Perpetual Impunity in Syria

US arms Syria militants, risking more bloodshedRussia and China vetoed a proposed United Nations Security Council resolution on May 22nd which would have referred the widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Syria to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The draft resolution, submitted by France and co-sponsored by 65 countries, sought to hold Syrian government authorities, pro-government militia and opposition “non-State armed groups” accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. Despite the balanced nature of the resolution and its focus on accountability of both sides to the conflict for their actions, Russia and China chose by their vetoes to effectively perpetuate impunity. This is the fourth time that both countries have used their veto power as permanent members of the Security Council to thwart various efforts by the Security Council over the last three years to deal with the worsening crisis in Syria.

Since Syria is not a State Party to the ICC, the court has no jurisdiction of its own over crimes committed in Syria. Either Syria itself must refer the situation to the ICC, which is not about to happen, or there must be a referral from the Security Council.

Before the vote, Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson said in remarks delivered on behalf of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

Since the outbreak of the war in Syria, I have persistently called for accountability for perpetrators of grave human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Security Council has an inescapable responsibility in this regard. If members of the Council continue to be unable to agree on a measure that could provide some accountability for the ongoing crimes, the credibility of this body and of the entire Organization will continue to suffer.

The Security Council failed to meet this responsibility because of the double veto.

China’s representative explained China’s decision to veto the resolution as a reflection of its concern for preserving the principle of national sovereignty and its concern that a referral to the ICC at this time would make negotiations of a political settlement even more difficult than it already is. This assumes that negotiations, which are already going nowhere in any event, and accountability for commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity are mutually exclusive. There is no such dichotomy. Parties on both sides of the conflict have flagrantly violated an earlier Security Council resolution passed last February, which had called for both sides to enable unfettered access for humanitarian relief to reach those in need. These violations occurred during the Geneva peace negotiations and after their suspension. They will go on and on unless perpetrators of serious crimes against the civilian population have reason to believe that they may be held to account for their actions.

Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin minced no words in his statement explaining Russia’s veto. He also rationalized that peace amongst the various factions in Syria is first needed before there can be accountability. However, he went further in accusing Western powers of endlessly escalating the conflict. He questioned France’s motives in presenting the resolution in the first place when it knew that the resolution would be vetoed. Ambassador Churkin surmised that France might have been looking for a pretext for further armed intervention to help the opposition including jihadists, a theme picked up later by Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari in his remarks to the Security Council. Ambassador Churkin added that previous referrals to the ICC approved by the Security Council, namely regarding Darfur and Libya, achieved very little.

As the Security Council meeting proceeded, Ambassador Churkin and French UN Ambassador Gérard Araud exchanged barbs and accusations. In one such volley by Ambassador Araud, to which Ambassador Churkin did not directly respond, Ambassador Araud accused his Russian counterpart of engaging in “chutzpa” when Ambassador Churkin had said that France was seeking an excuse for armed intervention. “Russia has never stopped supplying arms to Syria,” Ambassador Araud observed. He then said that France would support an arms embargo but did not think that Russia would support such a proposal. Ambassador Churkin was silent on that point. Toward the very end of the Security Council meeting, Ambassador Churkin baited Ambassador Araud by stating: “My French colleague does not sound very convincing.” Ambassador Araud responded in kind: “Only those who wish to be persuaded are persuaded.”

Ambassador Araud later expressed to reporters his revulsion at the vetoes: “There is a moment when you realize you are powerless in front of barbarians and their supporters.”

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power focused on condemning Russia in particular for its veto.  “Sadly, because of the decision by the Russian Federation to back the Syrian regime no matter what it does, the Syrian people will not see justice today. They will see crime, but not punishment.”

Ambassador Power personalized the issue of accountability. She asked a victim of the atrocities in Syria, Qusai Zakariya, who was sitting in the Security Council chamber gallery, to stand up while Ambassador Power recounted the horrible impact of last August’s chemical attack this victim had witnessed firsthand:

His eyes afire, Qusai’s heart stopped and he was left for dead until a friend stumbled upon him and realized he had again begun breathing. Qusai recounts his bewilderment as he watched neighbors suffocate, friends panic, and families perish.  He remembers the face of a 13 year old boy just a few feet from his home…the expression on this 13 year old’s face was the most terrifying thing Qusai has ever seen, as white foam streamed from his mouth and death crept in.

Several non-permanent members of the Security Council who voted for the resolution expressed support for an idea floated by France to reform the veto process. The five permanent members would be asked to agree to guidelines under which they would voluntarily refrain from using their veto on resolutions involving measures to address acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. While reasonable in principle, the problem is that the machinery of the Security Council could then be abused, much like the UN Human Rights Council, to single out Israel for special condemnation while protecting countries with far worse human rights records. Indeed, Syrian UN Ambassador Ja’afari signaled just such an approach in his remarks to the Security Council. Trying to deflect attention from the 160,000 plus fatalities and millions displaced in his own country, Ambassador Ja’afari lashed out at Israel’s “war criminals” “occupying” the Golan Heights. He left out the fact that there has been relative calm for decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, until just recently due to clashes near the ceasefire line during Syria’s civil war. That was not so before Israel took control of the Golan Heights.

Indeed, from 1948 to 1967, when Syria controlled the Golan Heights, it used the area as a military stronghold from which its troops randomly shot at Israeli civilians in the valley below, sending children scurrying to bomb shelters. In late 1966, a youth was blown to pieces by a mine while playing football near the Lebanon border. The Soviet Union vetoed a 1966 Security Council resolution deploring such incidents “as well as the loss of human life and casualties caused by them.”  The resolution simply invited the Government of Syria “to strengthen its measures for preventing incidents that constitute a violation of the General Armistice Agreement” and urged both Syria and Israel “to refrain from any action that might increase the tension in the area.” Even this bit of pablum was too much for the Soviet Union to swallow.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia is continuing the Soviet Union tradition, still protecting the Syrian regime from accountability for its crimes against civilians. The people of Syria and the credibility of the UN Security Council are the casualties.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

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

  • Chiron_Venizelos

    Whom should be held accountable? Assad, no doubt, but let us never forget the crimes committed against Syrians by al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hammas, and that those acts of terrorism were aided and abetted by 0bama, who funded the known and sworn enemies of the United States. (See Article III – Section 3 of your Constitution!

    • RMThoughts

      “Aided and abetted by Obama”. Obama is not a country to be held accountable the United States of America is! We have blood on our hands.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

      All of what you said would not have happened if not for the meddling of Vladimir Putin…who is an actual enemy of the USA. Standing back and doing nothing ensures a Russian victory.

  • Harry_the_Horrible

    As long as it isn’t us (Americans) it isn’t our problem.
    But, at a guess, “The Losers.”

  • Hard Little Machine

    The longer it stays the Vietnam War of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, ISIS and the rest, the better it is for all of us.

  • drthomasedavis

    Party Politics in action, or it might be said, Liberal politics and No Action.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Other than infidels, there are no civilians in Syria, as waging jihad is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Thus, all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    Meanwhile, when Muslims attack infidels they don’t make any distinctions between combatants and non-combatants or between males, females, the elderly, and children. All are targeted. Likewise, when they subjugate infidels, they don’t just render into dhimmitude only the males. All infidels, males, females, the elderly, and children, are rendered into harsh and degrading dhimmitude.

    Since Muslims are the aggressors, you need to view Syria through the eyes of Muslims.

    Furthermore, Muslims won’t ever abide by Geneva Conventions, as those are manmade infidel laws that have been superseded and abrogated by Islamic totalitarian law, i.e., Sharia, which is divine.

    As a matter of fact, Islamic totalitarian law supersedes all inferior manmade infidel laws since it is divine. Thus, there were no crimes against civilians in Syria, because technically there are no Muslim civilians. Islamic totalitarian society is not the same as infidel society, so stop treating it like it is.

    Indeed, in Syria, other than rescuing infidels and providing them with refuge, we should hope and pray that the jihad last for as long as possible.

    As a matter of fact, most people on both sides of the political spectrum don’t understand that both nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were extremely fantasy-based and idiotic, as lifting up Muslims amounted to lifting up our enemies, and that’s utterly insane!

    Instead of lifting up Muslims, we should be rendering them into total abject poverty. Why? So they will be incapable of waging jihad. People need to understand that Muslims are our mortal enemies! Including the millions already residing here in the USA.

    • hiernonymous

      “I’m not very politically correct.”

      Forget “politically,” you’re just not correct. Your demented views on “jihad or be executed” simply does not reflect Islam as it is practiced throughout the Muslim world. That you use your bizarre view to try to establish that there “are no civilians” makes plain that your objective is dehumanizing those you see as the enemy.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        So says the Marxist Muslim apologist. You are a perfect example of why I’m extremely worried about the US military. You are part of Antonio Gramsci’s long march through our institutions. Indeed, even the Republican Party today has been hijacked and co-opted by the Marxist totalitarian left. Thus, to you I’m an extremist because I happen to believe in our constitution and in traditional American culture and values.

        • hiernonymous

          “I’m also not an unhinged loon…”

          Your posts and your avatar notwithstanding.

          “Thus, to you I’m an extremist because I happen to believe in our constitution and in traditional American culture and values.”

          Why, no, that’s not why I think you’re an extremist. I think you’re an extremist because of your obsession with painting all Muslims as jihadists.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            As opposed to your obsession with painting all Muslims as oppressed innocents who just want to impose Sharia on the pagan Infidels.

            Do you work for CAIR?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Waging jihad in one form or another is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon every Muslim in the world, per the texts and tenets of Islam. Furthermore, if a Muslim openly refuses to wage jihad in one form or another, per the texts and tenets of Islam, that Muslim will be found guilty of blasphemy, and blasphemy in Islam is a capital offense. Likewise apostasy in Islam is also a capital offense. Thus, any Muslim that refuses to fulfill his or her fundamental holy obligation to wage jihad in one form or another isn’t a Muslim, but a blasphemous apostate instead that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

            Hey, don’t get pissed off at me, as I didn’t create the very rigid rules and regulations of Islam, as Islam obviously is not a religion but a very totalitarian cult instead masquerading as being a religion to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels exactly like you.

            Now this is not to say that some former Muslims have been lucky enough to escape death by quietly escaping to the infidel world, but those people are no more Muslim today than you and me. However, it is interesting to note that when those former Muslims living in the infidel world try to sound the alarm about Islam, they are branded by the Marxist totalitarian left as being Islamophobes. How convenient. You apparently just don’t like the truth when that truth happens to be unpleasant.

            Meanwhile, still waiting for you to point out that population of Muslim immigrants that have actually assimilated and integrated into productive and contributing members of infidel society, but so for still only hearing crickets. Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.

          • hiernonymous

            “Hey, don’t get pissed off at me…”

            I don’t. You don’t make me angry; I just find you bizarre.

            “Meanwhile, still waiting for you to point out that population of Muslim immigrants that have actually assimilated and integrated into productive
            and contributing members of infidel society, but so for still only hearing crickets.”

            That simply indicates that you do not read what’s written to you, and that you hear only that which you choose to hear, which comes as no surprise. At the time I’m posting this, your post is 6 hours old; the post in which I answered your silly question is 8 hours old. Fellow poster “Screw Socialism” even offered a post in rebuttal an hour before you posted this.

            If you have this much trouble managing a simple one-on-one correspondence, it’s no wonder you find yourself relying on oversimplification and regurgitation when it comes to following religious dogma.

            “Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.”

            Since you posted this two hours after your question was answered, that’s probably a wise choice.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            At the time I’m posting this, your post is 6 hours old; the post in which I answered your silly question is 8 hours old. Fellow poster “Screw Socialism” even offered a post in rebuttal an hour before you posted this.
            If you have this much trouble managing a simple one-on-one correspondence, it’s no wonder you find yourself relying on oversimplification and regurgitation when it comes to following religious dogma.

            Unfortunately, where my responses to your posts are concerned, every day is not a Saturday for me like it is for you. I’m not retired. I own and operate a business and my postings are always very rushed affairs done between tasks. I wish I had more time, but I don’t, and that often leads to posts with incomplete information contained in it. But what can I do? Indeed, it’s sort of like debating you with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it interesting.

          • hiernonymous

            “…every day is not a Saturday for me like it is for you.”

            Come again?

            “But what can I do?”

            Wait until you have enough time to post intelligently. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Your demented views on “jihad or be executed” simply does not reflect Islam as it is practiced throughout the Muslim world.

        So all of those Muslims executed in the Islamic totalitarian world for apostasy and blasphemy are part of my over active imagination? Not to mention, that you also don’t have a clue what all constitutes jihad.

        Indeed, that pregnant Sudanese Christian women who married an American and who has been condemned to 100 lashes and execution for apostasy by the Sudanese government as soon as she has her baby is part of my imagination too.

        Just because you are incapable of seeing it, doesn’t mean I’m not seeing it.

        That you use your bizarre view to try to establish that there “are no civilians” makes plain that your objective is dehumanizing those you see as the enemy.

        Never mind the fact that the twin curses of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy are used extensively to control the minds and actions of all Muslims.

        • hiernonymous

          How many apostates has Egypt executed over the past, oh, half century? Jordan? Oman?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Egypt hasn’t been a full Sharia state, so the state hasn’t executed any. Nevertheless, many apostates in Egypt have lost their lives to Muslims during that time in any event. Nonetheless, because Egypt’s strongmen through the years have tried to rule somewhere in between the Islamic totalitarian world and the infidel world, there is a large population of Marxist totalitarian leftists in Egypt that led the revolution against Mubarak. Indeed, had not the MB been ousted in Egypt when it did, those Marxist totalitarian leftists inevitably would been forced to convert to Islam or be killed, exactly like what happened in Iran after the Ayatollah hijacked the revolution from the Marxist totalitarian left in that revolution. So it is a good thing the military acted to oust the MB when it did. Not to mention that something like 89 percent of Egyptians believe apostates should be killed according to the polls.

            Your problem is your inculcation into Marxism prevents you from seeing that Islam is not a religion at all. Indeed, what religions kill all who apostatize from it or commit blasphemy? The answer is none of them. What religions have as their sole fundamental purpose the subjugation of all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Islamic totalitarian law to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world? Again, the answer is none of them. Although all Muslims consider Islam to be their religion, the reality is Islam is not a religion but a cult, a very totalitarian cult.

            Nonetheless, since mass Muslim immigration has been occurring throughout the infidel world since in the 1970s thanks to the Euro-Arab Dialogue, which is the conspiracy that turned Europe away from Israel, name just one place in the infidel world where Muslims have actually assimilated and integrated and matriculated into contributing and productive members of their new host infidel society? Again, all I will hear when I ask you this question is crickets, because you obviously don’t have the first clue. Thanks for playing nonetheless!

          • hiernonymous

            “Indeed, had not the MB been ousted in Egypt when it did, those Marxist
            totalitarian leftists inevitably would been forced to convert to Islam
            or be killed…”

            Well, wait – Morsi was in power for quite some time. You’re suggesting that he was compelled by Islam to kill apostates. He had the means to do so. Yet – not a one. Similarly, Jordan is not an Arab Socialist revolutionary state a la Syria, Egypt, or Iraq. It’s a traditional monarchy and has, in the past, even had its Islamists forming the king’s government. It’s the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, for Pete’s sake – if you don’t understand the implications of that, you don’t need to be commenting on the Middle East. If neither Hussein nor Abdullah ever got around to executing an apostate, that’s a pretty clear suggesting that Jordanian Muslims don’t agree with your view of the centrality of enforcing religions fidelity through execution. And, again, in Oman, there was no military dictatorship or ‘leftist’ rule of any sort. The Omanis are Ibadis, the branch of Islam descended from the Khawarajim, the first group of Muslims to leave mainstream Islam because the others were not adhering closely enough to the word of the Prophet. If the Sultan has managed to rule the Ibadis without resorting to such executions, that also rather undermines your contention.

            The military dictatorship that took over from Morsi has passed over 1,000 death sentences, and you’re okay with that, apparently, because you’re pretty sure that Morsi, someday, somehow, would have gotten around to doing something that you have no evidence he ever intended to do. That’s zealotry, not analysis.

            “Your problem is your inculcation into Marxism prevents you from seeing that Islam is not a religion at all.”

            Yeah, I’ve heard all this before. Let’s just note that Islam has been universally considered a religion since long, long before Karl was a gleam in Heinrich’s eye. I can say with some confidence that considering it a religion is not evidence of being a Marxist.

            “…name just one place in the infidel world where Muslims have actually
            assimilated and integrated and matriculated into contributing and
            productive members of their new host infidel society?”

            The United States.

            “Again, all I will hear when I ask you this question is crickets, because
            you obviously don’t have the first clue. Thanks for playing
            nonetheless!”

            One trusts that you don’t make your living as a seer. Or as an analyst.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “…name just one place in the infidel world where Muslims have actually assimilated and integrated and matriculated into contributing and productive members of their new host infidel society?”

            “The United States.”

            LOL!

            You conveniently forgot the blink sheik and his co-conspirators of the 1993 WTC truck bombing, the terrorist mosque in Brooklyn, nidal hassan of the Fort Hood massacre, the “paleswinian” assassin of US Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the nation of islam cult and their celebration of the Long Island Railroad shooter, the Times Square SUV bomber, celebrations of the 9/11 sneak attack in Patterson New Jersey, death threats against writer Salman Rushdie, the threats to build an “Islamic Cultural Center” just footsteps from WTC Ground Zero, CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations – LOL!), Empire State Building shootings, Brooklyn Bridge shooting.

            There are many more Islamic attacks on America that can be found with Google.

            Take a look at how Islamists live their lives in Eurabia too. They import their Islamist beliefs to Eurabia and act out in horrific ways.

            7/7/05 London transport bombings.

            heirnonymous, how do you benefit from your obvious lies?

          • hiernonymous

            Hmm – so, by your logic, Eric Rudolph, et al, demonstrate that the Christians aren’t contributing and productive members of our society, either?

            You need to examine your logic.

            “heirnonymous, how do you benefit from your obvious lies?”

            How do you benefit from your simpleminded paranoia?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Eric Rudolph? That’s the best you can do?

            Compared to the onslaught of Islamist terrorism in the US and World Wide?

            The flooding of mosques in the US with wahabbist materials from Saudi Arabia that demonize Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bahais, which group is over represented in attempts to blow up passenger planes mid flight with bombs hidden in their sneakers, underwear and in cargo holds as in Pan Am 103, threats from which group has necessitated the banning of liquids in carry on luggage on planes, which group had a devout follower cut the throat of Lee Rigby in the UK, which group bombed London transport on 7//7/05, which group issued a death sentence on writer Salman Rushdie, which group threatens Europe with 9/11 scale attacks?

            How do you benefit from your simple minded cries of “islamophobia”?

            The evidence is overwhelming. Islamism is at War with the entire world. The question is why “progressives” defend ultra conservative Islamism. That’s an odd marriage.

          • hiernonymous

            “Eric Rudolph? That’s the best you can do?”

            When a single example is sufficient to establish the principle, is there reason to offer more?
            Still, if you want to break down all of the violence committed in the world by the faith of those committing it, I suppose we could take a stab.

            “The evidence is overwhelming. Islamism is at War with the entire world. ”

            I wouldn’t disagree with that. Where you’re running into problems – and, by the way, the implicit answer to your final question – is that “Islamism” and “Islam” are not synonyms.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            >”The evidence is overwhelming. Islamism is at War with the entire world. ”
            > I wouldn’t disagree with that.

            Why do “progressives” side with Islamists – ignoring Islamist treatment of gays, women, education for girls, dress codes for men and women?

            It would seem that “progressives”: would be opponents of conservative Islamism – rather than defenders.

          • hiernonymous

            Examine your premises.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I’ll “see” your example (Eric Rudolph) and see you

            - the blind sheik and the rest of his gang of the 1993 WTC truck bombing
            - Boston Marathon bombing

            - the Times Square SUV bomber
            - the Fort Hood shooter – nidal hassan
            - the Empire State building shooter
            - the Brooklyn Bridge shooter
            - louis farraklan and his nation of islam cult
            - “palestinian” assassin of US Senator Robert F. Kennedy
            - CAIR
            - 2005 bombing of London transport by British born Muslim – their being Muslim was not incidental

            - beheading of Lee Rigby in London
            - open threats of 9/11 scale attacks on the UK and Europe

          • hiernonymous

            In the U.S. in 2012, there were 14,827 murders. If every act of Muslim violence directed at Americans were compressed into a single year – including the 3000 or so killed on 9/11 – it wouldn’t come close to even half the violence we conduct on a routine basis. If you’re trying to argue that Muslims are more violent than Christians, the body count doesn’t seem to back you up.

            As for your list:

            You apparently were unaware that the “‘Palestinian’ assassin of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy,” Sirhan Sirhan, was a Christian, not a Muslim.

            It’s not clear what “CAIR” is on your list for. How many people have they killed?

            Which Empire State Building shooter are you talking about? The Palestinian in 1997, or the Japanese-American in 2012?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Still, if you want to break down all of the violence committed in the world by the faith of those committing it, I suppose we could take a stab.

            Excuse me, but I have never heard of one Christian waging war in the cause of Christ to make Christianity supreme, while every Muslim in the world is a jihadists in one form or another waging jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme.

            No wonder you blame the idiotic concept of blowback for various violent jihad attacks against America, while also at the same time ignoring the astronomically far more prevalent forms of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage to the infidel world.

            You are demonstrating for me why it is very important that the manifestation of jihad (holy war) be distinguished from the manifestation of terrorism, because the two manifestations are not even remotely similar. Muslims are jihadists, not terrorists! I know the so-called MSM calls jihadists terrorists, but the so-called MSM are leftists and as ignorant of Islam as you are.

          • hiernonymous

            “…and as ignorant of Islam as you are.”

            What is the source of your understanding of Islam?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            It’s holy texts, history, and practices. You think I’m making all of this up?

          • hiernonymous

            I’m wondering just how you came by your acquaintance with said holy texts, history, and practices.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            For years I read everything I could get my hands on both good and bad. Not to mention that at the same time I also read countless articles and papers as well. I also participated in a yearlong class once that included among other things reading the Koran. At one time I had copious notes that I had made over the years, but unfortunately lost them when my laptop and my backup hard drive were destroyed as a result of an accident.

          • rt90k

            The head-scratching alliance you point out suggests, to me, a common hatred of the God of the bible by both groups, which unites them.
            It is also true that Islam and progressives are united in war with capitalism.
            Muslims are at war with the world, but those who name the name of Christ know that Muslims will not win the war against God.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Hmm – so, by your logic, Eric Rudolph, et al, demonstrate that the Christians aren’t contributing and productive members of our society, either?

            You need to examine your logic.

            Only a Marxist totalitarian leftwing moonbat could be so illogical that he would actually morally equate the acts of Eric Rudolf with the acts of Muslim jihadists. However, Eric Rudolf was a kook first of all, and what he did is absolutely unequivocally rejected by all Christians. I mean I challenge you to show in the religious texts of Christianity where what he did is condoned, much less encouraged.

            Meanwhile, waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme is not only a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another, the subjugation of all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia is the sole fundamental purpose of Islam in order to make Islam supreme throughout the world.

            Eric Rudolf regretfully perpetrated terrorism because he was terribly misguided, but all Muslims, on the other hand, wage jihad (holy war) as opposed to terrorism because it is mandated in Islam.

            As a matter of fact, the two situations are not even remotely morally equivalent or even similar in any respect, and this is why it is imperative that we learn to distinguish jihad (holy war) from terrorism, because the two very different and distinct manifestations are not one and the same thing. It is very important to distinguish between the two very different manifestations so that delusional Marxist totalitarians like you and also Ron Paul kooks can’t make the same idiotic mistake you just made.

            Indeed, the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were not America’s chickens coming home to roost, i.e., blowback, because of American imperialism or because of America’s interventionist foreign policies as the self-hating left and Ron Paul kooks both idiotically allege. Instead, the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were acts of jihad (holy war), as opposed to terrorism, perpetrated in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme.

          • hiernonymous

            “Indeed, the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were not America’s chickens coming home to roost, i.e., blowback, because of American imperialism or because of America’s interventionist foreign policies as the self-hating left and Ron Paul kooks both idiotically allege. Instead, the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were acts of jihad (holy war), as opposed to terrorism, perpetrated in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme.”

            If America’s foreign policy has nothing to do with it, then it’s interesting that 1) Muslim terrorists did not start targeting the U.S. until after its foreign policy took a turn for the interventionist in the Middle East, and 2) that the 9/11attacks were directed against the U.S. and not, say, Brazil, which is even more infidelish than America, or Japan. Why wasn’t AQ flying planes into the Forbidden Palace or the Kremlin?

            Have you ever actually read Milestones and The Neglected Duty?

          • Joseph Klein

            Have you ever read the words of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams describing their meeting with the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli and his rationale for attacking American ships?

            “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

            The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

            http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0315
            Jihad then and jihad now – nothing has changed, going back to the earliest days of Islam.

          • hiernonymous

            And were the Barbary Pirates actually waging jihad? Were they taking prisoners in order to spread the faith? Because if they were simply engaging in piracy, and using religion as a dressing for their activities? Sounds to me like that same sort of stock answer that might have a Christian explaining that he was despoiling villages and enslaving Incas for the purpose of spreading the Word of Christ.

          • Joseph Klein

            The difference is that jihadists are still seeking to impose their religion on everyone else just as the Tripoli ambassador told John Adams and Thomas Jefferson back in 1786. Islam has not gone through any major internal reform in its central tenets and methods as Christianity has.

          • hiernonymous

            The major reform in Christianity vis-a-vis the imposition of corporal punishment for spiritual transgressions was not internal to Christianity, but imposed on it as a result of the Enlightenment, and is not dissimilar to the regimes found in Muslim countries where secularism is similarly ascendant. Religious fanatics of any religion will find reasons that God needs them to employ the tools of coercion.

            As for the ambassador’s words, can one imagine a historian two centuries hence producing Bush fils’ speeches declaring concerns over WMD and state support of terrorism and accepting that those were the reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq? Have you read Hitler’s justification for the invasion of Poland?

            Selective credulity is a hallmark of propagandizing, not thoughtful analysis. I ask again, were the actions being justified to Jefferson remotely connected to the spread of Islam?

          • Jospeh Klein

            The Reformation preceded the Enlightenment period, which in any case did influence the concept of separation of church and state which does not exist in most Muslim majority countries. The leading Islamic countries today such as Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shiite) are anything but secular. The answer to your question regarding the actions being justified to Jefferson is obviously yes.

          • hiernonymous

            The Reformation did precede the Enlightenment; but it was not the Reformation that reined in the power of the Church.

            Could you be more specific in the case of the Barbary Pirates? How were the actions taken aimed at spreading Islam, as opposed to simply enriching the corsairs? You’ll note that the reason the Barbary Pirates were so feared and effective was that a number of European privateers and pirates decided to operate out of Tunis and other Barbary ports. It was an Englishman who decided to try his luck out of those ports that introduced the square-rigged ships and heavy armaments that made the pirates so effective.

            Here’s an interesting snippet from a review of a recent book on the pirates:

            Tinniswood, the author of several works of English history, explains
            that for all the talk of a confrontation between Christianity and Islam,
            the most notorious corsairs were European renegades who had learned the
            trade on “privateers,” or private warships commissioned by a government
            to prey on enemy merchantmen. European wars tended to drag on for
            decades, providing a stable living to privateersmen — but whenever peace
            arrived, as it periodically did, it threw thousands of these
            professional sea warriors on hard times. Not surprisingly, many turned
            pirate. In the early 17th century, the Mediterranean swarmed with pirate
            ships manned by blue-eyed Caucasians who spoke English, Dutch or
            Cornish. In Barbary, they found convenient bases to outfit their ships,
            as well as ready markets for their booty and slaves. Tunis, especially,
            was an international rogues’ gallery in which Arabs, Berbers and other
            African nomads assimilated with Turks, Greeks, Spaniards, Italians,
            Dutchmen, Englishmen and ethnically Greek or Balkan Janissaries, elite
            soldiers who owed allegiance to the Ottoman throne. In mid-17th-century
            Tunis, the lofty posts of pasha and dey were variously occupied by a
            Greek, a Venetian, a Genoan, a Corsican and an Albanian. The supreme
            admiral of the Tunisian fleet was often a European outcast. Their
            descendants were born into Islam, and their bloodlines ran together. Who
            were these people?

            Fatefully, the European outcasts brought previously unknown seafaring
            expertise to the business of Barbary piracy. In the prior century, the
            corsairs had gone to sea in galleys propelled by oars. The renegades fit
            out state-of-the-art sailing ships that could spread terror well beyond
            the Strait of Gibraltar, and they often returned to the waters they
            were familiar with — off Ireland, Britain and Northern Europe — where
            the sea lanes offered no shortage of fat, opulent targets. They even
            found bases of support in western Ireland, where stolen cargoes could be
            bartered for weapons and provisions and the seaports offered “a good
            store of English, Scottish and Irish wenches.”

            A few pirates grew homesick and tried to bribe their way back into the
            law’s good graces. One almost sympathizes with the English pirate
            Richard Bishop, who declared, “I will die a poor laborer in mine own
            country, if I may, rather than be the richest pirate in the world.” King
            James I of England, despairing of stopping the corsairs’ marauding
            along his shores, issued a blanket pardon to all his subjects who
            returned to the fold. Whatever their crimes, the pirates possessed
            coveted skills, and it was better they should serve their country as
            privateersmen or naval officers than remain corsairs or (worse) auction
            their services to a rival crown. One pardoned ex-pirate, Henry
            Mainwaring, became a pillar of English society. He was knighted, elected
            to Parliament, appointed vice admiral of the navy and hired onto the
            Oxford faculty as a “doctor of physic.”

            (Entire review found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Toll-t.html?_r=0)

          • Joseph Klein

            Interesting but entirely beside the point.

            Simply take a look at the Koran itself, cited by that Muslim ambassador more than 200 years ago, to understand the source of the jihadist ideology that drove him and that we are still fighting today.

            Here is a sample:

            • “Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them.” (Koran, 2:191)

            • “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other.” (Koran 5:51)

            • “Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? Those [the Jews] whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into monkeys and pigs because they worshiped the powers of evil.” (Koran 5:60)

            • “[F]ight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Koran, 9:29)

            • “When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah’s word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly.” (Koran, 17:16-17)

            Apologists argue that the Koran also contains verses calling for tolerance and understanding. If the verses written while Muhammad was living in Mecca, where he and his followers were then surrounded by much stronger non-Muslim populations, constituted the entirety of the Koran, they may have had a point. However, the milder verses were superseded by the far more war-like and intolerant verses written during Muhammad’s time in Medina where he successfully launched his jihad of conquests against non-believers, especially against Jews who refused to convert to Islam. Moreover, when one examines the real meaning of jihad according to Muhammad from other primary sources such as Bukhari (the Hadith, which are oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad), the fact is that 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about so-called inner struggle.

            Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian author, educator, and the leading Islamic scholar who was a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and ’60s, wrote:

            “It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries to continue the lordship of some men over others and does not extend its message and its declaration of universal freedom within their domain. But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah, which will be guarantee that they have opened their doors for the preaching of Islam

            Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom.

            Those who say that Islamic Jihaad was merely for the defense of the “homeland of Islam” diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”

          • hiernonymous

            The problem with getting one’s education in Islam from Internet lists of selected quotes is the same a trying to understand Christianity from a list of quotations chosen by someone with an axe to grind. I recently showed how quoting a verse in Leviticus and the Matthew verse in which Jesus announces that he did not come to replace the laws rather nicely “proves” that Christians are obligated to execute adulterers.

            Sayyid Qutb was most emphatically NOT “the leading Islamic scholar.” He wasn’t an Islamic scholar at all. He was a teacher and civil servant who personally reinterpreted Islam, applying the Leninist idea of the Vanguard of the Proletariate to an Islamist context to lay out a revolutionary prescription for Egypt. This is an important point: most of the leading philosophers of radical Islamism were and are not Quranic or otherwise religiously trained scholars. Quoting Qutb on this topic is like quoting Karl Marx on capitalist economies; it’s fine as long as you understand you’re reading a revolutionary, not a representative of the mainstream as you’ve implied here.

            It was Qutb, by the way, who articulated the “near enemy / far enemy” construction that dominated violent Islamist thought until bin Ladin rejected it and decided to confront the far enemy directly.

          • Joseph Klein

            Too many jihadists reading the literal words of the Koran act on them to advance by force or stealth their supremacist world view. There is simply no basis for comparison today with Christianity or any other religion for that matter. If we were debating the comparative level of abuses that occurred hundreds of years ago in the name of different faiths, that might be another matter. But today the violence and persecution perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah against “infidels” (which may include other Muslims not sufficiently pure, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and atheists in addition to Jews and Christians) stands alone in breadth and intensity. If you don’t see it, you are simply turning a blind eye.

            In dismissing Qutb, are you also dismissing the Muslim Brotherhood of which he is considered its intellectual iinspiration? Are you dismissing his multi-volume work “In The Shade Of The Qur’an?” http://www.kalamullah.com/shade-of-the-quran.html

            But if you reject Qutb, what about Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who was listed as fourteenth out of 500 of the world’s influential Muslim figures, according to a study released by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center and the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University?
            See also http://themuslim500.com/profile/sheikh-dr-yusuf-al-qaradawi

            Here are some of this eminent Muslim scholar Qaradawi’s views on Islam:

            1. Qaradawi’s Anti-Semitism and Call for Genocide Against the Jews:

            “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers (January 2009 speech which aired on Al Jazeera).

            “The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah…. [Allah] will not allow these people [Jews] to continue to spread corruption in the land. We wait for the revenge of Allah to descend upon them, and Allah willing, it will be by our own hands (January 2009 “Gaza Victory Rally” in Qatar).”

            2. Qaradawi Supports Death Penalty for ‘Public’ Apostasy:

            “Major apostasy, which the apostate proclaims and openly calls for in speech or writing, is to be, with all the more reason, severely punished by the death penalty, according to the majority of scholars and the apparent meaning of the Prophet’s hadiths…Apostates who call for apostasy from Islam have not only become disbelievers in Islam but have also become enemies of Islam and the Muslim nation. They, by doing so, fall under the category of those who wage war against Almighty Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land…Islam lays down this severe punishment in order to protect its unity and the identity of its community. Every community in this world has basic foundations that are to be kept inviolable, such as identity, loyalty, and allegiance.” (April 13, 2006, “Apostasy: Major and Minor”).

            3, Qaradawi Believes Women Are Inferior to Men and May Be Beaten ‘Lightly’ by Their Husbands:

            “Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife, and accordingly it is not permissible for her to rebel against his authority, causing disruption. Without a captain the ship of the household will flounder and sink. If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands avoiding her face and other sensitive areas.” (August 1960 “The Lawful and Prohibited In Islam”)
            With all due respect, I’ll have to take the word of Qaradawi and Qutb over yours when it comes to interpreting the Koran. And their interpretation meshes quite well with that of the Tripoli ambassador more than 200 years ago explaining the obligations of jihad to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams

          • hiernonymous

            And, again, you’ve selected a fringe extremist for your attempt to show what “typical” Muslims believe. 2,500 Muslim academics signed a petition to the UN asking them to stop extremist clerics, and they specifically named Qaradawi among them. He’s certainly bigoted against Jews and takes some very extreme stances, but he’s hardly representative of mainstream Islam.

            Here’s my question to you: if you’re making the case that Islam is a certain way, why are you turning to the fanatics and extremists for your support? If you’re genuinely interested in what Muslims believe, why don’t you turn to, say, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi of al Azhar? What you’re going is like turning to Pastors Fred Phelps and Terry Jones for an understanding of what Christians believe, instead of turning, say, to the Pope and the college of cardinals. The existence of fringe extremists among any clergy isn’t evidence of the beliefs of the mainstream religion.

            “With all due respect, I’ll have to take the word of Qaradawi and Qutb over yours when it comes to interpreting the Koran.”

            No doubt you prefer to turn to extremists who support your preconceptions. Qaradawi, at least, is an actual cleric, though a famously exremist one; no amount of “all due respects” on your part can turn Qutb into anything other than a revolutionary layman.

          • Joseph Klein

            The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre , an independent research entity affiliated with the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, ranks Qaradawi as one of the top 50 most influential Muslim leaders in the world and describes him this way:

            “Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is a preeminent Egyptian scholar. Articulate and widely read, he is one of the most famous scholars of Islam.”

            What you call his “extremist” views are extremist by contemporary Western standards to be sure, but are not viewed that way by Muslim thought leaders who see him as one of their most influential living scholars. He represents in their view mainstream interpretation of the Koran.

            As for Qutb, he was no layman, whether or not he can be considered a revolutionary. As described in the Guardian: “His major work is Fi Zalal al-Koran (In the Shadow of the Koran), a commentary on the Koran in 30 volumes which began to appear in 1952 and was completed in prison. Apart from its length, two things are striking about the commentary: first, Qutb’s unfailing sensitivity to the Koran’s literary qualities; secondly, Qutb’s relentless insistence on the unconditional demands made upon those believers.”
            His writings influenced the Muslim Brotherhood as well as al Qaeda.
            Again, with all due respect, Qutb and Qaradawi written with more credibility in the Muslim world about what jihad requires under the Koran than the revisionist spin you are trying to portray.

          • hiernonymous

            Qaradawi is indeed influential. He is articulate and intelligent. He is also an extremist, and is recognized as such among Muslims as well as in the west. For example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290132/posts

            You can find other Muslim scholars carefully expressing respect for Qaradawi in general while noting that they have differences with him in particular matters. He is virulently anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli. It is support for Qaradawi that is, at least in part, responsible for the tensions between Qatar and it’s Gulf neighbors.

            Regarding Qutb, writing prolifically about one’s personal take on Islam is not a substitute for formal education in religious doctrine. As on example, he stood the concept of jahiliya on its head, declaring that it was not an era but a state of being, and that by extension self-professed Muslims whom Qutb considered insufficiently pure could be classified as non-Muslim and legitimately targeted for violence. It’s a clever construction and the work of an intelligent and active mind – but it’s not Muslim doctrine.

            You didn’t answer my question. If you are, in good faith, seeking to understand what Islam’s doctrines actually are, why do you not turn to mainstream clerics such as Tantawi, and mainstream centers of doctrine such as al Azhar?

            There’s plenty to criticize and be wary about when it comes to Islam, but you can’t solve problems if you aren’t trying to understand them honestly. Better to read Qutb and Qaradawi as the fringe elements they are, and to try to understand why they have broad appeal in the region, without pretending that they represent the Islam of the great masses of Cairo and Amman and Damascus.

          • Jospeh Klein

            Qaradawi has a following of millions of Muslims as witnessed by his reception in his return to Cairo for a speech and his radio show listenership.
            You mean the same Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi who said about Jews: “[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness.”

            The same Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi who in 2002 said that Jews are “the enemies of Allah, descendents of apes and pigs.”

          • hiernonymous

            “Qaradawi has a following of millions of Muslims as witnessed by his reception in his return to Cairo for a speech and his radio show listenership.”

            Yes, he does. I said he is an extremist. I didn’t say that he is not a popular extremist.

            “You mean the same Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi who said about Jews: “[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness.”

            The same Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi who in 2002 said that Jews are “the enemies of Allah, descendents of apes and pigs.””

            Yes, I mean that Tantawi. I’m taking issue with the contention that Islam is uniquely violent, and with the portrayal of Islamists such as Qutb as representative of mainstream Muslim doctrine. I’m not trying to argue that anti-Semitism isn’t deeply ingrained in Egypt, nor would I argue that there are no mainstream clerics who defend such anti-Semitism on religious grounds. (It’s also the same Tantawi who, the next year, issued the directive not to call Jews “monkeys” or “pigs” anymore. If you’re trying to figure out whether Tantawi was speaking from personal prejudice or religious conviction when he made the comment you cite, consider the alacrity with which he abandoned that position when the MFA asked him to back off.)

            Again, the question is whether you are willing to make a good-faith effort to understand Islam as it is generally practiced.

          • Joseph Klein

            The religious rituals of five times a day prayer, siyam and the like are not the issue. Jihad as a mainstream doctrine in Islam connoting holy war is the issue. You keep using arguments to divert from this issue.

            First you claimed that the Muslim terrorists did not start targeting the U.S. until “after its foreign policy took a turn for the interventionist in the Middle East.” I pointed out that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had reported more than 220 years ago that the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli had explained to them in response to their inquiry that Muslims’ war on nations “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” You dismissed this, without any evidence, as just a rationale for piracy.

            Then you tried to argue moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam in terms of acts of violence, ignoring that such acts continue all over the world in the name of Islam and jihad today while that is not true with any other religion today. The only “reformation” that Islam has gone through, as ObamaYoMoma correctly pointed out, was between the Meccan Period and the Medinan Period “when Muhammad became consumed with revenge and turned to politics and jihad, and in the process reformed Islam at the same time from what was once a religion similar to other religions of the time, into what it is today.”

            When I quoted multiple passages from the Koran to illustrate the meaning of jihad and the Islamist supremacist ideology, you dismissed them as cherry picking. When I cited Qaradawi, recognized as one of the most influential Muslim scholars alive today (I provided a source for that assessment), for his interpretations of the Koran on apostasy, treatment of women and call for genocide of Jews, you dismissed him as an extremist. You denied that he represented “the Islam of the great masses of Cairo and Amman and Damascus.” When I pointed out that Qaradawi has millions of followers, as demonstrated by his huge audiences for his radio show and his speech in Cairo, you responded “Yes, he does. I said he is an extremist. I didn’t say that he is not a popular extremist.”

            You suggested that I take a look at what Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi had to say to understand mainstream Islamic scholar thought. I did and found that he was an anti-Semite, which he defended on religious grounds, a point you conceded but tried to explain away.

            Here is more regarding Tantawi:Al-Azhar from an Al-Azhar report in 2002:

            “The great Imam of AlAzhar

            Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, demanded that the

            Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [i.e. suicide

            attacks] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the

            highest form of Jihad operations. [Tantawi] says that the young people executing them

            have sold Allah the most precious thing of all. emphasized that every martyrdom

            operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate

            act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment…”

            Jihad is an inherently supremacist, political ideology which incorporates violence and stealth tactics of infiltration to spread Islam as widely as possible with the ultimate objective to create the universal caliphate. In hadith collections, for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare. The two leading Muslim states based on sharia law, Iran (Shiite) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) espouse the supremacist ideology of jihad. The Sufi’s concept of jihad as moral self-improvement is the exception rather than the rule.

            In sum, you are in denial.

          • hiernonymous

            If the issue is simply the position of jihad in Islam, and nothing else, then I am at a loss to understand the posts you’ve made on wholly unrelated topics. Why the discussion of Tantawi’s comments about Jews?

            That said, a few general comments. You have made and alluded to the verses of the Medina period that enjoin Muslims to distrust Jews and Christians. I have spent a great deal of time wandering the hinterlands of the Arab Muslim world, alone or with a single companion, and have been universally met with kindness and generosity. When I was in Israel, and the van I was driving would not fit in the hotel’s garage, the Israeli at the front desk was rude and dismissive: “you’re in Tel Aviv, there are many parking lots, find one.” There was a young Arab man minding the lot to a private business across the street, so I went to ask him where the nearest public lot might be. He smiled, told me that one of his employers was gone for the week, and let me park there, for free, and he would not accept any money. He was simply being kind. Strangers in Siwa have helped me free a mired vehicle, in Cairo to jury rig a jack, in Ma’adi have fed me, in Salalah have escorted me when lost, in Yemen have taken their days to guide and explain. At the Church of the Nativity, my wife was turned away by the Zchristian keepers because her skirt was too short; an old Muslim man brought her a wrap and gave it to her so that she could visit a holy site of her religion, and would accept neither money nor the wrap back.

            Yet you, having glanced through the Quran and selected some verses, inform me that Islam requires its followers to treat Christians with distrust and as enemies. What am I to conclude? That you have stumbled on the essence of Islam, and that, year after year, I have statistically improbably met only Bad Muslims? Or is it just possible that your approach is not sufficiently complete?

            Many Christian preachers in the antebellum American South justified slavery by quoting the Bible selectively and insisting that blacks were properly singled out. Would someone quoting those preachers and their selected verses have accurately identified the nature of Christianity thereby — or the nature of many Southern Christians?

            As for the “reformation,” don’t play the secularization of the west as a Christian virtue. Religion lost the power struggle with secular power in Europe, and the Peace of Westphalia was as instrumental there as the Reformation. The process has started in the Middle East, arguably with Ataturk and then with the Arab Socialists, but the struggle is by no means over.

            I’m off to a medical appointment, so must stop here. Regards.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You are an extremely gullible useful idiot infidel.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hiero, like every Islamic apologist, fails to mention who was behind the “2,500 cleric petition”, what country the majority of those clerics were from and what their agenda was.

            I’m help him out. They were from Saudi Arabia and its various puppets in the region which has its own agenda when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood.

            The Saudis aren’t against extremist clerics.

            They’ve produced most of them.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            The problem with getting one’s education in Islam from Internet lists of selected quotes is the same a trying to understand Christianity from a list of quotations chosen by someone with an axe to grind.

            First of all, stop morally equating Islam with Christianity, because Islam is not even a religion to begin with. Moreover, there are no Christians waging jihad against infidels all over the world the same way only Muslims alone have been doing for almost 1400 years perpetually.

            Furthermore, there are two periods in Islam, the Meccan Period and the Medinan Period. The Meccan Period is the early period of Islam when Islam was a peaceful religion modeled off of several other religions of the time. The Medinan Period is the period following the Hijra (migration) in 622 AD, after which Muhammad and his early followers had been cast out of Mecca by the Meccans and were forced to migrate to Medina.

            At that time Muhammad became consumed with revenge and turned to politics and jihad, and in the process reformed Islam at the same time from what was once a religion similar to other religions of the time, into what it is today, which is a very totalitarian cult with the sole fundamental purpose of subjugating all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

            Meanwhile, the doctrine of abrogation, which is universally accepted throughout all of Islam, holds that the latter issued verses of the Koran abrogate, supersede, and replace the earlier issued verses of the Koran they conflict with. Thus, all the earlier peaceful verses of the Koran that originate from the Meccan period have been abrogated, superseded, and replaced by the latter issued sword verses of the Koran they conflict with and that were issued by Muhammad during the Meccan period. Indeed, those list of selected sword verses you mention are from the latter Medinan period and command Muslims to wage jihad against infidels until such time as Islam is made supreme.

            Moreover, Muslims also love to cite peaceful verses of the Koran from the Meccan period to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels into believing that Islam is a so-called “religion of peace.”

          • Joseph Klein

            Very well said. We may not always agree on the precise terminology to use, but your account here of the “reformed” version of Islam that defines Islam jihad today and the doctrine of abrogation is spot on.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Islam has not gone through any major internal reform in its central tenets and methods as Christianity has.

            Why do people naively believe that Islam can be reformed like Christianity? Just because Christianity underwent a reformation, doesn’t mean Islam can too.

            In any event, it can’t be reformed for numerous reasons, one of which is because Islam today is not even a religion. Of course, it is their religion, but when closely examined by non-Muslims it obviously is a cult, a very totalitarian cult. Of course, Muslims don’t know that. Hence, it is their religion.

            Nonetheless, Islam did undergo a reformation already shortly after the Hijra, when Muhammad and his early followers were cast out of Mecca. As a result, Muhammad became obsessed with revenge and turned to politics and jihad, and in the process reformed Islam from what was once a religion modeled off of several religions of the time into what it is today, which is an extremely totalitarian cult that has as its sole fundamental purpose the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme. Indeed, it is Muhammad’s revenge.

            Do you think that if GWB had understood what Islam actually is that he would still have occupied Afghanistan and Iraq for the idiotic reasons he did?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Are you sure you are not a Euroloon? Because you seem to be as unhinged as they are when it comes to hating Christianity, while apologizing for Islam.

          • hiernonymous

            Eh? What in the world makes you think that I hate Christianity?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Anyone who repeatedly denigrates Christianity by repeatedly morally equating it to Islam, which is not even a religion, obviously must hate Christianity.

          • hiernonymous

            You, and most who frequent this site, repeatedly claim that Islam is uniquely violent. A most logical response to such a contention is to provide counterexamples. Nothing about doing so in any way suggests “hatred” of anything or anyone.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Mention the word Islam or Muslim to a Euroloon, and they immediately start vilifying and demonizing Christianity based on a very false history. Your first reaction is to do the same thing. Of course, while the Muslims want to replace our constitution with Sharia, the Marxist totalitarian left wants to replace it with Marxism, but both ideologies are exceedingly bankrupt. Anyway, to do that both Marxists and Muslims must destroy Christianity and along with it traditional American values and traditions. Hence, your unhinged obsession with denigrating Christianity is subconscious.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            If America’s foreign policy has nothing to do with it, then it’s interesting that 1) Muslim terrorists did not start targeting the U.S. until after its foreign policy took a turn for the interventionist in the Middle East, and 2) that the 9/11attacks were directed against the U.S. and not, say, Brazil, which is even more infidelish than America, or Japan. Why wasn’t AQ flying planes into the Forbidden Palace or the Kremlin?

            The only Muslim terrorists that exist, exist within the recesses of your unhinged mind. You see Muslims aren’t terrorists. They are jihadists instead waging jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah against infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme.

            Moreover, jihad (holy war) manifest by any and all means necessary, both violent and non-violent. As a matter of fact, astronomically far more jihad manifests today via non-violent means as opposed to violent means. Although, the infidel world is totally obsessed with stopping only the violent variety of jihad, because like you it misconstrues it as being terrorism, and at the same time that it is also oblivious to the manifestation of non-violent forms of jihad. Which is a very fatal mistake because the non-violent varieties of jihad relative to the relatively few violent jihad attacks that are misconstrued as being terrorism, represents an exponentially far greater threat to our world.

            Indeed, through mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, which is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest, several European countries will start becoming Islamic majority countries beginning in about 25 years, and when that happens, those states will inevitably become Sharia totalitarian states. While the Euroloon infidels at the same time will be rendered into harsh and degrading dhimmitude.

            1) Muslim terrorists did not start targeting the U.S. until after its foreign policy took a turn for the interventionist in the Middle East

            You have Ron Paul Disease of the brain. It’s a very serious mental ailment, as it not only causes one to become stupid as heck, it causes self-hatred as well. Nevertheless, Muslims have been waging jihad against infidels perpetually since shortly after the Hijra in 622 AD. It may have not been very noticeable during the 20th century because Islam had become very weak and decrepit relative to the Western infidel world, it still existed nonetheless on a much smaller scale.

            Today, thanks to the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from Western coffers to Islamic coffers as a direct result of our dependence on foreign Middle East oil, Islam has been able to make a very miraculous resurgence and along with that rejuvenation we see Muslims now resorting to their age old tactics of waging jihad against infidels on a much larger scale than was the case throughout the 20th century.

            Why not Brazil? Islam is very much waging jihad against Brazil through mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, which is really stealth and deceptive jihad. Your problem is like a self-hating loon you see Muslims as being terrorists reacting to “capitalist imperialism” or “America’s interventionist foreign policies”, which is utterly absurd and extremely hilarious, as that lunacy ignores the long and very well established history of Islam. Besides, Brazil isn’t the world’s superpower like the USA.

            Moreover, the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was first of all because of Islam’s miraculous resurgence in recent years and also because OBL saw us as the Great Satan. If the Islamic totalitarian world can destroy the Great Satan, which is Islam’s biggest obstacle in the way of it attaining its goal, it can subsume the world. Not to mention that our Presidents and our foreign policies since the Reagan administration have all been incredibly incompetent, which made us appear to be very weak in the eyes of our enemies, and, of course, also emboldened our enemies at the same time of which OBL, of course, was one of them.

            As for as flying jets into the Kremlin goes, it was the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan that made OBL believe that if the Mujahideen can destroy one of the world’s greatest superpowers, then it surely can defeat the other one too.

            Have you ever actually read Milestones and The Neglected Duty?

            I’ve read the former a long time ago, but not the latter.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Well, wait – Morsi was in power for quite some time. You’re suggesting that he was compelled by Islam to kill apostates. He had the means to do so. Yet – not a one.

            When Morsi and the MB were ousted in Egypt, they were in the process of consolidating their power. They still had not achieved total absolute power in Egypt yet, but were getting closer and closer all the time, and when they did, those Muslim apostates that constitute the Marxist totalitarian left in Egypt, would have ended up in the same boat the Marxist totalitarian left ended up in Iran during the Iranian revolution, that is dead. There is no way that Morsi and the MB would allow such infidel rivals to survive in an Islamic totalitarian state. Luckily Al Sisi saw the writing on the wall and courageously decided to act to stop the blood bath that was about to ensue before Morsi and the MB were able to achieve that total absolute power.

            Similarly, Jordan is not an Arab Socialist revolutionary state a la Syria, Egypt, or Iraq. It’s a traditional monarchy and has, in the past, even had its Islamists forming the king’s government. It’s the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, for Pete’s sake – if you don’t understand the implications of that, you don’t need to be commenting on the Middle East. If neither Hussein nor Abdullah ever got around to executing an apostate, that’s a pretty clear suggesting that Jordanian Muslims don’t agree with your view of the centrality of enforcing religions fidelity through execution.

            First of all, the only Islamists that exist, exist within the recesses of your own deluded mind, as all Muslims are jihadists. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates and blasphemous apostates are executed. Which is why there aren’t any in the Islamic totalitarian world.

            Nevertheless, Hussein and Abdullah were/are not true Muslims and they have ruled Jordan, like I said, somewhere between the infidel world and the Islamic totalitarian world. Indeed, they have managed to walk a very fine line in that regard to maintain power and control. It is also the reason why they are considered by most Muslims today to be apostate rulers. The same also applies with respect to the Oman rulers.

            Not to mention that Islam has seen a resurgence in the past few decades, as it took a long time for it to recover from the extensive damage done to it as a result of WWI and its relative weakness compared to the West. Thus, when you look at pictures of Muslims from the 60s and 70s, Muslim men had no beards and Muslim females wore no head coverings. However, that’s not the case today. Virtually all males grow beards and a Muslim female without a head covering today is begging to be raped. In other words, Islam has reestablished its grip firmly and today controls every aspect of life down to the smallest details, as Islam is exceedingly totalitarian.
            Let’s just note that Islam has been universally considered a religion since long, long before Karl was a gleam in Heinrich’s eye.

            The only thing you Marxist totalitarians know about religion is that you hate it, except for when it is similarly totalitarian. In any event, you are not exactly an authority on what constitutes religion. By the way, Islam is totalitarian exactly because it is not a religion but a cult. Indeed, what true religions also uses the twin curses of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy, to control the minds and actions of its adherents down to the smallest details? The answer is none of them.

            Furthermore, what true religions require the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for apostasy and blasphemy of all adherents? The answer again is none of them.

            By the way, the “will of Allah” that all Muslims totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for apostasy and blasphemy in essence is Sharia and Sharia is Islamic totalitarian law.

            Moreover, the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Islamic totalitarian law (Sharia) in order to make Islam supreme throughout the world. Do any true religions have similar aspirations? Again, the answer is no, as Islam is obviously not a religion but a cult instead. That’s not to say though that to Muslims Islam is a religion. Indeed, it is their religion, but for any infidel gullible enough to view Islam as being just another religion, then that gullible infidel will deserve what he or she may end up getting.

            The United States.

            I don’t know what you are smoking but here in the US of A, as everywhere else in the infidel world, Muslims are not assimilating and integrating, but instead forming what are Muslim enclaves that in time will inevitably morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia, exactly as they have everywhere else in the infidel world where mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage has been occurring for a much longer time than over here in the good ole USA. As a matter of fact, the very act of assimilation and integration into an infidel society for a Muslim would constitute a very grave and very serious act of blasphemy, and again blasphemy is a capital offense in Islam.

            Indeed, as in everywhere else in the infidel world, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage to the USA is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. They don’t migrate here to assimilate and integrate into American infidel society. Instead, they migrate here to eventually dominate and subjugate.

            As a matter of fact, had GWB had a conservative brain as opposed to the delusional pea sized leftist brain he actually had, instead of nearly doubling the size, scope, and power of the federal government via the creation of the massive Department of Homeland Security and the enormous National Intelligence Directorate in response to the 9/11 violent jihad attacks, he would have simply banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage and sealed the borders at the same time, and the country would have been exponentially far safer than it is today and for a small fraction of what the expansion and maintenance of it cost. Indeed, the only way to prevent violent jihad attacks here in America, and anywhere else, for that matter, is to completely ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP on the grounds that it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad.

          • MorganValerioyse321

            like
            Tiffany answered I’m dazzled that a student can get paid $8962 in 1 month on
            the internet . you could check here C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Salman Rushdie still has a death fatwa on him and he is very concerned for his safety.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        By the way, I salute your honored service on behalf of this country. While I may not think highly of your views and opinions, especially since they are more than just a little naive, I do, however, appreciate the sacrifices you made in preservation of our freedom and liberty. Thanks again!

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I also should have mentioned as well that to Sunnis, the Shias are infidels, and to Shias, the Sunnis are infidels, and the fundamental sole purpose of Islam is to subjugate all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism in order to make Islam supreme, either Sunni Islam or Shia Islam, but not both of them.

  • American1969

    The UN is a joke. It’s a completely useless organization. If they really were concerned about human rights, they wouldn’t have allowed countries like China, Russia, and Iran on it! WTF? As usual, they will do nothing about the genocide in Syria or other nations, but condemn countries like Israel for defending their right to exist.
    Time to stop funding the UN and tell the to go find another piece of real estate, preferably in the EU.

  • hiernonymous

    “While reasonable in principle, the problem is that the machinery of the Security Council could then be abused, much like the UN Human Rights Council, to single out Israel for special condemnation while protecting countries with far worse human rights records. ”

    Translation: we want a way to end the ability of Russia and China to shelter their clients via their P5 vetoes while retaining the ability to shelter ours.