Why Must We Be Silent in the Face of Such Outrages?

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Pretty accurate. Why DO we pander and tip toe around some of the worlds most violent people? Why is it that people are so afraid to offend someone they cant call a spade for what it is? When will the world wake up and realize theres a very large subset of the Islamic religion that wants the entire world converted or killed, and will stop at nothing to accomplish that?

Click

Why Must We Be Silent in the Face of Such Outrages?

By Adrian Morgan

The past week has seen three incidents demonstrating Islamists? total hatred for Christianity and the values of the West. On Wednesday, April 18 in Malatya, central Turkey, three Christians were tied up, tortured for up to three hours, and then had their throats slit. Two of the victims, Ugur Yuksel amd Necati Aydin, were Turkish, and the other was a German national, Tilmann Geske. Their crime was to be Christians, working for Zirve, a publishing house which prints Bibles.

Four people were arrested at the scene. The suspected leader of the killers, 19-year old Emre Gunaydin, had thrown himself from a window to escape arrest, sustaining head injuries in the fall. On Saturday, Gunaydin?s girlfriend was also arrested. Malatya is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, who tried to murder Pope John Paul II in 1981. Even though both Turks who died on Wednesday had abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity, Ugur Yuksel was buried as a Muslim.

Thousands of miles away on Jolo island in the southern Philippines, seven Christians were taken hostage by Muslim terrorists last Monday. Their kidnappers belonged to the group Abu Sayyaf, which has links with Al Qaeda and also the pan-Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah which has enacted numerous atrocities, including the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002, in which 202 people died, and of October 1, 2005, in which 20 people died.

The Abu Sayyaf group has a reputation for hostage-taking. It also has a reputation for decapitating hostages. The leader of Abu Sayyaf on the island of Jolo is Radullan Sahiron, a one-armed man who rides a horse. This individual would be easy to identify, but because he beheads local people whom he considers to be "spies", no one informs on him, and he has so far escaped arrest. He has a 5 million-peso bounty on his head, worth $89,000 US.

On Thursday, April 19, the severed heads of five of the Christian victims were left at one army camp, and the heads of the other two were left at another military camp later on the same day. Their bodies were found in a village on Friday.

Last Tuesday, in Peshawar, main city of Pakistan?s troubled North-West Frontier Province, a disturbing video was recovered by Associated Press. A bearded man, identified as Ghulam Nabi, is shown in a car, claiming his innocence. A ligature is tied around his neck. Nabi is then shown on his knees on the ground, his hands tied behind his back. A man pulls at his beard to expose his throat. He is then decapitated.

What makes this video more disturbing is that the killer is a fresh-faced boy, barely 12 years of age. The video (censored at the moment the knife touches Nabi?s throat) can be found here. The boy hacks at the victim?s neck, and when he finally severs the head, it is raised aloft, while the words "Allahu Ackbar" ("Allah is great") are chanted by onlookers. The soundtrack of the video has songs praising Mullah Omar (leader of the Afghan Taliban) and Osama bin Laden.

Ghulam Nabi was a Pakistani Taliban member from Baluchistan, southwestern Pakistan, who was accused of being a "spy" for the US. Nabi was blamed for the death of Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, an ex-governor of Uruzgan province in Afghanistan. Osmani, a senior leader in the Afghan Taliban, had been killed by a US airstrike on December 19 last year.

Slitting throats and beheading people are not the actions of honorable men, especially as in Turkey and the Philippines the victims were guilty only of belonging to another faith. Apologists for Islam will claim that such actions are not typical of Islam, yet these people are either deliberately lying or they are totally ignorant of Islam?s history.

In Turkey, the killings of the three Christians have been condemned by the most senior Muslim in the nation, Ali Bardakoglu, head of the Religious Affairs Directorate. On September 14, 2006, Bardakoglu had demanded that Pope Benedict XVI retract comments which had been made in a speech at the University at Regensburg. Bardakoglu called the pontiff?s words "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate" and questioned if they reflected the "spite, hatred and enmity" of others in the Christian world.

In his Regensberg Address on September 12, Benedict had quoted a Byzantine emperor, Manuel Paleologos, who around the year 1391 had said "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Though the Pope did not condone this statement, Muslims around the world did what Muslims seem to do best - they whined about their victimhood and threatened violence.

In Pakistan, the US-designated terror organization Jamaat ud-Dawa (not outlawed by Pakistan) issued a fatwa, urging the Muslim community to kill the Pope. In Britain, Anjem Choudary, a former leader of Al-Muhajiroun claimed outside the Catholic Westminster Cathedral that the Pope should be executed. Choudary was not charged for this.

Killings of Christians ensued. In Iraq, an Assyrian priest, Father Paulos Iskander, was beheaded, and a 14-year old Christian boy was crucified in Albasra. A group calling itself "Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi" threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq if the pontiff did not apologize to Mohammed, the founder of Islam.

In Israel, churches were attacked. In Somalia on September 17 an Italian nun, Sister Leonella, was shot three times in the back while she worked in the SOS Hospital in the Huriwa district of Mogadishu. Three other nuns were subsequently evacuated for their safety. A Somali imam, Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, urged Muslims to "punish" the Pope. He said: "Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim."

When Salman Rushdie received a fatwa against his life on February 14, 1989 for "insulting" Islam, Muslims across Britain, India and Pakistan called for his death. In July 1991, Hitoshi Igarashi, Rushdie?s Japanese translator, was stabbed to death. In the same month Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator of the Satanic Verses, was seriously injured in a stabbing attack.

On November 2 2004, baby-faced Muslim killer Mohammed Bouyeri stabbed, shot and tried to behead film-maker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street. Van Gogh had made a film about the appalling treatment of women in Islam. This film, called Submission, (Islam means just that) had been scripted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali apostate from Islam. With a knife, Bouyeri had pinned a "hit list" to van Gogh?s chest. This list named people who had insulted Islam, including Hirsi Ali and Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

In February last year, Danish cartoons of the so-called prophet Mohammed led to violent riots from Indonesia to Gaza to Pakistan, Nigeria and India. At least thirty people died. The illustrators had to go into hiding. A Taliban commander in Pakistan claimed that assassins were traveling to Denmark to kill the artists. In Trabzon in Turkey on February 5, 2006, Catholic priest Father Andrea Santoro was shot in the back by a 16-year old youth who shouted "Allahu Ackbar". The youth was later sentenced to 18 years? jail.

In India, a Muslim state minister in Uttar Pradesh offered $10 million to anyone who beheaded any of the Danish cartoonists. In Peshawar in Pakistan Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, imam of the Mohabat Khan mosque, offered1.5 million rupees ($17,000) and a car to anyone who killed one of the artists. Neither of these individuals was charged with incitement.

When Banglaldeshi author Taslima Nasreen wrote of the poor treatment of Hindus in her native country and criticized Islam?s treatment of women, an imam issued a fatwa against her, offering a bounty of $5,000 upon her head. In 1994 after mass protests against her, Taslima had to leave Bangladesh. She later went to Calcutta in India to care for her dying mother. In March 2004, the head of the Muslim Raza Academy threatened to burn her if she ever set foot in Mumbai (Bombay).

In January 2004, Syed Noor-ur-Rehman Barkati, main imam of Tippu Sultan Mosque in Kolkata said to a congregation of 10,000 that he would offer 20,000 rupees ($436) to anyone who would blacken Taslima?s face "with ink, paint or tar. Or she can be garlanded with shoes." In June 2006 the same imam offered on local TV the sum of 50,000 rupees ($1,175) to anyone who blackened her face and drove her out of Calcutta. Last month Taqi Raza Khan, president of the All India Ibtehad Council, issued a 500,000 rupee ($11,760) reward for anyone who would decapitate (sar qalam karna) or drive Taslima Nasreen from India.

In Pakistan, a malicious rumor that a Koran has been "desecrated" is enough to cause anti-Christian riots. On November 12, 2005, such a rumor led to a community at Sangla Hill in Punjab province being attacked by Muslim fanatics who were urged on by imams at mosques. Four churches were attacked, along with two priests? houses, a kindergarten school, a nunnery and a medical center.

On February 19, 2006 Muslims incensed by the Danish cartoons rampaged against Christian targets in Sukkur, Sindh province in south Pakistan. The St Saviour?s Church and St Xavier?s Church, as well as St Mary?s school which had been built in 1889, were set alight.

On September 19 last year, French philosophy lecturer Robert Redeker wrote an incisive piece on Islam for the newspaper Le Figaro. This included a statement that the Koran was "a book of unparalleled violence". As a result, he found himself and his family on the receiving end of death threats. Photographs of Redker?s family and maps of his home were circulated on the internet. He and his family moved location several times, and he lost his job.

Is there a pattern in the above incidents? Since the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, Muslims around the world have learned to exploit the politics of fear. Muslims have threatened, and continue to threaten, death against anyone who "insults" Islam or its founder. And what is the end result? People in the West buy into this thuggish barbarism. The ideological foundations of the West were built upon the finest principles distilled from ancient Greek, Christian and Jewish heritage. Yet now, those who represent us in the media and politics are intimidated into silence. Like cowards with no principles, we offer up our bellies to the beast of Islam.

Last week the biggest news in Lewiston, Maine, concerned a terrible "hate-crime", where a college student put a bag of pork onto a table where Muslim Somali students were eating. The incident was not something to praise, but compared to Islam?s intimidation of the entire Western world, it amounts to less than a hill of beans.

In Europe, the ideologues of the European Union have created a lexicon of words that politicians must never use - such as "fundamentalism", "jihad" and "Islamic terrorism", even though Islam was built upon terrorism and war. One EU commissioner, Franco Frattini, has even stated publicly that there is "no such thing" as Islamic terrorism.

Out of fear, people cave in before they are even threatened. In September 2005 the Tate Gallery in Pimlico, London, removed an artwork by conceptual artist John Latham, because it contained a copy of the Koran. In November 2005, a production of the play Tamburlaine the Great was deliberately censored at the Barbican in London. The producer, David Farr, omitted a scene where Tamburlaine burns the Koran, admitting he had done so for fear of offending Muslims.

When a 1740 play by Voltaire, entitled Fanatacisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete (Fanatacism, or Mohammed the Prophet) was due to be read out in Geneva in 1994, the authorities banned the performance. When the play was performed in the southern French town of Saint-Genis-Pouilly in December 2005, Muslims caused a small riot.

In Germany in September 2006, Deutsche Oper Berlin cancelled a production of Mozart?s opera Idomeneo. The revised production included severed heads of religious leaders, including Mohammed. This was thought by Kirsten Harms, the theater?s Director, to be too risky. She cited "questions of sensitivity, also questions of political diplomacy" for her actions. The opera was later staged with little fuss.

Dante Aligheiri (1265 - 1321) wrote the visionary book the Divine Comedy (Divina Commedia) in three parts. The Inferno features (in Canto 28) a description of Mohammed in Hell: "Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind. Between his legs were hanging down his entrails; his heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten." In the 15th century, artist Giovanni da Modena painted a fresco of Hell, including Mohammed as one its denizens, in the Basilica of St Petronio in Bologna, Italy (pictured). In 2002 a Muslim plot to destroy the fresco was foiled.

In Britain, appeasement of Muslims proliferates. Churches hold interfaith services, with Muslims leading prayers. So far, no mosque has reciprocated by holding interfaith services with Christians leading prayer. Judeo-Christian morality guided the West and helped it to grow, yet now Christians are weak in defense of their faith. Councils such as Lambeth in south London have purged all mention of Christmas in their Christmas illuminations.

Jews are regularly insulted and attacked by Muslims. I saw this at first hand when I lived in Stamford Hill, an Orthodox Jewish area of north London. Jews had lived there for a century but in the 1990s, Muslims from outside the neighborhood began to buy up properties in the area to create Islamic seminaries. In Casenove Road, N16, a Muslim boys? school was set up less than 15 yards from an Orthodox school, and fighting regularly occurred, instigated mostly by Muslim pupils. The media and the police ignore their plight, preferring to magnify the slights against Islam, which rarely involve violence. Jewish people are FOUR TIMES more likely to be on the receiving end of faith-based attacks than Muslims.

Rabbi Alex Chapper, from Ilford in Essex, was walking home from synagogue with three friends, when they were attacked by a group of seven Muslim teenagers, who had called them "Yehudi". One shouted: "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you," before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face. One Jewish man was hit over the head with a bottle, but police did nothing. Rabbi Chapper said: "We identified the youths and told the police but they were never prosecuted. They just did not seem interested. I feel very let down."

English language Islamic websites continue to produce anti-Semitic filth like the following from a Saudi site: "The Jews, who are the nation of pigs and monkeys, are nothing but a source of evil, corruption, tribulation and war. Hatred against the Muslims is inherited by every generation of Jews who in turn teach it to their children. Our enmity and hostility against them is based on our faith."

Abdulrahman al-Sudais (also spelled Sudeis or Sudayyis) is imam at the Grand Mosque at Mecca. He has called Jews "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."

This anti-Semitism was initiated by Mohammed himself, who according to Sahih Muslim said: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him..." Sura 5:60 of the Koran describes certain Jews transformed into apes and pigs, and in Sura 5:82 it is written: "Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters."

Two high street banks in Britain, the Natwest and Halifax, ordered that no pigs should be depicted in their branches or advertising, lest they offend Muslims. Jews have been a vital presence in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell, and though Jews do not eat pork, no bank had paused to consider if images of piggy banks might offend Jews. Dudley Council tried to ban all images of pigs in 2005, lest these "cause offense" to Muslims.

Schools also try to censor mentions of pigs, for fear of hurting Muslim feelings. In Batley, Yorkshire, a principal banned all telling of stories involving pigs to young children. Barbara Harris explained: "Recently I have been aware of an occasion where young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive."

This March, a children?s concert was altered by politically correct teachers, who objected to mention of the Three Little Pigs. These became the "Three Little Puppies", before public outcry reversed the decision. A spokeswoman for Kirklees Primary Music Festival said: "We feared that some Muslim children wouldn?t sing along to the words about pigs. We didn?t want to take that risk. If changing a few words avoids offense then we will do so."

A recent report from Britain?s Historical Association claims that in some UK schools, teachers have stopped teaching about the Holocaust or the Crusades. This is because the educators were unwilling to confront "anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils."

We in the West (and particularly in Britain) have become deracinated, afraid to talk of our culture with any pride. "Heritage" in Britain merely celebrates a few old buildings, but not the thoughts, deeds, traditions, inventiveness, aspirations and inspirations of our forebears.

In the United States, Muslims have openly campaigned to demand that public buildings have no representations of Mohammed displayed. According to Bukhari, "whoever makes a picture, will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and will be ordered to put a soul in that picture, which he will not be able to do." In the 1950s, when the Muslim presence in America was minimal, a sculpture of Mohammed was removed from the steps of the Manhattan Appellant Courthouse in New York after lobbying by Muslim nations.

In 1935, when the current Supreme Court building was opened, it contained a frieze of historical law-givers, carved by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. This included an image of Mohammed (pictured). In 1997, CAIR petitioned Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, demanding that the statue be sandblasted or removed. CAIR, then only three years in existence, objected to the sword in Mohammed?s hand as it was viewed as "reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors."

The stereotype is not incorrect. According to the Koran, Mohammed himself was a warmonger. One entire Sura of the Koran, (Sura 8, Al-Anfal or "The Spoils of War") describes the caravan raiding committed by the "prophet" outside Mecca. The earliest biographer of Mohammed was Ibn Isshaq (d. 768). His work survives in redactions by Ibn Hisham (died 828). In one of the many battles waged by Mohammed, that of Udud (625 AD), the prophet offered a sword to the bravest fighter, saying of this weapon: "It is to strike the enemy?s faces with it until it is bent."

If Mohammed were alive today, he would almost certainly be in jail, guilty of war crimes. Suspecting a plot against himself, he ordered that the entire male population of a Jewish tribe in Medina, the Banu Qurayzah, should be decapitated, according to Isshaq?s testimony. Seven hundred males were beheaded in one afternoon while Mohammed watched. The wives and children of the tribe were distributed as slaves and "booty" to his followers.

Mohammed today would also be subject to the terms of Megan?s Law. When he was in his sixth decade of life, Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha. She was a child aged nine. Bukhari (810 to 870 AD) wrote (Vol VII, Book 62, Number 64): "Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ?Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)."

Tabari (d. 923) wrote (IX:131): (Aisha narrated) "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old."

Personally, I can only describe such an individual as a monster, despite claims by Somali cleric Sheikh Ahmed Abdullahi that Mohammed was "the most honorable person who ever lived in the world."

Via the internet, I have twice been subjected to Muslim threats to have my head sliced off, because I was not "respectful" of Islam. While extremists terrorize people with their threats, so-called "moderate" political Muslims simultaneously work with their leftist allies to erode the social fabric of Western societies. I have been vilified by members of Britain?s left as a "frothing right-wing Islamophobe", even though I abhor any poor treatment of individual Muslims. Such is the price, it seems, of free speech in today?s world.

I am a citizen of a free country that is rapidly losing its sense of what freedom represents. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, are fundamentals in a healthy democracy. Appeasement to an uncompromising 7th century ideology, especially when such appeasement is motivated more by fear than by genuine respect, is the fast route to totalitarianism or subjugation.

America is not nearly as far down the road to perdition as Europe and Britain. Unless people are allowed to speak freely, critically and openly about any dead religious figure, even if that speech causes offense to some, the very mainstays of our Western values will disappear. I would rather live free and forthright, even with death threats from barbarians, than be cowed into silence under PC servitude. Remember what your Constitution was built upon, and stand up for what it contains. I fear that Britain is already dying. Please do not allow this to happen to your great nation.
 
Jan 31, 2002
40,819
2
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Pretty accurate. Why DO we pander and tip toe around some of the worlds most violent people?

Maybe because their reaction to getting offended is to kidnap, rape, and behead?

- M4H
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,566
6,113
126
Some people, like the Author of this "article", should STFU, because they add nothing constructive to the issue. Like it or not Islam is here and will continue to exist. In the past these things didn't happen, perhaps it's time to open your eyes and see that there's more to recent events then that "those people are evil".
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Why should we care about what Powder from The Family Security Foundation, Inc. editorializes about?

What credentials does this man have to report on the Islamic world? Sorry to tell you this, but summarizing the last 100 stories from JihadWatch.org does not make him an expert on Islam.
Originally posted by: Specop 007
When will the world wake up and realize theres a very large subset of the Islamic religion that wants the entire world converted or killed, and will stop at nothing to accomplish that?
How large is it? I'm sure you have facts/figures to back up whatever number you come up with. Remember to divide that large number by 1,400,000,000, the number of Muslims worldwide.

EDIT: As an aside, I'd love to point out that since the Bush Administration's fall from grace in late 2006, conservative users on this forum are increasingly posting stories from fringe conservative media outlets and groups to find aligning views. How desperate has the situation become that you're posting stories from FamilySecurityMatters.org?

Let's face it; the country did a political about-face in November 2006 and you're having a hard time coming to grips with it.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
The failing Islamic cultures are prone to producing compensating males with theatrical machismo. The western democracies are homosexualised and weak. The West's liberal corruption invites violence and tyrants. The writer is correct about Europe and UK. Their goose is cooked.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why should we care about what Powder from The Family Security Foundation, Inc. editorializes about?

What credentials does this man have to report on the Islamic world? Sorry to tell you this, but summarizing the last 100 stories from JihadWatch.org does not make him an expert on Islam.
Originally posted by: Specop 007
When will the world wake up and realize theres a very large subset of the Islamic religion that wants the entire world converted or killed, and will stop at nothing to accomplish that?
How large is it? I'm sure you have facts/figures to back up whatever number you come up with. Remember to divide that large number by 1,400,000,000, the number of Muslims worldwide.

EDIT: As an aside, I'd love to point out that since the Bush Administration's fall from grace in late 2006, conservative users on this forum are increasingly posting stories from fringe conservative media outlets and groups to find aligning views.

Let's face it; the country did a political about-face in November 2006 and you're having a hard time coming to grips with it.

So just what kind of credentials must one have to have an opinion on world affairs? Should we start issuing government certified stamps that say your opinion is worth a crap? I'm sure some people who wish to control free expression in this country would love that.

And what does posting this article have to do with the Nov 06 elections or coming to grips with it? We have nothing to fear from Islamic radicals now that the Dems are in power?

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So just what kind of credentials must one have to have an opinion on world affairs?
Why is it that many of us have no problem picking stories from the AP, NYTimes, Reuters, The Washington Post; outlets that have a shred of credibility and journalistic integrity behind them.

Yet we're treated to an editorial from FamilySecurityMatters.org. A quick scan of their home page only shows stories that align towards a particular agenda.

Example Headlines:

The Big White Lie: Are partisan political leftists prone to spreading outright falsehoods as a calculated policy tool?

American Troops Are Winning Over Journalists, One Heart, One Mind, and One Life at a Time: FSM Contributing Editor Jeff Emanuel reports directly from the war zone in this, the first of a series of dispatches, from Iraq!

What Do They Know and Why Don?t They Know It: Anyone who has been keeping abreast of current activities in Congress might wonder if our elected representatives really understand the philosophy underlying our Founders? intentions for this nation.

Battle to the Death: In a stunning display of fear (for the loss of their own sound bites), the Senate yesterday ignominiously voted to surrender to a ruthless enemy of the United States.
This website handpicks GWB's turds and polishes them for our conservative forum junkies to feed on.
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
5,972
469
126
Sadly enough, I agree with the article, and I find it spooky that there are people who criticize it.

Are the facts not correct?

Aren't prominent Muslim politicians and religious figures continuing to issue fatwas, asking their followers to kill unbelievers? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen or heard these types of calls in any contemporary Western society.

The more time passes, the more I think Huntington was right.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So just what kind of credentials must one have to have an opinion on world affairs?
Why is it that many of us have no problem picking stories from the AP, NYTimes, Reuters, The Washington Post; outlets that have a shred of credibility and journalistic integrity behind them.

Yet we're treated to an editorial from FamilySecurityMatters.org. A quick scan of their home page only shows stories that align towards a particular agenda.

Example Headlines:

The Big White Lie: Are partisan political leftists prone to spreading outright falsehoods as a calculated policy tool?

American Troops Are Winning Over Journalists, One Heart, One Mind, and One Life at a Time: FSM Contributing Editor Jeff Emanuel reports directly from the war zone in this, the first of a series of dispatches, from Iraq!

What Do They Know and Why Don?t They Know It: Anyone who has been keeping abreast of current activities in Congress might wonder if our elected representatives really understand the philosophy underlying our Founders? intentions for this nation.

Battle to the Death: In a stunning display of fear (for the loss of their own sound bites), the Senate yesterday ignominiously voted to surrender to a ruthless enemy of the United States.
This website handpicks GWB's turds and polishes them for our conservative forum junkies to feed on.


I can understand if you are talking about news, but this is an editorial, an opinion. I dont see why their opinion would be any more valid than any poster here...well almost any. Oh, and the New York Times editiroal pages dont have an agenda??
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So just what kind of credentials must one have to have an opinion on world affairs?
Why is it that many of us have no problem picking stories from the AP, NYTimes, Reuters, The Washington Post; outlets that have a shred of credibility and journalistic integrity behind them.

Yet we're treated to an editorial from FamilySecurityMatters.org. A quick scan of their home page only shows stories that align towards a particular agenda.

Example Headlines:

The Big White Lie: Are partisan political leftists prone to spreading outright falsehoods as a calculated policy tool?

American Troops Are Winning Over Journalists, One Heart, One Mind, and One Life at a Time: FSM Contributing Editor Jeff Emanuel reports directly from the war zone in this, the first of a series of dispatches, from Iraq!

What Do They Know and Why Don?t They Know It: Anyone who has been keeping abreast of current activities in Congress might wonder if our elected representatives really understand the philosophy underlying our Founders? intentions for this nation.

Battle to the Death: In a stunning display of fear (for the loss of their own sound bites), the Senate yesterday ignominiously voted to surrender to a ruthless enemy of the United States.
This website handpicks GWB's turds and polishes them for our conservative forum junkies to feed on.

Did the author make up the facts about the story? Maybe the mainstream media is afraid of being hunted down and beheaded. Or maybe the media can't bring itself to agree with Bush on the simple fact that we are at war with radical islam. Probably both but you decide how much those determined their inability to point out the radical nature of the islamic extremists.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
I think that Islam right now is basically Christianity 1000 years ago. The Church used to torture people that were pagans and heretics and burnt people at the stake. I don't really see a difference here.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think that Islam right now is basically Christianity 1000 years ago. The Church used to torture people that were pagans and heretics and burnt people at the stake. I don't really see a difference here.

The difference is that they are here now and want to kill you.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So just what kind of credentials must one have to have an opinion on world affairs?
Why is it that many of us have no problem picking stories from the AP, NYTimes, Reuters, The Washington Post; outlets that have a shred of credibility and journalistic integrity behind them.

Yet we're treated to an editorial from FamilySecurityMatters.org. A quick scan of their home page only shows stories that align towards a particular agenda.

Example Headlines:

The Big White Lie: Are partisan political leftists prone to spreading outright falsehoods as a calculated policy tool?

American Troops Are Winning Over Journalists, One Heart, One Mind, and One Life at a Time: FSM Contributing Editor Jeff Emanuel reports directly from the war zone in this, the first of a series of dispatches, from Iraq!

What Do They Know and Why Don?t They Know It: Anyone who has been keeping abreast of current activities in Congress might wonder if our elected representatives really understand the philosophy underlying our Founders? intentions for this nation.

Battle to the Death: In a stunning display of fear (for the loss of their own sound bites), the Senate yesterday ignominiously voted to surrender to a ruthless enemy of the United States.
This website handpicks GWB's turds and polishes them for our conservative forum junkies to feed on.

Did the author make up the facts about the story? Maybe the mainstream media is afraid of being hunted down and beheaded. Or maybe the media can't bring itself to agree with Bush on the simple fact that we are at war with radical islam. Probably both but you decide how much those determined their inability to point out the radical nature of the islamic extremists.


Thank you.. That is exactly what I was going to write - I can just quote yours :)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,913
6,568
126
Perhaps we could teach them some math. It shouldn't be too hard to show that heaven is fresh out of virgins.
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
5,972
469
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Perhaps we could teach them some math. It shouldn't be too hard to show that heaven is fresh out of virgins.

This was the subject of one of the Danish caricatures, remember? and yeah, that really worked... :D
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Sadly enough, I agree with the article, and I find it spooky that there are people who criticize it.

Are the facts not correct?

Aren't prominent Muslim politicians and religious figures continuing to issue fatwas, asking their followers to kill unbelievers? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen or heard these types of calls in any contemporary Western society.

The more time passes, the more I think Huntington was right.

You're missing the point. Articles like this are not arguing that there exist a number of Muslim terrorists and fanatics who belong more in the 11th century than the 21ts, the argument behind this article, and the people who rally behind it, is that all Muslims are evil, that Islam itself is basically an evil religion that needs to be wiped out. They don't come right out and say this, but that's the obvious message. Read through this thread, look at how many times the poster rails against "them". The discussion may start out against "some Muslims" or "Muslim fanatics", but as tempers rise and control slips, it turns into "Islam" or "Muslims" and soon enough, the always popular "them". Whether people realize it or not, this is where it always starts. You think that attitude isn't dangerous just because the people expressing it aren't flying planes into buildings? What they lack in terms of violent fanaticism, they make up for with the power they wield. Terrorist leaders may regularly call for the destruction of the west, but popular conservative pundits are openly calling for internment camps for Muslim-Americans...and while I would in no way draw a moral comparison between the two, I think it's a lot more likely the latter problem will actually come about.

Despite what the right-wingies say, there is no serious disagreement about the threat Islamic terrorism poses to our country and the world as a whole. The big disagreement seems to be over whether the word we should be concerned about in "Islamic terrorism" is the first or the second.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Did the author make up the facts about the story? Maybe the mainstream media is afraid of being hunted down and beheaded. Or maybe the media can't bring itself to agree with Bush on the simple fact that we are at war with radical islam. Probably both but you decide how much those determined their inability to point out the radical nature of the islamic extremists.
Don't fool yourself into thinking Bush ever stated he's at war with any kind of Islam.

He has better speech writers than that.

Besides, you can add up all the Christians that Islamic terrorists have killed in the last 5 years, and that total would be surpassed in two days by the number of Muslims killed by Islamic terrorists.

Looks like they are taking care of the problem internally. Do you guys really have that big of a hard-on for another trillion dollar war/occupation with the bodies of our dead soldiers paving the way?

Better yet, I have yet to see one of you show evidence of exactly how prevalent fundamentalism is in Islam. How many people? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? What percentage is that of Islam as a whole? This country is in for a sad future if you guys think war will lead to your salvation when you're dealing with a religion that has 1.4 billion (and growing) followers worldwide, because they can wage war a lot cheaper than we can. They only needed 19 men and $500,000 to scar our country permanently.

Even if we elected some backwoods, gun-toting 'kill-em-all' cowboy as President who decided to nuke the entire middle east, they'd only need 20 men and $500,000. We could nuke North Africa, and they'd only need 20 men and $500,000. Do you see a pattern here? They'll always have their numbers, and they could really care less (or rather, they're probably cheering us on) as we dig ourselves into a financial and physical hole fighting people who have nothing to do with the enemy.

9/11 was really just the catalyst; Osama is probably more proud of Iraq than anything. We've doubled the body count of 9/11, we're bankrupting our children's future, we're swelling the ranks of terrorists groups, and we've given them a playground to practice in. Bravo!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,873
52,970
136
Originally posted by: Butterbean
The failing Islamic cultures are prone to producing compensating males with theatrical machismo. The western democracies are homosexualised and weak. The West's liberal corruption invites violence and tyrants. The writer is correct about Europe and UK. Their goose is cooked.

This thread is alllll full of crazy!

I guess my question to you nutcases would be if you think there are more people calling for the destruction and defeat of America and the west in Islamic nations then there are in America calling for the destruction and defeat of Islam. Seems to me from this thread that craziness is relatively evenly spread over the globe... and we don't even have centuries of Islamic colonialism and despotism supporting to be mad about! Good job guys!

That article is a piece of worthless trash. Oh my god! Jews in England are the recipients of anti-semetic attacks! Alert the media! In ultra-christian America in 2001, hardly a Muslim majority country anti-semitic attacks comprised 57% of all anti religious hate crimes! And if you count the figures from the year before 2001 and the 9/11 attacks, Jews were almost 20 times more likely then muslims to be victims of hate crimes in the US. It must be the Muslims sneaking in and hate-criming us up. Either that, or the whole globe has a problem with anti-semitic hate. Let's blame Islam anyway though!

Holy crap! Islamic nations around the time of Muhammad were violent conquerors! I'm sure they were totally alone in THAT in the time around 600AD. Good thing everyone else was just trying to be peaceful and nice till those damn dirty muslims showed up. Oh no! He had sex with girls in ways that we view totally culturally unacceptable! I'm sure he was alone in THAT one back then too. As we all know, NOBODY had sex with underage girls in 600AD.

Then this stupid article conflates respect for another religion with weakness and PC subjugation. My ass. When people make "offensive" things about jesus like piss christ here, the christians go berzerk as well. The only difference is because they have money and influence they try and change the constitution or legally backdoor artists in order to shoehorn them into their religious stupidity. Because the muslims in the world in general don't have much more then a rock and a hand to throw it with, when they lash out from the same type of anger and ultra-sensitivity.... suddenly they are barbarians! Don't they know they're supposed to petition the courts!?!!

You people are a joke. A home for paranoid fantasy of apocalypse and persecution. Our culture is homosexualized and weak? You read and agree with an article claiming muslims follow a medieval philosophy, and then say our country is weak because it's too gayed up. I always used to take comfort in the fact that the ultra right crazies in America seemed to be a minority. I wonder sometimes when I read the posts on here.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,913
6,568
126
Every time the radicals of one group act up the radicals of another want to kill them. A radical is somebody who thinks their rightness demands action.

We need an arena where right people can collect and kill each other in peace, free from the constraints of normal people but also free from casualties among them. Maybe we can use some part of the grand canyon. We can arrange lines of Christians and Muslims and anybody else who whats to get involved to feed into one another, and a few bulldozers on weekends to roll in and cover up the dead. Later, in a more peaceful time we can plant trees in all that fertilizer.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
Actually the terrorists have Islam correct. Islamic law employs the principle of abrogation and teachs that what Mohammed said last is the most correct interpretation. The Koran itself is not chronological and has no "ostensible" order. In earlyIslam there was a forming of foundations and the acquiring of followers. This early stage is where the "peaceful" stuff comes from (and most of it a derivative of biblical writings and Bedouin folklore). Once Islam picked up steam then it turns violent and even rape is allowed (and that is one reason rape by "immigrants" was way up in the Netherlands a few years ago. A few self-hating politicians there blamed the rise on the dress of western women who failed to understand the "culture" of the immigrants). Keep in mind too the Koran is not only source of Islamic doctrine and belief.

More comes from the highly relied upon writings called Hadith and Sunnah (Sunnah is the way or deeds of Muhammad and validated by the consensus of companions of Muhammad [Sahaba] in Sunni Islam, and the way or deeds of Muhammad and the twelve Imams in Shi'a Islam, while Hadith is a collection of the narrations and approvals.)

Now Islam sees secular law and government as corruptions. Only laws from God as expressed by Mohammed and the Koran etc. are considered legitimate. You can't separate religion and politics in Islam if your going to practice it as it was created. Keep in mind too the worst crime in Islam isn't murder it's treating Islam poorly. Technically the terrorists aren't "hijacking" the religion but getting back to basics.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Did the author make up the facts about the story? Maybe the mainstream media is afraid of being hunted down and beheaded. Or maybe the media can't bring itself to agree with Bush on the simple fact that we are at war with radical islam. Probably both but you decide how much those determined their inability to point out the radical nature of the islamic extremists.
Don't fool yourself into thinking Bush ever stated he's at war with any kind of Islam.

He has better speech writers than that.

Besides, you can add up all the Christians that Islamic terrorists have killed in the last 5 years, and that total would be surpassed in two days by the number of Muslims killed by Islamic terrorists.

Looks like they are taking care of the problem internally. Do you guys really have that big of a hard-on for another trillion dollar war/occupation with the bodies of our dead soldiers paving the way?

Better yet, I have yet to see one of you show evidence of exactly how prevalent fundamentalism is in Islam. How many people? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? What percentage is that of Islam as a whole? This country is in for a sad future if you guys think war will lead to your salvation when you're dealing with a religion that has 1.4 billion (and growing) followers worldwide, because they can wage war a lot cheaper than we can. They only needed 19 men and $500,000 to scar our country permanently.

Even if we elected some backwoods, gun-toting 'kill-em-all' cowboy as President who decided to nuke the entire middle east, they'd only need 20 men and $500,000. We could nuke North Africa, and they'd only need 20 men and $500,000. Do you see a pattern here? They'll always have their numbers, and they could really care less (or rather, they're probably cheering us on) as we dig ourselves into a financial and physical hole fighting people who have nothing to do with the enemy.

9/11 was really just the catalyst; Osama is probably more proud of Iraq than anything. We've doubled the body count of 9/11, we're bankrupting our children's future, we're swelling the ranks of terrorists groups, and we've given them a playground to practice in. Bravo!

And your solution I'm sure is to play pacifist and give in to all their demands.....Perhaps YOU have an agenda here.
May I ask what religion are you?

Simple fact is a alot of Muslims want Western civilization dead. And its not just a few whackjobs hiding in caves, its ENTIRE COUNTRIES. Iran, Syria, Palestine. To a lesser extent Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Whos side are you on? The side of Western civilization or the side of those who want to see it fail?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I like Dennis Miller's assesment: Most Muslims arent terrorists, but most terrorists are Musim.

Pretty well sums it up.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Specop 007
And your solution I'm sure is to play pacifist and give in to all their demands.....Perhaps YOU have an agenda here.
May I ask what religion are you?

Simple fact is a alot of Muslims want Western civilization dead. And its not just a few whackjobs hiding in caves, its ENTIRE COUNTRIES. Iran, Syria, Palestine. To a lesser extent Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Whos side are you on? The side of Western civilization or the side of those who want to see it fail?
Just like Iraq, Saddam, and the 'mushroom cloud' smoking gun? Saddam had world domination on his mind between the summer of 2002 and spring of 2003, conveniently timed with our push for war :roll: Now those plans of world domination have spread to all his neighbors! OH NO! :laugh: Just more FUD from the White House. You're diluted if you believe it's anything more than that.

Again, you keep saying "alot" of Muslims. You even name entire countries. As far as I know, Iran, Syria, Palestine and Pakistan haven't attacked the United States once. Neither did Iraq. But I guess they are a grave and gathering threat, right? :laugh: Got any other lines to rehash to the American people? We've heard them all over the last 5 years.

Do you have ANY intelligence reports whatsoever that state the governments of those countries are planning attacks on the United States? On any western nations? On any other nations period? World domination? Jell-O shots? Specop 007, is anybody home?

F U D

No facts, all speculation, and a dash of fear-mongering. You've done you're Neo-Con duties for the day, now get back to your homework.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
People really should be more familiar with Sayeed (or Sayyid) Qutb, the Egyptian writer and member of Islamic Brotherhood whose writings are highly revered by Muslims and especially Al Qaeda.


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

Concerning the "stages" of Islam he wrote:


"God held back Muslims from fighting in Mecca and in the early period of their migration to Medina, and told them, "Restrain your hands, and establish regular prayers, and pay Zakat". Next, they were permitted to fight: "Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they are oppressed, and God is able to help them. These are the people who were expelled from their homes without cause. The next stage came when the Muslims were commanded to fight those who fight them: "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you." And finally, war was declared against all the polytheists: "And fight against all the polytheists, as they all fight against you;" "Fight against those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not consider the true religion as their religion, until they are subdued and pay Jizyah." Thus, according to the explanation by Imam Ibn Qayyim, the Muslims were first restrained from fighting; then they were permitted to fight; then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists.

The command to refrain from fighting during the Meccan period was a temporary stage in a long journey. The same reason was operative during the early days of Hijra, but after these early stages, the reason for Jihaad was not merely to defend Medina. Indeed, its defense was necessary, but this was not the ultimate aim. The aim was to protect the resources and the center of the movement - the movement for freeing mankind and demolishing the obstacles which prevented mankind from attaining this freedom

"When writers with defeatist and apologetic mentalities write about "Jihaad in Islam," trying to remove this 'blot' from Islam, then they are mixing up two things: first, that this religion forbids the imposition of its belief by force, as is clear from the verse, "There is no compulsion in religion"(2:256), while on the other hand it tries to annihilate all those political and material powers which stand between people and Islam, which force one people to bow before another people and prevent them from accepting the sovereignty of God. These two principles have no relation to one another nor is there room to mix them. In spite of this, these defeatist-type people try to mix the two aspects and want to confine Jihaad to what today is called 'defensive war'. The Islamic Jihaad has no relationship to modern warfare, either in its causes or in the way in which it is conducted. The causes of Islamic Jihaad should be sought in the very nature of Islam and its role in the world, in its high principles, which have been given to it by God and for the implementation of which God appointed the Prophet--peace be on him--as His Messenger and declared him to be the last of all prophets and messengers.


"The second aspect of this religion is that it is a practical movement which progresses stage by stage, and at every stage it provides resources according to the practical needs of the situation and prepares the ground for the next one.... Thinkers, who are a product of the sorry state of the present Muslim generation, have nothing but the label of Islam and have laid down their spiritual and rational arms in defeat. They say, "Islam has prescribed only defensive war"! and think that they have done some good for their religion by depriving it of its method, which is to abolish all injustice from the earth, to bring people to the worship of God alone, and to bring them out of servitude to others into the servants of the Lord ."

Indeed, Islam has the right to take the initiative. Islam is not a heritage of any particular race or country; 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 which limit man's freedom of choice. It does not attack individuals nor does it force them to accept its beliefs; it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and which curtail human freedom.


It is the right of Islam to release mankind from servitude to human beings so that they may serve God alone, to give practical meaning to its declaration that God is the true Lord of all and that all men are free under Him. According to the Islamic concept and in actuality, God's rule on earth can be established only through the Islamic system, as it is the only system ordained by God for all human beings, whether they be rulers or ruled, black or white, poor or rich, ignorant or learned. Its law is uniform for all, and all human beings are equally responsible within it. In all other systems, human beings obey other human beings and follow man-made laws. Legislation is a Divine attribute; any person who concedes this right to such a claimant, whether he considers him Divine or not, has accepted him as Divine.


Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated to God, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man's servitude to man. Those of our contemporary Muslim scholars who are defeated by the pressure of current conditions and the attacks of treacherous orientalists do not subscribe to this characteristic of Islam. The orientalists have painted a picture of Islam as a violent movement which imposed its belief upon people by the sword. These vicious orientalists know very well that this is not true, but by this method they try to distort the true motives of Islamic Jihaad. But our Muslim scholars, these defeated people, search for reasons of defensive with which to negate this accusation. They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom.


These research scholars, with their defeated mentality, have adopted the Western concept of 'religion', which is merely a name for 'belief' in the heart, having no relation to the practical affairs of life, and therefore they conceive of religious war as a war to impose belief on peoples' hearts.


But this is not the case with Islam, as Islam is the way of life ordained by God for all mankind, and this way establishes the Lordship of God alone-that is, the sovereignty of God - and orders practical life in all its daily details. Jihaad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world. As far as belief is concerned, it clearly depends upon personal opinion, under the protection of a general system in which all obstacles to freedom of personal belief have been removed. Clearly this is an entirely different matter and throws a completely new light on the Islamic Jihaad.


Thus, wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience. When God restrained Muslims from Jihaad for a certain period, it was a question of strategy rather than of principle; this was a matter pertaining to the requirements of the movement and not to belief. Only in the light of this explanation can we understand those verses of the Holy Qur'an which are concerned with the various stages of this movement. In reading these verses, we should always keep in mind that one of their meanings is related to the particular stages of the development of Islam, while there is another general meaning which is related to the unchangeable and eternal message of Islam. We should not confuse these two aspects.

http://www.islamistwatch.org/main.html