Islamic Danger 2U

New Ally in the War Against Al Qaeda?

2010-02-15T19:25:00.000-08:00

28 January 2010

They have largely been ignored by the rest of the world, but some analysts say the U.S. might soon need to reach out to a little known indigenous group in Algeria known as the Kabyles, for help in the war against al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists who operate from the North African nation.

The Kabyles are part of the indigenous Berber peoples of North Africa and who in recent years have been pursuing self rule for the territory they call Kabylia within Algeria. A largely secular group of Muslims, the Kabyles support democracy, and like the U.S. they have been targeted by the Islamic terrorists who use Kabylia as a launching pad for their attacks. Their leaders maintain the Algerian government discriminates against them. Population estimates for the Kabyle people range between seven to ten million, with two million of them living mostly in France.

Walid Phares, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, and a Fox News terrorism analyst, says the Kabyles "are mostly secular and believe in democracy, and could become an efficient ally against the Jihadists." He says "al Qaeda and the Salafists have strong bases in Algeria, and the Kabyles resist them fiercely so we have a strategic interest in helping them, but without crumbling our good relations with the Algerian secular Government."

Some experts believe that strategy could be risky. Ronald E. Neumann, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Algeria from 1994-1997 believes that any U.S. intervention in internal Algerian politics would be a mistake. Neumann, who is President of the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington, tells Fox News that U.S. "support would unquestionably threaten our relationship with Algeria", as the Algerians would view it "as a fundamental threat" to their country.

On its website, the State Department describes the U.S./Algeria relationship as a growing one, especially since 9/11 where "contacts in key areas of mutual concern, including law enforcement and counter-terrorism cooperation, have intensified." The State Department did not respond to questions regarding the U.S.’s position on the Kabyles.

Experts hope the Obama administration can strike a chord between its relations with the Algerian government and the Kabyle people, who have been pressing for some sort of autonomy ever since Algeria gained independence from France in 1962.

Walid Phares, who has also lectured on the Kabyles, says that the administration should not hesitate in supporting the rights of the Kabyles and accept their call for self rule "as a legitimate principle". Phares says "we need to maintain excellent relations with the Algerian Government, which is fighting al Qaeda. We can continue to support Algiers against al Qaeda while we are urging them to talk with the Kabyles, their own citizens: it will be in their own interest to do so."

"We are the only bastion of anti-Islamization on the continent", says Ferhat Mehenni the President of the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylia (MAK), which is one of the three main Kabyle political parties, from his exile in France. He maintains that they have to contend with kidnappings and killings by Islamic extremists, including the Algerian arm of Al Qaeda, all of whom operate along the mountainous regions where the majority of Kabyles live. Mehenni tells Fox News that only last week a church was burned down by extremists and that he wants to work with the U.S. in efforts against al Qaeda, but will need its support for its peoples own freedom.

In 1992 Algeria was thrown into civil war following the election of an Islamic party. The military annulled the result, which led to a bloody civil war with Islamic terrorists which, according to the U.S. State Department, resulted in 150,000 deaths. In 2006 Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb, was formed and has adopted suicide bombings and kidnappings as part of its modus operandi. In 2007 it bombed the UN’s offices in Algiers which killed thirty people and the attacks have continued. The State Department continues to warn Americans about traveling to Algeria due to fears of terror attacks.

In what seems to be a sensitive topic, not just to the Obama administration, but also the Algerian government, the Algerian Ambassador to Washington did not respond to several requests that were directed to his office for an interview.

Meanwhile, Ferhat Mehenni is trying to get a meeting with Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and while the UN Secretary General has met with the likes of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he wouldn’t meet with Mehenni who says he feels "betrayed" by the UN, but hopes a commitment of support from the Obama administration for the Kabyle fight for self rule, will lead to a strong partnership against the Islamic fundamentalists, saying that the Kabyles can be a "rampart" against them, and become a beacon for democracy in the area.

Phares, who describes the Kabyles as the "Indians of North Africa", believes the U.S. must always be "on the side of democratic values and fundamental rights" and that there should "not be any hesitations with regards the principle of supporting the rights of the Kabyles."

As to a change of policy by the administration regarding support of democratic movements in the region, Phares says, "because the administration is relying on the advice of experts representing the interests of the regimes and anti-democratic ideologies such as Jihadism and Pan Arabism, the administration was told and convinced that if the U.S. calls for freedom this would upset the Muslim world. The Administration was fooled because Muslims want freedom too.’’

January 28, 2010 - 9:54 AM by: Ben Evansky

Leave a comment

Discuss live in the forums

your comments:
New Ally in the War Against Al Qaeda?
11 February 2010, par Imazighen 1980
Let’s not make the same mistake the Kurds made in Iraq. America is only after its own interests in Algeria and if we (Kabyles or Berbers in general) help them against the Islamists then we will effectively have signed out own death certificate. After all, the US will leave and all the Islamo-Jihadists will flock to Kabylia to wage Jihad on the Berbers??!! Thanks, but no Thanks!!

The US is a country that has no scrupules (?) in its foreign policies, let’s not forget they are the biggest ally of the Wahhabi Terrorist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. As Berbers we have absolutely nothing to do with Arab in-fighting in Algeria between the Arab regime and the Arab-Islamists. I say let them finish each other off, and if the US wants to get involved then let them deal with Algerian Arabs since the Al-Qaeda in Algeria is essentially an Arab-Terrorist organisation facing the Algeria Government, which in turn is an Arab-Terrorist regime.

We want our own autonomy to govern our own land and to get a 50% share of the Algerian oil. Let the Algerian regime deal with its own creation - the Islamists, and any US involvement is a matter for these two to deal with.

answer this message

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=610

More About the "Nice Moslem" and the "Good Moslem" -- are the one and the same?

2010-02-13T17:35:00.000-08:00

This refers to Bill Warner's previously published Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?

"Aghast" Scholarship
February 13, 2010
by Bill Warner

Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent politicalislam.com newsletter-Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim? He replied to the newsletter with his Scourge of 'Islam Experts', but he missed my point.
The point of the Nice Muslim newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times. A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:
The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted, enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir does not have any positive attributes.
There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir.
Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances Islam.
Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose to make all kafirs submit to Islam.
A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule, a non-Islamic principle.
The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case the so-called good verses are abrogated later.
Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine.
Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:
On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.
So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply: I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.
There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.
What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine, not one who is likable.
Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.
This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect. A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology,a sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Sharia law is learning about Islam.
He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.
I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since Islam does not have a Golden Rule.
All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create the Islamic civilization.
His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.
Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good reason for their appearance. The university trained 'experts' are apologists for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood and never refer to Islam.
The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa, Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course would be bigotry.
It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official Islam that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff-Official Islam. Too bad it does not exist.
So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told.
When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.
It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right. If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.
Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.
The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political IslamPermalinkcopyright (c) CBSX, LLCpoliticalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

How Many Times Do the Islamic Terrorists Have to Hit Us . . .

2010-02-11T19:17:00.000-08:00

before we believe that the Islamic Jihadists are trying to kill as many of us as they can?

It’s Still Not Islamist Extremism?

By Supna Zaidi
Muslim World Today

It seems that every time there is an actual or attempted terrorist attack, the media goes into a tailspin, asking experts, pundits and politicians how such a thing could happen, and what we should do to prevent another incident in the future. Unfortunately, it is usually only a matter of time before another incident occurs, only to renew such empty commentary on TV yet again.

Sadly, the ineptitude illustrated by the latest terrorist effort by Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib in airline, airport, and immigration visa security policies reveals a systemic lack of resolve from the executive branch to the TSA and Homeland security to fight Islamist extremism. And without real resolve at the top, we shouldn’t expect much more than apathy from a domestic bag checker or consulate officer abroad.

Resolve requires believing there is a common enemy. Yet, current and past administrations deny that the Islamism, or political Islam behind the indoctrination of men like Muhammad Atta, Nidal Hasan, and now Umar Farouk Abdulmuttab. It is not Islam or a strain of Islam because we say so, but because the terrorists believe so. Empowered by Qurans, printed with militant anti-colonial commentaries from Muslim Brotherhood icons, or the anti-American and anti-western tirades of the South Asian Maulana Mawdudi’s version of Islam, Deobandism, Muslims are taught to interpret their social political ills through a lens of the most violent, separatist, and antiquated passages of Islam.

Yet, everyone, non-Muslim and Muslim alike on the airwaves seems confident in stating, "This isn’t Islam." Well, if it is not, where is the competing interpretation of the faith spreading globally to marginalize Islamic extremism. Oh, wait, the Saudi’s won’t fund that? Shocking.

That is because central to Islamist pr is deflection. By convincing everyone that all the craziness since 9/11 is strictly America’s fault, Islamists proceed to attack fellow Muslims with impunity.

The recent attack by Islamist extremists on a peaceful Muharram procession in Karachi by the minority Shiite community where over 40 were killed is but one illustration. A second glaring example is the democratic revolt in Iran, which has been labeled a western conspiracy and "un-Islamic" by the dictators in charge.

And where does the son of a wealthy banker like Mr. Abdulmutallab fit in? Well, as the college president of an Islamic society absorbed in rhetoric hostile to the West, or "at least in its interaction with the Muslim world," not very far. The Islamic Society, as the New York Times, notes, "provided comfort" to Abdulmutallib, posting YouTube videos revealing that the organization, "served in recent years as a forum for agitated debate about the "oppression" of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims by the United States and other Western countries."

Let’s not forget that oppression justifies legitimate jihad in the Islamic world. And where a man’s worldview is filtered by his faith, not a secular identity, its Muslim versus non-Muslim wherever he goes. This encourages boys like Abdulmutallib to reduce global politics to the world simply, and intentionally "out to get" Muslims, ignoring a myriad of factors that complicate that equation which would also make local elites and politicians accountable for the poor position of millions of Muslims worldwide.

Addressing Islamist indoctrination remains the most important and most ignored aspect of Islamist terrorism. While it continues to create boys like Abdulmutallib, immediate security concerns will remain.

But, instead of distributing body scanners, and any other technological innovations airports may need, the TSA will be forced to unduly debate the need for full body scanners because of privacy issues.

Television stations like CNN will repeatedly air terrorist affiliated CAIR messages imploring Americans not to ethnically profile, and our politicians will remain awkward when talking about Islamic extremism because, they themselves, apparently think Americans are intelligent enough to distinguish between Muslims engaged in a global political movement from ones who also want to live under democratic laws that protect women, ethnic and religious minorities under a regime that keeps religion out of politics.

By remaining reactive rather than proactive new innovative terrorist attacks will only grow. Richard Reid used his shoes to carry the same PETN powder Abdulmutallib carried in his underwear. So now, we take off our shoes when going through security and we debate body scanners. With everyone forgets that while we plug holes in security as the terrorists reveal them to us, they are searching for new ones for "next time."

(Supna Zaidi is assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum and editor of Muslim World Today )

article reprinted from http://www.paktoday.com/mwtoday/sapna.htm

India Under Attack - Via Bengal!

2010-02-09T14:49:00.000-08:00

THE DEATH OF INDIA STARTS FROM BENGAL
by BENGAL UNDER ATTACK
http://bengalunderattack.blogspot.com/2010/02/death-of-india-starts-from-bengal.html

Read this exceptional article written by Dr Arun Shourie - THIS IS NOT MR. ADVANI SPEAKING.

WHAT COMES NEXT?

DR. PETER HAMMOND'S BOOK " SLAVERY, TERRORISM & ISLAM: HISTORICAL ROOTS & CONTEMPORARY THREAT" states:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine ["Palestinian" Arab occupied Israeli Territories] -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.

Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

SO WHERE IS BENGAL:

In districts where there are over 40% Muslim population, there is anarchy and hardly any rule of law. It provides for terrorist breeding and recruiting ground as I have written in many earlier articles. Shockingly barbaric Islamic rules are carried out with impunity without recourse to Indian Penal Code, including beheadings (these are documented facts).

WHAT NEXT:

Muslims demand Urdu to be the 2nd official language of four subdivisions: At a time when the Left Front is trying to keep its minority votes intact, the minorities' organisations want the state government to declare Urdu as an official language in four subdivisions of Kolkata, Garden Reach, Asansol and Islampur.

To press for their demand, representatives of various Muslim organisations under the banner of Anjuman Taraqqui Urdu (Hindi) staged a demonstration at Rani Rashmini Road on Sunday.

At present along with Bengali, Nepali is also an official state language since 1961. The four subdivisions where Muslim organisations want Urdu to be declared as an official language have nearly 20 per cent Urdu speaking minority population.

"If our demand is not met then its effect will be seen in the elections. There are more than 60 Assembly seats where minorities play significant role during elections," claimed a representative during the demonstration.

THE THREAT:

Always aimed at political class - vote share where minorities will swing the vote. And political class caves in.

WHAT FOLLOWS:

Caving in as : West Bengal govt announces reservation for Muslims in govt jobs: "On a day when the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down job reservation for Muslims, the West Bengal government on Monday announced 10 per cent quota in employment for the community under the OBC category."

AND SO MY DEAR INDIANS - WHAT WILL FOLLOW IS MORE PRODUCTION OF CHILDREN FROM THE GREAT ISLAMIC FACTORY AND SEE BENGAL GO DOWN IN FLAMES AS IS SURE TO FOLLOW AS PER DR. HUMMOND'S PERCENTAGE FORMULA - AND WITH THAT THE IDEA OF INDIA.

Posted by BENGAL UNDER ATTACK at 3:13 AM

Labels: BENGAL

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey BUA,

Good that u have come bak to Bengal. It is indeed an alarming situation and now with this quota we are legitimizing all illegal migrants from Bangladesh to set up terror factories.The divergence between Gujarat and Bengal could not be starker.
February 8, 2010 8:00 PM

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...
I want to clarify something here. When I am talking of Muslims in this article, I dont mean the kinds that are represented by APJ Abdul Kalam, AR Rahman (a convert), Aamir Khans of this world. And there are Pervez Hoodboy, Asma Jehangirs and Ahmed Rashids in plenty in pakistan too.Unfortunately I am talking of the vast majority of Muslims who live in ghettoized colonies and get easily influenced by rabid Maulanas. Incl some educated ones who are lost in their identity and see Islamic cause as a vision to their own confused life. And hence this forms more than 80% of the Muslims in the sub-continent and elsewhere. Many well meaning perhaps, but will support "quom" over nation building.Go and see where least taxes come from, go and see where least electricity bills are paid, which localities. Even Hindus are Christians are poor - but there is something called "pride in nation" and nationbuilding that is missing en masse in ordinary Muslims in India.
February 9, 2010 2:45 AM
　
Narottam said...
Don't know much, but you are going right.

Post a Comment

http://bengalunderattack.blogspot.com/2010/02/death-of-india-starts-from-bengal.html

Related:

How to Stop Islam from Taking Over Your Country
Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures
http://howtostoptheislamicjihad.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=30

from
How to Stop the Islamic Jihad

ALSO

Hindus of Bangladesh
Bangladesh and the destruction of Hinduism and Buddhism

Bangladeshi Hindu - Representing Bengali, Indian & World Hindus, Religion, Temple, Blog, Hinduism, Issues & Rights
http://www.bangladeshihindu.com/

Don't Believe Iran! Lies and Dissimulation are Part of Islam

2009-12-12T14:56:00.000-08:00

.
The real reason Iran can't be trusted

By Mamoun Fandy

London – In the run-up to talks with Iran last month [October 2009], many in Europe and the United States asked whether Iran would, or even could, come clean on its nuclear activities.

Should the West trust Iranian promises? The short answer is "no." But the underlying question is "Why not?"

The answer lies in Iranian belief systems – notably the doctrine of taqiyya, a difficult concept for many non-Muslims to grasp. Taqiyya is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political or worldly affairs. At one level it means that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime can tell themselves that they are obliged by their faith not to tell the truth.

This doctrine has not been discussed much in the West, but it should be. How should the world deal with taqiyya in Shiite Islam in the context of Iran's nuclear file?

Can Iran be trusted?

In Iran, the teachings of Shiite Islam govern all aspects of society. And taqiyya – dissimulation and concealment – is one of the key elements of the Shiite faith. While many outsiders are surprised by Iran's concealment of its nuclear installations, those who study the Shiite faith and recognize the signs of taqiyya are not.

Many governments lie about strategic secrets, especially secrets about nuclear weapons. Witness Israel's concealment of its nuclear capabilities. And former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping counseled his country to "hide its brightness" – for strategic reasons.

Iran's approach to its nuclear ambitions, however, is a different form of deception and denial. Certainly states do not need a religious edict to lie or obfuscate. But it helps if a state has one already in place.

What can the West do?

Western negotiators must be mindful, not only of the technical side of Iran's nuclear program, but the historical evolution of taqiyya. Such context sheds critical light on the insecurities of the Iranian regime and that of the Shiite community at large.

Taqiyya doesn't mean the West should give up all negotiations with Iran, or that Iran can never be trusted. Tehran's concealment is a means to an end: It wants nuclear weapons to provide security for the clerical regime and the Shiite community. So long as Iran feels threatened, it will deceive. But if the West can ease Tehran's anxiety with strong assurances, then negotiations will be more truthful.

How a doctrine of deceit developed

Taqiyya requires the faithful to be deceitful at times of weakness. The history of Shiites in their conflict with Sunnis is a history of the downtrodden. They have been the underdogs in Islamic history, and have had to protect both their communities and their faith from being overrun by the more numerous Sunnis. Taqiyya emerged as a response.

Taqiyya offers a license to violate the strict rules of the faith in cases of extreme pressure or threat of extinction – something not unusual in Sunni-Shiite history. The doctrine allows dissimulation in the service of self-preservation, practiced by the faithful.

The teachings of Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Shiite imam, emphasise taqiyya as a political tool. "Befriend people on the surface, and keep your grudges and intentions hidden," he advised. He also defined the relationship between the Shiite and other Muslims: "[B]eing double-faced with one's own takes one outside the bounds of faith, but with others [with non-Shiites] is a form of worship."

The words of Shiite imams are viewed as having the authority of the prophet Muhammad, and they entail obligations. Taqiyya is one component of the faith, and the Shiites are instructed to practice it until the time the Mahdi returns. The Mahdi is the figure who, like the Messiah in Christianity, will return and spread justice on earth.

Until that moment occurs, the Shiite faithful are obliged to practice taqiyya in their dealings with other Muslims, as well as with non-Muslims.

Opposing value systems

While the policies of the West and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are driven by the concept of transparency as a key doctrine of modernity and modern states, those who are negotiating with Iran must question the extent to which the Shiite regime in Tehran is driven by the concept of concealment. There are two different value systems at work here, making common ground exceedingly difficult to find.

Today the West may rightly be obsessed with nuclear installations in Iran, or the number of centrifuges it has, or even uranium-enrichment levels.

Last month, Iranian officials allowed IAEA officials to inspect a nuclear facility near the city of Qom. But they won't reveal everything: that would violate their faith. Shiites are obliged by their religious teachings to protect both the faith and the community until the return of the Mahdi. From Tehran's perspective, "nuclear" taqiyya is a must, because strategic nuclear weapons are the only means to protect the Shiite community in these modern times.

The West must understand that Iran's nuclear guile is a function of regime insecurities. And its insecurity is rooted in reality: Iran feels squeezed by the tens of thousands of US troops who brought regime change to its west, in Iraq, and to its east, in Afghanistan.

If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith.

Mamoun Fandy is the director of the Middle East program at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. He's also the author of the forthcoming book, "The Shia-Sunni Divide and the Coming Middle Eastern Cold War."

[Fri Nov 20, 4:00 am ET]

[ALSO SEE Can Moslems Be Trusted? "Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah"

and

Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries]

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

NOW . . .

If you have read this far, do you believe this quote from the foregoing Mahmoun Fandy article represents the way things are with Iran?

"If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith."

There is no sign of Iran "negotiating in good faith," given Obama's weakness in facing its nuclear ambitions.

How much "feeling safe" does the Iraninian regime need? Allowing it to go ahead with perfecting the nuclear weapons it desires so that it can nuke Israel off the face of the Earth?

KNOW YOUR ENEMY - PART ONE

2009-12-05T19:17:00.000-08:00

Fitna and the Kafir: Part One

By Kenneth Roberts

December 1, 2009

Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing 'The Satanic Verses' bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is 'FITNA'.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means 'tempting', 'enticing' or 'luring' another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word 'fitna'.

Muslims cast a veil over 'kafir fitna'…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah's just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention 'fitna' and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed's method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah's vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. 'Punishment' euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed's religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 - "Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?" No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.

The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.

Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called 'supremacism'.

In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam's key doctrine of Mohammed's supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed's authority does more harm than anything!

As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.

In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?

The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).

Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.

Jihad is Mohammed's method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.

The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.

Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed's violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed's halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah's Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah's divine plan and violence is Mohammed's method.

The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…'even if the infidels are averse to it!' (Koran 9:33)"

Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!

That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.

Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more 'fitna'. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

FACTS, FALLACIES AND BIGOTS

2009-12-01T20:34:00.000-08:00

by Bill Warner

Bill Warner presents us, in his words, with "an exercise in fact-based rational thought." He quotes a fairly typical, politically correct, fair-minded Rabbi committed to ecumenicism and determined to think well of everyone. Warner quotes the letter that embodies that point of view, then proceeds to demonstrate that this image of Islam doesn't conform to reality. Defusing the hatred in the Koran because the Jewish and Christian Scriptures also -- in the Rabbi's words -- contain "bad material" doesn't anwer why Jews and Christians have moved on, but Muslims still stone people and behead them and cut off hands for trivial offenses.
READ MORE

Islamic Terror is not only fought in the battlefields of Afghanistan and the Middle East . . .

2009-11-19T16:25:00.000-08:00

from Small Wars Journal :

Major Hasan reintroduces 'Terror and Consent'

Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print

The massacre at Fort Hood is a reminder that the War on Terror is not fought just in south Afghanistan or Mosul. It is a global war also fought in an office building inside a military base in Texas. Many counter-terror analysts focus on the Pakistan connection and preventing The Big One that could top 9/11. But the real problem may well be the self-motivated “small ball” players like Major Hasan or a future disciple of DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad. “Small ball” terrorism won’t have the economic, political, or strategic impact that 9/11 did. But if there is enough of it, the public will eventually find political leadership that will provide an adequate response to the problem.

What should be that response? How should Western societies respond to the generalized problem of terrorism, especially the domestic variety? Constitutional law professor and former National Security Council staffer Philip Bobbitt attempted to provide a comprehensive answer in his grandly ambitious book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century. In a message that ruffled feathers on every point on the political spectrum, Bobbitt argued that in order to defend Western values of liberty and the rule of law, both domestic and international law would need to become more muscular. Bobbitt rejected that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government power. In a future world of “market-state terrorism” he fears we are headed to, Bobbitt argued that more law authorizing more surveillance and more foreign intervention would be the only way to protect basic liberties.

After an initial flurry of attention, Terror and Consent seems to have been shelved to collect dust. Without another 9/11 or even any small ball terrorism inside the U.S., no one has had any need for Bobbitt’s theories.

Major Hasan’s case may reintroduce us to Terror and Consent. Many want to know why the electronic surveillance over Hasan was not used to stop him in advance of his rampage. A fair question. Are there other Major Hasans who have similarly self-radicalized and are preparing to strike? Or about to self-radicalize even if they don’t know it yet? Is there a government agency responsible for monitoring and preventing this? If so, what should be an acceptable level of false positive identifications and apprehensions?

Bobbitt attempted to address these and other questions in a dense and theoretical way. But maybe it won’t be just theory for much longer.

Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print
Comments (6)

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/11/major-hasan-reintroduces-terro/

ALSO see

An Oath Violated
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/an-oath-violated/

‘Islam not responsible’ for Fort Hood massacre: US imam

2009-11-06T21:21:00.000-08:00

Why?

because Islam means peace. That's what they claim. But . . .

An islamic miniature (one of many) that portrays muhamhead at a beheading. So if their guy is at killings, what is the big deal with associating islam with violence.

It's because it is TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH.

www.practicalturkish.com/miniature-siyer-i-nebi--beheading.jpg

It shows Ali bin Abu Taleb beheading Nasr bin al-Hareth in the presence of the Prophet Mohamhead and his companions.

In 1995, this miniature (measuring just 7 by 9 inches approximately) fetched £ 42,000 at Sotheby's in London. the devil hates to be discovered for what the deceiver is.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/

above from http://www.finalcrusade.com/4.html

‘Islam not responsible’ for Fort Hood massacre: US imam
by sheikyermami on November 7, 2009

At last! Not a moment too soon: denial is a river in Egypt, but the kuffar-media is desperate to lap it up.

Debbie Schlussel:
Nidal Malik Hasan was just a "stressed out victim of Islamophobia."

King Kong Schlong: Its Islam, Stupid! Spare us the "Sudden ‘Camel Jockey’ Allahu Akbar Derangement Syndrome… Fake ’Dr’ Phil spouts this same BS line about stress and trauma being the reason, not that Islam actually was the reason.
Breitbart.com

Islam is "not responsible" for the bloodbath at an army base in Texas where Muslim-American army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly gunned down 13 people, the prayer leader at the mosque where the officer regularly worshipped said Friday.

"We offer our condolences and prayers to the families that have a person who died," said Imam Mohammed Abdullahi over loud-speakers that carried the weekly Muslim prayer to several hundred worshippers gathered at the mosque.

"Islam is not responsible," he stressed.
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/11/07/islam-not-responsible-for-fort-hood-massacre-us-imam/

　
Former JAG Officer on CNN Tells Dr. Phil to Quit The "Psychobabble" & Deal With The Islamic Factor at Ft. Hood....

Lefties are working overtime to spin this one so Islam isn't the motive (he's mentally ill, Islamophobia drove him to do it, Bush's fault etc). The facts: Hasan's a Muslim and he killed infidels to please Allah. Deal with it.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/video-gold-former-jag-officer-on-cnn-tells-dr-phil-to-quit-the-psychobabble-deal-with-the-islamic-fa.html

Islam breeds hate, intolerance and great confusion about the human condition. It is necessary that one day it be nothing more than a testimonial relic of man's capacity for misdirection. I look forward to that day, though I may not live long enough to see it. It had better come, though, or a new dark age will descend upon mankind, courtesy of Islam.

Yes, the situation is this dire. Islam is incapable of reform but very capable of creating repression, misery and death. Its theological blueprint is a menace to liberty as much as Marxism and Nazism were. And I'm running out of patience for those who blindly persist in not seeing this.
Wellington November 6, 2009 4:15 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/when-nidal-hasan-came-calling.html

　
How many centuries has this been going on and we still reject that Islam is anything but peaceful? There has never been a time, anywhere in the world, that Islam was not the aggressor. No, not every Muslim is radical, but can anyone show me one instance, even within the Military, where Muslims personally want to put an end to Islam's threat to infidels?

We do not know the details of each and every Muslim serving alongside our Military. That's the problem. What are we asking Muslims to do when deployed to a war zone fighting the war on terror. We are asking Muslims to kill Muslims, knowing that their "faith" teachs that only Muslims can, and should, survive. I know many Muslims are serving this country, but, really, I ask again, will they tell you they want to put an end to Islam's threat to infidels? Will they?

http://findalismonkeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2009/11/cair-defends-islam-fort-hood-shooter.html

Cartoon thanks to http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/left-wing-political-correctness-killed-those-soldiers-at-fort-hood/

When you hear someone shout "allahu akbar!" shoot the bastard! http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-you-hear-someone-shout-allahu.html

THE TRIUMPH OF ISLAM - HOW TRIBALISM TRUMPS RATIONALISM AND CIVILISATION.

2009-11-05T22:06:00.000-08:00

by najistani

Viewed rationally, Islam is a non-starter. Its 'Holy' Book consists of half-digested fragments of Judeo-Christian theology, mixed with the bile of hatred, and spewed into the fair face of Christendom from the putrifying guts of a violent, deceitful, plundering pedophile. The Koran is full of historical, scientific and logical errors and even contradicts itself on numerous occasions. Not exactly the work of a Supreme Intellect!

And yet Muslims claim that these demented ramblings and rantings are the literal word of God Almighty, to be treated with utmost respect. They throw enormous tantrums when Korans are left in toilets or returned to libraries with bacon-rashers as bookmarks. In the Islamic paradise of Pakistan, damaging a Koran or insulting The Pedophile are punishable by death.

To understand Islam we need to look at the most primitive organisational state of mankind - Tribalism.

If we regard the Ummah as a tribe, and the Koran, the Pedophile and the Black Meteorite as the tribe's three main totems, we begin to get a better understanding of Islam. A tribe derives its identity and unity by displays of reverence towards supernatural totems, and feels insecure and threatened whenever the power of its totems is weakened, for example by the totems being 'humiliated' or 'polluted' . One of the surest ways of demoralising a tribe has always been to desecrate its totems.

This explains the rage at the Motoons, and the 'hate crime' of the Koran down the toilet. It also explains why the Saudi authorities made such a fuss when they found a Christian in Mecca. The precincts of the Holy Meteorite had been defiled by a najis kaffir.

Tribal culture and psychology are difficult for civilised people to understand. Most parts of Western Europe have not been organised tribally since the Dark Ages, so it's difficult to get inside Muslim mind and understand just how primitive and benighted are the psychological processes that go on there. For example:

- A tribe regards itself as perpetually at war with all other tribes - hence the Muslim worldview of Dar a-Harb in conflict with Dar al-Islam, and Ummah in conflict with Kaffir.

- The property and women of other tribes are there for the taking. Might is right - hence the Jizya, Razzia, white slaving etc which are all justified by the Koran. Tribalism also explains the chants of 'We will take your wives for booty' at the London Motoons demonstration - this is the typical behavior of the stone age savage.

- The ethics of reciprocity (do as you would be done by) only apply within the tribe. Hence the lack of any Golden Rule in Islam. The nearest you get to the Golden Rule in the Koran is desiring for your brother Muslim ('kin-selection') what you desire for yourself - in other words share out the booty equally.

- Loyalty to the tribe is of paramount importance - hence the punishment by death for apostates.

- The tribe must not mingle with other tribes or else it may lose its identity - hence the self-imposed ghettoisation and ethnic cleansing of Kaffirs from the periphery of the ghetto as seen in European cities.

- There is a great desire to destroy or humiliate the totems of other tribes, especially where they have phallic significance - hence the attack on the twin towers, and the plans for the MegaMosque whose minarets will be taller than any Christian building.

Muslims in the modern world are living fossils, though like dinosaurs suddenly set down on the streets of London, none the less dangerous for being so primitive. Islam appeals to the lowest and basest instincts of man, and in the absence of a strong, confident modern culture will gradually reduce its host society to a disfunctional state of anarchy where Islam can gain the upper hand.

Tribalism makes it impossible to defeat Islam by reason or appeals to decency. The Koran, the Pedophile and the Meteorite are not capable of being examined rationally or ethically - they are pre-rational symbols of tribal cohesion. And when that tribe is on a roll , and believes itself to be the strongest and fastest growing tribe winning the Jihad against all the rest, no rational argument will persuade its warriors to abandon the winning side.

The Ummah may eventually have an 'Emperor's New Clothes Moment', but it will not come about by reviewing the evidence for a flat earth in the Koran. It is more likely to happen by military defeat in a European Civil War or World War III.

najistani

Tags: islam, Tribalism, Muslims

When will the Arabic-Islamic colonialism end?

2009-10-25T03:46:00.000-07:00

by Jugurten

All the Amazighs (Berbers) in Algeria-the Kabylians, Chaouis, Touregs, Chenouis and the Mzabs-have always been and continue to be the victims of Islamist colonialism for 14 centuries, since the death of Dihia ( A Berber Queen who fought against the first Arabic-Islamic hordes which invaded Algeria).

Centuries and centuries of oppression, persecution, exploitation, murders, destruction and falsification have deprived this “redoubtable and numerous” people-as described by Ibn Khaldoun-of its civilisation and its identity to an extent that makes him doubt of himself and fell like he is nothing without being an Arabic Islamic.

Today, we are witnessing and living an Amazigh revival in all Tamazgha (North Africa), and it becomes more and more evident that the changing or even the downfall of North African Islamic regimes is unavoidable. Recently, a Touareg (Berber from South Algeria) told me that if his people weren’t afraid of the Arab government of Algiers which is able to impose a food embargo on them, they would struggle by using any means necessary to gain back their cultural, linguistic, identity and racial rights.

Another Chenouis from Tipaza told me someday: “Azul [Hello], I am sorry, I can’t talk to you in Kabylian language, because as you know this sad situation is due to the criminal Algerian Arabic-Islamic government which has always favoured our extinction, we, the children of Juba (Amazigh King), but one day they (the Arabic-Islamic governors) will pay for all their crimes and our cultural genocide.”

Actually, all the Amazighs feel the same injustice which has lasted too long. The Arabic-Islamic colonists have always kept a permanent watch on the Amazighs for centuries, since they first arrived in the country. After more than 14 centuries of colonisation, the relationships between the Arabic-Islamic colonists and the Amazighs have not known any change at all. We are, until today, still being mistreated, brutalized, imprisoned, persecuted or murdered every time we dare ask individually or collectively for the official recognition our millennium culture and identity. We, Kabylians, must do everything necessary to win our sovereignty (autonomy) because the survival and the salvation of the rest of the Amazigh people in Tamazgha depend on the success of our human initiative. Then, Kabylia will serve as an example and show the right way to follow for our Amazigh sisters and brothers in Tamazgha, caught in a destructive and fascist Arabic-Islamic trap.

JUG

Posted Thu, 09/11/2008 - 00:25 by Jugurten
http://www.kabylia.info/when-will-arabic-islamic-colonialism-end

Why Did So Much of India Fall Under Moslem Rule?

2009-10-21T16:49:00.000-07:00

[an excerpt from Fjordman]

Muslim scholars did not seriously study other cultures with curiosity and describe them with fairness, the Persian universal scholar al-Biruni’s (973-1048) writings about Hinduism and India being one of very few exceptions to this rule. He had taken the trouble to learn enough Sanskrit to be able to translate in both directions between this language and Arabic (for him also a learned language). As author John Keay writes in his book India: A History, Muslims were viewed by Indians as just another group of foreigners, perhaps annoying but essentially marginal. This was a big mistake:

“There is no evidence of an Indian appreciation of the global threat which they represented; and the peculiar nature of their mission — to impose a new monotheist orthodoxy by military conquest and political dominion — was so alien to Indian tradition that it went uncomprehended. No doubt a certain complacency contributed to this indifference. As al-Biruni (Alberuni), the great Islamic scholar of the eleventh century, would put it, ‘the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no science like theirs.’…his scientific celebrity in the Arab world would owe much to his mastery of Sanskrit and access to Indian scholarship….Unlike Alexander’s Greeks, Muslim invaders were well aware of India’s immensity, and mightily excited by its resources….Since at least Roman times the subcontinent seems to have enjoyed a favourable balance of payments….The devout Muslim, although ostensibly bent on converting the infidel, would find his zeal handsomely rewarded.”

[excerpt from Fjordman's http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-did-europeans-create-modern-world.html]

STOP ISLAMIZING THE WEST!

2009-10-01T09:22:00.000-07:00

[S]top referring to Islam as a religion and stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries.
--Geert Wilders

See MORE at . . .
Geert Wilders presents a 10 step plan for stopping the Islamization of the West.
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/must-see-a-warning-to-america-from-geert-wilders/

The Plot Against America

2009-09-26T23:28:00.001-07:00

Review by DEXTER FILKINS

Published: August 6, 2006

Reprinted from http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/03/plot-against-america-review-by-dexter.html?zx=a44486c44649c66

When Mohamed Atta and his four Saudi confederates commandeered a Boeing 767 and steered it into the north tower of the World Trade Center, they began a story that still consumes us nearly five years on, and one that seems, on bad days, to promise war without end.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Osama bin Laden

Frances M. Roberts/The New York Times

F.B.I. counterterrorism expert John O’Neill, who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

But the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were in many ways less the start of a tale than the end of one, or at least the climax of one, begun many years before in many different precincts: in the middle-class suburbs of Cairo, in the mosques of Hamburg, in Jidda, in Islamabad, in the quiet university town of Greeley, Colo.

In its simplest terms, this is the story of how a small group of men, with a frightening mix of delusion and calculation, rose from a tormented civilization to mount a catastrophic assault on the world’s mightiest power, and how another group of men and women, convinced that such an attack was on the way, tried desperately to stop it.

What a story it is. And what a riveting tale Lawrence Wright fashions in this marvelous book. “The Looming Tower*” is not just a detailed, heart-stopping account of the events leading up to 9/11, written with style and verve, and carried along by villains and heroes that only a crime novelist could dream up. It’s an education, too — though you’d never know it — a thoughtful examination of the world that produced the men who brought us 9/11, and of their progeny who bedevil us today. The portrait of John O’Neill, the driven, demon-ridden F.B.I. agent who worked so frantically to stop Osama bin Laden, only to perish in the attack on the World Trade Center, is worth the price of the book alone. “The Looming Tower” is a thriller.

And it’s a tragedy, too.

In the nearly five years since the attacks, we’ve heard oceans of commentary on the whys and how-comes and what-it-means and what’s nexts. Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker — where portions of this book have appeared — has put his boots on the ground in the hard places, conducted the interviews and done the sleuthing. Others talked, he listened. And so he has unearthed an astonishing amount of detail about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Muhammad Omar and all the rest of them. They come alive.

Who knew, for instance, that bin Laden, far from being a warrior-stoic fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was actually a pathetic stick-in-the-mud who would fall ill before battle? That the combat-hardened Afghans, so tired of bin Laden’s behavior, declared him and his Arab associates “useless”? Or that he was a permissive father and indulgent husband? Or that he is only six feet tall?

More important, who knew — I sure didn’t — that bin Laden had left behind such a long trail of words? Wright has found them in books, on film, in audio recordings, in people’s notebooks and memories. This has allowed him to draw an in-depth portrait of bin Laden, and to chart his evolution from a self-conscious step-child growing up in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, to the visionary cave-dwelling madman who mimics the Holy Prophet in his most humdrum daily habits.

Wright takes the title of his book from the fourth sura of the Koran, which bin Laden repeated three times in a speech videotaped just as the hijackers were preparing to fly. The video was found later, on a computer in Hamburg.

“Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower.”

There is poetry, too. Here is a particularly chilling bit, found on another videotape, which bin Laden had read aloud at the wedding of his 17-year-old son, Mohammed. The celebration took place not long after a pair of Qaeda suicide bombers, riding in a tiny boat filled with explosives, nearly sank the billion-dollar guided missile destroyer Cole. At least with regard to his abilities as an author, bin Laden was unusually modest: he let someone else write the words. “I am not, as most of our brothers know, a warrior of the word,” he said.

A destroyer, even the brave might fear,
She inspires horror in the harbor and the open sea,
She goes into the waves flanked by arrogance, haughtiness and fake might,
To her doom she progresses slowly, clothed in a huge illusion,
Awaiting her is a dinghy, bobbing in the waves.

“The Looming Tower” is full of such surprising detail. Al Qaeda’s leaders had all but shelved the 9/11 plot when they realized they lacked foot soldiers who could pass convincingly as westernized Muslims in the United States. At just the right moment Atta appeared in Afghanistan, along with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ziad al-Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi, all Western-educated transplants, offering themselves up for slaughter. The game was on.

Just as dramatic as the portraits of bin Laden and Zawahiri is Wright’s account of the roots of Islamic militancy — the intellectual, spiritual and material world from which the plotters came. Wright draws a fascinating picture of Sayyid Qutb, the font of modern Islamic fundamentalism, a frail, middle-aged writer who found himself, as a visitor to the United States and a student at Colorado State College of Education in Greeley in the 1940’s, overwhelmed by the unbridled splendor and godlessness of modern America. And by the sex: like so many others who followed him, Qutb seemed simultaneously drawn to and repelled by American women, so free and unselfconscious in their sexuality. The result is a kind of delirium:
“A girl looks at you, appearing as if she were an enchanting nymph or an escaped mermaid,” Qutb wrote, “but as she approaches, you sense only the screaming instinct inside her, and you can smell her burning body, not the scent of perfume, but flesh, only flesh. Tasty flesh, truly, but flesh nonetheless.”

It wasn’t much later that Qutb began writing elaborate rationalizations for killing non-Muslims and waging war against the West. Years later, Atta expressed a similar mix of obsession and disgust for women. Indeed, anyone who has spent time in the Middle East will recognize such tortured emotions.

WRIGHT shows, correctly, that at the root of Islamic militancy — its anger, its antimodernity, its justifications for murder — lies a feeling of intense humiliation. Islam plays a role in this, with its straitjacketed and all-encompassing worldview. But whether the militant hails from a middle-class family or an impoverished one, is intensely religious or a “theological amateur,” as Wright calls bin Laden and his cohort, he springs almost invariably from an ossified society with an autocratic government that is unable to provide any reason to believe in the future. Islam offers dignity, even in — especially in — death. Living in the West, Atta and the others felt these things more acutely, not less. As Wright notes:

“Their motivations varied, but they had in common a belief that Islam — pure and primitive, unmitigated by modernity and uncompromised by politics — would cure the wounds that socialism or Arab nationalism had failed to heal. They were angry but powerless in their own countries. They did not see themselves as terrorists but as revolutionaries who, like all such men throughout history, had been pushed into action by the simple human need for justice. Some had experienced brutal repression; some were simply drawn to bloody chaos. From the beginning of Al Qaeda, there were reformers and there were nihilists. The dynamic between them was irreconcilable and self-destructive, but events were moving so quickly that it was almost impossible to tell the philosophers from the sociopaths. They were glued together by the charismatic personality of Osama bin Laden, which contained both strands, idealism and nihilism, in a potent mix.”

In John O’Neill, bin Laden almost met his match. The supervisor of the F.B.I.’s New York office and of the team assigned to track Al Qaeda in the United States, O’Neill felt, as strongly as anyone in the government, that Al Qaeda was coming to America. He was a relentless investigator, a volcanic personality and sometimes his own worst enemy. In the end he broke himself on a government bureaucracy that could not — and would not — move as quickly as he did. O’Neill and others like him were in a race with Al Qaeda, and although we know how the race ended, it’s astonishing — and heartbreaking — to learn how close it was.

Some of the F.B.I.’s field agents, as we now know, had premonitions of what was coming. When the supervisor of the Minneapolis field office was admonished, in August 2001, for expressing fears that an Islamic radical attending flight school might be planning a suicide attack, he shot back defiantly that he was “trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center.” Amazing.

The most gut-wrenching scenes are the ones that show F.B.I. agents trying, as 9/11 approached, to pry information from their rivals inside the United States government. The C.I.A., Wright says, knew that high-level Qaeda operatives had held a meeting in Malaysia in January 2000, and, later, that two of them had entered the United States. Both men turned out to be part of the team that hijacked the planes on Sept. 11. The C.I.A. failed to inform agencies like the F.B.I. — which might have been able to locate the men and break up the plot — until late in the summer of 2001.

The fateful struggle between the C.I.A. and F.B.I. in the months leading up to the attacks has been outlined before, but never in such detail. At meetings, C.I.A. analysts dangled photos of two of the eventual hijackers in front of F.B.I. agents, but wouldn’t tell them who they were. The F.B.I. agents could sense that the C.I.A. possessed crucial pieces of evidence about Islamic radicals they were investigating, but couldn’t tell what they were. The tension came to a head at a meeting in New York on June 11, exactly three months before the catastrophe, which ended with F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents shouting at each other across the room.
In one of the most remarkable scenes in the book, Ali Soufan, an F.B.I. agent assigned to Al Qaeda, was taken aside on Sept. 12 and finally shown the names and photos of the men the C.I.A. had known for more than a year and a half were in America. The planes had already struck. Soufan ran to the bathroom and retched.

Great stuff. I just wish Wright had given us something, even a chapter, on the hijackings themselves; as it is, he takes us right up to the moment, and then straight to the burning towers. Perhaps he felt that ground was too well-trodden. My other complaint is more substantive. Through the enormous amount of legwork he has done, tracking down people who worked with bin Laden and Zawahiri over the years, Wright has drawn up verbatim reconstructions of entire conversations, some of which took place more than a decade ago. Many of these conversations are riveting. Still, in some cases, it’s hard to believe that memories are that good.
“The Looming Tower” ends near the Pakistani border, where Zawahiri, or someone who looked like him, rode through a village on horseback and then disappeared into the mountains. It’s not a definitive ending; there is no closure. And that’s the point. For as amazing as the story of Al Qaeda and the road to 9/11 is, it’s not over yet.

Dexter Filkins is a Baghdad correspondent for The Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/review/06filkins.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&amp;amp;en=0e30be2935673b53&ex=1312516800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss pagewanted=1&ei=5090&amp;amp;amp;en=0e30be2935673b53&ex=1312516800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss First Chapter: ‘The Looming Tower’ (August 6, 2006)

_________________________________________

*THE LOOMING TOWER
Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. By Lawrence Wright.
Illustrated. 469 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $27.95.

Al Qaida threatens ugly actions in Germany after elections

2009-09-18T21:32:00.000-07:00

translated from LA VANGUARDIA.es - Internacional: Al Qaeda amenaza con atentar en Alemania tras las elecciones

Berlin. German television broadcasts a video of Islamist Bekkay Harrach demanding the withdrawal of German troops in Afghanistan [or face the consequences]

18/09/2009 updated 18: 38 pm Berlin International. (EFE).-

The terrorist organization Al Qaida threatens harmful actions in Germany after the 27 September elections if the government resulting from the elections does not call for the withdrawal of the German troops from Afghanistan.

According to a video accessed by the major German television network (ARD), the organization threatens Germany with a "bitter awakening" if the new Government, after the election, does not put an end to the German mission in Afghanistan.

The network announced that the person who made the threats on behalf of Al-Qaeda is Bekkay Harrach, Germano-Moroccan Islamist sought in Germany for supposed terrorist activity. "If the people decide by their choice of government a continuation of the war, they will have sentenced themselves to what will befall them."

"The general elections are the only opportunity to the people to shape the policy of the country," says Harrach in the video. The alleged terrorist also adds that "When the last German soldier leaves Afghanistan, the last mujahaddeen will leave Germany".

Harrach repeatedly appeared last year on a propaganda video for Al-Qaida, and in this last video, according to ARD, he urges resident Muslims in Germany to stay "away from public places" two weeks after the elections.

The German Federal Prosecutor's Office speculates that Harrach was recruited into the terrorist organisation by the Turkish Islamist Ömer Ö, which is currently being investigated in Koblenz (South Germany) for their alleged membership in Al Qaeda.

Translated from Al Qaeda amenaza con atentar en Alemania tras las elecciones, La Vanguardia.es

Translation of original webpage by Bing.com, edited by Leslie White

Why Al Qaeda Maghreb Will Continue to Strike

2009-09-06T16:40:00.000-07:00

The North Africa Journal : It's been a busy period for Al Qaeda Maghreb (AQMI). Its latest [published in April, 2009] targets have been European tourists and two Canadian diplomats still missing, despite the release of their driver. These latest strikes occurred at the eve of regional summit on security and peace in the Sahel region.

And so part of the motivations behind these strikes is to send a message to those who are combating that AQMI can strike any time, anywhere in the region. The latest from the Malian capital Bamako was that the summit has been postponed since unnamed leaders of the represented countries (Mali, Algeria, Niger, Libya, Burkina Faso and Chad) had scheduling conflicts. The reality is that such summit could not have happened after such a coup from Al Qaeda.

It is unsure how the abduction of the diplomats occurred. A consensus has emerged that the two men and their driver were first kidnapped by Touareg rebels, who traded them to AQMI. The two Canadian diplomats and the four European tourists were kidnapped in a zone located between the border of Mali and Niger, on the Niger side of the border. An announcement via Al Jazeera TV was made by a spokesperson called Salah Abu Mohammed. The Canadians Robert Fowler, Louis Gay and their Nigerian driver Soumana Moukaila, were actually seen in mid-December 2008 in Western Niamey, Niger’s capital. On December 14, 2008 they went on a private visit to a gold mine in Samira, operated by a Canadian mining company. As for the European tourists, they were officially kidnapped on January 22, 2009 also along the Mali-Niger border.

In reviewing some of the available details, it is worth noting that it is the first time AQMI or a terror organization manages such a daring operation on the Niger territory. Niger is clearly becoming a hotbed of illegal activity. It is also clear that Al Qaeda was seeking to make itself known and acknowledged as the heads of Sahel based governments were preparing to meet to discuss regional security. And while officials in Mali, the summit host country, claim that scheduling conflicts arose, AQMI’s latest strikes are likely the reasons behind the postponement of the conference. The attention of western governments, who also had a stake in participating in the summit, focused on the emerging crisis with their citizens and diplomats in the hands of Al Qaeda, an had little appetite for a forum.

This is not the first time Al Qaeda strikes in the Sahara. The latest such kidnappings happened last year when AQMI militants kidnapped two Austrian tourists in southern Tunisia desert. AQMI managed to elude the Tunisian authorities and escaped to Mali by traveling through the treacherous Algerian desert. After several months of intermittent talks, the Austrian government gave in to the demands of the kidnapers and ended up paying a ransom to free its nationals.

Germany also followed a similar move to free other hostages, a situation that has been a source of contention and displeasure in the region’s capitals, including Algiers. These countries argue that paying ransom money is equivalent to funding terrorism in affected regions. Algeria’s highest ranking officer in the ministry of foreign affairs in charge of Maghreb and African affairs, Abdelkader Messahel is one of the top officials that made statements linking ransom payments to terror financing, while acknowledging the difficulty in controlling or monitoring the vast Sahel region as challenging. With an uncontrolled and vast territory, with growing money from ransoms and an abundance of weapons in the region’s black markets, AQMI is looking to benefit from such environment to establish a strong base from which it can manage its operations up north. The distracting Touareg conflict affecting the Sahara is creating another opportunity for AQMI to benefit from the confusion.

Unless there is a more cohesive regional strategy, involving with the participation of Western governments on issues around kidnapping and ransoms, AQMI will continue to operate in the region unchallenged. The incentives to build a base in the Sahel are more real than elsewhere. In addition to the expected continuation of their kidnapping strategy as a source of funding, coupled with the availability of weapons in that part of Africa, AQMI’s northern presence has been substantially eroded by sustained enforcement and military operations in the populated urban centers and rural areas. As Algeria, Morocco and other countries continue to crack down on insurgents, so it seems logical that the theater of operations would move in scarcely populated areas and in the vast desert. Until a cohesive approach is put in place, strengthened with real resources, technology and man power, AQMI will continue to execute on its plans to terrorize the region.

17 April, 2009

http://www.north-africa.com/social_polics/security_politics/2aprilnine19.html

American Allies - the ethnic or religious minorities under oppression

2009-07-09T15:04:00.000-07:00

Singer-activist Ferhat Mehenni’s campaign for liberal self-government.
Posted Mon, 06/22/2009 - 21:35 by Jugurten
Democracy in Algeria
from http://www.kabylia.info/

On the margins of the Arab world, the United States has some little noticed allies. These are ethnic or religious minorities who have never accepted the inevitability of strongman rule. Some of them have fallen on hard times-the Maronite Christians of Lebanon are scattered and defeated for now; the Copts, in Egypt, have been lying low for decades-but others see their fortunes rising. The Kurds of northern Iraq flourished under the protection of American jets in the last years of Saddam Hussein and are throwing themselves into the rebuilding of their country. Less familiar is the story of the Kabyles of Algeria and the bard-activist Ferhat Mehenni, who is one of their better-known leaders.
Read more

Iran and the US -- and the Problem of Afghanistan

2009-06-21T12:28:00.000-07:00

Iran and US through Afghanistan

Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD International Law - Persian Journal
Iranian.ws

Iran sees its cooperation in the Afghanistan exactly contrary to the US view. This means, Iran is not interested in helping the West solve its problems in Afghanistan and then go to other problems. It sees the cooperation in Afghanistan as something that comes at the end. When other problems of the USA and Iran are solved, then Iran may help the USA in Afghanistan as an advantage or a concession to the US.

The US Administration, under President Obama, in a major shift in U.S. policy, declared that the United States wanted to invite Iran to a conference on the future of Afghanistan, which was held at the end of March 2009. Iran's government spokesman, Elham, responded that the Islamic Republic would consider such a request, (1) and later Iran actually took part in it. At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki said the United States came to Afghanistan aiming to root out extremism, restore security and fight the drugs trade."All indicators in regard to these three areas show that the conditions have deteriorated sharply," he told state television. (2)

However, two things were obvious in Mr. Elham's remarks: First, the US and the West (NATO), were in "need" of help in Afghanistan. Second: They have "asked" Iran for help and Iran was going to consider the possible help because: "it was ready to help Afghanistan as it battles a growing Taliban insurgency".

While Iran and the United States sat at the same table to discuss Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, the Bush administration later called Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil.

Iranian regime felt betrayed. Instead of getting some of the "spoil" in return for its services in war, it was made target of more criticisms. This was a source that put the government of Iran in attack from inside. The extremists that had asked the government not to cooperate in Afghan issues were made bolder and they took the American position in Afghanistan vis a vis Iran as a proof that were right. They ask what are the guarantees that we do not get the same response after helping the Americans in Afghanistan?

Iran and the US both want:

1- The Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and disconnected with Pakistan
2- The stability of state in Afghanistan ( Iran is more concerned about areas close to Iran)
3- The control on narcotic drugs (Iran and US both want this but for their own reasons. Both of them are consumption centers, but Iran is also a transit route. US is worried the drugs get the money for Taliban and Al-Qaida and other terrorists)
4- They both do fear from Sunni terrorism headed by Al-Qaida.

At the same time, they have conflicts

1- The US does not wish to see the dominance of Iran in Afghanistan
2- The US is afraid of Shiite terrorism (3)
3- Iran does not want to see the American or Western plans succeed anywhere.
4- The Iranian regime hates to see the growth of democratic institutions in Afghanistan
5- Iranian regime does not want Afghanistan to be used as a base for Western (US) military operations against Iran.
6- Iran is more afraid of the USA than Taliban.

Kayhan Newspaper, close to the Supreme Leader, in an article (under the title of: "NATO's begging of Iran along with arrogance!") has mentioned: "In a move to take distance from their previous positions based on ignoring the influence of Iran in Afghanistan, the Europe and the USA have been forced to invite Iran to the gathering of the G-8 in the same field, while NATO and the USA confess that they are close to total defeat in Afghanistan and they see Iran as the only way to escape however, the Foreign Minister of Italy has said: this is an opportunity for Iran to get out of isolation (!)." (4)

Also, Aleddin Borojerdi, the Chairman of National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Majles have said: "Iran is against stabilization of the presence of [foreign] forces in Afghanistan, the experience in Afghanistan has proved that presence of foreign forces would lead to the deterioration of extremism and terrorism in that region." (5)

A review of these points leavers no doubt about the different ways of Iran and the US in looking at the problems in Afghanistan. Iran and USA have not the same time lines for cooperation in Afghanistan.

In fact what happened in the actual meeting on Afghanistan, indicated to the same fact. Iran not only did not take any step that could be interpreted as cooperating with the USA, but it avoided to let this event be a stage in the developments in the relations of Iran and US through Afghanistan.

There was something of a controversy between Iran and the U.S. regarding whether or not the delegations of the two states met at the Afghanistan conference in the Hague (31 March 2009).
The VOA reported: "Senior U.S. and Iranian leaders met Tuesday on the sidelines of an international conference in the Hague aimed at re-energizing international commitments for war-torn Afghanistan. Participants agreed to boost security and development in the central Asian nation.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the meeting that took place between U.S. special representative Richard Holbrooke and Iran's deputy foreign minister Mehdi Akhundzadeh as brief but cordial. She said the two sides had agreed to stay in touch." (6)

According to a semi-official news agency in Iran, Mehr, the spokesman for the ministry of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran denied any meeting, official or otherwise, between the representatives of Iran and the U.S. in and around the Hague conference.(7)

Shahrzad news reports that Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen claimed on a television talk show that the night before the conference he met the U.S. representative, and Holbrooke expressed an inclination to meet the Iranian representative unofficially. Therefore, Verhagen as the host arranged for the two to sit at the same table during lunch. (8)

Whatever its nature may have been, the two sides had some kind of contact. Based on the exact words of the Iranian side and whatever they may have meant, however, it may be equally possible to say no "contact" between Holbrooke and Akhundadeh took place. For instance, an employee of the Iranian diplomatic mission in The Hague who was not a member of the Iranian delegation to the conference may have represented the Iranian side.

What did Akhundzadeh, the Iranian representative have to say? According to a report on Zamaneh, a Persian web site sponsored by Radio Holland, "The point that the other side is trying to convey that this [i.e. the meeting] occurred, for whatever reason, perhaps indicates to a certain extent that they are in a hurry, or they want to exploit this in a certain way." (9) The fact that each side persists in interpreting this "contact" in its own way (the U.S. calling it a promising move and Iran calling it "nothing") has certain meanings quite independent of the nature of that contact:

1- The U.S. side is eager, perhaps even overeager to elicit a response from the Iranian side towards establishment of bilateral relations.
2- The U.S. expects much from Iran in response to the Nowruz message of President Obama to Iran.
3- Disregarding other possibilities, the U.S. has interpreted Khamenei's response to President Obama as keeping the door open for negotiation and simply looking for a face-saving way.
4- The U.S. is ignoring indications that Khamenei's response was an attempt to throw the ball back into the U.S. court. The supreme leader repeated he is waiting for the change.
5- The Iranian side did not consider its presence in the Hague conference on Afghanistan "as publicly declared time and again before the conference" as a step in the line of U.S.-Iran negotiations. In fact, the delegation criticized the U.S. presence in Afghanistan as an enhanced presence intended to find a military solution for a problem that cannot be solved militarily.

The conclusion is that Iran is not interested in the stability of Afghanistan the way the US sees it. Iran more likely prefers:

1- To see the defeat of US plans for Afghanistan as a yet another indication that the US policies do not work in the region.
2- Iran likes stability in the parts of Afghanistan near to its borders. The rest of Afghanistan is not so important. If the Taliban and Al-Qaida can create problems for the US, it is welcomed and even persuaded. As far the US relations with the regime of Iran are concerned, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
3- Iran may cooperate with the US for the preservation or continuation of "stability", but it will cost the US in other places and cases.

Notes
(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5282VN20090309?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
(2) http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5282VN20090309?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
(3) http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0504/p06s02-wosc.html
(4) http://www.magiran/npview.asp?ID=1815268 ) March 2, 2009, No. 19312, P. 2
(5) http://www5.iran.ir/View/fullstory/Tools/PrintVersion/?NewsId=384684
(6) http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-31-voa45.cfm
(7) http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2009/04/085771.php
(8) http://www.shahrzadnews.org/news.php5?id=2212
(9) http://www.bitaraf.com/showlink.php?id=1053060

Bahman Aghai Diba, Washington based Iran analyst, is a former Iranian diplomat and currently a consultant to the World Resources Company

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_29145.shtml
first published Apr 14, 2009

Thinking Dangerous Thoughts . . .

2009-06-06T23:06:00.000-07:00

. . . can get one in trouble

or can it?

This past weekend the NY based Islamic Thinkers Society crashed the Israel Day Parade in Manhattan. Keeping with their past track record they spewed nothing but hate while calling for the destruction of Israel.

Thinkers indeed. I think I need to get a gun for the next parade.

The above from Islamic "thinkers" think it's all right to call for the re-opening of Auschwitz

COMMENT by me (Leslie White)

Free Speech for them Musulims, okay, but with what's in the White House, how long can Americans expect to enjoy Free Speech because of the First Amendment?

The administration is rapidly becoming a tyranny of czars and an unbalance of powers in the government with the Executive branch grabbing it all. With the control of the Supreme Court, he's got two thirds and can start re-interpreting the Constitution in his favor. (Who's he? The clown in power.)

COMMENT at barenakedislam:

by fred g

I can think of a few good signs myself

“Anyone who supports Obama is the enemy of America”

“Muslims are child rapists, and Obama is a muslim!”

I could list a few more, but then Id have the newly formed Obama gestapo on my doorestep murdering me for exercising my free speech righs

Comment by barenakedislam on June 7, 2009 12:29 am
Not yet, Fred, we still have free speech but who know for how long? After he shuts down talk radio he’s coming for the bloggers. Next year I’ll be sure to go to that parade and I’ll take a few Marines with me.

And from another site comes this COMMENT:

This country is under attack by people even more sinister and power hungry than Hitler was. Our war is here and now. You and other patriots like us, are the leaders that will take this country back. We have the power, the will and the numbers to do so. If we all do our part, we can rid this republic of the leeches that are killing it.

and in answer to it:

Make NO mistake America, the time is coming, we WILL have open warfare in the streets and fields of this nation, it’s only a matter of time, and sooner or later, we will fight here and win, or we will lose and AMERICA will die!

Foregoing two Comments from What has our *Greatest Generation* become?
June 6th, 2009 . by TexasFred
http://texasfred.net/archives/4308

Want to read more?

OK, here's something to think about:

Overture to Civil War: There's Something Happening Here . . . and it ain't good at all
When the same idea comes from unconnected sources, separated by time and the wall that stands between life and death, it's more than a coincidence.

Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It

2009-06-01T02:01:00.000-07:00

From Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It
Op-Ed

No Sharia

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/05/31/islamization-of-europe-and-policies-to-prevent-it

[Excerpts]

Victory for European forces (A), or victory for Islam (B)

(A) A possible end result of a civil war resulting in a victory for the domestic population will be the total banishment of traditional Islam from a specific country. Widespread emigration/deportation and large scale conversion of Muslims in the country.

(B) A victory for Islam will allow all the rules of a victorious Islam to be applied. Traditional Islam will substitute for all liberal western versions of Islam that have grown in the country but still lack any real theoretical basis and a real doctrine.

Massive and nationwide expropriations, slavery of conquered women, continued slaughter of non-Christians and Christians known for opinions opposed to Islam and of moderate Muslims who initially try to protect non-Muslims, murder of minorities e g gays. A Muslim dictatorship without democracy similar to religious dictatorships in the Middle East, is established.

The sharia laws is the basis for a new constitution and the laws of the country. The institution of dhimmitude is introduced and will regulate the life of Christians and Jews. The rest of the population will slowly be eliminated. The GNP declines successively to less than 50 % of its former level, and an insignificant growth happen only during good years.

1.3. A preliminary discussion of a few phases

If the governments of a European country during the coming decades show an unwillingness to protect its European citizens from the inroads of Islamists, this attitude will sooner or later lead to violent conflicts between the traditional or new political anti-jihad forces, and the radical Islamic movement. It seems highly possible that the development phases 2-3 may last a long time in societies with strong democratic traditions, a good educational system and – from the beginning - a fairly homogenous ethnic population. The infiltration and dissemination of political Islam’s values among non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will then during a long period be carried out mainly with non-violent means. The methods of this missionary and pre-Revolutionary work during phases 2-4 show a pattern which will be analysed later. That work is often structured according to principles laid down by e g the Moslem Brotherhood for the expansion of political Islam in European countries.

This growth of Islamic influence can be counteracted by certain laws and policies.

Continue reading at
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/05/31/islamization-of-europe-and-policies-to-prevent-it

The Narcissist and his creatures

2009-05-19T13:46:00.000-07:00

"The first thing Islam does is to destroy the self image of the believers. It convinces them that without Islam they are worthless creatures only fit for hellfire. It tells them that their culture is jahelyyah (ignorance) and their ancestral religion was taaghoti (satanic). They are made to despise their identity and selfhood and seek their glory in their submission to Islam and slavery to its deity who was Muhammad’s own alter ego. Islam has taken everything from its wretched believers. They are robbed from their identity and self pride. All they have now is Islam. That is why Islam for Muslims is more than just a religion. It is their identity. When you criticize Islam, they perceive it as an attack on their identity and cringe with pain. They take that not only as an insult but also as an assault on their person. Like a cornered animal they become vicious and fight back with all their might – a fight of survival. That is why you see such a violent reaction to a few silly cartoons."
--Ali Sina http://www.faithfreedom.org/
from http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/02/some-very-enlightening-thoughts-from.html
Read more there . . .

Islamization of the United States - Progress Report 05-02-09

2009-05-02T09:56:00.000-07:00

Islamization of the U.S. proceeds: The U.S. Army War College Has Been Infiltrated by Islamics
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/has-the-us-army-war-college-been-infiltrated-by-islamists/

The year's at the spring;
The day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
Obama's in power
...All's right with the world!

(and progressing as planned)

--Borrowed from Robert Browning with one slight emendation to fit the situation at hand

The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within

2009-04-19T14:40:00.000-07:00

The Islamization of America: From Mecca to Medina and conquering Americans from within

By Aland Mizell

[From north-of africa.com Translated from the French by afrique du norde.com]

Many times the Ottoman Empire tried to take over the whole of Europe but failed to do so. The Ottoman Empire could not conquer the West by sword, but now Muslims are using a different strategy to conquer the West to bring it under the Islamic realm. Today the West is being the victim of their own values, such as freedom of speech and _expression, so that Muslims are using ‘Democracy’ as a tool and taking advantage of democracy to disseminate Islam to all the corners of the world.

After 9/11 many Muslims complained that Islam had been hijacked by Fundamentalism, and many Muslim leaders and political leaders publicly dissociated themselves from radical Islam, but behind closed doors they still continue to preach against the Westerns’ values. Many Muslims are thinking that the war is against Islam, but actually 9/11 accomplished one of their objectives, the application of universal Islamic values, particularly the jihad. After 9/11 thousands of books have been published, and many non-government organizations and Islamic centers have been established to teach Islam to infidels using American tax money. Numerous conferences have been held under the Interfaith Dialogue or Rumi Organization to disseminate Islam.

Not only in the aftermath of 9/11 did the environment open the door for Muslim missionaries to disseminate Islam in the USA, but also many American politicians, including President Bush when he visited the mosques, affirmed that the majority of Muslim who live in the United States are just ordinary people. America counts millions of Muslims among our citizens, and Muslim make an incredible valuable contribution to our society. Yet, the Muslims believe, ‘There is no God but Allah.’ In the past Americans considered that their country was founded upon Christian values and consequently that it was a Christian nation.

However, there is a new religion only a block away committed to change all aspects of the American way of life called ‘ISLAM.’ Before 9/11 this term was foreign to many Americans, but after 9/11 Islam has penetrated public schools, prestigious universities, state departments, Capital Hill, even law enforcement organizations under the banner of Interfaith Dialogue, and the American values of cultural tolerance and acceptance. According to U.S. news online, there are approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States and an estimated 1,450 mosques in the United States. Just in the Washington area there is a population of more than 50,000 Muslims including more than 30 mosques and Islamic centers According to John Esposito, a well-published professor at Georgetown University, the heaviest Muslim population live in the states of Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland Michigan Ohio, and Virginia. According to Martha Sawyer Allen, the number of Muslims soon will surpass the number of Methodists, and by year of 2010 the population of Muslim will reach more than 16 million. The estimated conversion rate among Americans is 135,000 per year.

What does Islamization mean? It means that from social, political, and cultural institutions to banking and economic operations — all aspects of the way of life — will bring the Islamic constitution, the Islamic code of law, to challenge the U.S. Constitution. It is a process by which the spiritual and political leaders disseminate Islam through missionary activities such as holding seminars on university campuses, opening cultural centers and charter schools, sending graduate students to study at ivy league institutions, building mosques, starting newspapers, infiltrating the most sensitive U.S. institutions such as the FBI, the State Department, and offices on Capital Hill, giving parties during Ramazan,, inviting Americans to Turkey and giving them tours to indoctrinate them, and asking Muslims to marry non-Muslims. Today these cultural centers are more active than mosques because in the mosque the imams cannot indoctrinate people as freely, but in the private houses and private institution, it is easy to do so. One must ask the question why tolerance meetings should be held in America and in the West in the first place since neither America nor the West is making news because of violence, committing atrocities with suicide bombings or killing innocent people because of false indoctrination of mostly the young.

These seminars on tolerance should be held where the root of problem grows, which is neither in America nor in the West. For example, many institutions and universities like Rice University, Georgetown University, the University of Chicago, and Southern Methodist University host conferences to discuss Islam. The questions are directed to lead to the position on why Islam is superior to all other religions and why it needs to be taught in the U.S. For example, NASA invited the Counsel on American Islamic Relation to teach sensitivity and diversity training workshops entitled ‘Understanding Islam and Muslims at NSA.’ Why has Islam become so delicate a topic and superior to all other religion that non-Muslim Americans should be trained and Islam be taught in American institutions? What about the beliefs of Jews, Christians and other faiths. Are representatives from those groups of faith been invited to discuss their faith as part of cultural sensitivity?

I do respect people as they are, no matter where they come from and regardless of their color, race, and faith, but Americans and the West have ignored the Muslims’ hatred of different cultures and the lack of tolerance in the Muslim world. In the Muslim world especially in the Arab countries world, anyone who is not Muslim, such as Christians and other faiths, sometimes even different Islamic sects, as seen currently in Iraq, live in constantly fear of terrorism if they choose to stay among Muslims. Muslims have one agenda no matter what American or westerns countries do as humanitarian acts for their people because it is not enough as long as they are infidels. Fethullah Gulen, the founder and spiritual leader of a worldwide educational movement who now lives in the U.S, wants to create an alternative system to capitalism, which as many argue, will eventually die. Based on this prospect, Mr. Gulen contends that when capitalism dies, Muslims will replace it with the Islamic system. Because Gulen and many other Muslims believe capitalism has not solved human problems and instead has created unequal distribution between the haves and have nots. In their view, however, Islam is a solution to the universal suffering. How can Islam become a universal religion and how can Islam replace capitalism? In other words, how can Islam destroy the American Empire? According to Gulen, the only way Muslims can become powerful is to stand on their own feet, which means by gaining economic independence from the West. How can Muslims be economically independent from the West? Gulen encourages his followers to get the positive things from the West, such as technology and education, and to leave the negative things, such as religion and social mores.

Also, he avoids confrontation with the U.S. because Muslims are not strong enough militarily nor economically to stand against America. However, Gulen wants to use America’s super power status to achieve his goals. From Glen’s point of view, the best way to defeat the enemy is to use the enemy’s own weapons against that enemy. What is the enemy’s weapon? The enemy’s weapons are democracy, technology, language, and the Western values. How can he use this against America or the West? He does so by establishing Islamic centers, non-governmental organizations, such as interfaith institutions, and cultural centers, by sending graduate students who get scholarships from Americans taxpayers, and by providing a good education, and particularly from the principle of freedom of speech to disseminate Islam. Muslims want to destroy America or the West from within, since it is hard to defeat them physically.

Many Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, believe that Islam is the religion of tolerance, peace, and freedom and that the adherents thus renounce any kind of violence and killing. Yet, in Afghanistan, Rahman captured world attention when he was charged with the death penalty for the offense of apostasy for converting to Christianity. When Muslims convert to the Christian faith, it is considered such an offense that they are subject to being killed, and many ex-Muslims live under fear of losing their life and do not have freedom and tolerance to worship to their God. On the other hand, when a Christian converts to Islam, his transformation is praised by Muslims, and he has the right to worship and even to work in better conditions, never having to hide his real identity. Why is that? Are the West and America cowards? Do Americans and Westerns have a double standard? Why do those who convert to Islam, like Cat Stevens, publicly enjoy and celebrate his new religion, travel safely, and never have to hide his face? Besides exercising these freedoms, he devoted himself to disseminate Islam without fear. Has Cat Stevens or any other Christian who converted to Islam faced the death penalty or received any threat? Why can Muslims build so many mosques yet Christians may not build churches in Muslim countries? Where are the American and Westerns leaders and why do they not address the issues of lack of tolerance in the Muslim world? For example, in the Netherlands, the former Muslim who converted to Christianity, Hirsi Ali, has to hide his face but also in this Western country face persecution.

One of the hallmarks of the West is freedom of speech and freedom of _expression, permitting critiques of claims about religion truths, but Islamic law does not allow such debate or criticism. The question many scholars as well as political leaders ask is whether Islam is compatible with democracy or whether Islam can be modernized? Specifically, can Islam tolerate freedom of _expression in America? Under the United States Constitution the State and Church are separated at least by the principle, whereas Islam does not make this distinction. For example, Italian journalist Fallaci in her book The Rage and the Pride, written after 9/11, criticizes Islam and its totalitarian forces in demolishing Western culture and civilization. She also criticizes the West for turning a blind eye to the threat of Islam. Ms. Fallaci argues that ‘Europe is no longer Europe. It is Eurabia,’ a colony of Islam where the Muslims have invaded not only in a mental or cultural sense, but in a physical sense as well. She cogently presents the case that Muslims have poisoned the meaning of democracy. Today, in Europe, there are more Muslims than Christians, and mosques are filled with devotees whereas the churches are filled with tourists. A clear denial of Judeo-Christian roots has become routine propaganda in schools and in media in Europe and now in America.

Islam has a universal agenda; it has a plan and a method. Mohammed did not just come to preach, but also he was a father, soldier, leader, husband, a precursor to the spiritual role of Islam in general in that Islam must dominate all aspects the of life. Many Muslims believe that the Qu’ran was sent to Mohammed from God via angels, so that it is God’s word. If this message is the word of God, can it be changed to be compatible now with the Western notion of democracy, to abandon the Shari law? Can Islam be modernized with the Western modernization? Many Muslims insist that Islam is consistence with democracy and can be modernized, but these ideologies are at their roots inconsistent and thus incompatible. Even the act of lying is permissible in Islam.

According to Islam, an individual can lie for three reasons: to make peace between a father and a mother, to save yourself, to lie to an enemy when you are at the war. Since many Muslims believe that they remain at war with non-Muslim in realms called a house of war and a house peace, you can lie to gain power, and then you can declare war or resist against non-Muslims as the Qumran says to lie to the unbelievers, Christians, and Jews. They are told to be nice on the surface until they gain the majority and then to take over and impose Qu’ranic law or Shari law on the population. Once the community accrues the majority, Americans cannot do anything but accept it like Europe is doing right now.

Bat Ye’or, an Egyptian author, explains in detail the systematic and calculated rise of Islam in Europe in her carefully documented record Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Once Muslims got their representatives in high public offices, then this will happen. President Bush, European heads of state, and Muslim leaders have already announced that this is a religion of tolerance. Yet, if anyone wants to understand Islam, the student of world affairs must read the history of Islam noting how Mohammed spread Islam beginning with a few people all over the world. In its beginning Islam secretly grew for more than two years because Mohammed and his companions had clandestine meetings until Mohammed got enough people and declared the time to spread Islam. Keeping secrets is very important for Muslims. Gulen repeatedly indoctrinates his followers about how to keep the secrets by using Mohammed as an example. For Gulen his followers must know the truth, but they are instructed that they cannot tell the truth everywhere to everybody.

Pope Benedict clearly defines the goal of Islam. The Qu’ran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. The Qu’ran, as the constitution of the Muslims, shapes society in all arenas. In this sense it exploits such freedoms initially allowing freedom in certain areas until the time is right to declare the necessity of society living only under the Islamic code. It cannot be its final goal to say. ‘Yes, now we too are a body with rights; now we are present in society just like the Catholics and the Protestants. If this were the situation, Islam would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature: it would be in alienation from itself.’ This alienation can be resolved only through the whole Islamization of society. For example, when a Muslim finds himself in America, he never identifies himself with the non-Muslims citizens because he does not find himself in a Muslim society (the salt of the earth). Why should everyone else who enjoys freedom of _expression today have to sacrifice because of the fanatical Muslims? After 9/11 Americans are not the same; their liberty and freedom link to their security because of the Islamic fundamentalism. Americans pay taxes, supporting Muslims who still preach hatred in the mosques. Why do Americans pay for extra security measures?

Islam has the universalism agenda to dominate the whole world. Gulen and his followers believe that Islam will be the stronghold in the West. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Gulen declared the hicret, a term referring to the time when Mohammed was exiled from his hometown in Mecca to Medina. There Mohammed initially made peace with the Israelites and encouraged his followers not to confront the Jews because in that time Jews were powerful. Even Mohammed prayed toward the Jerusalem in the early months. He established an Islamic state in Medina, where he was exiled, and then after he gained a majority, he came with an army of ten thousand to conquer Mecca without any bloodshed because the inhabitants of Mecca could not resist Mohammed’s army. Mohammed cleared the mosques of idols and ordered the people to pray toward Mecca rather than toward Jerusalem. Mohammed achieved these goals by his strategies and discipline.

During the time there was a bloody war going on between tribes, but he managed to bring all the tribes together by ordering his followers to marry with the different tribes, and he himself also married many wives from different tribes. Consequently, today Gulen, exiled to the U.S. from Turkey exactly follows the path of Mohammed and disseminates his Islamic goals throughout infidels’ lands, encouraging his fellows not to confront America, because he believes that Muslims have not reached that capacity yet. Many of his disciples get married to American non-Muslims to convert them to Islam and to become American citizens. Gulen acts not on a short-range plan, but on a long-term one.

However, many Muslims believe that Christians in the West and Americans in particular are responsible for the moral corruption, but as I mentioned earlier, Europe is not a Christian country because there are more Muslims in Europe than Christians. It is true that morality has decayed in Europe as well as in America, but that does not make the Bible corrupt, as Islam contends. Europe and American have moved further and further away from Biblical principles and by not practicing the heritage of Bible principles, then they have become morally corrupt. The other point related to corruption is that many Westerns or Americans do not follow the Bible, but if they do regard it as a guide to life, they make the Bible follow them because God gave them freedom, but many Westerners and Americans are abusing that freedom by violating its admonitions by turning instead to sex, drugs, family abuse, murders and so forth. The Muslim retort that the Bible is corrupt cannot be corroborated, but particularly the principle to love enemies rather than to kill them provides the line of demarcation between the faiths

By Aland Mizell

[1]

[1]

Allen, Martha Sawyer. "Growing Pains: Muslim Families Confront ’Americanization’."
NEWS)
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN). 29 May 1999.
Blank, Jonah. The Muslim Mainstream. U.S. News Online . 20 July 1998.
Esposito, John L. The Oxford History of Islam . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press:. 1999.
Ye¦or. Bat. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickson University Press, 2005.
Aland Mizell is with the University of Texas at Dallas School of Social Science

[First published 6 August 2006]

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=316

SPEAKING OF "ISLAMIZATION" . . .

AFP/Jim Watson

Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?"*

Key Witness in Presidential Passport Tampering Case Murdered

from Atlas Shrugs

"Do you remember this curious story during the Presidential election? A couple of months before rumblings began about Obama's birth circumstances and the discovery that BHO's COLB (certification of live birth) was a forgery, a story broke in late March2008 that State Department employees had tampered with the passport files of Barack Obama."

***

On April 8, 2008, Obama confessed to having taken a trip to Pakistan in 1981.Here is what Obama said - Jake Tapper was there:

"So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa --knowing the leaders is not important -- what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
-Obama

***

Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. (more here)

***

Fast forward: Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot Washington Times

A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department's Criminal Investigations Division.

Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.

City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.

"We don't have any information right now that connects his murder to that case," Cmdr. Anzallo said.

Police say a "shot spotter" device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.

A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

From and More at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/key-witness-in-presidential-passport-tampering-case-murdered.html
______________________________________
* Obama, the Manchurian candidate

[from David Kupelian's "Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate"]

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79411

Obama: Ignorant of History?

2009-04-14T18:22:00.000-07:00

The Answer: You can take the muladí* out of Islam, but you can't take Islam out of the muladí.

Those Who Ignore History Are Condemned - Somali Piracy in Context
by D.L. Adams

On April 6 in an address to the parliament of Turkey, US President Obama said that the relationship between the United States and the "Muslim world" is an important one. "In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical," the president said. During the same address the President stated, "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country." Mr. Obama neglected to explain in what way(s) Islam has the shaped and improved the United States. The founding fathers of the United States did not share Mr. Obama's appreciation for the "Islamic faith". In fact Jefferson, Adams, JQ Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were all were deeply concerned about the dangers that Islam represented to the new nation. Our ongoing experiences with the 21st century version of the Barbary pirates off the coast of Somalia, most recently today when an American freighter captain was freed from pirate captivity by the US Navy, illustrates a great deal about our prior relations with the "religion of peace" and how our previous leaders reacted. There is little discussion in the mainstream press about the link between Somali Islamism, piracy, and jihad, but the linkage is there nonetheless.

In spite of the news media distancing the recent attack on a cruise ship off the coast of Somalia from global terrorism, intelligence experts believe this is just the latest operation initiated against the United States and the West by Al-Qaeda. (source)

The irony perhaps is that Islam did in fact play a very important role in the early stages of the development of the United States - Islam was directly responsible for the development of the United States Navy and for the concepts that allowed for its deployment far from our coasts. The American Navy is not a river navy or coastal defense force; it is a global tool of American power whose origins can be traced directly back to an earlier American-Islam confrontation. After the American Revolution, pirates from the Barbary states (Algiers, Morcoco) attacked American shipping off the coast of North Africa in the Mediterranean and took the crews. This piracy against American shipping started in 1784 and finally ended in 1815. The Islamic rulers of these Barbary States demanded payment of tribute from the new country and it was paid, and paid. President Jefferson sent a naval force against the pirates in 1803-05. The Marine Corps were also sent in and after a long overland march, took the city of Tripoli in 1805 (thus "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps hymn). Is the Somali piracy of today related to the Barbary pirates of the early 19th century?

When then Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Ambassador from Tripoli in 1785, to reach a solution to the attacks against American shipping and crews they were dragged into a dark world in which we are still today.

"When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Source)

The Barbary piracy was based upon the doctrine of Islam, calling for endless war against the unbeliever everywhere, including at sea.

To Muslims in the heyday of Barbary piracy, there were, at least in principle, only two forces at play in the world: the Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or House of War. The House of Islam meant Muslim governance and the unrivaled authority of the sharia, Islam’s complex system of holy law. The House of War was simply everything that fell outside of the House of Islam — that area of the globe not under Muslim authority, where the infidel ruled. For Muslims, these two houses were perpetually at war — at least until mankind should finally embrace Allah and his teachings as revealed through his prophet, Mohammed.

Today, we are dealing with the same Islam. Islam is considered perfect, unchangable, unchallengable, by adherents. It is the perfect word of the perfect Allah, and carried to the world by the perfect example of humanity for all Muslims to emulate, Mohammed. History has returned, again.

"The Barbary pirates were not a “radical” or “fundamentalist” sect that had twisted religious doctrine for power and politics, or that came to recast aspects of their faith out of some form of insanity. They were simply a North African warrior caste involved in an armed jihad — a mainstream Muslim doctrine. This is how the Muslims understood Barbary piracy and armed jihad at the time, and, indeed, how the physical jihad has been understood since Mohammed revealed it as the prophecy of Allah."

If the United States was unable to fight the pirates, they would be forced to continue to pay extortion to the Barbary States, a kind of high seas jizya. Jefferson immediately determined to fight. When he became president he was able to implement the plans that he had formulated after diplomacy to resolve Barbary piracy had failed. And are we not in the same position now? During a phone conversation with a journalist prior to the attack against them by US Navy SEALs to free the captured American sailor, one of the Somali jihadist/pirates said, "We never kill people. We are Muslims. We are marines, coastguards -- not pirates," one said. Not quite marines, not quite coastguard, at least not in the American sense of the terms.

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them." (source)

When he became the 3rd President, Jefferson took action, and the United States Navy was sent to deal with the Barbary Coast pirates, which they did.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

We can trace the development of the US Navy directly to Thomas Jefferson's interaction with jihadist pirates. President Obama was right about the "Islamic faith" having "done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country," but probably not in the way that he had intended. The development of our national defense capabilities are fundamentally linked with an American conflict with Islam in 1805. John Quincy Adams didn't have to deal with the Barbary States directly as president, but his father John Adams did. Considered one of the most brilliant men to sit in the White House, JQ Adams is particularly perceptive about Islam. His warnings on the matter ring as true today as they did more than 100 years ago. The Islam that Adams discusses is the same Islam we see today.

John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”

Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :
“Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. ...The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”3 source

There is a certain bizarre justice here that our Navy ships were on hand to effect the release of an American ship captain through military action against Somali pirates likely affiliated with Islamism because of events that occurred with other Islamist pirates more than 200 years ago. When you hear in the mainstream press pundits and commentators saying that the Somali piracy is "unprecedented", don't believe it because it is not so. And don't believe that our current struggle with political Islam is also unprecedented. This is a conflict of 1400 years. Since 9/11 some of us have accepted this truth. Long before our generation, other Americans struggled with similar matters. Our founding fathers fought the jihadists of the Barbary States and came to know Islam through their jihad against innocent unbelievers. By 1830 John Quincy Adams had not forgotten the lesson. We must learn the same lesson again; then, never forget it. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. If we today choose to ignore the lessons of history we are simply condemned - we will have no opportunity to repeat.

“In the seventh century of the Christian era a wandering Arab, of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combing the powers of transcendent genius with the preternatural energy of a fanatic and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.

Adopting, from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God, he connected indissolubly with it the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in the characters, a war of more than twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extincture of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.”John Adams, 1830
–John Quincy Adams, “Christianity—Islamism.”

“Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,” originally published in The American Annual Register for 1827—1829 (New York, 1830), Chs. X-XIV: 267—402. (source)

First published in the ACT West Nashville: http://actwestnashville.com/

Bill Warner

Permalink /blog/those-who-ignore-history-are-condemned/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Original with original type-face emphases at http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/those-who-ignore-history-are-condemned/

_________________________
*The Spanish word muladí is derived from Arabic muwallad (pl: muwalladun or muwalladeen). The basic meaning of muwallad is a person of mixed ancestry, especially a descendant of an Arab and a non-Arab parent, who grew up among Arabs and was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture.
Material from Wikipedia® and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License

What Makes Those Islamic Murderers Tick?

2009-04-09T15:18:00.001-07:00

[The following is from Bill Warner, politicalislam.com, who writes:]

A reader responded to my charge that university professors are dhimmis. He maintains that not all professors are apologists and sent me this well-done article using a sociological basis of analysis. This is the type of work reflects both knowledge of doctrine and critical reasoning.

The Sociology of Jihad, How Rational People Commit Atrocities
John Andrews

The Salafists believe that only Jihad can reestablish a true Muslim state that will abolish all injustice from the earth and bring people out of the servitude to others and into the servitude of God. It is the duty of Islam to destroy all political systems which prevent people from freely choosing it and experiencing universal freedom (56). The sword (Jihad) must clear the way for the preaching and destroy those elements which limit mankind to living in a world of evil and chaos (62). This sword would be carried by a restored Caliphate based on the traditions of the Prophet. The Caliphate would be a leader the masses could trust, understand and follow. He would provide a simple message well suited to Muslims, not well schooled in traditional Muslim teachings. This message is liberating the Umma from its external enemies, the infidels and Jews (al-Zawahiri, 2001: part 11).

It is difficult to generalize about the characteristics of the Salafist. Most of these individuals, approximately 80 percent, went to secular schools as children. Over 60 percent had some form of college, many attending in the West, and most were trained in the sciences, not philosophy or religion. However, a majority considered themselves religious as children; 73 percent were married and most had children. The majority were from overprotected families with doting parents and stable households. They did not suffer from any major mental disorders. If they had antisocial personalities, they would have been weeded out because of their inability to work well in an organization and their lack of dedication, perseverance and ability to sacrifice for the cause. The 9/11 hijackers are perfect examples. They were not hostile, violent or macho throughout their yearlong stay in the U.S. However, when the moment came they killed enthusiastically. They were able to do so because of their social networking and group morality, which was developed over years. These individuals were not predisposed to do harm individually, but did not hesitate to perform monstrous acts collectively (Sageman 2004: 74-82).

This original group joined the Jihad in their mid-twenties in a country where they had not grown up. Although they were, for the most part, religious as children, they became considerably more devout immediately before joining the Jihad (92). The subsequent group of Salafists were second- or third-generation Muslims living in the West. Many of these individuals felt excluded from the society they grew up in, had no discipline in their lives, and pursued petty crimes, drank and took part in drug use. They grew up with little or no religious training (100-101). We will go into greater detail later on this second group, but for now it is important to note a similarity between both groups prior to joining the Jihad. They felt alienated in their current society. This was true for the first group who had immigrated to another country and the second group who felt alienated in the country of their birth. They both sought a cause that would give them emotional relief, social community and spiritual comfort (97). They eventually drifted towards like-minded local individuals.

The original group sought out the mosque in the foreign country where people from their homeland were. These prospective converts may initially have had strong reservations about the group's doctrines, but began developing strong ties of friendship with members of the group. There they began to form networks of friendships that solidified over a period of time. Sub groups were formed within the mosque where the intensity of their beliefs spiraled upward in an apparent game of one-upmanship. They found rules and structure that went beyond religion and became psychological and personal (108-109). They became embedded in a socially disembedded network, which, because of its lack of anchor to any society, is free to follow abstract and apocalyptic notions of a global war between good and evil (151). Instead of a top-down process of recruitment, it became a bottom-up process of young people volunteering to join the organization. They joined as a group, not as individuals. The East African embassy bombings and the Lackawanna Six involved individuals were close friends prior to joining the Jihad. Most of these relationships go back to childhood or are familial in nature, including in-laws and spouses. The crucial element is that social bonds predated formal recruitment into the Jihad. (110-113)

This process is rarely a fully conscious one. These sub-groups do not start out as terrorist groups. They evolve in that direction as their mutual relationships deepen, in a spiral of greater loyalty, mutual devotion, self-sacrifice and intimacy. They begin to believe that their actions are taken on behalf of God. Although outsiders focus on their willingness to kill, the insiders focus on their willingness to die. Their awareness of their own readiness to transcend their own self- interest fosters a special view of themselves and others like them that increases the value of friendship within the group and diminishes outside relationships. These feelings may compete with, and even be stronger than, those of love.

Ziad Jarrah's fiancé testified about her progressive loss of her fiance's love to the Hamburg terrorist cell which planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. The loss of love to this type of friendship demonstrates its powerful bond. Positive emotions motivate people to carry out horrific acts more easily than negative emotions. Killing in defense of family, friends or country is acceptable and encouraged. Perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators carried out their horrendous actions out of in-group love rather than out-of-group hate (155-157). As was previously stated, the Jihad strives in the cause of God to abolish all injustice from the earth in order to bring people to the worship of God alone and to bring them out of servitude to others-to abolish those oppressive political systems, which prevented people from freely choosing Islam.

Islam is one of the most communal of all religions, with many orchestrated, shared rituals. Salafi Islam is very strict in its code of conduct and prescribes dress, diet and conduct. The elegance and simplicity of its interpretations attract many who seek a single solution devoid of ambiguity. Salafi Islam uses tactics developed by other totalitarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism. It promotes a visual apartheid to distinguish its adherents from the rest of society. The specific uniform consists of beards, shirts falling down to the knees, and baggy pants with a cloth cap. They also carry worry beads. Women cover their hair, avoid bright colors, and, in some instances, wear the burqa, which is head-to-toe covering. They have simple answers to complicated problems, and they divide the world into good Islam and bad non-Islam (116).

There is another subtle factor that makes Islam attractive. Traditional masculine roles are well preserved in Islam. Western men find it difficult to express their "manhood" in increasingly neutered societies. Islam possesses what are seen as masculine virtues from the seventh century when men walked the earth, sword in hand, accepting no insult, and conquering infidel neighbors. In comparison to Christianity, which states "turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute you," Islam comports more closely with man's primordial lusts for war, booty and women (Ibrahim, 2006).

People will often seek a new religious or social affiliation after some significant change disrupts their old social networks, e.g., a new country, imprisonment, and alienation from friends and family. There is a period of social isolation in which the existing social and emotional ties are called into question and loosened until finally there is a total negation of everything that existed before (Sageman 2004:116). The religious revivalist organization possesses superior attractiveness over a secular political group. The Salafist emphasizes brotherhood, mutual sharing and spiritual support, which becomes the functional equivalent of an extended family.

New adherents progressively accept the new faith because it makes sense in their new interpretation of the world and their role in it. This learning process involves intense social interaction and introspection. The adherents distance themselves from their original network of friends and family or are rejected by them because of their new, highly visible behavior. The mastering of their friends' beliefs comes after a long period of intense day-to-day interaction with them. In many cases they begin living an isolated lifestyle, which intensifies the social bonds of the members. This leads to a spiral of further isolation from the outside world, the development of a collective identity, and total commitment to the group. Muslims may engage in the Jihad because they share certain norms, values and worldviews which are shaped under the guidance of a Salafi imam preaching the benefits of the global Jihad. Social interactions at these mosques build and reinforce ideological commitments to the Jihad, which these new friends further encourage (117-121).

This social jihadism has worked with second- or third-generation Muslims and new immigrants as well. This development is a paradox to many sociologists, who figured that radical Islam was confined to newcomers who brought it with them. With time, the theory went, immigrants and their children would moderate their views. Instead, it is Europe's second- and third-generation Muslims who are the most radical. Many of these individuals believe their European society is against them. They are growing up in a world of high unemployment and lack of integration in their homeland. Some begin drinking, doing drugs, becoming members of youth gangs and engaging in crimes with no moral compass or goal in life. They then become introduced to an individual who talks to them about the world, their place in it, and the religion of their ancestors. They are provided with audio and videotapes of preachers who advocate a stripped-down form of Islam that emphasizes the culture's past glories and a handful of simple religious regulations.

Soon they are meeting with like-minded contemporaries, getting rid of jeans, t-shirts, drugs and alcohol and wearing the white gowns, skullcaps and beards. They become indoctrinated into political Islam, which preaches a Utopian view of society where all citizens are part of a just and fair Umma. There is no separation of church and politics. Life centers on the mosque not just for religious instruction, but for everything. Society should be founded on Islam, and all those who are different are held in contempt. Inside the mosque talk isn't of integration, but rather how to protect oneself from harmful European society. Those members of the mosque who do not agree with this political Islam are shunned or forced out. The group dynamics change alienated young men into terrorists.

Basically, these individuals, with the help of their friends, recruit themselves. They do not necessarily attend terrorist camps or have experience on the battlefields (Johnson and Carreyrou: 2005). Their source of knowledge and indoctrination comes from the Internet. The Internet both appeals to and fosters disembeddedness. On the one hand, it appeals to isolated individuals by easing their loneliness through connections to people sharing some commonality. On the other hand, it leads them to spend more time with this virtual community at the expense of interaction with the immediate social environment. The chat rooms are egalitarian and appeal to those with limited theological background. It is a perfect compliment to the elegant simplicity and clarity of Salafism. The virtual community is not tied to any nation but to the abstract concept of the mythical umma of Salafism. This community is just, egalitarian, full of opportunity, unified in Islam, purged of national peculiarities, and devoid of corruption. It is the ideal world that Jihad strives for (Sageman, 2004: 161-163).

"He is a great guy, one of the nicest people I've ever met. He is a loving husband and he has a wife and parents in town. They are a great family. He is a very kind person. You would meet him on the street and he would want to hug you. He was a normal guy always laughing. We went partridge hunting together. He was into partying. We hit some pretty wild clubs in Hollywood." These are all quotes from people who knew individuals convicted of killing hundreds of people in suicide attacks or conspiring to provide money, recruits and equipment to the international Jihad.

Were they really decent fellows? They would never commit a murder or crime of any kind for personal gain or self-interest. Their ideology convinced them that the murders were committed for a good purpose. They were committed for the sake of a societal vision of building a good and just world. They are not unlike the SS during the Third Reich. Heinrich Himmler told a group of SS leaders:
"Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet-apart from a few exceptions which are examples of human weakness-to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written ... "

These people are not raving maniacs. We must go beyond calling them terrorists and examine their ideology. They do not perform these acts in a vacuum. They are building a society and will use any means to achieve it. They do so not because they are sociopaths who hate people, but because they are true believers who want to save people. And so we are continually surprised when they turn out to be nice guys after all. Decent fellows. Like the SS (Spenser, 2007).

REFERENCES

Al-Zawahiri, Ayman. (2001) "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner." Serialized in eleven parts in
Al-Sharqal-Awsat (London) December 2.

Ibrahim, Raymond. (2006) "Islam's Appeal or Boys Will Be Boys." www. victorhanson.com. September 19.

Johnson, Ian and Carreyrou, John. (2005) "In France, Political Islam Preaches Intolerance, Challenge to Secularism." Wall Street Journal, July 11.

Qutb, Sayyid. "Milestones." N.D.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mother Mosque Foundation.

Sageman, Mark. (2004) "Understanding Terror Networks." University of Pennsylvania Press, Philedelphia.

Spenser, Robert. (2007) "Why's a Nice Guy Like You Doing a Terrorist Act Like This?". www.FrontPageMagazine.com. April 18. 8

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr. Andrews served as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for twenty-three years. He conducted international terrorist investigations for nine years, serving as a national case agent and coordinating with the United States Foreign Intelligence Court in order to initiate extraordinary investigative techniques in complicated terrorist investigations. He operated numerous Middle-Eastern assets. Mr. Andrews currently serves as an Adjunct Professor at Florida State University and Troy University conducting seminars on Islamic Fundamentalism and International Terrorism and Conducts police training throughout the United States for Benchmark Professional Seminars and Unitech on Homeland Security and Terrorism.

Reprinted from: The Counter Terrorist-July/August 2008

Bill Warner

Permalink http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=11266401&msgid=229614&act=Y1TQ&c=162528&admin=0&destination=http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-sociology-of-jihad/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Idiot-appearing, clever would-be jihadist in America is found NOT GUILTY!

2009-04-04T16:21:00.000-07:00

Clever Idiot-Appearing Boy

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/04/morons_told_ya.html

COMMENT: Prosecutors, FBI, and Court (judge) pissing all over themselves after idiot-jury finds Jihadist carrying pipe bombs (incomplete but with necessary materials for killing Americans in car trunk) not guilty.

The United States has become a suicidal idiot country (comparable to Sharon-Olmert-Livni Israel--we wait to see whether Netanyahu joins the idiot ranks). As for Obama . . . let his words and actions speak for him.

The Evil of ZERO (BHO)

2009-03-23T01:43:00.000-07:00

Politics Add comments Is Zero a fascist dedicated to destroying the life savings of Americans, or is he criminally incompetent?

The answer is yes.

So let me tell you about Gao Xiqing (gow shee-ching). He’s one of the smartest Chinese you’ll ever meet (and that’s saying something). Graduate of Duke law school, worked at a major Wall Street law firm, returned to his native China to direct the CIC, China Investment Corp., the Chicoms’ trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund.

In other words, he’s the guy who owns $700 billion of US Treasurys, the guy who Zero is depending on to keep buying. Should he not show up at the next Treasury auction, the dollar disintegrates the next day.

A friend of mine has gotten to know him (don’t ask me how). “Gao is super-smooth, sophisticated, speaks English as good as you or me, and knows America inside and out,” he says. “He can talk the language of high finance and international capitalism as good as anyone - yet he is a hard core Chinese Communist who regards America as China’s enemy. He despises Obama as the epitome of American weakness.”

Gao also thinks that gold is going to $5,000 an ounce.

No, the Chicoms aren’t going to buy up the world’s gold supply. That would artificially ramp up the price for little consequence - after all, the world’s total gold production is about 2,500 tons a year or (at $1,000 per troy ounce; 12,000 ounces per ton) worth some $30 billion. A pittance with trillions at stake.

What it does mean is that Gao thinks the dollar’s goose is cooked, thanks to Zero.

He’s not alone. A UN panel is going to recommend ditching the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. John Paulson, whose huge hedge fund made 37% last year by understanding the mortgage crisis, is pulling out of stocks and is into gold (particularly gold mining companies).

Millions of investors agreed today (3/19), shooting gold up $70 after the Fed announced it was creating another $1.5 trillion out of thin air.

I really, really hope you are nodding your head right now and saying, “I sure am glad To The Point told me about bullionvault.com and I put my money into gold.”

Well, if you didn’t - don’t freak out. Just move fast now. Gold is just getting started.

What makes this so evil is the flip side. What is also just getting started is the life savings and fixed-income pensions of tens of millions of Americans being wiped out.

Right along with dollar deflating against gold (and oil, above $51) today, it did the same with the euro, the yen, and the pound - which should be ridiculous, because the EU, Japan, and UK economies are in the tank more than ours. Again, this is just the start.

But it is not just the start of the destruction of our wealth, it is the destruction of our freedom - for to destroy one, you must destroy the other. We are seeing the start of an orgy of anti-capitalist envy-mongering. The phony outrage over AIG, for example, is only a hint of what’s to come.

What is said privately by businessmen among themselves must be said publicly, such as: “Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be lined up against a wall and shot by a firing squad.” Preferably to their face at a Congressional hearing.

The Liberal Fascist modus operandi, typified by Frank and Dodd forcing banks to provide subprime mortgages to people who were poor credit risks, is to create a problem by interfering in the market. Then pretend outrage at the problem they created and demand more interference, more rules and regulation and power to solve it - which of course makes the problem worse.

This is on purpose - for the cycle can be repeated, gaining more power with each cycle.

While conservatives are interested in wealth creation, liberals are into wealth seizure. While conservatives want freedom, liberals want power. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the current President of the United States are fascist thieves.

Let’s cut to the chase. We cannot afford to wait until 2010, much less 2012. We haven’t got the time. The Democrat Fascist cycle of wealth destruction is accelerating too fast.

There are two growing protest movements: the Tea Party taxpayer revolt movement and the “Birther” movement that demands Zero prove he is a natural-born US citizen. These two must merge.

Far from a tin foil hat cause, Birthers are simply asking that Zero provide his actual birth certificate, which he won’t - at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Since all he has to do is provide the same thing all the rest of us do to get a driver’s license or passport, and he won’t, this is prima facie evidence that he can’t. Or there is some scandalous secret he is covering up - such as his real father is not a Kenyan but a radical left black poet his mother was having an affair with, Frank Marshall Davis.

In any regard, until he provides solid proof of his natural born citizenship, we are justified in regarding his presidency as illegitimate.

This argument must be made at every Tea Party protest. We do not recognize him as president until he proves he legitimately, Constitutionally is.

Folks, this may get very ugly, real brown shirt fascist ugly, real fast. The economy, the dollar, employment, our life savings and pensions, may collapse real fast. Maybe not, but the odds are accelerating.

The silver lining is that the lying, the incompetence, the corruption, the purposeful wealth destruction is also coming at us so fast and so obviously that the veil is being lifted from the eyes of more and more people every day. Witness Zero’s falling approval polls. Soon it will reach a tipping point and fall off the polling cliff.

When that point is reached, the Tea Party/Birther protests must reach a crescendo making one demand and one only: We want him to resign.

By that time - three months, six months, less than a year from now at the outset - the chaos, tax revolts, civil disobedience, violence from Zero’s brown shirt supporters, impoverishment of millions, et al, will make the country ungovernable. He must resign. It is the only solution. He must resign. There is no other way to start correcting the situation. He must resign.

Yes, that means President Biden. Fine. As stupid and goofy as Biden is, he isn’t malicious, he isn’t out to impoverish America as a conscious goal. Stupid is better than evil.

He must resign. America cannot afford to wait until 2012 to rid itself of the Evil of Zero.

More from Dr. Jack Wheeler

Religion of Envy: The Evil Eye—Why Europe is probably doomed

http://www.tothepointnews.com/component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,148/task,videodirectlink/id,1/

Share with others to save the Humanity:
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
from http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/03/23/the-evil-of-zero/

Are we at war with Islam?

2009-03-17T23:16:00.000-07:00

Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch asks this vital question in . . .

Fitzgerald: Are we at war with Islam?

Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald considers the common claim by Muslim leaders that the West is at war with Islam:

The more accurate formulation would be: the adherents of Islam, following correctly its tenets, as expressed in the Qur'an and Hadith, and in the example of Muhammad set out in the Sira, have been making war, whenever and wherever possible, and employing whatever instruments at the time are available (combat, wealth, "pen, tongue," and now demography) to spread Islam, to prevent non-Muslims from setting up any obstacles to the further spread and ultimate dominance of Islam, and to ensure that any non-Muslims permitted to remain alive without being forcibly converted will, nonetheless, have to live lives of deliberate humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity. During some long periods when Islam was weak, and the awareness of the outside world also feeble, the only kind of Jihad that was practiced against the outside world were expeditions by slavers and looters to Western Europe (a million whites seized, and many villages destroyed, over several centuries, Eastern Europe and Russia -- several million victims, including Circassian and Georgian and other Christian women seized for their noted beauty), and to Africa (tens of millions of black Africans, mostly young males castrated at the point of seizure, and then marched overland, and then taken often by sea for part of the journey, to the slave markets of Islam: Jeddah, Constantinople, Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad, Algiers, Constantinople, even as far as Ottoman-ruled Smyrna). The mortality rate was 90%.

That has been the history of Islam's relations to all non-Muslims. Conquest, destruction, slavery, demands from within the lands conquered for jizyah. It is little different today, though disguise is of the essence. The Bumiputra system used against Hindus and Chinese in Malaysia is simply a disguised jizya tax by the Malaysian Muslims. Yet Muslims now demand foreign aid from Infidel states, and act as if it is theirs by right and must not either be stopped or have any strings attached to it: see the fury of the P.A. over the American Congress's attempt to funnel aid through American aid agencies; see the Egyptian government's complacent belief that no matter what it did to secretly help Iraqi weapons projects, no matter what nuclear projects it is up to itself, no matter how completely it ignores its solemn commitments under the Camp David Accords, and becomes instead a world center of antisemitism, no matter how much anti-Americanism its people display in that most hostile of countries, it will still continue to receive, for no conceivably sensible reason, some $2 billion a year from American taxpayers, apparently helpless to prevent their government from paying what has now become a jizyah tax, just like all the others we pay to every Muslim country that does not have oil revenues.

Islam is at war with Buddhists in Thailand and in Burma, and at war with Confucians and atheists in China. It is at war with Hindus in Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and Kashmir, and India itself. It is at war with Christians in the Philippines, and in Indonesia, and in Malaysia, and in Bangladesh, and in Pakistan, and in Iran, and in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq, and in Lebanon, and in Egypt, and in Algeria. Islam is at war with whatever Jews can be found, in and out of Israel, since so very few remain, after years of persecution and murder, within the lands ruled by Muslim Arabs. Islam is at war with everyone, for Islam divides the world between Believer and Infidel. Anyone who reads and re-reads the Qur’an, and then reads the commentators, and the jurisconsults, and the muhaddithin, and then looks at the history of Islamic conquest -- reading, for example, "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" which is perhaps Bat Ye'or's greatest work of history -- and then looks at Muslim attitudes and behavior today, can come to only one conclusion: Muslims are at war with, and remain a permanent danger to, all non-Muslim societies. If some are not fervent in their Islam, we still do not know what might set off such fervency. Those who place such abstract principles as "tolerance" and "pluralism" above the reasonable need to preserve civilizations, such as our own, which first created and promoted such principles, against those who do not in truth believe in those principles and in the long run would destroy them and the civilization that developed them, are wrong. Lincoln was not the first, nor the last, to understand that in war-time, the same measures do not necessarily apply as during peace-time.

Those who see things aright, and who have taken the trouble to study Islam, know that this war can be contained, and that it need not involved large-scale military conflict. But that conflict can be avoided, across national borders, and within the borders of European nations, only if Muslim countries and groups are kept from acquiring major weaponry, or forced to disgorge what they have, and are kept from migrating in greater numbers to the West (they have little desire to go elsewhere), and those here limited in their sinister campaigns of Da'wa (in which Islam is not fully spelled out until, for the convert, he or she has already signed up for the Army of Islam), which are aimed first at the most marginal and therefore most vulnerable populations -- marginality defined as both economic and psychic.

Far from making war on Islam, the United States has repeatedly rescued Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, extended aid for decades to Turkey and Iran, always been prompt to offer other kinds of aid (the aid post-tsunami rushed to Aceh, the most Muslim part of Indonesia), protected Muslim Kuwait and even-more Muslim Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein (a choice that looks, in retrospect, not quite as obviously right as it once did), and continues to give aid, against its own best interests, to Pakistan (a recipient for decades of American military and political support), to Egypt, and to the "Palestinian" Authority. And of course tens of billions, even hundreds of billions, have been spent to rescue the Iraqis from their own latest Lord of Misrule, and to build up the country -- all the while taking casualties because of the inability of Iraqis to do the job themselves. They are unable to fight for their own country though there are 25 million of them. So very few of them capable of feeling, among the rumors and lies and crazed through-the-prism-of-Islam perceptions of the universe, any real or lasting gratitude to American infidels - precisely because they are infidels.

Muslims make war, with or without military means, because Islam itself is suffused with a war-like and aggressive doctrine. Refusal to see this does not make the doctrine go away. Imaginary "Muslim moderates" who are then imagined to be a "majority" do not make the texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira change. They do not make the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah prisoners disappear. Or the assassination of Asma bint Marwan. Or the attack on the Khaybar Oasis. Or little Aisha. Or a hundred other events in Muhammad's life, Muhammad who is uswa hasana, in the Qur'anic phrase, the very model for all Muslims, for all time.

Islam makes war and calls it "peace" and "justice." From a Muslim perspective, of course, this is perfectly true. Islam brings with it a pax islamica, and the "justice" of Islam. Quite right. No Muslim should really disagree.

But those of us who have made the choice not to accept Islam, and who find that the more we discover about it, the more horrified we become (and let's face it: a few years ago, we knew almost nothing about it, and were prepared, for example, to assume that the last word on the subject might be, for the more naive, John Esposito, and at a slightly lesser level of naivete, Bernard Lewis). Now we have studied, and are trying as best we can to get others to study. It would even be nice if a few journalists, before offering their platitudes and plongitudes, at least admitted they knew little about Islam. It would be nice if the cheerleaders of the "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations" Project in Iraq would stop to consider and even study the nature of Islam, and begin to ask themselves if Iraq is not in fact the obvious place, almost a god-given place, to exploit -- merely by leaving, for nothing more is called for -- the fissures between Arab and non-Arab Muslim, between Sunni and Shi'a. And then to concentrate on preventing the islamization of Europe -- not by throwing Israel to the wolves, which is the hollow and self-defeating strategy of the Alastair-Crooke-and-Patrick-Seale variety, urged on by the deplorable men now in charge of the E.U. bureaucracy and foreign policy, but by waking Europeans up to the betrayal, by their own elites in the government and the press, of the long-term interests of the indigenous Infidels.

Again, this sentence is either true or false:

"The large-scale presence of Muslims within Western Europe has already made the lives of the indigneous Infidels, and non-Muslim immigrants as well, far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than they would have been without such a large-scale Muslim presence."

No one, not even those who utter such silly and despairing phrases as "but what can we do? what can we do now?" can deny the truth of that easily verifiable remark.

Verify it yourself. Talk to Europeans. Walk around the streets of European cities. Find out the cost of monitoring Muslims, at train stations and bus stations, at metro stations and at airports, at chemical plants and at nuclear plants. At churches, and at synagogues, and at Hindu and Buddhist and Sikh temples. And parliaments. And city halls. And police stations. And fire stations. And schools, beginning with, but hardly limited to, the Jewish schools. And of course those spies in the mosques, those wire-taps, those agents who must be paid, and the police, and the security guards, and the lawyers, and the judges, and the whole apparatus that grows and grows, only to monitor a problem that need not ever have been allowed to be created, much less be permitted to continue to grow because leadership is lacking, the articulation of the problem is seldom to be heard.

And of course, the United States must watch Western Europe carefully, and its own Infidels learn from the unhappy experience of France, and Belgium, and Germany, and England, and Spain, and...well, fill in the names yourself.

And draw the right conclusions yourself.

Posted by Robert [Spencer] at May 10, 2005 7:55 AM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006100.php

Remembering the 12 Nepalese murdered by the Moslems in 2004

2009-03-02T03:52:00.000-08:00

from In honour of 12 Nepalese Hindu brothers
http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-honour-of-12-nepalese-hindu-brothers.html

Saturday, February 28, 2009

This post is in honour of the 12 Nepalese of Hindu Dharma who were beheaded by Islamic fiends in Iraq in September 2004. I had thought about linking the video of this beheading to this post because I want people to know just what kind of ideology we are up against. We are not fighting a civilized foe. We are fighting a foe who revels in their brutality, who profanes every single thing civilization is about, and who is absolutely fanatically wedded to our destruction. Of course, Hindus have known this since 712AD, but somehow we still tend to need reminding from time to time.

In the end, I decided against linking to the video because I think it is more important that we remain true to Hindu Dharma. We cannot drop to the level of these barbarians. We must fight them, but in a manner that is consistent with our Dharma.

Here is what the group that beheaded our Hindu brothers said:

“We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalese who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians … believing in Buddha as their God”

This is entirely in accordance with Islamic teachings. In particular, Kuran 9:5 orders Muslims to "slay idolators where ever ye find them.." and to "smite their necks." This is what was done to our Nepalese brothers.

Though I did not link to the video, you can find it on the internet by googling "Nepalese beheading video." Before you do so, please be warned that the video is extremely disturbing.

But so is Islam.

Saturday, February 28, 2009
Posted by Dharmaveer at 11:52 AM

and

from How to Stop Islamization DRASTIC TIMES CALL FOR DRASTIC MEASURES

comes this take on the murders:

Let me point out another recent [written in 2005] incident
As you know muslims in Iraq have been kidnapping and beheading foreigners
About 3 months ago, they beheaded 12 Nepalese hindus
In response, muslims in Nepal got a 'Gujurat type reprisal'( about 30000 Nepalese muslims got ethnic cleansed by Nepalese hindu mobs)and no more Nepalese have been kidnapped in Iraq
Whereas they non-stop behead western hostages

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-stop-islamization-drastic-times.html

http://howtostoptheislamicjihad.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-to-stop-islamization-drastic-times_21.html

A Geert Wilders Potpourri

2009-02-22T11:51:00.000-08:00

for a YOU TUBE VIDEO featuring Geert Wilders - Go to http://www.geertwilders.nl/

Geert Wilders news round-up
donderdag, 19 februari 2009

Newsweek: Geert Wilders is coming to America

FrontPage Magazine - Banning Wilders
Read more...
Geert Wilders intends to appeal ban
woensdag, 18 februari 2009

In a debate in the Dutch parliament today, Geert Wilders called on the Dutch government to demand from their British colleagues that the ban on him travelling to the United Kingdom be rescinded. The Freedom Party chairman feels that up to now the Dutch government has only been going through the motions in protesting the ban.
He also announced that he refuses to accept the ban and plans to fight it. "I will appeal that cowardly decision,'' Wilders said. "I will fight it, even though it will be a long struggle.''
Read more...

Geert Wilders’ Trial: Who Will be Next?
woensdag, 18 februari 2009
Another insightful story by the Canadian journalist Harry Antonides. This one deals with the decision by an Amsterdam court to prosecute Geert Wilders.
Read more...

Geert Wilders: Provocateur or Truth Teller
woensdag, 18 februari 2009
The Canadian journalist Harry Antonides has written the following story on Geert Wilders.
Read more...

Geert Wilders news round-up
dinsdag, 17 februari 2009
CBN: Geert Wilders' Party Explodes after Expulsion (Video)

BBC Radio 4: The Choice - Geert WildersWSJ Europe: Britain's Surrender to Islamists

National Post: Britain re-visits appeasement
Read more...

Geert Wilders is a test for Western civilization
dinsdag, 17 februari 2009
In his Wall Street Journal "Global View" column on foreign affairs, Bret Stephens takes on the British government's decision last week to ban Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders from British soil as an "undesirable person." Citing the controversies, twenty years ago, surrounding the artist Andres Serrano and the novelist Salman Rushdie, he argues that Wilders' travails present a test for both liberals and conservatives.
Read more...

Bat Yeor speaks out on Wilders ban
maandag, 16 februari 2009
On the National Review website Bat Yeor has spoken out on Geert Wilders being banned from Britain as well as being prosecuted for insulting Muslims in The Netherlands. She wonders since when defending Western values constitutes “inciting hatred", and contends that Geert Wilders is the latest victim of a consolidated effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to silence criticism of Islam.
Read more...

Geert Wilders news round-up
maandag, 16 februari 2009
News of the World - PC cowards need to Geert a grip!

The Sunday Sun - MP Geert Wilders victim of extremist prejudice

The Times Online - Labour bares its appeaser’s teeth to unbending Muslims

The Independent - Joan Smith: Free speech has to be for all, Home Secretary

Pajamas Media - Why Britain Should Never Have Banned Geert Wilders

The Telegraph - Banned politician Geert Wilders brands Gordon Brown a coward

Jihad Watch - Britain’s Muslim peer crows over barring of Wilders from country
Read more...

Shouting fire in a theatre
zondag, 15 februari 2009
Watch a video montage from UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) about the controversy surrounding Geert Wilders being banned from entering the UK in order to attend a showing of his movie Fitna in the House of Lords.
Read more...

Geert Wilders news round-up
maandag, 16 februari 2009
Atlas Shrugs - Wilders to recieve Oriana Fallaci free speech award for Fitna in Italy

Diane West - Lord West of Spithead Should Be Ashamed of Himself

The Telegraph - If Geert Wilders is denied entry to Britain, what of those who oppress Christians?

NRC Handelsblad - Dutch Protest Muted in Latest Wilders Scandal

Radio Netherlands Worldwide - PM lodges protest over UK’s MP ban

Haaretz - Dutch lawmaker banned from U.K. to take anti-Koran film on ‘world tour’

The Scotsman - Dutch MP’s ban a blow to freedom of speech

The Daily Mail - Analysis: Geert Wilders, the bouffant-haired Dutch liberal who turned hardliner

The Telegraph - Banning Wilders plays into the hands of our Islamist enemies
Read more...

More...
Pat Condell on the Geert Wilders ban
Geert Wilders news round-up
The speech Geert Wilders would have given
Whatever happened to free speech?
Audio - Geert Wilders interviewed by BBC
Sky News item on Geert Wilders ban
Geert Wilders detained at Heathrow Airport
Daily Mail readers critical of British government
Channel 4 report on Wilders travel ban
Wilders disappointed by appeasement policies

http://www.geertwilders.nl/

Deobandi Islam

2009-02-10T13:27:00.000-08:00

Deoband's Bogus Fatwa on Terror
Walid Phares

http://ministryofislam.blogspot.com/2008/08/deobands-bogus-fatwa-on-terror.html

Also see
What is "Deobandi" Islam?
A Comment to "ISLAMIC DANGER" by Winston S.Churchill
http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-is-deobandi-islam.html

‘Change’ in Indo-US relations

2009-01-29T02:47:00.000-08:00

Ajoy Bose

OPED Thursday, January 29, 2009

Unlike in the past, Washington and Beijing may be on the same page on Pakistan and could join hands in restoring some kind of order in that country. For New Delhi, this will be a bitter pill to swallow, considering how prickly we have been in the past about the China-Pakistan axis against India. We must, therefore, prepare for ‘change’

The Indian strategic establishment appears to be palpably bewildered at the conflicting signals emanating from Washington, DC, after US President Barack Hussein Obama formally took charge last week. He has lost no time in professing the United States as India’s ‘best friend’ even as the new Administration has made no secret of the fact that it is Pakistan which is America’s real ally in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Similarly, tough talk by Mr Obama and his aides about the need to snuff out terrorist bases within Pakistan has also been accompanied by the tripling of US aid to its fragile civilian Government in a blatant carrot-and-stick approach to make friends and influence people in Islamabad.

Some of these inherent contradictions were present even in the previous Bush Administration’s policies towards this region. But they were offset by the close personal chemistry between the last US President and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the manner in which the Bush Administration went out of its way to massage this country’s ego. And this was largely because Mr Bush obsessively pursued a close strategic relationship with India as perhaps his only diplomatic success with the collapse of his foreign policy everywhere particularly Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clearly, Mr Obama’s priorities are quite different. Determined to withdraw from Iraq and concentrate in winning the battle in Afghanistan, he desperately needs the cooperation of both civilian and military wings of the Pakistani establishment to have even a remote chance of success. India is certainly not one of the principal players in this strategic initiative and not surprisingly has not figured very high up yet on the new US President’s priority list.

As for the dreams so assiduously fuelled by the Bush Administration of a larger role for India in the global arena beyond the narrow confines of the South Asian box, these seem to have vanished overnight not just because of a regime change in Washington but perhaps more because of an uncertain still emerging world order after the economic meltdown. With the free market bubble so dramatically punctured, the economic partnership between India and the United States that was poised to take off after the nuclear deal has lost much of its momentum. There is now also little prospect of the much discussed India-US axis to contain China considering the new compulsion for Beijing and Washington to either swim or sink together in the post-meltdown economic turmoil.

All these developments are hugely depressing to the Indian strategic establishment that had placed almost all its eggs in the American basket. The Manmohan Singh Government is particularly vulnerable to the creeping despondency about Indo-US relations since it had moved so close to the Bush Administration that the concerned interlocutors who were dealing with Washington has little or no feel for the new Government. For instance, the two most important of them, India’s Ambassador to Washington Ronen Sen and National Security Advisor MK Narayanan both appear clueless about what is going on in the minds of Mr Obama and his aides about India and this region.

In some ways, the UPA Government’s thinly veiled bitterness with Mr Obama and his aides is reminiscent of the NDA’s disenchantment with Bush Administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States by jihadi terror groups failed to evoke the kind of response the BJP-led Government anticipated. While NDA strategists were initially convinced that Mr Bush’s war on the Islamic world would target Pakistan, they were appalled to find that Islamabad became Washington’s principal ally in the fight to oust the Taliban regime from Afghanistan. It was only after the Taliban was unseated and Mr Bush’s attention moved to Iraq that relations with Pakistan started to sour.

With Afghanistan acquiring prominence once again in US strategy, a similar scenario is being enacted under the Obama Administration. There are sweeping compulsions on the new President to have a close relationship with Pakistan and it is unlikely that he will be distracted from this task by more peripheral concerns. He is likely to get strong backing in this focus on Pakistan from the Pentagon which has a relationship with the military establishment in Islamabad stretching back to more than half a century.

A more Pakistan-centric US foreign policy towards South Asia need not be bad for India. After all, a closer engagement by the Obama Administration with the civilian and military establishments in Pakistan will undoubtedly put far more pressure on the latter to stop terrorist activities directed against India from its territory. At the same time, New Delhi must be prepared for a more lukewarm relationship with Washington if this is conducive for Mr Obama to get some brownie points in Islamabad.

Indian policy makers must also prepare themselves for a bigger role to be played by China in the region. There are indications that unlike in the past Washington and Beijing may be on the same page on Pakistan and could join hands in restoring some kind of order in that country. This will indeed be a bitter pill to swallow considering how prickly we have been in the past about the China-Pakistan axis against India, but there may be little option in the matter.

Unfortunately, such a pragmatic approach would fly in the face of past behaviour by Indian policy and opinion makers. They have had a tendency of swinging from euphoria about India’s burgeoning image in the world to cringing defensive paranoia on problem areas of the country like Kashmir. This has tended to cheapen India’s image in the global arena and trivialise the kind of contribution a nation with so much potential can make in the building of a the emerging world order.

The coming national elections have further complicated matters. With the political contours of the next Government in New Delhi still a matter of speculation, a huge question mark hangs on how India will cope with the many global challenges ahead. By the time the strategic establishment makes up its mind, it may well be too late.

Post Comment
COMMENTS BOARD ::

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wishful thinking
By sg on 1/29/2009 3:24:15 PM

As much as we would like to get closer to the US admn irrespective with which party is in power, but we seem to get carried away by a few back slapping and good remarks towards India. US will never accept us as equal and thats a fact. We can only be equal when we show strength and power and the determination to carry our resolve to root our terrorist from within us and punish those who are guilty.

Change Indian public fears most....
By Prakash Kanungo on 1/29/2009 12:50:39 PM

We the people of India fear the most...that after next general election we are likely to end up with same bunch of "Jokers"..spineless, trying to outsource foreign policy to USA/ China or even Bosnia..if it can bring real or imagined muslim votes.....indian mind set must change and find some way to get rid off this "congress" culture...

Strategy and India
By R. Viswanathan on 1/29/2009 7:44:42 AM

All this talk of Indian strategy and similar notions appear so unreal. Such things are not our cup of tea.Lofty philosophising, petty bickering and scoring brownie points are our forte. Our mind is only on them, nothing bigger or broader. Otherwise this nation of such vast potential would have become a great power.

Obama admin
By V Mohan on 1/29/2009 2:28:08 AM

Time to say good bye to Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. Let us see if Baba log will come back as PM and heap more disgrace and dishonors on India that was Bharat. But there is no body to check them. A doddering LK Advani is a pathetic option for India. Is everyone in BJP-RSS in a coma? There is no alternative to an 80+ old man?

India all along a passenger not a driver
By anil on 1/29/2009 1:08:54 AM

India has always been a passenger in somebody else's vehicle - never a driver so it will take some time before there is some noticeable changes - provided it survives the internal "politics" (looked at from an outsider's perspective).

A 'friendship to beware of!
By Leslie White on 1/29/2009 12:51:34 PM

" . . . after US President Barack Hussein Obama formally took charge last week. He has lost no time in professing the United States as India’s ‘best friend’ "
Judging by the 'friendhip' the U.S. has offered to Israel, with such a 'friend' one needs no enemy (one has one who sides with one's enemies).

©CMYK Printech Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/152931/‘Change’-in-Indo-US-relations.html

Freed by US, Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

2009-01-23T09:04:00.000-08:00

from
Small Wars Journal

Freed by US, Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief - Robert Worth, New York Times

The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

More at The New York Times and:

Obama Closes Detention Network - Wall Street Journal
Bush Policies on Detention, Interrogation Reversed - Washington Post
Obama Overturns Bush Tactics in War on Terrorism - Los Angeles Times
Obama Reverses Key Bush Security Policies - New York Times
President Obama Orders Closure of Guantánamo - The Times
Guantanamo Trials Suspended After Obama Request - Voice of America
Obama Moves to Overhaul 'War on Terror' Practices - Christian Science Monitor
Gates Cites Positive Response to Pending Guantanamo Closure - AFPS
Will Europeans Take Detainees? - Christian Science Monitor
Europe Hesitant to Take Gitmo Inmates - Washington Times
Intelligence Pick Calls Torture Immoral, Ineffective - Washington Post
Blair Urges Some Secrecy - Washington Times
Obama and Guantanamo - Wall Street Journal editorial
A Perilous Road on Terror - Washington Times editorial
Obama and Guantanamo - Wall Street Journal editorial
Guantanamo Remains a Problem for Obama - Daily Telegraph editorial
Gitmo: Justice and Security - Washington Post editorial
First Steps at Guantánamo - New York Times editorial
Beyond Guantanamo - Chicago Tribune editorial
The Jack Bauer Exception - Wall Street Journal editorial
Torture Inquisition - Wall Street Journal editorial
Harsh Reality of Closing Guantánamo Bay - The Times opinion
Eric Holder and the FALN - Washington Times opinion
Sleeper Agent - Weekly Standard opinion

All taken from and thanks to

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/01/23-january-swj-roundup/

also see No Guantanamo Exit Strategy

A New Dark Age Is Dawning

2009-01-20T12:39:00.000-08:00

A New Dark Age Is Dawning: "Single Best Book to Start to Learn Truth about Islam

A BOOK WORTH READING

The Dawning of a New Dark Age, A Collection of Essays on Islam, by Mark Alexander (1st Books, ISBN: 1-4107-9037-1, paperback; 2003.)

I thought I knew almost all of the current books (past few years) about Islam. I had not encountered this book, however, until the author alerted me to it, for which I am grateful."

--George Mason

In German: The Day of the Great Obama-insanity

2009-01-20T12:24:00.000-08:00

The Shrewd Economist

Deceit and Treachery, thy name is Mohammed

2009-01-18T01:57:00.000-08:00

The Story of Bani Al-Nadeer Under Scrutiny
http://www.faithfreedom.org/

or

How the supposedly "Perfect Man" was in reality a liar, a sneak, and an all-around scoundrel

Islamism is to Religion as Sadism is to Human

2009-01-08T00:58:00.000-08:00

Islamism is to Religion as Sadism is to Human
Op-Ed Add comments

It is not about God or love, it is about control and domination–just as Sadism is not about human intercourse or love, it is about control, torture, punishment and domination.

Why else name a so-called religion “submission?” Islam seeks nothing less than a total global domination. The word Islam literally means “Taslim,” (submission) or just “surrender”, the kind that comes by force and fraud. Its scripture must be taken literally; its provisions are intended to dominate every waking moment in the life of a believer. There is no room for being a half-hearted Muslim and no toleration of watering down its invocations.

It’s true that it is quite human to seek to control one’s environment, just as the parent tries to control the child. The difference with the Islamic whack jobs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al is mainly in the level of their brutality toward those who do not share their particular mental affliction.

What a pitiful crop of miscreants has been raised in once-proud Persia. The Mullahs and their lackeys have tortured, raped and executed hundreds of little girls and little boys out of their abject fear of losing control. They are to be ridiculed and despised among men as the wretched, miserable, and entirely loathsome creatures that they are.

How do the Islamists prey upon their victims? For one, Islam is stamped on the impressionable mind of the child from birth. The parents and immediate members of the family are the ones who make the very first impressions on the tabula rasa of the young mind. These early impressions are the grid-work for further formation of the person’s mind and belief system. It is by far easier, as life goes on, to incorporate “items” that readily fit into the grid-work, than to modify it or dismantle it altogether and begin anew. It is in recognition of the importance of early training and education that people such as Saint Augustine and Freud considered the first few years of life as critical for molding the person.

It is some consolation; however, to realize that there are many practicing religions who are willing to stand up to the extremists, even at their own great peril. It is also quite human to fight against control and domination. However, marrying Islam with government is stoking fire with explosives. That is what the Islamic Republic of Iran currently represents.

In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in eighteen or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.

Other problems arise. Liberty, deeply cherished by democracies, is replaced by submission—unquestioning obedience and adherence to the dictates and precepts of the all-knowing and all-wise Allah. It is this total form of submission that, among other things, prompted the Muslims to systematically burn libraries of the lands they invaded. They justified their actions by contending that the Quran, the comprehensive unerring book of Allah, contained all perfect knowledge that humanity needs. To this day, in places where Islam rules, many books are banned, newspapers and magazines are systematically either censored or shut down, and other non-print media are methodically blocked.

The contempt for free inquiry is encapsulated in the statement of Muhammad, “Al-elmo noghtatan katharoho al-jaheloon”—Knowledge is only one dot, expanded by the ignorant.
Once one submits to the will of Allah, liberty is surrendered for submission and a host of serious consequences present themselves. The individual becomes little more than a passive obedient vessel of Allah and his perspective of himself and life drastically changes. Once he submits to the all-powerful, all-knowing then he is absolved of the responsibility of having to chart his own way in life.

There is considerable allure in submission to a power that is willing and able to take care of the person. It is not a bad arrangement. The problem is that all past claimants have invariably been proven as either fraud or failures in honoring their part of the bargain. Islam is no exception. A cursory glance is enough to show the condition of Muhammad’s flock. In spite of huge material wealth, Muslims in the oil-rich countries are imprisoned in the paralyzing mentality of submission and all the terrible ancillaries that go with it.

Islam certainly has taken on a predominant role in Europe. It has become so prominent there that the most senior judge in England has blessed the idea of making Shari’a law equal with civil law in some cases.

Comparatively, it is imperative to comprehend that a sadistic person is not after sex, he seeks a sick way of dominance and pain over his victims, he wants to be in control of the action. A person being raped, for example, really has no control over the situation, the subject literally being coerced.

Violence, weapons, injury, or torture fascinates a sadistic person just as it fascinates an Islamist. Both enjoy getting their subjects (be it humans or animals) to do what they want them to do by frightening them through a series of intimidation, fear and terror. Both take pleasure in the psychological or physical suffering of others.

This is exactly how the Islamists have been ruling over a peaceful and sophisticated country, Iran, for 30 years. They have completely restricted the activity and independence of the people of Iran. In the cycle of prison horrors and terrors, the Islamic Republic of Iran uses many old Soviet techniques, ranging from harassment, intimidation and tortures, to mechanical devices designed to inflict gross tissue damage. They employ psychological and physiological techniques, (an example is Ziba Kazemi case, an Iranian-Canadian journalist), such as solitary confinement and sleep deprivation. The Islamic Republic’s lackeys are commonly using these techniques on the Iranian youth while the Islamic Republic dreams of world Shi’a domination.

In short, the Islamists want to have control over their subjects during one’s entire life. This is exactly how the Prophet of Islam controlled his army of followers. The campaign of death waged by the jihadist, be a puppet or a puppeteer, is energized by the belief of delectable rewards that await the faithful implementer of Allah’s dictates.

Through a highly effective indoctrination, the jihadists have come to believe firmly in Islam’s grand delusion. They believe that Allah is the one and only supreme creator of earth and heavens, that it is his duty and privilege to abide by Allah’s will and carry out his plans at all costs. He believes firmly in a gloriously wonderful immortal afterlife in paradise, for which a martyr’s death is the surest quickest admission. Although the dominating theme of the delusion is quasi spiritual, the promised rewards of the afterlife awaiting the martyr are sensual and material. All the things and activities that the jihadist desires and cannot attain or practice, and rejects in his earthly life will be purified and proffered to him in the paradise of the next life.

Thus goes the delusion.

The pundits, the analysts and the politicians indeed are doing a great disservice to the public, each segment for its own expedient reasons, by parroting the mantra regarding the peaceful nature of Islam. By hiding the truth, they disarm people about a great danger to their livelihood. In fact, the so-called small band of Islamic extremists is the true face of Islam.

You must demand that politicians, Islamic apologists, and paid-for media do not abuse freedom by lying about Islam. When these people portray Islam as a religion of peace, they are lying through their teeth. Just take a quick look at Islam’s history as well as what is happening today in the Islamic lands. Islam is not a religion of peace and it has never been. Islam is violent, oppressive, racist, and irrational at its very core. It is treachery for people to present it as otherwise, either out of ignorance or because of their own personal reasons.

Require that the large number of recent arrival Muslims be carefully vetted for their terrorism and Jihadist backgrounds and beliefs. Many recent arrivals from places such as Somalia, Iraq and Pakistan come as refugees and bring with them their pathological anti-American system of belief. It is criminal to admit these refugees without demanding that they completely renounce their allegiance to the hate dogma of Islam. Those diehard devotees of Islam should make any of the eighteen or so Islamic countries home, rather than invade the secular societies and aim to subvert them.

Many European countries are already on the verge of capitulation to the Islamists. The Supreme Guide of terror in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, confidently proclaimed recently that Europe will be Islamic in a dozen years. He has good reason to say that. Muslims are forming states within states in many European towns and cities. In Britain, for instance, non-Muslims are in serious danger entering Muslim neighborhoods.

The concern is not with individual Muslims who live as solid citizens in democratic societies. They may have developed a taste for the freedom democracy bestows or have simply learned to tolerate it. Our concern is with the gathering Islamic storm from the heart of Islamdom. To truly appreciate Islam, you must experience firsthand Islam in power. Take a quick trip to the lands of the Muslims and find out for yourself how horribly they treat the non-Muslims, even the, “People of the book,” Jews and Christians. Try to have a Bible study group or build a church in Saudi Arabia and discover the benevolence of Islamic rule.

Folks, this is a battle for survival that every one of us can help wage. Let us get on with it before, if not you, then your children and grandchildren end up under the barbaric rule of the Jihadists and Shari’a law. All the excuses, grievances and reasons given for savagery of the jihadists and Islamofascists are side issues. Islam is about terror, punishment, control and domination.

Share and Enjoy

written by Amil Imani

"Faith Freedom" on Islam

2009-01-07T14:45:00.000-08:00

Karin in Saudi Arabia
Book Review Ali Sina 29 Comments »
Muslims are not just technologically underdeveloped, but also morally and spiritually. Their ethos is wrong, their minds are crooked, and their ways are pervert. There is something wrong in the way Muslims perceive the world. They have values that are out of this world and inconceivable by civilized people. Jan 07

Jan 06
A Guide to the Qur’anic Contradictions-1
Quran Abul Kasem 65 Comments »
Many contradictory verses are repeated; it is because of the repetitive nature of the Qur’an. One amazing aspect of the Qur’an is that there may be several contradictions in a single verse.

Jan 06
Sodomy in Islam
Morality and Ethics Amar Khan 7 Comments »
In Pakistan, the mullahs are notoriously famous for child abuse and molestation. Every day, we hear news about a mullah sodomizing his beardless student - a very common phenomenon in Pakistan.

Jan 05
Huntington’s Prophecies: A Tribute to an Outstanding Political Genius
Op-Ed M A Khan 100 Comments »
Although Huntington analyzed how different civilizations would likely interplay in reshaping the world-order in the emerging era, his analysis regarding Islam has become a bone of contention.

Jan 04
Balochistan: The Unheard Cries of Unknown People
Human Rights Abuses Ibrahim Lone 35 Comments »
Even as I write this article, there must be a Baloch woman who might be getting molested by the Islamic Army of Pakistan, a child who might be getting beaten up for being who he is.

Jan 03
Qur’anic Surat Alfeel: A Myth
Quran Ibn Kammuna 26 Comments »
The Ka’ba was sacred to a multiplicity of Arab tribes, and so it is very probable to have a story like that as a folk story told by the old to the young.

Jan 02
No Peace in Bethlehem
Op-Ed Alan Caruba 12 Comments »
If you cannot name your enemy, you can never really defend yourself against them or go on the offense against them.

Jan 01
Can Apostates Revert to Islam?
Leaving Islam Ali Sina 47 Comments »
Islam is defeated already. It was defeated from its inception. It has survived because Muhammad and his benighted followers brutally suppressed the truth.

Jan 01
My Tributes to Faith Freedom International
Op-Ed Abul Kasem 111 Comments »
Today, FFI is no more the site of Dr Sina. FFI belongs to the entire humanity, who wants a world free of Islamist terror and bloodshed, who wants to release the vast number of innocent Muslims, who are the victims of Islam, from the dangerous doctrine.

Jan 01
Quran Sanctions Paedophilia
Quran Khalil Fariel 12 Comments »
The prime accusation against Islam’s prophet is focused on his abnormal personality. He married a six year old Aisha and had sex with the girl when she was only nine and Muhammad being a man of 52 at that time.

Dec 31
I am reverting to Islam
Satire Ibrahim Lone 25 Comments »
Dear free thinkers and all those who have not submitted to the will of Allah, I Ibrahim Lone hereby declare that I am reverting to Islam. I invite all of you to do the same.

Dec 31
Wahhabism is a fundamentalist movement
Quran Jim Kouri 4 Comments »
Wahhabism is a fundamentalist movement, named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703-1792). It remains the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.

Dec 31
Covert Narcissism in Fundamentalist Leadership
Op-Ed J. Smith 3 Comments »
Islamic fundamentalist leaders can also use religious sanctification to justify attacks. Islamic leaders have issued religious opinions, or fatwas, attacking a myriad of authors, artists, ideas, and cultures.

from http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Prophet Muhammad on Holy War Against Al-Hind (India)"

2009-01-06T20:27:00.000-08:00

Prophet Muhammad on Holy War Against Al-Hind (India)
Posted by jagoindia on April 18, 2008

Andre Wink describes that this aspiration to conquer India had existed since the time of the Prophet, as is evidenced by the sacred texts:

“… in the hadith collections the prophet Muhammad himself is credited with the aspiration of conquering India. Participants in the holy war against al-Hind [the Hindus] are promised to be saved from hell-fire… Thus also an eschatological work which is called the Kitab al-Fitan (’Book of Trials’) credits Muhammad with saying that God will forgive the sins of the members of the Muslim army which will attack al-Hind, and give them victory.”11 source
__________________________________________________________
In one of the Hadiths (Muslim scripture) the Prophet Muhammad isquoted as saying “Two groups of my Ummah Allah has protected from the hellfire: a group that will conquer India and a group thatwill be with Isa ibnu Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary).” The firstattempted invasion of India by Muslims occurred in 636 CE — underCaliph Umar, within four years of Muhammad’s death. The first 16 invasion attempts utterly failed.
Source = Al-Hind by Andre Wink
http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/aug2002/msg00168.html
[color emphasis mine. lw]

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Islamic terror attack in Mumbai: The idea is to strike into the hearts of t…
ISLAM

This entry was posted on April 18, 2008 at 3:19 am and is filed under Uncategorized. . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

[See original site for COMMENTS]
http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/prophet-muhammad-on-holy-war-against-al-hind-india/

Also of interest:

IISC attack Meant to Kill At least 100 professionals: Islamic Terrorist Revelation
Muslim Mob Attack Hindus demonstrating against cow-slaughter in Agra »

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

2008-12-31T20:27:00.001-08:00

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

. . . to all friends, readers, visitors, supporters, and supporting blogs,

from . . .
Islamic Danger to Americans
How to Stop the Islamic Jihad
Islamic Danger FU
The Jew in Yellow
islamic Danger 2U
Islamic Danger to Bharat (India)
Islamic Danger in History
Islamic Danger (original, now censored)
On the Back of My Mind

The Islamic Danger family of blogs

May the new year bring us all joy and glorious times, with the opposite to all who wish us ill and seek to destroy us.

. . . and to those mus who are my enemies . . .

watch my finger . . .

Democracy Reform: Will Muslim Immigration destroy Western Democracy?

2008-12-25T13:35:00.000-08:00

Democracy Reform: Will Muslim Immigration destroy Western Democracy?

Sob Stories for Terrorists

2008-12-25T01:10:00.001-08:00

Sob Stories for Terrorists
Author: Steve Emerson
on Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 02:34 AM

The boys of Islamic Murder and Mayhem

2008-12-19T11:26:00.000-08:00

from http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023992.php and subsequent of December 19, 2008 at http://www.jihadwatch.org/

And . . .

those who cheer on "the boys of Murder and Mayhem" and those who are not as infatuated by the followers of the foul fabricator of fabulous fancy:

from Left to Right, we have here

Dhimmi Internationale 2008: Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams

American Dhimmi of the Year 2008: Jimmy Carter

American Anti-Dhimmi of the Year 2008: U. S. resident Mark Steyn

Anti-Dhimmi Internationale 2008: Geert Wilders

All photographs--of rogues as well as of heroes--courtesy of http://www.jihadwatch.org/ of december 19, 2008

Muslims "find refuge" in Finland, and work on promoting sharia

2008-12-19T11:00:00.000-08:00

from http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023991.php

"[Finnish Islamic Party head Abdullah] Tami believes Sharia Law has gained a negative image, but says that it could prove beneficial for both Muslims and non-Muslims."

"Government knows best" meets "Allah knows best," and the latter knows no term limits. "Muslims find refuge in Finland," from Russia Today, December 19:

Although the thousands of those seeking refuge inthe country have only one official mosque to share, few complain about their new lives.

The history of the Muslim community of Finland dates back to the 19th century when the country was under Russian imperial rule. Tartar muslims from Russia were the first to make their home in the Nordic country.
Since that time the population has grown to fourty thousand, with most coming into the country seeking asylum.

Mohammed al-Hello, who moved to Finland twelve years ago from Baghdad, at first found it quite difficult getting used to his new home.

"What I miss about the lifestyle in Iraq is the communication between people," said al-Hello.

Even native Finns are embracing Islam. Abdullah Tami heads the Finnish Islamic Party and has hopes to gain a foothold in elections in 2011. His party's platform consists of more emphasis on social and green issues, not joining NATO and imposing Sharia Law, which is the legal framework of Islam.

Tami believes Sharia Law has gained a negative image, but says that it could prove beneficial for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

"We are explaining the fundamnetals [sic] of Sharia law and how it can work within the Finnish community - it is not about stoning and flogging solely - it's about simplifying - a Sharia law-led banking system, dealing with promiscuity, for instance as Finland has one of the highest rates of sex outside of marriage," said Tami.

Finland's one official Mosque equals the amount of Islamic teachers. However, according to the Finnish Islamic Council, more and more are undergoing training like Leban Yahye Ibrahim.

"I've seen many muslim youths, Arab, Somalis, Africans, who really need someone who is their age, who knows Islam well," said Ibrahim. "We need more people like me training up - I'm young and understand youth here."

Those who have just arrived here say they notice that life is quieter and very different to the country of their birth but say they have finally found peace here, and want to make it their home.

Posted by Marisol at December 19, 2008 11:26 AM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us

Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has this to say about the Finnish folly:

Two things in the article above cry out for comment:

#1.

"Since that time the population has grown to fourty [sic] thousand, with most coming into the country seeking asylum."

"Asylum" from what? Muslims fleeing from Muslim countries? Why do they need asylum? Explain what the word "asylum" means. Only Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and other non-Muslims require "asylum" from Muslim countries. Muslims don't. If there is economic backwardness, if there is political despotism and warlordism, if there is a mess - that's what Islam brings. That comes with the package of Islam. No Muslim needs to be given "asylum" from what can be attributed to Islam itself. Otherwise half the population of the Muslim world would be entitled to "asylum" in the advanced, non-Muslim West.

#2.

"Those who have just arrived here say they notice that life is quieter and very different to the country of their birth but say they have finally found peace here, and want to make it their home."

"They have finally found peace here" in the place they "want to make...their home" but they fail utterly to realize that what they are fleeing is Islam itself, and its natural consequences. And what they find -- that "peace" -- is the result of the steady buildup over time of the advanced nation-states of the West, entirely by non-Muslims, and with advances, political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral -- impossible under Islam. People fleeing the Nazis or the Communists, who found "peace" in, for example, the United States, knew exactly what they were fleeing and would never have worked, once in the United States, to further Nazism or Communism. It was that which they detested. But Muslims fleeing the chaos and wretchednees of Muslim-dominated lands do not recognize the fact, cannot allow themselves to recognize the fact, even as they take every advantage of what Infidel nation-states offer them, that it is Islam itself that they actually fled, Islam that explains the miseries that they are attempting to avoid. The hostility, the aggression, even the noisiness of Muslim life (where everyone speaks to everyone else in voices far louder than anywhere in the non-Muslim world -- it is the constant din, the constant hysterical screaming, that most impresses an Infidel visitor to Muslim lands), the inshallah-fatalism, the inability to recognize the rights of others, but non-Muslim peoples (a real inability, a deep intellectual and moral lapse or paralysis) -- all this comes from Islam, and it is all this that they bring with them and seek, whether in the first generation, or later generations, to spread and impose on non-Muslim states into which they have been allowed to come, and to settle deep within.

It's an extraordinary thing. Muslims themselves, save for a handful -- the handful who become apostates -- can never allow themselves to recognize what Islam itself causes, and so they work to bring about the very conditions that they have fled from.

It is up to the Infidels to understand this, and to act to protect themselves. The time for sentimentality, for thinking that Muslims are simply "humans in distress" and can be allowed into Western lands, should have passed long ago. No more should be allowed into Western countries, and those there should be discouraged, at every step, from remaining -- if, that is, they insist on continuing to believe in Islam, and in what the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira naturally inculcate. Begin by cutting off all that Saudi and other outside Arab money that pays for mosques and madrasas. End all government support for those who violate the law -- for example, by continuing to practice polygamy. Make the acquisition of citizenship dependent on a deep knowledge of the culture, the history, the legal and political institutions, of the Infidel nation-state, and require an oath of loyalty to those legal and political institutions. Make sure that perjury in the swearing of such an oath will be grounds for being stripped of that citizenship, which is a great privilege. And work to immunize the Infidels against the spread of Islam by educating them as to what it is, a collectivist Total Belief-System, with a clear politics and geopolitics, that imposes the duty of Jihad on all Muslims -- the duty, that is, to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam everywhere in the world. Make sure that Infidels understand how Islam discourages free and skeptical inquiry, forbids most forms of artistic expression, promotes the habit of mental submission -- in other words, stunts moral and mental growth, in a hundred different ways.

This can be done. It is not impossible, and it is far more important, to the survival of the West, and the turning back of the menace of Islam, than whatever "freedom" or "prosperity" or some such naive goal, is worked for, at such colossal and hopeless expense, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Muslim states are always and everywhere, to the extent that they take Islam seriously, going to be "failed states." Let them be "failed states." Just minimize Infidel efforts to prevent Muslims from having to endure, and then ultimately to recognize, the failures that are a result of Islam itself. In Dar al-Islam, and in Dar al-Harb, where so many arrive, delighted with the peace and safety of an advanced non-Muslim state, but still, bringing with them, and clinging to, the Islam that is part of their mental baggage.

Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2008 11:57 AM

COMMENTS by Jihad Watch readers can be found at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023991.php

Profile of a Jihadist Muslimah

2008-12-15T01:58:00.000-08:00

Malika El Aroud is a daughter of a Moroccan immigrant family. She arrived in Belgium when she was five years old, was not too bad at studies but has lived on government benefits since she was 17. She became pregnant, attempted to commit suicide and married twice with the wrong man. “Until one day I heard a voice in my head,” said Malika on October 13, 2003 in De Standaard. “The voice said: “Only the Quran can save you.”

from http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/12/mama-of-al-qaeda.html
“The Mama of Al Qaeda”
by Baron Bodissey
at Gates of Vienna

Atlas Shrugs discusses FACING JIHAD: PART I:

2008-12-14T02:21:00.000-08:00

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/facing-jihad-pa.html

Comment on the foregoing post "Facing Jihad: Part I" at Atlas Shrugs:

-- "STATE ISLAM MUST GO" not all Muslims but those supporting the imposition of Islamic law. --
--FACING JIHAD: PART I
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/facing-jihad-pa.html

This is insufficient. ALL Muslims must go. Not because all of them actively desire the destruction of free societies, but because Muslim populations are the protective, supportive infrastructure in which the jihadist hides and from which he draws his sustenance.

Remember: By virtue of their allegiance to Islam -- the only allegiance a Muslim is permitted -- Muslims are required to support and defend fellow Muslims against any non-Muslim, and against charges made by any non-Muslim. Even those who don't feel the jihad urge will respond to that call. It's dangerous for a Muslim not to do so, both spiritually and practically.

Then there's the little matter of taqiyya and kitman. Need I say more?

Free peoples cannot be safe from Muslims and Islamic terrorism as long as they are permitted to commingle with us. They must be quarantined away from healthy societies and kept confined, with only one another for company, until they've outgrown their madness.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 05:08 AM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/facing-jihad-pa.html

VIRUS WARNING!

2008-12-02T20:43:00.000-08:00

BEWARE! Many blog- and websites not friendly to the violence and murder practiced by ISLAM have been infected with viruses and trojans.

See that your anti-virus software is installed and up to date. So far, I have gotten infected at Jihad Watch and warned that site of the problem.

Radarsite also appears to be infected as well as Shadow Warrior.

Please keep on visiting the above-named sites but warn the site if you find an infection

If any of you find this blog to be infected, please let me know.

I frequently run my anti-virus progam to keep the site virus-free.

Leslie White

Terrorism--Murder and Mayhem--is rooted in the koran

2008-12-01T18:04:00.000-08:00

From Hindus, Jews, and Jihad Terror in Mumbai
By Andrew G. Bostom

Contemporary validation of the central principle of jihad terrorism -- rooted in the Koran -- (for example, verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26)-i.e., to terrorize the enemies of the Muslims as a prelude to their conquest -- has been provided in the mainstream Pakistani text on jihad warfare by Brigadier S.K. Malik, originally published in Lahore, in 1979. Malik's treatise was endorsed in a laudatory Foreword to the book by his patron, then Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq, as well as a more extended Preface by Allah Buksh K. Brohi, a former Advocate-General of Pakistan. This text -- widely studied in Islamic countries, and available in English, Urdu, and Arabic -- has been recovered from the bodies of slain jihadists in Kashmir. Brigadier Malik emphasizes how instilling terror is essential to waging successful jihad campaigns:

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy (sic); it is the decision we wish to impose upon him...

"Jihad," the Koranic concept of total strategy...[d]emands the preparation and application of total national power and military instrument is one of its elements. As a component of the total strategy, the military strategy aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemy from the preparatory stage of war...Under ideal conditions, Jihad can produce a direct decision and force its will upon the enemy. Where that does not happen, military strategy should take over and aim at producing the decision from the military stage. Should that chance be missed, terror should be struck into the enemy during the actual fighting.

...the Book [Koran] does not visualize war being waged with "kid gloves." It gives us a distinctive concept of total war. It wants both, the nation and the individual, to be at war "in toto," that is, with all their spiritual, moral, and physical resources. The Holy Koran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test of utmost preparation lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of the enemies.

This is an excerpt. Read it all at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/hindus_jews_and_jihad_terror_i.html

Moslem Youths Rape 14-year-old Australian Girls

2008-11-25T03:13:00.000-08:00

FOUR “youths of Middle Eastern background” guilty of raping two 14-year-old Caucasian girls near a Melbourne train station

the cure

The Jihad in the Historical PRESENT - as of this date

2008-11-24T00:48:00.000-08:00

ZAWAHIRI: JIHAD WILL CONTINUE DESPITE OBAMA
By Walid Phares

posted at
Counterterrorism Blog

Co-Editor's Note: Walid Phares was interviewed on C-SPAN on November 20 about this tape - watch here.)

As observers were awaiting the release of the "official" al Qaeda position regarding the election of Barack Obama as the new President of the United States, seasoned experts on the Jihadist movement had little doubts as to the substance of the main message. As I have outlined in my appearances on Arabic television channels since November 4, Bin Laden or his second in command was expected to declare that their "Jihad" will continue despite the election of an African American President and despite Obama’s intention to withdraw from Iraq. Ayman Zawahiri did just that on Wednesday in his latest message to his supporters and his enemies: even if the war ends in Iraq, the global war will continue everywhere.

The tape was expected to appear a couple weeks after the election because of al Qaeda's method of monitoring the reactions of the international community, of the Arab and Muslim world and also of other Islamist authorities. The Bin Laden-Zawahiri style is to give the "last word," like a Caliph would. The points raised in the tape were almost all predicted by experts familiar with the Jihadi-combat mind set: Although a new president was elected - one who would reverse some of Bush’s policies, the new president will devise new strategies to defeat al Qaeda.. Zawahiri isn't buying the version proposed by other anti-American critics of Washington's War on Terror. Most of Europe's left, the Arab authoritarian regimes, and the Islamist fundamentalist establishment have all welcomed the news of an Obama victory and are tailoring new proposals for the region's future (of course to their advantage). But not al Qaeda. That's why this Zawahiri message is important. It is telling the world and allies that there will be no respite in the conflict.

The al Qaeda’s number two had to address the election of a Black President of the United States because of the two massive changes this choice has brought to the Jihadist agenda: On the one hand, Obama is very popular in the eyes of international public opinion; on the other hand the President elect is planning on withdrawing from Iraq and pushing forward in Afghanistan. All this changes al Qaeda's game. Zawahiri's tape had to address these "challenges" as pressure was mounting among Jihadists to deal with this election. Hence, the main points presented by the audio message are as follows:

1. The election of Obama is a defeat to the United States in Iraq and a victory to the Jihadists

In his tape Zawahiri congratulates the Muslim world

"on the American people's admission of defeat in Iraq. Although the evidence of America's defeat in Iraq appeared years ago, Bush and his administration continued to be stubborn and deny the brilliant midday sun. If Bush has achieved anything, it is in his transfer of America's disaster and predicament to his successor. But the American people, by electing Obama, declared its anxiety and apprehension about the future towards which the policy of the likes of Bush is leading it, and so it decided to support someone calling for withdrawal from Iraq"

In al Qaeda's lexicon it is crucial to demonstrate to their supporters that it is "their" actions (terror in Iraq) which convinced, if not intimidated, American voters into voting against McCain and electing Obama. Zawahiri wants al Qaeda to be credited for the behavior of America's voting majority in the same way it took credit for the change in electoral direction that took place in Madrid after the March 11, 2004 attacks.

2. A warning to Obama: Don't send additional troops to Afghanistan

Zawahiri then sends a warning to President elect Obama:

"The second of these messages is to the new president of the United States. I tell him: you have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you. A failure in Iraq to which you have admitted, and a failure in Afghanistan to which the commanders of your army have admitted. The other thing to which I want to bring your attention is that what you've announced about how you're going to reach an understanding with Iran and pull your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan is a policy which was destined for failure before it was born. It appears that you don't know anything about the Muslim Ummah and its history, and the fate of the traitors who cooperated with the invaders against it, and don't know anything about the history of Afghanistan and its free and defiant Muslim people. And if you still want to be stubborn about America's failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them. And be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them."

If victory has been achieved by the Jihadists against the United States in Iraq by forcing the new Administration to pull out of that country, in Zawahiri's mind, another defeat awaits America in Afghanistan according to al Qaeda's latest message. The logic of endless Jihad seems to be that wherever American forces would be sent, the Jihadists will meet them for a fight until the US redeploys its contingents from around the world, back to "its borders" as previous al Qaeda messages have underlined.

4. The same US aggression remains

Concerned about the sympathy emerging from around the world and within the Muslim community regarding the new President, Zawahiri reminds his Islamist followers that "crimes have been committed and the mentality that produced them is still around." He doesn't want to see a shift in pubic opinion towards a "nicer" America. He says:

"As for the crimes of America which await you, it appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims. The Muslim Ummah received with extreme bitterness your hypocritical statements to and stances towards Israel, which confirmed to the Ummah that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims."

Clearly, Zawahiri is trying to draw red lines for the acceptance of Obama by the Arab and Muslim world. This audiotape is probably the prelude to a campaign by the Jihaidists to minimize Obama's emergence and classify him as just "another US President, with a different face."

5. You're not real

Then Zawahiri begins the Jihadi deconstruction of Obama's image. He declares:

"You represent the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malik al-Shabazz, or Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him). You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American Crusade in it to continue. And last Monday, your aircraft killed 40 Afghan Muslims at a wedding party in Kandahar. As for Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him), he was born to a black pastor killed by white bigots, but Allah favored him with guidance to Islam, and so he prided himself on his fraternity with the Muslims, and he condemned the crimes of the Crusader West against the weak and oppressed, and he declared his support for peoples resisting American occupation, and he spoke about the worldwide revolution against the Western power structure. That's why it wasn't strange that Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him) was killed, while you have climbed the rungs of the presidency to take over the leadership of the greatest criminal force in the history of mankind and the leadership of the most violent Crusade ever against the Muslims. And in you and in Colin Powell, Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him) concerning "House Negroes" are confirmed."

Zawahiri's words are strong and are aimed at putting pressure on all those in the region who rushed to announce that Obama will radically change the "regime" in the United States. The number two of al Qaeda is painting the President elect as an opportunistic politician who used all three faiths to access power. One can see that Zawahiri is trying to achieve two goals: maintaining his own flock fully indoctrinated against Washington regardless of the change in the White House; and pressuring the radical clerics in the Wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood circles - who are welcoming Obama's victory - into retreat from such "apostasy."

6. The War must continue..

Zawahiri's main message is to call on the Jihadists everywhere to resume the war relentlessly and to "strike." Yes, he argues, there was a victory when American changed direction in Iraq, but the road to full Jihadi victory is still long. Read it as follow: The fight over Iraq will continue until the establishment of an al Qaeda like Emirate in the Sunni Triangle, which would be then the real accomplished victory. The fight will go on in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia and beyond. In short, the al Qaeda world war against the rest won't stop because of an election in America. Zawahiri said:

"You also must appreciate, as you take over the presidency of America during its Crusade against Islam and Muslims, that you are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a Jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see. I tell the Muslim Ummah: America, the criminal, trespassing Crusader, continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses, because its criminal, expansionist Crusader project in your lands has only been neutralized by the sacrifices of your sons, the Mujahideen. This, then, is the path, so stick to it. To the Mujahideen. I tell them: may Allah reward you in the best way for your historic heroics, which have ruined America's plans and rendered its projects ineffective. So be firm and resolute. Your enemy's stagger has begun, so don't stop hitting him. I say to my brothers the Mujahideen in Iraq in general and the Islamic State of Iraq in particular, and to its Amir, the towering mountain Abu 'Umar al-Baghdadi: your enemy has admitted defeat, and the forthcoming stage is expected to be dominated by conspiracies and betrayals in order to cover the American withdrawal, so you must persevere, for victory is in an hour of perseverance. And I tell my brothers in Somalia: rejoice in victory and conquest. America is gathering its wounds in Iraq, and Ethiopia is looking for a way out, and for this reason, the stage of conspiracies and machinations has begun. So hold tightly to the truth for which you have given your lives, and don't put down your weapons before the Mujahid state of Islam and Tawheed has been set up in Somalia. And I tell all Mujahideen everywhere: Allah has granted you success and honored you by making you the most important cause of that, so be resolute on the path of Jihad until you meet your Lord while He is pleased with you."

As many experts in Jihadism have underlined - and as I projected in my last three books on Future Jihad - even if we decide to change course in Iraq or even in Afghanistan, the strategic intentions of the Jihadi Salafists is to engage in confrontation worldwide, including within democracies.

7. Until you surrender..

Echoing this assessment of the global Jihadi drive, Zawahiri asks the followers of this ideology -not just his membership - to relentlessly fight against what he perceives as the "Grand Crusade." A stark reminder that the forces, which waged their campaigns against the United States as of the early 1990s peaking on 9/11 and widening their warfare to dozens of countries since, aren't going back to the pre 9/11 mode. Once again, al Qaeda's number two offers a deal to the "infidel powers": quit and withdraw from this entire region or face a greater war. It is a chilling statement of the so-called Jihadi offensive. It is not just about Iraq: It is about the Planet as a whole. He goes on:

"And my fifth message is to all the world's weak and oppressed. I tell them: America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always. And the Mujahideen of Islam, by the grace of Allah, continue to be the spearhead of the resistance against it to restrain it from injustice, aggression and arrogance. As for my final message, it is to the American people. I tell it: you incurred defeat and losses from the foolish actions of Bush and his gang, and at the same time, Shaykh Usama bin Ladin (may Allah preserve him) sent you a message to withdraw from the lands of the Muslims and refrain from stealing their treasures and interfering in their affairs. So choose for yourself whatever you like, and bear the consequences of your choice, and as you judge, you will be judged."

Against all other reactions, both positive and neutral, vis-a-vis Obama's election, al Qaeda stands firm in rejecting the new leadership even before the President elect takes office in January. From a politico-psychological perspective the master of Jihadism Usama Bin laden cannot be overshadowed by another international leader, particularly if that emerging figure is the President of the "Great Satan." Zawahiri's response to the election seems to re-frame the results of the election, one viewed worldwide as one of change. To al Qaeda there is no altering of direction in their struggle and agenda. In their own logic, either Obama will end American presence altogether in the Greater Middle East, or nothing will really change in the global battlefield.

Conclusion

Once Obama’s victory was solidified, many wondered what al qaeda’s response would be. Many of observers thought that the election of Mr. Obama would wash away the grievances of al Qaeda and isolate the pockets of violence to a few valleys in Afghanistan. Zawahiri's answer is bluntly no. Obviously, by al Qaeda's book, this is a step forward but it is not enough. Pulling out of Iraq is a victory, as claim the Jihadists of all genres, but more victories are needed to end the war from their perspective. This indicates that the post 9/11 era may well be reversed in the mind of liberal democracies via electoral victories at home as was the case in Spain and now in the United States, but in the mind of the Jihadists - it is irreversible. Out of all points raised by the Zawahiri audiotape, I move to state that the central message is this: redeploy as you wish and change all the leaders you want, but know that we will continue our global fight against you. This means that the forthcoming Administration has a tremendous challenge to confront and it will have to do so by learning from the past and enhancing the strategies for the future. The landscape of the War with the Jihadists may be changed from what it was over the past eight years but it will be different from what it was during the 1990s. A whole new configuration is ahead of us.

*****
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

By Walid Phares on November 19, 2008 11:10 PM

Message to "The Messenger" and his followers from one half of the "Pigs and Apes"

2008-11-22T14:24:00.000-08:00

("CLICK ME")

courtesy of http://ibloga.blogspot.com/

A WELCOME TO MUSLIMS TO THE U.S. - MESSAGE FROM A VIRTUAL ELLIS ISLAND

2008-11-22T13:49:00.000-08:00

by D.C. Watson
from http://platypus-thatslife-cestlavie.blogspot.com/2007/11/proverbes-sentences-maximes.html

Dear Muslims:

Welcome to the United States of America. We speak English here. We’re a free nation. We work hard, drink beer, take care of our family and friends and play hard. Although the religious majority is overwhelmingly Christian, we’re tolerant of all races and religions as opposed to your intolerant countries. You’re welcome to practice your faith here, but forget about dominating anything. You can stay as long as you respect our laws and our citizens. Understand that it’s not up to us to adapt to your culture, it’s your responsibility to adapt to ours. You’re in our house, so you follow the house rules or else… take a one way ticket back to your country and stay there. The preservation of American culture, American borders, the English language and the United States Constitution remain at the forefront of the American Patriot agenda. Don’t make the mistake of underestimating the backbone, the willingness or the means at our disposal to do what’s necessary in protecting this to-do list. Enjoy your day!
-D.C. Watson

The New Barbary Pirates - Somali Moslems

2008-11-20T02:52:00.000-08:00

India Shows The Way

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Piracy: India, from whose Hindi language we get the word "thug," knows how to handle them. Its navy blew away two Somali pirate ships in a week, sending a message in the only language thugs understand. Kudos.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: Energy East Asia & Pacific
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next Somali crew of pirates on a ship slinking through the Gulf of Aden looking for an easy ransom won't smile through its cutlasses if it spies an Indian-flagged ship. It will move the other way as fast as possible.

Tuesday, a pirate mother-ship crew aimed grenade launchers at an Indian naval frigate and tried to ram it. The Indian ship Tabar fired back, set the vessel on fire, and left it at the bottom of the sea. It was the second pirate ship India's navy had blown out of the water, another was taken out Nov. 11. There won't be many more.

India's clear response to the Somali pirates is the only one likely to prove effective. It contrasts sharply with the handwringing helplessness of other navies patrolling the area under a United Nations mandate. Their mission is proving ineffective, and the enemy is growing bolder. Since a Saudi supertanker was seized on Saturday, pirates have commandeered three more ships.

It's happening because the current international mission is largely hamstrung by attempts to enforce laws on nationals from a state without laws, let alone prisons or courts. Somali pirates right now get a free ride. When they aren't reaping ransoms from captured ships — $50 million in 2008, with another $10 million expected from the Saudi supertanker — they are being captured and released by international patrols that have no place to take them. It all adds up to a riskless venture for pirates.

India showed that the only message with authority in this perversely incentivized void is force. The West may have bigger, more technologically advanced navies than India's 118-ship naval flotilla, but only India has demonstrated the way to raise the cost of piracy. As a result of its actions, there are stirrings in the U.N. and NATO to adopt this strategy.

India's actions probably saved many more ships than the few it has protected and saved unnecessary costs, as well. Indian companies faced a $450,000 increase in shipping insurance costs due to the increased risk of piracy. That's a pittance here, but not in a country full of poor merchants trying to play by the rules and legitimately integrate into the global economy through trade. India's act was motivated by a desire to stand up for its nationals, but in reality, it stood up for all of us.

The West needs to heed India's example because its energy supply is at stake, and every ransom paid empowers the pirates and their terrorist allies. India's leadership and resolve should increase its international stature. That's what comes to nations that have the common sense to confront thugs.

ALSO SEE

Pirates Exploit Confusion About International Law
The connection between human-rights scolds and the rise of crime on the high seas.
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122705719422839565.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

AND

Pirates' Delight
Other thugs will come if we don't punish the Somali pirates

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122705589358439465.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

ALSO
Read "Somali jihadists reaping benefits of piracy"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023565.php

Read

There's someone at America's back door, and it's not a friendly neighbor.

2008-11-20T02:18:00.000-08:00

Does Anyone Have Our Back In Caribbean?

By JOSEPH CALLO Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:30 PM PT

There's someone at America's back door, and it's not a friendly neighbor.

While our national attention is focused on the decimation of our 401(k)s, a Congress lusting after tax increases, "the never-ending political campaign" and events in the Middle East, a very significant strategic economic threat to America is looming in the Caribbean Sea and along its littoral.

Venezuela and Cuba, with noteworthy help from outside the region, are successfully building an anti-America axis in the Caribbean that has opened the back door to U.S. economic security.

It won't take much more in the way of air and naval power in those two countries to put them in a position to challenge current U.S. military capabilities in the area. And there are eager enemies of the United States demonstrably willing to provide the military wherewithal to accomplish that end.

The evidence of the problem is mounting. A joint Venezuelan-Russian naval exercise in the Caribbean is one of the more obvious, and there is also talk of Russia basing long-range bombers in Cuba. Other countries on the Caribbean rim, such as Nicaragua, are watching to see which way the wind is going to blow in the near future.

While these events have been developing, China has emerged as an economic and strategic wild card, having steadily built very significant economic ties with many countries in the Caribbean and on its rim.

The fact that Chinese is the most popular second language presently taught in the Caribbean island's schools underscores the degree of its economic penetration in the region.

Menacing Neighbors

Control of the Panama Canal by a Chinese company with links to that country's army adds significantly to China's economic influence in the region. China's commercial leverage in the managing of the Panama Canal, combined with its steadily increasing naval reach, adds an ominous dimension to its current de facto control of the Panama Canal "choke point."

The U.S. economic vulnerability to a threat from the Caribbean is very real and, at least as far as political and media attention is concerned, largely ignored. Consider, for example, the vulnerability of the U.S. Gulf Coast offshore oil platforms.

Picture for a moment the TV images of the U.S. Gulf Coast during the approaches of the periodic hurricanes that sweep into the Gulf of Mexico. The thousands of offshore oil rigs are so numerous that they blend together into one visual mass on your TV screens.

And while the TV commentators are always quick to point out the economic implications of hurricanes to America's offshore oil sources in the Gulf of Mexico, they haven't picked up on the greater, and increasing, threat from aggressively unfriendly Caribbean neighbors.

A few successful naval or air attacks against those rigs could eliminate scores of those platforms outright and shut down the entire Gulf Coast offshore production capability, simply on the basis of the threat of further attacks.

Since those platforms account for roughly 25% of U.S. oil production, such a situation would instantaneously bring the United States to its knees economically.

Military Cuts

There is also the issue of the U.S. oil-refining facilities along the Gulf Coast and of the U.S. imports and exports that pass through our Gulf Coast ports. The latter include not just petro-products but also much of the stuff of daily life in the United States. That seaborne commerce accounts for roughly 10% of total U.S. imports and exports.

Clearly the U.S. Navy is aware of the threat, and recently it re-established the 4th Fleet for operations in the Caribbean. Problem is, the 4th Fleet is mostly a paper command, with tangible military assets to be added "as needed."

Unfortunately, with our currently undersized and shrinking Navy, there are not a lot of assets available, and building up meaningful U.S. naval strength in the Caribbean would mean drawing down forces that are focused on such critical areas as the Middle East and the Western Pacific.

There have been a lot of major political, economic, military and diplomatic distractions for America recently, but the time has come to take a long, hard look at what is going on in our geographic backyard.

And if the current situation in the Caribbean is as serious as the facts indicate, somebody better talk to politicians such as Rep. Barney Frank, who recently advanced the idea of a 25% cut in our military budget!

It's time for a reality check. There are some very shady characters at America's back door, and they can't be dismissed by such labels as "El Loco," and they aren't going to knock politely when they decide to come in.

Callo is a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral and author. His most recent book is "John Paul Jones: America's First Sea Warrior."

DON'T TREAD ON ME - A Warning

2008-11-11T11:42:00.000-08:00

The phrase "Don't tread on me" was coined during the American Revolutionary War, a variant perhaps of the snake severed in segments labelled with the names of the colonies and the legend "Join or Die" which had appeared first in Benjamin Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754.

The Rattlesnake Jack and the Modern Navy

As part of the commemoration of the bicentennial of the American Revolution, by an instruction dated 1 August 1975 (SECNAV Instruction 10520.3) the Secretary of the Navy directed the use of the rattlesnake jack in place of the union jack (blue field with white stars) during the period 13 October 1775 (the bicentennial of the legislation that created the Continental Navy, which the Navy recognizes as the Navy's birthday), and 31 December 1976.

By an instruction dated 18 August 1980 (SECNAV Instruction 10520.4), the Secretary of the Navy directed that the commissioned ship in active status having the longest total period in active status to display the rattlesnake jack in place of the union jack until decommissioned or transferred to inactive status.

By an instruction dated 31 May 2002 (SECNAV Instruction 10520.6), the Secretary of the Navy directed the use of the rattlesnake jack in place of the union jack for the duration of the Global War on Terrorism.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER The U.S. Navy's First Jack

DON'T TREAD ON ME encapsulates the difference between Americans and the docile European and UK populations that are being crushed by Moslem incursions and their own complicit governments.

It is a warning and a promise. Moslems should not take this lightly. There is a spirit in a determined American population that will not be cowed neither by Islamic threats nor whining. CAIR should take this is as seriously as they do the koran and the Islamic terrorist groups that they support and front for.

* * *

Islam Professor Converts from “Believer” to “Non-Believer”

2008-11-08T21:21:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Sami Alrabaa

Passages that incite to violence, hatred, and discrimination against women in the Koran and Sunnah must be removed, or viewed in their historic context if Islam and Muslims want to be accepted by the world community.

The German media reported early September 2008 that the German Professor Sven (Muhammad) Kalisch, a Muslim convert, who teaches Islam theology at Münster University, Germany, doubts it very much that Muhammad, the Prophet of Muslims “has ever existed.”

In a public lecture at Bielefeld University, Germany, (27.7.2008), Kalisch laid out his latest position about Islam and the Koran. He said that either Muhammad was a fictitious figure that never existed, or someone like him had existed and later was declared a prophet after his death.

It is good that an Islam expert has dared say that at a time when everybody is intimidated to criticize Islam and its symbols. Almost two years ago though, Kalisch thought and lectured differently. In another public lecture also at Bielefeld University (16.3.2006) he defended Al Shri’a as the law of God. As I confronted him with atrocious passages from the Koran inciting to violence, hatred, and discrimination against women, (check Islam is a violent Faith) he started stuttering and did not know what to say.

Obviously, Kalisch has drastically changed over the past two years, from a dogmatic (convert) Muslim to a “liberal” one. What happened? We do not know. But one thing is clear. Now for many fanatic Muslims, Kalisch is a heretic and apostate. And most certainly one of those grand muftis in the Muslim world will issue a fatwa urging “pious” Muslims to kill Kalisch.

In an interview with the German daily Taz (29.12.2004) Kalisch was asked why he converted to Islam. He answered, “because rationality prevails in Islam”. “Rationality”!? This is laughable. The Koran and the Sunnah are replete with threats, fear, hatred, violence, and discrimination against non-Muslims and women. The word “Islam” means “submission”.

Kalisch’s students are also stunned how the man has changed. On condition of anonymity, one of those students told me, “I don’t know what happened to Professor Kalisch. He used to defend every word in the Koran, even archaic and obsolete things. Now he is rejecting them, and demanding that Islam be reformed. He even said, Islam needs a Martin Luther.”

Kalisch’s students, who in one year will be released to teach Islam at schools, are split between those who follow a moderate course of Islam and those who follow a dogmatic one. Lamya Kaddor, Kalisch’s assistant is still teaching a dogmatic course of Islam.

Ms. Kaddor is indeed popular among her Muslim students (the majority of which are native Turks or Arabs) at the University of Münster and at the Glückauf Pubic School in Western German city of Dinslacken-Lohberg near Essen, as Speigel Online claims on March 14, 2008, and that is so for one simple reason, which Der Spiegel did not mention.

Kaddor repeats ad nauseam in front of her students that the whole world is afraid of Islam because it has the stronger arguments, and sooner or later the Muslim Caliphate, the Muslim empire is coming and will prevail all over the world. Therefore, rejoice!

According to the Turkish Daily Zaman, Kalisch rejected Kaddor’s doctorate dissertation because it was full of plagiarism. Kalisch also accuses his assistant of having peculated huge amounts of research money.

A moderate student of Kalisch told me that the majority of his colleagues would teach a dogmatic variety of Islam.

The Ministry of Education in NRW, the German federal state which commissioned Kalisch to train Islam teachers for schools has been presented a general outline of an Islam course at the NRW schools. The details were left out.

Ayub Axel Köhler, the Chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany and some of Kalisch students insist that Islam teachers at German schools must teach the Koran and the Sunnah as they are: “They are word of Allah.”

Wolfgang Borgfeld, who after converting to Islam changed his name to Muhammad Siddiq, established an association he called “The House of Islam” in the south of Frankfurt. The “House”, which used to be a hotel and harbours several halls for seminars and conferences, is financed by the Saudis and Kuwaitis. It is, however, largely a Koran school without any official control.

Recently I visited “The House of Islam” and Mr. Siddiq was delighted to show me his school and meet his students. I was curious and wanted to know what the students (8 – 18 years old) have learned. I asked a 16 year old girl why she was wearing a headscarf . She said she was proud of it because with it she is fulfilling the commandment of Allah. I asked a 15 year old student what Jihad meant. His answer: “It is fighting for Islam to prevail.” I asked further, also with weapons? “If need be, yes.” He heftily replied.

Siddiq’s House has around 60 students. One third of them are converts. And they are quite zealous about Islam. Uta Rasche wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine (September 1, 2004), “The number of those who converted to Islam (in Germany) is between 13,000 and 60,000, according to estimates. In any case, they make up only a small share of Germany’s more than 3 million Muslims.

But many converts have a very special story. Often they are extremely attached to their religion—and sometimes, they are particularly dangerous. They want to prove to themselves and their new fellow worshipers that they take their conversion seriously and therefore have a strong desire to demonstrate their religious commitment.”

Rasche also says, “Certainly, not every visit to an Islamic school produces an extremist, and naturally, not every convert becomes a terrorist. But when Islamic fundamentalists are looking for people in Germany whom they can use for their purposes, young converts have proven to be an ideal target group: They are enthusiastic, want to prove themselves, have severed all their ties and left their western circle of friends behind for the sake of the Muslim community. And there are decisive practical advantages: They have a German passport, can travel without restrictions within Europe, often speak good English and do not look suspicious at all.”

Gudrun Krämer, an Islam Professor at Berlin University (FU) rushed all of a sudden to support Professor Kalisch that the Muslim leader, Muhammad “maybe never existed”. She claimed that she had thought of that and came to the same conclusion. If that were the case, why did she then defend the fictitious Koran in most of her published articles and books?

For instance, she tries to justify the Koran discriminating against women as witnesses. She argues that the testimony of a woman is half as valid as that of a man, according to the Koran, because when women get their menstruation they do not think and remember clearly. Besides, she added, women were illiterate. The truth of the matter is the vast majority of men were also illiterate during the rise of Islam.

In fact, Krämer is not the only relativist among Islam experts in the West. So far, none of these experts has had the courage to criticize the Koran and the Sunnah which preach violence, hatred, and discrimination against women and followers of other faiths.

George Stauth, another Islam relativist, defends Islamism as a reaction to Western colonialism and modern consumerism. Stauth adds, Islamism is a “protest movement” against corruption and despotism in the Muslim world.

This might be the case, but the Islamists, who are inciting to violence, hatred, and discrimination against women inspired by the Koran and Sunnah, are the least qualified to change the status quo situation. If Islamists took over, they would replace the evil by a worse one. They simply reject political and religious pluralism. They reject the others completely.

In any case, we Muslims have the right to practice our religion like followers of other faiths do. But at same time we must skip all those passages in the Koran and Sunnah which preach commandments against human rights, freeze them, or discuss them in their own historic context. Followers of other religions have already done that; the Christians, the Jews, and the others.

Whether the Prophet Muhammad existed or not is insignificant. Islam, however, is a fact of life. But if we, Muslims want to be accepted by the world community, then we must renounce violence, hatred and discrimination against women. We must accept the other faiths as they accept us.

The way up to all that seems to be quite long and thorny. Both peace-loving Westerners and Muslims must work on reaching that aim. Preaching relativism and being fearful to spell out the bitter truth would only strengthen the Islamists and their destructive ideology. There must the fight against extremism and fanaticism begin.

Posted October 5th, 2008 by hrc
http://europenews.dk/en/node/14669

Moslems in America: The Enemy Within

2008-11-01T13:01:00.000-07:00

Lest one be tempted to view the statements made in the article below by a member of the Muslim Student Association as the rants of an isolated extremist, similar sentiments can be found in materials in numerous mosques across the country. Well-known American Islamic leaders have been caught on tape and film calling for an Islamic government and law for America.

How many Muslims in American share these views? We don’t know, as we’re not aware of any empirical survey data that would answer that question. We do know, however, that very few American Muslims are willing to stand up and publicly denounce such calls for Islamic law in America.

What’s more, surveys in Great Britain reveal that between 40% and 60% of British Muslims now favor the imposition of Islamic sharia law in that country, and they are getting their wish as cities across Britain are recognizing sharia law and courts.

As Dr. Walid Phares so eloquently argued in his commentary we emailed out yesterday, we need to vote as if our national survival depends on it – because it does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSA Chapter Official: Don't Vote; Destroy

IPT News
October 28, 2008

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/797

In the final days of the 2008 Presidential election season – with just 6 days now remaining until voters cast their ballots – both campaigns are carefully maneuvering to gain an edge, while still others are singularly focused on just "getting out the vote." Regardless of the outcome desired by these activists, there seems to be one unified message across the American political spectrum these days: Participate in our democratic system.

However, one college's Muslim student organization has sought to air a completely different message regarding the election: that of the Islamists.

A student named Farhad Akbari posted an essay on the internal Yahoo! Group of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at San Diego Mesa College on October 14. In his post, "The Issue of Voting," Akbari delves into the election, warning his fellow group members of the fate in store for those who cast a ballot for "a person who fights Islam, governs contrary to Islam, and is himself a kafir [infidel or unbeliever]…" Akbari does not reserve this treatment for any specific candidate. Rather, he holds both major party candidates in equal regard.

Continuing in his reproach of American democracy, Akbari writes:

"Whether you vote for the white kafir or the half-black kafir, they will kill our brothers and sisters. They will subjugate our brothers and sisters. And they will certainly support Israel in killing our brothers and sisters. There is no "lesser of two evils" here. They are both greater evils. The lesser evil is avoiding the situation, as both are equally poisonous to the cause of Islam…Brothers and sisters, I have one thing to say: DON"T [sic] VOTE."

In most cases, publicly proclaiming one's decision not to vote – even encouraging others to follow suit – would not be noteworthy. For better or worse, the right to vote in the U.S. democratic system includes the choice not to exercise that right. For many, this decision is one of protest – speaking out on a variety of concerns from the lack of third party viability, to the perceived unimportance of a single vote. "The Issue of Voting," however, is in a league of its own, considering what Akbari, the MSA chapter Treasurer, proposes to be the real answer to Muslim grievances by invoking the words of Islamic scholars:

"Those who do not govern according to to [sic.] the (law) which Allah has revealed [Shari'ah law], verily, they are the kaafiroon…

Democracy, like all other systems fabricated by the minds of men are untenable in Islam. It is an un-Islamic system…[and] there is absolutely no basis anywhere in the Qur'aan for western democracy and its parliamentary system. A government of democracy is a government appointed by Juhhaal (ignoramuses). Ignoramuses, fussaaq and fujjaar have no share in appointing a government in Islam. The Islamic system is Khilaafat…"

The moral of the story: don't support the "infidel" system; defeat democracy in the U.S. and replace it with Islamic law. So much for a mere protest.

While postings similar to Akbari's do not appear to be common among the group, it is telling that not one person responded to challenge his argument (nor does it appear that anyone followed up in support either). Additionally, the fact that the MSA members voted in as Treasurer an individual whose MySpace page includes a photo of him wrapped in a kefiya (reminiscent of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist militants) with a caption reading "not shown: AK-47/Suicide bomb jacket strap/anthrax/airplane/boxcutter" leads to questions about the activities of the MSA chapter on the whole. Akbari's newly created Facebook profile shows that he lists his "Political Views" as "Khilafa" – or a political system based on the Islamic caliphate and Shari'ah law.

As far as the chapter itself, it's not clear whether the San Diego Mesa College MSA is directly affiliated with the Muslim Students' Association - National (MSA) organization. The college's chapter is not among those listed on the MSA - West Zone USA directory of chapters. However, as noted in the IPT's dossier on the national, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization, the MSA has nearly 600 chapters, of which roughly 150 are directly affiliated.

MSA is a member organization of a national "taskforce" that recently sent out an "election advisory," encouraging Muslims to "full[y] participat[e]" in elections on Tuesday.

However, it must be noted that the radical rhetoric being spewed in San Diego is not an anomaly among MSA chapters on campuses nationwide. At chapters across the U.S. and Canada, directly affiliated to the parent organization and not, Islamism and its hate-filled ideology is on full display. Take, for instance, the March 2003 account of Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily.com, who, after secretly attending a private MSA (aka "Muslim only") event at Queensborough Community College in Queens, NY, reported what he saw. According to Klein, one of the speakers at the event, Mohammad Faheed, blasted America and its democracy, and encouraged the audience to help bring about its demise:

"We are not Americans!" [Faheed] shouted. "We are Muslims! [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us vs. them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master's house…we reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"

Faheed continued, paralleling Akbari's more recent calls for Shari'ah:

"The so-called terrorists are the only people who truly fear Allah. We must join these organizations. They are the only worthy causes, and the mighty superpower only fears them…[the U.S.] is not strong. Vietnam, they lost. Somalia, they ran away from. America hasn't won anything since World War II. We can defeat America…Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of the Shariah."

Such radical sentiment against the United States rises to the highest levels of MSA leadership. At the April 2007 MSA-West Zone Conference, West Zone President Amir Mertaban told students their paramount loyalty is to Muslims first, no matter what they may do:

"Osama bin Laden – I don't know this guy. I don't know what he did. I don't know what he said. I don't know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear? I am not saying support terrorist acts. I am not saying any of that. I am saying generally speaking. If a man comes and robs a store – if you're going to rob the store, go ahead and rob the store, are we going to condemn him? No, you support your Muslim brothers whether it is right or wrong. When they do wrong you grab them and you slap some sense into them, you're doing wrong. You see what I am saying.

So you never compromise on your faith. You be confident in every aspect of life. In every aspect of Islam you are confident. Four wives? Yes men are allowed to have four wives within this context. Jihad? Yes Jihad! Jihad is the tightest thing in Islam. Don't compromise on these little things. Be proud of it. Why? Because Islam is a perfect religion. If you sit here and you start saying, ‘Jihad is only an internal this and that,' you are compromising on your faith."

These comments beg the question: is it possible that the small, community college MSA chapters are as radical as some of their larger campus counterparts? San Diego Mesa College and Queensborough Community College – from two opposing coasts, both not directly affiliated with the national MSA, yet still espousing the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric seen at larger and more directly-affiliated chapters. It is clear that the Islamist infiltration goes far beyond what may first meet the eye.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

2008-10-26T03:32:00.000-07:00

ARE MOSLEMS LESSER HUMANS?

Or can they perhaps be classified as--ah--Animals?

Before you (Moslems and their Western apologists and would-be-protectors) jump down my throat, hold on . . .

Click here
and then judge.

ah--and be sure to check the first Comment to this post!

The Wages of Appeasement are Defeat!

2008-10-21T00:06:00.000-07:00

Giving Until It Hurts

Barry Rubin

October 8, 2008

In response to a casual question, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates dropped a historical bombshell, an offhand remark telling more about how the Middle East works than 100 books. And a former Marine commander adds an equally big revelation about long-ago events quite relevant for today.

Almost thirty years ago, President Jimmy Carter tried to show what a nice guy he was by pressing the Shah not to crush the revolutionaries. After the monarch fell, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met top officials of the new Islamist regime to pledge U.S. friendship to the government controlled by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. At the time, I wrote that by approaching some of the milder radicals, the administration frightened the more militant ones. U.S.-Iran relations must be smashed, they concluded, lest Washington back their rivals. In fact, as we'll see in a moment, the Carter administration offered to back Khomeini himself.

Three days after the Brzezinski meeting, in November 1979, the Islamist regime's cadre seized the U.S. embassy and its staff as hostages, holding them until January 1981. This was our introduction to the new Middle East of radical Islamism. Carter continued his weak stance, persuading the Tehran regime that it could get away with anything.

So we've long known that undermining U.S. allies, passivity toward anti-American radicals, and inaction after a massive terrorist act against Americans didn't work. The hostages were only released because Iran was suffering desperately from an Iraqi invasion and feared Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, as someone likely to be tougher.

The lesson of being strong in defending interests and combating enemies has not quite been learned. Today, the opposite is the mainstream prescription for success and the United States may be about to elect a president whose world view parallels the way Carter worked.

Here's where Gates comes in. On September 29, while giving a lecture at the National Defense University in Washington DC, someone asked him how the next president might improve relations with Iran. Gates responded:

"I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years." Then Gates revealed what was actually said at Brzezinski's meeting, in which he participated, summarizing Brzezinski's position as follows:

"We will accept your revolution....We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah....We can work together in the future."

The Iranians demanded the United States turn over to them the fugitive Shah, who they would have executed. Brzezinski refused. Three days later Iran seized the embassy and forever changed the Middle East. The road thus paved led to the Iran-Iraq and Iraq-Kuwait wars, the power of Hamas and Hizballah, September 11, 2001, and a great deal more. Many thousands would die due to American timidity and Iranian aggressiveness.

Had the United States been a mean bully in its treatment of the new Islamist Iran? The On the contrary, Washington did everything possible to negotiate, conciliate, and build confidence. We'll do almost anything you want, Carter and Brzezinski offered, just be our friend. Far from being appeased Iran demanded such a total humiliation--turning over the fatally ill, deposed Shah for execution--even that administration couldn't accept it.

Far from persuading Khomeini that the United States was a real threat, the U.S. government made itself appear a pitiful, helpless giant, convincing Tehran--as Khomeini put it--America couldn't do a damn thing. His revolution and ideology was too strong for it.

So why should we expect such a tactic could work today? How long does it take to get the message: this is an ideological revolution with huge ambitions to which America is inevitably a barrier. Appeasement, talks, apologies, confidence-building measures won't convince Tehran that America is its friend, only that it's an enemy so weak as to make aggression seem inevitably successful.

The only U.S. precondition has been that to get a high-level dialogue, Iran must first stop its drive for nuclear weapons, at least temporarily.

Gates understands what happened: "Every administration since then has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed....The reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship."

This situation is quite parallel to efforts to have reasonable preconditions with the Palestinians--stop terrorism, incitement, clearly accept a two-state solution--or with Syria--stop sponsoring terrorism, cease trying to take over Lebanon, and accept normal relations with Israel as the outcome of peace. Similar bargains have been offered Hamas and Hizballah. Yet even this is too much for the other side and too much for those who continue trying to undermine any Western leverage on radical forces.

If the other side won't give anything, they insist, merely offer more. And if the other side takes those concessions, pockets them, gives nothing in return, and continues their behavior, this merely proves you have to give still more.

Here's more evidence why that's wrong. Former U.S. Marine Colonel Timothy Geraghty was Marine commander in October 1983 when suicide bombers attacked the barracks of U.S. peacekeeping forces in Beirut, killing 242 Americans. He now reveals that a September 26, 1983 U.S. intelligence intercept showed Iran's government ordering the attack through its embassy in Lebanon. The timid response to that operation set a pattern leading directly to the September 11 attack.

Three decades after the miserable failure of the make-friends-with-Islamist-Iran policy--including offering Khomeini continued U.S. arms' supplies for goodness sake!--isn't it time to learn this simple lesson?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel

Islamics Never Sleep - Will Grasp Any Opportunity to Land a Crippling Blow on U.S.--Especially in a Time of Crisis (Economic)

2008-09-30T14:07:00.000-07:00

FBI hunts American citizens trained overseas for terror
Feds launch dragnet to stop 'October surprise' attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 29, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76415
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

As Pakistani investigators hunt the terrorists behind the massive Marriott Hotel bombing in Islamabad, FBI agents in the U.S. have begun aggressively hunting for Americans who have recently returned from trips to Pakistan where they may have trained at al-Qaida camps, WND has learned.

A coast-to-coast dragnet has been launched partly in response to leads developed in the arrest of one of al-Qaida's "fixers" in the U.S., say FBI officials. They report the bureau is in a race against time to identify Pakistan-trained sleeper cells and disrupt a possible pre-election "October surprise."

For the first time since 9/11, counterterrorism field agents have been authorized to spy on young Muslim men and women – including American citizens – who have traveled to Pakistan without any specific evidence of wrongdoing.

Controversial new investigative guidelines approved by the Justice Department allow agents to monitor suspects and conduct undercover interviews even before opening formal investigations.

FBI headquarters has ordered its field offices to aggressively pursue anonymous tips and report back any suspicious activities in their Muslim communities. The intelligence will be immediately analyzed and shared in a threat matrix to avoid a repeat of the so-called "Phoenix memo" intelligence failure, officials say.

In the weeks prior to 9/11, an alert agent in the FBI's Phoenix office noted that several radical Middle Eastern men were taking flying lessons. He drafted a memo and sent it to headquarters, which promptly buried it, missing an opportunity to act before the disastrous hijackings of 9/11.

The FBI's new rules and current sense of urgency follow the recent interrogation of al-Qaida operative Aafia Siddiqui, an M.I.T.-educated scientist who fled to Pakistan after 9/11. She was arrested this summer in Afghanistan and brought back to the U.S. after sustaining injuries from a gun battle.

According to a federal indictment, Siddiqui was found with handwritten notes that referred to a "mass casualty attack" and listed various locations in the U.S. including Wall Street, the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, Plum Island and the Brooklyn Bridge. In addition, certain notes referred to the construction of "dirty bombs," chemical and biological weapons and other explosives.

Siddiqui's notes also discussed "mortality rates associated with certain of these weapons and explosives," the indictment says. Other notes referred to various ways to attack "enemies," including destroying reconnaissance drones, using underwater bombs and using gliders.

A computer thumb drive in Siddiqui's possession contained electronic correspondence that referred to specific "cells" and "attacks" by certain "cells," the indictment says. Other documents referred to "enemies," including the U.S., and discussed recruitment and training.

Officials say subsequent interrogations have revealed that possibly hundreds of American Muslims, many of them of Pakistani descent, have traveled to Pakistan in recent years to train at al-Qaida and Taliban madrassas and terror camps and have returned to the U.S. to carry out suicide attacks.

The revelation has shocked the politically sensitive FBI into abandoning its long-held policy of coordinating investigations in the Muslim community with Muslim-rights groups. Officials say it's more important than ever to track down Muslims who have traveled to Pakistan, and gather and disseminate intelligence quickly to disrupt possible terror plots before they can develop to an operational stage.

"There's some worry we may be in another Phoenix moment," one official said, "but this time we're determined to leave no stone unturned."

The formation of al-Qaida training camps inside Pakistan has been a major concern among U.S. security agencies since at least 2004, when Washington issued a rare intelligence directive to border agents to check young Pakistani male travelers –including Americans – for physical signs of military training.

As WND first reported, they were asked to look for "rope burns," "unusual bruises," "scars" and other possible injuries suffered from obstacle courses, firearms or explosives.

"Many of the individuals trained in the Pakistani camps are destined to commit illegal activities in the United States," warned the two-page DHS advisory that launched the special action.

According to another internal DHS document obtained by WND, the department more recently directed customs officers to escort passengers identified by "one-day lookouts" to secondary inspection, where they are subjected to a battery of questions to determine if they have visited terror camps in Pakistan.

American citizens of Pakistani descent also are under increased scrutiny. Over the past few years, U.S. authorities have arrested or investigated several Pakistani-American men who have trained at the camps during trips to Pakistan. One camp used photos of President Bush for target practice.

"The camps are a big concern," said a DHS official, who requested anonymity. "We are questioning U.S. citizens, as well as Pakistani nationals, as they come back to the states if the computer says they might have terrorist ties."

FBI Director Robert Mueller earlier this month cited the threat posed by the Pakistani terror-training camps while briefing Congress about the bureau's expanded investigative powers, which officially go into effect Oct. 1.

"We know that in western Pakistan now that there are camps in which individuals are being trained. The U.K. knows that very well because individuals who were involved in the 2005 attacks and later attacks had traveled to Pakistan for training in the camps and then come back," Mueller testified before the House Judiciary Committee. "I believe the American public would want us to do what is necessary to try to identify persons who had traveled to Pakistan, whatever their heritage, whatever their background, whatever their ethnicity, to determine who has gone to Pakistan to obtain that training and may be coming back to the United States to undertake an attack."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., complained the new investigative rules would give FBI agents license to racially profile citizens.

FBI officials noted that the Marriott blast, which killed both U.S. Defense and State Department officials, signaled new techniques by al-Qaida-trained suicide terrorists. The dump-truck bomb they used was so massive, leaving a crater 30 feet deep and 60 feet wide, that it managed to severely damage the building even from beyond the concrete barriers protecting the perimeter of the building.

Also, investigators said that the hotel – a high-profile target that was used by Western diplomats as well as the CIA – had been targeted at least twice previously for attack, just as the U.S. embassy in Yemen had been hit in minor operations before this month's full-scale attack.

The repeat attacks indicate the terrorists are testing security, experts say. It also indicates they will keep coming back to the same target until they are successful in destroying it.

In the U.S., the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993 and then again in 2001. A target the hijackers intended to strike but failed to hit on 9/11 was the U.S. Capitol. Terror analysts believe the Pentagon remains an al-Qaida target as well, since it was only partially damaged in the 9/11 operation.

----------------------------------------------------
from ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
http://www.actforamerica.org/
-----------------------------------------------------

COMMENT by lw

" . . . Americans who have recently returned from trips to Pakistan . . . " It is a shame that our enemies can function under the label "Americans." whether born here or naturalized, these enemies of ours should first be stripped of citizenship--which is nigh impossible for the ones
born here (a law that needs changing).

When you read that " . . . hundreds of American Muslims, many of them of Pakistani descent, have traveled to Pakistan in recent years to train at al-Qaida and Taliban madrassas and terror camps and have returned to the U.S. to carry out suicide attacks." You rightly start to wonder about the loyalty of Moslems in America. Is it to the US and its Constitution or to Islam and its sharia and Koran, both incompatible with that Constitution.

As an aside, one wonders whether an Obama Administration, tinged as Barack Hussein Obama himself is with Moslem beginnings and koranic education would allow the "Controversial new investigative guidelines approved by the Justice Department . . . ." And Obama is the Moslem's Choice, no two ways about it (whether these Moslems are American or not).

One encouraging note is that "The revelation has shocked the politically sensitive FBI into abandoning its long-held policy of coordinating investigations in the Muslim community with Muslim-rights groups." For far too long, the FBI had been inveigled into "touchy-feely 'sensitivity' training with the so-called "Muslim-rights groups, such as CAIR (Council on American Muslim Relations), who have demanded these "rights." (The only rights that Moslems in America should demand is the right--as it is of any American--to Freedom of Speech. Provisions must be made so that Islamics in the U.S. can freely speak their minds as concerns their preference of America over Islam and for freedom to throw off the chains of the Islamic "whole-life system" without the fear of being killed by rabid Islamics who also infest America.

Another concern for us should be such easy-on-Islamics as "House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., [who] complained the new investigative rules would give FBI agents license to racially profile citizens."

and here we have the the Obama danger looming were Barack Husein Obama to get the Power of the White House that he years for so disgustingly. The theme of "racism" as applied to Islamics(who are not all "dark-skinned" as such renegades as Adam Yahiye Gadahn and the Albanians arrested in connection with a Fort Dix, NJ, planned strike are testimony of.

Islam is not a "race." Whites, black, browns, and all shades in between can be found amongst the ranks of the Islamic enemies of the United States. Race-conscious Americans or better-said "African-Americans," including Barack Hussein Obama, will play the race card ad nauseam.

Going easy on Islamics in America will be a horrid mistake for which we all will have to pay off in spades.

As to "Can there be such a thing as a 'Moslem-American?'"

An "American Moslem?"

Can a Moslem be a good American?

Can a Moslem even be an American?

[I don't mean an "American citizen," because they can perjure themselves when swearing to uphold our Constitution and get citizenship. lw]

I have received this via email---

Can a good Muslim be a good American ?

This is something I've wondered about for some time now: How & why do the
Muslims hate us & everyone else so much? Doesn't their God teach them to
love?

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was sent to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of
Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
except
Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam
and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns
in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends
with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great
Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat
and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution
since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow
freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
Every Muslim government is e ither dictatorial or autocratic

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the
Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent
names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very
suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both
"good" Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above
statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who
understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

Pass it on, Fellow Americans.