« Double Trouble | Main | Bonfire of the Vanities #124 - Reminder »

For Queen And Country?

Elizabeth II, Queen of England, is pretty much a figurehead, as well as practically a model of a matriarch of a dysfunctional family. She's titularly the Head of State of the United Kingdom, as well as head of the Church of England, but her actual powers are extremely limited.

In fact, I've found the queen a wonderful barometer for just how loony some people are. Some peg her as a part of (or the head of) some vast conspiracies. Lyndon LaRouche tagged her as an "international drug smuggler."

And now Al Qaeda is announcing that she is "one of the severest enemies of Islam," and targeted her for assassination.

Now, I can see two possible explanations. The first is that Al Qaeda is simply that stupid that they think the Queen actually has some power in the world, and is actually involved in the day-to-day operations of the British government and the Anglican church.

The other is that they are simply looking for some publicity and attention, especially in light of their disastrous attacks in Jordan, which has a lot of the rank and file Muslims getting fed up with them, as they realize that Al Qaeda is now killing a hell of a lot more Muslims than us "infidels."

Regardless, it gives me another chance to take my favorite actions against the Islamists -- I get to laugh at them.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference For Queen And Country?:

» Isaac Schrödinger linked with When the Music Stops

» Stop The ACLU linked with Anti-Christian Rampage by 2,000 Muslims

» Independent Sources linked with Al-Qaeda Now Targeting 79-Year Old Grandmothers

» Kerfuffles linked with Mohammed’s Granddaughter

Comments (23)

Or perhaps they just want C... (Below threshold)
Russ:

Or perhaps they just want Charles on the throne, seeing as he's apparently receptive to pro-islam/anti-Israel ideas.

Oddly enough, having seen reports of some of the things he's said and done, I sometimes kind of wonder if he isn't a closet convert.

Which, that'd really screw up the C of E.

First, if AQ actually succe... (Below threshold)
Captain Ned:

First, if AQ actually succeeded in an act of regicide, I believe that even the average UK citizen would be sporting for a fight. Second, I've got to believe that Good Queen Bess the Deuce has somehow contrived to keep Crazy Chuck off the throne. After all, any man who has suffered the indignity of a recorded telephone conversation in which he wishes he was his mistress' tampon is hardly fit for the throne of Stonewall, let alone England.

Since this was a video foun... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Since this was a video found out during the 7/7 train bombings, I'd have to say this is more likely the Western Press trying to take attention off of Al Qaeda's backfiring attack in Jordan.

al-Zarahiri COULD be syphyl... (Below threshold)

al-Zarahiri COULD be syphylitic or coming into Alzheimer's too.

That would be nice.

What makes it even funnier ... (Below threshold)

What makes it even funnier is that the assassination of this powerless figurehead monarch is probably the one and only thing the Islamists could do that would turn Britain firmly and irrevocably against Islam -- to the extent of a clean sweep of all Muslims from the Sceptered Isle.

Not that I'd hope for such a thing, mind you, but Her Majesty could hardly give her life to a better cause.

Well, the Queen did bring C... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Well, the Queen did bring Chuck into the world, but I think she's takenenough heat over that one. Beyond some SNL jokes she's pretty useless for the averagew world citizen.

How much of a threat could ... (Below threshold)

How much of a threat could she be? She hasn't even figured out how to wave at people correctly yet, I seriously doubt that she represents much more of a danger to anyone than the French do, and that's not much.

This is just a demonstratio... (Below threshold)
epador:

This is just a demonstration that the large number of radical islamists really do want to destroy the West and remake it in their image. Makes you wonder about all the prominent Western folks who have sold out to work for anti Jewrzeera. Are they Quislings?

We're going to hunt them do... (Below threshold)

We're going to hunt them down one at a time, that it doesn't matter where they hide, as we work with our friends we will find them and bring them to justice.

(Editor's note: posted by a Resolutely Cluess Moron from Ontario, Canada)

Woah! Way to Win Friends an... (Below threshold)
JBrickley:

Woah! Way to Win Friends and Influence People! Not smart to issue a death threat against the Queen of England. That will piss off even brits who dislike the Queen! Also not smart to attack an Islamic wedding in Jordan, killing mostly muslims. Also not smart to claim the king of Jordan is a British lap dog even if he is half British (mother was from England).

What's next? Will AQ kidnap Michael Jackson and behead him? Speaking of which... ole' MJ walked into a ladies restroom in Egypt wearing a woman's Hajib and a woman screamed then snapped pictures with her cell phone. Later, there was a ruckus as the police tried to confiscate the phone while she demanded compensation.

Actually most of us over he... (Below threshold)

Actually most of us over here are hoping that she lives to be 102 like Mummy and keeps wimpy Charlie Big Ears OFF the throne....God Save The Queen!

Jay - I am so longer able t... (Below threshold)

Jay - I am so longer able to trackback to Wizbang. I tried again with "Mohammed's Granddaughter" and no joy.

Queen Elizabeth II descends from the Muslims who created the Arab Andalusian civilization of Spain. The British royals have five lines of descent dircetly from the Prophet Mohammed.

Sorry - It was my fault. I ... (Below threshold)

Sorry - It was my fault. I used the TB link from the "paw print" image. Sorry. Now I've got it. ~~Neddy

Practically everyone with E... (Below threshold)
Botec:

Practically everyone with European ancestry is a descendant of Mohammed. It's only through royal lines that a specific connection can be proved, but 60% of Americans have ancestors - usually among the early Massachusetts settlers - who can be linked to European royal lines, which will eventually take you to a Spanish king who married a Moorish princess. If you want to call yourself a Son of the Prophet, go right ahead. It's of course mathematically certain, unless your ancestry is 100% from a geographically isolated population (Inuit, perhaps?), that anyone you care to name who lived 30 generations or more ago and left descendants is your ancestor - whether that's King Alfonso VI of Castile, or King Malcolm of Scotland, or Edgar the swineherd of Muckford.

Quote by Jay Tea: "Regardle... (Below threshold)
Stephen Cole:

Quote by Jay Tea: "Regardless, it gives me another chance to take my favorite actions against the Islamists -- I get to laugh at them."

That comment demonstrates either an extreme insensitivity to the religion of Islam or severe racial and cultural prejudice on your part against one of the world's largest religions and cultures. Your credibility suffered an irrepairable blow Jay, unless you quickly issue a strong retraction. It might be time to remove the foot from the mouth. This isn't the first time you have failed to distinguish between terrorists who misguidedly and wrongfully kill in the name of Allah, and the peace loving Muslums who's only crime in your mind apparently is their religious faith. As a self proclaimed "journalist" I would think you would at least have the sensibility to refrain from laughing at Muslums publicly, and the sensitivity to realize that such comments are in no way, shape, or form productive. What did you intend to accomplish with such a comment?

Stephen Cole

Man, Stephen just doesn't k... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Man, Stephen just doesn't know how to stop being a moron, does he?

1) I don't recall EVER proclaimed myself a "journalist." I was one, briefly, a long, LONG time ago, but I in no way consider myself one now -- except, perhaps, in the most literal sense, if one considers my pieces here a "journal." Kevin dubbed me an "essayist," and that'll do until I think of something better.

2) "Muslim" and "Islamist" are NOT synonyms. "Islamist" is another term for those radical Muslims you mentioned.

3) Stephen expresses grave concerns for my "credibility." I don't recall him EVER granting me any before -- and if he did, I'd be filled with self-doubts. Oh, and Stephen? It's "irreparable."

So no, I don't feel particularly inclined to apologize. Those who feel insulted are those who self-identify with the terrorists, and quite frankly I enjoy insulting them and laughing at them. It's one of the few things I can do.

Go and grow up, Stephen.

J.

Well Jay, let me get this s... (Below threshold)
Stephen Cole:

Well Jay, let me get this straight. Your argument is that I'm a moron who needs to grow up. I thought liberals were the ones who hurled insults and names at those they are unable to logically respond to for lack of the ability to put forth a substantive argument. I guess I was wrong.

Let's disect each of your points (oh yes, please forgive any mispellings or typos - half of your sentences are grammatically incorrect, but we won't go into that).

JAY: "I don't recall EVER proclaimed myself a "journalist."
STEPHEN:(By the way, it's "proclaiming" Jay, not "proclaimed" - you want to use the present tense of the word in this context Jay, but I promised not to go into that).
WRONG. You recently (within the last several months) referred to yourself as a blogger/journalist in one of your columns - I can't locate it now - perhaps you can. In any event, your status as a journalist vs. blogger is not the main point of my posting.

JAY: "Muslim" and "Islamist" are NOT synonyms." STEPHEN: CORRECT!

JAY: "Islamist" is another term for those radical Muslims you mentioned."
STEPHEN: WRONG: Islamist refers to a person or group who are fundamentalist Muslims, usually with political ideologies based on their conservative Muslim views. They are NOT violent terrorists by definition. Some are of course, but the majority are not.

JAY: "Stephen expresses grave concerns for my "credibility."
STEPHEN: MY HUGE MISTAKE! My concerns for your credibility were misplaced. Your condescention, insults, and name calling along with your completely inaccurate statements have led me to realize you had no credibility to begin with.

JAY: "So no, I don't feel particularly inclined to apologize. Those who feel insulted are those who self-identify with the terrorists, and quite frankly I enjoy insulting them and laughing at them. It's one of the few things I can do."

STEPHEN: I have no sympathy for terrorists, nor am I offended by those who laugh at them. I do however find individuals who repeatedly blur the lines between Muslims, Islamists, and terrorists to be extremely irresponsible. They are three completely different things, a fact that is obviously lost on you Jay. So go ahead, laugh at the Islamists. In Iraq I suppose they all laugh at the fundamentalist Christians. Everyone knows that American fundamentalist Christians are violent terrorists, just as fundamentalist Muslims, called Islamists, are murderers and butchers.

You obviously simply don't give a damn about the repercussions of your words. So be it. It's your website - offend away! Make enemies of large segments of the world's population for no constructive reason. Label peaceful people as terrorists. Encourage hate and contempt between cultures. Your my hero.

Now you can hurl more of your mature insults and maybe even come up with something more original than "moron".


Fine, Stephen. We'll call m... (Below threshold)

Fine, Stephen. We'll call my grammatical error and your spelling error a wash, and move beyond third grade.

First of all, since neither of us seems inclined to grant the other any innate credibility, I'm going to repeat my challenge: when have I ever asserted that my work here at Wizbang is "journalism?" You say you remember it, but can't quite find the citation. Perhaps your dog ate it. I've made a point of never asserting any sort of credibility or authority in and of myself, instead relying on evidence to make my points. Were I to assert such a thing, it would be utterly in contrast with that position.

Secondly, I just did a Google search on "Islamist." Nearly every single citation links it to the radical, extremist faction, the kind that commits or eggs on terrorism. I'm not real fond of fundamentalists of any stripe. I've called Pat Robertson an asshole, and I think even less of those who routinely kill and mutilate the innocent.

Now, it's time to put up or shut up. You assert I called myself a "journalist," I say I haven't. As it is logically impossible to prove a negative, the burden is on YOU to cite evidence to back up your claim, or admit you were wrong.

Now, as far as the Islamist bit: Here is the Google search, and here is the Wikipedia entry. I think it is safe to say that my interpretation of "Islamist" is the most common one nowadays. If you would care to disagree, I challenge you to put forth your own rival citations, not simply attack mine.

Your turn, chum.

J.

OK chum, let's Google up!<b... (Below threshold)
Stephen Cole:

OK chum, let's Google up!
First, although Google defines a blog as "a publicly accessible personal JOURNAL", I'm going to concede that you NEVER claimed to be a journalist since obviously I'm not going to search for hours to find the reference. So let's assume I'm completely wrong on that point. That's a minor issue, and your focus on it indicates to me that either you miss the point of my original post or you are simply using this to distract attention from the real issue.

I do care to disagree, and here are my specific rival citations (as requested) that demonstrate you are out of touch with the meaning of the term Islamist and are misusing the word in the worst possible way.

Google Search: define Islamist. These are complete, unedited definitions directly from Google Jay:
1)a Muslim fundamentalist
2)A person or an organization using Islamic religious precepts to form a political ideology
3)a scholar knowledgeable in Islamic studies
4)an orthodox Muslim
5)Islamism also describes a set of political ideologies derived from the conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalism

So Jay, you laugh at (and label as terrorists):
1)Muslim fundamentalists
2)Scholars knowledgeable about Islam
3)Orthadox Muslims
4)The political ideology based on fundamentalist Islam (which is overwhelmingly non-violent).

Islamists are not defined as terrorists. That has now been established as indisputable fact using your own suggested method. Go to Google and type "define Islamist" if you think I'm a liar. You have simply demonstrated that you don't understand how to use Google. Of course simply typing in "Islamist" will bring up references to terrorism. Duh. I could type in George Bush and probably find a reference to "murderer". I guess to you that would be proof enough that Bush is indeed a murderer. You might want to make it through the second grade before you try to take on the third Jay.

The really pathetic thing here is that you just don't care. I've read your blog for about 5 months now; I'm reasonably familiar with your politics. I can assure you I'm considerably more conservative than you on most issues and I support the war in Iraq. With that said, at least I have the sense of responsibility to refrain from labeling scholars of Islam and orthadox and fundamentalist Muslums as terrorists and murderers. Pat Robertson is an asshole in my book also, but if you don't see a difference between calling someone an asshole vs. labeling literally hundreds of millions of people terrorists then you're beyond hope. Thank God your NOT a journalist - the last thing this country needs is to lend credibility to ignorant, irresponsible bloggers.

Keep up the good work.

So, Stephen, your main bone... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

So, Stephen, your main bone of contention is that I don't agree with you on what the words "journalist" and "Islamist" mean? That I don't simply accept your definitions and blithely use other, widely-accepted definitions?

Normally, I'd just shrug this off and MoveOn, but in the case of "journalist" -- YOU introduced the term, YOU baselessly accused me of calling myself one, and YOU denounced me for not living up to your definition. Essentially, you're trying to make me abide by your definitions of not only what that term is, but what I do around here -- and that ain't happening.

It's fatally flawed logic -- "this is called a 'journal,' so you are by definition a 'journalist,' and therefore must abide by a journalist's code of ethics." Never mind that you're deliberately slurring two distinct definitions of "journalist" -- "one who keeps a journal" and "reporter" -- into synonyms in your attempts to pigeonhole me, the fact is that you are trying to establish your opinions as fact, and impose them on me.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

J.

No Jay, My main bone of con... (Below threshold)
Stephen Cole:

No Jay, My main bone of contention is that you don't know the generally accepted meaning of the word Islamist, you misuse the term and you don't give a shit. The evidence has been presented to you. You chose to ignore it (or deny it).

The "jornalist issue" is a non-issue. I don't denounce you as a journalist, I denounce you as an insensitive promoter of hate and ill will towards Islamists who have nothing to do with terrorism, and a blogger devoid of ethics who could never become an objective, respected journalist because your beliefs are inflexible even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence from reputable sources. You delusionally confuse your beliefs with facts and ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs (with the exception of the rare "token" change of heart so as to create the appearance of having an open mind - no examples - I have better things to do with my time than search for one and your readers know what I'm talking about).

I've already conceded that you didn't claim to be a journalist, yet that's all you continue to harp on, which confirms my belief that you use this issue as a diversion from the real issue because you know you're wrong but aren't man enough to admit it, or at least present a realistic defense for your ignorance. You are basically calling me a liar OR asserting that the definitions given by Google of "Islamist' are incorrect.

Jay, you are an ass and an embarrassment to conservatives. I rarely resort to name calling, but I am literally in disbelief at your denial of the facts. For any readers out there who want to know the truth, go to Google and type in "define Islamist". I rest my case. Of course, Jay will deflect the issue AGAIN by bringing up the "journalist/blogger" issue. IRRELEVANT!

I suspect the reason you haven't "shrugged this off" is that you know your wrong, won't admit it, and are still grasping at straws attempting to deflect the criticism that has been leveled at you. You aren't used to being challenged by your predominantly conservative visitors, particularly those that debate with facts rather than emotionaly charged opinions.

Why don't you respond to the Google definitions I cited? You are afraid to because you will be exposed as an idiot who is incapable of understanding the fundamental differences between Muslims, Islamists, and terrorists. Unfortunately for you, most of your readers ARE capable of understanding simple definitions and have access to Google.

I rest my case now for good. Have the last word. Now that the posts for November 13 have fallen off the homepage no one will be reading this anyway. Show me definitions from reputable sources that define Islamists as terrorists and I'll issue a public appology. How's that for an offer? Considering your passion related to this issue, the only reason to turn down such an offer is that you are unable to back up your assertions with reliable facts. In the absence of specific examples from reputable sources (sorry Google let you down) this will be my last post.

OK, Stephen, I'll drop the ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

OK, Stephen, I'll drop the "journalist" bit. That's easy, because you've given me another: "conservative."

I'm no conservative. I call myself a "militant moderate." And to head off any other stereotyping, I'm also an agnostic, registered independent, squishily pro-choice, and voted for two Democrats last November out of my top four offices.

And while you might have all those sources for your definition of "Islamist," you'll note that 1) you seem to be the only one to have a problem with my usage, and 2) there are numerous sources to back up both interpretations. So why don't you just substitute "militant Islam" where you see "Islamist," and I'll not point out that your fixation on that single word is detracting from the main thrust of the piece, that there are terrorists who want to blow up an utterly powerless and useless figurehead, achieving nothing but pissing off millions of Brits and other past members of the Empire. Sound fair?

J.

I assert that I seem to be ... (Below threshold)
Stephen Cole:

I assert that I seem to be the only one with a problem with your usage because most of your readers are so far out of touch with the beliefs of one of the largest religions of the world (and one of our worst potential enemies assuming we continue to use the terms Islamist and terrorist synonomously) that they simply don't understand the ramifications of not making this important distinction. If YOU would use the term "Islamist terrorist" or "Militant Islamist" I would have not brought up the issue. I don't disagree with the original piece, but I do believe that regardless of the context in which the word "Islamist" is used, the failure to differentiate between violent and non-violent Islamists can only make it that much more difficult to achieve what we all want - a democratic Iraq and the end to hostilities between people of the Muslim faith and the Western world. Regardless of what you think the word means, what's more important is what Muslims believe the word means, and I can promise you that you are certainly making no friends amoung the non-violent fundamentalist Muslim population of the world - the very people whose help we will need in the decades long struggle ahead of us to bring peace to one of the most troubled regions of the world. I can agree to disagree, but you would be doing your readers a service if you would throw in that one extra word "militant Islamist" or "Islamic terrorist" rather than just "Islamist". Hell, your job is to bloviate anyway; I would think you'd be searching for adjectives to increase the word count of your articles. Sorry for the name calling. I'm a moron, you're an ass - I think we're now even!

Stephen




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy