'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, January 27, 2007

The Silence Is Eery, If You Ask Me

I've been wondering why the media hasn't been covering the "Undercover Mosque" Report from Channel 4's Dispatches program. I'm guessing I'm not the only person who's been wondering about that.

It seems to me this story ought to be at least as big as the Danish Cartoon story. For God's sake, a Mosque hailed by the highest authorities of British Islam, as the height of moderation turns out to be an extremist cesspool where Imams regularly call for death to the Infidel and the Jew, and we're ignoring it?

Well, at least this guy isn't. From the Daily Mail in Britain (Thanks to Religion of Pieces):

You may be wondering why the Channel 4 Dispatches expose of extremism inside some of Britain's leading mosques - which I wrote about last week - hasn't had wider coverage or resulted in any arrests.

A number of mad mullahs were filmed over a period of four months preaching hatred against 'kuffaars' (unbelievers) and calling for 'jihad' (holy war).

The reason may be because of a campaign by 'moderate' Muslim organisations to discredit the programme and close down all debate.

On January 7, a week before transmission, Shouaib Ahmed, Secretary General of the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith organisation, wrote to the producer, Andrew Smith, in menacing terms: "I must remind you that if I or any member of my staff or anyone who worships at the Green Lane Mosque or the Mosque itself are subjected to any form of physical attack as a result of your programme then you will all be liable to prosecution for incitement to commit a criminal act."

So no intimidation there, then. The next day, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies called on its website for a protest in these terms: "We must unite in order to defend ourselves from this onslaught, any debate regarding Islam, should be had by the Muslim community and not by those who seek to divide the Muslims..."

On January 10, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee urged supporters to contact Channel 4.
"A documentary like this could have damaging effects on community relations and cohesion.
"There is fear of potential backlash and attacks on Mosques with heightened Islamophobia."

The same day, the UK Islamic Mission called the programme 'highly reprehensible'.

And on January 12, the MCB itself accused Dispatches of attempting to 'forment (sic) divisions' among Muslims.

None of them, remember, had seen the documentary.

(Pastorius note: No, but we can presume they knew what would be in it, because they have friends who go to that Mosque, if they don't go to it themselves.)

Channel 4 is to be commended for not bowing to this outrageous pressure.

Shouaib Ahmed even defended the use of the word 'kuffaar'.

"This is a neutral term which is used to describe someone who rejects Allah."

Or, in the case of some of the preachers caught on camera, someone who is 'filthy' and should be killed.

Dispatches is not guilty of fomenting division or stirring up 'Islamophobia' - a catch-all smear.
It was a brave and valuable piece of journalism, which 'moderate' Muslims didn't want anyone to see.

I couldn't helping thinking of that placard during the Danish cartoons demo, which read: "Freedom: Go To Hell."

Islamic leaders claim to deplore the hate-mongers, but whenever someone produces evidence of the bloodthirsty maniacs within, they pretend absurdly that it is an attack on all Muslims - which it isn't.

But you can't deny the effectiveness of the 'moderate' Muslim lobby. No mention of the show in Left-wing papers - or even on Channel 4 News. Not a squeak from any of our elected representatives about the preachers of hate.

No sign of any serious police investigation, either.

Our pusillanimous politicians, police chiefs and our 'liberal' media should be ashamed of their cowardice.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 19 Comments

It's not just "Iraq" and it's not current events ...

Amid the semi gleeful reports of carnage from Baghdad .........evidence of the real nature of the beast ..

Bombing in Pakistan Kills 10

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) -- A suspected suicide attacker exploded a bomb near a Shiite Muslim mosque in this northwestern Pakistani city late Saturday, killing at least 11 people, including the city police chief, and wounding 35, police said.

Most of the victims were police and municipal officials who were clearing the route for a procession of Shiites in a crowded old quarter of Peshawar, said police officer Aziz Khan. The procession had yet to begin.

This weekend marks the start of the festival of Ashoura, when Shiites mourn the 7th century death of the prophet Muhammad's grandson, Imam Hussein. In the past the festival has been a target for sectarian attacks.

The blast went off in a bazaar area about 200 yards from the mosque that was the starting point for the Shiite procession. It caused a power outage that left the city center in darkness, complicating rescue efforts.

At the bomb site, investigators found what appeared to be two legs from a suicide attacker, police officer Raza Khan said.

This THING is far bigger than the invented nation of Iraq.
This THING has been going since the day Muhammad bought it
If it's not the basis for beheadings then it must be the basis for war, IEDs, car bombings. We weren't around when this started and we have no way to end it unless we kill them all.
Meantime they are just doing what they've done since Ali lost the political battle, and Husayn was slaughtered with his 80 acolytes.

Is this it? This all there is? This is all they have? This all they want?

Spending all their life's effort?

Religious war?


Continue reading "It's not just "Iraq" and it's not current events ..." »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 4 Comments

Storm Track Infiltration: Top 15 CAIR Lowlights

The Council of American Islamic Relations touted its Top 10 CAIR Highlights of 2006 this month. Here they are.

1. CAIR Helps Secure Release of American Journalist in Iraq

2. CAIR Influences Public Debate on Dubai Ports, Profiling

3. CAIR Educates about Islam, Declares 2006 Year of the Prophet

4. CAIR Mobilizes Muslim Voters and Gets out the Vote

5. CAIR Releases Pioneering Research on American Muslims

6. CAIR Condemns Israeli War, Examines Israel Lobby

7. CAIR Addresses U.S.- Iran Relations, Iraq, Popes Comments

8. CAIR Defends Civil Rights by Taking Legal Action

9. CAIR Challenges Islamophobia

10. CAIR Empowers Muslims by Training Students, Imams

As you can see, CAIR has been busy last year keeping relations up. But The Religion of Peace sees their highlights another way.

We notice that CAIR is featuring a list of "Top 10 CAIR Highlights of 2006" on their front page this New Year's Eve, so we thought we would remind our readers of what CAIR would prefer people not to remember about the year that was.


Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.
Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 3 Comments

F John F. Kerry

John Kerry is busy giving an anal tongue-bath to a menagerie of dictators and thugs, including the former President of Iran, Mohammed Khatami. The report from the Political Pit Bull:

DAVOS, Switzerland - Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become "a sort of international pariah."

Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues.

"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy," Kerry said.

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

Speaking of a message of duplicity and hypocrisy, for the record, Kerry voted for a resolution in 1997 that stated that the US should not be a signatory to the Kyoto protocol because it "did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations" and could "result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." Simply put, Kerry voted against Kyoto.

And while there is certainly a lot of things to criticize President Bush about, his commitment to fighting the AIDS crisis in Africa is not one of them. Under the president's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), $15 billion has been committed to a 5 year plan which has led to approximately 800,000 Africans receiving drugs to fight the disease and to help prevent mother to child transmission. Some estimate that PEPFAR has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

What a terrible message that sends, huh John?

Update: Charles Johnson points out that while Kerry was calling the US "an international pariah" he was also glad-handing such upstanding members of the international community as former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

... this is John F. Kerry, doing what he does—giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America during wartime.

Some background on Khatami: he has endorsed Ahmadinejad's call for the annihilation of Israel, he has described Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world," he oversaw one of the largest crackdowns on reformers in Iran's history which led to the torture and murder of those that spoke out in favor of freedom and democracy, and he refused to hand over Iranian intelligence officials responsible for the Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 US servicemen.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

"Hurray! We're Capitulating!"

The day before yesterday, SPIEGEL ONLINE put up the English translation of a chapter from Henryk M. Broder's recently published bestselling book "Hurra, Wir Kapitulieren" ("Hurray! We're Capitulating!"). When the old curmudgeon is pulling out all the stops, there are few who can beat him, if any. Obviously, even that leftist battlerag don't want to do without its only asset.
"Hurray! We're Capitulating!"

By Henryk M. Broder

The prevailing feeling among Muslims is that they are being abused by the West. What should we do about it? We might as well surrender. After all, we're already on our way.

Ten years ago, in the spring of 1996, the world still seemed more or less okay. The towers of the World Trade Center dominated the Manhattan skyline, the American president had an affair with an intern, the Helmut Kohl era was coming to an end in Germany, and intellectuals killed time by debating over whether Francis Fukuyama was right in claiming that we have reached the "end of history" and whether capitalism had truly triumphed or socialism had merely lost the first round. In those days few were aware of the fine distinction between Islam and Islamism.

One had to look very closely to recognize the first signs of a brewing crisis. In Berlin, the Rote Grütze theater group was performing an enlightening piece called "Who Said Anything About Love?" To advertise the play, posters depicting a young man and a young woman, naked and full of innocence, were handed out in schools.

The schools had no qualms about displaying the posters, until a school official from Berlin's Tiergarten district requested a permit from the city's education authority. The agency turned down the request, arguing that the poster could hurt "the feelings of non-Christian pupils." The education authority was acting preventively and with what amounted to exaggerated concern for a cultural minority that had yet to be integrated into permissive German society. No Muslim pupils had complained about hurt feelings, nor had their parents expressed concerns about immoral harassment.

That was 10 years ago. Today everything has changed, except the resolve not to hurt the feelings of Muslims. The issue today no longer revolves around a group of Berlin pupils with an "immigration background," but around 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide -- many of whom are thin-skinned and unpredictable. At issue is freedom of opinion, one of the central tenets of the Enlightenment and democracy. And whether respect, consideration and tolerance are the right approach to dealing with cultures that, for their part, behave without respect, consideration or tolerance when it comes to anything they view as decadent, provocative and unworthy -- from women in short skirts to cartoons they deem provocative without even having seen them.

The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement -- a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II -- Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission. All the Europeans can hope to gain in this asymmetric conflict is a temporary reprieve, a honeymoon period that could last 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. Anyone on death row breathes a sigh of relief when his execution is postponed to some indefinite time in the future.

The uproar over the Muhammad cartoons was symptomatic precisely because what triggered it was so insignificant. The drawings themselves were unbelievably harmless.

Freedom of expression in conformity with Shariah

It took two weeks for "spontaneous" protests to begin. On Oct. 14, 2005, 3,000 Muslims staged a demonstration on Copenhagen's town hall square after Friday prayers. In a letter to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ambassadors from 11 Islamic countries demanded that he take the "necessary steps" to avert an abuse of Islam. Rasmussen responded that it was not his responsibility to discipline journalists, and he refused to schedule a meeting with the irate ambassadors. The Egyptian foreign minister got the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) involved soon after. The OIC had already made clear what it wanted in its "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" in 1990: "All have the right to freely express their opinions in a manner that does not run counter to Shariah law." In essence, what the OIC wanted was to compel Western nations to bring their form of freedom of expression into conformity with Shariah law.

Then a delegation of Danish Muslims traveled to the Muslim world, carrying a folder with the 12 cartoons from Jyllands-Posten, as well as of three significantly more provocative drawings in their luggage. The three drawings portrayed the Prophet as a pedophile devil, with pigs' ears and having sex with a dog. Where the bonus material came from and how it found its way into the documentation remains unclear to this day. But clearly someone was interested in generating the appropriate reaction. Newspapers in Arab countries promptly wrote that the Danish media had portrayed Muhammad as a pig, the original 12 cartoons magically turned into 120 drawings, and the Danish government was accused of being behind the whole thing.

European Union foreign ministers met in Brussels on Jan. 30, 2006 to discuss the crisis. Some believed that Denmark had missed its chance to resolve the conflict on its own. The foreign minister of Luxembourg wasn't just speaking for his own country when he said that the entire affair was "more a Danish than a European problem." The Austrian foreign minister went even further when she said: "statements and actions that degrade a religion in an offensive way should be clearly condemned." Even the Americans abandoned their Danish allies. During the course of a single day, three State Department spokesmen used adjectives like "unacceptable," "offensive" and "objectionable." Muslims got the message.

A year ago on Feb. 3, 2006, a "Day of Anger" was proclaimed. Across the Muslim world, the Muhammad cartoons were the focus of Friday prayers. Millions of Muslims who couldn't even locate Denmark on a map demonstrated against these insults to the Prophet, incited by their imams. The embassies of Denmark and Norway were set on fire in Damascus, the Danish embassy was torched in Beirut, firebombs were hurled at the Danish consulate in Tehran, and Danish and Norwegian flags were burned in Nigeria and Algeria.

In the past, an attack on an embassy would have been reason enough to go to war. But this time the affected countries did their utmost to "de-escalate." The victims were repentant and begged the perpetrators for forgiveness. Indeed, the West was intent on not doing anything that could possibly give offense and cause these fanatical Muslims to become even angrier.

Sadly, Broder is rarely translated into English. That is, I guess, because he mainly writes about German affairs and even more so because his sarcasm is difficult to catch in translation.

I attempted it and you'll find my translation (approved by the author) of his 2002 essay "Your wonderful capacity to endlös conflicts", likewise published in the original at SPIEGEL ONLINE, HERE at my main website Editrix' Office.

To read the complete article click HERE.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 2 Comments

Hamas-Fatah violence bleeds on, and so do the casualties

Well, it figures that the bloodshed, once started, would not cease so easily, and it didn't. The civil war between Hamas and Fatah continues:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Gunmen armed with mortars and grenades fought in several areas of Gaza City on Saturday, killing two men on the third straight day of factional clashes linked to the power struggle over the Palestinian government.

The deaths brought to 20 the number of Palestinians killed since late Thursday, and at least 66 people were wounded, medical officials said. The rival Hamas and Fatah movements traded angry accusations, and each held several supporters of the other side hostage.

The violence froze talks about bringing Fatah into the Hamas-led government, negotiators said. Fatah's leader, moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said he would go ahead with his plan to call early elections if the coalition negotiations fail to produce results within two to three weeks.

The Gaza fighting, which started late Thursday, was among the deadliest in nearly two months.
I get the feeling that they won't have any new elections, and there weren't really any to begin with. And this is one of the bloodiest outbursts I've seen so far between them.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Avi Green at permanent link# 1 Comments

In Search Of The Moderate Muslim

Serge Trifkovic - who along with Robert Spencer and pop culture celebrities like Britney Spears, is accused of inflaming radical Islam by Dinesh D'Souza - goes on the attack:

Nearly two years ago the Jihadist lobby in the United States made a concerted affort to have my book The Sword of the Prophet banned from National Review Online. Jihadi activists gathered around CAIR claimed the book defamed Islam and its "prophet." When it did not get immediate satisfaction from National Review, CAIR instructed its partisans to pressure the Boeing Corporation to withdraw its advertisements from the magazine. Faced with the loss of revenue National Review briefly took down The Sword, but then quickly reposted it, under pressure from mainly conservative quarters.

It is now, perhaps inevitably, the turn of a phony conservative to join CAIR's ranks. In his latest book, The Enemy At Home, Dinesh D'Souza writes that,

"In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."

Two of the titles D'Souza finds so offensive that condemning them tops his list of "critical steps" are by my friend Robert Spencer, and "The Sword" is mine. D'Souza wants us, and presumably other similarly minded authors (Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Andrew Bostom, Walid Shoebat et al), to shut up.

As my fellow offender Spencer has noted has noted, D'Souza assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims, which is indeed the case, but it makes hash of his entire thesis—that social conservatives should ally themselves with these "traditional" Muslims:

"For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if such presentations will just drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place?

If they think "Islamophobic tracts" are more threatening to their religion than acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam, how ‘traditional' and moderate could they possibly be?"

It is noteworthy that D'Souza is condemning our writings as "Islamophobic" without further elaboration. Like the term "Islamophobia" itself—a classic product of the Hate Crime Industry—his technique is characteristic of the totalitarian Left. I remember reading, as a teenager in Tito's Yugoslavia, similarly worded condemnations of dissident writers and their "tracts" in the communist-controlled press. Once they were defined as "anti- socialist," "reactionary," or "nationalist," no further elaboration was needed and no debate allowed.

We, somewhat often, have Muslims comment here that we "Nazis", or that we are "Islamophobic". I always respond the same way:

We condemn the preaching of Jihad against the Infidel. We condemn capital punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, and adultery. We condemn the burqa, and the idea that women have half the rights of men. If you join us in condemning these ideas, then we have no problem with you as a Muslim.

So, which are you? A Muslim who condemns these ideas, or one who supports them?

I have yet to receive an answer to this question from any Muslim.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 12 Comments

In war, who do you trust?

Today, as I was writing this post, I almost didn’t want to. There is already so much gloom in our neck of the blogosphere that adding this post can only reinforce the feelings of despair I am seeing in the ranks of--for lack of a better term--the “Cyber-Counterjihad”. Writing this post is not just discouraging for me, but it might be discouraging to all else who see this (except our enemies, and the Muslims of course). Before I continue, I just want to say that because of security reasons, I cannot provide any direct reference or link to the material I quote here, nor can I mention any names. Anyway, let’s continue.

Some months ago, I met another Pakistani through my Christian friends here in Dubai. According to them, my fellow Pakistani had converted to Christianity nine years ago while he was in Texas (that’s right!!) and was growing in his new faith. I was very happy to meet him and encouraged to meet another Christian and former Muslim like myself. I already knew that I wasn’t alone in what I had done, but meeting someone like me for the first time in person was even more heartening. I talked with the guy for about ten minutes before he left to get ready for his trip back to Pakistan the very next day. I told my Christian friend, who is an American, that this meeting had increased my faith and my confidence. It was a very happy day for me.

But, after a couple of months, when I met with my American friend again, he told me that that other Pakistani apostate was gradually slipping back into Islam. Hearing that news was devastating--I was heartbroken and mad at the same time. Heartbroken because he was the first person I had met who was like me and now, after nine years, he chose to go back to darkness, ignorance and barbarity—and mad because I couldn’t believe my own stupidity when I trusted him. Now I was reluctant to go see even my American friends, but I still go see them because that’s the only place I can actually read the Bible.

Anyway, some days ago, I came across the blog of that Pakistani and read the following in one of his recent posts (copied below in its original form):

The night before the Eid, I was glue to my television following the news that Saddam Hussein could be hanged any time now. The sentenced was given five days ago, which said that he should be executed within 30 days. The sudden announcement that he would be hanged just before 6am on the day of Eid for Muslims upset and angered me. From all the days of the 30 days, they had to do it on the day of Eid. Why not after? It seemed like a deliberate calculated step on the part of the so called new Iraqi government, who we all know is controlled by outside influence, to hang Saddam on Eid day to upset all Muslims, regardless if they were supporters or anti-Saddam. I didn't support him. I thought he was a mad man. But to hurt the sensibilities of Muslims on their most joyous occasions is asking for too much. It would be akin to hanging President Bush (who should be tried for crimes for humanity as well) on Christmas day.
This type of a comment wouldn’t normally bother me, but having it come from another (supposed) Christian and former Muslim, it upset me a lot.

However, what really makes me reluctant to write about this, is that this guy, who says he has been a Christian for nine years, appears to have reverted back to Islam. Worse yet, while this is obvious to all of us, he may not even realize it. Not only has he done that, but he also has taken a Muslim/Leftist stance when an evil dude is hanged—and the guilty don’t get any more guilty than Saddam was (may he rot in hell). When I asked him, via the net, what he meant above by ‘outside influence’ (even though I knew what his answer would be) and why the Muslims would be upset over the death of Saddam Hussein (or anyone like that), this was his response to me:

The Muslims were upset because they were all getting ready to celebrate the special occassion of Eid, of which the significance you clearly cannot comprehend. My main issue was not of whether to hang him or not, but why they had to hang them on Eid day. Why not hang him the day after? A lot of people questioned that act, not just me.
It makes me think, a Muslim is always a Muslim. I know that when I say this, I may be undercutting or destroying my own credibility as a former Muslim/apostate. But I’d rather see the West not trust anyone than trust someone like him who can later betray the very people that first protected him and still do—namely my friends here and his friends from Texas.

All I can say now after this sordid episode, is that trusting a Muslim, even one who claims he has converted to Christianity, any other non Muslim faith, or even atheism, can prove to be as suicidal as trusting a professing pious Muslim.

Cross-posted at PI.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Avenging Apostate at permanent link# 1 Comments

Islam Is Mercy and Tolerance

To learn the story behind this heartbreaking picture go to Roncesvalles.
Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 2 Comments

Just Like Arabs, The Turks Choose Suicide

Turkey once had prospects of entering the world of modern civilisation. It appears the majority of Turks have instead "gone Arab", and regressed to a stone-age Islam that worships the primitive past of bloody violence.
* Exploiting the population's disgust with government corruption, Islamists gained power through the ballot box - and immediately started dismantling the secular legacy of Kemal Ataturk.

* On the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Turkey stabbed the United States - its only dependable ally - in the back, denying passage to our troops in the fateful illusion that Ankara could save Saddam.

* Turkey strangled its (always faint) chance of membership in the European Union with internal repression, ludicrous prosecutions, farcical legislative efforts to Talibanize society and its stubborn denial of the Armenian genocide.

* Instead of winning Europe's approval, the government-sponsored anti-American hate speech poisoning Turkey's media only strengthens European convictions that Turks "aren't our kind."

* Impatient to send Turkish troops into Iraq to attack the PKK (a radical Kurdish group with a terrorist past), Ankara might face a startling military embarrassment, further alienate Washington - and finish off its last prayer of EU membership. (The Europeans just want excuses to keep Turkey out - and Turkey has a genius for providing them.)

* Despite the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship with Iraqi Kurdistan - where Turkish businessmen make substantial profits - the Ankara government obsesses about preventing the emergence of a Kurdish state. Betting on Iraq's Sunni Arabs (who despise the Turks but use them), Turkey has set itself up to lose big if Iraq dissolves.

* With its mischief-making in Iraq, cloak-and-dagger monkey business with Syria and failure to appreciate Iranian deviousness, Turkish foreign policy is in a self-destructive shambles unrivaled since the foundation of the modern Turkish state.

All of this leaves me in sorrow, since I spent decades arguing that Turkey's strategic importance required us to be patient as this land of enormous potential found its way to the future.

For an enthusiastic visitor to Turkey for three decades, it's been heartbreaking to watch its society and economy come to life - only to fall prey to Islamist vampires.
Much more at Source.

Islam belongs to the bloody past of humanity. For humans to proceed into a future of promise, they must discard the bloody cloak of islamic barbarism. Turkey has chosen to regress--and descend into a bloody morass. Other parts of the world--particularly Europe--will have to make the same choice soon.

It is not too early to begin to prepare for the worst.

Cross-posted at Abu Al Fin.
Bookmark and Share
posted by al fin at permanent link# 3 Comments

Too bad we've been burned - Iranian dissidents say population ready for regime change: Mullahs would 'flee immediately'

Mr. Chalabi has ruined my taste for this...let's see it vetted as authoritative.

More than ever, Iranian dissidents believe that the United States could bring about a change in regime in Teheran. The dissidents say the Iranian regime is divided between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ahmed Khamenei.

The dissidents are lobbying the Bush administration to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and the regime this year. They believe the regime is so weak that most of its leaders would flee.

Flee ? To where? A south Lebanon no longer the beneficiary of Iranian oil terror $$? And what of the IRGC, Pasdaran, Basij thugocracy? Where do THEY go? IED University?

"The top brass will flee immediately," Iranian student leader Amir Abbas Fakhr-Avar said. "People will come out onto the streets protesting, why are we being bombed? Many of the regime's mid-level officials will shave their beards, don ties and join the [people] on the streets."

Fakhr-Avar, 31, knows the Islamic regime well from his years in an Iranian prison cell. He heads an opposition organization that reportedly has 12,000 students. In May 2006, during a furlough from prison, Fakhr-Avar escaped Iran and reached the United States.

Since then, Fakhr-Avar met President Bush, his aides and leaders of Congress. The Iranian dissident has outlined a plan that calls for technical help to facilitate an opposition network with computers, cellular phones and access to printers and the Internet.

Continue reading "Too bad we've been burned - Iranian dissidents say population ready for regime change: Mullahs would 'flee immediately'" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

The Islamization of Europe--A European Perspective

Someone in Europe is not idly sitting by as the (seemingly unstoppable) World Jihad goes on with its plotting of the destruction of non Muslim societies.

A European blogger going by the name 'No Sharia' has authored a well-researched and carefully-written four-part series that examines this timely topic. If you have a few minutes, it's definitely worth your time:

Part 1: A theory of the Islamization process in European countries [07 Jan, 2007]
Part 2: A Theory of Policies and Laws That Prevents Islamization of a Country - An Integrated Approach [09 Jan, 2007]
Part 3: Reformation of Islam and Various Law and Policy Issues [12 Jan, 2007]
Part 4: Policy Area 4: Religious Freedom And Its Limits [22 Jan, 2007]

Have a look at 'No Sharia's" work, if you please, and let's support our fellow counter-jihadists. Remember, we can count on no true support from anyone other than ourselves.
Bookmark and Share
posted by The Anti-Jihadist at permanent link# 0 Comments

Montreal Man Refuses Sharia Divorce To The Wife He Stabbed

Check out the warped logic going around in circles in this news story. What the heck?

MONTREAL (CP) - The Crown says a Montreal man's refusal to grant his Muslim wife a Shariah divorce should be considered an aggravating factor when he is sentenced Friday for stabbing her and their baby daughter.

Other than that, there is nothing the courts can do for the woman, whose husband pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault to avoid attempted murder charges.

That, say advocates, is the problem with the refusal to recognize Shariah law in the Canadian judicial system.

Observant Muslim women, especially those who emigrated from Islamic countries, feel they have nowhere to turn, said Shahina Siddiqui, executive director of the Winnipeg-based Islamic Social Services Association.

"Many, many times we see this," Siddiqui said.

What a genius fucking argument. Think about it. This guy is basically saying more women are gonna be stabbed if Canada doesn't allow Sharia law, which, by the way, stipulates that women are only worth half that of a man.

Oh God, and the Canadian Press prints this garbage.

And, think about this, even if Sharia existed in Canada, the man still would not have allowed his wife the divorce.

In the current case, the 31-year-old man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his daughter, attacked his wife in their Montreal apartment in February 2006, stabbing her several times, including in the face.

He then stabbed the infant girl twice in the stomach. She spent 10 days in hospital recovering.
The man testified at his sentencing hearing earlier this week that he will not agree to a divorce under Shariah law in Canada.

"The issue of the divorce will be decided over there," he told the judge, referring to their home country of Lebanon.

He also denied he needed treatment for his violent behaviour.

The Crown has asked for a seven-year sentence, citing the refusal to grant the Shariah divorce as an aggravating factor.

The defence has suggested a three-year sentence.

The woman earlier told the court she would like to return to her family in Lebanon but without the religious divorce and worries she could be forced to return to her husband or face charges of abducting her own daughter.

"They had a religious marriage in Lebanon and if she returns she could have problems," Crown lawyer Sophie Lavergne told the judge.

Ok, now let's think about that statement. The oh so benevolent Sharia law that these Muslims are pining away to have instituted in Canada, apparently, wouldn't grant the woman a divorce in Lebanon even though her husband had stabbed her. Instead, she would be forced to return to her husband.

Critics say it's an example of the inequality of women in Shariah law that a man can simply refuse a religious divorce, even in such a case.

"The poor woman," said Nuzhat Jafri, spokeswoman for the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

"She can get a legal divorce in Quebec. . . . Whether or not it is recognized in Lebanon is another matter."

Siddiqui suggested the woman ask an imam or a panel of Muslim scholars to acknowledge the court divorce.

"The Koran is very clear that you cannot keep women in a marriage against their will," she said.
But the ban on Shariah within the judicial system, with all its checks and balances, means Muslims can be at the mercy of local Islamic leadership, where "there's no way of monitoring it," she said.

Now, how much sense does that make, huh? Who monitors this crap anywhere in the world. It's always the Islamic leadership, and it sucks without fail.

I'm fuming. I'm gonna have to go for a walk after this post, damn it all.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 6 Comments

Friday, January 26, 2007

Patiotic Terrorism

Patriotic terrorists love America with so much intensity that it appears to the untrained eye that they hate it. From Greg Gutfeld at the Huffington Post:

Whenever I visit this lovely blog (referring to the Huffington Post), I usually run into someone - a "leftist," if you will - who finds pleasure in things that make our country or the President look bad. I suppose I could say these angry types are no better than cheerleaders for terrorism. After all, both entities - the left and terrorists - seem to share the same desire: to put the US, humiliatingly, in its place.

But I would be wrong to say such things. Very wrong. Of course, "dissent is patriotic," and the left is only critical of America because it simply loves our country much more than I do.

That's why calling them terrorists would be intolerant and pretty shameful.

But what about "patriotic terrorists?"

That's kinda neat.

What is a patriotic terrorist?

It is an American who claims to love his or her country while enjoying the enemy's success against said country. It is a person who gets deeply offended if you question their patriotism, while also appearing to share the same ideals of the more spirited folk who like to blow up innocent people.

Patriotic terrorists love America with so much intensity that it appears to the untrained eye that they hate it. But it's actually the most powerful form of "tough love" known to man, woman and Rosie O'Donnell. Patriotic terrorists love America so much that they realize it needs an intervention - and real terror is the only way to enable that intervention. In fact, to keep a mammoth, arrogant superpower like America in check, terrorism is the only thing we've got.

Noam Chomsky knew this from the start, making him a patriotic terrorist of the highest order.
This is why he gets the chicks.

Go read the whole thing.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 7 Comments

What The Hell Sholuld We Do?

See, that's me, playing in the Latin Quarter in Paris, with my fretless bass, wondering what the hell we should do.

Apparently, we have a decision to make. Should we switch to the new Blogger format or not?

If I do, apparently, everyone has to do so.

WC switched, and now he can not blog at Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

WC says he really sees very little difference between the old Bloggers system and the new Blogger.

So, what should we do?
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 26 Comments

A mindset freed from bothering with reality

Rabbi David Gil Dalin is a Conservative rabbi, and author and co-author of several books on Jewish history. He is currently a professor of history and political science at Ave Maria University, and was previously associate professor of American Jewish history at the University of Hartford.

Dalin received a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley, a master's and doctorate from Brandeis University, and his Rabbinic ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

He has recently published The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis.

I grew up with the picture Rolf Hochhut's (gentile, religious affiliation unknown to me) play "Der Stellvertreter" (The Deputy/Representative, 1963) painted, namely that of a cold cynic and a conniving politician who thinks that Communism is a far bigger threat to the Catholic Church than the Nazis. I would say that this picture is still the prevailing one in Germany, a country, which has never gotten over the Kulturkampf, the bitter struggle on the part of the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck to submit the Roman Catholic church to state control, which spanned much of the 1870's and 1880's. This "hot family feud" within German society dominated the formative period of the German party system and had a long-term impact on Germany's political culture well into the twentieth century and, as far as I can see, it is still very much alive and kicking.

Hochhuth's next play, "Soldiers, Necrology on Geneva" (1967) showed the Allied bombing campaigns as war crimes and Winston Churchill as a war criminal. The play was largely based on the work of the young historian David Irving. Since that time, Irving and Hochhuth have been close friends and in 2005 Hochhuth hit the headlines by defending his friend against being a holocaust denier, calling the allegation "simply idiotic" and Irving "an honourable man" in an interview with the mouthpiece of the youth organisation of the NPD, the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands "Junge Freiheit" (issue 08/05, February 18, 2005). He later expressed a lukewarm apology, saying that he didn't know that his friend of many decades was just that.

So much for the antisemitic statement that only Jews are adverse to Pius XII, whereas the rest of the world would gladly embrace his sainthood. ("Jews Veto Sainthood for Pius XII"). Or even ALL Jews. Or even a majority of Jews.

One of Pius' shrillest critics, John Cornwell (Roman Catholic) informed us in his self-explainingly titled book "Hitler's Pope" that Pius XII was a willing collaborator with the Nazi policy. To do him justice, Cornwell has recently renounced (in his recent book "The Pontiff in Winter", a critical evaluation of the papacy of John Paul II) his hypothesis, a significant event of which, even more significantly, the media, have taken little note.

Significant is, too, that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's shattering condemnation of Pius XII, "A Moral Reckoning: The Catholic Church during the Holocaust and Today", received widespread and altogether favourable attention, different from his controversial book "Hitler's Willing Executioners", which was, sometimes fairly but generally unfairly, torn to shreds by the media and his colleagues.

Go figure!

(Please note that Goldhagen's scholarship in his criticism of Pius XII was severely criticised by, among others, such a renowned historian of Germany as Columbia University’s Fritz Stern, a Jew.)

At the EWTN – Global Catholic Network website an interview with David Dalin appeared.

Go on reading HERE.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 0 Comments

Barack Obama's Statement: "Senator Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, Was Not Raised A Muslim"

I like that Barack Obama has directed his people to clearly enunciate a denial on this issue. And, someone, I don't know whether it was someone within his campaign or not but I would suspect so, has released the photograph you see here which is said to be of him at school in Indonesia. The children he is standing with certainly do not look to be dressed in Muslim garb.

By issuing an unequivocal statement Barack Obama has never been a Muslim his campaign is drawing a line in the sand, and this is a line they draw because they know that a large percentage of the American people are cognizant of what it means to have been educated in an Islamic madrassa.

Let us be clear, though, as far as I can tell, Obama has not denied that the school he attended was a Muslim school. Instead, he has simply said he was never a Muslim.

From the Telegraph (thanks to Religion of Pieces):

Mr Obama's campaign team at first decided not to respond to the claim, published in the conservative Insight magazine, that he had been enrolled by his father for "at least four years" in a madrassa, a radical Islamist school, that was "espousing Wahhabism".

But when the article, which cited unnamed sources close to the campaign of Mr Obama's rival Senator Hillary Clinton, made the madrassa question a staple of every television interview, he decided to strike back.

"To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago," the statement issued on his behalf said. It denounced the charges as "precisely the kind of politics the American people have grown tired of".

The Clinton campaign denied it was behind the allegation. No American newspaper has given the allegations any credence.

But Steve Doocy, a Fox News host, said on air: "Why didn't anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised – spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father – as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?"

The Obama statement pointed out that he was not raised by his father, who was "an atheist Obama met once in his life".

According to a Time magazine poll released yesterday, Mr Obabama trails Mrs Clinton by 21 to 40 per cent nationally. But Mr Obama, 45, who has rocketed to celebrity status despite his inexperience, polls much more strongly in the key early primary and caucus states of New Hampshire and Iowa.

His vigorous written denial was a risky move because it guaranteed further press coverage of the story and might give it an unwarranted dignity.

I like Jack Wheeler idea:

One of the most entertaining opportunities that will emerge in 2007 will be using Barack Obama to fight Islamofascism. His father deserted the family when Barack Jr. was two and returned to Kenya. His mother then married another Moslem studying at UH, Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia.

He moved with his mother and stepfather to Jakarta when he was six, where he attended a Moslem medressa (religious school). That makes him a Moslem. There is no mention of this in the chapter of his book, The Audacity of Hope, where he discusses his religion, My Spiritual Journey (reprinted in Time Magazine). Obama claims he is a Christian, that he and his wife Michelle are members of the United Church of Christ.

The opportunity in this is not accusing him of being a “closet Moslem.” It requires taking him at his word that he has become a Christian — for that means he is an apostate. There is no dispute among either ancient or modern Moslem scholars that under Islamic law, a murtadd, “one who turns his back on Islam,” an apostate, must be put to death. Irtidad, apostasy, is committing treason against God, and traitors deserve to be killed.

Should Obama deny he ever was a Moslem, it will compound the problem in the eyes of Moslems. He was born of a Moslem father, raised by a Moslem stepfather, and received his first education at a Moslem school. That he subsequently went to a Catholic school in Jakarta before living with his mother’s parents back in Honolulu makes no difference. In the eyes of Moslems, he originally was a Moslem. How can he not be in those eyes, with a Koranic first name and his middle name that of the grandson of Mohammed? For him to become a Christian means he is, for them, a murtadd, an apostate.

Which provides the perfect opportunity for an enterprising journalist to ask him at a press conference if he is:

1. Afraid of Moslem assassination attempts as punishment for being in Islamic eyes an apostate?

2. Willing to publicly call upon all Moslems around the world to renounce such punishment and declare instead that Moslems are fully free to convert to another religion?

The odds are high that he will answer no to the first and yes to the second. As an oily politician, he will try to squirm out of a clear definitive yes with no wiggle room. But it should not be difficult for a smart journalist to get him to agree without reservation that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states...

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief...
...applies to Muslims

Once Obama condemns the Moslem tradition of death for apostasy, then he can be asked:
The Koran famously quotes Allah as saying in chapter (sura) 2, verse 256 that there should be ‘no compulsion in religion.' Yet numerous sayings of Mohammed known as hadith which form the basis of Islamic Sharia law quote Mohammed as saying ‘If a Moslem discards his religion, kill him.' So are you telling Moslems that Allah was right but Mohammed was misquoted, and their Sharia law tradition on apostasy is wrong?

You can see how much fun there is to be had with this. Again, the key is taking Obama at his word that he is a Christian and not secretly a Moslem. No accusations necessary. The point is that Moslems view him as first a Moslem, not that he does. If done right with honest, straightforward, and persistent questioning Obama can serve as a quite useful anti-islamofascist tool.

Moslems will be infuriated with him for embarrassing them, Americans will tell themselves never to vote for someone with Hussein in their name to be their president — and it just might get a number of influential Moslems to abandon an important part of Islamic law. This is going to happen to Obama this year. And not only that. For he’ll then be asked if he will support the efforts of Christian missionaries in Islamic countries to peacefully convert Moslems to Christianity.

Yep, might as well put this guy to good use.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 11 Comments

And just when you think Jimmy Carter's stupidity reaches apogee..

Jimmy, I hate to ask this of a man I once voted for, but, do you have a big white sheet with a pointy hat in a closet somewhere?

Jimmy Carter: Too many Jews on Holocaust council


(Also known as ..."Too many jews in Israel, btw ,, or NYC for that matter, eh, or too many african-americans in the NAACP, too many Italians in the Knights of Columbus, how about too many Georgians in the KKK, you gavone?)

But of course to SOME PEOPLE, jewish people are too thin skinned

TEL AVIV – Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."

Freedman, now a professor of law at Hofstra University, was picked by the council's chairman, author Elie Weisel, to serve as executive director in 1980. The council, created by the Carter White House, went on to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the Holocaust.

He told WND he sent a memo to Carter's office containing recommendations for council board members.

He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, "Too many Jews."

The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter's handwriting and was initialed by Carter.

Why is there an Israel? Because of the effete, galactically assumptive 'correctness' of utter morons such as Mr. Carter, whose agog-making attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner, manages continually to suck the oxygen out of the earth.


Continue reading "And just when you think Jimmy Carter's stupidity reaches apogee..." »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 5 Comments

Not your father's CIA

In the immediate post Vietnam era the CIA was the bogeyman who was responsible for the state of all banana 'republics', the backwardness of African nations, the deaths of everyone from Dag Hammerskold to Malcom X, purveyors of cocaine to americans who happened to be black in Watts, and plotting the overthrow of the whole gamut from Castro to Allende, not excepting the sluttization of the 1st lady of Canada.

But hey, these guys were DOING THINGS. The headlines said they were wrongheaded things, but they were things. Of course, one might also argue that some of these (real, unheadlined) things weakened the enemy without sending 150,000 men to Baghdad.

Now most of the errors occur from behind desks in a kindler gentler world.

The China Thing


U.S. intelligence takes softer line on China . . .

Senior U.S. intelligence officials warned last week that China’s rise could lead it to become a global threat, as Beijing’s demand for energy drives it toward greater control of oil-rich regions of the world.

China’s leaders last year sought to align foreign policy with goals related to domestic development, including gaining access to new sources of energy, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte stated.

China is trying to develop friendlier ties with the United States and states on its periphery to “assure peaceful borders and to avoid perceived containment by other powers.”

Negroponte noted that China sought to improve ties with Japan and said the “prospects for cross-strait conflict with Taiwan diminished.”

Diminished? Based on what, you putz? Taiwan's reticence to hold a plebiscite on separation?

His conciliatory comments contrast sharply with last year's Pentagon’s assessment of Chinese military power. That report stated that China’s arms build up appears directed to projecting power far from its shores. However Negroponte noted the PLA has weapons systems that pose credible threats to U.S. platforms

“The Chinese are developing more capable long-range conventional strike systems and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with terminally guided maneuverable warheads able to attack United States carriers and airbases,” Negroponte said.

Now silly me, but it sounds like, short of the explanation of a direct deterrent existential threat to the people of the USA, this just MIGHT be interpreted as a threat in being to all american forces that might be assigned to help Taiwan defend itself in extremis. But what do I know?

Continue reading "Not your father's CIA" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 2 Comments

Iran ready to launch Satellite - Claim by Commission

BREAKING NEWS -- Iran Set to Try Space Launch

By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology

Iran has converted its most powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle. The 30-ton rocket could also be a wolf in sheep's clothing for testing longer-range missile strike technologies, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its Jan. 29 issue.

The Iranian space launcher has recently been assembled and "will liftoff soon" with an Iranian satellite, according to Alaoddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.
The move toward an independent space launch capacity is likely to ratchet up concern in the U.S. and Europe about Iran's strategic capabilities and intents. Orbiting its own satellite would send a powerful message throughout the Muslim world about the Shiite regime in Tehran.

U.S. agencies believe the launcher to be a derivation of the 800-1,000-mi. range Shahab 3 missile. A Shahab 3 fired from central Iran could strike anywhere in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the entire Persian Gulf region and as far west as southern Turkey.

Continue reading "Iran ready to launch Satellite - Claim by Commission" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 2 Comments

The AP Misrepresents Craig Baker The "Pig Races" Guy

The Katy Islamic Association moves in next door to Craig Baker with plans to build a Mosque. Baker's family has lived in Katy, Texas for well nigh 200 years. The street that Baker lives on is named Baker St. in honor of his family.

So, what do the nice Muslims next door do? Well, according to Craig Baker, they told him it would probably be a good idea for him to pack up his family and move.

When Baker was interviewed about this by the Muslim stringer they sent to cover the story, the result was a news item which Baker contends completely misrepresented what he has said. Check this out (from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance Radio Show, last week):

Here is the AP back on December 31 telling us that Baker had backtracked and acknowledged that he had been mistaken when he thought that the Muslims wanted him to leave his land:

Baker agreed to move his cattle but thought the Muslims also wanted him off the land his family has lived on for more than 100 years.

Earlier this month, Baker conceded that the Muslims probably aren't after his land, but he said he had to go through with the pig races because "I would be like a total idiot if I didn't. I'd be the laughingstock now because I've gone too far."

All the same, Baker plans to continue the weekly pig races until interest dwindles.

The association never meant to imply it wanted Baker to move, Allam said.

"If we somehow communicated that to him, then we apologize," he said.

That is from Dec. 31, 2006. When Baker spoke to Pastorius on Jan. 16, he explained in no uncertain terms that the Mosque folks did in fact suggest that he should leave.

Baker also sheds some light on how the AP got the story they wanted:

Baker told Pastorius, "The AP...ha[s] a young Muslim girl that...filed a story on me, and she had asked me straight up was there any chance that I misunderstood that they were only wanting...me to move my cows and not actually wanting me to move off of my place and I told her 'no, there was no chance whatsoever,' and I told her that about four or five times, and...she asked it four or five different ways, and then a couple days later she called me back and she said, 'is there one half of one percent chance that...that was what they meant or said,' and I said, 'oh, ok, sure, there's a small chance of anything...happening,' and so that's how she led off her story, was 'Rancher Craig Baker misunderstood that they were wanting him to remove his cattle and not move off of his property.' So it made me look like a total idiot."

Listen to the January 16 IBA show at about 35 minutes in to hear this segment of the interview.

Extra, extra, read all about it, AP's credibility still in the toilet!
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Is Senator Webb Calling For Us To Use Nukes In Iraq?

It sounds like it. Check this out, from Jonah Goldberg at National Review's The Corner:

Subject: Hey, Webb implies we should use nukes to win in Iraq
Believe it or not, that's what he implied

Here's what Jim Webb said in the Democrat's response to the State of the Union Address:
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Just how did Dwight Eisenhower bring the Korean War to an end? Col. Tom Snodgrass, writing at American Thinker, explains:

This disparity of total vs. limited war objectives first became apparent as the Korean War dragged on and President Truman's administration could find no way to conclude the conflict. When President Eisenhower assumed the presidency from Truman in 1953, he quickly recognized the logical solution to the strategic conundrum was shifting U.S. war-fighting from limited to total war means, and he thereby ended the Korean War by communicating to the communists his intention of escalating with nuclear weapons if the communists persisted in their total war objectives. Civilian limited war advocates should have seen the glaring fallacy of their theory at this point, but they didn't. For his part, Eisenhower did not believe that limited war could remain limited.

As a warrior who knew war first-hand, President Eisenhower opted for a historically-based defense doctrine of "Massive Retaliation," which promised an all-out nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the event of aggression. Throughout the better part of the 1950's, Eisenhower's national security strategy insured that there was no military superpower confrontation. Because Eisenhower had doubts that a "limited war" would remain such, his over-all national security policy, called the "New Look," was based on the unstoppable nuclear striking power of Strategic Air Command. During this period of relative peace, Democrat political opponents and social-science civilian theorists were in constant chorus that the New Look Massive Retaliation was simply too risky for the country and the world.

Yes, and it was also, of course, exactly this kind of confrontational policy which Reagan used to win the Cold War and bring about the fall of the Soviet Union.

However, it doesn't seem to me it is time to go nuclear on Iraq. You guys know me, I'm pretty "extreme" but I'm not that extreme.

However, as George Bush always says (and never seems to mean) all options are on the table.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Yes, it's All On Everyone Else....As Usual

Just a bit of filth that stuck to my shoe while I was searching YouTube for videos about a REAL Holocaust. YouTube needs a flagging option for complete BS. I don't know why this one hit the wrong buttons tonight after everything else over at YT, but give this little paeon to victimhood the mere bit-over-one-minute it takes to make you want to strangle it:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Kiddo at permanent link# 6 Comments

The United States Of America Is Not A Democracy

You think I'm going moonbat on you, don't ya? No, I just think this is A very important post from Nevsky at The Murky Waters:

The United States of America is NOT a Democracy!
Repeat after me:

"I pledge allegiance,to the flag,
of the United States of America,
and to the ...."

The United States of America is a Republic.

In a democracy, a majority of the people can vote to take away the rights of a minority; fifty-one percent of the people can vote to take away the "rights" of the other forty-nine percent because, in a democracy, these "rights" are not established, except by a vote.

In a republic, certain rights are established, and those rights cannot be voted away by a majority; they can be changed only by changing the republic's fundamental laws, its constitution. So, in a republic, ninety-nine percent of the voters cannot legally take away the rights of the other one percent (depending upon the peculiars of the fundamental laws).

Reality, however, is that in the United States, many people don't know the difference. They use the term "democracy" and mean "republic" as we have established ours. Consequently, we Americans let our inalienable rights get infringed by democratic processes.

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

The United States of America is a Republic with democratic principles. The United States of America is a constitutional republic that relies on representative democracy. The majority rule is tempered by legal protection of minority rights; Constitutional safeguards exist to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

The United States of America is NOT a democracy.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

Infidel Babe of the Week Nomination

French newscaster Melissa Theuriau.

She actually looks even better on video than in still photos...
Check out A Deeper Look's January 2007 "Featured Videos of the Month" selections for link to video of Melissa reading the news.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Krishna109 at permanent link# 0 Comments

Thursday, January 25, 2007

TV reporter was attacked by Muslim couple in San Diego

This is old news, but still well worth noting. Assad Suleiman, a real estate agent, and his wife, Rosa Amelia Barraza, were arrested in September last year for a violent assault on John Mattes, an investigative TV reporter looking into some shady dealings of theirs. The cameraman filmed it on tape. From the San Diego Union Tribune (via The Islamic Threat):
SAN DIEGO – A television reporter investigating a suspected real estate scam was attacked by a woman and her husband, who punched and tackled him as a cameraman videotaped the incident.

Reporter John Mattes of Fox 6 News said he was treated for cracked ribs, bite wounds and cuts to his face after the confrontation Tuesday. The couple, identified by authorities as Assad “Sam” Suleiman, 36, and his wife, Rosa Amelia Barraza, 33, were arrested.


The television footage shows Mattes and XETV cameraman Dennis Waldrop talking to a man outside a La Jolla area home when a woman arrives and starts screaming at the reporter: “Why are you doing this?” and “Stop it!” She throws water from a bottle at the pair and strikes Mattes in the face with the plastic container.

A man, identified by Fox 6 News as Suleiman, then gets out of a car and punches Mattes in the face and head and puts him in a headlock.

Brian Phillips, the man about to be interviewed, tried to pull Suleiman off Mattes, but the three fell to the ground and Suleiman continued to kick at Mattes.

“He literally just came flying straight at me ... and I am feeling someone ripping at my face, pulling at my hair,” Mattes said. “We are talking about someone gouging, scratching and biting me.”

The video showed blood streaks and cuts on Mattes' face as he tried to get away.

Barraza, who during the confrontation threatened to get a gun, was booked for investigation of making a terrorist threat, battery, and theft for allegedly grabbing the cameraman's microphone, Police Lt. Dan Christman said. He said Suleiman was booked for investigation of felony assault.
Let this be a warning that Muslim savagery like the above can and will be found even in the US and the west coast.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Avi Green at permanent link# 5 Comments

Tracking Iran’s Role in Iraq Attacks

Is Iran providing devices that help insurgents detonate IEDs in Iraq?
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Updated: 7:51 p.m. ET Jan 24, 2007

Jan. 24, 2007 - Why is the Bush administration escalating its accusations that Iran is backing Shiite extremists inside Iraq? One reason: mounting intelligence indicating Tehran has been supplying insurgents with electronic sensors that trigger roadside bombs used against U.S. troops. The devices in question—which cost as little as $1 a piece—are called "passive infrared" sensors or detectors. They are commonly used to turn on lights or burglar alarms when someone or something passes in front of them. Over the past year, U.S. forces in Iraq have repeatedly fallen victim to sophisticated homemade bombs—known as IEDs, or improvised explosive devices—which are often rigged with passive infrared sensors.

Recent reports from U.S. intelligence agencies show that Iranian agents or brokers have ordered the devices in bulk from manufacturers in the Far East, said one U.S. counterterrorism official, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters. Bruce Riedel, a senior intelligence official who retired from the CIA only two months ago, told NEWSWEEK he too was aware of reports that serial numbers of sensors retrieved from IEDs in Iraq have been traced to orders from Iran placed with infrared-sensor manufacturers in Taiwan and Japan. (Riedel is now an analyst with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.)

The infrared devices are particularly deadly as triggers for homemade bombs. Unlike cell phones, radio-control systems or garage-door openers—some of the other devices that have been used by Iraqi insurgents to trigger IEDs—the infrared devices do not emit a signal that can be detected before they go off. As a result, it is particularly difficult for U.S. forces to locate and defuse IEDs rigged with such triggers. The presence of the infrared sensors is not the only intelligence pointing to an Iranian role in the construction of IEDs. Some recovered bombs closely match IED designs known to have been used by the Lebanese Shiite movement Hizbullah—another group that relies heavily on Iranian arms and money. A current counterterrorism official says that bombmaking videos believed to have been prepared in Iran have been recovered from insurgents in Iraq. Similar or identical tutorials have also been recovered from Hizbullah, the counterterrorism official said. The videodiscs contain instructions on how to build homemade bombs with “shaped charges” (known in military jargon as EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles)—particularly deadly devices capable of penetrating tank armor. These, too, are known to have been used by Hizbullah.

U.S. officials say they believe the supply of equipment and components to insurgents inside Iraq is being arranged in Iran by the Al-Quds brigades. This group is an offshoot of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a national militia organization charged with protecting Iran’s theocratic government from counterrevolutionary forces. The corps is believed to operate under the direct authority of Iran’s outspoken and controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who himself originally rose to prominence as a member of the organization. Christine DeVries, a spokeswoman for a special Defense Department task force assigned to track IEDs in Iraq, declined to talk about any intelligence linking IEDs to Iran. She said the task force never speaks in public about “what we’re seeing the enemy do,” though she added that U.S. forces are dealing with “an adaptive enemy, who uses everything at his disposal.”

In recent weeks, the Bush administration, along with the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has made increasingly dramatic assertions about Iranian interference in Iraq—alleging the existence of a pipeline that flows between Iran and Shia extremists who have been implicated in attacks on U.S. troops. In testimony last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA Director Michael Hayden focused in particular on the presence of the explosive formed projectiles. "They are being used against our forces. They are capable of defeating some of our heaviest armor, and incident for incident cause significantly more casualties than any other improvised explosive devices do, and they are provided to Shia militia." But officials have not publicly discussed the link between Iran's purchase of infrared sensors and the use of the sensors in the assembly of roadside bombs in Iraq—a connection that potentially makes the administration's allegations stronger. Current and former intelligence officials also cautioned that Iranian involvement in the insurgency should not be overstated. They noted, for example, that most IED attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq are launched by Sunni insurgents rather than the Shia elements most directly backed by Iran. One senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking recently to a group of reporters on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that only a “small percentage”" of IEDs found in Iraq show signs of possible Iranian origin, though the official indicated that because of their more sophisticated design, the Iranian-linked IEDs tend to be more deadly than Sunni homemade bombs.

Some congressional Democrats have also expressed concern that the administration was overstating the Iranian connection in the same way that Bush and his aides did in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Through a spokesman, the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, told NEWSWEEK that he intended to look into the intelligence behind administration claims about Iranian IED supplies. “Senior administration officials, including the president himself, have said publicly that Iran has sent IEDs into Iraq,” Reyes said, adding: “I will be closely examining the intelligence that underlies those claims.” Nevertheless, intelligence officials contacted by NEWSWEEK insist that Iranian interference in Iraq appears significant. U.S. intelligence officials say they are aware of staging points—sometimes upgraded in unofficial accounts to "training camps"—in Iran, Syria and Lebanon that are used by insurgents traveling in and out of Iraq. Intelligence agencies believe that supplies, such as the sensors, are shipped from these locations.

One U.S. official said that the staging posts do not necessarily stay in the same location for long, which would greatly complicate any efforts by U.S. secret military units or intelligence teams to shut them down. Another U.S. official said that information about one such staging area in Syria is well known. But the details about what goes on there—and information about the extent to which civilians are present at the site—are murky. Any U.S. move against them could cause unwanted civilian casualties and a major confrontation with Syria. U.S. officials believe supplies and personnel are moved across the Iraqi border from Iran via "ratlines"—intelligence jargon for smuggling routes—which, in some cases, are fairly well-documented by intelligence reporting. However, those same routes are also used by large numbers of Iranian pilgrims who travel to and from sacred Shia shrines inside Iraq. This can make it difficult, if not impossible, for U.S. forces to crack down on Iranian aid to insurgents because it is impossible to tell pilgrims from Iranian government operatives. U.S. officials note that all the major Iraqi Shiite parties, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s, have strong historical ties to Iran; some of the groups even operated from Tehran during Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. An Iranian outpost in the Kurdish town of Erbil, which was recently the target of a controversial U.S. military raid, has been known for the last 10 years as an Iranian intelligence base, a former official said. And one of the biggest open secrets in Iraq is the identity of the station chief of Iranian intelligence. According to former CIA official Riedel, he is one of the "most important figures in Baghdad." But this person operates from the Iranian Embassy, almost certainly under cover of diplomatic immunity. While his identity is known to intelligence agencies and his activities may be watched, there is little if anything—short of a violation of diplomatic conventions that could amount to an act of war—that U.S. forces can do to shut him down.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Captain Jarred Fishman, USAFR at permanent link# 1 Comments

The Demonic Convergence

I’ve written previously about the organization called Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, also known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Established in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, its goal is to return Islam to its roots in the Koran and the Hadith, purify Muslim practices, and re-establish Islamic governance under the Caliphate.

Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah GilaniThe Muslim Brotherhood was (and is) a Sunni organization, but that doesn’t stop it from working with other branches of Islam that share a common goal of defeating the infidel and overthrowing secular governments.

And now, according to The Politics of CP, there seems to be a link between the Ikhwan and the Sufi terrorist Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, founder of the Muslims of America and Jamaat ul-Fuqra. CP, as the premier online investigator of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, has discovered the apparent connections:

Ikhwanul Muslimun is, in fact, listed in the IRS online database of “Charities & Non-Profits”. The organization is also listed on two websites listing presumably charitable organizations accepting car donations [here and here]. Interestingly, the address for Ikhwanul Muslimun corresponds to that of the Muslim Parochial School near Hancock [here and here].

Records listing contact names for both Ikhwanul Muslimun and the Muslim Parochial School were then matched to the address of Islamberg, the headquarters compound of Muslims of the Americas (MOA). Incidentally, another “charity”, which isn’t listed with the IRS, called Hand-to-Hands Inc. is also based at Islamberg. It purports to be the “humanitarian and social welfare arm” of the MOA. International Quranic Open University is yet another arm of the group based in Hancock. MOA, which owns possibly two-dozen settlements like the one in NY throughout the US and claims several thousand members, is the primary front organization for a Pakistan-based Islamist militant group known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra.

MOA has a long history in Brooklyn. An address history search for the individual connected with Ikhwanul Muslimun showed links to addresses in Hancock, Deposit, and Brooklyn, NY among other locales. Another search linked the principal of the Muslim Parochial School to both Brooklyn, NY and Williamsport, PA where an MOA group used to operate.

There are a lot of links to his original sources in CP’s post; you’ll want to go there to find them, and also to read the rest of his summary. While you’re at it you can browse his archives, which contain the most extensive information about Jamaat ul-Fuqra available on the web.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological engine of modern Sunni Islam. It has codified the visceral anti-Western and anti-modern sentiments of the Muslim Middle East, giving its practitioners a well-developed intellectual base and a sophisticated methodology.

A connection between the Ikhwan and MOA comes as no great surprise. There is ample evidence that Hizbullah — which is Shiite — is coordinating its efforts with various Sunni groups, including Al Qaeda. Why not extend the cooperative sphere to include Sufi terrorists? All of them share the common goal of exterminating the kuffar and establishing a worldwide Islamic government.

The Demonic Convergence which has formed in the last few decades is seizing the opportunity posed by Western decadence, weakness, and self-loathing. Sayyid Qutb, the great populizer of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote in his 1963 book Milestones (Ma’alim fi al-Tariq):

The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak. The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values, which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.

It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable.

Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life.

More than forty years ago the premise was made clear: The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values, which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.

To complete the Demonic Convergence, all that is necessary is the passive — or even active — assistance of the Left within Western countries. The doctrinaire Socialists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Deconstructionists are only too happy to comply, ready to assist with their own suicide.

Fjordman has pointed out the natural synergy that has arisen between the Left and the Islamists:

[T]he fascination with Islamic movements… is partly based on hatred of the West and a belief that the world must be “liberated” from Western civilization, which is the cause of global injustice.

City on FireCan there be a more poignant manifestation of this trend than Denmark’s “City on Fire” project, which visualizes with great longing the incineration of Western Civilization? The useful idiots of our own culture are supplying the fuel while radical Islam provides the oxygen for the great conflagration.

The match may already have been put to the tinder. According to Daniel Pipes:

Significant elements in several Western countries - especially the United States, Great Britain, and Israel - believe their own governments to be repositories of evil, and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins.

The various “purifiers” of Islam are well aware of our weaknesses; they show an uncanny ability to get into our culture and borrow what is useful in order to destroy it. Actual weaponry — the IED, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. — are part of the plan, but so are political and cultural strategies. The Islamists appropriate our organizational methods, utilize a party system, and borrow freely from Marxist, Green, and Multiculturalist rhetoric to use against us.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is notably effective in all these activities. I have quoted previously from their website:

The work of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to carry the Islamic da’wah in order to change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society. It aims to do this by firstly changing the society’s existing thoughts to Islamic thoughts so that such thoughts become the public opinion among the people, who are then driven to implement and act upon them. Secondly the Party works to change the emotions in the society until they become Islamic emotions that accept only that which pleases Allah (swt) and rebel against and detest anything which angers Allah (swt). Finally, the Party works to change the relationships in the society until they become Islamic relationships which proceed in accordance with the laws and solutions of Islam.

That particular Hizb ut-Tahrir website is no longer available — authorities keep taking down the site, and the group keeps moving it. The current site for the UK Chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir is fairly innocuous as Islamist websites go, which is probably why it’s still extant. Britain is one of the few countries where Hizb ut-Tahrir is still legal.

But don’t be fooled by the mild taqiyyah versions of the group’s ideology. When you drill down to their non-PR sites, that’s where you can find the real red meat. Their latest incarnation seems to be here, where it is clearly stated that Hizb ut-Tahrir is “a political party whose ideology is Islam”. According to their “About Hizb-ut-Tahrir” page:

…Hizb-ut-Tahrir must be a political party that undertakes within the Ummah this task [Islamic governance] and works towards seizing the reins of power through her; thus Hizb-ut-Tahrir is not a spiritual bloc, nor is it a moralistic or a scientific bloc, but rather a political bloc that works towards the management of the Ummah’s affairs as a whole according to Islam.

It’s not a spiritual bloc; it’s a political bloc.

Its ideology is Islam.

Its intention is to wage jihad until the goal of a worldwide Islamic government is reached

When the Islamists’ goal is achieved, there will be plenty of time to sort out the Sunni-Shiite-Sufi issues. Lots of time to line up the “false Muslims” against the wall and give them the justice of the bullet. Bloodshed in the name of the Prophet can continue indefinitely, even after all the infidels are gone, until Islam is really, really, 100% pure.

In the meantime, the Demonic Convergence is upon us. Radical Islamic groups are working together, sharing information and manpower, planning and executing strategies against the kuffar. The talking heads and PR firms lie and obfuscate, but if you look beneath the surface you can find their goals clearly stated, the agenda laid out for all to see.

And the useful idiots are lining up, falling over each other in their eagerness to abase themselves before the Legions of the Prophet.

Islam, as it is presently practiced by the majority of devout Muslims, is a political ideology. It is about power, about taking it from the infidel and entrusting it to the vanguard of the true believers.

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler are the role models. The Party’s purpose is to realize the revolution, enforce discipline, and instruct the people. It requires absolute dedication, absolute ruthlessness, and allows no compromises except for temporary and expedient ones.

Say good-bye to the Worldwide Socialist Revolution. Say hello to the Worldwide Caliphate.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Baron Bodissey at permanent link# 5 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts