Hamas gunmen hit new low ... even for them

[Darth Rotor]

I'll ask you the same question: If you use fundamentalist methods, what difference is there between you and fundamentalists?

Slippery Slope alert.

I'll ask you the same loaded question: If you use a sharp knife to cut someone's belly open, what difference is there between you and the street thug, armed with a knife, who assaults a citizen with a knife, Doctor and Internal Surgeon Larsen?

Could context, purpose and discretion be involved?

DR

 

[marksman]

I wouldn't go that far - yet.

Why not? What definition are you using to determine when Gaza reaches a state of civil war? Certainly, you have some sort of definition, as you have determined that Iraq is in such a state.

(Personally, it seems to me that both Iraq and Gaza are in states of civil war.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why not? What definition are you using to determine when Gaza reaches a state of civil war? Certainly, you have some sort of definition, as you have determined that Iraq is in such a state.

(Personally, it seems to me that both Iraq and Gaza are in states of civil war.)

If the violence is in the main criminal, I'd disagree with your Gaza assessment. If you can charachterize the violence in Gaza as predominantly political, I'd agree.

So, was this act a purely criminal act of one criminal rubbing out the members of an opposing criminal's family, or is this an act of political suasion, intended to render impotent a political rival? And, to reach the war status, are the bulk of the violent acts of that character?

Quantity has a quality of its own, and I am not sure Gaza has reached the quantitative level that Iraq has.

DR

 

[marksman]

If the violence is in the main criminal, I'd disagree with your Gaza assessment. If you can charachterize the violence in Gaza as predominantly political, I'd agree.

Well, since the entities that are duking it out appear to be political entities in charge of the country, I'd be inclined to call it political. Since there don't appear to be any criminal investigations into the incidents, I'd be even more inclined to call it political.

Unless you have information of which I am not aware.

Quantity has a quality of its own, and I am not sure Gaza has reached the quantitative level that Iraq has.

Well, first, that would have to be looked at on a per capita parsed out by some relevant interval. After all, Iraq's been in a state of disarray for longer than Gaza and has a significantly larger population. On that basis, I have no idea how rates of violence would stack up.

Second, I'm not sure that Iraq would set the minimum standard for when an entity has entered civil war.

Third, I don't think such an analysis is numbers dependent. To me, it is a political analysis: is there a recognized government in place? (Yes, in both cases). If so, are factions that seek to undermine the legitimacy of this government engaging in violence to destabilize or overthrow the government? (Yes, in both cases.) Is the government reacting to the violence (whether or not it instigated the violence) as a criminal matter? (No, in both cases, as far as I know.) These factors alone indicate to me that both Gaza and Iraq are in Civil War.

EDIT: I reserve the right to supplement these factors as the inevitable Clausian hypotheticals are thrown at me. For example, I neglected to clarify that both actors would have to be permanent residents, citizens, or agents of the state-like entity in which the conflict is occurring. That's what makes it a civil war, not a non-civil war. In my opinion, as soon as Americans stopped being an invading force and isntead labeled themselves as supporting the elected Iraqi government, the people shooting Americans in Iraq stopped being insurgents and instead became a side in the civil war.

 

[SteveGrenard]

EDIT: I reserve the right to supplement these factors as the inevitable Clausian hypotheticals are thrown at me. For example, I neglected to clarify that both actors would have to be permanent residents, citizens, or agents of the state-like entity in which the conflict is occurring. That's what makes it a civil war, not a non-civil war. In my opinion, as soon as Americans stopped being an invading force and isntead labeled themselves as supporting the elected Iraqi government, the people shooting Americans in Iraq stopped being insurgents and instead became a side in the civil war.

Don't forget an uncivil war.

 

[SteveGrenard]

More news from the scene:

December 13, 2006

GAZA CITY: Civil war was in the air last night as rival factions of the
Palestinian movement readied for a bloody confrontation following the drive-by shooting of three Palestinian children.

Friends of the family of the dead children ruled out an official mourning ceremony yesterday, a coded signal that they intend to avenge the deaths before completing the funeral.

The sons of a Palestinian intelligence chief, aged from seven to nine, were killed during the morning school run in Gaza on Monday. The brutal professional hit on the family of Colonel Baha Balousha, a Fatah intelligence chief, was unprecedented.

As Osama Balousha, 9, Ahmed, 8, and Salam, 7, were buried in a hilltop ceremony attended by Fatah gunmen, Gaza braced for reprisal attacks.

No claim of responsibilty had been made by yesterday, although intelligence officials accused Hamas of the shooting.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20919329-2703,00.html

 

[Darth Rotor]

Third, I don't think such an analysis is numbers dependent. To me, it is a political analysis: is there a recognized government in place? (Yes, in both cases). If so, are factions that seek to undermine the legitimacy of this government engaging in violence to destabilize or overthrow the government? (Yes, in both cases.) Is the government reacting to the violence (whether or not it instigated the violence) as a criminal matter? (No, in both cases, as far as I know.) These factors alone indicate to me that both Gaza and Iraq are in Civil War.

Sold.

DR

 

[Polaris]

These cases are unfortunately not uncommon.

E.g, the Beslan tragedy, where 186 children were killed.

Or, the Oklahoma City bombing, where 19 children died.

Or, the My Lai massacre, mainly on women and children.

Or, recently, the Mahmudiyah incident, where US soldiers raped a 14-year old girl, and killed her and her family.

Apparently they are uncommon, since you could only name 4 since 1968.

Also, in OKC, the children in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building were not targets, and McVeigh didn't even know they were there - he later said he was sorry they were there (not because he killed them, just because he felt they took the focus away from his 'statement' of popular war against the ZoG).

In short, I'm curious to your point in posting this list. The OP says "a new low for Hamas"...none of the cases in your list was committed by Hamas. So the OP is factually correct. Of course the definition of "low" is subjective, but machine-gunning a man's children because of something non-violent he did years ago is probably well within most people's definition of the world.

Simple question. What's your point for posting that list?

 

[CFLarsen]

What fundamentalist methods are you talking about? Surely you don't believe you have to be a fundamentalist to embrace Shari'a? Or "use" it to quote yourself.

Don't play coy, Steve. The methods you are advocating.

Assuming for a moment that you are referring to Shari'a, mistakenly attributing it exclusively to "Islamic" fundamentalism,

Meaning you haven't? You want quotes? I got quotes.

there is a huge difference: I am not promoting Shari'a, I am not conducting a Shari'a and I am certainlyopposed to it save for its imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment for pre-meditated murder.

But that is not particular to Sharia. Unless you want to argue that the US emulates Sharia.

It's the latter we are talking about here unless you feel that the pre-meditated killing of three small childrenspecifically targeted by a pro-Hamas militia is legal and is somehow not worthy of prosecution under Hamas' Islamic Law as a death penalty case. If this is the true you have waded well into the apologist camp. Not only for Islam but for Hamas now as well.I guess this answers your previous question.

It is not true. You have absolutely no reason to believe that I think it is "legal".

Can you clarify your position by answering the following:

OR may we gather now by your quote above that you are opposed to Shari'a, those who support it and Islamic fundamentalism? (Question for CFL)

Of course I am opposed to Sharia, those who support it and Islamic fundamentalism. What possessed you to think otherwise?

OR That you are also opposed to Shari'a for trying the killers of these three children? Is that what you are saying?
(2 Questions for CFL)

Again, of course I am. They should not be tried by a religious court, but a secular one.

I answered your questions. Answer mine: If you use fundamentalist methods, what difference is there between you and fundamentalists?

Do you agree that children are being targeted by other than Muslims, yes or no?

Slippery Slope alert.

I'll ask you the same loaded question: If you use a sharp knife to cut someone's belly open, what difference is there between you and the street thug, armed with a knife, who assaults a citizen with a knife, Doctor and Internal Surgeon Larsen?

Could context, purpose and discretion be involved?

DR

It isn't a slippery slope at all. If you emulate your opponent and even make a point out of it, what makes you different from him?

Context, purpose and discretion? That is rampant hypocrisy: Oh, we can do it, because our context is valid, we are allowed using means that justify our end...but we should do it so nobody notices...

Why not? What definition are you using to determine when Gaza reaches a state of civil war? Certainly, you have some sort of definition, as you have determined that Iraq is in such a state.

(Personally, it seems to me that both Iraq and Gaza are in states of civil war.)

Although Gaza certainly isn't a peaceful oasis, we haven't seen quite the number of violent incidents that we have seen in Iraq. E.g., we don't see large groups of people being abducted and summarily executed.

Apparently they are uncommon, since you could only name 4 since 1968.

Apparently, you missed the "E.g.".

Also, in OKC, the children in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building were not targets, and McVeigh didn't even know they were there - he later said he was sorry they were there (not because he killed them, just because he felt they took the focus away from his 'statement' of popular war against the ZoG).

That's a bogus argument. McVeigh wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he chose the place because he knew he would hit as hard as possible. He knew perfectly well who were there.

In short, I'm curious to your point in posting this list. The OP says "a new low for Hamas"...none of the cases in your list was committed by Hamas. So the OP is factually correct. Of course the definition of "low" is subjective, but machine-gunning a man's children because of something non-violent he did years ago is probably well within most people's definition of the world.

Simple question. What's your point for posting that list?

My point is that such acts are not confined to Hamas or Muslims.

 

[SteveGrenard]

On the question of civil war between rival Palestinian fractions:

Leaders of both Hamas and the rival Fatah group warned in recent days that the spiraling violence threatened to bring the Palestinians to civil war and the fighting Friday came a day after gunmen shot at the entourage of Haniyeh in an attack the group said was orchestrated by a powerful Fatah leader.

The following statement is emblematic of the situation. It’s tragic that Palestinians who do not crave leaving for their martydom in the immediate future have no say in the matter:

Addressing the Gaza City rally, Haniyeh said Hamas politicians would not be swayed by threats of violence. "We joined this movement to become martyrs, not ministers," he said.

Both quotes and more from The Houston Chronicle today at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4406015.html

 

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard
What fundamentalist methods are you talking about? Surely you don't believe you have to be a fundamentalist to embrace Shari'a? Or "use" it to quote yourself.

Larsen: Don't play coy, Steve. The methods you are advocating.

Reply: I asked you two questions and you answer by saying I am being coy. Is this your new word of the day? I was being perfectly serious when I said one does not have to be a fundamentalist to embrace, agree or “advocate” the punishment for premeditated murder prescribed by Shari’a. There is no sign on the door of any Shari’a court that says “Fundamentalists Only.”

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard
Assuming for a moment that you are referring to Shari'a, mistakenly attributing it exclusively to "Islamic" fundamentalism,

Larsen: Meaning you haven't? You want quotes? I got quotes.

Reply: Shari’a is embraced by fundamentalists. I also have said it is embraced by muslims of all stripes. In fact I have consistently said that all devout muslims follow koranic law and favor or support the Shari’a. You are trying now to spin it into the exclusive domain of fundamentalists.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard
there is a huge difference: I am not promoting Shari'a, I am not conducting a Shari'a and I am certainlyopposed to it save for its imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment for pre-meditated murder.

Larsen: But that is not particular to Sharia. Unless you want to argue that the US emulates Sharia.

Reply: Any state in the U.S., and any country in the world that prescribes the death penalty for pre-meditated murder is emulating Shari’a. Why would I want to deny that basic truth? What the U.S. and such other countries with secular law are not emulating is Shari’a’s prescribing the death penalty for adultery, out of wedlock childbirth, elopement, blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, being a rape victim – well you know, you’ve seen the list.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard
It's the latter we are talking about here unless you feel that the pre-meditated killing of three small childrenspecifically targeted by a pro-Hamas militia is legal and is somehow not worthy of prosecution under Hamas' Islamic Law as a death penalty case. If this is the true you have waded well into the apologist camp. Not only for Islam but for Hamas now as well.I guess this answers your previous question.

Larsen: It is not true. You have absolutely no reason to believe that I think it is "legal"

Reply: But you are arguing that suggesting a Shari’a court for the killers of these three children is inappropriate even though I provided you with evidence that after Hamas was elected they sought to establish Shari’a in Palestine.
.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard
Can you clarify your position by answering the following: OR may we gather now by your quote above that you are opposed to Shari'a, those who support it and Islamic fundamentalism? (Question for CFL)

Larsen: Of course I am opposed to Sharia, those who support it and Islamic fundamentalism. What possessed you to think otherwise?

Reply: Because you sought to propagandize the justification of killing these three children by pointing to other atrocities involving the murder of children and because you objected to the jurisdiction of a Shari’a Court where the death penalty is or should be a certainty for this crime. You are adopting the “politically correct” stance typical of most Western Europeans and Brits.

The problem is when the jihad reaches your shores you will no longer be able to afford this high and mightly stance because the very people you are defending will be executing your gays, your rape victims, your blasphemers, your apostates.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard
OR That you are also opposed to Shari'a for trying the killers of these three children? Is that what you are saying? (2 Questions for CFL)

Larsen: Again, of course I am. They should not be tried by a religious court, but a secular one.

Reply: Any why is that? Because most secular courts in Europe won’t put them to death but Shari’a will? Do you think they deserve anything less than the death penalty?

Larsen: I answered your questions. Answer mine: If you use fundamentalist methods, what difference is there between you and fundamentalists?

Reply: When it comes to the pre-meditated murder of three innocent children, not by misadventure, not by getting caught in the cross fire …..but deliberately targeted for assassination then the devout muslims who did this should be liable to the same treatment they doled out to these kids.

Larsen: Do you agree that children are being targeted by other than Muslims, yes or no?

Reply: We are not talking about other than muslims and we are not talking about muslims in general, we are talking about Hamas. Try and stay in context and on the rails. Children are
murdered every day by persons who are not muslims and persons who are not Hamas. But,
we are talking here about a deliberate assasination of three small children as a political reprisal which may end up being a factor in igniting a civil war in Palestine.

 

[CFLarsen]

Reply: I asked you two questions and you answer by saying I am being coy. Is this your new word of the day? I was being perfectly serious when I said one does not have to be a fundamentalist to embrace, agree or “advocate” the punishment for premeditated murder prescribed by Shari’a. There is no sign on the door of any Shari’a court that says “Fundamentalists Only.”

You are rambling.

Reply: Shari’a is embraced by fundamentalists. I also have said it is embraced by muslims of all stripes. In fact I have consistently said that all devout muslims follow koranic law and favor or support the Shari’a. You are trying now to spin it into the exclusive domain of fundamentalists.

Rubbish.

Reply: Any state in the U.S., and any country in the world that prescribes the death penalty for pre-meditated murder is emulating Shari’a. Why would I want to deny that basic truth? What the U.S. and such other countries with secular law are not emulating is Shari’a’s prescribing the death penalty for adultery, out of wedlock childbirth, elopement, blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, being a rape victim – well you know, you’ve seen the list.

It is ludicrous to claim that the US is emulating Sharia. If anything, the US is emulating Christianity.

Reply: But you are arguing that suggesting a Shari’a court for the killers of these three children is inappropriate even though I provided you with evidence that after Hamas was elected they sought to establish Shari’a in Palestine.

What does that have to do with me believing that it is "legal"?

Reply: Because you sought to propagandize the justification of killing these three children by pointing to other atrocities involving the murder of children and because you objected to the jurisdiction of a Shari’a Court where the death penalty is or should be a certainty for this crime. You are adopting the “politically correct” stance typical of most Western Europeans and Brits.

More rambling. Nowhere have I "sought to propagandize the justification of killing these three children". I pointed out that killing children isn't confined to Muslim fundamentalists.

The problem is when the jihad reaches your shores you will no longer be able to afford this high and mightly stance because the very people you are defending will be executing your gays, your rape victims, your blasphemers, your apostates.

When, exactly, will jihad "reach" my "shores"? How, exactly, will that happen?

Reply: Any why is that? Because most secular courts in Europe won’t put them to death but Shari’a will? Do you think they deserve anything less than the death penalty?

I don't support the death penalty.

Reply: When it comes to the pre-meditated murder of three innocent children, not by misadventure, not by getting caught in the cross fire …..but deliberately targeted for assassination then the devout muslims who did this should be liable to the same treatment they doled out to these kids.

There is no difference between you and religious fundamentalists, then.

Are the US courts who sentence people to death secular courts or religious courts?

Reply: We are not talking about other than muslims and we are not talking about muslims in general, we are talking about Hamas. Try and stay in context and on the rails. Children are
murdered every day by persons who are not muslims and persons who are not Hamas. But,
we are talking here about a deliberate assasination of three small children as a political reprisal which may end up being a factor in igniting a civil war in Palestine.

Just yes or no, Steve: Do you agree that children are being targeted by other than Muslims?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: When, exactly, will jihad "reach" my "shores"? How, exactly, will that happen?

It's been happening. How? The answer is too simple but I guess you must have a reason for asking it. It happens on different levels, mainly immigration and then reproduction of the immigrants; the immigrants and their progeny slowly but surely attain a larger and larger% of a country's indigenous population. If said immigrants and their progeny assimilate there is no problem with this. But Islam is openly opposed to assimilation. Search: islamic anti-assimilation. They don't want to become Danes or Brits or Americans, they want Danes, Brits and Americans to become them. This is the problem. They are not interested in the multi-culturalism espoused by liberal European governments and the U.S. which allows them a place in those societies in the first place. If they had a choice and when they become large enough they will kick the multiculturalists in the butt and turn their societies into islamic states. This game plan has been proven elsewhere, notably in Africa and Asia. If they get tired of waiting they resort to violence, conversion to islam at the point of a gun.

Are you pretending that the islamic jihad arriving in Denmark and elsewhere in Scandinavia is not a major concern or are you really that clueless on the subject? Are you pretending that the governments in the region, your government Larsen included, are not addressing these issues right now?

By Yonah Alexander and Erik Brattberg

From the: The Washington Times | November 20, 2006

It is only a matter of time, therefore, before Denmark, Norway and Sweden are seriously targeted by both international and homegrown terrorist networks. Admittedly, prior to September 11, this region had only faced low-level ideological and political violence. Foreign terrorists and their indigenous sympathizers and supporters have exploited the benefits of the Scandinavian open liberal democracies with their modern infrastructure offerings. These enlightened and sophisticated systems enabled substate perpetrators in the name of "higher principles" to engage in propaganda activities, secure safe-havens, raise funds, purchase weapons, provide logistical support and mount rather primitive operations against selected adversaries within the region.

This Jihadist mindset seeing Scandinavia as the next battlefield in Europe is unmistakably clear. Currently, Denmark provides some 500 troops to the stabilization efforts in Iraq and has also contributed to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, supporting the U.S.-led coalition. In 2005, a Danish publication containing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad set off severe protests against the country, especially in the Middle East, culminating with the attack against the Danish Embassy in Damascus.

Tragically, immunity protection for uninvolved third parties under international law seems no longer relevant in the post-September 11, 2001, era. Indeed, in the eyes of contemporary Jihadist terrorists, who advocate a Muslim holy war against infidels, there are no innocent communities and countries. Moreover, political and judicial distinctions between combatants and noncombatants are now obliterated by projecting brutal state and nonstate illegal force.

Yonah Alexander is professor and director at the International Center for Terrorism Studies at Potomac Institute, Arlington, Va. His latest book is "Counterterrorism Strategies: Successes and Failures of Six Nations" (Potomac Books). Erik Brattberg is a researcher on terrorism at Sweden's Uppsala University.

Reprinted at: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25573

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: More rambling. Nowhere have I "sought to propagandize the justification of killing these three children". I pointed out that killing children isn't confined to Muslim fundamentalists.

So? This thread is not about "other" cases of children being murdered. First of all you continue to spin the word funamentalist into your statements.

How do you know the killers in this case were islamic fundamentalists?

This is a question to which an answer must be demanded. I suggest you have no idea since authorities on the ground only point to an unregulated pro-Hamas militia as the perps. They don't know. Where do you derive this information from? Do you have a secret source on this?

Why couldn't the killers simply be criminals? Murderers? Thugs? Why do you shun the idea that these particular killings were performed by pro-Hamas thugs and were politically motivated, pre-meditated (well planned) reprisal killings? Is it because you, like the rest of us, would gag on the idea that three small children should be killed as a form of political reprisal? This makes these child murders unprecedented in recent history. I readily concede that children are killed: by pedophiles, by abusive parents, by hit and run drivers, by gang-bangers, by like minded lunatics, as a byproduct of of terrorist acts such as OKC, and in wars. But your implication that other established religions are targeting children for death is absurd. I am not aware of any non-muslim "targeting" of children for political reasons. If you are please feel free to share the names of these established "religions" with this forum with references of course. Only muslims have wrapped bombs around their children and sent them out to die. Only muslims have engaged in well planned, premeditated assasinations of small children for political reasons.

Show us the other established religions that do this.

Larsen: Just yes or no, Steve: Do you agree that children are being targeted by other than Muslims?

No, I do not agree children are being targeted by other than Muslims.

I assume you say "Yes." if so, please provide evidence that non-Muslim religions target children for political assasination. Thank you.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It is ludicrous to claim that the US is emulating Sharia. If anything, the US is emulating Christianity.

First of all please stop including the U.S. as a whole in this topic. As you are no doubt aware there are 50 separate states in the United States, each one with its own death penalty or non-death penalty laws. There are also Federal and US Military death penalty statutes that applies to cases which are a violation of Federal law or military law, e.g. islamic terrorist acts; airplane hijacking, treason, premeditated acts that result in the loss of life.

U.S. states which allow for the imposition of the death penalty in cases of
premeditated murder emulate Shari'a as well as the Judao-Christian bible edict of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. So what? The U.S., nor any of its jursidictions allow for the use of the death penalty against homosexuals, victims of rape, blasphemers or apostates, etc. you have seen the list. There is a huge difference overall, but not on the crime of a premeditated act of murder in some cases in the U.S.

Maybe this will help you:

United States

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=121&scid=11

Rest of the world:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

What you have a problem with is that you feel it is all or nothing. You cannot grasp the concept that there are levels of emulation in this example. You can emulate Shari'a in imposing the death penalty for one type of crime but not emulate Shari'a for doing so in another.

Claus Larsen states:

I don't support the death penalty.

Good for you. Tell that to the parents/relatives of children and other loved ones who are the victims of a premeditated act of murder. Tell that to the husbands,wives and children of
those who have died in a terrorist act. Ask them if any of the 9/11 hijackers survived alive and were proven guilty in a court of law (or reliably confessed) whether or not they should be sentenced to 10, 20 or a hundred years of three meals a day, a koran and prayer rug and a warm place to sleep or be put to death.

Ask that question of those surviving relatives of Saddem Hussein's murdered victims if they would prefer to lock him up for life or hang him?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: There is no difference between you and religious fundamentalists, then.

I was wondering when your original posing of this as a question would turn into a statement. You are entitled to your opinion. Point of fact you do not have to be a fundamentalist, you don't have to be religious and you don't have to support Shari'a in toto to support the death penalty in capital (premeditated) murder cases. Your statement and its premises are ludicrous.

Larsen: Are the US courts who sentence people to death secular courts or religious courts?

They are courts. Many have In God We Trust emblazoned on them so the answer to this question takes us back to the historical basis for secular law argument. Even the US Supreme Court has engraved images of religious figures such as Moses and Mohammad as law-givers. For all intents and purposes they are, however, secular courts but so what? There is no reason, rule, law or requirement that a secular court cannot impose a historically based biblical or religiously inspired punishment on the perpetrator of a premeditated murder.

Shari'a, however, is a pathologic anomaly borne out of a twisted form of logic when it comes to imposing the death penalty for non-murder cases such as adulterers, victims of rape, homosexuality, blaphemers, apostates, elopers, and women who give birth to children out of wedlock. These folks did not take a life so they should not be required to render up their own lives. Shari'a violates the koranic/biblical eye for an eye edict and is an abomination by virtue of its own existence. I readily concede that and I am glad you agree. Now if you could turn your attention to the shariaization of the world by devout muslims and start recognizing the threat that would be good.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's been happening. How? The answer is too simple but I guess you must have a reason for asking it. It happens on different levels, mainly immigration and then reproduction of the immigrants; the immigrants and their progeny slowly but surely attain a larger and larger% of a country's indigenous population. If said immigrants and their progeny assimilate there is no problem with this. But Islam is openly opposed to assimilation. Search: islamic anti-assimilation. They don't want to become Danes or Brits or Americans, they want Danes, Brits and Americans to become them. This is the problem. They are not interested in the multi-culturalism espoused by liberal European governments and the U.S. which allows them a place in those societies in the first place. If they had a choice and when they become large enough they will kick the multiculturalists in the butt and turn their societies into islamic states. This game plan has been proven elsewhere, notably in Africa and Asia. If they get tired of waiting they resort to violence, conversion to islam at the point of a gun.

Are you pretending that the islamic jihad arriving in Denmark and elsewhere in Scandinavia is not a major concern or are you really that clueless on the subject? Are you pretending that the governments in the region, your government Larsen included, are not addressing these issues right now?

Oh, dear. The usual ultra-right-wing xenophobic propaganda.

Let's see your data:

How many of these people are there currently in Denmark?

How fast do they reproduce?

When will they have reproduced to more than 50% of the population?

So? This thread is not about "other" cases of children being murdered. First of all you continue to spin the word funamentalist into your statements.

How do you know the killers in this case were islamic fundamentalists?

Hamas is known outside the Palestinian territories for its suicide bombings[2] and other attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military and security forces targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[3][4][5] The charter states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."[6]

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[7] Canada,[8][9] the European Union,[10] Israel,[11] Japan,[12] the United Kingdom,[13] and the United States,[14] and is banned in Jordan.[15] According to the US State Department, the group is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[14] In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members.[16]
Source

This is a question to which an answer must be demanded. I suggest you have no idea since authorities on the ground only point to an unregulated pro-Hamas militia as the perps. They don't know. Where do you derive this information from? Do you have a secret source on this?

Why couldn't the killers simply be criminals? Murderers? Thugs? Why do you shun the idea that these particular killings were performed by pro-Hamas thugs and were politically motivated, pre-meditated (well planned) reprisal killings? Is it because you, like the rest of us, would gag on the idea that three small children should be killed as a form of political reprisal? This makes these child murders unprecedented in recent history. I readily concede that children are killed: by pedophiles, by abusive parents, by hit and run drivers, by gang-bangers, by like minded lunatics, as a byproduct of of terrorist acts such as OKC, and in wars. But your implication that other established religions are targeting children for death is absurd. I am not aware of any non-muslim "targeting" of children for political reasons. If you are please feel free to share the names of these established "religions" with this forum with references of course. Only muslims have wrapped bombs around their children and sent them out to die. Only muslims have engaged in well planned, premeditated assasinations of small children for political reasons.

Show us the other established religions that do this.

You opened this thread, Steve. What did you call it? Oh, yeah:

Hamas gunmen hit new low ... even for them

No, I do not agree children are being targeted by other than Muslims.

I assume you say "Yes." if so, please provide evidence that non-Muslim religions target children for political asssination. Thank you.

Then, you are ignoring reality. Your choice.

First of all please stop including the U.S. as a whole in this topic. As you are no doubt aware there are 50 separate states in the United States, each one with its own death penalty or non-death penalty laws.

Let me remind you of your own words:

Reply: Any state in the U.S., and any country in the world that prescribes the death penalty for pre-meditated murder is emulating Shari’a. Why would I want to deny that basic truth? What the U.S. and such other countries with secular law are not emulating is Shari’a’s prescribing the death penalty for adultery, out of wedlock childbirth, elopement, blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, being a rape victim – well you know, you’ve seen the list.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You haven't given one single relevant factual answer to my points but your use of animation as a distractor won't work.

Example: Your quote on Hamas, while absolutely correct, does not use the word fundamentalist anywhere nor does it characterize Hamas as fundamentalist. I characterize them as terrorist criminals, as does your lengthy quote.

Example: You choose to say I am ignoring something rather than provide us with the names of established religions (other than Islam/muslims) that target children for assasination as a political reprisal.

Example: I provided a quote from an essay by two scholars who study terrorism and who are familiar with the situation in Scandinavia including Denmark. You sweep them under the carpet while arguing that the %s of muslims in Scandinavia are small. Their argument is that today they may be small but in the next generation they won't be. Look at what's happening in Asia and the Phillippines. Look at what's happened in Africa and is continuing to happen there especially in the greater Horn of Africa. Geez, the muslims in Detroit are talking up the creation of a Shari'a there!

 

[CFLarsen]

You haven't given one single relevant factual answer to my points but your use of animation as a distractor won't work.

Example: Your quote on Hamas, while absolutely correct, does not use the word fundamentalist anywhere nor does it characterize Hamas as fundamentalist. I characterize them as terrorist criminals, as does your lengthy quote.

Example: You choose to say I am ignoring something rather than provide us with the names of established religions (other than Islam/muslims) that target children for assasination as a political reprisal.

Example: I provided a quote from an essay by two scholars who study terrorism and who are familiar with the situation in Scandinavia including Denmark. You sweep them under the carpet while arguing that the %s of muslims in Scandinavia are small. Their argument is that today they may be small but in the next generation they won't be. Look at what's happening in Asia and the Phillippines. Look at what's happened in Africa and is continuing to happen there especially in the greater Horn of Africa. Geez, the muslims in Detroit are talking up the creation of a Shari'a there!

Let's see your data:

How many of these people are there currently in Denmark?

How fast do they reproduce?

When will they have reproduced to more than 50% of the population?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Five per cent of the population of Denmark are muslims. This may not sound like much to you but based on reproductive rates and continued immigration this can significantly increase in a decade.

Is the following true of not?

Meanwhile, there is growing fear amongst politicians that the immigrant environment in the Nørrebro area in Copenhagen, which has been unofficially declared an “Islamic state” by some of its residents, is developing into a parallel society where ancient traditions threaten Danish law. Professor of Islamic studies Mehdi Mozaffari tells of how he and thousands of others have fled burkas, sharia, blood money, muftis and Islamism in the Middle East, only to witness the same beast rear its ugly head in Europe. And he warns of the consequences: “Historical experience has shown that those whom people fear will win, eventually. We saw this in Nazi Germany. There were too many Nazis, and people were scared. I fear that this is where we are heading, once more.”

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/920

I suggest you read both the previous cite as well as this one in their entirety
before answering. The previous one:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=25573

Where you get the notion that a group has to be 50% or more of a larger group in order to be a threat is ridiculous.