top
Racial Justice
Racial Justice
Indybay
Indybay
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Racial Justice
Brigitte Bardot unleashes colourful diatribe against Muslims and modern France
by Shermy Larent
Monday May 12th, 2003 4:41 PM
PARIS (AFP) - Animal rights activist and former sex symbol Brigitte Bardot (news) has unleashed a torrent of venom against modern France, blaming modern art, gay culture, fast food, trash TV, politicians -- but above all Muslim immigrants -- for the country's descent into decadence.
In a new book entitled "A cry in the silence," the 68 year-old ex-actress confirms her reputation as a misanthropist of heroic proportions, interspersing vivid diatribes against most of humanity with elegiac passages about France as it used to be.

"I do not hold religious Muslims in high esteem," she concedes in her introduction, and throughout the book her deepest wrath is reserved for the "Islamisation" of France and -- her particular bete noire -- the Muslim ritual of animal sacrifice at Eid el-Kebir.

"For 20 years we have submitted to a dangerous and uncontrolled underground infiltration. Not only does it fail to give way to our laws and customs. Quite the contrary, as time goes by it tries to impose its own laws on us," Bardot writes.

"We were disturbed by their barbaric practices; we went to court; we condemned their unacceptable behaviour which left homes covered in blood, and filled rubbish chutes with skin, bone and oozing brains. To no avail!" says the activist, who has been convicted three times for inciting racial hatred.

The anti-racist group Movement Against Racism And For Friendshp Between Peoples (MRAP) said Monday it would once again sue Bardot over the book. "This work is unacceptable. It is a real call for racism, discrimination and violence," said president Mouloud Aounit.

Elsewhere in "A cry in the silence," Bardot describes those responsible for the September 11 attacks in the US as "monstrous, satanic men," and then adds:

"All those 'youths' who terrorise the population, rape young girls, train pit-bulls for attack ... spit on the police -- they are the ones who at the smallest signal from their chiefs will suddenly put us through the same kind of thing that happened in a Moscow theatre."

There are plenty of other targets for Bardot's unflinching abuse -- notably modern gays who, unlike her own dignified homosexual friends, "jiggle their bottoms, put their little fingers in the air and with their little castrato voices moan about what those ghastly heteros put them through."

As for modern art it has become "shit -- literally as well as figuratively."

"Shit has been put on show in little dry piles, accompanied by used sanitary towels and condoms, forming new millennium sculpture -- acclaimed by all the jet-set dolts, the experts, the arses, the motors of what we call fashion," she says.

In politics she likes President Jacques Chirac "as a human and a friend," and praises his stand on Iraq (news - web sites). Far right leader Jean-Marie le Pen and Trotskyist Arlette Laguiller are sincere and consistent. But the rest are "weather vanes who turn left or right as the fancy takes them."

Not even French prostitutes are what they used to be, bemoans the star of "And God created Woman."

"Our lovely, kind street-walkers have been replaced by girls from the East, Nigerians, travellers, trans-sexuals, drag-queens, bearers of AIDS (news - web sites) and other friendly gifts. Having a risk-free go is becoming a real exploit," Bardot writes.

It is time, she says, to re-open the "maisons closes" -- the authorised brothels shut down by the government in 1946 when Bardot was 11.

"All spent fluids would enjoy the medical and sanitary surveillance that is indispensible to our age -- an age in which all venereal diseases come to us borne by men and women who traffic their various orifices and contaminate those who fill them," she writes.


Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Natacha Dlouhy
(dlouhy [at] hotmail.com) Tuesday May 13th, 2003 5:35 AM
I am not french but I don't live far away from there and by listening to Brigitte Bardot last night it is not far enough. Shame on her !
by Asif Haniff
(asif33 [at] hotmail.com) Tuesday May 13th, 2003 6:51 AM
Ms. Bardot's vivid description of the barbarism practiced by Muslims speaks volumes. What hideous, cave-man like behaviour. Animal sacrifices! Is this the 9th century? I am disgusted by this.
by hamster8
Tuesday May 13th, 2003 8:42 AM
This is not accurate if generally applied:

>The anti-Zionist rhetoric is just a front for deep anti-Semitism.

It is certainly true that anti-Semitism exists in the world, and it should be opposed. I oppose it wherever I see it. However, criticizing the state of Israel cannot be equated to anti-Semitism, in the same way that criticism of apartheid-era South Africa wasn't anti-white. It's not a very pleasant comparison, but the similarities speak for themselves.

The Israeli government, armed forces, and civil society are being inexorably transformed by a cruel war which they are waging against a much weaker people. They can continue the process and end up in a very ugly condition, or they can try to reach out to the Palestinians as fellow human beings, however difficult this may be, and work towards some kind of sustainable peace that both sides can accept. The latter course seems to me to be the only option that offers any hope of permanently ending the terrible slaughter and atrocities that are being perpetrated daily by both sides in the conflict. Actually, there is one other option - expulsion of all Palestinians from the Occupied Territories; this is so obviously wrong that it can't be seriously advocated. Eventually, though, one or the other of these solutions will have to be tried if there is ever to be peace in that land.

The Israeli state holds most of the cards - military, political and economic. They are the ones who therefore have the responsibility to act, and the US has a responsibility, as the prime supplier of cash and weapons to this state, to ensure that a move towards peace does in fact occur. Of course, US support for Israel is part of the general strategy for American dominance in the middle east, so this ties the Israel/Palestine issue into the wider world situation, capitalism, corporate power, energy politics, economic democracy, military adventures...let's get to work, people.
by Cough
Tuesday May 13th, 2003 2:28 PM
Apparently insulting the government on your car is a crime punishable by jail time in germany (recent story).
Its surprising how even in countries we though had lots of civil rights some of the most important ones are absent.
Those europeans should be a little more wary of each other.
by X
Wednesday May 14th, 2003 3:46 PM
"Bardot describes those responsible for the September 11 attacks in the US as "monstrous, satanic men,"

NOOOOOO! What a horrible thing to say about humanity hating facists.
Her statement was about as offensive as demonizing the devil.



by justice
Friday May 16th, 2003 7:27 AM
I can't imagine why anyone would even bother to listen to anything Ms. Bardot has to say. I mean, she's not an elected official. She's an over the hill actress (??).

Surely there are more important things to discuss here. How about the genocide in the Congo that is ongoing as we speak? As of May 15 some 4,000,000 people have been killed since 1999.

And, like Rwanda, the international community ignores it. Perhaps Ms. Bardot has a solution for that "terrorism", or is it only "terrorism" when allegedly an Arab is involved?
by DIOGENES
Friday May 16th, 2003 8:20 AM
BRAVO!
by SFer
Friday May 16th, 2003 8:55 AM
>>> can't imagine why anyone would even bother to listen to anything Ms. Bardot has to say. I mean, she's not an elected official. She's an over the hill actress <<<

Yes, but for some reason, people seem to take what celebrities say more seriously--on both the right and the left.

Look at all the attention paid to Charlton Heston and the NRA, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and the War on Iraq, Alec Baldwin and his alleged move overseas of George W. Bush won the election, etc.

by daveman
Friday May 16th, 2003 9:00 AM
...why anyone would even bother to listen to anything Ms. Bardot has to say. I mean, she's not an elected official."

One might wonder the same thing about Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, The Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Martin Sheen.
by twisted echo
Friday May 16th, 2003 2:41 PM


...why anyone would even bother to listen to anything Mr. Bush has to say. I
mean, he's not an elected official."

One might wonder the same thing about Dick.
by Angie
Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:43 AM
You're right, of course. One might, indeed; and as we saw with the terrorist attack on Iraq, one shouldn't.
by Raymond Bondurant
Sunday May 18th, 2003 4:54 AM
The reason some are angry with Bardot is that she is speaking the truth. She says that Muslims want to take over France. You don't believe it? Muslims are only 5% of the Philippines' population, yet they are engaged in a guerilla war right now to try to take over the Philippines.
Here in the U.S., this month Muslims will hold a large rally in Washington D.C. to demand that they not be held to any special scrutiny for security reasons. They claim their CIVIL RIGHTS are being violated, yet of course the Islamic states they support recognize no civil rights. This is a pretext to bash the United States. After 20 months, these freaks feel enough time has passed since 9-11-2001 that it is OK to call the U.S. racist for not cowering before Al Qaeda and retreating. One of the speakers at this event has called for the United States to become an Islamic caliphate ( that's like an Islamic state.) Another speaker was a buddy of the perpetrators of the 1st World Trade Center bombing in 1993, but the U.S. Attorney for N.Y. could not quite get the evidence to indict him. But he was in on it. The boldness of these pigs in coming forth to protest our government, when their real intent is to overthrow it, shows that Brigitte Bardot was right. No, all Muslims are not bad, that's not what I'm saying. In fact, like most people who study history, I was against Bush's Iraq War because the long-term repercussions for the U.S. are mostly negative. But I'm an American, I have a right to criticize our government at any time. Disloyal foreigners should keep their damned mouths shut, or move back to your own countries. If you are a loyal American of Arab/Muslim background, criticize and protest to your heart's content. The fact that this upcoming protest will have speakers endorsing a Muslim takeover of the U.S. and sympathetic to terrorists shows that Brigitte Bardot is on the mark. God bless her!
by Angie
Sunday May 18th, 2003 9:49 AM
As a note of possible interest here.

In France, Movement Against Racism and for Friendship of People, together with the Human Rights League of France, are threatening a law suit against Bardot and her publishers, Edition du Rochers, claiming the book is inciting racism. They have called for a boycott against the book.

Another interesting point. In 1997 and 2000 Ms. Bardot was convicted of inciting racial violence after she criticized in print the Muslim practice of killing sheep.
by Scottie
Monday May 19th, 2003 4:57 PM
- Another interesting point. In 1997 and 2000 Ms. Bardot was convicted of inciting racial violence after she criticized in print the Muslim practice of killing sheep.
You suport ritual killing of animals?
hmm well you have alienated alot of the left then particularly PETA supporters. (and some of the right I might add)
Hey my culture has a practice of eating peoples brains to acquire their bravery.. yup I'm serious. (ok we have stoped doing it now but I'm just saying)
I should go to france where my rights will be protected.
by Angie
Monday May 19th, 2003 10:10 PM
Scottie,
You're amusing, and at the same time, assuming that which you know not.

My comments re Bardot were listed here strictly as an addition to the ongoing debate. So stop making bloody assumptions. Nowhere did I say I approved or disapproved anything.

Seriously, is this an issue?
by Shitty Rogers
Tuesday May 20th, 2003 9:31 PM
I for one think we should cut Isreal off completely as far as funding them...as well as every other country...our tax dollars would be better spent on taking care of our own population and its social problems...we have the power to destroy any and all threats...all we need are the balls to do so
by You have got a problem with the predicament
Wednesday May 21st, 2003 4:56 PM
The money stays here.
Israelis don't get a 'share of the pie.'
The party that calles the shots is not aipac but the weapons industrial complex. ( Whose members interchange w/ aipac, though.)
The entity eats up fifty percent of the tax revenue.
That money stays in the politicians pockets who voted to donate the weapons industry that sweet heart deal which takes some of the doe to develop yet more weapons of mass destruction.
For the amount of money the military industrial complex is getting it needs a justification ( a war zone) where the weapons are to be tested and experimented with.Israelis have been frightened to think that military option is a necesity for their survival.
these weapons are then shipped and used against a defenseless population, a population is than expected to seek revenge against the civilians riding the bus in Israeli to keep the cycle from stopping abruptly
As the amerikan tax payers lose their livelihood, the Israeli and Palestinian Population lose their lives as the warmongers laugh all the way to their banks.

by fc
Wednesday May 21st, 2003 5:04 PM
But I am by no means washing Israels hand clean of crimes against the lamd owners of Palestine.
by Ray Perkowski
Saturday May 31st, 2003 10:01 AM
At a time when everyone is so afraid of being considered not politically correct, it's refreshing to see someone who could care less what others think and speak their minds freely as is our God given right. Whether you agree with Brigette Bardot's thoughts, you have to applaud her for not allowing herself to be bullied into silence by public opinion and threats of law suits.
by her... is fried!
Saturday Jul 12th, 2003 12:48 PM
maybe the sun has gotten to her head...
by she's completely fried
Saturday Jul 12th, 2003 1:08 PM
The poor thing has spent too much time in the sun and now her brain is toast.
by !
Saturday Jul 12th, 2003 4:58 PM
The methods of slaughtering both Hallal (Islamic "allowed") and Kosher are very similar, and actually for the animal much more "humane" than "factory methods", and it is also "healthier" for us consumers, as the "fear and stress hormones" are missing from the meat.

HALLAL AND KOSHER ?
http://www.theasianoutlook.com/articles/March/2.htm
by Me
Saturday Jul 12th, 2003 5:27 PM
I am sure the animal would concur
that being slaughtered with no anthesia is a kinder and gentler way to be killed.
by cp
Wednesday Jul 16th, 2003 3:43 PM
Have you read the descriptions of US slaughterhouses in Fast Food Nation (which is a much better book than the cover might suggest). In many or most slaughterhouses, there is a very transient workforce of immigrants who don't qualify for other jobs who have to work at high speed and rarely last an entire year at the job due to injury. Due to the fast line, the intestines of cows etc. frequently burst and spray e. coli containing material all over the meat, and because there is virtually no meat inspection any more, you're only protected by the heat of your grill.
by Yo concerned zionist
Wednesday Jul 16th, 2003 7:07 PM
have a field day with the post right above this...
by Scout
Friday Aug 15th, 2003 11:49 AM
Brigette's cry is prophetic. It targets the present threat to civilization, a threat more dangerous than communism or fascism. Islam with its ideology of world domination has been a menace since the seventh century. Today's terrorists are the vanguard of only the most resent revival of Islamic expansion. Brigette Bardot's voice is one of the few being raised in alarm. Others include Oriana Fallaci, Daniel Pipes and Abdullah al-Araby. As we stood against communism and fascism, civilized humanity in our generation must stand against Islam as well. It is our right and our duty to oppose the teachings of murder and subjection that threaten to reverse the course of human history and destroy civilization. PS, How can I get an English copy of "A Cry In Silence" in the USA?
by J. Allbright
(jjall [at] earthlink.net) Tuesday Oct 21st, 2003 12:49 AM
If you find a copy of this book in English, let me know. I want to read it, too. Bardot has more balls than any Frenchman!
by J. Allbright
(jjall [at] earthlink.net) Tuesday Oct 21st, 2003 12:51 AM
If you find a copy of this book in English, let me know. I want to read it, too. Bardot has more balls than any Frenchman!
by Rhonda
Monday Jul 12th, 2004 1:47 PM
I must agree with Ms Bardot. Too bad if you pc'ers cannot stand it. You have denigraded the structure of society. I love how you can spew out your opionions while screaming for others to be tolerant, but when someone has a differing opinion from yours, you want to censor them. Very interesting. That says more about "you" than "us."
by Angie Campbell
Monday Jul 12th, 2004 3:50 PM

The Islamic Agenda And Its Blueprints


It was reported in The Times on Thursday January 17 2002 that the alleged British shoe bomber Richard Reid, a suspected agent of al-Qa'eda, managed to stay safe by deception.

The report said that one of his tricks was to hide his religious fanaticism by scavenging empty alcohol bottles (Muslims generally do not drink alcohol) and cigarette ends from rubbish bins to leave in his hotel rooms. Another was putting his passport through the washing machine to remove a Pakistani visa stamp that might have posed difficulties when he travelled to Israel.

Why would someone do what is a betrayal of his own belief system, and be deceptive about it? Was it his own idea? Is it what he was taught and, if so, by whom and why? Could it be part of the Islamic belief system?

To understand Richard Reid's behaviour one needs to have grasped the basics of Islamic teaching: its maxim is that Islam should dominate the world. Whatever means are required to achieve this objective will be used, including deception. Of course, if Richard Reid was part of an Islamic radical movement, he did not act alone.

Islam is socio-political

The majority of people hold the view that Islam is one of the world's major religions, but they know hardly anything about it. Since September 11 it has received a lot of media attention, and is portrayed as a peace-loving, peace-preaching religion. That may be true of many Muslims, but is it true of the ideology and doctrines of Islam itself?

Indeed, Islam is a religion but it would be most misleading to stop at that. The heart of Islamic teaching is that religion is not just a part of life, but life is a tiny part of religion. Thus everything in life is dominated by this religion. As such, Islam is a system. It is a socio-political, socio-religious, socio-economical, educational, legislative, judicial, and militaristic system garbed in religious terminology.

The Qur'an teaches that Muhammad was sent not only to all mankind but to the demonic world too, many of whom have submitted and become Muslims according to Sura 72 of the Qur'an.

His mission was universal, and with the declaration that 'the religion before Allah is Islam' (Sura 3.19), it was his mission not only to preach, but to change the existing society into an Islamic society governed by the revealed laws of Allah, ‘the Shari'ah’, and also by his personal example, known in Islam as Sunnah (sometimes spelt Sunna).

Leaders agree

As such, Islam grants radical Muslims a mandate. It is a mandate to change the existing society into an Islamic society. This isn't about building a few mosques for the needs of Muslim congregations, or schools, or a few cultural centres. It is to make Islam supreme, and thus dominate every aspect of society. This is not only the desire of fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden, but, from their teaching, preaching and publications, would seem to be the desire of a large number of Muslims all over the world.

One such document, authored by Khurram Murad as far as back as 1980, was entitled The Islamic Movement in the West. The late Khurram Murad was then the head of the Islamic Foundation with branches around the world. He outlined his Islamic revolution and the blueprint of how to bring it about in the West.

On page three of his document he posed the question: ‘What is an Islamic movement?’ He goes on to answer: ‘An Islamic movement is an organised struggle to change the existing society into an Islamic society based on the Qur'an and the Sunna, and make Islam, which is a code for en-tire life, supreme and dominant, especially in the socio-political spheres.’

Further he says: ‘The idea of the Islamic movement is inherent in the very nature of Islam.’ The chilling fact is made clearer by saying: ‘It is not necessary to give any arguments about this here but innumerable Qur'anic verses amply bear it out, like those laying down the concepts and objectives of Jihad.’

You can find some of the Qur'anic verses that Murad quotes: Sura 9.19-21, 40; Sura 48.28; Sura 2.216 says: ‘Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it, but it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not.’

Dominance

As distinct from other forms of Islamic activities, in an Islamic movement, the emphasis is clearly on the four elements:

  1. of total change,
  2. the supremacy of Islam,
  3. the socio-political aspects,
  4. and the organised struggle.

The Islamic Foundation and similar Islamic institutions are not just concerned about their community needs, for that very matter is addressed on page 9 of Murad's document. He states: ‘But it would be equally tragic if the tall and noble claims to the objective of a world-wide Islamic revolution and the ushering in of a new era are reduced to mere fulfilment of religious and educational needs. After all, these needs have always been catered for in varying degrees and by various people. There was no need to launch an Islamic movement for merely meeting community needs.’

‘I have no hesitation in suggesting that, despite its seeming unattainability, the movement in the West should reaffirm and re-emphasise the concept of total change and supremacy of Islam in the Western society as its ultimate objective and allocate to it the highest priority.’

His writing goes on to deliberate on a range of issues from terminology to Islamic missions and strategy.

Under strategy he considers various kinds of literature: from special literature for non-Muslims to literature for the elite in the West, like journalists, politicians, academics and writers whose opinions usually have an important impact.

He continues to talk about the various forms of organisations, internal structures, recruiting various kinds of people for the movement such as immigrant youth and foreign students.

What is interesting is the points he lists under ‘Other Objectives: Worldwide Islamic Movement’:

As a part of the same ultimate objective of an Islamic movement, that is, to change the society into an Islamic mould and make Islam supreme, we need to pursue three more objectives at three different levels of operation, which relate to the world-wide Islamic movement:

  1. Support and reinforcement of the ‘home’ movement.
  2. Growth of an international Islamic movement.
  3. Support of the movements in all other countries, specially Muslim.

The Muslim Parliament

Further to this The Muslim Manifesto, dated June 15 1990, was published by the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, then the head of the Muslim Institute, now the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain.

On page 16 paragraph 7 it states: ‘Jihad is a basic requirement of Islam and living in Britain or having British nationality by birth or naturalisation does not absolve the Muslim from his or her duty to participate in Jihad: this participation can be active service in armed struggle abroad and/or the provision of material and moral support to those engaged in such struggle anywhere in the world.’ Of course, this includes Britain.

According to Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations): ‘Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth’ (Report in the San Ramon Valley Herald of a speech to California Muslims in July 1998; quoted by Daniel Pipes in CAIR: Moderate Friends of Terror, New York Post, April 22, 2002)

The issue of the supremacy of Islam leads us back to the basics of the Islamic worldview, that is by seeing the world either as Dar al-Islam - the abode of Islam, or Dar al-Harb - the abode of war. All those countries and societies not dominated by Islamic supremacy are the abode of war and thus Jihad is justified.

Two kinds of obligations

To understand Jihad in its simplest form one must go back to the issue of obligation or ‘Fard’ in Islamic teachings. There are two kinds of obligations: Fard al-‘Ayn and Fard al-Kifaya.

Fard al-‘Ayn is obligatory on all (except those who are exempt), such as prayer, fasting, Zakat (or almsgiving).

However, Fard al-Kifaya is an obligation by consensus to those who volunteer and join a particular mission force to carry out their Islamic duties.

In that sense the rest of the Muslims can claim that Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood, while the radicals who have volunteered under the same system would be the only ones who are branded as anti-Islamic. Therefore the issue of Fard al-Kifaya - obligation by consensus - means that Richard Reid was not alone, as the authorities are discovering. He and others like him belong to a network, both in this country and the world at large.

As for Richard Reid and his lies, this too needs a bit of understanding, because deception is legitimatised in Islam, both in the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

There goes a saying of the prophet of Islam that ‘to lie is one of the major sins and Allah will hold you accountable, with the exception of these three’ (in other words, in these three situations you can lie as much as you need to and Allah will not even blink): ‘(1) with your women; (2) in espionage jihad when you are a minority; and (3) in maintaining peace.’ Thus the end justifies the means. (References)

Interestingly enough, there are all sorts of fatwas issued by the Islamic hierarchy. They have condemned people to death for the most trivial things, some even just for expressing their personal opinion, such as Abu Zaid, and Dr. Nawal A’Sadawi, the famous Egyptian author and champion of women's rights in the Islamic world.

Yet we have not had, as far as I know, a single Muslim authority anywhere issuing a fatwa declaring the 19 terrorists of September 11 (or the subsequent ones) to be Kafirs or apostates. It is time that it was done to prove that they are different from the so-called terrorists. Otherwise it seems they are all one and the same, but just under a different disguise.

Conclusion

For an open and free society like ours which is based on Judaeo-Christian principles and values of democracy, such threats must be taken very seriously.

The broad distinction between radical fundamentalists and peaceable law-abiding Muslims is valid, but it must not be allowed to cripple the effort that is needed to preserve our society, and our Judaeo-Christian heritage.

We must be vigilant, pursue the arrest and prosecution of those who support or preach violence. We must make every effort to see that Islam is not given any special status that differs from the status given to other minority religious or ethnic groups, and by all means not at the expense of the Christian gospel.

by gehrig
Monday Jul 12th, 2004 7:33 PM
To blame Islam for its own extremists is as nonsensical as blaming all Californians for the acts of Ronald Reagan.

@%<
by suspicious
Monday Jul 12th, 2004 9:11 PM
Some of you people like to think you're lofty and above all that, but you had better wake up.
by Rhonda
Thursday Jul 15th, 2004 3:42 PM
How did Bush get introduced into this topic on Bardot's book? Numbskull!!!
by Lauren
Saturday Sep 11th, 2004 10:04 PM
Islam is a religion of submission to a God not at all bothered by wholesale bloodshed. Women are completely without basic rights, there is no freedom of speech and they have expressly stated their plans to consume the Western World. It is odd that so many left-wingers (of which I consider myself a part) are so critical of "Western Imperialism" and ceaselessly point out the horrors of Capitalism for its exploitative and racist nature. I am puzzled that they sympathise with this group of frankly insane people. After all, Islam is not exactly woman or gay friendly! The Islamic community cheered in the streets of the Middle-East as bodies were reduced to ashes by the thousands in New York; they continue to explode themselves in crowded areas of Israel; and most recently participated in the horrors in Russia where they targeted a school full of children. They are desperate for a Holy War...then let's give it to them! All of the countries of the world who value individual freedom and liberty should band together and cut them off economically; close the Mosques and Islamic Centres, and send Special Op's to take out the terrorist cells throughout the world. If they can't play nice we should send them home to Allah.
by zara
Wednesday Sep 29th, 2004 4:23 AM
Whilst trying to destroy Islam through this instrument of the media, the Jews clearly try to portray an image of themselves as being the oppressed people. Every year, we are reminded as to how many Jews perished under the Nazis in World War II. We are made to feel sorry for these same people who have gone on to commit so many crimes upon the Palestinian people.

Some may say that this is a racist and biased viewpoint. But we say; If this media was not run and orchestrated by the Jews and was truly neutral, then why are Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two former Israeli prime ministers, not held aloft as being terrorists? Anyone who knows about the history of the Palestinian occupation will tell you that these two men were members of the Stern Gang and Irgun, two notorious Jewish terror groups who killed many innocent people. If this media was truly impartial, then why does it not tell about the extent of the Israeli bombardment and illegal occupation of Southern Lebanon and its people? And if this media really had nothing against the religion of Allah, then why does it not inform the people that every day hundreds are entering the religion of Islam? Such things will never be highlighted in the Western media, simply because to do so would be against their very interests.
by Indybay: haven for racists
Wednesday Sep 29th, 2004 12:35 PM
No wonder so many people shun Indymedia.
by PiratePrentice
Wednesday Sep 29th, 2004 12:59 PM
Why not reprint "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" here while you're at it. Propaganda to inspire fear and loathing on both sides.

by Victor Cruz
(victorcruz [at] aol.com) Saturday Mar 19th, 2005 8:19 AM
We will nuke Mecca. You started it. Now the only way
to dispell the images of your foul religion destroying the
WTC is turn your your precious city into a smoking hole
in the ground. This will happen. God will send one of our
Christian bomber pilots or submarine captians against your
foul religion of hate. You wouldn't leave us alone even though
we made you rich with oil money when you didn't have the
intelligence to get it out of the ground. All you ever did is
screw your camels and each other and make your women
go around in tents with a heater grill on the front. Afraid?
Good. Just one more mass attack on us and the majority'
of Americans will favor putting you all in camps where you
belong. This until your wotthless butts are sent to some
Muslim porgressive democracy. Oh yes there isn't one
on the face of the earth. Oh well then you can all go live
in your own fetid countries. You can't fool us forever.
So buy a lot of good hiking shoes cause your hadj is going
to involve a lot of hiking around that nuked hole in the ground.

Long live the Crusaders
by Victor Cruz
(victorcruz [at] aol.com) Saturday Mar 19th, 2005 8:22 AM
We will nuke Mecca. You started it. Now the only way
to dispell the images of your foul religion destroying the
WTC is turn your your precious city into a smoking hole
in the ground. This will happen. God will send one of our
Christian bomber pilots or submarine captians against your
foul religion of hate. You wouldn't leave us alone even though
we made you rich with oil money when you didn't have the
intelligence to get it out of the ground. All you ever did is
screw your camels and each other and make your women
go around in tents with a heater grill on the front. Afraid?
Good. Just one more mass attack on us and the majority'
of Americans will favor putting you all in camps where you
belong. This until your wotthless butts are sent to some
Muslim porgressive democracy. Oh yes there isn't one
on the face of the earth. Oh well then you can all go live
in your own fetid countries. You can't fool us forever.
So buy a lot of good hiking shoes cause your hadj is going
to involve a lot of hiking around that nuked hole in the ground.

Long live the Crusaders
by Beer
Thursday May 12th, 2005 1:13 AM
Nice bit of anti-Islamist racism to lighten things up at the end of the day. So many experts on here, so many facts! Wow, I'm impressed. What would we do without the knowledge spewing from all these intellectuals? I bet many of you (e.g. the Crusader above) see yourself as God-fearing, Jesus-loving Christians too. As someone who has studied the Bible, I hate to bust your bubble, but I doubt you're on Jesus's buddy list.
by Critical Thinker
Thursday May 12th, 2005 9:53 AM
Note the antisemitic texts on this thread like the one by "zara". Did it pass your muster?

by Sefarad
Thursday May 12th, 2005 10:00 AM

He was eager to critisize the Jews. Because what do the Jews have to do with the topic?

And besides critisizing the terrorists who committed the S-11 massacre is wrong.
by Sefarad
Thursday May 12th, 2005 11:25 AM
"And, like Rwanda, the international community ignores it. Perhaps Ms. Bardot has a solution for that "terrorism", or is it only "terrorism" when allegedly an Arab is involved?"

And we don't have to forget the massacres in Sudan and Algeria.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 139.50 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network