for Americans to do that. We are a “can do” culture and we want to believe we can solve any problem. If a solution isn’t immediately obvious our instant-gratification mindset must blank-out the problem.

        By the way, some great one-line replies to the many posts here today!

        • Daniel Greenfield

          There is that, but the entire idea of objectivity has been trashed by the left. That’s how we got into this global warming mess.

  • liz

    Couldn’t have been said better. It’s nothing but stating the obvious, plain, historical facts – so sadly absent from our present day sorry excuse for journalism. Thank you for so succinctly pointing out the elephant in the room.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      the trick is getting other people to see it

  • IngeC

    It would also help if the ‘lie’ of islam being a religion would stop. It is a cult type political movement in no way affiliated with religion as we come to understand.
    Every living person on the planet – who does not conform to islam standards is killed – that is their caliphate.

  • Frank Black

    Israel were right to retaliate with maximum force.

  • Matt E

    The scariest thing to me is that we have let them into the United States. We have let them into the West. Part of our solution to the Islam problem must be to prevent any more from coming to our shores and to make the others go back to the Islamic world. I’m not optimistic.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      If we’re going to have a future, then we have to cut the cord. Or we’re just allowing our own invaders to enter.

      No one bought the Vikings plane tickets.

      • Matt E

        As you know, the problem is serious on so many fronts. It begins with the elites of America hating the people (unlike in Israel where most of the governing elites want Israel to remain Jewish).

        But even amongst conservatives, there is an unwillingness to accept that not all cultures are equal. That just because some Muslims are not bad people does not mean that we have to accept Muslim immigrants into the United States.

        There is this idea that the United States can simply accept anyone, anywhere. No one gives thought to hey, having 10% of Queens turn Muslim may result in threats to the Jewish community in the future. Or, a country with 50% of births coming from Hispanics may change America ever so slightly in the future. No one seems to be able to say that both of these things are bad. They’re bad for the country and they need to be stopped and reversed.

        Obama is quite clearly a traitor. He fundamentally hates the historic American people. We should have understood that from 2008. And some of us did. But what is the GOP’s excuse? They want cheap labor. They don’t care about the future of the country as a whole. The goalposts have moved so far left that most of the so-called GOP establishment, or at least young Republicans in the cities, just don’t get what they’re up against and what the country outside of Manhattan (and some rich suburbs) now looks like.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Israel’s elites want the country to be Israeli. What they mean by that varies a lot.

      • Matt E

        It’s also a problem that we cannot define what being an American means. In Israel, being an Israeli basically means that you’re Jewish. But what does being an American mean? It should mean – in reference to the super majority – that you’re of European origin, speak English, support the U.S. Constitution, identify with the civics and history of the United States, etc. Blacks are citizens of the US and have every right that the historic American majority has (of course now blacks have special rights). But third world immigrants should mostly not be here. Perhaps the cream of the crop from every country outside of Islam, but only a small minority.

        I seriously think something is wrong with the Christians of the West. Is it that they have simply lost the faith? What other successful peoples simply allow themselves to be replaced? Perhaps when you stop believing in the theology, eventually you lose everything.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          At the very least it should mean loyalty to the US

  • Pinchas

    Daniel. Loved your article, but you need to preempt the objection that will surely arise about how over the centuries there were periods of less oppression and slaughter in different parts of the Muslim world. Apologists will point to these periods to “prove” that it is not Islam itself that is to blame. Or they will contrast the Jewish experience in medieval Europe to that in Islamic lands at the same time. The Muslim war against the infidel has waxed and waned over the centuries. You need to address that.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      People aren’t robots. Neither are societies.

      The devotion to Islam is not constant, just as the devotion to Communism wasn’t. There are periods of foreign cultural influence, periods of liberalization or dissolution, that are then pushed back against by new reformist movements.

      Today’s reformist movements are obsessed with wiping out the “foreign influences” that humanized previous Islam kingdoms to any degree.

      That’s what ISIS is. It’s Islam without any ornamentation. That is the Wahhabism that the Saudis began pushing. Wipe out anything that isn’t of the desert until all that is left is the desert.

      The Ottoman Empire could be cruel, but naked Islam is far worse.

  • mindRider

    1300 years of compensated inferiority complex. The “supreme” religion of the absolute emptiness.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      the ego choosing death over life for honor

  • cacslewisfan

    Thank you for speaking the truth. God be with the families of the boys.

  • Laura Stern Hisam

    Unfortunately, reasoning with Islamists is not possible. Why? Because Satan is behind all of this. Satan hates God and wants to be God. This story, fact, is as old as time itself and we need to be on our knees, praying for God’s Mercy and Grace. Jesus/Yeshua will be coming back to take out His followers soon, and there will not be peace until Jesus comes back to reign on this earth. Look around and you cannot help but notice that there are many things, worse things, happening around the world like never before. Keep your eyes on the middle east because this is where it will all play out. There will be a war against Israel very soon, but God will protect Israel, and her neighbors will be destroyed! God loves the Jewish people, and so must we! God will bless those who bless Israel, and God will curse those who curse Israel. This is the true Word of God found in the Bible.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Satan AKA Muhammed.

      • pfbonney

        Watch out for those for those fatwas!

        But thank you for your courage!

  • Daniel Greenfield

    I don’t understand your offended response. I’m pointing out that minorities living under Islam have few choices except to conform.

  • Angered American

    Sounds right to me
    It’s not about physical territory.
    It’s about spiritual territory.
    It’s not about nationalism.
    It’s about Islamism.
    It’s not about the “Occupation.” It’s about Islam.
    This is not a statement of Palestinian nationalism. It’s Islamic supremacism.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      1.5 billion Muslims will never defeat 6 billion Infidels.

      • http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/author/kwatson/ megapotamus

        Funny thing… a lot of people seem to think half the world is Muslim. Including Muslims!

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Wow, with the exception of your misuse of the term, Islamism, with mischaracterizing jihad as somehow being terrorism instead of what it actually is, which is a holy war to make Islam supreme, and your mischaracterization of Islam as somehow being a religion instead of a so-called religion, you kind of sound a lot like me. I think I’m starting to rub off on you.

    The jihad being waged by the greater Islamic totalitarian world through their proxies the so-called Palestinians, which includes Hamas, against the infidels in Israel is perpetual until the infidel state of Israel is subjugated into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, and Islam has been made supreme in Israel via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. As such it is no different whatsoever from any of the other jihads the greater Islamic totalitarian world is waging perpetually against all infidels and all infidel states throughout the world and that altogether comprises the greater global jihad at large.

    Moreover, since it is impossible for any single infidel state to solve their individual jihad problems alone, any comprehensive solution to our collective worldwide jihad problem will have to be cooperative in nature involving all infidel states acting together in unison and collectively to destroy our common enemy, which is the so-called religion of Islam, utterly. Indeed, Islam is far more an extremely rabid and aggressive form of totalitarianism that intends to make itself supreme as opposed to being a so-called religion.

    Nice post anyway!

  • Americana

    I’m not necessarily pro-Palestinian simply because I believe they have land rights in the region. I believe those ex-Muslims who are fighting against Islam will influence the next generation of Muslims. Will these ex-Muslims be the ones to finally ignite a Muslim reformation? I don’t believe that will be the source. Ultimately, I think the barbarity and the futility of what these jihadis have done will produce the reformist backlash that will defang Islam.

    No, there’s nothing akin to those two political situations between Nazism and jihad. It was always clear the West could suppress the Nazis who’d erupted from inside a single national boundary in an attempt to take over Western and Eastern Europe if we only expended enough military force. That is nothing akin to the expectation that one will find it extremely difficult to attempt to suppress a limited number of Muslims who are arising from within many different Muslim populations around the world and are committing themselves to specific jihads.

    • jackdiamond

      Islam will only be defanged by being actually de-fanged (militarily & politically & economically). When will that begin? By the clueless West? That means Islam, not a “tiny minority of extremists.” Islamic states not allowed to wage jihad by proxy, Muslims not allowed to bring in or impose shari’a into our societies. But, you see, that would be the end of Islam itself. That sage of Islam, the former head of Qur’anic studies at Al-Azhar University, the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman once said “Jihad and killing are the head of Islam. If you take them out, you cut off the head of Islam.” Do you think he misunderstands the Qur’an and Islamic religion? Or do you think he understands the teachings, the immutable unchangeable teachings, very well?

      • Americana

        I think he’s an old fart who’s about to have his own Qu’ranic interpretations handed to him on a platter and shown the door.

        • Jack Diamond

          by you? by all those moderate peaceful Muslims who can easily refute him by the Qur’an and Sunnah and do so loudly all over the Islamic world? by the moderate peaceful Muslims who teach permanent co-existence with non-Muslims and equal rights for non-Muslims and women including in Muslim majority lands in their mosques and Islamic schools? by the moderate peaceful Muslims who teach against the verses of Jihad warfare and against the obligation of Muslims, communally or individually, to implement Allah’s laws, shari’a, upon the entire earth? and that means all of those laws not a few we like discarding the rest for shari’a is all-inclusive….(all such moderate peaceful Muslims being AWOL, missing in action, or otherwise imaginary beings).

          and what do you mean his own interpretations?

          • Americana

            Obviously you don’t follow any of the web sites devoted to the wacko pronunciations of the imams… Each of these imams is constantly trying to usurp another imam in importance of their interpretations. It’s instructive to read those sites and see just how much internal strife there is.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Sunni and Shiite don’t see eye to eye.

            They’re rather blind each other.

          • Americana

            I’ve written too many posts today… Obviously in the above, I meant **PRONOUNCEMENTS** rather than pronunciations…. Sorry, I’ve got to chill my brain and walk my dogs.

          • Webb

            Poor dogs.

          • truebearing

            Maybe you should see if they can explain it all to you.

          • Jack Diamond

            On matters concerning to non-Muslims they pretty much agree just as the schools of Islamic law agree with remarkable consistency. Why? Because everything is based on, what? The Qur’an and what Muhammad said and did. This isn’t rocket science. These are not matters of private interpretation, as the Qur’an would tell you should you ever bother to read it.

  • Metatrona

    NO MORE RUBBER BULLETS! Kill the Muslim bastards. They don’t deserve life.

  • http://www.compellingconversations.com Eric the sceptic

    Great essay! You debunk so many of the fashionable delusions underpinning so much of today’s new coverage.

    I’ve even taken the liberty of recommending this illuminating essay to NPR listeners after hearing yet another round of “understanding” NPR reporters discuss Hamas’ “interesting” politics and Juan Cole’s ruminations that ISIS and the caliphate are not too important. NPR seems deeply committed to promoting the false narrative that jihadists – always called “militants” are just religiously-inspired social reformers campaigning against injustice. Their push for Islamic imperialism just happens to their preferred vocabulary.

    We must continue to highlight the many barbaric, cruel, and violent aspects of this dangerous terrorist theology. Further, we should start exposing the many polite lies promoted by the good-natured, well-intentioned multiculturalists. The western enlightenment tradition works better because freedom and tolerance matter. Let us remind our deluded friends that the American first amendment is superior to Sharia’s constant demands for censorship, control, and execution.

    As Dr. King noted, “our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

    Thank you

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you Eric

  • Harold Kay

    ISLAM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS IN VERY IN NEED OF TREATMENT

    • Webb

      Yeah. Treatment with Nuclear Medicine. WHOOF!!!

  • http://www.compellingconversations.com Eric the sceptic

    Great essay that debunks so much of the gibberish we hear on NPR news.

    Jihadist terrorism remains brutally real across the globe, but NPR news – and many other news outlets – remain far more fictional as they promote a false narrative of rational, humane actors.

    What do you do about media outlets which remain so determined to deny the reality of continual jihadist violence from Nigeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria to Israel, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia? What do you do about a publicly-funded radio network that refuses to call religiously-inspired folks who blow up world trade centers, churches, malls, pizza parlor, and bus stations “terrorists”? Shall
    we recall how the “insightful” NPR news network continued to blame the
    Fort Hood killings on “workplace violence” for years after the proud shooter called it “jihad” and plead guilty? How long are we supposed to accept
    the premise that both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a pacifist, and Osama Bin
    Ladin, the terrorist, are both “militants” who pushed for social change?

    Discernment used to be considered a journalistic virtue. Those days have passed at NPR. So this morning we had to hear Juan Cole, a so-called expert who believes that jihadist terrorism committed in the name of Allah has “almost nothing to do with Islam”, and another NPR reporter who found the politics of Hamas “interesting.” Sympathy for three murdered Israeli teenagers, one of
    whom also held American citizenship, is apparently boring, irrelevant, and
    absent. Let’s just keep pretending the global jihad and Islamic terrorism doesn’t exist so we can fill morally superior to those “vengeful” Israelis who want their teenage sons to go to college instead of being murdered.

    Your essay illuminates the theological foundations of Islamic imperialism, and places the violent bigotry in a historic perspective. By noting that the passages predate the founding of Israel, let alone the 1967 war and subsequent occupation, the article forces readers to reflect on the root causes of the latest “cycle of violence.”

    Well done!

    And I do hope that some NPR web readers check out your essay that I recommended in a comment. What will it take for NPR reporters – and listeners- to recognize that Israel, the only modern democracy in the Mideast, faces thousands of genocidal bigots as “neighbors”?

    It also behooves Americans living in safety to reflect upon the real nature of the
    jihadist theology that threatens all religious minorities across North Africa,
    the Middle East, and many parts of Southeast Asia. As Dr. King observed, “our
    lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You counter lies with the truth. The media works by shoving their talking points into people’s heads and you have to pull them out again.

      • nopeacenow

        Up to now the truth hasn’t mattered. Everyone has their own opinion as to the truth. More people are willing to believe lies against Israel and that will probably not change to any great extent.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          People are more willing to believe where there’s no pushback or it’s pushback of the feeble, “But we’re nice people kind.”

          • nopeacenow

            Too nice and too kind.

    • Dan Knight

      Eric,

      You still listen to NPR … and you’re not paid to do so?

      LOL ;-))

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Eric the skeptic AKBAR!

  • mollysdad

    Let the Israelis seize the Palestinian electoral registers and the ballot papers, and find out who voted for Hamas by matching the numbers on the list to the numbers on the ballot papers.

    Then work your way through the list.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      mollysdad AKBAR!

  • Danny

    Good article, with about the usual amount of courage and uncomfortable honesty I’ve come to expect from Greenfield. I don’t mean to be overwrought here, but I don’t know why after thousands of murdered Israelis, this one is killing me. I haven’t felt this angry and vengeful since the Itamar attack. Do you guys remember what God said in Genesis: 4? “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s bloods cry out to me from the ground!” This passage is significant because it was the first murder in the Bible, and God used the most dramatic language possible to show what a horrendous crime murder is, in his eyes. We have to start looking at this differently. For every Jew murdered in Israel, his blood is on the head of every Jew in Israel who tries to reason with the Arabs, or attempt to give the Arabs a ransom, if only they could slow down their killing of Jews.

    Back to what I was saying before: Greenfield, you are doing our people a tremendous service, and not just our people, but all people who suffer at the hands of these Islamic monsters.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There’s always a tipping point and I think it’s the emotional investment.

      During the worst days of the peace process terror, there were too many dying. People learned to ‘turn off’ their emotions.

      Here people hoped that the boys would come home. They were emotionally invested in them.

      Breaking through requires emotional investment that gets past the defense mechanisms.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Emotional investment includes painful retaliation.

        Israel should target khalid mashaal and the rest of the hamass leadership for death – Payback, to restore balance.

        Israeli blood can’t be spilled without a high price to be paid by islamofascist swine.

    • Dan Knight

      Not trying to one up anybody, but the

      Murder of Tali Hatuel and her four daughters

      on 2 May 04 really pissed me off. I’ve got two daughters of my own.

      And I don’t recall any of the dipsticks in D.C. doing anything about that one.

  • kate5778b

    It doesn’t help when religious leaders are writing things like this:

    Never was there a more pointed contrast than, on the one hand, these
    young men who dedicated their lives to study and to peace, and on the
    other the revelation that other young men, even from Europe, have become
    radicalised into violence in the name of God and are now committing
    murder in His name. That is the difference between a culture of life and
    one of death, and this has become the battle of our time, not only in
    Israel but in Syria, in Iraq, in Nigeria and elsewhere. Whole societies
    are being torn to shreds by people practising violence in the name of
    God.

    …..as if everyone shares the same deity, no! writer of the above; these people are not ‘radical’, just devout and text adherent………radicalised into allowing people to think for themselves for this religion…..well, that truly would be radical.

    My heart and prayers are with the grieving families and community, now.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The first country that drives Islamofascists out of their country and back to Arabia should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

      The sad fact is that wherever there is Islam, there is death and destruction.

      Islamofascist terrorism is why every airport in the world needs checkpoints.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The only people who think this way are fools or don’t really believe in anything except some vague idea of goodness

      • kate5778b

        I daren’t mention who has written this.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I like him well enough, but there’s a risk of falling into liberal formulations when you get used to speaking to a liberal audience.

          • kate5778b

            I do expect leaders/those with responsibility to lead and be responsible.

  • USARetired

    All Muslims must be required to reside, and remain in an Islamic natioon of their choosing, Just not in any ‘free or democratic’ countries as they cannot coexist with Christians, or non-Islamist’s!

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Read up on the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

    • Rosasolis

      Dear Screw, I have been receiving regularly newsletters
      from a well-known Egyptian Coptic site, for several months.
      Like so many others in Europe and America, my heart goes
      out to these wonderful enlightened people, whose faith is centuries
      older than the Islam. It is so very sad that they are being threatened everyday by The Brotherhood Jihadists, and instead
      of being able to carry on peacefully with their daily lives
      as a student, or at work, at home or even during a
      church service, they often have to flee for their lives
      to neighbouring countries. I have often wondered what
      kind of help and accomodation Israel has been offering
      these poor, harmless Christians?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        What accommodation do they want from Israel? Those who want to leave, want to leave for the US.

        If they moved to Israel, they would be considered traitors and that would have serious consequences for their extended families back in Egypt and would invite further attacks on Coptic Christians in general.

  • Fred Glass

    What are the emotions that drive some one to insane hatred? Are they any other than the painful feeling of intense & overwhelming humiliation and envy. Is not the ideological fantasy of Islamic Supremacism the way Muslims attempt to lessen their pain? In the whole history of Islam Muslims have never made any significant contribution to the scientific, artistic or moral progress of human societies. (For the record, so called Arabic numbers are really Hindu numbers which the Arab Musilims never had the decency to correctly credit to the Hindus. The few episodes of so called Islamic Golden Ages occurred when Jews, Christians & other infidels were grudgingly accepted)

    Now in the Middle East we have the Jews one of the most creative & moral groups living next door to intellectually & morally inferior Muslim groups. This is the real elephant in the room, a decidedly politically incorrect one. It portends a long period of conflict not only for Israel but for the rest of us as well.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Brains always win out over brawn and numbers of two-legged drones.

      • Fred Glass

        True, in the long run. In the mean time how does a group that is mentally & morally inferior give up its sense of humiliation & envy or evolve to a degree where they can enjoy their own accomplishments.

        • 11bravo

          I would give NOT inbreeding a try.

          • Fred Glass

            That might help.

    • 11bravo

      Human nature is not that deep Fred. They are indoctrinated from birth – YES – it is that simple. Hard for the western mind to grasp – but not all that complicated.

      • Fred Glass

        Too feel humiliated & envious are very basic to human nature. They are expressions of the universal drive for status. Indoctrination helps perpetuates those emotions.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    There was Berlin and there was East Berlin. Then there was one Berlin.

    Ditto for Jerusalem.

    Why don’t you define an area where you would object to both Jewish and Muslim construction.

  • nopeacenow

    Everything Daniel Greenfield writes here is absolutely true. Does Netanyahu believe Greenfield? Does Obama believe Greenfield? Does the EU and UN believe Greenfield? My guess is they don’t since if they did they wouldn’t be acting as they are. The atrocities continue. Young Israelis die. Civilians are subject to rocket attack and Hamas issues threats to Israel against retaliation. Obama calls for restraint and in the end nothing really changes. So when can we expect a change in action from Netanyahu? When is enough, enough?

  • YoshiNakamura

    After an excellent article focusing on Islam, itself, as the source of the problem, Greenfield gives us this weak conclusion: “There can be no peace until Muslims understand that the Mohammedan
    conquests were a genocidal atrocity that destroyed entire peoples and
    cultures. Only then can they honestly condemn ISIS for trying to repeat
    those atrocities. And only then will they be able to live in peace with
    the rest of the world.”
    What good is it to call upon Moslems to give up the notion of Islamic supremacy? The Moslem god, in the Koran, and the Moslem prophet, in the Sunnah, mandate Islamic supremacy and war against non-Moslems until Islam is victorious over all other religions. Any Moslem who renounces that Islamic sacred imperialist goal is committing apostasy by disagreeing with his god and his prophet. Moslems are not going to give up their identity as Moslems.
    If Islam, itself, is the problem, the solution is to crush Islam, not to wait for Moslems to give up their religion.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I didn’t say the solution was to wait for Muslims to give up their religion. I said that there could be no peaceful solution until they recognized that they were the source of the problem.

      That does not mean that we should wait around for them to do so. It may never happen. It probably won’t.

      We are obligated to take care of ourselves first.

      But it is important to present their failure as a moral indictment.

      • 11bravo

        In the face of evil, the Western civilized man will not defend himself. With either press coverage to expose the evil, or the banishment from our society that is required – we are doomed!!

        • Drakken

          Western man is getting backed into a wall, and when that finally happens, all bets are off and those that backed us to the wall will be put up against it. The one thing that I can always count on when push comes to shove is human nature, when nature takes it course, and it always does, our Western wrath will be the stuff of legend, sung around 10,000 campfires for a thousand years. It’s coming.

      • YoshiNakamura

        All true. At the same time, we would not have said in 1943 that peace will come when Nazis give up their supremacist ideology and stop being Nazis.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          If Nazism had been as accepted as Islam is, we would have had to in order to make it clear on whom the onus was.

  • Drakken

    It is that simple and straightforward, there is only Jerusalem, period, end of story.

    • Webb

      Absolutely. The first muslims I saw in Jerusalem were so dirty they blended in with the trash pile they were sitting in front of, and I didn’t realize they were there until I noticed their hateful eyes following me. They definitely don’t belong in a nice place like Jerusalem. They go out of their way to be dirty.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Jerusalem United under Israeli sovereignty with freedom of worship for all people – unlike the situation when Jordan controlled the holy sites of Jerusalem.

  • Webb

    You’re an intelligent lady. A credit to your parents. Unlike the ewe-gly old troll-bags who post nothing but nonsense.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    Incredibly and very sadly there are many
    Israelis who don’t yet understand what you have so clearly explained here.
    Let us take this a bit further toward reality, though. There can be no
    peace, period. That is the reality. Peace is unnatural in this world. There
    is constant war within our bodies – germs try to invade and our antibodies
    fight them off. The world of animals and insects is filled with predators
    and victims. Man was more frequently the victim in the world of predators until
    he evolved and developed greater intelligence and weapons. We don’t go into the
    woods and negotiate peace with rattle snakes, wolves, various beasts of prey.
    We stay on guard and kill them when we need to. The very quest for
    peace is a sign of weakness to a Muslim who is programmed in infancy to
    destroy. America has a president who by his own admission is on their
    side. He funds terrorists. Since Congress can’t seem to get in gear to
    impeach him, perhaps American citizens could launch a class action suit to make
    him stop supporting America’s enemies.

  • soundnfury

    “It is not the victims of a thousand year old supremacist campaign who need to appease their conquerors. It is the conquerors who must come to terms with the horrors that they have inflicted….” I absolutely agree with your first statement, but your second statement will never happen. The solution is not just to resist these savages. We must grind them into dust.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    As opposed to the 20th century Arab migrations to Israel which also involved them settling anywhere they pleased?

    And what of the Arab Christian cities that were overrun by Muslim settlers?

    ” taking Jerusalem out of the equation and leaving it as an Open International Protectorate city as it was initially meant to be.”

    Who exactly will defend this protectorate? The same UN that ran away from Syria?

  • wileyvet

    Wow, this is one of the highest comment totals I have ever seen. Brilliant article Mr. Greenfield. All the accepted Islamic writings confirm all of this. Islam is a nasty piece of work, and its founder a despicable fraud and warlord.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      any more and the site might break

      • http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/author/kwatson/ megapotamus

        Huh? 600-odd comments crashes the server? That does not inspire confidence.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I’m joking

  • ChaplainCJ

    Wow- finally an article that his based on the truth! As Jesus said, “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” John 8:32!

  • 11bravo
  • John

    The west can’t not see no more, they are blinded by political correctness. Secularism has thrown out the God of the Bible. The Government now is God that;s what they are taught in school. What you are seeing is blind leading the blind into a ditch. Jesus said people need a heart, but their hearts have turn to stone. They see by man’s eyes not God. No morals decay and rot. Benjamin Franklin said give away your liberty for security, you will have neither.

  • Tim

    If I were the US, I’d start aiming some of my nukes at Mecca and others at Baghdad. WWIII is gonna be a defensive war against Islam, I predict, once the West pulls its collective head out of the sand.

  • Rosasolis

    What would happen if a group of Christians would try to gain permission to build a church in one of the Orthodox
    Jewish settlements? What would happen if a hard-working
    simple Christian family would try to buy or rent a house
    in one of those settlements?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There are Christians already living in Israeli villages and farms in the West Bank.

  • http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/author/kwatson/ megapotamus

    We still have not heard a cause of death, have we? Likewise we have not heard under what conditions Gilad Shalit was held or his condition now. Why not? The only reason could be that this information would be ‘inciting’. To the Jews, of course. Understand, any infidel that falls into the Muslim maw may, at best, expect a brutal slavery including routine rape. This is the fact of life AMONG Muslims so you can be certain as kaffir you will fare no better. Ransoming such prisoners or even discussing ransom (no doubt there was anger in some filthy living rooms that full market value was not realized for these captives) is to invite MORE kidnapping, more demands and more violence of all sorts. Hamas is the duly elected govt of this enclave. Remove the local Jews and smash it all flat. Then smash it again. Or get used to this sort of thing and much much worse. Forward.

  • doruss03

    The worst disease on this earth is ISLAM

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The regressive and fascist parts of Islam need to be eliminated.

      Should be easy considering the claim that only a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists- 10% of 1.4 billion – 140,000,000.

      And the majority good, sane Muslims, the 1.26 billions Muslims, will have the support of 6 billion Infidels.

      • Thomas Brown

        they’re all part of the same cult system.

  • Dan Knight

    Greenfield is right. Pun intended.

    I rarely post of late; work and life get in the way. But as I criticized Shapiro’s column this morning, I figured I should weigh in on Greenfield’s. (Today is my first day off in weeks)

    No doubt Daniel knows full well the Anti-Semitism of the Left and of the current administration and its allies, but David puts his outrage as close to a target as is possible in a single blog. Sure, one can quibble, but it takes time and effort to write a blog and it’s difficult to cover every nuance. Daniel always handles his blog well, even if his posts are sometimes too short.

    Nonetheless, Daniel Greenfield always brightens my day.

    Why? Why, he confirms my reality. And that I suppose makes me middle-class …
    yes, it’s a joke … ;-)

    • Dan Knight

      correction ‘Daniel’ – sorry, I just typed David for some reason. Aging brain cells I suppose.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      enjoy your vacation and thank you

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    Allahu Akbar!

    • Thomas Brown

      go to h e l l

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    Happy Ramadan!

    • Thomas Brown

      yeah celebrate it while you still can…while your evil death cult is still legal. pretty soon it won’t be.

  • johnnywood

    Islam is a religion for wild men and evil beasts.

  • Simon

    There are some truly dreadful,uneducated,overpaid,overpensioned people in the UK public sector that blithely ignore the catastrophe that is upon us,or indeed are entirely ignorant of history and current affairs.They really believe in the idea of “minorities” that are “oppressed” by English,Welsh or Scottish non Muslims.

    Just how destructive can a persons career be?

    If you know one of these people,please,please take them to task before the whole country is overwhelmed by this utter disaster.

    Perhaps you are one of these people.

    Sort yourself out and speak up before it’s too late.

  • Z.H.H

    Absolutely on target! At the core of the Palestinian Arab – Arab – Israeli conflict isn’t territorial. If it was just that, it could have been solved. As with passed murderous acts, the murder of Gilat, Eyal and Naftali was born of hatred: they hate Jews because the breath, they hate Jews because they live! They hate Jews because Jews prosper despite all the obstacles hurled their way. Peace is an affair of the heart – peace is an attitude a way of life. It is the realization that peace is a pre-requisite for a society to thrive and to improve the wellbeing of all its citizens. The Arabs just don’t seem to have, never mind the intellectual acuity, but they don’t seem to be cognizant of the rational common sense practicality of the concept of peace. Whereas Judaism’s teaching is about peace, acceptance, protection of the stranger (“for remember you were once a stranger in a strange land”) etc., and whereas Judaism is not only a religion but also a life style, Islam is a force for death and destruction a tool for political indoctrination and the spread of terror.
    There are decent Muslims out there. Let us not paint all of them with a single stroke of the brush. The problem however, unfortunately it is the fanatical, radical Jihadis and their radical leftist lunatic cheer leaders who run the show.