JihadWatch Calls for Unconstitutional Reforms to Ghettoize Muslims, Sparks Genocidal Rage Among Readers

We have long bemoaned the militant hate-speech elicited by countless inflammatory and downright fascist posts at Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch. Garibaldi exposed his “Stop the Islamization of America” as an anti-Muslim hate group based on its European counterpart.

Lately, Spencer has posted articles by the mysterious Roland Shirk, someone we know nothing about, probably because he is another one of Spencer’s pen-names (like Hugh Fitzgerald). Apparently, Mr. Shirk is a mouthpiece for JihadWatch’s more belligerent attacks on the constitutional freedoms of indigenous law-abiding Muslims. Hewrites his latest article about how religious discrimination is our only way to stop a world war against Islam:

If the influx is stopped in the next few years, and Western societies overcome the self-gelding political correctness and hysterical scrupulosity that drives them to hold their own societies to an inhuman standard of Kantian selflessness–while endlessly indulging the sins of newcomers–it’s possible that we will keep our freedoms intact without a major violent confrontation. For that to happen, we’d need to slam shut our borders, cut welfare programs that allow recent immigrants to breed irresponsibly on the taxpayers’ dime, rigorously enforce laws suppressing sedition, infiltrate and expose terror networks already in our midst, and push back hard against attempts to force an alien religion into our cultural mainstream.

Did you get that? Mr. Shirk wants us to end all Muslim immigration, period. Nevermind that this would be economically impossible or the glaring hypocrisy of the fact that Mr. Shirk’s ancestors at one time were likely immigrants in a new land. But how should we deal with the Muslims already here?

We’d essentially have to reduce Islamic enclaves to the condition of the Basques–midsized, deeply disgruntled minorities treasuring claims against our territory, without the power to do much more than disrupt the peace, and occasionally murder some policemen. (Of course, the Basques have old, and in some ways legitimate grievances, since they really were here first–while the Muslims have none–but that’s not really the issue.)

Ghettoization. Mr. Shirk is clear he sees no place for Muslims in Western society at all. Islam is “alien.”Nevermind that official U.S. government documents, such as the historical Treaty of Peace and Friendship, ensure a place for Muslims in America:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims), and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

History has never been very important at JihadWatch anyway. Mr. Shirk goes on to accuse Western leaders of “demographic treason” for not discriminating against immigrants because of their religion. He outlines the nightmare scenario for his readers:

But that’s not even the worst conceivable outcome of the demographic treason committed by Western leaders who admitted so many Muslims. From a humanitarian point of view, it might be even worse if some European countries woke up to the Muslim threat while others did not–and the governments of those countries on either side of the divide formed into regional blocs. The divide between dhimmi and anti-dhimmi countries would become every bit as sharp as that which sundered Europe during the Cold War.

For Mr. Shirk, the very presence of Muslims, law-abiding or not, could possibly lead to a world war in Europe between so-called dhimmi and anti-dhimmi countries. He sums up his argument in the final line:

Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat. We had better decide which posture we prefer. The time is short. 

Either we subjugate the Muslims (with discrimination, stigmatization, and dehumanization), or else they will destroy our civilization. For Mr. Shirk, there is no difference between normal mainstream moderate Muslims, who are proven by scientific polls to be the vast majority, and radical fringe extremists like Al-Qaeda. No need for inconvenient details or nuance. There is simply no chance for peaceful co-existence due to the inherently evil nature of Islam. Time is short.

Indeed, this is the message picked up loud and clear by his readers who vigorously encourage only the harshest measures to be applied indiscriminately against all Muslims.

Buraq, our first commenter, pulls out the usual genocidal anti-Muslim nuclear card:

Very well put! And not a word wasted.

However, if we wish to survive, then we have to ‘go nuclear’. What I mean is that Al Qur’an has to be Hiroshamized, or Nagasaki-ed, if you like…

It’s as simple as that.

Armed Infidel wants to declare war on all Muslim countries and “confiscate” all mosques:

With the full and unyielding support of our National Command Authority and ALL our Congressional Representatives, the following actions should implemented:

• Declare war on all nation states, non-state actors, or proxies (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah) anywhere in the world that are based upon or support the Islamic doctrine of Sharia, in particular Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran…

• Systematically deport all Muslims from inside our national borders and stop the legal immigration and/or entry of all Muslims into America who are unwilling to denounce all aspects of Sharia, swear allegiance to our American Constitution, and assimilate fully (by way of their actions and deeds) into our American culture and way of life as loyal and law-abiding citizens…

• Confiscate all existing Islamic mosques under the laws of eminent domain. Prohibit the building of all new mosques. Declare that all mosques are nothing more than political and military command and control centers for Islam.

How one swears allegiance to the Constitution while systematically denying fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution is left to our legal imagination.

John K thinks having normal relationships with Muslims is akin to appeasement of Hitler because the real Muslim-Christian holy war is yet to come:

Having been an ardent student of WWII Europe in my youth, I can see the same patterns emerging here as we relive the Chamberlain appeasement phase at the present time. I can also see that we are not going to do anything about Islam until the real war starts. What we have now are just the Rhineland and Sudetenland occupation phases.

Rich thinks Islam shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment:

There are two ways to win.

1. Stop the massive immigration

2. By declaring Islam a Political ideology and removing its protection as a religion.

Ethoman explains his understanding of what Muslims believe:

They plan to subjugate and murder our children the same exact way they subjugate and murder non-Muslims all over the world that have fallen under their dominion. They believe “God” promised them this … They are quite confident right now.

DP111 explains the pickle in which the anti-Muslim movement finds itself:

The question is how to stop Muslim immigration without it appearing as religious discrimination. The next question is how to reverse Muslim immigration. Both need to be done in a manner that does not appear discriminatory, does not require laws to be passed that are viewed as unconstitutional.

Advancing an unconstitutional agenda while not appearing unconstitutional? Yes, that is very tricky. But alas, DP111 has a solution to save Western civilization:

The only solution left is total war, which is the way Western nations operate. Muslims do not seem to understand that Western nations modern war strategy is based on total war till the enemy surrenders, ie unconditional surrender.

Battle of Tours agrees:

“Violent confrontation” with Islam/Jihad/Sharia societal violence is inevitable, no matter what or who happens. This is the “Next World War” in the making.

R.K.MacUalraig also agrees:

Not only am I in favor of all Muslims in the West being deported, but I’m for a reconquista of all formerly Christian and Jewish lands in the Middle East, EU, and Asia.

Sonofwalker thinks that spitting on local Muslims or otherwise indiscriminately insulting them is a good way to fight the “crusade” against Islam:

As an example, one might spit on a Muslim shop window or litter on a mosque property. One man doing so is a small thing, and it’s not going to see anyone harmed. If all the informed readers in this field would do some small act, then there would be multiple thousands of acts daily that in combination would accumulate into a massive action against Islam. That’s how I would attempt to destroy Islam, step by tiny step till there is a storm of activities. It is, in effect, a crusade.

Susan thinks all Muslims should be punished for the next terror attack by destroying Mecca or another “fancy mosque”:

I heard a fellow on the radio say that we had to tell Muslims that every time they committed a terrorist act, we would obliterate one of their holy shrines, starting with that big black box thing in Saudi Arabia. And after they got over the shock of seeing the black box thing laying in splinters on the ground, we would then (following their next terrorist act) obliterate one of those fancy mosques.

Perhaps Susan does not realize that collective punishment is a war crime (or perhaps that does not concern her).

EliasX thinks we should “rollback” the Muslims (in other words, repeat the expulsions carried out during the Crusades):

Roland,

Interesting piece.

You omit one strategy that worked in the past vis-à-vis Muslim conquest and colonization: “rollback.” This happened in southern France and southern Italy, Spain, Sicily, central Europe, the Balkans, and Russia, not to mention during the Crusades. Thus, “expulsion” is a viable option for a society threatened with extinction or “subjugation.”

These comments are a typical day of Muslim-bashing at JihadWatch. Perhaps Newt Gingrich will think twice before bragging about Spencer’s endorsement. But remember, Spencer isn’t legally responsible for the rampant hate speech he provokes as per his disclaimer: “The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.”

In other words, Spencer wants to use his right to declare Islam an evil religion whose adherents “can only be at your feet or at your throat” but then he doesn’t want to take responsibility for his readers actually following his argument to its logical conclusion: hate crimes. In the name of free speech, he leaves comments on his website that directly call for violence against Muslims. But again, he’s not responsible… technically.

How else are concerned citizens able to protect their country from the imminent Islamic invasion being facilitated by the secret Moozlim President?

77 thoughts on “JihadWatch Calls for Unconstitutional Reforms to Ghettoize Muslims, Sparks Genocidal Rage Among Readers

  1. Amazing article!

    Roland Shirk seems like a carbon copy of Hugh Fitzgerald. They both enjoy calling for extreme solutions to the “Mooslim” problem, although it’s probably because someone has to bring it up on Jihadwatch and Spencer refrains from doing so because it’ll probably get picked up by some news outlets, and he has to keep up his “moderate Islamophobe” image.

    I especially love Sonofwalker’s call to start a ‘spit crusade’. Bring it on!

    :D

  2. Did you get that? Mr. Shirk wants us to end all Muslim immigration, period.

    I think the citizens of a country should get to decide who they want coming into their country.

    There’s nothing ‘racist’ about that.

    • “I think the citizens of a country should get to decide who they want coming into their country.”

      In a democracy, right? In a democracy, people are able to make decisions about their future.

      Too bad you want to deprive Egyptians of that right…

        • It’s discrimination if you prevent the entry to anyone simply based on whether the person believes in God and the Prophet Muhammad as the Messenger of God.

          “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”
          –Benjamin Franklin.

          Shut up, Dhimmi!

        • So you have no problem with the author’s call for ghettoizing Muslims based on their (assumed) religious beliefs? And you see no problem with his readers’ genocidal hatred?

  3. Regardless, I think the citizens of a country should be able who they want allowed into their country, what’s wrong with that?

    I don’t see the Loons spazzing out over Muslim attempts to stifle free speech at the UN.

    • “Regardless, I think the citizens of a country should be able who they want allowed into their country, what’s wrong with that?”

      So you agree that citizens of a country should be able to make decisions about their own country. Unless they’re Egyptian, it seems.

      “I don’t see the Loons spazzing out over Muslim attempts to stifle free speech at the UN.”

      How is that at all related to topic of discussion? Obviously, you realised it was hypocritical of you to support democracy whilst simultaneously denying it to Egyptians.

    • And obviously you didn’t read the whole article, because, as the title suggests, it’s what he wants to do with Muslims who have already arrived that’s out of order. And the genocidal rage that he has inspired within the JWers is outrageous, but utterly hilarious. “Spit Crusade”. LOL.

      But still, stopping immigration based in religion is a dumb idea but I agree, if the citizens got together and wanted to discriminate against another group of people then nothing can be done about it, and it has happened before. That’s one of the few downsides to democracy, but we live with it.

      • Before you wonder what was the “out of order” part, it was the ghettoisation of Muslims. All immigrant Muslims, regardless of who they are, as long as they believe in one God and that Muhammad is a messenger of God, they don’t deserve to live with everyone else.

  4. Before you wonder what was the “out of order” part, it was the ghettoisation of Muslims.

    But hasn’t that already happened with many Muslims forming enclaves in western countries, especially UK and France, where police have advised there are no-go zones for non-Muslims. Currently. in France there are about 80 no-go zones for non-Muslims because authorities cannot guarantee their safety.

    In Australia, there is current debate that we don’t want to head down that path and should do something to stop these enclaves forming which also serves as a breeding ground for radical Islam. What is wrong with Muslims assimilating into western society? Why don;t they want to do this and instead form enclaves where non-Muslims fear to tread.

    • Their supremacist ideology is what keeps them from integrating into the filthy infidel culture. They are there to slowly invade and colonize former Muslim land… not to integrate.

      • “They are there to slowly invade and colonize former Muslim land… not to integrate.”

        Britain is “former Muslim land”? Oh yes, now I remember, Britain under the Islamic era. Good times. Stonehenge was previously a mosque until the damn Pagans took over.

        Seriously, do you honestly believe that’s the reason we came here. To “colonise” and “invade”.

        So, you’re trying to say that we are going to mass migrate to a land, kick out the natives and declare independence. I’ve heard this before somewhere, hmmm..

        America and Israel. :)

        Your two favourite countries were formed in exactly the same way that you claim we will create Eurabia.

    • “But hasn’t that already happened with many Muslims forming enclaves in western countries, especially UK and France, where police have advised there are no-go zones for non-Muslims. Currently. in France there are about 80 no-go zones for non-Muslims because authorities cannot guarantee their safety.”

      Marty, why do you act like such a Leftist-Dhimmi and minimise our crimes? The real figure, according to the always-reliable Daniel Pipes, is 751 “no-go” zones. Whose fault do you think that is by the way, the Muslims coming into the country or the government that should be in charge of managing the immigrants and actually ensuring that ghettos don’t form and which has the resources to do so but is too busy debating whether covering your face should be a crime.

      “What is wrong with Muslims assimilating into western society? ”

      Nothing. Mr.Shirk disagrees, he would rather keep the “dirty Moozlems” away from the clean white people. He wants us to live as “midsized, deeply disgruntled minorities treasuring claims against our territory, without the power to do much more than disrupt the peace, and occasionally murder some policemen.” Feel the love. Did he consider the possibility that maybe if the Muslim communities were to spread out more, perhaps with incentives such as reduced rent our housing prices, that “enclaves” would not be built. No, he would rather just shove us all in some crappy housing on the outskirts of the city.

      “Why don;t they want to do this and instead form enclaves where non-Muslims fear to tread.”

      We don’t purposefully form enclaves. We didn’t come from out home countries with plans laid out that detail how we would simultaneously buy houses at exactly the same place, list out who gets control of the kebab shops and who gets the monopoly on the taxi industry. None of this was planned. It all just happens. The people in these ghettos didn’t know each other. They came into the country, and the government that should have made sure that they were not housed in ghettos on their own but instead housed along with everyone else.

      So, yeah, I blame the government that the people of France had confidence in that they would do the right thing. Because Muslims came individually, for their own reasons, and they could have been managed easily.

      “to stop these enclaves forming which also serves as a breeding ground for radical Islam. ”

      I agree. That’s usually where the problem begins which is why it is essential the government ensures that the integration process is easier.

      The biggest problem was treating us as “guest workers” but then doing everything possible to make us stay. So you have now millions of people that are neither here nor there, thanks to this policy.

      • So, yeah, I blame the government that the people of France had confidence in that they would do the right thing. Because Muslims came individually, for their own reasons, and they could have been managed easily.

        Typical. Blame the government that welcomed you with open arms, allowed you to set up tent cities to avoid integrating with the filthy infidel swine whom you can’t stand, and offer you all the welfare benefits you could possibly hope for. Benefits that you wouldn’t have gotten anywhere else.

        • “Blame the government that welcomed you with open arms”

          No. The government that only accepted us because it was in a crappy state after WWII, so it called us over as “guest workers” and never really wanted us to integrate. Just take up jobs at a low wage, and go. But of course, things are never that simple.

          “allowed you to set up tent cities to avoid integrating with the filthy infidel swine whom you can’t stand”

          Yes, because we had plenty of money lying around to build these cities. They are the result of bad management and that is the government’s fault. They could have controlled how many people were coming in, what jobs they were taking, where they were being housed etc.

          • They could have controlled how many people were coming in, what jobs they were taking, where they were being housed etc.

            Wow, we agree on something? Limiting the amount of immigrants who are flooding into Europe?

            If I said that, it would be Islamophobia.

            Doesn’t that put the kibosh on one of the ways Islam will win in Europe though? Procreation, immigration, conversion.

          • “If I said that, it would be Islamophobia.

            Doesn’t that put the kibosh on one of the ways Islam will win in Europe though? Procreation, immigration, conversion.”

            I agreed with JihadBob above that if a country wants to limit immigration then there’s nothing stopping it. In a democracy, the people decide their own futures. No need to be surprise and put my comments in bold.

            But the government let the people in. If the Muslim who came as an individual to blame if the government let in millions of other like him. No.

            “Limiting the amount of immigrants who are flooding into Europe?”

            Yes. They could have limited it back then. But according to most Islamophobes, it’s too late, there are too many damn Mooslims in the country and the slow transformation to Eurabia has begun. And it kicks off with a series of laws being passed that prevent Muslims from doing things like building places of worship, or building minarets, or wearing the niqab, or wearing the hijab in public schools, or eating their own meat (The Swiss have banned Halal and Kosher since 1893)

            Just out of curiosity, have you read the article?

            Your fellow loon DP11 explains the problem but offers a solution, a final solution.

            “The next question is how to reverse Muslim immigration…The only solution left is total war”

            So that’s supposed to be a “moderate Islamophobe”?

          • “The only solution left is total war, which is the way Western nations operate. Muslims do not seem to understand that Western nations modern war strategy is based on total war till the enemy surrenders, ie unconditional surrender.”

            Dp11! Why are you misunderstanding the ways of Western civilisation? JihadBob and Quaid why don’t you pop down to Dp11′s house and explain to him how this behaviour is wrong and against Western principles. Explain to him that only evil Mooslims commit total war whilst Western nations shower their enemies with rainbows, flowers, candy and of course, hugs and kisses. But whatever happens, there sure seems to be a lot of people misunderstanding the Civilisation of Peace™.

        • Funny how you’re now defending the “Leftist-Dhimmi” governments of Europe that is supposedly bending to our will by banning us from building minarets, limiting the construction of mosques and placing restrictions on what we eat and how we dress.

    • Oh come on Marty… Stop with the hyperbole! “Non-Muslims fear to tread” in the inner-West of Sydney and elsewhere do they?

      That must be why I see so many Chinese restaurants, Tongans, Pacific Islanders, Sudanese Christians, Congolese (almost entirely Christian or Animist), Thais, “Anglos” etc. when visiting Auburn, for example. Have you ever been to one of the Multicultural festivals hosted by Auburn Council, for example? Or why when visiting Mawson in Canberra or elsewhere the majority of customers in many of the Muslim shops are majority “Anglo”. Yes, they definitely fear to tread.

      • They’re in sleeper mode. They’re simply waiting for more Muslim immigration and higher numbers of Muslim child-births before they become activated. Until that time, why not take a little money from the infidels? They’ve got a lot of jizya to make up for.

        • He was referring to people like you. *facepalm*.

          It’s okay, you can continue spew nonsense about taxes that have been abolished for 1.5 centuries.

        • “They’re in sleeper mode. They’re simply waiting for more Muslim immigration and higher numbers of Muslim child-births before they become activated. ”

          You mean there’s some kind of “taqiyya switch” on my body that can be magically activated by Master Osama, turning us Mooslims into an army of robotic jihadis at any point. What about all the Mooslims such as Anjem Choudary and the 7/7 bombers, were their “taqiyya switches” faulty? Why did they get activated before the non-existent take-over of Europe had been completed?

          Dude, either lay off the crack or keep believing your local kebab shop is a secret terrorist command centre.

  5. Lately, Spencer has posted articles by the mysterious Roland Shirk, someone we know nothing about, probably because he is another one of Spencer’s pen-names (like Hugh Fitzgerald)

    Right, because it’s impossible for more people than Robert Spencer to have a negative opinion about Islam. It’s all his fault. He’s the father of Islamophobia! /sarc.

    Trying to whip up your more radical readers into dealing with the Spencer problem on their own?

    Islam, as it is today and how it has always been, and the West are truly incompatible. They are as incompatible as capitalism and communism, and they cannot exist in the same place at the same time. One will have to win out at one point or another. You Muslims are attempting to help your side win demographics and deceit, and the West is trying to survive by acknowledging the truth of what is happening. You hate the truth, that’s why you lie. It’s the only way to keep us asleep while our societies are being rotted out by the cancer of Islam right before our eyes. My hope is that the rest of us wake up before it’s too late.

    • “Right, because it’s impossible for more people than Robert Spencer to have a negative opinion about Islam. It’s all his fault. He’s the father of Islamophobia! /sarc.”

      Obviously, you’ve been missing out on the whole Fitzgerald/Spencer thing.

      http://spencerwatch.com/who-is-hugh-fitzgerald/

      “Trying to whip up your more radical readers into dealing with the Spencer problem on their own?”

      Sure. Because that’s exactly what this is all about. It’s not like Jihadwatchers are being “whipped up” into supporting the use of nuclear weapons against Muslims.

      “You hate the truth, that’s why you lie. It’s the only way to keep us asleep while our societies are being rotted out by the cancer of Islam right before our eyes. My hope is that the rest of us wake up before it’s too late.”

      Go wake them up. Stop wasting your time spamming these site. Go, run, wake up your fellow dhimmis and be free!

      Or you can lay off the crack.

  6. It’s the only way to keep us asleep while our societies are being rotted out by the cancer of Islam right before our eyes.

    This brings back sweet memories of Robby Spencer’s crazy antics…

    Quaid, you sound really angry. Perhaps you should punch a pillow and take a nap instead of spamming hate on Spencerwatch. Also, since we’re on the subject of Muslim immigrants. Muslim immigrants in the United States are better educated and consequently have higher standards of living than the average American. They also don’t live in enclaves either.

  7. I thought we’ve already established why Ahni can’t make blanket statements like “Islam and the West are incompatible”…as he knows jack shit about Islam. Posting under another name doesn’t change that buddy. Here’s a question for ya ‘Quaid’: is the reason you’re trolling here because you agree with the calls for Muslims to be ghettoized (no strawmans about Muslims supposedly doing that themselves please)…or best of all; Hirotshima’d or Nagasaki’d? You’d like that wouldn’t you?

    • No, I don’t want them nuked. I do support mass deportations for any Muslims not willing to align themselves with Western norms and values. In other words, if they are here in the West for no other reason than to expand their sphere of influence and help usher in an Islamic society, they have no business here. Only bad things could come from having these people in our society, and the evidence of this is becoming quite clear in Europe. In the US, we have existing sedition laws that can be enforced to take action against such a threat. Any groups sympathetic to terrorist organizations should be deported. Any Muslims who talk fondly about jihad need to be deported. Any Muslims committing religious crimes, like trying to honor kill their relatives, should be jailed and then deported. Any problems with this?

      I’m also in favor of severely limiting the amount of immigration into the West from Islamic countries. With the way the existing immigrants are reproducing, there will be no shortage of Muslims anyway. Until the religion can be successfully defanged, most likely by you so-called “moderate Muslims”, the West simply cannot take the chance of having more and more Muslim extremists in our midst. Political correctness is not worth as much as saving lives, and having less Muslims in the West will undoubtedly do that. Less rape too. Your coreligionists love to rape white women, as any crime statistic from the UK, Norway, and Sweden demonstrates.

      • I don’t see you condemning JW and it’s commentators for expressing the desire to completely annihilate a quarter of the world’s population. So don’t give me that bullshit about you not wanting to nuke the Moozlimz. You wouldn’t give a flying fuck if that were to happen. So much for being a defender of freedom yada yada.

        Your entire point is moot because the number of Muslims who come to the West “for no other reason than to expand their sphere of influence and help usher in an Islamic society” is literally next to zero…despite the best efforts of demagogues like Spencer in trying to prove otherwise.

        But you can continue to lap up the taqiyya-spray as much as you want…you’re clearly content to be brainwashed.

        • Can’t I just rely on a blanket condemnation I made at some indeterminate point in the past as my justification for not needing to address this? Seems to work for some people.

          • You’re starting to sound like a broken record now Ahni. It’s okay for you to be “secretly delighted” at the genocide of 1.6 billion people…just like Master Fitzgerald told you to be.

          • “Can’t I just rely on a blanket condemnation I made at some indeterminate point in the past”

            Sure. Go ahead. But, could you give me a link to where you made such a blanket condemnation.

            Also, you might want to renew that condemnation at some point, Islamic scholars who condemn the terrorist incidents do so every time.

          • Lol. Check out Ahni’s “blanket condemnation” of genocide against Mooslims.

            In response to yet another genocidal loon on JW, Moharebeh (Ahni) wrote “Don’t try and tar Robert Spencer’s work with your ideas of genocide, pal.”

            His only problem with the idea of genocide against Mooslims is that Spencer will look bad. Not even mentioning that genocide would violate Muslims human rights or talk about how not 100% Muslims are bad. I think you’re right Cynic, he’s “secretly delighted” as that is the official advice of Jihadwatch.

            Problem is, that Spencer has advocated genocide himself:

            http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/04/robert-spencer-wanna-be-conquistador/

          • That logic doesn’t even make sense. If I supported the idea of genocide (which I don’t), you would think that I would be content, if not happy, about the fact that Robert’s articles are causing some people to overreact and support unproductive solutions to the problems that Muslims are causing.

          • Why not condemn the extremists on your side as we condemn the extremists on our side.

            You’ll probably dismiss our condemnations as taqiyya but we won’t do the same with yours :)

            Yeah, so if you want us to believe you, then say something like “I disagree with Spencer’s genocidal ramblings but agree with everything else”. Seriously, the man has said some worrying things that means perhaps you shouldn’t take him as a role model. Aren’t his contributions making it difficult for you to “wake up” your people to the threat of radical Islam, especially when the people are going to be able to spot hatred from a mile away. You come on this site to defend him when you know that he has called for a “new type of crusade”. I’m not afraid to disagree with Loonwatch, why are you afraid of Spencer?

            “unproductive solutions to the problems that Muslims are causing.”

            I think mass deportations are unproductive too. Sure, kick out crazies like Al-Qaeda linked preachers and Anjem Choudary, but keep people like me. :D . Mass deportations of Muslims will only piss them off further.

            My suggestion to eliminate the threat of domestic terrorism (assuming that’s the real problem you have with us being here), is to increase the interaction with the Muslim community, the mosques and the people who run them. The key is to convince Muslims that the West is not at war with Islam. I have been surprised by the number of Muslims from other countries who assume that just because I live in the West, that the government must be oppressing me. Obviously, I have to defend my host country at that point, telling them about the mosques we are allowed to build, the freedom we have to practice our religion, with some Muslims having more freedom than they would do at home. But it’s difficult convincing anyone, all they hear is the news of a Burqa ban, Minaret ban, the Ground Zero mosque controversy and other controversies surrounding the depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

            Basically, you don’t want Muslims around the world thinking that the America is on a Crusade against the Muslims, because the Muslims who will interpret it as a Crusade will respond with Jihad. And you hate Jihad. :D

          • Basically, you don’t want Muslims around the world thinking that the America is on a Crusade against the Muslims, because the Muslims who will interpret it as a Crusade will respond with Jihad. And you hate Jihad. :D

            I interpreted your post as “appeasement is the answer.” Continue to allow a nonstop flow of Muslim immigrants decide what the future of our society will be.

            The burqa ban is an attempt by the governments to assimilate Muslims into Western society and prevent them from their self-segregation. How is somebody wearing a potato sack from head-to-toe supposed to blend in to a Western style melting pot? They can’t. And, honestly, the sight of a fully niqab’ed Muslima is offensive because of what it represents. It represents a break from Western values, that women are more like property than people (inb4 the Muslim “modesty” justification). Plus, they look like fucking terrorists. They are eyesores, and they put people on alert.

            If “the West being at war with Islam” means refusing to sacrifice our principals and society in order to accommodate Muslims who wish to live here, then I guess we should be at war with Islam. The West should be as hardheaded about protecting its own culture as Muslims are. Muslims who come here should be fully aware that the kind of society they are coming into is not going to become the society they left behind in Islamistan. Either embrace that, or GTFO.

          • Dude, you seriously need to learn the difference between some Muslims and all fucking Muslims, everywhere.

        • “I interpreted your post as “appeasement is the answer.” ”

          Right. Because that’s exactly what I meant. To be honest, I made many concessions in my comment. Not only did I concede that there is a domestic terror threat (that threatens me just as much as it threatens you), but I offered some alternative suggestions that didn’t involve sending me back to “wherever the bloody hell you came from” as many would say.

          If anything, I was appeasing you. Hoping that if I admitted there was a domestic terror threat, perhaps you might understand that I’m not a terrorist whose going to blow something up tomorrow, despite your numerous remarks that the FBI should keep an eye on me, and we could find some common ground. But now I know you’re not an Islamophobe looking for peace with Muslims, you agree with Shirk’s statement that I can only be “at your feet” or “at your throat”, instead of being side by side with you and shaking your hand.

          “Plus, they look like fucking terrorists. They are eyesores, and they put people on alert.”

          LOL. Seems like I touched a nerve with my Burqa comment. It is my opinion and that of many other Islamic scholars, that the Burqa is not a requirement, it has been adopted from cultures and made by some people to be a religious thing. So when we have choice, we prefer women not to wear it. But at the end of the day, it’s the choice of the person wearing it. If someone wants to wear a “potato sack”, then they have the freedom to do so, and they should do, if the West is to insist that it is democratic. But if the women is being forced, that is wrong. It’s a shame an “Islamofascist” has to lecture you on what it means to live in a “free society”.

          “The burqa ban is an attempt by the governments to assimilate Muslims into Western society and prevent them from their self-segregation.”

          Wow. Looks like they failed. How the hell could ripping a piece of cloth from the faces of the few Muslim women who wear the veil, whilst simultaneously criticizing Mooslims about democracy, possibly assimilate Muslims? It has made Muslims quite angry and has only furthered anti-Western sentiment. Muslim women who don’t wear the veil (who are in the large majority) are pissed off too, even though they don’t wear it but they see it as an attack on Muslims in general. I was angry too, even though it doesn’t personally affect me. I didn’t do anything about it, instead I used the occasion to have a good laugh about Western hypocrisy. The same West that soils itself when Dubai police stops a British woman who was walking into a busy Dubai shopping mall wearing only a bikini, and moans and whines about women’s right to wear what they want, suddenly tells women to wear.

          If you agree that the French government has a right to decide what a women can and cannot wear, then you must also agree that the Taliban was right in deciding what women can and cannot wear.

          But that’s a different point. Your claim that this is going to assimilate Muslims is stupid. Stalin tried it with Muslims in the Soviet Union. Guess what? It backfired. Muslim women just stuck their middle finger at Stalin and the Burqa increased in popularity to the extent that even working class women starting wearing it whereas it was only richer women that would do so before. Like your fellow Islamophobe, Pamela Geller, it’s time you openly embraced Stalin’s ways of dealing with the “Mooslim” problem.

          While I remained silent on the Burqa thing, and didn’t take part in any protests or wrote furious letters to anyone, there are a number of Muslims who didn’t do the same. How did the extremist Muslims who you want to integrate respond to this provocative ban? Did they suddenly learn perfect French, reject Sharia and adopt Western principles? No, their hatred of the West became stronger and “jihadi” forums were abuzz with angry extremists looking for ways to “punish” France. This was an uber-fail on the part of the French government.

          • I never said I thought the burqa would work in assimilating Muslims into Western society… I only said that it was the French government’s rationale for the ban. Clearly it didn’t work, since Muslims have no intention of integrating in the first place.

            No, their hatred of the West became stronger and “jihadi” forums were abuzz with angry extremists looking for ways to “punish” France. This was an uber-fail on the part of the French government.

            Which supports the case for stopping all Muslim immigration into Western countries. They remain loyal to the ummah, never the countries that welcomed them in.

          • “I only said that it was the French government’s rationale for the ban. Clearly it didn’t work, since Muslims have no intention of integrating in the first place.”

            That was not their intention. There was some lies about this being about “women’s rights”, France’s “secular values”, “human dignity” etc.

            ” since Muslims have no intention of integrating in the first place.”

            Right. You genuinely think that not a single Muslim in Europe wants to integrate. Every Muslim I know wants to, and so do I. But according to you, integration probably means being at your feet, which I refuse. I am more than happy, however, to live side-by-side with Christians, Jews, Muslims of other sects, Atheists, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and all others.

            “Which supports the case for stopping all Muslim immigration into Western countries. They remain loyal to the ummah, never the countries that welcomed them in.”

            Obviously, you missed the point. Extremist Muslims, who were already extremist, only became more violent and extreme after the Burqa ban. Clearly, your strategies are failing.

            And you still insist Muslims have not been loyal to their countries? I’m sure the Muslims who are fighting in their armies will have something to say about that.

          • And you still insist Muslims have not been loyal to their countries? I’m sure the Muslims who are fighting in their armies will have something to say about that.

            What would Maj. Hassan say about it? Or that soldier a few years back that threw a grenade into the sleeping quarters of an army base?

          • “What would Maj. Hassan say about it? Or that soldier a few years back that threw a grenade into the sleeping quarters of an army base?”

            Nice to see you’re maths is in order. So that cancels out the contribution of Muslim soldiers to the defence of the West, especially the hundreds of thousands of Muslim soldiers who defended Britain’s freedom from Germany even though they were denied theirs.

          • Nah it’s cool Mosizzle…Ahni just doesn’t seem to understand the concept of an overwhelming minority. I mean according to his logic the actions of two people cancels out the genuine contribution of thousands of others. Non sequitur much?

      • Only bad things could come from having these people in our society

        Well, at least you consider Muslims people, that’s a start.

  8. And it is possible for people to have racist attitudes towards Muslims, by assuming that they all look like Indian taxi drivers. Just ask the morons who brutally attacked a Sikh taxi driver in Sacramento. And what would these thugs have done if they saw a White Muslim? Nothing. They have a particular race in mind.

    Why would you assume that Latino men with a criminal record wouldn’t have attacked a White Muslim cabbie if he were the driver?

    • My understanding of the case is that the crime was initiated because of the race, but like I have insisted to you about a million times, to no avail, is that the final decision is up to the judge, but we can hold our opinions. I must remind you, however, that Hate Crime enhancements have been filed in the case and on the other thread I discussed this in detail before you ran off to spam another article.

      But I will stick with the conclusions of the victim, Harbhajan Singh, the Sikh community, Singh’s fellow taxi drivers who have reported similar attacks and prominent South Asian lawyers from the South Asian Bar association who believe it is a hate crime. They are more likely to know about the case, especially the victim because he was there, so I am confident in their conclusions. However, if you feel you are capable enough to read the minds of the criminals (still no idea on why you insist on mentioning their race) and that you can contradict the testimony of the victim and key witness, then sure, go ahead.

      If the person was white, and seemed white in every way, but was Muslim on the inside, then I feel that the criminals in the case, Pedro Antonio Ramirez and Johnny Morales, whom I believe initiated the attack because of Singh’s turban and beard and all round “Mooslimness”, would not have attacked. That is assuming that almost everyone apart from you is correct. If they were looking for some money, then perhaps they might have attacked him. But considering the fact that racial slurs were shouted, and the attack continued way after the money had been handed over, to the extent that the victim felt that he was going to be killed had he not escaped, it is clear the money was just a “bonus” to the crime.

      Anyway, why have you just suddenly turned up as soon as I have mentioned this incident. We have discussed this about 3 times now on 3 different threads, each time you fled from the discussion.

      If you want to continue this discussion, then let’s pick up from where you left off.

      http://spencerwatch.com/2011/02/07/sam-ebadi-stabbed-for-saying-hes-a-muslim/#comment-3369

    • “Why would you assume that Latino men with a criminal record”

      Who told you they had criminal records? Or are you just making assumptions about them because of their race, just like you assumed that because they were “Latino” that they would be ignorant of the world’s second largest and fastest growing religion. I think you’ll find Latinos are not very different from everyone else, and have access to a TV and Internet.

      Anyway, if you could find a link with more information, such as about their “criminal records”, then please send it over. I’m having a hard time finding more articles on the case (the latest was from 10 Dec 2010).

    • Any proof they have criminal records or are you making assumptions based on their race, which you keep bringing up.

      Like I said before, find me the article that says they had criminal records, as far as I know, they both were employed and one of them worked in a Church.

      • It’s what I remembered reading. I don’t have a particular interest in the attack so I never read too much about the incident. If you have the original article or an update to the story where names are provided then I can search google to see if any news sites did indeed claim the men involved in the robbery/beating had a past criminal history.

    • They were beating the cabbie long after they took his money…shouting racial slurs all the while. No, the fact that they thought he was Muslim has nothing to do with that.

      /sarcasm

        • “Ramirez and Morales allegedly yelled “f*&k you Arabian, f*^k you, Osama bin Laden,” during the several-minute attack, which left Singh unconscious”

          And yes, calling a person, who you think is Muslim, “Osama Bin Laden” is racist, just as calling an Eastern European, “Boris” is racist, provided the intention is not for fun but hateful. And considering they beat him almost to death, then I’m pretty sure they meant it in a bad way.

  9. Coming from somebody who generalizes Muslims as if they’re one race when you say things like “Muslims are not here to integrate”; when a Muslim can just as easily be Caucasian or African American…that’s a tad ironic.

    The Islam is not a race card is a typical red herring used when backed into a corner. Try again.

  10. Looks like Ahni can’t stand that he got something wrong and now he’s doubting the source.

    And it is possible for people to have racist attitudes towards Muslims, by assuming that they all look like Indian taxi drivers. Just ask the morons who brutally attacked a Sikh taxi driver in Sacramento. And what would these thugs have done if they saw a White Muslim? Nothing. They have a particular race in mind.

  11. LOL–Both the Huffpo and Loonwatch are far more reliable than the hate site you frequent, Quaid. You asked me for my source proving that Muslims are [on average] more educated than non-Muslims, and I did. Just accept the facts instead of bitching about someone calling you racist.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>