To err is human.

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Mar 7, 2010 at 14:37

Lazman , I admit I read only a few comments of yours and they looked sound. But to err is human and I have no problems admitting my errors.

> If you have been reading my comments as you state then you would know that what I strongly advocate is Islam as a faith only without its inherent political influence.<

You've got very exotic views , indeed. I was unware of them. I will not say what you said about my comment , although I feel strongly tempted to do it. "Islam as a faith only without its inherent political influence" is a contradiction in terms. It is as if you wanted to have black milk. The statement runs counter to the very nature of Islam which has always been and survived thanks to the tyrannical coercive power it has exerted upon the ummah. E.g. if real or would-be apostates from Islam hadn't been killed and terrorized, Islam would have long since been relegated to its only rightful place - the dustbin of history. Or can you imagine the so called "prophet" Muhammed without his political terror , his killings, beheadings, banditry ?

Wherever you see Islam and have Moslems in large numbers you'll sooner or later see the tendency to take political power and impose their vicious ways upon all - partcularly us kafirs.( But I am not sure if I should say "us". On second thoughts you don't look like a kafir.)

> But by your statement, do you mean US should have sided with maniac Serbian leader, Radovan Karadzic?<

It was better for the US to support the great Moslem leader Izetbegovic and his Saudi and Iranian sponsors , wasn't it?

By my statement I mean the US should not support so aggressively and openly the Islamisation of Europe by creating two jiahdists states in the heart of Europe with the foreseeable effects :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO6p5Jvriew&feature=related

> and help him continue to massacre Muslims in Bosnia because they are Muslims?!<

I am sure this is exactly what moved Hitler to appear on the Balkan with the same mission the US has been implementing since 1995. Poor Moslems needed helped and they found it - in the Ottomans, in the Nazis, in the Americans. History can be forgotten by some but not by all.

You speak of Karadzic. I wonder if you have noticed what sort of a grim farce the Hague trials have become? I mean particularly the Milosevic show trial which looked more like a Moscow 1937 trial than a fair trial in a Western country.

But coming back to your point, if Islamisation of the Balkans was US hidden aim (as I believe it was) , then definitely the massacres were all the more welcome and badly needed by the US. It was the only way to justify the harsh action against Christianity by this allegedly so "devout" Christian superpower. And so the only option was to help the Moslems (supported by a big jihadist mercenary army from dar al-islam) massacre and expel the Serbs as the subsequent events showed.

You must have marked that I don't accept your implied point, namely that the creation of Islamic Bosnia and Islamic Kosovo was dictated by humanist considerations in Washington. The US simply doesn't have such a policy of humanism. Itw anted to subjugate another strategic region and did it with dirty means.

> the same psychopath who just last week was defending himself in The Hague court by claiming that the thousands of dead Muslim bodies were staged by Muslims themselves?

Now speaking of dead bodies and psychopaths , you as a stalwart pro-Islamic humanist ,as I notice, should know that the Balkan war in the 1990-ies had a very long history with the Turks and their Bosnian Albanian vassals massacring the Christians to impose the shariah upon them. Now if one conducts such a policy as a matter of principle one should expect it will backfire , shouldn't one ? The Serbs had no interest to start the war. But the Moslems and Croats did.

An interesting point is that atrocities against your Moslem darlings were committed also by the Croats , but somehow you prefer to blame the Serbs only. It is interesting as well that you omit a major problem of the Moslem jihadists, many of them former Afghan fighters - trained and having good relations with their former US sponsors. What is more, at that time Iranian planes landed in Bosnia with American permission, full of weapons despite alleged embargo on arms import. Well, the US didn't mind cooperating wih the ayatollahs at that time. The Moslems were definitely more after the devout American heart friendly than the Orthdox priests preaching the same faith the US allegedly is so devoted to.

> Do you think US should have supported this Euro-Ahmadinejad to show it is a good Christian country? <

Bluntly speaking, I think the US will betray anybody and anything any moment if it is found to somehow promote American interests. It had very good relations with the Ayatollahs during the Bosnian jihad. So will you guarnatee that they won't renew them one day ? ... Let's say after another common action to spread "the religion of peace" the expense of some kaffiri land ? ... In Bulgaria or Greece or Macedonia there are some "oppressed" Moslems waiting for liberation. Why not do a favour to the worldwide ummah and to the shi'ite clergy ?

> And even Ahmadinejad mainly has the blood of his own people in his hands.

Give him a chance and he will wash it with the blood of a foreign nation. The US has never opposed dealing with dicators and oppressors as long as US interests were promoted thereby. It supports medieval Saudi Arabia, so why not support medieval Iran for a change ?

> The only disturbing aspect of US involvement in the Bosnian conflict was that no European leader had the guts and the leadership to stop such senseless massacre in their own backyard. In fact, in my view, there has not been a truly strong European leader since Thatcher.>

Eurabia is a giant on legs of clay. It has no army and so is virtually paralyzed unless the US consents to allow it to act through US-controlled NATO troops. The problem of the Yugoslav tragedy was the US involvement in it on the jihadist (your favourite , I presume) side. Had there been no foreign pressure and intrigues the whole Yugoslav crisis would have ended just like the Chinese Crisis in 1989 - a few dead Solvens and Croats would do the wonder of peace on the Balkans. But the US strategists had a better dream. Now their dream has come true and the biggest US military base in Europe is ...guess where - [ Camp Bondsteel near Urosevac ].

> Or are you suggesting that all the European leaders at that time did not interfere in the Bosnian massacres because they are good Christians??!!<

No, what I am suggesting is that the European leaders were playing the American game of creating jihadist states to please their Moslem allies (the Saudis in the first place and Moslems worldwide after the painfu disaster in Islamic Somalia) in a future conflict with Russia and/or China. "Look, dear Moslems, we have created for you two Islamic states! How can't you love us for that! We're better than al-quaida you love so much. It has created none! Aren't we good friend sof islam? "... Even 9/11 hasn't made the mad American dreamers rational.

> There are many surveys but I'll give you one measurable example of US devotion to religion. In 2006 an international survey amongst 34 European countries plus US and Japan, US was second to the last in acceptance of evolution. The last country being Turkey, and that comparison is a whole other discussion itself. In essence, in the world's most advanced country nearly half of the people believe God created humans in the last 5-10 thousand years. Even as a personal note, many years ago a roommate of mine who was a very devout catholic and did not believe in evolution also was the top graduate student working towards a PhD in nuclear engineering at a major US university. Most Americans are able to logically and reasonably separate their religious faith from everyday politics, their careers, their social life, and education. That's what reformation in religion can help achieve.<

Whatever the surveys indicate, the common sense tells that if Saudi Arabia , and not the US, had led the Balkan polictics in the 1995-1998 , the end result wouldn't be much different - Moslem states would have emerged.

But America should get ready to reap the harvest of its madness soon. Its Afghan experiment has ended with 9/11. It will be repeated here with a Bosnian or Albanian Bin Laden, I am afraid. Something of what is coming in terms of anti-American terror originating on the Islamic Balkan has already become visible.

http://serbianna.com/news/?p=2718

> Like I said even here before that there are Islamists who yearn for verses from Koran and I guess some Christian fanatics who yearn for the crusades.<

One big diffrence is that for criticizing the latter, your head remains where it is and you may have an interesting discussion, while for doing the same to the other, your is quickly seperated from the rest of your body. I find it to be a tremendous difference - teh difference between civilization and barbarity! But you may think otehrwise, I agree. Another difference is that if you support Christian states, what you call "Christian fanatics" will not pay you back with terror and bombs as Moslems do to their American "liberators". This is my answer to what I'd rather call separation of common sense and politics that is such a prominent feature of recent US policy.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".