Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 07/13/2005 View Tue 07/12/2005 View Mon 07/11/2005 View Sun 07/10/2005 View Sat 07/09/2005 View Fri 07/08/2005 View Thu 07/07/2005
1
2005-07-13 Britain
The suicide bomb squad from Leeds (IDs of 3 of 4 Bombers known)
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by BigEd 2005-07-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Were they on drugs? unaware that the bombs would explode so soon? Or does Islamic brain-washing make four lads happy to die while murdering random innocents?

The latter case would mean we've got to get rid of Islam the same way death-worshipping tribes were eliminated in the past. Shall we start by destroying Mecca?

This has got to stop! Maybe the President of the US could announce yet another unilateral policy: Mecca will be immediately nuked if there is another Islamofascist attack on US territory. Let's see how many Moslems start denouncing their terrorist brothers. Also announce that anyone who knows of terrorist plans and doesn't denounce them immediately to the police will be considered an accomplice.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 00:16||   2005-07-13 00:16|| Front Page Top

#2 We will NOT nuke Mecca.

Such a thing would turn the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim, against us. Our closest friends, the Brits and the Aussies, would turn against us. It would ruin us.

It is precisely because we cannot nuke Mecca that we must see the WoT through -- carefully, persistently, intelligently, taking out terrorists wherever we find them and promoting personal liberty, democracy and personal responsibility.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-13 01:06||   2005-07-13 01:06|| Front Page Top

#3 The good news is it sounds a purely local effort. I.e. no organization behind it lining up more suicide boomer squads.
Posted by phil_b 2005-07-13 01:10||   2005-07-13 01:10|| Front Page Top

#4 Steve White: you have an attitude problem.
Posted by Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-13 01:46||   2005-07-13 01:46|| Front Page Top

#5 And I have an Apple computer (piece of junk) double message problem.
Posted by Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-13 01:48||   2005-07-13 01:48|| Front Page Top

#6 SW: Of course, you're right. However, if what you said were to come to pass, how much different would it be than it is today? That said, even when A-Q pops a suitcase nuke on Main Street, nothing will have changed. If we respond in kind we're still the bad guy. I dunno, but I get the feeling there's a lot of us out there ready to be the bad guy. I'm getting close myself, especially when the rest of the world already sees us as such. Heck, let's show em what the bad boy can really do. Hey, we had no problem in WWII. We laid waste to entire populations - and we were right to do so. I'm having a hard time seeing the difference here. Especially in regards to the SA....talk about your "root causes".
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-07-13 01:50||   2005-07-13 01:50|| Front Page Top

#7 I here ya Vlad...hang tough. Just think of all those nasty viruses you get miss out on. There...feel better already, eh?
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-07-13 01:53||   2005-07-13 01:53|| Front Page Top

#8 "here?" feh...can't blame that on a Mac!
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-07-13 01:54||   2005-07-13 01:54|| Front Page Top

#9 Wakipaki with SA financed Imams. I figured as much, they don't weven seem to be second generation.

The threat of removing Mecca and Medina from the map ought not be removed from the table, and it should be more than a threat. We should be willing to carry it out. We are an a fight for the continued existance of our freedom and liberty. I sure as hell am willing to fight and die so I can do as I please with my life. Screw these purticanical bastards.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-13 02:09||   2005-07-13 02:09|| Front Page Top

#10 Well Steve White, I served as part of the Nuclear Triad, and can proudly claim to be a war-winner. We would not have won the Cold War without having a viable nuke force, and the willingness to use it.

Pro-nuke problem solvers do have a problem though: no nuclear option is viable without first putting Islam on notice to purge their own ranks of the Wahhabi-Jihadists. My litmus test for Bush is to see him put some demands on Islam (prove you're peaceful or we'll assume you are not, all of you). These demands have to be allowed to work first, and if they do not, THEN nuke Mecca, but wait until the Hajj, and warn them that it's coming, just to see how many stay home from the pilgrimage, as a further litmus test.
Posted by Rivrdog">Rivrdog  2005-07-13 02:28|| http://rivrdog.typepad.com]">[http://rivrdog.typepad.com]  2005-07-13 02:28|| Front Page Top

#11 In reference to Dr Steve's assertion...

As any decent programmer, DB guy, or logician knows, the number of steps from any one point on the logic tree to any other point, via the optimum path, is surprisingly small - even if the endpoint is a final outcome - or branch termination.

For those who don't do this all the freakin' time, lol, sorry, but this serves my purpose so I'm going to use it.

In the real world everything can, indeed, fall wrong (i.e. reaching the worst possible outcome). The events leading to World War I are a damned good example. In logic every decision point (fork) has a probability, a likelihood of occurring... you see this clearly in the NYC blackouts, for example. But that was a pure unadulterated logical sequence - no human emotion existed in the loop. It's a fair statement to say the Caliphatists driving the jihad against freedom are not terribly logical, as we think of it, and often unpredictable. I think we should toss the probabilities which make sense to us and recognize they can force this to an illogical conclusion in a very few steps - or close to it - with events unfolding with startling rapidity -- in spite of your honorably humane intentions. Shit does, indeed, happen, often very quickly, and far more often than pure logic predicts, since humans are often illogical. I guess I'm saying don't be cocky, lol! Candy coat it so, if you have to eat it later, it isn't quite so bitter.

On the other hand, I find it remarkably ironic that it is due to Dubya's religious beliefs that the optimum sequence contains at least SOME predictably low probabilities. IMHO, and in other words, if everything goes wrong and anyone saves them from annihilation, it will likely be Bush, not their "leaders". And that is the literal height of irony, methinks.

Just my take, lol.
Posted by .com 2005-07-13 02:32||   2005-07-13 02:32|| Front Page Top

#12 Damn .com, you are not alone in that assertion. I can't believe W actually said we'll overwhelm them with our compassion. Sheesh...that's got their blood running cold. I recall after that great speech he gave following 9/11...I was ready, many of my friends. We couldn't wait to buy war bonds..and there was legislation pending as such. All for nothing. I'm beginning to doubt we have the stomach to win.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-07-13 03:13||   2005-07-13 03:13|| Front Page Top

#13 SW you cannot win the war if you announce to the world that you will never ever nuke Mecca.

You'll be on your way to winning if you let the whole world know that you'll do anything it takes to destroy the enemy, including nuking Mecca if they push us too far. Too far being defined as launching another terrorist attack on US soil or *something else, specific*.

Why do you think the Germans and Japanese surrendered unconditionally in 1945?
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 03:26||   2005-07-13 03:26|| Front Page Top

#14 Further, I care about existing liberties and prosperity in the West, not about potential liberty in the Moslem world. If they want liberty, let them get it for themselves, at the expense of their own tyrants and backward ideologies.

My concern is the life of my loved ones, not the life of man-haters in Moslem-stan. If our safety and freedom from Islamofascism requires the destruction of Moslem-stan, then so be it. It's their choice and we had better make it clear.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 03:29||   2005-07-13 03:29|| Front Page Top

#15 It's all bad, the true believers and also the weak minded folks paid off or following blindly. The basic premise of killing all infidels in this religion, how do you deal with this. Even the "none violent" followers seem to back violence towards America and it's allies.
I feel that we will be seeing alot more of this sort of thing. We need to try and stop this before it gains any more momentum.
Posted by Jan 2005-07-13 03:48|| blogalready.blogspot]">[blogalready.blogspot]  2005-07-13 03:48|| Front Page Top

#16 W says soothing things, the right things, for now.

He says them because he wants to avoid having to totally annihilate the Arab Muslim world through the only other option we have: democratizing it.

But if a nuke, even a small one, goes off in the U.S., all bets are off and ANY concern for the losses on THEIR side of the ledger would be left to historians 100 years from now.

A nuke attack on the US doesn't mean total commitment at first, but as the Belmont Club asserted a few years ago, it wouldn't be long until there was "total commitment."

Just imagine the effect of even a relatively small 10K weapon in NYC. Hundreds of thousands dead. Millions grieving. The most important land in the world uninhabitable for decades. Millions unemployed, as the reverbrations spread. The financial system in chaos (would money still be good, your IRA??). And EVERYONE asking: how many more do they have?

Since we couldn't be sure, ultimately I expect the Middle East would face apocalpyse.

The calculation would be simple. Since we're not sure, there is only one answer: wipe all of them out now.

Crazy? Think about how you felt after 911. The public would demand very severe retaliation and no president could resist that.

Certaintly, the first response would not be to glass the entire Muslim world. My guess is that the first response would be an ultimatimum to every country in the Middle East, except Iraq, but including Pakistan: arrest known terrorists and their financial backers in 48 hours or else.

The slightest lack of cooperation with our ultimatum would be taken as a sign of complicity, because we'd have no patience at all for any kind of BS. The EU would be totally silent, and if not, so what, we would not care...and then it gets really ugly.

Following the likely failure of that ultimatum, Phase One could include the conventional destruction of economic targets, could follow, including attacks on transportation hubs, financial institutions, and commercial centers, by which I mean downtown Damascus, Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh, and other places we deem unfriendly to us.

Military targets in Syria and Iran would almost certainly be vaporized by small nukes, if only to show these assholes what we can do. Pakistani nuclear facilities would be in severe danger. Americans, demanding revenge, wouldn't care in the least if "innocent civilians" were caught in the carnage, not with American corpses rotting in streets so radioactive they couldn't be recovered.

Northwest Pakistan would be turned into a depopulated wasteland. Civilian casualties? Again, no longer an issue.

Meanwhile, back home, you can also be certain that there would be mass deportations of Middle Easterners in the U.S. And no one will raise a peep about any "innocents" being kicked out along with the guilty. Tough.

Phase two would most certainly mean the seizure of oil fields in Saudi Arabia to cut funding to terrorists. Meanwhile, I'd expect black back ops against financiers, imans, and the families of known terrorists, by which I mean executions. fol

Not that it would matter much, but American "dissent" about killing Islamofascists and destroying the governments that protect and nurture them would evaporate. Those who argued against a severe response would likely be jailed as traitors.

Again, with a city like Washington or New York reduced to nuclear ruin, American would ask a simple question: them or us? The answer would be very obvious, and we'd leave it to Berkeley professors 100 years from now to debate the choice we'd make.

But even something as grim as I outline is unlikely to be the end of the story...two weeks after a nuclear 911, we could very well see the complete annihilation of Egypt, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Iran as viable nations because the question would be: is there a threat still there? If yes, it's over for those nations and their people.

I believe in the long-term Bush Strategy because I NEVER want to see the above happen.

But I fear is that there won't be enough time for that strategy, humane as it is, to come to fruition.

I fervently hope I'm wrong.

Sorry, but I see dark times ahead. Very dark times, especially for the Middle East.
Posted by RMcLeod 2005-07-13 04:23||   2005-07-13 04:23|| Front Page Top

#17 Rex - I'm not saying we won't end up there, just saying that their last best hope of survival is Bush. That's a weird thing to say, lol, but I know down in my toes it's true.

I've said before I think this will get very ugly. I think that's true both externally against the jihadis - and internally against our own demented Tranzi seditionists. Both want to see the US, almost the last outpost of individualism and bona-fide freedom, subverted and dhimmified - just to different "authorities". Fuck 'em both. And to be perfectly honest, I'd like to get it on now, while I'm still around to carry some water, heh.
Posted by .com 2005-07-13 06:26||   2005-07-13 06:26|| Front Page Top

#18 Intelligence agencies say that at least two of the men had recently returned from Pakistan.

I will bet that their relatives were perfectly aware of what kind of "vacation" these beasts were on. I will bet their community was aware of what they were capable of, though maybe not of what they were planning.

I will bet not one of them gave any warning to the kaffir they live among.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-13 07:38|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-13 07:38|| Front Page Top

#19 I have to respectfully disagree with Steve White and agree with some of the others here. The whole point of Mutual Assured Distruction (and Disproportionate Response before it) was that each side held the other side's population as hostage as a guarantee of future good behavior. Without MAD, we would have faced the same sort of threats we do now. Hell, Beria was planning those sorts of operations before he was taken down. Read Heinlein's essays from that period. They could have been lifted from Rantburg with just the dates and names changed -- the worries were the same: smuggled nukes, sabotage, sleepers. Maybe it's time to up the ante in this game as we did with the Soviets. Put the entire feudal Mooselimb power structure on notice. You continue to attack our population, we annihilate you and yours.

Of course its easy to talk smack about such a solution. It's much more difficult to find the political will. Unfortunately, I agree with the voices here and elsewhere that it will take a lot of carnage before the will is found.
Posted by 11A5S 2005-07-13 07:54||   2005-07-13 07:54|| Front Page Top

#20 I would think a minimum retaliatory action would be for the Brits to expel all Pak males in a certain age bracket, citizens and otherwise. The fact that that will not happen shows how far we are from taking the war to the next level of escalation.
Posted by jolly roger 2005-07-13 08:29||   2005-07-13 08:29|| Front Page Top

#21 Well, I feel vindicated. Right after the bombings, I made a comment about why was Scotland Yard wasting its time looking for terrorists coming into the country from abroad. I said that they were home grown passport carrying Brits. Born and raised in England. People thought I was a bigot. Supposedly, Muslims born in the West are different. They have learned to appreciate the country that has given them so much.
I just hope that when they carry their suicide missions (and they will), Americans will react better than the Brits. I am hoping that thousands of mosques would be razed to the ground, preferably with the vermin inside.
Posted by TMH 2005-07-13 08:50||   2005-07-13 08:50|| Front Page Top

#22 SW wrote:
Our closest friends, the Brits and the Aussies, would turn against us. It would ruin us
Steve, take it from me, and most of the Aussies I know (exclude the bleeding heart loonies who think that the whole muslim world is a social justice problem, which needs to be managed with appropriate feelgood "programs')
will be behind you 100%
Go for it.
Posted by tipper 2005-07-13 08:50||   2005-07-13 08:50|| Front Page Top

#23 MAD worked because the rulers of the countries who held the keys were sane. The new development is that Iran or some other wack-bird state can give a suitcase nuke to a terrorist and delude themselves that they can toss up their hands and say, "wuddn't me" without that being their second to last conscious thought. The last being, "what th.."

You only need to look at history to see what we are capable of. It's not pretty. In the end, have the better technology, they don't. It's just kind of that simple.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-13 09:09||   2005-07-13 09:09|| Front Page Top

#24 "I believe in the long-term Bush Strategy because I NEVER want to see the above happen. But I fear is that there won't be enough time for that strategy, humane as it is, to come to fruition. I fervently hope I'm wrong."

Well put; that about how it is for me, as well.

The only nit I'd pick with what you wrote is that I don't think a single, small nuke going off in an American city would be enough to trigger the events you described; my hunch is that it would take several.

But that's a pretty small nit.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-07-13 09:11||   2005-07-13 09:11|| Front Page Top

#25 Well said, Dave D! One thing I hadn't thought of until my "coffee club" here at work this morning was internment. I know, I know, the whole ACLU/HRW groupies would go nuts! But "spin" it this way: "We're rounding up the Paki's here in England for their own protection! You see, we know there's some nut-case, far-right Christian out there that wants to kill these buggers! This way, we can watch them and protect them from any backlash!" My first choice would be to deport 'em all, though.
Posted by BA">BA  2005-07-13 09:31||   2005-07-13 09:31|| Front Page Top

#26 And, oh yeah, I'm getting close to where you all stand too (on the nuke issue).
Posted by BA">BA  2005-07-13 09:37||   2005-07-13 09:37|| Front Page Top

#27 "One thing I hadn't thought of until my 'coffee club' here at work this morning was internment. I know, I know, the whole ACLU/HRW groupies would go nuts! But "spin" it this way: ..."

If Muslim terrorists succeed in nuking a couple of our cities in a coordinated attack, I expect there'll be massive chaos and disorder. I really doubt you'll have to worry about how to "spin" anything to the ACLU/HRW crowd, because one of the very first things that would happen after a nuclear terrorist attack is those people, along with the Michael Moores, the Ted Ralls, and the rest of their ilk would be rounded up and summarily executed.

Like I said before: I don't think a single, small nuke going off in one of our cities would be enough to put us over the edge; but make it several nukes, and I think you'd be surprised how many layers of civilization would be jettisoned, and how quickly and thoroughly it would happen.

Like RMcLeod said: there would be dark times ahead.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-07-13 09:41||   2005-07-13 09:41|| Front Page Top

#28 Steve
It could be good for the world.
Really,
Besides, if the spice trade had not sidetracked the Port. Navigators their intent was to do the Roman thing and Salt Mecca. It was supposed to happen in the 1490s...
You are denying the natural progress of history.
Posted by 3dc 2005-07-13 09:48||   2005-07-13 09:48|| Front Page Top

#29 The trick is not to wait until it gets so bad that the pogroms start. Pogroms kill the innocent and do little to solve anything. Look at the Watts riots. Useless, meaningless violence that accomplishes nothing but beating up some unfortunate saps in the wrong place at the wrong time. The trick is to stop it before it gets there. The game is much more difficult with the leftist dupes and tools demanding the war be fought with one hand tied behind our back. So...just consider the game more interesting.

What we need to do is to find a way to rid the bad apples. To be cliche, they are spoiling the bunch. We aren't going to get internment because of all of the baggage from WWII. But what we can get is deportment (is that a word? if not, I just made it up). Let's make the ACLU's biggest strength, their biggest weakness. Using the "hate-speech" laws against the mosques and the people from CAIR. They introduced the weapon, why are we so afraid to use it?
Posted by 2b 2005-07-13 09:56||   2005-07-13 09:56|| Front Page Top

#30 Agreed, Dave D! The lefties among us play as much a role in this as the jihadis!
Posted by BA">BA  2005-07-13 09:56||   2005-07-13 09:56|| Front Page Top

#31 3dc, do you have a reference for the Portuguese desire to level Mecca 500 years ago? thanks.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 10:32||   2005-07-13 10:32|| Front Page Top

#32 Let's make the ACLU's biggest strength, their biggest weakness. Using the "hate-speech" laws against the mosques and the people from CAIR. They introduced the weapon, why are we so afraid to use it?

Oh, please. The moment it's said by one of the protected groups, it ceases to be "hate speech" and become protected speech. Particularly since much of the incitement takes place in mosques.

Remember, the left considers it an abomination for the government to collect newspaper clippings about what people say in public. They used the Church Commission to ban the FBI from conducting surveillance on "place of worship", and if the Patriot Act removed that ban (I'm not sure it did), that's no doubt one of the reasons they want the Patriot Act eliminated!
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-13 11:12|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-13 11:12|| Front Page Top

#33 Ok...maybe I am dreaming. But the best way to fight a fire out of control is with fire.

Ask yourself - WHY should we just accept the hate speech is spewed in mosques? Why can't we use the laws against it? Why is it considered protected speech? Because why??

Maybe it's time that we took a hard, long, look at why we allow this double standard and put an end to it. It certainly would be easier and more effective than nuking MECCA.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-13 11:22||   2005-07-13 11:22|| Front Page Top

#34 Wow. SO many interesting thoughts...

You can't crater Mecca...yet... At this point we have to spy on every mosque to find who the radical Imams are, then do what ever we have to do to silence them.

These Mosques are where the problem is. These Imams are where the evil is. This is where you have to fight terrorism. If any of these terrorist Imams is found to recruit suicide terrorists, then take action against the Imams.

If the ACLU tries to get in the way, make life uncomfortable for those in the ACLU involved with obstruction the way the Clinton administration harassed people who knew the truth about Bubba's pecadillos...

We can't be nice anymore. Everyone's lives are at stake.
Posted by BigEd 2005-07-13 11:28||   2005-07-13 11:28|| Front Page Top

#35 Oh, I agree that it needs to be ended. But "hate speech" and the ACLU aren't going to do it. Remember what happened after an "anti-villification" law was passed in Victoria, Australia -- the first people convicted under it were criticizing Islam for its particularly vile comments about Christians and Jews!

The only way it will end, really, is if Muslims put an end to it. They've not really shown any impulse to do that. Rather the opposite, in fact.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-13 11:32|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-13 11:32|| Front Page Top

#36 Nuking Mecca doesn't help. Muhammedanism is flexible enough to deal with the loss of the Kabba.
I can't see any shortcuts in this war. If we win by attrition, it is going to take a long time. If we win by overwhelming Muhammedan states around the world, it is going to cost us a lot of blood and still take a long time and a lot of garrisoning. I'd rather try attrition first, even if it means we have to pretend to be friends with the scum of the earth for a while.
Posted by James">James  2005-07-13 11:32|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2005-07-13 11:32|| Front Page Top

#37 If (when?) a nuke goes off in the US, all this talk about laws and "protected speech" and such will go away if somebody prominant can make the case to the population as a whole that groups like the ACLU actively protect and support terrorists with their lawsuits and civil rights cry-fests.
Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats  2005-07-13 11:33|| http://www.punictreachery.com/]">[http://www.punictreachery.com/]  2005-07-13 11:33|| Front Page Top

#38 You can't crater Mecca...yet... At this point we have to spy on every mosque to find who the radical Imams are, then do what ever we have to do to silence them.

And when their replacement is just as radical?

And if the community has no objection to the radicals?
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-13 11:37|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-13 11:37|| Front Page Top

#39 The Muslims aren't going to do it fast enough. I think we all agree on that.

And I agree about the ACLU - I meant they are the enemy we need to fight against. I just wish someone in the Bush Administration had the guts to create an agency willing to prosecute and deport for the hate speech in the mosques. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of these laws and it's a very dangerous game. It's like a backfire - lots of things get burned in the process. But we have to stop the propaganda in the mosques somehow! Any way is a good way.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-13 11:39||   2005-07-13 11:39|| Front Page Top

#40 I'd like for it to be understood that at any time the mosque's may have an inside observer to their chants. A fly on the wall type not obvious to them. I don't like too much of a big brother but this is a public place. That at any time if they said or did anything to promote any crimes or retaliations in their minds that it would be dealt with very seriously. We can't monitor all of the mosque's, but we can some. When the violence breeds here among us, and our freedoms have been misguided to allow for them to organize here, it's crossed the line.
Posted by Jan 2005-07-13 11:48||   2005-07-13 11:48|| Front Page Top

#41 Sooner or later we are going to have to face up to the fact that it is the Saudi's Wahabism that is at the root of most of these problems. Look at OBL's origins and AQ's funding, look at the 9/11 terrorist's origins and funding, look at Wahabi textbooks and Wahabi proliferation of madrasas and mosques around the world, look at Saudi financing of Pakistan's nuclear program.

The menace is growing. It is growing in Leeds and Dearborn and a mosque near you. And it is just as dangerous as a Nazi Europe or an Imperial Japanese Asia/Pacific. And we've had the Pearl Harbor equivalent.

Now why, Dr. Steve, would we not respond to this Saudi menace just as we responded in WWII. Do we have to wait until Islam has all Europe except for the U.K.? Do we have to wait until Islam has all of southeast Asia? Do millions of our allies have to die before we turn back the menace that avows that we are lowly infidels, unworthy of life and that women -- half the Earth's population -- are property? I think not.
Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-13 11:53||   2005-07-13 11:53|| Front Page Top

#42 2b -- I just posted an article on how Britain's "religious hate" law is going to be enforced. The same words, straight out of the Koran, are to be considered hate if they come from a non-Muslim's mouth. The same thing would happen here -- it would take about two minutes for some Kosnut to file a complaint against Charles Johnson, and you can bet some California prosecutor will want to make his name on the prosecution.

Jan:
I'd like for it to be understood that at any time the mosque's may have an inside observer to their chants. A fly on the wall type not obvious to them. I don't like too much of a big brother but this is a public place.

Oddly, there are Muslims inside every mosque during prayers. If they wanted to expose incitement, they could.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-13 12:11|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-13 12:11|| Front Page Top

#43 And when their replacement is just as radical?

RC - If the replacements continue to be radical, then we may have to consider doing the unthinkable... Its us or them...
Posted by BigEd 2005-07-13 12:26||   2005-07-13 12:26|| Front Page Top

#44 What is the definition of religion. I know that the Muslims see the Holy Koran as religious, but with all of the hating of Infidels amongst it's pages is that by definition religious, or fanatical and dangerous, like any other hate group.

RC, I meant a non muslim believer observer. To report back if any hate is being harvested.
Posted by Jan 2005-07-13 12:49||   2005-07-13 12:49|| Front Page Top

#45 RC, I meant a non muslim believer observer. To report back if any hate is being harvested.

My point was that the mythical moderates should be doing that already.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-13 13:47|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-13 13:47|| Front Page Top

#46 Religion is a precursor form of philosophy that embraces the existence of specific supernatural entities and/or forces. Examples are Christianity (God, Moses, Jesus, miracles...), Buddhism (Buddha, nirvana, ...), Hinduism (Shiva, Vishnu, karma, ...) and Islam (Allah, Mussa, Issa, Mohammed...).

They all tend to ask similar questions and of course offer distinct answers:

- how did the world arise, and what role does the supernatural play (and often: how will it end)

- what constitutes valid knowledge, what can be challenged, and what is immutable

- how do I lead a good life

- how should people live in society

- and sometimes, what is beauty and what form of art is permissible

Islam has the following answers:

- Allah is the one and only god; he made everything, including djinns

- Mohammed told the eternal truth, as recorded in the Koran; everything else is false

- bump your forehead five times a day towards Mecca, be a slave to Allah in all your thoughts and deeds, hate non-believers and lie to them (taqiya), enslave your wife, and above all don't think for yourself

- oppress and kill non-believers (jihad), kill anyone who tries to abandon or water down Islam, and seek to establish religious dominion over all aspects of society as well as of private life (sharia)

- do not attempt to create beauty, only Allah can do it; e.g. music, dancing, and figurative painting are out

It's not religion as such that one should look at. It's what is being preached.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 13:50||   2005-07-13 13:50|| Front Page Top

#47 all right then to use your language;
for what is being preached should be monitored, and if dangerous be dealt with.
I think we're on the same page here
forgive the pun
Posted by Jan 2005-07-13 14:08||   2005-07-13 14:08|| Front Page Top

#48 I don't see how the lightbulb will go off amongst Muslims unless their is a clear incentive for them to wake up and take action. In this case that has to be either a credible threat or a shining example of the benefits of democracy in their midst. Who knows if the latter will happen quickly enough, or even at all. I agree that Saudi-funded Wahabism is the root if this evil. It must be throttled to death and soon or this will come to a terrible ending. I too am not optomistic for the long term.
Posted by remoteman 2005-07-13 14:14||   2005-07-13 14:14|| Front Page Top

#49 The shoe that needs to drop is the realization that freedom of speech assumes a common understanding that we all want to live in peace together and respect everyone's freedom. We need a test of speech that calls for murder and slavery. Note "hate speech" but specific words calling for murder. I don't care if you hate and proclaim your hatred of my guts, my skin colour, my ideas, etc. -- but I care if you advocate my murder.

Islamism as it exists would fail such test because it advocates murder and the destruction of freedom. There can be no right to advocate murder. Same as there is no right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 14:20||   2005-07-13 14:20|| Front Page Top

#50 well said
Posted by Jan 2005-07-13 15:06||   2005-07-13 15:06|| Front Page Top

#51 I think the words have already been whispered in a few ears, and by someone sent by "W". Those words are: "If there's another strike on the United States, we will completely destroy you and your religion". Unfortunately, after creating the monster, neither Saudi Arabia nor the Wahabbist Imams can control it any longer. Most of the hatred is because of the contradictions of Islam: there can be no beauty, grace, social intercourse, or freedom outside the mosque. This is a very limiting existence. The Muslims living elsewhere see all the things forbidden them, and are conflicted. They're supposed to hate all this, but it's GOOD. So they have a choice - either destroy it and be good "muslims", or succumb to it and be apostates. Is it any wonder the entire Middle East is nuts?
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2005-07-13 15:48|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2005-07-13 15:48|| Front Page Top

#52 Old Patriot puts his finger exactly on the problem for Moslems in the West:

- they see people using their faculty reason, enjoying freedom and prosperity, and pursuing happiness in this world

- they repeat five times a day that there is only one way to be good, and that is to be a Moslem and hate all of the above

- they have to make a choice, abandon Islam for the pursuit of happiness or remain a slave of Allah

- but they're also told that anyone who abandons Islam (or waters it down) is an apostate deserving to be killed (not just that sinners according to Mo-the-Paedo go to hell)

No Way Out. It takes a lot of independence and courage for an individual thus brainwashed to break the shackles and pursue their own happiness despite the death threat. Note also that neither virtue is a Moslem trait.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 16:44||   2005-07-13 16:44|| Front Page Top

#53 One hundred well-aimed .45 bullets would do more good than a nuke on Mecca, or anywhere else for that matter. We have to be ruthless, but smart. The true enemy must learn true fear.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-07-13 17:28||   2005-07-13 17:28|| Front Page Top

#54 (nuke mecca)
"Such a thing would turn the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim, against us. Our closest friends, the Brits and the Aussies, would turn against us. It would ruin us."

If we (a) have these allies (b) we get nuked (c).

These allies restrain us, and put us at risk. Best to loose them.
Posted by flash91 2005-07-13 19:41||   2005-07-13 19:41|| Front Page Top

#55 The myth that suicide bombers and radical Muslim militants come from the disenfranchised, poor, and downtrodden has already been disproven---this latest news goes far in proving that "Westernization" is not the sovreign cure for the illness that is Islam.
Mitigating factor that Britian just might not be doing it right, but I can't give it much weight, personally.

Bush is a Neocon, I'm not. Bush seems to believe that we can bring Western democracy and freedom to Islam---I don't think it can be done. Dems seem to believe Islam is welcome to its squalor and inequity, all cultures and moralities being equal and all that bunk.

But where Bush wants to cure it, and Dems want to make concessions and integrate it, I feel that the whole mess should be quarrantined. And yes, with no other option on the table, nuking Mecca seems a lot more attractive than the half-assed measures we're taking now.
Posted by Asedwich">Asedwich  2005-07-13 19:46||   2005-07-13 19:46|| Front Page Top

23:54 badanov
23:50 Tkat
23:40 GK
23:35 Barbara Skolaut
23:32 Super Hose
23:28 Matt
23:28 GhostOfBonzo
23:27 rjschwarz
23:14 Super Hose
23:10 phil_b
23:10 Asedwich
23:05 Bomb-a-rama
23:03 Jarhead
23:01 Aussie
23:00 anymouse
22:57 Super Hose
22:57 Frank G
22:54 Frank G
22:52 Jarhead
22:52 tipper
22:49 Super Hose
22:47 rjschwarz
22:46 Jarhead
22:44 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com