BS: Jihad: Definition

Subject: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 07:46 PM

Article in the Wall St Journal 14 Aug 2006: Yemeni judge (Mohammed al-Baadani), jurist "with family in the US and a history of handing out prison sentences to al-Queda fighters plotting attacks in Yemen", had a case of 19 defendants who had travelled to Iraq to kill US soldiers and fight alongside al-Queda.

They openly praised Osama and had been caught with guns and fake Iraqi passports, also bore wounds from fighting US and Iraqi troops.

Mr. al-Baadani acquitted them all.

Reason: "Islamic Sharia law permits jihad against occupiers" of Moslem lands.

It is against Yemeni and Sharia law to attack US or other Western targets outside occupied lands (e.g the recent foiled airline attacks)

Similarly, it's against Sharia and Yemeni law to attack in Yemen (as for instance the 2000 attack on the US Cole.---Yemen is not occupied by non-Islamic forces.

But in the case of Yemenis fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq the governing principle is jihad: either a Moslem's personal struggle against evil, or more typically, the "Islamic obligation to fight nonbelievers encroaching on Moslem lands."

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 07:49 PM

Fu#kers are as slippery as an eel in a bucket of snot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:01 PM

As soon as we admit the the Holy Jihad is world-wide we will have a chance to begin fighting it.

Moslems can justify anything by saying violence is aimed at "nonbelievers encroaching on Moslem lands".

Trouble is, they think 100% of planet Earth is Muslem land, or at least should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:10 PM

PDQ--you didn't read very carefully. If the country is not Moslem, jihad does not apply. Nothing about "encroaching". Would you claim that the US or any European country is a Moslem state?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:19 PM

That is absolutely incorrect what you said, pdq. Muslims most certainly do NOT think that 100% of planet Earth is Muslim land, but if I were a western political demagogue trying to spread fear of Muslims far and wide so as to have an unnecessary world conflict, then I would say just what you said...which is a big fat lie.

I'm not saying you're lying, by the way. I'm saying you are misunderstanding something...and unwittingly stating a falsehood.

Strict Muslim law requires Muslims to obey the civil laws of whichever society they happen to be living in, and that includes non-Muslim societies. It is understood that a Muslim living in a non-Muslim society is required by his faith not to break the civil laws.

That some Muslims, like some non-Muslims, clearly DO break civil laws is not a blanket judgement upon their religion...it's a judgement upon individual human frailties and weaknesses. No religion can claim that all its adherents obey its every rule...much as it might wish they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:19 PM

But it does give us a clear indication of what punishment is likely to be handed down by Sharia courts in Iraq-- after the "Coalition" leaves Iraq-- for crimes against "Coalition" soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:23 PM

Ron,

People cannot look at each episode of Moslem violence as a separate event. They are all linked. Each and every devout Moslem is required to convert all 'infidels'. If that does not work, the non-believers must be killed. Planet Earth is going to be 100% Moslem eventually. That is their goal. The definition of the Holy Jidhad fed to the public changes as needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:26 PM

pdq--

Jihad law only applies to countries which are NOW Moslem. Iraq fits this definition. Do you claim the US does?

If you have contrary information, please give it--with source.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:27 PM

"Strict Muslim law requires Muslims to obey the civil laws of whichever society they happen to be living in"

How many people do YOU know who follow the dictates of their religion? Muslims are no better about that than any others. The Sudan has 2,000,000 dead. Let's not whitewash jihad or the ends to which jihad is put. Just some murdering bastards disguised as clerics telling poorly-educated people to go kill someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:42 PM

So the London bombing, Madrid bombing--they took place in Muslim countries?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:42 PM

Ron,

Every country on planet Earth has violence and death due to the Islamic Holy Jihad. It does not matter what the Yemeni judge you mention says in public as he is saying what fits the political climate today. Behind the scenes, all Moslem clerics know their job: rid the Earth of all 'infidels'. Anyone who thinks that an attack in London, Iraq or the Phillipines is an 'isolated incident' or 'justified because they did...' is just playing into their hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:45 PM

I know that, Peace, and I already said that myself in my last post. Muslims are just as fallible when it comes to realizing the true ideals of their religion as most people are...and we all know that.

That's not the fault of the religion, okay? It's a well known fact that most people interpret a religion to suit their own wishes and desires, isn't it? ;-) Unscrupulous leaders usually depend on the fact that ordinary people are easily tricked into following orders and letting someone else do their thinking for them.

But it's asinine for anyone to state, as pdq did, that Muslims consider the whole planet to be Muslim land, and that's what I was pointing out. Period.

The Sharia law requires Muslims to defend Muslim lands that are being invaded or occupied, and we all know perfectly well where those lands are right now: Iraq, Afghanistan, and various disputed areas in Palestine.

I'm not saying I support that Sharia law...I'm just saying that that is how it works.

Yes...all acts of Muslim violence are tenuously linked in one way or another (not that they all proceed from a single command, but they do all connect to a large cultural awareness).

So what? All acts of violence driven by the need for controlling international oil are linked too, and in a much more direct and pragmatic fashion, and from a much more centralized command structure.

Do you want me to hate and fear all Muslims because their aggressive actions are linked? Or do you want me to hate and fear all Americans because the USA's aggressive actions are linked?

To do either would be extremely foolish. All people in a group are NOT to blame for the actions of an aggressive few.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:47 PM

"That's not the fault of the religion, okay?"

Hey, OK. But the jihadist shit is done through clerics. So whose fault is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:50 PM

"Do you want me to hate and fear all Muslims because their aggressive actions are linked?"

I suggested nothing of the sort. Shove THAT up yer ass fellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:10 PM

Don't give me a talk on how peaceful the Muslim religion is. It is no more peaceful than Christianity at numerous times. The apologists then as now go on to say that leaders and followers 'misunderstood'. Which part of "thou shalt not kill" are these bastards having trouble understanding?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:38 PM

Which part of "thou shalt not kill" are these bastards having trouble understanding?

They are probably just focusing on some other piece of scripture instead to justify their actions...just like the Christians or the Buddhists or anyone else does when they kill people...they selectively ignore or reinterpret the parts of their philosophy that would seem to conflict with their present course of action. The word "kill", for instance, is taken by many interpreters and translators of both Muslim and Christian (and Jewish) scripture to mean "murder" (as in the civil crime, murder). Therefore it is assumed not to apply to killing that is done in war or in the line of duty as a police officer or when slaughtering an animal, to give three examples of killing that is not usually termed "murder" by most people. Whether those really are instances of murder or not, of course, is debatable. Maybe they are. Maybe they're not. People can argue about it till they're blue in the face, and I'm sure they will be doing so long after you and I have cashed in our chips and gone to the great coffeehouse in the sky... ;-)

Consider this: The Israelites were reputedly instructed by God "Thou shalt not kill!"   They then went forth to "the Promised Land" a short time later and wiped out whole nations of other people who happened to be in their way...man, woman, and child. They must not have considered that to be "killing" for some reason... ;-) I suspect that the only thing they did consider to be "killing", technically speaking, was to kill another Israelite in the course of normal daily society among their own people! Exceptions even to even that would be: you CAN kill another Israelite by stoning and various other horrible forms of public execution if that person has committed a capital crime (such as adultery) according to the rules laid out in scripture. Then it's not really "killing" anyone either, because it's not murder!

In other words, Peace....it's all a bunch of absolute bullshit, and they all kill whoever they want to as long as they have a good enough reason and a good enough excuse...and the sanction of higher religious or civil authority. This is true of Jews, Christian, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and just about everyone else I can thing of in this world. They kill on command, because they figure that Big Brother knows best.

It's Big Brother that's the problem. It's aggressive, unscrupulous leaders on all sides that are the problem. They issue the orders to kill.

The only thing I have disputed that's been said here so far is pdq's statement that Muslims "think 100% of planet Earth is Muslem land, or at least should be". That is scaremongering, and it's untrue. It's the kind of thing you say when you want people not to think, but just to go out and kill some Muslims.

Remember Lapp-Goch? The famous self-defence technique marketed as a joke in National Lampoon? You go out and kill all the people that you are worried might one day, some day, want to kill you. This could include the neighbours, the milkman, the postman, the garbage collectors, etc.   You take preventive action, and get all those bastards first. That's what the USA did to Iraq. It launched a "preventive war" against a country that is, in fact, incapable of attacking the USA in any effective fashion. That's Lapp-Goch.

The only effective plea the architects of such a "preventive war" could offer up in their defence at some future Nuremberg might be....insanity. But I doubt that the Court would buy it.

And their generals and soldiers could say..."I only followed orders." Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: number 6
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:43 PM

"Remember Lapp-Goch" .... I remember it very, very well ... BTW it was Monty Python.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:08 PM

Are you sure, 6? I remember reading it in the pages of National Lampoon. It was one of those one-page ads in small black and white type, kind of like the Charles Atlas stuff. It had a guy dressed in a weird costume, kind of like a Pilgrim or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:10 PM

Seems that some people have forgotten this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Michael Scheuer, who once headed the CIA's bin Laden unit, says bin Laden has been given permission by a young cleric in Saudi Arabia authorizing al Qaeda to "use nuclear weapons against the United States ... capping the casualties at 10 million."

"He's had an approval, a religious approval for 10 million deaths?" I asked him.

"Yes," Scheuer responded."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure the imam expects most of the 10 million dead will be in the US since we do not have anything like 10 million US citizens living in precious 'Moslem lands'.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: number 6
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:13 PM

Check this LH .... it's actually Llap-Goch.

Llap-Goch

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:18 PM

It appears you are right, Number 6. I did a search, and it was a Monty Python thing in a book they published in the early 70's.

"Lapp-goch is the ultimate fighting style because of its strategy which is far superior to any other martial art.

Lapp-goch is based upon the simple combat strategy that the best form of defense is a good offense. The best way to protect yourself from an assailant is to attack him before he attacks you, or even better before he even thinks of attacking you or is even aware of you existence."

Going by this, the USA has not completely mastered Lapp-Goch, because Saddam was aware of their existence. Other than that, however, they appear to be well versed in the technique.

pdq - No, I haven't forgotten it, I just don't particularly give a damn. So, a young Saudi cleric gave Bin Laden "permission" to use nuclear weapons on the USA. Uh-huh. So?

Suppose a Christian preacher gives Bush the same kind of permission to use nuclear weapons on Iran or North Korea. I'm sure some already have. So?

In either case, what does it prove? It proves there are a few fanatical idiots on both sides of the great divide who are willing to kill a lot of innocent people, and I already knew that. Didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: number 6
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:19 PM

Actually LH ... searching through the net ... it looks as if it was also an ad in National Lampoon.

National Lampoon SSBJOURN.ZIP 40055 18-Oct-92

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:21 PM

I screwed up the damn italics code again.

This is why they do not trust me with the nuclear launch codes... (grin)

And yes, 6, it IS Llap-Goch. As you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: number 6
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:21 PM

" In either case, what does it prove? It proves there are a few fanatical idiots on both sides of the great divide who are willing to kill a lot of innocent people, and I already knew that. Didn't you?"

No kidding !!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:46 PM

I'm not addressing the rather obvious idea that any religious principle can be abused. We would probably say that no religion should have a precept that you can fight against--and kill--an occupier not of your religion--that in fact religion should have nothing to say on this question--except perhaps "Thou shalt not kill".

But supposedly there is the doctrine--in Christianity--of the "just war" Sounds like that might involve some killing.




But my main point was just some of the likely legacies of Mr. Bush's Iraq war.

1)   We've already seen what's likely to happen as the "Coalition" troops withdraw--when the British withdrew, very recently, from a base in a province judged "pacified", what happened?----immediate and thorough looting of the base.

2) Now, through the decision of the Yemeni judge, we see how crimes against "Coalition" forces are likely to be treated after the "Coalition" withdraws--if the trial and sentencing is not over before the "Coalition" troops withdraw, Sharia law is likely to rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:47 PM

Yeah, I guess the ad in NatLamp was where I saw it...

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 12:36 AM

"You take preventive action, and get all those bastards first."

It will likely happen to Iran. Imagine that maniac with nuclear weapons at his disposal?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: GUEST,thehw
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 01:01 AM

Well, yes, the excuse that some other country's leader is a "maniac" or a "madman" sounds like a wonderful way to justify pre-emptively attacking a country which hasn't attacked you yet. It's been done before on several occasions, and people bought it every time. So why not do it again? Remember, when others do it...it's a war crime! But when you do it...it's justifiable defence against future aggression by "a maniac"! Who can argue with such impeccable logic as that?

Besides, that other guy may think the same way you do...and be planning something similar...that MANIAC! So go get him NOW. The world will be so grateful when you do.

(from Agenda A, section 12 of The Handbook on How to Start Wars of Aggression and Get Away With It....3rd Edition with an illuminating historical article by Josef Goebbels and additional commentary by Donald Rumsfeld)

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:22 PM

It would also possibly be instructive to examine the similarities between jihad and the just war doctrine.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:26 PM

pdq - Where did you find that quote from Michael Scheuer? I never heard that. I did find this is Harper's"

"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world's oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term "Islamofascism"—but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies."

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:41 PM

Wall St Journal had a big article on exactly Dianavan's point--especially with setbacks to Bush's plans elsewhere, his regime is now definitely soft-pedalling the much ballyhooed push for democracy-- in places like Egypt. Suddenly Mubarak's less-than-enthusiastic embrace of a true multiparty system is just fine with Mr Bush and co.

And the people actually pushing for democracy in Egypt see this and recognize it for what it is-----the Bush regime's hypocrisy on this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 01:39 AM

"Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: GUEST,thehw - PM
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 01:01 AM

Well, yes, the excuse that some other country's leader is a "maniac" or a "madman" sounds like a wonderful way to justify pre-emptively attacking a country which hasn't attacked you yet. It's been done before on several occasions, and people bought it every time. So why not do it again? Remember, when others do it...it's a war crime! But when you do it...it's justifiable defence against future aggression by "a maniac"! Who can argue with such impeccable logic as that?"

You, shithead, have taken what I said out of context. For that, go fuck yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 08:07 AM

"Jihad" or something very like it used to be something you yelled when you made a strike or picked up that split spare.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 09:32 AM

Opponents to prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, unable to defeat him with votes, have continued demonstrations and other forms of protest. In response, the police have been ordered to "get tougher" with the escalating opposition tactics. While Thaksin has lots of enemies, he apparently has more supporters. So far, the opposition has been largely non-violent.

August 26, 2006: In the south, a roadside bomb was used to kill a colonel in the army security forces. another soldier died and five more were wounded. There were several gunmen, opening fire with automatic weapons, after the bomb went off. Soldiers returned fire, and the terrorist gunmen escaped on motorcycles.

August 25, 2006: A large car bomb was found near the prime ministers home, and was defused. A army lieutenant was arrested for having driven the car there. The prime minister accused the army of plotting to kill him. A senior general accused the prime minister of making up the plot, but the army agreed to carry out an investigation of some retired officers who have been active in the anti- Thaksin movement.

August 24, 2006: Police intelligence believes that Moslem rebel leaders met last April to plan a large increase in attacks, a three month campaign beginning next month. These attacks would concentrate in infrastructure. Power plants and water treatment facilities would be bombed, along with power lines and water pipelines. In addition, attacks would be made on government facilities and security force bases and headquarters.

August 22, 2006: The army wants to raise special border patrol (or "ranger") units along the southern border. Several thousand local men would be recruited for this duty. The recruits would be screened to keep out Islamic radicals, and trained to shut down the smuggling across the border. The program will only continue if parliament provides the money. The army also wants to increase educational opportunities in the south, including Moslem schools that don't teach religious extremism, and education outside the south.

August 19, 2006: Several of roadside bombs have been going off each week in the south, along with shootings of non-Moslems. The terrorists have been using cell phones to detonate the bombs remotely.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 09:35 AM

The above is of course Thailand; but this kind of shit has been going on all over the world without comment from people too blind to see the implications.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 09:58 AM

re Michael Scheuer and the fatwa telling OBL he may nuke the USA:

Bin Laden Expert Steps Forward

I must say I have never read anything else than Scheuer's claim repeated and repeated again for instance on the many "American Hiroshima" sites that I consider very unreliable.

If anyone finds more than a mere claim by Scheuer I'd be interested to know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 10:47 AM

Global Jihad and WMD: Between Martyrdom and Mass Destruction

gives a bit more of informastion and context regarding that fatwa.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 02:15 PM

From JINSA:

Al Fahd told television viewers that he "demanded that this interview be conducted to acquit myself of such actions and so that people will know that we do not approve of such acts, which are prohibited." When asked by al Qarni whether he regretted issuing any of his previous fatwas, al Fahd stated that "yes, there are many fatwas...which contained unbridled enthusiasm, generalizations and mistakes."

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 11:32 PM

Dianavan--what's the date of the interview?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 11:48 PM

December 10, 2004 in Information, Analysis and News : Terrorism : Global Terrorist Groups

Osama bin Laden's Mandate for Nuclear Terror

Al Qaeda Leader Received Religious Justification to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction

An Islamic religious ruling that had been kept from the public for a year-and-a-half granted Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders permission to use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against the United States and its allies. The existence of the ruling, or fatwa, was revealed by Michael Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed the agency's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999 during the course of a November 14 broadcast of the CBS news show Sixty Minutes.

The fatwa was issued by a prominent Saudi cleric on May 21, 2003, and is an ominous sign that bin Laden and al Qaeda no longer accept moral or religious values obstructing the use of weapons of mass destruction.

from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 11:53 PM

He said the attack was a sin and the bombers were not martyrs because they violated Islam by killing both Muslims and non-Muslims under the state's protection, murdering women and children, harming security and wealth, distorting the image of jihad (holy war) and Islam, and "provoking enemies of Muslims."

"Blowing oneself up in such operations is not martyrdom, it is considered suicide. How can they kill Muslims, innocent people, and squander wealth in the country of Islam?"

Sheikh Nasser Al-Fahd told viewers that the merits of carrying arms in the name of jihad depended on the outcome. The Riyadh bombings, he said, had terrible consequences and were therefore wrong.

"We see the results, Muslims and innocent were killed, homes destroyed, Muslims terrorized. The judgment is clear."


from

here.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 07:59 AM

The Judge in this case is right. To charge those 19 men would be equivelent to a western court charging a coalition soldier simply for doing their duty in Iraq.
They are acting under a widely held and reasonably consistant moral code, ie Islam. These men were fighting soldiers, and in an islamic country. They were not acting in a western country, nor targeting civilians, and were therefore following the rules for jihad, in a reasonable intertaition.

We may not like the result in this case, but it is at least the rule of Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 09:10 AM

The six month amnesty for Islamic terrorists has expired. Only about 300 people took advantage of the amnesty, and turned themselves in. The amnesty does not cover those who committed murder, which may be why it is believed there are some 800 Islamic terrorists still active. As part of the amnesty deal, some 2,200 imprisoned terrorists were freed. Some 14 years of Islamic terrorism left over 200,000 dead and caused some $20 billion in economic damage. Thousands of Islamic radicals have fled the country, and continue to plan and carry out terrorist acts in Europe and the Middle East.

The remaining terrorists in Algeria have little popular support, and survive by terrorizing civilians into providing food and other necessities. The army has located several groups of Islamic terrorists in mountains and forests, and continues to try and bring the terrorists in, or kill them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 11:02 AM

QUIZ TIME


1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
               a. Superman
               b. Jay Lenno
               c. Harry Potter
               d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at theMunich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
               a. Olga Corbett
               b. Sitting Bull
               c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
               d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
               a. Lost Norwegians
               b. Elvis
               c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
               d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
               a. John Dillinger
               b. The King of Sweden
               c. The Boy Scouts
               d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
               a. A pizza delivery boy
               b. Pee Wee Herman
               c. Geraldo Rivera
               d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Laurowas hijacked and a 70 year old American   passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
               a. The Smurfs
               b. Davy Jones
               c. The Little Mermaid
               d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
                a. Captain Kidd
                b. Charles Lindberg
                c. Mother Teresa
                d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988,Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
                a. Scooby Doo
                b. The Tooth Fairy
                c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
                d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
                a. Richard Simmons
                b. Grandma Moses
                c. Michael Jordan
                d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
                a. Mr. Rogers
                b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
                c. The World Wrestling Federation
                d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.Thousands of people were killed by:
                a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
                b. The Supreme Court of Florida
                c. Mr. Bean
                d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12.In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
                a. Enron
                b. The Lutheran Church
                c. The NFL
                d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
                 a. Bonnie and Clyde
                 b. Captain Kangaroo
                 c. Billy Graham
                 d. Muslim male extremist s mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14. 2004 - Spain Railwayy bombings wer the work of
                 a. Dixie Chicks
                  b. Newt Gingrich
                  c. Joe Offer
                  d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
   
15. 2005 London Railway bombings
                  a. Sean Penn
                  b. Sean Hanity
                  c. Dick Shawn
                  d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 11:10 AM

Papua New Guinea (PNG), already something of a failed state, is getting dragged into the growing civil war in Indonesian Papua, with which it shares the island of New Guinea. Indonesian police and army commanders are chasing after separatists in Papua, while getting more involved with corrupt practices in PNG.

August 25, 2006: Continued gang violence in East Timor has left at least 13 people wounded. Meanwhile, The UN approved the establishment of UNMIT (United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste). This non-military organization ( 1,608 police and 35 military liaison officers) needs to be renewed by the UN every six months. UNMIT will replace the 2,300 troops and police, mainly from Australia, later this year. Maybe.

August 24, 2006: Police have discovered that an Islamic terrorist leader, imprisoned for a 2002 attack, had a laptop computer, with a wireless connection to the Internet, smuggled to him in prison two years ago. Via that connection, the prisoner, Imam Samudra, helped plan an attack last year.

August 23, 2006: Three Australian police were injured when they tried to break up a fight between gangs in the capital of East Timor. Three police cars were also destroyed. Although the gangs have lost nearly all their firearms, they continue to use rocks, clubs, machetes and knives. Worse, the continue to prowl the capital, Dili, looting, robbing and attacking even police.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 11:58 AM

Ron Davies - Dec. 10, 2004

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/2762/history/3,2360,655,1701,2762

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: GUEST,thew
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 02:31 PM

Peace, ma man, if you keep taking things personally in political discussions and getting bent out of shape about it, it won't do you any good at all. You should go easier on yourself and others. I was making a point about the tactics used by the American administration to get public support for their foreign wars of aggression. I was not making any kind of personal attack on you.

Telling me to "go fuck" myself is:

1. Kind of silly.
2. Not the kind of thing that should upset me, really, because after all, I like myself and have a very good rapport with myself. These are things to consider when deciding who to fuck and who not to.

Now if you had told me to go fuck Arnold Schwarzenneger...THEN I would maybe have something to get upset about.

pdq - Oh, I am sooooo impressed by your list of bad things young Muslim men have done. Now make me a list of violent things Israel, the USA, and Russia have done to Muslims in the last 40 or 50 years...just to balance it out. Then go fuck Osama Bin Laden. :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 03:12 PM

Two things, GUEST,thew:
   
       1. You are in the way.

       2. I don't do 'sloppy seconds'.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: GUEST,thew
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 04:33 PM

I note that you have still not posted the other list I suggested, pdq, the list of bad things done to Muslims by the USA, Israel, and Russia, and it would be such an easy task to compile such a list! Anyone with even a tenuous grasp of recent history could manage it. Could it be that you are blind in one eye, and can only see out of the other eye, the one that notices bad things when they are done by Muslims or other people whom you have classified as "undesirables"?

If so, you are no better than the young Islamist fanatics you are warning us against.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 07:07 PM

thew, thew, thew, I'm in love with thew, thew, thew . . . .


Another friggin' guest with all the answers. I avoid his posts from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: GUEST,thew
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 07:16 PM

That hardly seems fair. I read your posts with careful attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 08:46 PM

Then don't quote me out of context. You want to make nice, so will I. Ball's in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 09:26 PM

Today, 30AUG2006, a Moslem terrorist went on a rampage through San Francisco. He used his automobile (which the press call an 'SUV') as the murder weapon. The Moslem terrorist ( which the press call a 'suspect') ran up the sidewalks and tried to run-over and kill as many White people (whom the press call 'pedestrians') as he could. 1 dead, at leat 13 injured. This is part of the Moslem Holy Jihad (which the press does not recognize as existing) against Western civilization (which is in trouble, let's face it).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Man Kills 1, Injures 13 With SUV In Bay Area

POSTED: 1:01 am EDT August 30, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO -- Authorities in San Francisco said the driver of a sport utility vehicle targeted pedestrians with his vehicle on Tuesday, killing one man in Fremont and injuring at least 13 others.


Police said he drove on sidewalks, streets, and hit people in crosswalks.

The man was finally arrested when police boxed him in with their cruisers around 1 p.m. near the Presidio after he struck people in 12 different locations around the city.

The driver's name was not immediately released, but Department of Motor Vehicles records show the license plate on the SUV registered to Omeed A. Popal, of Fremont.

An aide to the mayor who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the open investigation said Popal was the suspect in custody.

The spree began around noon in Fremont, where an unidentified man walking along the side of the road was hit by a black Honda SUV. He was thrown into a field and pronounced dead at the scene.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 09:38 PM

ah c'mon - you can do better than that, pdq.

What a lousy example. Next you're going to say he was associated with Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 10:00 PM

'denial' is not a river in Egypt

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 10:56 PM

Wow, quite a quiz, pdq. I'll let you slide on calling the the terrorist attacks by a few secular groups the work of "Muslim extremists." But labelling the obviously mentally ill Omeed Popal a "Muslim terrorist" out to kill "White people?" The "Muslim Holy Jihad?" Back in your cage, Charles Manson! No "race war" for you!

And surely even you know that Sirhan Sirhan is a Palestinian Christian, right?

But what's the point of your quiz, anyways? What if I were to document the wicked crimes of Jewish people over the years? From helping to kill Jesus, to Son of Sam, to "Mad About You," and beyond! A big old list of Jewish eeeeeevil. Would that make me, like, a good guy, just out there innocently informing the public about the danger of Jews? Or would that make me, saaaayyy... a racist piece of shit? And what would that make you?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 12:17 AM

Bad people don't belong to 'ethnic' groups or races. They are simply bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 01:14 AM

Boy, oh, boy, pdq, this is not your finest hour...

Why doesn't someone else go out and compile a list of evil things black people have done now too? And orientals? And Catholics? And Republicans? And people from Texas? The possibilities for mindless zenophobia of this sort are almost endless if you're willing to believe in it. I bet that a black person, an oriental, a catholic, a Texan, and a Republican will kill someone in the next ten minutes...somewhere! You can't trust them, because they're all bascially killers. If that isn't proof that "they're all out to get us", what is??? It's a frikkin' world war, baby, and we gotta get them before they get us!

Yadda. Yadda. Yadda. Whatever you're drinkin', pdq, switch brands is my advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 06:41 PM

Terrorist attacks by Moslem in 15 or 20 different countries are not isolated incidents. Wake up before it is too late to stop them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IS JIHAD?

by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
December 31, 2002

What does the Arabic word jihad mean?

One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad.

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:


*        The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;

*        Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;

*        Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;

*        Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;

*        Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and

*        Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.

But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining jihad as:


*        An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);

*        "Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary), and

*        "Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).

It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.

The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent jihad.

Unfortunately, such a process of redemption is not now under way; violent jihad will probably continue until it is crushed by a superior military force (Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, please take note). Only when jihad is defeated will moderate Muslims finally find their voice and truly begin the hard work of modernizing Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 08:53 PM

Muslim leaders use the word "Jihad" to cover up and supposedly legitimize their naked self-interest the same way American presidents use empty, meaningless rhetoric about the flag, patriotism, and democracy, and not "cutting and running" to cover up and legitimize theirs. A good proportion of their respective populations both fall for it....just like a lot of Germans fell for Hitler's warmongering nonsense. He had them convinced that Poland was a threat to Germany in 1939! He had them convinced that the Jews were a worldwide threat.

The useful idiots on either side are the ones who fall the hardest for this fanatical BS.

The face of your Muslim enemy, pdq, is indistinguishable from your own, in my opinion. Both are blinded by misplaced faith in their leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 09:08 PM

People who manufacture weapons do not give a rat's ass whose kids get killed. The bastard manipulators with their isms do not give a rat's ass whose kids get killed. The profit mongers do not give a rat's ass whose kids get killed. War is good business unless you are at the sharp end. How many rich kids go to war? Hell, ya figure they know something the rest of us don't?

BRINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Time to wake up.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 09:25 PM

Little Hawk,

When you put Hitler's actions on the same moral ground as those who defended themselves against him, you make no sense to me.

When you say defending ourselves from the world-wide Islamic Jihad is on the same moral ground as the Islamic terrorists, you are wrong. Dead wrong.

As far as following our leaders, that is an easy question to answer. Follow them when the are right and object when they are wrong.

My main point, and the point of my last post is this: If the average Muslim is peaceful and does not support the violence, they are duty-bound to speak-up. I don't dear them, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Peace
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 09:39 PM

They are afraid, and who can blame them. That doesn't make it right. Or just. But they are afraid.

Hell, America was coming close to that type of fear once again. Much like the Joe McCarthy era. Even Congress lost its cajones and bought into the lie. It's beginning to turn now.

Hussein's last election, if I recall correctly: He got 100% of the popular vote. It was not ever a good idea to vote for anyone else, even if there had been anyone else to vote for.

Organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas are able to keep control because they do not care who they kill. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jains, name it. They just don't care. However. if the 'free world' would respond by sending its own version of terror squads--assassination teams to remove some of the pimples on the arse of the world, I think the average Muslim would then be able to speak up and things could well begin to change. As long as some fu#ker somewhere is able to give the order, some brainwashed arsehole will go carry out the order. It's simple: Kill the brain. The rest will die out.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 11:30 PM

pdq, I do not put Hitler's actions on the same moral ground as those who defended themselves against him.

What I do say is that the big industrialists who happily financed Hitler's rise and then equally happily financed the people who fought against him also didn't particularly give a damn about who lost their lives in the process...and they still don't give a damn.

I am in favour, generally speaking, of anyone who defends his own land against an unprovoked foreign invasion...and we've been over that ground over and over again in past discussions.

I do not necessarily equate motives of fighting powers. The power that provokes and launches a war usually has darker motives in the immediate sense than the ones that get attacked by it. Thus, I would say that in World War II, for example: Germany had considerably darker motives than Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, France, the UK, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia....and Russia (when they were attacked by the Germans in '41). Russia had darker motives than Finland when they launched the Winter War. Italy had darker motives than Greece when they attacked the Greeks. And so on...and so on...

They were all dealing with cynical realpolitik and watching out for whatever self-interests were at stake, of course...but the aggressor in a war normally has much darker motives than the passive target of his aggression.

The Japanese clearly had dark motives in the Pacific. So did the USA, however, and Roosevelt deliberately created a situation (through a trade embargo) where the Japanese would go to war, would launch the initial attack...and therefore would appear allow the USA to get into WWII while looking like a victim. The fact of the matter is, the USA and Japan were both attempting to dominate the Pacific theatre by whatever means possible, and had been drifting slowly and inevitably toward a great naval war since the 1920's. In addition to that, Roosevelt felt that it was absolutely necessary to fight and defeat Germany...but how could he arrange it with an isolationist public and Congress? By getting into a war with Germany's semi-ally, Japan, that's how. That would end the spirit of isolationism once and for ALL, specially if the Japanese could be maneuvered into making a "dastardly sneak attack", and they were. Then Hitler did Roosevelt the amazing favour of hurrying up the inevitable and immediately declared war ON THE USA! LOL! Roosevelt should have sent him a personal 'thank you' note. ;-)

Still, I'd say that in the Pacific the Japanese had the darkest motives...in a general sense. Okay?

Now, Stalin....Stalin's motives were about as dark as motives can get. He was a monster. Nevertheless, the Russians were innocent of any dark motive when they became the victims of Germany's aggression in '41. They were not innocent of dark motives, however, in regards to territorial grabs in Finland, Poland, Rumania, and so on...

So, as usual, it's a mixed picture.

The USA's so-called War on Terrorism is a false war, it was manufactured well ahead of time, and its purposes were various...to control Middle Eastern oil, to strengthen America vis-a-vis Russia and China, to keep a certain level of conflict happening and keep the arms business humming, to reshape American society into a semi-police state by degrees, to keep certain people in power in the US government, to create a new "great demonic enemy" to replace the vanished Soviets, and so on.

The Islamic terrorists are people who were once trained and organized BY the USA to fight Russia. They now are turned loose, and they are exactly what the USA wants in order that it can conduct foreign wars and clamp down on domestic freedoms. Every terrorist attack enables the neocons to do what they wanted to do anyway.

If something like 911 had not been arranged by anyone else, the neocons would have had to arrange it themselves...any maybe they did. They needed a "Pearl Harbour" style incident in order to put their programs into action. If no one's willing to do it for you, you do it yourself...or you con someone else into doing it for you by provoking them on the one hand, and funding them on the other.

They are as bad as the Islamic terrorists they pretend to be defending you and me against.

It's not a real war. It never had to be. It's an arranged charade of a war which you and millions of other people have bought into...just like millions of Germans bought into Hitler's nonsense about Jews and Communists in the 30's and 40's.

Millions of Muslims have bought into it too, and it's their violent activities you fear...but they were not the original architects of the situation. They're just reacting blindly, as people do when under great stress.

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:16 PM

Are we having fun yet?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suburban gangs ambush French police

Updated Sun. Oct. 22 2006 3:48 PM ET

Associated Press

EPINAY-SUR-SEINE, France -- On a routine call, three unwitting police officers fell into a trap. A car darted out to block their path, and dozens of hooded youths surged out of the darkness to attack them with stones, bats and tear gas before fleeing. One officer was hospitalized, and no arrests made.

The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighbourhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year.

One small police union claims officers are facing a "permanent intifada." Police injuries have risen in the year since the wave of violence.

More broadly, worsening violence in France testifies to Europe's growing struggle to integrate its ethnic minorities. Some mainstream European politicians -- adopting positions previously confined largely to far-right fringes -- are suggesting that the minorities themselves are not doing enough to adapt to European mores.

In Britain, former Foreign Minister Jack Straw, now leader of the House of Commons, this month touched off a wide debate about the rights and obligations of Muslims by saying that he asks devout Muslim women to remove their veils when visiting his office. Prime Minister Tony Blair said Islam needs to modernize.

In France, a high school teacher received death threats, forcing him into hiding, after he wrote a newspaper editorial in September saying Muslim fundamentalists are trying to muzzle Europe's democratic liberties.

Ethnic integration and violence against police are both becoming issues in the campaign for the French presidency. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the leading contender on the right, said this month that those who do not love France do not have to stay, echoing a longtime slogan of the extreme-right National Front: "France, love it or leave it."

Michel Thooris, head of the small Action Police union, claims that the new violence is taking on an Islamic fundamentalist tinge.

"Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of 'Allah Akbar' (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned," he said in an interview.

Larger, more mainstream police unions sharply disagree that the suburban unrest has any religious basis. However, they do say that some youth gangs no longer seem content to throw stones or torch cars and instead appear determined to hurt police officers -- or worse.

"First, it was a rock here or there. Then it was rocks by the dozen. Now, they're leading operations of an almost military sort to trap us," said Loic Lecouplier, a police union official in the Seine-Saint-Denis region north of Paris. "These are acts of war."
National police reported 2,458 cases of violence against officers in the first six months of the year, on pace to top the 4,246 cases recorded for all of 2005 and the 3,842 in 2004. Firefighters and rescue workers have also been targeted -- and some now receive police escorts in such areas.

Sadio Sylla, an unemployed mother of three, watched the Oct. 13 ambush of the police patrol in Epinay-sur-Seine from her second-floor window. She, other witnesses and police union officials said up to 50 masked youths surged out from behind trees. One of the three officers needed 30 stitches to his face after being struck by a rock.

The attack was one of at least four gang beatings of police in Parisian suburbs since Sept. 19. Early Friday, a dozen hooded people hurled stones, iron bars and bottles filled with gasoline at two police vehicles in Aulnay-sous-Bois, a flashpoint of last year's riots, said Guillaume Godet, a city hall spokesman. One officer required three stitches to his head.

Minority youths have long complained that police are more heavy-handed in their dealings with them than with whites, demanding their papers and frisking them for no apparent reason. Such perceived ill-treatment fuels feelings of injustice, as do the difficulties that many youths from immigrant families have finding work.

Distrust and tension thrive. Rumors have flown around some housing projects that police are hoping to use the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which ends this week, to round up known troublemakers, on the basis that fasting all day will have made the youths weaker and easier to catch.

Police say that suggestion is ludicrous. However, they are on guard ahead of the first anniversary this week of last year's riots. That violence began after two youths who thought police were chasing them hid in a power substation and were electrocuted to death.

On Sunday, police moved into a neighborhood in the southern Paris suburb of Grigny after some 30 youths burned an empty bus, local officials said. No one was injured and one person was detained in the burning, which was notable because it took place during the day. It is not uncommon for restless youths to burn vehicles in towns around France, but most such incidents occur at night.

Police unions suspect that the recent attacks may be an attempt to spark new riots.

"We are getting the impression these youths want a 'remake' of what happened last year," said Fred Lagache, national secretary of the Alliance police union. "The youths are trying to cause a police error to justify chaos."

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:24 PM

And your point is?

Are you claiming this behavior by young Moslems is part of jihad? Otherwise how is it relevant to this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:28 PM

"Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of 'Allah Akbar' (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned"

Is that enough of a hint?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:38 PM

Sorry--it's a stretch. How about yet one more abuse of religion?--that's what it sounds like to me. Do you honestly think these kids can hardly wait to die for the glory of Islam? I suspect there are a lot of French Moslems to tell these young idiots that attacking a police car doesn't really do much for the glory of Islam.

And what's your solution? Would you like the police to shoot them? Have you ever heard of the concept of Islamic martyr--or would it be the first time you've heard the term?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: pdq
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:49 PM

Ron sez "Do you honestly think these kids can hardly wait to die for the glory of Islam?"

Where do you get that? These 'kids" do not expect to be punished for what they are doing. They certainly do not expect to die any time soon.

You always have perfect 20/20 hindsight, Ron. Let's see how you do while living in the present. Tell us, oh wise one, how would you solve this problem if you were in charge?

Subject: RE: BS: Jihad: Definition
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 11:11 PM

As I've said before, I think one of the most important changes France should make is--amazingly--to what the US now has-- although some troglodytes, uh, I mean "conservatives" are trying to change it.

As of now, anybody born on US soil is automatically a citizen--so everybody, from birth, has a stake in the country. Nobody born here has to wait til they're 18--and find out what the flavor of the month is in the government at that point--i.e. what hoops they have to jump through to become a citizen.

And how many riots have you seen recently by people born here who do not feel they are citizens?   The last ones were in the 1960's--not last year, as in France.


OK pdq, your turn.