An Algerian asylum seeker went on a rampage on a local Norwegian plane yesterday. He attacked the pilot with an ax and tried to crash the plane. When pilot Stein Magne Lian regained control of the plane, they were only 30 meters above the ground, and less than a second away from crashing.

Lian received a blow on the side of his head with the blunt side of the ax. His headset fell off, while his head struck the panel in front of him. In the ensuing chaos, the following happened in the cockpit:

- I took hold of his left hand, held it steady. That was the hand he held the ax in. His other hand was free, and he managed to push the stick. That put the plane in free fall at 5000 feet, said Lian.

The pilot cried for help from passengers while a battle for life and death took place in the small plane.

The altitude gauge was falling rapidly. When the plane was above Tverland, less than ten minutes before it was scheduled to land in Bodø, the plane fell from 1500 meter to about 30 meters above the ground.

- We had less than a second left when we regained control of the plane.

- All I could think about was landing safely on the ground. All he wanted there and then was to kill us and himself.

Two of the seven passengers helped to overpower the man. Odd Eriksen is a local politician:

- I loosened my belt and ran forward. Took hold of the man, and tried to tear him away from the pilots.

But this was not an easy task. The man was large and strong. Eriksen made several attempts, but only succeeded in tearing the shirt off the man.

- At last I got a good grip and managed to pull him away from the pilots. There was blood everywhere, and the plane was out of control. I was certain that we were all going to die, says Eriksen to Avisa Nordland.

He realized that he could not control the desperado on his own, and cried for help from the other passengers.

Trond Frantzen came to his aid:

- The turbulence was so powerful that I was thrown up in the ceiling and pressed against the floor before I reached the cockpit, says Frantzen.

He got a grip around the neck of the ax man, and together with Eriksen they forced him down on the floor. Eriksen held the man's hands, while Frantzen held him in a strangulation grip.

- There and then I intended to kill him, Frantzen says.

He saw the blood from both pilot and navigator, and feared the worst, a plane crash.

- Pictures from September 11 went through my head. When the ax man said something about having to throw up, his face was turning blue, I shouted at him in English: - Lie still or I'll kill you!

The Algerian claims not to remember any of the events. He has now been placed in a psychiatric hospital, and the police considers him mentally unstable. His asylum application was rejected four months ago, and it seems more likely to me that he was a lone nut than a coldblooded terrorist.

Then again, he did plan ahead. You don't bring an ax and a knife aboard an airplane for fishing, as the Algerian claims he did. Not in your hand luggage.

Question: How do you bring an ax aboard a Norwegian airplane? Any way you like. Narvik airport is one of 29 regional airports that won't have any screening equipment in place until Januar 1, 2005.

Question 2: How do you bring an ax aboard a Norwegian airplane if you don't have an ax? You steal the one on board. All airplanes are required to have an ax and a crowbar easily available to the crew in case of fire or evacuation, and these are usually kept unlocked.

The police also reports that the man made a phone call shortly before going berserk. Again: I don't believe this is professional terrorism, not based on what we know now. It's somewhere between the amateur terrorism of the Washington sniper and an old-fashioned nutcase massacre: The man may have been motivated more by his own mental illness and personal desire for revenge than by political motives, but he was also clearly inspird by the 9/11 hijackers in his choice of method.

Update: See this article for pictures from the airplane.

Update: According to Jan Haugland, "The attacker is being described as a very devout Muslim, who wanted to become an Imam and open a Mosque in the town of Narvik. Other asylum seekers say he was sometimes aggressive, a loner, and mentally unstable, but he is also spoken about in quite positive terms."

My first reaction is that it's a ploy to stay in Norway. If his asylum application was rejected, he can act crazy and count on Scandinavian leniency towards the mentally disabled (see delicate treatment of murderer of Lindh).

My choice ship him back to Algeria with all due speed. He's obviously crazy enough to not notice what will happen to him there.

Michael: No, I believe he intended to kill himself in a spectacular way. All that prevented the crash was luck, two brave passengers, and about 30 meters of air.

Sounds like a quite terrifying ordeal that very nearly ended in tragedy.

I would tend to agree with your assessment Bjorn, that this is more of the lone nut case form of terrorism rather than the highly organized Al Qaeda type. Nonetheless, I would file this event under the general terrorism umbrella because it appears the suspect’s intent was not only to kill himself but to also kill innocents in a spectacular fashion.

Your questions about how on earth a man was allowed on a flight with an ax and carpet knife are appropriate but they don’t really go to the heart of the matter do they? I would be more interested to know why a man who had been denied asylum was on the streets at all in the first place? Shouldn’t he have been deported or at least detained?

Perhaps this event will inspire some reflection on Norway’s asylum policies.

My choice ship him back to Algeria with all due speed. He's obviously crazy enough to not notice what will happen to him there.

Problem is - they don't know he's Algerian at all. And I'm not sure Algeria really wants him.

It also seems Bjørn is correct, this guy wanted to kill himself in a spectacular way, not because he's a terrorist, but because he's crazy.

He has shown, however, that Norway would be vulnerable if terrorists for some reason thought that hijacking small Norwegian planes would be a good way to promote whatever cause they can have.

Øyvind

The first Islamic terrorist attack in Norway. I suspect it won't be the last.

Euro Socialist politician beats up Jihadist ax-man!

Wounded Pilots Land Norway Plane After Axe Attack

I disagree that this can be classified as terror at all since there appears to be nothing resembling a political (as opposed to purely personal) motive. Even if Bjorn is right and this was a suicide attempt being crazy and trying to commit suicide (even if that includes some deranged kind of revenge) isn't a terrorist motive in and of itself.

Add me to the list of folks wondering why he was moving around freely four months after his asylum request was refused. Was he the equivalent of an illegal alien? Or are Norwegian laws concerning alysum seekers just plain stupid beyond belief? I don't see much middle ground.

Even if his final appeal hadn't run out, asylum seekers who've been turned down need to be in some sort of custody, otherwise you're just inviting them to go underground.

"Other asylum seekers say he was sometimes aggressive, a loner, and mentally unstable, but he is also spoken about in quite positive terms."

This sort of makes sense to me, many years ago I knew of a small group of Libyans studying in Poland. One of their company was mentally ill (and due to return to Libya since it was clear he was in no condition to study anything). He wasn't aggressive but he was disturbing to those who he tried to attach himself to (like me). Anyway, what surprised me was how kind the other guys were to him. They tried to keep him from bothering people but didn't exclude him from any of their activities and showed real concern for him (without being condescending). I try to imagine western students being that good for an unfortunate member of their group and generally fail.

Michael: The method makes it at least partly political. Why would a person who wants to kill himself and a lot of other people out of revenge choose the exact same method as that of well-known terrorists? For political reasons. Those reasons may not have caused him to do it, but they've caused him to choose that particular method.

Which exact same method are you talking about? Had he killed the pilots and taken control of the plane and flown into a populated area (or given that option a decent try) then I would spot you the many differences. But correct me if I'm wrong, where the plane almost crashed is very roughly, the middle of nowhere. If he was attempting suicide (and not grandstanding as I still suspect) then his whole aim seemed to be crash the plane period as a way of killing himself.

What's making it terrorism in your mind is his religion and I don't think that's very accurate.

I could be wrong, he might have some greater political agenda that he's keeping to himself, but I don't have access to that and neither do you (unless there's more in the Norwegian reports than you're reporting).

This is a terrible thing (actually a very good thing that no one was killed or hurt worse) but it's relevance to world terrorism seems very small (mainly the revelation that regional airports in Norway have no security whatsoever which is a stupid thing to print before it's rectified).

Islam teaches muslims that dying killing infidels is the only way that they can be sure of entering paradise and getting their 72 virgins and 28 pre-pubescent boys.

In the koran there are over 100 verses concerning fighting infidels.

The prophet Mohammed said about himself 'I have been made victorious through terror'. If Islam's founder and sole prophet described himself as a terrorist and if Muslims are meant to follow his example why should anyone be surprised if incidents like this attempt at crashing the plane and killing everyone on board?

It is about time we gave up this political correctness nonsense and woke up to the fact that we are in great danger from Islam.

Ali Dashti:

I see you have your usual level of honesty, i.e. no honesty at all.

First of all, you don't know that this guy was an Islamist, or a terrorist, and in fact nothing suggests that at least not as of yet. What we do know is that the guy's been sent to a mental hospital - in other words, the guy's crazy, crazy like the Somali fellow who went nuts on the tram in Oslo in August, crazy like so many other killers. People wanting to commit suicides in a spectacular way, also killing other people, is nothing new - not even in "naive" Norway.

Secondly, your claim that Carl I Hagen was the only senior politician protesting against the statements endorsing suicide attacks is an outright lie!

- Killing civilians can not be defended, and the settlers are absolutely civilians. If you disagree with the settlement policy, you can't solve this by violence.
Thorbjørn Jagland, Labour Party, chairman of the parliamentary foreign policy committee.

- In my opinion it's important to have a broad consensus against such methods in the Norwegian society
Inge Lønning, Concervative Party, vicechairman of the committee

- Ghozlans statements is an attempt at legitimizing terrorism and a direct encouraging to killing civilian Israeli settlers. Absolutely no cause can justify actions intented to kill as many people as possible.
- Jon Lilletun, Christian Peoples Party, foreign policy spokesperson

- The conflict in the Middle East must be solved with peaceful means. Norway condemns all use of violence in the area. Suicide bombers contribute to an escalation of the conflict that harms both Palestinians and Israelis in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, and they prevent peaceful and constructive solutions.
- Jan Petersen, Concervative Party, foreign minister

- The statements are destroying. They are outright rediculous and are not representative for all Norwegian muslims
Ali Khan, Muslim politician, Christian Peoples Party

But I guess dishonesty is okay. If you're not a Muslim.

Øyvind

The claim I refer to is, of course, made on JihadWatch

This is just another of a series of incidences where muslim men suddenly become "deranged" and start killing any infidels in the vicinity. In this Algerians particular case, he was going to be deported to Algeria and the opportunities of killing Infidels in large numbers would most certainly diminish. What better way to gain paradise then to send a whole bunch of Kaffirs to hell. As far as he was concerned, they were going to go to hell anyway, as so explicitly written in the koran.

I pity Scandinavians. They have had no contact with muslims in all their history until mass muslim immigration landed on their doorstep. They are now trying to go through all the excuses in the liberal repertoire, to find explanations as to why they are being singled out for Jihad. They will continue to flounder as each Jihadi event demolishes their pre-conceived liberal assumptions. Good luck

BTW.

This is not a case of terrorism. Neither was 9/11 terrorism. All we see are examples of Jihad, carried out in a group as on 9/11, or singly as in this case. Jihad is different from terrorism in its motivation and follow through.

The Jihad is mandatory on all Muslims. It can be waged in the form of violent acts such as this, or in the form of donating to mosques, some of which find its way to Jihadis. It can take the form of protecting Islam, providing ready made excuses such as "deranged" as in the case of a individual or "this is not islam" as in the case of 9/11, Bali, Beslyan etc etc etc.

Luckily, this intended atrocity FAILED. Next time
Norway may not be so fortunate. If its citizens are so naive , they will learn Islamic lessons written in their own blood.
Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: "Wipe the Infidels out to the last."
"The sword is the key of heaven and hell: a drop of blood shed in the cause of Allah,a night in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer:whoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven..."
My advice [which I'm sure will be disregarded] is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY. You can do this by READING THE
QUR'AN - DON'T DELAY FOR EVERY MOMENT IS PRECIOUS IN YOUR CASE AS IT SEEMS IT WILL TAKE FOREVER TO ROUSE NORWEGIANS FROM THEIR TORPOR...

Perhaps this is merely a cultural misunderstanding. Perhaps in this Algerian's native culture, attacking the pilot of an airborne plane is an expression of comradeship, and fraternal solidarity. Yes, just a misunderstanding. Nothing to do with a religious culture that murdered scores more children today in another intentional massacre.

Øyvind,
Prehaps you can be the first person in Norway to diagnose SMDS, Sudden Muslim Derangement Syndrom.

When rampaging Muslims kill and wound people for reasons that are hard for sane people explane and we don't want to call it terrorism....SMDS!

How PC.

Forgive my spelling......I am sloppy today.

Franko:

There's of course two major problems with your "I can explain everything evil in the world with Islam"-thesis:

1. It is fully possible to be a suicidal wacko and not a Muslim.

2. It is fully possible for a Muslim to be a suicidal wacko and not be a terrorist.

Of course - in the conspirational universe of JihadWatch, where every Muslim is evil, and every socialist is either terribly naive or a fifth column secretly cheering at the possibility to destroy the liberties of Western society - such a thing as an insane guy from an Arab country not being a Muslim is impossible.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this guy was a jihadist in action (though it seems somewhat odd to strike a minor airroute in Northern Norway,but as of yet, there's not a single thing suggesting it.

Øyvind

Though it's also a point, what I intented to say above was:

Of course - in the conspirational universe of JihadWatch, where every Muslim is evil, and every socialist is either terribly naive or a fifth column secretly cheering at the possibility to destroy the liberties of Western society - such a thing as an insane guy from an Arab country not being a terrorist is impossible.

Jihadis are killing kaffirs when and where they can and we are still looking for excuses for them? Great.

Does anyone remember the Jihadis who took stormed an office in Saudi Arabia. They then proceeded to separate the muslims from the Infidels. The Muslims were set free. I wonder what happened to the non-Muslims? The Nazis did something similar, separating Jews from others. Yet the world does not see or want to see.

The Nepalese were massacred in Iraq, no questions asked as they were not people of the book but Hindus, filthy idol worshippers.

The Jihadis make clear their intentions. When caught they play the Taqqiya card just to be allowed out of jail. The Liberals assist them. Once out of jail or Gitmo, they declare their allegiance to Islam and wish to kill the Kaffir, in Chechnya, Kashmir or wherever. Time and time again that is the case.

I can understand how Churchill must have fealt in all those years of trying to warn of the threat that Nazism posed to the world. This time we face an even greater threat, as this ideology of Islam msquerades as a religion. We dont see that this religion is about the conquest and suppression of people.

such a thing as an insane guy from an Arab country not being a terrorist is impossible.

Not impossible, but given the facts currently available, unlikely. And he is not a terrorist. He was just doing the mandated thing - Jihad. Nothing wrong there, as far he is concerned. He is not troubled in his conscience. Allah approves, nay demands. Now he is faking he does not remember what he did bla bla...Taqiyya.

By the way, DP111, it's simply not true that Scandinavians haven't had contact with Muslims throughout our history.

You see, DP, back in the good old days when we Norwegians and our Danish brothers went over to those islands to the west of Europe later known as Britain to burn monasteries and steal nice redhaired girls to keep as sexslaves back home we didn't real like it to much. Britain was boring. Now, Ireland was nice and green, but I think Hårek and his friends probably thought: We need some more adventure, boys.

So, eventhough the Norwegian government wasn't taxing beer (or mead) heavily at the time we went to Spain and Portugal. Of course, back then, Spain and Portugal was known partly under another name, it was called al-Andalus. Anyway, in 844, some Vikings plundered Seville, and poor abd al-Rahman II couldn't do much. They came back later too, but the Muslims for some strange reason didn't open beach resorts for them. Instead they fought back, and the Vikings mostly concentrated on plundering those darn Christians in the north.

While the Danish and Norwegians were busy the Swedish Vikings went in what is still referred to as "østerled". In other words they went looking for bears in Russia. I don't know how many they found, but they did find this Muslim guy called Ibn Fadlan, and he found them pretty smelly: "The dirtiest of all of Gods creatures" didn't was very often and when they did they all used the same water. Chocking.

That dirty Arabs story somehow doesn't rhyme with the story about English women falling for the incredibly hygienic Vikings, their toothpicks, their braided hair and their special spoons to remove earwax with. But then, I guess, the standards were somewhat different.

Anyway, Arabs were good traders, and the Vikings where supposedly not to bad either, and of course they traded with each other. Arab coins have turned up in Viking treasures and Arab visitors went to places like Hedeby. One of them complained (again) about the Danish unwillingness to wash themselves. He added that unwanted children were thrown in the sea and that the locals song sounded somewhat like dogs howling. Those barbarians!

Of course, there's a couple of probs with the whole Viking thing, for instance most of us Norwegian weren't Vikings, but rather dull farmers who didn't care to much about burning monasteries and prefered our blond women instead of the red-haired foreigners. But that's another story.

Øyvind

Well, terrorism or not is a pretty academic question. You'll be soon looking for definitions.

Is it religious murder what the man was trying to do (i.e. murder religiously motivated)? More than probably. He seems to be a devout man who wanted to make a career as an Iman, opening mosques and that sort of drill.

So, you might safely believe that he decided to do some free-lance jihad on his own. You can bet your bottom krone that he had read jihadist material and much of it is designed to get people like him, zealots with a psychic problem, on a plane full of infidels and bring it down while shouting the customary "Goad is Great!".

So we are at war. Norway is at war. Nothing really nre. The al-Battar manual is a weapon as that poor would-be martyr was a weapon.

Please, try to make sure that sort of people don't board planes.

Yeah, yeah, pull the taqiyya thing out of the bag, and prove your dishonesty completely.

Know who in the Muslim world hates the idea of taqiyya? I can tell you. It's the wahabbis! And what's the ideological roots of much of radical Islamism? Yes, that's right. It's the wahabism. So, actually the worst nutcases are opposed to taqiyya. They find it immorale. Ibn Taymiyya? He hated taqiyya!

But it's so nice, isn't it, to have an equivalent of the Protocols of Zion to point at: But...but... it's legal for them to lie! So, when they say something else than "Jihad! Jihad!" they're just lying! They're all lying! And the leftists too! Liars! Conspirators! Bad guys in lack of one of those cats without hair that all bad guys own! Booh!

Only thing is that taqiyya is an overwhelmingly Shia concept, and it's true meaning? It's legal to deny ones faith if proclaiming it is a risk to your life.

Oh, well, that's nothing a completely faulty interpretation, and a little shuffle-shuffle-up-the-jigsaw-pieces can't fix! Suddenly you can attack Sunnis for a mostly (but not exclusively) Shia concept that means something entirely different than you claim. Add a few other ingredients nicely chosen from different parts of the Islamic world and you've got what you want: LOOK HOW TERRIBLE (TM).

Ooooh, it feels nice, doesn't it? Because using the "taqiyya technique" there's really only two alternatives for Muslims, isn't that true? They're either admitting that they're extremists wanting to chop every unbelievers head of or they're not admitting it - and lying! Hooray! Everything is explained. How delicious. How easy.

And a nutty Arab who's not a terrorist? No, that's almost unthinkable - given the facts, of course. Well, given the facts in this case there's actually still nothing pointing at terrorism as a motive here. And if you think there's something there, please, please, please won't you point it out for me?

And don't come dragging with some JihadWatch interpretation of it all, no-no, I want some facts on the table here, because I've read a dozen Norwegian newspapers now and I can't find a thing mentioned that suggests anything but the "lone nut" (though I'd like to know who this guy has been talking to lately). If you can find anything, except of the thing that he claims to be Algerian (no one knows for sure) - and therefore si likely to be Muslim, please share your revelations!

Øyvind

Oops. I was slightly inaccurate there. Ibn Taymiyya of course didn't hate taqiyya completely.He just hated anything even remotely like your interpretation of it.

In his opinion it was illegal to tell a lie, but still legal to remain silent.

Øyvind

Here's what people who know they guy are saying:

- He made a lot of problems here. Already on the first day he broke a door and a window. He could get very angry. Afterwards it was like he didn't understand what he had done, but several hours later he could come and ask for forgiveness.

Sounds like a terrorist? Nope. Sounds like someone who's mentally ill? Yes.

- On the outside he's a big man, but inside he's like a child

Sounds like a terrorist? Nope. Sounds like someone who's mentally ill? Yes.

He could suddenly change completely - and become very angry because of something. He was always very nervous. I repeatedly suggested he should visit a doctor, but he just laughed away the suggestion

Sounds like a terrorist? Nope. Sounds like someone mentally ill? Yes.

I'm not saying that this guy isn't a terrorist. It's not impossible, although it - as of yet - seems unlikely. I'm saying that with the information that has been published now everything suggests that he's a mentally ill person. Religious ideas might be a part of his mental illness, ask a psychologist and I'm sure you would hear that's not all that uncommon, but even if he's a mentally ill lunatic with religious ideas that doesn't make him a terrorist. Even in their irrationality terrorists are rational. This guy doesn't seem to be.

For now I also think that screaming "terrorist! terrorist" is nothing but a terribly cheap technique for someone who desperately tries to gain political points.

Øyvind

Oyvind:
Thanks for the Viking history lesson. When I mentioned of experience as regards islam, I was thinking more in the nature of a contemporary one instead of folklore. Folklore tends to get romanticised somewhat.

because I've read a dozen Norwegian newspapers now and I can't find a thing mentioned that suggests anything but the "lone nut"

Have'nt you noticed the steady number of Muslim lone "nuts" that suddenly go "nuts" and kill passing infidels? Have you heard of a succession of Hindu or Buddhist "nuts" doing the same. Surely this has not escaped the all encompassing knowledge of the Norwegian press, immersed as they are in world events. As for the Norwegian press, are you sure that they are able to countenance that there may be an element of religious motivation in this act? After 9/11 there were a whole number of major newspapers, even in the US, that just could not admit that 9/11 was religiously motivated. There are many in the liberal press that still cannot admit that.

Lets not get too technical about Taqqiya/kitman. Deception of the infidel is all that matters.

Oyvind

Danish brothers went over to those islands to the west of Europe later known as Britain to burn monasteries and steal nice redhaired girls to keep as sexslaves back home we didn't real like it to much

Ok Oyvind, you can stop pretending you didnt like the idea.

G'night guys.

PS

Oyvind

There is a difference between a terrorist and Jihadi. That is a misconception that persists throughout the press.

Definite G'night. And dont dream too much of red haired girls...They are still here you know.

Michael: It seems obvious to me that this man had heard about terrorist attacks where airplanes were crashed, and that when the time came to kill himself, he thought of those attacks and wanted to emulate them. He didn't wait to crash the plane in a city because he wasn't skilled and coldblooded enough. On the other hand, he did wait until the plane was just about to land, and he might have assumed the city wouldn't be far away.

But of course it's ridiculous to claim that this man was just a regular Muslim carrying out his regular Muslim duties. Insane, angry men who commit massacres is not a Muslim problem. Only the choice of method here was typically Muslim.

OY -VIND from Bergen
You left out all those blonde Anglo Saxon women in
Britain and the fact many Vikings settled in Danelaw etc.Am sure they enjoyed sex slaves whether redheads,brunettes or blondes. Can't help feeling that the most enterprising emigrated leaving the dull,stay at home [are you describing yourself?] fellows to till the fields with the help of 'thralls'. So the only excitement you get
these days is pedantically arguing obscure theories about whether or not an axe wielding Algerian intended to kill everyone or was just having a bad Hair day.You might even say 'He
certainly had an axe to grind'....

Sounds like a terrorist of the muslim variety. Not all terrorists are muslim and not all muslims are terrorists. But saying muslim terrorist sounds more and more redundant.

Terrorists are different from Jihadis. The IRA, Shining Path were/are terrorists. Perpetrators of 9/11, Beslan, Bali are Jihadis. The difference is in the motivation and the non-negotiable nature of the act.

Naming muslim fanatics as terrorists give honest to goodness terrorists a bad name.

I find this very interesting in light of this on-going thread:

Aftenposten reports:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article550179.ece

But do not be alarmed folks... it is not terrorism. It will only be a group of muslim "lone nuts" who are absolutely, positively not religiously or politically motivated and who only wish to spread their very peaceful religion to all of the "non believers."

All sarcasm aside: In my humble opinion, I have my doubts that anything tragic will befall Norway. It seems to me that Islamic terrorists have become very fond of drumming out threats to the media in order to coerce -or at least try to- the "infidels" with "muslim blood on their hands" to give into their demands.

Erin

DP111, UK--

Hang in there, DP111. I think of this as the "logic blog" where many posters enjoy showing off their knowledge of various logical fallacies. I'd love to join in, but have forgotten all those terms and am willing to let someone like you do my arguing for me. Thanks!!!!!

However, speaking of history and logic, weren't there schools of thought in the Middle Ages that delighted in spinning logical constructs that now seem ridiculous (angels on a head of a pin, etc.). I fear that this what some posters like to do.

Open your eyes, people of Scandinavia! Islam at this moment is creating dangerous murderers, and various actions need to be taken. Turning Iraq into a democracy and a prosperous country with civil liberties is part of the program. Preventing airplane hijackings is another part of the program. Logic will not save you. Looking and understanding the nature of the threats you are facing will save you.

BTW, if Kerry wins the U.S. election, don't look for things to settle down with happily placated Muslims.

"Norway mentioned as al-Qaida target
An audio tape said to be from senior al-Qaida official Ayman al-Zawahri called for organized resistance against invading "crusaders" in the Muslim world. The tape, aired by Al Jazeera satellite television on Friday, mentioned Norway as a US ally."
* * *
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article882192.ece

And what now?

Øyvind,
Your points,
1. It is fully possible to be a suicidal wacko and not a Muslim (Terrorist).
2. It is fully possible for a Muslim to be a suicidal wacko and not be a terrorist.
are correct. I added the “terrorist” to point 1. because I assume that it what you meant. He could just be a lunatic who wanted to do himself in. We may find out more as the guy begins to talk.

What I find odd is that these incidents appear to be on the rise in Norway and yet you seem unwilling to connect the dots and in fact eager to dismiss the incidents as merely the acts of crazy people. Both the Oslo knife attack and this attempted hijacking (for lack of a better word) were perpetrated by Muslims. Just because the perps may be mentally unstable and didn’t link their activities to specific demands, doesn’t mean the acts don’t qualify as terrorism. To me anyhow.

I would suggest that both incidents were a different form of terrorism that we have some home grown experience with here in the USA. I am sure you remember the DC sniper and the blowing up of the Oklahoma City Federal building. These American terrorists were what is known as Lone Wolf terrorists. These guy were not part to any larger organizations and made no specific demands. However, they were motivated by a hatred of America and were also influenced by the Militia movement, in the case of Oklahoma City and radical Islam, in the DC sniper case. These influences, the Militia movement and radical Islam, coupled with unstable minds led the perps to act out on their own and start killing people.

I would suggest that you have something similar here. My assumption is that a couple Muslims, that have a hatred of Norway and the West, have acted out on their own by lashing out at everything around them, killing or attempting to kill as many Norwegians as they can.

Of course we will find out more as time goes on. I would suggest however that you may want to broaden your definition of what a terrorist act is. But maybe you would suggest I focus mine more narrowly?

PS. you said: "Of course - in the conspirational universe of JihadWatch, where every Muslim is evil, and every socialist is either terribly naive or a fifth column secretly cheering at the possibility to destroy the liberties of Western society - such a thing as an insane guy from an Arab country not being a Muslim is impossible."

Personally I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories and don’t go to JihadWatch because it is a site based on emotion rather than reason.

FC

Some proposed guidelines for determining if specific acts are terrorism:

1. does the identity of the actor make a difference? if yes, then terrorism is in doubt

2. is there an agenda (beyond killing people) if no, then it's probably not terrorism

I'd say this is lacking on both points:

If a Hindu or Buddhist (or atheist) asylum seeker with a history of instability did this, no one would think of it as terrorism.

There's no evidence he had any particular political/religious agenda (there may be such an agenda, if so, then it's been kept out of the media as far as I can tell).

"I don’t go to JihadWatch because it is a site based on emotion rather than reason"

Robert Spencer is very well aware of what he is doing, and was writing about Islam before 9/11. And you cannot possibly have read any of Hugh Fitzgerald's comments there, if you think they are not based on reason. He has some of the best analyses I have read anywhere.

Totoro, U.S.
Thank you indeed.

However, speaking of history and logic, weren't there schools of thought in the Middle Ages that delighted in spinning logical constructs that now seem ridiculous (angels on a head of a pin, etc.).

Yes they were. I believe they were the scholastics. In effect the hired guns of debate.
------------------------
Franko:
Liked your post.

I think you are unkind to Jihad Watch. Some posters on some occasions may get emotional viz after Beslan. On the main though, the arguments vary from the sedentary to the excellent. That is not typical for a blog.

If you still think that JW is emotional, then your posts at JW, would provide a necessary balance.

DP.

Michael Farris

1. does the identity of the actor make a difference? if yes, then terrorism is in doubt

First there is no catalogue of Hindu or Buddhist asylum seekers charging around killing anyone they can get their hands on. In the case of Muslims, there are. Consequently, some questions have to be asked for a killer who goes " nuts" and has a muslim identity.

In the situation we now face one does not have the luxury of applying a simple formula to ascertain the nature of the act.

2. is there an agenda (beyond killing people) if no, then it's probably not terrorism

That seems to be unnecessarily restrictive. But then I have already conceded that what Muslims are engaging in, is not terrorism. It is Jihad, with a completely different set of motives- spiritual and geo-political. They come from Islam, as this creed is both political and "spritual". (unfortunately scare quotes are necessary)

The above two posts addressed to

1. Totoro

2. Michael Farris

are from moi

DP111

I was a US Army Ranger in my youth, from 1979-1981.
THis guy was a NUT, not a terrorist.
He should still be institutionalized for life.
I recognize that the Norwegian culture respects life and humans, and I applaude you for that.
This nut is an example of the type of defective that needs to be prevented from fathering any more defectives, if not executed outright.
MANY THANKS and HooooAAHHH!!! for the BRAVE FOLKS that wrestled this large, violent asshole to the deck and kept him there.
These people are your heroes today.
GOD BLESS the brave and freedom loving people of Norway, and the world.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

See latest Al Quaeda tape mentions NORWAY AS ONE OF ITS ENEMIES TO BE TARGETED IN JIHAD!! Now, this is a surprise. A peace loving, PC Liberal country like Norway which has had its head up arse in appeasement and pleasing Muslims....
Does nothing tell Norwegians that all appeasement
and liberal policies are in vain. Islam wants ,nay,demands
Norway as part of its Scandinavian Caliphate.
Start learning to FIGHT unless you are intending
FLIGHT from the land of your Viking ancestors.

"Does nothing tell Norwegians that all appeasement and liberal policies are in vain."

No. Most people tend to think like Øyvind. Norwegians and Scandinavians, with the partial exception of Denmark, don't know what they are up against. I'm afraid they won't fight until it's too late, and we will have many more "incidents" like this one. The situation in some Swedish cities like Malmø is now so bad that even mainstream US newspapers have taken an interest:

Eustatic racism in Eurabia?

There's a new word circulating around in the old Europe, "Eurabia." The neologism describes with grim humor what some Europeans regard as the growing Islamic influence in countries like Sweden thanks to immigration and the high birthrate of the immigrant population.

There is no better answer than a look at Sweden today, a country slightly smaller than California with a population of some 9 million. Sweden has the second-largest percentage Muslim population in Western Europe. France has the highest Muslim population percentage — 7 percent.

Sweden today is a major center of Europe's anti-Semitism and especially the city of Malmo, commercial center of southern Sweden with 265,000 residents. An estimated 18,000 Jews live in all Sweden, 1,200 in Malmo. And into Malmo's Islamist enclave the police, it is reported, rarely dare enter.

To say that this act was driven primarily by mental illness is an insult to the mentally ill. These type of crimes tend to be carried out by psychopaths who may also be mentally ill -emphasis on psychopath. Reports of this incident suggest that this man was quite organised in his behaviour which makes me wonder how mentally ill he was. No doubt a decent psychiatrist can assess this.

Other points:
- the guys who subdued this guy are total heroes.
- oyvind I thought red hair came from the Vikings?
- I was in Malmo two months ago and the place is hardly a Mulim cesspool.
- you Scandinavians make it too easy to get your passports for "asylum".(despite this story)

Øyvind: "the worst nutcases are opposed to taqiyya."

Try this example from today, from our good SUNNI-Muslim Pakistani friend Qazi Hussein Ahmed, who visited Norway recently and talked about peace.

Ali:

1. First of all - after seeing your recent outright lies on JihadWatch I have problems believing that any other information that you provide is not also distorted.

The translation of this interview also seems to be coming from Hindutva ("fundamentalist Hindu") sources like the Hindu Vivek Kendra, something that absolutely makes it worthy of scrutiny.

2. Secondly, you clearly confuse several issues here.

Qazi Ahmad, is, as far as I know a followed of the Deobandi school, of course combined with loads and loads of modern era Islamism. The deobandi school has pretty much the same interpretation, and partly a stricter one than Ibn Tayymiyya when it comes to taqiyya. That doesn't mean that Qazi Ahmad isn't lying, just that taqiyya isn't his excuse for it. Your claim might sound cool, but it only clouds reality and makes it possible to draw more than foul-smelling conclusions.

It is simply impossible to explain every lying Muslim with an overwhelmingly Shia concept that means something else than what you claim. Taqiyya is heavily restricted in all interpretations of Islam, and by many considered to be haram.

3. Just to make it clear I'll add this third point: A Muslim who tells lies is not a proof that this Muslim is a supporter of taqiyya, neither is it a proof that your interpreation of taqiyya is the correct one. It is simply a proof that Muslim liars exist (woah! no! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?)

You can't explain every lying Muslim with taqiyya (which is heavily restricted in all interpretations of Islam), just like you can't explain every violent episode where a Muslim is involved with jihad or terrorism.

4. Lastly, Qazi Ahmad probably really thinks that Islam is a religion of peace. To supporters of militant Islamism that does not make holy war a bad thing.

The biggest problem with Hamas isn't that they think it's okay to attack innocent people - the problem with them is that they believe Israeli civilians not to be innocent. If you were to seriously study militant Islamist ideology I am confident that you would discover this.

Øyvind

Joe:

Yes, you might be right that Vikings where red-haired. There's a bit of discussion about that, too, and many think red hair is a Celtic thing. Some people think that the Vikings got their red hair because of their tendency to take home cute girls as souvenirs (and have children with them).

The Picts might be to blame. Romans fought them and described them to be people with red hair and large limbs. Those guys lived in Scotland, so it makes sense in a way.

Morgane:

I don't know who my forefathers where, and whether they made their living pillaging monasteries or farming. As far as I can trace my line they were farmers, and there's supposedly some Irish prince who once visited a place nearby and got several girls to bed, but that's another story.

And yes, you're right: The Vikings probably did kidnap blond anglo-Saxon women as well. It wouldn't surprise me if they took home a couple of those Arab and Berber girls, either.

Ma salaama,

Øyvind

Dysfunctionality in the arab world is spilling over into Europe, via immigrants.
From a talk by Haim Harari:
http://denbeste.nu/external/Harari01.html

The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the EU before its expansion.
They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe.
These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone.
Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers.
The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago.
Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission.
According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates.
The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis.
Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline.
And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.
It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented breeding ground for cruel dictators, terror networks, fanaticism, incitement, suicide murders and general decline. It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything, except themselves.

A word about the millions of decent, honest, good people who are either devout Moslems or are not very religious but grew up in Moslem families: They are double victims of an outside world, which now develops Islamophobia and of their own environment, which breaks their heart by being totally dysfunctional.

The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement, but they also do not stand up against it. They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.

The entire arab world, with all its oil and natural resources, has a GDP less than half of California's. But it spends its money wisely, on promoting terrorism.

The core of modern day Islam is about violent jihad. That's where the money is going. Follow the money.

Meanwhile the two Italian hostages freed in Iraq thanked the ARAB and the MUSLIM world for helping their realase and defended the rights of Iraqis to resist the American illegal occupation of their land:

''From the very start, the former hostages said they wished to carry on their aid work in Baghdad and expressed gratitude to the Arab countries, Iraq's freedom fighters and the Muslim world for working towards their liberation. ''

'' You have to distinguish between terrorism and resistance ''

Simona Torretta

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3710736.stm

Yes, truly in the west, they call it the Stockholm syndrome.

I believe the Italian girls were a leftwing set-up, just like the Japanese "hostages" earlier were leftist allies of the "insurgents."

Ex-Christian now Muslim - is an example of a concerted effort by some muslims to post on blogs such as this, Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch, claiming to be ex-Christians or even ex-Jews. It is part of the deception to show the power of islam.

It only in the muslim one finds this depressing tendency. I post here and so do several others, and none of us feel the need to identify our religious adherence.

Susan:

It wont surprise me a whit of your suspicion of those Italian senoras.

A similar situation pertains to those French journalists. It is noticeable that in the Arab world and in France, there is consternation that French journalists have been taken hostage for slaughter. The concensus is that France is a friend of the Arab cause and murdering French is not a way to repay friends. The Arab/muslim world though sees no wrong in throat slitting of non-muslims while chanting their religious incanation of allahu akhbar. A vile religion islam, if ever there was one.

The Muslim "debate" on hostage-taking and beheading

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708

Well worth a read.

London mosque link to Beslan

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1318445,00.html

This is what it has come to. Asylum seekers and immigrants abusing our hospitality to further the Jihad. Not terrorim but Jihad.

Rape and kill little children - bestiality of the worst forms, these are normative to islam, as after their founder mohammed. It is no surprise for a religion founded by a child molester and pervert.

My detestation of islam increases by the day, and not just because every day it surprises me of the new depths of depravity its adherents sink to, but what it is doing to the rest of the world. It is setting a reaction of hatred against muslims.

Then there is the huge waste resources that are going in to 'manage' the threat from muslims amongst us. This waste of resources is finanacial and human. Resources that could have been better applied to raise the level of humanity. Instead we are being dragged into the gutter to join islam.

And more on muslims in our midst

New technology used to watch Iraq death videos

MOBILE phones are being used by young Muslims living in Britain to watch videos of hostages being beheaded by militants in Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2715-1290274,00.html

Is anyone else except muslims engaging in this kind of behaviour? From beheading to the shouts of allahu akhbar, to disseminating the videos for the vicarious pleasure of muslims worldwide. Some may argue that only the few take part in beheadings. True, but the fact that DVDs and videos of such beheadings are popular in the muslim world, are indicative that muslims not only enjoy them, but if the opportunity arose, would take part in them.

Susan

There is also the matter of the ransom that has been paid out(or raised)raised, by these Italian women.
------------------------

Ex-Christian now Muslim - is an example of a concerted effort by some muslims to post on blogs such as this, Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch, claiming to be ex-Christians or even ex-Jews. It is part of the deception to show the power of islam.

It is only in the muslim, one finds this depressing tendency. For instance, I post here and so do several others, and none of us feel the pressing need to identify our religious adherence.

Perhaps ex-Christian could clear up whether he's a real ex-Christian who's converted by telling us something of Christian theology (specifics please, not vague generalities about christian inferiority).

Hi Micheal:

Are you paranoid or something ? I am sure you wont ask any ex muslim the same question, will you ?

why you find it strange that a FINNISH christian decided to ditch the man worshiping cult, decided to use his brain and not his emotion, thought about this naked man on the cross and asked himself, can this man really be God ? he searched for other religions and ironiclly his interest in Islam came from an anti muslim HATE SITE !! yes that is right, I was shocked to find so much hate and propaganda against Islam and muslims so I decided to search about Islam by myself, I said to myself, hang on a second, why they are bashing and attacking islam ? is it true that such a religion with more than 1 billion follower can be that evil ? I decided to read the Quran and after 2 years of studying I realized these islamophobes are in fact liars and their hate sites are very misleading. I decided ISLAM is the only true logical religion and I took my shahada and became muslim...why is it hard to believe it ?

it is well known fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth according to the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/islam_around_the_world/html/default.stm

it is well known fact that so many christians are converting to islam:

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/index2.htm

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/649424.asp

-'' Indeed, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world'' The Economist, London Sept 2003

20.000 Spaniards converted to Islam

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021113/2002111322.html

-BBC: Thousands of Asutralia's Aboriginals are converting to Islam:

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

-Islam is spreading so fast in Mexico:

http://www.finalcall.com/international/mexico07-02-2002.htm

http://www.racematters.org/islamtakesrootinmexico.htm

- EVEN IN HAWAII, MORE AND MORE ARE CONVERTING TO ISLAM:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Nov/11/ln/ln06a.html

-In South Africa, so many blacks are converting to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0110/p13s1-woaf.html

-Thousands in Rawanda-Africa are converting to Islam every year:

http://www.xamarcadde.com/rawanda.html

- Hindus in india are converting to Islam in their masses:

http://www.milligazette.com/Archive.../0111200275.htm

- Islam is back to Spain after 500 years:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

- More and more americans are converting to Islam specially after 9/11:
http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/042702/neb_0427020012.shtml

- NEW YORK TIMES: ISLAM ATTRACT THOUSANDS DRAWN BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D13FA345A0C718EDDA90994D9404482

- The Canadian Globe and Mail: Islam is now the fastest growing religion in Canada:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030514/UCENSN/TPFront/TopStories

Islam: The Next American Religion?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/69/story_6982.html

Catholic World News: Exhilarating Time To Be Christian," But Islam Grows Faster

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=16311

U.S. Department of State for International Information programes: Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/

Muslims outpace Anglicans in UK

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444572.cms

A Spanish bridge to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

Britain Elites are converting to Islam:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286384.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096872/posts

http://www.lightuponlight.com/islam...ws&new_topic=14

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic...erahIslam.shtml

-Islam is also spreading in Ukraine:

http://www.crimeatau.org.ua/project/islam/itriu.html

Guantanamo Guards Embraced Islam: Algerian MP

http://islamicsydney.com/story.php?id=1179

Why some 3000 to 5000 ethnic Danes have converted to Islam in recent years ?

THE COPENHAGEN POST:
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/79365.html

Women turning to Islam - islam growing in the west

http://www.newscuts.com/cgi-bin/pread.cgi?p=http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prwebxml138378.php

I advice you to read about ISLAM from its sources not from hate sites or from islamophobes who are just promoting lies and propaganda.

"Hi Micheal:
Are you paranoid or something ? I am sure you wont ask any ex muslim the same question, will you ?"

Why not? I have no religion (nor do I want one) but I certainly find it interesting to talk to those that do have one to see what they like about it. I also find it interesting to hear why people change religions.

"why you find it strange that a FINNISH christian decided to ditch the man worshiping cult, decided to use his brain and not his emotion, thought about this naked man on the cross and asked himself, can this man really be God ?"

I find it strange that you don't seem to be able to discuss Christian theology (what little you wrote about Jesus Christ seems to show no understanding of his place in Christianity). This suggests that if you are an ethnic Finn you were a paper Christian and not one who really believed Christian doctrine. Islam seems to be your first religion not your second.

"is it true that such a religion with more than 1 billion follower can be that evil ?"

Of course it's possible. There are over a billion Christians, hundreds of millions of hindus, millions of Buddhists. They can't all be right and a billion people can be just as wrong as one.

Ex-Christian-to-muslim arguments were easily predictable, as the same old tired arguments one hears from muslims; ones that they have imbibed from an ignorant imam.

1. Islam is the fastest growing religion. As if fast growing has anything to do with goodness. Typical muslim ignorance.

2. Referring to Christianity- stopped worshipping a man. This is again typical muslim ignorance about Christianity, as they have been taught balderdash all their life.

How very predictable.

So this supposedly ex-Christian turns to a religion where the founder is an evil pervert who fancied children. Married a 6 year old and apparently consummated the marriage when Aisha was 9. I bet there has been some re-writing of history. Given the known vile character of mohammed, it is unlikely that he waited till Aisha was 9. Hey he fancied Aisha when she was 6. That’s a fact. He fancies children. He is not going to wait till she grew up to be a mature 9 year old. Besides, given the uncertainty of life and the low life expectancy, he is most unlikely to wait 3 years. And who was going to stop him anyway. Reading the koran and the hadiths, one gets the distinct impression that even allah is terrified of mohammed.

You know supposed ex-Christian to muslim, you should be ashamed of yourself. I genuinely believe that the koran is the word of Satan, if Satan exists, that is. Otherwise it is merely the ranting of a thieving brigand and pervert. No loving God would have said 'kill the Jews and Christians'. God loves all his children, his creation after all, regardless if they are Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or even Atheists. This is so simple a truth, that it confounds me why the writer of the Koran did not understand such a simple truism.

The fact that Islam is expanding is simply a consequence of the fact that Muslims show no responsibility in birth control. Muslim nations are wallowing in poverty due to irresponsible family planning. The excess they are exporting to Christian countries where they will cause the same catastrophe that they have created in dar al Islam.

It is also known that Muslims are leaving Islam in droves, but are afraid to come out, for fear that they will be murdered (So much for freedom of religion in Islam). And again, Islam maybe expanding, so what? It has been known, that periodically in time, mankind seems to lose its moral compass and embraces evil ideologies. It is has been our grace so far, that we have righted our moral compass in time.

You should be ashamed of yourself that you idolise a person who murdered his way to power. Yes people do idolise Hitler, Stalin or Alexander as military geniuses. But no one in his right mind would hold them up as saints, prophets or Holy men. If mohammed were idolised as a military and political genius, I would have no qualms, but as a holy prophet? Muslims idolise a person of such low character as Mohammed, who lied, cheated, reneged on solemn treaties and murdered his critics in the dead of night by employing assassins, speaks volumes of the complete moral reversal of the followers of Islam.

Never fear though, goodness and right eventually triumph, no matter how dark and foreboding it may seem at the moment.

The above post in by moi again

Thank you anonymous (afraid to use your own name?) for providing ex-Christian with a perfect chance to claim everybody here is consumed with hate and to ignore more substantive arguments and post a bunch of uninteresting links.

If I weren't above conspiracy theories I'd assume _you're_ a jihadi trying to give E-C a cover. You help them just that much.

Actually Ex Christian is wrong. Islam is not the "fastest growing religion in the world." The greatest number of conversions appear to be those who become fundamentalist Christians so they are really the fastest growing in terms of people changing. Islam is the fastest growing only in the sense that they have more children. While you can do anything with numbers, you have to know what the base assumptions are first. On top of that Islam postulates that conversion away form Islam in apostasy and the sentence is death unless you renounce that conversion. Not too many Moslems are willing to publically announce that they have left Islam

By the way if you have any doubt as to the fact that apostasy is death under Islam, here is the full text of a paper presented by Ibn Warraq at a panel discussion on "Apostasy, Human Rights, Religion and Belief" held at the the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on April 7, 2004.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php

Europe is on the front lines of the muslim jihad to create a world caliphate. So is Africa, and so is Asia. But in Europe, the jihadis are showing slightly more restraint, using the demographic conquest instead of the conquest by military or terrorism.

The incidents in Malmo, and on the Norwegian plane, are minor and isolated. Wisely the jihadis have refrained from open battle in favor of pressing for immigration and rapid procreating. This should be an effective strategy, unless something happens to arouse anti-muslim feelings beyond tolerance levels. Should that happen, mass deportations are not unlikely.

Michael Farris

''I find it strange that you don't seem to be able to discuss Christian theology (what little you wrote about Jesus Christ seems to show no understanding of his place in Christianity). This suggests that if you are an ethnic Finn you were a paper Christian and not one who really believed Christian doctrine. Islam seems to be your first religion not your second.''

This is your own guessing which is of course very wrong. Who asked me about christian theology to talk about it ? where was the thread that deals with such issues ? can I just blabb about ' christian theology' like that in any thread even if it has nothing to do with christian theology ? please, be real.

Also why do I need to talk about something I ditched and forgot ? I am now MUSLIM, Islam erased my sinful past and replaced it with rosey life and assured future, Islam provided me with answers to my life big questions.

''
"is it true that such a religion with more than 1 billion follower can be that evil ?"
Of course it's possible.''

I am sorry but only ignorants believe so.

''There are over a billion Christians, hundreds of millions of hindus, millions of Buddhists. They can't all be right and a billion people can be just as wrong as one.''

You are talking now about the science of possibilities, why not have some good look at Islam instead of guessing with numbers ?

To All the ' Islamophobes' here, here is something to entertain you :)

Turning Muslim in Texas

George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an.
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/texas1.html

And this one from the BBC:

In the current climate, converting to Islam is not an obvious choice or an easy one, either for converts or their families. So, why have 14,000 Brits (and counting) now taken that leap of faith? In A Muslim in the Family, Rageh Omaar tries to find out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3663771.stm

And why not having a look at this one ?

Islam First Religion In Amsterdam

http://islamicsydney.com/story.php?id=547

You see, Islamophobes, your ranting and hate-mongering aint working :)

get out from your dark holes, ditch the hate and the Islamophobia and smell some fresh ISLAMIC pure air :)

On the net, nobody knows who you really are.
Someone posed the possibility that your former Christian past is a sham. I thought one way you could lay such suspicions to rest would be to indicate some knowledge of the faith you left behind. As it turns out, you don't understand anything of Christian theology. Nothing wrong with that (I know just the bare outlines) but why pretend you were a believing Christian when you so obviously weren't?

I'm not a Christian (agnostic/atheist leaning toward the former) but I do understand why some people are. Yes, I also understand why some people follow Islam or Judaism. None of them are for me though (some folks just don't have any religious faith, I'm one of them).

So in the end, all I want from Islam (and fundamentalist Christianity) is to be left alone and for the religious to keep their faith out of the state and civil laws.

Hehe, why even use that as a reason, that islam is the fastest growing religion on earth?
Is that a reason why it should be the one and only correct answer? Hah, I think not...

You see no people in here using the fact that Christianity is the largest religion on earth as some kind of argument for how right it is?
Why? because its not an argument..

I get the impression that either you are a power-hungry person who measures your religion in terms of power, and not how right it is.. OR.. perhaps you are someone that wants to spread anti-muslim hate. Because thats what you're doing, in a reverse-psychology kind of way.

Why try to show that the world is becoming muslim when its not?
The result is that people that are not islamophobes might get worried as well as islamophobes getting more hateful, even though there is no reason to.
So, whats your agenda Ex-Christian, now Muslim.. is it to spread anti-muslim sentiments? Are you really a muslim?

When presented by facts, the muslim immediately responds with charges of islamophobia. This is so predictable that it is getting to be a bore. What next - a charge of racism if one is opposed to islam.

This is no Christian, even in the sense of a secular Christian. Ex-Christian was never a Christian. It is amazing that even when there is no real advantage to be gained, a muslim will practice Taqqiya. Why? It is so childish and demeaning.

Islamophobia - irrational fear of islam.

No such thing. I do not fear islam. I simply detest an ideology that is responsible for so much mass murder though history. I detest an ideology that continues to be the major cause of all the violence we see in the world. I detest an ideology that deems it necessary to shout allahu akhbar, while deliberately slaughtering a human being on camera, then marketing the video to the delight and gratification of muslims around the world. I detest an ideology that is a lie. I detest an ideology that has about as much contemplative, meditative and spiritual aspects to it as a stone, and bereft of commonsense and grace.

Islam is about murder, slaughter and the forceful seizure of the goods and "chattels" of non-muslims. That is the seizure, confiscation and downright robbery of goods that muslim society never created and hence had to rob. On reflection, not much has changed since the time of mohammed. Muslims are still reliant on the charity of the civilised world for everything, including the exploitation and use of oil.

Supposedly ex-Christian-to-muslim - if you wish to debate the great merits of islam, why don’t you try www.faithfreedom.org. Ali Sena runs it, an ex-muslim-to-civilisedhuman. He has an open challenge to anyone in the world, on any aspect of islam. Give it a try and see how far it gets you.

DP111: This is no Christian, even in the sense of a secular Christian. Ex-Christian was never a Christian. It is amazing that even when there is no real advantage to be gained, a muslim will practice Taqqiya.

You have no proof of that. I share your suspicion that Ex-Christian was not a believing Christian - I suspect he at most came from a Christian culture/background, but without a deep involvement in the beliefs. There are ways he can prove me wrong, as Michael has suggested, by answering questions such as: What is the nature of the trinity? What is the difference between protestantism and catholicism? Which denomination did you belong to, and what sets it apart from the others?

But this is still a side track, and if Ex-Christian refuses to explain his background I won't let you or anyone else hold it against him anywhere but in this particular thread. It's not relevant to his current beliefs, (though it's relevant to the degree that he himself claims his past is relevant).

Islamophobia - irrational fear of islam. No such thing.

Of course there is. For every thing that it is rational to fear, there are also versions of that fear which are irrational. That is just plain logic. If I fear that Osama bin Laden will launch terrorist attacks against Western countries, that is a rational fear. If I fear that he will take on a super villian suit, conquer the world and rule it as the Anti-Christ, that is an irrational fear, with no basis in fact.

In the same way, to fear Islamist extremism is rational. To fear all of Islam in every form is not. Islamophobia exists, and it is a real threat to the war on terrorism.

Rapid procreation is working for muslims in Europe. Why argue with success?

Religion is a crutch. Religious conversion to Islam is for the brain dead. They are to be pitied, not attacked.

Western civilization doesn't need religion. It certainly doesn't need violent religions full of flatliners.

Michael Farris

''On the net, nobody knows who you really are.''

I agree, you might be hard core christian for example but you pretend to be a non believer ! everything is possible.

''Someone posed the possibility that your former Christian past is a sham.''

You are right, my christian past is a SHAM, the years I wasted in believing jesus was god and attending bible studies circles and going to church every sunday was really sham and SHAMEFUL.

Why not for example look at this EX CHRISTIAN PRIEST who unlike me, he was PRIEST, do you know what that means ??? well, this christian priest CONVERTED to Islam as well, you can read his amazing story here:

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp

His story is one of thousands of ex christians who really found the truth in ISLAM.

'' I thought one way you could lay such suspicions to rest would be to indicate some knowledge of the faith you left behind. As it turns out, you don't understand anything of Christian theology. ''

Oh really ? did you ask me anything about christian theology ? if not, how did you then come to such 'pathetic' conclusion ?

''So in the end, all I want from Islam (and fundamentalist Christianity) is to be left alone and for the religious to keep their faith out of the state and civil laws.''

I think it is who need to be left alone. also, dont you think it is a form of dictatorship to dedicate on others how they should be governed ?
I mean you dont like to be governed by religious law, granted, but I DO like to be governed by Sharia, why should I abide by your wishes ?

The majority of Muslims worldwide aspire to have sharia law in their systems, do you think you have any right to question their wishes ?

Bjørn Stærk |

''You have no proof of that. I share your suspicion that Ex-Christian was not a believing Christian - I suspect he at most came from a Christian culture/background, but without a deep involvement in the beliefs. There are ways he can prove me wrong, as Michael has suggested, by answering questions such as: What is the nature of the trinity? What is the difference between protestantism and catholicism? Which denomination did you belong to, and what sets it apart from the others? ''

Dont you think it is very easy for me to google all these questions and come up with detailed academic answers if I want to ? will that help clarify my background ?? I dont think so.

I really dont understand this ' paranoia ', it seems most people here cant believe a christian will leave christianity and embraces islam ! but I am not the first christian to do so, I am one in thousands who do that every year

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp

Islam makes more sense than christianity, the concept of God in ISLAM is unique and very very rational unlike christianity which makes god looks like someone with ' multiple personality disorder ' !

I dont need really to reveal more personal information about myself, if you insist on me being normal ex christian who never had any deep christian beliefs, then so be it, it is your choice, what is matter the most is how I feel now after finding the light of Islam, I am now new shining soul, I am happier, I am filled with assurances and immense peace in my inner mind.

''But this is still a side track, and if Ex-Christian refuses to explain his background I won't let you or anyone else hold it against him anywhere but in this particular thread. It's not relevant to his current beliefs, (though it's relevant to the degree that he himself claims his past is relevant). ''

Thank you.

''Islamophobia exists, and it is a real threat to the war on terrorism. ''

very well said.

I suspected that "ex-Christian" wasn't really an ex-Christian long ago. His/her speech/thought patterns are not Western in nature. Judeo/Christianity is more than a relgion -- it's a culture. And even Western athiests and stridently secular people have been imprinted with that culture. You can't fake it if you come from somewhere else.

In addition, I've conversed with many people who WERE genuine converts from Christianity to Islam, and they do not sound anything like "ex-Christian."

Ex-Christian on the other hand sounds exactly like what he/she is: a Muslim-born Muslim pretending to be an "ex-Christian." It's all there -- the obnoxious contempt for the "man-worshippers"; the childish triumphalism; the refusal to debate with his own words but the willingness to post link after link containing OTHER PEOPLE's information about Islam.

Indisputably Muslim speech/thought patterns.

"Ex-Christian" on the o

Allan, Melbourne

''Why try to show that the world is becoming muslim when its not?
The result is that people that are not islamophobes might get worried as well as islamophobes getting more hateful, even though there is no reason to.So, whats your agenda Ex-Christian, now Muslim.. is it to spread anti-muslim sentiments? Are you really a muslim?
''

WAOOOO, I am very impressed by your great intelligent analysis, did someone tell it to you or is it from your own analysis ?

GET REAL.

Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth despite the relentless campaign of hate and disinformation directed against this great religion from many fronts ( the christian missionaries, the zionists, hindu fanatics and the hard cord athiests )

Islam is the fastest growing major religion in the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/islam_around_the_world/html/default.stm

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/649424.asp

-'' Indeed, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world'' The Economist, London Sept 2003

Now, after establishing this FACT ( that Islam is indeed the fastest growing religion on earth ) we can talk about wether we can use this FACT to say Islam must be right ! the biggest is not always the best, but Islam is the exception.

my argument was that if Islam is really evil ( as the hate mongers and the Islamophobes try to propogate ) how come hundreds of thousands of WHITE WESTERNERS and indeed african americans, hispanics, canadians, lations..etc are converting to Islam ? how come a religion which is under intense heat, pressure and CONSTANT vilification can STILL manage to win thousands of WESTERN converts ? do you think all these who are converting to Islam are fools ???

Time for some hard thinking.

and before i finish, since you are from Australia, here is somthing for you from the BBC:

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

Susan

''Ex-Christian on the other hand sounds exactly like what he/she is: a Muslim-born Muslim pretending to be an "ex-Christian." It's all there -- the obnoxious contempt for the "man-worshippers"; the childish triumphalism; the refusal to debate with his own words but the willingness to post link after link containing OTHER PEOPLE's information about Islam.

Indisputably Muslim speech/thought patterns.

"Ex-Christian" on the o''

Thank you for letting us know this ! :)

Islam is NOT the world’s fastest growing religion in terms of converts. Indeed Ex C. does not dispute my analysis but simply parrots and reparrots his false statement like some sort of broken record.

The statistics are as follows and from

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

“The world growth rate of Muslims is 2.13, and for Christians it is 1.36. A closer look reveals, however that the birth rate of Muslims world wide, is literally double that of Christians. When you the actual conversion rate, where men chose their religion, rather then are born into it, you can see that Christians are converting, on a percentage basis, almost twice as many as Muslims (1.7:1). * * * What this means, is that as third world Muslim countries become more civilized, their birth rate will drop off to match the rest of the civilized world, but Christians will still continue to out convert them at a rate of 1.7:1"

“In "Europe" we observe that while Muslims are growing faster than Christians, Buddhists claim the prize for the fastest growing religion at a rate of 1.39. Muslims make up only 5% of the population in Europe and most of the Muslim growth in Europe is from immigration. Although 77% of Europeans are Christians, Buddhists, not Muslims, are the fastest growing religion in the continent of Europe.”

“in Oceania, Muslims are indeed growing at a fast rate than Christians at 3.04. But the fastest growing religion is "new-religionists" at a staggering rate of 9.02, followed by Buddhists at 5.19, then Sikhs at 3.55, then Zoroastrians at 3.18. Muslims are no better than the 5th fastest growing religion in Oceania!”

The author concludes that “On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing religion. That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical facts.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

Ex-Christian: Dont you think it is very easy for me to google all these questions and come up with detailed academic answers if I want to ? will that help clarify my background ?? I dont think so.

I was more interested in how you replied than whether your reply was accurate. Having a Christian background sets a mark on you and how you see your (former) beliefs that would be hard to fake. I can look up the details of Muslim theology on the web, but I would find it difficult to write a personal account of my supposed Muslim past in a way that would sound convincing to a Muslim. Would take a lot of work, and I might easily get important details wrong. Is that why you will not even try to answer?

Again - I will not allow people to bring this up outside of this thread, (unless you do it first), but if you do not even attempt a reply, I and a lot of people will conclude that you're lying. You have made a big rhetorical point out of having been a Christian, by making that your nick. Your refusal to defend that claim with any detail at all is odd.

I don't make a point out of it, but I'm a former Christian, now atheist. I have a story about that conversion, and about my past, and I can tell it in any level of detail you like.

I really dont understand this ' paranoia ', it seems most people here cant believe a christian will leave christianity and embraces islam !

Oh, I have no problem believing that. It is you I don't find trustworthy.

Bjorn I think you are getting into "kill the messenger" routine. His background it has nothing to do with his message which must stand or fall; and here it falls because of some many logical inconsistiencies or just outright mistatments. Does it make a difference whether he was a Christian or has always been a Moslem? I would think not.

Indeed in almost every rant Ex C posts is the comment that anything critical of Islam is by some hater of Islam or worse -- by a Zionist. The best thing that can happen is that he continues to post and nature of Islam he espouses continues to be exposed.

Herbie NY

''Islam is NOT the world’s fastest growing religion in terms of converts.
The statistics are as follows and from

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm''

bible.ca ??? what a credible source ! loooooool

Herbie NY

''Islam is NOT the world’s fastest growing religion in terms of converts.
The statistics are as follows and from

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm''

bible.ca ??? what a credible source ! loooooool

Bjørn Stærk

''I really dont understand this ' paranoia ', it seems most people here cant believe a christian will leave christianity and embraces islam !

Oh, I have no problem believing that. It is you I don't find trustworthy. ''

Oh really ?

according to Dictionary:

trustworthy

\Trust"wor`thy\, a. Worthy of trust or confidence; trusty. -- Trust\"wor`thi*ness, n.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trustworthy

So perhaps you can tell me what trust you have put in me and was betrayed ????

Ex C as is typical you don't address the issue of how the numbers are arrived at and just simply continue to parrot.

I also note that you do not take issue with the presentation on "Apostasy, Human Rights, Religion and Belief" at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on April 7, 2004.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php which is that the penalty for conversion from Islam is death.

Recently "at a convention on the subject of "Pluralism in Islam" which took place in late August, 2004 . . . Sheikh Dr. Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement . . . issued a religious legal opinion permitting the abduction and killing of American civilians in Iraq in order to pressure the American army to evacuate its forces. * * * [I]n his view, "all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation."

If that is correct would it not follow from the opposite point of view that any Moslem who supports terror should be considered a combatnent and be subject to being killed in order to "pressure" the terrorists?

I'm finding myself less and less convinced that Ex-C is who he says he is, he doesn't even seem to be able to talk about _why_ he became a Moslem except in banal generalities. In my experience converts (to any religion) are of two types (we'll leave aside the issue of forced conversions of which most religions have a shameful history):
1) those who convert for the benefit of their (future) spouse
2) those who genuinely find another religion more in line with their outlook.

Ex-C'doesn't seem to be 1) and in my experience those of category 2) can generally give specifics about why they prefer a particular religion over another.

I'm starting to suspect that he's from South Asia, verbal patterns (and arguments) are similar and there was a reference to "Hindu fanatics" a usual Pakistani talking point.

Perhaps someone among the regular readers could correspond with him in Finnish? (I'd try but what tiny bit of Finnish I know is passive, not active).

The only phrase I remember in Finnish when I was dating is "please give me a kiss", but I don't think that would work with him :-)

Michael Farris

~Perhaps someone among the regular readers could correspond with him in Finnish? (I'd try but what tiny bit of Finnish I know is passive, not active).~

I like your ' conspiracy theories' about who I might be, they are really so amusing :)

Also, I pointed earlier to one poster that I am swedish speaking finn ( finland has 2 official languages ), so if anyone want to start a SWEDISH conversation, by all means, let us start :)

Herbie:

Once you learn to quote from 'credible' sources and not from anti muslim hate sites, I can consider replying to your posts .

Ex C According to you anything that is remotely accurate or not in praise of Islam is not a "credible" source and is an "anti Muslim hate site". How convenient a way to avoid the issue by saying that the source is anti Muslim and not to respond to the argument. The point is that the phrase "fastest growing religion" is only statistically accurate in terms of birthrates and NOT conversions which is what you implied.

Herbie NY,

''Recently "at a convention on the subject of "Pluralism in Islam" which took place in late August, 2004 . . . Sheikh Dr. Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement . . . issued a religious legal opinion permitting the abduction and killing of American civilians in Iraq in order to pressure the American army to evacuate its forces. * * * [I]n his view, "all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation."

This is really OUTRAGEOUS !!!

To prove to you that you are so mislead and lied at by the anti muslim hate sites you always frequent, here is the website of the most famous imam in Islam, shiekh Yousef Qaradawi ( the one you just quoted him falesly ):

http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/index.asp?cu_no=2&temp_type=44

The site is in arabic, but here is the link in his site with his FATWA against abducting and killing civilians in iraq no matter what's their nationality:

http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=3423&version=1&template_id=130&parent_id=17

Take the site to any arabic translator and he will confirm what I am saying now.

And here it is in ENGLISH his well known fatwas against killing innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere:

Islam Forbids Kidnapping, Killing Civilians: Qaradawi

http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-09/10/article03.shtml

Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians: Forbidden in Islam

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml

Al-Qaradawi: Bali Blasts Heinous Crime, Total Barbarism

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-10/15/article33.shtml

Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians: Forbidden in Islam

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml

AND HERE IS WHAT FRANCE SAID ABOUT SHIEKH QARADAWI:

France Thanks Qaradawi for Stance on Hostages

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-09/23/article08.shtml

SO PLEASE, STOP PROMOTING LIES AGAINST ISLAM AND ITS SCHOLARS, CANT YOU SEE HOW MISLEAD YOU ARE BY THESE HATE ISLAMOPHOBIC SITES ???

Again, I repeat my offer to you:

Once you learn to quote from 'credible' sources and not from anti muslim hate sites, I can consider replying to your posts .

Ex C first what I said was assuming this is correct. I said that because the statement was disputed. When the site MEMRI quoted it, they then stated that he disputed the statement, but then went on to quote other statments by him where he seems to have supported the statement. http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD79404. Now my Q still stands: If that is correct would it not follow from the opposite point of view that any Moslem who supports terror should be considered a combatnent and be subject to being killed in order to "pressure" the terrorists?

How about an answer?

While yiu are thinking ofg an answer here are some statistics a friend sent me which I assume you will find to be another zionest plot:

Arab/Islamic Nobel winners: (19.6% of world's population... nearly 2 billion Muslims)

Literature
1957 - Albert Camus
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat
2003 - Shirin Ebadi

Chemistry
**1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewail

Medicine
**1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
**1960 - Ferid Moura

Jewish Nobel winners: (0.2% of world's population...14.1 million Jews)

Literature
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
2001- Imre Kertesz

Peace
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Chemistry
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1972 - William Howard Stein
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Rober Fogel

Medicine
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - David Baltimore
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1997- Stanley B. Prusiner
1998 - Robert F. Furchgott
2000 - Paul Greengard
2002 - Robert H. Horvitz
2002 - Sydney Brenner

Physics
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1995 - Martin Perl
1995 - Fredrick Reines
1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff
1996 - David M. Lee
1997- Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
2000 - Zhores I. Alferov
2003 - Vitaly Ginsburg
2003 - Alexei Abrikoso

** Elias James Corey (Chemistry 1990), Peter Brian Medawar (Medicine 1960) and Ferid Moura (Medicine 1998) are Nobel Prize winners but are Arab-Christians, not Muslims.

Herbie: Bjorn I think you are getting into "kill the messenger" routine. His background it has nothing to do with his message which must stand or fall; and here it falls because of some many logical inconsistiencies or just outright mistatments. Does it make a difference whether he was a Christian or has always been a Moslem? I would think not.

I agree. Which is why I won't let anyone continue this discussion elsewhere. But it's relevant enough to discuss once. Ex-C has made it relevant by his choice of nick, which is his way of saying "I know what I'm talking about". It's fair to question that. I'm not asking for proof, it's the unwillingness to provide even a cursory attempt at defense ("I grew up in a methodist congregation in Oulo" etc) that seems odd.

But it's still not very important. Ex-C does not want to explain his background. I suggest we all leave it at that, and keep our conclusions to ourselves.

I got this propaganda list before but with the claim that more JEWS and CHRISTIANS got noble prizes than Muslims and my answer was:

If Jews were really that intelligent and clever, how come 6 million of them were led to the gas chambers like sheep ??

If Christians were really that intelligent and clever how come famous Christians like HITLER and other christians like Churchel fought 2 brutal sadistic world wars resulting in the death of more than 80 million soul ????

Time to scratch your head for some answers !

Perhaps you can also list us the names of muslim scientists and scholars who brought the renaissance to Europe when Europe was knee-deep in darkness and ignorance ! without ISLAM you will be still living in the dark ages:

1. "No historical student of the culture of Western Europe can ever reconstruct for himself the intellectual values of the later Middle Ages unless he possesses a vivid awareness of Islam looming in the background." (Pierce Butler, "Fifteenth Century of Arabic Authors in Latin Translation, in the McDonald Presentation Volume; Freeport, N.Y., 1933; p.63)

2. "The Arab has left his intellectual impress on Europe, as, before long, Christendom will have to confess; he has indelibly written it on the heavens, as anyone may see who reads the names of the stars on a common celestial globe." (John W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Harper & Row; Vol.2, 1876 & 1904; p.42)

3. "Because Europe was reacting against Islam it belittled the influence of Saracens [Muslims] and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and Roman heritage. So today an important task for us is to correct this false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and Islamic world" (W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Surveys: The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe; Edinburgh, England; 1972; p.84).

4. "One of the hallmarks of civilized man is knowledge of the past - [including]the past of others with whom one's own culture has had repeated and fruitful contact; or the past of any group that has contributed to the ascent of man. The Arabs fit profoundly into both of the latter two categories. But in the West the Arabs are not well known. Victims of ignorance as well as misinformation, they and their culture have often been stigmatized from afar" (John Hayes, The Genius of Arab Civilization: Source of Renaissance; MIT Press, 1983; p. 2)

5. "Too often science in Arabia has been seen as nothing more than a holding operation. The area has been viewed as a giant storehouse for previously discovered scientific results, keeping them until they could be passed on for use in the West. But this is, of course, a travesty of the truth. Certainly the Arabs did inherit Greek science - and some Indian and Chinese science too, for that matter - and later passed it on to the West. But this is far from being all they did" (Colin Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among World's Cultures; New York; 1982; p.203).

6. An eminent mid-20th century scholar, George Sarton (Harvard Univ.), traces the "roots" of Western intellectual development to the Arab tradition, which was "the outstanding stream, and remained until 14th century one of the largest streams of medieval thought." Further, "The Arabs were standing on the shoulders of their Greek forerunners, just as the Americans are standing on the shoulders of their European ones. There is nothing wrong in that." Then Sarton criticizes those who "will glibly say `The Arabs simply translated Greek writings, they were industrious imitators...' This is not absolutely untrue, but is such a small part of the truth, that when it is allowed to stand alone, it is worse than a lie" (George Sarton, A Guide to the History of Science; Mass.; 1952; pp.27-28).

Ex C Putting to one sde your first two irrelevant and snide propositions, your various quotations bring to mind the thought "right, what have you done lately?" I don't want to make this too hard say within the last 400 to 500 years

Indeed not to point to fine a point on it, but it was during the time that the Mu'tazilites view was practiced that all of the great advances in science and philosophy in Islam were made. They believed in the concept of free will and religious ideologies based on rationalism. One of their major concepts, and most controversial, was that of the Qur'an being created. That view eventually lost and the Koran was taken to be literal and directly from God. As that view became prevalent so did rationalism and a lack of scientific or philosophical exploration which has reveerberated to this day.

Herbie:

If the Muslim world was that bad and backward how come the west is obsessed with it ?

There is famous Japanese proverb which goes:

'' you dont hit a dead cat ''

true, very true.

Ex C I would guess the world is obsessed with it because of a) the regularity with which terror emanates from it, b) it is one of the most uneducated areas in the world (from a secular point of view), c) that women are not treated very well, d) they regard Jews and Christians as second class citizens, and e) they have oil. It most certainly is not becuase of any view that Islam is a superior religon so far as I can understand Western perceptions.

Ex C by the way at the risk of offending you I am a dog person. I don't like cats. :-)

Bjørn Stærk
Islamophobia - irrational fear of islam. No such thing.

When I said "no such thing", I was quoting that for myself and not in general. Of course there is general irrational fear of Islam. But I do not have an irrational fear of Islam .

You have no proof of that. I share your suspicion that Ex-Christian was not a believing Christian ....

Proof of any kind is impossible in this context, however there is an assumption of reasonableness. And on that count, Ex-Christian-to-Muslim, fails the test.

But this is still a side track, and if Ex-Christian refuses to explain his background, I won't let you or anyone else hold it against him anywhere but in this particular thread.

Fair enough, it is your forum. However fairness would require that unwarranted and blanket accusations of Islamophobia directed at all posters who have concerns of the honesty of Ex-Christian-to-muslim, are equally unacceptable.

My main concern is that Christian-to-muslim failed to answer questions posed to him about his background. Now you may feel that posing such a question is unfair. In general you are absolutely right but not in this context. Let me elaborate. Christian-to-muslim made that his main point, that is, he was a Christian and has become muslim. In fact even his poster name makes that point. Having made a major issue of it himself, in fact his central thesis is his abandonment of Christianity in favour of Islam, I do not see why posters may not question him on the issue.

On Blogs of this sort, it is imperative that posters adopt an honest approach. If doubts surface about that, then it becomes difficult to have any rational discourse. For instance, I can post on this forum, pretending to be an imam who has abandoned islam in favour of Christianity. Such a recourse if adopted by many, would bring this blog to disrepute and even ridicule.

Anyway. Thank you for allowing me to post here. It has been fun. I will not encroach any further.

Best wishes.

DP

Ex C just because I am so tired of your absurd rants about Jews and Zionists I thought you might like to ponder this:

Israelis Aaron Ciechanover and Avram Hershko and American Irwin Rose have won the 2004 Nobel Prize in chemistry for discovering a process that lets cells destroy unwanted proteins.

It lets cells give a chemical "kiss of death" to proteins that must be destroyed. The marked proteins are then chopped to pieces. When such degradation fails to work correctly, the result can be diseases like cervical cancer and cystic fibrosis. So research in this area may lead to new drugs for those diseases and others, according to thtre acadamy.

Now tell us some more things about the latest Moslem contributions to civilized society aside from aside from beheadings, suicide bombings and other advances they are making.

No I am not anti-Moslem what I am am is pro civilization. I cannot concieive that if there is a God that he she or it could posssibly condone the death and destruction in he she or its name that Islam has come to represent in its call for such actions as religously sanctioned.

Herbie:

Way before those 2 Israelis got any noble prize, there was a MUSLIM scientist called Dr AHMED ZEWAIL who got a noble price in Chemistry in 1999.

Try again :)

Ex C yes I know I listed him the only one it seems ever in contrast to the hated Jews as noted above ;-)

You know, Zewail got his doctorate in Pennsylvania, and did his Nobel prize winning research in California. Talented muslims are too often forced to flee their homelands and move to the west in order to make something of themselves.

If only muslim countries were enlightened democracies, instead of totalitarian hellholes. Fortunately for me, my family escaped from one.

Every two or three months I check this great site. Lots of good, reflective people here -- and a few nuts and at least one big fat lier.
Mr Ex-Christian, you sound just like a guy using the name "Salahudin" who was posting here in early August (same style, arguments, and even the exact same references and links). Of course you weren't an ex-christian then but we don't really expect Muslims to be honest, do we? In fact they seem to have a real problem with truth, but they can always count on political correctness to let them get away with it.

I think it is reasonable to expect and demand that Muslims live up to the same standards of tolerance (equality, not second or third-class citizenship) that we in the West believe in. Most Muslims are not peaceful, they are indifferent. They are also mostly powerless, because they live under regimes that even if tolitarian, still conform to their Islamic beliefs. It is not the West's fault if they suffer - it is Allahs curse. To get away, they flee to the West. When they get to the West, very often they bring their bitterness and hate with them and cannot integrate. (Funny, the chinese, latins and even hiundu's don't have this problem!). Then the Left says "We have to do more for Muslims to become part of (name of country here)", instead of "Muslims have to do more to...". Do I exagerate? Run a google search with words like "muslim" "crime" and "Europe" (or any specific country) and see the results. There is really something rotten in Islam...

The good news is that Muslims will be Muslims, but then the bad news it that means that innocent people will die as some fanatic screams the usually "Goat is great!". Maybe then, as they see their families throats cut by Salahudin's friends, the people of the West will wake up and smell the coffee.

This is John Arthur, from sunny Arizona (yep, I use my real name!) signing off. See you guys in a few weeks!

Oh yes, Salahudin, I mean ex-christian, I have three questions from our last conversation that I really would like you to answer (forget the other ones you ignored...)

1. Do you like Brazilians? (I had mentioned that Turks to me are the Brazilians of the Muslim world! (That's a complement, by the way.) Ever been to Rio for carnaval? Embora tenho minhas duvidas que um mulcumano como voce e' capaz de entender a alegria do bom povo carioca.

2. Do you really think I was lying when I said a newspaper in Uganda published an editorial asking "What happened to all the millions of Blacks taken north by the arab slave traders over many centuries?"

3. Do you have a dog, or do you like dogs?

PS: The Algerian asylum seeker, even if mentally unbalanced, was obviously trying to garantee his fair share of virgins in paradise. (Another question leaps to mind: why are there so many women virgins in Islam's paradise? Can't Muslim men do it?)

That's it, really! Bye to all.

Hello every body!
I was surprised to find this website, where they talk about an Algerian, and I was more surprised that they talk about Norway where I was 6 month before this act! As an asylum seeker in Norway!
Yes, I'm very late, but I read your entire dialog, and hope if we can refresh this discussion!
I have many important things to tell you!
And sorry if my English is bad, it's my third language after Arabic and French!
Bye!

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.

Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (On planets where they approved evil.)

Terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Survival of the favored.

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1434