1451. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #187755 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 2, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Al, here is what Wikipedia says about the Six Day War:

In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion to allow for a free Suez Canal) to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel.[4] In response, on June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[5] against Egypt's airforce. Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[6][7][8] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

Whole bunch of references there. That it was simply a 'land grab' is nonsense.

Don't the islam apologists on this forum make you want to puke?

They do, mark, they do, though, in justice, Al isn't one of them. NC, Vinelectric, Xenocratic, brianclough on the other hand...

I just think that al sometimes has something of a blind spot with regards to Israel.

Al, the reason that I am less willing to cry out about Israel's tactics is for the same reason that I'm not willing to complain about Britain's tactics in the Second World War (which, by any standard, were far more terrible). I'm not someone fighting for his very existence against 'a crazed and driven foe' as Kipling so apositely phrases it.

Let me guess.... it was all the Arabs' fault, right?

Arab Muslim, but that's a quibble. Thing is, Islamic apologists keep harping on about 'root causes'. Well, Infidels have a list of root causes as long as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

1452. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #187349 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 2, 2008 at 2:55 am

One other thing - Dubai? The same dubai that jails people for 'insulting Islam'? The one that practices child slavery? That Dubai.

Please learn something about the societies you hagirise before speaking.

1453. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #187347 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 2, 2008 at 2:39 am

I am having trouble believing some of the things you write, NC. Pope Urban's speech stated that Islamic mujahideen were overrunning the Christian heartlands and enslaving and murdering the inhabitants. This isn't propaganda. This isn't exagerration. This is stone-cold historical fact.

But you seem to be unable to deal with evidence of any sort whatsoever. Cute? I give you an extremely extensive list showing that jihad and Shariah supremacism show up quite literally everywhere there is any Muslim presence, and you don't see the implications?

What, exactly, would qualify as evidence to you?

The other bizarre things is that you drag up Australian white supremacist movements without the faintest shred of evidence that they are involved in this dispute. Not a shred. Yet you know absolutely that they are behind this, yet you can't concede the converse about Islam.

bject, far more strongly, to your oft-repeated, never-defended assumption that every single Muslim there is is somehow responsible for everything any Muslim anywhere has ever done.

Quotation please, for I have never said that. What I have said is that any sizeable Muslim population represents a threat to any kafirs and Infidels around it. Yes, a large amount of that population may not work to support the jihad - but so what? It spreads because they are unwilling to lift a finger to stop it. If the moderate Muslims are unwilling to lift a finger to save Infidel lives, why should Infidels give a damn about them? Why should Infidel societies accept the threat of a Muslim presence, just because some of that presence is benign?

They have forced us to treat them as a lump sum. Noone else. By refusing to distinguish themselves from the jihadis, they have made it impossible for us to accept any Muslim presence in Infidel lands without accepting a terrible threat. They did this, not us. They made that bed, now they can lie in it.

1454. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #186963 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 1, 2008 at 1:24 am

Fanusi - it looks as though these are Arabic editions of the book, is this correct? If so, what does is imply given the small number of books that are translated into Arabic each year?

Nothing good, epeeist , nothing good. The Arab Muslims usually translate stuff that is very unlikely to challenge their pre-existing beliefs. And Mein Kampf is a bestseller.

Finally have some free time, so I can reload and finish off NCs comments:

they're being racist. That is the Australian (and New Zealand) way to express racism. Racists in this part of the world say exactly the same things about East Asians.

*sighs* The root of this error is in the asinine phrase 'no discrimination based on race, cast or creed'. Race and Cast do not have any significant implications about individuals. Creed, on the other hand, does. If a town in America refused point blank to let the KKK in, noone who misunderstand their reason. Nor would anyone not realise that an influx of KKK supporters would have profound societal impact.

Same thing with a Muslim school. Who do you think is financing it? Bet you a month's salary that the Saudis have their fingers in that.

Saying 'We are aussies, OK?' is a recognition that the cultural inheritance of Australia is fundamentally different to Islam - in that it respect women's rights, freedom of conscience and so on.

1455. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #186962 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 1, 2008 at 1:11 am

NakedCelt I am happy that I can answer your lengthly post with a few sentences.

Vis a viz Rwanda, I didn't ask you how you personally would justified genocide with reference to Christianity, I asked how the Rwandan genocide was justified.

Muslims did nasty things in East Timor, Muslims did nasty things in Lebanon, therefore all accusations levelled against any Muslims anywhere are accurate.

Yeah, you got me. It's all just about what they did in East Timor and Lebanon...

and India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal
and the Maldives and...

...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29


*hums to himself* This ties in with your complaints of my viewing the Muslim world as a threat, despite the fact that there are millions who do not support the jihad, soft or hard. During the Second World War, who was the enemy? The Axis powers - despite the fact that there were millions who did not support Hitler or Il Duce. During the Cold War, who was the enemy? The Soviets - despite the fact that millions in the USSR hated their system. This sort of generalisation has been valid ever since, oh, I don't know, the Sumerians menaced by Sargon were worried about the Akadians.

The point is the following. Islam's Holocaust started fourteen hundred years ago and it has never stopped . Not to this day. Even as I write this, even as you read it, there are Muslims carrying out Muhammad's orders to enslave and destroy all non-Muslims.

This is what's wrong with your parallel with the atrocities in the Old Testament. In the first instance, as Christopher Hitchens has remarked, they never happened, and in the second instance, even if they had, they would have happened over three thousand years ago.

While today, on the other hand, one million Muslim Arabs enjoy greater rights in Israel than they would in any Muslim Arab nation. While in India, Muslims are allowed to flourish. While the West has shown a level of tolerance that, to my mind, is suicidal.

Now, answer me this if you think my generalisations are unjust: Where is a Muslim-majority society that shows non-Muslims the kind of tolerance that kafir societies show Muslims? Well?

1456. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #186676 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 31, 2008 at 1:52 am

Thanks for the links, al . For the record, I had heard of this stuff and worse, from impeccable sources (though I do notice you didn't bring a source for the more lurid descriptions of massacre you brought up).

But you are right, it does not change my views one iota. Becaue the basic issue remains the same - whether to back Israel or to back the Palestinians. And as I said, back the Palestinians and sanction genocide. Back Israel and support it's survival.

I have trouble seeing how important the aquifers of the West Bank can be to Israel, given they only captured them during the Six Day War (it's interesting that the occupied territories, evil, aggressive Israel occupies are only the ones it seize after the Muslim Arabs declared war and got their butts kicked).

Urk - I'd write more, but I need to get back to the lab.

1457. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185764 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 1:14 pm

*cheers* I've been following this particular ruckus for some time. The 'sock puppet trio' have succeeded in making the Canadian HRC into a laughingstock; the main reason being that Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are the people least likely to back down ever. This is yet another example of Muslims thinking they can get away with anything.

What bothers me the most is that other religious organizations (yes christians) are supporting the HRC claim - for fear that their myth will, too, face scrutiny.

It's true. Jews were a large number of HRC complainants, who never dreamed that these rules could be used against them. And of course gay and feminist organisations similarly had their fingers in this pie. Now they're discovering that it's not a genie you want let out of its bottle.

1458. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185628 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 8:18 am

ou have never once acknowledged some wrong done by the west

al, care to name an instance where you have brought such a wrong up and I have not acknowledged it? Link please. I should also like to see those videos of Israeli troops shooting at journalists etc. And I should also like to know whether or not those journalists were amongst the Palestinian terrorists.

Yes, the IDF has shot children. Which is hideous, but may also have a little to do with the fact that the Palestinians routinely use them as human shields. And there is a real moral difference between the accidental killing of children who have been placed at the front lines, and the deliberate murder thereof. Which is what the Palestinian Muslims do routinely.

As regards Deir Yassin, this was a town that was at the centre of Arab Muslim pogroms against Jews all the way back to the 1920s. During that fight Handscharr remnants were discovered amongst the arabs there. Furthermore, the entire village had been turned into a warzone - each house was filled with snipers, including women and children. This left the jewish forces in the position that the only way to take a house was to either toss grenades inside or otherwise tear the place apart.

The tales of atrocity by the jewish forces were propaganda, and as much was often admitted later on:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jrep/access/443719361.html?dids=443719361:443719361&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS

You also mention the West Bank and the Israelis wanting it for it's resources (what resources?). However, the West Bank was taken by Israel during the Six Day War because it was part of the Arab Muslim attempt to destroy Israel. Israel's interest there is strategic - i.e. it helps prevent rocket attacks on Israel proper.

I don't have much time at the moment, but given the lurid nature of some of the accusations, could you provide me with some source links? Not that I don't trust you, but there has been such a mass of propaganda and lies disseminated that I tend to take assertions of Israeli attorocities with a pinch of salt.

And, yes, I can provide sources for each of my own claims (though it may take a while).

You would have to be the stupidest person to ever walk the earth to assert that I treat Islam and its attendant evils as irrelevant.

For the love of - not you to, al. I was specifically referring to the Palestinian Muslims and their atrocities. Which you do let off the hook.

1459. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185613 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 7:32 am

Fabulous. So you don't disagree with what's going on, you just disagree with my assessment of it. Does the phrase 'moral clarity' mean anything?

And what, exactly, did the maronites do? Or more accurately, what did they do to begin with, other than foolishly allow the Palestinians into Lebanon? The Muslims - as per usual - started that war.

Oh, as for your complaint about 'sweeping generalizations' - I don't see you following your rule when you talk about the Israelis.

I find it interesting that you don't even try to deny the evil and horror that infests the Muslims in that part of the world - you just seem to treat it as irrelevant.

1460. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185608 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 7:19 am

MaxD, al-rawandi ask your friends about what happened during the Lebanese civil war. Ask them how those palestinians treated the maronite Christians who were foolish to let them in. Ask them about babies's skulls dashed in, or mothers physically forced to cut their own child's throat.

Ask them about the museum's in Palestine where the dismembered bodies of jews can be seen. Or the ones where they recreate the scenes of suicide murder. Or about cartoons like this: http://www.pmw.org.il/car/Animals/c208412.html

Ask them why twenty-five members of the PLO took the name Hitler or Abu-Hitler. Ask them why they sided en masse with the Grand Mufti and Hitler's ambitions. Ask them why, when the PLO wasn't insane enough, they chose the explicitly genocidal HAMAS in huge numbers. Ask them why they name streets after suicide-murderers, and why there are continual parties when one of them detonates. Ask them about schoolchildren taught songs like 'Arabs are beloved and jews are our dogs', or 'make my flesh into molotov cocktails'. Ask them why their 'heroic resistance' routinely uses hospitals and schools as shields, or drags children to the front lines. Ask them about clips like this:

http://www.pmw.org.il/

And then try to tell me that the Muslim Palestinians are anything but what I have said: savages with no ability or desire beyond murder.

So the hell with them.

1461. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185580 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 5:48 am

Sorry about that. Slightly thin skinned today.

1462. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185574 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 5:26 am

Keith since it appears that I have to repeat everything, here's some stuff on the Crusades:

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.

...

The First Crusade was launched in 1096 by Pope Urban II with the dual goals of conquering the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and freeing the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule.

from Wikipedia.

Here you can see the extent of Islamic expansion at the time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Age_of_Caliphs.png

t beginning in the early eleventh century, Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah began to persecute the Christians of Palestine. In 1009, he destroyed Christianity's holiest shrine the Holy Sepulcher. He eventually relented and instead of burning and killing, he implemented a toll tax for Christian pilgrims entering Jerusalem. The worst was yet to come. A group of Turkish Muslims, the Seljuks, very powerful, very aggressive and very stringent followers of Islam, began their rise to power. The Seljuks viewed Christian pilgrims negatively as pollutants and 'cracked down' on Christians in Palestine

Ibid

i.e. the Muslims had fortified their position enough to be able to enforce the full horror of Islamic law. Islam has only ever been 'tolerant' when it has lacked the power to be otherwise.

expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas.

...

Approximately two-thirds of the ancient Christian world had been conquered by Muslims by the end of the 11th century, including the important regions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia

from the Encyclopaedia Britannica

From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness....The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be traversed in two months' time

from Pope Urban II's speech.

Now you might discount this as propaganda. Or you might look at the behavior of Muslims throughout history and at this day, and conclude that 'violent invasion', 'depopulation by pillage and fire', 'killing by cruel torture' and so on is the usual Muslim modus operandi. Violent invasion? Look at East Timor. Depopulation by pillage and fire? What NC's precious palestinian's did in Lebanon. Cruel torture? Pretty much everyhwere.

And so on. It's a little tiring to have to state the obvious.

1463. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185560 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 4:29 am

Again, mordacious no problem. As you might have noticed - and this is relevant since there are those who insist on not understanding what jihad means - Mein Kampf in Arabic is translated as My Jihad.

1464. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185532 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 3:10 am

HunterZolomon *chuckles* Thanks for the compliment. Believe me, I'd give anything to be proved wrong. I have no desire whatsoever to believe that there are about three hundred million who are dedicated to destroying everything that I hold dear. Nor do I like thinking that, out of moral narcissism, those who should be sounding the alarm will stick their heads into the stand and do nothing.

But, unfortunately, I'm a scientist and I am bound to follow the evidence wherever it leads me, regardless of how unpleasant the conclusions are.

1465. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185529 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:53 am

Goldy, not just Islam, but principally. No other religion poses a similar threat, not even remotely.

1466. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185527 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:49 am

Sure, thing mordacious , always happy to oblige:

http://www.intelligence.org.il/Eng/sib/3_05/mein_kampf.htm

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=4&Article_id=13511

It's not really that surprising. Think about it: What was Muhammad? A successful warlord who came to a broken and disorganised people, believed himself to be the agent of a higher power, preached a totalitarian doctrine that affected every aspect of life, brought a book that worshipped war and faith and was viciously anti-semitic, and believed that women's only place was Children, Kitchen, and Church.

Go figure.

HunterZolomon the reason why there is so much outcry about 'racism' - that is, white supremacism - is because of this cult of moral narcissim. The criers have no concern about actual racism - when was the last time you heard them complaining about the Arab supremacism in Islam, or the murder of Zimbabwean and Nigerian immigrants to South Africa? No, they want to show off how 'courageous' and 'principled' they are. For this kind of mental masturbation, it's helpful to have position that not only involves no risk, but no controversy. This is why you have self-righteous denunciations of the Holocaust with a defense of those who are gearing up for the second one. And at the time of the Holocaust there was the same thing: people complaining about British and American militarism, and how unfair it was that they were picking on a broken country with a democratically elected leader who'd only build roads and hospitals and ended inflation.

You'll find that these vermin are immortal. It's best to just shine a strong light on them.

1467. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185514 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:16 am

Don't really have that much time, so I'll just repeat my points. I have made this one several times, which you continually ignore: Muslim Arabs in the Palestinian Mandate continually waged pogroms and massacres of the local jews long before Israel existed. They were also complicit in the Holocaust (google the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem). So the "Gott" in "Gott mit uns" really was Allah, at least as far as the Handscharr were concerned.

Mein Kampf is still a bestseller throughout the Muslim world.

I'd also appreciate it if you'd learn a few reading comprehension skills:

here aren't many Muslims in New Zealand, but living in a university town you meet a few. They aren't genocidal savages with no desire or ability beyond murder.

It's interesting that you keep complaining when I point out the collective sins of the Muslims - which are beyond imagining - but you think that a few innocents can redeem an entire group. Fascinating.

I was specifically talking about the Palestinians, and anyone who studies that area recognizes that their intentions are explicitly genocidal. Now, what is difficult about that to grasp?

Here's a hint: try presenting some evidence.

I already have. You told me to go and reread the Blind Faith's thread, I tell you the same. I have pointed this out time and time again and I am tired of having to explain the obvious to the ignorant.

By the way, how many Muslims were killed by Hindus?

I have no idea. Nor do you, I'm certain of it. More importantly, I don't care - anymore than I care how many Germans were killed in the Warsaw ghetto uprising. After the sixty to seventy million Hindus slaughtered by Muslims, they have forfeited any right to be taken seriously.

Until I see some attempt by Muslims to square the record, to make compensation for the fourteen centuries of jihad war (btw, this is recorded in every single history of Islam - even lickspittle apologists such as Karen Armstrong don't deny that. You could try reading Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism), the slave trade, the genocides, I don't give a tinker's damn for any Muslim complains on any subject whatsoever. This is just the typical Islamic dualism that excuplates any Muslim of anything done to the kafirs, but complains when kafirs respond in kind. Muslims do this, it's just to be expected, but it's insane for kafirs to sign onto it too.

Far less have you made a case that the only root cause is Muhammad. All you've done is assert these points over and over.

Please read a little. Two thirds of the Qur'an preaches hatred towards the kafirs. 75% of the Sira is devoted to Jihad, and 20% of the Hadith. I just stated that and I am tired of repeating myself.

Nor do I expand the definition of Jihad - this is the traditional definition, as grounded in the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, and elaborated by the Islamic schools of jurisprudence.

As to your comparisons with Rwanda - refresh my memory, which of Christ's words were used to justify that? Or European colonialism - much maligned, but I'll leave that to another day - what Christian texts were cited? That is what atrocities were justified on the basis of Christ's teachings? The explicit words?

Jihad, on the other hand, has always been justified by the explict commands of Islam.

I am having trouble believing that anyone who knows about the bloody history of the twentieth century can believe that war's are fought only for economic reasons. This discounting of the role of fanaticism in human history is so ignorant it's unbelievable.

1468. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185506 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 1:39 am

I just noticed something:

Only because those who do - the Baha'i spring to mind - are no longer identified as "Muslim". What of it?

So you are basically agreeing with me that you cannot reform Islam, just destroy it? Nice of you to notice.

An excellent article on the subject:

Kafir Dreams
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/front-page-magazine-interviews-bill-warner/

Money quote:

To reform the Koran, all of the hateful, cruel, and bigoted references to kafirs would have to be removed. If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs.

The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad.

The Hadith has 20% of its material devoted to jihad. There is no one positive reference to kafirs.

If you delete 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith, you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it. There is a very good reason that Islam has never been reformed. It is impossible.

Also, viz a vis the 'Palestinians', I don't see any one of them hanging their head in shame about the genocide they committed on the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. I also don't see you even trying to answer that subject.

Christopher Davis

Of course you are right, Muslims are people and I've met some damn fine ones here.

There are, of course, millions of 'muslims-for-identification-purposes-only' who'd never dream of waging jihad or subverting civil society. However, what these can principally be counted on is to do absolutely nothing against those who will do precisely that. Furthermore, there is no real way to distinguish these Muslims from the true believers, until it's too late.

1469. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 11:33 pm

NC Scott Atran's still wrong - it's not millions, it's hundreds of millions. And nore are only a few thousand active in it. Jihad is more than military endeavour. There's demographic conquest, immigration ( hijra), legal campaigns, propaganda. Jihad spreads first with the word and the pen, then with the sword.

Open Jihad warfare still goes on in huge amounts - what do you think is going on in Darfur? Or Somlia's campaigns?

What do you mean by "jihad"? Any war where the aggressors' side was predominantly Muslim?

No: Jihad is the war by Muslims to expand the dar al-Islam, justified and sanctioned by reference to the Qur'an and Hadith. Is this really difficult?

You still haven't answered my point that Jihad has been raging for fourteen hundred years, and it's only root cause is Muhammad.

Finally I am getting sick of having to point out that the Crusades were a defensive conflict, a response to centuries of jihad warfare.

Belonging to the Jewish religion does not give you a historical claim to Israeli land just because some people who were treated badly in Israel happened to belong to the Jewish religion.
Is this getting through yet?

Out of pure interest, why then should Germany have had to pay massive reparations for the Second World War?

Ah, yes, the converse. Muslims took land in Kashmir and Constantinople, therefore no Muslim has a right to complain about land being taken from them anywhere until all Muslims, collectively, redress those historic thefts.

By George, I think he's got it! Correct. the Muslims in the Palestinian territories have no nationalist ambition, merely an Islamic one - to reclaim a portion of the dar al-Islam for Muslims. They're intentions are explicitly genocidal. So I say they lost the first and second world wars, and the wars to destroy Israel - too bad if they loose their land.

I know you are going to complain about this, but you then have to come up with a reason why it is legitimate for Muslims to hold all the territory they have wrongfully seized.

Reduced to it's basics it's this:

Israel - tiny, first world democracy, an island of civilisation.
The Palestinians - genocidal savages who have no desire or ability beyond murder.

You can choose one, and only one side to back. Back Israel and preserve it's existence. Back the Palestinians and be complicit in a second Holocaust.

It's not a hard call.

1470. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185201 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 7:29 am

This business about causing versus articulating seems to me to be a bit Poh-tay-to, poh-Tah-to. There's a case to be made, and it is made by Lee Harris very successfully, that Islam merely is the perfect reflection of the cult of ruthlessness that is endemic in humanity. However, it doesn't change the fact that Islam is the vessel of ruthlessness par excellence.

1471. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185184 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 6:47 am

al don't tempt me. Churchill saw alot of fascism up close and recognised the similarities between Nazism and Islam (in fact, he called Mein Kampf the New Koran). He knew of what he spoke.

I have long said that Islam doesn't cause violence. And it really doesn't, people are violent, however Islam facilitates violence because it creates dichotomies, and it reinforces these to the exclusion of almost all reconcilliation.

I'm not even sure what this means. Islam has central doctrines advocating violence and hatred, and those who take those doctrines seriously become vessels of violence and hatred, and they justify their violence and hatred by reference to the aforementioned texts... What other conclusion is there except that it causes violence? Or what definition of 'cause' are we using.

enew, tieinterceptor and others, it's nice to see that more and more people are getting it about Islam. If you want a few good resources, may I recommend jihadwatch.com and thereligionofpeace.com. Also there are some excellent essays by Ibn Warraq online.

1472. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185134 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 3:49 am

NC, time to deal with a few points of yours:

OK, a better analogy then: Saying that the Holy Catholic Church is a human construct is the same thing as saying that either the Body of Christ on Earth is imperfect, or that St Paul made things up for his own benefit.

This would come as a surprise to, say, the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Nestorian Christians, or the Coptic Christians. Fact is, Christians rejecting the authority of Rome date back to the dawn of Christianity. Not one single sect of Islam that rejects the idea of the Qur'an as the uncreated word of God has survived. Not one.

Even if this truth were mutable, even if it were possible for Islam to reform itself along the lines of the Protestant reformation, remember that that happened only after some of the bloodiest wars in human history. We do not have that kind of time, especially since this isn't the dark ages. Such internecine strife wouldn't be waged with swords, but with nuclear weapons.

Finally, such a reform would require men not just willing to speak up for it, but to fight and die for it. You see any Muslims anywhere with that kind of conviction? That kind of desire in order to reform Islam?

The closest I can think of are the Ahmadiyya, who reject the imperative of violent jihad. They're good people, by and large, unlike the masses of Sunni and Shia. But they are a small minority who are marked for extermination just as any other infidels are. I wouldn't get my hopes up in this case.

As regards your whole spiel about root causes and oil deals, why do you never answer my challenge that jihad predates the use of oil, and today jihad is predominantly being waged against those who have never interfered in the Muslim world - the Christians and Animists in Africa, Buddhists in Thailand etc. Now that suggests something to me: Muslims would be waging jihad no matter what we do. And you can ask the sixty/seventy million Hindus they slaughtered in the subcontinent if you think differently.

My point about Israel is that it has always had a jewish presence, Muslim Arabs are newcomers who arrived principally in the nineteenth century, attracted by the prosperity of the nascent Zionist movement, and the Jews have been victims of the most hideous persecution by Muslims throughout all of their history. So I really don't give a damn that the dar al-Islam has lost a country the size of Wales.

And I'll add that I'll start listening to the long winded whine about those nasty jews stealing Palestinian land when I see Muslims returns some of the land they've stolen from everyone else. They can start with Kashmere and Constantinople.

1473. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185133 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 3:32 am

Surprise, surprise. Vin gives us a link that just happens to be in Arabic and just happens to support his point of view. Wow.

Back in the real world, the dar al-Harb/dar al-Islam may not be found in Koran or Sunnah, but it is a division that dates back to the earliest days of Islam, and is used throughout the Muslim world today. So unless Vin somehow manages to convince one billion people that he's right and they've got their Islam wrong, then it does us no good whatsoever.

1474. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185131 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 3:24 am

Vin , the Muslim Council of Britain, you say?

You mean the MCB who's leader supported the Australian Mufti's comments on rape?

You mean the MCB that claims it's all the governments faults?

You mean the MCB that routinely stonewalls any attempts to investigate Jihad? Or that condemned the accurate reporting of what is going on in British Mosques?

That MCB, yes?

As regards those quotations, what evidence is there that this isn't just taqqiya? Notice that they condemn the death of 'innocent victims'. Well, are kafirs innocent in Islam? I cannot believe that you are citing Hizb ut-Tahrir as an example of muslim decency, given that the Organisations stated aim is to institute Shariah across the world.

Bonzai while it may please you to sling mud and smear men like Spencer, Shoebat and FitzGerald, can you substantiate any of their claims? Can you show me, for example, where in the Qur'an blog Robert Spencer says something factually inaccurate? Or something of that nature?

Or can you not do so, and are reduced to slinging mud in order to evade their conclusions?

There have to be incentives for Muslims to integrate and room for them to integrate into, I think Fanusi's all stick and no carrot approach is counter productive because it would drive even the moderates to close rank with the radicals if they feel they are being attacked as a group by the mainstream society.

Actually, an intellectually honest Muslim - if they exist - might , just possibly, understand that there are certain 'root causes' to Infidel hostility towards Muslims. He might recognize that the problem lies with him and his co religionists who have either supported the Shariah and Jihad supremacists, or done nothing to stop them.

However, the chance of that is slim, as there are currently two kinds of Muslims: those that support totalitarianism, and those who will do nothing to stop it.

As regards an incentive to integrate, we have been pouring money, funds, and all sorts of privileges on the Muslims. Hasn't worked. Here is what I would consider a decent incentive, a la Attarturk: Abandon all support for Shariah or Jihad, or face loss of your citizenship and immediate expulsion. That would get some results.

The majority of muslims in any country do not want to change things too much (and I say this despite what Fanusi's statistics say)

Ah yes, 'what my statistics say'. Do you have any evidence whatsoever in support of your point of view? Because I have parsed more studies of Muslim opinion than I care to recall and not one single one has been encouraging in any way. Not one single one has given any hope for coexistence with Muslims as a viable option.

y obviously like to keep their culture, so will attempt to do so.

Let's remember what this 'culture' consists of: Killing apostates. Murdering anyone who exercises their brain to criticize Islam. Nine year old girls forced into sexual slavery with forty year old men. Honor killings. Stoning adulteresses who cannot provide four male witnesses to their innocence. Raping infidel women. Theft of infidel goods. Slavery. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any obscenity, or degradation of the human spirit that is not sanctioned and licensed by Islam. If they want that 'culture' they are welcome to piss off to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and have their culture till they choke on it.

If muslims become the majority, of course they can change the laws

So right and wrong are just a matter of numbers? So as long as the majority votes for Shariah it's okay? I'm disapointed in you, Goldy. By what standard then were the Nazis evil? After all, they were the majority.

No. Right and wrong are absolute. It doesn't matter if one man or one billion recognize them, they remain absolute.

1475. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185104 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 12:22 am

But the tragic fact is that most non-Muslims don't distinguish between one Muslim and another.

NC, I'll answer the rest of that some other time, though I very much doubt you'll answer my points listed here. For the moment, let me point out that distinguishing between one Muslim and another isn't our goddamn business . Muslims have had opportunity after opportunity to distinguish themselves from the radicals, to denounce what is being taught in half the Mosques in Britain, to expose jihad wrings, to throw out Wahabis - they have not done so. Instead they have been obstructionist, obscurantist and endlessly whiny. Not to mention the many 'moderates' who turn out to be jihadis.

They have failed to distinguish themselves. It isn't our business to do so. The only question for Infidels with respect to Islam is how we are to protect ourselves and our way of life. That's it. If Muslims make it impossible to deal with them, except as a lump sum, then deal with them as a lump sum. As I said, they made that bed, now they can lie in it.

1476. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185099 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 26, 2008 at 11:39 pm

When I see some answers to the challenges I posed on the Blind Faiths thread, I'll get back into dialogue with you. Not before

Cluck cluck. What challenges? You have never mounted any refutation of my points on Islam. We were arguing about the relative natures of Islam and Christianity.

The reason you won't refute my views on Islam is that you can't. The evidence is all one way on this, much as I hate that conclusion.

1477. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185098 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 26, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Meaning what?

Meaning, NakedCelt that he ignores fourteen centuries of blood soaked Islamic history, what is actually written in the Hadith, what is written in the Koran and Sunnah, what is preached in the Mosques, and what is taught in the schools of jurisprudence, and what huge numbers of Muslims support and believe. As I recall from his presentations is that these young men gathered together for friendship and then - spontaneously, with no prompting from anything that was in the Mosque or their holy writings, perish the thought! - decided to become suicide bombers. Is there anyone who takes this nonsense seriously for one minute?

This guy has personally researched Islamic terrorists. Sorry and all that, but that puts his interpretation of the facts slightly higher on the credibility scale than yours.

Well, here are a few other people who have researched Islamic terrorists and have come to rather different conclusions: Robert Spencer, who has studies Islam for thirty years. Hugh FitzGerald, codirector of Jihadwatch. Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, both former Muslims who have fought their way out of that mental prion. Walid Shoebat, former PLO terrorist. K.S. Lahl, the author of "The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India". Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Sam Harris.

Want to go back in history a little? Sir Winston Churchill, who saw the beast of Islam up close. Mansour Fahmy, author of the 1913 book 'The Condition of Women in Islam.' John Quincy Adams. Bertrand Russel. Oriana Fallaci, of course. Alexis de Toqueville.

And, you know, it's funny but there seem to be alot of Muslims who disagree with Scott Atran too. Like the Ayatollah Khomeni, spiritual leader of 10% of the world's muslims and a huge inspiration to all of them. The Al Azar also seems to have this wierd idea that Islam teaches war and subjugation of the world under Shariah. Now I know what you're saying: But Fanusi, what is the opinion of the Vatican of Sunni Islam worth in comparison to Scott Atran? So we move on to polling data.

40% of British Muslims want Shariah law in the United Kingdom. Polling over 175 000 arab Muslims throughout the Middle East showed a 75% support rating for Hamas. And so on and so forth.

Strange isn't it? All these people, conservative and liberal, living and dead, Muslim and Infidel - all have got it wrong about Islam and only Scott Atran has it right.

I'll believe that he has an accurate view of the social dynamics within jihad cells, a view that is hardly original I might add. But these jihad cells would not exist were it not for the imperatives within Islam to dominate and conquer the world.

1478. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185093 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 26, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Because you don't live in Australia.

I notice you give no facts to back that up. And on another note: you aren't honestly citing Scott Atran as a reliable source, given that the man has shown himself to be an educated idiot about Islam?

When the people say that Muslims do not fit into a community, they are pointing out the obvious: That Muslims, as a whole, have no desire to respect freedom of belief, freedom of religion, women's rights and all of the fundamental values of the West. They import an alien and barbaric set of values, and this is not a problem that can be solved by simply catching the odd jihadist here and there. The problem has to be dealt with at the root.

The decision is simple: You can have women's rights or you can have Islam, but not both. You can have freedom of conscience and belief or you can have Islam, but not both. You can have scientific progress or you can have Islam, but not both. You can have a pluralist society or you can have Islam, but not both.

A point that was amply illustrated by the Head Mufti of Australia issuing a fatwa saying that when a woman is raped, it is her fault 90% of the time. Did the Muslim community throw the bum out? Did they hell. Now they are shocked, shocked that people don't want them in their community? Too goddamn bad. They made that bed, now they can lie in it.

And it is also worth noting that Hindu and Sikh immigrants in the UK, for example, have a very clear idea of what Islam has in store for them. Which is why you can find Hindus and Sikhs making common cause with the BNP over here.

The problem isn't 'immigrants'. The problem isn't 'foreigners'. The problem isn't 'niggers and wogs'. The problem is that one member of the human family believes it has a god given right to wreck things for everyone else.

1479. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185088 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 26, 2008 at 10:33 pm

To simplify the matter, muslims are the more nutty and less equipped religious group and the christians are the less nutty and more equipped religious group. For the former group, they probability that they'll do something idiotic and violent is pretty high but the damage they do is about a couple of embassies and for the latter so far the probability of them being able to do something idiotic is small but if they get the chance they might really wreck havoc in the globe.

There's so much wrong with this statement I have trouble knowing where to begin. First of all, Muslims are very well equipped - with children. Sheer demographic pressure has brought us to the point where Europe is turning rapidly into Eurabia. Even as things stand now, if it were to come to civil war - which, see Lebanon, is what Muslims usually do - they'd have a good chance. What do you think those numbers look like in one generation? In France, 30% of the young population is Muslim; so much for the French republic.

As regards military hardware, Iran is building nuclear weapons and in Pakistan we are one political coup away from nukes in the hands of Al Qaeda.

As regards the general dangerousness of religions, I really don't know where to begin. Consider the following: noone is worried about criticising Christianity. Even the most Bible pounding, Pat Robertson style Christianity, doesn't issue fatwas. And while there are a few Christians who want the law to be reorganised according to Christian principles, the majority understand the separation of church and state, and there are millions who will stand up and protest at such an attempt. How many Muslims protest the desire to replace secular law with Shariah?

Hello? Anyone out there?

Demographic change is driving Europe to extinction. People are, at long last, figuring that out.

I know what you are trying to say, but reading the article doesn't change my mind that the majority of protestors don't want "wogs and niggers" in the neighbourhood.

Really. So answer me this: Why is it we never see worries about African Anglican communities and immigrants? Or Sikhs? Or Hindus?

The simple truth is that Islam is, quite possibly, the greatest evil that has ever been seen on the face of the planet. Allowing millions of Muslims to settle within the dar al-Harb has been a policy of stagerring stupidity. Poll after poll, headline after headline, shows that they have no intention of integrating, and instead want to impose their views on everyone else.

Ending Muslim immigration, ending Mosque and Madrassah building, and expelling those that support Shariah is just about the only thing that can prevent the collapse of some of the oldest nations in history. I see this as a very positive first step.

1480. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184961 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 26, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Finally people are starting to get it. Co-existence with Islam is simply not possible.

I notice that there are some comments about racism. What race is Islam again?

I think this town has acted exactly in the right manner. Whether or not terrorists would be in the school is an open question, but what is not an open question is that it would have Islamic supremacists and Shariah supporters. That's a given.

This cheers me up no end. Finally people are starting to get it.

Richard says that he doesn't care what these nuts believe, just don't push it on the rest of us. I agree with that, that is where the line should be drawn, not just picking and choosing which religions are going to be accepted by us.

Except, mordacious no other religion posses the kind of threat to civlisation and decency that Islam does. I think it's perfectly acceptable to show Muslims the door until they learn how to behave like civilised human beings (which will be roughly when the sun explodes, but I digress).

There's a precedent. John Locke first argument for tolerance was for tolerance betwen competing protestant sects, but not, definetly not Catholics. This was because he knew that the Catholics were so powerful that, if tolerance was shown to them, they would move in in such numbers to be able to erase the competing protestant sects and any kind of tolerance would end.

If you are tolerant to the intolerant, tolerance will not exist for long.

1481. In God's Name

Comment #183871 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 23, 2008 at 4:26 am

I presume you don't know any Afrikaners; you might be enlightened (and possibly pleasantly surprised) if you engaged in a dialogue with these people or learned a little about their history to see what motivated Apartheid.

*dryly* This just proves the classic line about making assumptions. For your information, I grew up in South Africa and I was there when Nelson Mandela was released from prison. I presume you didn't bother looking at the rhetoric of the Afrikaner government in order to be able to give lines like this:

Apartheid was, at its core, not about white supremacism at all

In any case, my point still stands. Europe is facing implosion, and a bloody implosion at that, unless harsh measures are taken and taken soon.

1482. In God's Name

Comment #183646 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 22, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Fanusi, thank you for your comments but frankly consistently telling everyone who might have some sympathy with your view that they're all going to die and our views are pathetic and unhelpful isn't really advancing any of these topics

For one thing, I didn't use the words pathetic and unhelpful. The reason I'm so gloomy is that I see a terrible darkness in the future, were quite literally everything I love is at risk. So I tend to be a bit on the gloomy side.

Once again, I refer you to Lee Harris. The basic error is one that has a good pedigree - it actually goes back to Condorcet, a man for whom I have the highest esteem. It's not enough just to show people that your way is better - not enough by far. In order to eradicate a way of life and replace it you need to raze the society to its foundations and build it up from scratch.

1483. In God's Name

Comment #183454 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 22, 2008 at 6:39 am

In any case, I think we are getting off the point. Islam is a vile, primitive invention whose power we need to eliminate. The only question is how we do it, and ideally how we eliminate the corresponding power of Christianity at the same time.

Well, this was what I was driving at, epeeist . Preventing Christian theocracy can only be effectively done if atheists and freethinkers in general demonstrate that they are willing and able to mount a tough defense of Western values. Because at the moment we are seen as weaklings and sell-outs, and there are plenty of atheists on the right who might not like the Christian fundies but are willing to make common cause with them because they see Christianity as the only bulwark against Islam.

We need to demonstrate that freethinkers are capable of the kind of uncompromising defense of the West and condemnation of Islam that this fight will demand.

Anyway, I don't want anybody holding the whips thanks

Who does? It's not what you want to be true, but what is actually likely that is important.

suspect education is the start of any answer here

Problem: we have been waiting for that for the last two hundred plus years. It hasn't worked.

If you want to break the power of Islam, you need to, at a bare minimum, pull an Attarturk: Forbid students of madrassahs to attend University, shut down any Mosque that preaches jihad and shariah, prune the civil service, police and military for any who seem too Muslim, institute a Ministery of Religious affairs that monitors what can and cannot be said in sermons, enforce women's right to vote. And, when any imam objects, seize their mosque and tear it down and throw the bum in jail.

Ruthless? Yes. Shocking? To our oh-so-fine sensibilities, certainly. But it is the reason that Turkey is the basket-case that the rest of the Muslim world is. You need to be hard. You need to be ruthless. You cannot hope to compromise with Islam, because Islam does not compromise. 'Education' on its own will not cut it.

Historically, those states where Islam has been either contained or driven out managed that trick only through either extreme ruthlessness (as in Turkey) or total fanaticism (the Reconquista in Spain). Islam, as Lee Harris points out, warps, at a really fundamental level, any society it infects.

1484. In God's Name

Comment #183437 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 22, 2008 at 6:00 am

To put it simply, Islam is the Ur-Fascism, the most primal evil in our world. I refer you to Ibn Warraq's excellent essay:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3766&sec_id=3766

No other religion even comes close to this level of evil.

1485. In God's Name

Comment #183435 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 22, 2008 at 5:57 am

As a matter, of fact, epeeist yes, more than that. Here's the Wiki entry about the Inquisition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

Now, the highest estimate is that the Inquisition tried 150 000 cases, of which 2% were sentenced to death, i.e. about 3000. the total may be up to 5 000, across three hundred and fifty years. Peanuts compared with the jihadists.

Solzhenitsyn has a good section on this in The Gulag Archipelago .

And I specified the Inquistion, not the crusades. Nor did I say anything good about theocracy; I believe my words were: "If I'm going to be under a whip, I'd rather they [i.e. the Christians] held it."

1486. In God's Name

Comment #183397 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 22, 2008 at 3:26 am

Not disputing your assessment of Islam. I happen to think that Christian fundamentalism is just as insidious if a little more subtle.

I'd quibble a bit here. Muslim jihadis kill more people in a year than the Inquisition did in its entire existence.

But the point's moot, because the core of what you have said is correct. It's also what I've pointed out before: chaos drives power to the extremes. And if I'm going to be under a whip I'd rather they held it, as I stand a good chance of preserving those things I love under Christian rule, while I'd have none whatsoever under the jackboot of Islam.

1487. In God's Name

Comment #183371 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 22, 2008 at 2:14 am

You are implying that their idealogy is insurmountable. I presume you don't take the same attitude to white supremacist idealogy?

An excellent parallel. Think about what it took to destroy even the mild forms of white supremacism. Apartheid, for example. It was a long, long and terrible campaign, and Nelson Mandela had to spend twenty-seven years in prison for it. And that was against a wussified, cry-baby version of white supremacism.

Against the true form, an entire nation needed to be razed to its foundations, and fifty million people died in the war. Against the yellow supremacism of the Japanese, it did not end until two cities were burned from the face of the earth.

And even these cataclysmic defeats would not have been possible were it not for centuries of work, laying the foundations toward the idea of all human beings as equal.

We haven't even started taking the fight to Islam. There are a few very brave, very noble souls like Ayaan Hirsi Ali that manage to fight their way out of the mental prison of Islam, but expecting large numbers to follow suit, especially as Europe totters and begins to fall, is foolish.

We might still be able to stop the oncoming horror by getting serious now. But that is massively unlikely. No, what is much more likely is civil war within Eurabia, India and Canada, with the US remaining as the last bastion of the West.

1488. In God's Name

Comment #183239 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 21, 2008 at 3:07 pm

If I treat people who happen to hold muslim beliefs as members of the same group as me they may be encouraged to reciprocate and I may be able to continue to live in peace.

That's a sweet thought, except for one thing: it's not about you. It's about them. These are real human beings, who have their own ideas and ideologies, and act upon them. Whether or not you are seen as a member of their group is absolutely, and entirely up to them. Not you.

And they will not admit a Kafir to their group. Count on it.

Trusting that those who hold absolute power over you will treat you fairly when they do so, is a fool's hope.

1489. In God's Name

Comment #183227 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm

If you look at most Muslims you'll find very few in the West who could really honestly call themselves full practising muslims, very few who could heed every call of strictly interpreted Sharia decree.

You are missing the basic point about Islam. In Islam you can fight, rape, steal and plunder as much as you want - as long as you do it for Allah. As long as you are advancing the Jihad, it's all good. So swagerring Paksitani street gangs with a taste for the heroin trade feel no cognitive dissonance. Because they're doing it to undercut the infidel state, it's all cool with Allah, see? Meaning they have enough Muslims who don't necessarily want to give up smoking and drinking, but will go along with the Jihad. Of course it will eat them eventually, but it will eat them last.

Oh, as for your comment 'you prefer to think' - think what you prefer. But it won't stop the reality of bearded maniacs coming at you with swords as long as my arm.

1490. In God's Name

Comment #183220 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 21, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Here you go, al .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

BTW, what's your blog?

Mark Smith

Those who are expressing fear about 'muslims outbreeding us', don't you think you are buying in to an irrational 'us versus them', in group-out group mentality?

The only thing I'd disagree with here is the word 'irrational'. The Muslim world is pretty much divided between those who support totalitarianism and jihad, and those who will do nothing to stop it. There's nothing 'irrational' about seeing reality. In fact, seeing reality is the definition of reason. During the Second World War it was pretty clear that there was an Us and a Them. Ditto during the Cold War. Ditto, oh, al of human history basically.

May I recommend an excellent book on in-group/out-group thinking? 'Civilisation and its Enemies' by Lee Harris. One of the points he makes is that you don't get to decide when you have an enemy - he does. Once you have an enemy, you are, by definition, an enemy. And if that's the situation, you'd better hope like hell you have a tough and aggressive Us that will back you up, because the Them will use the in group/ out group mentality for the simple reason that it is an excellent weapon

I'm seeing the reality. And the reality is that there is a hideously large, very terrifying Them that wants to either kill or enslave Us - us being defined as all kafirs, wherever you are.

Believe me, I don't want to believe this. I'd infinitely rather not. I'd far rather just ignore it. But I can't; not if I want to live on earth.

1491. In God's Name

Comment #183189 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm

That might be a bit chicken litte. What we do know though is that those families who have an excess of children are adversly impacting the rest of us. We are overpopulated as it is. The benefits system should be changed to discourage this

Okay, the overpopulation scare is just a scare. Birth rates are dropping all over. The problem is that the world's largest group of nutters is outbreeding us at a ridiculous rate.

Meaning, one way or another, Europe is almost certainly Muslim by the end of this century, and if not that, Fascist. The basic outlook of Muslims in the West is, not to put to fine a point on it, totalitarian (40% admit to supporting Shariah, draw your own conclusions on how many actually support it), and fanatical.

1492. In God's Name

Comment #183142 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 21, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Muslims have 4.7 kids against an average of 1.8.

Exactly, Adrian, which is what I have been pointing out for some time. Which is why we are stuffed. Look at the youth of the European nations - predominantly Muslim. Meaning we are living in the end times of Europe. There'll be mass immigration elsewhere, fascist revivalism amongst those that remain and then - the long Eurabian night. A new Dark Ages.

So I wouldn't worry about this lot. The Mujahideen will slaugher them as they will everyone else.

1493. Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence

Comment #180860 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 16, 2008 at 1:25 am

I don't really know what he has done wrong, this passage doesn't offer much in the way of description

The thing is, and I have pointed this out before, Turkey became secular thanks to Attaturk going to war with Islam. The military of Turkey, with these kinds of results, is the only thing preventing us from having an unbelievably strong Jihad power right next to Europe.

1494. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179713 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Here's one for Al:

Statement by Zuheir Mohsein, Member of the Supreme Council of the PLO:
"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity

Trouw (Dutch newspaper) March 31, 1977

1495. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179708 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 13, 2008 at 2:35 pm

ou have referred to Arabs as "scum" and "rats", you have done this elsewhere with other terms

I'm working, so I can only afford the time to reply to this slander: Tell me one instance where I have done this.

I referred to the Muslim Arabs who committed genocide against the maronite Christians as scum. I said that the mujahideen fighting out of uniform and using civilian shields should be shot like rats. What, exactly, is the problem here?

1496. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179679 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 13, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Finally, if we are going to cut support to anyone, it should be to the entire Muslim world. Let them spend their own money for a change.

1497. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179677 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 13, 2008 at 1:52 pm

al, I could simply ask: Who are you going to believe, the Muslims or the Israelis? But the fact is that my opinion of the call to abandon Israel is based on eyewitness accounts from that time, palestinian eyewitness accounts.

I notice you still dance around what those scum did in Lebanon.

As to the rest of your argument, it basically runs like this:

Of course the military command up to Rumsfeldt knew and sanctioned Abu Ghraib, and of course not a single Muslim Arab knew what the Mufti was up to. It's not as though he ever - perish the thought! - gave rousing anti-semitic speaches or explained his intentions.

Do I even need to explain what's wrong with this?

For the record, I'd never heard of that slogan until you mentioned it. I gave you a scientific study in human morality and you scated clean over it, as you have done with all substansive points.

And finally - why is it racist to say that those who violate the laws of war should be shot like rats? Where does 'race' come into this? Believe me, I am all for applying it to the European jihahis who are turning up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or is it simply that you do not want to confront the basic point about those who fight out of uniform and use civilian shields?

1498. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179547 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 13, 2008 at 11:36 am

The US should sign a mutual defense treaty with Israel (like what we have with Taiwan) and save a little money. There is no reason we have to pretend to be neutral with the Arabs, simply say "Israel will exist, we will ensure that. Everything after that can be discussed. Thanks." Continue to sell jets to Israel, and allow their arms companies to manufacture the rest.

*nods* I can agree with that. Hence the substance of my post was directed elsewhere.

Now, returning to the actual point. Jordan is the palestinian state because when the Palestinian mandate was divided up , 80% of the land went to Jordan. A further 10% to the 'palestinian territories'. Now, originally the Israelis offered to make a common state with the Muslim arabs in the region. They, instead, chose to follow their leaders who commanded them to leave so that they could join with their fellow Muslim Arabs in slaughtering the Jews. The Arabs lost those wars; tough luck to them. They lost the land with it.

The 'palestinian' identity is fictional. Walid Shoebat notes that they considered themselves Jordanians up until the sixties - yet another abomination from that decade, but I digress - when they put themselves together with the USSR who advised them that renaming themselves as the poor, oppressed minority would be good PR. The Soviets knew that there were plenty in the West dumb enough to swallow that.

Nor was the Muslim Arab involvement with the Holocaust 'minimal'. Nazism was supported hugely throughout the Muslim Arab world, and the Grand Mufti enjoyed major support from the overwhelming majority of the Muslim Arabs. Islamic antisemitism dates back to, oh I don't know, at least when Muhammad massacred the Qurayza (spelling varies according to translation).

I have explained this before, and you have never answered any of it, nor have you addressed what those animals did to the Maronite Christians of Lebanon who took them in as refugees.

So my view on them is the same as for all Muslims who bitch that some kafirs fight back: They made that bed. Now they can lie in it.

As regards Dick Cheney, if you would reread my post you would see that I am specifically defending the morality and integrity of the US marine corps from such asinine slanders as the idea that the actions of a handful of nightguards at an obscure prison is equivalent to the barbarity committed day in and out by their opponents. If you think there's no difference, consider the following: Imagine I forced you to stand naked with women's underwear. Now imagine I started to remove your finger's with a boltcutter. Which would you prefer?

Yes, I thought so.

In any case - another point you have never addressed - the 'insurgency' is completely outside any consideration as it has violated every law of war. To put it bluntly, it is entirely legitimate to shoot them like rats.

As I have said before, I believe in Justice. And this kind of mudslinging is about as unjust as you can get. To really put things in perspective, we have a number of studies - such as the Stanford Prison experiment - that show that if you just take some ordinary people - you and me, al - and give them total power over another group, very quickly the most hideous abuses will occur, far worse than what happened at Haditha.

Unless those with power are possessed of an unsually strong moral code that has been drilled into them.

Ergo, not only are the US marines not the depraved monsters some try to paint them as, they are, in empirically demonstrable fact, our moral superiors.

Justice, al. An ignored concept these days, but one I uphold.

1499. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179294 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 13, 2008 at 4:35 am

There that's it, I cannot believe the American soldiers are fighting to defend a US government that employs soldiers who massacre women and children.

Minor problem: the charges have been dropped. And there is something called 'presumption of innocence' in absence of evidence that extends to all people, even US Marines. Strange, but true.

In any case, given what the US is fighting over there, it is amazing just how civilized they are. Even if you were to grant the veracity of these ridiculous and disproven charges, you would find, what, eight killers in about one million men and women who have served in Iraq.

What's the rate of criminals in the normal population? Ten times that? A hundred? And why is it we never hear much about those marines giving their lives to save others over there? Well?

I might also add that there would be far fewer casualties amongst civilians if Michael Moore's minutemen didn't fight outside of uniform and routinely use surrender as a tactic to kill or use Iraqi civillians as human shields - in short, violate every single law of war respected by civilisation dating back to Babylon. Which, just for the record, merits death.

The only knee-jerk reaction is from twerps who insist on blaming America and the West for everything, while bending over backwards to exculpate Islam.

Cutting it off and insisting they get along with their neighbors

Tell me, do you know anything at all about the history of Israel? You can start with al-Hussayni and work your way forward. 'Get along'? Perhaps you missed the leader of Hezbollah saying 'We're not fighting from you to gain something. We're fighting in order to kill you.' The intentions of their 'neighbours' is explicitly genocidal. And your desire to throw Israel to the wolves of Islam is therefore a sanction of genocide . Nothing more, nothing less.

How, exactly, do you 'get along' with people who want to kill you?

1500. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179228 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 12, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Who's advocating genocide?

What exactly do you think that cutting off Israel amounts to?

This is Abrahamic tribalism as absolutist as any in the Arab or Muslim world

This is just idiotic. Ask the Hindus. Ask the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. Ask the Christians in Africa.

There's a state for Jews because it is the only way to prevent the Holocaust from happening again. Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone from advocating the same. I know the drill: advocate policies that will get every Jew in the middle east slaughtered, and if heaven forbid they should be adopted, shrug your shoulders and say "Oh, I didn't want that to happen. Not my fault."