This press release is further proof that the American Civil Liberties Union's leaders are either spectacularly clueless or actually in league with America's enemies [emphasis added]:

WASHINGTON -- Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales failed to answer direct, yet simple questions from senators surrounding the warrantless surveillance of Americans by the National Security Agency. The American Civil Liberties Union condemned that lack of transparency, noting that part of the role of the executive is to provide the legislative branch with ample information for proper oversight.

I'll go with the "spectacularly clueless" hypothesis, but only because I believe that the ACLU is such an intellectually challenged group of pathetic morons that no enemy of the US would want their assistance.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:39 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not so much that I blame CNN for not running the controversial Muhammed cartoon, as much as I wish they'd be just a tad bit more honest about it. They claim they won't run the picturs out of religious sensitivities, yet the same organization had no problems running images of the dung covered Mary. No, it's not hypocrisy. It's called fear.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:08 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm so sorry, but does that image offend your sensibilities? It should, because it clearly depicts one of our most staunch allies, Japan, and its citizens in a decidedly negative light.

Of course, that poster was created in the 1940's, during World War II. After 3 of the 8 airmen of the Doolittle raid captured by the Japanese were executed. During a time when their executions would have been accepted by the American public as a cost of waging war.

We now live in the post 9/11 world. An attack, incidentally, which has exhaustively been compared to Pearl Harbor. And we're at war.

Unlike WWII, we aren't rounding up Arab muslims and placing them in internment camps. Muslims today even serve in our armed forces. The U.S. Army soldier in the now famous picture of the capture of Saddam was an American Muslim.

But, even with the internment camps, Japanese Americans served with distinction in the European Theatre. They fought and died and bled just like any other soldier.

Yet that poster, and others like it, were still printed and distributed. Posters and other forms of media that were distributed about the country concerning Germans was even worse, in some cases, and German-Americans weren't relegated to internment camps.

The people that Rusty mentioned are free to wring their hands over what I and the other Jawas have depicted graphically here lately. Commenters are free to decry that we are pushing our moderate Muslim friends away, validating the Christophobia and the Judeophobia that even so-called moderate Muslims harbor latently in their minds.

Frankly, I could care less. I consider the recent depictions of Mohammed that I have made in the same vein that I view the creators of the poster to the right.

We are in a war. We didn't declare this war, they did. They are Islam. Like Rusty said, Islam is not just a religion, it's an ideology, indistinguishable from Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese Militarism, even Conservatism and Libertarianism.

Rusty has repeatedly posted on propaganda. I know, like he does, that propaganda is a valuable wartime asset. And since our own government and media won't rise to the challenge, the rest of us will. If I offend those normally disposed to help us, that's their problem, not mine. If Japanese-Americans could fight with honor against the Nazis despite the poster depicted above, then moderate Muslims should have no problem continuing to help us eradicate the festering sore of Islamofascism that is defining their religion.

Not only that, as Rusty's partner-in-agitation, I want the first official fatwa.

UPDATE: Hey! I post here too ya know.

SURE, WHY NOT: Grow up Islam. Patrick al-kafir says the same thing in not as many words.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:02 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

They speak, Jeff G. translates:

“Free speech is good so long as it tolerates our right, as an identity group, to dictate which free speech is authentic and allowable. Otherwise, y’know, we get to torch shit.”

Posted by: Rusty at 04:00 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm glad that the U.S. State Department condemned cartoons which offended many Muslims. That's their job. They are the official face of the American government to the world. And kudos to President Bush for condemning them. Again, he is America's chief diplomat. The business of diplomacy is to reduce conflict.

Luckily, I am not a diplomat. My responsibility as an online writer is to tell the truth as I see it. And the truth, as I see it, is that Islam is the cause of a great deal of evil in the world today.

So, when I see prominent bloggers that I respect saying that the above statement is based on a kind of phobia, I take humbrage. And when other prominent bloggers equate that sentiment with antisemetism, I take offense.

Many of us would like to think that Islam is just another religion. That sentiment comes from a good place. Most Americans want to believe that about our fellow Americans. In fact, I would argue that America has always had a national ecumenical spirit. But such thinking is also ignorant of Islam as it is, and not as it should be. I would like Islam to be just another religion which asks only for the soul of the Muslim and not his political fealty, but that is not the case.

As the vast majority of Muslims will readily admit to you, Islam is not simply a mode of worship, it is a total way of life that demands every aspect of a person's being. In other words, there is no render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's. There is no assumption of the separation of individual duty to God, and a society's duty to God. Thus, it proscribes not only what I should do as an individual, but what we should do as a society.

As such, it is not, strictly speaking, a religion. It is also a coherent socio-political system.

We normally call such socio-political constructs ideologies.

Islam as a religion I can accept, it is Islam as an ideology that I cannot.

The criticisms of those of us who are suspicious of Islam are sometimes valid. Frankly, part of the reason that I blog is to unleash my jeuvenile side. So, any accusation that The Jawa Report is often jeuvenile is spot on.

However, many recent comments by Left, Right, and Center are so far off and misinformed that they represent a kind of ideology of their own. That ideology confuses religious tolerance with religious acceptance. To tolerate Islam simply means to accept it as fact of life, but tolerance does not imply that I embrace it on equal terms with other religions.

I expect the Left to confuse tolerance and acceptance. They have always confused the two. But for the Right to do it is oddly out of place.

The Right has always been critical of ideologies which were antithetical to Liberty. We tolerated the Communist Party USA for 50 years, but were on the forefront of calling the ideology espoused by it what it was: inherently totalitarian.

I personally tolerated the head of the CPUSA as I listened to him speak on a square in front of Moscow's Bolshoi Theatre in the mid-1990s. Believe me, it took all the strength I could muster to not jump on that stage and pop him one in the mouth as he cheered the old Soviet system and lied to the Russian people that they had been far better off under Communism than Americans ever were under democracy.

I tolerated him, but did not embrace him. That is how tolerance works.

We on the Right were correct in saying that Communism was an inherently totalitarian system. It subsumed the individual to the collective, the will of the me to the you.

During that time, and even today, Communist 'fellowtraveler' apologists liked to distinguish between 'Marxism' or 'true Communism' and 'Stalinism' or 'Soviet Communism'. In their minds, it was unfair to criticize Marx or often even Lenin.

Marx and Lenin, they would say, were trying to help people, but Stalin was in it just for the power. They found it easier to believe that Stalin murdered 40 million people for the sake of his own megalomania than because he believed he was doing it for the sake of building Communism. Oddly, they could see that Hitler killed the Jews because he believed it was helping build the uber race, but it eluded them how it could be that Stalin could murder the kulaks for the sake of collectivization.

A great deal of academic work was produced during this time as a way for the followers of Marx to distinguish themselves from Communism as it was actually practiced in the Soviet Union or in China. Such work was meant to separate 'true Communism' from the Communist states.

These Communist 'fellowtravelers' we on the Right could tolerate. They made it clear that they rejected much of the heavy-handedness of the Soviet system and were often equally critical of it.

But we never embraced even the watered down version of Communism offered by these so-called fellowtravelers.

None of us cowered at the notion of saying that it was Marx's ideology itself that was evil. None of us feared offending them or alienating them by saying that Stalin was the direct and logical outcome of Marx. That the gulags were in fact started by that heroic icon of the Left, Lenin. That Communism itself was totalitarian in nature and evil.

Despite expressing our opinion about the inherent flaws of Communism and its ideological founder, Marx, we still tolerated Communists among us. And despite cries of 'McCarthyism', we attempted to boldly declare that which we truly believed.

During all of this the Left loved to bring up the fact that the vast majority of Soviet citizens would love nothing more than to live in peace. Our rejoinder was, "so what." How is that relevant to a discussion over whether or not Communism is inherently totalitarian and that Marx is responsible for it?

The Left also liked to point out states like Tito's Yugoslavia as examples of what they liked to believe were more open societies which were Marxist in orientation. Again, we replied, they may not be as bad as the USSR, but the citizens of Yugoslavia were also not free in any liberal sense of the word. To point out that there is a difference between Communism in Yugoslavia and the USSR is only show that one is less totalitarian than the other, not that neither are totalitarian.

It was also obvious to every one that there were different factions within the greater community of Marxists. Some of these factions had rehabilitated Marx to the point that they were no different than non-Marxist social-democrats. We didn't really care if they called themselves Marxists. That was fine. As long as they rejected the core ideas of Marxism. For instance, the last time I checked, Christopher Hithchens was calling himself a Trotskyite-Marxist. No accounting for ideological labels, I guess.

During all of this nobody said that the individual American Communist was a threat to our civil liberties. We did not think of individual Communists as bad people. We did not fear that our Communist neighbors would commit acts of terrorism. We had them over to our houses for dinner. Our kids played with their kids.

We were mature enough then to call Communism evil, while recognizing that the individual Communist was the kind of person we could go to a baseball game with. That is to say, one's ideology has little to do with how that person acts on a day to day basis. One's ideology only tells us how that person believes society ought to be organized, not how one ought to act now in the society we have today.

I am a libertarian. Nevertheless, rarely am I tempted to open a brothel, grow pot, or exceed the speed limit as political protest.

I hope the foregoing analogy has made itself clear by now. If it hasn't, I'm sorry. Allow me to explain why all of this is relevant.

Today, some on the Right wish us to remain silent on the topic of Islam. Some wish us to remain silent for strategic reasons--we need moderate Muslims to fight radical Muslims. This is a valid concern.

But the same concern existed in Europe during the Cold War. We did not wish to alienate European Marxists who opposed Soviet Aggression. Yet, we understood that these Socialists were mature enough to accept our criticisms while taking our aid.

Alliances are made out of mutual interests, not necessarily out of mutual ideologies. If Muslims are not able to accept our criticisms without rejecting our aid in the mutual fight against a form of Islam we both abbhor, then I would suggest we have an even deeper problem than even I would like to admit.

Some wish us to remain silent because they are just too lazy to open up a Koran and the traditionally accepted hadiths (sayings and traditions) and find out what the roots of the core ideology of Islam really are. To say that some branches of Islam reject many of the more odious hadiths and interpretations of the Koran, that some are fully committed to a very liberal form of Islam, or that most Muslims simply do not contemplate these doctrines on a day to day basis is all well and true, but begs the essential question which we were willing to ask in the case of Marx, but seem to be unwilling to ask about Muhammed: is there something inherent in these teachings that is incompatible with the liberal tradition?

That the vast majority of the victims of Islamic violence are fellow Muslims also is telling, but not in the way that some wish us to believe. The Muslim victims of terrorism are no less victims of Islam than the countless number of true-believing socialists murdered by Communism.

The vast majority of the victims of Communism were people living in Communist states. 40 million Soviets were killed because of Communism. Tens of millions of Chinese citizens were killed because of Communism. That the victims of Communism were largely members of socialist societies says a great deal about the ideology itself. So too with Islam and its victims.

To criticize Islam is no more to criticize the individual Muslim than criticizing Marx was an attack on the character of an individual Marxist. To criticize Islamic societies is no more an attack on Muslims than criticizing Soviet society was an attack on Russians.

What I think about Islam has absolutely nothing to do with what I think about Muslims. I hate Islam, yet in two hours a close Muslim friend will be over at my house. What I think about Communism has nothing to with what I think of Communists. So much so, in fact, that I spent nine months of my life hanging out with pro-Stalin Russian Communists!!

To say that there is a direct connection between the teachings of Muhammed, Islam, and the terrorism that it so often breeds is no different than saying that there is a direct connection between Marx, Communism, and the totalitarianism that it bred.

Islam is the root cause of Islamic terrorism, just as Marxism was the root cause of international Communist aggression.

Islam is the root cause of Islamic authoritarianism in every single nation that has a Muslim majority, just as Marxism was the root cause of authoritarianism in every single nation that adopted the Communist system.

Muhammed is the man responsible for creating the ideology of conflict and tyranny that is Islam, every bit as much as Marx is the man responsible for creating the ideology of conflict and tyranny that is Communism.

To ask me to say anything less of Islam is to ask me to lie for the sake of political expediency or political correctness. I cannot, and will not, muzzle my criticisms of Muhammed simply because it may alienate some of our allies in the war on terror, nor will I be silent about Islam simply because it may offend.

We were able to win the Cold War without resorting to such nonsense. I hope and pray that we can win the war against radical Islam under those same terms.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:38 PM | Comments (77) | Add Comment
Post contains 2067 words, total size 13 kb.

The tin-foil brigades are at it again. This time with a Downing Street memo which is supposedly "bigger, longer, and uncut". In fact, this one is another non-starter for the conspiracists who would like to believe that George Bush and Tony Blair are the modern incarnations of evil.

To the conspiracy theorists all absence of evidence is evidence of kabal and silence is nothing more than cover up. Thus, the conspiracist is left grasping at straws and then calling such straws evidence--or worse, proof.

So, what is in this "mother of all Downing Street memos" which David Corn believes is evidence that Bush and Blair are "conspiring to create a modern-day version of the sinking of the Maine"? Yes, Corn actually uses the word conspiring--you know, as in "to be involved in a conspiracy", Here is the Channel4 'exlusive':

President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach"

But, what exactly is the big deal here? The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein was doing this on a nearly daily basis already! With or without the Bush-Blair conspiracy, Iraqi forces fired on U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone thousands of times before U.S. troops ever invaded Iraq.

How does one conspire to create an incident that is already happening on nearly a daily basis? Is Corn and the American Left acually so ignorant as to have not read the hundreds of press reports of Iraqi forces firing on Coalition airplanes for years and years before the invasion?

Saddam had been in breach for a dozen years, the majority of which were under the Clinton administration. Was Bill Clinton somehow involved in this conspiracy too?

Corn seems to rest his hopes on that single point. But there is more in what he calls 'the mother of all Downing Street' memos:

Bush: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

So, what is the big deal about wanting an Iraqi to talk publicly about Iraq's WMD program? It had been done before and used as pretext to invade Iraq's sovereignty before.

Assassinate Hussein? File under: mother of all not-shocking ideas.

What else is so 'shocking' in the papers?

Blair: "A second Security Council Resolution resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected and international cover, including with the Arabs. "

Bush: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Blair responds that he is: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

Bush told Blair he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

The conspiracy minded doesn't stop there. People like Corn were convinced there was a conpiracy long before the Downing Street Memo. The DSM was used as 'evidence' that their preconceived notions were correct. So this 'evidence' simply corraborates what they already believe. Just like moon landing nuts who believe that a photo which shows a shadow where they don't think it should be is 'proof' of the conspiracy, Corn and the far Left believe any statements from Bush or Blair that they were planning for war before they had publicly stated that they had made up their minds is 'proof' of a neo-Imperialist agenda.

But it gets worse. While rational people will see these statements as ambigious at worst and innocuous and obvious at best, people like Corn think the smoking gun has been found. They are so convinced that they know 'objective reality' as it really is, that any disregard for the memo is simply to deny the obvious. Hence, when the media doesn't pick up on the story Corn and the Left believe the media is part of the conspiracy too! Corn:

Will members of the press corps at 1600 Pennsylvania press the point? This revelation--which is more shocking than anything in the Downing Street Memos--should be major news here. But will it?

Hat tip: payer of bills.

dKos:

The new smoking gun reveals a flagrant violation of international law. Waging war under such circumstances constitutes a breach of the Nuremberg and Geneva codes and the UN Charter, which legitimize such action only in clear and present danger situations involving self-defense.

The Political Pit Bull has an excellent analysis of this shocking new memo, too.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:08 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 994 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Let them push it: just more embarrassment for the Left.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at February 03, 2006 11:50 AM (eer2X)

2 Liberal non-scandal #3450835.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 03, 2006 11:52 AM (8e/V4)

3 What's so sad is that this is being taken VERY seriously by the Left.

Posted by: Rusty at February 03, 2006 12:12 PM (JQjhA)

4 ..at which point Mr. Bush looked at Mr.Blair and said "I think it's time, don't you? Mr Blair agreed at which time a large antique chest was bought into room, the chest was covered with 'runes' or some artifacts of a dead language. I helped remove the large ivory effigy of Imperial Emperor Karl Rove, and poured in an equal mix of Haliburton oil, and Arab baby blood from a vial, It was at this point I heard the voice of Ariel Sharon over the intercom it boomed and said "DRINK...YOUR MASTER COMMANDS IT!" it was at this point Mr.Bush, and Mr. Blair suckled the fingers extended from the effigy and began drinking" The "Real" portions of the Left's "Downing Street Memo" remember it's fake but accurate!!

Posted by: dave at February 03, 2006 12:12 PM (CcXvt)

5 Bush told Blair he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Oh, for God's sake, does this even sound like the President, even a little bit? I have to think that President Bush would say "civil war", rather than "internecine warfare", and, in fact, there has not been a "civil war". I'd also like to know why the actual document hasn't been presented for inspection. Could it be that the Left learned a valuable lesson from the Dan Rather TANG memo fiasco?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 03, 2006 12:13 PM (RHG+K)

6 This "memo" are the words of a third party. Words that can easily and likely change the context of any conversation. Ambiguous doesn't even begin to describe some of those statements. It should go into the toilet right next to a certain book.

Posted by: Oyster at February 03, 2006 12:28 PM (YudAC)

7 The timing of this latest leftist assault on our leadership and the uprising of muslims in Europe is a little too coincidental to be accidental. I've known for a long time that the leftists were walking hand-in-hand with muslims, and this is just more proof. The day is coming, so buy a gun and stock up on ammo while you can, because when the time is at hand, the government will ban all sales of arms and ammo.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 12:38 PM (0yYS2)

8 Bush Derangement Syndrome knows no bounds.

Posted by: indolene at February 03, 2006 01:26 PM (YHcxM)

9 You forgot this part of the article, fucktard: "A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it." GWB,(3/17/03)

Posted by: MyPetGoat at February 03, 2006 02:31 PM (QwwYn)

10 Yes! MyPetGoat: Hit Jawa where it hurts, they deliberately obscured that particular excerpt from the Fake Memo obviously to hide the facts!! Jawa also left out the part where Bush said he planned to attack by using flying robot ponies.

Posted by: dave at February 03, 2006 02:35 PM (CcXvt)

11 Yeah they really hate it when we cherrypick their forged documents, it really shows our dishonesty.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 03:08 PM (0yYS2)

12 "Yeah they really hate it when we cherrypick their forged documents, it really shows our dishonesty." Especially when it comes to Yellowcake...

Posted by: MyPetGoat at February 03, 2006 03:38 PM (QwwYn)

13 Flying Robot Ponies!!! Ya mean they finally got that damn system to work properly? Damn it! And me - an ol'hand CAV RECON SCOUT getting ready to retire in 6 months! I WANTED A PONY! HMMV'S OK, Dirt bike was cool - but a flying pony! Aaaaaaaah man! This sucks! What am I gonna do with my Wagner CD?

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 03:43 PM (3aakz)

14 hondo, give it to MyPetGoat. He has been adopted by a Muslim teenage boy, so he may need it for the entertainment value.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 03, 2006 04:08 PM (rUyw4)

15 Shorter Maximus & Jesusland Joe

Posted by: TedB at February 03, 2006 04:14 PM (QwwYn)

16 Oh, TedB, I see you want to fellate the Muslims, so why don't you take the place of MyPetGoat? And I'll throw the Wagner CD in, no charge! Have a nice day.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 03, 2006 04:39 PM (rUyw4)

17 Ha Ha Ha Ha Teddy's shootin' those blanks again.

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 06:20 PM (3aakz)

18 you guys are complete idiots. why dont you look at some of this stuff before you stat talking? What if one of our "allies" (that means friends of ours)flew fighter planes over US air space? do you think we would shoot at it? hell yes we would. so whats the difference? I could tear this crap apart but I doubt that any of you would even bother to find out any of it for yourselves. so good luck guys and remember"ignorance is bliss" and it diffinatley doesn't hold up in a court of law

Posted by: Felix at February 05, 2006 03:42 PM (aMFEY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Upside down bin Laden as Christ

When will the riots and death threats begin? Perhaps we should boycott New York? More from Michelle Malkin and Chad at ITB.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:00 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

...but it should be. Cindy Sheehan receives apology from Capital Police. When do we get an apology from Lynn Woolsey for bringing a tin-foil wearing Zionist conspiracy America-hater to Congress? A woman who just a week before was kissing a modern Peronist fascist? Pleeeaase!

Posted by: Rusty at 05:01 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Stop the ACLU chronicles two of the latest examples of the deterioration of the anti-American Left. Cindy Sheehan (if anyone is still listening) goes all Ward Churchill on the President:

George Bush, a few weeks ago, said “oh I donÂ’t know, 30,000″, innocent Iraqis. Well, even if we take his estimation into consideration and say “ok, it was 30,000″ Â… On September 11, one of the most tragic days in American history that we will all never forget, 3,000 Americans were killed, so does that make George Bush ten times a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden? (Applause)

Posted by: Bluto at 02:41 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

This is a comment left on my post here:

I am an avid supporter of free speech. However, anyone can express an opinion,
the real question should be how informed is that opinion or expression.

There is a point where the speech produced has no constructive value to our
society and is nothing but mere baseless and crass vitriol that doesn't befit as
advanced a civilization as the West.

Many Western countries draw a limit on the freedom of speech when it comes to
the identity of child rape victim, slander and libel. Another main exception
that some countries have adopted is hate speech. Hate speech is speech which
condemns or dehumanizes the individual or group; or expresses anger, hatred,
violence or contempt toward them.

Depicting the Muslim's prophet as a terrorist, with absolutely no corroborating
or intellectual support or discourse, is hate speech.

I do not believe Christianity teaches us to dehumanize nor express hatred,
anger, violence, or contempt against an individual or group.

Such behaviour fails to show even the slightest modicum of decorum and civil
behaviour. Jesus would be ashamed.

The commenter's email is appropriate. "despondant." If there is a group that is perpetually despondent, it's the left.

But, I wanted to respond to what I highlighted. Apparently, my happy commenter has never bothered to read the Koran.

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. —Koran 66:9

God has promised you rich booty, and has given you this with all promptness. He has stayed your enemies' hands, so that He may make your victory a sign to true believers and guide you along a straight path. —Koran 48:20

Fight 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, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. -Koran 9:29

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! - Koran 9:30

Still think there's no corroborating evidence? You still want to discuss "hate speech?"

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:20 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Where was this great champion against "hate speech" when they were sticking Christ in a jar of piss and smearing Mary with dung? --probably defending "free speech".

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 10:27 AM (8e/V4)

2 The Prophet is just a gay butt pirate. Islam is a 3rd world religion with 3rd world ideas. Hell they still live in the freaking 5th Century and we are supposed to give then credibility? CAIR and all the other pro Islam organization can just eat shit and die as far as I am concerned. A World without Islam is the first step to World Peace.

Posted by: Andy at February 02, 2006 10:50 AM (tMU4W)

3 The capacity for liberals to justify murderous scumbags is truly astonishing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 11:12 AM (0yYS2)

4 You all know I am a longtime Jawa Report reader and supporter. However, I disagree with the JR on this one. The actual Danish cartoons are a legit news story now and if a venue wants to republish them go ahead. I draw the line with the JR made cartoons. Why? It is because I don't want Jamal Muslim to be pushed from supporting the GWOT against Radical Islam to neutrality or worse. If good Muslims decide the West is not fighting just Radical Islamists but Islam itself then those good Muslims could very well decide to join up with the Radicals or at least sit on their hands when we need them to perform some acation against the Radicals. As with all criticisms of speech I include all the standard disclaimers, but we need to be careful that our speech is thought out and not just a jerking knee. The Jawa Report continues to be one of my regularly visited blogs and remains on the Blogger Beer blogroll. I really enjoy this blog.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 11:19 AM (Ox5i9)

5 Free Speech = Hate Speech ... its just a question of subjective interpretation ... which is why Hate Speech Laws are such a threat to fundamental freedom. JC - when those two items you refer were here in NY, I was tempted to join some who wanted to use the hate speech law approach - it was classic hate speech speech art directed at Christians and Catholics. But I changed my mind - didn't want to use the left dickhead approach in dealing with some fringe left assholes who were already marginal to start with.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:21 AM (3aakz)

6 Of course there are no similar passages in the bible. well I guess maybe there are a few. Here are a few in this link.Some are pretty funny. http://www.evilbible.com/

Posted by: john ryan at February 02, 2006 11:35 AM (TcoRJ)

7 John R Not going to bother - but I'm willing to bet that anything remotely similar will be found solely in the OT. An interesting distinction in the development of Christianity. Am I right? The passages are easy to quote John.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:42 AM (3aakz)

8 Free Speech ?? But there is no tellings where that might lead. First dogs and cats living together and before you know it gay marriages.

Posted by: Joseph Cavalletto at February 02, 2006 11:51 AM (TcoRJ)

9 I'm with Marcus on this. It really does get to the point where the subject matter has been addressed and beyond that it just becomes an irritant for no other purpose than to be provocative. Believe me, I fully understand the concept of being free to say and do things of this nature. And I fully understand the difference in the reactions; death threats versus peaceful protest. I just don't see what we hope to achieve with it beyond what has all ready been achieved.

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 11:55 AM (5pqct)

10 Depicting the Muslim's prophet as a terrorist, with absolutely no corroborating or intellectual support or discourse, is hate speech. Hmmmm.... Depicting Christ as a homosexual, with absolutely no corroborating or intellectual support or discourse, is hate speech. No, I just can't see that argument going over. And before someone jumps on me -- no, gays aren't the equivalent of terrorists. Just pointing out that objections to Corpus Christi could be phrased similarly, and would be just as invalid.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 02, 2006 11:57 AM (n5eDP)

11 Jesusland Carlos: It's sad the way Jesus Christ is depicted by some people. It's rude, insulting and degrading. However, I'd offer that when you encourage artist's renditions of revered figures, you're bound to see degrading renditions as well. That's not a justification, just a possible explanation. Frankly, as a Muslim, I'm offended by the portrayal of Jesus in popular media. He's been turned into a total joke, and it pains me that the larger Christian populace is okay with this. Certainly violence isn't a civlized response, but Christians are well within their rights to demand a respectful portrayal of Jesus, as Muslims are well within their rights to demand a more respectful portrayal of Muhammad. And allow me to comment on the verses you've quoted, Vinnie. 66:9 - What you've translated as "make war" is actually the Arabic "jihad" which in general means struggle -- physical struggle/opposition is but one of its meanings. According to the Holy Quran, fighting oppression and warring against injustice is a duty (one that even America sees fit to carry out), but as clarified in a tradition of the Holy Prophet, physical struggle is the "lesser jihad" (words of the Holy Prophet) as opposed to self-purification (the greater jihad/struggle). You've deliberately chosen to translate "jihad" as war in this instance, however it is more accurately translated as "struggle" or "strive against" in the broader sense (as opposed to other verses that are specifically mentioning war or rules of engagement). This view is corroborated by a wider reading of the accompanying verses and the whole chapter. A simile is setup in which the example of the disbelievers is given in the wives of Noah and Lot (who refused to believe the warning given by the prophets), and examples of the believers are Mary, mother of Jesus, and the wife of Pharoah. This is interesting because you'll take care to note that Noah and Lot did not engage in physical struggle with their wives (the disbelievers). And among the belivers the wife of Pharoah was counted, who was not actually a follower of Moses, but a kind person. So this chapter qualifies believers as any person (even non-Muslims) but that are good and kind in nature, and declares that the disbelievers should be warned and struggled against, but their punishment in the end (if that's what they deserve) is with God. Another corroborating fact is that the disbelievers are mentioned alongside the hypocrites. Throughout the Quran, only Mulims are referred to as hypocrites (those Muslims who though Muslim in name were not regarded by God as such). Note that the hypocrites were never fought against by the sword. This further clarifies that "jihad" here is being used to mean a non-physical struggle, more a verbal chastisement, much like Noah and Lot would've done with their wives. Again, the simile being drawn here needs to be recognized. Reading in context is one of the important things to keep in mind when studying the Quran. It is a very layered text that is composed beautifully and those that are concerned with discovering truth, and reflecting upon wisdom often find the Quran appeals to them. 48:20 - In quoting this verse I take it to mean you want to cast Muslims in a poor light, as people that were fighting for wealth. This is absolutely incorrect. In fact, the booty or spoils of war mentioned here were rather used to take care of the Muslim population and to build their nation. Remember, the Muslims were an oppressed minority for the early part of their existance. At one point during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, the Meccans (the chief anti-Muslims at the time) sought out Muhammad and offered him wealth, land, women, etc. just so he would stop his preaching. He refused them. If he were interested in such material things, he would've taken them up as they were much more powerful and more wealthy than he was. But in keeping with his humble nature, he spent most of his life in relative poverty, sharing or giving away what he had. After marrying Khadija, his first wife, who was a reasonably well off business woman, he gave away most of their wealth as charity (of course, by Khadijah's permission). The spending of wealth is very clearly outlined in the Quran, and most of all, charity is encouraged. That is how one spends in the way of God, so it does not follow that the Muslims sought the spoils of war for purposes of accumulating personal wealth. Again, this is a verse you've clearly misrepresented. 9:29 - I offered a sufficiently detailed explanation of this verse in a comment on another mypetjawa thread: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/131494.php Please see the explanation in the comment dated November 8, 2005 05:59 PM. 9:30 - I'm not sure what you mean to say by quoting this verse. This verse is commenting on how much God dislikes having partners or literal children attributed to him. I'd hardly qualify it as hate speech. It is interesting that you've chosen a deliberately unflattering translation though. Given how inaccurate the other verses you've quoted are, I would encourage you to seek out a better translation. Here is an alternate translation of 9:30: And the Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah', and the Christians say, 'the Messiah is the son of Allah;' that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allah's curse be on them! How they are turned away! The translation I've used is by Maulawi Sher Ali, fyi. In summary, I hope it's clear that your translations appear to be deliberately inaccurate and are obviously leading to misconceptions supported by those illiterate and unwise Muslims that prefer violence to rationality. I believe the explanations I've given are more representative of the "intelligent support or discourse" that despondant was encouraging. I hope you'll reconsider your inflammatory view following this, or at least produce a clearer understanding of Quranic text than you have thus far. I would like to add that not just Jesus, but Muhammad as well would be ashamed at what's become of the Christian and Muslim nations. Clearly, both need to practise a little of that greater jihad.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 12:03 PM (SHPL6)

12 Que?

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 12:07 PM (3aakz)

13 Marcus makes a legit point. It's counterproductive. Yes, folks have a right to print whatever they want, but simply for the purpose of offending? I'm not too keen on that. And other folks (the muslims) have a right to object to these cartoons (non-violently, of course, and without government censorhip). The muslim boycott? Valid-- it's their right. Our counter-boycott? Also valid. It's called the marketplace of ideas. Muslim threats of violence? Invalid. Regardless, I don't think we should go out of our way to offend people just for the heck of it. Yes, it's funny to see them throwing hissyfits, but I can't justify it ethically.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 12:08 PM (8e/V4)

14 JC! Very levelheaded and quite reasonable. Your gonna upset Maxie.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 12:39 PM (3aakz)

15 Well best things to buy from Denmark are baby back ribs (which of course actually come from mature swine) and cod (mostly caught off Greenland) They used to be one of the best sources for porn but hey that was before the internet.And why are there no cartoons attempting to offend Buddhists ? Perhaps one showing how he died. Also lets remember that Islam is sort of a newcomer. The christians had a 600 year head start in social development. Up until 300 years ago they were still burning witches. We just have to give the muslims a few more centuries to catch up. The trucial states didn't even get rid of slavery until 1962.

Posted by: john ryan at February 02, 2006 12:41 PM (TcoRJ)

16 I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when airliners aren't flown into buildings, bombs detonated at churches, synagogues, pizza parlors, and hotels. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when Hamas changes its charter and quits calling for Israel to be eradicated. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when Iran's president renounces the same. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when I stop seeing hate spewed from Friday sermons at mosques around the world being translated by MEMRI. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when I stop seeing riots erupt over rumors, as in the Koran flushing idiocy. I'll reconsider my inflammatory views when Christianity and Judaism can be openly practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, etc. etc. etc. etc. Actions speak louder than words, and I'll reconsider my inflammatory views when Muslims the world over start proving your words by halting their actions. So give up trying to lecture me. Clean your own house first.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 02, 2006 12:42 PM (f289O)

17 Sohail, I am well aware the only valid version of the Qur'ran is the version in the Classical Arabic, all translations are considered corrupt. The problem is Classical Arabic is along the lines of Latin a language long gone from common usage. So not only do those of us who do not speak Arabic have to depend on a translation we must also depend on a translation that tries to match up a dead language with the current version of Arabic. There is quite a bit of argument over the word jihad and its meaning. Perhaps like many words in English the exact concept it represents depends very much upon the context. The common meaning I hear good Muslims impart to us is jihad is an internal struggle to do right and avoid evil. Of course, when Abu Musab Zarqawi uses the word jihad I hear "kill kaffirs". Abu Musab Zarqawi's meaning gets a lot more attention because it is much more immediate and easier for people to understand. The Zarqawi type is in the stronger position (initially) because most people do not want to come to a premature ending and will knuckle under to the Zarqawist demands. This is what worries me about gratuitous potshots at Islam. That people like yourself are going to see the current struggle not as The West and moderate Muslims vs. Radical Tyrannical Islam but The West vs. Islam.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 12:44 PM (Ox5i9)

18 well no more blogging time to enjoy a nice motorcycle ride. This global warming thing does have an upside: Feb biking in New York without a full winter suit. I think the northern blue states might have to reconsider their opinion on green house gases. current NYC temp is 52F

Posted by: john ryan at February 02, 2006 12:45 PM (TcoRJ)

19 Vinnie: That's your perogative but it won't achieve anything except the exact opposite of what you want. You'll only distance Muslims and yourselves even more, not to mention be spreading factually incorrect, irresponsible and disrespectful views. If that's your rational response to terrorism, then so be it. Also, let it be known that the "civilized" nations have their own history of terrorizing people. They aren't without blame, so please don't take such a one-sided stance on the international situation. I hope you'll hold Western leaders to equally high standards and scrutinize their actions as just as well. Marcus: Classical Arabic isn't that forgotten a language We can speak and understand Latin can't we? Classical Arabic has the added benefit of there always having been a portion of the populace that can speak it, understand it's meaning and have memorized an entire book in the language. It was never forgotten, it's just not spoken in common langauge anymore. That said, I can appreciate the confusion over the meaning of "jihad", yet the fact remains that it has multiple meanings. To think of it in terms of modern language, it's common meaning is simply "to struggle or strive against". It's application, as preserved in the Quran, is both to physical and spiritual struggle, the goals of which are also preserved in the Quran. Some of the actions of the West (and certainly the sentiment on JR) leads one to believe that often the fight is the West vs. Islam. I know that's not the complete story though. There is also Islam vs. the militants. As I actually discussed in the JR thread I linked to earlier, the situation will require time, understanding, knowledge, money, and lives to correct. There are injustices being committed by both the West and the militant Muslims... plenty of blame to go around. Really, a discerning individual will see that the bigger struggle for Muslims is against ourselves rather than against the West, but the West should adopt the position of doing everything it can to not inflame the situation. The West needs to offer respect for a serious chance at peace. Likewise the Muslims need to wisen up. There is a serious need for education and englightenment both amongst Muslims and amongst the ilk that hang out on JR.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 01:40 PM (SHPL6)

20 >>>it pains me that the larger Christian populace is okay with this. No, we AREN'T ok with it. We make our opinion well known-- even resorting to boycotts. Leftwing christophobes have a right to practice their hate, and we have a right to strenuously object. But we draw the line at death threats and terrorism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 01:59 PM (8e/V4)

21 Sohail, Some of the actions of the West (and certainly the sentiment on JR) leads one to believe that often the fight is the West vs. Islam. I know that's not the complete story though. This is exactly what I am warning against. I see some people here as being against Islam in toto but I do not see that as the predominant sentiment here at the Jawa Report. In some of the other blogs I read commentators want the President to be more forthright in naming the enemy, and many take this as a sign of weak resolve to fight the war. I take it as prudent speech not as weakness or cavving into PC pressure. For too many it seems hear "Radical Islam" as "wha-wha-wha Islam" and miss the true target of the full label. That said, I am in full support of the Danish newspapers and newspapers that are reprinting the original cartoons. I decry the cartoons (if one can call them that) being put up here as knee-jerking. As far as your complaint about our tolerance of how we tolerate blasphemous depictions of Jesus and other co Biblical and Qur'ranic figures well... I do not much care for those insults. The problem is we are not about to go and violently put an end to the works. I work for ending the public subsidies such artists receive, I work to pressure galleries to not display such crap (by persuasion), and I use other non-violent tools to express my displeasure. But I am not about to issue threats or to try to encourage others to act out violently against the "artists". If Theo Van Gogh were still alive how many of us would know about the work that he and Ayan Hirsi Ali created?

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 02:12 PM (Ox5i9)

22 Sohail, I agree much of the fight is actually a fight amongst Muslims. One writer (IIRC it was David Frum) noted there is a struggle within Islam to reform itself. However, Mr. Frum went on to note the side analgous to Christianity's "Martin Luther" is not winning, i.e. the Bin Ladenites have the upper hand.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 02:19 PM (Ox5i9)

23 I will stop calling for the extemination of muslims when they stop calling for the extermination of everyone else. Until then, they are all my enemies. Islam is at war with civilization, and we don't have the luxury to differentiate between those who are trying to kill us, and those who merely actively or passively support the former.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 02:56 PM (0yYS2)

24 I'm with Max! . . . .

Posted by: large at February 02, 2006 03:12 PM (fEUSs)

25 If more Muslims were like Sohail I don't think we would be having this conversation. I wonder, Sohail, if you were to criticize the radicals for their behavior in all this brewhaha, would you feel safe? Could you go into a mosque in Britain, for instance, and decry the threats of violence made by some of the radicals? Just curious, because my position has always been that Islam will have to be remade in order to exist with the modern world.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 04:12 PM (rUyw4)

26 Improbulus: Please refer to the conversation here: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/131494.php Any war you want to wage will be unsuccessful. You are more apt to destroy all of humanity before you destroy the terrorists. Their will is not weaker, their resolve is no less than yours, their claims are no less valid than yours, they are no less human. They have their ideologues, we have ours. They don't like incursions on their land, and neither do we. We are effectively fighting ourselves. If you push to fight fire with fire, then you are pushing towards WW3, and in the nuclear age, that means everyone loses. Marcus: I like that you have a balanced view of this. I too support pushing for change via non-violent means. As far as that goes, we're in complete agreement. Where we disagree though is in our approach to the problem. The militants are a problem, but make no mistake about it, a direct war or confrontation cannot be successful in changing hearts and minds. In fact, we can quite easily observe the exact opposite. The Muslim nations, through a combination of internal corruption and external meddling feel that they have been marginalized and taken advantage of over the last century (or more). To address this, respect and education need to be brought to the forefront. When you listen past the bomb threats and what-not, Bin Laden and his cronies really appear to be fighting for self-determination, and that's what makes him and his ilk so popular amongst a certain segment of the Muslim populace. By meddling further, attempting to force democracy, thinking we can direct the development of that region of the world, we are again marginalizing that populace. Tolerant attitudes cannot be brought about through conflict. We need to withdraw our presence in that region of the world (with a carefully but clearly drawn out plan) because clearly they want self-determination, and frankly our presence is complicating the situation there, even for those that appreciate the American presence. For their part, the militants need to give some assurance that they won't try to dismantle all the governments of the Middle East overnight. But seeing as how it's a cycle of violence and meddling supporting each other, it makes even more apparent the fact that war and conflict is not a solution. We need to step back and take the high road here. This ties into these disrespectful cartoons because Muslims see people, free speech or not, going out of their way to insult the Muslim world. Free-speech does not mandate that everything that can be said is worth saying, and even if it did, certainly the sensitivities of an already disaffected Muslim populace needed to be considered. All in all, this paints the West in a pretty bad light with the Muslim world, not the militants are equally painting Muslims in a bad light. And I disagree that the militants are winning. They're louder, but they're not winning. Like I said though, if conflict reigns, they will just get more support and then everyone loses.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 04:25 PM (SHPL6)

27 Jesusland, I do criticize the radicals. It's one of the reasons the sect I belong to has been outcast by the entire Muslim world And we will keep criticizing them, although we pick our forums and we know it is a long term effort. Change is difficult for some to accept, so it requires patience and fortitude, whether it costs me my life is irrelevant.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 04:30 PM (SHPL6)

28 That said, I can appreciate the confusion over the meaning of "jihad", yet the fact remains that it has multiple meanings. To think of it in terms of modern language, it's common meaning is simply "to struggle or strive against". It's application, as preserved in the Quran, is both to physical and spiritual struggle, the goals of which are also preserved in the Quran. Like when they "struggle and strive" against a KFC franchise owned by Pakistani's with a car bomb, or when they "resist" against an unarmed reporter, by kidnapping and then severe his head with a bowie knife? that sort of thing, or have I got the wrong meaning again?

Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 04:37 PM (CcXvt)

29 Yeah, Marcus does make a pretty good point. However, thankfully I'm not a politician. Let Bush and Condi deal with diplomacy. I only wish to deal in the truth as I see it. And the truth as I see it is that Muslims are whiny bitches about insults and totalitarians at heart. And to Sohail, I'm glad to see you disclaiming the hadiths that clearly teach that Muhammed was a mass murderer. It's good that you recognize your own minority standing, though. As you know, such is the view of the major schools of Islamic thought. Hopefully your view will become the majority view some day. The ancient religion of the Hebrews seems just as barbaric as mainstream Islam does to me. The minority view of not taking the Mosaic Law literally eventually came to dominate and I now greatly admire modern Judaism. However, a lot of things happened in the intervening time to convince Jews not to take the command to stone Sabbath worshippers to death literally (even if that was a maximum penalty rarely imposed it is still evil).

Posted by: Rusty at February 02, 2006 04:46 PM (JQjhA)

30 Sohail must be sufi. Which means he's the good kind of muslim. Gentle as lambs, I'm told.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 04:50 PM (8e/V4)

31 Sohail, arabs specifically, and muslims generally, have been at war with the civilized West since islam began. I don't want to resolve anything, I just want to see muslims piled in mountains of corpses until they learn they can't defeat civilized people. You may be a good person, but you're still a member of a cult that has sworn death to anyone who will not surrender. I say give me liberty, or give me death.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 05:50 PM (0yYS2)

32 Sohail, actually we've talked before, as I now recall, perhaps on Jihad Watch. It's always nice to talk to a Muslim who doesn't call for my death simply because of a perceived insult. You remind me very much of my Muslim friends from Malaysia who are very worried about the radicalization now happening in their country. They are very concerned about part of their family who are ethnic Chinese and not Muslim. It's not that I don't trust your judgement, Sohail, but moderate Muslims seem to be dwindling both in numbers and influence. I am not at all confident where Islam is going in the short term, and perhaps a convergence of war and radicalism is fated. I hope not.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 06:01 PM (rUyw4)

33 Max, I hear you man! The song with the words "Aint no mountain high enough" comes to mind and I'll be right there with you and yours as long as there is air to breathe. "We don't need no steenkin' badges" or bullets to rock their world one neck at at time. That said, Sohail has, as he says separated his family from the mindless drones and seems to be trying to be a bridge to "normalize" relations between clear thinkers of all faiths and I for one, will extend a hand in friendship, in the effort to bring about understanding and peace for all. Trust is the issue and the proof is in the actions, good and bad. I'll shoulder, but I'm still locked and loaded because of the history.

Posted by: forest hunter at February 02, 2006 09:01 PM (Fq6zR)

34 I'm still having a little trouble with the statement "their claims are no less valid than yours,". And the "incursions" thing. Because before there was an incursion we watched planes run into buildings here and nearly 3,000 people died who did nothing more than go to work one day. Has Sohail forgotten that part? What should our response have been ? A great gathering of westerners to contemplate "Gee, those people must have deserved it somehow. We must Islamize our people more thoroughly to make sure they're safe from foreigners coming here to kill them indiscriminately" ? Because that's exactly what they're demanding. That's exactly what they say is their goal. To crush the west and bring them under Sharia rule and make the world a giant caliphate. I'm taking them at their word. That's valid? Oh, and I'm not done yet. The only other "incursion" was simply being non-Muslim and standing on their "sacred" ground. Because God forbid anyone should utter a word that that might put ideas into anyone's head over there like women's rights or freedom to worship as one sees fit or have the temerity to question their absolute authority on every single aspect over one's life. God forbid someone might find out that their precious frigging oil is the means by which they gain more power over the world and manipulate the price like pulling puppet strings. It kills me to listen to the claims of US Imperialism, which on it's face is a bald-faced lie while they outwardly admit their own goals of exactly that. It's hypocrisy at it's finest when they talk about the unjustness of the disparity between the powerful and the weak in the west as they crush the spirit and will of their own under onerous laws and threats of life and limb. Many Muslims are of the belief that Judaism and Christianity are religions of which Islam is the culmination and thereby superior. Agreements (the dhimma) are then drawn up only to the extent that if one is not Muslim they were "protected" only from annihilation if they adhere to those laws laid down by the Muslim community. Ridiculous laws with no other purpose than to establish that Jews and Christians are a sub-species; pigs and apes. In decreeing that even the poorest Muslim is superior to the richest Jew through the dhimma, they successfully solidify relations between the haves and the have-nots in the Muslim community. Through the dhimma, the upper Arab classes can keep support of the have-nots and retain extreme wealth and absolute power. Disparity of power and wealth, eh? That's valid? Life is only marginally better even for Muslims there than others. There is a mulitude of Mosque preaching Imams that drill into them that the only honor worthy of a Muslim is not an inner struggle but an outer forceful struggle to bring everyone under the same crushing authority. It far outweighs and far outreaches anything as honorable as one's own inner struggle to be just be good. The cognitive dissonance it creates is astounding. I'm deeply sorry for those who are trapped there under that weight who simply want to live their own life without being told day in and day out that the west wants to destroy them and they must fight an imagined enemy. It must be awful for them. The vast majority of Muslims here in the US were lucky enough to escape that and be free to go on with their "inner struggle" in peace. Those truly moderate and lamb-like Muslims are who we fight for. The extremists won't give them up without a fight. The ruthless and hypocritical upper ruling class Mulsims won't either. And they've made damn sure their "subjects" are confused as to who their enemy is.

Posted by: Oyster at February 03, 2006 06:04 AM (YudAC)

35 Are you Sufi Sohail? If so, you're not really a muslim then, at least not by the mainstream definition. If you are a Sufi, then don't take anything I've said to pertain to you, because I like Sufis and even have read Rumi. If you're not a Sufi, however, and since you do seem to be a good person, you must ask yourself if you can be a true muslim, since you're obviously not abiding by the teachings of the koran.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 09:44 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Clinton Taylor says no. Proof? The fact that Bush sent troops in to Liberia and now that country has the first woman president in Africa. Ever. Check out his article at Town Hall. Here's my favorite part, if somewhat unrelated to the rest of the article, still a helluva good point:

The old hippies at Rolling Stone magazine try once again to get a rise out of us Jesus-folk by running a cover photo of rapper Kanye West in a crown of thorns, beaten and bloodied, as if he were the subject of the Crucifixion. Ho-hum. Back when I was a teenager, Madonna’s Like a Prayer video actually attracted some attention. Today, though, Rolling Stone is going to have to work harder to cause a blasphemous splash—perhaps they could run a cover photo of Jewish shock-comic Sarah Silverman dressed as the Prophet Mohammed, and see if that gets some feedback.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:31 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

1 George Bush hates Kanye West.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:39 PM (8e/V4)

2 Hell, Mike Myers even hates Kanye West.

Posted by: Rusty at February 01, 2006 04:47 PM (JQjhA)

3 If the Rolling Stones has any balls or wants to take a stand for freedom of speech they will publish the Mohammed cartoons. It's easy to criticize Christians, but we'll see if they really stand for freedom of speech.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 04:51 PM (rUyw4)

4 >>>It's easy to criticize Christians, Exactly. Because we're gentle as lambs. But let's see if these "courageous" Libtards have the BALLS to put Mohammed on their front cover. They don't, obviously, because they know better. In the meantime, whenever I see their anti-christian schtick, it just reminds of their cowardice.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:56 PM (8e/V4)

5 Rolling Stone needs shock to deperately stay "relevant" - otherwise they will be selling subscriptions in tandum 2 for 1 with the AARP Mag.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 06:05 PM (3aakz)

6 What's wrong with the AARP mag.?

Posted by: thirdee at February 01, 2006 07:09 PM (BH9sQ)

7 Nothing - just drawing an analogy reference aging baby boomers.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 08:22 PM (3aakz)

8 He hates Kanye West, but his favorite dog is ....... Black Lassie.

Posted by: Timmy at February 01, 2006 08:56 PM (BJYNn)

9 Hondo, I was just messing around.

Posted by: thirdee at February 02, 2006 08:46 AM (BH9sQ)

10 I'm amazed that magazine is even still printed. Boring.

Posted by: dick at February 02, 2006 09:54 AM (XlQVK)

11 Rolling Stone still exists for one reason alone, i.e., inertia.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 10:13 AM (0yYS2)

12 Kayne West is a jerk who has a big mouth and a small barin why else is he such a jerk

Posted by: sandpiper at February 03, 2006 08:29 PM (sUgrV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Is Eric Alterman dumb or just evil? To equivocate between U.S. forces detaining women who have ties to terrorists and terrorists who kidnap, hold hostage, and threaten to murder civilians is dumb and evil, so I guess the answer is both.

Such equivocation minimizes the barbarity of hostage taking. Further, it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States who fight us because they actually believe such equivocations are true. Next time bin Laden delivers an audio tape to al Jazeera, I fully expect him to quote Eric Alterman.

Eric Alterman:

IÂ’d like to congratulate the Bush administration for having the good taste to not make too big a deal about the kidnapping of U.S. journalist Jill Carroll by Iraqi insurgents. Since the Bush administration is in the business of politically kidnapping innocent people too, including the wives of people it wants to surrender. I hate to say it because of the all the baggage it carries but it reminds me of the deliberate murder of the innocent Ethel Rosenberg, to try to get a confession out of her husband.

But that goes only to Alterman's stupidity. What about the evil accusation?

As regular readers know, I spend a good deal of my free time watching media produced by terrorists and reading what they say on bulletin boards. Alterman's accusations are identical to those made by jihadis all around the world. They justify the murdering of people like Jill Carroll as simple tit-for-tat.

The Americans murder Iraqi women, therefore murdering American women is justified.

They actually believe this. Why would they not? Their media tells them so. They even have images of crying women making the same accusations. It only makes matters worse that the American Left also seems to enjoy believing the most outrageous accusations made against the U.S.

So, we should not be surprised that when terrorists in Iraq cut off the head of an American civilian that they first dress him up in the orange jumpsuits so familiar from picturs of Abu Ghraib. They justify their actions because they equivocate the abuse at Abu Ghraib with torture and murder.

Just as Eric Alterman equivocates detaining security threats who happen to be women with the kidnapping of civilians.

The views of the people holding Jill Carroll hostage are shaped by the outrageous lies of the Arab, Islamist, and Western Leftist media. For nearly two years now, with every single female hostage that has been taken there has been a demand that all female Iraqi prisoners must be released from prison. These demands came long before Jill Carroll was taken hostage because these media outlets made outlandish accusations that thousands of Iraq women were in prison, being tortured, raped, forced to watch as American soldiers sadistically killed their small children, and murdered.

All of which are lies, and all of which outlets such as the one cited by the ignoramous Eric Alterman--al Jazeera.com--have been running for years.

So, when the U.S. military admits that it occassionally detains women for questioning in a country that has more than its fair share of female suicide bombers, how exactly are we to come to the conclusion that we are guilty of hostage taking? Even when these women are only detained for questioning because their husbands are terrorists, such equivocation is unfounded. The wives of criminals are routinely questioned in the United States, even in peacetime. And charging the loved ones of a criminal is routinely done in the U.S. as leverage against the real target of the criminal investigation--the husbands.

Under war conditions is it surprising that we might need to detain the wife of a terrorist who may know the time and location of the next bombing of a cafe that her husband is planning? That soldiers might occasionally overstep the normal bounds of detention if they think that holding a woman might lead to the arrest of the kind of man that beheads hostages? That the same procedural rules that apply in Chicago don't necessarily apply in Baghdad?

It takes a sick, demented, and perverted mind to come to the conclusion that American soldiers are engaged in the same activities as Islmic terrorists. Eric Alterman has such a mind.

More at Newsbusters who have a similar disdain of Alterman.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:22 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

Go see Ted Rall's latest outrage and tell me he doesn't deserve a swift kick in the [insert body part here]. (via Bluto)

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has this offensive cartoon by Tom Toles. The brass is not too happy, and either am I.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:59 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Sure, we believe you.

"Muscle spasms."

Heh.

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:06 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.