Hi there, !
Today Fri 08/03/2007 Thu 08/02/2007 Wed 08/01/2007 Tue 07/31/2007 Mon 07/30/2007 Sun 07/29/2007 Sat 07/28/2007 Archives
Rantburg
531704 articles and 1855996 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 79 articles and 432 comments as of 15:06.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Taleban kill second SKorean hostage
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
6 00:00 eLarson [4] 
0 [3] 
2 00:00 Zenster [4] 
5 00:00 Ptah [3] 
6 00:00 trailing wife [3] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
0 [4]
7 00:00 Zhang Fei [4]
0 [3]
6 00:00 Zenster [4]
16 00:00 Tony (UK) [3]
4 00:00 Jack is Back! [3]
7 00:00 Palfrey [3]
18 00:00 Pappy [4]
6 00:00 Pappy [6]
0 [4]
3 00:00 Old Patriot [3]
0 [4]
1 00:00 Glenmore [3]
7 00:00 Ptah [3]
6 00:00 3dc [4]
Page 2: WoT Background
1 00:00 Blackbeard Fleamble1158 [3]
5 00:00 Iblis [3]
0 [4]
0 [3]
17 00:00 Zenster [4]
8 00:00 Palfrey [3]
0 [4]
9 00:00 BA [3]
8 00:00 BA [3]
1 00:00 Frank G [3]
14 00:00 Old Patriot [3]
1 00:00 USN, Ret. [3]
1 00:00 Glenmore [3]
0 [3]
0 [3]
0 [3]
12 00:00 Sigmund Freud [4]
0 [4]
14 00:00 gromgoru [3]
6 00:00 Palfrey [3]
5 00:00 JDB [3]
1 00:00 Jack is Back! [3]
0 [3]
Page 3: Non-WoT
4 00:00 JosephMendiola [4]
3 00:00 GK [3]
10 00:00 Anonymoose [4]
18 00:00 Broadhead6 [4]
0 [3]
3 00:00 Seafarious [3]
3 00:00 USN, Ret. [3]
1 00:00 anonymous5089 [3]
8 00:00 AzCat [3]
18 00:00 Pappy [5]
0 [3]
14 00:00 trailing wife [4]
29 00:00 OldSpook [4]
4 00:00 sofia [3]
0 [3]
4 00:00 USN, Ret. [3]
2 00:00 Skunky Glins5285 [3]
0 [3]
18 00:00 Tony (UK) [3]
1 00:00 trailing wife [3]
5 00:00 Alaska Paul [3]
0 [3]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
4 00:00 Xenophon [4]
3 00:00 USN, Ret. [3]
2 00:00 JosephMendiola [4]
3 00:00 Sigmund Freud [4]
11 00:00 xbalanke [3]
1 00:00 Spats Gligum8420 [4]
2 00:00 bigjim-ky [3]
14 00:00 Zenster [5]
2 00:00 Pappy [4]
11 00:00 Parabellum [3]
8 00:00 tu3031 [3]
14 00:00 DepotGuy [3]
7 00:00 bigjim-ky [3]
2 00:00 Besoeker [3]
-Short Attention Span Theater-
God-Fearing People - Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?
Interesting opinion piece by Christopher Hitchens on Slate.

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
Posted by: Delphi || 07/31/2007 11:47 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under: Global Jihad

#1  Either the Rantburgers aren't God-fearing or they don't mind offending muslims.
Posted by: JohnQC || 07/31/2007 15:30 Comments || Top||

#2  Quite simply, Christians aren't afraid of dying for their religion whilst Muslim are more focused upon making other people die for theirs. Until that changes, Islam will remain the predatory tyranous spiritual cesspit it is today.
Posted by: Zenster || 07/31/2007 23:57 Comments || Top||


China-Japan-Koreas
Policy of Double Standards under Fire
We haven't done one of these in a while.
Pyongyang, July 30 (KCNA) &0151; The policy of double standards pursued by the imperialists is an unfair and reactionary one as it bars each country and nation from exercising equal rights in the international relations.

Rodong Sinmun Monday observes this in a signed article. It goes on and on and on and on and on: The unfair policy of double standards pursued by the imperialists in the international relations is aimed at attaining their hegemonic purpose.
And we do it pretty well, too. Care for lunch, Norks?
The imperialists are pressurizing and isolating internationally the anti-imperialist independent countries which they deem obstructive to realizing their ambition for domination, and those countries situated in the areas of strategic importance, over various international issues.

They, however, connive at or patronize their allies or the countries obedient to them even when they cause troubles.
Good boy, that's it, goooooooood boy ...
The United States divided the world into two categories to meet its interests, conniving at the terrorist acts perpetrated by certain countries or blaming some other countries after absurdly labeling them "sponsors of terrorism."
You're insecure because you're short, right?
It overlooks and supports the pro-U.S. forces and allies' development and access to nukes while kicking up rackets of pressurizing those countries incurring its displeasure under the pretext of the "nuclear issue," proceeding from a unilateral and biased stand. This goes to clearly prove the unfairness and injustice of its policy of double standards.
What's the point of double standards if they aren't unfair and unjust?
Holding that there should be only one principle of justice to be applicable to all countries on an equal footing as far as the settlement of international issues is concerned, the article stresses that the imperialists' unfair policy of double standards will prove futile only when the world people who love peace and aspire after independence positively strive to solve the international issues on the principle of impartiality and equality.
Because eqaulity means the Norks count more than we do. It's just that way.
Posted by: Steve White || 07/31/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  absurdly labeling them "sponsors of terrorism"

Especially absurd when you stop to consider just how easily we could instead label all of them "hot smoking expanses of glowing molten black glass".
Posted by: Zenster || 07/31/2007 2:07 Comments || Top||

#2  Oh, but surely the glass would be mottled, Zenster? Given the various clusters of what would have been reduced to piles of chemical colorants, I mean.
Posted by: trailing wife || 07/31/2007 5:32 Comments || Top||

#3  Oh, but surely the glass would be mottled, Zenster?

No, high carbon content usually confers a rather ebon hue to such compounds. And don't call me Shirley.
Posted by: Zenster || 07/31/2007 5:49 Comments || Top||

#4  Shirley, you jest.
Posted by: Bobby || 07/31/2007 6:44 Comments || Top||

#5  I wish someone would develop a bomb that turns everything within a quarter mile into a coprolite. Those things are pretty when you polish them up, and make a hell of a conversation piece.
Posted by: Rob Crawford || 07/31/2007 7:45 Comments || Top||

#6  Truly, Rob. "Why on earth do you have a pile of dinosaur dung on that tray in the center of the dinner table?" is a guaranteed conversation starter. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 07/31/2007 19:03 Comments || Top||


Europe
France Goes It Alone
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 07/31/2007 13:19 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:


International-UN-NGOs
The Cult of Global Warming
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 07/31/2007 13:19 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Bravo and well said. Feder's piece is about the best of that sort I've seen.
Posted by: AzCat || 07/31/2007 15:10 Comments || Top||

#2  Rachel Carlson saved us from overpopulation?

I know Mao and Stalin helped to reduce the global carbon footprint.

I think leftists would be happiest if everyone (except themselves) were dead.
Posted by: BrerRabbit || 07/31/2007 15:38 Comments || Top||

#3  She did? I thought it was what's-his-Population-Bomb that did that.

Rachel Carson does have a Middle School named after her, here in Monkey County, Maryland.
Posted by: eLarson || 07/31/2007 16:12 Comments || Top||

#4  Rachel Carson did kill a lot of people, but since when is that a good thing?
Posted by: Iblis || 07/31/2007 16:59 Comments || Top||

#5  Rachel Carson did kill a lot of people, but since when is that a good thing?

I'll have to dig up the link, but IIRC, not only was the resulting DDT ban deadly to millions of humans but was based on mostly junk science.
Posted by: xbalanke || 07/31/2007 17:37 Comments || Top||

#6  Shocker. (Junk science at the base, I mean.)

It puts a little perspective on the leftist argument that "Bush is using terrorism to scare the American people."

Why? Because, it is what they would do, given the chance, and what they HAVE been doing using everything from cancer to nuclear power to genetically modified organisms to environment doom for decades.
Posted by: eLarson || 07/31/2007 17:53 Comments || Top||


Olde Tyme Religion
Jihad is "to Strive and Make an Effort"
A Mythical Moderate Muslim speaks out in The Washington Post.
WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

The term “Jihad” is very much misunderstood by many non-Muslims and it is also very much abused by some Muslims. Jihad does not mean “holy war.” Jihad is an Arabic word, and its literal meaning is “to strive and exert effort.” In the Qur’an, this word is used several times. Sometimes it is used in the spiritual sense implying to strive and make an effort for self-purification from sin and evil. Sometimes it is used in social sense meaning to strive to keep good relations with others and to establish truth, justice and to do charitable deeds. Jihad is also used sometimes in terms of striving against oppression and aggression. As such, Jihad may involve combat and military action. However, this is only one aspect of Jihad. The more specific term for military action in the Qur’an is not jihad but “qital.”

In Islam, warfare is allowed only for defensive purposes to stop oppression and aggression. There is no place in Islamic teachings for war or violence against any person, group or state simply because of the difference of race, color, language, nationality or religion. Islam does not allow any coercion in order to convert others to its faith. The Qur’an says, “There is no coercion allowed in religion.” (Surah 2:256).

Basic Islamic teachings about warfare can be summarized as follows:

1. Warfare should be avoided; Muslims should not begin wars and should only use warfare as a last resort.
2. Warfare is a limited enterprise. Its purpose is only defensive and it should only be used to stop aggression and oppression.
3. War should be only conducted against those who fight. Non-combatants should never be targeted and every possible precaution should be taken to protect them.
4. Water resources, animals, agricultural lands and other resources should be protected from harm as much as possible.
5. Warfare should stop as soon as the enemy inclines to peace, and negotiations should be used. All treaties and agreements should be fully observed.

These are almost unanimously accepted guidelines concerning warfare in Islam. In the past, and now in the present, some Muslims have violated these guidelines under some situations and conditions. Such aberrations or violations are, however, not a rule but an exception to the rule. Modern Muslim jurists of major schools of thoughts agree with the foregoing Islamic teachings and guidelines about warfare.

Terrorism, suicide bombings or any other kind of bombings, shootings or violence that target civilians are totally forbidden in Islam and there is no justification for these acts. A body of Muslim jurists known as the Fiqh Council of North America has issued a strong Fatwa (religious ruling) against terrorism and suicide bombing. This Fatwa has been endorsed by hundreds of Islamic centers and mosques throughout North America.

The Fatwa said:
1. All acts of terrorism targeting the civilians are Haram (forbidden) in Islam.
2. It is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate or associate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.
3. It is the duty of Muslims to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

Those who invoke Islam to justify any acts of extremism, aggression or violence are not only committing sin but they are also defaming Islam and misrepresenting the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and law abiding. Their acts of violence have brought a lot of harm to many innocent human beings, including many Muslims. These foolish and desperate acts have not done any good to the alleged cause or causes that the perpetrators claim to defend.

Muzammil Siddiqi is Chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America,a body tasked with interpreting religious law throughout the continent. He has been involved in a number of inter-faith initiatives, including participation in an inter-faith prayer service with President George W. Bush.
And I hope he's right. Let the discussions begin!
Posted by: Bobby || 07/31/2007 07:09 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under: Global Jihad

#1  Takiyah. The fact is that in the Koan itself every mention of Jihad is a bout exterminating and enslaving infidels. Period.

Takiyah or lying to himself. The mentions about "pacific Jihad" are in haddiths and 99,9% og Haddiths are apocryphal. The question is if they were invented by Muslims whoi wanted to curb Islam's violence or if they were for Kaffir cosnumption so they didn't knew that there would never be lasting be with Islam and didn't move to crush it.

Posted by: JFM || 07/31/2007 9:13 Comments || Top||

#2  Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch is 'Blogging the Quran', and his comments on 'no compulsion of religion" are printed below. Seems fair and balanced.... and open to a lot of interpretation itself.

Immediately following is the famous statement that “there is no compulsion in religion” (v. 256). Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently quote it to disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

Many see v. 256 as contradicting the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers, but actually there is no contradiction because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order. Says Asad: “All Islamic jurists (fuqahd’), without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin: a verdict which disposes of the widespread fallacy that Islam places before the unbelievers the alternative of ‘conversion or the sword.’” Quite so: the choice, as laid out by Muhammad himself, is conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or the sword. Qutb accordingly denies that v. 256 contradicts the imperative to fight until “religion is for Allah” (v. 193), saying that “Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs.” Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security” – although not with equality of rights before the law, as 9:29 emphasizes. For Qutb, that “stable society” is the “Islamic social order,” the establishment of which is a chief objective of jihad.

In this light verses 256 and 193 go together without any trouble. Muslims must fight until “religion is for Allah,” but they don’t force anyone to accept Allah’s religion. They enforce subservience upon those who refuse to convert, such that many of them subsequently convert to Islam so as to escape the humiliating and discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude — but when they convert, they do so freely. Only at the end of the world will Jesus, the Prophet of Islam, return and Islamize the world, abolishing Christianity and thus the need for the jizya that is paid by the dhimmis. Then religion will be “for Allah,” and there will be no further need for jihad.
Posted by: Bobby || 07/31/2007 10:14 Comments || Top||

#3  eeeehhh...I wage jihad everynight on the toilet
Posted by: Boss Craising2882 || 07/31/2007 14:18 Comments || Top||

#4  Jihad is also used sometimes in terms of striving against oppression and aggression.

Which makes violent jihad a logical extension of how Muslims regard the mere existence of Infidels as a form of “oppression and aggression” against them.

1. Warfare should be avoided; Muslims should not begin wars and should only use warfare as a last resort.

Unless it’s on a day in the week whose name ends in the letter “y”.

2. Warfare is a limited enterprise. Its purpose is only defensive and it should only be used to stop aggression and oppression.

Which says little in light of how all Muslims deem anything not Islamic to be a form of “aggression and oppression”.

3. War should be only conducted against those who fight. Non-combatants should never be targeted and every possible precaution should be taken to protect them.

Unless it’s a month in the year whose name ends in the letter, “y”,“h”,“l”,“e”,“t”or “r”.

4. Water resources, animals, agricultural lands and other resources should be protected from harm as much as possible.

But only if these things belong to Muslims. Otherwise they are tools for “aggression and oppression” against Islam and must be destroyed.

5. Warfare should stop as soon as the enemy inclines to peace, and negotiations should be used. All treaties and agreements should be fully observed.

Until such a time as Muslims have sufficient strength to violate them with impunity.

While I’m sure that Muzammil Siddiqi means well, his observations simply are not reality based. He himself may believe he’s telling the truth. However, the vast majority of Muslim actions turn his words into taqiyya. We are fools to believe someone like Siddiqi when daily evidence tells us the exact opposite.

The Fatwa said:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting the civilians are Haram (forbidden) in Islam.


Notice how this leaves the door wide open for terrorist attacks against military or political targets?

2. It is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate or associate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.

Unless this occurs within a calendar year whose last place contains a numerical digit.

3. It is the duty of Muslims to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

Unless those “civilians” are not Muslim in which case all bets are off.

Those who invoke Islam to justify any acts of extremism, aggression or violence are not only committing sin but they are also defaming Islam and misrepresenting the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and law abiding.

Except for how the vast majority of Muslims are not “peaceful and law abiding”. They knowingly contribute zakat despite its regular use to sponsor global terrorism. They also support shari’a law which demands violent overthrow, subjugation or punishment of those who do not follow it. They also practice Abject Gender Apartheid which makes them violators of human rights.

In plain speech, total bullshit.
Posted by: Zenster || 07/31/2007 15:50 Comments || Top||

#5  But what if we say "NO" to Dhimminitude? What if we say "NO" to Jizaya? What then?

Dhimminitude as an institution is a total REVERSAL of what Americans fought over to achieve in World War II and the Civil War. Hell, Jizaya, the selective imposition of taxes as a tangible statement of inferiority, is what the Revolutionary War of the United States was all about.

To hell with respect for Muslims if, in their minds, respect from non-muslims MUST be in terms of submission to THEM.
Posted by: Ptah || 07/31/2007 21:14 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
50[untagged]
7Taliban
6Global Jihad
6Iraqi Insurgency
2Takfir wal-Hijra
2Islamic Courts
1Palestinian Authority
1al-Qaeda in Iraq
1al-Qaeda
1al-Qaeda in North Africa
1Fatah al-Islam
1Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Tue 2007-07-31
  Taleban kill second SKorean hostage
Mon 2007-07-30
  ISAF: Chairman of Taliban military council banged in Helmand
Sun 2007-07-29
  Perv to retire as Army Chief, stay as President, Bhutto to be PM
Sat 2007-07-28
  New PA platform omits 'armed struggle'
Fri 2007-07-27
  50 Iraq football fans killed in car bombs
Thu 2007-07-26
  Iraq: Khalis tribal leaders sign peace agreement
Wed 2007-07-25
  U.S., Iranian envoys meet in Baghdad
Tue 2007-07-24
  Abdullah Mehsud: Dead again
Mon 2007-07-23
  Summer Offensive: More than 50 Talibs killed in Afghanistan
Sun 2007-07-22
  N. Wazoo Peace Jirga Rocketed
Sat 2007-07-21
  Afghan Talibs kidnap 23 S. Koreans
Fri 2007-07-20
  6 dead in rocket attack on Somali peace conference
Thu 2007-07-19
  Hek declares ceasefire
Wed 2007-07-18
  Qaida in Iraq Big Turban Captured
Tue 2007-07-17
  Bombs kill at least 80 in Kirkuk

Better than the average link...



Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
44.222.138.70
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (15)    WoT Background (23)    Non-WoT (22)    Local News (14)    (0)