IntenseDebate - Chatillon

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Muslims b... · 0 replies · +3 points

Today the news is following a Somali-Canadian women who was detained in Kenya because her passport picture was said not to mtach her face. Her identity has since been verified by DNA testing. She can now return to Canada.

Once again the reportage is focused on Kenyan and Canadian authorities exercising due diligence, so characteristic of the Brave New World we live in. But not a peep is mentioned regarding this outrage in Somalia, which is of a kind now infiltrating into the West. Which is why the security precautions --the ones that the Somali-Canadian woman ran afoul of-- are needed in the first place.

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Taliban b... · 1 reply · +1 points

The depravity continues to spread. And how does it spread? The capability of using children this way must exist in the first place. The indifference as to how one's own child will be used must be there in the second place, although "indifference" may not be the word. After all, it has been said that for Moslems "martyrdom" is thought to be a good, even godly thing to have happen. But by the presence of money in the transactions for human bomb fuses, it appears that there may be those in Dar al-Islam who love Pepsi more than death after all, or perhaps Pepsi and death, provided the death is someone else's. So the third requirement for the spreading of this depravity is money itself.

And where does the money come from? Hawala transactions are hard to track, so it may be impossible to ever determine with absolute certainty whether the money is coming from extortion of the locals, from the Saudis or from misdirected aid money. But always, always try to follow the money. And if the trail can be found, send them the bill. That would be money well spent.

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: "Who shou... · 0 replies · +5 points

"Who should we believe, Obama or you?" --from the title of this posting

Well, lessee. Here's how I think I'd approach matters. I'd:

1) Believe the facts, as supported by observable or demonstrable evidence.
2) Believe the presentation of the facts based upon context and application of Occam's Razor.
3) Believe the presenter of the facts, based upon their credentials and credibility.

Mr. Obama seems to have garbled or mangled the facts that are required in 1), largely if not totally ignored the context of these "facts" as required in 2) and has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of credibility in the matters he spoke to in Cairo as required in 3).

On the other hand, Dr. Sultan has powerfully presented her arguments in 1), given her masterful use of context and reason as shown in 2) and lastly demonstrating her own credibility in 3) by her willingness to sustain the opprobrium of Moslem fanatics, these being in no short supply.

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Fitzgeral... · 0 replies · +3 points

What a great reference! Almost as relevant now as it was 140 years ago.

As a kid, I read Twain's "Innocents Abroad." I marveled at his descriptions of Moslem intolerance. I also marveled at his description of the dirt, squalor, bleakness of the Holy Land under Ottoman rule. Read chapters XL through L, time permitting. Nothing has changed with respect to Moslem "manners," "morals" and attitudes to non-Moslems.

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Fitzgeral... · 1 reply · +7 points

Hurray for Rosa Parks! Hurray for George Herridge!

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Saudi She... · 1 reply · +3 points

Profitsbeard:

With all due respect, if it's funding of jihad that we're to be solely concerned with, oil revenues to Moslem dictatorships dwarf all other sources combined. But there are other concerns. Why should we, non-Moslems, continue to retreat? And therefore why should we in any way tacitly agree that Moslem depredations and appropriations of lands and historical sites are a fait accompli? Are we to draw a line in the sand, a really, really serious line, only to watch Islam arrogance eventually overreach again? How long do we have before the "lifetimes of archeological and cultural sites in the Free World" are no longer in the Free World, but are part of dar al Islam? Do we then write them off too?

Safe access to cultural sites by non-Moslems is more than simple tourism. It is part of cultural survival. It is part of the greater human patrimony. And trust me, it is the learning experience of a lifetime, seeing the greatness of what was juxtaposed with the wretchedness of what is within dar al Islam.

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Saudi She... · 3 replies · +6 points

I for one have a problem with simply writing off visits to Moslem-dominated areas. These areas all-too-frequently include the sites of ancient civilizations, to which modern civilization either owes a true debt or minimally provide us with a sense of wonder of the march of human history, the sense of awe that is the exact antithesis of the closed-minded thinking exemplifying Islam. You can't get that sense of awe from a picture in a book. Ephesus, Babylon, Giza, Bethlehem, Petra all lie within Moslem-occupied territories. They are cultural treasures, a common human patrimony (except for those who deliberately reject all of the past beyond their own tunnel vision as "jahiliyyah" i.e. "ignorance"). Are these sites to be abandoned, together with the hapless aboriginal non-Moslems?

Access to world heritage sites is more than just tourism. It's about human memory as experienced through history. The role of the pilgrim has traditionally been perilous, particularly in Moslem lands and we are reminded of this once again. But it is my hope that the disgusting comments of the Saudi sheikh will be a matter for the calling of Saudi ambassadors around the world into countless foreign offices of suitably outraged governments, not to share a cigar and a scotch but to have an explanation demanded of them.

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Egypt: Mu... · 0 replies · +4 points

Is there any indication how this incident was reported in what passes for the Egyptian mainstream media? Presumably Western embassies and consulates go over the local news but are reports of this kind received and noted as well? Is there any indication that this find of information is going into the mix in any way, shape or form when policy towards Egypt and other Moslem countries is being formulated?

On the basis of the evidence, apparently not.

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Raymond I... · 0 replies · +2 points

"I'll address some of the arguments tomorrow, depending on time. " --from the poster Muzzamil

Does this mean that the readers here can expect to be treated to reams of mindless cut-and-paste?

14 years ago @ Jihad Watch - Jihad Watch: Raymond I... · 1 reply · +5 points

Muhammed Bear:

Actually, there is a footnote following the first table, indicating that the Mohammedan conquest of India may "be the bloodiest in history" according to historian Will Durant (1935). Then of course there is K.S. Lal's work (1973) that you are alluding to here, stating that between 60 and 80 million non-Moslems were killed during the 500 year long conquest of India.

But my question is essentially the same as yours: Why is the worst genocide in history included as a hard-to-notice footnote and not given pride of place in the table of enormities?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Chatillon

People I'm following

Chatillon