Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term coined by Daniel Pipes to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Muslims must be considered potential terrorists.
Examples include:
- John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, the so-called Washington snipers. John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim convert, but some people allege that his motivations may not have been religious.
- Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian school teacher who engaged in a shooting rampage on top of the Empire State Building. He killed one and wounded six before taking his own life.
- Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an American Muslim born in Tehran who ran over students at the University of North Carolina to punish the United States. Taheri-azar was the first terrorist to be explicitly called an example of Sudden Jihad Syndrome by Daniel Pipes.
- Mujtaba Rabbani Jabbar who shot up a movie theater in Baltimore.
- Rashid Baz, a Lebanese can driver living in New York City who shot at a van full of Orthodox Jews. In a burst of political correctness, the FBI initially refused to label this act a terrorist act.
- Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian Muslim, opened fire in a Salt Lake City mall, killing five poeple before being shot dead by police.
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.
63 comments
"In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article."
Hmm, probably because Sudden Jihad Syndrome is made-up bullshit.
Is it moose-limb hate week already?
Well, at least they're not yammering on about gay mar... Oh, wait. Yes they are.
I swear, Western fundies can only think of three things:
1. Evilution
2. The Gay Agenda®
3. Obama is a Socialist / Muslim / Grey / Grey Muslim / Grey Socialist Muslim
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.
Purely coincidentally, I am sure, Conservapedia has no page for Jerusalem Syndrome, whereas Wikipedia has a well established one with references, which is strange considering the average Conservapedia user is at greater than average risk of falling victim to it.
Sudden Crusade Syndrome is a term coined by Me to describe Christians that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against any society and engage in acts of terror. I argue that due to this phenomenon all Christians must be considered potential terrorists.
Anyone want to bet that Conservapedia would shit it's pants rather than paint with such a broad brush when it's CHRISTIANS that are being fucking painted?
The irony of this shit is amazing.
What you don't realize cocksmoke, is that pretty much anyone can edit wikipedia...as long as the info is accurate.
On the other hand...if someone tries to edit your website with accurate information. Well, I don't have to explain to my fstdt buddies cause I'm sure they know.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Mass killers who are not Muslims:
Seung-Hui Cho
Jared Lee Loughner
Eric Harris
Dylan Klebold
Omar Thornton
Jason Rodriguez
Luke Helder
Shall I go on? Actually, I will. Here's a list of school shootings. It's actually a lot longer than I expected. How many of those were committed by Muslims? I mean, if you really want to get down to it, you need to start looking out for young, white, Christian males.
Better add to that list Timothy McVeigh and Scott Roeder, then.
Weren't their motives right-wing Fundamental ist Christian dogma in nature, Andy Schaftafly?
PROTIP: My physician - who is a Sufi Muslim - says that the Quran's definition of 'Jihad' has been twisted by certain clerics (especially the hyper-Islamic Wahhabis) to mean what they want. 'Jihad' actually refers to the inner struggle of an individual Muslim, between that which is unIslamic, and how a follower of Allah should conduct himself at all times, especially to those of other faiths - or even none . To always do what is good .
I'm no Islamic scholar, yet even I know that, Andy Schaftafly.
To echo everyone else, what about the Christian vio...
Oh, right, they weren't real Christians, were they?
Consulting Wikipedia's deletion log (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome ), I find the following extracts:
"The result was delete ."
"Neogolism that seems to be not all that verifiable, and one guy's WP:OR."
(WP:OR = original research, meaning something that somebody made up that is not reported in reliable external sources and not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia)
"There is no supporting evidence that anyone else has picked up the concept and acknowledged or critiqued it (other than in distinctly non-reliable source blogs)"
"Delete - appears to violate a significant number of Wikipedia policies (as per above comments). In response to KAOSKTRL's comment, your comment seems to indicate that the topic is currently non-notable and non-verifiable. If it becomes notable and verifiable in the future, the article can be re-created at that time."
The only user to contest the deletion was KOASKTRL, the single-purpose account who created the page. So, for Conservapedia, apparently "bias in Wikipedia" means "we couldn't find anyone else who thought this idea was notable".
Seung-hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Jared Loughner, Zheng Minshang, the Unabomber, the members of Aum Shinrikyo, Marc Lépine, everyone who killed civilians during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Baruch Goldstein, and others like them were Muslim?
Good to know. I was pretty sure Aum Shinrikyo was a non-Islamic cult, and that both sides in the Troubles were Christian. Goldstein was definitely not Muslim, he specially targeted Palestinian Muslims.
Yep. Totally Muslim.
"Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Muslims must be considered potential terrorists."
And who the hell is this Pipes character to argue such a thing?
"In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article."
Probably because it's made up, unsubstantiated, undocumented and unadulterated bullshit of quality that should only be found on Conservapedia.
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.
That's because Wikipedia at least tries to be unbiased and factual, and this "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" is pure, industrial strength, bullshit.
EDIT: Devil's Chaplain beat me to it. Have to remember to read all posts before commenting. Dang!
-Berny
"In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article."
Because wikipedia doesn't allow for "original research", you fucktards. To say nothing of their policy on allowing retarded "Muslim terrorists, ergo all Muslim are terrorists!" screeds from bigoted morons.
And if this isn't "original research", than it isn't notable at all and wouldn't warrant an article. Case in point: the top 10 results for a google search on it are the Daniel Pipes article cited and the conservapedia article, as well as a few right-wing bloggers and an Urban Dictionary article. There was one Washington post article on it. The most pathetic part: Daniel absolutely gushed over the mention of his new term by the WaPo article, Conservapedia, and Urban Dictionary, suggesting that they are, in fact, the prime indicators of its minor popularity: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/01/sudden-jihad-syndrome-its-now-official .
Conservapedia: Supporting an alternate reality in which unnoteworthy and/or unsupported ideas are rejected due to "bias" since 2006.
What about Sudden Crusade Syndrome? Wherein Christians suddenly (rather redundant that) decide to engage in acts of terror. Same thing, different spin. I'd like to name some off, but they'll be covered by people smarter then me.
"In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article."
Maybe because it's batshit insane ramblings?
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.
I know what you mean. I once wrote an article about how Jesus was gay and both Wikipedia AND Conservapedia refused to publish it. Such bias.
What about all the Christian extremist terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Scott Roeder & the like?
And John Mohammed killed all those people because it was part of his plan to kill his ex-wife and make it look like it was the work of a serial killer sniper.
Sudden bullshit syndrome is a term coined by that person a few posts up on the first page to describe dumbfucks that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized Internet society and shit nonsensical statements onto the internet to justify their bigotry. Some other guy in this thread argued that, due to this phenomenon, all dumbfucks must be considered potential carriers.
Examples include:
-Daniel Pipes, some fuckpipe who started vomiting some 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' shit from his mouth and acting like it has some validity.
-Fuck it, anyone even remotely connected to Conservapedia who's not a troll.
That's because only some of these were religiously-motivated, so "sudden jihad syndrome", it could be argued, does not exist. It could be seen as stigmatising Muslims to suggest that they're at any moment liable to go on a killing spree, you see. Plenty of Christians go on killing sprees too.
I wonder how many Buddhists go on killing sprees. Maybe its the Abrahamic religions, as so often, that are the problem.
@Horsefeathers: To answer your question, Daniel Pipes is an old-school professional Islamophobe with a veneer of academic credibility. (Though if Wikipedia rejects your research, it's a pretty thin veneer.) The Slate article is a good start, but the guy is pretty horrible. Of course Conservapedia listens to him.
OH AND ALSO: he founded Campus Watch. I was going to put that in but I wasn't actually sure if it was him or David Horowitz. Campus Watch is basically a site that insults liberal professors, but nobody takes it seriously. Except maybe Conservapedia.
> #1295939
> Mudak
> It's on Urban Dictionary. Isn't that enough?
No! Conservapedia already got boundlessly confused when they tried to explain why Theory of Relativity is bad... because they thought it had something to do with Relativism.
Likewise, if you tell them something can be found in "Urban Dictionary", Andy Schlafly's poor confused brain parses that as "Turban Dictionary" and he will immediately ban your Muslim-supporting ass.
Such is the gift of fundamentalism.
The funny thing is that a user on the article's talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome ) proposed that this should be deleted for being a blatantly racist article...and was promptly banned for "liberal bias". If you try to use logic there at Conservapedia, you're banned for being a liberal, but if you're as extreme as the admin, you're banned for being a "parody". Fundie catch-22, anyone?
You know why? Because it's not real.
Jerusalem Syndrome causes Christians to turn schizo. Does that mean all Christians are potentially undiagnosed schizophrenics?
Also, are they saying that Indonesia's not civilized? Because the citizens of Kuala Lumpur would like to have a word with them.
For every Sudden-Jihadist, there is a spree killing, federal building destroying, abortion clinic bombing Christianist. Yes.
{In another example of bias in Wikipedia }
image
image
Oh geez, I mean c-mon, what did ja- I mean really. What happened?
"In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.
"
Conservapedia: Accepting Wikipedia Rejects*
*As long as they're conservatives.
Funny, since having his edits rejected by Wikipedia is how Andy started his abomination.
Look, Andy, if you can get enough other loonies to believe in it with you, then Wikipedia will give you your article.
It will probably involve about as much conviction as the article on Drapetomania, but hey. If it exists in enough minds, it will be a 'thing,' though a made-up one. Just try harder.
(Will "whipping the devil out" of Muslims produce the same salutary preemptive results as Cartwright alleged it would on slaves looking to run away?)
Can we bring up Sudden Crusade Syndrome, then? After all, Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, Jeffrey Dahmer, and a bunch of already-named killers were Christians. It means nothing.
@ the debate on the location of Kuala Lumpur.
Let's go with Jakarta then. Okay?
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.
Probably for the same reason they don't let scientologists recruit using Wikipedia.
"Conservapedia"
What a fucking joke.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.