President of Student Palestinian Group Eagerly Looking Forward to Her Future Son Dying While Killing Jews


120211-3

If you want a demonstration why the very idea of a peaceful solution to this xenophobic and genocidal impulse coded into Islam is absolutely hopeless, here is case #56641.

A pro-Israel group says it has complained to Calgary police over Facebook comments made by a former university student group president who urged Palestinians to ‘‘spill blood.’’

“My body and soul are ready to fight and die,” wrote Ala’a Hamdan, former president of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, a University of Calgary student group. “This land will be proud that Palestinian babies are born men and women ready to spill their blood.”

In a battle hymn written to a son, Ms. Hamdan wrote: “I will soak a koffiah with your blood and save it to show to your siblings … I will be named the mother of the martyr.“

This isn’t exactly the sort of image that Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights likes to show up on its Apartheid Wall (up above) with its quotes from Martin Luther King.

But we’re also seeing a young Muslim woman in her early twenties who isn’t dreaming that her son will become a doctor or a leader, or even a successful murderer of Jews, but she is only dreaming of the moment when she can wear his blood.

This is a mother of a child yet to be born dreaming of his future death.

When people call Islamic terrorist culture a death cult, this is what they mean. There is no interest in peace, because these cult members have no interest in life. All of their energies are oriented only toward death; killing and dying.

That is their religion. That is where Islamic terrorism comes from.

The University of Calgary Students’ Union supports the Palestinian group, acknowledging it even won an award for best advocacy club last year.

“In the past, this has definitely come up. We’ve got over 300 clubs at the Student Union that stand on every side you can think of on every social issue,” said Ben Cannon, vice-president of student life at the school. “We believe in the right for a club to express their opinions and to keep the dialogue going on campus.”

What kind of dialogue can you have with people whose lust for death is so obsessive that don’t even want their own children to live?

Can you have a dialogue with Charles Manson or the Columbine killers? Any attempt at negotiating with Muslim terrorists is equally futile.

 

  • Taimoor Khan

    Oh, what is wrong in fighting the occupiers and being killed in the process? This is the noblest of deeds – martyrdom!

    Stop putting your cultural contexts over all matters. Why you dropped atom bomb on Japan for killing just a few thousands of Americans?

    That was good, but Palestinians fighting the occupiers is not?

    This is sickness!

    • Veracious_one

      In other words, Israelis should quietly surrender and allow themselves to be massacred wholesale by “Palestinian” jihadists

      • Taimoor Khan

        No, Israelis should just quietly move within pre-67 borders, let the refugees come back to their homes, and let Palestinian state be formed.

        Or, give citizenship to all people living in Palestine and make one-state which gives equal rights to both peoples.

        Simple, eh? But Israel wants to somehow throw the Palestinians out and claim the land, and this Naz!-like racist policy is behind the delay in any solution – NOT Palestinian “extremism”!

        All this demonization of Palestinians is done to steal their land, right?

        Shameful, no?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The Muslim refugees have settled in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. They were born there and grew up there.

          Israel absorbed the refugees from Muslim countries. Muslim countries can do the same.

          As for a one state solution, would you like to try it with India and Pakistan?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Arab thieves have been defeated by Jooooz.

        • mytraintrax

          “No, Israelis should just quietly move”

          Really, no not at all, what Israel needs to do is prep its nuclear arsenal and do the world and humanity a favor, solve the problem once and for all, one massive bitch slap that will keep the planet safe for a 1000 years, I believe the scriptures, (you know, the book the great pedophile tried to emulate through hashish induced dreams), the book that refers to Armageddon, a little known place in Israel where islam will be taught its final lesson before it is annihilated.

    • john spielman

      just more evidence from your mouth that islam, which sanctifies such murder and terror to expand its fascist empire, is the very heart of Satan!

      • Taimoor Khan

        In what spirit do American soldiers give their lives in army?

        IF they do so fighting imaginary threats, it’s noble! If Muslims do so fighting VERY real threats, it’s wrong?

        See your vision is crooked.

        • defcon 4

          Your mind is twisted. Twisted by the ideology of islam.

        • john spielman

          so trying to defend ones nation against a fascist enemy who vows to destroy your very society and replace it with an aparthied system of terror and repression (sharia law) is wrong?
          Islam is, according to your own mullahs (shia) and sheiks(sunni), out to dominate the world by violence and threats of violence and impose its Satanic theology over the whole world.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The more dead jihadis, the safer the world is.

        • Drakken

          It is very simple you goat fuc*ing inbred wog, it is us infidels against you muslims and it hs been that way for over a thousand years, and frankly efff you and yours, love me and mine and whatever it takes to make sure mine survive against your islam, make it happen. God (not allah) Bless the Crusades.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      If your whole goal in life is to kill and die, there’s something seriously wrong with your culture.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        If your whole goal in life is to kill and die, there’s something seriously wrong with your culture.

        Actually, their goal is to fight jihad (holy war) both violently and non-violently by stealth and deception in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Indeed, in Islam the path to heaven can only be achieved through violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad. Meanwhile, all Muslims that openly do not wish to participate in waging jihad in the cause of Allah are summarily put to death, since the freedom of conscience to choose not to believe in Islam is essentially blocked via the capital punishments for blasphemy and apostasy, and that makes Islam in stark contrast to all true faith-based religions, a very rabid totalitarian cult.

        As a matter of fact, that is why the cult of PC multiculturalism can’t effectively deal with Islam, because it morally equates Islam as being a religion along with all other religions and its not. Hence, it whittles the problems associated with Islam down to being the products of extremists and terrorists that are no different from the extremists that perpetrate terrorism by blowing up abortion clinics.

        • Taimoor Khan

          You vexing eloquent explaining Islam is like a Naz! giving lectures on Judaism.

          We have to go to the source.

          • defcon 4

            That “source” being the Jew hating unholey koran and hadith right SoA?

          • john spielman

            the source is your own Mohammed and the hadiths of Mohammed wake up and see the oppresion of nonmuslim peoples in muslim lands the Copts in Egypt and other Christian groups in Pakistan Syria and Lebanon Indonesia
            though some people like the Buddists in are starting to fight back

          • Taimoor Khan

            What bout massacres of Muslims in Bosnia? What bout oppression of Muslims in Palestine, their homeland? What about oppression of Muslims in Kashmir? What about oppression of Muslims in Chechnya?

            Point is atrocities can be done by people belonging to any religion. Don’t push your hateful drivel by using reference to atrocities.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            What about Mohammed’s original wave of massacres and conquests which began all this?

          • iluvisrael

            You can’t even respond to a single question or challenge posed by Greenfield. Either you’re ignorant, or it’s the taqiya – maybe both.

          • Drakken

            It is the thousand years of inbreeding, you should ask it, how its uncle dad and aunty mom are doing. You would maybe get a cognitive answer, other than that, forget about it. The Islamic mind is a brain dead endeavor not worth engaging, for there is nothing to engage with.

          • john spielman

            there is NO “oppression” of muslims in Israel. Those who did not flee in 1948 are FULL citizens, there is no apartheid state in Israel, unlike muslim lands where nonmuslims (or shia in Sunni lands and sunni in Shia lands) are second class citizens at best -codified under sharia law and persecuted and murdered at the will of muslims! What about the brutal treament of Hindus in Pakistan controlled Kashmir? Chechnya is fully sharia controlled muslim state within Russia. If I were Putin I would separate all Muslim lands in Russia from nonmuslim lands!

          • Drakken

            Why separate them, do what must be done and have the territory for your own advantage, simples.

          • Drakken

            Gotta give those Serbs credit, they knew how to deal with that jihad in Bosnia and weren’t afraid to take care of business. As for a muslim free Kashmir? I am 100% for it. Now to Chechnya, you think that the oppression is bad now? You haven’t seen what is coming from the Russians, but your fellow jihadists are about to find out the Russians are not as weak kneed as us in the west. Warfare in spades is about to be unleashed, I say sit back with cocktails and watch the Russians work.

          • Puck

            “Muslims in Palestine,their homeland” ? Historically, archeologically, legally as much as their homeland as Spain or Andalusia is their “homeland.” You can’t conquer a place by force, subject its natives to second class citizens, then call the land you are colonizing as your “homeland.” The homeland of Moslems is where Islam originated — in Arabia.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            Is it oppression or self-defense? Why is it that when a Muslim kills or oppresses a non-Muslim, it’s looked upon as some sort of protected religious belief and exonerated, but when a non-Muslim rises up and defends himself, it’s looked upon as murder or oppression of a Muslim?

            Muslims almost ALWAYS attack first. On the few occasions that they’re counter-attacked (and usually sucessfully), they wail about being oppressed and murdered, as if they’re shocked that the kuffar would dare defend themselves.

          • Veracious_one

            What bout massacres of Muslims in Bosnia?

            Anti–jihadists should have supported the Serbs

            The jihad in Serbia is one that is obscured in a particularly vexing way. Accordingly it must be emphasized that in alerting people to attacks on the Serbs, and to the destruction of ancient churches and monasteries, and on the infiltration into the area of Arabs bringing a brand of Islam quite different from the relaxed, syncretistic local version (not exactly full-bodied Islam in practice, because that local practice was affected by the centuries of proximity to non-Muslims, and to the effect of Communism), one is not endorsing any massacres by some Serbs. One can distance oneself –most Serbs do, unfeignedly — from Milosevic and those atrocities that were committed by some Serb forces. One must keep in mind both the way in which some atrocities ascribed to Serbs were exaggerated, while minimized,or ignored altogether, were the atrocities inflicted on them. The role played by Arabs who came from outside never received the attention in the West it deserved. But what was most disturbing was that there was no context to anything: nothing about the centuries of Muslim rule, the ferocity of that Turkish rule, the role of the feared devshirme (not, as Bernard Lewis would have it, a kind of benign “recruitment” of Christian and in some cases Jewish children for the armies of the Sultan)but rather a forced levy of such children, snatched from their families to enter the armies of the Sultan). Had such a history been discussed early on, Western governments might have understood and attmepted to assuage the deep fears evoked by the Bosnian Muslim leader, Izetbegovic, when he wrote that he intended to create a Muslim state in Bosnia and impose the Sharia not merely there, but everywhere that Muslims had once ruled in the Balkans. Had the Western world shown the slightest intelligent sympathy or understanding of what that set off in the imagination of many Serbs (and elsewhere, among the Christians in the Balkans and in Greece), there might never have been such a violent Serbian reaction, and someone like Milosevic might never have obtained power. Izetbegovic had openly demanded that Islam become the ruling force in Bosnia. His remarks on the need to re-impose the Sharia and impose full Muslim rule did send shivers down Serbian spines. And at the same time, Germany, remembered by Serbians as connected to Operation Kozara, and many other massacres, and to Croatian collaborators with the Nazis, the Ustashe who killed Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies at Jasenovac, and Serbs have not forgotten the story of Kurt Waldheim in his “Intelligence Unit,” was so quick to recognize Slovenia and then Croatia, and this seemed to many in Serbia that this prematurely caused Yugoslavia to dissolve. And these two histories that are vivid in Serbian imaginations, the recent one of German and Ustashe massacrds, and the much older, much longer one of oppression and massacre by the Ottoman Turks, were enough to terrify Serbs into supporting certain leaders whom, had they not been so terrified, they would never have followed. In all of Europe, only a few French journalists and the Austrian writer Peter Handke tried to explain Serbian fears and Serbian history. In the United States, no one made the slightest effort. Milosevic = Serbs, Milosevic = bad, Serbs = bad. And Izetbegovic? Well, when he died, the plummy-voiced Paddy Ashdown (now some grand panjandrum in the Balkans) delivered himself of some solemn words of regret on the passing of the great man (the Great Man was a monster); not a hint of what Izetbegovic was all about. In Bosnia and Kosovo, hundreds of millions of dollars from the Saudis and Arab fighters, have now been around — as they will go wherever Jihad-duty calls — for the last 15 years. A few months ago, Albanians destroyed a few hundred Orthodox churches in Kosovo. Nothing happened at the UN. Just as nothing happened when a Hindu temple was destroyed in the middle of Kuala Lumpur by the Muslim-run government. Nothing was done when Joseph’s Tomb was reduced to rubble by the “Palestinians” in 2000. Nothing was done when the Bamiyan Buddhas were at long last, after 1,500 years, destroyed because, at long last, they could be. Here and there, about those churches as about the other cases, a cluck-cluck of disapproval. But nothing will happen. And if Turkey is, insanely, allowed into the EU? What will the Balkans be like then, if not a place to settle, or still worse, a transit-point for Muslims, by no means all of them citizens of Turkey? Who will distinguish a Turkish Kurd from an Iraqi Kurd, or an Iranian Kurd? Who in Western Europe will really be able to distinguish an Arab “immigrant” slipping in from a Turk who is entitled to free movement within the EU? Chaos, anyone? Shouldn’t the Western Europeans learn just a little about the Balkans? Let’s start with Rebecca West’s Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, or Ivo Andric (whose recently-reprinted Ph.D. thesis on the effects of Muslim rule, “The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia under the Influence of Turkish Rule,” should not be forgotten), Milovan Djilas and his son Aleksa. No one can discuss the Balkans unless that person can adequately describe: 1) the devshirme system; 2) the condition of Christians under Ottoman rule, including such events as the Bulgarian Wars of 1875-1876; 3) the significance of the Battle of Kosovo; 4) who was Karageorge. Be able to answer those questions, and you will have begun to earn the right to have an opinion about the Serbs, Bosnia, and Kosovo. How many in the State Department today can answer those questions? Why not? Why didn’t those in the West study what Izetbegovic said? When Clinton ordered the bombing of the Serbs, had he heard, ever, about the devshirme? Did he know that Izetbegovic had written about imposing the Sharia? No, of course not. But had he, and had others, they might have reassured the Serbs long before, and helped to make them less panicky, less prone to give power to someone like Milosevic. The West entirely mishandled Serbia. And right now, despite the dribs and drabs that begin to come out about the exaggerations on which criticism and bombing of Serbians was based, despite the new evidence, or the evidence no longer hidden, of past Muslim atrocities, the Western world still seems ready to overlook what is now happening. And what is now happening are attacks on Serbian villagers and the destruction of Serbian churches in Kosovo. Is one supposed to permanently blame Serbia and never take its side, because of what Milosevic did? Is one to overlook the role of Bosnia as a place of training for those who could tomorrow be conducting Jihad anywhere in the world? There is no reason not to take Serbia’s side now. There is every reason — of principle and of Infidel self-interest — to take it.

          • hiernonymous

            You raise some interesting points that bear some further exploration.

            For starters, what, exactly, did Izebegovic say and when did he say it? The prevailing view is that your characterization of his comments was a nationalist Serb distortion of a 1970 piece he wrote, and that his 1980 book did not admit of such interpretation. What comments did he make and what policies did he propose, post-1980, that raised such terrible fears again?

            Again, the actual timeline, in which the Serbs opened hostilities, not when Izetbegovic offered any comments on Islam or made any proposals thereon, but rather was pulling Bosnia out of a shrunken Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, suggests that Serb concerns were not with self-preservation against a resurrection of some crypto-Ottoman state, but in preserving the existence of a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.

            Similarly, could you be more specific about the arrival of the Arab element and the role they played in sparking Serb fears? Who, exactly, are you talking about, when and where did they arrive, and what did they do? You couldn’t be talking about the Mujahideen Battalions, as they arrived after hostilities had already begun, so could not possibly have provoked the Serbs into opening hostilities. Croat claims that there were non-Bosnian Muslims in Gornji Vakuf later proved false, and even that was in 1993, after hostilities had begun, and don’t fit your narrative. Could you be more specific, and cite some of your sources?

            I suspect that State employees responsible for the Balkans are not as ignorant of the basic history you seem to believe that you are the first to read as you insinuate – at least, not the ecpol or pol-mil types. Perhaps you’ve been hanging out with Consular…?

          • hiernonymous

            bump

          • Veracious_one

            What about oppression of Muslims in Kashmir?

            Jammu-Kashmir is part of India. It is not part of Pakistan. And the notion that any part of India in which there is to be found a Muslim-majority population is one where therefore Muslim claims have legitimacy is absurd.

            Why do Muslim terrorists attack in Jammu-Kashmir? Because they can. The Muslim claim to Kashmir differs from their claim to all of India (or for that matter to Spain (Al-Andalus), to Israel, to Sicily, to the Balkans, to Bulgaria, to Rumania, to Hungary, and to all the areas once dominated by Muslims) only in the ability to push that claim. Of course, in the jihadist view the entire world in the end must submit to Islam and be dominated by Islam — though non-Muslims may, should they accept what many Muslims continue to believe is perfectly just, live under those unambiguous conditions of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity whose sum is the status we now describe as “dhimmitude”.

            Any land area, even within the Western countries where Muslims come to dominate, will by many of them be regarded as “Muslim land.” The claims made by various local Muslims may seem comical to us, such as that for the “Caliphate” in Cologne, or the insistence that certain areas in Malmo or Rotterdam or Muslim-populated towns in France are not to be treated as any longer under the control of representatives of the Infidel nation-state, but they are quite serious. That seriousness is being demonstrated even now both by Muslims and by the representatives (police, firemen, teachers) of that nation-state, who are often too afraid not to comply with the Muslim demands that they stay out of what is no longer their territory.

            Jammu-Kashmir is part of India. It is not part of Pakistan. And the notion that any part of India in which there is to be found a Muslim-majority population is one where therefore Muslim claims have legitimacy is absurd. For what would follow, logically, would be a turning of all sorts of places within India into little Muslim-ruled areas. And given that the Muslim rate of population growth is always higher, in India and elsewhere, then the non-Muslim population, and given that Muslims have not hesitated to push out large numbers of non-Muslims (think of the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced to flee when threatened with death), either one takes a firm stand and rejects Muslim demands or, by even hinting at “negotiating,” one emboldens the mujahedin. The Israelis have done the latter, to their own sorrow. In failing to make their own case, they have also failed to help Infidels in Europe understand that the siege against Israel, that Lesser Jihad, is hardly the only, or even the most important, of the local Jihads now being waged. And it will continue to be waged, using all the instruments now available, unless met with well-informed, implacable, and relentless opposition.

            India should not be “negotiating” over Jammu-Kashmir. There is no possibility of such a negotiation satisfying Muslims permanently. Since India now possesses this part of Kashmir (Pakistan also controls part), any negotiation will only lead to further Indian concessions, possibly even the surrender of land. What Pakistan would offer — a grand agreement to cease support for cross-border terrorism — is no concession at all. Pakistan cannot offer up as a concession what it has a moral and legal duty to do anyway.

            And the same is true elsewhere in the world. One suspects that the outside world will be unsympathetic to the Indians unless and until they all begin, at the same time, to talk about the belief-system of Islam, and why concessions here and there make no sense, given the ultimate unappeasable demands that Muslims must, if they are to be true Muslims, continue to make on all Infidels.

            Doesn’t it make more sense for Infidels everywhere to recognize this and to discuss it openly? This would force Muslims to discuss their own ideology, and be embarrassed or chagrined by such discussion, so that not only will Infidels start supporting each other in their local conflicts, but so that some Muslims will have to cease the taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and begin to admit that something in Islam, a good deal in Islam, must change if it is not to make Muslims permanently immiscible and un-integrable and regarded with permanent suspicion and hostility by Infidels everywhere.

            Hindu civilization in Jammu-Kashmir should be defended. It is a pity that so many in India among those who are called, quite loosely and often quite comically, “intellectuals” — all shy away from anything that might conceivably be taken as a defense of Hindu (or Sikh) civilization, or culture. Above all, no thoroughly modern Indian will dare suggest that Islam has done great damage to Jammu and Kasmir, as well as to India as a whole, and to Indian civilization. No, there are exceptions — such as that cosmopolitan of Indian descent, V. S. Naipaul, who is not afraid of anyone. There are Indian-Americans (Hindu, Sikh, and even disaffected ex-Muslims) and their counterparts in Great Britain, who also know how silly it is not to make the case, to ignore history, or to shy away from the slightest hint of Hindutva, which is often mocked. Why, exactly? Is K. S. Lal to be mocked for “The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India”? Is Sir Jahundath Sarkar? Are all the other Hindu historians of India who have been unafraid to discuss what Muslim rule did to India?

            Those of us who are not Indian should find out a good deal more about what happened on the subcontinent, and cease to so readily accept the “advanced” view which holds that anything smacking of “communalism” (a word used to indicate, of course, those who wish to show their sympathetic interest in, and identification with, Hindu India, and who refuse to play the game of sanitizing the history of Muslim rule) is ipso facto evil.

            One hopes that those in the Western world who are articulate and aware, and of Indian (Hindu or Sikh descent, primarily) will help to educate others — but that can only be done once one has educated oneself. Lal and Sarkar should be household words. The two volumes in which Sita Ram Goel simply lists tens of thousands of Hindu sites destroyed should be better known. Those Indians who become internationally famous, and always — as a matter of course — are quick to demonstrate that they have absolutely nothing to do with “communalism” (i.e., Hindu causes, Hindu history, Hindu interests) — one thinks here of Amartya Sen — would do better to study their own history, and not to assume that intelligent Hindus and Sikhs who show a bit of that supposedly terrible “communalism” must be wrong. They aren’t.

            But it is difficult for them to make their voices heard, given the received ideas, and cliches, of the day — both those concerning Jammu-Kashmir, and those concerning the Jihad in general.

          • Jayceeme

            More Muslims have killed other Muslims than any other nation including Israel. What about Muslims in Syria and Sudan and you have the chutzpah to talk about atrocities.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The source of terrorism is the koran.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You wouldn’t even respond you Muhammad wannabe if what I said wasn’t the unequivocal truth!

      • Taimoor Khan

        Don’t misinterpret. Goal is to die fighting injustice, to save your nation and people. Not every man can muster the courage to do so, right?

        Why American soldiers killed in battle are respected among Americans? For similar, if not same, concept.

        • Raymond_in_DC

          “Injustice”? Your kind has made clear that you understand words like justice, freedom and peace quite differently than we do.

          • Taimoor Khan

            “Your kind”? Naz!-type lingo! It’s about time you learn from Naz! Germany and draw useful conclusions.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Learn from Nazi Germany the way that Muslims have?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Khancer, Just as your national Socialist nazi filth were defeats, isalmofascism WILL BE DEFEATED.

          • Drakken

            Yes you should learn what the German can do, keep it in mind wog. For keep pizzing us off, your going to find out the hard way, and trust me, you will get it hard.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Normal people don’t put dying as their objective. They put winning.

          When you put dying as your objective, then your goal is martyrdom, not victory.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “islam” has become a Death Cult.

          • hiernonymous

            What do you mean by “normal people?” States with a preponderance of conventional power adopt an outlook that puts a premium on fighting on terms that are advantageous to them. States or subjugated people who lack access to wealth and conventional power must fight in a different manner, and one of the key elements to fighting a successful asymmetric fight against a hegemonic power is the willingness to accept a very lopsided casualty rate.

            In other words, some degree of acceptance of martyrdom is necessary to victory.

            Compare this to the mythology of our Revolution, in which we mock the British for their supposed insistence that we fight like civilized people, whereas the canny colonists took advantage of their woodcraft and rugged individualism to harass the inflexible Redcoats.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Normal people who aren’t members of a death cult.

            George Washington didn’t look forward to the death of his son or randomly kill innocent people for no reason except cowardice and spite.

            Islamic terrorism has little connection to military strategic goals of any kind, especially in Israel. Its goal is to keep killing and dying indefinitely. It has no plans beyond that which is why the peace process has gone nowhere and the Palestinian Authority remains completely dysfunctional.

          • hiernonymous

            “Islamic terrorism has little connection to military strategic goals of any kind…”

            No? So the decades of intense debate of engaging the ‘near enemy’ vs the ‘far enemy,’ the disagreements over the relative merits of infiltration vs isolation and establishing the vanguard of the faithful – all of that was imaginary?

            It’s always comforting to assume that those who challenge us are simply homicidal maniacs, with no rational goals (much less morally acceptable rational goals) and who, by virtue of their brutality, prove themselves inhuman – and thus relieving our own consciences of any discomfort when we find it necessary to behave violently ourselves.

            “George Washington didn’t look forward to the death of his son…”

            George Washington did not live in an environment of endemic violence and subjugation, such that his son was so very likely to either die or to live a life of hopelessness that he was forced to come to terms with that. I don’t think that anyone who has actually spent any time at all living among Arabs could sanely claim that they value their children any less than we do.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Much as it’s comforting to those trying to kill us are animated by current grievances that we can address rather than frustration at their own history expressed in a wish for death.

            Yes, I’m sure George Washington would have been blowing himself up on buses if he had been forced to go through the checkpoints of a liberal democracy on the way to work.

            ” I don’t think that anyone who has actually spent any time at all living among Arabs could sanely claim that they value their children any less than we do.”

            Not a lot of honor killings in civilized countries.

          • hiernonymous

            “Much as it’s comforting to those trying to kill us are animated by current grievances that we can address rather than frustration at their own history expressed in a wish for death.”

            Could you edit or restate this? It’s incoherent as written, and while I think I can guess what the missing words are, I prefer not to put words in your mouth.

            “Yes, I’m sure George Washington would have been blowing himself up on buses if he had been forced to go through the checkpoints of a liberal democracy on the way to work.”

            He consciously embraced the risk of hanging as a traitor for far less provocation.

            “Not a lot of honor killings in civilized countries.”

            Honor killings tend to be a tribal custom, and are hardly unique to Islam. Almost all of the religions and cultures of the rural Near East practice some form of it. It’s a custom to be abhorred, much like suttee among the Hindus, but it’s hardly one that serves as a universal indictment of Islam.

          • Drakken

            Honor killing is unique to islam period, and you bloody well know it. As for comparing George Washington to Islamic jihadist? There is no comparison for ole George would never have allowed himself to lowered to the least common dominator of Islamic savagery.
            The Brits put an end to suttee with Gen Napier stating the obvious, you may have your traditions and right next to it, we shall build our gallows and hang those who follow sette. Funny how sette is not celebrated anymore isn’t it.

          • hiernonymous

            Palestinian Christian girl killed by her Christian family for wanting to marry a Muslim: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/23/israel

            Armenian Christian kills his Christian sister for trying to marry a Muslim Kurd: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/30/honour-killings-spreading-alarming-rate

            Sikh woman victim of honor killing for marrying without family’s approval: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/10/05/mom_gave_long_distance_order_for_honor_killing_police_say/

            In India, the Hindus have councils known as khap panchayats that sanction the killing of couples who become involved or marry against caste rules; here’s one such case: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/parents-murder-daughter-lover-for-honour-in-haryana/article5148056.ece

            Sorry, you were saying something about what I bloody well know?

            “Funny how sette is not celebrated anymore isn’t it.”

            http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/aug/07mp.htm

          • Drakken

            Rather interesting that you are giving examples of the exceptions, not the rule eh? For every Christian or buddist or hindu slaughtering their own, the muslims slaughter thousands of their daughters in comparison, so if you would like to play the simple numbers game again?

          • hiernonymous

            Wait – a post ago, honor killing was “unique to islam period, and you bloody well know it.” Now it’s “the exception to the rule.”

            So we’ve gone from “unique to Islam” to “well, they do it more.” Do you ever form an opinion after you know what you’re talking about?

          • Drakken

            Lets see if I have your Islamic logic correct, thousands of muslims doing honor killing equals one or two other faiths individual followers doing it, got it, Islamic math, who woulda thunk it?

          • hiernonymous

            “Lets see if I have your Islamic logic correct…”

            The odds are vanishingly small.

            My logic is that you offered a strongly stated opinion that was immediately shown to be wrong, and you are now going to squirm and sulk and try to save face. I told you that honor killing occurs across the range of religions and cultures; you insisted that honor killing was unique to Islam.

            You were wrong, and your defense appears to be that you are ignorant of the meaning of the word unique.

            “…who woulda thunk it?”

            Certainly not you.

          • Drakken

            You gave one or two examples and said I was wrong, instead of giving examples of behavior condoned by said infidels, unlike your fellow muslims who do it all the time, Islamic logic at its finest. That is why ignorant islamist like you are going to lose in the end.

          • hiernonymous

            “You gave one or two examples…”

            Sweet Baby Jesus – you still don’t understand what unique means, do you?

            By the way, I’m not a Muslim, in the unlikely event that you’re interested in getting something in your posts correct.

          • Drakken

            Your an arabist, that says it all.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, I think you could say that at one time I was an Arabist, though I’m a bit rusty since I retired. I’m not convinced that you actually understand what you just said, though.

          • Drakken

            Here, I will clear that up right quick for you mate, you openly side with the arab point of view and sympathize with their cause or causes. Now to go out on a limb of speculation, making a lot of coin from them as well. Purely speculation on my part where that is concerned.

          • hiernonymous

            No, that’s not what an Arabist is. Arabists are those who study the Arabic language and culture. They were originally those who studied the Arabs in support of extending Christianity during and after the Reconquista.

            So once again you’re using terms you don’t understand to advance arguments you can’t support.

            “Purely speculation on my part where that is concerned.”

            Yes, well, why should that change now? Though it’s not so much ‘speculation’ as attempting to discredit someone through the logical fallacy of ad hominem by association.

            By the way – pointing out the myriad fundamental errors in pretty much your every post is not an indication of sympathies with anyone. Pointing out that you haven’t a clue about what you’re talking about is not an endorsement of those you dislike.

          • Drakken

            Funny how facts get somewhat fuzzy in your world view doesn’t it? You bloody well know what I meant by my definition of arabist and as per usual, you deflect , counter attack with false equivalencies. In case it has escaped retired notice, war is on the horizon and is coming. wondering how an arabist as yourself must either be a convert, or a Esposito Quisling. You haven’t proved me wrong one Iota Sparky, but nice try.

          • hiernonymous

            “You bloody well know what I meant by my definition of arabist…”

            In other words, rather than learn your own language, you demand that others take your ignorance into account and guess how you might be misusing your terms? Sorry – if you want to fence with words, learn how to use your tools.

            “In case it has escaped retired notice, war is on the horizon and is coming.”

            Last I checked, our military is all over the Middle East, not the other way around – not sure why you’re wetting your panties.

          • Drakken

            Your deflection from the subject at hand is duly noted. Sorry, I did not know I was writing a dissertation.

          • hiernonymous

            “Sorry, I did not know I was writing a dissertation.”

            It’s not often clear that you know what you’re writing, period.

            However, this is hardly a deflection. You speculated that I was an Arabist; I confirmed it; then you revealed that you had no idea what an Arabist is. There was no subject at hand.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Unique as applied to a culture still has to reflect a large pattern within another culture to disprove it.

            e.g. a culture that uniquely suffers from madness is one with a large scale problem of mental illness that cannot be disproven by pointing to a 0.01 percent mental illness rate in another culture.

          • hiernonymous

            Sorry, but no. “Unique to” means “does not occur elsewhere.” It quite plainly does.

            If you say that “X is unique in that it is the only country suffering large-scale Y,” then you’ve inserted the appropriate caveats. Feel free to do so, and then study honor killings in India to discover that even this caveat would be insufficient.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Unique to on the scale of a nation or a culture means that the phenomenon of that scale is unique.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, no, it doesn’t, unless ‘scale’ was initially identified as the unique characteristic.

            Consider the two following claims: “Tsunamis are unique to coastal regions” and “Hurricanes are unique to coastal regions.”

            The former statement is true; tsunamis are an oceanic phenomenon.

            The latter statement is not true. It is true that hurricanes are largely coastal phenomena; they generally form over water, and when they make landfall, they tend to lose power quickly. But they aren’t unique to coasts; they have been known to move inland and retain their power, as the Hondurans learned to their dismay during Mitch. In this case, another term is appropriate – or one could make a more careful construction.

            In this case, honor killings quite plainly do occur in other cultures. The examples cited were not cases of mental illness, but of clear examples of the phenomenon in question. Quite plainly, honor killing is not unique to Islam. If you care to make a more careful construction, and say something to the effect of “widespread honor killing is unique to Islam,” and you define ‘widespread’ in a testable way, you’ve opened the door to a conversation. OP did not do so, and there’s no point in trying to redefine terms in order to avoid the appearance of concession in what appears to be an ideological feud on your part.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The uniqueness refers to the phenomenon across a nation or a culture in the same way that when the New York Times writes that school shootings are a unique American phenomenon, it doesn’t mean that school shootings don’t happen anywhere else, but that the scale on which they happen in the United States is unique.

          • hiernonymous

            Before I could offer intelligent comment on the NYT usage, I’d have to read it. Feel free to cite the actual usage.

          • hiernonymous

            Have you had a chance to look up the NYT citation you were referring to? I tried finding it myself, but all the uses of “unique” I’ve found so far are consistent with its traditional usage. It’s very possible the Grey Lady used it in the sense you describe, and I’m always willing to broaden my horizones, but, as I noted, it’s hard for me to comment until I see the actual usage.

          • hiernonymous

            Bump. Not trying to rush you on the citation, simply keeping the exchange visible to me on the Disqus interface.

          • Taimoor Khan

            A person who has lost conscience is like a body without a backbone – can be bent anyway you choose. So expect no sincere apologies for lying openly about “honor” killing being unique to Islam, but turning and twisting.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Murder isn’t unique to Islam. Legalizing it on the other hand is another story.

            It’s usually the Islamic leaders who oppose bringing penalties for honor killings into line with those for normal murders, e.g. Jordan.

          • Drakken

            Yes of course, Islamic math, a couple thousand equals 1 or 2 around the world. So yes I got your meaning of the word unique.

          • hiernonymous

            “So yes I got your meaning of the word unique.”

            It’s not my meaning; it’s the meaning. Should we hold off on further conversation until you’ve mastered your language?

          • Tim

            It is unique to Islam, the doctrine, when compared to Christianity, the doctrine, Buddhism, the doctrine, et al. People will do stupid things no matter how they were raised or what their background is. Focus on the doctrines, though. Only Islam gives its adherents a green light to kill and torture non-believers.

          • hiernonymous

            Honor killing is not about killing and torturing non-believers; it is about killing family members whose improper romantic or sexual relations are seen as having besmirched the honor of the family. You’re mixing up your doctrines. The argument has certainly been made that strictures against apostasy make honor killings easier to justify in certain cases, but that’s by no means the general rule.

          • Tim

            It is forbidden in those religions to kill someone for choosing a different religion or marrying someone. Just because some mis-informed, nominal adherents of said religion do so doesn’t make it right. Islam, on the other hand, condones the practice in its holy scripture and official commentaries.

            I might also add that the few exceptions you cited were people living within and proximal to Islamic nations. They probably got the bad idea to honor-kill from their Islamic neighbors. Where do you think the Crusaders got their idea to wage holy war? They certainly didn’t get it from the Bible! They got the idea from the Muslims that had been waging jihad against them for four hundred freaking years. It was a mistake to call the Crusades a holy war, but that concept would never have occurred to a Christian under normal circumstances.

          • hiernonymous

            “Just because some mis-informed, nominal adherents…”

            This, of course, is the fallback position of any zealot – when your people commit an atrocity, it is evidence of the barbarity of their culture, religion, or belief system; when my people commit an atrocity, it’s because they weren’t being true to their culture/religion/belief system. It’s a cop-out.

            “I might also add that the few exceptions you cited were people living within and proximal to Islamic nations. They probably got the bad idea to honor-kill from their Islamic neighbors.”

            Islam is contagious, eh? The Hindu caste system pre-dates Islam by a few thousand years. The New Testament records the story of Jesus interrupting a pretty routine honor killing about 6 centuries before Muhammad’s time. Was Islam contagious across time as well as space?

            “Where do you think the Crusaders got their idea to wage holy war?”

            Joshua?

            Are you suggesting that Islam so infected the Christians that it was the sinister influence of Muhammad that led to the slaughter of the Huguenots, the Albigensian Crusade, the 30 Years’ War, etc? It’s all those Muslims’ fault, eh?

            “They got the idea from the Muslims that had been waging jihad against them for four hundred freaking years.”

            Of course, the Muslims were initially successful against Christians because the Byzantines had exhausted themselves fighting the Persians nonstop in the centuries prior to Muhammad.

            “…but that concept would never have occurred to a Christian under normal circumstances.”

            Of course not. Christians hardly ever start wars.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            Look at the doctrines, not the adherents. It’s not a cop-out when the Quran condones and encourages violence, and thousands of its adherents do just that. Millions of its adherents thankfully don’t do that, but they certainly could if they wanted to justify themselves.

            The Bible does not condone violence, especially the New Testament, the main foundation for Christianity. The example you cited of Joshua would be comparable to a modern-day nation going to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Canaanites of that day practiced human sacrifice, child-sacrifice, and many other horrible atrocities against themselves and their neighbors. They were a threat to security in the region. It was a military action against seven specifically named peoples within a specific geographic area that had a beginning and an end. Never again were the Jews commanded to kill a group of people, and Christians have never been commanded by God to commit any acts of violence (think “Turn the other cheek”).

            So no, it’s not a cop-out to say that people claiming to be Christians who start wars, commit acts of violence, etc. are disobeying their faith. It happens a lot because humans naturally resort to violence when peaceful methods don’t work. It’s still forbidden outright by the faith.

            True Christians will condemn Christian violence as vehemently as they condemn Islamic violence. Nonetheless, in today’s world, secular governments have an obligation to defend their pluralistic, democratic societies against a fanatical religion (Islam) and it’s violent, subjugating, prejudicial doctrines (Sharia, Jihad, etc.)

            China and Japan have been involved in quite a few wars, even though
            they’re predominantly Buddhist, Confucian, or adherents of other
            peaceful religions. Does that give us the right to slam Buddhism based on their violence? No.
            They were fighting for non-religious reasons, and those religions do not preach violence.

          • hiernonymous

            “Look at the doctrines, not the adherents.”

            Well, no. The major religions of the world are what their adherents make them to be, not what your more-or-less casual perusal of their doctrines suggests that they ought to be. If Religion A claims to decry violence, and Religion B claims to glorify it, but the adherents of Religion A are just as warlike as Religion B, then there is no descriptive or predictive value in insisting that Religion A is “more peaceful” than Religion B, and that Religion A’s hawkishness is the result of its adherents’ misunderstanding of its tenets.

            “The Bible does not condone violence…”

            Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the Cross of Jesus… While I happen to agree that the message of the New Testament is one of brotherly love, peace, and meekness, the history of Christendom suggests that I am in a distinct minority.

            Spend a moment or ten reflecting on the 30 Years’ War, and on the Spanish conquest of the Americas, and tell me again what Christians believe about organized violence.

            If you take an hour or so to review the history of organized violence in our world, you’ll find that the Muslim lands do not stand out in any fashion – whether it be total body count, or prevalence of war, or intensity of violence.

            I submit that the reason so many of our sudden experts in Islam spend so much time wringing their hands about the issue is that American foreign policy, largely (thought certainly not exclusively) with the goal of securing military access to the world’s most concentrated deposits of fossil fuels, have brought us into conflict with Muslims. If the residents of the region all converted to Shinto tomorrow, the conflict would not go away. It’s important to try to understand Islam; it’s also important not to use it as an excuse or distraction.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hanging as a traitor for a rebellion fought on the field of battle and blowing yourself up just for the satisfaction of killing random civilians on a bus are about as far apart as two things could be.

          • hiernonymous

            Being driven from your home and being asked to support the troops fighting wars on one’s behalf are also remarkably different, when it comes to that. As I noted, Washington was prepared to die for causes that, in comparison to what happened to the Palestinians, amounts to pretty minor quibbles.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Being prepared to die and being eager to die are two different things.

            Also being prepared to fight soldiers and being eager to kill random civilians for the crime of being another race or religion are also quite different things.

          • Taimoor Khan

            And that’s your fairy tale o wash off Israeli occupation. (“They just like killing, it’s nothing to do with Israel occupying their land, killing them in the thousands, stealing their resources, oppressing them, so it’s all too cool”).

            Palestinians are simply fighting against Israel’s brutal occupation – that’s it.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If you want brutal, go look at Syria. Israel built universities and roads, provided and still provides electricity, even to enemy territory, and treats even the children of enemy leaders in its hospitals.

            That’s better than the way Pakistan treats its own Christian citizens.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Not killing random civilians, but what they perceive as occupiers and IDF reservists, in desperate response to THOUSANDS of Palestinian victims in Israeli air raids and bombing of Palestinians civilians and their homes, not to mention stealing of Palestinian resources and land.

            You talk about random killing – what was Jewish terror organizations pre-48 doing in Palestine but attacking random Arab civilians to settle score?

            Terrorism is terrorism, but your detaching it from context is wrong. Palestinians do not just love to kill and die.

            Already I have referred how non-Muslims can do suicide bombing with glee under certain circumstances (Tamil Tigers).

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Very much random.

            They walk into a pizza place where there are Arabs and Jews and blow themselves up, regardless of who the people are. Their goal is just to kill a bunch of people with the expectation that a majority of them are Jews.

            For that matter there is no such thing as Palestine. There are Arab clans with various agendas, some that sided with Israel and chose to become citizens of the state and others like the Husseinis that chose to keep making trouble the way they had even under Muslim rule.

          • Veracious_one

            There is no distinction between Islam and culture. Islam is the culture of the Arabs. Anything a Muslim traditionally does in his culture is inherent to Islam, whether or not it is in the Qur’an.

          • hiernonymous

            “Islam is the culture of the Arabs.”

            This will come as a suprrise to the Druze, Maronites, Copts, etc.

          • Taimoor Khan

            If going through checkpoints in a liberal democracy is so cool, then why fight against British at all? They were democracy. So why you needed independence anyway?

            Not that Israel is a rue “liberal democracy”, but your argument is so callous as saying, “What do you cry if the torturer is a beautiful gal?”

            Abu Gharib, anyone?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No Taxation Without Representation was the slogan. So no they weren’t a democracy.

          • Drakken

            Abu grabass compared to a paki prison? Are you that really obtuse or bloody ignorant?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            George Washington did not live in an environment of endemic violence and subjugation, such that his son was so very likely to either die or to live a life of hopelessness that he was forced to come to terms with that. I don’t think that anyone who has actually spent any time at all living among Arabs could sanely claim that they value their children any less than we do.

            That’s pure utter garbage. So-called Palestinians live in an environment of endemic violence by design, as waging jihad in the cause of Allah against all religions and all infidels and in this particular case, against Jewish infidels, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims to make Islam supreme.

            As a matter of fact, in Islam it is the only path to paradise. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists or otherwise non-violent jihadists that wage jihad non-violently via stealth and deception.

            Now all Muslims, on the other hand, who don’t wish to participate in waging jihad in the cause of Allah are deemed blasphemous apostates and summarily executed, because blasphemy and apostasy in Islam are capital offenses.

            Hence, it is only normal for Muslim females to wish for their sons to fight and die in the cause of Allah, because to do so is the greatest honor in Islam, as it not only guarantees that their sons will be venerated as martyrs, which is the equivalent of a saint, but that they also will get to skip purgatory and go directly to Allah’s version of carnal paradise, where 72 dark eyed houris will await them, along with 72 virgin young boys (in the event they like to go the other way), plus all the mansions and wine and spirits they could ever want. Indeed, given the circumstances, what mothers would not wish the very best for their children?

            Again dude, your moral equivalences are some of the most outrageous and most inappropriate in the history of the planet! Nevertheless, you are right, thank God George Washington’s children weren’t raised in an environment where the only path to heaven was through waging jihad in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme.

            Meanwhile, when it comes to subjugation, Muslims are infamous for subjugating into harsh and degrading dhimmitude all those that were conquered by Islam. Not to mention that it was Islam who ran the slave trade until the latter half of the last century, only being forced to stop by the hegemony of the infidel West. Moreover, the so-called Palestinians aren’t subjugated by Israel. Instead, they are subjugated by the totalitarian ideology of Islam, which denies their freedom of conscience, while at the same time forcing them to wage jihad to reach salvation.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, the Palestinian struggle was explicitly secular for many, many years, and the most significant Palestinian resistance organizations included Christians amongst them. Hamas is avowedly religious, and is so in large part in order to draw support away from people fed up with the corruption of Arafat’s old Fatah.

            “Now all Muslims, on the other hand, who don’t wish to participate in waging jihad in the cause of Allah are deemed blasphemous apostates and summarily executed, because blasphemy and apostasy in Islam are capital offenses.”

            Really? So we would expect to see a pretty fair number of such executions all across the Muslim world, wouldn’t we? How many apostates has the Egyptian government executed lately? Tunisia? Morocco? Heck, how about the keepers of the Haramein themselves, the Saudis? We know that they still conduct public executions in the square in Riyadh – how many apostates are put to death there every week?

            Where do you get your understanding of Islam? Frontpage? WND?

          • Drakken

            We see jihadist killing infidels all over the muslim world on a daily basis, islam is islam no matter the stripe and where islam goes, the blood always flows without exception and you bloody well know this.

          • hiernonymous

            If you’re talking about what Islam demands and endorses, then it wouldn’t be unique to terrorists or fringe groups.

            You’re not doing too well on the things I “bloody well know” at the moment; you might want to try a different tack.

          • Drakken

            Well yes I am talking to a half breed arab so the concepts might be a tad more that what you are used too. Islam demands blood sacrifice and it has been that way since Mohamed crawled out of the desert after too much hash and did his first 9 year old. Is that simple enough for you to understand, or do I need to break it down further for you?

          • hiernonymous

            “Well yes I am talking to a half breed arab…”

            Now you’re managing to be racist, ignorant, and simply wrong, all at once. Are you under the impression that I’ll be impressed when you resort to simply being offensive?

            “Islam demands blood sacrifice…”

            *cough* Abraham…Isaac…*cough*

            “Is that simple enough for you to understand, or do I need to break it down further for you?”

            Simple has never been the problem with your posts.

            “…so the concepts might be a tad more that what you are used too.”

            That was just too precious not to capture. Yes, in a way, they are a tad more that what I’m used too.

          • Drakken

            Well prove me wrong other than to just say I am. If your not an arab or Iranian or possible Turk with European blood say so. otherwise your open endorsement of these entities really does say it all doesn’t it ole boy. Pssst those followers of Abrahm (Christians and jews) don’t do the blood sacrifice thing and haven’t in 2,000 years. Your fellow muslims do practice blood sacrifice on a daily basis by the things they do, for example in Syria, you know the whole cutting people to pieces and eating the parts.

          • hiernonymous

            “Well prove me wrong other than to just say I am…”

            Could you possibly be that dim? The world of logic you inhabit consists of throwing accusations and assertions out and demanding that others deny them or they are considered accurate?

            “Well prove me wrong other than to just say I am.”

            Saying that you are is all I need to do. If you want to indulge in some sort of racist ad hominem by association, knock yourself out.

            “…otherwise your open endorsement of these entities really does say it all doesn’t it ole boy.”

            If you think so, then you probably shouldn’t be offering opinions in public.

            And, all that aside, your use of the term “half breed” says more about you than you appear to realize.

          • Drakken

            You certainly do run your suck a lot, but say absolutely nothing. Nice evasion tactics haji. Psst, your throwing of the race card has no meaning anymore, so nice try and thanks for playing.

          • hiernonymous

            “You certainly do run your suck a lot, but say absolutely nothing.”

            Well, nothing that you understood, at any rate.

            “Psst, your throwing of the race card has no meaning anymore…”

            Particularly coming from a half-breed who couldn’t possibly believe the things he believes unless he had certain “blood?” No, no meaning at all.

            “…so nice try…”

            I’m surprised you understand that. Good for you.

          • Drakken

            Ah yes, I can always depend upon with out fail, extremely poor impulse control from arabs, easy to draw them into a fight and then expediently deal with them. Too easy.

          • hiernonymous

            Remarkable.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            Abraham never sacrificed Isaac or anybody. It was a test of his obedience to God. God never intended him to go through with it.

          • hiernonymous

            “Abraham never sacrificed Isaac or anybody. It was a test of his obedience to God. God never intended him to go through with it.”

            The test would not have had any value if it had not occurred in a context that made it credible. One might also point out that, in nearly any legal system, an assault does not require successful physical contact to be completed.

            And, while Abraham is the highest profile case, are you seriously contending that we can’t find other examples of blood sacrifice in the Bible?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Actually, the Palestinian struggle was explicitly secular for many, many years, and the most significant Palestinian resistance organizations included Christians amongst them.

            Apparently, you’ve never heard of Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Look him up, as he was a very colorful character. Damn…you are incredibly ignorant and gullible!

            Hamas is avowedly religious, and is so in large part in order to draw support away from people fed up with the corruption of Arafat’s old Fatah.

            Hamas and Fatah might not agree on the tactics used to destroy Israel, but nevertheless they do agree that Israel must be destroyed. Nevertheless, per your comment, again you couldn’t be anymore ignorant and naive.

            Really? So we would expect to see a pretty fair number of such executions all across the Muslim world, wouldn’t we?

            We do. Indeed, no one kills more Muslims in the world than other Muslims. What? Are you blind? Wait…don’t answer that. The answer is obvious.

            How many apostates has the Egyptian government executed lately?

            Not many, because what constitutes a government today, i.e., the military, is secular and not Islamic.

            Tunisia? Morocco?

            It’s the same thing with regard to the authoritarian governments in Tunisia and Morocco? Like under Mubarak, they compromise by allowing just enough Islam to appease the Imams but not enough to piss off the Western infidel world. There are no full-blown Sharia totalitarian states in the world today. Although there are a few that come pretty close.

            Egypt was headed in that direction when the MB was briefly in power, but fortunately for the secular left in Egypt, the MB was eliminated from power by the secular military before they could duplicate the decimation of the secular left the same way the Iranian ruling Mullahs did during their Islamic revolution a few decades ago.

            Heck, how about the keepers of the Haramein themselves, the Saudis? We know that they still conduct public executions in the square in Riyadh – how many apostates are put to death there every week?

            It’s more hideous than you might imagine. Muslims don’t have to be executed by any state. Any Muslim can execute a blasphemous apostate according to the dictates of Sharia. Nonetheless, those subjugated into the totalitarian cult of Islam aren’t necessarily dumb or stupid. If they have a crisis of faith, most of them will gave the good sense to keep it a secret and to themselves for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, the prospect of execution is always hanging over their heads, which makes the voice of Muslim apostates insignificant since they are in effect silenced.

            Where do you get your understanding of Islam? Frontpage?

            That’s for me to know and for you to guess.

          • hiernonymous

            Where do you get your understanding of Islam? Frontpage?

            That’s for me to know and for you to guess.

            I wouldn’t guess you to be expert in Islam at all; you’ve simply asserted that you are. I’ll take your evasion to mean there’s no there there.

          • Drakken

            The muslim wants their children to be martyrs the infidels wants their children to accomplish great things in life and live well. We in the west also don’t treat our daughter like chattel to be traded like the prized camel either. So yes, we love our children more than the arabs.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s interesting that you say that – humans were openly and legally chattel in our own country much more recently than in most of the world. Not sure that’s a point you want to raise in crowing about our relative states of civilization.

            I knew an awful lot of Muslims, and I never knew one who wanted their children to be martyrs. You have some odd ideas of what is common in the Muslim world.

          • Drakken

            It really is quite simple, and I am sure it is quite hard for a person such as yourself who is split between east and west, but it is either them, or us, choose wisely for there is no second chances in this game.

          • hiernonymous

            Zealots of all stripes have been insisting that “you’re either with us or against us” for as long as they’ve been trying to simplify their own lives by fomenting conflict.

            The interesting thing is that you share the outlook and personality of precisely the worst element of the people you profess to despise. It’s the al Qa’ida nutballs who are sitting over there muttering “it’s us or them” as well.

          • Drakken

            Conflict is a constant of the human condition, it always has been and will be with us for at least another thousand years. There are only victors and vanquished, as it has always been.

          • Veracious_one
          • Drakken

            So you knew a lot of muslims, as a infidel did you ever try to date one of those muslims daughters? If you did, you and her would be dead.

          • hiernonymous

            Yep – my wife would have killed us.

            Edit: and in keeping with the theme of mastering your language before taking me to task for failing to intuit your incoherence, it’s “you and she would be dead.”

          • Drakken

            Oh yes, sorry ole boy, the whole mind, fingers and thought, bugger isn’t it?

          • Puck

            First problem here is assuming that Israel is an occupying force. You cannot be an occupier in your own ancestral homeland. Secondly, you are committing the ethnocentric mistake of judging Israeli government response according to Euro-American values. That Islam is a supremacist religion subscribing to a Moslem version of dominionism and theonomism (viz. Sharia should apply universally) is not in question given their history, theology, and politics. The Israeli governments are familiar with their martial ethic and reply in an idiom that informs their would be assailants that they are not weak. Conciliatory gestures, statements and actions of appeasement do not reduce the aggressor’s intent but rather feed it, a point Chamberlain found out much to his and Europe’s regret.

          • Tim

            I’ve heard straight from the mouths of Muslims that they love their prophet more than they do their family members. 1.5 billion people are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve heard the same from Christians.

            Matthew 10:37

            New International Version (NIV)

            37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

            I’m sorry, you were saying?

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            Jesus, as God, ought to be loved more than one loves other people. That passage has never been used to justify mistreating your family or killing them for some perceived dishonor. It just means put God before family, which I think most religions believe. Islam on the other hand, asks its followers to put Muhammad, a mere man, before their own flesh and blood, even to the point of killing them if they leave the faith, dishonor the family patriarch, or insult their long dead prophet.

            There is a huge difference between these two doctrines.

          • hiernonymous

            “Jesus, as God, ought to be loved more than one loves other people.”

            In other words, both religions demand the same level of devotion, but the difference is that Christianity is right and Islam is wrong. In order to conclude this, one must accept that Jesus was actually the Creator of the Universe walking around in the form of a man – in short, one must be a Christian. From any objective perspective, both religions require deference to the founder of the religion – though Islam does not carry it to the lengths of Christianity by demanding actual worship.

            True, distinguishing between devotion and worship can be a pretty fine line, and that line is not only found in the Jesus/Muhammad comparison. Many Protestants are a bit uncomfortable with the pedestal on which Catholics place Mary.

          • Veracious_one

            It’s always comforting to assume that those who challenge us are simply homicidal maniacs,
            who is assuming?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIKCgRlwQUA

          • hiernonymous

            You are, apparently.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Normal people do not harbor rabid hatred and call other people’s religions cult.

            No matter how much you cook up stuff, fact remains that George Washington was a terrorist to British imperialists, and fought against occupation – same is the case with Palestinians fighting against occupation.

            YOU want to project Palestinian struggle as some kind of illogical/irrational hatred driven from religion (talk about irony – when Israel is created based on irrationality of recreating history of 2000 years ago) so that Israeli occupation and stealing of land and resources can be justified.

            This is the case – admit it.

          • Tim

            Actually, Islamic terrorism is extremely strategic. It has little tactical or operational value in combat, but in the overall war between Islam and the non-believers, it strikes terror into the non-believers, makes front-page headlines, and seriously inconveniences large swaths of the population unrelated to the original attack (think about the airport security mess we all have to face now). Islamic terrorism is pure strategy.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            True, but it only works in a conflict with a modern state if it is appeased. And even then it works badly because they are unable to capitalize on it, look at the Peace Process in Israel.

          • Tim

            1.5 billion Muslims on earth are proof that Islamic terrorism achieves its strategic goals of spreading Islam. Granted, with the rise of the Internet, this should be much harder to accomplish. Unfortunately there are too many ways to censor free speech on the internet in too many countries. If free speech could be enforced worldwide, along with freedom of religion, Islam would die out peacefully within a few decades. Violence is their only real way of spreading, much like cancer.

          • Drakken

            You are only going to be able to defeat Islamic jihad by being ruthlessly militarily efficient.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            States or subjugated people who lack access to wealth and conventional power must fight in a different manner, and one of the key elements to fighting a successful asymmetric fight against a hegemonic power is the willingness to accept a very lopsided casualty rate.

            That is classic leftwing PC multicultural garbage. Muslims only perpetrate what is alleged to be terrorism in response to outside stimuli and thus their alleged terrorism, which is purely a defensive mechanism, is deemed asymmetric warfare by PC multicultural moonbats and Muslim apologists like you. In other words, Muslims aren’t waging aggressive jihad against all religions and all infidels to make Islam supreme. Instead, they are only innocent victims reacting by striking back against the hegemonic infidel West.

            I suppose you could believe such nonsense if you were incredibly ignorant of the history of Islam and jihad warfare. The truth, however, is quite different, Muslims wage aggressive jihad against all religions and all infidels in order to subjugate them into Islamic totalitarianism via jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, in order to make Islam supreme. At least that is why they conquered most of Christendom and the peoples as far away as the Indian subcontinent.

            In other words, some degree of acceptance of martyrdom is necessary to victory.

            Actually, if you are a Muslim, fighting and dying in the cause of Allah is a great honor. As a matter of fact, it is the greatest honor in Islam. Indeed, martyrs who fight and die in the cause of Allah are not only venerated as being saints subsequently, but also get to skip purgatory and go directly to Allah’s version of carnal paradise. It’s not that some degree of acceptance of fighting and dying is necessary for victory; so much as it is a righteous path to paradise. Indeed, for Muslims the only path to paradise is through waging jihad in the cause of Allah in one form or another, either violently or non-violently through stealth and deception.

            Compare this to the mythology of our Revolution, in which we mock the British for their supposed insistence that we fight like civilized people, whereas the canny colonists took advantage of their woodcraft and rugged individualism to harass the inflexible Redcoats.

            Again, like only an unhinged PC multicultural loon can, only you can come up with the most inappropriate and absurd moral equivalences in the history of mankind. So in your extremely distorted eyes and incredibly warped vision of the world, the American revolutionaries were somehow the moral equivalent of AQ jihadists striking back at the American infidels in retaliation for imagined American improprieties. You really are incredibly self-hating and extremely mentally demented as a result. No wonder you are addicted to apologizing for Islam and Muslims.

          • hiernonymous

            “That is classic leftwing PC multicultural garbage.”

            No, it’s classic military asymmetrical analysis, and hardly unique to Muslims. You might want to acquaint yourself with the war in Sri Lanka, as one example.

            A similar phenomenon occurred in the Pacific Theater of WWII. The Japanese started the war with the most accomplished naval pilots in the world, but their training regimen was so long and arduous that they couldn’t replace losses, and soon found themselves hopelessly outnumbered and outproduced – in short, in an asymmetrical position. One of their responses was the initiation of suicide attacks.

            Or are you suggesting that the Kamikaze were Muslims?

            You might also want to review your Christian history; martyrdom for Christ was considered an honor in that religion.

            “Again, like only an unhinged PC multicultural loon can, only you can come up with the most inappropriate and absurd moral equivalences in the history of mankind.”

            You appear to have difficulty understanding what you read. The topic was not “moral equivalence,” but the degree to which insistence on conventional prosecution of war was a universal trait or not.

            “So in your extremely distorted eyes and incredibly warped vision of the world, the American revolutionaries were somehow the moral equivalent of AQ jihadists striking back at the American infidels in retaliation for imagined American improprieties.”

            Why, no. In my eyes, our “moral” stance on guerrilla warfare varies by whether it is in our interests to conduct it or not. Powerful states place a premium on respect for the rules of warfare; weak states do not. I’m reminding you that we’ve been on both sides of that equation.

            “You really are incredibly self-hating and extremely mentally demented as a result.”
            At some point, you will offer an opinion on a topic you understand. Until then, feel free to vent.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            No, it’s classic military asymmetrical analysis, and hardly unique to Muslims. You might want to acquaint yourself with the war in Sri Lanka, as one example.

            Lighten up. No one said that lopping off the heads of infidels while yelling Allahu Akbar wasn’t asymmetrical and extremely barbaric, crude, and unconventional at the same time, at least by our civilized Western infidel standards. However, Muslims aren’t stupid, they know that they can’t fight violent jihad against the infidel West and possibly win, and that is why they elect to use violent jihad against Western infidels only very sparingly and choose to use non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad astronomically far more liberally.

            Moreover, Muslims aren’t reacting to Western imperialism or colonialism in the case of the Left, or to Western interventionist foreign policies in the case of Libertarian Ron Paul kooks, or to Israeli settlements and harsh Israeli policies in the case of Israel. Instead, Muslims wage jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah against all religions and all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

            One of their responses was the initiation of suicide attacks.

            Muslims never ever perpetrate homicide/suicide attacks because the Western infidel world is astronomically far more superior. Instead, they perpetrate such attacks because fighting and dying in the cause of Allah garners them martyrdom and the ability to skip purgatory and go directly to Allah’s version of carnal paradise. Indeed, fighting and dying in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme is the highest honor in Islam.

            Or are you suggesting that the Kamikaze were Muslims?

            No…but why are you making such an inappropriate analogy at the same time you totally ignore the harsh reality of Islam?

            You might also want to review your Christian history; martyrdom for Christ was considered an honor in that religion.

            Really? I wasn’t aware that Christians fought holy war against all religions and all non-Christian infidels to subjugate them into Christian totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive holy war and the imposition of Christian totalitarian law in order to make Christianity supreme throughout the world similarly to Muslims. I thought Christians took a different path to salvation. I must have missed that part during my catechism days. Maybe that was taught when I was confined to home time because of Mononucleosis in the 5th grade. I also never heard of anything remotely similar to Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) emanating from Christianity either. Perhaps I wasn’t an astute student like you.

            You appear to have difficulty understanding what you read. The topic was not “moral equivalence,” but the degree to which insistence on conventional prosecution of war was a universal trait or not.

            I can assure you I didn’t have any difficulty in understanding what you wrote. I just pointed out to you that it was absolutely absurd and inappropriate, and then explained the reason why. It’s not my fault you are so addicted to apologizing for Muslims and Islam to the point that it has warped your perception of reality.

            Why, no. In my eyes, our “moral” stance on guerrilla warfare varies by whether it is in our interests to conduct it or not. Powerful states place a premium on respect for the rules of warfare; weak states do not. I’m reminding you that we’ve been on both sides of that equation.

            Actually, I haven’t been inculcated by the dictates of PC multiculturalism. Hence, my rules for warfare are that there are no rules for warfare. You fight to win at all cost, because defeat is absolutely unacceptable. But this debate is not about my rules for warfare, and it’s not about powerful states vs. weak states either, it’s about the Islamic world’s rules for violent jihad, and those rules for violent jihad are not dictated by the Geneva Conventions. Although Muslims are very quick to falsely accuse infidels of not following those rules when it is to their advantage. Muslims only fight violent jihad in accordance to the dictates of Sharia, because Sharia as opposed to all other manmade laws, which includes the Geneva Conventions, allegedly according to Muslims emanates divinely directly from Allah and is therefore absolutely perfect. Thus, most of the time Muslims use only total warfare tactics when in the prosecution of violent jihad. Then subsequently you PC multicultural moonbats mischaracterize it as being terrorism perpetrated only by Muslim extremists in response to Western infidel provocations to attempt to dismiss the problem as only a minor issue.

            At some point, you will offer an opinion on a topic you understand. Until then, feel free to vent.

            Yeah…I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you will ever come close to knowing. Thank you very much! Meanwhile, you are addicted to perpetually apologizing for Islam and Muslims, while at the same time coming up with the most ridiculous and inappropriate moral equivalences in an attempt to add credibility to your insanity.

          • hiernonymous

            “Yeah…I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you will ever come close to knowing.”

            You’ve said that before – but I notice that you duck the question of just how you came to know it. What is your educational and professional background that you are such an expert? Your expertise isn’t coming across in your comments, and your assertion “I know more” doesn’t really mean anything by itself – so how did you come by all that knowledge you’ve since forgotten?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You’ve said that before – but I notice that you duck the question of just how you came to know it. What is your educational and professional background that you are such an expert? Your expertise isn’t coming across in your comments, and your assertion “I know more” doesn’t really mean anything by itself – so how did you come by all that knowledge you’ve since forgotten?

            If I’m so wrong about Islam and you are so right about Islam, then simply prove me wrong and shut me down at the same time by pointing out just one Euroloon country where mass Muslim immigration has been occurring since in the 70s and where the preponderance of Muslim immigrants have actually assimilated and integrated, then matriculated into contributing and productive citizens of their newly adopted host infidel state. Instead of forming Muslim enclaves that in time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia and that are in effect tiny Islamic statelets similar to Gaza within the larger host infidel states.

            Furthermore, point to just one Islamic state in the world where the non-Muslim infidels are not treated like dhimmis and instead of being harshly oppressed, murdered, and raped or treated equal under the law with Muslims.

            Indeed, you don’t have to be an authority on Islam to see what it is. All you have to do is open your eyes.

          • hiernonymous

            “If I’m so wrong about Islam and you are so right about Islam, then simply prove me wrong…”

            I have, many times. Your response is that you’ve “forgotten more about Islam than I know.” I was just curious to know what you meant by that, and now you’ve made it clear – not a thing. It was empty braggadocio.

            “Indeed, you don’t have to be an authority on Islam to see what it is. All you have to do is open your eyes.”

            Translation: “I don’t have to know what I’m talking about to talk about it.”

            Regards.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I have, many times. Your response is that you’ve “forgotten more about Islam than I know.” I was just curious to know what you meant by that, and now you’ve made it clear – not a thing. It was empty braggadocio.

            OK…let’s keep this simple. I tell you what, since like the vast overwhelming majority of delusional Marxists today you like to purport yourself as being a leading authority on the subject of Islam, why don’t you point to just one Euroloon country where mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage has been occurring since in the ’70s where the majority of the Muslim immigrants have actually assimilated and integrated, on their way to matriculating into productive and contributing citizens of their new host infidel states. Instead, of like clockwork, forming Muslim enclaves that then inevitably morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia and that are in effect tiny independent Islamic statelets within the larger host infidel states.

            Furthermore, point to just one Islamic majority country anywhere in the world that doesn’t harshly oppress, rape, and murder on a regular and routine basis the non-Muslim infidels that have the gross misfortune to live in those Islamic hellholes.

            Finally, point to just one Islamic majority country in the world that doesn’t treat the female citizens, including Muslim females, worse than animals.

            Now, here’s the payoff: If you can manage to do that, then I promise you I will divulge exactly where and how I acquired my extensive knowledge of Islam and the Islamic world. Are you up to the challenge?

          • hiernonymous

            “Now, here’s the payoff: If you can manage to do that, then I promise you I will divulge exactly where and how I acquired my extensive knowledge of Islam and the Islamic world. Are you up to the challenge?”

            I have a better idea. You made your assertion about your Islamic expertise first, and I asked you about it. Deal with that, and I promise I’ll engage on this subsequent issue.

            Here’s the part you don’t seem to follow: YOU made a claim to expertise, not I. I’m simply challenging you to back it up with specifics. If you can’t, I fully understand.

          • Drakken

            What you are dealing with is a half breed arabist who openly sides with his arab half.

          • Drakken

            Then don’t be surprised when the west finally takes the gloves off and gives total war to stop martyr attacks, if you can’t trustem, killem all and let allah sortem out.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, yes, so you keep saying.

          • Drakken

            History is on my side, the muslims one way or another are going to push the envelope until we get serious. As for the so called rules of war? Funny only the idiot west follows them, the muslims never have and never will. Iran when it gets its nuke, all bets are off.

          • hiernonymous

            “History is on my side…”

            In the sense that, after 1400-odd years, they’re going to push it to Armageddon in your lifetime? What history is that?

            “Funny only the idiot west follows them, the muslims never have and never will.”

            Then, again, you are ignorant of your history. Powerful and secure states follow the rules of war, such as they are at the time. Saladin was famously scrupulous about doing so, including his treatment of prisoners – but, of course, the Muslims were very powerful at that time.

            “Iran when it gets its nuke, all bets are off.”

            I think I understand what you are implying – let’s see how “history is on your side” there. How many wars has Iran started in the past century or so, compared to the U.S.? Wait – Iran is relatively weak, so we blame them for supporting guerrillas and terrorist, such as Hizballah – the U.S. doesn’t do that sort of thing. Well, except with the Contras. And Savimbe’s UNITA. Oh, wait – and the SPLA/M. Sorry, forgot the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. I’m sorry – you were saying?

          • Drakken

            Lets see, your a tad off with your hero Saladin, he slaughtered his prisoners and kept the ones he could get ransom from, yeah that Saladin. The Contras, Unita were on our side. The Islamic savages in Azzcrackistan was a monstrous mistake, we should have let the Russians have it, at least they were pacifying it until we gave the haji stingers and truck loads of cash.

          • hiernonymous

            “Lets see, your a tad off with your hero Saladin, he slaughtered his prisoners and kept the ones he could get ransom from, yeah that Saladin.”

            Again, Saladin followed the rules of war of the time. He scrupulously observed the legalities.

            “The Contras, Unita were on our side.”

            Yes, and? You believe that a wrong act become right if committed by someone on “our side?”

          • Drakken

            As long as they are fighting your side I am all good with it. The rules of war are a basic guideline not set in stone.

          • hiernonymous

            “As long as they are fighting your side I am all good with it.”

            Well, clearly – but who cares what you are good with? You’re not exactly displaying a finely honed ethical code.

          • Drakken

            There is no morality and ethics in war, only victors and vanquished.

          • hiernonymous

            You might want to acquaint yourself with the battle of Solferino and its consequences. At any rate, both the Christian Church and the U.S. military are firmly committed to the idea that that war very much is an object of morality and of an ethical code.

            Was this something you’ve actually tried to think through, or is this just another banality you’re tossing out because you are, as my son would put it, butthurt? Because if you’ve got a bad case of last-worditis, you’re more than welcome to it.

          • Drakken

            There is no rules of war with the muslims since they do not follow any rules, so the rule book is out the bloody window there shortbus. Since I am no longer with the US military, I am not obliged to follow archaic politically correct garbage that endangers our people and gives aid and comfort to the enemy. As time goes on and the muslim atrocities get worse, your will realize this the hard way.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            I seriously hope you’re not in the military. Have you ever heard of the Geneva Conventions? The Law of War is most certainly ‘set in stone.’ Morality and ethics are essential when it comes to conducting warfare, or else you’re going to have hundreds upon thousands of years of revenge killings, insurgencies, and ill will among nations.

            Do you seriously think the non-Islamic world has to stoop to the barbaric tactics of the Islamic world in order to defend freedom? Rather than insulting hieronymous, who is clearly cleaning your clock in this ‘intellectual’ debate, why don’t you get your facts straight and debate him on an adult level. His arguments are good, but they’re so full of holes that a little research and patience will enable you to debunk him easily enough. The truth is on our side. As long as the truth about Islam doesn’t get silenced, many many Muslims will peacefully leave their religion. Check out http://www.islam-watch.org – a site founded by ex-Muslims dedicated to exposing the truth about that backwards, barbaric religion.

          • Tim

            Martyrdom, in the normal sense of the word, is a last resort when you have absolutely no other option. In the truest sense of the word, it’s more of a passive action. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, probably didn’t want to get stoned to death, but once the rocks started flying, he didn’t whine like a bitch about it but accepted his fate gracefully. Some soldiers in war, when faced with certain death, might sacrifice themselves to save others around them. Do they want to die? Hell no, but they might quickly jump on a grenade so that only one person dies instead of five, or man a machine-gun to hold off an enemy onslaught long enough to evacuate the majority of the unit, even if it results in their death.

            Islamists have twisted martyrdom into a form of pre-meditated murder that happens to result in the death of the murderer, which is certainly convenient for the ones brainwashing the ‘martyrs’ – ties up a lot of loose ends and keeps them from having to practice what they preach.

          • hiernonymous

            Again, you ignore the fact that suicide attacks are not unique to Islam. We have the example of Tamil suicide bombers, Japanese Kamikaze – clearly, we’re not talking about an activity limited to a single religion.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            Suicide attacks for religious purposes are most certainly unique to Islamic doctrine. You cited military actions by insurgents or nearly defeated militaries. They may have attempted to paint a relgious picture to those actions in order to embolden the ones committing suicide, but no religious text on earth, to my knowledge, except for Islam’s, encourages people to kill themselves in order to kill non-believers and spread their faith.

          • hiernonymous

            Think about your logic for a moment. We have multiple organizations employing a similar tactic to achieve similar ends. In common: all are used by the weaker side of an asymmetric conflict in order to inflict losses on a conventional military that is otherwise relatively impervious to attack by the conventional means at the disposal of the attacker.

            Occam’s Razor suggests that, in order to understand why people launch suicide attacks, we look for the commonalities – and Islam is not one of those commonalities.

            It’s also worth pointing out that the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents did not employ suicide attacks for the first several years of the Afghan War. What changed? It certainly wasn’t a change in religion; the Afghans did not suddenly convert to Islam, nor did they suddenly embrace a different version of it. In fact, there was no change whatsoever in their religious outlook. What changed was an evaluation of the success of the technique as employed against U.S. forces in Iraq, and a change in the composition of those making the operational decisions. This strongly suggests that the suicide attacks are not religiously motivated – though they certainly are often religiously justified.

            “…but no religious text on earth, to my knowledge, except for Islam’s, encourages people to kill themselves in order to kill non-believers and spread their faith.”

            Let’s accept, for the sake of argument, that your interpretation is correct, and that Islam is unique in its advocacy of martyrdom. Since martyrdom itself is not unique to Islam, and we can point to at least two very high-profile instances of it taking place outside of Islam, this again suggests that the religious angle is not decisive.

          • Taimoor Khan

            You are playing semantics. Let me burst your bubbles – Palestinians want to live life just like you do and send their children to school just like you may do.

            But problem is, they are living under occupation and daily humiliation being treated as prisoners.

            How US soldiers killed in wars are hailed – that’s the main point. Is death celebrated? No.

            So a Palestinian putting his life on the line to fight occupation is hailed – that’s the point.

            Don’t make it too complicated.

            To burst your another bubble, Tamil Tigers who were Hindus fought unconventional war and adopted suicide bombing as a strategy. They are not alone in doing so.

            Get down from your high horse and understand history and the plight of oppressed people.

          • Drakken

            Would you please enlighten us as to how those Tamil tigers were defeated? Here let me help you out, the subtle tactics were dropped and a scorched earth policy enacted, how about that, it worked didn’t it?

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            Palestinians aren’t as oppressed as you think they are. Sure, the ones in Gaza are because they’ve subjected themselves to sharia law under Hamas. If an Arab agrees to live peacefully by the laws of Israel, which a large number of Israeli-Arab citizens do, they enjoy the same freedoms and lack of oppression that the Jews enjoy. There are even Arabs working in the Israeli government. The ‘Palestinians’ fighting against Israel are experiencing a self-imposed oppression fueled by their backwards Islamic hatred of anything non-Islamic. Their definition of ‘oppression’ is another person’s definition of self-defense.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Fighting injustice means defeating jihad, islamofascism, koranaziism.

        • Drakken

          I say we infidels give your wish, in spades. Make sure you tell allah(devil) that an infidels sent you with our compliments.

        • heapologiatoutimotheou

          Palestinians attack, and yet when they’re counterattacked, that’s considered injustice? Only the warped mind of a Muslim, who thinks that kuffar aren’t allowed to defend themselves, could make sense of that.
          Basic human rights dictate that everyone has the right to defend themselves against those who would seek to kill them. Palestinians should, instead of picking up rocks, guns, and rocket launchers, try to get a job instead. Or do what the Israelis do, build houses for their families to live in instead of thinning their overpopulated herd by encouraging young people to go martyr themselves.

      • Drakken

        SShhhh Daniel, you can’t say that, you will get all those muslims and their leftist sympathizers all angry and upset with you. ;) We all know that we have to bend over backwards doing somersaults as not to upset those poor, precious sensibilities of the muslims.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Oh right, it’s just a tiny minority of extremists. Everyone has them. Especially the Amish.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Oh, what is wrong in fighting the occupiers and being killed in the process? This is the noblest of deeds – martyrdom!

      You forgot to mention that all religions and all infidels throughout the world are occupiers in the eyes of Islam and as such must be conquered, subjugated, and rendered into dhimmitude via the imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law. Thus, by the same token, what is wrong with the infidel world fighting Muslims to prevent themselves from being rendered into harsh and degrading dhimmitude?

      Stop putting your cultural contexts over all matters. Why you dropped atom bomb on Japan for killing just a few thousands of Americans?

      What are you unhinged and dense? What does dropping the atom bomb on the enemy, Japan, in WWII in self-defense have to do with the fact that the forces of Islam are currently waging jihad (holy war) against all religions and all infidels throughout the world to subjugate them into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world? Moreover, are you stupid and dumb enough to believe that the Japanese Imperialist who were the aggressors, per their preemptive attack on Pearl Harbor, wouldn’t have dropped it on us had it developed it first? Apparently so!

      That was good, but Palestinians fighting the occupiers is not?

      How was that good? Oh, you mean self-defense is good. Okay, but the so-called Palestinians are not waging jihad in self-defense. Instead, they are the aggressors. Indeed, the Palestinians have never been illegally occupied, as their alleged conflict was never about land illegally begotten by Israel. The so-called Palestinians in reality are really the proxies of the greater Islamic world, and they are waging perpetual jihad both violently and non-violently through stealth and deception against the infidel state of Israel in order to make Islam supreme over there.

      Indeed, the jihad (holy war) being waged against the Jewish infidels in Israel is no different from the jihads being waged against the Hindus in India, the Buddhists in Southern Thailand, the Christians in the Sudan, and on and on and over and over again ad nauseum that altogether comprise the perpetual worldwide global jihad to ultimately make Islam supreme.

      This is sickness!

      That’s right, you are extremely sick!

      • Taimoor Khan

        “What does dropping the atom bomb on the enemy, Japan, in WWII in self-defense…”

        And Palestinians are fighting foreign occupation, which is self-defense, too.

        And I won’t accept your interpretation of Islam!

        • defcon 4

          “paleswine” are an invented ethnicity Khancer. Because they are nothing but islam0fascist arabs.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Call them whatever, but know that there WERE people living in good numbers in what is now Palestine and Israel combined, well before any European Jew set foot on that land.

            Who were those people? Don’t they deserve the land more than Polish and Russian settlers?

            Call the land Disney Land for all I care!

            The land belongs to Locals!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            European Jews were members of a diaspora. Do you believe that Arabs living in Europe lose the right to “Palestine”?

          • hiernonymous

            I’d suggest that if you ask that question in another 2 millenia, the answer would be yes.

          • Drakken

            In another two millennia, people will be asking, what were the arabs?

          • hiernonymous

            Could be. It’s very unlikely that they’ll be asking in English, though.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Considering that Muslims have yet to abandon their claim on Spain, the answer would appear to be no.

            Not to mention laying claims to Australia and America based on ancient “discoveries”.

          • hiernonymous

            The Muslims were driven from Spain a scant 5 centuries ago; that seems like a long time to us, but its peanuts compared to the two millenia between the Jewish Wars and the establishment of Israel.

            “Not to mention laying claims to Australia and America based on ancient “discoveries”.”

            Yes, because we know that America and Australia properly belong to the Saxons. Not sure what your point here is, but as long as you’re on the topic, what are your criteria for establishing legitimate claim to a particular piece of ground?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Still obsessively apologizing for Islam, while at the same time ignoring the harsh realities of the ideology. Indeed, that’s a form of dementia.

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve lived the harsh realities, and they don’t resemble the paranoid ravings you offer.

            By the way, you recently insisted that you’d forgotten more about Islam than I’d ever known, but you ducked the question when I asked exactly how your education, experience, and professional background provided you with expertise on the topic.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ah so 500 years is peanuts, but the X amount of years that encompasses Jewish displacement but not Muslim displacement is just enough time to lose your rights to your land.

            How selective…

          • hiernonymous

            No, it’s simple math: 500 years is about one quarter of the time that encompassed the Jewish diaspora, so your announcement that 500 years was sufficient to demonstrate that the Arabs would hold their grudge that long is a few years premature. If you choose to read into that an editorial concerning pots and kettles, feel free.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s subjective emphasis based on political commitment which is understandable in your case.

            But if 500 years isn’t enough to lose a claim on a land, neither is 1000 years or 2000 years unless you choose to selectively draw a separation line where it favors you most.

          • hiernonymous

            I’d asked earlier what your criteria for legitimacy were; you haven’t responded.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            My criteria is original ownership and development.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            A country belongs to whomever is willing and able to govern it.

            If I lose my house because I can’t pay the mortgage or because I attack my neighbors and get defeated by the police, the bank or the police are going to evict me and take my ‘lands’. It wouldn’t matter if my family had owned that house for a thousand years; it’s not mine anymore.

            The Arabs that were evicted from Israel were the ones who attacked the Jews and ended up getting defeated in the process. Those who lived at peace with their Jewish neighbors got to keep their homes.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Arabs that were evicted from Israel were the ones who attacked the Jews and ended up getting defeated in the process. Those who lived at peace with their Jewish neighbors got to keep their homes.”

            An interesting, comforting, self-serving narrative – and demonstrably false. We know that Irgun, at least, had decided that having Arab civilians living along the Jerusalem – Tel Aviv highway was considered too much of a security risk, and it waged a campaign of terror to drive those civilians away. The massacre of Dir Yassin occurred well over a month before any Arab states intervened – and, in fact, played a role in their decision to intervene.

            To be fair, Haganah disavowed Dir Yassin, but to try to claim that the only Arabs who were victimized when Israel was created somehow brought it on themselves is a particularly nasty form of blaming the victim.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            So where’s the statue of limitations? How many years must pass before a dispossessed people need to start shutting up about their lost lands?

            Possession is 9/10ths of the law. The Jews ruled Palestine from about 1400 BC to 70 AD, then they lost their lands. Did they have a right to Palestine in 71 AD? Well, no, because they were defeated by the Romans and had no way to reclaim it. The Romans would have told them to shut up and get out. Is that right? Who knows? Fact of the matter is, the Romans now were the owners of the land. Nonetheless, the Jews regained their homeland in 1948, fought four wars against their surrounding neighbors to defend it it, and have been suppressing an Arab intifada in the meantime for the past several decades. They are clearly in possession of the country, so it’s time for the dispossed Arabs to stop whining and get on with their lives. When last I checked, a ‘Palestinian’ willing to live peacefully with his Jewish neighbors and obey Israeli laws can still live in Israel proper. There is quite a large population of Israeli Arabs doing just that.

          • hiernonymous

            “So where’s the statue of limitations?”

            That’s the question I posed Mr. Greenfield.

            It’s probably worth mentioning that the Jews did not rule Palestine through 70 AD; the Jewish Wars were a revolt against long-established Roman rule, not the point of Roman conquest.

            I fully agree that Israel exists and has a right to do so. That said, given the amount of “whining” on these pages one hears from neoconfederates concerning a much less legitimate war fought far longer ago, it’s unrealistic to expect the victims of injustice to just “stop whining.” More to the point, the critical question, which is not settled by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, is the status of the Palestinian state.

            The primary issue today does not concern Israeli Arabs, but the Palestinians residing in the PA.

          • Drakken

            To the victors go the spoils, and you inbred effing wogs lost the wars you effing started, then have the audacity to bitch, whine and cry about it, go fuc* yourself wog, if you want it hard, your going to get it hard, the hard way.

        • john spielman

          Jews and muslims could have lived together in 1948 but the fascist idology that is islam will never reliquish the attitude that “what mine is mine and what’s your is mine and if I want it all, it’s mine as well and I will kill any one who stands in my way!”
          Remember, Islam started by conquest and spread beyound the Arabian pennisula to take over lands which were not their’s but controlled by the Byzantine’s (which included all of ancient Israel). So now Israel is back home in its ancestral lands and yet you and your ilk want it all not just the lands of Ismael but Jacobs as well!

          • Taimoor Khan

            Totally wrong. NOBODY needs to be a fascist to oppose occupation of their land through settlements of FOREIGN folks – that is what Israel amounts to! You can’t subject people to thousands years old history – we all came form Africa, initially.

            And secondly, the Palestinians are LOCAL indigenous population which converted to Islam.

            So the reaction in 1948 is COMPLETELY normal. ANY country will do that.

            Suppose it was decided *somewhere* to throw Whites of European ancestry out of America for they are descendants of settlers 500 years ago (as opposed to Palestinians, who are locals). Would American whites just accept it without any hue or cry?

          • mytraintrax

            Actually they were, whites were all driven out of Africa and the land has been handed back to the blacks, and like any nation defiled by islam Africa has turned into one big dung pile, a complete and utter ruin, islam needs to be wiped off the planet period as this is the only way it will be stopped, they give no quarter and should get no quarter..

          • Taimoor Khan

            What if America were to be handed back and whites to be thrown out? Would you agree with that, based on 500 years old history?

            No? Then why should Israel be created based on ancient myths lumped together with assorted facts more than 2000 years ago?

            Double standards? Not so long ago, people like you thought that Jews should be wiped out and there will be peace.

            Now the mentality is the same in the likes of you, the subject of your hatred has changed.

          • mytraintrax

            “Ancient myths”, that’s beyond laughable, your whole theology and your revisionist history prove you are nothing but a worthless liar, nothing out of your mouth is of any value to anyone other than your archaic and degenerate dark ages mohammadan nation, you speak of hate, your whole religious principle, if you can call the dung spewed by the vilest man to ever walk the planet, a religion, is motivated by the denigration of mankind and anything that does not subscribe to that pigs ideology, and you call us haters, if that is what makes a hater, yes I am one and proud of it too.

            I hate the principles of islam, I hate the theology behind islam, and I especially despise the mad disgusting pedophile that brought such a great curse to the planet, a planet that without that swine and his degenerate following would be so much better off, you are one miserable illiterate and deranged sick f@$k, so don’t bother replying as I have absolutely no interest in what you have to say, and from the huge negative response on this site, neither does anyone else so crawl back under your rock and fester in your own worthless self pity and Jew hatred with your worthless islamonazi brethren.

          • heapologiatoutimotheou

            Well, once the Jews arrived in Palestine, the local Muslims, descended from forcibly converted Jewish and Christian Israelites were free to leave their religion and return to the Judaism or Christianity their ancestors worshipped.

            Unfortunately, thanks to the Stockholm Syndrome-like nature of Islam, they decided to fight the Jews returning to their ancestral homeland instead of throwing off the shackles of their oppressive religion and welcoming the newcomers.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Foreign Occupation?

          Arabs invaded and occupied Israel.

          Your Pal-e-SWINIANS are defeated invaders.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          And Palestinians are fighting foreign occupation, which is self-defense, too.

          The Palestinians are waging an aggressive jihad, per the dictates of Islam, on behalf of the greater Islamic world in order to make Islam supreme in Israel, and as such it absolutely isn’t any different whatsoever from the other similar jihads the greater Islamic world is also waging perpetually against many other infidels, like, for instance, the jihads against the Hindus in India, the Buddhists in southern Thailand, and the Christians in the Sudan and Nigeria, among many others as well.

          And I won’t accept your interpretation of Islam!

          Of course, not because to do so for you being a Muslim would be blasphemous, which is a capital offense in Islam. Hence, I can’t say that I blame you. Nevertheless, I still can’t help but feel very sorry for you at the same time, because you are trapped inside the web of a very rabid and aggressive totalitarian cult that intends to conquer the world in order to make Islam supreme, even though it is a backwards 7th century barbaric ideology and as such its impending failure is inevitable. Thus, you are doomed to defeat and there is no way for you to escape it, short of your execution. In other words, it sucks big time to be you.

        • Drakken

          If that is the Islamic mindset, good, we are on the same page then, I hope Israel quits effing around with your fellow muslims and wipes you all out.

    • defcon 4

      HOw many Jews live in Gaza? How many muslo-nazis in Israel?
      Which state is an apartheid state?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Khancer,

      All Infidels have the Right to Resist Islamofascism and jihad..

    • gawxxx

      Islam is the sickness and the cure is “extermination” ,plain and simple.

    • Omar

      Oh, so you justify the attack on Pearl Harbor. Good to see that you support Imperial Japan’s empire before and during World War II. Not. You always justify every atrocity against the West, especially if it is entirely unprovoked. Next, you are probably going to defend Imperial Japan’s “Rape of Nanking” in China during the 1930s. Your mind is probably a f**k*d up place to be. By the way, the mic bomb on Hiroshima caused fewer deaths than the projected amount of deaths if that would have occured had America decided to do a plain invasion of Imperial Japan in 1945. Learn from facts.

    • Puck

      Talmoor Khan says “Palestinians fighting the occupiers.” What occupiers? Jews have lived in Israel including Judea (which is why
      Jews are called Jews) and Samaria for over three thousand years,
      compared to Arabs (from Arabia, that is why they are called Arabs), who
      have lived on the land since their conquest of it in 635 (& Jerusalem in
      637.)

      Who are the real colonists then? Jews of Judea and the rest of
      Israel, which historically is their ancestral homeland, or Arabs of Arabia?

    • heapologiatoutimotheou

      The Arabs are the occupiers of what is clearly Jewish lands. This can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence, as well as by the simple fact that Israel won four wars and a near constant intifada against those trying to take their land back. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. “Palestinians” didn’t even exist before Arafat gave those Arabs occupying Jewish lands that name.

      If you want to see how you can peacefully coexist with the Jewish nation, look at how the Christians do it. No, Christians aren’t welcomed with open arms in Israel, but they can, if they peacefully respect the laws of the land, live and work there without any problems. Israelis aren’t attacking Christians, because Christians aren’t attacking Israelis. The same goes for any other religious minority there. They respect the laws of their host country and are treated respectfully.

      Finally, if for whatever reason Israel ceases to exist, then democracy in the Middle East will cease to exist.

    • Jayceeme

      You cannot occupy your own country odious cretin.

  • Silver Garcia

    Please don’t tell this to Jews. Their real religion is called Democratism and this will only result in arguments

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I am Jewish

    • mytraintrax

      Not quite, real Jews dont believe in Democratism, only fake Jews do, the ones that use the term Jew to drive their liberal agenda, no Torah Jew would do that.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    In her warped and twisted mind, dying in the cause of Allah waging jihad to make Islam supreme in the current infidel state of Israel garners her son an automatic trip to Allah’s carnal paradise, where awaiting him will be 72 dark eyed virgin houris, 72 young virgin boys, (just in case he prefers to go the other way), mansions, and all the wine and spirits he could ever want. He also gets to skip purgatory in the process. Not only that, but if her son dies a martyr in the service of Allah, he will also be venerated as a saint. Indeed, what mother wouldn’t desire for their sons to follow such a path?

    If you want a demonstration why the very idea of a peaceful solution to this xenophobic and genocidal impulse coded into Islam is absolutely hopeless, here is case #56641

    By the way, it’s is absolutely hopeless because per the dictates of mainstream orthodox Islam, Muslims cannot make peace with infidels until they have made those infidels subservient dhimmis, that is until they have been conquered by the forces of Islam and rendered into dhimmitude via the imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    When people call Islamic terrorist culture a death cult, this is what they mean. There is no interest in peace, because these cult members have no interest in life. All of their energies are oriented only toward death; killing and dying.

    That is their religion. That is where Islamic terrorism comes from.

    Islam is not a religion and Muslims are not terrorists. Islam is a very totalitarian cult because it mixes mind control with religion, as the freedom of conscience for adherents to choose not to believe, which is available in all-true faith-based religions, is essentially blocked in Islam since blasphemy and apostasy are capital offenses, making Islam a very rabid totalitarian cult in stark contrast to faith-based religions.

    Meanwhile, waging jihad, i.e., holy war, in one form or another, as opposed to waging terrorism in one form or another, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world, including the millions of Muslim immigrants living over here in the USA, are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists (a tiny minority) or non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists (the vast overwhelming majority). Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. In other words, for those Muslims that don’t wish to participate in the fundamental holy obligation of jihad, their fate is death.

    In any event, if waging terrorism were a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all mainstream orthodox Muslims as opposed to waging jihad, as Mr. Greenfield here naively continues to falsely assert ad nauseum, per his unhinged adherence to PC multiculturalism, which conveniently whittles the entirety of the problem of Islam down to a tiny minority of radical extremists that are perpetrating terrorism, then the millions of Muslim immigrants living here in America, that ostensibly are also non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists, wouldn’t be living here in America today because all Muslims would automatically be assumed to be terrorists, and since terrorism is always and only violent, Muslim immigration would necessarily be banned.

    Indeed, that is why waging jihad as opposed to perpetrating terrorism is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, since jihad in stark contrast to terrorism can manifest both violently and non-violently, while terrorism, on the other hand, is always and only violent.

    As a matter of fact, mass Muslim immigration to the infidel world with all of its excess baggage in reality is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest as opposed to non-violent stealth and deceptive terrorism, which is ludicrous since terrorism is always and only violent, for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest. Indeed, take a look around the world: mass Muslim immigration is an unmitigated disaster for the host infidel countries no matter where it is occurring exactly because Muslim immigrants never ever assimilate and integrate, as that manifestation would constitute blasphemy and blasphemy in Islam is a capital offense.

    • Drakken

      Well I for one say we should give them what they so richly crave, the peace of the grave and a direct visit to allah(devil) with our compliments.

  • Taimoor Khan

    For bigots who can’t see beyond their nose, imagine your country is occupied by foreign force who subjugates your people, steals your resources, destroys your homes, puts restrictions on you, kills your people… Would you not fight against the occupiers?

    Why the heck Washington fought against British? He was also called a terrorist, a miscreant!

    You believe all the world belongs to you that you can go anywhere and plunder, and when the locals fight back, they are terrorist?

    Again, this is sickness! The haughty and self-righteous folks on this website are the most immoral and shameless! They are no different from shameless people on Stormfront, and other hateful sites – they just have a different reason to hate and claim superiority!

    Palestinians are fighting against Israeli occupation, btw.

    • defcon 4

      LOL, “fighting against Israel occupation”. Is that why your fellow islam0nazis in Gaza all too frequently rant and rave about pushing the Jews into the sea, destroying Israel etc.? Is that why your fellow islam0nazis in Gaza persecute and murder Christians? Your bloody lies run thin.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “imagine your country is occupied by foreign force who subjugates your
      people, steals your resources, destroys your homes, puts restrictions on
      you, kills your people… Would you not fight against the occupiers?”

      Are you referring to Turkey, Syria or Bahrain?

    • iluvisrael

      I know how honesty-challenged you muslims are. Why don’t you just admit how you and the invented palestinians really feel – that ALL of Israel is occupied (not just Judea and Sumeria), that there should be no Jewish state in the middle east, and that the mideast should be Judenrein?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Israelis are fighting against Islamofascism and genocidal Islam.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      For bigots who can’t see beyond their nose, imagine your country is occupied by foreign force who subjugates your people, steals your resources, destroys your homes, puts restrictions on you, kills your people… Would you not fight against the occupiers?

      Oh you mean like the Muslims today are doing with respect to the Christian Copts in Egypt and various other Christian groups in Syria, Iraq, the Sudan, in Nigeria, and throughout the Islamic world where Christians have the gross misfortune to live? Oh okay. By the way, you must have an extraordinarily long nose.

      Why the heck Washington fought against British? He was also called a terrorist, a miscreant!

      Only by the enemy, which were the British. Nonetheless, Washington was a freedom fighter, which was evidenced by America subsequently becoming the first country ever in history to be founded on the principles of individual rights to freedom and liberty, the right to equal justice under the law, and the right to the pursuit of happiness for all. Indeed, Washington was elected the first President of the USA.

      Apparently, the Christian God is radically different from the Muslim God, which in reality is a very fictitious God created by Muhammad deviously in order to manipulate people for the acquisition personal power.

      You believe all the world belongs to you that you can go anywhere and plunder, and when the locals fight back, they are terrorist?

      Are you delusional, when has the USA or Israel, for that matter, ever plundered another country? We both have come to the rescue of many nations, including Islamic ones, but that is a far cry from plundering them. Now Islam, on the other hand, conquered, plundered, and subjugated a large portion of the world. Not to mention that they also ran the slave trade for many centuries until the middle of the last century when they were forced to shut it down by the infidel West.

      Again, this is sickness! The haughty and self-righteous folks on this website are the most immoral and shameless!

      Speak for yourself dude, but leveling charges that are obviously false and frivolous doesn’t give you the right to falsely mislabel people as being immoral and shameless. It just demonstrates that you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally deficient at the same time.

      They are no different from shameless people on Stormfront, and other hateful sites – they just have a different reason to hate and claim superiority!

      Actually, Muslims and the shameless people on Stormfront have one thing in common: they both passionately hate Jews, but in the case of Muslims, besides hating just Jews, their hatred extends to all non-Muslim infidels as well. Indeed, Muslims fully intend to subjugate all infidels into harsh and degrading dhimmitude via the imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law concocted by the devil himself, Muhammad.

      Palestinians are fighting against Israeli occupation, btw.

      Not really. To the contrary, they are fighting as proxies on the behalf of the greater Islamic world to make Islam supreme throughout the Arab Peninsular against the tiny infidel state of Israel. Indeed, it is a very aggressive and preemptive jihad being waged by the so-called Palestinians on behalf of Islam and the greater Islamic world.

      • hiernonymous

        “Are you delusional, when has the USA … ever plundered another country?”

        I’m surprised you have to ask that question. The Philippines looms large; after defeating their Spanish colonial masters, Aguinaldo and his liberation army fully expected the U.S. to liberate the Philippines; instead, we embarked on a years-long war of conquest. The history of American intervention in Latin America – and particularly in Central America – is one of enforcing conditions congenial to our commercial interests. On several occasions, we concluded treaties with Native American nations that we then abrogated when commercially lucrative uses for the land we had just guaranteed were discovered – note especially the cases of the Nez Perce and the Lakota. We backed American businessmen in Hawaii, plundering that state without need for open war. We encouraged, then materially supported, the rebellion of the Panamanians against Colombia when we didn’t like the commercial terms the Colombians were offering for rights to the Canal Zone. We engineered the overthrow of Mossadegh – unintentionally setting the stage for the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

        Sure, we’ve also fought wars for more morally sound reasons. WWII, at least in the Pacific, wasn’t quite the crusade of liberation that our mythology portrays, but it was defensible. The interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia were all intended to save lives and prevent atrocities, and they all involved risking lives on behalf of Muslims. So, no, we’re not Satan, but we’re not Michael, the Sword of God, either, and it looks like you could stand to familiarize yourself a bit more with your own country’s history (assuming that you are American) before dedicating yourself so singlemindedly to denouncing others.

        • Omar

          What you posted in the first paragraph is mostly left-wing propaganda. First of all, while America’s policy in the Philippines wasn’t perfect, we eventually gave independence to that country in 1946. Regarding Hawaii, leftists often want people to forget that a. President Grover Cleveland expressed no desire to acquire Hawaii or help the businessmen there whatsoever and b. Hawaii in the early 1890s was an absolute monarchy that repressed the rights of the people of the then-sovereign country. The queen stepped down in 1893 after facing a huge challenge from the local people who did not want to live in an absolute monarchy any longer. The businessmen simply helped out the local people establish their short-lived republic. In 1898, the Hawaiian Republic asked the United States to annex the territory for eventual statehood, which came in 1959. Today, Hawaii is a state of the American Union with full rights and responsibilities for all of its residents, which are U.S. citizens, something that the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico (which is located in the Caribbean) is trying to achieve for its residents, who are also U.S. citizens. Regarding the Panama Canal, the Colombians were denying Panamanians full rights that people in Colombia had. Panama at that time (1903) was underdeveloped and Colombia did little, if at all, to even care a bit about the well being of Panamanians. Furthermore, the Panama Canal made trips between North American ports at opposite coasts muchshorter. For example, a ship travelling between New York City and San Francisco would have to travel about 15,000 miles (travelling around the southern coast of South America [around Tierra del Fuego]) before the canal was constructed. Because of the Panama Canal, the trip between the two port cities is only about 6,000 miles (9,000 miles shorter than the above route). Regarding Iran, I am sick and tired of hearing leftist propaganda about the CIA and Mossadegh. For the record, Mossadegh was not elected prime minister of Iran by the Iranian people. He was appointed to that position by the Iranian parliament, and the Shah (who was already in power at that time) approved and ratified the choice. Also, the coup came not when Mossadegh centralized the oil companies, but when he got into a power struggle with the people who put him in power in the first place (the parliament and the Shah), dissolved parliament and suspended civil liberties. The CIA did not plan the coup against Mossadegh. The anti-Mossadegh coup was planned by the British intelligence agency (the M16), the Shah and the Iranian opposition. The CIA joined the coup effort when it became clear that Mossadegh was a Stalinist/Maoist who wanted to turn Iran into a Communist totalitarian client-state of the Soviet Union and Communist China. It is also interesting and important to note that the Ayatollah and the Iranian mullahs supported and welcomed Mossadegh’s removal from power. The Islamist mullahs viewed Mossadegh as a secular infidel. Which brings me to the revolution in 1979. The Ayatollah and the Islamist mullahs hated the Shah, not because he was autocratic, but because he was secular, pro-Western and he respected women’s rights, including the right to not wear a veil if the women choose not to. When the Shah was ousted (then-U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, and his administration supported removing the Shah from power) and theAyatollah came to power, the mullahs’ reign of terror began. The number of political poners iuring the Ayatollah’s first year in power was 100 times the number of political prisoners under the Shah. Regarding “interventions” in Latin America, I believe you are referring to the Monroe Doctrine, established in 1823. The Monroe Doctrine was established in order to maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Latin American countries,whicha, at that time, were newly independent countries from Spain and Portugal, which wanted to recover some or all of their lost colonies after losing the wars of independence of the early 19th century. The Monroe Doctrine was created in order to avoid a repeat of the War of 1812, in when thein which Britain tried to regain some form of influence over the United States. The Monroe Doctrine was created to make sure that European powers would not be able to re-establish their powerful influence on the Western Hemisphere after centuries of colonialism. Regarding Native Americans, you and the left often ignore the atrocities that other Western Hemisphere countries have inflicted on their indigenous populations. The left also ignores (or supported) the atrocities commited against the indigenous Miskito people by the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua during that country’s civil war in the 1980s. The left also wants people to ignore the constant conflicts between different Native American groups prior to European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. Quit repeating radical left-wing propaganda about U.S. foreign policy.

          • hiernonymous

            “First of all, while America’s policy in the Philippines wasn’t perfect, we eventually gave independence to that country in 1946.”

            Why, yes, we did. And that’s a good thing. How does that change the decision to subjugate and colonize the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, though?

            As far as Hawaii goes, who are you trying to kid? You’re quite right about Cleveland’s reluctance to pursue acquisition; the rest is self-justifying fluff.

            Regarding Panama, again, the hard fact is that we approached Colombia for terms; we didn’t like the terms; and we then used our navy to support an uprising by the Panamanians, with whom we immediately reached a deal. That the Panama Canal was a great idea is irrelevant to the sheer mercenary nature of that operation. OP argued that we act to defend the oppressed – and while that happens, it sure wasn’t our motivation in Panama.

            Regarding the 1979 revolution, the critical element is not why the mullahs hated the Shah – it was why the people hated the Shah, and were so ready to revolt.

            As for Mossadegh, Britain’s objection to him was that he wanted to nationalize their oil company; they took the case to the Hague – and lost. Britain then convinced Dulles that Mossadegh was a communist – which, contrary to your assertion, he was not. He certainly did come to terms with Tudeh – but that’s a far cry from being a “Stalinist/Maoist,” which he most certainly was not. The power struggle you allude to was a direct consequence of Britain’s blockade – yet you want to deny the central role that the oil nationalization played in the affair.

            By the way, you are also wrong about Mossadegh’s electoral status. You don’t seem to be familiar with the way parliamentary systems work, so let me help. As a general rule, one is elected to parliament, and then the party with the plurality is given the opportunity for form a government; most parliamentary systems don’t directly elect a prime minister. This was the case in Iran. Mossadegh very much was elected – to parliament – and was then elected by parliament to be Prime Minister. After said election, the head of state – in this case, the Shah – then appoints him in his position. That’s how parliamentary democracies elect their leaders – that was not simply an undemocratic appointment. That’s also why ministers in Britain submit their resignations to the monarch, even though the monarch does not select them.

            There’s another interesting element to your observation about Mossadegh and the mullahs. Mossadegh initially allied himself with Kashani, whose Fedaiyan provided a power base, but they fell out when Mossadegh showed no signs of being amenable to an Islamic government. In short, Mossadegh had allied with the Islamists without becoming an Islamist. I’ll let you work out the implications of that for his alliance with Tudeh.

            As for the Ayatollah’s rule, I don’t think anyone was suggesting that he was an improvement on the Shah. Rather, the lesson is that our short-sighted intervention in 1953, when we let ourselves jump at shadows and carry out a coup we had no right or business conducting, resulted in a situation that may have been more satisfying to us in the short term, but in the long run proved harmful to U.S. interests.

            Regarding Latin America, no, I’m not referring to the Monroe Doctrine per se, but to our intervention in local politics on behalf of United Fruit, etc, in the early 20th century. If you’re not familiar with them, you can google “Banana Wars” for a primer.

            Not sure how you suppose how the fact that others have also committed crimes against indigenous populations somehow makes our perfidy in the case of, for example, the Nez Perce somehow less a case of plunder.

            “Quit repeating radical left-wing propaganda about U.S. foreign policy.”

            I could no more quite repeating radical left-wing propaganda than I could stop beating my wife. If I ever start, though, you may be sure I’ll consider your advice.

          • Omar

            Almost everything that you said is wrong. First of all, the government of Colombia did not care much about Panama nor the well-being of the Panamanian people. In fact, one of the major reasons why Panamanians revolted was because they wanted self-determination, something that was denied to them, as well as to many Colombians at the time. Ultimately, the Panama Canal benefited the world. Regarding Iran, there was sufficient evidence that Mossadegh was a Communist who was allied with leaders from the Soviet Union and Communist China. He was not elected prime minister. He was elected as a member of the Iranian parliament. The Iranian parliament appointed him to be prime minister and the Shah approved and ratified the choice. The problem with the left is that it acts as if Mossadegh was directly elected prime minister by the Iranian people, when it is obvious that he was not. Also, I have already stated that the coup came, not when Mossadegh centralized some oil companies, but when he got into a power struggle with the Shah and the Iranian parliament, dissolved the very parliament that put him in power in the first place and suspended civil liberties. Time magazine even had an article on Iran from 1952 in which Mossadegh was quoted as saying “Call me dictator”. Mossadegh, himself, admitted that he was an authoritarian wannabe. If the conflict was really about centralized property, why wasn’t Nehru overthrown as prime minister of India? The difference was that Nehru was never a Communist puppet, while Mossadegh was. That is undeniable. Regarding the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Islamist mullahs simply exploited the Shah’s unpopularity for political gain. Why don’t you talk about the sins of the Soviet Union, Communist China and other Communist countries during the Cold War. Why don’t you talk about how Communists in those countries falsely depicted the democratic opposition as “fascists” and “Nazis”. Why won’t you talk about the evil Iron Curtain? It is because you hate democracy and support Communist totalitarianism. Fact-check.

          • hiernonymous

            Regarding…
            …Panama: it doesn’t really matter why the Panamanians revolted; what matters is why we supported them. We did so to create a new negotiating partner, not to ‘liberate’ the Panamanians.

            …Mossadegh: again, not sure what it is about parliamentary democracies that you don’t understand. Parliamentary democracies generally do not directly elect the prime minister; they elect members of parliament, and the party with the plurality is charged with forming a government from among those elected ministers. Mossadegh was very much elected to parliament, and that elected parliament elected him to become prime minister – which election was then approved by the head of state in the form of the Shah.

            You’re trying to divorce the crisis in Iran from its proximate cause; the ongoing British blockade was the cause of the Iranian economic crisis, and it was the ongoing economic crisis that caused the tension within the Iranian government – and that blockade was a direct expression of Britain’s displeasure over the nationalization of its oil company.

            Not sure how you can claim that it is “undeniable” that Mossadegh was a communist puppet, when it’s quite clear from his relations with the Fedaiyan that he could and did ally with other parties and elements for short-term gain without being co-opted by them. He did not create an Islamist state for the Fedaiyan, and he did not create a Communist state for the Tudeh. That was the boogeyman that Britain used to frighten Dulles into cooperating with its scheme, and it was quite successful.

            And, frankly, even if Mossadegh had been a Communist, that wouldn’t have justified the coup.

            “Why don’t you talk about the sins of the Soviet Union, Communist China and other Communist countries during the Cold War.”

            Because, at the moment, there are no Russians trying to revise their history to make themselves blameless for their past foreign policy mistakes and crimes.

            “It is because you hate democracy and support Communist totalitarianism.”

            Now you’re simply raving.

        • Drakken

          The fact that you so openly side with and spew the leftist propaganda that the west is bad and everything of the 3rd and Islamic world is virtues really doesn’t endear you to the side of the west now does it? The fact that we saved those islamist in Bosnia and Kosovo was a mistake and now those regions are a cesspit of criminal activity and the Islamic jihadist is ready for another go round in Bosnia.

          • hiernonymous

            “The fact that you so openly side with and spew the leftist propaganda that the west is bad and everything of the 3rd and Islamic world is virtues really doesn’t endear you to the side of the west now does it?”

            That you believe I’ve done either says more about your struggle with our mother tongue than anything else.

    • Veracious_one

      “Occupation”? What “occupation”? All the territories the Israelis now possess are theirs by legal right — the right conferred by the League of Nations Mandates Commission, when it carefully defined the territory which would be set aside, from the vast territories in the Middle East that had formerly been in the control of the Ottoman Turks as part of their empire, and which had been won by the Allies. An Arab State, a Kurdish State, and a Jewish state were all promised. The Arabs got their state — no, in the end, they got far more than their state but rather, in 2005, 22 members of the Arab League, the most richly endowed with natural resources of any states on earth, enjoying the fruits of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history The Kurds did not get their state, because by the time things had settled, Kemal Ataturk was driving a hard bargain and would not permit it. The Jews got the Mandate for Palestine set up for the express purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home, which would inexorably become, all parties realized, in time a Jewish state. It did not seem wrong then, and does not seem wrong now, that the Jews should have a state of their own. They asked only for the right to have no barriers put up to their immigration, and no barriers put in the way of their buying land. That was it. That was the sum total of what they demanded. Until the 1948 war, when five Arab armies attacked, not a single dunam of Arab-owned land (and remember that nearly 90% of the land, in any case, remained the possession of the state or the ruling authority, as in the Mandatory period) was appropriated. No one should dare to write about this subject without having done the research on demography, land ownership, and law.

      The Israeli claim to the West Bank (as Judea and Samaria were carefully renamed by Jordan after 1948, in precisely the same way, and for the same reason, that the Romans, nearly two thousand years before, had renamed Judea as “Palestine” and Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina) is not that of a military occupier, though it is also that. The main legal and historic claim is that based on the League of Nations Mandate, which in turn, was based on a considerable historic and moral claim recognized by the educated leaders of the then-civilized world, who actually knew something of the history of the area, and were not nearly as misinformed as so many have been by the mass media, and the laziness and prejudice of journalists today.

      The notion of “occupation” of course evokes imagines of Occupied Paris, or Occupied Berlin, after the war. It implies no justification for the claims of the power with the military presence. But the claim of Israel to the lands it took in 1967 are based, for the Sinai, on the standard rules of post-war settlement, the rules which have obtained for centuries, whereby a victor in a war of defense keeps what he has won. If the Israelis chose not to, or were forced not to exercise that right, it does not mean that the right did not exist. It did, and it applies even more forcefully to Gaza and the West Bank. But the claim there is not based merely on the successful conquest of territory to which otherwise Israel had no claim. It did have a claim, a claim based clearly on the Mandate for Palestine — and like all the other League of Nations Mandates, was formally accepted, taken over as it were, by the United Nations when it came into being. This is a matter of record. It cannot be undone.

      Whatever else one wishes to say about the West Bank or Gaza, the word “occupation” is a tendentious, and cruel, misnomer. What it seeks to imply, what it seeks to implant in the minds of men, is clear: Israel has no rights here. This is nonsense. This is the very reverse of the truth. Read the Mandate, and the Preamble to the Mandate, for Palestine. Then read the records of the Mandates Commission — and especially how they reacted when the British unilaterally announced that the terms of the mandate would not be applied to Eastern Palestine — that is, the consolation prize given to Abdullah of the Emirate of Transjordan.

      Read it, and understand it.

      • hiernonymous

        Do I understand from your post that you are asserting that acts of the League of Nations and the United Nations carry the force of international law, as it were? That you acknowledge those organizations as the voice of international law and legitimacy?

        • heapologiatoutimotheou

          Well, they’re not social clubs that meet for golf.

          • hiernonymous

            Make sure you understand the question before engaging the snark.

    • heapologiatoutimotheou

      Heck, if the invaders of America could run the country better than Obama, I might even welcome them. A smart person would keep his head down and obey the laws of whichever group is running the country if he wants to keep his house, though.

      Arabs are fighting Israeli ‘occupation’ because they’re incensed that non-Muslims would dare take back their lands from the Muslim conquerors. It’s why they still lay claim to Spain and Romania, just because a group of Muslim conquerors held those lands for a short time.

      I’ll bet an Israeli ‘occupation’ would be a lot more endurable than a sharia-backed Muslim ‘occupation’. Israel isn’t exactly beheading those who leave Judaism, amputating limbs from thieves, stoning adulterers, or extorting protection money from non-Jews (i.e. jizya).

  • Taimoor Khan

    Naz!s called Jews devoid of humanity and vermin – you are an exact carbon copy, aren’t you?

    • john spielman

      the above only refers to those who adhere to the religion of death and darkness where killing and being killed for Allah/Satan can fast tract one to its drunken brothel in the sky!

      • Taimoor Khan

        Similar beliefs were held by Naz!s against Jews.

        • Bklyn Farmer

          Nazi like many Arab nationalist leaders – from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east – not only sympathized with the Nazis but cooperated with German agents before and during World War 2. The most outstanding Arab Nazi collaborator, however, was the leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Haj Muhammud Amin el-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem. Husseini made energetic efforts to further the mass murder process by preventing the emigration of Jews from the Axis domain. He petitioned the governments of Axis Croatia, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria, as well as their patrons in Germany and Italy, and neutral Turkey, to prevent Jews from leaving the Axis zone.

          Palestinian Arab families, Khalidis and others besides Husseinis, took SS training and visited the Sachsenhausen murder camp. Besides helping to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the SS – who later went out to hunt down partisans and slaughter Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies – he also recruited Soviet Muslims to collaborate with the Nazis.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Also by everyone else against the Nazis

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Similar beliefs are held by Sand Nazis against Jews.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Muslims call Jews the sons of apes and pigs. I guess we know where the Nazis got it from.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Khancer,

      Arab/Muslims call Jews devoid of humanity and vermin, “the sons of pigs and dog” – you are an exact carbon copy.

    • mytraintrax

      The biggest problem with your whole pathetic hypothesis is in two of the greatest icons in Israel, one that proves islam is an insatiable liar and its ideology and existence are morally bankrupt and devoid of any truth whatsoever, and this fact is proven without question by the sight of the pedophile temple that sits atop the temple mount, right on top of Salomon’s Jewish temple that was their and existed a thousand years before the heathen pedophile soiled the planet with his foul presence, it proves without a doubt that the land belonged to the Jews first, before the filth of islam was puked into reality.

    • Jayceeme

      What sort of monster are you to endorse child abuse of the worst kind. Sacrificing your own children on the alter of Islamic fundamentalism

  • Taimoor Khan

    Israelis should just quietly move within pre-67 borders, let the refugees come back to their homes, and let Palestinian state be formed.

    Or, give citizenship to all people living in Palestine and make one-state which gives equal rights to both peoples.

    Simple, eh? But Israel wants to somehow throw the Palestinians out and claim the land, and this Naz!-like racist policy is behind the delay in any solution – NOT Palestinian “extremism”!

    All this demonization of Palestinians is done to steal their land, right?

    Shameful, no?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Is that the solution you would accept for India and Pakistan?

    • Bklyn Farmer

      So typical of the anti-Semite to employ holocaust inversion (Israel = Nazi).
      Palestinians were invited in 1964 by an Egyptian named Arafat. Palis have their own country, it’s called Jordan but they need to destroy Israel out of religous obligations, which I am sure you are familiar with.

  • mytraintrax

    This makes you wonder just how pathetically narcissistic our liberally educated society is, when appeasement trumps their own and the survival of that of their offspring, no other society on earth, not even in the animal kingdom thrives on hate like the muslims and nazi’s do, they are the only degenerate garbage that propagate hate as a doctrine and a theological ideology and then demand that good people find them acceptable.

    These miserable defilers of humanity seem to forget history and the west’s ability to wage war on them until they no longer exist, and there will come a time in the not to distant future when the abomination of islam will push the envelope to far and the west will challenge their onslaught on our freedoms with our inalienable right to free choice and our natural ability to survive and beat them into oblivion.

  • Rob

    Geert Wilders for President of the World!!!

  • jernewm

    This should be shared with all who justify the violence by Palestinians. There are Palestinian voices for peace, but their voices seem to be quiet and they often live in fear. Israel, sadly, has some voices that also work against the possibility of peace, but not like this. I only hope that those who justify boycotting Israel and condemn Israel see why Israelis sometimes act the wa they do. Support those who seek a peaceful resolution and shout down the voices who speak in this article.

  • Tim

    Palestinians ought to start acting like humans if they value human rights.

  • tickletik

    Did anyone else notice the irony of the sign in the photo? Every single statement on their applies to us, and NOT to them. For example, “end Israeli apartheid” – apartheid is a system by which ethnic groups are separated from one another.

    But we don’t exclude anyone! It is the Arabs in the Arab-occupied territories that exclude Jews! There are plenty of Arab villages in Israel, how many Jewish villages or even Christian villages are there under the PA?

  • formallyknownasbabaali

    In this article Daniel, you are spot on.

  • Hard Little Machine

    someone should knock her out and strap a bomb to her. Speed her along the way.