Top Menu

White Terrorists Planned Attack On Somali Muslim Immigrants


Calling themselves “Crusaders,” three members of a Kansas militia have been charged with attempting to blow up an apartment complex where Somali Muslim refugees live. The “Crusader” ideology is prevalent among the Islamophobia movement and we have documented this for years.

via. Slate

They called themselves the “Crusaders” and had a clear purpose: launch an attack against Muslims that would lead to a “bloodbath.” With any luck that would help spark a religious war. But their plans were thwarted as three Kansas men were arrested on Friday for planning an attack on a Garden City, Kansas, apartment complex filled with Somali immigrants that is also home to a mosque. They planned to carry out the attack one day after the November election.

“They discussed obtaining four vehicles, filling them with explosives and parking them at the four corners of the apartment complex to create a large explosion,”the Department of Justice said.

“They chose the target location based on their hatred of these groups, their perception that these groups represent a threat to American society, a desire to inspire other militia groups, and a desire to ‘wake people up,’ ” according to the criminal complaint.

About 120 people live and worship in the apartment complex they planned to attack.

Continue Reading

, , , , , , , , , ,

    • Muslims paid a tax too, they didn’t get off without paying anything. And the taxes Christians paid under Muslims was less than it was under the Crusaders. And anyway, no one in the world today is charging jizya, so what ARE you on about?

      What is the context of 8:12? Please tell us. Do you even know?

    • bobby bobby

      Don’t get me started on income taxes. I’ll save that for another time. However when I mean taxes, they put a special tax specifically on infidels that Muslims don’t have to pay. Sounds a lot like the Jew tax that Hitler put on the Jews.

      Here is just a small taste:

      Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. The targets of violence are “those who disbelieve” – further defined in the next verse (13) as “defy and disobey Allah.”

    • No, it doesn’t say in the Qur’an that “infidels” must convert or be killed.

      What is wrong with having to pay taxes??? I have to pay taxes and I don’t live in an “Islamic state.” What ARE you talking about??? Jeez.

    • bobby bobby

      Plus even if all of what you said where true, again why shouldn’t people be “phobic” of Muslims?? No matter what the reason is they are still killing non-Muslims and it’s literally in their Quran that infidels must convert, be put into slavery, pay a tax and/or be killed. Does fearing Muslims still sound irrational to you??

    • People either agree with your conjecture about the Middle East or they are having blackouts? Okay, sure.

      The West–which has a Christian majority–does commit far more terrorism. What did the nation of Iraq ever to do America? Nothing. Yet America has been bombing, poisoning, starving, and plundering that country for over a quarter of a century. A colossal crime that dwarfs anything non-state actors are doing, and according to international law, wars of aggression are actually more serious than terrorism.

      Where did I “pretend it doesn’t exist”? I pointed out that unjust Western foreign policy is the ROOT CAUSE of the terrorism Muslims are committing, not that it doesn’t exist. You seem to be missing the point.

      Let me say this as clearly as possible: Western aggression is FUELING a response. Muslim terrorism is aimed at retaliation and more importantly deterrence. Muslims, like ALL PEOPLE, do not want their countries invaded, robbed and destroyed. Since the Western imperial powers will not end their aggression, and there is no peaceful avenue for achieving justice, a small number of people take the law into their own hands.

      You need to grasp cause and effect. Why would you believe that a country like America can forever kills, maim, rob, poison, starve, and displace people and NEVER face any blow back? When America was struck on a SINGLE DAY on 9/11, the country didn’t just ‘suck it up.’ More than 15 years later, the US has killed over 4 million Muslims and spent over $2 trillion dollars. If “turning the other cheek” is what non-Muslims do, why didn’t America set that example?

      Common sense: People do not like to have their countries attacked and wrecked by foreigners. Why can’t people like you get that through you head???

      You need to wake up:

      Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer Potomac Books, Inc., 2004 – History – 309 pages

      Though U.S. leaders try to convince the world of their success in fighting al Qaeda, one anonymous member of the U.S. intelligence community would like to inform the public that we are, in fact, losing the war on terror. Further, until U.S. leaders recognize the errant path they have irresponsibly chosen, he says, our enemies will only grow stronger.

      According to the author, the greatest danger for Americans confronting the Islamist threat is to believe–at the urging of U.S. leaders–that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do. Blustering political rhetoric “informs” the public that the Islamists are offended by the Western world’s democratic freedoms, civil liberties, inter-mingling of genders, and separation of church and state. However, although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims, no Islamist leader has fomented jihad to destroy participatory democracy, for example, the national association of credit unions, or coed universities. Instead, a growing segment of the Islamic world strenuously disapproves of specific U.S. policies and their attendant military, political, and economic implications.

      Capitalizing on growing anti-U.S. animosity, Osama bin Laden’s genius lies not simply in calling for jihad, but in articulating a consistent and convincing case that Islam is under attack by America. Al Qaeda’s public statements condemn America’s protection of corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Bin Laden’s supporters thus identify their problem and believe their solution lies in war. Anonymous contends they will go to any length, not to destroy our secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific attacks on their lands, their communities, and their religion. Unless U.S. leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, even moderate Muslims will join the bin Laden camp….

    • bobby bobby

      Because if they had they would not have the opinion that they have now. Unless they blocked out their experience.

      Yes and the elephant in the room is the high level of terrorism that comes from Muslims in general. Yet people like yourself choose to ignore it. If Christians committed terrible acts at the same rate Muslims did I would have a problem with them as well. I have a problem with bad behavior and when a given group of people commit a high level of bad behavior we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Simply trying to pretend it doesn’t exist and/or lash out at those who point out the problem is not going to make the problem disappear. It’s only going to enable the problem and it will make it worse.

    • What makes you think people here haven’t visited the Middle East? Don’t have friends and relatives there? Haven’t lived there themselves? In fact, some visitors live in the Middle East now. Maybe you should get out more yourself?

      I do see your point about “cherry picking” a few bad apples. I personally think we should have a comprehensive and balanced discussion, which must include the grand scale terrorism Western countries like the US cloak in the language of war. That form of state terrorism kills, injures, and displaces a lot more people than non-state actors, regardless of their ethnic and/or religious background. There is no point focusing on mice and ignoring the elephant in the room.

New Jersey: Bayonne Mosque Targeted In Hate Vandalism

Another Islamophobic vandalism. Bayonne mosque in New Jersey was vandalized with despicable words, including: “F— Allah,” “F— Arabs,”Donald trump.” Clearly, a very deplorable individual thought this was a good idea. (h/t: Kamran M.)


, , , , , , ,

    • rookie

      There is a huge difference between “fighting wars to obtain land” and fighting wars to grab land…

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      Was this country every really “united?” It was founded upon slavery and the genocide of native peoples.

  • mindy1

The Stranger: Human Nature and the Other


First of all I want to apologize for the lack of posts over the past several weeks. I know for our regular readers and supporters this has been a disappointment. Writers here haven’t had as much time, especially since we are all volunteer but the hope is to move away from that soon and have a consistent staff. So expect changes and more consistent content.

In the meantime here is an important video that gets to the root of tackling bigotry and hate. An excellent lecture by Prof. Laith Saud.:

, , , , , , , , ,

    • 1DrM

      Didn’t I order you to go squat and stain on the side of the road(where you were conceived without consent), Hindutva fecalith?

    • 1DrM

      This is another tactic Hindu extremists utilize : equating Hinduism with Hindutva. Hence if you criticize a mass murdering Hindutva fascist like Modi, it’s anti-Hindu “attack.” It’s a shallow ploy to immunize themselves from any criticism. But hey we’re all not supposed to know that, we should just watch retarded Bollywood flicks like this….

    • 1DrM

      Yawn, and an Internet gangster? Laughable You’d probably be soiling yourself, assuming you didn’t already on the side of the road. Hindutva filth!

    • 1DrM

      You’re repeating the same old nonsense like a broken record. Won’t do you any good because you’ve exposed yourself too many times for the Hindutva apologist and gate keeper that you are. No normal Hindu would take umbrage at one filthy Saffron simian(adc) being set straight, but it’s driven you crazy. And you thought you could fool us with talk of Bollywood’s generic Khans as “proof” of how “tolerant” India is. Laughable. It’s too late to pretend otherwise. Such pathetic behavior is typical of your kind. Your “disability” seems to be paralysis from the neck up. Must be all that Modi feces….

    • Bahubali

      Okay I am sorry. I won’t be posting.

    • 1DrM

      Yawn, the same old hindutva victim act. Disingenuous to a fault. Are you high on Modi’s droppings? Of course you are.

    • Bahubali

      Ok, you’re not a bad person, all the others persons in the world are bad people. Do continue with your psychopath studies of others and giving verdict in your lovely ways. You sure am making yourself proud, I guess.

    • 1DrM

      I never insulted anyone for their religion, liar. I took ONE filthy Hindu extremist scumbag to task and you came along trying to do damage control for him, making a fool out of yourself in the process making childish excuses. That’s a part of your job, and you Modi monkeys always fail.

    • Bahubali

      What sadistic pleasure you get from insulting others for their religion? Is insulting others for their faults makes you feel good or is it part of your job here.

    • 1DrM

      More cacophony from the hindutva buffoon playing victim.

    • 1DrM

      You’re on the wrong site because no one will help “nurture” your Hindutva delusions, Modi monkey.

    • 1DrM

      Delusional as ever.

    • Bahubali

      Thanks for even acknowledging my greetings. That’s more than what I was expecting.

    • 1DrM

      My name isn’t Muhammed, little Kumar. And your attempts to hide your extremist nature have failed. I know you Hindutva types well. No amount of Bollywood buffoonery will salvage your image.

Hate-mongering New York Post Front Cover: “Muslim Killers”

(h/t: Mario)


The intentional hypocrisy and double-standards have reached a point of sickness and dementia.

, , , , , , , , ,

    • Princess Erika the Radiant

      yet more proof the last person you want to have a relationship with is a “family values” conservative

Stop Asking Muslims to Condemn Terrorism. It’s bigoted and Islamophobic.


Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It’s bigoted and Islamophobic.

There’s a certain ritual that each and every one of the world’s billion-plus Muslims, especially those living in Western countries, is expected to go through immediately following any incident of violence involving a Muslim perpetrator. It’s a ritual that is continuing now with the Sydney hostage crisis, in which a deranged self-styled sheikh named Man Haron Monis took several people hostage in a downtown café.

Here is what Muslims and Muslim organizations are expected to say: “As a Muslim, I condemn this attack and terrorism in any form.”

This expectation we place on Muslims, to be absolutely clear, is Islamophobic and bigoted. The denunciation is a form of apology: an apology for Islam and for Muslims. The implication is that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion. This sort of thinking — blaming an entire group for the actions of a few individuals, assuming the worst about a person just because of their identity — is the very definition of bigotry.

It is time for that ritual to end: non-Muslims in all countries, and today especially those in Australia, should finally take on the correct assumption that Muslims hate terrorism just as much as they do, and cease expecting Muslims to prove their innocence just because of their faith.

Bigoted assumptions are the only plausible reason for this ritual to exist, which means that maintaining the ritual is maintaining bigotry. Otherwise, we wouldn’t expect Muslims to condemn Haron Monis — who is clearly a crazy person who has no affiliations with formal religious groups — any more than we would expect Christians to condemn Timothy McVeigh. Similarly, if someone blames all Jews for the act of, say, extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank, we immediately and correctly reject that position as prejudiced. We understand that such an accusation is hateful and wrong — but not when it is applied to Muslims.

This is, quite literally, a different set of standards that we apply only to Muslims. Hend Amry, who is Libyan-American, brilliantly satirized this expectation with this tweet, highlighting the arbitrary expectations about what Muslims are and are not expected to condemn:

Continue reading…

, , , , , , ,

    • JD


    • JD

      define taqqiya or bring a quranic verse or authentic hadith to support definition.

    • JD

      following your logic I guess Slavery is ok too right. it took Black people out of a poor nation todays Africa ( where they would be if they were not brought here) and took them to America a super power so everything is ok Years of rape Killing forced Labor of million of people should be ignored Heck why did we even took the nazi to court for mass murder of million people and took on a war We should have let Hitler go gave him a hand shake pat on the butt and say Its ok every things ok bro…

    • Awesome

      Perhaps Im wrong about this but, I feel that a major why some would want Muslims to speak out this way about terrorist actions is, we as non-Muslims feel there is a much greater chance that these types of extremist may be more prone to listening to you as Muslims, rather than us as infidels. If all of the 1 billion plus Muslims spoke out against people in these organizations very forcefully, at the very least perhaps they would ponder if they are doing God’s will or not. Please try and accept this as, “They certainly do not want to listen to us (because they want to drink our blood) so will you please speak for us and maybe they might consider” type of thing.

      That may be the reason why some non-Muslims would want Muslims to speak out, and there are plenty of Muslims who do in fact speak out against such actions and the extremists who engage in them. However, needless to say, it accomplishes nothing besides demonstrating to people who don’t already know (and who can’t be bothered to find out some other way or use enough common sense to know better) what Muslims have to say about such extremists and their criminal activity.

      Protesting and speaking out against these criminals and the crimes that they commit is kinda useless and a little pretentious. If those extremist groups really cared about what other Muslims thought of them, then they would not be so casually massacring them in the streets over petty things. As far as they are concerned, it’s them vs. everyone else, of which the vast majority of Muslims are included. The only thing that would stop them is defeat or if they lost their financial and military support that they not-so-covertly receive from the US, Israel, and certain regional governments who are allied with both.

      Lets be honest folks. Being accused of being “like a terrorist” in any way, and or being slandered for others actions is just wrong. Likewise being constantly threatened and told that your blood and your families blood will be on your streets is also very frustrating and to some even scary right? Let us try and make room for both.

      However, one does not justify the other, and neither slander nor threats should be acceptable. As an example, if someone in a blue shirt threatens or slanders someone in a red shirt, that does not make everyone wearing blue shirts responsible or give justification to people wearing red shirts to reciprocate against people wearing blue shirts. In this regard, it is best to avoid collectivism, stereotypes and prejudices when dealing with individuals. Also, the term “terrorism” is a political buzzword that is used as a PR (Public-Relations) weapon against a political opponent, or the actions of a political opponent, by playing on the term’s commonly-held negative connotations without necessarily referring to any of them.

      “Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.” – Peter Ustinov

    • The greenmantle

      We as a nation ? Are you David Cameron or something? As a Brit I will do my own speaking thank you .

      Sir David

    • red

      We dragged the Brigadier through the Military Courts and Discharged him for his actions.Our Royal Family and Goverment apologised for this action on the Seikh people who forgave us and became part of our Military with outstanding loyalty, indeed they live alongside us. We never murdered people because of their religion. So, if we can say sorry for actions done on our behalf, can i ask you to do the same. Betcha cannot.

    • red

      That sounds exceptionally nasty, especially for a moderator, shame on you.

    • red

      They were left with democracy, laws and freedom of the individual. Also like nearly all the ex colonies they stayed in the Commonwealth (53 countries).

    • Awesome

      Are you seriously threatening me online where the CIA and the FBI and Homeland is monitoring? You need some serious help.

      Actually, it was a hypothetical question. Do you seriously not know the difference? Or are your reading comprehension skills so poor that you are unable to perceive the difference? Or do you simply not want to answer the question to avoid exposing your own hypocrisy?

      The CIA, FBI, Homeland and all the other alphabet agencies can monitor hypothetical questions online all they want. I’m sure they have probably asked themselves the same sort of hypothetical questions and are probably just as curious to the answer as anyone is.

    • HSkol

      Are terms such as “silly billy” even permitted here? If so, yippee, I’m gonna cut loose!

    • HSkol

      Uh, please point out Awesome’s threat. Oh wait, you cannot – for there is no threat.

    • Iekyll

      You need some serious help if you genuinely interpreted that as a threat. You made yourself look like a buffoon. Congratulations.

    • Awesome

      lies are lies habibi. You should not tell lies.

      So, you would tell the truth even at the expense of your own life? And you would expect everyone else to do the same, even considering it wrong not to?

    • JohnathanA

      lies are lies habibi. You should not tell lies.

    • Awesome

      And the practice of taqia is something you and your muslim brethren practice all the time even when denying it.

      “Taqiyya” refers to the Shi’i Muslim doctrine of concealing one’s faith under acute duress. For Sunni Muslims, concealing one’s faith under acute duress is only permitted, and is never really obligatory or even encouraged. Contrary to what some may believe or advocate, “taqiyya” is not about concealing the truth about Islam, but about concealing the fact that one is a Muslim.

    • Awesome

      I know it must be a pain to ask Muslims to condemn political savagery in the name of the prophet – the Iranian wackjob in the chocolate store and the death of of 140 children and their teachers in Pakistan. I know it is hard. The non-muslim world is worn out by the barbarism of the followers of the prophet. There is an excuse every time – this time the Iranian is nuts and the Pakistani Taliban are taking revenge against the military. As a non-muslim I look for the common denominator. It seems always to be Muslim. What’s up? What is in this belief that results in these behaviors?

      It isn’t a “common denominator”, when it is the basis by which such incidents are even mentioned in the first place. If you are only going to look at the violent crimes perpetrated by individuals who happen to be Muslim, then it is impossible for religious orientation to be a variable in such an assessment. There is no excuse for such behavior either. However, there is always some other factor involved besides religion.

      It’s “always Muslim” because that’s all you look for.

      Also, it is a false assumption that every criminal act by any Muslim in the world has to be because of Islam, simply because the perpetrator(s) happen to be Muslim. These criminals do not live in a vacuum where all they know is Islam. Rather, they are exposed to the rest of the world like everyone else, and therefore it cannot be reasonably ruled out that they have not been influenced by it or that it isn’t a motivation for their crimes. A few ignorantly sensationalized, cherry-picked quotes from Islamic religious texts are not enough assume a motivation unless the perpetrators actually reference it (which of course they almost never do). When the individual Muslims commit these crimes against others, they are only ever representing themselves, and therefore no matter how many such incidents like these occur, that is all they are ever going to amount to.

      Loonwatch heralds the Hindu and Jewish radicals. Good luck with that. Israel has indicted the Jews for setting the fire at Arab-Jewish school (no one died). Hindus yell and scream but don’t do much. Before you comment remember Bombay. Systematic killing of others is common among the Muslim extremists. We are getting worn out.

      The systematic killing of others is common to any active militant group (hence the militancy). Violent crimes against others happen all the time. Sometimes the perpetrator(s) are Muslim, and sometimes they are not. Sensationalism and hysteria about it can be very tiring, and I’m sure that it has worn a lot of people out, which is why they shouldn’t watch so much of it in the media. Not only is it tiring, it is also an inaccurate representation of reality. Unfortunately, people who have to live with violent crime every day were worn out by it a long time ago and they don’t have the option of tuning it out.

      A recent survey pointed out that in the US people were okay with torturing arabs held by the CIA. I don’t think people even care anymore whether these individuals had any actionable information. Empathy has been replaced with anger. When you waterboard someone nearly 200 times it is hard to imagine that payback was not involved. The American public has recalibrated – Muslim equals danger. Muslims must speak out. Muslims must be outraged. Their silence will be seen as acquiescence.

      Collective punishment is a war crime. Not only is it unethical and morally wrong, it is also counter-productive. Promoting collective responsibility, also encourages individual irresponsibility, and all of the negative results that entails for society. People who are okay with torturing innocent people because they are “angry” at the violence of their co-religionists, are nothing more than useful idiots, because they are indirectly justifying every violent crime perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims as a collective punishment. It also undermines the rule of law, because it is acting outside of it and contrary to it. I’m sure any sensible person can see the problem with doing what “feels good” at the expense of others, out of anger or stress, since no one is really up for getting as good as they give in this regard, and that is exactly what is going to result from it.

      A few helpful tips for accurately assessing reality:

      – Avoid collectivism, prejudices and stereotypes as much as possible – Avoid double-standards – Do not depend exclusively on news reports and superficiality – Keep things in perspective (don’t exaggerate or fall into sensationalism) – Don’t jump to conclusions (use critical thinking with reason and rationality)

    • Awesome

      Muslims NEED to apologise for the QUARTER of young Muslims who told British researchers that the 7/7 bomb attack on London was ‘understandable’ and ‘justified’.

      No, only that “quarter of young Muslims” who actually said that would need to apologize for it, and only if they honestly regret saying that and feel that they need to clarify that with those British researchers. The other 3 quarters of young Muslims who did not say this, have absolutely no obligation in this regard.

      They have to call for the aborted 7/7 enquiry, which the British Government refused to hold because talking about it would UPSET them!

      Not having a full public inquiry into the 7/7 attacks is only a failure on the part of the British government, which not a single Muslim likely had any actual say in. Therefore, calling for that inquiry is no more an obligation for a Muslim than it is for a non-Muslim.

      Our Deputy Prime Minster, the Liberal Nick Clegg said he wouldn’t teach British Values in British schools because it would OFFEND MAINSTREAM MUSLIMS!

      What public school teaches values to begin with? Aren’t values supposed to be taught and learned at home? Or has raising children inside the home gone out of style in the UK?

      Nick Clegg’s position on this issue isn’t a rejection of something that is already in place, but of something new that some want to introduce. It’s nothing anyone needs to apologize for.

      They need to beg our mercy when Pew found 75% of Muslims worldwide back death for apostasy.

      The 75% of Muslims from that research who believe in the death penalty for apostasy do not need to beg or apologize for anything, since believing in something that others disagree with (or find offensive) isn’t a crime. Additionally, the vast majority of Muslims who believe this have absolutely no say in the matter anyway. Then the other 25% from that PEW research who do not hold this view, have absolutely no obligation in this matter at all.

      They need to decry the so-called Arab Spring resulting in worse dictators than the ones deposed.

      No one needs to decry the “Arab Spring”, as it is the right of everyone, Arab or not, to protest against autocracy, tyranny, oppression and injustice, and demand change. Only the result of worse dictators being installed should be decried, and even then, it isn’t a collective responsibility for Muslims.

      They need to reassure us that Muslims being paid protection money… er, I mean ‘development grants’ to stop tearing Paris apart in riots is smething they can do just by being good people instead.

      That is something only the rioters can reassure, as this has nothing to do with Muslims who are not involved in it nor is it something that other Muslims can do anything about. It is the exclusive responsibility of the French government to deal with that problem. If they think that money is an effective way of placating the rioters then that’s their choice. However, not disenfranchising minorities is a very effective way of convincing them to stop rioting, since that is often the reason they riot in the first place.

      And Muslims need to purge their Koran of filthy verses telling them to kill or convert non-Muslims and regularly fine them for being nonbelievers (9:29) or even turn us all Muslim by force (8:39)!

      All the verses in the Qur’an are divinely-revealed, and therefore, all of them are going to remain. As for the verses in question, they are in regards to matters that are the exclusive responsibility of the state (not an individual obligation) and are only against hostile foes. Here are the verses:

      Qur’an 9:28-29: Believers, those who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean: do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year. If you are afraid you may become poor, [bear in mind that] God will enrich you out of His bounty if He pleases: God is all knowing and wise. Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.

      This is clearly in regard to people who do more than simply not believe.

      Qur’an 8:38-40: [Prophet], tell the disbelievers that if they desist their past will be forgiven, but if they persist, they have an example in the fate of those who went before. [Believers], fight them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to God alone: if they desist, then God sees all that they do, but if they pay no heed, be sure that God is your protector, the best protector and the best helper.

      This verse mentions “persecution” which indicates that it is at least part of the reason for the fighting in the first place.

      These verses are of course precluded by other verses from the Qur’an, which say that “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), and to “only fight those who fight you” until you either prevail against them or they cease hostilities against you (2:190-193 and 4:89-91).

      When the guilty part makes the effort to bridle and make amends, THEN we may be able to talk!

      “Guilt” implies a crime has taken place. However, a crime is an action, not an opinion, and only the individual(s) involved are accountable for it.

      People are individuals and conclusions about a person are more reliable and accurate when they are based on actual first-person interactions and observations rather than on prejudices that are based on lies, half-truths and sensationalism. No individual, regardless of his/her beliefs or what rituals they observe, should ever have to apologize for what they are not responsible for, and no individual should ever be held responsible for what they have no control over. Collectivism socializes responsibility and accountability onto others for something that they have nothing to do with. Thus, it is inherently unethical, immoral and unjust. In addition, using it to assess reality produces an inherently inaccurate result.

      A few helpful tips for accurately assessing reality:

      – Avoid collectivism, prejudices and stereotypes as much as possible – Avoid double-standards – Do not depend exclusively on news reports and superficiality – Keep things in perspective (don’t exaggerate or fall into sensationalism) – Don’t jump to conclusions (use critical thinking with reason and rationality)

    • Sam Seed

      But he (JohnathanA) agrees, he has upvoted on the picture.

    • Jekyll

      A emo avatar talking against killing ?

    • Neil Burnett

      British colonialism made them do it? How? The 80 million Hindus were slaughtered well before the British arrived, and the Bangladeshi massacres occurred 23 years after they left.

    • Iekyll

      Volker Pispers

    • Reynardine

      Emmm… can you read a book at all?

Caroline Fourest fined €6000 for defaming young Muslim victim of racist attack


Islamophobe Caroline Fourest claims to be a “Feminist” but it appears her feminism is of the Neo-colonialist variety.

via. IslamophobiaWatch

Saphir News has reported that Caroline Fourest – the French “left-wing” Islamophobe who wrote Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan – has been successfully sued for defamation over comments she made in June last year on the radio station France Culture.

Fourest was responding to the attacks on two Muslim women in Argenteuil, one of whom lost her baby after being kicked in the stomach by her assailants. This followed an earlier incident in which a 17-year-old woman named Rabia Bentot (pictured) was punched and kicked by racists, who also tore off her headscarf while shouting “dirty Arab” and “dirty Muslim”

Instead of Fourest declaring her outrage at the assaults, and her solidarity with the victims, this self-styled feminist expressed scepticism about the women’s accounts.

Fourest claimed that Rabia Bentot was being manipulated by her father and by the Coordination contre le Racisme et l’Islamophobie, assisted by what Fourest described as the “communalist” website, and she suggested that the story of an attack might well have been fabricated. Even if an assault did take place, Fourest asserted, the police had not excluded the possibility that Rabia was the victim of violence by her own family, who could have beaten her up as punishment for living too free a lifestyle.

Needless to say, Fourest offered no evidence whatsoever to back up these disgraceful slurs.

The Collectif contre l’Islamophobie en France comments that for someone who claims to be a feminist Fourest is very selective in her indignation, especially when it comes to Muslim women who wear hijab. The CCIF notes that trying to discredit the testimony of women victims of violence is a well-known phenomenon, and has been vigorously denounced by feminist organisations.

Rabia Bentot sued Fourest for defamation, and last week the Grand Instance Court in Paris ruled in Rabia’s favour. Fourest was fined €6000, half of which was to be paid in damages with the remainder to cover the plaintiff’s legal costs. Fourest has announced that she will be appealing the verdict.

, , , , , , , ,

    • HeGG

      From Wikipedia:

      “Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher once took McCain to task for appearing to excuse date rape when, in a blog post, McCain wrote about promiscuity among women: “Listen up, sweetheart: You buy the ticket, you take the ride.” After indignation broke out among both liberal and conservative defenders of women, Christopher confronted McCain on-camera at the CPAC conference in March 2011, seeking clarity. McCain conceded the point, explained why he had been skeptical of a widely publicized date-rape accusation (against Julian Assange) and repeated after Christopher: “No means no; stop means stop.” Writing about this encounter, Christopher remarked that “McCain still holds many opinions that I find objectionable, but I also think that [the video] places the ‘character’ that is RS McCain into a context that simply reading him does not.”

      Which I’m surge you’ll dismiss, since McCain is your new super anti-Feminist hero or whatever.

    • HeGG

      I would think that anyone with a shred of decency would find his comment about date rape deplorable, not only feminists.

      Your mileage may vary.

    • Mifeng86

      Not being listened to or believed is exactly why women are reluctant to report it when they get attacked. I think Islamophobia is a feminist issue considering that most victims of anti-Muslim violence are women. I don’t care for the tone of the article I just posted in the link, because the implication is that the women are to blame for being attacked because of their attire.

      Oh I forgot, according to Ms. Fourest being the feminist hero that she is only the opinions and experiences of Western women are valid.

    • Mehdi

      Thanks Garibaldi, I agree fully with everything you say, that’s the reason why I stayed away from this discussion (I feel bad as it was a comment of mine that initiated it), there are many forms of feminism and disagreements over the term even between militants.

      Caroline Fourest has made herself famous by attacking Tarik Ramadan and writing a book full of lies about him, she then claimed that he refused or was afraid to debate with her while he said the opposite. I once asked a a swiss journalist after a debate where he was invited on TV, she confirmed that it was Fourest who turned down the invite. Finally she had to accept an invitation on a french program and he just wiped the floor with her. I need to search for it but it’s around 30 minutes long, so translation would be difficult.

      I also despise the Femen who are also growingly losing credibility (especially after they made a stupid demonstration in the Notre Dame cathedral against the new pope, another against the Paris mosque to protest against Salafism, and after Amina Sboui claimed that she was attacked by salafists at 6am in an area usually quite crowded, only to admit she lied)…

      Now despising these women doesn’t mean I dismiss feminism. I do like this article from Mona Chollet on the femen about their “fast-food feminism”

      Chollet is a feminist and defends feminism, when there are oppressions against women, feminism or womanism or other forms of activism are important. Chollet wrote a very good book (not sure it was translated) about the new forms of alienation against women in the west such as the cult of fashion, the narcissic search for the “perfect slim body” which leads many teenagers to anorexy and depression, and many other examples.

      So yes, one can and should criticize some forms of feminism but dismissing feminism as a whole goes way too far as I’m concerned. There are many many forms of feminism, some are a new form of western imperialism, as I related on the comment of Tunisian feminists telling the Femen to leave as they created un-necessary tension to their legitimate fights for protecting women’s social, legal rights or to fight sexual abuse or domestic violence. I also deeply respect many figures such as the ones on the link I posted or people such as Arundhati Roy, or Angela Davies, whether they describe themselves as feminist or not is a side point. Saying that these people are puppets of capitalism is unfair to them.

      Women’s issues has evolved (and are different depending on the places) and require new forms of struggle, and it’s up for women to find these solutions and talk about them. We have the right to criticize some forms of militancy when they go too far or end up being forms of bigotry, but I will never attack feminism as a whole for two reasons: – Being pro or anti when there is “ism” involved often ends up with black and white simplistic representations. As I told a friend recently, I don’t fancy communism but anti-communism is often silly and has been a tool for US imperialism or McCarthy’s witch hunts, I am pretty leftie and dislike extreme capitalism but I do live in market world and live with it, and we have already been over debates about the term islamism. Saying I’m pro or anti for all these terms is simplistic, similarly I can’t saying pro or anti for feminism, some of its forms should be criticized by many others deserve support and respect. – There are many organizations who target feminism are either religious fundamentalists (and I mean all religions here), or fascist, and tend to use some forms of excessive militantism to pursue their agenda of oppressing women. Nuance is important here, as I will never accept to have my voice or criticism by such people. In some sense everyone in this forum has been criticizing ISIS or other Muslim extremism, it’s legitimate but noone in this forums would be happy to see its arguments used by Islamophobes, one way of trying to avoid that is by expressing critcism with nuance.

      Sorry for the length of the response.

  • The greenmantle

    There are over ten million people of Irish decent in the UK . So I suspect you are mistaken .

Town Rallies Around Vandalized Cold Lake Mosque


(h/t: BSha)

via. CBC News

When Mahmoud Elkadri arrived at the mosque in Cold Lake, Alta., early Friday morning, he was met with a disturbing sight.

The words “Go home” and “Canada” had been sprayed across the front face of the building sometime over the night. Vandals had also smashed two of the mosque’s windows.

“When you’re coming in the morning for a peaceful prayer, it is hard,” said Elkadri, who is one of the mosque’s board members.

“This is our home. My kids have been born and raised in Cold Lake. … I have been in Cold Lake since 1996.”

Only a couple hours later, it was a much different sight. Over the course of the morning, dozens of people from the town showed up to help repair the damage. Some helped paint over the damage, while others taped their own messages to the window reading “You Are Home” and “Love Your Neighbour.”

Cold Lake resident Matt Downey, who came down to the mosque with his daughter to deliver flowers to Elkadri, says he wanted to show that the vandals didn’t speak for the majority of the people in town.

“It’s sad. I mean, these guys are peaceful. I think it is important for the community to show them that we know the difference between extremists and a religion,” he said.

Elkadri said he’s received visits and messages of support from soldiers stationed at the Canadian Forces base in Cold Lake.

“We were crying together in the morning. People coming here, people expressing their feelings,” he said.

Cold Lake Mayor Craig Copeland says the mosque is an important part of the town and that he was disappointed that someone in the community could be behind the damage.

“I just want to say that the Muslim community is at home in Cold Lake, so maybe they need to evaluate whether or not they belong in Cold Lake,” he said of the vandal.

Copeland thinks the vandalism is in response to the shooting in Ottawa that killed Cpl. Nathan Cirillo on Wednesday. He said that people are taking out their frustration on the wrong place.

, , , , , , , ,

    • A Muslim Guy

      During tumultuous times when tempers flare and hate pervades, it’s nice to know that there will always be some good people around.

    • John Smith

      A feeble attempt in trying to deflect attention to Iran and ISIS but an attempt nevertheless. I guess the Iraqi and Syrian and Lebanese and Kurdish forces dying in the fight against ISIS don’t count as Muslims because that would invalidate your entire argument.

    • golden izanagi

    • Friend of Bosnia

      Well you see, religious extremism is not restricted to Muslims alone (as the islamophobes always say). And what did Einstein say about human stupidity…

    • Friend of Bosnia

      Ah, if only we saw this more often…

    • mindy1

      Oh FFS what do those people think they will accomplish by acting that way?

    • JD

      Ultra-Orthodox Jews Attack Jerusalem Buses Over Women Of The Wall Ad

      JERUSALEM (AP) — Dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jews hurled stones and slashed the tires of buses bearing ads promoting female worship at a key Jerusalem holy site, Israeli police said Tuesday.

      The attack, which happened on Monday night in Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighborhood, underscores the still simmering tensions in Israel over religious extremists who want to separate the sexes in public spaces.

      Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said police units were dispatched to quell the violence in Mea Shearim where about 50 men slashed tires and pelted the buses with stones.

      The ads were posted by the group Women of the Wall, which seeks to achieve gender equality at the Western Wall, the holiest place where Jews can pray. The advertisements showed girls and women wearing prayer shawls and holding a Torah scroll — rituals seen by many Orthodox Jews as reserved for men only.

      Video footage on the YNet news site showed the words “end the obscene pictures” spray-painted on a bus.

      The ads aimed to promote Bat Mitzvah ceremonies for girls at the Western Wall. The coming-of-age ceremonies for girls are only allowed to be held at a nearby prayer site, designated for worshippers who don’t follow the Orthodox tradition adhered to at the main area of the Western Wall.

    • mindy1

      Countering hate with love, nice :))))

When Bigotry Comes to Your Hometown


When Bigotry Comes to Your Hometown

By Dean Obeidallah (The Daily Beast)

Typically, there isn’t a large police presence at a land-use hearing. But Wednesday night’s hearing was different. There was a palpable sense of concern by law enforcement. Why? Because Wednesday night, the board was deciding whether to approve the application of Muslims to convert an old church into a mosque.

The little town of Midland Park is a middle-class suburb of New York City, just north of my hometown of Paramus. It’s home to about 7,000 residents. And now this quiet township had also become the home of an ugly mosque controversy. Unlike the Ground Zero mosque protest of 2010, this fight didn’t make national headlines or become the lead story on the nightly news. Yet to the local residents and the Muslim-Americans who desperately wanted a place of worship, it was just as important, and emotions were just as high.

The small hearing room that accommodated 60 was packed with the faces of brown and white people, while others filled the hallways and adjacent conference rooms. For the next three hours, this hearing would be the big show in this small town. And it didn’t disappoint.

At the outset of the hearing, the attorney for the mosque, sensing that the room was filled with opponents, made a simple plea to the municipal board members: “This is not a public referendum, it’s a question of law.”

He was legally correct, but that didn’t prevent local officials in Bridgewater, New Jersey from improperly preventing the building of a mosque a few years ago. The result was a lawsuit in federal court that found in favor of the mosque, although it’s currently still engulfed in the appeals process.

And then came the parade of people testifying for and against the mosque. The board members would respectfully listen, but showed little signs of which way they would decide.

“I’ve been to nine Bon Jovi concerts…I love this country.”  That was part of the emotional plea of a Muslim-American doctor in support of the mosque. When I was an attorney, I can assure you that I never heard anyone testify at a land-use hearing: “I love this country.” Such a declaration is obviously not required by law, but when you’re Muslim, you feel obligated to continually offer these types of assurances.

We heard from opponents who lived on the block of the proposed mosque. I sincerely believe they were simply concerned about traffic, not Muslims. Others opened by saying “I have nothing against Muslims,” but you could still sense apprehension—not based on malice, but more from a lack of personal exposure to Muslims.

And then something fascinating happened. Since this hearing was taking place during Ramadan, many of the Muslims had been fasting since sunrise. I’m talking 14 hours with no food. As we reached sunset at about 8:45 p.m., I could see some taking out snacks from their bags or passing around figs to break their fast. These people were celebrating their religion while at the same time fighting to exercise it.

Soon, however, the mask of civility was removed, revealing the ugly face of bigotry. As one Muslim man from a neighboring town testified, someone yelled out, “Build the mosque in your town!” Another commented: “I don’t care if they worship their God, just not in our town.” (All the Muslims who testified were from neighboring towns.)

There was a man holding up a sign that read “Stop Application” and “Keep R Kids Safe.” I was a bit confused about the second sign. Was he alleging that Muslims are a threat to children? Not sure, but it wasn’t long until he stormed out of the hearing, declaring: “There are 180 million [not billion?] radicalized Muslims!” [Yes, he was using the Islamaphobe’s BS line that not all Muslims are bad, but X percent are.]

The hearing soon reached a boiling point as a woman calmly, but intensely, testified from prepared notes about the alleged threats Islam posed to the people of the town. Parroting the crap we have heard from Islamophbes on Fox News, she claimed Muslims are “trained” to lie and that they don’t share the same values as we, Americans, do. When someone in the crowd objected, another in the audience said: “It’s the truth, you don’t know them.”

There was even a moment of surreal levity. Another woman sitting in the audience, and again this is small room where everyone could easily see one another, had been loudly voicing anti-Muslim comments. She then came up to testify, stating: “I don’t have any problems with Muslims, it’s about traffic.” Did she really think we couldn’t see she was the same person saying anti-Muslim crap minutes before?!

Don’t get me wrong, there were some bright spots, such as when a Jewish and a Christian leader testified in support of the Muslims’ freedom to worship like people of other faiths. However, every single resident of Midland Park who testified voiced opposition to the mosque. (I wonder how freaked out these mosque opponents, who were all white, will be when they realize that by 2045 they will be outnumbered by people of color?)

And now, after three hours of talking traffic, tax bases, and Muslims, it was time for the board to decide. If they followed the views of the local residents, the mosque would be soundly defeated.

The decision was unanimous. A new place of worship was coming to this small town. And it would bring with it people that don’t look or pray like most of the local residents.

But now comes the more challenging part for the Muslim community. It’s one thing to win a hearing, but it’s quite another to win “hearts and minds.” I did leave, though, with a sense of optimism after seeing the leader of the mosque walk up to as many of the opponents and as he could find and extend his hand. True, it’s a small step, but it’s a really good one to start with.

, , , , , , , , ,

    • Glad to hear the mosque was approved..which makes this kind of a non-story. Obeidallah would do better at helping “to win ‘hearts and minds’” if he wasn’t so busy beating off over peoples’ skin color when he writes an opinion piece. Because, frankly, every time someone starts mentioning skin color, which the American Left thinks is the Holy Graal of arguments, my eyes glaze over. Seriously, he’s a funny man–it is, after all, his livelihood–so he has the ability to speak and write without resorting to lowbrow ideological jabs. Whether he ever manifests that ability will determine his efficacy in reaching people who need to be reached, rather than preaching to those of us who are already in the choir.

    • golden izanagi

      and don’t forget those assurances would most likely fall on deaf ears because of the bullcrap about taqiyya that islamaphobes love to pull out so that they can put any acts of good will or shows of patriotism by muslims into question.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      When I was an attorney, I can assure you that I never heard anyone testify at a land-use hearing: “I love this country.” Such a declaration is obviously not required by law, but when you’re Muslim, you feel obligated to continually offer these types of assurances. Stop pandering to nationalists, it will get you nowhere.

    • Amie

      LOL traffic problem! OMG. People would say ridiculous things… You know, this reminds me of the ayat in the Noble Qur’an where Allah SWT says that the enemies of (then) Muslims feared Muslims more than they fear Him SWT. This timeless statement can be applied today. The islamophobes fear Muslims and Islam more than they fear God Almighty.

    • John Smith

      Traffic problems? Please, it is ridiculous the measures people will take to look ‘reasonable’ when in reality they are seething with bigotry.

    • mindy1

      Am glad that some Jews spoke on behalf of Muslims :))) I do wonder what people are so afraid of, just let people worship as they please

When a Jewish Extremist Talks Like a Nazi

shimon gapso

File this away under “What if this were a Muslim…?”  Shimon Gapso, mayor of the Israeli city of Upper Nazareth, has recently published an article for Ha’aretz in which he lays bare his racist and extremist religious ideology.  Gapso implicitly endorses a policy of ethnic cleansing, and defends his statements calling for the “Judaization” of his city.

The article is entitled “If you think I’m a racist, then Israel is a racist state.”  Well, as they say, if the shoe fits… Zionist ideology is, after all, rooted in the belief that the land of Palestine must be Jewish, an ideal that could/can only be fulfilled by replacing the indigenous Arab population with a Jewish one.  Israel is, as Mr. Gapso says, a racist state.

Gapso in the past has supported ethnic cleansing initiatives.  He has opposed the creation of a single Arab school, Muslim cemetery, or mosque in the city.  (I thought only Saudi Arabia had this problem?)

Here is Shimon Gapso’s article with my commentary inserted in between:

If you think I’m a racist, then Israel is a racist state

Upper Nazareth’s mayor answers detractors who say his reelection campaign calling for the mixed city to be ‘Jewish forever’ is racist.

by Shimon Gapso

Over the past few days, many people have been calling me a racist. Sometimes they also call me a Nazi, a bully or even Hitler. One need only look at the comments on Haaretz’s website to put me before a firing squad. What’s my crime? What act of bullying did I commit? I made a clear and unequivocal statement that Upper Nazareth was a Jewish city.

Yes, the comparison to Nazis and Hitler is acceptable here, despite what a distorted view of Godwin’s Law would claim.  Extremist Zionists routinely invoke Nazi and Hitler comparisons to Arab and Muslim leaders, but God forbid anyone say that of a Zionist.

Imagine if a Texan were to say that Texas ought to remain “white forever.”  This would be something only an Aryan racist would say–and nobody would think twice about likening this to the Nazis or Hitler.

One could claim that “white” is a race, while Jewish is not.  This is of course the game that is always played.  When convenient, Jewish is used as a race; when convenient, as a religion.  But, would anyone call it anything other than extremism of the worst sort for someone to claim that Georgia should remain “Christian forever”?

Shimon Gapso continues:

Yes — I’m not afraid to say it out loud, to write it and add my signature, or declare it in front of the cameras: Upper Nazareth is a Jewish city and it’s important that it remains so. If that makes me a racist, then I’m a proud offshoot of a glorious dynasty of “racists” that started with the “Covenant of the Pieces” [that God made with Abraham, recounted in Genesis 15:1–15] and the explicitly racist promise: “To your seed I have given this land” [Genesis 15:38].

When the Jewish people were about to return to their homeland after a long journey from slavery in Egypt, where they were enslaved for racist reasons, the God of Israel told Moses how to act upon conquering the land: he must cleanse the land of its current inhabitants. “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you allow to remain… as I thought to do to them, so will I do to you” [Numbers 33:55–56].

God gave them an explicit warning. Yes, the racist Joshua conquered the land in a racist manner. More than 3,000 years later, the Jewish people stood bruised and bleeding on the threshold of their land, seeking once again to take possession of it from the wild tribes that had seized the land in its absence. And then, an outbreak of racism flooded the country.

We are constantly reminded by the so-called “Islam experts” (who just happen to almost always be staunch pro-Israeli hawks) that it is only Muslims who take the violent parts of their scripture literally in the modern day and age.  Meanwhile, we are told that Jews and Christians don’t do this.  Pseudo-scholar Robert Spencer writes on p.31 of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):

When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don’t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers.  This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretive traditions that have moved away from literalism regarding these passages.

In fact, I have cited studies that have shown that the majority of believers take the Bible to be literally true and the Word of God.  And, here we have an Israeli mayor referring to the bloodiest parts of the Bible in order to justify a policy of ethnic cleansing.  In previous articles, I have documented the Bible’s extensive justifications for ethnic cleansing, and Shimon Gapso is invoking these as a proof for a modern day policy of such.

Gapso is not a lone voice.  In fact, a majority of Israelis believe in a policy of ethnic cleansing.  This is not idle talk.  From its very inception, the state of Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing.

This is the height of religious extremism.  It is a major problem facing the Jewish community today.  We are told by the pro-Israel “Islam experts” that Muslims have a problem of religious extremism–why aren’t moderate Muslims speaking out?, we are constantly asked.  But, how come we hardly ever hear these people asking why more Jewish people aren’t speaking out against Jewish extremism and supremacism in Israel?

To be clear, there are plenty of prominent Jews who are speaking out against Jewish extremism and supremacism.  The reactions to Gapso’s article are a proof of this.  But, just to set the record straight: the vast majority of Muslims on earth oppose the views of their religious extremists–and condemn terrorism in the name of Islam.  Yet, a very large proportion of the Jewish community seems to support Zionism and, by virtue of this, end up endorsing certain racist religious views in regard to the establishment of a Jewish state in a land that was, up until the turn of the century, inhabited primarily by non-Jews.

The point here is not to demonize the Jewish community.  The truth is that even though far too many Jews are Zionists, it is also a fact that the people who have done the most to stand up to extremist Zionism have in fact been Jews themselves.

The lesson to be learned here, however, is that it is unfair to single out the Muslim faith and community as the only one suffering from a religious extremism problem.

Back to Shimon Gapso’s article (with emphasis added):

The racist Theodor Herzl wrote “Der Judenstaat” (“The Jewish State,” not “The State of All Its Citizens”). Lord Balfour recommended the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people. David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Arlosoroff, Moshe Sharett and other racists established the Jewish Agency, and the racist UN decided to establish a Jewish state — in other words, a state for Jews. The racist Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel, and during the War of Independence even made sure to bring in hundreds of thousands of Jews and drive out hundreds of thousands of Arabs who had been living here — all to enable it to be founded with the desired racist character.

How refreshing it is to hear some cold, hard truth about the matter: the Jewish state engaged in the systematic ethnic cleansing of “hundreds of thousands of Arabs.”  This campaign–which continues in a modified form to this very day–was sustained by religious extremism.  What is interesting as well is that this absolutely absurd religious idea–that God gave the Jews the land of Israel–is championed even by many secular Jews.  Such is the endemic problem of this racist and extremist idea.

Gapso continues:

Since then, racially pure kibbutzim without a single Arab member and an army that protects a certain racial strain have been established, as have political parties that proudly bear racist names such as “Habayit Hayehudi” — “the Jewish home.” Even our racist national anthem ignores the existence of the Arab minority — in other words, the people Ben-Gurion did not manage to expel in the 1948 war. If not for all that “racism,” it’s doubtful we could live here, and doubtful that we could live at all.

In these times of hypocrisy and bleeding-heart sanctimoniousness, of the proliferation of flaky types who are disconnected from reality, in the relative security that causes us to forget the dangers we face, we can sit in north Tel Aviv, and cry “racism” to seem enlightened and good-hearted in our own eyes. We can be shocked at a mayor who prefers that his city, which is right next to the largest Arab city in Israel, retain a Jewish majority and not be swallowed up in the Arab area that surrounds it. There will not be a single Jew in the future Palestinian state, but that’s all right. That isn’t racism.

For the record, even Hamas has stated that in their “ideal Islamic state” Christians and Jews would be allowed to live in it.

Gapso gives this disclaimer:

Upper Nazareth is a Jewish city. Fewer than one-fifth of its inhabitants are Arab citizens, and they enjoy full municipal and national rights. Many of them are friends of mine, and I like and respect many of them.

This is of course the necessary disclaimer of “I have black friends, so I can’t possibly be racist against blacks.”

Gapso concludes:

I could wish that Jews were treated the way the Arabs of Upper Nazareth are — not only those Jews who lived in Europe of times past, but also those who live in the Arab countries of today. If that were the case, perhaps we of Upper Nazareth would have no need to be “racists.”

Herein is revealed the fundamental flaw in Zionism–and what makes the comparisons to Nazism reasonable.  It was the Nazi viewpoint that Jews could not live in Europe with non-Jews that led to the Holocaust.  Instead of disagreeing with this baseless argument and calling for racial and religious harmony in Europe, Zionists argued that Jews could not ever hope to live with non-Jews in safety.  According to this defeatist view, Jews must segregate themselves into their own state, and that’s why Shimon Gapso has to Judaize his city (and all of Israel).  The only way Jews can be safe, according to the Bible’s violent verses and bigoted modern day Zionism, is to cleanse the land of Gentiles–whoever (supposedly) worships a different god, speaks a different language, or has a different religious or ethnic background.

Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t buy into the argument that blacks could not live with whites in peace and harmony.  In spite of the horrific violence levied against his people and his own person, Dr. King rejected Marcus Garvey’s “Back-to-Africa” ideology.  Such an ideology–which endorses the idea that a racial or religious group must live only among its own people–is a pernicious one.  It’s dangerous whether it is held by whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, or Muslims.  Instead of believing this segregationist idea, we must all learn to live together.

We must also learn not to unfairly single out one religion over another.  All religious traditions have their extremists.  This includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  He is a fool whoever takes Shimon Gapso’s views and actions as being synonymous with Judaism and the Jewish community overall.  Likewise, so too are those fools who take this or that extremist Muslim’s views and actions as representative of Islam or the Muslim community at large.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.  

Did you like this article?  Make sure to contribute to Danios’s IndieGoGo campaign.  

, , , , , , , ,

    • GuestOfGuests

      Oh, and for the record… The “Judaization of Jerusalem” expression has this “Romanization of Rome” or “Hellenization of Athens” twist to it…

      And yes, that’s really how retarded this sounds to us.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      No it’s not “the Zionist part of the NK, what a silly thing to say. To claim a Utopian eschatological religious belief that goes against the fundamental underpinnings of Zionism as Zionist makes no sense and also displays an ignorance of Jewish theology/history. Sorry you are just digging yourself a larger hole and embarrassing yourself further Chameleon. I urge you to do more study on this subject since you proudly proclaim ignorance on it.

      To edify some of what you lack in this regard the logic of the diaspora for centuries was the fact that Jews should bear their exile in humility and submission to the will of God and the gentiles ruling over them, deliverance would only come from the Messiah after which universal peace would reign (i.e. beating swords into plowshares, the lamb lying with the lion, etc.). Zionism was a rebellion against this concept, as was the Haskala (Enlightenment) in general, in no way are the two compatible.

      So now you are backtracking and contradicting what you said regarding my article because you are unable to rise to the challenge of justifying your claims. The fact is you analogized my article on Zionism and Islamophobia as similar to saying “Nazism is not necessarily bad.” This is the conclusion you came to: “it was analogous to hearing a message something like this after covering all the nuances of Nazism: “Well, Nazism is not necessarily bad, since it is historically based on nationalistic and socialist ideals, which can often be a good thing. It’s just the Nazi extremists that were the problem.”

      So yes you did say through your analogy that the message of my article was that Zionism is “not necessarily bad.” As for my position on Zionism, it is very clear, and my article made a damning conclusion about all the strands of Zionism, stating they are pervaded with a view of the “other” that believes Muslims, Palestinians, the Oriental Jew are at their most basic ontological roots different (inferior) than Western, Ashkenazi Jewry.

      You ask, With respect to the analogy between Nazism and Zionism, by the way, please tell me what other analogy would be more appropriate. Other analogies certainly can be made that are as appropriate or more so. For instance the racist state ideology of Apartheid South Africa.

      Let me make it simple for you with regard to the analogy of Nazism and Zionism. As for why I say it is a disputable analogy based on whether it provides more clarity or precision. Well take one example: the racism Zionism asserts is 1.) a racially based state based on the Israeli historigraphical myth that all Jews in diaspora are only descendants of exiles returning home, 2.) By (most) any means necessary the dominance of one race to secure a “Jewish state” over the concerns of the indigenous population. While there are often expressions on how Jews are superior to gentiles, Zionism does not necessarily hold to the Nazi belief that they are a “Superior race,” in fact as one saw from my article some of the leading ideologues of Zionism held Sephardim and religious Jews in serious contempt, describing them as savages, backwards, uncritical, tainted by the flaws of the Orient, only good to be used as bodies for economic development for a state of Israel.

      A last note, I have not accepted an “irrational definition” of who is a Jew. I have just accepted the self-definition of Jews who define Jewishness as decided by matrilineal descent. I accept that you oppose this despite neither facts, reality or logic being on your side.

      This said I’ll let others judge whose arguments or views make more sense or are backed up by the facts. For me, this is a good place to conclude. I hope you do study a bit more on these topics and discuss them with as much of an informed basis as you generally do when it comes to topics related to the Quran or Islam.

    • Chameleon_X

      “When did I cross this line?”

      And when did I assert you did? I have not debated your opinions here, nor do I desire to, since opinions have no weight. I was merely clarifying how my view on Zionism differs from what I perceive to be your view on Zionism given your negative assessment of my views, with the added suggestion that you follow your opinions to their logical conclusion before you judge mine as “offensive” or “unhelpful”.

      “As for your comments, I checked and I don’t see any that have been deleted. I have never deleted one.”

      I never asserted you deleted any. In fact, I am quite confident that you personally have not. However, I do know for a fact that some have been deleted.

      “How far should we go back to find the “root” cause? How about the Roman occupation, where the Jews were expelled from the land in the first place? How about the centuries of relentless persecution, especially in Europe? Though Zionism predates the Holocaust, I believe without it, there may never have been enough support to establish Israel, so that seems like an important factor too.”

      Previous historical events can never justify racism – period. That would be a flagrant violation of the just war doctrine. Racism is an evil choice worthy of unconditional blame, regardless of historical precedent. It can never ever be justified. Previous historical events are not relevant. Don’t you realize your root cause logic with these examples amounts to asserting “two wrongs can make a right” to justify Zionism? No, they cannot. This is why I firmly believe that the only real solution will have to involve forgiveness of the Israelis once they are shamed into rejecting the racist doctrine of Zionism. The Palestinians cannot justify a racist punishment on the Jews in return, as they ironically could under your logic. Once fundamental change is on the table, I believe everyone should start looking only forward with hope and forgiveness, not back with acrimony and retribution.

      This is the much ignored positive lesson from Nazi history, that rejection of racism by the guilty and forgiveness from others is the only path to reconciliation with those who aspired to a racist state. If we are too uncomfortable making this analogy, then we will never be able to see the solution right in front our eyes. Again, what other state throughout modern history has had the audacious goal of dedicating an entire state to a single race to teach us how to move forward?

      “Palestine was under British Mandate, and Zionism had British support.”

      There are other guilty accomplices, no doubt. However, the British actually tried strongly but unsuccessfully to restrict all this illegal immigration into Israel. That is where the militant Jewish terrorists stepped in against the British with terrorist attacks to forcefully remove those restrictions starting in the mid-1930s. Those same racist terrorists then formed the power structure of the future Israeli military and government that we still see in operation to this day. I don’t recall any “Christian Zionists” signing up for this “reborn” Zionism (per “The 18 Principles of Rebirth”) that actually came into power, but perhaps you could educate me otherwise.

      “What about the warped sense of Western “justice” that says other people should pay with their patrimony for their sins? The supremacist notion they have some God-given right to determine the fate of other people’s land. This is their attitude even today, and it’s hard not to see that also as a “root cause.””

      Same fallacious premise that somehow two wrongs can make a right to exonerate Zionism from some root cause blame. Racism is always wrong, period. This argument also sounds like the kid on the playground who said, “He told me to do it!” or “He told me it was OK!”. Sorry, but those words don’t even sound convincing to the Kindergartener who is saying them in his own defense.

      “They were trying to find a place to live where they felt safe.”

      Again, why did they have to massively overrun, illegally occupy and ethnically cleanse a far off land just to feel “safe”. This argument is nonsensical. They could have just left as my relatives did, and then perhaps returned later without any undue imposition on others. There were much closer and more suitable places to go to feel safe. Read the history. These militant Zionists would not even consider any other location except Palestine for the European Jews. No other option was even permissible, even though it would have likely saved a lot more Jews at less migration cost. The Zionist goal was not to get them out of Germany, but to get them INTO Palestine illegally, with the stated Zionist doctrine to then ethnically cleanse the land of all non-Jews. And that is exactly what they did! Another critical goal, of course, was to get Jewish assets into Palestine via the deal with Hitler in order to fund the Jewish power structure and militant ethnic cleansing, which is also what they did. Hate and ethnic cleansing don’t come cheap. They cost some serious coin.

      “Let’s just agree to disagree on this point.”

      Again, I am perfectly OK with that, since you acknowledge it is nothing more than your opinion, not a claim. I have no interest in challenging mere opinions.

      “I will also add that I’m a bit surprised by your strident tone with me, when I’ve tried very hard to be conciliatory. Even if you firmly believe I’m wrong on some point, please show some patience. I’m not attacking you.” My apologies then if I have crossed the line in getting personal as a result of my obvious passion on this topic. That was never my intention.

    • Chameleon_X

      Yes, we all know how delicious your red herring is. Perhaps you can swap some red herring recipes with Garibaldi later!

    • Chameleon_X

      “Can you not make space for anyone who is not in lockstep agreement with you on every point?”

      Of course! You are perfectly free to have your opinion as long as you don’t try to assert it as an objective claim or assert that my argument is somehow incorrect without facts to back you up. That is when you cross the debating line. It is really that simple.

      “Aside from not agreeing with the notion Zionism is equivalent to Nazism, I think it’s counterproductive.”

      Perhaps if you quoted my claim correctly, you would not be so adamantly up in arms. I said it was analogous as a comparison, NOT “equivalent”. Furthermore, I also very specifically clarified where the analogy breaks down after Kristallnacht and explicitly excluded the later Holocaust. My points are quite valid as such. You are welcome to rebut the facts if you like, but I put zero value in your opinion (no matter how often repeated) or even my opinion in making a compelling argument on this claim. Only the facts and the logic flowing from them matter.

      “You’re deeply offending people and potentially turning them against you, and for what?”

      Because I don’t care if what I see as the blaring, ugly truth is offensive to others, and I firmly believe that only the unadulterated truth will set the Palestinians free – now where did I hear that quote before? I am far more concerned about the horror, hate and unjust atrocities that are stirred up from ethnic cleansing — and still continuing to this very day (more illegal settlements just announced right before talks resume!) — than anyone’s irrelevant sensitivities upon hearing the truth.

      “A failure to take a firm moral stand?”

      This was my comment to Garibaldi, not you. He has taken no such firm moral stand that I have ever seen. My only beef with your view, I think, is that you take no moral stand against the modern ideology of Zionism, and how it was spawned in its hideous form under the aegis of Nazism and militant Jewish terrorists. You don’t seem to acknowledge this ideology as the root cause. Without this root cause, your moral stand against the racist state of Israel and all the Jews who support it is implying that a lot of Jews are simply just bad people without any particular explanation why. I reject this bigoted view, in the same way that history proved unequivocally that this was not true of the Germans after they firmly rejected the racist creed of Nazism. In other words, if you follow my logic and your logic to their ultimate conclusion, you will find that yours is far more offensive to the Jewish people because you have nowhere else to really lay the blame.

    • Just_Stopping_By

      No, thank you, because your responses were delicious for me too, though since you have admitted your repeated error, you now probably have at least some idea how truly delicious they were!

      One question if you don’t mind: If I was bumbling over a fact for seven months while repeatedly getting it right, what verb describes what you were doing with that fact for seven months while repeatedly getting it wrong?

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      As JSB showed, it took you 7 months to finally admit this, though you do so begrudgingly and continue to bizarrely claim that it proves some point you are trying to make. This is one example of the stubbornness that too often characterizes some of your posts.

      So you initially mischaracterized or “misunderstood” JSB as stating that he argued that the NK were “anti-Zionist Zionists.” How long do we have to wait until you walk this back now that you realize that he did no such thing? All the pejoratives that you flung on this topic either because you willfully mischaracterized or misunderstood him is no one’s fault except your own.

      You say you are the same type of anti-Zionist as the NK. So you oppose Zionism out of a religious conviction that Jews cannot have a state in the Holy Land until the long awaited Jewish messiah comes to power?

      You say, “And I showed you that what you thought was “incorrect” was actually an irrational definition, which you could not effectively rebut.

      This is actually patently false. After I wrote this comment in reply to you: you made no effort to a.) Correct your mischarachterization (or maybe another misunderstanding) of Rabbi Kertzer’s view on who is a Jew. b.) You first asserted that Rabbi Kertzer agreed with your view that a Jew is only a religious Jew, this was shown to be factually incorrect and you did not correct this. Instead you seem to now be attacking the same person you cited as a evidencing agreement with your claim as forwarding an “irrational definition.”

      You say I am being “dense” for pointing out the inconsistency in your comment regarding “opinions.” People can see the clear contradiction in your unequivocal statement that on the one hand “opinions are cheap and meaningless” and your now cleaning that up and saying it is only “cheap and meaningless” to “others.”

      After first claiming I was attempting to “recharacterize the repugnant historical facts that I presented as nothing more than your comments,” you’ve dropped that false and insupportable claim, once again another “misreading” or “misunderstanding” perhaps.

      Then you proceed to say about my first article in the series on Zionism and Islamophobia: it was analogous to hearing a message something like this after covering all the nuances of Nazism: “Well, Nazism is not necessarily bad, since it is historically based on nationalistic and socialist ideals, which can often be a good thing. It’s just the Nazi extremists that were the problem.”

      I challenge you to justify this by citing anything where I remotely state or imply that Zionism or any of its various strands are “not necessarily bad?” Here is my article: Right now all we have from you is baseless innuendo and opinion. You state I take no firm stance but clearly my conclusion in that article does, my hunch is you likely haven’t even read the article.

      You say my opinion is “meaningless” because I haven’t presented facts. What facts do I have to bring to those analogizing Zionism with Nazism? My point is that an analogy certainly can be made but that it is “disputable” whether it is helpful which was the point of the discussion. I stated this for two simple reasons relating to the purpose of analogies: 1.) Does it bring more precision and 2.) clarity to a topic.

      You have neither brought facts or presented any solid arguments addressed to me. You’ve also “misread” or “misunderstood” my comment once again it seems: I invoked “Dawood” not to help me out, (where do I say that?) but only to highlight that I wish for the days when there were better informed and more logically consistent commenters on LW threads who didn’t make grandiose sweeping claims without merit and glaring factual errors and constant miscitations and misreadings.

    • Just_Stopping_By

      “What I was arguing initially about the NK was my understanding that JSB was characterizing them nonsensically as “anti-Zionist Zionists” who believe in some sort of nostalgic form of Zionism without all the nasty bits. JSB’s characterization was utterly wrong or else my understanding of what JSB said was utterly wrong…. I think you need to reread JSB’s original comments about the NK to see what I mean for yourself.”

      No, it is you who need to reread my original comments, because you are just wrong on my original comments on NK. See here for the first comment in which I ever referenced the group, of which I excerpt the main point but obviously you can review it all: (“Anti-Zionists like the Satmar and Neturei Karta believe in what you call ‘racial Judaism,’ or inheritance of Jewish identity.”) This was back when you had your first incorrect definition of Zionism, conflating it with the Jewish view of matrilineal descent. I said absolutely nothing about NK’s views regarding a Jewish state! Strike one.

      Next, your response includes: “1) This is a fringe, local group numbering only 5,000 according the Jewish Virtual Library, as referenced on the “Neturei Karta” Wikipedia page.” So, don’t blame me for your misunderstanding when you looked up NK on Wikipedia and the Jewish Virtual Library. Strike two.

      Then, I linked to the NK Wikipedia page and their own home page, pointing out that Wikipedia says that “Neturei Karta opposes Zionism” and that NK’s own slogan is “Jews United Against Zionism.” I gave you every opportunity to see your error and I linked to the most direct source possible. And still you persisted in your error. Strike three.

      All this was in January, and up until this weekend you thought that NK was Zionist and in fact you said that they were whitewashing Zionism.

      Also, I did not call them “Anti-Zionist Zionists” ever. A Google search of that phrase on LW shows its use only by Stephen G. Parker, Ilisha, and then you quoting Ilisha. Not me. Strike four.

      I am glad that you finally admitted your mistake. Mazel tov. But it took seven months after I linked to NK’s own homepage for you to figure out that “Jews United Against Zionism” is against Zionism. I’m not sure if something finally clicked, if you only figured it out from the photo I linked to, or if my call for Danios to set you straight (and my prior citing of him calling NK anti-Zionist) set you thinking.

      I am happy to agree with you that NK is a fringe group, but you still don’t seem to realize how much play they get. That’s why Danios knew of them! Even putting that aside, it is pointless to debate someone who takes seven months after a link to a group’s website to figure out that a group calling itself “Jews United Against Zionism” is in fact against Zionism. If it takes that long for you to recognize what “against” means, it is not worth my time to clarify your errors on other things that you are misinterpreting.

      I want to be clear that this is not because I think that you are dumb. It’s because you are so blinded by your own views and stubbornness on this issue that it is virtually impossible to get you to recognize the errors you are making, no matter how obvious they are. Maybe that will change, but first you have to use this whole episode to recognize just how resistant you have been to repeated efforts to correct your errors.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      Chameleon, “The Neturei Karta were totally irrelevant to the discussion”

      Still can’t concede that you got the basic fact that the NK are anti-Zionists wrong. It is relevant as it speaks to your ignorance on the subject of Zionism; when people are speaking without knowledge on these topics it does more harm than good.

      What plate do I have to step up to? Quotes from Wikipedia? Are you referring to your questions on the Haavara which are presented as if you want people to do your homework for you? My guess from your comment history on this topic is that your knowledge of the history of Zionism is abysmally minimal, so why should I engage your arguments? Last I engaged you was on the subject of Jews in which you mistakenly cited a source claiming it corroborated your claim that Jews are defined as only those who follow the faith of Judaism. I showed you from the same source that this was incorrect.

      You clearly do put far too much “esteem” in your comments, as seemingly error proof, logically impeccable, when flaws and inconsistencies are pointed out in your arguments you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them.

      You say, “Opinions are cheap and meaningless…” Good, that goes for your claims about “LW mojo” as well, right? Yet you say you “strongly feel” that such an opinion is “true” which is not entirely consistent with your claim that opinions are “cheap and meaningless.”

      In any case I have made a “disingenuous attempt to recharacterize the repugnant historical facts that I presented as nothing more than your comments.’” or so you claim. This is not only false but I haven’t even addressed the Haavara agreement. I will however in the second part to my series on Zionism and Islamophobia.

      In a comment germane to this topic I have noted that analogizing Zionism and Nazism or Hitler is possible but that it is disputable whether or not it is helpful when one considers whether it brings more precision or clarity to the subject matter.

      Chameleon I could care less whether you like my articles or not or who your preferred writer on LW is, I love Danios’ articles as well, we’re obviously on the same team.

      Your comments do at times make me wish for the days when we had more knowledgeable and logically consistent commenters such as Dawood. Don’t misunderstand me you also make excellent comments at times on matters that you have some semblance of knowledge, I have upvoted a few of them in the past but on balance I’m sorry to say you’re no Dawood.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      True…but by future battle I mean something more grave, that goes beyond veiled threats.

    • Laurent Weppe

      You make it sound like the conflict has not already started: veiled threats are already acts of violence.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      Then it portends an inevitable future battle, if liberals and the Left in Israel is up to it?

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      No, Chameleon, you haven’t hit any “hot button.” I’m just not that emotionally invested in your comments.

      We have been and will remain open to criticism, as no one is or should be immune from criticism.

      As for your opinion, of course you are entitled to it, I never said otherwise, we are also entitled to our opinions.

      Secondly read my comment again, I did not say your comments are a waste of time, though I’m sure at times some of them have been, I said writing a detailed critique or “judgment” of your comments would be a waste of my time.

      What I did say was that you esteem your comments far above their actual worth. I think we have one example in just this thread in which JSB highlighted a fact you just got plain wrong about Neturei Karta and were too stubborn to admit, which is unfortunately a pattern.

      Yes your comments are in moderation and will continue to remain so. As we all have our responsibilities apart from the voluntary time we devote to this site, at times any comment in the moderation queue may lag.

      I didn’t know I had the power to “push you into that direction.” You are the one who said you were creating a website, not me. I did not put those words in your mouth or write them out for you.

      As for what you are calling the PDFs you have been working on for the past year or so, we will not be parking them here. Thanks for the consideration.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      Chameleon: If you’re down voted that’s because commenters don’t like your comments. How you’ve ascertained through your crystal ball that admins are downvoting you is beyond me, considering Disqus doesn’t track downvotes. It speaks to your own insecurity.

      I address this not only to Chameleon but anyone partaking in this conversation.

      My two cents on the issue of comparing any present racist regime/ideology to Nazism and Hitler is that the analogy can certainly be valid. There are parallels between the racism that was espoused by Nazis and Zionists such as Gaspo.

      Ilisha’s contention that it is unhelpful is a considered one especially when one asks: what’s the purpose of an analogy? Analogies in one part should bring more clarity and precision to a topic, it is certainly disputable whether or not analogizing Zionism to Nazism achieves more precision or clarity.

      Considering I am still doing a series on this topic I will have more to say a little later in a further edit to this comment.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      We’re not all in lockstep! Oh noes, looks like I should find a different site.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      Maybe in your opinion we “lost” some of our “mojo” but I and most others would clearly disagree with you.

      Whether you comment here or not is of limited importance; Loonwatch will continue to do what it does, as we have in the past, with or without your comments. I’m not interested in making a detailed judgement of your comments, mostly because it’s a waste of time but you esteem your comments far above their actual worth.

      Also weren’t you working on creating your own site for the past year or so, what happened to that?

      We have allowed you to comment here again for months now, before Danios returned…so there is some ambiguity on your part as to this loss of our ephemeral “mojo.”

    • JD

      Islam gaffe candidate Banister quits Australia election

      An Australian election candidate who was widely mocked after she mistook Islam for a country in a TV interview has withdrawn her candidacy.

      Stephanie Banister, 27, was contesting a seat in Queensland for the anti-immigration One Nation Party. She had only been in politics for 48 hours.

      Ms Banister also confused the term “haram” (forbidden) with the Koran and suggested Jews worshipped Jesus Christ.

      The interview, which aired early this week, went viral on social media.

      ”I don’t oppose Islam as a country, umm, but I do feel that their laws should not be welcome here in Australia,” Ms Banister told Seven News reporter Erin Edwards. ‘Quite the fool’

      She announced her withdrawal from the election on Saturday.

      “With the way Channel Seven edited my interview, I was left quite the fool,” Ms Banister said in a brief statement.

      “I’d like to apologise to One Nation, to my friends and family, for any embarrassment this has brought to them.”

      One newspaper headline said Ms Banister had managed to put Islam literally on the map.

      The leader of One Nation, Jim Savage, said Ms Banister continued to have the “full support” of the party executive.

      He said she had been under “enormous pressure”, including threats to her and her family.

      Commentators compared Ms Banister to Sarah Palin, the gaffe-prone Republican vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 US election.

      Even before this interview, Ms Banister was regarded as a rank outsider to win her seat, says the BBC’s Jon Donnison, in Sydney.

    • JD

      Sri Lanka Buddhist mob attacks Colombo mosque

      A Buddhist mob has attacked a mosque in the Grandpass area of the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, leaving at least five people injured.

      Buddhists and Muslims clashed after the attack, and police imposed a curfew in the area.

      Last month, a group of Buddhist monks had protested near the mosque, demanding it be relocated.

      In recent months, hardline Buddhist groups have mounted a campaign against Muslim and Christian targets.

      Several houses were also damaged in Saturday’s clashes. Two of the injured were policemen guarding the mosque.

      A Muslim resident of the area said that a mob threw stones at the mosque when worshippers were performing evening prayers, the BBC’s Azzam Ameen reports from Colombo.

      The police and special task force commandos were dispatched to the area and have been able to bring the situation under control, a police spokesman told the BBC.

      Buddhists monks had reportedly protested against the presence of the mosque but had agreed to allow Muslims to continue praying there until the end of the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan.

    • Just_Stopping_By

      Neturei Karta defines themselves as “Jews Against Zionism.”

      You say, “I couldn’t care less about obscure Jewish groups trying to whitewash this evil cornerstone of Zionist doctrine.”

      First, they are only obscure to you. As I noted above, Danios used them as an example of an anti-Zionist group because he is not ignorant. You are.

      Second, they are not trying to whitewash Zionism. They are against it.

      whitewash: “anything, as deceptive words or actions, used to cover up or gloss over faults, errors, or wrongdoings, or absolve a wrongdoer from blame.”

      As anyone with any knowledge knows, Neturei Karta publicly protest to highlight what they perceive to be the faults, errors, or wrongdoings of Zionists and try not to absolve them from blame for their actions. Does this look like whitewashing Zionism, glossing over faults, errors or wrongdoings, or absolving anyone from blame???

      It is really embarrassing for you that you did not know who they are. It seems clear that you made a huge mistake in calling Neturei Karta Zionists, but you are too stubborn to admit it.

      Similarly, there are many, many mistakes in the rest of your posts, including this one. But, since you refuse to admit obvious error, your arguments are dismissed as moot as it is clear that you will twist language in a desperate attempt to not admit any error even when it is painfully obvious.

      Put simply, by arguing that Neturei Karta is whitewashing Zionism, you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole, showing that your analyses are worthless.

      This is why one cannot debate you: you refuse to accept facts and instead misinterpret those facts you find. I could dispute those, but it’s pointless if you are impervious to facts that clearly prove you wrong.

      Reply more if you like, but now that I have thoroughly embarrassed you by showing that you won’t even fix your errors, I do not plan to reply further.

      I don’t know if Danios is reading comments, but if you are, could you please weigh in on whether the Neturei Karta are a Zionist group and/or one that is trying to whitewash some cornerstone of Zionist doctrine? Chameleon seems to respect you, so maybe your opinion here would be helpful. Thanks.

    • Just_Stopping_By

      You could more easily debate Zionism with me if you ever gave a definition under which the Neturei Karta (“Jews Against Zionism”) are Zionists, something you claimed. (See here, again, asking you to explain how you can be at such odds with Danios on this fundamental question: what is Zionism?

      Until you stop running from your inability to define the term you are talking about in a way that makes your prior statements sensible, it is impossible to know what you are talking about, and all your arguments are necessarily dismissed as moot.

    • Chameleon_X

      No – “OMG”, you don’t understand a metaphor! The “OPPOSITE SIDE of the same racist coin” with respect to these militant Jewish terrorist Zionists was not “getting the Jews out of Germany”. It was getting them INTO Palestine so that they could “illegally immigrate into, occupy and ultimately ethnically cleanse someone else’s country”, as I repeatedly emphasized. Oh my, it’s like everything I wrote just went in one ear and out the other for you. No wonder it is hopeless to debate with you about Zionism.

      Moreover, even your sarcasm is nonsensical. The illegal Haavara (“transfer”) agreement was executed in August 1933, whereas Kristallnacht happened in November 1938, more than five years later! The Holocaust essentially occurred AFTER that, and the awareness of the Holocaust outside of Germany occurred even well after that. Your attempt to rewrite history by recharacterizing these militant Jewish terrorists as Holocaust saviors is therefore laughably dismissed. The focus of the Haavara agreement was in making a deal to get Jews — and most importantly their ASSETS — INTO Israel for the Zionist cause, not to get them out of Germany! That was another reason for my metaphorical reference to “racist coin”, by the way. If the goal was merely to get out of Germany, Jews could accomplish that much easier by emigrating legally to nearby countries as my relatives did, not by illegally immigrating into, occupying and ethnically cleansing someone else’s country in a far off land, Hitler-style!

    • George Carty

      Indeed, I think while Zionist extremists may be villains on a level with Milosevic, Hitler’s Nazis were on a whole ‘nother level. The Nazi “Generalplan Ost” called for the extermination of at least 50 million Slavs, for example.

    • Laurent Weppe

      Both the commenters and the author of this articles are missing the point of Gapso’s editorial:

      It’s an assertion of strenght and an implicit threat destined to liberal israelis: behind the shallow stylistic chicanery, the brazen display of faked religiosity lies the the untold -but blatently obvious- logical conclusion of Gapso’s statements being:

      If Israel is racist state, then it means that racist bullies like myself are already in control of its institutions (either directly or through submissive lackeys who will obediently help us reach our goals even if they share neither our bloodlust nor our incestuous ideology): therefore if you liberals try to transform the state and turn it into something non-racist, us far-right bullies will use our aforementionned power over the institutions to browbeat you into submission

      Which is why the text was published into Haaretz: Gapso most certainly knows that most of the newspaper’s readership will be disgusted by his claims: his goal is not to convince: his goal is to threaten

Palestinian assailed by Israeli women, stripped of hijab


Palestinian assailed by Israeli women, stripped of hijab

(Al-Akhbar English)

A Palestinian woman waiting at a light rail station in Jerusalem on Monday was attacked and stripped of her headscarf by religious Jewish women, Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv reported Tuesday.

According to bystanders, a young Jewish woman punched the Palestinian suddenly as she was passing by the station. A friend of the assailant began aiding her in beating the Palestinian, pushing her against the wall, and ultimately ripping off her headscarf.

The Palestinian was accompanied by an old man who tried to push the attackers away to no avail.

The event occurred at about three o’clock in the afternoon. It is unclear whether the incident involved only the two assailants mentioned in witness accounts, or a larger group shown in the photo.

“There were about 100 Orthodox and yeshiva students who disembarked the tramway and spotted an Arab woman accompanied by an older man,” a witness, who photographed the event, told Ma’ariv.

“It developed into arguing and yelling, and I don’t know what the content was that everyone jumped on her.”

According to the witness, an activist named Dorit Jordan Dotan, a municipality security officer passively watched the event and seemed to be smiling. Many residents also stood by.

“The entire time, the guard stood and smiled and did not even try to break up the fight,” a witness said.

Dotan confirmed that the incident took place at the station where a group of young people had just arrived from the train, but seemed to downplay the event by suggesting the attackers were intoxicated.

“Young people drink a lot of wine for Purim. Screams were heard everywhere. A woman tried to fight [the Jewish students] but they yelled at her not to dare touch the Jews and continued to beat [the Arab woman],” Dotan said.

Following publication in Ma’ariv, police launched an investigation into the case.

“It’s a shame that the Arab whore didn’t die”

On the day the report was published, Israeli police officer Ariel Shapiro re-posted the article on his Facebook page and issued a chilling endorsement: “Very good,” wrote Shpiro “It’s a shame that the Arab whore didn’t die.”


The message was publicized by Palestinian Member of Knesset Ahmad Tibi.

Israeli army and police officers have come under fire in recent weeks for showcasing dehumanizing images of and slogans about Palestinians. The most famous of these is an Instagram photo of Mor Ostrovski, 20, showing the crosshairs of a rifle being aimed at the head of a Palestinian boy.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

    • Blackops

      Don’t you actually have better insults than the typical libturd/muzzie idiots always seem to muster up from their walnut sized brains ? Also…we will nuke the fuck outta you.

    • Hasan karim

      Let us make something clear, we muslims have nothing against the jewish. The quran calls you the people of the book. We are against the opressors, racists and the ones who use and abuse the jewish faith for their political agenda, their name is ZIONIST movement. Jewish faith has nothing to do with what is happening in Israel and Palestina.

    • Seeker

      Not a good idea to pray for the punishment of hereafter for another person.

  • Seeker

    Ok, everybody else has already got on your case for this but I’ll add in anyway. I wish you wouldn’t. Come away from the guilt-by-association because no soul should bear the burdens of another’s sins.

Powered by Loon Watchers