These radical imams need to be made examples of. They promote dangers ideas and need to be dealt with as such. Great Post!

This guy should immediately lose any rights he has as a citizen and be deported. End of fucking story.

"Not even Candians will put up with dimmitude-through-coercion in their own f'n' country."

I hope those aren't considered famous last words someday. :/ I'm getting pretty pessimistic about just how much people will, in fact, put up with - even if it is in their own f'n' country.

"If you try to cross the line I can't guarantee what is going to happen. Our young people, we can't control,"

Ah, OK, thanks for the flash. I guess that means having a 'dialogue' with you is pointless, since you have no influence over the bad guys. Good to know.

Right. On to plan B, then?

C'mon Laura. Have you forgotten what it's like to be young, crazy, impetuous, and murderous? Especially those darned Catholic kids always creating mischief.

I was puttin all my energy into trying to get laid when I was young and crazy - who had time for murderous hate?

Ace and others keep asking when, oh when will the Islamic community speak out forthrightly against terrorism.

Try these:

Representatives of the Muslim community in Italy welcomed a package of anti-terrorism measures approved last week by the Italian government, saying in some cases that it does not go far enough to monitor what is happening in mosques and among the young.

Local leaders speak out: Widespread murder in the name of Islam not sanctioned

More than 120 Islamic religious leaders from across Canada issued a declaration yesterday denouncing acts of terrorism as a perversion of their faith.

Muslims discourage violence ...Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, director of outreach for the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center and Muslim chaplain of Howard University, who delivered one of three sermons yesterday talked about Christians and Muslims working together to combat what he calls "terror cults."

"We condemn these terrorists and what they have done," said Munir Shah, the imam of the Stratford Street mosque near the Leeds neighborhood that police were searching. "We refuse to call them Muslims. They are not. Islam does not agree or teach about the killing of innocent people."

Or this opinion piece by Fareed Zakaria in the Khaleej Times, which should be read in its entirety. I contains such nuggets as:
Even the so-called fundamentalist organisations have condemned it. The Muslim Association of Britain, a hard-line group with alleged ties to militants in the Middle East, called the bombings "heinous and repulsive" and urged Muslims to help the emergency services and police. "We have faith in Britain and British people that we as a country will not be defeated by this," said its spokesman, Anas Altikriti.

And
The grand imam of Al-Azhar, Shaikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, condemned the bombers but went further, rejecting the argument that this attack could be justified as an attempt to force Britain out of Iraq. "This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians," he said.

Ummm... see the update, I quoted one myself.

The trouble, VK, is that not enough muslims denounce this. This Imam isn't some fringe figure; he's big stuff in Toronto.

I'm sorry, but if half of a culture is pro-murder and the other half is anti-murder, that's just not fucking good enough by a long shot.

Yes, I have respect for the anti-murder half. But I hate the goddamned pro-murder half.

Half? Which half of your ass did you pull that demographic from? As the Zakaria article says:
If 99.99 per cent of the Arab world rejects terrorism, that still leaves 20,000 people to worry about. If 99.9 per cent of the Muslim world is against the terrorists, there’s 1 million people out there who are dangerous.

If the number was anything like half we would be having far bigger terror problems than we currently do.

And the offensive Imam may be "big stuff in Toronto", but is he bigger than the 120 Canadian Imams who denounced terrorism?

In the current climate, this sort of speech does in fact constitute clear and present danger.

Yes, I think it does. Perhaps an important test should be whether or not the threat is credible, and whether or not others are likely to act upon it based upon history and other factors. Given the worldwide history of Islamic terrorism, the threat is very credible, and given the history of Islam, anywhere they are in any numbers there are some hoping for matrydom. This did not begin with 911. The Palestians were expelled from Jordan for trying to kill King Hussein and hijacked and blew up an airliner in 1963! And the attitude of Islam has only gotten exponentially worse with every act of terrorism.

I haven't said this since ACE's PC cautions about saying hateful things against Moslems, but the west (especially us) needs to begin thinking very, very seriously about expelling Moslems en masse. Just as Woodrow Wilson executed, jailed and expelled Communists and eliminated them as a threat, until they were tolerated by FDR (who incidentally interned Japanese, German and Italian Americans because they were possible threats to the US), we need to think seriously about expelling as many Moslems as we can, or at the very least not letting any more in! Do we need to have Moslem riots and gangs like in France before we feel threatened enough to act? Do we need to have another Mafia of Moslems, or do we already have such things and are ignoring because the MSM is scared of Moslems? Do we need to wait until there are so many of them here that they are too powerful to oppose? Must we wait until it's too late before we become alarmed like the Dutch? If we do, mark my words: we will not like what is in store for us all, and we shall live a long time to regret it, and so shall the rest of the world.

Now 72 calls for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims. Yeah, that'll be a good thing.

VK,

Oh, grow up from your give peace a chance fantasies. You think that only .1% of the Muslim world supports terrorism?

I'm not talking about actually committing terrorism. I'm talking about supporting it, by word and thought, and thus providing the crucial morale support network the actual killers require.

Ace - I'm also talking about supporting terrorism, and Zakaria is saying that it does not take a large percentage of the Islamic world supporting terror, implicitly or explicitly, to add up to a lot of people. If 50% of the Islamic world was supporting terror that would mean that ~750 million supporters of terror and our incidence of terror would be unmanegable

Give me some data instead of your half-assed demographics. It is easy to make fearful assumptions, but the decisions made from such assumptions tend to be counterproductive.

To paraphrase the American Moslem Malcolm X:

Wherever the Moslem goes he causes trouble. There is no place on this earth that he has gone, where he can say that he has created peace and harmony.

If VK can name a place on earth where Moslems have created peace and harmony (except when they've been vanquished) I'd very much like to hear about it.

VonKreedon,

First of all, polls just taken in the Islamic world put support for terrorism at 15-50% of various country's populations. Search on this site for "How to Trick a liberal."

Second of all, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE for this to be "just a few bad apples." There are no open white racist murder-terrorists in our society because they are HOUNDED by the rest of us out of public life (and frequently into jail). They cannot even keep their jobs if outed for what they are. Certainly they cannot achieve roles of genuine prominence, like being important and influential religious leaders.

So don't fucking sit there and sell me this weak shit that "only .1% of Muslims support terrorism" and yet they're somehow entirely unable to drive such vicious hatred underground.

Well, there were the times when they subjugated entire regions and enslaved everyone else. That's "peace" in a way, I guess. I guess that's also why I usually prefer wars - they're more honest and the bodycount is usually lower.

And Thomas Friedman's column from last week. Terrorism cannot persist if a clear majority of their fellows strongly disapprove and, yes, "tell on them," or use their own rough justice to stamp such monsters into the dirt.

There is no more open, powerful KKK, because our society has deemed such a terrorist organization repugnant.

Obviously terrorism is not deemed repugnant by enough Muslims to turn it into a true fringe phenomenon.

VK - Your use of Liberal Code Words such as ethnic cleansing does not answer the question: what are we to do as Moslems in this country continue to grow in total numbers, as the numbers of terrorist supporting Moslems (through words, contributions to terrorist front organizations, and deeds) grows with them, and as they become more powerful and influential as a group and a political force and even voting block? Moslems have amply demonstrated their capacity for endless trouble. Should we hire an FBI man for each and every one of them so we can shadow them and make sure they're not "radical" Moslems? Should we wait until they begin to kill us publicly like Van Gogh or riot like in France before we begin to consider action? I'm interested to know how von kreedon would deal with this problem...Doubtless, he'll begin by denying it is a problem.

There actually is another way (in addition to expulsion) to deal with the growing Moslem threat in the west: the west must boycott.

If a "moderate" Moslem finds his business is boycotted after every terrorist incident, he will eventually become angry at the terrorists. "On, no, not another terrorist incident, and business is down 60% already! I'm tired of this shit, and perhaps its time to speak out against the terrorists and stop sending the Imam his 5% cut for the Abu Nidal Children's Fund."

If we are determied to do so, we can drive a wedge between "moderate" Moslems and the terrorists. And as they say about the Jews, don't come between and arab and his money!

There is no more open, powerful KKK, because our society has deemed such a terrorist organization repugnant.

I thought it was because their favorite recruiting Kleagle has had a day job for 40 years.

17% of British Muslims think the July 7th subway bombings were completely or somewhat justified.

Surveys of Muslims in predominately Muslim countrys show this support to be much higher.

The idea that only a small percentage of Muslims support terrorism is pure fantasy.

Not even Candians will put up with dimmitude-through-coercion in their own f'n' country.

ACE - I wish I shared your confidence. But any country where Liberalism has so altered the people's conscience by shoving so many laws repugnant to them down their throats, has trained its own people to be passive, impotent and fearful. Canada, like the Netherlands, may be one of those. And as demonstrated amply by our own Liberal Media, we are halfway there ourselves.

It is up to us, the Few, the Proud, the Conservatives, to stop it!

The Few, the Proud, the Conservatives!

Heard that somewhere before ...

72 what's a VORGIN?

Like in oye vei, a vorgin, like in 72.

Yeah, a vrigin in NYese.

It appears that many here, and the Pew report, are not giving enough weight to the majority of Islamic population. The Pew report says that only 15% of Indonesians believe that "Violence against civilian targets justified Often/Sometimes" vs. Jordan reporting a 57% agreement. But Indonesia has ~213 million Muslims while Jordan has 5 million. And the Pew report doesn't seem to even mention the ~120 million Bangladeshi or the ~65 million Nigerian Muslims. Even the raw unweighted numbers in the Pew report come out to an average of 27% support for the Often/Sometimes killing of civilians. And the Pew report shows that support for targetting civilians is falling among the Muslim's sampled.

Yeah, 1% is low, but closer than your figure of 50% of Muslims.

Actually, 27 is closer to 50 than it is to 1.

Liberals: "Math is tough!"

Oh, and the article you quoted approvingly, VK? It suggested a figure of 0.01% or 0.1% - not 1%. Please also note, for future reference, that in addition to 1, neither 0.01 nor 0.1 is closer to 27 than 50.

Ok, yeah math is tough. Math is seriously not one of my core competencies.

So, and please do check my math, I think that if Indonesia were weighted appropriately to its enornous population wrt the other nations polled, such as tiny Jordan, the actual average support for targetting civilians would be less than 25%, since the unweighted average is 27%, and so closer even to .1% than 50%. Is that right?

All right, VK, I'll give you the point that the majorities (well, except in Jordan apparently) are against suicide bombings. But the part of the equation that I think you're missing is this:

Are the Moslems who say they oppose this kind of vicious, evil butchery willing to stand up and ACTIVELY OPPOSE it?

Of course not. A handful - a vanishingly small handful, so few we mostly know their names off the top of our heads - have stood up with the rest of the civilized world and said, "YOU FUCKERS ARE EVIL!"

The rest? Silence. Deafening silence.

So now the question is, as Ann Coulter put it: "Don't all empathetic human beings understand... instinctively [that killing is wrong]?"

Why does it take a poll to figure out that some Moslems (granted, usually majorities) oppose murder? Would such a poll be necessary in the United States? In ANY modern, civilized, and (however noncommittally) Christian country? Anywhere in the West? No? Then doesn't that fact, conversely, demonstrate something troubling about Moslems, even those who nominally "oppose" (a better term might be "don't actively support) terrorists?

VK asked: "the actual average support for targetting civilians would be less than 25%, since the unweighted average is 27%, and so closer even to .1% than 50%. Is that right?"

I have no idea, since I don't know how to weight for culture and history, and possible variations in the individual methodologies used in different countries aren't disclosed. I think you're trying to add apples and oranges and come out with a single number. Sure, they're both fruit, but you can't assess them qualitatively as a whole, which is what you're trying to do.

but you can't assess them qualitatively as a whole,

I like this phrase.

I've got to run. Check in later.

Don't forget that Ramadan has been banned from the US. He was scheduled to be a lecturer at Notre Dame and his visa was pulled without explanation by DoS and Homeland Security. Considering Condi Rice is a graduate and was (is?) on the ND board of trustees, and the school couldn't convince her to change the policy, that's pretty harsh.

http://www.nd.edu/~krocinst/about/index.html

So he may not be the moderate everyone paints him as.

He's not. I'll turn the mike over to Dr Pipes at this point.

Take it away, sir.

VonK, can you say the words, "Christianity is a religion of peace," without doing a spit-take immediately afterwards?

Unradicalized muslims are merely muslims waiting to be radicalized by the Koran. You don't get more than a few pages into the Koran before the damn Prophet starts spewing about killing the unbelievers. Likewise, it's true that not all Christians are pussy-shits, but the Sermon on the Mount and I Corinthians 13 will always be there, waiting to turn them into pussy-shits. I fear for us because we have the holy book of wimps and muslims have the holy book of murderers.

Actually, von Kreedon may be right (or not too far off) about the numbers. But it doesn't matter because Muslims who speak out against a straightforward reading of the Koran are themselves targets. And a serious straightforward reading of the Koran will always produce exactly what we're seeing out of the radical element.

I keep hearing people suggest a Reformation of Islam similar to the anti-Catholic Reformation of the Renaissance. The problem is that the Christian Reformers swept away the non-Biblical union of temporal and spiritual authority. A peaceful Islam is non-Koranic.

Parse the numbers all you like, you still end up with a large percentage of Muslims that support terrorism. Are we really going to nitpick whether the number is 10% 25% or 50%? Talk about missing the point!

Let's lowball it and say it's 10%. Think about that for a minute. If you put 10 random Muslims in a room, then odds are one of those people supports mass murder.

Can you say this about any other population on earth? No.

Yet, no "mainstream" figures are willing to take this on. Why the fuck not?

PC be damned, this is a Muslim problem, and sooner or later Muslims are going to be held responsible for supporting this culture of hate whether directly or indirectly.

Who were all those people dancing and passing out candy in the world's streets on 9/11, anyway?

If the slaughter of thousands were considered a BAD thing by most, wouldn't that sentiment have inhibited the celebrations?

Just as Woodrow Wilson executed, jailed and expelled Communists

Worse, he deported them to the USSR.

72 Enoch Powells:

"If VK can name a place on earth where Moslems have created peace and harmony (except when they've been vanquished) I'd very much like to hear about it."

Dude. I'm generally down with the hard-line on these issues, but this is horsecrap.

At the start of the 7th century huge tracts of the Mediterranean were slipping into military anarchy, joining their overrun-by-Gunther European cousins. Some cities changed hands dozens of times. Some were destroyed and abandoned.

Islam changed that. Now it changed it by the sword, but the resulting system worked well for quite a long time. Yes yes, dhimmitude, the jirza, the bashi-basouks (although that was the turks, but it's still fun to say), granted, but ... on the one hand, libraries and running water. On the other, Klaus squatting in a ditch poking berries up his nose.

Yes, it was still a hive-mind intimidation-pyramid. So was every other functional civilization (China, etc). Then you had yer unwashed anarchy, Europe-style. Faced with that choice, I'd be a dhimmi ... hell, I'd start doin' me some bowin'.

The problem is with Islam *now*, and sure, Islam for quite a while. But up until recently - in epochal terms, not the lifespans we live - the choice wadn't so clear. [It's like the choice in the thirties for an earnest young college student: Hitler or Stalin? (Uhh ... neither, please?) Hitler or Stalin?? (Um ... Peron?) HITLER OR STALIN, DAMMIT?]

Then the West, and eventually the rest, started getting their shit together. The point is to coax Islam along (and that "coaxing" can be done with culture, or with the 4thID and the Marines), not to launch off on some misconceived project to eradicate it.

You can fight a number of some hundreds of of thousands, or even some millions, or you can widen the fight to a billion plus. I know what I'd like to do.