Pamela Geller Watch: Support for the Genocide of the Chechens

Spencer’s hate buddy is at it again:

Recently Pamela Geller put up a post on her hate blog about the suicide bombing at  Moscow’s airport. Amidst her usual anti-Islam/Muslim diatribe Geller sided with Joseph Stalin’s genocidal policy after World War 2 in which he relocated the entire indigenous populations of Chechnya and Ingusethia to Siberia:

Islamic Terror Attack Homicide Bomber Kills At Least 31 Human Beings

UPDATE: Frank the Great:

“The Kremlin is struggling to contain an Islamist insurgency in the mainly Muslim North Caucasus, and rebels have repeatedly vowed they will take their battle to the Russian heartland.”-from the article

This region (North Caucasus) was a big source of the Muslim Waffen SS Divisions during World War II. The Waffen SS Divisions fought with the Nazis against the Russians on the eastern front during WW2. For that reason Stalin relocated most Muslims in the region to Siberia. Khrushchev brought them back in 1956. Khrushchev made a mistake in doing that.

Most people today don’t know that the Muslim world was allied with the Nazis, especially in the Middle East (Iraq e.g.-where the British invaded to overthrw a pro-Nazi govn’t) and the Caucasus. The Cold War hid all that till the collapse of the USSR in 1990.

As William Faulkner said: “The past is never really past.”

Geller updated her blog to include the above statement from someone named “Frank the Great” obviously she agrees with everything he says. Unfortunately what he says is a gross distortion of history, an approval of genocide and extremely disgusting.

It is true that Stalin blamed Chechens for aiding the Germans during the War and this is how he justified their transfer to Siberia. The real reason that Stalin transferred the Muslim populations of Chechnya and Ingusethia was due to a revolt led by Khasan Israilov from 1940-44 against the Soviet state for independence:

Khasan is regarded as the most influential Chechen guerrilla leader during the Second World War, and he is considered a national hero for many Chechens. He was infamous to the Soviets, and is to many Russians, for his 1940-1944 uprising, which many Russians connected to an abortive German plot to undermine Soviet control over the North Caucasus (in reality, however, relations between Israilov’s Chechen partisans and the Germans were tense at best, hostile at worse).

Khasan himself was a Communist, here is his letter to the Chechen Communist Party:

“I have decided to become the leader of a war of liberation of my own people. I understand all too well that not only in Checheno-Ingushetia, but in all nations of the Caucasus it will be difficult to win freedom from the heavy yoke of Red imperialism. But our fervent belief in justice and our faith in the support of the freedom-loving peoples of the Caucasus and of the entire world inspire me toward this deed, in your eyes impertinent and pointless, but in my conviction, the sole correct historical step. The valiant Finns are now proving that the Great Enslaver Empire is powerless against a small but freedom-loving people. In the Caucasus you will find your second Finland, and after us will follow other oppressed peoples.”

“For twenty years now, the Soviet authorities have been fighting my people, aiming to destroy them group by group: first the kulaks, then the mullahs and the ‘bandits’, then the bourgeois-nationalists. I am sure now that the real object of this war is the annihilation of our nation as a whole. That is why I have decided to assume the leadership of my people in their struggle for liberation.”

In reality the Chechens never fought for Hitler on the Eastern front, that is a BOLD-FACED LIE. Attempts at forming an alliance with Chechens floundered because of mutual distrusts, conflicting ideologies and Germany’s alliance with the Cossacks, who were the avowed enemies of Chechens.

In reality Chechens fought with the Red Army to liberate Russia and Eastern Europe but instead were treated like sub humans by the Soviets:

Stalin alleged that the peoples of the North Caucasus were responsible for mass collaboration with the Germans, despite the fact that an estimated 157,000 Chechen and Ingush conscripts had fought in the Red Army against Nazi Germany, and many had fought all the way to the liberation of Berlin. On the night of February 23, 1944 Lavrentiy Beria personally carried out the Chechevitsa, the forced deportation of the Chechens and Ingush to Central Asia. Beria went on to issue a verbal order that any Chechen or Ingush found ‘untransportable should be liquidated’ on the spot, and under this pretext thousands were summarily executed. Victims of typhus, which had reached epidemic proportions, were immediately executed, as were pregnant women and the elderly; another example of Soviet excesses came in the Chechen village of Khaibakh, where more than 700 Chechens were locked in a stable and burnt alive. Chechen literature and manuscripts were also burned by the Soviets, and food and water supplies were poisoned to eliminate any that stayed behind.

The tragedy of this transfer of Chechens from their ancestral home is mocked by Geller and her friends, and why should we be surprised as Geller supports the same thing for Palestinians. The transfer of Chechens led to over a quarter of the population dying. That Geller would side with Stalin only confirms her long list of not only anti-Freedom beliefs but also support for murder and genocide.

37 thoughts on “Pamela Geller Watch: Support for the Genocide of the Chechens

  1. Wow. Spencer also called her a “freedom fighter”.

    Like I said on Loonwatch, this is the result of her stupidity and ignorance about the subject rather than her bigotry. But she wouldn’t let a Muslim off with that excuse if they supported the genocide of Jews.

    No doubt Ahni and Jihadbob are itching to pull out some MEMRI video or a sign holding Muslim at this point. Go on. You know you want to.

  2. this is how he justified their transfer to Siberia. The real reason that Stalin transferred the Muslim populations of Chechnya and Ingusethia was due to a revolt led by Khasan Israilov from 1940-44 against the Soviet state for independence:

    Sounds like just comeuppance for TRAITORS.

    At least he didn’t execute the males and trade the women folk in exchange for weapons.

    • “Sounds like just comeuppance for TRAITORS.

      At least he didn’t execute the males and trade the women folk in exchange for weapons.”

      Except the Banu Qurayza weren’t revolting against the government for independence, they willlingly signed a treaty in which power would be shared between Muslims and Jews and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would be the leader. The treaty was violated by siding with the enemy.

      It is interesting to note that Geller justifies the genocide of Chechens because she mistakenly believes that they all sided with the Germans, yet loses her mind every time she hears about the execution of Banu Qurayza for actually siding with the enemy. Her sympathy vanishes when the victims are Mooslim.

      Regardless, there is no comparison between the rules of war from the 7th Century and the 20th Century. Obviously, that behavior is not needed in this time period, but would have been acceptable at that time as a legitimate punishment. Just ask the Jews what they would have done had the roles been reversed.

      “10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”

      Deuteronomy 20: 10-15

      Rules of War change. Something can be acceptable in the 7th Century but no longer acceptable in the 21st.

      But interesting point. The Soviets can commit genocide because another person did something that you think is similar a long time ago far far away. It’s funny how desperate loons will get, even justifying the most disgusting crimes.

      • You forgot to mention an important caveat: JihadBob is perfectly okay with killing Muslims. He’s even expressed a desire to ethnically cleanse Turkey and replace it the population with Christians and there’s also the time he defended Hugh Fitzgerald for telling the crazed JihadWatch crew to celebrate the deaths of Muslims. Telling from some of his past comments, he also seems to deny the Bosnian genocide.

  3. No doubt Ahni and Jihadbob are itching to pull out some MEMRI video or a sign holding Muslim at this point. Go on. You know you want to.

    If you have a problem with MEMRI, perhaps you could recommend an alternative, Muslim website that chronicles hate broadcast on Arab media?

    • I think MEMRI’s pro-Israel stance means it cannot provide neutral coverage of Arab media. It’s intention is to find the worst possible things happening in the Arab media, whilst conveniently ignoring all the good things, translating them and then mass distributing them so that people develop a negative attitude towards Arabs in the general, with the ultimate objective of helping “poor little” Israel against “big bad” Arabs.

      “If you have a problem with MEMRI, perhaps you could recommend an alternative, Muslim website that chronicles hate broadcast on Arab media?”

      I have a great idea. How about we watch the Arab media ourselves and cut out the pro-Israel middle man. It’s kind of obvious but why use the source directly when you can have it edited by someone who hates the people they are supposed to be accurately describing.

  4. So do you have a Muslim website that chronicles hatred and incitement in the Arab/Muslim world or don’ t you?

    Perhaps it’s not the 1% of Memri videos that have translation issues but the 99% which are translated perfectly that bothers you?

    • “So do you have a Muslim website that chronicles hatred and incitement in the Arab/Muslim world or don’ t you?”

      Found anything to monitor the hateful comments made by Israeli rabbis?

      Why would there be a Muslim website dedicated to spreading a bad image of themselves?

      “Perhaps it’s not the 1% of Memri videos that have translation issues but the 99% which are translated perfectly that bothers you?”

      Did I even say there was a translation issue. Read my comment again. The problem is its “police blotter” tactics.

      “the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker

      It’s Jihadwatch in video form.

  5. The treaty was violated by siding with the enemy.

    Not sure what this ‘siding’ with the enemy actually entails.

    But at least we agree that the Chechens were traitors and Stalin was duly justified in dispensing harsh justice against such traitors, especially when the Soviet Union was on the brink of annihilation.

    It’s also interesting that the Chechens held talks with the Nazis – one wonders what they could have been chit-chatting about. I’ll presume sauerkraut recipes weren’t the topic of discussion.

    • “But at least we agree that the Chechens were traitors and Stalin was duly justified in dispensing harsh justice against such traitors, especially when the Soviet Union was on the brink of annihilation.”

      Speak for yourself. Like Cynic said, why do you keep bringing up Banu Qurayza when that is exactly what you wanted to happen to the Chechens. Does your sympathy for victims of collective punishment vanish as soon as you realise that they’re Mooslim?

      “Stalin alleged that the peoples of the North Caucasus were responsible for mass collaboration with the Germans, despite the fact that an estimated 157,000 Chechen and Ingush conscripts had fought in the Red Army against Nazi Germany, and many had fought all the way to the liberation of Berlin”

      Judging by your rant, I assume you didn’t read the article.

  6. I did, and I also read the Wiki article this was pasted from – the Germans and Chechens held talks. That’s treason. That these talks broke down is no more consolation than the fact that the alleged talks between the Qurayza and B. Nadhir tribe never materialized into anything either. At least, that’s what I’m told to believe.

    I’m simply taking one’s logic and applying it to the situation involving the Chechens.

    • “That these talks broke down is no more consolation than the fact that the alleged talks between the Qurayza and B. Nadhir tribe never materialized into anything either”

      Sure. The talks were successful, the pagans were on their way and the Banu Qurayza would await their arrival and then join them and do the same to the Muslims. However, unlucky for both of them, the Prophet ordered a trench to be dug around the city, hence the name “Battle of the Trench”. This stopped the advance of the pagans, and prevented the Banu Qurayza from joining, because they would join as soon as the pagans arrived. In this crucial moment, the Prophet made his statement “War is deceit”, in order to justify the use of a lying in order to spread discord amongst the enemy and hence prevent the annihilation of the entire Muslim community. The pagan- Qurayza alliance broke down and the pagan offensive was repelled. Had this not happened, the 10,000 soldiers of the “Pagan-Jewish” Alliance would have overwhelmed the 3,000 Muslims and it is quite certain that a punishment similar to that found in the Torah in Deuteronomy 10 will have been dealt, if not by the Jews, then by the pagans.

      The Qurayza had committed treason by collaborating with the pagans. This is in violation of the Constitution of Medina, which they willingly signed long ago, in which it is stated “Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.” As you can see, this part of the Treaty was violated, hence treason was committed.

      Most importantly, the actual fighting would not have taken place had the Banu Qurayza not offered their support. The Quraysh were only confident in launching a full-scale invasion of Medina after they were sure that the Banu Qurayza would act as a fifth column.

      “A number of Jews who had formed a party against the apostle…went to Quraysh at Mecca and invited them to join them in an attack on the apostle so that they might get rid of them altogether. Quraysh said, “You, O Jews, are the first scripture people and know the nature of our dispute with Muhammad. Is our religion the best or his?” They replied that certainly their religion was better than his and they had a better claim to be in the right…These words rejoiced the Quraysh and they responded gladly to their invitation to fight the aposle, and they assembled and made their preparations”

      That’s from Ibn Ishaq’s Sira of the Prophet (PBUH), a source Islamophobes love to quote but only where it suits their points.

      BUT, there’s no need to discuss this at all. The problem here is that you know that the actions of the B.Qurayza constituted treason, and you are using it to justify the genocidal ramblings of Pamela Geller. Let’s accept for the moment that the Chechens did commit treason, is it okay for a woman in the 21st Century to support genocide even if someone else did it in the 7th Century? No. No way at all.

      So what are you trying to say? That Pamela Geller’s support of mass deportations and killings of Chechens is justified because of the Prophet’s actions? I don’t even need to ask that. That’s exactly what you are doing. Your “freedom fighter” and “outspoken lady” is supporting exactly what the man whom you hate did. The irony…

      Now, as for the Chechens, you can see that the mass deportations were because of a revolt. Not because of some negotiations between some Chechens and some Germans. These talks failed, and the obvious point is that 157,000 Chechens fought against Nazi Germany with Khanpasha Nuradilov being posthumously awarded the “Hero of the Soviet Union” award for killing 920 Nazis. The accusation that they collaborated with Nazi Germany, and hence deserve to be killed or deported, was made by Stalin, and Geller specifically agreed with Stalin here, despite her almost daily ramblings against socialists. In reality, he was just punishing them for a revolt for independence, which isn’t a bad thing. I can think of a few revolts that you would have happily supported, and me too, for example, the American revolution, the French Revolution. The Egyptian Democratic Revolution. Oh wait, maybe not the last one.

      Stalin was a brutal dictator. This kind of behavior is expected. But why the hell is Geller supporting it? What about the mythical “Leftist-Mooslim” alliance, or had it not been formed at this time?

  7. Did I even say there was a translation issue. Read my comment again. The problem is its “police blotter” tactics.

    When a website’s theme is to document (alleged/perceived) hate and incitement, I suppose that is the end result.

    I certainly see no difference between MEMRI and numerous other ‘watch’ type websites out there that chronicle public figures, groups and organizations.

    I’ll leave it to someone else to point out that SpencerWatch and LoonWatch operate in exactly the same way as MEMRI does.

    But again, I have difficulty in believing that you’re ignorant of all of these websites that track/chronicle Fox News, Sean Hannity, Republican politicians, the Western Media as a whole and pro-Israel organizations, etc.

    Suddenly its when MEMRI documents hate and incitement in the Arab/Muslim world does the site itself became a hate group.

    As I said, do you have any other alternative website or organizations which document hatred in the Muslim media?

    Any Muslim versions of the SPLC?

    • “When a website’s theme is to document (alleged/perceived) hate and incitement, I suppose that is the end result.”

      Their stated objective is “Bridging the language gap between the Middle East and the West”. At first glance, it’s just a peaceful little organisation that will just translate Arabic and Israeli media so that Westerners can understand their cultures better. Awwwh.

      But the truth is different. Is it a coincidence they only broadcast the bad stuff from Arab countries but only the good stuff from Israeli Tv? And why is that it deletes the context of many videos. The notorious Wafa Sultan video was about 5 mins long but the program was actually 1 hour. And the misrepresentation of facts is horrendous.

      There are videos entitled something like “Muslim scholar encourages domestic violence”, when the worst thing they said was that “disobedient women” should be given a “tap o’ the toothbrush”. Obviously that is still wrong but its hardly comparable to the horrific types of domestic violence women (and men) have faced throughout the world. There are women who have acid thrown over their faces in supposed “honour” attacks yet MEMRI’s here trying to convince everyone that every Muslim is evil because one scholar thinks it is appropriate to hit a woman with a toothbrush as a last resort, and even then to do so gently that the skin should not even become red.

      But whatever. I think its wrong even if it’s a toothbrush. If I go on Pakistani TV and say that in Urdu what are the chances that will make it to MEMRI’s youtube article. And I know of many people who have said such things on Pakistani TV, I am still waiting for MEMRI to upload them on its channel.

      Seriously, the Guardian article lays it out pretty well:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker

      And before you soil yourself with anger at this “left-wing” newspaper and start cursing the “Leftist-Mooslim” alliance, bare in mind this is the only major British newspaper that has ever allowed Robert Spencer to write an article (in which he defended Pamela Geller as a “freedom fighter” — Lol)

    • “I’ll leave it to someone else to point out that SpencerWatch and LoonWatch operate in exactly the same way as MEMRI does.”

      Does Loonwatch make another religious group as a whole look bad by only highlighting the bad stuff it does. No.

  8. Found anything to monitor the hateful comments made by Israeli rabbis?

    There are numerous watchdog websites that do just this. Loonwath is ironically one of them.

    Why would there be a Muslim website dedicated to spreading a bad image of themselves?

    Wow. Your comment speaks volumes.

    I guess you just admitted that there are *NO* Muslim watchdog groups that keep a tab on the anti-Semitic broadcasts on Hamas and PA television or throughout the Arab world.

    • “There are numerous watchdog websites that do just this. Loonwath is ironically one of them.”

      That’s not Loonwatch’s objective. But when it has done so, it is usually only so that we can close our eyes and imagine the outrage had the Rabbi been an Imam. And the stories are usually copied from Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper.

      Loonwatch also makes it clear that the Rabbi’s hateful comments are not representative of Judaism. Take this article for example, where Jewish writer Gefilte dissects Rabbi Shlomo Lewis’ hateful speech and makes clear that he is not being a good Jew.

      http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/shlomo-lewis-atlanta-5771-might-as-well-be-1935/

      When is Jihadwatch getting a Muslim writer that will have the opportunity to put a disclaimer on any story about a bad Imam and say “this guy doesn’t represent me”. Because if it did do that, then Spencerwatch would never have been created.

      “I guess you just admitted that there are *NO* Muslim watchdog groups that keep a tab on the anti-Semitic broadcasts on Hamas and PA television or throughout the Arab world.”

      Is there any reason for there to be one? Since MEMRI and others like “Honest Reporting” seem to be doing such a fine job. Doesn’t it make sense that Jews monitor anti-semitism whilst Muslims monitor Islamophobia.

      There are Muslim groups who do combat antisemitism such as the UK based “Muslims against anti-semitism” but I don’t know any that catalogue anti-semitic comments MEMRI-style.

      http://ma-as.org.uk/

      • But when it has done so, it is usually only so that we can close our eyes and imagine the outrage had the Rabbi been an Imam.

        Certainly there wouldn’t be any outrage over such statements from an Imam in the Muslim world.

        That’s the point.

        Is there any reason for there to be one?

        Are you seriously asking if there’s any point for Muslims to operate watchdog websites chronicling hate and incitement in the Muslim world for the purpose of informing Muslims?

        Seriously?

        • “Certainly there wouldn’t be any outrage over such statements from an Imam in the Muslim world.”

          Hahah. You are funny. You think there is no outrage when Imams make such statements? What about the Imams that have been arrested in Bangladesh and Pakistan for their tendencies to declare people apostates during Friday sermons and hence call the worshippers to kill them. What about the Imams at Red Mosque in Islamabad, who were put under a deadly siege and one of them was killed, because they were extremists. Imams are also pit under a leash in Turkey, to the extent that they don’t usually wear their Imam clothes outside the mosque in case they are recognised.

          “Are you seriously asking if there’s any point for Muslims to operate watchdog websites chronicling hate and incitement in the Muslim world for the purpose of informing Muslims?”

          I said that if MEMRI and others are doing such a wonderful job, then why should us Mooslims join in. I gave you the link to a website from Muslims against Anti-Semitism. But no one is going into “police blotter” mode because many other organisations are taking care of that.

          And also, if the point is simply about getting Muslims informed about the hate then Muslims are quite informed about it from newspapers and magazines from more left wing writers. For example, in Pakistan, the DAWN newspaper is a great source that regularly writes about the anti-Ahmadiyya speeches of Imams, as well as their anti-Christian speeches and often their tendency to declare people apostates in their sermons. Also, there is criticism of hypocritical mullahs that regularly attack TV Personalities whilst ignoring their own problem

          So I suppose the “liberal” DAWN newspaper counts, even though its specific purpose isn’t covering the hate in the media.

          • Actually Bob, listen to the debate between “Angry Arab” and Irshad Manji. He makes a good point that there are people speaking against anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, but you don’t speak a word of Arabic, Urdu, Turkish, etc. Also, it’s not our fault that your knowledge is limited to what you read on hate sites.

          • Actually Bob, listen to the debate “Angry Arab” and Irshad Manji. He makes a good point that there are people speaking against anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, but you don’t speak a word of Arabic, Urdu, Turkish, etc. Also, it’s not our fault that your sole source of “information” is hate sites like JihadWatch.

        • “Certainly there wouldn’t be any outrage over such statements from an Imam in the Muslim world.”

          Compare the outrage over what Sheik Qardawi said about killing Israeli women [because they’re in the Israeli army] and the outrage over the genocidal comments of a prominent Israeli Rabbi, then come back to me. Otherwise, please continue defending the genocidal ramblings of Pamela Geller and Hugh Fitzgerald.

          ”Seriously?”

          Seriously.

          • Surely you’re not referring to ‘Moderate’ Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi and must be referring to some other guy who doesn’t have a popular TV show on al-Jizya and who isn’t bestowed such honorific titles from Islamophilic Western academics, such as John Esposito?

            No, you must be referring to someone else, because our pal, Qaradawi, would never support terrorism or pass the buck on Islamic extremism onto the ‘Zionists’.

            🙂

          • Ah, so you admit that the outrage over Qardawi has been far greater than that over the genocidal Rabbi? Note that you actually support the genocidal Rabbi.

          • Ok, so which Muslim operated *Watchdog* groups would you refer me to?

            Surely there’s a Muslim version of the SLPC, etc. Correct?

          • Sure, in the non-Muslim, non-Loon blogosphere, there has been outrage over the nutjob Sheik for his views.

            Not sure how that deals with the current point being discussed.

            Happy to hear your explanation.

          • Ok, so which Muslim operated *Watchdog* groups would you refer me to?

            Firstly, don’t pretend that you care for the opinions of Muslims. I remember quite well how you referred to them as “horrible people” and called for a Muslim country to be ethnically cleansed and replaced with a Christian nation. As for Watchdog groups, no one mentioned them except for you. If you want to know about them then why are you asking me—ask the “Angry Arab”.

            Sure, in the non-Muslim, non-Loon blogosphere, there has been outrage over the nutjob Sheik for his views.

            There was outrage everywhere, not just among hypocritical loons. Even Juan Cole takes at least some issue with Qardawi—just do a Google search. You do realize that he was banned from Britian and the United States?

            http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=53683&d=30&m=10&y=2004

            Not sure how that deals with the current point being discussed.

            Happy to hear your explanation.

            I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy. You supported a genocidal Rabbi while carping about comments Qardawi made about seven years ago.

          • Nice link, NassirH.

            “Over 2,500 Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries have signed a petition to the United Nations calling for an international treaty to ban the use of religion for incitement to violence…The signatories describe those who use religion for inciting violence as “the sheikhs of death”. Among those mentioned by name is Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian preacher working in Qatar. The signatories accuse him of “providing a religious cover for terrorism.”…“We cannot let such dangerous nonsense to pass as Islam,” Nablusi said”

            Nope, no outrage here.

  9. The tragedy of this transfer of Chechens from their ancestral home is mocked by Geller and her friends, and why should we be surprised as Geller supports the same thing for Palestinians. The transfer of Chechens led to over a quarter of the population dying.

    And look how far they’ve come since then. Beslan was the work of the intrepid mujahideen. I’m sure Allah was pleased with all the infidel children being gang raped and murdered.

    • “And look how far they’ve come since then. Beslan was the work of the intrepid mujahideen. I’m sure Allah was pleased with all the infidel children being gang raped and murdered.”

      So basically, you agree with Geller’s conclusion that Chechen children should have been killed because a few of them would grow up to become terrorists. Reminds me of all the “Sheikhs of Death” who agree that the Jewish children being killed in the Holocaust was justified because they would grow up to be oppressors of the Palestinians. Whilst both me and you will condemn such loons, and rightly so, it is appalling that you won’t take the same stance with another ethnic group.

      “I’m sure Allah was pleased with all the infidel children being gang raped and murdered.”

      The killing of children is against Islam, so hopefully the terrorists (I won’t dignify them by calling them mujahideen) should be facing the punishment that they deserve.

      • (I won’t dignify them by calling them mujahideen)

        Right, because Islamic holy warriors who fight non-believers and conquer land for Islam would naturally be dignified and revered.

        • No, I said that phrase only because you called them “mujahideen” hence you were the one legitimising their actions.

          I made it clear from the start that they were terrorists, and nothing but terrorists, and they should not be treated like Holy Warriors because there is nothing holy about killing children.

  10. http://stosstruppen39-45.tripod.com/id10.html

    Even Stalin ordered deportations to the east some of Soviet Muslim nationalities whose representatives had fraternized with the Germans – like Chechens, Balkars, Ingushi, Karachais, and Crimean Tartars. The first four of these nationalities – or what was left of them – were allowed to return to their homes after Stalin’s death, while the Crimea Tartars – the most notoriously collaborator – could return only after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *