Be Afraid and Learn the Lessons of Eurabia: Nidra Poller nails it, alas!

I went yesterday night to a talk at a synagogue in Stoughton by Geert Wilder, the Dutch lawmaker now on trial in his homeland for “hate speech” as a result of his movie Fitna, and recently ejected from the UK by an administration cowed by the threat of 10,000 Muslims besieging Parliament if they let Wilder show his movie. No one’s problems better illustrates the pathetic condition of Europe than Wilder.

While this was a last-minute affair with announcements going on a mere days before the talk, the room was full (not just of Jews, Miss Kelley and a number of her friends, appropriately marked with ash on their foreheads were also there); and Wilder got three standing ovations. The talk will be posted on the internet shortly.

His message was: “It’s not 8:55, it’s 11:55… We are in the last stages of islamization of Europe… and it’s closer than we imagine… It could happen very quickly… the USA is losing an ally to an ideology of hatred… the European political and intellectual elites have been intimidated and are now behaving like Dhimmi.”

Wilders has run into problems because, apparently, he called for the Quran to be banned, although according to Bostom that was not so much a serious call for banning the Quran as a ploy to emphasize that if you’re going to ban texts for hate-speech then the Quran should be at the top of the list. In honor of Wilder’s struggle, I post here a thoughtful, eloquent, and hard-hitting piece by Nidra Poller on what the USA can learn from European folly.

MARCH 2009 OUTPOST NOW ONLINE

Europe’s Woes America’s Warning
by Nidra Poller

It is difficult to imagine how European nations could find the will and the ways to counter the subversive forces they have invited upon themselves and allowed to flourish for more than three decades. The current phase of global jihad, already underway in the much vaunted decolonization process, coalesced with the seizure of power in Iran by Ayatollah Khomenei (who had been living as a pampered refugee in France). But the American reader should be wary of concluding that Europe is lost…and the United States is standing firm.

On the contrary, all of Western civilization is under fire. As promised during the campaign, Barack Hussein Obama is making a radical change in American policy. Not of course the glorious change his worshippers promised themselves, but a troubling shift toward dhimmitude. The newly elected president lost no time in pleading guilty as charged by Muslim authorities and promising to refrain from further rebellion in order to receive their benevolent indulgence.

Similar methods produce similar results. Jihad forces in Europe — and in the United States — used Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza as a pretext to organize virulent, violent pro-Hamas demonstrations. Because Europe is further down the path to surrender, the enraged pro-Hamas mobs were more violent, destructive, and physically threatening here than in the United States. But in both cases they advanced their dominion. This should be recognized as authentic conquest of territory by enraged mobs bearing down on hapless victims in an ominous show of force and not, as claimed and widely accepted, citizen demonstrators exercising their right to free speech.

Absolutely. As I argued almost five years ago, one of the major results of the al Durah affair was to allow the Arab street to take root in Europe. This is just the latest stage, and it’s most worrisome. Anyone reading this as “citizen demonstrators exercising their right to free speech,” is a useful idiot.

If you can carry signs equating the Magen David with the swastika, if you can scream “Jews to the ovens” in the face of Zionists in Ft. Lauderdale Florida, if you can storm into a synagogue in Caracas, Venezuela and terrorize the congregation, if you can bully the police in England, smash up the Place de l’Opéra in Paris, burn Israeli and American flags, shout Allahu Akbar without meeting resolute opposition, it means you can keep going and ultimately fulfill those murderous promises. Do American Jews understand what was acquired by these phony demonstrations that are really paramilitary operations? Wherever those enraged mobs set foot they transformed the streets into de facto waqf territory.

Precisely. This is a war that concerns gangs and territory. We in the West are badly equipped to handle it and (hence) to recognize it (i.e., if we can’t handle a problem, don’t have a solution, then don’t identify it as a problem).

Each successive crisis is an opportunity to ratchet up Jew hatred and the concomitant assault on Western civilization, achieving, step by step, tacit acceptance of the unspeakable. Here is how it works: first, the provocation. Jihadist attacks — thousands of rockets launched against Israel, a few airplanes flown into the WTC, capture and beheading of hostages, roadside bombs, inhuman pizzeria bombers, nuclear weapons programs — finally provoke a riposte. Bingo! The Muslim wailing machine goes into action. It is immediately picked up by complicit Western media and transmitted, with a Good Journalism stamp of approval, to public opinion. Israel, the United States and anyone else who dares to fight back is accused of war crimes, peace crimes, and original sin. This justifies subsequent acts of subversion and aggression against the free world.

It is a brilliant strategy, even if it involves the sacrifice of Muslim lives in order to pull it off. The pathetic, outrageous, inconceivable aspect of it is the role played by our own media.

When the United States used its formidable military force and assumed its international responsibilities, European nations, with rare exceptions, exploited opposition to “the war in Iraq” to undermine the American superpower. This agitation was exploited in turn by jihad interests to advance the Islamization of Europe… and by ricochet to influence domestic politics in the United States as Obamamania surfed on the theme of repairing America’s battered image.

So European resentment causes them to behave in self-destructive ways (striking at the only nation that has and can save them from their folly for what would be a third time), and American insecurity (which I run into among my colleagues all the time), takes European bad faith and cowardice as a model for us to imitate. It’s pretty amazing.

The European Union, with France in the lead, vaunting its diplomatic savoir faire, competes with the U.S. for influence in the Middle East, and always seems to pull in the Arab direction. French ceasefire diplomacy restrained Israel’s capacity to defeat Iranian proxies—Hizbullah in 2006, Hamas today. The harsh criticism of Israel and the U.S. that underlies this self-righteous peacemaking fuels domestic pro-jihad protest marches that end in attacks against police and property, further undermining government authority in Europe and endangering local Jewish populations.

All of this subversive activity is advanced by what I call “lethal narratives.” These are stories of what is happening generated by global jihad and relayed by Western media and officialdom. Unlike propaganda, which is used in conjunction with military activity aimed at defeating an enemy in battle, lethal narratives are used in lieu of military action. Promotion of enemy propaganda in past conflicts was limited to a small minority of traitors and fellow travelers; today, lethal narratives are swallowed by all but a minority of résistants, who are marginalized, labeled extremists, persecuted and prosecuted. Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers who stormed through European cities screaming “death to Israel, death to the Jews” go scot free but Dutch politician Geert Wilders is prosecuted for “hate speech” for showing the connection between these same declarations, from Qur’anic verses to contemporary sermons, and murderous acts such as 9/11.

This is the new, unprecedented, dimension of the story, the part analyzed so effectively by Stuart Green in his thesis, Cognitive Warfare. This is the lethal stench that arises from the Augean Stables.

The lethal narrative, a tissue of lies made credible by a superficial journalistic veneer, becomes the accepted version of what is happening. G.W. Bush lied about Saddam’s WMDs, the neocons wanted a war in Iraq, torture at Guantanamo, hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, an unbeatable insurgency, the war spawned a thousand terrorists for every one that was killed, etc. Another tissue of lies was issued during the Cast Lead operation: the homemade rockets were harmless; Gaza is an open prison; the Gaza population suffered a humanitarian crisis, no food, water, electricity, medicine; Israel engaged in intentional massacre of civilians, bombing mosques, UN schools, babes in arms and, the last straw, deliberately killed the daughters of the good-hearted doctor who practices in both Gaza and Tel Aviv.

In less than a decade life has become problematic for European Jews. It started with the al Dura blood libel on September 30, 2000 and has steadily worsened since. During periods of relative calm, we tell ourselves that the nightmare is over. When the tension exacerbates, as happened during the Gaza operation, it becomes obvious that we have no future anywhere in Europe—and Europe has no future anyway!

France, with the largest Muslim and Jewish populations and the greatest diplomatic ambition, is emblematic of the Western European condition. The Sarkozy government is sincerely troubled by the upsurge of anti-Semitism — approximately 150 incidents reported since the start of Cast Lead. The president promises to put an end to this unacceptable behavior but declares, in the next breath, that “Islamophobia” will be punished as severely as anti-Semitism, falsely implying that Jews are attacking Muslims, and effectively blocking an honest investigation of the Islamic sources of Jew hatred.

This blocking of any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia will, incidentally, be one of the main functions of Durban II, which will try to institutionalize a AIDS virus blocking defense systems against global Jihad.

On another level, the “Obama effect” works against Jews in France and more generally in Europe. Thrilled by the multicultural chic of a black president in the powerful U.S., Europeans vow to give more than equal opportunity to their own “visible minorities” in the hopes of getting themselves a YesWeCan president in the near future. Unfortunately, the integration of law-abiding Muslims into European society also serves as cover for infiltration by subversive Muslims.

If we can’t spot the demopaths, we’re dead.

Political enfranchisement of European Muslims in the absence of genuine acceptance of Western values is another destabilizing factor. Instead of promoting a peaceful climate of mutual respect, the rise of Muslims into executive positions in public and private sectors may lead to ethnic favoritism that will be prejudicial to Jewish colleagues and candidates, rebuffed to get even for an alleged previous supremacy or punished whenever there is a flare-up in the Middle East. Serious problems in public education, up to the university level, further compromise the future of Europe and more precisely of European Jews.

This is an enormous problem which began with the phenomenon of post-colonialism in Middle East Studies. Our universities have been colonized by “scholars” who not only don’t play by Western academic rules (strive for honesty, engage in serious debate, accept criticism), they actually flaunt those rules, exclude voices of opposition, and use the university as a soap box for political agendas. The result is/will be universities in the West that are as little productive of serious knowledge as Arab universities have been since their inception in the early 20th century.

The far left, unashamedly aligned with European jihad movements, proudly marched with pro-Hamas mobs that systematically ended their “demonstrations” with attacks against property and the police. Fearful of losing ground, the parliamentary left also sidles toward this constituency, hiding its perfidy behind dubious humanitarian concerns. CID [Centre d’information et de documentation de démocratie et de Moyen Orient] reports from Brussels that all political parties except the droite libérale marched along with the keffieh-wrapped mobs that shouted “death to Israel, death to the Jews.” Another aggravating factor is the economic crisis, exploited by the left to mobilize and channel discontent into increasingly aggressive demonstrations, strikes and civil disobedience, while the right, hungry for capital, welcomes sharia finance with open arms.

In 2003, when Jewish boys from Hashomer Hazair were beaten up by anti-war protestors, I described the incident as a “peace march verging on pogrom.” Alain Finkielkraut applied the term to the 2005 banlieue riots, then withdrew it as inappropriate. Was it an exaggeration? Or foresight? There can be no doubt that the enraged mobs storming through European and American cities will go further.

No longer content to throw fire bombs or ram burning cars into synagogues, they now want to break in during services. Thirty men traveled from Mulhouse to Strasbourg for that purpose. Their plan failed… that time. Carjackers in a Parisian suburb, discovering their victim was Jewish, slashed his neck four times with exquisite cruelty until the blood flowed. That crime was denounced as anti-Semitic but the culprits have not been found, and other incidents are left hanging with question marks, as if to calm the populace. A Jewish doctor was shot dead in another Parisian suburb, the warehouse of the biggest kosher food distributor in still another was burned down.

Europeans who do cherish their freedom try to organize, speak out, influence their governments. They see — or saw — America as a refuge, a haven, a beacon of liberty. Many see Israel as a sterling example of résistance against global jihad. Though life looks quite normal on the surface, we are living in a perilous, highly volatile situation in which, precisely, normal life is a battlefield. As these lines are written, Iran announces the launch of a satellite that could leave southern European cities no less vulnerable than Sderot. The news landed like a monster walking into a bustling café. The excited chatter about peace talks and negotiation and friendly outreached hands falls silent. If existential fear has finally stricken the heart of European governments, all is not lost.

Nidra Poller is an American who moved to France in 1972 and is a journalist, novelist, and translator.

If a journalist rings the bell loud and clear and no one responds, was it heard?

64 Responses to Be Afraid and Learn the Lessons of Eurabia: Nidra Poller nails it, alas!

  1. Eliyahu says:

    maybe giscard d’estaing had a hidden plan and purpose when he brought all those Muslims into France 30 years ago. Maybe other Western govts have similar plans. Maybe the Establishments in various Western countries are hostile to what we call Western civilization. Too far-fetched.

  2. oao says:

    the USA is losing an ally to an ideology of hatred… the European political and intellectual elites have been intimidated and are now behaving like Dhimmi.”

    oh, no. the USA that is being dismantled would have lost an ally. the one that’s being created is gaining an ally in islamic europe.

    Too far-fetched.

    yes. because these leaders are hardly as smart and sophisticated to plan for something like this. they were simply solving labor price problems without a real clue as to what the consequences would be.

    anti-semites? sure. philo-muslims? I doubt it. they are too arrogant to have any sympathy for those primitives.

  3. sshender says:

    But surely, if you are planning on banning the Quran for hate speech – a dubious endevour, as it is not the doctrine itself which is usually responsible for violence but the people who cherry-pick the text to suit their preconceived ideas and goals – than surely the bible should be next in line.

    I am fully aware of the threat posed by the Islamisation of Europe and Geert’s voice is a streak of light in what has become the catacombs of European denial, and yet banning an anachronistic religious text does not seem like the right course of action to me; It’s outright rediculous. Moreover, as I’ve stated before, if we were to apply the same standards to all, the bible (or at least the old testament) should be high on that list as well. (I’m an anti-theist, and would like nothing more than the dissolvement of religion and its ludicrous texts, but come on, let’s be realistic here, you can’t bann human nature).

    The truth is that Fitna (together with a much better “Islam – what the West needs to know” documentaries) is a simplistic and populistic appeal that can be made about any other religious texts which contain no lesser evils. The only difference being that currently it is Islam’s adherents who are acting upon the worst of their book and are using it a mobilizing force in their global Jihad against the west.

  4. Richard Landes says:

    response to sshender:

    But surely, if you are planning on banning the Quran for hate speech – a dubious endevour, as it is not the doctrine itself which is usually responsible for violence but the people who cherry-pick the text to suit their preconceived ideas and goals – then surely the bible should be next in line.

    as the article i linked to pointed out, this is a ploy, not a serious suggestion. (i.e., if you are going to ban hate speech, then ban the quran). agreed that any religious text can and is cherry-picked by its readership, and that’s what’s responsible. but there is, i believe, a fairly significant difference between the quran and the bible. i think there’s real incitement to hatred and violence in the former that’s not in the latter. on the contrary, aside from the historically embedded commands about the canaanites, the bible (OT’s) text calls for loving the stranger, the outsider. the quran’s normative view of non-Muslims, especially those who do not wish to “submit” to Allah is pretty ferocious.

    I am fully aware of the threat posed by the Islamisation of Europe and Geert’s voice is a streak of light in what has become the catacombs of European denial, and yet banning an anachronistic religious text does not seem like the right course of action to me; It’s outright ridiculous. Moreover, as I’ve stated before, if we were to apply the same standards to all, the bible (or at least the old testament) should be high on that list as well. (I’m an anti-theist, and would like nothing more than the dissolvement of religion and its ludicrous texts, but come on, let’s be realistic here, you can’t ban human nature).

    this is something of a repetition of what you’ve said. should we ban the book of revelation with its appeal to schadenfreude at the detailed description of the utter destruction of the apocalyptic “enemy”?

    how does an anti-theist differ from an atheist?

    The truth is that Fitna (together with a much better “Islam – what the West needs to know” documentaries) is a simplistic and populistic appeal that can be made about any other religious texts which contain no lesser evils. The only difference being that currently it is Islam’s adherents who are acting upon the worst of their book and are using it a mobilizing force in their global Jihad against the west.

    well, that’s a big difference, since one of the key elements of fitna is not just the reading of the texts, but the preaching of them by imams, and the results in terror, something it would be hard to do with other religions right now.

    the terrifying element of fitna is that, with a few minor adjustments, it could be a recruiting video for jihad. the anger of muslims at its release, i’d venture to say, is less the actual content than the exposure.

  5. Imran Ahmed says:

    HA HA HA. That’s all I can say about a bunch of scared fools who cant remember history well enough to realize their own religious acts from the past.. The only difference was that at that time there were no CNN, Blogs, Internet, Media etc.

    Last time I check:
    1. Jews didnt like Jesus Christ that well – if you know what I mean.. So did Christians banned Jew’s book?

    2. During all Crusades – more Jews were killed by Christens then ever… what happened to that party?
    Here’s a passage from wikipedia: “For the first decade, the Crusaders pursued a policy of terror against Muslims and Jews that included mass executions, the throwing of severed heads over besieged cities walls, exhibition and mutilation of naked cadavers, and even cannibalism…”

    3. Hitler was also from a religion.. so why didn’t you Jews classify entire Christianity as an AIDS virus?

    Similarly, there are millions of other questions..

    People, the answers to all these questions is simple: there was no media, no internet at that time… otherwise the crime, the terror, the hostility, the horror committed at that time against Muslims, Jews or Christians are even sometimes impossible to imagine. Not even the writers of Friday the 13th could imagine that torture.

    So, lets face it.. its been always a triple threat match between Jews, Christians and Muslims… However none of our religious books actually (and I mean ACTUALLY) signals hate or torture.

    The only problem was and still is, that if one guy wakes up one day to say – “This Religion is Crap – they are taking over, they are this, they are that…. bla bla bla..”, He only is trying to light-up a a fuel tank..

    If you Christians and Jews think that Islam is taking over Europe.. Ive got two questions:

    1) Was Europe born with your religion? or did you took over it before we did?

    2) If you are so civilized and “Better than us” – then try to stop it like as if you are indeed “Better than us”. I mean preach your religion, show dignity of your beliefs, show ppl that yours better. it would only be a fair competition. What? are you scared of some competition from as you calls it “just another religion”? the all mighty Chris-Jews combination is scared now… hahaha.. you’ve got to be kitting me.

    Finally, let me tell you one thing:

    If English dont want any Muslims in their country – they shouldnt have invaded India, Arabs and Africa.

    If Americans hates Afghan’s Taliban – who asked you to be at Afghanistan in 80′s?

    If Americans dont like Iraqis – who invited you there?

    the problem with you ppl is simple – You invade and then you expect an “expected” response. My friends, there is no expected response from we Muslims.. if you invade us – we wont do anything.. but when you leave – we will be there before you! That’s the simple rule.. I mean – “come here sure: but you ant going back alone”.

    ————

    And what the hell are you crying about America in danger from Islam Take Over? Last time I check, you Europeans invaded America, took it over from top to bottom. Its only natural that the history repeats itself. I mean if we need a permission for America, we will ask it from the Red-Indians.

    So the bottom line is – stop clamming the whole world !

  6. Cynic says:

    But surely, if you are planning on banning the Quran for hate speech

    Nobody was planning on banning

    Earlier, while calling the Koran hate speech with specific reference to the Dutch Penal Code, Wilders was simply asking for consistent application of the Dutch law.

    Freedom of Speech: Wilders, Orwell, and the “Koran Ban”

    Wilders’ demand for consistency, recalls the Calcutta Quran Petition of the 1980s. Like his Hindu predecessors, Wilders was fed up with Muslim abuse of similar Indian laws, and simply saying if one bans hate speech, in accord with existing Dutch Law, then the Koran is hate speech. The Calcutta Quran Petition chronicled how it was the abuse of hate speech laws by Muslims seeking to impose Sharia mandates on non-Muslim majorities that was the source of the problem.

    Read the post and if you are worried about cherry picking then read Bostom’s “The Legacy of Islamic AntiSemitism”.

  7. Cynic says:

    If English dont want any Muslims in their country – they shouldnt have invaded India, Arabs and Africa..

    Maybe if the Muslims had not invaded India, the Mediterranean region and North Africa and just stayed in what is Saudi Arabia there wouldn’t be a problem today.

  8. Cynic says:

    The truth is that Fitna (together with a much better “Islam – what the West needs to know” documentaries) is a simplistic and populistic appeal that can be made about any other religious texts

    Which is nonsense if you have witnessed the reality that Fitna discusses.

  9. E.G. says:

    This Ahmed is a cartoon of a Moslem. And offense to the whole Umma.

  10. Cynic says:

    E.G.

    I could miss this in light of previous comments of ours so it may be a little Off topic but:

    A Letter to York University, Ontario

    By any chance ….? :-)

    Nearly Oxfordian 26 February 2009, 2:51 pm
    I have frequently spoken out publicly against the policies of the Israeli government, most recently in a joint letter and comments critical of Israel’s operation in Gaza, published in the Observer in January
    Is Lappin yet another pompous jerk who thinks that being a professor of computing gives him some special insight into ME geopolitics?

  11. Cynic says:

    Oops! There’s a “not” missing — I could not miss this

  12. E.G. says:

    Not guilty, your honour!
    How could you? How could you not?

  13. Imran Ahmed says:

    @ E.G: I ve offended the whole Ummah? ha ha ah ha.. How did I do that?

    @ Cynic: So now a European is gonna lecture me on how NOT to invade Africa n India. That’s the biggest joke Ive herd today..

  14. E.G. says:

    Ahmed is a blasphemer. Ridicules the religion of Peace.
    SHAME!
    He shames the Moslems. Puts the Prophet’s beard in flames. This caricature brings Allah’s wrath upon all true believers.

  15. oao says:

    But surely, if you are planning on banning the Quran for hate speech – a dubious endevour, as it is not the doctrine itself which is usually responsible for violence but the people who cherry-pick the text to suit their preconceived ideas and goals – than surely the bible should be next in line.

    can you pls expalin how come it’s practically only muslims today who cherry-pick the violence out of the quran and apply it?

    as to banning the quran, have you read wilders explanation of his argument to that effect? make sure you do and perhaps you’ll get it.

    Moreover, as I’ve stated before, if we were to apply the same standards to all, the bible (or at least the old testament) should be high on that list as well. (I’m an anti-theist, and would like nothing more than the dissolvement of religion and its ludicrous texts, but come on, let’s be realistic here, you can’t bann human nature).

    ah, you state it, but you don’t get it. that is exactly his point: that if you want to ban a lot of things. but the fact is that only criticisms of islam, which is NOT violent is, while the quran and its violence isn’t.

    The truth is that Fitna (together with a much better “Islam – what the West needs to know” documentaries) is a simplistic and populistic appeal that can be made about any other religious texts which contain no lesser evils. The only difference being that currently it is Islam’s adherents who are acting upon the worst of their book and are using it a mobilizing force in their global Jihad against the west.

    BS.

    have you asked yourself why muslims act on it and the others don’t?

  16. oao says:

    how does an anti-theist differ from an atheist?

    an atheist does not believe in any deity. and anti-theist is a militant atheist who works to prevent any religion from intruding in the public sphere.

  17. oao says:

    So the bottom line is – stop clamming the whole world

    folks, when muhammad came up with the quran which talks about the supremacy of the muslims, and their right to subjugate or kill all infidels, he was responding to the european and american conquests and the lack of justice in muslims not ruling the world. such a sharp sight into the future could be worthy only of the utmost prophet and the will of allah.

    this ahmed is right on one subject: the west is doing it to itself — alowing and helping the ahmeds of the world to take them over.

  18. oao says:

    Is Lappin yet another pompous jerk who thinks that being a professor of computing gives him some special insight into ME geopolitics?

    dk about pompous, but he’s the jew who can’t decide whether to stand for the jews or to signal that he is good jew, not like the israelis. so he does both.

  19. OptiPesi says:

    Dear Ahmed,
    If the Arab/Muslim world was better than the “Western” world we live in, we would actually welcome the invasion to profit from the wisdom, science and liberties of your upbringing. But the problem, as you know, is that whenever the Arab/Muslim get their hand on anything that might be considered beneficial to the community, they tear it down (See the Gazan greenhouses left functional by the settlers) and I can never seem to remember the names of the great Arab institutions that gave us all these glorified Nobel laureats.
    You get the drift, or do you??

  20. oao says:

    http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/02/entrapping_netanyahu.asp

    tell me again why and how israel should be waiting for better times. could it?

  21. oao says:

    as far as I am concerned, the US is now an enemy of israel.

  22. oao says:

    Pipes on Hillary

    who was it that was wondering when shrillary would resign due to durban? he ought to check out my reply then.

    given her husband’s source of millions, her sense that israel is fair game now, and her desire to have some impact, anybody who thought she would be pro-israel ought to have his head examines.

    the clintons are corrupt to the bone,

  23. Cynic says:

    So now a European is gonna lecture me on how NOT to invade

    I’m not a European.

    And I’ll desist from expletives as pure waste.

  24. oao says:

    hey, ahmed,

    your “civilization” at work. wonder why people have no choice but try to control you?

    Law and Order Palestinian-Arab Style

  25. Imran Ahmed says:

    Hay Mr. “oao”, perhaps you live in a too serious world… its a blog not UN, CNN, BBC. stop being a violent protester throwing stones and burning tyres.

    Half my message was further proved by you. I said the same thing – only a bit differently. Not to mention I used actual historic references where as you and this “Cynic” guy are just using Hard English as an argument.

    I dont see any difference between You, Wilder an Any other Extremist – you directly went on and called me a Blasphemer. So just cool down. ok.

    Moreover – you said “when muhammad came up with the quran which talks about the supremacy of the muslims, and their right to subjugate or kill all infidels, he was responding to the european and american conquests and the lack of justice in muslims not ruling the world. such a sharp sight into the future could be worthy only of the utmost prophet and the will of allah.”

    - Out of all the Islam, you could find this only ? is this how you wanna prove a point, just falling under the trap of Wilder – proving him correct that Islam preaches killings? You are the true Blasphemer. Not me! I didn’t say Kill, you specifically searched “kill” from all over Islam. Islam mentions peace, respect, love far many times more than any other religion.

    And Mr Cynic, I am sorry I thought you are a European. So where are you from?

  26. I.A. says:

    Mr EC could not find Wilders movie Blasphemy but my comments. thats another funny story today.

  27. I.A. says:

    Cherry-pick at work indeed! I completely agree with all sides of cherry picking. everyone is doing it. See with (cool heads), even on this blog. Out of all things a said in just 3 paragraphs: EC and oao picked few lines, twisted them and presented them in a dirty way and called me Blasphemer – just like Wilder did in his movie about Islam.

    So, the matter is further proved.

    And please, can we use TOEFL level English and not GRE/GMAT level. you guys are really promoting wikidictionary (if you what I mean) ;)

  28. I.A. says:

    Here, let me explain to settle your anger in the wrong direction: In my original passage,

    1st paragraph was criticism on media and ppl believing what they hear on TV.

    Then I talked history and how we all have hurt each other previously

    Then I criticized Wilder (which should be the actual FOCUS of this blog)

    Finally I twisted fun, reality and modern history of american war together.

    —– But apparently, a bunch of 90 year olds who just realized how to use a keyboard cant get it. You guys directly jumped on the ‘B’ word. Even I, greatest opposition of Wilder didnt jumped on the ‘B’ word for him which he deserves.

  29. I.A. says:

    and seriously, you guys dont have anything to say about Americans in Afghanistan and Iran? Who created the Talibans at the first place.. can anyone of you SERIOUS guys look up in the history and tell me? Who was the best friend of Americans before 1st Iraq Invasion? Who is now thinking of Lets-Invade-Iran while previously they themselves helped Iran against Iraq? Who is the All Mighty financer of Pakistan but secretly planning to one day lets invade it?

    the answers to these SERIOUS questions may be simply just one Country, but the cost n effects of these events will go long long way into the future.

    Now oao and EC could blame me AGAIN for these events as much as they like to….. They dont speak for the whole world.

    Everyone knows who is the real “B” word award inductee!

  30. E.G. says:

    Ahmed gesticulates like a female gone mad. Like a bride that is found not virgin on her wedding day.

  31. oao says:

    Hay Mr. “oao”, perhaps you live in a too serious world… its a blog not UN, CNN, BBC. stop being a violent protester throwing stones and burning tyres.

    wonderful. i get advice to not be violent or throw stones from a muslim. isn’t the world beautiful?

    Half my message was further proved by you. I said the same thing – only a bit differently. Not to mention I used actual historic references where as you and this “Cynic” guy are just using Hard English as an argument.

    is that your concept of proof? i would deem it obfuscation and inability to respond to my argument.
    you declare, not prove.

    So let’s do a little test: first tell me what my point was and then let us have your response to it. in particular let us know how my argument was NOT historic, but “hard english” (whetever that is).

    I dont see any difference between You, Wilder an Any other Extremist – you directly went on and called me a Blasphemer. So just cool down. ok.

    of course you don’t, that’s part of the problem. wouldn’t you like us all dhimmis to know our place, coold down and let you guys impose sharia. but it’s us the extremists, huh?

    Out of all the Islam, you could find this only ? is this how you wanna prove a point, just falling under the trap of Wilder – proving him correct that Islam preaches killings? You are the true Blasphemer. Not me! I didn’t say Kill, you specifically searched “kill” from all over Islam. Islam mentions peace, respect, love far many times more than any other religion.

    no, i can find more, but this is the part which your extremist terrorists invoke as justification for what they do. fitna is just a collection of what your imams are saying. if indeed it is true that islam does not incite to killing, are those imams islamophobes? and if they are, why are we extremists or islamophobes for pointing them out?

    note also that you have NOT DENIED THE FACTS, because you can’t.

    i never accused you personally of saying kill. but i suggest you check out the various muslim surveys and see what the ummah says about jihad and killing infidels. there has just been a recent one.

    when i see or hear you “moderate” muslims speak out and protest harshly against your extremists imams and jihadis, you will be taken seriously. as long as you are more concerned with us revealing the truth than with the killers on your side you have no hope of being taken seriously. you’re just ridiculous.

  32. I.A. says:

    1. Cherry Picking… That’s all what you just did. both of you.

    2. “when i see or hear you “moderate” muslims speak out and protest harshly against your extremists imams and jihadis, you will be taken seriously. as long as you are more concerned with us revealing the truth than with the killers on your side you have no hope of being taken seriously. you’re just ridiculous”

    so if Moderate Muslims speak out against other Extreme Muslims – you will take us seriously, but when we speak out against Extreme terrorist such as the one who killed kids n women in Gaza recently – you wouldn’t take us seriously? Perhaps you have not seen the pictures of torture and Massacre from this recent Gaza killings. That’s why you wont understand the sentiments of those stone throwers.

  33. I.A. says:

    @ E.G. you have fallen to a new low ! atleast oao is taking seriously.

  34. I.A. says:

    “fitna is just a collection of what your imams are saying. if indeed it is true that islam does not incite to killing, are those imams islamophobes?”

    so it means a jew’s religion is telling them to kill women n children in Gaza? I dont think so. its only political Zionism that forces them to kill. atleast you should know the difference.

  35. I.A. says:

    “fitna is just a collection of what your imams are saying. if indeed it is true that islam does not incite to killing, are those imams islamophobes?”

    Fitna is not just a collection of this. it compares every speech with a sentence from Quran. Not to mention, it did a lot of cherry picking. you think all the imams in the world everyday preach what was shown in Fitna? No, they dont. 90% of them preach peace, respect and love for others.

  36. I.A. says:

    But I am sure Mr oao will again cherry pick, twist and play his regular hate against me.

    Just tell me some thing. why do you only pick a few lines to comment from my passages?

  37. I.A. says:

    “esticulates like a female gone mad. Like a bride that is found not virgin on her wedding day.” – Mr. E.G. is speaking from her own experience.

  38. sshender says:

    @ Richard Landes,

    Since it was my first ever comment on your blog, I’d like to use the opportunity to say that I find your cultural and psychological analysis of Arabs to be dead on! I read with awe your pieces on Anti-Semitism, Self-Criticism and the brilliant dissection of what makes the anti-zionist left tick! It was like a breath of fresh air to me, since while many people recognize the problem, very few have so far been able to describe it in such scientific terms. Now back on the subject:

    as the article i linked to pointed out, this is a ploy, not a serious suggestion

    of course it was. I was just trying to play the devil’s advocate here, and throughout most of my piece.

    but there is, i believe, a fairly significant difference between the quran and the bible. i think there’s real incitement to hatred and violence in the former that’s not in the latter. on the contrary, aside from the historically embedded commands about the canaanites, the bible (OT’s) text calls for loving the stranger, the outsider. the quran’s normative view of non-Muslims, especially those who do not wish to “submit” to Allah is pretty ferocious.

    This is where I would differ from you. I don’t think that there is a significant doctrinal difference between the Quran and Hadiths and the Old Testament (let’s put the new one aside just for the sake of argument. I agree that most of Christ’s teachings are diametrically opposed to those of Muhammad). The old testament is rather unequivocal in its commandments of killing people for such ‘offences’ as working on the Sabbath. The non-believers do not fare a lot better in the bible than they do in the qoran.

    A good way to test my theory is to come up with a though experiment where instead of the Qoran and Hadiths, the Muslims of today (in the same cultural, psychological and historical context) would be adhering to the old testament. Does it really seem plausible that they would suddenly turn into pacifists? I highly doubt it. Islam is after all the product of Arab culture and psyche, not the other way round.

    should we ban the book of revelation with its appeal to schadenfreude at the detailed description of the utter destruction of the apocalyptic “enemy”?

    I think we both recognize that any “banning” of books is stupid and counterproductive. But the apocalyptic doomsday scenario of the book of revalation is not without its risks. The fact that today many evangelicals besides being mere spectators, believe that they should in fact hasten the second coming of Chirst by all means possible should be our concern as well. As Sam Harris put it: It is therefore not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves- socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically.

    how does an anti-theist differ from an atheist?

    Am atheist simply denies the existance of a supernatural diety, while an anti-theist takes it one step further and sees the phenomenon of religion as detrimental to humanity’s well being.

    well, that’s a big difference, since one of the key elements of fitna is not just the reading of the texts, but the preaching of them by imams, and the results in terror, something it would be hard to do with other religions right now.

    the terrifying element of fitna is that, with a few minor adjustments, it could be a recruiting video for jihad. the anger of muslims at its release, i’d venture to say, is less the actual content than the exposure.

    I agree! And I made that clear: Islamism in the 21st century is akeen to Nazims in the 30s, with a religious twist which, alas, makes it even more dangerous. I just argue that this psychosis is influenced largely by other factors than its religios texts and doctrine. Of course one can counter that with the invocation of Arab christian supposed lack of violence, but as Scott Atran has refuted that claim as well, citing christian suicide bombing incidents.

    And of course you’re right that muslims are outraged at its exposure rather than at its contents. This is a recurring theme in recent decades where muslims seem to be more outraged by cartoons than by sectarian violence in the Muslim world. And your brilliant analysis of their culture and psyche explains why.

  39. sshender says:

    @ Cynic:

    Read the post and if you are worried about cherry picking then read Bostom’s “The Legacy of Islamic AntiSemitism”.

    Been there, done that :-) You’re kind of barking at the wrong tree here. I’m the last person who needs to be schooled in Islamic antisemitism.

    Which is nonsense if you have witnessed the reality that Fitna discusses

    Fitna brings nothing new to the table. It is simply quotes of Islamic texts juxtaposed with footage of carnage done its adherents, without any context whatsoever. That’s not a serious and honest attempt to understand what drives this homicidal trend, but rather a counterproductive obscuration of the true underlying causes.

  40. sshender says:

    can you pls expalin how come it’s practically only muslims today who cherry-pick the violence out of the quran and apply it?

    I can at least try. It is probably the result of their culture, psychology and status vis-a-vis that of the west. Richard here managed to explain that phenomenon with brilliant accuracy. The religios aspect is probably the least influential as far the root cuases are concerned. To paraphrase Huntington, I believe that we’re witnessing a clash of civilizations (or rather a clash between western modern civilization with Islamic/Arab lack thereof), and the Arab allienation and backwardness backfires into envy and hatred. The globalisation and the appeal of western civilization also threatens to ‘undermine’ the cultural construct of the Arab society and its alpha males’ status in light of female emancipation. and so on. I mean there are countless accounts and reasons for the Muslim inneptness and violent response, with the theological reason being merely an excuse

    as to banning the quran, have you read wilders explanation of his argument to that effect? make sure you do and perhaps you’ll get it.

    Perhaps it’s you who should “get it”. I welcome Wilder’s message and salute him for his courage, given the precedent of Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali, but that does not make his movie, or message, any more factual than it reallt is. It is a fine piece of positive propaganda, and should be regraded as such.

    ah, you state it, but you don’t get it. that is exactly his point: that if you want to ban a lot of things. but the fact is that only criticisms of islam, which is NOT violent is, while the quran and its violence isn’t.

    I’m not in favor of banning anything. Banning stuff usually has an adverse effect and only gives the authors undeserved publicity. Nothing should be immune to criticism, let alone religious texts. Moreover, given the current Muslim rampage, they’re are the ones who should be scrutinized the most. But applying double standards is not acceptable either. In theory, I can make a christian or a jewish “fitna” and juxtapose ugly parts of the bible with footage of abortion doctors’ murders and the “God Hates Fags” company. Of course their a tiny minority, but I would be right to point out that at least these people’s motivation is indeed purely ideological and religiously founded.

    have you asked yourself why muslims act on it and the others don’t?

    I had, but it looks like you hadn’t. As I’ve already said, a through analysis of this phenomenon would most likely yield many reasons, but one thing is for sure, the religious doctrine itself is probably the least imporatant of them.

  41. friend says:

    Dear all,
    i don’t know much about islam but it is a religion of peace and harmony. it is the muslims who are not practicing it in the right manner and unable to understand it. muslims are mostly emotional people who can easily be brain washed. there is a huge difference between jihad and terrorism. so dont mix up them. islam starts spreading by only sngle person and now every fifth person is muslim in th world. just because of peace and brotherhood. can’t you people see that jewism christanity and muslims have the same basic and history, so how can it be a religion derived from them can be so harsh. i know my english is not good but atleast i can make you people understand my views. islam believe in knowledge, information and education. there is a battle only with the high command and thinktanks. some people on the name of islam trying to defame it, plz recognize them. plz don’t be a fool and think before speak, and do some research work, not the blogs and tv channels.

  42. Stu says:

    “- Out of all the Islam, you could find this only ? is this how you wanna prove a point, just falling under the trap of Wilder – proving him correct that Islam preaches killings? You are the true Blasphemer. Not me! I didn’t say Kill, you specifically searched “kill” from all over Islam. Islam mentions peace, respect, love far many times more than any other religion.”

    What’s interesting to me is that, assuming the vast majority of commenters on this site are Jewish, Christian, agnostic or atheist, all of them seem to know more about Islam than this individual, who is clearly a Muslim or identifies as one.

    Does he really not know about abrogation? Does he really not know what the difference is between an Islamic “peace” and a Western peace? I could, as he says, ask “millions of other questions…” just like these. The best one though, would be: does he believe what he says about Islam or is this just taqiyya? I don’t know, but I’d bet money that if it’s the former, he’s the only believer here. If it’s the latter, there are no believers here.

  43. oao says:

    What’s interesting to me is that, assuming the vast majority of commenters on this site are Jewish, Christian, agnostic or atheist, all of them seem to know more about Islam than this individual, who is clearly a Muslim or identifies as one.

    well, that’s usually the case for religions. but the other 2 monotheistic religions had the benefits of the notion of curiosity, inquiry, analysis, understanding (judaism more than christianity). islam is a thought stopper: learn the quran by heart, submit to allah, pray and do jihad. there are zillions interpretations and fatwas, who can keep track of them all?

    the main thing is that muslims should dominate and if not, to do jihad.

    The best one though, would be: does he believe what he says about Islam or is this just taqiyya?

    very often they do believe in something, but it’s not really islam, but the concept of muslim supremacism. that has something to do with envy of the west, which was able to progress due to taming religion and put it in its place, while islam has guaranteed lack of progress. iow islam has been instilling in them both that they gotta be on top and ensuring that they are at the bottom. do that to people and see what you get.

  44. diana says:

    ahmed: History has shown that there are more Muslims killing Muslims………….good luck and take care of your life because one of your neighbours may decide that in the name of Allah and because your are not a Shia or a Sunni or a Suffi or a wahabbi you should die. Good luck!

  45. Richard Landes says:

    @@sshender (rl2 in bold)

    @ Richard Landes,

    Since it was my first ever comment on your blog, I’d like to use the opportunity to say that I find your cultural and psychological analysis of Arabs to be dead on! I read with awe your pieces on Anti-Semitism, Self-Criticism and the brilliant dissection of what makes the anti-zionist left tick! It was like a breath of fresh air to me, since while many people recognize the problem, very few have so far been able to describe it in such scientific terms.

    thanks. not every day i hear that. nice to know it makes sense to someone.

    Now back on the subject:

    as the article i linked to pointed out, this is a ploy, not a serious suggestion

    of course it was. I was just trying to play the devil’s advocate here, and throughout most of my piece.

    but there is, i believe, a fairly significant difference between the quran and the bible. i think there’s real incitement to hatred and violence in the former that’s not in the latter. on the contrary, aside from the historically embedded commands about the canaanites, the bible (OT’s) text calls for loving the stranger, the outsider. the quran’s normative view of non-Muslims, especially those who do not wish to “submit” to Allah is pretty ferocious.

    This is where I would differ from you. I don’t think that there is a significant doctrinal difference between the Quran and Hadiths and the Old Testament (let’s put the new one aside just for the sake of argument. I agree that most of Christ’s teachings are diametrically opposed to those of Muhammad). The old testament is rather unequivocal in its commandments of killing people for such ‘offences’ as working on the Sabbath. The non-believers do not fare a lot better in the bible than they do in the qoran.

    i for one think there’s a real difference btw on the one hand what i’d call foundational violence — that is what is necessary to start a movt/religion/culture/polity that works hard to minimize violence, and what i’d call normative violence — that is a call for a permanent state of war with the non-believing world, which is in the quran and the hadiths. note that, unlike either islam or christianity, judaism has boundaries/borders built in to its definition; hence the other, and an “other” with whom one preferably lives in peace, is built in to the religious self-definition. islam and christianity, on the other hand, have no borders.

    as for things like sabbath violation as capital punishment, there’s no record or it outside the biblical case. indeed jewish law makes executions almost impossible. so while no case of execution of witches appears in jewish sources, christians use the text “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” as a warrant for burning literally tens of thousands of witches, most of them women.

    A good way to test my theory is to come up with a though experiment where instead of the Qoran and Hadiths, the Muslims of today (in the same cultural, psychological and historical context) would be adhering to the old testament. Does it really seem plausible that they would suddenly turn into pacifists? I highly doubt it. Islam is after all the product of Arab culture and psyche, not the other way round.

    this is a good point, and points out that the text is less crucial than its interpretation. but based on such a reading, eisegesis is so strong that no text has its own independent meaning, it’s just what people read into it. i am a believer that, while you must make a (religious) text meaningful to you, you also need to respect the text. it’s a struggle. you’re saying that (right now and for the foreseeable future) arabic islam is going to find warrant for violence no matter what texts it were to consider holy, and i agree. but i don’t think you should project that condition (which i think derives from terrible insecurity and infantile rage) onto everyone, every religion.

    should we ban the book of revelation with its appeal to schadenfreude at the detailed description of the utter destruction of the apocalyptic “enemy”?

    I think we both recognize that any “banning” of books is stupid and counterproductive. But the apocalyptic doomsday scenario of the book of revalation is not without its risks. The fact that today many evangelicals besides being mere spectators, believe that they should in fact hasten the second coming of Chirst by all means possible should be our concern as well. As Sam Harris put it: It is therefore not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves- socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically.

    how does an anti-theist differ from an atheist?

    Am atheist simply denies the existance of a supernatural diety, while an anti-theist takes it one step further and sees the phenomenon of religion as detrimental to humanity’s well being.

    that strikes me as an astonishingly arrogant position, especially given that athiests — esp communists, but fascists as well — have, in only one century, killed more people than all the religions in the past millennium. i think both theists and anti-theists shd be a bit more modest.

    well, that’s a big difference, since one of the key elements of fitna is not just the reading of the texts, but the preaching of them by imams, and the results in terror, something it would be hard to do with other religions right now.

    the terrifying element of fitna is that, with a few minor adjustments, it could be a recruiting video for jihad. the anger of muslims at its release, i’d venture to say, is less the actual content than the exposure.

    I agree! And I made that clear: Islamism in the 21st century is akeen to Nazims in the 30s, with a religious twist which, alas, makes it even more dangerous. I just argue that this psychosis is influenced largely by other factors than its religios texts and doctrine. Of course one can counter that with the invocation of Arab christian supposed lack of violence, but as Scott Atran has refuted that claim as well, citing christian suicide bombing incidents.

    the only incident i’m aware of was in lebanon in 1982, and it was not a terror attack but an attack on troops (big difference). when the madness really hit in 2001, xn arabs were nowhere involved. and most of the “xn” arab terror came from the marxists.

    And of course you’re right that muslims are outraged at its exposure rather than at its contents. This is a recurring theme in recent decades where muslims seem to be more outraged by cartoons than by sectarian violence in the Muslim world. And your brilliant analysis of their culture and psyche explains why.

    so we end on a note of agreement. alas. what a mess.

  46. oao says:

    The old testament is rather unequivocal in its commandments of killing people for such ‘offences’ as working on the Sabbath. The non-believers do not fare a lot better in the bible than they do in the qoran.

    pretty bad, but (1) they did not know any better at the time (2) they were threaten to kill their own people for not obeying god, not all infidels such that they will subjugate, rob, rape and tax them.

    that strikes me as an astonishingly arrogant position, especially given that athiests — esp communists, but fascists as well — have, in only one century, killed more people than all the religions in the past millennium. i think both theists and anti-theists shd be a bit more modest.

    excuse me, rl, but i keep hearing this nonsense, to which there are 2 answers (1) they did not kill IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM (2) but in the name of secular religion, “communism” and fascism, just like the religious kill in the name of religion/god.

    you, theists, believe that morals are rooted in religion. you accuse us atheists that we cherry pick the scriptures for the bad stuff. but it is you, the theists who do it, by cherry picking the good stuff.
    your thesis is predicated on being only good stuff in religion, but for our thesis it is enough to show that there is also bad stuff in it (of course we can also show there is good stuff in atheism too).

    the core point is that no supernatural god must be invented to accept a moral code. the only reason it was invented is to instill fear and control. i very much question accepting morals out of fear as moral.

    all we have to do is show that there are

  47. E.G. says:

    Alas, RL

    Nidra Poller nails it, we should learn the lessons of Eurabia, but be afraid?
    I’m not afraid.
    This terror, physical and mental, is depressing and worrying. But I won’t let it get me frightened.

  48. oao says:

    But I won’t let it get me frightened.

    i’m not frightened by the jihadis. i am frightened — not to mention disgusted — by the west. particularly the idiots referred to in freedman’s article. but at least they’ll get what they deserve. too bad we’ll get it too.

  49. E.G. says:

    The events inspire me some thoughts and attitudes – but fear is not among them. At least not fear for myself.

  50. oao says:

    not for myself, but for western civilization. but i guess losers are losers.

  51. Syed Afnan says:

    i feel desegrated to hear about thiz movie about us (muslim), such kinda activities are forcing muslims toward voilant revenge against west…

  52. E.G. says:

    Syed Afnan,

    Any details about this VOILANT revenge?
    Because I feel shaken, very shaken, so shaken that I might burst out – laughing.

  53. [...] comments came in response to a piece I posted with Nidra Poller’s analysis of the dynamics of Eurabia. Comment by Imran Ahmed — February [...]

  54. Eliyahu says:

    EG, you gotta love this guy for being so frank. He tells you “we’re gonna do voilant revenge.” Well, Syed, what have you guys been doing all along?

    Syed, do you know that the word Rodomontage derives from the name of an Arab character –Rodomonte– in Torquato Tasso’s Jerusalem Liberated??

  55. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    Love? Merely love? Why, I adore this naive guy!

    i feel desegrated
    Does he mean desecrated? Taking things personally testifies to a very sensitive personality.

    to hear about thiz movie
    Merely hearing about thIs. Sound waves are powerful. Or has he already heard something more than just about the film’s existence? Never crossed his mind to check and see for himself? To what authority is he submitting his personal, sensitive judgement?
    Or is he, like Jeanne d’Arc, hearing voices? Are we witnessing the revelation of a new Prophet?

    about us (muslim),
    Enter – the Umma.
    Only Sayed and his fellows are allowed to make generalisations and (con)fusions. All others must be held to much stricter standards. He can, even must, speak for the whole. He’s entitled to see a few exemplars as representing a whole. But the others- verboten! Preachers of hatred and preaching war is just part of preaching Love and Peace. Our faulty hearing system must be corrected, to make it more selective. Attuned to the lullaby frequency only.

    such kinda activities are forcing muslims
    Interesting causality attribution. I wonder what are the other “kinda activities”, I guess deemed not too kind, that operate so powerfully on the Moslem psyche so as to immediately elicit and direct each and every individual towards one type of reaction.
    Is this conditioning (systematic) or ad hoc understanding?

    toward voilant revenge
    This is my favourite. Revenge is obviously the only means to restore the honour phantasmagorically “desegrated”. Voilant is obviously a Freudian slip. Voile = veil. Now the veil’s double function is revealed: veiled retribution via the veil.
    Otherwise, “voilant” sounds too Yiddish-accented for violent.

    against west…
    West of what? Of Eden?

  56. Eliyahu says:

    correction:

    RodomontaDe — [definition- Hachette, Dictionnaire Pratique du Francais] — Fanfaronnade.– De Rodomonte, personnage de l’Arioste 1474-1533.

    In turn, fanfaron is defined as:
    Qui exalte exagerement sa propre valeur, sa bravoure, ses merites.
    The Petit Larousse adds:
    faux brave, vantard
    Persona prepotente e temeraria, arrogante e millantatrice, smargiasso, spaccone [Gabrielli, Il Grande Italiano]

    Rodomonte was a Saracen character in Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso. Much like Saddam Hussein, our own Syed, and Hamas, etc., he vaingloriously boasted of his military prowess and his coming victory, and how he would crush his infidel enemies. So our own Syed is so very typical. He reminds me of Saddam foretelling that the sea would run red with American blood. Aren’t they ashamed of making these threats and then suffering humiliating defeat? And Ariosto saw this character trait 500 years ago!! אין חדש תחת השמש Nothing new under the sun!

  57. oao says:

    regarding the “flying revenge”: it’s like mark steyn said, “please don’t call me violent or I’ll kill you”.

    but it’s probably a good indicator of how this violence is achieved and why the notion of “moderate muslims” is not very useful.

    i would not be surprised if he’s one from the tons of syeds out there living in oppressive societies controlled by the mosques who are waken up from their routine by imams and AQ/Taliban/others pushing “look at how infidels are offending you and allah and muhammad” on them and in the absence of knowledge and aything happening in their lives, they find something to do — fight the offenders.

  58. oao says:

    Taking things personally testifies to a very sensitive personality.

    only towards the kuffar and women. what muslim men do to each other–boy, oh, boy what they do–does not evoke such reactions.

    Only Sayed and his fellows are allowed to make generalisations and (con)fusions.

    logic and causality does not exist in islam. come to think of it, it’s disappearing from the west too. no wonder some in the west feel affinity with the islamists.

    Is this conditioning (systematic) or ad hoc understanding?

    islam does not want understanding, it wants submission. and it offers jihad as the only response to offense. and infidels by their existence bring offense, but if they have the nerve to criticize islam, now that’s unbearable.

  59. E.G. says:

    oao,

    The devil’s in the details. But it certainly would have been even funnier had our dyslectic omitted the i. Une revanche volante n’aura pas été volée mais voulue. Voila! ;-)

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>