en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/333976 Comments by Wookmeister http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025536.php#IDComment18238270 I think in Dar-al-Islam the term "Zionist Conspiracy" is used in much the same way Western politicians use "Global Warming" or "Multiculturalism". That is, an unfounded idea that has been ingrained to the extent that all "reasonable people" believe it, and thus it can be used to stifle debate. It may seem comical to us, but I'll wager that a huge chunk of Pakistan are now foaming at the mouth about those blinking Zionists. Didn't you know? It's always the Zionists. Just like it's always Global warming. Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:04:19 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025536.php#IDComment18238270 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025531.php#IDComment18212139 This is the thin end of the wedge. The material children in care are exposed to show how the government would like children everywhere to be raised. Pretty soon it will be illegal to teach children views contrary to the parties endorsed doublethink. Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:02:46 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025531.php#IDComment18212139 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025515.php#IDComment18175182 Ah yes, extremism. That's the problem Having strong feelings and opinions... yup, bad. The content of those beliefs isn't the problem, oh no. It's how strongly.... how extremely, you hold to them. Muslims who don't take that "Kill the Infidel" stuff too seriously are our kind of people. But we don't want any extreme Christians running around with that "Love Thy Neighbour" and "Jesus" stuff. Oh no. It would be bad for community cohesion. Sat, 4 Apr 2009 20:12:50 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025515.php#IDComment18175182 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025513.php#IDComment18108863 10 years in prison? I thought treason was a capital offence. If it isn't, it should be. Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:21:37 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025513.php#IDComment18108863 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025511.php#IDComment18090399 So in Muhammed, basically what we have is a barbarian who shagged and murdered his way through the Middle East like an animal. Whenever challenged on his behaviour, he announced that he was perfect and that god had told him to do it. Since his claims were made at the point of the sword, people acquiesced to them, but I doubt that anyone was stupid enough to believe him. Except modern Muslims of course. Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:54:01 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025511.php#IDComment18090399 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025498.php#IDComment18030883 Obama knows nothing about international diplomacy or protocol. He's made a complete hash of his first couple of months in office. First he almost completely ignored a visiting head of state (Gordon Brown), then one of his aides announced that Britain was no more "special" than any other country in the world - when in fact Britain is America's closest ally. And just today Michelle Obama "hugged" the Queen. International States-persons they aint. All this leftist talk of Obama being the "smartest" president is a load of codswallop. The man is a buffoon and he makes Bush look positively demure. With any luck he will bumble and gaffe his way out of office. Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:00:53 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025498.php#IDComment18030883 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025416.php#IDComment17716616 That guy sounds like a perverted Nazi. Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:54:01 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025416.php#IDComment17716616 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025388.php#IDComment17595290 Well Mr. Spencer I'm sorry there wasn't a bigger turnout. I'd love to have you speak at my university, but I doubt that would be wise. The speakers we get here are mostly foam-at-the-mouth Imams, Communists waving banners reading "Cuba & Palestine - 50 years of resistance", BBC journalists "impartially" going on about those pesky Joos and the local "Palestine Solidarity" people hosting talks with names like "Massacre in Gaza". If you came here they'd shout you down, blow you up or bar you entry. I hate this university. What I don't get is where this double standard comes from. They can use the most vile language, as long as the target is Israel - and it's considered acceptable for the dinner table. But only the most grovelling conciliatory language will do when dealing with the "Religion of Peace". I genuinely don't get it. What does Marx have to do with Mad-Mullahs anyway? Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:36:43 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025388.php#IDComment17595290 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025378.php#IDComment17522840 So, let me get this straight. Turkey doesn't like this candidate because his stated position favours neither their countries dominant religion or its political aspirations. Big whoop! Nearly every single EU politician has exactly that attitude toward Britain, it would be refreshing to have at least one who's animosity is pointed in a sensible direction. Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:43:13 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025378.php#IDComment17522840 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025370.php#IDComment17502422 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Being an academic myself I can tell you this is endemic in universities. People there have lots of knowledge, but most of them are pretty foolish. For the most part they regurgitate other's opinions in a pathetic attempt to look sophisticated. The ability to actually analyse anything rationally is sadly lacking, even in our top academics. And yet, oft-times the "ignorant" man on the street leaning on his shovel could tell you exactly which way the wind is blowing. Go figure.... Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:07:11 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025370.php#IDComment17502422 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025345.php#IDComment17374962 To the liberal media strict=conservative=bad and permissive=liberal=good When in fact that distinction says nothing about the content of your values at all, just how strongly you hold to them. The gentleman above clearly had very strong Islamic values. Islamic values are evil. If you follow them, your actions will be evil. A person who strictly follows a good set of values is on the other hand a good person. If you follow them your actions will be good. The liberals simply mistake having no values at all for goodness. If you have no values, your actions will have no purpose - except perhaps to dilute the attempts of the good people to fight the bad people. Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:55:06 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025345.php#IDComment17374962 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025303.php#IDComment17234018 I'd bet any money that there are unlicensed machine guns and destructive devices in that compound that the ATF are SUPPOSED to be regulating. The ATF have a reputation as the poindexters of the law enforcement world. They've arrested people for shotgun barrels that were literally 1mm too short. They ban anything they feel makes guns too effective - eg. the Atkins Accelerator. So, if they spend their time splitting hairs about barrel length, rate of fire and generally annoying the good-ole-boys - why are they not flinging some of that officiousness toward Islamberg? The Branch Davidians at Waco had done a whole lot less to deserve it, and yet they were "visited" by the FBI and ATF. Why are they not doing the same to these people? Could it be they are not members of a relatively harmless and insignificant cult with no-one to speak up for them, but rather are members of a large and very harmful cult who's feelings must not be upset - because people die? Or is it a case of one law for them and another for us? Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:58:33 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025303.php#IDComment17234018 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025095.php#IDComment16172202 I really didn't need to see that - please don't go about posting shocking material like that without warning. Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:56:16 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025095.php#IDComment16172202 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025095.php#IDComment16171137 The son that did the deed, the father that excused it and the judge that will pardon it: Bloody savages the lot of 'em. The Victorians would have sent the army over to "civilise" their asses. Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:30:39 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025095.php#IDComment16171137 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025099.php#IDComment16150489 The liberals in both the UK and the US opened the door for Islam way back before it was even posing major demographic and political problems. In their desire to "remake {the world} to fit the hearts desire" (the Fabian societies motto), they took to outlawing speech not in accord with their vision of utopia. They outlawed speech that they personally found to be hateful, as well as that which contained hate. And indeed, why should a person not be allowed to hate in a democratic society? Along comes Islam, and it is more than happy to use the channels already dug for it by the likes of Labour and the Democrats. If free speech is a fortress to be defended, these people have been knocking holes in the walls for years. The Republicans and Conservatives are not much better. Things have been going downhill ever since governments took to legislating not only what you may do, but who you are. They want access to every facet of your being. Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:14:40 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025099.php#IDComment16150489 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025030.php#IDComment15869584 John Stuart Mill argued that "being upset" by others was the price of freedom. He thought that you should be allowed to say what you want, as long as you did not physically hurt others - he even included "incitement" speech that is banned in most places. As soon as you concoct a notion of "hate speech" it is a small leap to the notion of the "thoughtcrime". If Muslim preachers can incite and attack whomever they please in their speech (and it seems they can) then no restraints should be put on anyone else's speech. It's the double standard they gets me - if it is anti-islam it is "hate speech" according to CAIR et al - if it is anti-west it is "free speech". I am happy for Muslim preacher's to spout their poison - deeply offensive though I find it. All I ask is for the freedom to be equally offensive to them. The right not to be offended is not a feature of democracy - nor should it be. Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:06:55 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025030.php#IDComment15869584 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025022.php#IDComment15866436 I see where you are coming from, but "no religion" is not a value free statement. When kids were banned from praying in school - that was not about equal treatment for all religions - that was about elevating the "non-prophet" religion atheism. This was not what the first ammendment was written for, and it was a deliberate twisting by a bunch of vociferous troublemakers. One of the key tenets of the United States is the freedom of religion - so I agree with you that Christians should not receive special treatment over the other religions. My feeling is that it was always assumed that there would be Christian prayer in schools, in congress etc. etc. - not because the state was "respecting the establishment of religion", but because the state was composed of Christians who were enacting their religious freedom. The freedom many of them had left England to attain. The first amendment I believe was meant to prevent anyone telling you how to pray, or when to pray, or that you must pray. It wasn't meant to actively stop you from doing so. That was never the intention. I'll take your word for it on Thomas Jefferson - I don't have any info on him. I do know that many of the founding fathers followed unconventional variants of Christianity, but were nonetheless Christians. It has become fashionable for historians to falsely ascribe deism to them because they wish to undermine any notion of America's Christian roots. Many of these so called deists writings are full of references to the saving power of Jesus, and the power of God. Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:33:10 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025022.php#IDComment15866436 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025016.php#IDComment15837307 Thanks for that I'll have a look. Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:46:20 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025016.php#IDComment15837307 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025022.php#IDComment15836907 Point #1 - The first amendment was never meant to prevent religious activity in government buildings. It was meant to prevent the establishment of a (corrupt) state church like the Church of England. America was a nation founded by believing Christian men and it was assumed it would always be governed so - "In God we trust", "so help me God" etc. Point#2 - The ACLU and secularists wilfully misinterpreted the spirit of the 1st Amendment as a means to further their godless goals and to persecute Christians. It is hypocrisy of the highest order to use the 1st Amendment to assault Christians and then turn around and ignore it for Muslims. There should be one standard for all. Muslims are welcome to pray in School as long as Christians are afforded the same privileges. It is after all, the Christians country. The ACLU sounds good on paper. The problem is they have such a major leftist agenda. They wilfully misinterpret the constitution - in particular the 1st and 2nd amendments. It is ironic that the American Civil Liberties Union claims to defend against abuses of the constitution when it spends so much time tearing it down. Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:23 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025022.php#IDComment15836907 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025016.php#IDComment15797949 She would indeed call it benevolent. I asked her what if it was not always so? She said we could vote them out, and I pointed out that we currently have an unelected Prime Minister. She then just argued about my definition of unelected. She wasn't for turning. Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:20:04 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025016.php#IDComment15797949