Friday, February 24, 2012

Police Hurt as Hundreds Riot at Temple Mount


Following Friday prayers, hundreds of Muslim worshipers throw rocks at police who disperse rioters with stun grenades.

They just love to riot and throw rocks at people.

Of course well-meaning and ignorant progressives tell themselves that Arab-Palestinian violence against Jews is Israel's fault.  The truth of the matter is that Arabs have been throwing stones at Jews in the Middle East for centuries.

This is not about Israel or the "occupation."   It is about a theologically inspired hatred toward Jews that goes back to the days of Muhammad. Arabs in the Middle East tend to look down upon Jews as inferior (dhimmis)... if not the children of apes and pigs... and therefore Jewish sovereignty on any land that was once controlled by the Umma is repellent to them.

Thus they throw rocks.

If this conflict were really about the fact that the local Arabs do not have a state for themselves, then they would have accepted such a state on any number of the numerous occasions when they have been offered statehood.

They've refused statehood for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one since at least the Peel Commission of 1937.

Yet Barack Obama thinks that the reason that the Palestinians do not have a state is because Jews are building housing for themselves in places like Shiloh.

What a disgrace.



  1. In Afghanistan they are killing Americans and others over some discarded, burnt Korans. It's sad that ANY religion would cause such violence there, or in Israel.

    1. You can't even have this conversation in left-wing venues because people will scream their bloody heads off about "Islamophobia."

      But the question remains, is the Jihad (i.e., radical Islam and its associated violence and totalitarianism) central to Islam?... or essential to Islam?... or does it have to do with a corruption of that religion?

      That's the debate that you see on the political right.

      There is no debate on the political left, because they will not allow any such discussion.

  2. Many do not want to acknowledge that this aggressive side of Islam does exist and is growing. Because it has greater implications.

    I have a big problem when people kill and persecute others to impose their religion. End of story.

    You have asked a fundamental question.

    Sharia is not just religious law, but extends to all aspects of a Muslim's life. The story of the judge in Pennsylvania shows how far it can actually go. Imagine the situation in places outside the US, where Sharia is the basis of law.

    I think that political Islamists, violent and nonviolent, holler about discrimination against Islam as they seek to impose a system of discrimination against non-believers (and even believers). They take away the tolerance from Islam that Muslims can practice by. Are they really any less in mentality than Crusaders?

    With exceptions, I think that most people like me are opposed to what they see as a totalitarianism that threatens our system of relative democracy and free enterprise, one that has been a positive in the mostly black history of human advancement. The vehicle used does not matter, but in this instance it is branded as Islam by those who seek to exert power.

    The growing power is evidenced by the lack of Muslims willing to come forward to confront it. It is often too risky to stand up against your own, especially if there is no that has your back, and others treat you as a pariah.

    Yes, it is taboo to raise such matters with some, as if examination is worse than what is occurring. And in the meanwhile, the problem festers and spreads. Which is why we are in for far more trouble than otherwise could be.

    1. There are at least four reasons why the left refuses to face radical Islam.

      1) George W. Bush (If Bush says it's raining then you just know that children and ponies are prancing in the sunshine.)

      2) Neo-Colonial Theory (In other words, white people is bad.)

      3) Group Think (Shhh. Don't talk about it. OK, won't talk about it. What are we not discussing?)

      4) Bully-boy tactics (Defaming, Demeaning, Ridiculing, Insulting, and Smearing anyone who does want to talk about it.)

      That last one is a Daily Kos specialty.

    2. They are afraid to admit what is going on because they are scared by the implications.

    3. Implications?

      What implications do you think?

      The collusion that happens between the left and the Jihad, for example? (For me the Mavi Marmara always leaps immediately to mind.)

      The turning of the blind eye?

      The justifying for violence against Jews on the grounds that we actually deserve it?

      What implications are you thinking of, School?

    4. I think they are scared to admit what their acts say about them, that they stand against human rights. So they scream the opposite, and scream against those that shine a light on the the reality. It's not easy, after all, to watch how women and children are abused, and they are virtually silent, all for the anti-Israel cause.

      The implication that if they do speak out, they will be shunned and call a bigot. That is the preferred tool for many bigots and it is effective.

    5. Indeed. The first time I was ever called a racist in my entire life was not long after I jumped into I-P at a certain Orange hate site, 18 months or so ago, after I said something nice about Israel. I could hardly believe what I was seeing. And it really took the wind out of me, and threw me completely off balance.

      At that time, I said to myself, I said "self? wtf did I do wrong?!?!?" Oh noez!

      Fortunately, my better senses grabbed hold of me again quickly and confirmed the fact that I never did anything wrong, at any point in time; and that in fact, when bigots there like blueness (a sick antisemite and a textbook example of a soft racist) start calling you names in the context of I-P, that actually only means you're certainly doing something right.

    6. I tend to think that it means they have nothing to say, and this is how to keep the discussion from exposing the bankruptcy of their position.

      In my opinion, the activities of these haters your site should be writing about, not "deranged" Republicans and "Israel Firsters." These folks are the much more the threat, and the more exposure about them, the better.

      Again, I cite to the UPenn BDS Conference, or the One State Conference coming up at Harvard, to name two. These are being conducted by progressives, though the end result they seek is not progressive at all.

      When the site focuses on Republicans and other "deranged" with broad brush strokes, to me it does not advance discussion, but is wasted opportunity to attract open progressive minds and educate them to matters they would not otherwise know.


    7. It's not "my site" (though one's coming soon!), and I've never called any of youze 'deranged' in any way... and when it comes to that latter term, you'll also note I did not rec that diary at dKos (a place I call The Giant Orange Antisemitic Shitpile), nor did I support it anywhere else in any way.

      So you're guilty of everything you claim to dislike in others, by insinuating that I somehow agree with these things, neither of which I do, in this very same comment, aren't you? Why is that? Because I associate with Mets and volley?

      Yes, they're my friends. And I agree with them often. Just so happens I do not agree with them on those things, but hey! Why let that stop you from raging against them to me, right?

      And here I was, thinking you were above all of that. I even joined your blog yesterday, since I don't give a damn what anyone says about me from anywhere.

      I met your challenge from last week.

      Damn. Oh, well...

      I'll cite those bigots, too. And I'll raise you the Iranians who are going to hang a Christian soon, and the Saudis who are going to chop the head off a blogger.

      They're 'progressive' my ass. You want liberals to stand up against these scum, well here I am. Perhaps if you could only put aside your personal battle with volley you'd see that you're going at the wrong person here for that. I don't care what you and him are arguing about right now.


      Or do we all look the same to you?

    8. Actually, I was just making a general observation about the site, through a reply to you on a related matter.

      I was not insinuating anything and do not think you will find me saying anything toward you, other than the blog is yours as a contributor, and that allowed me to therefore state what I believe is a shortcoming.

      I also suspected that some of the others there read these comments, so it was a good avenue to raise the matter without directly confronting anyone, but in the flow of our discussion.

      I am sorry you could not see that. All I questioned was why there is relative silence concerning progressives that threaten Israel and Jews, as compared to the the other matters.

      I suggest you read my comment more closely because I am unsure what I am guilty of.

    9. Well okay, sorry then. Sometimes I'm an idiot... ;)

    10. The acceptance of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism within the progressive movement sets Jew against Jew in all sorts of different ways.

      This is part of the reason that the thing is so insidious.

      Some of us are going to defend the movement, and the party, no matter what. Progressive-left politics seems almost hard-wired into the Jewish DNA. The problem that these folks have is in reconciling their support for Israel with their support for a political movement that itself is supportive of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.

      That is not an easy position to be in.

      It is very easy for me, as someone who no longer attaches the label "progressive" to myself, to argue (rightly so) that the movement has betrayed its Jewish constituency.

      One cannot make that argument and still support the movement and therefore "progressive Zionists" constantly seek to downplay this problem even as they spend considerable time fighting anti-Semitism and Israel hatred in progressive left venues.

      We are the only ethnic group in the country that is forced into this position by the progressive-left.

    11. No sweat. I could have been more clear. It goes to show how easy it is on the web to read the worst of what people mean, and it's rampant.

      It's why I try not to aggravate it by using labels and the like. I prefer to address the substance rather than characterize it or the person.


    12. Michael,

      No group's members are free of prejudice.

      I suggest that many progressives do not know what the extremists really want, and most reject what they want.

      If so, the object to me is to expose them and open the gates to more complete exchange of information. This reveals what they do and how they cynically wear the human rights halo.

      Democrats are still not convinced by the narrative that Palestinians are innocent victims and Israel is evil. The push should continue to inform Democrats more because most are oblivious to these matters and believe the self-styled progressives actually support progressive values.

  3. Obviously the vast percentage of Muslims do not take part in this violence but as you say it's dangerous to speak up. The only solution I see is for a state to correct the situation but since the state usually is governed by Sharia and so complicit in it all, what is to be done? More Democracy? Well, look at Egypt where given the chance, the vast majority voted for MORE Islamists.

    I see no solution without a separation of state and church; something unlikely to happen when the secularists have lost ground in the few states where they were actually in control. You can't change what the people want and presently they want more of what causes the problem to begin with.

    1. And in Tunisia security forces clashed with Salafists.

      “These groups set fire to a police station .... (They) are broadcasting recordings through the loudspeakers of mosques calling for jihad (holy war).”

      Residents said the clashes broke out when police arrested a Salafist but tensions had been brewing between authorities and the conservative Islamists who have become more active since last year’s revolution.

      “The situation has become serious in the city, which has been living in a state of terror and fear because of Salafist groups seeking to impose a strict way of life,” another witness, a woman who did not want to be named, told Reuters.

      One resident said the Salafis had threatened people drinking alcohol and slapped women wearing trousers or skirts.

    2. And so it goes. The only good sign is that the authorities (police) are trying to maintain control. There was a reason Islamists were outlawed previously.

  4. "The story of the judge in Pennsylvania," is upsetting:

    "US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them"

    1. I listened to the hearing. The judge even threatened the victim that if he released the tape he may face contempt.

    2. I have never seen anything like it. I can buy maybe there was not "beyond a reasonable doubt," evidence but the judge's lecture was beyond the pale....especially since the judge was himself a Muslim. Imagine calling the victim a doofus and telling him he would have been killed in a Muslim country because Islam is their very "essence."

      Hopefully this judge will be sanctioned or fired.

    3. Y'know, I have only glanced at that story, but can that characterization be correct?

      "US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them"


      That can't be true.

      And, if it is, then we are truly fucked.