Are Muslim People Violent by Nature?

Hatred in a head count

RWANDAN Muslims were once held in low esteem. They were traders in a land where farmers held prestige. Moreover they were socially and politically negligible, constituting roughly 5 per cent of the population, and largely confined to the unspectacular neighbourhood of Kigali. Then came the genocide of 1994 in which tribal violence between Hutus and Tutsis claimed 800,000 lives.

Churches became slaughterhouses. Some brave priests and nuns lost their lives trying to resist the genocide. Many others were complicit. Hutu Catholic pastors offered refuge to Tutsis, only to surrender them to Hutu death squads who massacred them in the pews, and even at the altar.

Meanwhile, Kigali was a sanctuary. Muslims, both Hutu and Tutsi, resolved that they would stand against the genocide. When Hutu militias surrounded the neighbourhood, Hutu Muslims refused to co-operate. They hid Tutsis � Muslim and Christian � in their homes and in their mosques. Now, Islam in Rwanda is booming. Masses of Christians, incapable of returning to the churches in which their families were slaughtered, sickened at the thought of praying next to those who massacred them and listening to priests who sanctioned it, have converted to Islam. Today, Muslims constitute around 15 per cent of the population.

If we are to listen to visiting Israeli professor Raphael Israeli, Rwanda must now be heading for disaster. “When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems,” he contributed last week. For this, we are told the archetypal exhibit is France, where, thanks to a 10 per cent Muslim minority, “French people say they are strangers in their own country”. Violence flows from sizeable Muslim minorities as surely as breathing, apparently. But “if there is only 1 or 2 per cent they don’t dare to do it � they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved”.

Sometimes a statement is so manifestly boneheaded it is difficult to know whether or not it is worthy of a response. So it is with Israeli’s unsolicited social commentary. “Greeks or Italians or Jews don’t use violence,” he blundered, as though the Mafia had never existed, and Revolutionary Struggle, an active Greek terrorist group, had not claimed responsibility for bombing the US embassy in Athens last month. Israeli either forgets or omits Dr Robert J. Goldstein, the American Jew convicted for plotting to blow up a Muslim educational centre with the stated aim being to “Kill all ‘rags’ � ZERO residual presence � maximum effect”. The capitals are Goldstein’s.

But stupidity can sometimes be dangerous, and one suspects Israeli’s comments are a case in point. Federal Liberal MP Bruce Baird was moved to issue a strong press release, denouncing them as “racist” and “obscene”. The Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council saw fit to repudiate them and cancel planned events featuring Israeli. The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies was more equivocal. It denounced the remarks on Friday, but the next day defended them in a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, claiming Israeli had been misunderstood, Hilali-style.

Israeli’s comments matter because they are not as marginal as they are mad. His latest book, The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe, argues that an increasing Muslim demographic in Europe threatens that continent’s political and cultural integrity. “Every European with a right mind has every reason to be frightened,” he told The Jerusalem Post in January. This is an unoriginal appropriation of the “Eurabia” conspiracy thesis of Jewish writer Bat Ye’or: that Europe is evolving into a post-Judeo-Christian civilisation increasingly subjugated to the jihadi ideology of Muslim migrants.

In Europe, prominent intellectuals such as the historian Martin Gilbert have given this theory enthusiastic endorsement. In the US, it enjoys the ardent advocacy of public figures like Daniel Pipes, who has argued that the US should consider the internment of American Muslims as an option in the war on terror. Pipes is regularly consulted as an “expert” on Islam and Muslims, and was recently hosted in Australia by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.

The fundamental danger at the heart of this discourse is that it is incapable of understanding Muslims as human beings. Every nuance of human psychology to which we refer when understanding criminal or antisocial behaviour is suddenly deemed irrelevant.

Thus, the children of North African migrants who rioted in Paris in 2005 are understood solely as expressing their religious bigotry. Forget that the religiosity of these communities is almost non-existent. Forget that their ghettoes have formed over generations of unemployment and assimilationist exclusion from French society. The Muslim identity of the culprit explains all. They are equated with the London bombers, although their story has more in common with that of the Macquarie Fields riots that erupted in Sydney in 2005.

Such dehumanisation can be deadly. Bruce Baird asserted that Israeli exhibits “the same ideology that has underpinned the thousands of years of hatred targeted at Professor Israeli’s people, culminating in the Holocaust just 65 years ago”. That is not as far-fetched as it sounds. When you deprive people of their humanity, anything is possible. Today, we have Efraim Eitam, an MP in Israel’s National Union-National Religious Party bloc, demanding the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians in the West Bank. We have Rabbi Yousef Falay, who last year recommended that Israeli troops kill all Palestinian males over the age of 13 to ensure “no Palestinian individual remains under our occupation”.

Israeli would probably repudiate such views. What may not occur to him and his supporters is that he gives them their foundation.

Waleed Aly’s book People Like Us will be published later this year by Picador.

27 thoughts on “Are Muslim People Violent by Nature?

  1. ← 200+ crimes & dishonorable acts since 2009 demanding US leadership arrests
    About unlawful orders: US Supreme Court decided ‘law’ repugnant to Constitution is void →
    The Government’s Mass Spying Is An Affront To Democratic Values. Let’s Also Not Pretend It’s An Effective And Efficient Way Of Keeping Us Safe
    Posted on June 29, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
    Top Terrorism Experts Say that Mass Spying Doesn’t Work to Prevent Terrorism

    Never mind the fact that – if the government’s spying was really only aimed at protecting us from terrorism – the NSA probably wouldn’t put so many resources into spying on our allies in the European Union, the European Parliament, Germany, the G20 summit or Chinese universities (or perhaps even our own government officials).

    America’s terrorism experts say that the NSA’s mass surveillance program doesn’t make us safer.

    An article on Bloomberg notes that real terrorists don’t even use the normal phone service or publicly-visible portions of the web that we innocent Americans use:

    The debate over the U.S. government’s monitoring of digital communications suggests that Americans are willing to allow it as long as it is genuinely targeted at terrorists. What they fail to realize is that the surveillance systems are best suited for gathering information on law-abiding citizens.


    The infrastructure set up by the National Security Agency, however, may only be good for gathering information on the stupidest, lowest-ranking of terrorists. The Prism surveillance program focuses on access to the servers of America’s largest Internet companies, which support such popular services as Skype, Gmail and iCloud. These are not the services that truly dangerous elements typically use.

    In a January 2012 report titled “Jihadism on the Web: A Breeding Ground for Jihad in the Modern Age,” the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service drew a convincing picture of an Islamist Web underground centered around “core forums.” These websites are part of the Deep Web, or Undernet, the multitude of online resources not indexed by commonly used search engines.

    The Netherlands’ security service, which couldn’t find recent data on the size of the Undernet, cited a 2003 study from the University of California at Berkeley as the “latest available scientific assessment.” The study found that just 0.2 percent of the Internet could be searched. The rest remained inscrutable and has probably grown since. In 2010, Google Inc. said it had indexed just 0.004 percent of the information on the Internet.

    Websites aimed at attracting traffic do their best to get noticed, paying to tailor their content to the real or perceived requirements of search engines such as Google. Terrorists have no such ambitions. They prefer to lurk in the dark recesses of the Undernet.


  2. Ironically, after a church is suicide bombed in Pakistan, Signposts02 finally has a post about the problem. And what it is?

    A former member of the Muslim Council explaining that Muslims aren’t violent and extolling their good deeds and protection of Christians.

    Signposts isn’t sponsored by the Muslim Council by any chance is it?

    So the Liberal’s response to all the violence in recent days (and let’s forget the last few weeks) and keep it to days – enough just there.

    – Muslims aren’t violent but if they are, it’s not surprising given the violence from the Christian West.

    Nothing really changes here.

  3. Islam
    By David J. Stewart
    Islam is a false religion rooted in worship of the moon. I do not say this to be unkind, not in the least. I am offended by Christians that are critical of Arab people based upon the actions of a few Muslims. It is sinful and wrong to stereotype anyone. There are multitudes of Arabs who love Jesus Christ and are born-again Christians. They have not come to the God of the Jews; but to the God of Israel (and there is a big difference). Most Jews today reject Christ, just as they did in the New Testament. The book of Romans addresses this issue. Some Jews thought they could be saved by keeping the law of Moses. Paul rebuked them in Romans 2:13. Salvation is of the Lord, free to Jew and Gentile alike, paid for by Jesus’ precious blood.

    I love Arab people, and Islamic Muslims too; but I detest any false way that leads people away from the gospel of Jesus Christ, and thus into the fires of Hell. There is no salvation apart from faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12, King James Bible). We are living in exciting and scary times of Biblical prophecy. The New World Order is upon us, which is the beast system of the coming Antichrist. Are you ready for the Rapture (the next prophetic event to unfold)? Ye must be born again (John 3:3-7)!

    Sadly, there are over 1,000,000,000 followers of Allah and Islam in the world, all hellbound in their sins. Allah is not a real being. Allah doesn’t exist, for Allah has no son according to the Quran. The Word of God teaches that God the Father has a Son, and His name is Jesus (John 3:16). It’s one or the other. The truth is absolute and intolerant. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. Proverb 14:12 and 16:25, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Islam is the way of death! Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life according to John 14:6. Won’t you trust Christ now?

    Mecca—The Road to Hell

    Mecca, also spelled Makkah (in full Arabic: Makkat Al Mukarramah) is a city in Saudi Arabia, regarded as the holiest meeting place in Islam. Muslims are required by Allah (their false god) to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life (unless too poor to do so). Mecca is so idolized by Islamic Muslims that they are taught not to face Mecca while using the restroom. They are also taught that they’ll go to Hell if they urinate on themselves. I used to work with a Muslim who took a water bottle to the bathroom each time to cleanse himself. This is taught in their religious book, The Hadith (a collection of narrations concerning the words and deeds of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). The two main denominations of Islam, the Shiites and Sunnis, have different sets of Hadith collections.

    The man I mentioned tossed down his carpet and faced Mecca 5 times daily to pray to his false god, Allah. Muslims pray in synchronization with the cycles of the moon; hence, it is known as the “moon god” religion since they idolize the moon. This explains why Islam is represented by the crescent moon shape. Before the 7th century Islam didn’t exist. Before the false prophet Muhammad there was no Islam, no Allah, no Muslim religion. Wake up if you’re a follower of this false cult.

    Islam is of the Devil. Many false religions are subtle and require a more thorough knowledge of the Scriptures in order to expose, such as the Seventh Day Adventists. They are a damnable religion, saturated with false doctrines and a false gospel of a works-based salvation; but if you didn’t know any better you would easily be deceived since they do believe that Jesus is the Christ. However, Islam is much more easier to expose, because they openly reject Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God altogether. According to the Quran, Islam’s bible, God has no son. The Quran teaches that Jesus was kidnapped and someone else crucified in His place.

    In sharp contrast to the lies of Islam and Muhammad, 1st John 2:22 states, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” If you follow Allah, then you are the enemy of the God of the Bible. A popular lie that we hear nowadays, including from George W. Bush when he was U.S. President (2000-2008), is that Muslims and Christians worship the SAME GOD. The Bible and the Quran (Koran) are diametrically opposed to each other. There is NO harmony. Either God has a Son or he (Allah) doesn’t. It cannot be both ways. Truth is reality, and there can only be one absolute truth in this matter. Allah has no son; the God of the Bible DOES have a Son.

    Muslims Rely Upon Pilgrimage To Wash Their Sins Away!

    You’d be a total fool to follow Islam, because there is NO evidences or proofs of the validity of the Quran. Whereas the Bible contains much prophecy; the Quran contains no prophecy at all. Whereas the Bible was written by 40 different men (inspired by God), during a 1,500-year time span, from all languages and walks of life; the Quran was authored by ONE man, Muhammad. From reading the Quran, I realized very quickly that the Quran is a hateful manuscript against Christians and Jews. In sharp contrast, the Word of God teaches that God loves Jews and Gentiles alike; and Christ died for all, offering free salvation to all who come to the Father through the Son to be forgiven of their sins.

    Judaism, which is followed by most Jews today, is a satanic cult which also denies that Jesus is the Christ. The issue is not Jew against Arab (or vise versa). The Bible condemns all Christ-rejecters to eternity in the Lake of Fire, whether they be Jew or Gentile. Most Jews today reject Jesus as the Christ, just as do most Arabs. It is sad and tragic, and totally unnecessary. There is ONLY one way to Heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ. John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” It’s Jesus or Hell.

    Where did Mecca begin? Islamic tradition attributes the beginning of Mecca to Ishmael’s descendants. In the 7th century, the Islamic prophet Muhammad proclaimed Islam in the city which was by then an important trading center. It must be remember that the Arabs are as much the children of PROMISE as are the Jews. Long before Isaac was born, God promised to bless Abraham. God plainly told Hagar, the mother of the Arab world, that He would make of Ishmael a great nation. Genesis 17:20, “And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”

    God is no respecter of persons. a saved Arab will go to Heaven to enjoy the Lord’s riches and blessings for all eternity; and an unsaved Jew will burn in the tormentuous fires of Hell for ever and ever. This is what the Word of God PROMISES! Consider yourself warned whoever you may be (2nd Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 20:12-15). Jesus told Nicodemus (a ruler of the Jews) that no man can enter into the kingdom of God except he be born-again (John 3:3-7). That includes all Jews. God does NOT have a special covenant with the Jews concerning salvation as heretic John Hagee falsely teaches. The Mosaic law was only given that “ALL THE WORLD MAY BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD” (Romans 3:19, King James Bible). There can be no salvation through one’s own self-righteousness, because we have NO self-righteousness to offer God (Isaiah 64:6). That’s why Christ paid our sin debt, because we were hopelessly lost in our sins. Jesus paid a debt that He did not owe, because we owed a debt that we could not pay. Amen and amen!

    Oh listen friend, please don’t be misled by Islam into thinking you can merit your way into Heaven. You cannot (Ephesians 2:8-9). The path to Mecca is a road to Hell. Mecca is not a holy city; it is just a city. There is no such being as Allah. Muslims deceitfully claim that “Allah” simply means god; but their god is not the true and living God of the Bible. The God of true Israel is the God of the universe; but He is not the God of most Jews today who reject their Messiah and King, the Lord Jesus. Muslims who believe on Jesus as the Christ are not coming to the God of the Jews; but to the God of Israel (and there is a big difference). Won’t you come to Jesus Christ now?

    John 1:12-13, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

    Islam Study Links

    History of Islam
    The Sects of Islam
    Who was Muhammad?
    The Five Pillars of Islam
    Islamic Terms Defined
    Muslim, Jewish, and Christian End-Times Prophecy Comparison
    Contradictions in the Quran
    What is “Jihad”?

    Jihad in the Quran and Hadith

    Clarifying Jihad in the Qur’an Using The Principle of Naskh

    What did Mohammad say about Satan?

    What the Quran says about women

    Did They Really Say That? Quotations from Islamic Conferences in the U.S.

    Quotes and Additional Resources

    From Mecca to Minneapolis – Islam’s Quest for the West

  4. Waleed Aly is the go-to token Muslim moderate the media uses every time something bad happens involving Islamic militants or loud mouthed imams. He is an apologist for Islam.

    The article is actually a rant at an Israeli author who claims Islam has ambitions of global conquest. It says nothing about whether Muslims are violent by nature.

    They probably aren’t, any more than any other human beings, anyway. They are people. They have the same basic needs and desires everyone has.

    So what we should be asking is what makes anyone, be they Muslim or not, into a militant terrorist? What has caused the Islamic militants in Pakistan and Kenya this week to murder innocent women and children in cold blood because they are non-Muslims in the market place, or Christians in church?

    What does it take for anyone to become violent, anyway? I was in Kupang when the Timorese militants were in town having left Timor after the UN arrived. It was tense but reasonably peaceful, but erupted when a rumour spread like wildfire that a local kupang youth had been stabbed on a bus by a militant. The situation was very volatile for a few hours then simmered down.

    I was in Pamplona when basque students rioted. I had been speaking with them in a camp site, and they were youth like all youth, having fun the day before. Then one them was shot by police in a peaceful rally, and all he’ll broke loose for three days. We left for San Sebastián where the train station was fire bombed and the trains held up. We walked to the border, and there were charred and burning buildings all along the route.

    Are these people naturally violent, or did they have a cause. Is their cause valid. Is it just.

    Was it natural for them to be angry about what was happening to them?

    The question posed in the post is subjective, then. Are Muslims naturally violent. Given the right circumstances, yes. But would I be any different if something stirred me up?

    So the other question should be, is the passion exhibited in murdering eight month and six month pregnant women justified? Yes, two women, one married to an Australian! and one a Briton! were heavily pregnant when shot by these morons in Kenya.

    Is the passion and cause justified by killing children? Or church goers? Or people who are shopping?

    Is it ever natural to kill people simply because they are gathered in a crowd, or they are of another religion, or to terrorise the community.

    All Waleed Aly has done is obfuscate the issue by changing the subject.

  5. Is the passion and cause justified by killing children? Or church goers? Or people who are shopping?

    Is it ever natural to kill people simply because they are gathered in a crowd, or they are of another religion, or to terrorise the community.

    The US seems to have no qualms about doing it.

    Jeremy Scahill Recounts How the US Dirty Wars Killed Women and Children in a Yemeni Village
    Friday, 24 May 2013 00:00
    By Jeremy Scahill, Nation Books | Book Excerpt

    Jeremy Scahill exposes America’s “Dirty Wars.” (Photo:
    In his New York Times best selling Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield, investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill offers a riveting follow-up to his 2007 Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Only now, in the Obama administration, the CIA has assumed the role – working with the Pentagon at times – of carrying out extra judicial killings through drone strikes, missile attacks coordinated with the military, and special unit assaults, among other strategies.

    What were formerly actions too illicit and morally disturbing to be carried out by US intelligence agencies and the armed forces are now incorporated, as Scahill recounts in this exhaustively researched book (with nearly 100 pages of footnotes), within the CIA and the Pentagon through a joint oversight committee known as the JSOC.

    At a time when the Obama administration is trying to intimidate journalists to keep them form revealing unfavorable information about the administration’s national security actions (including the infamous presidential assassination list), Scahill has written a book that draws on a plethora of sources who provided him with details of the dirty wars that began with Cheney and Rumsfeld, but have expanded under the Obama administration.
    Scahill’s “Dirty Wars” is written in the illustrious tradition of Seymour Hersh who exposed the My Lai massacre and is a long-time investigative journalist for The New Yorker. “Dirty Wars” can also be seen as a documentary film when it is released in June.

    The following excerpt is from Chapter 32 of “Dirty Wars.”
    “If They Kill Innocent Children and Call Them al Qaeda, Then We Are All al Qaeda”
    Washington, DC, and Yemen, 2009 — On December 16, 2009, top US national security officials were given a file of “baseball cards” containing the bios of three alleged AQAP members whom Admiral McRaven wanted taken out by JSOC in a proposed “series of targeted killings” inside Yemen. Their code names were Objectives Akron, Toledo and Cleveland. JSOC wanted to move on the targets in less than twenty-four hours and needed an answer from the lawyers: yes or no. The officials who made up the killing committee had little time to review the intelligence. Both Harold Koh, the State Department’s legal adviser, and his counterpart at the Pentagon, Jeh Johnson, reportedly had just forty-five minutes from the time they received the files until the JSOC-led teleconference that would decide if the missions were a go. This meeting was larger than most targeting meetings, involving some seventy-five officials. The Obama administration was about to start bombing Yemen, and the national security establishment was mobilized.
    Admiral McRaven was beamed into the meeting via teleconference and, with the cold and direct tone he was famous for, laid out the military case for “kinetic action” against the “targets.” The main target, “Akron,” was Mohammed Saleh Mohammed Ali al Kazemi, whom the United States had identified as an AQAP deputy in Yemen’s Abyan Province. JSOC had been hunting Kazemi and McRaven’s men had “tracked him to a training camp near the village of al-Majalah.” Kazemi had evaded JSOC for months. Now, McRaven said, the US intelligence had a dead lock on his position. After ruling out a capture operation and weighing other military options, the team decided on a JSOC-led cruise missile attack on the camp.
    Johnson felt “heavy pressure exerted by the military to kill” and believed he had been “rushed and unprepared” to weigh all of the options. Still, he gave his thumbs up. A short time later, Johnson watched the satellite imagery of al Majalah from a command center in the Pentagon. Figures that appeared to be the size of ants moved around. And then with a massive flash they were vaporized. The feed Johnson watched was referred to internally at JSOC as “Kill TV.” Now Johnson knew why.
    On the morning of December 17, Sheikh Saleh bin Fareed’s BlackBerry started ringing. Tribesmen from his Aulaq tribe told him there had been a horrible incident in a tiny Bedouin village in Abyan Province called al Ma- jalah. Early that morning, missiles had rained down on the modest dwellings of a dozen families that lived in the remote, barren, mountainous village. Dozens of people had been killed, the callers told bin Fareed, many of them women and children. Bin Fareed turned on Al Jazeera just as the news was breaking. The announcer read a press release from the Yemeni government, which said that Yemeni warplanes had conducted an attack against an al Qaeda training camp, dealing a devastating blow to the militants. Bin Fareed called his chief bodyguard and his driver and ordered them to get his SUV prepared for the half-day’s drive from Aden to al Majalah.
    Bin Fareed is one of the most powerful men in southern Yemen. His family’s lineage traces back to the sultans who once ruled the Arabian Peninsula. After British colonialists arrived in southern Yemen in 1839, the Aulaq tribe became one of their most prized tribal allies. From 1937 to 1963, the southern Yemeni city of Aden existed as a Crown colony, with remote areas governed through a series of treaties with tribes. Bin Fareed, whose father was a sultan, was educated in British schools and grew up as royalty. In 1960, he went to the United Kingdom for college and military schooling and then returned to Yemen, where he joined the army. In 1967, Marxists took control of southern Yemen and the British withdrew. Bin Fareed and his family fled Yemen, believing they would return in a few months. It would be nearly a quarter century.
    Eventually, bin Fareed came to terms with the fact that he would live in exile. He worked much of his young adult life building up businesses elsewhere in the Gulf, and he spent extensive time at his family’s estate in the south of England. As the years passed, he became a major transportation and construction contractor in the Gulf. By 1990, bin Fareed was an extremely wealthy man. That year President Saleh unified North and South Yemen and he called bin Fareed. Saleh needed the tribes to help him consolidate his control over the south of the country, so he cut a deal with the tribal sheikhs to return. In 1991, bin Fareed was back in Yemen.
    By the time al Qaeda began to formally organize an affiliate in Yemen in 2009, bin Fareed had once again become a powerful figure in the country. He was a member of parliament, leader of a huge tribe and was building a massive private resort right on the Gulf of Aden. He knew there were a handful of people who had ties to al Qaeda, including members of his own tribe, but he primarily saw them as tribesmen and was not particularly troubled by the jihadis, as Yemen was full of veterans of the mujahedeen war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. What’s more, those men were widely considered to be national heroes. Bin Fareed remembered when Fahd al Quso was arrested for his role in the Cole bombing. Quso’s job was to film the bombing, but he had overslept. When the government took Quso into custody as a conspirator in the plot, bin Fareed was called in to mediate, as Quso was a member of the Aulaq tribe. “That’s the first time I heard that any Awlaki belongs to al Qaeda,” he said. “And it was just limited to him, and I think, one or two others.”
    Now, nine years later, bin Fareed watched as news reports alleged that an al Qaeda stronghold was right in the middle of his tribal areas. The reports said “that our government attacked al Qaeda in al Majalah where al Qaeda has a base, and a field for training. And they have huge stores for all kinds of weapons and ammunition, and rockets, all this. And it was a successful attack,” bin Fareed recalled. “And they did not mention the Americans at all.” Bin Fareed found it impossible to believe that there was an al Qaeda base in al Majalah. Even if there were al Qaeda members there, he thought, the government could easily have sent in a ground force to root them out. The reports he was getting about air strikes made no sense to him. It was a remote area, but it wasn’t Tora Bora.
    As soon as bin Fareed arrived in al Majalah, he was horrified. “When we went there, we could not believe our eyes. I mean, if somebody had a weak heart, I think he would collapse. You see goats and sheep all over, you see the heads of those who were killed here and there. You see their bodies, you see children. I mean some of them, they were not hit immediately, but by the fire, they were burned,” he told me. Body parts were strewn around the village. “You could not tell if this meat belongs to animals or to human beings,” he remembered. They tried to gather what body parts they could to bury the dead. “Some of the meat we could not reach, even. It was eaten by the birds.” As bin Fareed surveyed the carnage, most of the victims he saw were women and children. “They were all children, old women, all kinds of sheep and goats and cows. Unbelievable.” He examined the site and found no evidence that there was anything even vaguely resembling a training camp. “Why did they do this? Why in the hell are they doing this?” he asked. “There are no [weapons] stores, there is no field for training. There is nobody, except a very poor tribe, one of the poorest tribes in the south.”
    I later met with several survivors of the attack, in Abyan, including a local tribal leader named Muqbal, spared because he had gone out to run errands in a nearby village. “People saw the smoke and felt the earth shake—they had never seen anything like it. Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly. Five pregnant women were killed,” he told me. After the missiles hit, “I ran to the area. I found scattered bodies and injured women and children.” A woman who survived the strike sobbed as she recalled for me what happened. “At 6:00 a.m. [my family members] were sleeping and I was making bread. When the missiles exploded, I lost consciousness. I didn’t know what had happened to my children, my daughter, my husband. Only I survived with this old man and my daughter. They died. They all died.” In all, more than forty people were killed at al Majalah, including fourteen women and twenty-one children.
    Muqbal, who adopted an orphaned child, was incredulous at the allegation that his village was an al Qaeda base. “If they kill innocent children and call them al Qaeda, then we are all al Qaeda,” he told me. “If children are terrorists, then we are all terrorists.”
    As bin Fareed examined the wreckage, he saw missile parts that appeared to be from Tomahawk cruise missiles. “Of course, our government does not have this kind of rockets. I mean, any ordinary man could tell that this belongs to a big nation, a big government,” he told me. Then he found a missile part labeled: “Made in the United States.” Al Majalah was also littered with cluster bombs. A few days after the strike, three more people were killed when one exploded.
    Bin Fareed believed the Yemeni government was lying and that the Americans had bombed al Majalah and massacred dozens of innocent people. And he set out to prove it. As did a young Yemeni reporter.
    Abdulelah Haider Shaye was a rare kind of journalist in a country with a media dominated by regime sycophants. “We were only exposed to Western media and Arab media funded by the West, which depicts only one image of al Qaeda,” recalled his best friend, Kamal Sharaf, a well-known dissident Yemeni political cartoonist. “But Abdulelah brought a different viewpoint.” Shaye had no reverence for al Qaeda, but he did view the group’s ascent in Yemen as an important story, according to Sharaf. Shaye was able to get access to al Qaeda figures in part because of his relationship, through marriage, to the radical Islamic cleric Abdul Majeed al Zindani, the founder of Iman University and a US Treasury Department– designated terrorist.
    Although Sharaf acknowledged that Shaye used his connections to gain access to al Qaeda, he added that Shaye also “boldly” criticized Zindani and his supporters: “He said the truth with no fear.” Shaye had done in-depth profiles on Wuhayshi and Shihri, the leaders of AQAP, and had documented their bomb-making capabilities. In one story, Shaye nervously tried on a suicide vest that AQAP had made. He was the leading chronicler of the rise of the movement. His journalism was famous inside Yemen and across the world.
    Shaye had long been known as a brave, independent-minded journalist in Yemen, and his collision course with the US government appeared to have been set when al Majalah was bombed. As the story spread across the world, Shaye traveled to the village. There he discovered the remnants of the Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs, neither of which were in the Yemeni military’s arsenal. He photographed the missile parts, some of them bearing the label “Made in the United States,” and distributed the photos to international media outlets and human rights organizations. He reported that the majority of the victims were women, children and the elderly. After conducting his own investigation, Shaye determined that it was a US strike, and he was all over the media telling anyone who would listen. The young journalist was becoming a thorn in America’s side. But when he started interviewing Anwar Awlaki, he would become a target.
    Bin Fareed and Shaye were right. Al Majalah was the opening salvo in America’s newest war. Unlike the CIA’s “covert action” programs, which require formal notification to the House and Senate intelligence committees, this operation was done under a military “Special Access Program,” which gives the armed forces wide latitude to conduct lethal, secret operations with little, if any, oversight.
    In Yemen, the operations were all being coordinated by US Special Operations Forces based at the US-Yemen joint operations center in Sana’a, with JSOC’s intelligence division coordinating the intel, directing Yemeni forces in on-the-ground raids and providing coordinates for US missile strikes. Inside the facility, US and Ye- meni military and intelligence officials had access to real-time electronic and video surveillance, as well as three-dimensional terrain maps. The US personnel inside Yemen fed intel and operational details back to the NSA in Fort Meade, the Special Operations Command in Tampa and to other intelligence and military agencies.
    This is how al Majalah went down. It was December 17 in Yemen. Soon after Obama’s committee met in Washington and approved the operation to assassinate Kazemi and the other al Qaeda members on Admiral McRaven’s kill list, JSOC launched surveillance aircraft to monitor the intended targets. The operation kicked off in the early morning hours, as Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from a submarine positioned in the waters off Yemen’s coast. It was armed with cluster munitions. The missiles slammed into a collection of dwellings in al Majalah. Meanwhile, another strike was launched in Arhab, a suburb of the capital, Sana’a, followed up by raids on suspected al Qaeda houses by Yemeni special ops troops from the US-trained CTU, backed by JSOC. Authorization for the US strikes was rushed through President Saleh’s office because of “actionable” intelligence that al Qaeda suicide bombers were preparing for strikes in the Yemeni capital. The target in Arhab, according to intel reports, was an al Qaeda house believed to be housing a big fish: AQAP leader Qasim al Rimi. In Abyan, an anonymous US official told ABC News, “an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned.”
    A military source familiar with the operation told me al Majalah was a “JSOC operation with borrowed Navy subs, borrowed Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy surveillance aircraft and close coordination with CIA and DIA on the ground in Yemen. Counting the crew of the sub we’re talking 350–400 [people] in the loop.”
    When word of the strikes first broke, Saleh’s government publicly took responsibility. Yemen’s defense ministry said its forces had mounted “successful pre-emptive operations” against al Qaeda, saying they had killed thirty-four terrorists and arrested seventeen others. The Pentagon refused to comment, directing all inquiries to Yemen’s government, which released a statement taking credit for the coordinated strikes, saying in a press release that its forces “carried out simultaneous raids killing and detaining militants.” President Obama called Saleh to “congratulate” him and to “thank him for his cooperation and pledge continuing American support.” Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak also phoned to express his satisfaction to Saleh.
    But as images of the al Majalah strike emerged, some military analysts who reviewed the footage of the aftermath questioned whether Yemen had the type of weapons used in the Abyan hit. Al Jazeera broadcast video of artillery shells with visible serial numbers and speculated that the attack was done with a US cruise missile. Abdulelah Haider Shaye was interviewed on the network describing the dead civilians he had seen in al Majalah. Among the munitions found at the scene were BLU 97 A/B cluster bomblets, which explode into some two hundred sharp steel fragments that can spray more than four hundred feet away. In essence, they are flying land mines capable of shredding human bodies. The bomblets were also equipped with an incendiary material, burning zirconium, that set fire to flammable objects in the target area. The missile used in the attack, a BGM-109D Tomahawk, can carry more than 160 cluster bombs.
    None of these munitions were in Yemen’s arsenal. As news of the strike spread, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chair of the Joint Chiefs, sat aboard his military aircraft returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan and praised what he characterized as Yemeni operations supported by the United States. “We’ve actually done quite a bit there. I think we’re on a pretty good track,” he said. Referring to the attacks, Mullen said, “I really do applaud what they did, who they went after and specifically going after the Al Qaeda cell which has grown significantly over the last couple of years there.”
    But the vast majority of the victims killed in the strike were not, in fact, al Qaeda terrorists. Many of the victims, according to a classified US diplomatic cable, were “largely nomadic, Bedouin families who lived in tents near the AQAP training camp.” A senior Yemeni defense official described them as “poor people selling food and supplies to the terrorists, but were nonetheless acting in collusion with the terrorists and benefiting financially from AQAP’s presence in the area.” For al Qaeda, the takeaway was clear: the strikes were a US operation. AQAP could use the images of the aftermath, including those of dead and disfigured children, to rally Yemenis to their cause.
    Saleh bin Fareed was livid as he watched the way the al Majalah bombing was covered in the international media. Virtually every West- ern news outlet that covered the story said that Yemen had targeted an al Qaeda training camp and that the strike had been a success. But bin Fareed had been there. He’d helped scrape the remains of poor Bedouin villagers off of trees. He had seen the bodies of dead children pulled from rubble. He had promised newly orphaned children that he would take care of them, and he had seen the markings on the missile parts that showed they came from the United States. He was determined to make sure that the world understood that the victims of the strike were not al Qaeda—and that America was responsible.
    On December 20, bin Fareed organized a massive gathering of tribal lead- ers from across Yemen—nearly 150 of Yemen’s most powerful sheikhs. It was no small feat. There were age-old disputes, current feuds and lethal hatred among some of the powerful tribesmen in attendance. But bin Fareed persuaded them all to pledge that they would put aside their differences for the task at hand. “We made an open invitation to many sheikhs from all tribes. They came from Marib, al Jawf. They came from the North, they came from the South,” he recalled. “We drove all the way from everywhere to Majalah, just to prove, and show all media that what our government says is not true. The Majalah disaster was done by the Americans. And there was not al Qaeda whatsoever.”
    Bin Fareed’s goal was to gather tens of thousands of Yemenis from across the country in al Majalah to show their solidarity with the victims of the missile strike. One of his estates was about one hundred miles from al Majalah, and he offered all of the visiting tribal leaders hospitality the night before, so that they could travel together as one unit to the demonstration the next day.
    At about 9:30 at night, as the tribesmen finished up their dinner and discussion of the logistics for the following day, one of bin Fareed’s guards approached him. He whispered to the sheikh that there were about a half dozen men who had pulled up to the compound. “They want to see you,” the guard told bin Fareed, who waved for them to be allowed into the house.
    “But they are heavily loaded with machine guns, with hand grenades, with rocket launchers,” the guard told him. “Does not matter,” bin Fareed replied. “We are equipped the same. They are not enemies.”
    The men entered the house. They were young and well dressed, clean-cut. They made small talk. Bin Fareed asked them their names. He knew their tribes, but not the individuals. He asked them what they did for a living. The men laughed and looked at each other. “We are unemployed,” one said. Then he added, “They say we are al Qaeda.” “Are you?” bin Fareed asked. The men eventually admitted they were. “There is not one single American, or one single Israeli, or one single Brit, here in Shabwah,” bin Fareed admonished them. “You are making a lot of trouble for your people. You are giving a bad reputation, to us and to our tribe. If you want to fight the Israelis, then I will buy you some tickets and I will send you to Palestine.”
    Bin Fareed was losing his patience. “What can I do for you?” he asked. The men told him that they had heard about the gathering in al Majalah and asked bin Fareed if they could address the crowd. “If you are coming tomorrow, as ordinary tribesmen, you are welcome,” bin Fareed told them, but not as al Qaeda representatives. “No,” one of them responded. “We want to come and give a speech and talk about al Qaeda.” Bin Fareed lost his temper. “This means that you are really idiots. Really idiots,” he told the young men. “Our gathering is to prove to the whole world that there is no al Qaeda” in al Majalah and that “those people who were killed were innocent.” If they came, he told them, the “media will say that all of us, we are al Qaeda.” He warned them not to show up. “If you do come,” he told them, “you shave my beard, if you survive three days.” It was a grave warning. In Yemen, under tribal customs, to have one’s beard shaved in public by another man is to be humiliated for life. Bin Fareed was telling the young al Qaeda men that he would have them killed if they stepped foot in al Majalah.
    The next morning at 4:30, bin Fareed and the scores of tribal leaders he had gathered at his home caravanned to al Majalah. When they arrived, tens of thousands of Yemenis had already assembled. Tents had been set up and there were cars as far as the eye could see. “We estimate that day, that the gathering was between 50,000 and 70,000, some estimate it was more,” bin Fareed said. As bin Fareed settled into one of the massive tents and began going over the program for the day, his guards burst in. They told him that the men from last night—the members of al Qaeda—were standing on a car, giving a speech through a megaphone. Bin Fareed grabbed his automatic weapon and darted out of the tent. His men held him back. “Either they will kill me or I will kill them,” bin Fareed said. “I warned them.” It was too late. The al Qaeda men had already achieved their goal.
    As bin Fareed was grabbing his machine gun, one of the al Qaeda men, Muhammad al Kilwi, was standing on a car speaking to a crowd on the periphery of the demonstration. With a henna-dyed beard and a military jacket, he declared, “Al Qaeda’s war in Yemen is against the United States, not against the Yemeni military.” Standing aside the other al Qaeda men, who were wielding rifles, Kilwi vowed to avenge the deaths at al Majalah. “Our issue is with the Americans and their lackeys.” He finished his brief speech, and then he and his cohorts jumped back in the vehicles and disappeared into the mountains. That night, video of the speech was broadcast across the globe. Bin Fareed’s gathering was portrayed as an al Qaeda rally, just as he had feared.
    “They really spoiled our meeting,” bin Fareed recalled. But he was vindicated in the end. The men who had hijacked his rally were killed a few days later when the United States launched another cruise missile attack. Maybe the Americans had tracked them after they showed up at the rally, bin Fareed speculated. “They were killed,” he said. “All of them.”
    In Yemen, outrage about al Majalah was spreading, fueled largely by the assumption that it was a US bombing. The Yemeni parliament dispatched a delegation to do an on-the-ground investigation. When they arrived in the village, they “found that all the homes and their contents were burnt and all that was left were traces of furniture” along with “traces of blood of the victims and a number of holes in the ground left by the bombing…as well as a number of unexploded bombs.” Their investigation determined that the strike had killed forty-one members of two families, including fourteen women and twenty-one children. Some of the dead were sleeping when the missiles hit. The Saleh government insisted that fourteen al Qaeda operatives were killed, but the Yemeni parliamentary investigators said the government could only provide them with one name of an al Qaeda operative killed in the bombing—Kazemi, the “leader” known as Akron on JSOC’s list. Various Yemeni journalists and security analysts I interviewed were puzzled as to why Kazemi was being portrayed as an al Qaeda leader, pointing out that he was an aging veteran of the earlier wars in Afghanistan and was not a major figure within AQAP.
    After the strike, a senior Yemeni official told the New York Times, “The involvement of the United States creates sympathy for Al Qaeda. The co- operation is necessary—but there is no doubt that it has an effect for the common man. He sympathizes with Al Qaeda.”
    On December 21, ambassador Stephen Seche sent a cable from Sana’a back to Washington. Referencing the strikes, he said the Yemeni government “appears not overly concerned about unauthorized leaks regarding the U.S. role and negative media attention to civilian deaths.” Seche said that Deputy Prime Minister Rashad al Alimi told him that “any evidence of greater U.S. involvement such as fragments of U.S. munitions found at the sites—could be explained away as equipment purchased from the U.S.” But the United States and Yemen knew Saleh’s forces did not have those bombs. In his cable, Ambassador Seche asserted that Yemen “must think seriously about its public posture and whether its strict adherence to assertions that the strikes were unilateral will undermine public support for legitimate and urgently needed CT operations, should evidence to the contrary surface.”
    Indeed, months after the strike, Amnesty International published photographic evidence of the US bombs found at the scene. The Pentagon would not respond to the group’s inquiries about the munitions. “A military strike of this kind against alleged militants without an attempt to detain them is at the very least unlawful,” said Philip Luther, deputy director of Amnesty International’s Middle East–North Africa division. “The fact that so many of the victims were actually women and children indicates that the attack was in fact grossly irresponsible.” Amnesty noted that neither Yemen nor the United States had signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty designed to ban the very weapons used in the strikes. Without publicly confirming the strike was a US operation, unnamed American officials “cited strained resources” in the decision to use the cruise missile, alleging that with “the C.I.A.’s armed drones tied up with the bombing campaign in Pakistan…cruise missiles were all that was available at the time.”
    Yemeni officials told the US ambassador they had given the governor of Abyan $100,000 to pay off the victims and the families of the dead. Meanwhile, anonymous senior US counterterrorism officials defended the strikes. One told the New York Times they had been “conducted very methodically” and that reports of civilian deaths were “very much exaggerated.” But according to journalist Daniel Klaidman, Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon lawyer who signed off on the strikes, reportedly said of his role in the al Majalah bombing, “If I were Catholic, I’d have to go to confession.” For his part, Saleh told the United States he wanted such operations to continue “non-stop until we eradicate this disease,” with Alimi adding that Yemen “‘must maintain the status quo’ with regard to the official denial of U.S. involvement in order to ensure additional ‘positive operations’ against AQAP,” according to a US cable sent four days after the strike. Yemen’s foreign minister, Abu Bakr al Qirbi, asked the United States to “stay quiet” on its role in the strikes, saying it “should continue to refer inquiries to the Yemeni Government, highlight the [Yemeni government’s] indigenous CT capabilities, and stress that al-Qaeda represents a threat not only to the West, but also to Yemen’s security.” While US diplomats continued to develop the cover story with their Yemeni counterparts, more operations were being planned.
    The role of the US government in the attacks in Yemen was only revealed through leaks. But it was clear who was calling the shots. Amid demands from the Yemeni parliament to explain the al Majalah massacre, Deputy Prime Minister Alimi started spinning an updated version of the story, saying, “Yemeni security forces carried out the operations using intelligence aid from Saudi Arabia and the United States of America in our fight against terrorism.” Although closer to the truth, that version of events was also false. “It was cruise missile strikes in combination with military units on the ground,” said Sebastian Gorka, an instructor at the US Special Operations Command’s Joint Special Operations University, who had trained Yemeni forces. “It was a very distinct signal from the Obama administration that they are serious in assisting Yemen to remove these al Qaeda facilities from its soil. That was very much something executed by the United States, but with heavy support by the Yemeni government.” According to senior US military and intelligence officials, during the ground raid that followed the December 17 Arhab strike near Sana’a, Yemeni Special Operations Forces working with the JSOC team discovered someone they claimed was a surviving al Qaeda would-be suicide bomber, who still had his vest on. He was taken into custody and interrogated, producing what the United States believed was actionable intelligence. A week after the deadly Abyan air strike and the ground raids near Sana’a, President Obama signed off on another hit, based in part on information provided by the prisoner taken in the Arhab raid. This time the target was an American citizen.

  6. And he brings up the same issue. Islamic terrorists strike and what to Muslim reps do? Immediately, talk about how they worry if their community will be victimized. When Muslims kill people, we are told to think about Muslims.

    But the question I have is this and nobody is answering it. Muslims in many different countries riot because of a comic book in another country they’ve never been to. A comic book. Or decided to kill people in their country because some Muslims were killed somewhere else in the world.
    The elephant in the room, is that it now seems to be open season on Christians and nobody is concerned or worried.

    No matter how much christians are killed, nobody does anything. ANd even the “Christians” on the web are too busy reporting on any petty crime or speech by Christians.

    So what’s going on?

    I don’t usually copy and paste like the libs here but here goes.

    ““On Saturday we kill the Jews.” Why? Because with virtually no Jews left to persecute in those Muslim countries, “On Sunday we kill the Christians.”

    A few examples:

    In 1948 there were about 135,000 Jews in Iraq. Today less than 10 Jews remain.

    Since 2003, more than half of Iraq’s Christian population of 800,000 has fled. One horrific church bombing October 31, 2010, killing 58, made the news. But there was much more. As international human rights lawyer Nina Shea testified in a Congressional hearing:

    “…In August 2004…five churches were bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. On a single day in July 2009, seven churches were bombed in Baghdad…The Archbishop of Mosul, was kidnapped and killed in early 2008. A bus convoy of Christian students were violently assaulted. Christians…have been raped, tortured, kidnapped, beheaded, and evicted from their homes…”

    In 1948, there were some 100,000 Jews in Egypt. Today there are less than 50.
    Since late 2010, Egypt’s Coptic Christian community – 8,000,000 strong – has been under assault – tens of thousands have fled.

    In recent months, the Christians have been blamed for the demise of the Muslim Brotherhood’s regime.

    In the span of just three days, between August 14 and 16, 38 Churches were destroyed; 23 were vandalized. Fifty-eight Coptic homes were burned and looted. Eighty-five Copt-owned shops, 16 pharmacies and 3 hotels were demolished. Six Christians were killed; seven Copts were kidnapped.

    In 1948, there were around 30,000 Jews in Syria. Today less than a dozen remain.

    Now hundreds of thousands of Syrian Christians have fled; others are bleeding and dying, often targeted by Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels who demand that they convert to Islam or die.

    And elsewhere? Just this past Saturday, a massacre in a Nairobi mall took the lives of 68 people. Their al-Shabab killers ordered all Muslims to safely leave the scene; they shot the rest.

    On Sunday, more than 80 Pakistani Christians were killed in a church bombing.

    Jewish friends, neighbors and colleagues are shocked but not entirely surprised by such stories. They are rather puzzled, however, by what appears to be a lack of anxiety, action or advocacy on the part of Western Christians.

    “Yes, it’s horrific,” we seem to be saying, “But what can we do?”

    If we Sunday people are indeed concerned about the survival of our ancient communities in the Middle East, we may want to heed the advice of the Saturday people:

    Pray as if everything depends on God. And act as if everything depends on you. ”

    But no matter how many CHristians are bombed, raped and murdered, Greg will be busy being upset about a Singaporean Pastor, and Bones will be pasting something about the crusades or the pastor of his church talking about climate change. Yep, they are the burning issues of our day. After gay marriage and Bone’s medical research on the safety of male anal sex.

    Good that you guys have your priorities right….

  7. Okay, Greg, I read all that.

    You are missing the whole point.

    You have found evidence that civilians have been killed in America’s attempt to stop terrorism. What a genius. In other news, German civilians died. Some Italians too.

    I’m sure if you walked around some areas in Germany you would have been sickened by some of the scenes there too.

    “expanded under the Obama administration”

    aaa. So the Nobel Peace Prize winner just loves killing Muslims women and kids too??? Is that what you think? You think he is purposely targeting civilians?

    I am no fan of Obama. But I’ll tell you what I think. I think Obama is trying to stop terrorism. Maybe you will argue that he isn’t going about it the right way and mistakes are made.

    So what’s your solution? If you were the President what would you do? And after doing so, how much confidence do you have that the bombings would stop? If none, then…..we should just do nothing and just try to educate our next generation about how bad the west has been? That it? Do you think you could solve anything? Would you get re-elected on the basis of your solutions?

    But here’s what I know. Obviously, the US is not purposely trying to kill as many people as they could. If they were, they could have just nuked any country they wanted. Yeah, they could probably have just bombed Iraq of the face of the earth. They didn’t. Soldiers, pilots, were always attempting to reduce civilian casualties in this really dangerous and difficult process of stopping terrorists. But whenever a civilian is killed, Greg and the leftwing lunatic america hating brigade are there to publicize it and say that America is killing people. They could kill 1000 murderous terrorists plotting attacks on Newcastle, but if in the process two goats and a nomad family were killed, Greg would be there shaking his fist at America.

    ANd what else do we know. The Muslism terrorists are different. Completely different to Obama or American or the Christian West or whatever you want to rail against in your 70s leftwing outdated rage….

    They TRY to kill as many innocent people as possible.

    Get it?

    They TRY to kill as many innocent people as possible.

    Get it????????/

    Come on, put down the gay mag, stop smoking weed and ponder that though. When Muslim terrorists for whatever reason strap bombs to themselves and walk into a church at the close of service, they are trying to destroy as many innocent lives as possible. Same with the Muslims who flew planes into the world trade centre. (SOrry Wazza, the missile idea has been pretty well repudiated – though you and Bones probably got some mileage with that for a few days)

    America? Killing civilians as cited by that long post????

    If they want to kill civilians they could do it a lot better.

    Greg, go have a talk to some of the pilots who were involved over there.

    These guys put their lives on the line and aren’t interested in killing civilians. You are slanderous.

    Come on an American base with me and tell them your rubbish.

    Then go to preach to the Muslims about gay marriage.

    YOur talent and bravado is wasted here.

    Not a good idea? Right, just stick to raving about the latest minister who you thinks makes more money, and bashing America.

    Easier I guess.

  8. A douche is a man who is more concerned about a minister from singapore preaching in a tennis players church, than churches being bombed and Christians slaughtered.

  9. A douche sir, is a man who assumes he knows that another man cares about more one thing than another thing…and might I add, based upon his commenting upon another thread on another blog..not even the blog he operates! Dickhead.

  10. @Bones. I don’t think you should call them ragheads anymore than Greg should call people dickheads.

    But if those ragheads you mentioned are terrorists, I’ll help out if I can.

    “assumes he knows that another man cares about more one thing than another thing”

    based on what you post, and what you comment on, and what you talk about. Someone once said, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

    But, okay. I’ll stick to that new post by you Greg. For me this is the biggest issue of our time – Islamic terrorism against the world and themselves, and the eradication of Christianity in these countries.

    Actually when you think about it, the post-Christian countries are trying there hardest to get rid of traditional Christian morality, customs and influence in society (see US and Australia), and in other countries they are eradicating Christians themselves.

    That is why I fight with you guys. You are on the wrong team.
    And I mean that.

  11. Lots of people are now saying that moderate Muslims need to stand up and denounce these atrocities more.

    Bill Maher (well known liberal) states that it isn’t just a problem with religion because he dares to point out that it’s all Muslim terrorism now. Interesting interview I just watched today he did with Salmon Rushdie. Remember him? He talks about how Cat Stevens (you remember Peace train? Father and Son?) stated that Rushdie deserved to die.
    So, Muslims violent by nature? I don’t think so.

    Notice my answer? I won’t say that Muslims are violent by nature.

    But, it’s disturbing that Cat “Peace Train” Stevens converted and went from being such a nice little peaceful hippie type, to someone who thought Rushdie deserved to die and was willing to state it publicly. So I don’t think it’s their genetic nature -just what they hear and read I suppose.

    It would be nice for Yusuf or whatever his name is to publicly retract that statement and apologise.

    But…there are many Muslims who think anyone insulting the prophet deserves death.

    Maybe I’ve said it before, but the kind old professor who translated Rushdie’s book into Japanese was assassinated at his university. The response a Muslim representative (a well known, successful businessman)? No apology. No co-operation. He blamed the Japanese police for not giving the professor 24/7 security because it was inevitable that someone who insulted the prophet would be in danger.

    So. no, they aren’t violent by nature….but, well, I’ll get in trouble again, but, hey, have you guys noticed when you read the news that there are lots of people getting killed by Muslims proud to be Muslims these days?

    Take a read of CNN.

    Violent? No, it’s a religion of peace……

    ANd if you don’t agree, watch out!!

  12. Q, I posted an article some time ago when some islamic terrorists burned some christians alive. I posited that it was a deplorable, disgusting immoral act. Steve didn’t seem to agree. What do you say?

  13. Can’t remember it. But, I am against burning people alive. Whether Protestants or Catholics do it to those they consider heretics or Queenslanders do it to Victorians, or Christians do it to Muslims etc.

    A queenslander missionary and his two boys were burned alive by a hindu mob 10 or so years ago. It happens and I don’t understand it.

    I’d like the world to get together in the 21st century and agree to stop that. Things happened last week, last year, and 500 years ago. Let’s put an end to that.

    Okay, now I assume it was a trick question. Go ahead. lol

    btw, for something completely different. I watch a youtube of Cat Stevens singing Father and Son (great song) years ago, and then recently with Muslim women in the audience.

    I’m sure they were nice peaceful Muslim women who want their sons to have good lives and good relationships with their Fathers. We need more of them and less of the type who hope their sons become suicide bombers.


  14. Yes I know my comments are too long. But nobody listens to me in real life, I have no friends except Bones and Greg. Take pity on me! You are my therapists. I am lying on a couch as we speak…


  15. Bones, I think I may have mentioned it before, but haven’t come out so strongly because I’m still working through it, but I find the concept of people experiencing pain on the level of being burned for eternity for what they did or didn’t do, believed or didn’t believe in a lifetime of 15 to 115 years. But,there are lots of things that I have trouble accepting.
    If you are bringing the issue of hell into this, then I’d say that’s another subject.

    End times, eternal punishment, evolution – there are a lot of issues that i am interested in restudying.

    I am 100% against humans now burning each other alive. And for the last few days, and years, the biggest problem on the earth is Muslim violence.

    I want it stopped.

  16. again, I am not steve. But I realize that he holds to the traditional biblical viewpoint on most issues except pentecostalism. And he has my respect for that.

    We could go back to the hell debate later. But I don’t think western society has improved the loss of the belief in after death-punishment.

  17. Are Muslims violent by nature?

    Are Germans violent by nature?


    The scariest thing is what people can become when everyone around them is talking and doing things in a certain way.

    My conclusion about the world in general is that it all comes down to leaders. There is no central Muslim leadership.

    If Brian Houston and Rick Warren endorsed gay marriage and talked about it, the percentage of Christians who supported gay marriage would increase 20% in one year.

    It’s all to do with leadership. If there were a couple of charismatic, influential Muslim leaders who promoted the superiority of Islam culture and way of life and encouraged young people to concentrate on science, business and charity, and that became the prevailing “world view” then things would change.

    A peaceful Bin Laden.

    Most of the people blowing people up in the world and having fun shooting people with machine guns are young men who aren’t old enough to have grandkids.

    Not all but most – and they are the ones who know nothing about the world apart from their own circle and what their heroes tell them, and they are the ones doing the dirty work.

    Young men and bombs and guns have always been a dangerous combination.

    But, could anyone have had a chat with Hitler in the early 30’s and convinced him that Germany could be great again with invading anyone?

    Honest question. Because things would have been different.

  18. And my attempt at being exposed to different ideas will be to stick around here and somehow get on well with the crazy libs here.

Comments are closed.