1 Someone give me one good reason why liberals shouldn't be all rounded up and shot. Just one.

2 They're entertaining?

3 So, who was the hot drunk chick Dick Cheney was nailing before he drowned her?

4 Their derangement is getting worse by the day.

5 It's a mental illness, Carlos.

6 So I'm guessing in 2030 the impeachment of Bill Clinton will be referred to by the Left as the "Presidential fellatio, affair"

7 Yeah, it'll be that unfortunate incident where Bill tripped and fell and an expensive cigar got ruined.

1 Makes perfect sense. U Ill has a large muslim minority student population, and there are significant numbers of muslims through-out the area and state. They would be upset and get angry. It would be relatively easy for some to simply aquire firearms, go on campus, and execute (selectively or indiscriminately) fellow students and teaching staff. Also, security at campuses is relatively weak - a dedicated (an offended) muslim student (or otherwise) could easily assemble explosive materials and deliver a bomb to say the Admin building, or Library or Student Cafeteria etc. killing dozens if not hundreds of young (and potentially important) people. Makes perfect sense to me. ALLAH AKBAR!

2 I love the "Stop...Stop...We ran out of virgins" cartoon Doesn't this make sense to everyone? Afterall it's fine to dump the bible in a jar of piss and call it art. But let's kill everyone who draws Mohamed the pedaphile!!!

3 All the cartoons are rather tame compared to the filth that MUSLIM PUBLICATIONS in the Middle East routinely run on Jews and Christians. This entire controversy has nothing to do with respect for Islam, but everything to do with the power of Islam to silence its critics. Wake up, America, before it is too late. The more you give in to these people, the more you reward their threats of violence. Rewarding threats of violence breeds violence.

4 JJ Look closely at who are the ones giving in. Notice anything?

5 Muslims and liberals need to be killed off.

6 Liberals at their usial dirty work making is so only liberals can be heard

7 Yeah sandpiper, but it ain't gonna work no more, because of this newfangled intarweb thang. Heh.

8 I thought the rules were pretty harsh, so just to get em up here where we can see what policies may be in the future. Not good. They may have been suggested before but I saw this link had em spelled out.

9 One would think that the self-appointed champions of a free press would not run and hide so easily. What militant Islam wants, militant Islam gets.

1 only because they fear no attacks, or intolerant rage from Christians, of course, then they'll deny it was Muhammed when the other side takes the field.

2 It will be interesting indeed to see how Islamists respond to this cartoon. Even without Mohammed's face being shown, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who the other guy with the turban is supposed to be. One more stray thought: Doesn't this particular image at least symbolically equate Mohammed with Judas? It's not as though this cartoon is the first place where Jesus has been kissed, ya know.

3 Uh, didn't I hear the Muslims say that they would defend the good name of ALL the prophets? Don't these Muslims claim Jesus to be a prophet? The prophet Jesus has been insulted, Muslims, so do your duty. Slay the creators of this cartoon.

4 "Doesn't this particular image at least symbolically equate Mohammed with Judas?" Whoa. Deep thoughts.

5 The typical Canadian response: Insulting just a group or community isn't ok. You should rather insult everybody you can. One more reason why it's Canadian is the "promotion" (lack of a better word, sorry) of homosexuality. University papers seems to seek every opportunity to give gay exposure. I got to move away from this country... - Max

6 Max, Just be sure to end up in a red state. You won't find much difference between Ottawa and Connecticut.

7 One comment from this side: I rahter would have seen Mohammed kissing Jezus!.. To get a sertain nuance right! But, ...anything for the right politics, so to speak!

8 I hear you Rusty. I think the kind of person I am, and, from what I read here, the kind of most persons here are less and less present. That's sad, because in my opinion it's not a question of beleives or religion, it's a question of COMMON SENSE. But in the world we are living, if you yell, burn or kill, you most likely win everything. Here in Canada, and especially in Québec, you can't joke on the following subjects: - Gay; - Ethnicity; - Religion (exeption made of Christianity); and - Women's rights. The only people left laughing at are Catholic heterosexual white men aged between 18 to 60. Why? Because no one complain. I'm tired of all that sh.t - Max

9 Max, I recommend Texas if you like lots of different kinds of people, or Northwest Arkansas if you want to live in a WASP region. Conservative Catholics are seen as WASPs in Arkansas, as they basically think alike. I am currently working in the Conway, Arkansas, area and it is pretty nice with proximity to Little Rock. I am from West Texas(Abilene), but have to follow the oil and gas business, as that is what I work in. There is a huge new natural gas discovery in the Conway area, and the economy is booming here and all over NW Arkansas. Texas is down a little economically, at least for us oil patch guys. I'm sure Tennessee is nice, and many of the Midwest and western states are great, too, but I'm just telling you about what I know. So come on to the US, Max, we need good guys like you.

10 I'm trying to muster up the urge to burn an embassy or two over this, but it's just not happenin'.

11 Hey Max, don't let the gate at the toll booth hit your ass on the way out.

12 I think that we may be a little disappointed in the "democracy in the mid-east". So far in free elections all we have seen are radical muslims surprising us with their popularity. In Palestine Hamas wins, in Iraq the parties allied with Iran win. In Egypt the muslim brotherhood scores higher than anyone thought they would. Iran would probably welcome an air attack by the USA, it would unify a deeply divided population and their leaders would be able to blame all their problems on the USA as Castro does now. In Afghanistan democracy has resulted in a government where their "president" must be defended by American bodyguards and it is unsafe for him to leave the capital, and where 50% GNP is heroin derived.

13 in Iraq the parties allied with Iran win Yes, I was surprised that the majority of Muslims in Iraq, the Shiites won, I was expecting the Christians to win, or at least the Freemasons.

14 Maybe it proposes the analogy, Judas : Jesus :: Jesus : Mohammad ?

15 Democracy is such a crappy system. All we can hope for is that they realize it's better than what they had so they'd better stop voting themselves back into oppression.

16 How many of these liberal rags in this country will print this cartoon they are probibly waiting in line

17 There's a point where it's so obvious they're trying soooooo hard to offend that it fails to offend anymore. At that point the blasphemous depiction says far more about the nitwit who painted it than about the religions he's mocking.

18 Push comes to shove - paper will deny that the character in the turban is Mohammed - push harder and they will backtrack and claim he isn't even muslim. They want to appear tough on the "issue" which is why they singled out JESUS. This passes for courage among liberals and leftists. Fine with me - but hey islamists! They are just being coy and jerking your chain! This not only is a cartoon portrayal of Mohammed - he is being presented as homosexual and submissive to Chistianity. So if you want to drive a truck bomb thru their front door - knock yourself out - they are no kin of mine.

19 The students at the University of Toronto offer us political satire framed as a religious cartoon. Very nicely done. If Jesus and Muhammed had been wearing cowboy hats this could just as easily have been targeting an Academy Award nominated film. Love is a force of nature people, infinitely greater than any religion. Beautiful message.

20 Dear Bro. Max, If'n y'all dee-cide to move to the USofA, pleese consider Freehold, Iowa (I know it's a yankee state, or blue state, but we true Christians are a'takin' over!!! GLOWry!!!! Pleese visit my church: Landover Baptist Church..."where the worthwhile worship"! http://www.landoverbaptist.org

21 CW, You're stupid.

22 And if you were a real man you would do the exact same thing with the Muslim faith. Haha, but you don't have the balls for that, do you. Go ahead, please prove me wrong.

23 Dear Bro. JL Joe, I may be stoopid, but at least I'm saved and GLOWRY-bound! Love the Muslim, Hate the Muslim-isms!

24 oh no the American taliban jokes, that's a new angle. no really. eat a dick, moron.

25 Dave, By yer language, I'm thinkin' yer an unsaved, potty-mouthed, LIE-brahl, secular-humanist! Please leave our Godly, true-Christian message board. Canada might be a good place fer yer kind. SHOOO!!!!!

26 What are muslim terrorists wearing this spring that is savvy, smart, but not too western-decadent? Find out in Vogue Saudi Arabia: http://www.bettybowers.com/vogue.html

27 Thanks JJ, I'm considering the offer. I already tought about moving to the States. Much better weather than here, and when I was thinking of joining the army 9 years ago, I knew that I would have more opportunity to go oversea. Rusty: I think your server was attacked by those e-jihads fuc.ers yesterday, around 1400 and 1600 eastern time... Did you got any problems with it?

28 That cartoon is disgusting!!! When i see 2 religious Icons together they better have swords in their hands! How about Muhammad and Jesus beheading Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?

29 Mohammed is the bitch.

30 I think slappy and Kevin would make a cute couple.

31 First of all, the University of Toronto's stufent newspaper is The Varsity, not the Strand. The Strand is Victoria College's student newspaper. Not a major error since Vic is one of the federated college's of U of T. However, The Strand and The Varsity are two different newspapers. Second, in first century Palestine kissing persons of the same sex was a common form of greeting and not associated with homosexuality. Third, cowboy hats would have been an amusing touch but would have interfered with the elegant ambiguity of the cartoon as it stands. Fourth, I am not offended. I expect everyone is relieved to hear that.

32 Thomas, I hear you, but may I point you that they (in the cartoon) are in a swan going trough the "tunnel of tolerance"? It's not just the kissing, it's the context. I'm not offended by a cartoon. I'm offended by the context of things. (Sorry for the bad English). - Max

33 I personally don't see what is wrong with Jesus and Muhammed expressing love and tolerance - see my own personal Jesus and Muhammed cartoon at the below website: http://www.drawmohammed.com/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=4

1 It's just about time boys. Stock up on ammo now, because when it starts, the government will ban the sale of ammo and weapons within a week. Remember, they are not on our side.

2 Maxie - relax Here in NYC we have all kinds of people from all over the world - and seldom noted or reported - NO ONE TRUSTS OR LIKES THE MUSLIMS! Its really amazing at how successful muslims have been in alienating and creeping out EVERYBODY! Better yet - white liberals, leftists, gays etc ... are frightened by them! - and it so obviously shows!

3 look at the 'raisin head' lifting up his "Islam will dominate" poster, I bet he has a heart grosser than a Donkey's.

4 Yeah, you're right hondo, I get it; nothing to see here, go back to sleep. Sure thing.

5 Oh man. I had almost forgotten why they require their women to wear burqas. Obviously, the burqa isn't a religious or cultural thing. It's our equivalent of a two-bagger.

6 I wish I was in New York. I would buy as many little pigs I could find, and let them go real close to these moon god worshippers. I bet I could trip one of those ragheads as they ran buy. Buy Danish!

7 slug is correct. The girl with the glasses looks like a pitbull licking piss off a thistle.

8 These shitheads think they are immune from punishment. But they would do well to ask the Japanese what happens when you get Americans pissed. And I'm pissed at these Muslim scum. If they try anything, then open season on the bastards. Hell, I wish they would try something. I'm tired of their rhetoric.

9 Are there any thinkers in the religion of fascism and homicidal mania? Doesn't suicide bombing and murdering over cartoons effectively negate rational discourse? Morons. The Oracle www.redskybrothers.blogspot.com

10 TITS short for The Islamic (forgive the abuse of the next word-don't burn my house) Thinkers Society. Haa! Who helped the thinkers come up with the name? As to the Japanese comment, jj. Good point, but after we wipe this Islamic plague out, will we have the same rebuilding responsibilities as we did with Japan with the surviving facists?

11 The last thing I want to see is allah's rash piss on 'em Roll your bullets in bacon grease - be sure when you kill them you kill them eternally. Send them back to hell, they ran out of virgins years ago anyway. (speaking of hell.... those woman are the scariest sack of nazi's I've ever seen) No wonder islamic "men" would rather walk a mile for their camel - before having to come home to one of these vacuous, stupid, third class, burka'd beasts. Fight islam Now

12 This is truly disturbing sh1t. Damn, I don't own a gun but I do need to get one.. or two. We have all read about civil wars in our history books and it's all so abstract and distant. I think we're going to find out that it's on our doorstep and not abstract at all. Trouble is, we'll be fighting our own US government as well. They'll come in to quell the shooting and arrest those of us defending the US. What kind of sick shit is that??

13 Pretty damn sick, Richard, but that is where we find ourselves in the first decade of the 21st Century, right back in the fricking 8th Century. It took Christians 400 years to get enough of these Muslims the first time around, I just hope we get enough real quick this time. I know I've had all of this shit I can stand. I'm pissed.

14 See more pictures from today at http://tinyurl.com/92akm

15 you fucking jerks. Look more into islam before you start spilling shit from your ass.

16 You better get some respect livin4dawun, or your prophet will catch some more hell. Your ass is likely to be in a crack if you are in the US, so laugh it up asshole, while you can!

17 Laugh it up? I can laugh in all your faces, yeah that I definately could do. Inshallah han shoofak wallahi. Tell me since when freedom of speech meant freedom to oppress and mock other religions? Just because you have the right to do it, doesn't mean its right, and we only peacefully wanted to bring that point across from you. I did my job. Now if your heads are too fucking thick to process it, then I am fine with that, because I am done here.

18 People making the excuses for these bastards should be the first ones dispatched from planet earth as they'll be the first to condem anyone for defending themselves against these stoneage level savages. BTW, Mohammed pleasures satans(allahs) love pump orally everyday in hell.

19 only "responsible editors" get punished?! what about irresponsible editors? no fair!

20 Livin4dawun: I'll tell you when I have the Freedom to oppress and mock other religions: When your religion tries to tell me how to live, attempts to force it's moral code upon me and threatens my freedoms by holding up signs saying you will "dominate." That isn't religion, that is ideology, you've overstepped the bounds of religion and as such it should be dealt with accordingly.

21 livin4dawun , Islam is at best a cult, religion it is not, nor ever has been. "Peaceful" or maybe you meant, full of pieces. You believe you can hijack the Muslim faith and have a leg to stand on. What peaceful things are you doing now, you deranged maniacs? You are morons, with a death wish for all. That's a good idea! Let's start with you! The only thing you said that was right was, "...I am done...". More done than asshole, terrorist, islamic pukes like you, can ever know. You have kicked the wrong dog and soon you'll be buried in bacon bits you incoherent fucks. If jerks like you had been responsible at all, you wouldn't find your dumb asses being ridiculed. You're a heartless bunch of whiners, hiding behind women and children too weak to resist your inbred twisted perversions!

22 Oh, now the pinheads are saying we're thick-headed. Okay, Einstein, I'm going to give you a chance to tell us where in the US Constitution it says our Freedom of Speech is limited so as not to offend you or your knob-sucking 'prophet' . I'll save you the time and tell you that our 1st amendment right is absolute. There is no place that says we can't mock your 'religion of peace' even though there is certainly a lot to be mocked. Our Supreme Court will see to that if you can even get one of the liberal district courts to side with you. Where you and your pig-fornicating friends made your miscalculation is that most in this country aren't afraid of you like they are in Europe and we won't turn in our many weapons and surrender like the French. So, you 'peacefully wanted to bring that point across from you' did you? And I guess you did that by burning embassies, calling for yet another murder of human beings, and generally just looking foolish in front of the world. Great job getting your point across - assuming looking like a bunch of pricks was your point. Go ahead, al-Sparky, bring it on. As long as you and the other illerate cave dwellers live in the 8th century worshipping your pedophile, you're still just an uneducated pile of pork feces. Now process this: get back to your cave and finish up that batch of Nikes or we won't give you your 7 cents. Be a good boy and I'll pray to the true Lord God and ask him to forgive your soul. Actually, I'll pray for you anyway since we are taught to pray for those who are on the road to be condemed to hell in hopes that He will show you some mercy. Does your God teach the same thing or did you just bastardize his words on you own? God bless you.

23 remember this, when some smarmy starbucks liberal elite mocks the president and tells you "they don't hate our freedoms" It becomes obvious everytime you hear the Muslim voices, even in our own country that they hate freedom of religion ("Islam will dominate") they hate freedom of speech (cartoons) these things are offensive to Islam, because as we know Islam is incompatible with democratic values. I know we make fun of the so called 'moderate' Muslim, however they are here, and most of them have fled some shithole sandtrap where the above values are law and probably had one or more family member be a victim of the above type of theocracy, they most likely value the freedom of the United States, they don't have to be a Muslim, they do it by choice, they can eat pork or drink Alcohol, but choose not to. The only Muslims that are not a threat to the United States, are those that do not believe in the Caliphate agenda, believe others may practice their own religion and renounce violence done in the name of Islam. I hope they speak up soon.

24 yes dave we r a terrorist yes u right, hatred + racism, you kill out of the hundred of muslim innocent children, women everyday in afganistan, irak, palestine. you have exterminate the Indian people, launch a bomb atomic in hirochima, nagazaki you've kill a million Vietnamese an combodjian, you've terrorize the black people at last the torture in abu graib and in guantanamo. since century you colonialisez, you declancher the 2 world war, hitler burn the Jew and after all that you leave the Jews establish a nation (israel) palestine.

25 I advise you to read our history to learn our language + if you want the truth do not listen to ur media, and thank you

26 Islamway, You would like us to learn your language? You are very lucky that we do not, for to listen to the garbage that you project over the airways the American people would have no doubt how much you hate us and what your intentions truly are. What you teach your young and old alike. I have always said, if the left started to listen to what is being said in Farsi and Urdu, instead of the apologetics published for Western consumption, they would get very uncomfortable indeed, and we would not have this problem of endlessly trying to convince them. As for Islam dominating the world. Just watch my middle finger Islamway, and be grateful that you have for the moment the moderates to protect you. When their bubble bursts, you will see an entirely different America, then I would advise you to simply leave.

27 Ahum, let me seeeÂ….I wonder what All Bundy would think of this.

28 The RoP never seems all that peaceful to me. GW and Condi were talking about Islam right? Check out the movie "Mars Attacks" It's starting to look like a prophetic documetary about the Islamic takeover of the US.

29 To Islamway: Mohammed was a pedophile who should have been killed on sight. Your pedo prophet has caused terrorism on a grand scale and your toilet tissue koran is the cause. I WIPE MY ASS WITH YOUR KORAN! And don't get on the black people issue or anything about massacring, your prophet who you idolize has done much worse and as far as that goes, Sudia Arabia didn't formally ban slavery until 1964 you backwards donkey licker.

30 You call these people civilized? their still living in the stone age

31 http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/020106danishcartoons/im:/060217/481/xkc10802170951;_ylt=Ai54EwBZs5JmmkWrk0i0YUFgWscF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3dmhrOGVvBHNlYwNzc20- my favorite pic, it has a communists face on the shirt. Gee, what would the communist love of his life think of Islam? Not much since it would be banned.

32 Islamic Thinkers Society? What are they thinking about, killing someone?

33 I think living4dawun has it all backward. We don't need to look deeper into islam. I've seen enough. Muslims need to look deeper into US culture and try find a way to fit in. They seem to expect that US culture will bend itself to fit THEIR vision. With everything else that's been said here, I'd also say the islamics are just a little narcissistic.. kinda like their libtarded brethren here in the US.

34 I advise you to read our history to learn our language + if you want the truth do not listen to ur media, and thank you LOL! funniest comment ever. How about you learn the U.S History then come back, you probably believe the Jews are poisoning the wells. moron.

35 Why is it that the only people who ever even attempt to make a convincing argument as to why muslims should not be rounded up and gassed like rats are the dreaded, evil White Christian "neocons"? Every 'slamotard comment only supports and reinforces my argument that we must kill them all if we ever want peace. This is war people, and if you don't have the guts to fight, you'd better get ready to sell your daughter to a goatherder. Jesus H. Christ, I'm ashamed of what my countrymen have become.

36 If theey tramp on or burn our flag then we do the same to their own national flags we tramp on them and burn them

37 I'm not quite ready to sell my daughter to a goatherder, IM. I just got back from the gun store where I picked up 1000 rounds of ammo for my Socom, so let's just say I'm getting ready for what I see coming up. I do need a little more time, as all these guns and ammo are getting quite expensive. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know.

38 JJ, I'm afraid that you and I are about the only ones on this blog that are ready to fight, the rest just seem ready to let the goatfuckers take over. Nothing to see here, move along...

39 ya'll catholics and christians r ignorant and dont know anything. Get ur facts straight!!!! go to www.islamway.com

40 Hey, dumb ass Hajer, Catholics are Christians, so who needs to get whose facts straight? And I'm getting pissed at you goatherders, so STFU while you can!

41 Hajer: allow me to fulfill your death wish! Your extinction is in the breech! BTW that whole virgins waiting thing-pay attention you inbred fuck-was more pigshit from the pedopuke's mouth. I got your history and your future layin' right here. Smell that! Fresh scent of gun oil and bacon grease in the morning air, can only be better if it were napalm......

42 Thanx but plz check out that website at www.islamway.com or www.haqaonline.com

43 Haj, no thanks.

44 Mmmmm, gun oil and bacon grease... I'm going to start buying hollow points and cramming the tips full of lard. Heh.

45 y am i not surpised?? another site with ignorant ppl discussing issues as if they understand...hehehe well look ppl no1 is asking u to like us nno is telling u to bcome muslim no1 just one thing... before u tlk know wat ur saying and indicate proof... ok so u see alot of bad muslims on tv... do u seriously believe everything on the media? dont u noe wat propaganda is? some of these muslim ppl u see on tv are extremists and understand islam wrong... so they think its jihad... but they are wrong? do even noe wat jihad is ? ull prob say its to kill every american in the world lool thats not wat it is jihad is anything that u do for the sake of god ANYTHING!

46 ok so did u even look into wat in gods world our religon preaches?? did u even look into wat the prophet mohammed asked us to do? of course not u see a bunch of extremists doign stupid thngs and ur like oh thats islam.. did u even noe that as muslims we beleive in jesus and moses? that we love and respect them,as much as mohammed (s.a.w)did u noe that? of course not! all that our prophet mohammed asked from us to help the poor, b good to our parents regardless, he asked us not to backbite not to steal or instegate... he asked us to belive in one god he asked us to respect all religions and b peaceful with all.. he asked us to be patient... did u noe that as muslims we are not allowed to harm , burn or bring down any place of worship even during a war?be it a church or sanagogge or any other place? thats how much respect he taught us to have... i urge u guys to have a broader view and to know that not all muslims are those on Tv because in reality they are a small portions who like u do not understand the tru islam and the true message of our prophet... peace to u all and if u wnat to learn more: www.islamicboard.com www.islam.com

47 That was a joke right? even countries which are considered moderate "models" of Islam like Indonesia, Jordan et. al are on fire over CARTOONS. I assume by the use of your lingo, you are British, I saw a group of about forty Muslim people with signs in London promising/promoting violence. I am not sure why I did not see you, or any other moderates on the other side of the street denouncing the deeds of the so called 'few' extremists. See, the problem is, we hear from you so called moderates every week or so: except for us, your actions speak lounder than words, no one is denouncing the violence officially as un-islamic but ever so more telling there are no counter-protests, marches by moderates decrying violence done in the Prophets/Allah's name, and until that time we'll continue to believe you do not protest because you silently agree with the message, even if not the means.

48 i've got to agree with peace 2 all, just take one second out of your life and read something on islam that is not biased. i am an american muslim and love the US. i believe in freedom of speech. just like anything in life, tho, there are limits. i was there at the protest and we saw those people with hateful signs. like the guys with poster of "allah's wrath is on its way"... we KICKED HIM OUT of the protest because it was a peaceful protest and we were trying to show what Islam is really about...

49 Did you kick out the guy with the "Islam will Dominate" fatima, or do you agree with the Caliphate?

50 These bozos can take their Sharia, turn it sideways and shove it straight up their camel-f_cked @$$e$!!!!!!

51 The muslims who posted here do not even know their own religion whil they ask us to learn more.You ladies and men do noknow your own history .I do believe there are peaceful muslims but it has nothing to do with mohammeds religion,the reason you are a nice person is exactly because you don't really follow the tradtyion of your fals prophet.You believe that religion should be peace and love but that is because of the way the true God made us and the Good Lord commanded us even to love our enemies as much as possible(thats my little addition).You all need to open your eyes and shake off your sleep and recognize that the religion of mo began with him fighting and raiding caravans read the hadiths and see how they loved killing and war.Stop covering yourself and trying to make your false religion sound like the true religion of peace Christianiyt,which is easily proved by all of Jesus teaching without the need to twist it .unlike your own.Your religion is not one that emphasizes love and peace but blind acceptance and submission.One cannot leave islam without being cursed and killed,is that loving and peaceful and tolerant?that is just one thing and a small one compared to the rest.

52 Michael: mo began with him fighting and raiding caravans read the hadiths and see how they loved killing and war. Mohammad loved children however.

53 Your prophet mo was a deceiver and probably deceived himself,a proven liar and unfaithful.He copied and borrowed everything from the jews and Christians but mixed it all up with his own opinions .the teaching is not even worthy to be called a teaching.Everyone knows that the koran is a book that just repeats the same thing again and again with nothing new only threats and threats.You must realize why you follow what you do does it come from freedom or your parent tradtion.If you just follow because you were taught it without examining it in detail then you are just like any idolater who worships a lizard because his parents did so,Abraham behaved not so,he left the worship of his parents to follow the true God.YOu must com e to the faith that is pleasing to GOd ,not as a slave but as sons and daughters,freely choosing.od already gave you the tools in your heart to come to him when your heart tells you religion should be peaceful and merciful since we want mercy ourselves and this is the religion of your heart which is christianity,so stop pretending and fooling yourself that this is what your false prophet said.Now this doesn ;t mean there are some wholesome aspects practiced in mulim families but the good parts do not come from islam but from simple family love, do not confuse them.Jesu is your only way and hope you will not enter paradise if you follow the killing false ptrophet mo.the jihadists are only imitating thier first example because they admire him,notice when a christian imitates his Lord Jesus Christ he becomes humble peaceful and a blessing to all men not violent.

54 Dave .you got that right.got to go to work hopefully talk with you guys soon

55 Hey JJ and Maximus - I'm with ya and I'm ready to fight and I want to fight NOW and not save the fight like cowards for our children. The first thing we can do, every day, is CALL A nazi A nazi. Talk to our friends and try to explain what we are facing and that it is 1938 again NOW and that islam is the nazi's. Educate everyone you can on the reasons why islam is incompatible with the peace and safety of your children and grandchildren's future peace and security. Show the pictures, show what they say. They hang themselves with their own words (as you know) if people will just break through the denial or the MSM programming. Explain that you do not want and you will not tolerate your daughter in a burka, your son forced to kneel to this islamonazi facism crap EVER. Remember Patrick Henry said "As for me - Give me liberty or give me death" and I would ad to preserve the liberty, safety and security of my family, and yours Fight islam in every way possible NOW before it is too late! NEXT: DO NOT ALLOW THE TRAITORS IN OUR GOVERNMENT TO SELL OFF OUR PORTS TO AN ARAB COMPANY. (note that our government at all levels, both parties, seems to be giving the enemy the rope to hang us with) AT THE SAME TIME; DEMAND AN END TO moslem IMMIGRATION EXPELL moslems. This is not a relegion it is a nazi, totalitarian ideolgy and it should not be allowed to spawn in our country and use our freedoms to ambush us in the night. WE NEED TO DEMAND THAT NON CITIZEN moslems leave the country immediately or be deported for the security of the country. Close all mosques. These are enemy forward combat bases and should be closed, the nazi's deported. Build a wall on the Mexican border to prevent the current invasion of our country. The fight is comming and I'm with you. These things we can do now. Lets do them in every way. Lets confront and provoke these bastard retards. And dip your bullets in bacon grease. When it comes time, Deny them the reward they seek. FIGHT islam NOW

56 To islamway, Have you looked at your religion. It is full of hate, and death. I have. History shows Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl. Hey, let us say that was a wrong print. It appears Mohammed enjoyed cutting off heads, and making slaves of women. Have you come across that information? Look, anyone with half a brain can see Islam is a false religion. It appears Mohammed was delusional. To me, Satan talked to Mohammed as god, and now their are a billion false moon god worshipping Muslims. Some are killing folks over cartoons. I bet you do not agree islamway, so I will keep going to the gym, keeping my ammo dry, and pray to Jesus who was raised from the dead, and sits at the right hand of G-d to help you see the light of truth. Over, and out. Buy Danish!

57 To islamway, Have you looked at your religion? It is full of hate, and death. I have. History shows Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl. Hey, let us say that was a wrong print. It appears Mohammed enjoyed cutting off heads, and making slaves of women. Have you come across that information? Look, anyone with half a brain can see Islam is a false religion. It appears Mohammed was delusional. To me, Satan talked to Mohammed as god, and now there are a billion false moon god worshipping Muslims. Some are killing folks over cartoons. I bet you do not agree islamway, so I will keep going to the gym, keeping my ammo dry, and pray to Jesus who was raised from the dead, and sits at the right hand of G-d to help you see the light of truth. Over, and out. Buy Danish!

58 Plz understand!!! We are not protesting over cartoons!! We are protesting because the Danish cartoonists mocked our religion!! How would you (non-muslims)feel if us "muslims" mocked your religion? And yes i agree with freedom of speech, but the Danish cartoonists and Denmark itself went beyond the limit!! Plz think about! It's common sense!!! What if all this happened to you (non-muslims)! I would love an answer. PLZ AND BY THE WAY I AM AMERICAN JUST LIKE YOU ALL, ACTUALLY AMERICAN-MUSLIM!!

59 Hey hajer, how much more will you protest when you find yourself being tossed into a pen of ravenous wild boars at about 400 pounds each? Yeah, I'm going to raise a herd, and feed them on muslims. Heh.

60 The Quran from the perspective of a non-Muslim: Robin Peters is a 44 years old lady who read the Quran and then she liked to comment on what she've read .. so let's see what did she say .. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The Koran is the Bible of Islam. Revealed to the world by Muhammad approximately 1,400 years ago, it is regarded by Muslims, universally, as the word of God to Muhammad and from him to all Islam. No devout Muslim disputes this; in this respect, there is more agreement among Muslims about the divine origin of the Koran (seen as having been literally dictated to Muhammad by the mouth of Allah Himself) than there is about the origins of the Bible among Christians. Even those of us forced to rely on translations of the Koran (considered interpretations of same because only the Arabic Koran is the literal Word of God) can see the literary value of this work. There is tremendous spiritual and psychological value in reading this book, as well, for Muslim and non-Muslim alike. For me, the psychological value of this book comes in its emphasis on right and wrong belief and standing up for what you believe in, even if it costs you dearly in terms of human relationships. Certainly, no one has accused Muslims of being wishy-washy about their faith! In fact, the differences in the various branches of Islam come from the ways in which they practice their faith. A Sunni Muslim will differ from a Shi'ite or Twelver Muslim in the way in which they practice their faith, but they will not disagree about the divine origin of the Koran or the fact that there are correct and incorrect beliefs. I think that Catholics and Protestants can learn an important lesson from Muslims in this regard; we have become so concerned with whether or not the Bible is inspired or dictated directly from the mouth of the Lord, or whether certain beliefs are correct or incorrect, or whether certain actions or practices are moral or immoral, that we are no longer truly Christian or loving of one another. The Koran basically mandates certain behavior from the rank-and-file believer. In this respect, Islam is less a religion than a way of life and pattern of behavior with Allah (God) at its very center. By way of contrast, Christians leave Christianity at the door of church on Sunday, still practicing that civil religion so popular during the 1950s and so offensive to those of us who take the Bible and Christ seriously. Muslims are expected to pray five times daily; Christians who pray once daily are seen as "out of the loop" and are thus discouraged from contacting God regularly unless it's to be polite during a worship service. Muslims fast at least one month a year; Christians generally ignore the need to undergo cycles of feasting and fasting, unless they belong to a denomination which takes Lent seriously. Muslims consider charitable donations a tax of sorts, due and payable once a year during the feast of Eid, one of the five pillars of the faith without which one is not a Muslim; Christians generally donate to charity with such highhandedness and snobbery that they might as well not donate one penny. I would strongly recommend that people of all religious persuasions read the Koran, if only to learn more about what Islam really is all about.

61 American muslem - translation - nazi in America FIGHT islam NOW

62 American moslem - Translation - nazi in America FIGHT islam NOW

63 SALAAM WA ALAIKUM HAJER, YOU CAN SEE BY THE WAY THESE FILTHY INFIDELS SPEAK TO YOU THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO YOU. THEIR HEARTS ARE SEALED. THEY WISH TO FOLLOW THEIR WHIMS AND DESIRES. SO FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH, STOP BENDING BACKWARDS FOR THEM. THEY WON'T LISTEN. DON'T SUGARCOAT ISLAM FOR THEM. PRESENT ISLAM AS IT IS. NO NEED TO TWIST AND TURN AND HIDE THINGS. IF THEY DON'T ACCEPT THEN BE IT. DON'T WASTE YOUR SWEAT OVER THEM. THESE ARROGANT INFIDELS WILL HAVE THEIR DAY...

64 I saw the crickets chirp, after the "Caliphate" question. Always the same "I'm a good, American Muslim" however cannot even answer a simple question of if they agree with the Caliphate, Sharia etc. As for you "burka boy" HWYD, keep proving you hate the freedoms! I hope your backward cave isn't on the "next" list, for a install of Democracy 2.0.

65 Hajer ,please stop the bologna you may fool yourself but not me who has studied and learned to excercise thier reason to discern evil.Only a weakminded person will accept your statements as meaning anything.You have no hope of eternal life with your vain confidence in mo and his statements.The koran is not the word of God, you do not know the truth,and you are condemned so long as you follow error.Christ and Mohammed are incompatible and you do not respect JESUS CHRIST THE ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WORLD CROWNED KING BY GOD ABOVE ANGELS,HOW MUCH MORE ALL MEN AND PROPHETS.YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN CHRIST OR THE TESTIMONY GIVEN OF HIM BECAUSE THE KORAN HAS VERY CHILDISH AND FOOLISH THINGS TO REPORT OF HIM.sO WHY DON'T YOU SPEAK CLEARLY AND HONESTLY,YOU ONLY RESPECT THE kORAN NOTHING ELSE,AND YOUR VERSION OF CHRIST THAT IS IN IT AND THE BIBLE.BUT YOU DONT SAY THAT DO YOU? NO, YOU SAY IT AS THOUGH YOU ARE SPEAKING OF OUR CHRIST AND OUR BIBLE SO YOU CAN DISARM AND BEGUILE SIMPLE SOULS.THIS IS NOT UPRIGHT AND YOU HAVE ALREADY PROVEN YOURSELF TO BE A UNTRUSTWORTHY SOUL

66 HAJER WHY DONT YOU VISIT (THE RELIGION OF PEACE.ORG)AND (FAITHFREEDOM.ORG)

67 The so-called "holy" koran say's :005.073 YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." So watch out when a muslim wants to punish blasphemists. Islam is the religion of fear and war for the infidels.

68 Before I may begin, I would like to provide a few observations that I made. From reading the above posts, I can tell that many of these people are relatively uninvolved with politics, as well as the world in general. I would make an assumption that most of you are located in the central America, rural areas, because in those places it is highly understood that there is lack of an adequate variety of opinion and information; in other words are given no choice but to digest what they are fed, which in many cases may turn out to be the wrong food. Therefore, I do not blame you. However, what I do blame you for is how you allow closed-mindedness to captivate your thinking ability and you force yourselves to one option and one option only—ignorance and dependence. ANYWAY, I am from a very urban area, New York City, and I love it very much, and it has granted me the opportunity to obtain information and a myriad of thoughts and to hear both truth and lies, as well as establish my own thoughts, as opposed to being spoon-fed by “intimidating authority”. Well, if any of you need a little enlightening, feel free to ask me about my views and opinions, because I feel many of you are benighted and I don’t believe that it is fair to see my fellow humans, most probably American citizens, in that kind of a disposition, for I am a liberal and I feel I must educate you on the set-backs of society, esp. media and what everyone WANTS you to think and believe. By the way, while any of you may be at it, grab a couple of books and begin reading more liberal views. All you need is at least a 30% open mind and you will learn a lot, if proper books are even sold around your neighborhoods…such as what is censored from you everyday by the media. OK so we shall speak again… and one more thing: if anyone is going to spill any garbage facts, they should be totally disregarded. Any post that should be presented should have documented facts or direct proof (I.E. QURAN AND HADITH, many of you really don’t realize that people don’t always eat random dung). I mean, "Islam is the religion of fear and war for the infidels." Where do you support that, or did I happen to miss something? Come on, don’t be so ignorant.

69 Liberal, Eat shit Liberal. Tell your B.S. to the several thousand that died 09/11/2001. What was it? Oh, I remember now, Allah Akbar right before the planes hit. Do you remember the U.S.S. Cole, Kobar Towers, Twin Towers 1993, Mr. Klinghoffer in a wheelchair, and those are but a few examples. Religion of peace my butt! BZO or die, and do not forget to by Danish.

70 Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition FIGHT islam NOW

71 Mhmmm…very vulgar language I see. Anywho leatherneck, face some facts and read “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin. It is all documented specs of 9/11…which was a very dear day to me, but don’t be so ignorant please…and I also see that my friend ‘leatherneck’ was on the plane to hear Allah Akbar being recited. Ok genius? I don’t think you were on that plane so stop believing your own lies you mentally challenged person. And where did anyone mention religion of peace? Well, now that it is mentioned…go ahead and try to defy that statement. Prove to me that Islam isn’t a religion of peace…NOT by bigotry but by clear proof…and I don’t want to see a person being used as an example either because people don’t always portray the correct thing, do they? Let me not even touch up on the sick people we have on earth…so don’t be so vague as to use people to convey the meaning of Islam.

72 What can be more meaningful than the prophet of Islam. Would you agree with that? Mohammed killed, raped, made slaves of people, and had sex with a nine year old girl. Is history wrong? That is what is written about the religion of Islam. Perhaps, it is time to rewrite history. Buy the way, it was printed the last recording on the black boxes, ( really red ), was? You guessed it, Allah Akbar! Buy Danish!

73 Liberal, You have exhibited the very things you denounce in others.Many have made statements that are obviously contrary to you and so what?But you have not stated your position except to to step in with the arrogance of a fool.How typical of closed minded individuals to say what you said of all the participants up here.Do you have something to say or not,for so far you have made no meaningful point.You have not disproved anything up here.You only criticised and made all sorts of extreme unsound generalizations.Excuse me but is all that drivel and empty multiplication of words supposed to be wisdom.You sound sarcastic not intelligent.You only tried to say something to make yourself sound great and others bad.Who cares where you are from? Only a simpleminded person would try to wear that as a badge of honor unless it were in jest.Everything about what you said sound like you are projecting your own psyche on others,like it is a description of yourself,like you are originally from a small town and now think because your in NYC that you are sophisticated.Sorry you don't understand what is going on here, if you were wise you would and would have refrained from displaying such undignified pride.

74 I may or may not agree with everything said here or the way it is said,but I certainly understand what is going on and what is the cause of it.It doesn't matter where a person is from,if he or she is right then they are right.In a work entitled "Thus Spake Zarathustra" I remember that when the main character was called upon to give a reason for his position he answered,I thought it through so long ago, all that remains now is the result.So liberal friend why do you assume that these bloggers and patriots have not thought it through.You want somenone to explain themselves to you? Think it through yourself!We are living post enlightenment we don't have to get it from a book or "authority" the only authority here is our own reason excercised to discern truth all by itself,without any help.You should try it some time you might like it instead of spewing out typical,corny like Iowa lines about rural people.If you truly desire to know about Islam and its leader Mo then visit prophet of doom.com or faithfreedom.org,or the religion of peace.com. You behave like a decent muslim man I know who acts as though you could not have thought something through if you come to a conclusion other than the one he would like you to believe or that is against him.See we are all for compassion and tolerance but rational compassion and rational tolerance not the liberal brand of irrational compassion which is suicidal.

75 I mean, "Islam is the religion of fear and war for the infidels." Where do you support that, or did I happen to miss something? Ironic. Listen, just because you sit in a Coffee bar in New York sipping an espresso while listening to new agers talk about basket weaving from Hemp, or the evils of Capitalism doesn't make you a deep thinker. Don't think you can come here and "educate" the "hayseeds" when you evidently do not even have a passing clue about the goals of Islam re: the Khalifah, Sharia, Taqiyya and kitman, the Mahdi etc. I suggest you come back here when you've read up on the above subjects and try your whole "deep thinking liberal" routine again.

76 All of you good americans should check out al jazeera.com then english magazine. Us brits and americans cannot believe the rubbish these ragheads come out with.I agree with you guys if they don't like the western way they should leave. I am from scotland and we have the same undesirables here.

77 I hope everyone here can see that each of us is human and if our labels were taken away, we would see how your problems are the same problems a muslim person faces, they have the same questions about this life on earth, about how to handle problems in life, the way to raise your kids, how to stay healthy, how to keep away from poverty, how to give something to the world before you leave it. All of you need to understand Islam, how much longer will we avoid looking into Islam through a muslims eyes, how much longer will we be frightened of just simply going to a muslim website to learn of their religion. In my limited experience Ive noticed that muslims behave and act 90% according to their faith, so if you want to have peace on earth without killing off all the muslims, you have to take advantage of reading about thier faith. It will help you help them. After talking and reading, im sure you will see how your screaming and shouting is no better than that of their fanatics - so how are we any better.

78 You didn't have to explain "In my limited experience" because your "give peace a chance" spiel gave it away instantly. You of course followed that message to a crescendo ending in moral equivalence between fanatics and the people who see Islam as a threat. No one is "frightened of Islam" except liberals like yourself who hide under the blankets at the very thought of insulting them. Most people that post here spend more time looking up facts, and statistics to do with Islam, and obviously have a greater understanding of it, excuse them if they do not subscribe to your philosophy of "All we need is love".

1 what bush is waiting for to use the nuclear on these bastards. he should use them before due date runs out!!!!!

2 Guss, Whaaaaaa???

3 Maybe he ment the nut cracker?

4 re: MSM Hypocrisy thanks for pointing it out again. It can't be repeated often enough.

5 Yeah, but the Abu Gharaib prisoners were in their underwear! And they were frightened by dogs!! That's really humiliating, don't you get it?? How dare you draw moral equivalence between these two episodes.

6 More Abu Ghraib abuse photos. Two teens forced to wear panties on head by sadistic vixen.

7 I think the world should know... I'm a mild mannered,Phd Molecular biologist by day.. A devious, raving Aye-rhab hating infidel by night... I already have the virus ready! There is a key component in the brain chemistry of the beaten and cowed followers of Islam. Same said component makes this slightly modified Rhino virus...very deadly. They will sneeze themselves to death! Tsk!!!!!!

8 I think I just read that book.

9 Change of topic: Whats up [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] with MSM? [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] They'll show pics of humilated [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] Arab terrorists with panties on their heads, [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] But the panzy ass fuckwits [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] refuse to broadcast videos and pics which reveal how evil and deadly our Muslime enemys are.

10 You dignify them by calling them "insurgent soldiers." They are terrorists, and nothing more.

11 As many have aptly pointed out, not only has this Jihad by Islam been thrust upon us and the West by the events of 9/11 as we sat literally “sucking our thumbs,” complaisant in our “Secular Progressive, Multi-Cultural, Politically Correct, Fairy Tales and Fantasies” of our own creation, that subsequent events have dismally proven exceedingly naive and wrong, such as the continuing riots, death, and destruction over the Mohammed caricatures, or the “Democratic Election” of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, and other events which are being fueled exponentially by an ever more blatant and open “Culture War” on the part of Islam to overthrow Western Democratic Values, and have them replaced with a worldwide Caliphate; but we are also presently beset by those within our own society, who still immersed in the Leftist, Socialistic opiate of the aforementioned “Fairy Tales,” openly fight against the War on Terror, undermine it in every way they can every step of the way, wish to dismantle our Military as San Francisco Board of Supervisors Gerardo Sandoval told the Nation on an interview with Shaun Hannity the other night, that wish that we would loose in Iraq irregardless of the young men and women of our military who have sacrificed their lives in this endeavor to free Iraqis and the rest of the world from Saddam, and call for our defeat and to cut and run, like Howard Dean and Congressman John Murtha, those who proudly hail their having “Filibustered” the extension of the Patriot Act a “victory” like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, those who consistently oppose and relentlessly undermine every action of the Administration like Nancy Pelosi, or who wish to tie the governments hands in fighting terrorism while “championing” the rights of the terrorists to the point of being their most ardent allies such as Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin and all the rest of their above demagogue ilk, who form a veritable “Fifth Column” in our midst, with the help of the Left leaning, biased, Mainstream Media, which of course will not publish the pictures of the horrors that took place in Saddam’s prisons, much less publish such pictures as those appearing in Jawa about any of the executions, tortures, and all the barbarity that is proudly carried by the Islamist terrorists in front of cameras and then swiftly disseminated through the airwaves by Aljazeera all over the Muslim world, lest, as with the Mohammed cartoons, they offend “Muslim sensitivities”! We are waging a War on Terror, and “Cultural Wars” on two fronts, and one of our enemies lives amongst us! The irony about how “selectively” our Mainstream Media chooses which pictures to air, and make a whole lot of hooplah about, is that while for days now CNN, along with most other major American news outlets, has literally cowered, and failed to show solidarity with their brethren news outlets and publications in Europe (who have had the courage to do so), and to stand up for "Freedom of Speech, and of Expression," repeatedly refusing to show the controversial Mohammed Danish cartoons, claiming that they did not want to “add more fuel to the fire” in a plethora of Wolf Blitzer “apologia,” no sooner had new pictures of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal been made public by some “sleazy” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, than Paula Zahn had it on her show within hours, complete with “dissident ex-serviceman” bashing our Military et al, without the least apparent qualm about any consequences: the lives it would cost, as happened with the first round of Abu Ghraib pictures with Nicholas Berg, or how many more of our Servicemen will be exposed to greater danger, and be killed as a result! That, even in the face of the fact that it is not breaking news, that the case has been exhaustively investigated by the Pentagon and the Military, and all those that were involved in the scandal have been courtmarshalled, disciplined, reprimanded, or demoted! I must say, that for CNN, Paula Zahn, and her fellow pundits, who were so overly "concerned" with accommodating Muslim sensitivities: “barbarity” and “intolerance,” when it came to showing innocuous Danish cartoons of Mohammed, to propagate these new Abu Ghraib pictures, which at any rate just basically show more of the same as those already published, is nothing but an abhorrent exercise in “ journalistic pornography,” and is totally unconscionable!!! Perhaps the real reason that CNN, Blitzer, and Zahn did not wish to risk showing the pictures of the Mohammed cartoons was that they did not want to run the risk of being “personally” targeted, and their lives endangered by irate Islamists, for doing so, and so they hid under their desks. But now, they scrambled to show the Abu Ghraib pictures, which they believe boosts their Liberal biased “political perspective” against the Administration and its policies, while generally not placing “THEIR” lives in danger (after all, how can it, since with it they aid the “Islamist Propaganda machinery, and Al Qaida?”), yet places the lives of our soldiers, and others working in Iraq, at greater risk. After all, if as a result of these pictures there are more American casualties, wouldn’t that also bolster their position of blaming it on what CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour openly calls the “failed policies of the Administration in Iraq” ?!?! The blood of every US casualty, every civilian death, and every beheading that results from Paula Zahn and CNN enthusiastically, needlessly, helping to disseminate these new Abu Ghraib pictures is on their hands!!! How can we be expected to win the War on Terror with such amongst us?!?! It is appalling!!! Althor

12 Hey Wonderduck, you the same duck from RW sparkle?

13 The leftist whiners consider them to be soldiers, so the whiners should also expect those soldiers to follow the same rules they expect our soldiers to follow. But they don't. Because they are on their side.

14 Apparently, MSM doesn't want the public to see evidence of the vicious terrorist IslamOfascist Monkees brutally torturing, killing and beheading their fellow Muslims. Men, women and children. On practically a daily basis. You see, if more of the masses saw these disgusting photos, more of the masses would start to realize how uncompromising and purely evil these murderous IslaMO Monkee scum truely are. They would start to see the wisdom in working to annihalate ALL of them. Destroy them all without prejudice. They are scourge, they are a disease, these viscious killer monkees, they must all burn on Earth before Hell gets a shot at them. Anybody who feels these monkees have any legitimacy at all is either a total fool, just plain ignorant, or one of the terrorists themselves, or their enthusiastic supporters. If only we could lead these Jihadist Head-Chopping Monkees, and only them, all to one big isolated area...let them call it their own country. It would probably take less than 24 hours before they committed and act of war, then the country could 'simply' be nuked. It is us or them! GOT IT? COMPRENDE???

15 In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.

16 Yeah, these photos and acts are all terrible. The people perpetrating the murders you show, and those yet unshown, should be brought to justice swiftly. That said, I'm one of those sillys who think America's soldiers should hold themselves to a higher standard. These photos have nothing to do with the well documented allegations of torture perpetrated by poorly supervised soldiers at Abu-Ghraib, gitmo, and Bagram. Pointing out another horror doesn't detract from the one already before you. Except to make those of us with the ability to reason wish that our soldiers were using effective means of info-extraction rather than torture to gain the information necessary to bring the people you point out here to account.

17 Can't some cable media be convinced to show these photos?? There must be a way to show these!!! R.Taylor

18 The media sympathizes with the enemy, so they make excuses for all their many and barbaric atrocities. But they don't cut US any slack at all. I have sweet dreams at night of terrorists kidnapping embedded reporters and slicing their fucking heads off. I always wake up happy after those dreams. And I'm a girl.

19 The media doesn't show the savage acts of our enemy for 1 reasons: they want us to lose the war. So they show photos that will incite our enemy, but they won't show photos that will incite Americans because that might steel our resolve and we might fight the war to win it.

20 By comparing the brutal acts of terrorist savages with our soldiers, we set the bar at the level of the terrorists. This is unwise, to say the least, when we are engaged in a war in which winning hearts and minds is literally everything. We must assume a profoundly moral high ground. Nearly all the Abu Ghraib victims were later released from prison, having been rounded up en masse. Most committed no crimes. And even if they had committed crimes, does it make us look god to inflict such wanton cruelty on them? Of course on a Cruelty Scale of 1 to 10, it may score only a 6, compared with the terrorists' 10. But that's still way too high a score. When we need the world to be with us and not against us, this is counterproductive in the extreme. We are there to liberate these people, not harm them in any way. These were not Al Qaeda terrorists, they were mainly innocent men and women, many teenagers. If you think it's okay to rape rape and wound them, you are entitled. but this is not what America stands for, and to simplistically say that the terrorists do worse things is hardly a reasonable argument. We are supposed to be better.

21 Richard, The problem with your "High and Haughty" road of "American Higher Morality" is that when we capture these people that have committed these heinous barbarities as shoiwn in the above pictures we do not do the world a favor and eradicate them from the face of the earth, but on the contrary, we take them prisoners, and keep, them in Guantanamo in climate controlled conditions, with amenities, and Chicken Terriyaki dinners, which to the likes of Senators Kennedy, Durbin and their ilk, or United Nations' "Secretary General of Pilferage and Corruption" Kofi Anam and his anti-American brethren, is nothing but "sheer, inhuman, torture," We can't fight these monsters with our hands tied behind our back as we are, second guessing every move, just parading our soldiers down the "Death Alleys" of Iraqi cities as if they were "target ducks" in a carnival, for the amusement, and target practice of these animals. We should be waging the war more "agressively," retaliating to their barbarity with appropriate military harshness, not "pussy-footing" around the way we are! We have to stop being, such "idealist" fools, and "bleeding hearts," and realize that this is a brutal enemy which despises, and does not value in the least human life, not even that of their own, or of themselves, and that therefore we have to deal with them accordingly, lest we all perish, or are overrun! You and others of your persuation, especially in Washington, should stop "whining" from your "High Moral Ground" of self-congratulatory "conceit," and face reality in a more pragmatic way... before it is too late for us all!!! Althor

22 Well, as a poster upthread makes abundantly clear, American troops DO hold themselves to a higher standard, and American troops turned in the original Abu Ghraib deviants! And they'll STILL hold themselves to a higher moral and actual standard than the Isalamizoids! America's soldiers aren't all Baha'is, but they certainly act as rationally and as morally acceptably as the Followers of the Glory of God!

23 get out of iraq everything will be fine us uk armys rape little girls andkill them

24 get out of iraq everything will be fine us uk armys rape little girls andkill them kill kill kill and be killed

25 Again Althor, I'm all for tratoing monsters and barbarians with the forces that's necessary. But as I said, most of those in Abu Ghraib were there by accident and were release by the US army, which acknnowledged they had done no wrong. We can't terrorize all brown people. Remember, we are there to liberate them. If they are not worth helping and not deserving of our compassion, what are we doing there? What are we dying for?

26 Yeah, these photos and acts are all terrible. The people perpetrating the murders you show, and those yet unshown, should be brought to justice swiftly. Ok, so Libs want a "higher" standard of morality for our troops. Big woop dee doo. So do we all. But that still doesn't explain why the MSM avoids printing these pictures. The reason is simple: "The media doesn't show the savage acts of our enemy for 1 reason: they want us to lose the war. So they show photos that will incite our enemy, but they won't show photos that will incite Americans because that might steel our resolve and we might fight the war to win it." --Rachel

27 I agree with Althor. "Freedom," "justice" and "decency" are pussy-ass ideals that make America weak. Truth is, we need to become even MORE ruthless and savage than our enemies, in order to prove our righteousness and worthiness to survive. And to hell with nuking a "Muslim" nation. Let's vaporize a totally innocent country -- like Lichtenstein -- just to show the Islamist scum we're even CRAZIER than they are...and we mean business. Screw this "beacon of liberty" crap. Our so-called "ideals" are for old women and bedwetters. Frankly, I'd rather be "alive" than be an "American."

28 kuniyat, how bout screw your clumsy attempts at irony and humour.

29 These are obvious Zionist provocations and falsities. All the world knows that the Jihadists are humane strugglers against the Imperialism of the Jews and Bush. These are lies, all lies. Place more photos of the evil Americans torturing the poor innocent Iraqi people at Abu Ghraib. Show us photos of the President of Iraq, Mr. Saddam Hussein, being tried in a kangaroo court run by Jews and Americans.

30 What irony?

31 RE: The Geneva Conventions include Protocol 1, added in 1977 but not ratified by the U.S., Iraq or Afghanistan. It mentions that all parties in a conflict must respect victims' remains, though doesn't mention the photographing of dead bodies. a true incident: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050920glaser/ relating articles: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051026/NEWS/510260382

32 I look at what is happening in Kurdistan, and the future that the leaders there have in mind for their people, and I am enheartened. Then I look at the rest of the Middle East, and there is nothing but hate, violence, and radicalism. What is the real shame in all this is that the Middle East could be a paradise on Earth, if the people there would just quit hating and get a vision of what they COULD accomplish without radical Islam. Look to Kurdistan Arabs and see what you could become if you really wanted to. You are the only thing holding yourself back.

33 Dear moron: The reason the UN is not demanding an investigation into murders by Islamofascists is because Islamofascists do not hold seats in the UN. You are unbelievably, almost impossibly, ignorant. Your ignorance is all-emcompassing. It is simply awesome in its scope. Say that there were an Islamofascist seat at the UN. What possible bearing would THEIR behavior have on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of ours? Further, since when did we look to Islamist fascists for guidance on questions of ethical wartime behavior? This isn't a difference of opinion. This is basic moral reasoning and you're apparently incapable of exercising it. You are a fool.

34 SP, It takes one to know one.

35 Dr. Rusty Shackleford decides that extremist killers are no longer either terrorists or insurgents but soldiers! If a lefty did that the wingnuts would have conniptions but he's bending the usual rhetoric all out of shape so he can try to counterspin the recent Abu Graib photos, so that's OK, right? Hey Rusty, does that mean the detainees have Geneva Convention rights or is it OK if America descends to the lowest pit of it's enemies' vileness too? The argument that "others do it so it is OK if I (or we)do it too" as forwarded by many of your commenters is a typical argument from moral paucity exhibited by sociopaths. It can be used to "justify" everything from driving while drunk to serial rape and murder. It only works if you don't understand the difference between right and wrong, though. -C

36 These photos would, if widely shown, only ADD to the anti-Americanism currently sweeping the planet, because they would be perceived as yet more evidence that we have - either contrary to naive intentions, or deliberately, depending on your ideological predisposition - unleashed hell in Iraq. The PR battle is lost.

37 Did I miss the part of the post were Rusty said: "Terrorists are beheading civilians in Iraq, so we should do the same" "Terrorists create false trials, and execute, we should do the same if they're captured." It isn't about moral equivalency, or "What we did isn't so bad, look what the real bad guys do" the entry simply compares how the media does not publish any photographs of victims of terrorists/insurgents, does not talk about "two Iraqi's civilians were beheaded by terrorists" or "civilians kidnapped and shot" but spends weeks talking about how Soldiers abused prisoners, Soldiers who were turned in by their own, have since been tried and sentenced for their crimes, the media runs photograph after photograph of the explicit violence metered out by rogue Soldiers and then claims that pictures of the aftermath of Nick Burg, et al. are to explicit to air.

38 Hey guys, let's remember, Muslims are not the enemy here, just the murderous religious psychopaths and the brutal wannabe dictators. The Kurds, who are Sunni Muslims, LOVE America. As Michael Totten put it, the Kurdish areas of Iraq are mor pro-American than America.

39 SP, that's great. Now tell us why the MSM refuses to print pictures and run video of enemy atrocities.

40 its very simple. Gentlemen 'discuss' issues, animals fight. When animals fight, there are no rules. I think the biggest mistake the coalition forces made was not dis-arming EVERYBODY. If they want to get a handle on this insurgent fighter problem, they should announce a new type of curfew: If you have a weapon of any kind, you are open season. that goes for weapons found in homes, garages or burried in the yard. Peaceful Iraqi's don't need guns at this point in time. They can re-aquire them after the country is at peace. In the meantime, weapon=corpse. No exceptions. Also, I'm kinda curious about the roadside bombs too. Are they remotely detonated, or proximity triggered? If its the latter, a well-armoured vehicle in the front of each convoy with explosive-detecting equipment should help. If they are remotely detonated, why can't jamming equipment be used? a massive high-powered jamming signal could interrupt the remote detonation of the bombs. Just a thought.

41 JC Because it would present a broader truer picture of the reality of all this. We can't have that now, can we?

42 Jesusland Carlos: I'm sure the reasoning is that the pictures and videos of the enemy atrocities are much more graphic. For all of the horrible, war-losing, credibility-destroying, anti-American acts being depicted in the Abu-Ghraib footage and pictures, none of it involves anything as bad as a beheading. Which is commendable in a "well you punched a nine year old girl in the face, but at least you didn't stab her" sort of way.

43 jamming equipment was deployed.

44 "seriously?" more graphic? no one is asking publishing someone as their head is being sawed off, however Rusty has posted things that do not contain graphic violence until the very end. Examples that come to mind would be the downed pilot who was made to get on to his feet before being executed. The two Iraqi men you see here in their video before being beheaded for being apostates. Several mass executions of Iraqi national guardsmen who were made to kneel after watching one of them being beheaded while the others were shot in the head one at a time (same with the Nepalese) This somehow is less graphic than for example naked iraqi pyramids, mock fellatio, blooded prisoners, dead Iraqi's in a bodybag on ice or punches being thrown on naked prisoners on the ground etc? please.

45 I'm curious. If news outlets publish those photos of hostages, are they guilty of broadcasting 'the bad news?' I understand the frustration about ongoing publication of US abuse photos, obviously. Still, we're a democracy holding ourselves up as an inspiration to the rest of the world; is comparing ourselves to these guys and saying, 'Hey! They do worse stuff!' the proper response?

46 I'm curious. If news outlets publish those photos of hostages, are they guilty of broadcasting 'the bad news?' Do you watch the news? these are the same people that gave you the "Grim milestone" run ups, waiting for the quota to be filled. Still, we're a democracy holding ourselves up as an inspiration to the rest of the world How do old pictures, that people have been tried and sentenced for inspire the world? did I miss something?

47 Slippery Pete, The question you refuse to ask yourself is just what are you prepared to do to protect your country and your way of life. Apparently you are not prepared to do much. This is not a Kumbaya choral group we are facing in the Al Qaeda and the Islamofascists. These are people who are prepared to do anything to kill you and the rest of us. If you are not willing to look at the photos of what they are doing right now and compare that to the photos of what went on at Abu Ghraib and see that there is a fundamental difference, then you do not deserve to have the kind of life you are now leading. These people have told us over and over and shown us over and over what they will do and you still stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them. Pitiful!!

48 JC - The reason the "MSM" runs (some) US atrocity pictures but not videos of Islamofascists beheading people is that the latter is far more graphic. They never show videotape that graphic, no matter who's committing atrocities against whom. Obviously you've already signed onto some kind of weird, paranoid conspiracy theory wherein the US media secretly wish for the downfall of American because they hate it and love Islamic fascists. I can see what you're getting at. There's another reason the "MSM" (what a stupid term) focuses on American abuses. It's because everybody expects Islamic fascists to act like fascists. Until recently, nobody expected US personnel to act that way. It's a classic man-bites-dog story. I find it telling that certain elements of the right don't see it that way, if you know what I mean (and - let's be frank - you probably don't). (PS: the most recent photos were published in Australian newspapers, if I'm not mistaken. Plus Salon, which is hardly "MSM")

49 dave: Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with any media outlets publishing any of these photos or videos. I can see their reasons for not doing so, but it wouldn't bother me a bit if they did. The more info the better. Though I'm a liberal, I agree that the mainstream media generally does a piss poor job of laying out all of the facts relevant to forming a coherent opninion on a variety of issues. Although, even with perfect information at everyone's disposal, I'm not sure a lot of folks have the reasoning ability for it to do any good. Witness the tendency of people to start screaming about kidnappings and beheadings when some western news agency has the gall to publish photos of American soldiers torturing the prisoners under their watch. Yes, these beheadings, kidnappings, and generally brutal acts are horrifying, but, they are a separate issue.

50 dick: Yup, they are brutal and ruthless and want you and me and everyone we know and love dead. I want them stopped. I just don't think torturing prisoners gets that done. In fact, I think it swells the terrorists' ranks and provides crap information that our military and intelligence personnel have to waste time and money on. Beyond that, there is a moral highground that this country (and to a lesser extent western civilization) has always aspired to. Which is precisely the reason I want those that wish it harmed stopped in as effective a way as possible. We abandon our highest aspirations when we excuse the torture of prisoners.

51 The "too graphic" excuse is too lame. That problem could be solved by simply pixelating the pictures, JUST LIKE THE COWARDLY MSM PIXELATED PICTURES OF MOHAMMED.

52 >>>It's because everybody expects Islamic fascists to act like fascists. SP, Really? If that's the case, why does Michael Moore call them "minutemen" and "the revolution"? In fact, the further Left of the political spectrum you go, the more they tell us America is to blame for the world's misery and these islamic fascists are just "victims" of "colonialism." No, the MSM doesn't go that far, granted. They merely refrain from telling the whole story. Why? I think it's for the reasons we've already stated. They don't want to inflame American passions in favor of the war. It doesn't suit their agenda.

53 Jesusland Carlos: I think you're on to something here...So the reason Donald Rumsfeld refused to send enough troops in to secure the weapons caches and keep the peace after the initial invasion was because he didn't want to inflame American passions in favor of the war...he's a leftist plant! Please. The abysmal conduct of this war is what's been reducing support of it.

54 Of course, anyone with any knowledge of the origins of the Iraq War knows that it was cooked up by Neocons who are almost all Jewish extremist supporters of Israel. The four leading promoters of America going to war against Iraq were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. All four are Jewish supporters of the radical Likud party in Israel. Perle, Feith, and Wurmser wrote a strategic paper for the foreign government of Israel and Benjiman Netanyahu in 1996 called A “Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although these men became the framers of the American Iraq War policy, the paper they wrote was about securing Israel's realm by fostering war against Iraq and ultimately Syria and Iran. The paper suggests that Israel's way to destroy Damascus (Syria) is through Baghdad. The problem they faced was that it would be hard to get Americans to pay the tremendous price of the Iraq war for Israel. Would Americans be willing to have thousands killed, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars expense and the spawning of worldwide hatred of America for Israel's ability to dominate the Mideast? Of course not, so they produced the lie about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and the lie that Baghdad was an imminent threat to America. Hardly a mention was made of Israel. The whole process was supported by key Jewish supremacists in different parts of the American intelligence establishment. For instance the man who was in charge of the Iraq Intelligence section of the CIA was Stuart Cohen, a radical Jewish Israeli advocate. Here is quote from ABC when Cohen was defending his intelligence reports on the Iraq “weapons of mass destruction.” Sunday, November 30, 2003. 12:46pm (AEDT) CIA admits lack of specifics on Iraqi weapons before invasion The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has acknowledged it “lacked specific information” about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled an intelligence estimate last year that served to justify the US-led invasion of Iraq. However, an explanation issued over the weekend by veteran CIA analyst Stuart Cohen, who was in charge of putting together the 2002 intelligence estimate and currently serves as vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, … We now even know from an Associated Press Article (thanks to an Israeli intelligence chief) that Israel itself provided a lot of the bogus data on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Associated Press December 4, 2003 Israeli General Derides Findings on Iraq by Peter Enav - Associated Press Writer “JERUSALEM – A former Israeli intelligence officer charged Thursday that Israeli agencies produced a flawed picture of Iraqi weapons capabilities and substantially contributed to mistakes made in U.S. and British pre-war assessments on Iraq. The comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom represented an unusual criticism of the Israeli intelligence community, long regarded as one of the world's best. Prior to his retirement in 1998, Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as the deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army… Is it anti-Semitic to point out these facts? Is it anti-Semitic to point out that the most powerful lobby in the United States Congress (AIPAC) is actually for a foreign country: Israel! It is right now in the midst a huge scandal because of its espionage against the United States of America. Is it anti-Semitic to state that the most powerful lobby in America worked tirelessly for the war against Iraq. Not only were the fingerprints of Israel all over the intelligence and government agencies, they are all over America's free press. The two most powerful newspapers in the United States (and both supported the war wholeheartedly) are the NY Times and the Washington Post. Of course, being the main newspaper read by almost every member of the U.S. Government in Washington, DC, the Post has huge influence on politics. Both papers are thoroughly controlled by Jewish supremacists. In fact, in replying to the article that attacked Representative Conyers, Mr. Conyers had to complain to the Chief Editor Mr. Abramowitz and chief Ombudsman, Mr. Getler. It is this same paper that suggests telling the truth about Israel is “anti-Semitism.” It is this same paper that drove Howard Dean to attack those who told the truth about Israel and the Iraq War. And its not just the Post or the Times. Thousands of other newspapers and most of the media conglomerates are dominated by Jewish radicals. Here's a quote from one of the leading Jewish newspapers in America on the subject, the Los Angeles Jewish Times: Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch's News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout – however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.” (Los Angeles Jewish Times Oct. 29. 1999) [other sources claim Murdoch's mother, Elisabeth J. Greene, is Jewish] Is it anti-Semitic to state these obvious facts showing the relation of Jewish-dominated media to this disastrous war. Finally, Dean criticized the fact that some leaflets distributed at the DNC claimed that Israel was behind the 911 attack. Very few claim that Israel arranged for the attacks themselves, but there can be little doubt that the attacks took place in direct relation to our Israel-hijacked Mideast policy. Even Osama bin Laden himself said clearly that his anger toward America was primarily because of America's support for Israel's criminal actions. He said this in numerous media interviews before the trade center attacks. But, in the wake of the attacks, these facts were ignored. The pro-Israel media and forces in government, including Bush's main speech writer at the time, David Frum, went out of their way to proclaim that America was attacked because they hated our democracy, our freedom! Well, they didn't attack the longest standing democracies in the world, Switzerland or Iceland! If Americans realized we faced such an atrocious tragedy because of Israel's nefarious control of our foreign policy too many Americans might ask a very good question – Is supporting the criminal activities of Israel really worth it? The Jewish supremacists cannot afford that question to be asked, because the answer is just too obvious. Is it anti-Semitic to tell the truth about why so much of the world hates America?

55 Wow. It's raining bullshit from all sides...

56 Cleanup on Isle 1: Jewish conspiracy feces dropped everywhere, please bring mop.

57 The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI © 2003 WTM Enterprises All rights reserved. In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote, It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state. [1] Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to get the United States to fight for their interests? To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel. Although the term neoconservative is in common usage, a brief description of the group might be helpful. Many of the first-generation neocons originally were liberal Democrats, or even socialists and Marxists, often Trotskyites. They drifted to the right in the 1960s and 1970s as the Democratic Party moved to the antiwar McGovernite left. And concern for Israel loomed large in that rightward drift. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg puts it: One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel's security. [2] For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext. The idea that neocons are the motivating force behind the U.S. movement for war has been broached by a number of commentators. For instance, Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington Monthly titled: "Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy." And in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote: The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him. But the style is the same." [3] In the following essay I attempt to flesh out that thesis and show the link between the war position of the neoconservatives and the long-time strategy of the Israeli Right, if not of the Israeli mainstream itself. In brief, the idea of a Middle East war has been bandied about in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security, which revolves around an ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem. War and expulsion To understand why Israeli leaders would want a Middle East war, it is first necessary to take a brief look at the history of the Zionist movement and its goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the idea of expelling (or, in the accepted euphemism, "transferring") the indigenous Palestinian population was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. Historian Tom Segev writes: The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary. In practice, the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants.... "Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer — or its morality. However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4] The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out — a whole world is lost." [5] The "revolutionary times" would come with the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists were able to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the indigenous population), and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish state, though its area did not include the entirety of Palestine, or the "Land of Israel," which Zionist leaders thought necessary for a viable state. The opportunity to grab additional land occurred as a result of the 1967 war; however, that occupation brought with it the problem of a large Palestinian population. By that time world opinion was totally opposed to forced population transfers, equating such a policy with the unspeakable horror of Nazism. The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, had "unequivocally prohibited deportation" of civilians under occupation. [6] Since the 1967 war, the major question in Israeli politics has been: What to do with that territory and its Palestinian population? It was during the 1980s, with the coming to power of the right-wing Likud government, that the idea of expulsion resurfaced publicly. And this time it was directly tied to a larger war, with destabilization of the Middle East seen as a precondition for Palestinian expulsion. Such a proposal, including removal of the Palestinian population, was outlined in an article by Oded Yinon, titled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," appearing in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982. Yinon had been attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The article called for Israel to bring about the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings. Thinking along those lines, Ariel Sharon stated on March 24, 1988, that if the Palestinian uprising continued, Israel would have to make war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide "the circumstances" for the removal of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside Israel proper. [7] Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi critiqued the war/expulsion scenario — referring to "Israeli intentions to impose a Pax Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat them harshly" — in his very significant work, Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal, given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the weakest Arab state — Lebanon — will disabuse people of similar ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to achieve the overall goal. U.S. Realpolitik In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to befriend Israel — in fact they could openly oppose the Jewish state. The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate the demands of the Muslim nations — most crucially their demands involving the Palestinians. Pursuing its policy of ensuring the security of Middle East oil supplies, by the mid 1980s Washington was heavily supporting Iraq in her war against Iran, although for a while the United States had also provided some aid to Iran (viz. the Iran-contra scandal). Ironically, Donald Rumsfeld was the U.S. envoy who in 1983 paved the way for the restoration of relations with Iraq, relations which had been severed in 1967. The United States along with other Western nations looked upon Iraq as a bulwark against the radical Islamism of the Ayatollah's Iran, which threatened Western oil interests. U.S. support for Iraq included intelligence information, military equipment, and agricultural credits. And the United States deployed the largest naval force since the Vietnam War in the Persian Gulf. Ostensibly sent for the purpose of protecting oil tankers, it ended up engaging in serious attacks on Iran's navy. It was during this period of U.S. support that Iraq used poison gas against the Iranians and the Kurds, a tactic that the U.S. government and its media supporters now describe as so horrendous. In fact, U.S. intelligence facilitated the Iraqi use of gas against the Iranians. In addition, Washington eased up on its own technology export restrictions to Iraq, which allowed the Iraqis to import supercomputers, machine tools, poisonous chemicals, and even strains of anthrax and bubonic plague. In short, the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weaponry of horror that administration officials are now trumpeting as justification for forcibly removing Saddam from power. [9] When the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988, the United States continued its support for Iraq, showering her with military hardware, advanced technology, and agricultural credits. The United States apparently looked to Saddam to maintain stability in the Gulf. But American policy swiftly changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Neoconservatives were hawkish in generating support for a U.S. war against Iraq. The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, headed by Richard Perle, was set up to promote the war. [10] And neoconservative war hawks such as Perle, Frank Gaffney, Jr., A.M. Rosenthal, William Safire, and The Wall Street Journal held that America's war objective should be not simply to drive Iraq out of Kuwait but also to destroy Iraq's military potential, especially her capacity to develop nuclear weapons. The first Bush administration embraced that position. [11] But beyond that, the neocons hoped that the war would lead to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the American occupation of Iraq. However, despite the urgings of then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the full conquest of Iraq was never accomplished because of the opposition of General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, the field commander. [12] Moreover, the United States had a UN mandate only to liberate Kuwait, not to remove Saddam. To attempt the latter would have caused the U.S.-led coalition to fall apart. America's coalition partners in the region, especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia, feared that the elimination of Saddam's government would cause Iraq to fragment into warring ethnic and religious groups. That could have involved a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq that would have spread to Turkey's own restive Kurdish population. Furthermore, Iraq's Shiites might have fallen under the influence of Iran, increasing the threat of Islamic radicalism in the region. Not only did the Bush administration dash neoconservative hopes by leaving Saddam in place, but its proposed "New World Order," as implemented by Secretary of State James Baker, conflicted with neoconservative/Israeli goals, being oriented toward placating the Arab coalition that supported the war. That entailed an effort to curb Israeli control of her occupied territories. The Bush administration demanded that Israel halt the construction of new settlements in the occupied territories as a condition for receiving $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel's resettlement of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Although Bush would cave in to American pro-Zionist pressure just prior to the November 1992 election, his resistance disaffected many neocons, causing some, such as Safire, to back Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. [13] The network During the Clinton administration, neoconservatives promoted their views from a strong interlocking network of think tanks — the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Center for Security Policy (CSP) — which have had great influence in the media and which have helped to staff Republican administrations. Some of the organizations were originally set up by mainline conservatives and only later taken over by neoconservatives; [14] others were established by neocons, with some of the groups having a direct Israeli connection. For example, Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, was a co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri). And the various organizations have been closely interconnected. For example, the other co-founder of Memri, Meyrav Wurmser, was a member of the Hudson Institute, while her husband, David Wurmser, headed the Middle East studies department of AEI. And Perle was both a "resident fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a trustee of the Hudson Institute. [15] In a recent article in the The Nation, Jason Vest discusses the immense influence in the current Bush administration of people from two major neocon research organizations, JINSA and CSP. Vest details the close links among the two organizations, right-wing politicians, arms merchants, military men, Jewish billionaires, and Republican administrations. [16] Regarding JINSA, Vest writes: Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush administration, JINSA's board of advisors included such heavy hitters as Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas J. Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow, and [Michael] Ledeen — Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis. [17] Vest notes that "dozens" of JINSA and CSP "members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general — into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core." And Vest continues: "On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but 'total war,' as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, 'regime change' by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative." [18] Let's recapitulate Vest's major points. The JINSA/CSP network has "support for the Israeli right at its core." In line with the views of the Israeli right, it has advocated a Middle Eastern war to eliminate the enemies of Israel. And members of the JINSA/CSP network have gained influential foreign policy positions in Republican administrations, most especially in the current administration of George W. Bush. "Securing the realm" A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking on war on Iraq is a 1996 paper developed by Perle, Feith, David Wurmser, and others published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, titled "A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm." It was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper stated that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan whereby Israel would "shape its strategic environment," beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. [19] Note that these Americans — Perle, Feith, and Wurmser — were advising a foreign government and that they currently are connected to the George W. Bush administration: Perle is head of the Defense Policy Board; Feith is Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Wurmser is special assistant to State Department chief arms control negotiator John Bolton. It is also remarkable that while in 1996 Israel was to "shape its strategic environment" by removing her enemies, the same individuals are now proposing that the United States shape the Middle East environment by removing Israel's enemies. That is to say, the United States is to serve as Israel's proxy to advance Israeli interests. On February 19, 1998, in an "Open Letter to the President," the neoconservative Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf proposed "a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime." The letter continued: "It will not be easy — and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to [adopt such a strategy]." Among the letter's signers were the following current Bush administration officials: Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State Department), Bolton (State Department), Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David Wurmser (State Department), Dov Zakheim (Defense Department), Perle (Defense Policy Board), and Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense). [20] In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld was part of the neocon network and already demanding war with Iraq. [21] Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist and neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney (Director, Center for Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (editor-in-chief, The New Republic), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic), and former Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.). [22] President Clinton would only go so far as to support the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated $97 million dollars for training and military equipment for the Iraqi opposition. [23] In September 2000, the neocon think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) [24] issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," that envisioned an expanded global posture for the United States. In regard to the Middle East, the report called for an increased American military presence in the Gulf, whether Saddam was in power or not., maintaining that "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." [25] The project's participants included individuals who would play leading roles in the second Bush administration: Cheney (Vice President), Rumsfeld (secretary of defense), Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense), and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). Weekly Standard editor William Kristol was also a co-author. In order to directly influence White House policy, Wolfowitz and Perle managed to obtain leading roles on the Bush foreign policy/national security advisory team for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet specialist Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as "the Vulcans." Having no direct experience in foreign policy and little knowledge of the world, as illustrated by his notorious gaffes — confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring to Greeks as "Grecians," and failing a pop quiz on the names of four foreign leaders — George W. Bush would have to rely heavily on his advisors. "His foreign policy team," Kagan observed, "will be critically important to determining what his policies are." And columnist Robert Novak noted: "Since Rice lacks a clear track record on Middle East matters, Wolfowitz and Perle will probably weigh in most on Middle East policy." [26] In short, Wolfowitz and Perle would provide the know-nothing Bush with a ready-made foreign policy for the Middle East. And certainly such right-wing Zionist views would be reinforced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the multitude of other neocons who would inundate Bush's administration. Neocons would fill the key positions involving defense and foreign policy. On Rumsfeld's staff are Wolfowitz and Feith. On Cheney's staff, the principal neoconservatives include Libby, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah. And Cheney himself, with his long-time neocon connections and views, has played a significant role in shaping "Bush" foreign policy. [27] A Perle among men Perle is often described as the most influential foreign-policy neoconservative, their eminence grise.[28] He gained notice in the 1970s as a top aide to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.), who was one of the Senate's most anti-Communist and pro-Israeli members. During the 1980s, Perle served as deputy secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, where his hard-line anti-Soviet positions, especially his opposition to any form of arms control, earned him the moniker "Prince of Darkness" from his enemies. However, his friends considered him, as one put it, "one of the most wonderful people in Washington." That Perle is known as a man of great intellect, a gracious and generous host, a witty companion, and a loyal ally helps to explain his prestige in neoconservative circles. [29] Perle isn't just an exponent of pro-Zionist views; he has also had close connections with Israel, being a personal friend of Sharon's, a board member of the Jerusalem Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam. According to author Seymour M. Hersh, while Perle was a congressional aide for Jackson, FBI wiretaps picked up Perle providing classified information from the National Security Council to the Israeli embassy. [30] Although not technically part of the Bush administration, Perle holds the unpaid chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board. In that position, Perle has access to classified documents and close contacts with the administration leadership. As an article in Salon puts it: "Formerly an obscure civilian board designed to provide the secretary of defense with non-binding advice on a whole range of military issues, the Defense Policy Board, now stacked with unabashed Iraq hawks, has become a quasi-lobbying organization whose primary objective appears to be waging war with Iraq." [31] "Actions inconceivable at present" As Bush and his people came into office in January 2001, press reports in Israel quoted government officials and politicians speaking openly of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel in February 2001; noted for his ruthlessness, he had said in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian state where Palestinians removed from Israeli territory would be relocated. [32] Public concern was mounting in Israel over demographic changes that threatened the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. Haifa University professor Arnon Sofer released the study, "Demography of Eretz Israel," which predicted that by 2020 non-Jews would be a majority of 58 percent in Israel and the occupied territories. [33] Moreover, it was recognized that the overall increase in population would exceed what the land, with its limited supply of water, could support. [34] It appeared to some that Sharon intended to achieve expulsion through militant means. As one left-wing analyst put it at the time: "One big war with transfer at its end — this is the plan of the hawks who indeed almost reached the moment of its implementation." [35] In the summer of 2001, the authoritative Jane's Information Group reported that Israel had completed the planning for a massive and bloody invasion of the Occupied Territories, involving "air strikes by F-15 and F-16 fighter bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment, and then an attack by a combined force of 30,000 men ... tank brigades and infantry." Such bold strikes would aim at far more than simply removing Arafat and the PLO leadership. But the United States vetoed the plan, and Europe made its opposition to Sharon's plans equally plain. [36] As one close observer of the Israeli-Palestinian scene presciently wrote in August 2001, "It is only in the current political climate that such expulsion plans cannot be put into operation. As hot as the political climate is at the moment, clearly the time is not yet ripe for drastic action. However, if the temperature were raised even higher, actions inconceivable at present might be possible." [37] Once again, "revolutionary times" were necessary for Israel to achieve its policy goals. And then came the September 11 attacks. Revolutionary September The September 11 atrocities provided the "revolutionary times" in which Israel could undertake radical measures unacceptable during normal conditions. When asked what the attack would do for U.S.-Israeli relations, former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded: "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." Netanyahu correctly predicted that the attack would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror." Sharon placed Israel in the same position as the United States, referring to the attack as an assault on "our common values" and declaring, "I believe together we can defeat these forces of evil." [38] In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the September 11 attacks had joined the United States and Israeli together against a common enemy. And that enemy was not in far-off Afghanistan but was geographically close to Israel. Israel's traditional enemies would now become America's as well. And Israel would have a better chance of dealing with the Palestinians under the cover of a "war on terrorism." Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the neoconservatives began to publicly push for a wider war on terrorism that would immediately deal with Israel's enemies. For example, Safire held that the real terrorists that America should focus on were not groups of religious fanatics "but Iraqi scientists today working feverishly in hidden biological laboratories and underground nuclear facilities [who] would, if undisturbed, enable the hate-driven, power-crazed Saddam to kill millions. That capability would transform him from a boxed-in bully into a rampant world power." [39] Within the administration, Wolfowitz clearly implied a broader war against existing governments when he said: "I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign. It's not going to stop if a few criminals are taken care of." [40] On September 20, 2001, neocons of the Project for the New American Century sent a letter to President Bush endorsing the war on terrorism and stressing that the removal of Saddam was an essential part of that war. They maintained that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." Furthermore, the letter-writers opined, if Syria and Iran failed to stop all support for Hezbollah, the United States should "consider appropriate measures against these known sponsors of terrorism." Among the letter's signatories were such neoconservative luminaries as William Kristol, Midge Decter, Eliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Gaffney, Kagan, Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, Perle, Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Solarz, and Wieseltier. World War IV In the October 29, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard, Kagan and Kristol predict a wider Middle Eastern war: When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared with what looms over the horizon — a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States — Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.... But this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. [42] Kagan and Kristol seem to be looking forward to this gigantic conflagration. In a November 20, 2002, article in The Wall Street Journal, Eliot Cohen dubs the conflict "World War IV," a term picked up by other neocons. Cohen proclaims that "The enemy in this war is not 'terrorism' ... but militant Islam.... Afghanistan constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign." Cohen calls not only for a U.S. attack on Iraq but also for the elimination of the Islamic regime in Iran, which "would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [43] Critics of a wider war in the Middle East quickly recognized the neoconservative war-propaganda effort. Analyzing the situation in September 2002, paleoconservative [44] Scott McConnell wrote: "For the neoconservatives ... bin Laden is but a sideshow.... They hope to use September 11 as pretext for opening a wider war in the Middle East. Their prime, but not only, target is Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even if Iraq has nothing to do with the World Trade Center assault." [45] However, McConnell mistakenly considered the neocon stance to be only a minority view within the Bush administration: The neocon wish list is a recipe for igniting a huge conflagration between the United States and countries throughout the Arab world, with consequences no one could reasonably pretend to calculate. Support for such a war — which could turn quite easily into a global war — is a minority position within the Bush administration (assistant secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz is its main advocate) and the country. But it presently dominates the main organs of conservative journalistic opinion, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Times, as well as Marty Peretz's neoliberal New Republic. In a volatile situation, such organs of opinion could matter. [46] Expressing a similar view, veteran columnist Georgie Anne Geyer observed: The "Get Iraq" campaign ... started within days of the September bombings.... It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and advisor Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some journalists and congressmen. Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the "Israeli-firsters," meaning that they would always put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it, above anything else. Geyer believed that this line of thinking was "being contained by cool heads in the administration, but that could change at any time." [47] Lighting up the recesses of Bush Neoconservatives have presented the September 11 atrocities as a lightning bolt to make President Bush aware of his destiny: destroying the evil of world terrorism. Ironically enough, Podhoretz adopted Christian terminology to describe a changed Bush: A transformed — or, more precisely, a transfigured — George W. Bush appeared before us. In an earlier article ... I suggested, perhaps presumptuously, that out of the blackness of smoke and fiery death let loose by September 11, a kind of revelation, blazing with a very different fire of its own, lit up the recesses of Bush's mind and heart and soul. Which is to say that, having previously been unsure as to why he should have been chosen to become President of the United States, George W. Bush now knew that the God to whom, as a born-again Christian, he had earlier committed himself had put him in the Oval Office for a purpose. He had put him there to lead a war against the evil of terrorism. [48] In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, administration heavyweights debated the scope of the "war on terrorism." According to Bob Woodward's Bush at War, as early as September 12 Rumsfeld "raised the question of attacking Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? he asked. Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal target of the first round in the war on terrorism." [49] Woodward adds, "The terrorist attacks of September 11 gave the United States a new window to go after Hussein." On September 15, Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan. Wolfowitz expressed the view that "attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain," voicing the fear that American troops would be "bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable." [50] However, the neoconservatives were not able to achieve their goal of a wider war at the outset, in part because of the opposition of Secretary of State Powell, who held that the war should focus on the actual perpetrators of September 11. (That was how most Americans actually envisioned the war.) Perhaps Powell's most telling argument was his declaration that an American attack on Iraq would lack international support. He claimed that a U.S. victory in Afghanistan would enhance the United States's ability to deal militarily with Iraq at a later time, "if we can prove that Iraq had a role" in September 11. [51] Powell diverged from the neocon hawks in his emphasis on the need for international support, as opposed to American unilateralism, but an even greater difference lay in his contention that the "war on terror" had to be directly linked to the perpetrators of September 11 — Osama bin Laden's network. Powell publicly repudiated Wolfowitz's call for "ending states" with the response that "we're after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations, that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing that. But I think 'ending terrorism' is where I would leave it and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself." [52] Very significantly, however, while the "war on terrorism" would not begin with an attack on Iraq, military plans were being made for just such an endeavor. A Top Secret document outlining the war plan for Afghanistan, which Bush signed on September 17, 2001, included, as a minor point, instructions to the Pentagon to also start making plans for an attack on Iraq. [53] Bush's public pronouncements evolved rapidly in the direction of expanding the war to Iraq. On November 21, 2001, in a speech at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, he proclaimed that "Afghanistan is just the beginning of the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all these threats are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win." [54] On November 26, in response to a question whether Iraq was one of the terrorist nations that he had in mind, Bush said: "Well, my message is, is that if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable." Note that Bush included possession of weapons of mass destruction as an indicator of "terrorism." And none of that terrorist activity necessarily related to the September 11 attacks. [55] Transformation complete The transformation to support of a wider war was complete with Bush's January 29, 2002, State of the Union speech, in which he officially decoupled the "war on terrorism'' from the specific events of 9/11. Bush did not even mention bin Laden or al Qaeda. The danger now was said to come primarily from three countries — Iran, Iraq, and North Korea — which he dubbed "an axis of evil" that allegedly threatened the world with their weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush: States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. [56] The phrase "axis of evil" was coined by Bush's neoconservative speechwriter, David Frum. [57] By April 2002, Bush was publicly declaring that American policy was to secure "regime change" in Iraq. And in June, he stated that the United States would launch preemptive strikes on those countries that threatened the United States. [58] According to what passes as the conventional wisdom, Iraq now posed such a threat. Moreover, by the spring of 2002, General Tommy R. Franks, chief of U.S. Central Command, began giving Bush private briefings every three or four weeks on the planning for a new Iraq war. [59] Neoconservatives both within and without the administration sought a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq that would not be encumbered by the conflicting goals of any coalition partners. That push was countered by Powell's efforts to persuade Bush that UN sanction would be necessary to justify a U.S. attack, which the President ultimately found persuasive. That slowed the rush to war, but it also represented a move by Powell away from his original position that Washington should make war on Iraq only if Baghdad were proven to have been involved in the September 11 terrorism. The UN Security Council decided that UN inspectors, with sweeping inspection powers, would determine whether Iraq was violating her pledge to destroy all of her weapons of mass destruction. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002) places the burden of proof on Iraq to show that she no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. The resolution states that any false statements or omissions in the Iraqi weapons declaration would constitute a further material breach by Iraq of her obligations. That could set in motion discussions by the Security Council on considering the use of military force against Iraq. While some have claimed that this might mean that war would be put off, [60] it also allows the United States to use the new UN resolution as a legal justification for war. In fact, the United States could choose to enforce the resolution through war without additional UN authorization. As British journalist Robert Fisk writes: "The United Nations can debate any Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspectors, but the United States will decide whether Iraq has breached UN resolutions. In other words, America can declare war without UN permission." [61] Armchair strategists Neoconservatives not only have determined the foreign policy leading to war against Iraq but have played a role in molding military strategy as well. Top military figures, including members of the Joint Chiefs, initially expressed opposition to the whole idea of such a war. [62] But Perle and other neoconservatives have for some time insisted that toppling Saddam would require little military effort or risk. They pushed for a war strategy dubbed "inside-out" that would involve attacking Baghdad and a couple of other key cities with a very small number of airborne troops, as few as 5,000 in some estimates. According to the plan's supporters, such strikes would cause Saddam's regime to collapse. American military leaders adamantly opposed that approach as too risky, offering in its stead a plan to use a much larger number of troops — about 250,000 — who would invade Iraq in a more conventional manner, marching from the soil of her neighbors, as was done during the Gulf War of 1991. Perle and the neoconservatives, for their part, feared that no neighboring country would provide the necessary bases, so that this approach would likely mean that no war would be initiated or that, during the lengthy time needed to assemble this large force, opposition to war would so burgeon as to render the operation politically impossible. Perle angrily responded to the military's demurral by saying that the decision to attack Iraq was "a political judgment that these guys aren't competent to make." [63] Cheney and Rumsfeld went even further, referring to the generals as "cowards" for being insufficiently gung-ho about an Iraq invasion. [64] Now, one might be tempted to attribute Perle and the other neocons' rejection of the military's caution to insane hubris — how could amateurs pretend to know more about military strategy than professional military men? However, Richard Perle may be many things, but insane is not one of them. Nor is he stupid. Undoubtedly he has thought through the implications of his plan. And it is apparent that the "inside-out" option would be a win-win proposition from Perle's perspective. Let's assume that it works — that a few American troops can capture some strategic areas and the Iraqi army quickly folds. Perle and the neocons appear as military geniuses and are rewarded with free rein to prepare a series of additional low-cost wars in the Middle East. On the other hand, let's assume that the mini-invasion is a complete fiasco. The American troops are defeated in the cities. Many are captured and paraded around for all the world to see. Saddam makes bombastic speeches about defeating the American aggressor. All the Arab and Islamic world celebrates the American defeat. American flags are burned in massive anti-American celebrations throughout the Middle East. America is totally humiliated, depicted as a paper tiger, and ordinary Americans watch it all on TV. How do they react? Such a catastrophe would be another Pearl Harbor in terms of engendering hatred of the enemy. The public would demand that American honor and prestige be avenged. They would accept the idea fed to them by the neoconservative propagandists that the war was one between America and Islam. Washington would unleash total war, which would involve heavy bombing of cities. And the air attacks could easily spread from Iraq to the other neighboring Islamic states. A war of conquest and extermination is the neocons' fondest dream since it would destroy all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East. (It appears that the Pentagon has augmented the magnitude of the Iraq strike force to reduce the risk of the aforementioned scenario.) [65] "Our Enemies, the Saudis" Indications are plentiful that the war will not be limited to Iraq alone. On July 10, 2002, Laurent Murawiec, at Perle's behest, briefed the Defense Policy Board about Saudi Arabia, whose friendly relationship with the United States has been the linchpin of American security strategy in the Middle East for more than 50 years. Murawiec described the kingdom as the principal supporter of anti-American terrorism — "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent." It was necessary, he claimed, for the United States to regard Saudi Arabia as an enemy. Murawiec said Washington should demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around the world, prohibit all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli propaganda in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services." If the Saudis refused to comply with the ultimatum, Murawiec contended that the United States should invade and occupy the country, including the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, seize her oil fields, and confiscate her financial assets. [66] Murawiec concluded the briefing with the astounding summary of what he called a "Grand Strategy for the Middle East:" "Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize." In short, the goal of the war on Iraq was the destruction of the United States' closest allies. It would be hard to envision a policy better designed to inflame the entire Middle East against the United States. But that is exactly the result sought by neoconservatives. [67] Predictably, the day after the briefing, the Bush administration disavowed Murawiec's scenario as having nothing to do with actual American foreign policy and pronounced Saudi Arabia a loyal ally. [68] However, the White House did nothing to remove or even discipline Perle for holding a discussion of a plan for attacking a close ally — and individuals have frequently been removed from administrations for much smaller faux pas. We may be certain that the Bush administration's inaction failed to assure the Saudis that Murawiec's war plan was beyond the realm of possibility. Murawiec's anti-Saudi scenario simultaneously emerged in the neocon press. The July 15, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard featured an article titled "The Coming Saudi Showdown," by Simon Henderson of the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And the July/August issue of Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee, contained an article titled, "Our Enemies, the Saudis." [69] The leading neoconservative expert on Saudi Arabia, Stephen Schwartz, made his views known, too, though he did pay a price for it. Schwartz has written numerous articles as well as a recent book, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror, in which he posits a Saudi/Wahhabist conspiracy to take over all of Islam and spread terror throughout the world. As a result of his anti-Saudi comments, Schwartz was dismissed from his brief tenure as an editorial writer with the Voice of America at the beginning of July 2002, thus becoming a martyr in neoconservative circles. [70] As Thomas F. Ricks points out in the Washington Post, the anti-Saudi bellicosity expressed by Murawiec "represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration — especially on the staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon's civilian leadership — and among neoconservative writers and thinkers closely allied with administration policymakers." [71] By November 2002, the anti-Saudi theme had reached the mainstream — with an article in Newsweek alleging financial support for the 9/11 terrorists from the Saudi royal family, and commentary on the subject by such leading figures in the Senate as Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Charles Schumer (D-New York), and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). [72] Bush administration policy has come a long way but has still not reached what neocons seek: a war by the United States against all of Islam. According to Podhoretz, doyen of the neoconservatives: "Militant Islam today represents a revival of the expansionism by the sword" of Islam's early years. [73] In Podhoretz's view, to survive resurgent Islam the United States must not simply stand on the defensive but must stamp out militant Islam at its very source in the Middle East: The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, this axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as "friends" of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen. After the great conquest, the United States would remake the entire region, which would entail forcibly re-educating its people to fall into line with the thinking of America's leaders. Podhoretz acknowledges that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick anti-American and anti-Israeli leaders and policies. But he proclaims that "there is a policy that can head it off" provided "that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II." [74] Expulsion redux Within Israel herself, however, the Arabs would not be expected to adopt a "new political culture"; they would be expected to vanish. Expulsion of the Palestinians is inextricably intertwined with a Middle Eastern war — or, in Ben-Gurion's phrase, "revolutionary times." As the post-September 11 "war on terror" has heated up, the talk of forcibly "transferring" the Palestinians has once again moved to the center of Israeli politics. According to Illan Pappe, a Jewish Israeli revisionist historian, "You can see this new assertion talked about in Israel: the discourse of transfer and expulsion which had been employed by the extreme Right, is now the bon ton of the center." [75] Even the dean of Israel's revisionist historians, Benny Morris, explicitly endorsed the expulsion of the Palestinians in the event of war. "This land is so small," Morris exclaimed, "that there isn't room for two peoples. In fifty or a hundred years, there will only be one state between the sea and the Jordan. That state must be Israel." According to a recent poll conducted by Israel's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion of Israeli Arabs. Three-fifths support "encouraging" Israeli Arabs to leave. [76] In April 2002, leading Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld held that a U.S. attack on Iraq would provide the cover for Prime Minister Sharon to forcibly remove the Palestinians from the West Bank. In Creveld's view, "The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades," which would rely on "heavy artillery." Creveld continued: "Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed.... Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973." [77] Although Creveld did not express any opposition to this impending expulsion, in September 2002, a group of Israeli academics did issue a declaration of opposition, stating, "We are deeply worried by indications that the 'fog of war' could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing." [78] The declaration continued: The Israeli ruling coalition includes parties that promote "transfer" of the Palestinian population as a solution to what they call "the demographic problem." Politicians are regularly quoted in the media as suggesting forcible expulsion, most recently [Knesset members] Michael Kleiner and Benny Elon, as reported on Yediot Ahronot website on September 19, 2002. In a recent interview in Ha'aretz, Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon described the Palestinians as a "cancerous manifestation" and equated the military actions in the Occupied Territories with "chemotherapy," suggesting that more radical "treatment" may be necessary. Prime Minister Sharon has backed this "assessment of reality." Escalating racist demagoguery concerning the Palestinian citizens of Israel may indicate the scope of the crimes that are possibly being contemplated. [79] In the fall of 2002, the Jordanian government, fearing that Israel might push the Palestinian population into Jordan during the anticipated U.S. attack on Iraq, asked for public assurances from the Israeli government that it would not make such a move. The Sharon regime, however, has refused to publicly renounce an expulsion policy. [80] Simply a pretext As is now apparent, the "war on terrorism" was never intended to be a war to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities. September 11 simply provided a pretext for government leaders to implement long-term policy plans. As has been pointed out elsewhere, including in my own writing, oil interests and American imperialists looked upon the war as a way to incorporate oil-rich Central Asia within the American imperial orbit. [81] While that has been achieved, the American-sponsored government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan is in a perilous situation. Karzai's power seems to be limited to his immediate vicinity, and he must be protected by American bodyguards. The rest of Afghanistan is being fought over by various war lords and even the resurgent Taliban. [82] Instead of putting forth the effort to help consolidate its position in Central Asia, Washington has shifted its focus to gaining control of the Middle East. It now appears that the primary policymakers in the Bush administration have been the Likudnik neoconservatives all along. Control of Central Asia is secondary to control of the Middle East. In fact, for the leading neocons, the war on Afghanistan may simply have been an opening gambit, necessary for reaching their ultimate and crucial goal: U.S. control of the Middle East in the interests of Israel. That is analogous to what revisionist historians have presented as Franklin D. Roosevelt's "back door to war" approach to World War II. Roosevelt sought war with Japan in order to be able to fight Germany, and he provoked Japan into attacking U.S. colonial possessions in the Far East. Once the United States got into war through the back door, Roosevelt focused the American military effort on Germany. [83] The oil motive But what about the American desire for controlling Iraqi oil? Iraq possesses the world's second-largest proven oil reserves, next to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, many experts believe that Iraq possesses vast undiscovered oil reserves, making her the near-equal of Saudi Arabia. Most critics of war allege that American oil companies' desire to gain control of Iraqi oil is what motivates U.S. war policy. Some, mostly proponents of war, have also argued that, once in control of Iraqi oil, the United States could inundate the world with cheap oil, thus boosting the American and world economies out of recession. [84] Although the arguments have a prima facie plausibility, the oil motive for war has a couple of serious flaws. First, oil industry representatives or big economic moguls do not seem to be clamoring for war. According to oil analyst Anthony Sampson, "oil companies have had little influence on U.S. policy-making. Most big American companies, including oil companies, do not see a war as good for business, as falling share prices indicate." [85] Further, it is not apparent that war would be good for the oil industry or the world economy. Why would Big Oil want to risk a war that could ignite a regional conflagration threatening their existing investments in the Gulf? Iraq does indeed have significant oil reserves, but there is no reason to believe that they would have an immediate impact on the oil market. Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, points out: In terms of production capacity, Iraq represents just 3 percent of the world's total. Its oil exports are on the same level as Nigeria's. Even if Iraq doubled its capacity, that could take more than a decade. In the meantime, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to perhaps 5 percent, significant but still in the second tier of oil nations. [86] A war would pose a great risk to the oil industry in the entire Gulf region. As William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale and a member of the President Carter's Council of Economic Advisers, writes: War in the Persian Gulf might produce a major upheaval in petroleum markets, either because of physical damage or because political events lead oil producers to restrict production after the war. A particularly worrisome outcome would be a wholesale destruction of oil facilities in Iraq, and possibly in Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq destroyed much of Kuwait's oil wells and other petroleum infrastructure as it withdrew. The sabotage shut down Kuwaiti oil production for close to a year, and prewar levels of oil production were not reached until 1993 — nearly two years after the end of the war in February 1991. Unless the Iraqi leadership is caught completely off-guard in a new war, Iraq's forces would probably be able to destroy Iraq's oil production facilities. The strategic rationale for such destruction is unclear in peacetime, but such an act of self-immolation cannot be ruled out in wartime. Contamination of oil facilities in the Gulf region by biological or chemical means would pose even greater threats to oil markets. [87] Nordhaus's forecasts may be excessively bleak. However, the point is that the experts simply cannot gauge what will happen. War poses tremendous risk. In his evaluation of the possible economic impact of a war on Iraq, economic analyst Robert J. Samuelson concludes: "If it's peace and prosperity, then war makes no sense. But if fighting now prevents a costlier war later, it makes much sense." [88] None of this to deny that certain oil companies might benefit from a Middle East war, just as some businesses profit from any war. Particular oil companies could stand to benefit from American control of Iraq, since under a postwar U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government, American companies could be expected to be favored and gain the most lucrative oil deals. However, that particular oil companies could derive some benefits does not undercut the overall argument that war is a great risk for the American oil industry and the American economy as a whole. An American-imperialist strategic motive might be more plausible than the economic interests of the oil industry and the economy in general. Instead of the current informal influence over the oil producing areas of the Middle East, the United States would move into direct control, either with a puppet government in Iraq providing enough leverage for Washington to dictate to the rest of the Middle East, or actual direct U.S. control of other parts of the Middle East as well as Iraq. Presumably that state of affairs would provide greater security for the oil flow than exists under the current situation, where the client states enjoy some autonomy and face the possibility of being overthrown by anti-American forces. Neoconservative Robert Kagan maintains, "When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies." [89] Neoconservatives often try to gloss over this projected American colonialism by claiming that the United States would be simply spreading democracy. They imply that "democratic" Middle East governments would support American policies, including support of Israel and an oil policy oriented toward the welfare of the United States. However, given popular anti-Zionist and anti-American opinion in the region, it seems highly unlikely that governments representative of the popular will would ever pursue such policies. Only a non-representative dictatorship could be pro-American and pro-Israeli. Zionist U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) put it candidly in calming the worries of an Israeli member of the Knesset: "You won't have any problem with Saddam. We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." [90] A truly foreign imperialism Control of the Middle East oil supply would certainly augment U.S. domination of the world. However, American imperialists who are in no way linked to the Likudnik position on Israel — e.g., Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft — are cool to such a Middle East war. [91] If such a war policy would be an obvious boon to American imperialism, why isn't it avidly sought by leading American imperialists? Direct colonial control of a country's internal affairs would be a significant break with American policy of the past half-century. America might have client states and an informal empire, but the direct imperialism entailed by an occupation of the Middle East would be, as Mark Danner put it in the New York Times, "wholly foreign to the modesty of containment, the ideology of a status-quo power that lay at the heart of American strategy for half a century." [92] Moreover, a fundamental concern of American global policy has been to maintain peace and stability in the world. Washington preaches probity and restraint to other countries regarding the use of force. Hence, for the United States to launch a preemptive strike on a country would undoubtedly weaken her ability to restrain other countries, which would also see a need to preemptively strike at their foes. In short, the launching of preemptive war would destabilize the very world order that the United States allegedly seeks to preserve in her "war on terrorism." In fact, world stability is often seen as central to the global economic interdependence that is the key to American prosperity. [93] Since America already exercises considerable power in the oil-producing Persian Gulf region through her client states — Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates — it is difficult to understand why American imperialists would make a radical change from their status-quo policy. Would the benefits to be gained from direct control of the region outweigh the risks involved? War could unleash virulent anti-American forces that could destabilize America's Middle East client states and incite terrorist attacks on

58 http://www.nowarforisrael.com/

59 stop polluting the comments with your tinfoil rants asshole, wipe the foam flecks from the corner of your mouth and go take a sip from a good mug of STFU. No one wants to read 250 lines of idiotic rambling bullshit, especially when anyone so inclined could click on a link.

60 not to mention other Middle Eastern countries, would place a heavy burden on the U.S. government and people. [94] Would such a burden be acceptable to the American people? Would they support the brutal policies needed to suppress any opposition? In the 1950s the people of France would not support the brutality necessary to retain the colonial empire in Algeria. Even in the totalitarian Soviet Union, popular opinion forced the abandonment of the imperialistic venture in Afghanistan, which contributed to the break-up of the entire Soviet empire. In short, the move from indirect to direct control of the Middle East would strike men who were simply concerned about enhancing American imperial power as the gravest sort of risk-taking, because it could undermine America's entire imperial project. Direct American control of the Middle East would not only prove burdensome to the American people but would also undoubtedly provoke a backlash from other countries. That almost seems to be a law of international relations — operating since the time of the balance-of-power politics practiced during the Peloponnesian War. As Christopher Layne points out: The historical record shows that in the real world, hegemony never has been a winning grand strategy. The reason is simple: The primary aim of states in international politics is to survive and maintain their sovereignty. And when one state becomes too powerful — becomes a hegemon — the imbalance of power in its favor is a menace to the security of all other states. So throughout modern international political history, the rise of a would-be hegemon always has triggered the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other states. [95] The British Empire, which might seem an exception to the rule of the inevitable failure of hegemons, achieved its success because of its caution. Owen Harries, editor of the National Interest, has pointed out that England's imperial successes stemmed from her rather cautious approach. "England," observed Harries in the Spring 2001 issue, "was the only hegemon that did not attract a hostile coalition against itself. It avoided that fate by showing great restraint, prudence and discrimination in the use of its power in the main political arena by generally standing aloof and restricting itself to the role of balancer of last resort. In doing so it was heeding the warning given it by Edmund Burke, just as its era of supremacy was beginning: 'I dread our own power and our own ambition. I dread being too much dreaded.'" Notes Harries, "I believe the United States is now in dire need of such a warning." [96] Obviously, the American takeover of the major oil-producing area of the world would be anything but a cautious move. It would characterize a classic example of what historian Paul Kennedy refers to as "imperial over-stretch." Tied down in the Middle East, the United States would find it more difficult to counter threats to its power in the rest of the world. Even now it is questionable whether the U.S. military has the capability to fight two wars at once, a problem (from the standpoint of the U.S. regime) that has now come to the fore with the bellicosity of North Korea. [97] In essence, it is not apparent that intelligent American imperialists concerned solely about the power status of the United States, which holds preeminence in the world right now, would want to take the risk of a Middle East war and occupation. No American motive The previous analysis leads to the conclusion not only that the neoconservatives are obviously in the forefront of the pro-war bandwagon but also that pro-Israeli Likudnik motives are the most logical, probably the only logical, motives for war. As I have noted, Likudniks have always sought to deal in a radical fashion with the Palestinian problem in the occupied territories — a problem that has gotten worse, from their standpoint, as a result of demographic changes. A U.S. war in the Middle East at the present time provides a window of opportunity to permanently solve that problem and augment Israel's dominance in the region. The existing perilous situation, as Likud thinkers see it, would justify the taking of substantial risks. And a look at history shows that countries whose leaders believed they were faced with grave problems pursued risky policies, such as Japan did in 1941. [98] In contrast, no such dire threats face the United States. American imperialists should be relatively satisfied with the status quo and averse to taking any risks that might jeopardize it. *** The deductions drawn in this essay seem obvious but are rarely broached in public because Jewish power is a taboo subject. As the intrepid Joseph Sobran puts it: "It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits." [99] So in a check for "hate" or "anti-Semitism," let's recapitulate the major points made in this essay. First, the initiation of a Middle East war to solve Israeli security problems has been a long-standing idea among Israeli rightist Likudniks. Next, Likudnik-oriented neoconservatives argued for American involvement in such a war prior to the atrocities of September 11, 2001. Since September 11, neocons have taken the lead in advocating such a war; and they hold influential foreign policy and national security positions in the Bush administration. If Israel and Jews were not involved, there would be nothing extraordinary about my thesis. In the history of foreign policy, it has frequently been maintained that various leading figures were motivated by ties to business, an ideology, or a foreign country. In his Farewell Address, George Washington expressed the view that the greatest danger to American foreign relations would be the "passionate attachment" of influential Americans to a foreign power, which would orient U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of that power to the detriment of the United States. It is just such a situation that currently exists. We can only look with trepidation to the near future, for in the ominous words of Robert Fisk, "There is a firestorm coming." [100]

61 and ps, John, nobody's reading your useless spam.

62 Hey Rusty, please delete the spam. Thanks.

63 The attack on September 11 was certainly not about people hating our freedoms. It was purely in response to America's foreign policy; and it was primarily about our monetary and military support of Israel. many others say that they must fight America for its support of 50 years of Israel's terrorism against the Palestinian and other Mideastern people. He says this in precisely the same way that some say we must bomb Afghanistan into further oblivion for supporting the terrorism of Bin Laden. America is seen as a terrorist nation for having supported the Israeli ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians from their land and homes and the stripping them of their most basic human rights, even depriving them of the right to live where they were born! America is accused of supporting terrorism for backing Israel, even America is aware that Israel tortures 500 to 600 Palestinians in its jails each month. America is called terrorist for supporting Israel even as it killed 40,000 Lebanese in its invasion of that country. They ask the world how America could support Israel even as it bombed civilian Red Cross shelters and killed women and children by the score. Millions of people ask how the President of the United States could dine in the White House with Israel Sharon, a man with a proven history of massacring civilians, and who even Israel held responsible for the cold-blooded murder of 2000 people at the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon. America is also called a terrorist state for causing the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children. It is difficult for us to act morally superior to our enemies when our own U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, told Leslie Stahl of CBS that America's causing the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it." What would you say, of someone who thinks it is worth killing 500,000 children in order to punish one man? We must cut off the source of terrorism. That source is not Muslim fundamentalism, it is American support for Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. The American government has been supporting the Jewish Supremacist State of Israeli with economic and military funding, though Israel denies the basic human rights of Palestinians. We believe that our economic and military aid to Israel has caused tremendous hatred toward America and that unlimitedly, it is the American people who suffers the consequences. Any nation that bombs another naturally creates millions of angry enemies against it. America has repeatedly done that in recent times. We have taken sides in foreign conflicts, offered military assistance and weapons, and even bombed other nations. Our actions have caused the loss of many thousands of lives, including the lives of thousands of civilians. Many of the nations we bombed had never harmed a single American or acted in any way against the interests the United States. For instance, we now partially blame Afghanistan for what happened on September 11. Have we conveniently forgotten that we bombed Afghanistan (and killed many innocent civilians) three years ago when we tried to kill Osama Bin Laden. Afghanistan is led by the same people we previously helped against the Soviets. At that time, we actually supported the terroristic activities of Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets and their collaborators. When Bin Laden later turned against us, we attempted to kill him by bombing Afghanistan. We have seen the intense reaction of Americans to the attack on the Trade Centers. What would be the reaction of Americans to any nation who fired Cruise missiles and dropped thousands of bombs on America? After Clinton's bombing of Afghanistan, the Taliban promised revenge against America. September 11 may be that revenge. We bombed Iraq after it invaded Kuwait, yet we supported Saddam Hussein with money and arms when he warred with Iran. In contrast, we continued to monetarily and militarily support Israel even after it invaded Lebanon and killed tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians. We support the Zionist state even though it tortures thousands of political prisoners in its jails. American support enabled Israel to ethnically cleanse itself of 700,000 Palestinians. Bush says we must strike down terrorists wherever they are in the whole world, but he has shared tea and crumpets with Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, one of the world's leading most brutal and bloodthirsty terrorists. Sharon committed a number of crimes against humanity, among them the massacre of 2,000 men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Mr. Bush did not strike Mr. Sharon, instead he toasted him. But why must the media and government create this huge, absurd lie about why we were attacked on September 11. This Big Lie is, of course, meant to hide an obvious truth. Its purpose is to keep Americans from associating this attack with our Israeli policy. If that happens people might begin to wonder if it is in our true interest to having given Israel countless billions of our dollars. They might begin to wonder if it is good for America to serve as the Israeli's shock troops and techno killers in attacks on Israel's enemies such as Iraq. So, the unvarnished truth is that we suffered the terror of September 11 because of our support of the criminal policies of Israel. We have let our country be controlled by a foreign lobby that has worked against the best interests of the American people. Israel has time and again proven it is not really our friend. It has conducted covert terrorist activities against America such as the Lavon affair in Egypt. It has deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during the war of 1967. It has spied on us and stolen our greatest secrets, such as in the Jonathan Pollard affair. It has sold secret American technologies to the Communist Chinese. It has stolen nucleur materials from the United States. It has tricked America into bombing other nations such as in the attack on Libya in 1986. I could go on and on about Israel's treachery against the America. And now, under guidance of the Israel Lobby and the Jewish controlled media, the Zionists are preparing America to strike a massive blow against all of Israel's mortal enemies in a global war. They are already talking about not only bombing, but invading and occupying whole nations such as Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Such would spawn a huge wave of hatred and retribution against America from all over the planet. The costs of such a war would cost the American people untold billions of dollars and could well cause the deaths of thousands of Americans. Finally, such a war would not end terrorism, but only spawn more acts of terror against us.

64 >the most recent photos were published >in Australian newspapers, if I'm not >mistaken. Plus Salon, which is hardly "MSM" SP, The pictures originally ran on Australia's SBS network, but were soon picked up by CNN and Reuters. Which, last time I checked, were part of the so-called "mainstream media."

65 America is also called a terrorist state for causing the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children. ...While Saddam Hussein spent 9 BILLION dollars building his new palaces after the war. Get a clue moron.

66 "Donald Rumsfeld" seriously, That's great. But again, you still haven't explained why the MSM won't report/publish islamic atrocities. You simply keep throwing out the red herrings. The last one was something about expecting "higher standards" from our troops, which completely avoids having to address the MSM's failure to tell the truth. Keep spinning and avoiding the issue, and I'll keep dragging you right back to it.

67 You asked why the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, despite the fact that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty. You apparently learned only recently of how the Israelis got away with that attack. You seem completely unaware of how Israel and its American Zionists control America. You should know that Zionists control the US government and the media. If you have a significant position in the government or are a significant voice in public, the Zionists will destroy you! If you object to blind support of Israel, they will label you anti-Semitic and threaten you and cost you your job. Do you know that if you complain about Zionist influence, you will receive hate mail and threats of violence? If you object to the billions of dollars of your taxpayer money going to Israel, the Zionists will label you a Jew-hating Aryan, and they will pretend that you don't care that "6 million Jews were exterminated in the holocaust". They will use that "history" to play on yours and everyone else's collective guilt. They will also use it to distract attention from slaughterers like Sharon who kill and maim and destroy everything Palestinian. Zionist Israel and its American supporters will continue the blatant murders of Palestinians - old men, women, children and cripples - until the Zionist genocide of Palestinians is complete. They truly learned much from the Nazis! And, yes, America and Americans' billions supports it all - the killing, the maiming, the destruction of property, the deprivation, the imposed poverty, the theft of water rights, the Bantustans, the Apartheid Wall and the suicide bombers. Do you wonder how America supports the suicide bombers? When an entire people are overpowered, tortured, repressed, subjugated and subdued beyond hope, with America standing on the sidelines applauding and paying for it while Europe turns its head away, what do you expect the people to do? They can't cry. They have no tears left. They can't fight tanks and Apache helicopters and F-16s with stones! If they fire a rocket that hits no one, the source of the rocket will be destroyed anyway. Firing rockets against Israelis with the latest American military detection equipment amounts to suicide with no results. The suicide bombers who sacrifice themselves in a weak attempt at resistance are actually creations of Israel and America. Thanks again to the billions of dollars Americans cough up each year for their endowment. Don't ever again ask why. Ask fellow Americans when you're going to put a stop to the long distance support for a Mafioso of Zionist hit men. When are you going to insist that the president and his men - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Cohen - all closer to Israel than they are to America - get prosecuted as members of an organized crime syndicate? Make no mistake: Zionism in America is organized crime! When will you stop electing Senators and Representatives to Congress who can't resist the lure of Zionist support? They're nothing more than legislators who embrace the same organized crime syndicate. When will you stop reading the crap written and published by the New York Times, the Washington Post and US News? When will you stop being influenced by the broadcasts of the Murdoch empire and Fox News? When will you stop supporting organized Zionist crime and take America back from Israel for Americans?

68 Tinfoil, spam, and bullshit all over the place. Yuck. We're gonna need a hell of a lot of that sawdust-vomit-pickup-stuff.

69 here is an answer for all zionists here These phrases, "hate speech" and "anti-Semite", are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms. Indeed they have been used so much that they have become red warning flags that the person using those phrases has something to hide and needs to shut down the discussion by any means possible. By screaming "hate speech" or "anti-Semite", Israel's supporters hope to shut down the debate without actually examining the issues involved. It is not "hate" to point out facts the American people should be paying attention to, especially on the threshold to what might turn out to be a world war started by deception. It is not hate to ask what really happened to the USS Liberty in 1967 when Israel attacked and killed US sailors. It is not hate to ask if the Lavon Affair can be repeated to sway public opinion in the US. it is not hate to denounce isreali crimes,massacres,ethnic cleansing,mass killings,genocide,assassinations,murders,deportati on,extermination,and holocaust against palestinians. it is not hate to hate this criminal fascist racist nazi zionist ideology which were condemned by the general assembly in 10 th november 1975,resolution number 3379 "as a form of racism,fascism and nazism"

70 It is not hate to call you a gibbering conspiracy nutball either.

71 dave we all know you are a zionist fascist traitor to america read this please we have the pro-Israelis, the perpetual zionists, who, no matter in which country they live, or are citizens of, are only loyal to the state of Israel and no other, who work for the advancement of Israel's benefit at the expense of whatever nation in which they live. They will act as espionage agents, attempting to learn and divulge sensitive and critical secrets from the military and industrial sectors of governments in the nations in which they live, and pass them on to Israel for use or for sale to others. Their infamous work in America is a good example of this.

72 and read this pure truth Traitors to the United States have allowed a terrorist foreign nation (israel) to control the United States government. that a foreign nation controls America's foreign policy. William Fulbright asserted on ABC's Face the Nation television program that “Israel Controls the United States Senate. It is true that they control the most influential newspapers in America, including the top three: The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. They also own the top three newsmagazines: Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. But, even more importantly, they thoroughly dominate the television and broadcast media, the two largest media conglomerates being Time-Warner and Disney; and their domination includes the network news executives of the main three networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. The extreme pro-Israeli partisanship of the media is why most Americans are woefully ignorant of Israel's terrorist record. All this article needs to do is apply just a tiny pinprick into the balloon of Israeli propaganda, for it will take only a few good jabs to burst the balloon of lies surrounding Israel. during the last 58 years Israel has engaged in more murderous terrorism than any other nation in the world; and that by supporting its criminal behavior, America is now reaping the fanatical hatred of hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Support for Israel's terrorism has directly led to the terrorism now going on against the United States. Most Americans don't even realize the magnitude and scope of Israeli terrorism because of the Jewish media control mentioned by General Brown.

73 U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America's best friend.” Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness. Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush's requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel's sale of our AWACS system. Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero. Israel has time and again proven it is not really our friend. It has conducted covert terrorist activities against America such as the Lavon affair in Egypt. It has deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during the war of 1967. It has spied on us and stolen our greatest secrets, such as in the Jonathan Pollard affair. It has sold secret American technologies to the Communist Chinese. It has stolen nucleur materials from the United States. It has tricked America into bombing other nations such as in the attack on Libya in 1986. I could go on and on about Israel's treachery against the America. and this Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our nation. Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end. and read this Palestinians won't get their independence until Americans get theirs! - Ariel Sharon: "We control America" "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister,Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001. "Israel controls the United States Senate." - Sen.William Fulbright and this We must continue to educate our people on this vital point. The most important issue of our time is the Jewish supremacy over our media, our government, our economy, our culture, our future. They are leading us to utter ruin. It is not just Palestine that is occupied by Jewish supremacists; it is New York and Washington D.C. It is not just the West Bank of the river Jordan they occupy; it is the East Bank of the Potomac! I told you that the main difference between the West Bank Palestinians and the Average American, is that the average American does know that his nation is occupied. and this we have to thank the Palestinians for making such terrible sacrifices to help the world see what the Israelis and the Jewish zionists are criminal nazis. Let us hope that the sacrifices made by the Palestinian people will wake up many more around the world and fill them with disgust at America's continuing support for a criminal state of Israel. and this World Zionism, today, constitutes the last racist ideology still surviving and the Zionist's state of Israel, the last outpost of "Apartheid" in the World. Israel constitutes by its mere existence a complete defiance to all international laws, rules and principles, and the open racism manifested in the Jewish State is a violation of all ethics and morals known to Man. and this Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) truth must be known by all americans and this We must cut off the source of terrorism. That source is not Muslim fundamentalism, it is American support for Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. The American government has been supporting the Jewish Supremacist State of Israeli with economic and military funding, though Israel denies the basic human rights of Palestinians. We believe that our economic and military aid to Israel has caused tremendous hatred toward America and that unlimitedly, it is the American people who suffers the consequences. and this Israel has a very powerful lobby in Washington and no one dares speak of big brother unless in praise or on bended knees. American taxpayers have been forced to hand over more than 120 billion dollars in foreign aid since 1960 and there is no end in sight, even while our domestic problems continue to mount. Our deficit and our national debt is at an all time high, our social security funds are about defunct, and now we need to close military installations to save money. Yet, you will never hear any person up on the hill suggest a reduction of aid to Israel. They know, that such a suggestion would disbar them from the cliques of political power.

74 dave we all know you are a zionist fascist traitor to america read this please Yes, you have me. I am praying to Yahweh right now that you don't die in a fiery carwreck which pushes your spinal column out of your mouth.

75 Sweet mohammed, Johnf.. Get your own Blog.. oh, my allah. It's like you get paid by the word.

76 Jesusland Carlos: Actually, upthread I indicated that I think the media should publish the photos, pixelated or not. That last bit was me indicating that I think your thesis about them refusing to do so because they don't want to inflame american passions in support of the war is weak at best. What the mainstream media wants more than anything else is advertising dollars. Clearly they think publishing the photos would put some of those dollars in jeopardy-for whatever reason. As I said, I assume the reason is that they are "too graphic". You can think that's right or not, but I'd bet a hell of a lot of money it's what the producers or editors say when someone proposes publishing them. Maybe airiing the photos would make support levels for the war increase, or maybe not. There are a whole lot of reasons to criticize the running of this war that more graphic demonstrations of the enemy's barbarity will not erase.

77 I know a johnf type. Hates USA & anything to do with it, yet is a most intelligent person when discussing anything not related to USA. johnf go get a life, read a book of consequence, that is not leftist shit propaganda. Stop wanking off to Michael Moore while your at it, we know you do!

78 Here is the problem I have with many who take the "higher moral ground" position ... You strain at every gnat that looks like American abuse ... but swallow the camel of Islamofascist abuse with only a little throat-clearing in the process. If you were consistent, your criticism of America would be drowned out by your demands that the President act even more forcefully to put a stop to what was shown in the above pictures. What I am talking about here is not wanton slaughter -- it is called precision-guided ruthlessness, embodying the ideal that America is "no greater friend ... no worse enemy". Establish that ideal, and we will win the hearts and minds of the peaceful, while putting an end to those who view peaceful interaction as a weakness to be leathally exploited. Yet, those of you who seem to be so concerned about "morality" stop short of such a call ... and in some cases, compound the inconsitency by demanding that we leave these thugs in place ... or when we do catch them, demanding that we read them their Miranda rights and treat them like ordinary scofflaws instead of the enemy they are. You seem to think that American abuse is the only problem worth resolving ... and not only leave others as victims, but ignore the tendency of such abuse to spread and gain strength when left unchecked. Maybe even grow enough, if left alone, to leave us with two choices in the future ... submission to those who perpetrate such abuse, or a nuclear World War to keep it away from our shores. We can put a stop to this now ... and we could have done so, at a far smaller cost, years ago. We did not, because a significant proportion of our society came to support a "moral standard" that was based upon overextended idealism and not human reality ... in particular, the reality that sometimes, a timely, violent, and decisive response to such abuses of humanity's inalienable rights is necessary and proper. In short, that war IS the answer, sometimes. We must be sure that today's "higher moral ground" is based upon human reality, and not that same flawed idealism that stayed our hand for so long ... or even more will lose their lives and freedom. I'll leave you with the last lines of a song heard on the front lawn of Halliburton in 2004: Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace Right through to your core of disdain For the principles that have made America great And the freedom you say you proclaim If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ... Your protests, my friends Sound much like breaking wind Your protests sound much like breaking wind

79 Smooth, johnf. Blame Israel and the Jews for all the problems in the world and then try to discredit anybody who would suspect you're a jew-hater. That's like saying blacks aren't as highly evolved as whites and that maybe for the betterment of the human race we should sterilize anybody who is more than 5% negro, but you can't call me a bigot or I'll ignore you. If it looks like an anti-semtite, if it talks like an anti-semite and smells like an anti-semite; chances are... Seriiously, the only way you wouldn't get called a Jew-hater is if we were in an alternate reality where apples are called oranges.

80 It is utterly appalling, and unbelievable, that an otherwise reputable blog like this, would be filled with such off-the-wall, non-sensical, anti-semitic, apologist-for-Islamist-violence comments, full of lunacy, and hatred, many of of them literally "justifying" the death of three thousand innocent people on 9/11, as a collateral of "Zionism," as if the Mexican janitor who came to America seeking a better life, the negro lady working as a Maid in the Hotel, the Muslim tourist visitor to the Towers, the many children, or all the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers, of every imaginable Nationality who died pulverized on that fateful day by this heinous, diabolical act, worthy only of the religion of the "Satanic verses," were all but "conspiring Zionists"!!! Not only are we facing the constant threat of violence descending upon us all, unexpectedly, ravenous, and uncalled, for in our Cities, our schools, and our homes, even as we go on with the daily struggles of our lives, from these people who will fling "Allah's Gift of Life" in His very face, gratuitously killing themselves and others, even their own, in total disregard of "His" precious "Gift," just to kill or injure one of their brothers in Abraham, the Jews, or an American, for the "heinous crime" of America supporting a people that have been persecuted and massacred in total disregard for two thousand years, culminating with the Holocaust, which, of course, never happened, and is only a "Zionist" invention, the numbers tattoed on the forearms of the remaining aged survivors, and the horrifying memories they carry within them not withstanding, who DESERVE A HOMELAND as every other people in the world; but the erosion of our "Freedom of Speech," and "Freedom of Expression," as more European governments, as well as the American Media, cower before Islamist violence over those ridiculous cartoons, backing off and capitulating, by sacrificing our "Freedoms" in order "not to offend" Islam, in fact giving it a "Privileged" status above all other Religious beliefs, that do not threat to burn and kill when offended, in a supposedly "Pluralistic" society; a 'Privileged" status which many even want to legislate into Law!!! Some Muslims have even had the gall to compare this Mohammed "Looney Toons" cartoon insanity to the "Muslim 9/11" !!! Were it only that they had limited themselves to burning mocking drawings and pictures of the Twin Towers, instead of MURDERING three thousand innocent people, for which the Palestinians celebrated dancing in the streets of Gaza and passing out sweets!!! It is amazing that we allow these people, shielded by the very "Freedoms" they so hate, as witnessed by some of the signs wielded by Muslim protesters of the cartoon fiasco in London recently: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/british_urging_1.php to utilize the rights, and freedoms we grant them, to try to kill us, or to ram their islamist ideology of intransigence and hatred down our collective throats!!! Wouldn't it be ironic to see all those "American Feminist" women (and "girlie men" who feel like women, as Arnold would say), who so cherish their right to irresponsible promiscuity over the right to life of the children of their own conception, or their right to impose upon the rest of us their "Alternate Lifestyles," who in the majority are devout "Leftist Democrats" who have undermined President Bush's War on Terror every step of the way through the Democrat demagogues that through their votes they have empowered in Washington, be forced to were "burkhas," be "subject" to their husbands, fathers, brothers or other males in their family, and summarily "executed" for the least act of promiscuity, or stoned to death in public for their homosexuality?!?! However, perhaps the opponents of the Iraqi war do have one meritorious point after all, about how we should not have gotten involved in the conflict. These "Islamist terrorists" and "insurgents" deserve no better than such a "viper" as Saddam to decimate them, and keep them in check... the way he used to! It is saddly reminiscent of that old Greek tale of the Benevolent Log who was King of some frogs in a pond, and the frogs complained to Zeus about how "ineffectual," and "powerless" the log was as a King, since no matter what they, the frogs, did, he just sat there; and then were answered in their request by Zeus, who sent them a snake as King in its stead, which not only kept the frogs in check, but ultimaly ate them all! As proven by the recent elections in the Palestinian Territories, perhaps "Democracy," and Islam, are just simply incompatible, just as apparently it is also incompatible with "Peace," "non-violence," and "tolerance"!!! Althor

81 I work here at Camp bucca in Iraq and Ive been on the convoys north of here for 10 months. Ive been shot at and had friends killed. As far as Im concened allah and everyone of these shit house rat bastards of islam and muslim faith can suck my nutsack and eat my western shit.

82 Why doesnt the U.S. Government take a few lessons from Israel? Quit fucking around with these bastards, the hell with the snivelling sadsacks and candy-ass liberals and world opinion...these islamic/muslim psychotic murderers started this war, lets finish it. This aint a game, its WAR. So lets get it over with and go home.

83 to sum up Althors thoughts into 3 points.. 1. it's not the muslims fault, 2. it's Israel's fault but if not, then... 3. it's the West's fault.

84 Dear The Other Dave, Have you read my posts all the way through?!?! You must be confusing me with that "anti-semite" Johnf!!! I support the Administration, the President, and his Policies, and believe the War in Iraq to be not a "luxury," but a "necessity" in the War on Terror! Perhaps you misunderstood my being "ironic," and "sarcastic" about how perhaps these Iraqi people willing to blow themselves up and their fellow Muslims, in order to harm or kill an American soldier, do not deserve "Democracy," but a ruthless Dictator like Saddam who kept them in check by populating mass graves, and "really" torturing them at Abu Ghraib, not just by "humiliating" them as some of our misguided soldiers did, who since then have been tried and convicted for their crimes. I state in the above posts that after having been maligned, ostracized, and persecuted for two thousand years, culminating in their near extermination in Nazi Concentration Camps, the Jewish people DESERVE a Homeland, and to return to their Historical roots! I support Israel's Right to Exist as a Nation, and their heroic struggle amidst a sea of enemies, and have openly condemned all the barbarity, the intolerance and the montrous violence in which most Muslims seem willing to engage on the slightest pretext! Contrary to your assertions, I have not blamed the West and Israel for the escalation of Islamic violence, but rather called for us in the West to open our eyes to see the looming threat Islam poses to Western Civilization, and our values of "Freedom of Speech," "Freedom of Expression, "Freedom of Religion," and "tolerance"!!! You really must have me confused with someone else!!! Regards, Althor

85 Anti- Saudi bellicosity by the Administration indeed Johnf! Pfff!!! The Bush Admonistration has so much "bellicosity" against Muslims and Arabs, that they want to give the UAE control of our ports!!! It's like the farmer hiring the "fox" to guard the "chicken coop"! This world is going nuts!!! Althor

86 I cant believe the pure bullshit Ive been reading on this blog...has everyone forgotten WW1, WW2? If we dont stop this bullshit here in this fucked up, shithole part of the world, its gonna be in our own backyards. The muslim assholes have already attacked the U.S., Spain, France (but who gives a shit about those chickenshit frogs anyway) etc... Anyone remember 9/11? These assholes are EVIL, PERIOD. Didnt somebody once say something to the effect of "in order for evil to succeed, good men need do nothing?" C'mon people, it dont matter who you are, if you arent a muslim, then your a target. So lets turn the tables on these bastards and quit pussy-footin' around and just shoot em all.

87 sorry Althor.. I skimmed through the posts and new that someone was doing the long winded replies.. and saw yours.. my fault for being too lazy to look up and see that it was the other guy taking up all the space..

1 Ya gotta love a lib/left story that has absolutely positively no legs whats-so-ever! I'm shocked! I'm shocked I tell ya! The Govt actually complies lists of suspected foreign national terrorists in foreign countries! Oh the horror!

2 325,000-The number of Americans killed when one of these terrorist groups pops off a nuclear device in a major city. That is the number I'm worried about, not how many terrorists the NSA has on a list. It's much better to err or the side of too many rather than not enough.

3 wow that is a whole lot of names. I didn't even realize that there that many different names. Do you think that you get placed on this list for advocating killing Americans? like hanging them ?

4 Only if you want to hang them for, you know, blasphemy as opposed to convicting some one of murder and then hanging them.

5 OK, now the FISA Court should get to work and issue those easily-obtainable warrents so that the NSA can listen in on their phone calls. Should have them all issued by...2010, maybe.

6 I hope the next terror bomb hits the ACLU's headquarters. Highly unlikely since the terrorists and the ACLU are the same people, but a nice thought!

7 325,000 out of a world population of some 6.5 billion people... How dare we!!!

8 That would be about 1% of the US population or about 5/1000 ths of 1% of the world population of the world. Not bad. Lets "zero-in" on the bad guys and leave us law abiding citizens alone.

9 Actually it is 00.01% or America's population. Or 99.99& or us are not on it. But the real point is that the America hating MSM/DNC would fault the # no matter what it was; 35,000,000 or 150.

10 Rod Whats up Marine! Ya got that right! whatever figure - they will bitch. Hell, call their hand! Don't think there should be a list - or one with just a couple of names .... THEN FUCKIN' SAY SO! As we have all learned - they don't actually have the balls to take a definitve positioned specific stand .. not until they get the results from about 300+ polls and focus groups.

1 The smug moron doesn't know the difference between disagreeing with his country's internal policies versus shitting on his country overseas and siding with our enemies. It must hurt to be that stupid.

2 No you have to have a brain to feel pain. Think earth worm all nervous system no brain no pain!

3 George Clooney is a lying sack of shit and I question his patriotism

4 ..yeah...I'm putting him in the self-centered lying sack of shit category too...

5 This whole Iraq Gate is something like; "Shoot first then ask questions" I am very sorry to say this, but the whole handling of Iraq after saddam must be something in the catagory of "I have shit in my brain" If you have handled it with any common sence, US soldiers were already sitting at home! sipping beer! Hey dude what's up? ..huuu, I duno! What a bunch of Fuckups!

6 Heh. No matter how profound or provocative or even outrageous liberal idiots try to sound, and no matter whether they're kids or college perfessers, they always come across as if they were woken suddenly, still babbling from a dream.

7 I question his story, patriotism and mental stability. This post is why I like coming over here. Good job Bluto.

8 George Clooney speaks of simple ways becuase he is a simpelton with his walnut sized brain he is your typical holywood idiot and his movies stink

9 Hey Dan, second guessing isn't a plan, and hindsight isn't wisdom. The only thing Dems have offered so far is cutting and running.

10 I don't think "hard-core Republicans" get invited to those parties, do they??

11 Hi Carlos, Maybe so, can't really judge that, I am not from America but I don't understand why people are called non patriotic if they don't agree on Iraq or see it all a bit different. My guess is that Cloony will talk differently about Afghanistan!

12 ---"I don't think "hard-core Republicans" get invited to those parties, do they??"--- Yes, evidently it's very popular for celebrities to invite a dozen or so hard-core Republicans to their parties now. It's "like" some sort of tax dodge where the invitation clearly states BYOB. I guess "like" they are supposed to pick up a few duty free bottles when they fly in to his Italian villa.

13 Lads and Lasses, love y'all but let's throw the spell check into gear before the other button. It's very important to be, look and sound right, if you're gonna lead. And that concludes todays lesson in .....

14 IM: You sir, are an exception , if for no other reason than you are exceptional! Apart from the fact, that yours was intentional.

15 Dan, People don't get called un-patriotic if they simply disagree with the Iraq situation. Many Iraq critics who get counter-criticized often start to scream that their patriotism is being questioned. Even when the counter critics go out of their way to say no one's patriotism is being dissed. Now, there are certains groups of people who deserve their patriotism questioned. A professor who wishes for a million Mogadishus (ala Blackhawk Down) deserves his patriotism questioned. Code Pink who it is said has given money to the Iraqi terrorists deserve the questioning of their patriotism. Will Clooney talk differently about Afghanistan? Perhaps, but it wouldn't shock me if he dissed Afghanistan too. After all, MoveOn was 100% against going into Afghanistan (despite their weaselly words today about the topic). I doubt very much Clooney's story. It all sounds like standard leftist caricture.

16 When people believe the claims of foreigners, particularly our enemies, that our military has engaged in "war crimes" without a shred of proof or without even hesitating a nanosecond to 2nd guess that maybe our troops deserve a presumption of innocense, it's proper to question their patriotism. When someone treats Abu Gharib as if it were widespread and all soldiers participated in this action, when people believe Seymour Hersh unquestioningly and refuse to believe any part of a Pentagon Press release (including today's date), their patriotism warrants questioning. If you thought we should've given the inspections more time, your patriotism wasn't questioned. If you wanted economic sanctions lifted over the last 10 years but turn around and said this war was wrong because "sanctions worked", your patriotism warrants questioning.

17 Marcus and h0mi, Thanks for the inside. For a moment I had the impression that America has become a bit of short-sided. good to see there is an nuance!

18 "short-sighted"

19 Thanks forest, and may the blessed nose hairs of the prohpet, (BBQ sauce upon him), embrace you like a cashmere bathrobe with matching shearling slippers.

20 Anyone here watch the movie "Jarhead", i have'nt but heard some leftwing elites waffling on about it on the radio, apparently it about some American soldiers that were trained and sent to iraq in the first gulf war but never saw combat. Was it like that? As usual, the left wing elitist armchair war generals thought it a massive waste of money and resources, much like the current war in Iraq. These hollywood types, criticise when soldiers are not used (hence few of them die), but also reserve the right to criticise when soldiers are used (and some die).

21 So much hate for such small minds. Does it hurt?

1 If and her peace pansies are so damn intrested in stopping this war why dont they all go to IRAQ and meet with the insurgents and have a little love in smoke their hookas and hold their own WOODSTOCK CONCERT

2 I lost my child when she was 21. It hurts like hell. You're madder than hell. You want to blame someone. The sooner you accept and move on the better every one is. The shame is that she is being used by people with an agenda. If she was smarter she would know that. The pitful part is she is not accepting what should be a natural grieving and recovery process. I guess her supporters would push her to suicide and the she would be a martyar. Cindy get help not anger.

3 BREAKING NEWS__THIS JUST IN LATEST IN CINDY SHEEHAN ABDUCTION URGENT AND PASSIONATE PLEA RECEIVED "It was a mistake. Take her back, PLEASE! We'll Pay YOU!" THAT IS ALL FOR NOW. Elmer Phub, Reporting, for MSM NEWS WHERE WE KEEP YOU DISINFORMED AS WE SEE FIT. WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMERCIALS.

4 WE LIVE IN AMERICA PEOPLE IF SHE WANTS TO TALK SHIT THAT IS HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT REMEMBER WE HAVE FREEDOMS OTHER PEOPLE WISH THEY HAD LET HER SPEAK HER PEACE I DONT AGREE WITH HER BUT SHE HAS THE RIGHT ONLY IN AMERICA

5 I just Buggered Cindy

1 Cindy Sheman's brain? So they are basically selling a bucket of shit?

2 Proceeds go to nonprofit, eh? Did you read who the nonprofit is? I guess the hungry children these people care so much for take a backseat to partisan activities. Better to fund politician's and their supporters who seek to force more taxes out of us which the bulk of will go to "administrative costs". Funny I didn't see any pictures there of her smooching Chavez.

3 So she finally figured out the left was using her for all they could, no intention of supporting her or voting for her. The fiery end is getting closer.

4 "E-Bay Auctions Cindy Sheehan's Brain" This is not true. E-Bay won't try to sell something that has never existed. Bill

5 So whats her problem anyway looks like her ambitions are as big as a walnut and her rediclous whinnings why dont she just go home

6 I thought it was the democrats that are the party of hate (sarcasism). Seems like some people that blog on this site hate this woman. If any of you would like to sign up for this war and are under the age of 42, please email me, I have some recruiter friends that would love to get you over there. If your too old or you have an injury, how about a family member?

1 I want credit and a cheezeburger for calling this some time back. The game is afoot starting now for '06 and '08.

2 How did we ever win WW1 and WW2? News took weeks, months and in some cases years to get stateside. Of course there were lots of people worrying about their loved ones, but practically EVERYONE was busy, WINNING the war. None of this wimpy whiny ass hand wringin' and especially about enemies (now TERRORIST PUKES) being tracked. Following the last French bailout, the media has learned how to destroy us, if I had to sum up what passes for concern and a "right to know" in the name of news. AP says RINO, but it's the AP so.....

3 And tomorrow they're sharing highly classified information with the Senate intelligence committee! Oh, the horror! How dare anyone in Congress ask for intelligence oversight?

4 IO ERROR They have always been given information of on the overall program - some tend to forget. What they will get now (which is extremely unusual) is detailed specifics on specific cases (their successes I grant you) - which will in turn somehow manage to be leaked to the MSM & general public.

5 IO ERROR - hondo is essentially correct, except for where hondo says "detailed specifics" read: "rope to hang themselves with". forest hunter: "RINO" was my word.

6 IO ERROR, before you get your panties in a wad, read up a little on WWII. Particularly do a google on "enigma" and "purple". Ponder what effects the leaking of that information would have had on the war effort. Perhaps then you will understand why some (ie: anyone with half a brain) are livid that these details are being provided to a group that leaks like a collander which has been used for shotgun target practice...

7 Yep, Hondo's right. There HAS been Congressional oversight. There was a committee selected for this, as in every other aspect of government there are oversight committees. And these committees are comprised of those on both sides of the aisle out of fairness. However, this is a little more sensitive to national security that picking a judge or haggling over which taxes to raise. Revealing sensitive details of this program to them is akin to mapping out troop positions in the Middle East. Pelosi had better tread very carefully. I trust her less than anyone on the committee.

8 The Dread Pundit Bluto Sorry bout that! I promise to you use both eyes in the future. This is me walking out on a diseased limb with a sack of spuds attached to a safety line in the hand of my Ex-wife and in her other, a saw. Love you baby ! Thanx for the triiiiiiiiiip! RINO means?

9 You guys are forgetting to spit your tobacco juice. Do you think terrorists are so stupid that they don't know they are being listened to? Of course not. The secrecy was to keep the American people from knowing our dear elected officials are illegally spying on us!

10 There's a lawful way to compel the Congress to investigate, even if they don't want to, or are convinced "they don't need to": [ Click ]

1 I had the same suspicion. Local islamoterrorists don't wish to be left out of the protest. Just human nature.

2 It probably wasn't a buddhist. Well probably not a good buddhist, it could have been a bad buddhist. In the Christian Science Monitor article Buddhists were not mentioned as suspects http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0208/p02s01-ussc.html Since my coreligionists were responsible for the deaths of more Americans in the last 50 years than any other religion I feel it necessary to speak up for them in the matter of church burnings.

3 Occam's razor! Historically, there has been serious rivalry between Christian denominations, especially in the south. It has been confined to bake sales and door-to-door recruiting in the past. But I think it has been ratcheted up lately. I think we need to take a long hard look at the Methodists.

4 Lew, you may have a point, but I blame the Mormons, who are the most aggravating, doorbell-ringing sons-o'-bitches you ever met since the Adventists and Witnesses ran out of steam when the Millenium came and went without Jesus putting in an appearance.

5 There is a university with a Muslim association in close proximity to the area the church burnings are occuring. They should check that out. And, if we find out that it is Muslims doing this, I am sure there will be a huge backlash from all the American citizens who are tired of the Bush Administration "noble religion of peace" lying mantra.

6 Kids - dope-smokin', maggot invested, wannbes out to make their "Beau Gueste". Probably no SUVs to vadalize in town. John - we all know your a self-proclaimed budhist (you tell us often enough). You one of those tri-chic converts? Kind of a socio-fashion assessory thing? In about 5 years, what are you going to be - any ideas?

7 No hondo I lived in a monastery for about a year in Thailand about 30 years ago. Probably will still a buddist in another 5 years, it is a comfort for me. The article, Feb 8th LA Times, quotes the senior special agent of ATFE as saying that local residents reported seeing "two white males deiving a dark SUV possibly a pathfinder" near 2 of the fires. So I guess it still leaves open the possibility that they were buddists, they were driving an asian vehicle.

8 Actually, out of curiosity, I took one of those religion tests to see what I would be if I was a religious person and apparently, I'm Mahayana Buddhist. Who'da thunk it?

9 Mahayana is the way to go !!! Easy for all to use and enjoy. No being walled up into a cave or prolonged staring at one's navel. And more chicks too

10 I read the story about the SUV. So if they were driving a SUV, we know they're environment hating Republicans. All we need now is religious affiliation. Anyone know if they were able to get any bumper sticker info from the vehicle.

11 >>>"The Left and their allies in the MSM are free to speculate as to who the likely suspects are whenever an alleged hate crime is committed. We, on the other hand, are not for fear of being called an Islamaphobe." Holy crap, Rusty. You are a sage. Preach it.

12 From a law enforcement point of view it is best to not try to focus on any group or faction until there is actual evidence. Focusing too early has the potential to lead to missed clues.

13 I'll be shocked if it isn't muslims or liberals.

14 John If so, then I apologize. I would not have made that statement if I had known you were serious serious. It was in reference to converts of fashionability - there is a lot of that going around.

15 As often as not, church burners just like to see the pretty flames. They choose churches because they expect them to be empty six nights a week, and don't want to risk hurting anyone. A few years back, there was a big flap over a "hate crime" when a black church burned down south. Then the arsonist turned out to be a black girl who attended that church.

16 Who knows who is doing this but its a ctime nonetheless so why dont they keep a eye out for suspcous persons

17 The first cluster of burnings was done on a Friday - that should be prima facie evidence that this was the work of the followers of the religion of peace. Legendary they are for getting whipped up into a frenzy from their Friday gatherings, so a little such action on their sabbath is likely viewed as noble service indeed...

18 You're all wrong...IT's ZIONIST thugs. Bad Baptists, taking your money away from the building of the Zionist state of terror/israel.

1 Yet they are so self-congratulatory for their "courage" when they attack the christian faith-- but only because they know nothing will come of it. Liberals are cowards.

2 Bluto I live here and this is the first time I've heard of this "newpaper". Checked out their website - standard "alternative" Manhattancentric fare - lots of ads for Escorts, Sex Aids, crap like - must be relatively new or can't find advertisers. Cartoon walkout probably no more than a stunt for publicity - or they haven't been paid in a coupla months. An act of meaningless expression for the gullible.

3 I'm glad they had the balls to walk out. I'm also pissed because if they had published the cartoons and Muslims in America had decided to pull that rioting shit here, I would be on the way to NYC right now with my rifle, as couple thousand rounds of 5.56mm, and a smirking grin on my face. PLEASE try that shit here in the states you morons...

4 Jack's Smirking Revenge . . .uh, seems you missed this gem then . . . http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/02/010091print.html

5 heroyalwhyness, while that is disturbing, I expected it. And it is pretty mild compared to the other "demonstrations". ("demonstrations" is the media's word. That, and "protests". They are loathe to call them what they are - riots.)

6 I'm with Jack, but I'll be doing it old-school style, with my Mosin-Nagant bolt action. Yeah, I'm nostalgic, but I can pop a 'slamotard's ass from a thousand yards.

1 I agree. Clueless dopes.

2 Many people don't know that the ACLU and other protest groups receive large donations from countries that are enemies of the US. Cuba is said to be a major contributor. I can't quote the source on that because it's been too long but I remember the response was something along the lines of "we'll take donations where we can get them but that doesn't mean we support what they do." Don't think for a second that these groups are only misguided people who believe they're looking out for America. Some are involved explicitly because they know what they are doing is bad for America.

3 It's just possible that one organization could have both -- clueless dopes AND collaborators -- just as there were both Soviet Agents AND "Usefull Idiots" during the cold war.

4 Good info slug; this needs to be repeated, with facts and figures, as much as possible. The ACLU are known enemy agents, it's just that nobody has the guts to call a spade a spade these days it seems.

5 ACLU headquarters! Now that is a perfect spot for some Muslims to ignite themself's and see the 72 virgins

6 Leave it to the Atheists.Communist and Lawyers.Underground to weaken our national defenses and allow terrorists to enter our nation lets indite the ACLU

1 I don't think it was fear, I think they just want everyone to know who's side they're on.

2 It's funny how they always end up on the anti-American side of every dispute. Liberal hypocracy has been on display quite a bit in the last few weeks. First the Google - China issue. Now this cartoon fiasco.

3 I remember the exibit very well here in NY. There were complaints and demonstrations - attendance was modest - exibit went on tour only to select cities (small number) in the US - bastions of the left no less. It did however go on tour to Europe - with wide and great acceptance and applause.

4 CNN the Communist News Network and Big Bad Wolf Blitzer

5 And how many Christians called for the people who created the exibit to be killed. I personally didn't like it, but I recognize someone's right to do it, although it was juvenile. As long as these things aren't being done at the taxpayer's expense, I have no problem with them. Only an idiot would be enamored with such a thing, but heh, it's ok to be an idiot.

6 I'm sure there would be squeals from all these left wing media outlets if George Bush had asked them not to publish certain christian pictures, he'd get the 'freedom of speech' crap thrown in his face, there would be mass hysterics all round. however in this case, its all sensitive and warm and fuzzy bending over, submission. hypocrites.

7 When the war comes to our streets, we will have to kill as many liberals as muslims, because they'll be helping them any way they can. Liberals are traitors to humanity and a scourge to civilization, and should be purged from amongst us.

8 to those who claim the Christian Right is intolerant, here is some comparisons between the Bible and the qur'an in the Gospels, where the founder Jesus speaks, hell is mentioned only in these verses Matthew chapter 5 verse 22 5 v 29 5 v 30 10 v 28 11 v 23 16 v 18 18 v 9 23 v 15 23 v 33 Mark 9 v 43 9 v 45 9 v 47 Luke 10 v 15 12 v 5 16 v 23 also in the Gospels the term punishment is used in Matthew 25 v 46 THUS THE GOSPELS USE THE TERMS HELL AND PUNISHMENT ONLY 16 TIMES. THE GOSPELS CONTAIN 3789 VERSES TOTAL now for the qur'an. i will use the verses in surah 2 only the qur'an uses the terms 'burned in fire', punished etc in the following verses v 7 v10 v 24 v27 v 39 v 59 v 61 v 79 (these terms are used twice in this verse) v 80 v 81 v 85 v 86 v 89 v 90(these terms are used twice in this verse) v96 v 104 v114 v121 v126 v161 v165 v166 v 167 v 174(these terms are used twice in this verse) v 178 v191 v196 v 201 v 206 v 211 v 217 v 257 v 275 THEREFORE THE qur'an USED THE TERMS BURNED BY FIRE AND PUNISHMENT ON 36 OCCASSIONS IN SURAH 2 WHICH HAS A TOTAL OF 286 VERSES. THEREFOR THE GOSPELS OF THE BIBLE USES WHAT SOME MAY CALL TERMS OF INTORLERANCE 16 TIMES IN 3789 VERSES the percentage is 0.448 (thus less than one half of one percent) WHILE THE qur'an USES WHAT SOME MAY CALL TERMS OF INTORERANCE 36 TIMES IN 286 VERSES (PROVIDED SURAH 2 ONLY IS USED) the percentage is 12.58 percent

9 To compare the Bible to the koran is just useless hand-waving, because words printed on paper ultimately don't matter; it's the actions of the people who read those words that matter. No more need be said.

10 maximus improboulus do not try to discourage me to present evidence. if no one presents evidence, then you are like the liberals who just say what comes into their heads without regards to what the world of electrons, protons and nuetrons is like. people are motivated by what you find in print therefore the claims of critics of the religous right is intolerant can be proven FALSE by such evidence as comparing the Bible and qur'an since there is a set of people who do their best to follow the Bible, and there is a set of people who do their best to follow the qur'an but liberals typically try to avoid providing evidence. example: there are those who call talk show host jay severn, and try to make a false claim, and when jay tells them to present their evidence, the caller rants on about other topics, so jay severn says that he will give the caller a second chance to provide the evidence, and when the caller fails to do it 3 times jay severn hangs up on the caller, because it was just another liberal trying to get propagnda out in the opening. another example of the propaganda technique was when hitlers gestapo and other followers use to make the statements that jews and gypsys were useless eaters when the truth is it was gestapo and other followers of hitler who were the useless eaters. so i will present evidence and announce where the information can be found

1 FYI, That guy in the Saddam capture pic was an Iraqi expat/exile working as a contractor (interpreter) for the US Army. HE's "from" St. Louis and is a mechanic by vocation, I believe. He volunteered to work as an terp in gratitude of the US freeing his homeland. Indepundit has more on him.

2 Good post Vinnie!

3 Hmmmmm. While this is certainly a brilliant post (to which I plan to place a link on my blog) -- and I agree with it wholeheartedly -- it nonetheless seems unfortunate to me that not one mention was made of Michael Savage, who has been saying the same things -- virtually verbatim -- for MONTHS now on his radio show. What an odd coincidence. (Unless, of course, Savage borrowed his ideas wholecloth from you? Anything is possible, I guess.) Please don't let my quibble detract from your excellent work, but it does seem that Michael Savage is generally "blacked out" and/or ignored by much of the conservative blogosphere -- and for reasons that escape me. Full disclosure: I confess to being an unashamed Savage-phile. Superb blog, by the way: I have often seen references to your site, but ashamedly confess that this is my first actual visit! I plan to return often.

4 Gunjam, I listen to talk radio all day at work, but rarely at night. If Savage has expressed the same on his show, good on him. I can't compare what he has said to what I wrote because I haven't heard his show in a long time. That may be the reason that Mr. Savage seems to be "blacked out" on blogs. Most of us don't listen to the radio at night. But, that's just conjecture. I can only say that for sure from my own experience. If you're insinuating that I somehow "lifted" Savage's words for this post, nothing could be further from the truth. It would stand to reason that given our ideological similarities, Mr. Savage and I would have the same viewpoint regarding this. You're free to peruse the Jawa Report archives, and the archives of my own blog (click on my name) if you would like to establish a pattern of similarity between my writings and Mr. Savage's radio shows. In short, yeah, it was a coincidence. And thank you so much for the kind compliment.

5 Vinnie: 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. As before, I maintain that it's up to Islam to either claim or reject the folks we're at war with as Islam, or not. But I've recently heard a lot of commentary from Muslims that they're not "on board" the recent demonstrations, so I'm not quite ready to depict every Muslim as the enemy. Nor are you, since you recognize that some of those who fight for and with us are Muslim. So the bottom line is that I don't quite know what you're saying? If it's that Islam needs to "grow up" then why not just say that, instead of all this other rigmarole? I mean, I essentially agree that it's crunch time for Islam. The truth is that the present situtaion would constitute a troubling challenge to a real department of propaganda because it's not yet all that clear who the enemy is. In the case of Japan during WWII that was easy, because it was a contest between nation states. Regardless of whether or not you were ethnic Japanese you had the choice of associating with a nation, and the choice was binding. From our perspective we can associate with the US, but the enemy isn't in that same boat. It doesn't matter to them whether their affiliation is with Iran or Somalia or Afghanistan or Iraq. Whatever's convenient. Whoever isn't on our side, is on theirs. What do the Saudi Salafists, the Iranian Mullahs, the Qutbists and the N. African Janjhaweed have in common? Only an ideological orientation, as far as I can tell. And the people in those nations that they touch are either with them, or against them. Seriously, I'm not yet at war with Islam. That's their choice, not mine... and I'm not second-guessing them. As a point of instruction, at the beginning of the Civil War in the US Lincoln did not attack Fort Sumpter. Instead he simply announced that he was sending a detachment to replenish supplies at the fort. He knew the people that he sent on that mission would probably die, but chose to allow the enemy to be the aggressor. And the strategy worked, for Davis could not allow the garrison at Sumpter to be re-provisioned. People are currently choosing sides, and it behooves us to be mindful of that. Not everyone in the Arab world is on the side of "the street." If we were a bit more mindful of the cautious and wise path that Lincoln took to war, the conflict itself might be shorter and the outcome better. So, to reiterate, we aren't quite at war with Islam just yet. We're at war with a quasi-Marxist ideology that likes to think of itself as Islam... a fact to which many Muslims, and not so few Westerners, need to awaken. Or to put it another way, a genuine clash of civilizations isn't something that will benefit any of us very much. In fact it'll probably kill 20% of us. And for my part I'd rather skip that if at all possible, while (of course) killing every jihadist we can lay our hands on.

6 Same problem, same solution. The fact that Vinnie and Mr. Savage are independantly coming to the same conclusion just makes me think that they are both on the right track.

7 Vinnie, Thank you for your reply. I accept at face value your assertion that you have never heard Savage hold forth on this subject. It is, perhaps (as REMF suggests in his comment), a classic example of "great minds think[ing] alike." At any rate, keep on saying it! Regards, gunjam

8 Hey Gunjam.. I love Michael Savage. He is truly a beacon of light to many people out there. I love this site too. Excellent writers and thinkers here. Great post Vinnie. And please keep posting. This needs to be brought to a head.. and better sooner than later. It's nice to see people standing together. I do a lot of jousting on the yahoo boards and I haven't see so much unity between conservatives and liberals since 9/12. The world finally is awake to the scourge that is upon us.

9 By the way, if you check the records, I believe that you will find that some Germans (and, possibly, even some Italians) WERE interned in connection with WWII! I personally knew an old German immigrant who was jailed briefly during WWI, as well! -- gunjam

10 Demosophist, we are at war with Islam. Rather, Islam has been at war with us, the kuffar,for 1400 years. It has had its ebbs and flows, but it has never stopped. So as far as taking the cautious and wise approach to war, it's irrelevant. War was thrust upon us. Do you think, Demosophist, that just because you don't believe we're at war with Islam, that that absolves you from being a kafir? Do you think a moderate Muslim, in a Muslim country, would stick his neck out to save yours? Maybe in Iraq, but that's not a given. Do you hear an outcry from moderate Muslims over how non-muslims are treated in Saudi Arabia, or Iran? Bear in mind that one is Arab, and the other Aryan. Yet both are Muslim, and both treat the kafir the same. Personal anecdotes about individual Muslims not being on board with the current are all fine and dandy, but, I take you back to WWII. Col. Von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators were all loyal members of the Nazi party, yet somehow they decided it would be a good idea to assassinate Hitler. Many individual Nazis weren't onboard with the thousand year Reich. Many individual Communists weren't on board with the Soviet Union's quest for global domination. Many Japanese nationalists more than likely opposed watching their sons die in order to build the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Remember too that prior to Hitler's invasion, he and Stalin were quite cozy together. German Nazism, Soviet Communism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism were all pretty much the same ideology. Different nations and races coming together with similar viewpoints and a similar goal. Today it's happening again. Only it is Islam that binds these nations, and their people. Islam not just as a religion, but as an ideology, a social structure that binds their lives on a day to day basis. Therefore, I will not hesitate to post what I post, and write what I write, in the vein of those who made the poster in that graphic I posted. We are at war, the enemies are Muslims, and if I offend good Muslims in order to vilify the bad, so be it. If they want to not be offended, they need to take charge, speak up, and reform their religion. A religion that has undergone no serious reformation, I might add, since its inception 14 centuries ago. I linked to the post by Patrick entitled "Islam Grow Up." I didn't say it myself.

11 Vinnie: Demosophist, we are at war with Islam. Rather, Islam has been at war with us, the kuffar,for 1400 years. It has had its ebbs and flows, but it has never stopped. What do you mean by "we" Kimosabe? Perhaps in a purely theoretical sense that's true, but a lot of nutty stuff is true in that same theoretical or philosophical sense. My Arkansas hillbilly ancesters weren't at war with Islam, nor was Islam at war with them. They were at war with the antebellum South and slavery. Moreover, in that theoretical sense every nation state is in a condition of perpetual war with every other nation state since both are theoretically sovereign. And for the same reason every man is at war with every other man, so long as they refuse to designate an authority over both to resolve disagreements or clashes. None of this justifies hatred, and it probably justifies at least some degree of humility. Do you think, Demosophist, that just because you don't believe we're at war with Islam, that that absolves you from being a kafir? Do you think a moderate Muslim, in a Muslim country, would stick his neck out to save yours? Maybe in Iraq, but that's not a given. I don't really know how far I'd trust anyone to stick their neck out for me, but I know at least one Muslim who I'd trust in that regard. Seriously, what sort of argument is that? Are you saying that Islam drives out humanity in humans? Not in my experixence. To the extent that Islam is vulnerable to a totalitarian mindset that's true, but the whole point of the project in Iraq was to leaven the loaf with something other than totalitarian salafist ideology. If you don't think that was a worthy project then why have you supported the Iraq War? I mean, we might well fail... but giving a big shove in that direction hardly seems enlightened or wise. Remember too that prior to Hitler's invasion, he and Stalin were quite cozy together. German Nazism, Soviet Communism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism were all pretty much the same ideology. Different nations and races coming together with similar viewpoints and a similar goal. The common thread was the German Counterenlightenment, and the same thing applies to Qutbism or Salafism. Different fathers, but the same mother. They represent attempts to infuse a vulnerable faith (because it's unreformed) with those poisonous Hegellian concepts, so the appropriate way to deal with the problem is to highlight the contamination. Or to put it differently, if you're inclined to think the problem lies with ancient Islam then the appropriate method is to "contaminate" it with the Enlightenment, thus either killing or taming it. A lot less costly than global war. Today it's happening again. Only it is Islam that binds these nations, and their people. Islam not just as a religion, but as an ideology, a social structure that binds their lives on a day to day basis. Actually the Philange is a better example of a religion manifested as an ideology, but the Phalange was tamed and now represents a fairly unremarkable Christian Democrat Party in Spain. Take a deep breath. All out global war will just ruin your day, and it'll catch up to you even if you don't embrace it should the effort to avoid it come to naught. Therefore, I will not hesitate to post what I post, and write what I write, in the vein of those who made the poster in that graphic I posted. We are at war, the enemies are Muslims, and if I offend good Muslims in order to vilify the bad, so be it. If they want to not be offended, they need to take charge, speak up, and reform their religion. A religion that has undergone no serious reformation, I might add, since its inception 14 centuries ago. I agree with most of this, though I've never been able to suss out the relationship between Islam and a Reformist movement very well. It's like making a glove for a hand with six fingers. Strictly speaking Shi'ia was the Reform movement, at least according to Ernest Gellner... the problem being that the Reformation never ended. From his perspective islam has been in perpetual reform for about 12 centuries, but a winner was never declared. Things don't settle down until there's a winner. The irony is that Gellner thought Iran might actually signal the end of the struggle, with the establishment of a Shi'a ecclesiastical hierarchy similar to catholicism... giving the Reformers something to push against and ultimately displace. (Gellner: Conditions of Liberty) Anyway, to sum up: 1. If "the project" fails then global war will come without our encouragement, and nothing we can do will stop it. Moreover, the project itself will prepare us, militarily and culturally, for that eventuality, should it prove unavoidable. Whatever technological advances enhance the ability to exclude "collateral damage" in targetting can be used even more effectively to create it. So we aren't losing much by making the effort. 2. But while we still have some degrees of freedom left we can choose to use them wisely, because the cost of not doing so is pretty damn steep.

12 The wonderful graphic available at the site below will be the perfect going away preasent for any Muslim of your choice. Or you could simply print the graphic and leave it hanging on an undecorated public wall for many Muslims to see as they pass by on the way to their prayers. http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/ The comments section is a bonus.

13 It's late, so let me sum up your summation: 1. If "the project" fails then global war will come without our encouragement, and nothing we can do will stop it. Moreover, the project itself will prepare us, militarily and culturally, for that eventuality, should it prove unavoidable. Whatever technological advances enhance the ability to exclude "collateral damage" in targetting can be used even more effectively to create it. So we aren't losing much by making the effort. 2. But while we still have some degrees of freedom left we can choose to use them wisely, because the cost of not doing so is pretty damn steep. Translation: I love you Vinnie. You say the things I wish I could say, but I'm too chicken to.

14 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024352,00.htm the police even allow our homegrown terrorists to threaten us in the street nowadays.........

15 Demosophist, you have a tendency to way over analyze what others say at times and end up coming to nearly the same conclusion after much wending and swaying along the way. Take, for instance, Vinnie's comment: "Demosophist, we are at war with Islam. Rather, Islam has been at war with us, the kuffar,for 1400 years. It has had its ebbs and flows, but it has never stopped." Your "Arkansas hillbilly ancestors" were kuffar. You and I are kuffar. Everyone who is not Muslim is kuffar. That's who "we" are in Vinnie's comment. Your ancestor's fight with the antebellum South was a segue. And a big one, too. Unless I'm just not cerebral enough to see some point you were making there. I think you make some valid points, but you sure know how to take the long and winding road to get there.

16 Vinnie communism and nazism were always mortal enemies, not widthstanding any treaties that they may have signed with each other.

1 I hear they are threatening to burn churches in Europe. If that happens, let the mosques burn and the imams HANG FROM LAMPPOSTS.

2 tre

3 Some churches burned here last night. Ominous signs or reading too much into things where no evidence exists?

4 fret

5 Way to go Muslims, thanks for proving to everyone what a bunch of stone age savages you are!

6 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024352,00.htm well in England the muslims are threatening another bombing campaign, and the police are just standing aside watching. jack straw(tony blairs c#cksucker) slammed the cartoon being published abroad, but is saying nothing about muslims shouting death threats in the street to the british people(the cartoons havent even been published here). one rule for the muslims and another rule for the british people............

7 to quote the times....."Gathering storm as protests hit Britain By Daniel McGrory and Rajeev Syal LEADERS of radical British Muslim groups threatened a campaign of protest last night as demonstrations spread from Europe to the Far East. A crowd of several hundred demonstrated outside the Danish Embassy in Knightsbridge, with protesters repeatedly shouting: “UK you must pray, 7/7 is on its way.” Western leaders were hoping that Muslim protests had reached their peak after apologies from many politicians and newspapers yesterday for any offence caused by the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. However, organisers in Britain gave warning that their protests would accelerate over the weekend, with BBC offices a target for their wrath. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, condemned the decision by some media outlets in Europe to republish the cartoons, calling it “insensitive, disrespectful and wrong”. He said that freedom of speech did not mean an “open season” on religious taboos, and he praised the British media for what he called their “considerable responsibility and sensitivity” for not publishing them. A radical Islamic cleric who lived in London until he was banned from Britain called for the killing of broadcasters and newspaper editors who showed insulting cartoons of Muhammad. Omar Bakri Mohammed issued his instructions in a religious fatwa from his hideout in Lebanon. He said that the first to be murdered should be the editor of the Danish newspaper that first published the drawings. His followers in Britain who helped to organise yesterday’s rowdy demonstration in London supported his demands as they called for more terror attacks to emulate the July 7 suicide bombers. However, the number of protesters was fewer than organisers expected and there were no other significant protests in the capital. Police refused to act on complaints from passers-by to order the demonstrators to take down banners praising the British-born terror bombers as the “Fantastic Four”, saying that their job yesterday was to ensure that the protest by 500 Muslims passed off peacefully. Security officials across Europe are concerned that some Islamic militant may act on such a fatwa and attack any one of the 27 editors from 13 European countries who have shown the offending material. The Irish Daily Star in Dublin was the latest to publish the drawings yesterday. While Mr Straw criticised such behaviour, French ministers supported the right of editors to reproduce the images in a debate over free speech. In demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza yesterday a preacher told 9,000 worshippers at one mosque: “We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible.” But as thousands converged on the Palestinian parliament building, Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman, told the crowd that, whatever their anger, they should not disgrace their religion. Most of the demonstrations in the Islamic world passed off largely peacefully. Demonstrators in Indonesiabesieged the Danish Embassy and pelted it with paint and eggs. There were protests in Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan where 800 people converged on the Danish mission in Islamabad. The Pakistan Government called for economic and political sanctions against offending countries. The US State Department called for European media to act more responsibly and not to offend Muslims. Kurtis Cooper, a department spokesman, said “We all respect freedom of the press but . . . inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.” No main US publication has published the images as politicians in Washington seek to repair their reputation in the Islamic world by criticising Western governments that back the showing of the cartoons. " i suspect there is no financial profit in bush and blair speaking up for freedom. thats why they have stfu.....

8 are we supposed to trust the muslim we see walkinh down our street?

9 http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=n69fle

1 Absotively SPOT ON!

2 Ditto, you are spot on... and in a whisper I agree that " I think we have an even deeper problem than even I would like to admit..." God help us.

3 Excellent, Rusty!

4 Where are all these spots you speak of? Damn, spot, begone! ;-)

5 You have nailed the issue perfectly. Hats off to you.

6 To Islamic fundamentalists from Londonistan to Karachi, “humanism” and “idolatry” are primitive pagan sins that must be combated by all means Ironically, the main role model for these fanatical fools is not their own medieval Arab prophet Muhammad, but rather ancient heroes such as Moses who fought “the decadent/civilized Egyptians armies with a small group of Bedouin guerillas” and Sicarii-in-chief Simon Bin Giora who believed that it was a “believer’s religious duty to kill unbelievers, collaborators and their children” See wiki link below for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii Eventually, secular Roman generals were left with no choice but to dispose of them forcefully...

7 I don't consider mockery directed at aspects of the practice of religion to be unacceptable in all cases, even if it is directed at Christianity. Mockery is a very effective tool against those who have become too self-important. Mockery is the tool Jesus employed against the Pharisees as recorded in Matthew 23. Even if Islam weren't, as Rusty points out, a "coherent socio-political system", it is fair game for mockery--just as the Pharisees were.

8 All this hoity-toity fancy talk doesn't mean you're off the hook in the fatwa competition, buddy-boy.

9 "render unto caesar" Speaks volumes. Christians are commanded to render onto Caesar, but muslims are commanded NOT to. It's why they are such poor neighbors and guests.

10 One of the best things I've ever done, I did without knowing. Now at this point there are so many topics I could but won't go into. Simply by avoiding daily bombardment of the "stuff" called TV programming and "newspapers" over the last ten years has been quite enlightening. Now before I get accused of an Ostrich stance, I do get around. My eyes still function and my ears still hear, though both are not as keen as they once were... Cutting to the chase.....What if we were to assemble proportionate numbers of virtually every known religious group, send them off to a planet. In order for their mutual survival, they would have to rely on blending their skills and abilities? What if the planet were equipped with an endless supply of air, food, water and say it was the third rock from the sun? What if? Would freedoms and rights howled from mountaintops have the same impact? Would good actions have a new meaning? Would the value of those who choose to build things be valuable?

11 There are many parallels between islam and communism...imo Mohammed was the first communist revolutionary.

12 Great idea, forest hunder! I would be all for taking radical Muslim and putting them on another planet. Venus comes to mind.

13 Why do we keep talking about Radical Islam as a religion? It's not religion; it's a fascist movement. It's goal is submission. forest hunter: did you ever read Lord of the Flys?

14 flies? fleyes?

15 Patty Point taken. No I never read that book or for that matter, very many at all. Blessed with a number of skills has kept me busy and by the time I got done working, too tired to read. Not complainin', just the way it's been for so many years..... keeping the wolves at bay and raising babies. Now that I'm old and my grandkids are increasing, I have more time. What's the book about? Basically.

16 It'd be interesting to know what your reply to this article in The Sunday Times might be. Appropriately, it's been copied onto an Islamic blog: http://www.qern.org/node/242

17 Daniel Is the link spelled right?

18 I totally agree with you. It is only this last month, that I have come to realize that I have been conned in the name of political expedience. There is no Good-Muslim :Bad-Muslim. They all believe to "kill the disbeliever" , they cannot abide people OUTSIDE of their culture to disbelieve. That is absolutely clear. I am now anti-Islam. I intend to do something about it. We will organize here in Alberta. I don't want any of those Muslims or Islamics bringing their hate and intolerance here in my small city. We don't want them. Not because of their religion or race but because of their hate and intolerance and violence. Hiding these things under the cloak of religion is just taking advantage of our tolerance. Hate is not religion. There is no way little old ladies in Canada are going to be hauled into police stations because they have toy pigs in their windows or have 200 year old statues of pigs destroyed or Miss Piggy calendars torn up. The British caved in and look what they got for appeasing the Islamics. No way I want that to happen in my country.

19 Rusty, Patty and the rest of you who I have likely added additional frustration to your day- A thousand apologies, Sheeesh! I'm going to blame it on too much rockin to Raitt on the radio while "reading" or maybe the cream cheese pickle sandwich I ate. I guess we know now who the sharpest pencil in the box isn't. Man, if we were having a contest about who's ass is blackest, I could make a coal miner look like Mr. Clean! I read/re-read the piece and absolutely understood what you were saying quite clearly. I got it! So sorry for muddin' up the water. I'm takin' my toys and goin' home!

20 Max, I thought I was clear in the post that I don't hate Muslims or think they are all bad. In fact, I thought I quite clearly stated the opposite: that one may believe in a bad ideal and yet remain a good individual. Thus, most Muslims I know are wonderful people. Yet, at the same time, most Communists I know are wonderful people. In either case I do not wish them to become anything other than a small minority. Not because they are bad, but because I hate the thought of them having the power to reorganize society along the lines of their chosen ideology which is dangerous.

21 Forrest Hunter, I think I understood what you were saying the first time, so no problem.

22 You are GLAD that the State Department and the President "condemned" these silly cartoons? In my view, you are far too generous to the State Department and to the President in this matter. (In my view, our Government should not condemn things that speak truth and don't deserve condemning. Creeping political correctness is not helping anything. Silence in this case would have been preferable to these Dhimmi-like condemnations by our Government.) You, sir, on the other hand, certainly speak the truth boldly about Islam -- and I heartily salute you for it!

23 May one gently counsel everyone to oil up the equipment?

24 Hi Forest Hunter, the link is correct. since i posted it here, i managed to find the original article on The Times' website. According to Simon Jenkins, "These cartoons don't defend free speech, they threaten it." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511_1,00.html Daniel

25 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. I just want to make clear that giving Islam a good scare at this point is probably compassionate, and will ultimately help the genuine "moderates." Well, I think that's the case, and hope it is, but I'm not sure. It's also not at all clear to me that Islam is necessarily an ideology, although it has been trending in that direction for about a century. Still, Sufism is Islam and I hardly regard it with enmity. It's not mainstream Islam, of course... but neither is Salafism. In fact not even Islamism is yet mainstream, since the Islamists are not yet a majority in any Muslim nation (and more like 20% in most). Several years ago Wretchard made the observation, in "Three Conectures," that our degrees of freedom were invested in turning the tide in the Ummah and I'm not ready to give up that freedom for the sake of an automatic slide into a cultural war. By all means let's scare Islam straight, but let's also leave the door ajar just a bit. I didn't know GW had condemned the cartoons. What the deuce is he thinking? I'm just choosing not to waive them like a flag, trusting that there's still hope in the Ummah. God help us.

26 Liberal Left: "You cannot make a country responsible for a terrorist act committed by it's Citizens" Muslims: "We can hold a whole country accountable for a Newpaper cartoon." At least there is some degree of separation occurring.

27 As a former Muslim, I find your article absolutely spot-on. From its inception, Islam has been a political ideology that usurped the role of religion. There are no doubt Muslims in this country who have learned the value of western ideals and blended those with a sort of "kinder, gentler" Islam. But as well intentioned as they (and the rest of our country) may be, that is not going to change the ugly reality of the real Islam, I'm afraid

28 All this talk is great, and it is certainly advantageous for us that Islam has now shown it's ugly side for all to see. However, it is now a time for action. Radical Muslims who have threatened violence(like the ones carrying signs in Britain) should be deported. No moderates who wish to abide by the law should. We need to separate the moderates from the radicals, and perhaps the moderate Muslims will see the advantage of living in a secular society. The radicals should be expelled from the West, and now. Denmark, you have the best reason to start the process, and we should all support you. Then the rest of Europe and the US need to follow. Starting tomorrow morning.

29 Daniel And thanks to the counsel of Mike H, I'll try and be a bit more generous with the oil. Up until mine eyes had seen the glory in Rusty's explanation of Islam, I grouped Islam in with religion. Based on that misunderstanding then, the Times piece has many issues in need of reconsideration. This is likely attributable to what Rick Moran was referring to in his "MORE LAZY REPORTING FROM THE MEDIA" ie; "Islam is an ancient and dignified religion". Aside from that and without splitting hairs re:Islam, religion or not, Jenkins writes at length about creating more laws. Laws, something these evil fanatics have been and will continue demonstrating their respect for. Case in point, the insanity of yesterdays Embassy attacks. Jenkins seems to be in agreement with the same sunken ship of fools splashin' about in their self-induced trauma and would have us believe their problems are all our fault. The fact that we are still alive is as close as that argument can ever be to being truth. In an effort to keep this brief, simply put there's a time and place for nearly everything. Cartoons aren't the reason as much as they are an excuse for mayhem to flourish.

30 Rusty, Billions of Muslems remain silent while their 'significant others' incite and inflict terror worldwide. That deafening silence MUST be considered tacit approval in the absence of tangible outrage and action against radical Islam. Their silence will be the petri dish for new generations of Islamic terror. Muslem silence and timid Western indecision... gollygosh.

31 At one point Rusty, you say that the beliefs of the individual communist or muslim does not dictate how they act on a day to day basis and then later on say that terrorism and communism (the ideologies) directly cause(d) terrorist attacks and totalitarian government. Don't these two sentiments contradict each other in that a person either follows these ideological principles (such as creating totalitarian states and committing suicide bombings) or those are not the real principles the person is following. Or: Do you believe that it is a person's philosophical beliefs that motivate his or her behavior?

32 I agree with your analysis in total, and Islam is NOT a religion of peace, no matter how one wants to to dice and slice it. It always has been that of bloody wars, and opression. However, in response to Dr De Ka Varga, you are truly misguided in your statement regarding Moses being the model for these fanatics. You do not know your history, and shouldbecareful what you claim to be true. Moses simply fought to free the Jews from Slavery by the Eqyptians, and although there is no time to explain it all, I would recommend that you keep your 'dislike' towards Christians to yourself. Go and study history first!

33 Hello Rusty. I couldnt post at Mr. Esmays site, so I came here to answer the question he posed you. From Henry Mercier's translation. I chose it because it has the Arabic on the pages opposite the translation. I can't read it, but it looks interesting. Here are a few passages that advocate hegemonic sharia. Sura 8 Verse 39 "Fight them until there is an end to doctrinal strife, and there is no other religion than God's. If they make amends, God will see it." Sura 9 Verse 123 "O ye believers! Fight the infidels who are near you. Let them find sterness in you, and know that God is with those that fear him." I like this one. It sooths the conscience. Sura 8 Verse 17 "You did not slay them. It is GOD WHO SLEW THEM; Nor didst thou strike a blow when thou didst strike but GOD DID STRIKE to try the believers with a goodly trial. God both hears and knows all." Sura 3 Verses 157-8 "And if you be killed or die in God's service, this is a remission of sin and a mercy from God more precious than what you can gather, and if you die or be killed, it is always before God that you shall meet again." HOW ABOUT THIS DANDY MR. ESMAY? Sura 47 Verse 35 "DO NOT WAVER NOR CRY FOR PEACE when you HAVE THE UPPER HAND, and when God is with you. He will not divest you of the consequences of your work." And, while unrelated, check out this winner from the ROP Sura 4 Verse 34 " MEN ARE SUPERIOR TO WOMEN because of the qualities whereby God has made a distinction between them, and because they expend their wealth to cover the cost of housekeeping. Virtuous women are devout and keep intact in their husband's absence what God has prescribed to keep intact. IF YOU FEAR THEY WILL REJECT YOU, admonish them, and remove them into another bedroom, finally, BEAT THEM. IF THEY OBEY YOU THEN WORRY THEM NO MORE. God is high and great." So there you go Rusty, he, in my opinion, was rather condescending towards you, I hope you will take the time to send them along to Dean, as I was unable to. He says he has read a "good bit of the Koran", someone needs to inform him about the bad bits, I'm sure there are more, I'm no expert, these are just passages i earmarked when I read it. Cuz I'm all multi-culti and groovy like.

34 decided to flip through a li'l bit and found this keeper. I tell you, Allah has a way with words. S. 24 V 2,3 "Scourge the whore and the whoremonger with a hundred strokes. YOU MUST NOT GIVE WAY TO PITY IN GOD'S RELIGION, if you believe in God and the last day. Let a party of believers witness their punishment." He's got a million of'em.

35 Good article, Rusty. Perchprism

36 I agree with almost everything Rusty said. One point, while true, is not the "whole" truth. Take this statement and the idea surrounding it for example: "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." He says too that Communists, for example, may have screwed up ideas, but they can be good people. True. BUT ... being in a democratically run country, we all have the right to vote and that is where the danger comes in. Leave Communists, Islamists, Marxists, etc. alone to grow unchallenged, just because they're "nice people", and they will vote for others who share that ideology. They will, consciously or not and with malice or not, use our democratic system to destroy our democratic system. They only need 51%.

37 Without freedom of speech there are no other freedoms/liberties. Every one should be convinced of that.

38 Somebody above said that the violent protesters should be deported. All you do in that case is delay the inevitable. If the deported persons are serious, they will return, with friends. Or they will unite with the other crazies who wish to destroy the Western World. Hopefully our governments will wise up and incarcerate such individuals for a long time. Like, say..LIFE IN PRISON. As long as the treat of Radical Islam remains at large, we are all at risk. Craig C

39 Somebody above said that the violent protesters should be deported. All you do in that case is delay the inevitable. If the deported persons are serious, they will return, with friends. Or they will unite with the other crazies who wish to destroy the Western World. Hopefully our governments will wise up and incarcerate such individuals for a long time. Like, say..LIFE IN PRISON. As long as the threat of Radical Islam remains at large, we are all at risk. Craig C

40 How is fundamentalist Christianity or Mormonism in America ANY different from fundamentalist Islam? Sure, be worried about the Islamic freaks, but be even more concerned about what's happening under your nose in your own country.

41 Katherine- you can't be serious. You must be the last person left on Earth who still equates the inactions of fundy-Christians with the rivers of blood flowing from islam. Or, perhaps you actually are serious and you just enjoy repeating lies. AV

42 Well, Katherine, tell me the last time a Christian cut someone's head off in this country, or threatened to blow himself up in a crowded nightclub, or threatened an entire country because a newspaper published a cartoon. Or bombed a busload of commuters, or attemted to bomb a hospital, or........I could go on, but what's the point, you should get the idea by now. You need to get real. If you can't see the difference then you are a fool, but most likely you see the difference and are just a liar. Sorry, but your post is ridiculous on its face.

43 Excellent post. You've nailed it on the head.

44 there is a similarity between islamism and communism beyond any communalist thinking that puts the individual in subservience to a larger religious or political idea or in their parallel commingling of faith and state (islam is a political principle and communism demands faith). both are dialectical in that they see themselves as supplanting and completing history. to see the fulfillment of their causes, in the spiritual or class struggles, they both assert a will to power that demands a triumph over the predecessors that are their sources (judeo-christianity or capitalism). like an insecure, neuotic child, they must see the parent destroyed to establish their distinct legitimacy.

45 Katherine, I'll be worried about Mormons and fundamentalist Christians when they start massacring children and sawing the heads off of reporters and schoolteachers. Until then: not so much.

46 there is another way that islam and communism are similar beyond the communalist subservience of the individual or the commingling of faith and the political state. both are dialectical and see their triumph as the fulfilment of history. islam must supplant its judeo-christian antecedants much as communists must see the end of the bourgeois, capitalist system. like an insecure, neurotic child who needs to destroy the parent to establish its own distinct legitimacy, islam cannot coexist with other montheisms on an equal basis but must dominate them.

47 oops, i posted twice. didn't think the first one went through. sorry about that.

48 Katherine, I see your point .. however, American terrorists are pussies. They just don't have the knack for mass murder. Something about them wanting to survive the attack, or some silly self-preservationist crap, like that. McVeigh, Rudolph, et al. Nope, they just didn't have the same grapes as the radical muslim terrorist.

49 Jesusland Joe et al; One example of many: Oklahoma City. Remember? I could go on... As for the rest of you, religious fanaticism and the intolerance it breeds, is the root of ALL the evil in the world. We would all be better off if we discarded the superstitious rot that masquerades as “morals“.

50 Jesusland Joe et al; One example of many: Oklahoma City. Remember? I could go on... As for the rest of you, religious fanaticism and the intolerance it breeds, is the root of ALL the evil in the world. We would all be better off if we discarded the superstitious rot that masquerades as “morals“.

51 "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." This is the absolute truth. In this century Islam has replaced Soviet style communism as the major threat to civilization and freedom in the world. The quicker we realize this and take steps against it the better off we will be. I take heart from Western reactions to the latest, increasingly violent actions of this cancer posing as a religion. We have moved from Bush infamously calling Islam a "religion of peace" to Rumsfeld underscoring the threat Islamofascist ideology poses to the Western civilization. I think we and the Europeans are finally catching on to the Fifth Column in our societies and the folly of one-way multiculturalism. However, we are just beginning to combat multiculturalist defeatism and Islamofascist aggression. It's a long-term war of ideas and arms like the one with communism. Like it or not, we've got to face and defeat this new totalitarianism if we are to keep our freedoms.

52 One example of many: Oklahoma City. Remember? I could go on McVeigh was an atheist. He made this clear in his narcissistic pontifications before his execution. Please, when making arguments about religion, do NOT use McVeigh as an example of religious passion. He had his own thing going on. And speaking of things going on, when you say, "I could go on," I assume this to mean, in fact, "Uhh, I can't really go on." As for the rest of you, religious fanaticism and the intolerance it breeds, is the root of ALL the evil in the world. Oh, please. Communism and Naziism were the greatest killing machines of all time, and both were atheistic "humanist" movements. Unless you want to make the case that Communism and Naziism were religions -- a case which can be made -- but I am pretty sure you mean something different by 'religion.' It is actually Utopianism or what David Horowitz calls the Promethian dream that presents the danger. Islam, Communism, and Naziism are Utopian. We would all be better off if we discarded the superstitious rot that masquerades as “morals“. This silly statement contains the fallacy of begging the question. You can't define "better off" without a moral theory of utility. How you can you discuss whether even murder is good or bad outside of a moral framework?

53 Spitto. You are dot-on!

54 Caspera, McViegh what ever his personal beliefs (definitely not an atheist), committed the bombing in retaliation for Waco and Ruby ridge. No fanaticism there? As for the brevity of my list, atrocities committed in the name of Jesus can and has filled books, even a partial list would be beyond the scope of this little pissant post of mine (however, I can‘t help but mention the 100 Years War, the devil made me do it.) I will concede that Stalin, largely due to technology, and not for lack of religious ideology, managed to out due most. As for Hitler, he wasn’t killing Jews because they where a rival political faction. My point is, that taken together, wether your a Christian, Hindi, animist, a freaking Druid, or flying saucer worshiper, religion has fueled centuries of slaughter. As for morality, spare me the freshman philosophical ruminations on utopianism and utilitarianism. If we followed strict Judeo-Christian morality we all be waiting outside Red Lobster to stone the shell fish eaters. One mans morality is another’s blasphemy. It’s just another human construct if you remove the supernatural, which of course can not be proved and must only be taken on faith. How any body less naive the an infant could believe any of it is beyond me.

55 Matt, you kind of hit and miss. I could just as easily make the case that the Hundred Years War was about conquest for territory and booty. Religion played a minor role as it did in most of the so-called religious wars. I agree that some were internicine, but hardly the jihad of Islam. And if we want to talk about mass murder, boy you missed the target by a long shot. Let me list a few for your perusal: Attila, Ghenghis Khan, Tamerlane, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Imin, Lenin, and need I go on. So I can make the case that Christianity is much LESS violent than secularism.

56 Jesusland Joe, I certainly wasn’t doing a comparison of relative evil per se, only pointing out that no religion has a monopoly on de-humanizing their rivals. Modern day murderers have technology to improve their efficiency. Do you think that the Turks would have been stopped in the Balkans if they had say, the Maxim gun? We'd all be bowing to Mecca several times a day if that was the case. Conversely Jerusalem would be a entirely Christian city today if the Crusaders had tanks instead of horses. I am pointing out the penchant of all religions in dehumanizing the unbeliever. As for your list, although some of your protagonists are "secular" many of them were a reaction to domination by cultures profoundly organized around religion. Whether or not they where motivated by greed or ideology is not the point. They all used an “us and them” argument to stir the pot so to speak. The key to getting people to do war or murder willingly and mercilessly is to make your victims less than human. What better way of doing this than using religion and it's little brother racism? And although I am hardly an admirer of Lenin, he was no more involved in mass-murder than Czar Nicholas. Finally, although I do find many things to agree with in the original post by Shakleford, Classic Marxism (a socio-economic reaction to may of the injustices and inequities of the Victorian age) bears only a passing resemblance to modern authoritarian Communism as practiced in the USSR. ‘Nuf said!

57 Spot on brother. I call for a crusade. Let the heathens burn in hell. Peace through force. Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

58 The dangers of fanatics are all too relevant today. In the U.S. we have been fairly successful at pushing the extremists off to the side. But, damn it, why the hell even be in the region. I suppose we could just nuke em or rain fire on them. But I'm worried about the wackos in this country ( ID folk, the kind that preach good math and science in the SOTU ?????? Godd math and science, lets teach ID in school, lol...rofl...seriously). These folk are like the ants that get the parasite that turn them into zombies and all they do is climb the stalk of grass waiting for cows to lick them up. I rambled a little, apologies. Back to the OP. We have to be careful with people who use ideology to set an agenda intolerant of the Libertys and freedoms of this country. And there is no easy path. "Those willing to give up essential freedoms for a little security, do not deserve freedom or security." Benjiman Franklin. And Patrick Henry said it well - "Give me Liberty or give me death." Peace, out.

59 I forgot to mention - when we whipped the rags asses in the first Crusade - we committed cannabalism on them pukes. So lets not make the mistake of going easy on them.

60 P.P.S and another thing, I work for a bank and the Muslims don't believe in usury and that definately threatans my employment. Not only does the 3rd world greedy bastards want my job an oil rich society wants to get rid of it.

61 WTF. Whiteelf, your either a nut job or brilliantly funny. I hope its the second, because the other stuff I've read on this blog I thought was just a little too much of the kool-aid crowd. The Current state of 2 Abraham religions: A Metaphor. The Planet = the pot Muslims = instant boil Christians = slow boil Regular folk = the frog Cheers, and I recommend drinking some reality juice.

62 Matt, to be sure I wasn't saying that religious people or people who used religion as a reason for conquest were innocent in any way, as the Christian expansion in the New World is of particular concern to me, but is still only a shadow of what the Muslims did in their ascent. My point was to demonstrate that there are of a certainty other factors and peoples who did not use religion to commit the most heinous of crimes against humanity. As for the utopian Communism of Hegel and Marx, I would be very much against it no matter the construct. It encourages people to be nonproductive and slovenly, thus leaving a society in ruins. But I digress, and this is a topic for another thread.

63 Regarding one of Rusty's previous comments above, I don't care how nice someone is if they're out to kill me or any other innocent people.

64 "( ID folk, the kind that preach good math and science in the SOTU ?????? Godd math and science, lets teach ID in school, lol...rofl...seriously)." I agree that it's silly, to a degree, and so does the majority. So there is really nothing to be afraid of. And anyway - so what if ID got some space in the curriculum? It's not as if it's to "replace" science. I'd say no to it in a science class because there is no empirical evidence to support it. But if ID becomes part of any curriculum, let it be in a philosophy or theology class. There's no danger in its being taught as a theory in that context. The IDers shot themselves in the foot wanting it to be taught with science. And those demanding it stay out of "any" scholastic environment are being a bit unreasonable too. I say this from a completely agnostic stand point. So it's not as if I have a stake in this or any religious bias.

65 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt 22:37-40 There's a little problem with those who equate Christianity with theocracy and oppression - it's in direct opposition with the fact and word of the model for the faith. As for Mormonism, they extend the good through social work, thus creating converts, and thereby extending their universes in the next life. It's hard to do that by violently conquering. Anyone can act in any way and call it the result of a certain belief, but if that belief is not enshrined in the faith's documents and main proponents, the claim is false. The followers of Christ aspire to his example; so do the Muslims Mohamed's. To be afraid of Christianity or Mormonism is to equate the wrong people with the practice, and is paranoid. To fear Islam is to understand those who intend to correctly practice it, and is a healthy sign.

66 So it's kill them all but not because you hate them as individuals. Sounds just like Germany in the 1930s

67 So it's whine and snivel and blame those who would save you because you hate them thought not as individuals. Sounds just like a typical worthless, gutless, chickenshit liberal who should be killed for the good of humanity. Eh sonic?

68 Well done. I'm so glad there are prolific and intelligent writers on forums such as these. "Blogs." Who knew?

69 Not trying to pick a fight, but I have to respond: [Demosophist] It's also not at all clear to me that Islam is necessarily an ideology, although it has been trending in that direction for about a century. I'd allege that Islam was an ideology when it started, and hasn't trended away from it one bit over its 1400-year history. Am I wrong? Still, Sufism is Islam and I hardly regard it with enmity. Read this and see if you still agree. Or is this a blood libel against Sufism? It's not mainstream Islam, of course... but neither is Salafism. Salafism and Wahhabism are no more explicit on the "sanctity" of violent jihad, kufrage, taqiyya, the jizya, denigration of women, slavery, child rape, and forcible conquest than any other "form" of Islam. In fact not even Islamism is yet mainstream, since the Islamists are not yet a majority in any Muslim nation (and more like 20% in most). You have a point, but it doesn't mitigate the real problem: tacit support of Islamists by rank-and-file Muslims. What does it matter that only 20% of Muslims are Islamists if the other 80% cannot possibly condemn their vile, jihad behavior as un-Islamic? (Because according to Islamic law it's NOT?) Even a Muslim's secret wish to remain passive cannot outweigh their Islamic duty to wage/support jihad when pressured to choose sides. Their only other option is to renounce Islam and become a non-Muslim. And that option carries an automatic death penalty. By all means let's scare Islam straight... What evidence do you have that Islam is mutable? None of the "sects" disagree about jihad, kufrage, jizya, taqiyya, forcible conquest, the appropriateness of slavery and humililiation of the non-Muslim, ... and Ibn Warraq insists that Allah leaves no Muslim any choice in the matter.

70 Rusty wrote: The Right has always been critical of ideologies which were antithetical to Liberty. Yeah, except Imperialism, Fascism, Corporate Socialism, Christian theocracy etc. I understand that the USA Right is confused in their years of struggle against Soviet and Mao's communistic governments so much as to pick up the mantle the USA liberal Left has lived with since the American Revolution (Personal Liberty and Justice for all) but, yow, Rusty, you're sounding as though you are in denial about why the world nearly went Communist (or why half of the world is still heading in that direction). The Right is not known for liberty and justice every where in the world except in North America. The Right everywhere else is usually equated with Death Squads, extreme rascism and genocide, fascism and its dictators etc. Why is the USA conservative movement aligning itself with the term "Right Wing" considering all the baggage it carries is beyond me. It is like the USA Left embracing the term "Soviet" for itself.

71 I am deeply sad to find out that most of you have lost trust in Islam. I can understand your point of view somehow because you live in US or other western part of the world where media propaganda are DOMINANT. Unfortunately, if you wait and see you only get the kind of news you receive usually on screens which are politically oriented. To get a more objective point of view, one have to take the step to go digging and investigating for a more relevant information. But the best way to know about today's use of Islam, is to go on the field and live with muslims. Islam cannot be taught through news brodcasts, blogs or the president's speeches... if you have planned to travel overseas, try Syria, Lebanon, Palestine ...(middle east for instance is one of the most beautiful places in the world and it's so cheap). I have met many americans that lived there and all of them were happy from their rich experiences. Travels opens your mind and broaden your vision... I'm not saying that Islam is perfect, i just want you to have the full picture of islam before you can state that Islam is "this" or "that". I am also sad to find out that only 20% of US citizens hold a passport. But the less we know about each other the more we will fear each other. IGNORANCE is worse than communism or religious extremism!

72 MUST READ THIS http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AntonioG60101.htm Another Lure of Islam Islam attracts converts and holds its believers through more than one manipulation of the psyche. Promises of rewards in paradise are well known. Having your ego puffed by being praised for your greatness on being Muslim. Assurance that you are on the winning side in the war for control of the planet and that your enemies will all be killed or humiliated and subjugated. And so on... But there is something else in my opinion that is not sufficiently recognized. And that something is permission to externalize, to express, to act out forbidden impulses. Are you a male who harbors secret rape fantasies and impulses? Islam gives you the right to rape (in your opinion) indecently dressed women or to take "temporary wives" in combat. Are you a secret barbarian who does not want to work and would prefer to participate in barbarian raids on hard working productive citizens of other cultures? Your marriage unsatisfying to you and you want an easy divorce? Want to vent your suppressed anger (which probably was produced in you by your Muslim family) on people your religion rationalizes as deserving death for not being Muslim? And so on and so on.. We can, for the purpose of this writing, posit a model of the human psyche as consisting of three layers. Imagine a picture of a target with three rings: The innermost center, the bull's eye...then around it a circular zone...and around the middle zone, an outside circular zone. The outermost zone we can call "the facade." Here is the surface of consciousness and the source of everyday polite communication such as, for example: "How are you?" "I'm fine. How are you?" "Pretty good. Hey, I heard you are finally taking a vacation. Where are you going....." Right underneath the outermost, the facade, is the layer that corresponds to the unconscious or subconscious, whichever word you prefer. This layer is largely composed of repressed material. All the forbidden impulses. Here resides greed, the urge to take things from others, violent impulses, the urge to kill, the desire to rape, the laziness, the spite, false understanding of oneself and others, grandiosity, depression, the need to humiliate others, the fear of being attacked...and so on and so on. The innermost is the core, the spiritual place where resides God within. From the core streams out Love, Creativity, the desire to work for self and others, positive energy, wholesome loving sexuality, empathy...and so on... If humans did not create in themselves this strange layer between Core and Facade, we would see, in large part, an enormous decrease in human suffering. That is quite obvious. The central task of planetary healing, in my opinion, is working to diminish and eventually eliminate this second layer in the majority of Earth's human inhabitants. Now, getting back to Islam, we can say that the genius of Islam, among other things, is in making legitimate the __expression of the forbidden impulses of the second layer. Whereas Christianity and other religions have enforced the suppression of the second layer--through moral prohibitions and punishments for violations--Islam, on the other hand, gives Muslims an open ticket, where Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh and Fatwa allow, to express the second layer. Muslims, thus, need not, like Christians, Jews and others, always "stuff" their hate, anger, rapacity, etc, within themselves. Islam gives you the permission--where Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh and Fatwa allow--to blow off steam, to release the pressure of forbidden impulses. You can rape, kill, loot and humiliate others and it is all OK. Not only is it OK, but you are promised rewards for letting loose your own repressed filth and garbage on innocent victims. Sure beats the hell out of psychotherapy where you just talk about it. Under Islam, you can actually have the thrill of doing it! Most Muslims--the so-called moderates--are not all that keen to let loose their repressed filth and garbage on innocent victims (outside their families). Let the jihadis do their dirty work for them and they--the moderates--can vicariously enjoy the painful harming of the imaginary enemies of Islam. It is like my kindly, sensitive grandfather...who was a revolutionary in Latin America. He himself could not directly harm anyone. However, if his (imagined) enemies were executed, that was perfectly fine with him as long as he himself did not have to pull the trigger. In the hope that my this helps in the struggle against the insanity of Islam, a religion and rationalization which barbarians use to justify their raids on productive civilizations which they hope, in the end, to enslave. And they do this with the tremendous energies which they unleash through expressing (acting out) the second layer of the psyche. Antonio G

73 Hey! I was writing articles on leftists, Islam and Iran bomb in my blog. Do want to check it out? http://balajiviswanathan.blogspot.com/

74 Brainwasher "Unfortunately, if you wait and see you only get the kind of news you receive usually on screens which are politically oriented. To get a more objective point of view, one have to take the step to go digging and investigating for a more relevant information. But the best way to know about today's use of Islam, is to go on the field and live with muslims." Ah - here is a typical islamic apologist! I for one HAVE lived in a muslim country, and in fact my wife is ex-muslim. Her family is still muslim. She had to flee for her life when she became christian at age 19 - otherwise her family would have killed her. She has not seen her family since (now some 30 years) because she is still in fear for her life if she returns. Do not try to tell me that muslims are misunderstood and are bascialy good and nice people, but portrayed poorly by the zionist run western media. It is a laugh! If you ask me - the western media to way too soft on muslims. For example - recently we had "race-riots" here in Sydney, Australia. You had to dig deep to find out that it had nothing to do with race - they were "anti-muslim" riots. The muslims had been 'offended' by girls wearing bathing suits to a Bondi beach - so the peace loving muslims attacked the lifesavers. Of course the lifesavers fought back - and the 'riots' escalated from there. The thing is - the media said almost nothing of this - and to this day still call it a race-riot. Muslims were hardly mentioned at all. This is a real problem in the West - the media is afraid of saying anything about muslims for fear of being seen as "anti-islam". And of course we all know how a lot of the media treated the cartoon affair.

75 As an ex-Muslim--and especially an ex-Muslim female--I would like to say that you are right on the money Rusty and I wish all non-Muslim Americans thought along your lines. I had to go to the Charles River (Boston) almost every twilight to think and meditate on religion and faith and I had a psychotic breakdown before I was able to logically and rationally as well as emotionally and psychologically totally distance myself from Islam. I still think it will take a decade more to complete my separation. Islam is a religion of force. I am not allowed to speak openly in the Muslim community and say that I have given up Islam, and I wouldn't dare say anything because I value my autonomy and ability to move freely within American society: a right that would be stolen or made very uncomfortable by "mainstream" "moderate" Muslim white collars living upper upper class lives in the American south, white collars such as my parents. Even though my mother knows I am not Muslim, I know she secretly believes I still am. My father says the day I renounce Islam is the day I become a zero in the world financially and emotionally. As a result, I don't talk at all about religion in front of him. He has committed adultery more times than I can count on my fingers, and each act of adultery has made him more insecure about my virginity. I am expected to marry a Muslim. Bullshit, if I do so, I will never be able to have pleasurable sex. My plan is to get financially secure as soon as I can and then go for a job (preferably high-paying or I will always be put down by my father and he will be ultra paranoid and restless about who I have been fucking) in a distant city where I can then "corrupt" society by sleeping around freely and adopting children (children from horrible social situations) rather than having my own. Marriage is a yes/no kind of thing for me, not something I will ever let anyone force me into. What alarms me the most is the large number of Muslim psychiatrists out there. These guys (and gals) are earning in the hundreds of thousands each year and I GUARANTEE you they talk badly about American society each time a troubled caucasian becomes a patient. They think that only Muslims have "caring" mothers and fathers as a result of Islamic teachings which have not reached the rest of the world. I would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars only to those people who are prepared to analyze society for the benefit of ALL humanity, not for the denigration and humiliation of those who are dependent on society to some degree due to periods of severe mental illness. American society is considered Satan-land in all upper upper class "moderate" "mainstream" Muslim society, even among the male physicians who regularly try to get one night stands with the nurses. I'm not saying all Muslim men are like this. The 70% who are not interested in such pursuits are more INtolerable than the 30% who live for them. Both expect to come home to a wife who is expected to show she has no sexual desires of her own; just the one, single self-less hope to yield properly to her husband and protector in the eyes of Allah (Allah forbid they see each others genitalia!!!). As a result, I left Islam at the age of 21, thanks to my strong, strong soul and extraordinary ability to think given long periods of silence. BTW Muslims are told not to have their lives broken by long periods of silence unless they are reciting Quran in Arabic in the silence, and it is known that the greater majority of the Muslim world does not understand Arabic but merely recites it. Even those who are Arabic-speaking do not understand the Quranic "dead" Arabic of so many centuries ago.

76 All muslims should be round up and shot! Death to islam!!

77 Islam and Communism are two closed paradigms. Freedom to think, free expression and dissent are verbotten in these controled dogmas. Both Islam and Communism as closed systems are the real cause of violence, terrorism and turmoil in the world. Islamists and Communists are indoctronated at an early age to control their cognition and behavior. We need to introduce cognitive restructuring strategies to free them from their slavery.

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

2 Liberal non-scandal #3450835.

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

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!!

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?

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.

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.

8 Bush Derangement Syndrome knows no bounds.

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)

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.

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

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

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?

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

15 Shorter Maximus & Jesusland Joe

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.

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

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

1 Disgusting.

2 Riots anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? No, there won't be any riots, and probably not even any significant protests, but it will be spun by the lying liberal scum as if any objections anyone has to this blasphemy is another kristallnacht. Get with the program people, and realize that liberals support those who want to kill us. Not liking what has to be done does not change the fact that it has to be done.

3 I'll give you a Christian fatwa for posting this if it will make you feel better, Dr. S. Of course, the fatwa only entitles you to be prayed for and forgiven, so it may not be quite as thrilling as an Islamic one. Sorry.

4 But do they have the balls to really support freedom of expression and publish the Muslim cartoons? I think not! What a bunch of sissy cowards they are. Pathetic!

5 The ignorance of these sheep is amazing. Some nut-bag thinks he can make a bold statement by being controversial when all he is really looking for is fame and fortune. Then the other nut-bags in the art community will worship him for his 'gift' until some other nut-bag comes along. These people are as shallow as the lines on the EEG they received after their last heroine overdose. It reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons when the art community worshipped Homer for about a day just because someone mistook the BBQ grill he wasn't able to put together for art. And to think many of these people get a lot of funding to sit around and think of new ways to piss off the people who pay those tax dollars. Don't you dare protest that painting of Jesus made with feces or you'll be accused of censorship. This is one messed-up country when the voice of the few is louder than the voice of the majority.

6 Things are changing though slug, slowly but surely.

7 Leftwing creeps regularly go out of their way to insult christians and attack christianity only because they know there are no consequences to be suffered. And then they pat themselves on the back for being "courageous" and "daring". What a joke these people are. Contrast this piece of shit "art" with how respectfully CNN blanked out pictures of Mohammed so as not to offend muslims. Not so "courageous" and "daring" anymore, huh?

8 It's getting real close to headbusting time in America I think.

9 Friends, the next time "Piss Christ" or some other work goes forward we must, MUST not protest, write sponsors or picket. If we had the collective self control to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, this Christian baiting would stop overnight. Every single one of these "artistic" displays is intended to do one thing - help the artist piss of Mommy and Daddy. Since they're not around, you're the next closest thing. Now, if I can convince another 100 Million American Christians...

10 More blastfomies from the liberal scribblers what will happen now?

1 Just as soon as Bush apologizes for handing Iraq over to the Iranian mullahs.

2 Que???

3 Cindy will always be a squealing screech-bat in my book.

4 I think they should institute a dress code too. TV, radio, newspapers, Internet, bumper stickers, parks and streets, etc. ain't enough venues for expression? The halls of Congress and other institutions are ostensibly where people should come together, not sow more division. If we're going to demand that our reps stop their own petty bickering and personal sniping then we shouldn't encourage it with stupid t-shirts. I don't wear politically motivated t-shirts and I don't have bumper stickers on my car. I also don't attend marches and protests. I welcome dialog and I feel those forms of expression kill it.

5 You need to revisit your history if you claim that Chavez is a Fascist. Fascism's political goal is State sponsored Corporatism. Chavez, in this his third elected term of office, continues to reclaim the natural resources of his country from the forces of corporate privatization and is using those funds for the common good of the Venezuelan people rather than for private profit. Chavez is the antithesis of Fascism, and that's why the Bush administration assisted in a coup attempt against him. That action reflects what the Nixon administration did against the democratically elected Socialist Salvador Allende so that they could help install the Fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. You want to define Fascism? Look at the Bush administration and the aims of the Republican Party in America.

6 Maybe CINDY SHEEHAN should appologise for being such a blabbering fool