Wednesday, January 31, 2007


A western education for an Islamic true believer only makes him a more efficient and capable jihadi. Western education will not convert or moderate a true believer. It's a mistake to think that these scholastic immigrants already enslaved by an aggressive philosophy like Islam will be able to connect the good things and bounty of the western free world to the principles at the foundation of those nations, particularly when at any given moment the popular culture of that civilization seems hell-bent on its own destruction through feckless greed, trendy idolatries, and willful neglect of those higher values which gave them the platform to exercise those freedoms and advantages.

It's not an accident that the western-style representative republics with their guaranteed protection of minority and individual rights ONLY developed in the West. It's not by chance that ONLY in the western-style representative governments that rule of law is the norm, with due process, an independent judiciary and application of impartial law to enforce contracts and protect property rights has come into being.

Just as it's no accident that the nations under sharia law have ended up the way they are.

The performance of nations in any objective measurement is due to its institutional systems, and hence we can easily observe disparity in results.

Case in Point: Haiti and the Dominican Republic occupy different halves of the same island. Haiti, under a series of despotic rulers, is a land of squalor virtually unmatched on the planet while the Dominican Republic with its transitional representative democracy, sports beautiful forest reserves and exports cigars and world-class baseball players.

In another example, genetically, the people of India and Pakistan are very similar if not directly related. A major reason for the accelerating success of India and the seething marginalization of Pakistan is the difference in belief systems. The Islamic belief system leads to regression in a bankrupt and fragmented Pakistan while India grows stronger in trading and more educated, while playing well with the free world.

What is the primary cause of such huge disparity in results worldwide?

The answer is simple. Governing belief systems. The third world will continue to experience cholera, genocide, child starvation, oppression of women and minorities and the rest of the preventable tragedies associated with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse until the world as a whole demands more effective and compassionate behavior from local governments. The scourge that plays out in places like Darfur, Sudan, Tehran, Iran and Pyongyong, North Korea will continue as it always has until unenlightened leaders and belief systems used to control peoples are held accountable as the root cause of unnecessary death and destruction.

If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a founding document of the United Nations, were to be honored by every regime on earth we'd have something to be proud of as members of the human race.

The UN must start enforcing its own standards, subsequently removing members not meeting them. Having a seat at the UN should not be a 'right'. A seat and a voice should be earned through measurable, objective results.

Labels: , , , ,


Or is that Sharia Law for Dummies? Actually, it's Sharia Law for Dhimmis. And who are the dhimmis, you ask; why, it's you and me. Welcome to the new world regime of Sharia Law, if Bin Laden and your local chapter of CAIR, have their way:

"The subject peoples," [i.e., the dhimmis] according to a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, must "pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)" and "are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [the traditional Muslim greeting, 'Peace be with you']; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork...recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches." ('Umdat al-Salik, o11.3, 5).

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 30, 2007


The Old Rough Rider himself knew a thing or two.

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an America and nothing but an American.

"There can be no divided allegience here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room but for one flag, the American flag...we have room but for one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one loyalty and that is the loyalty to the American people.

"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.”

The American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Student Association-National (MSA-N), Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), Project Islamic Hope (PIH), and United Muslims of America (UMA) have each rushed to the defense of Sami Al-Arian, an admitted member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In the plea agreement, Al-Arian admits conspiring to help people associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and covering up his knowledge of the PIJ associations by lying to Harper and others. He also admits that he had been associated with PIJ during "the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s."

For this guilty plea, Al-Arian, who has already spent three years in prison before and during his trial, will be deported, after possibly serving a prison sentence of several more months, to be determined by a federal judge May 1...

Al-Arian pleaded guilty to knowing that his brother-in-law Mazen Al-Najjar and two other colleagues, Bashir Nafi and Ramadan Shallah, were associated with the PIJ leadership and covering this up. He also admitted helping Nafi and Al-Najjar, after 1995, when it became illegal to do so because, according to evidence, they kept communicating with PIJ leaders.

And he says in the agreement that he knew of the group's violent acts.

As every American Muslim group in the West steps forward to defend every prosecuted terrorist there is not only a need to visit this link, read and comprehend what Roosevelt rightly believed, but there is a need to comprehend what it means when these so-called moderate Islamic groups rally around one of their fallen.

Roosevelt's words still hold true today. These Muslim groups violate every thing he warned against from top to bottom. And the West continues to fight this war against Islamic aggression with anything but one arm tied behind our soldiers' backs.

Labels: , , , ,


Just because party line Nazis and Orthodox Jews believe in something usually referred to as "family values" does not mean that they have some basis for common ground. The underlying dogmas and not any similarities on a few matchsticks in the box are the issue. Generalizations based on a few similarities between two things mean nothing with regard to sameness of the things. All terms used must be carefully defined and the reasons for any superficial similarities must be subjected to rigorous analysis before two things can be said to be compatible.

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 26, 2007


In the last gasp of the recent Boxer-CAIR affair, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and officials from a Muslim advocacy group said Wednesday they have resolved to move forward on improving interfaith relations after smoothing over a skirmish over an honor rescinded by her office.

“I’m putting it all behind me, and we’re moving ahead to work with the civil rights community to better relations among people of all faiths,” Boxer said in an interview. But a spokeswoman for the California Democrat said she does not intend to give back the certificate honoring Basim Elkarra, executive director of the Sacramento chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The senator also said the concerns prompting her to rescind his service award this month haven’t changed. At the time, Boxer and her staff cited concerns about CAIR’s positions on terrorist groups, contending that CAIR had refused to label Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. Boxer had been criticized on conservative Web sites for giving the award to Elkarra; she said she did not know her office had done so.

CAIR officials met with Boxer and her staff Tuesday. “We have addressed the issues related to this unfortunate and unnecessary incident, and have agreed with Senator Boxer that we should all move forward to build a nation in which people of all faiths work together to promote respect and tolerance,” CAIR said in a statement.

Oh sure. But since when has Islam ever worked together with other faiths to promote respect and tolerance? A Muslim is forbidden to even be friends with the kafir, or infidels, except to deceive them until the day they've grown strong enough to subjugate them to the Islamic ideology. Working together with other faiths to promote respect and tolerance is anathema to Muslims.

Such niceties as respect and tolerance for others outside the cult are not part of Allah's program for his brave new world. The kafir's very existence is an affront to Muslim reflexive airs of superiority. Note Osama bin Laden's rage against the presence of the US base in Saudi Arabia during our defense of Kuwait. Segregation is a primary in the Muslim belief system—EXCEPT WHEN—Muslims are invading foreign lands wearing the mask of victimhood.

CAIR-Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said the group condemns all acts of terrorism. But as usual, the facts portray a different picture, one in which apparently CAIR does not condemn certain terrorists—more accurately, jihadist—groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which is precisely why the award was rescinded.

It is certain that CAIR applied pressure to Senator Boxer with their "action alerts" and "calls for more understanding." Yet, to her credit, she did not capitulate and will not issue this member of CAIR an undeserved award. Kudos to Senator Boxer. CAIR's refusal to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas while recently in the news for condemning the fictional terrorists on the television show "24" shows the true profile of their boisterous hypocrisy.

Armed and dangerous bonafide terrorists are killing Muslims and non-Muslims alike in the real world while a whipped up CAIR concerns itself with fictional television terrorists.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, January 25, 2007


Elephant wrote: The three main political parties might well know the deal on Islam, but are too concerned with canvassing the Muslim vote, too short-sighted to realize that in the near future Muslims will vote for their own Muslim Party candidates.

History has shown that anytime society "collaborates" with Muslims, they simply lie in wait for the opportunity to usurp power. This is PRECISELY what happened to the United States when they supported the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan. Even though they (the Muslims) sided with the infidel to curtail Communism (the USSR), the infidel later allowed Osama Bin Ladin to operate from their land and perform one of the worst atrocities in modern human history; the attack on the WTC.

The bottom line is NEVER COLLABORATE with the infidel; politically, economically or militarily. It will only come back to harm us in this generation or the next.

I wrote: Even though America has done its own share of double dipping and backstabbing in its foreign and domestic policies, I support America in the constitutional sense over the Caliphate to my dying breath. And somehow I suspect Elephant is misusing the word "infidel" in the above anaylsis.



The fact of the matter is that no matter what people say at the moment to defend the generous and charitable nature of our nation against the icy tears of Muslim apologists, they will just be called Islamaphobic and racist. But we in America, the West, and those bearing up against the strategic advance of radicalized Islam across the globe, have a fight coming there is no doubt.

And what most of the Left just can't seem to fathom is that the so-called moderate Muslim will wink, and then back the Islamo-fascists when push comes to shove, and the world is at war.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 24, 2007


I knew it would resurface again. I came across a map a few months back which depicted hotspots of global jihad showing us that anywhere there are Muslims aggressively pursuing new turf, there is conflict, emnity, and much caterwauling of victimhood when in reality on the ground and not in the minds of condescending far-left agents of confusion, these Muslims are the bullies. But I somehow misplaced my memory of where I had discovered it. Well, today, thanks to Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer, such a telling resource has been found. In fact, the map and the accompanying article were Spencer's creation in the first place.

This map was an eyeopener for me. Here it is atJihad Watch.

Many thanks!

Labels: , , ,


A racist webmaster gets six months in lockup for producing hate propaganda. The notorious Montreal-based white supremacist whose body is covered in racist tattoos was sentenced to six months in jail for willfully promoting hatred on a website he created.

Jean-Sébastien Presseault built and managed a website that featured racist and anti-Semitic music, documents, literature and cartoons available for download, including songs with titles such as "Skin is Black, You Make Me Sick."

Before he was arrested in 2003, Presseault's U.S.-based website received hundreds of thousands of hits, and material was downloaded from it more than 300,000 times, according to Montreal police. Presseault has been in custody since June 2006, when he pleaded guilty to willfully promoting hatred, after he was picked up by police for uttering threats against the judge hearing his case.

On Tuesday, Quebec judge Martin Vauclair concluded Presseault, now 30, is a racist and violent man, and rejected the defense's request for a more lenient sentence to be served in the community. Crown prosecutors sought a one-year sentence with three years' probation, but are satisfied with the six-month prison term.

"This is a sentence that sends a message, that, as judge Vauclair says in his judgment, will denounce and dissuade people to commit these crimes," said Thierry Nadon, a Montreal lawyer who prosecuted the case.

But anti-racist advocates were disappointed. "If you know six months will maybe get you out in 30 days, it's maybe not a very high price to pay, so maybe you take that chance," said Moise Moghrabi, a spokesman with B'nai B'rith.

Presseault's attorney had wanted him to serve his time outside of prison, arguing his client is a family man, with a wife and young daughter. Presseault is the second person in Canada to be convicted and sentenced under article 319 of the Criminal Code, which deals with online hate propaganda.

One wonders if the man must remove his tattoos to satisfy his new conditions. I know nothing about this man or his website other than what I just reproduced here for reference, but I wince at how this hate crime legislation phenomenon is sporadically prosecuted. Will it one day become systematic? How will we define hate? Will freedom of speech soon pass away like the nickle candy bar of my youth? Why don't we go after those really nasty haters with the arms and audiences to back up their strife like Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and all those mullahs here in North America?

Labels: , ,

Monday, January 22, 2007


For the politically-challenged, let's go over this once again. First and foremost, PC'ers seem to assume that the jihadists have, that's right—hijacked—the Religion of Peace. Blogger Dean Barnett puts us back on track:

"This view of things is dangerously misguided, and dangerously ignorant. The Radical Islamic world doesn’t hate us because our TV shows are too racy or our women too provocative. The Radical Islamic world hates us not for what we are but for what we aren’t. Specifically, the haters at issue loathe us because we’re not Muslims."

Here’s how the Ayatollah Khomeini put it:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.”


First impressions are all over the board, but generally the idea that although China offers no present threat, the fear is that if there were a stand-off over Taiwan, the Chinese might be tempted by the option of destroying US satellites. Worry is also being expressed by China's near neighbors, Japan and South Korea.

Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister, has stated the Japanese position that all nations must use space for peace.

Alexander Downer, the Australian foreign minister, while visiting New York, said Beijing's ambassador to Australia, Fu Ying, had been called in for an explanation with concern that to have a capacity to shoot down satellites in outer space is not consistent with the traditional Chinese position of opposition to the militarization of outer space.


From Ummah News Links:

ONTARIO, Jan. 22 - There is a growing and forceful campaign by CAIR and other Islamist organizations in Canada to silence the free speech of Zachariah Anani and undermine his legitimacy as a Canadian citizen, by calling for his arrest and deportation.

Anani is a former terrorist-militant, a refugee from Lebanon and Muslim convert to Christianity. CAIR, an organization which claims to be the voice of moderation, should be embracing Anani's message against violence and the dangers of extremism instead of mounting a witch hunt against him.

It's no wonder that CAIR is attacking Anani, as it has been documented that many of the leaders of CAIR have openly supported the positions of Hamas, Hizballah and al-Queda—all recognized terrorist organizations.

Recently, Anani spoke on the dangers of radical extremism at a church in Ontario. A backlash ensued, with CAIR and other Islamist groups pressuring political leaders to throw Anani and his family out of the country.

Two members of Parliament, and one member of City Council joined the mayor of Windsor in denouncing Anani. None of these political officials, however, attended the lecture or even watched a video of it.

The content of Anani's speech was almost exclusively from passages he read directly from the Koran. Wally Chafchak, a member of the Windsor Police Services Board and the Windsor Islamic Association, is leading the charge to have Anani arrested.

According to Arab American News of Michigan, CAIR Canada is also calling for Anani's arrest. In the Criminal Code there is a section that deals with spreading hatred in the community, Chafchak said. This instance should fall under those laws. Justice can only be served if this person is charged.

But Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist from the West Bank, believes silencing Anani is a dangerous trend with far reaching implications for the future of Canadian and eventually US freedoms.

"Incarcerating or deporting a former terrorist who wants to warn the world about extremism will set a dangerous precedence for Canada," Shoebat says. "Instead of censoring free speech, CAIR should be encouraging Muslims to embrace Canadian culture, as other groups have, and not try to change it in a way that will censor the freedoms Canadians have fought and died for."

Shoebat believes that CAIR and other Islamist organizations should join Anani in encouraging Muslims to speak out against terrorism and the killing, raping, forced conversion, mutilation and other acts of violence perpetrated by Jihadist groups worldwide against non-Muslims.

On Tuesday, January 30th at 7:00 p.m., Walid Shoebat, Zachariah Anani and Kamal Saleem, all former terrorists, will speak at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Labels: , , , ,


Still the silliness. The world is in crisis, charged with confusion and bullying. And did I mention that China just blasted a satellite out of the sky with a new missle test launch? Fortunately the satellite was their own aging weather satellite. And yet, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice proclaims that Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims are "going to have to overcome" their differences. This statement comes merrily down the pike despite 1,400 years of hostility rooted in what each sect views as divine revelation. An absolutenon-starter. A bogus analysis of where the buffalo roam...

Voice 1: We will have no peace until all religions die. Superstition has only turned man against man. I long for the day when humanity stops believing in imaginary friends.

Voice 2: Religion is not the issue. Other than Islam, no religion is targeting others. No other religion claims that it owns the world, and no other religion promises a better afterlife by killing non-believers. Yes, the issue of conversions does come up sometimes, but it can, and should be resolved sooner rather than laterif we, the Infidels, are to win this war. Most of us do not realize it still, but this war is now about our survival.

Voice 3: The West will need to overcome the idea that this islamic split can be resolved. That's as assinine as telling the Catholics and Lutherans to shake hands and forget what drove them apart. Very naive.

Voice 4: Silence is the enemy because the enemy wishes to silence.

Over hill and dale, from the shores of competitive liberty to the shores of brutal oppression, everywhere the eye steals and anywhere the ear reveals, it's the eternal countdown to Armadeggon on the march. Do you know where your voice is?

Sunday, January 21, 2007


Here's an excellent piece by a fellow named Remote Control:

For the Westerner who is theologically inclined (such as the 20th century German-American philosopher, Eric Voegelin, who, though he never in his adult life ever attended one church still considered himself a Christian and, on his deathbed, requested a reading of Psalms in German to soothe his transition from the Tension of Existence to the Beyond of the Tension), yet who has not hardened his theology with hypostatic symbolisms into doctrinaire doxa, rather allowing his tme ouverte the flexibility, or the "serious insouciance" (as one might render Plato's spoudaious paizen), to consider theology from the vantage of Goethe (also a Voegelin's-eye view) &151;“As a moralist I am a monotheist; as an artist I am a polytheist; as a naturalist I am a pantheist” $&151;the Demophany of Abraham Lincoln is also a spiritual event of Theophany as it has unfolded in history in the form of the ongoing revelation and noesis of the central problem of political science: Representation:

"...this nation, under God...[a] government of the people, by the people, and for the people..."

What all Muslims (and some Christians) cannot understand is that there is no direct pipeline to God by which to get specific instructions on a blueprint for political science and laws: at best (for the theologically inclined who are also mature enough to grasp the Caesar/God distinction) the necessity for an imperfect mediation of God's will through the human recipient who then becomes an imperfect conduit of that divine will renders all laws and all political science imperfect and human.

Anywhere on Earth and in history when a human being tells you that some particular law is "not man's law, but God's law", he is ipso facto contradicting himself, and you would be a fool to believe him: for you would have neglected to notice a crucial part of the communication: it was a human being who communicated this supposedly exclusively divine law to you! In the very act of a human being proclaiming that some law is absolutely divine and not human, the anthropomorphic nature of that law is unavoidably implied—and an obtusely unnoticed contradiction replaces the Paradox that has been botched.

The genius of the West, from the time of the pre-Socratics to the present, has been to intuit, and then analyze and unfold (often, throughout the ages between, particularly the Middle Ages, prayerfully) the paradox of the unavoidably human mediation of all things divine into the further implication first illuminated by Plato (and then brought to perilously reifiable clarity in the God-Man Jesus): Political science is a joint venture of God and Man, and not the exclusive province of the one or the other.

The obtuseness of Islam, on the other hand, is to insist that God's literal laws and OCD rules & regulations and whims came down lock, stock and barrel from on high without suffering any corrosion from the atmosphere of imperfection as meteorites must—indeed, as all things sublunar must—and that the agency and intelligence of human beings who receive this God's revelation have no role to play in its mediation and communication. In fact, for the Muslim mentality, to even hint that human mediation plays any role at all in the revelation of the truth from God is the highest sin. And thus, political science remains frozen for Islam in a time capsule, and can never reach the real Earth—the Earth that grows, changes, matures, develops, imperfectly in motion: the only motion there is, as the humans given dominion over it wend their way into the luminously unknown future. Muslims have spent all their centuries hacking away at anything that threatens to change, hacking away at what they fear the most: the imperfection and mystery through which we all have to nagivate, those of us seeking God, as well as those of us choosing not to seek God.


Moderate British Muslims in the police, Armed Forces and Civil Service will one day revolt against the system to "crush it from within", according to Omar Bakri Mohammed, the notorious Islamic extremist. In claims condemned as a cynical attempt to create division, the co-founder of the extremist al-Muhajiroun group said that Britain was "digging a deep hole" for itself by allowing Muslims into the Services and Whitehall.

Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph in Lebanon, where he moved in August 2005—at about the time it emerged the British authorities might charge him with incitement to treason—he claimed police officers, soldiers and civil servants would one day become radicalised.

"When you start to ask Muslims to join your Army and your police you are making a grave mistake. That British Muslim who joins the police today will one day read the Koran and will have an awakening," he said.

"Those moderates are one day going to be practising Muslims. Now what happens if they are British police or in the Army and they have weapons? How much information do they have about you that they will use to serve the global struggle?

"They will revolt against the system if they have been failed by your foreign policy which is oppressive against Islam, or have been contacted by people who believe Britain is a domain of war."

In remarks almost certain to cause widespread anger among the survivors and relatives of victims, he also claimed that the world was a better place after the July 7 bombings in London. "I believe it is a better place for Islam and Muslims—but not for non-Muslims. What's happening around the world is good and positive for Islam."

Labels: , , ,


I have a concern. I am concerned that very man, woman and child on the face of this place deserves my love, or at least, my respect. I intend with every act of every day to exhibit this personal concern of mine. In the face of confrontation, I put no concern on my own background, nor that of others, of my own person, unequal to others.

Labels: , , ,


Intelligence agencies are monitoring every Muslim who travels from Britain to Mecca on pilgrimage in a wider effort to piece together intelligence on suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist activity. A senior official has disclosed that the operation targeting trips to the holy city in Saudi Arabia by more than 100,000 British Muslims is part of a trawl by MI5 and MI6 for information about movements of suspected terrorists. It follows evidence that British Islamic terrorists have visited the city before carrying out attacks in Britain and abroad.

The importance of the intelligence operation was one of the reasons given by spy chiefs for maintaining ties with Saudi Arabia when the Saudi government was threatening to break off intelligence ties over a bribery investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into BAE, Britain’s prime defence contractor....

This weekend Muslim leaders voiced their unhappiness about the operation. Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “It is absolutely wrong that people who are going to Mecca for entirely religious purposes should be monitored by the security services. It is a sad commentary on Britain’s relations with Saudi Arabia.”

Same old self-pitying chaff that ripples through the same crowds every time a Muslim is suspected of anything other than being the savior of the world. If these public passive-aggressive Muslim whiners can't figure it out for themselves, I'll tell you what is TRULY wrong:

It's wrong that people visiting or living in Saudi Arabia cannot carry bibles or hold bible studies in their homes or erect buildings to assemble together and worship the God of Jesus, who is a far better example to us as a life to be lived, despite what Nietzsche and other notables have said, than to mimic the Machiavellian tenets and personal example of Mohammed and Mohammedism.

Whether you, dear reader, are a believer or an unbeliever, you must admit that it's wrong that people can be murdered if they convert to Christianity in these Muslim lands, perfectly within the laws of those lands. It's wrong that people can be forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, as has happened throughout Muslim history, even now. Note the recent incident of the Fox News journalists.

What does one do with a religion that commands its believers to slay the disbelievers, and promises a better afterlife for doing so? What does one do with a religion that says that the entire planet belongs to its followers and no other religion must exist? What does one do with a religion that says that its followers have a claim over everything that a disbeliever owns, including, but not limited to, his womenfolk and wealth?

What does one do with a religion whose sole prophet was a murderer, looter, rapist and a paedophile and who is described by his followers as "The Perfect Man to emulate"—yes, what does one do with this religion? And its followers?

Saturday, January 20, 2007


Lest we be deluded by the heavy PC mentality surrounding us, it is ALWAYS okay to defend one's self and one's family and friends from being annihilated. And it is even more important to do so against Islam. Jesus the Nazarene exhorts us in the Gospel not to be afraid of those who can destroy the body but of those who can destroy the body and the soul. Islam is quite capable of doing both. And that is my biggest personal concern. To kill the body is disturbing but doesn't bother me as much as the thought of Islam getting its tentacles around our children and grandchildren and the only way we are going to end this threat is to destroy it.

It's either us or them. They use terror to get their way and a lot of people just can't or won't stand up to terror. These sad deluded people will sacrifice their freedom for the illusion of security and in the end, will have nothing but slavery and zilch security. Reasoning with these folks just doesn't work. Look at what the "peace loving Imams" dispatches have to say about those who disagree with them...

1) women wear the hijab or we hit her,
2) unrepentent kuffar wherever they are found should be crucified and left to hang for three days to bleed to death,
3) the systems of the infidels need to be destroyed,
4) Muslims need to take over all the governments of the world.

It's that simple. I don't want that and as long as I'm still breathing I will fight against that. Bribery and supplication in their direction is worthless. Money can't buy us love. And when it comes down to a physical fight between the Muslims and the rest of us—pretty much a given—since it is now happening in Somalia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Thailand, Russia, China, et cetera, in hot wars, and all across Europe and Australia in spotty warm wars, we will be condemned of a grave sin if we DO NOT stand up against it and defend our countries and our people. Knowing what we now know we will not be let off the hook if we surrender to demonic Islamism.

There is no other way...

Friday, January 19, 2007


Some matters of state are simply undigestible. Are we to believe that certain unscrupulous American interests are deliberately weakening the defenses of the United States in this war against radicalized Islam in order to further some undivulged agenda, or worse, selling us out to the enemy? Have you heard about the the FBI translator scandal? We always seem to be in bed with those who would harm us the moment we cut off those billions of American dollars that are sent into their coffers as just a simplified collective form of jizya.

It's no joke. Several members from the American Congress For Truth members have discovered a curious disconnect from what our news media tells us, and what they have experienced in their own lives.

Jerry Gordon posted the following:

Last Thursday, Brigitte Gabriel and I put out an Action Alert to the American Congress for Truth membership, asking you for examples of how our government rebuffed your valued assistance as Arabic and Farsi linguists for critical intelligence translation work assignments in military, foreign and homeland security agencies. In less than 72 hours were got dozens of responses and they are still coming in.

While only a sampling, they are nevertheless indicative of your concerns about why our government persists in denial of loyal American citizens offering to reduce the mountainous backlog of untranslated intercepts and transcripts of interrogations in Arabic and Farsi, in particular.

How mountainous is the backlog of untranslated intercepts? Read this comment from a National Security Agency (NSA) official quoted from Congressional hearings in a Washington Times article on the subject written by Rowan Scarborough and Bill Gertz entitled:"Intelligence backlog."

NSA director, Army Lt. Gen. Keith in commenting in written response to Senators on the large backlog of time consuming labor intensive foreign language intercepts on terrorism noted: "Today's backlog is no longer confined to Arabic and its multiple dialect but also less commonly taught languages where linguists are in short supply."

One knowledgeable insider in our national security apparatus wrote in response to the ACT action alert:

'The fact that the FBI and the military don't have enough linguists/translators especially after 9/11 is a disgrace and the fact that those they have are possibly not reliable or trustworthy makes it imperative that new competent resources are found..."

Imagine that you are a Marine Corps battalion commander in Anbar province in western Iraq-hotbed of the Sunni and al Qaeda insurgency. You find out from your G-2 via counter intelligence operatives that the local interpreters procured through a contract let via a major defense contractor have been feeding intel to these insurgent groups. You're darn angry because this has cost you casualties and in some instances lives of brave Marines in your field units. What do you do besides complain to the theater ground commander and higher intelligence echelons at CENTCOMM.

As we have found out in our inquiries to our ACT members we have an overwhelming response that includes first rate Arab and Farsi linguists who are Middle Eastern Christians, Jews and apostate Muslims disappointed that their talents have gone wanting because of political correctness and frankly outright intimidation by Muslim linguists in our security agencies.

Here are some examples of the responses received from ACT members and others to date. I will begin with Brigitte Gabriel's experience. She is one of many Christian Lebanese who tried to help but got no where.

Brigitte Gabriel, ACT founder, Lebanese Christian.
Brigitte applied three times to the FBI in 2001 and 2002 VOLUNTEERING her services to help translate, in whatever capacity she could be used, to help our country in the fight against terrorism. She never got an answer. Finally the Government sent her a government application that stated that translators must be between the age of 25 and 35, (she had just turned 36), must have graduated with a degree in the language they wish to apply to translate and must have three years on job experience as translators. (utterly ridiculous bureaucracy) Meanwhile complaining on TV that they do not have enough translators. Brigitte Gabriel speaks not only the classical Arabic which is the official language of all the Middle East, but also the local dialects, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Jordanian.

From an Iraqi Christian.
"I applied twice for the FBI. I never got an answer from them. I heard that the recruiters are Egyptians and want translators with an Egyptian dialect. I don't know if religion is a factor, but I've given up. I think it will be very intimidating under these circumstances. By the way I'm an Iraqi Christian living in the U.S. I worked as a linguist for the U.S. Army in Iraq."

From a Lebanese American Christian.
"I was deployed from Ft. Benning, Georgia in May, 2003 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Supporting our armed forces and intelligence units. In October 2004, I was injured by a suicide bomb blast inside the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. I had to come back for treatment. A year ago I was released by all doctors and they recommended that I could go back to work, but not in Iraq. I called my employer and to my amazement they offered me a job back in Iraq but not a stateside one because I lacked a security clearance. I refused and they sent me a letter in January, 2006 laying me off. I have tried in vain to find a job with the government or defense contractors. The recruiters are usually Muslim and some have told me that they have relatives working for al Jazeera TV. Can you believe that!

From a Persian American Jew
I volunteered to help with Farsi translations. I heard back from them that they were interested in my Hebrew skills!! I didn't see how Hebrew came into the equation with dealing with our country's dangers. The response was very bureaucratic in nature. I have since done Farsi translation for a private think tank.

From a Coptic Christian American
"I am a Christian Egyptian who applied for a linguist position with the FBI after 9/11, went through the testing process and was sent a rejection letter. I would love to contribute to your cause, if I can be of assistance."

Rejection of American Israeli citizens
"I know personally of such a case where a loyal American applied for such service and got nowhere. This American Israel Jew got the same treatment. He is young, intelligent eastern looking guy who could make a real contribution to the efforts. Something funny is going on."

What these ACT responses do is to resonate with previous reports of bias against Middle Eastern Christians, Jews and apostate Muslims chronicled in reports from WorldNetDaily about discrimination against American Israeli linguists and by investigative authors Rita Katz—an Iraqi born American Jew—in her book "Terrorist Hunter" and Paul Sperry in his
engrossing book "Infiltration."

So what is ACT going to do now that we have lifted the veil on this burgeoning scandal? Plenty. Working with key House and Senate National and Homeland Security Committees we are going to push for following:

A GAO audit of major defense contractors supplying in-country interpreters at egregious billing rates running as high at $100,000 annually versus $30,000 for a military trained linguist interpreter;

  • We are going to file under the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a request for information from military, foreign and domestic intelligence agencies that includes the annexed information.

  • We are going to hold a Washington Summit for ACT members to discuss this issue and more as part of a major agenda for action;

  • We are going to request hearings on the translator 'scandal' from Senate and House National and Homeland Security Committees.

  • We will assist these subject matter Committees on Capitol Hill in the review and preparation of remedial legislation and executive actions to bring the translator scandal to heel, so that our troops in the field and our citizens at home aren't in jeopardy of a major series of 9/11 Islamist terrorist attacks.

  • Act will need your help in reaching out to those of you who are U.S. citizens to get to your Congressional representatives and Bush Administration officials demanding their attention to this problem.

  • Keep those emails coming! They are grist for the mill and build an effective case for immediate attention to this problem. A problem that needs resolution now if this nation is to be secure. A problem that is compounded by political correctness and intimidation by American Muslim advocacy groups.

    We will continue to monitor your emails and report back on developments on this issue as they emerge. Rest assured that ACT is going to make this a 'cause' that will resound in the halls of Congress and the mainstream media.

    Thank you for telling it like it is. With your support ACT will win this battle!

    Labels: , , ,

  • Thursday, January 18, 2007


    Have you ever seen that cable reality show "Airlines" where passengers are routinely bumped and told nothing, but "Sorry that's how the airlines does business." Well here is another way they do business. Have you ever have this happen to you? But of course, it pays to "Arrive Late While Muslim."

    Northwest Airlines will offer an apology and compensation to a group of 40 Muslims who said they were turned away from a U.S.-bound plane in Germany. The payment will cover "extra flight and hotel costs" incurred after the airline refused to let the group board a January 7 Frankfurt-to-Detroit flight, the Michigan office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Wednesday in a prepared statement.

    "We welcome Northwest Airlines' apology and offer of limited compensation as a positive step toward addressing the concerns of the Muslim passengers," the group's executive director, Dawud Walid, said in the statement. The group had arrived early enough for the flight but was denied boarding on the grounds that they were too late, according to the rights group.

    Northwest spokesman Dean Breest said the flight already had been closed to passengers when the group reached the gate.
    However, the carrier will cover any flight rebooking fees incurred as the travelers returned to the United States. Talks about reimbursement for hotel costs are ongoing, he said.

    The incident occurred after the group arrived in Frankfurt on a charter flight from Saudi Arabia. Northwest didn't have a passenger and baggage handling agreement with the charter company, which meant that the airline didn't know the passengers were coming, said the spokeman. What I want to know is why any of that is relevant? It certainly doesn't help your ordinary passenger, who is given a blanket "We're sorry" while told to make their own arrangements.

    Apparently, the [Islamic] men had to clear German security, delaying their arrival at Northwest's gate, and their bags hadn't been checked through to Detroit, but that the men were flown on the next available flights to Detroit, which is usually the case, but reimbursement for their additional costs is not.

    But on another front we have a different, sane and surprisingly responsible approach to addressing Muslim demands: treating them like they do everybody else.

    For the airport, it's about customer service. For taxi drivers, it's about freedom of religion. The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is considering tough penalties against taxi drivers who say Islam forbids them from accepting passengers who carry alcohol. There was no mention in this article concerning sight-impaired riders with seeing eye dogs who have also raised concerns among Minneapolis Muslim cabbies.

    But the good news is that the Metropolitan Airports Commission voted Tuesday to conduct a public hearing on the matter February 27. Cabdrivers, many of them Muslims from Somalia, say they are being put in a tough spot. "Our people are ready to work with a customer always," said Yusuf Abdullah, 32, of Minneapolis. "I would like to keep my faith, and I would like to keep my job."

    Airport Director Steve Wareham said his staff will recommend that cabdrivers who refuse a customer be given a 30-day suspension for the first offense and a two-year revocation of their airport license for a second refusal. The current punishment is sending the cabdriver to the back of the taxi line, which can mean a wait of three or more hours, drivers said.
    "You go behind 200 cabs—that's enough of a penalty," said one driver.

    Kudos to those Minneapolis authorities for their refusal to succumb to this form of ridiculous bigotry.

    Tuesday, January 16, 2007


    While the Left generally agrees with the following report, the Right vomits. And I just cringe...

    TEHRAN (Reuters) - The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday the United States, Britain and Israel were an "axis of evil" trying to drive a wedge between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims. President Bush originally labeled Iran, North Korea and Iraq—before U.S. troops invaded—as part of an "axis of evil." Washington accuses Iran of backing terrorism and trying to build atomic bombs, charges Tehran denies.

    "America, Britain and the Zionist regime (Israel) are an axis of evil against the Islamic world and the whole of humanity," Guards Commander-in-Chief Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted as saying by Iran's student news agency ISNA.

    "They are trying to make enmity among Islamic countries and to make divisions among Shi'ites and Sunnis," he said.

    He was echoing comments by other Iranian officials who have accused Washington of stoking sectarian tensions in Iraq where the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite Muslims, like most Iranians. Washington blames Iran for fuelling violence in Iraq.

    "Our powerful country does not worry about American and Zionist regime threats and in case of any kind of attack by intruders, we are able to defeat them," he added.

    Well, okay. Read this if you want agreement in ends, if not means. And characterizations and caricatures? I think the sticks and stones nursery rhyme a propos.

    Labels: , ,


    On the day that Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo announces that he has launched an exploratory committee to probe his potential as a viable 2008 presidential candidate, I discover a very serious article online at The Middle East Forum, written by Ali Alfoneh, a Ph.D. fellow in the department of political science, University of Copenhagen, and a research fellow at the Royal Danish Defense College.

    The following paragraph opens the lengthy article critiquing the Iranian point of view:

    "More than five years after President George W. Bush's declaration of a global war against terrorism, the Iranian regime continues to embrace suicide terrorism as an important component of its military doctrine. In order to promote suicide bombing and other terrorism, the regime's theoreticians have utilized religion both to recruit suicide bombers and to justify their actions. But as some factions within the Islamic Republic support the development of these so-called martyrdom brigades, their structure and activities suggest their purpose is not only to serve as a strategic asset in either deterring or striking at the West, but also to derail domestic attempts to dilute the Islamic Republic's revolutionary legacy."

    You can read the entire essay here. And this on the same day that the Iraqi government continues to suggest how cozy it is with the Iranian regime, suggesting that they, as Iraqis, have their own interests, and are bound by geographic destiny to live with Iran, adding that the Iraqi government wanted "to engage them constructively."

    A fellow known as Foehammer writes, "Arabs and Persians are completely different races with separate cultural ties. It is one of the foremost reasons that we should be fueling the fires of rebellion in Iran—the young idealists there carrying around copies of the U.S. Constitution in their back pockets. The Persian factor is a large one—national honor goes a very long way back and far beyond the first days that the Muslims invaded and took charge."

    His take:

    Destroy Iran. Free Persia.

    And this from the Washington Post (AP): The U.S. military has sold forbidden equipment at least a half-dozen times to middlemen for countries—including Iran and China—who exploited security flaws in the Defense Department's surplus auctions. The sales include fighter jet parts and missile components.

    How long will these beasts run roughshod over the earth?

    Thursday, January 11, 2007


    America must get serious about interpreting the actions of Islamic states and learn to distinguish facts from spin in the words of Islamic apologists scurrying about the country with their pleas of racism and religious bigotry when it is those apologists themselves who carry those marks in their own speeches and behaviors.

    In this nation, we are burdened with the dual problems of political corrrectness and compromising business ties to Middle Eastern interests: our leaders will not listen to historical evidence concerning Islam. Bloggers all across this huge country are waking up to these facts, and are signaling for a change in attitude and a change in policy. Yet, nothing seems to change. Our voices are not heard, or are ridiculed from both ends of the political spectrum. We are exhorted against religious bigotry while the bigots continue to fine-tune their plots to take America down with ideology, and then, by any force necessary.

    Concerned citizens are told that Islam's problem with the West will be ended once the Palestinians steal or are given everything they want from Israel. However, to the discerning mind, it is plain to see that Islam's view of others and its mandated religious militarism predates the founding of modern Israel. It even predates the founding of the US. One can't argue that it's merely a "radical" view of "moderate Islam" when it was the rationale for the attacking of US ships by the Barbary States over two centuries ago and the literature that exposes those states for what they were then, and are today.

    Today, the stakes and the penalties of failure are much greater to all parties involved.

    But history tells a strikingly familiar story. Seeking a peace treaty in the early days of American trade, in order to justify the Congressional vote to pay tribute to those "Musselmen" pirates, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (current ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively) inquired as to why Muslims had so much hostility towards America. They later reported to Congress that the foreign ambassadors told them Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations who failed to acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

    Upon becoming president, Thomas Jefferson bolstered the will to fight back. When will our own leaders summon up the same will? Will it be before or after we are destroyed from within and without?

    Monday, January 08, 2007


    If those operatives from CAIR were to win their heart's desire, all of America would groan under the stifling burden of sharia law of a newly victorious Islamofascism strapped against this fair nation where men like Washington, Lincoln, and two Roosevelts once fought to maintain the splendid ideal that the happier citizen is that free citizen united with liberty and justice for all, absent all despotism, especially the craven religious sort. But imagine that this new regime, God help us all, would bring you: mo money mo money mo money.


    Dr. John Lewis of Ashland University is the author of this superb, must-read piece. Below, he kindly offers some clarifications to those who sent him questions after reading it, to Jihad Watch:

    Regarding my article “No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” in The Objective Standard, readers have brought up several questions that must be confronted. Among them: (1) how can religion and state be separated in Islam, since Islam is a social / political / legal system as much as a religion, and (2) isn't the enemy stateless, i.e., without the centralized political state as controlled Japan?

    I will address such issues in the next Objective Standard, in a reply to readers' comments. Here is a short answer.

    The power of a policy that defines the goals of the war as eliminating State Islam is that it defines the threat precisely: those who use force to impose Islam politically. It states exactly what we want from the enemy: an end to his use of force. It has a successful historical precedent, and it is fully consistent with the requirements of freedom. It leads directly to a clear strategy to achieve the policy.

    This definition implies several things. First off, since the elimination of the threat is the goal—and not a better way of life for foreign populations—then we could have installed a ruler over Iraq, akin to the Shah in Iran, and told him to do what is needed to control the violence—but never, ever, to attack America, or threaten American interests. We are in a mess in Iraq because we took on the task of bringing freedom and prosperity to them—which never should have been our goal. Altruism led us into such a sacrifice. If we remove an enemy, and the country falls into civil war, that is better than their building nuclear bombs.

    Second, since political Islam would be the target, meaning first and foremost wherever Islam has achieved actual political power, then Iran would be first&151:with the goal of eliminating the theocratic government, installing an America-friendly ruler, and then confronting the Saudis. We would never have ended Iran's strongest regional opponent (Saddam Hussein) and tried to free his country without dealing first with the main threat next door.

    Third, had we stated these goals openly, the way would be clear for other governments to clean house. They’d be less inclined to compromise between Islamic Totalitarians and us, since they’d want to avoid our wrath at all costs. We should never allow ourselves to be seen as equal to them, not morally, not politically, and not militarily. The demonstration of resolve in war is very important, whether Sherman's burning of Atlanta (which collapsed the southern will to fight) or the atomic bombs in Japan (which made it clear to the Japanese leadership that we had, and would use, them).

    To answer another persistent point, we do not, in my opinion, need nuclear weapons in the Middle East (although I am not a military tactician). But we do need to demonstrate the will to remove such a government because it is a threat, without apologizing every time a civilian is hurt. This demonstration would sweep across borders, to be seen by every government in the world, thus transcending the stateless nature of Islam, and eliminating any equality between supporting us and the Islamists.

    Islam itself is stateless, meaning that it respects no borders. It was designed precisely to rise above ethnic / tribal / clan groups, to unite all those who submit to Allah. We have to adopt the same attitude, only with freedom and individual rights as our central ideals. By defining the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism&151:meaning, government imposition of Islamic Law—we exempt no such state from our reach, and yet allow every state a chance to avoid the title and our action.

    As to the claim that Islam, practiced literally, cannot be separated from politics, this is true, by the evidence I know—I see Islam as descending from common roots with Zoroastrianism, the ideology of Ahuramazda, and Manichaeism in the Near East. I wrote a short piece on this, “Notes on the Near Eastern Legacy of Islam,” here, dated May 27, 2006, and others have done a better and more comprehensive job:

    Islam is a way of life, not a religion as distinguished from state. But it is not true that Muslims cannot live under non-Muslim laws; the majority in western countries do. If they are compromising their religion, then so be it. Setting the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism would allow us to end attempts to import Islamic Law into our own country, and to empower our allies to end it themselves in their own countries. It would allow individual Muslims to comply, and would reveal those who refuse. It would also demonstrate the failure of Islam as a political movement, and thus challenge the premise, in the minds of many, that the Islamic Totalitarians are some kind of misguided idealists, right in principle but taken to extremes.

    As to the issue of realism: there can be no realistic discussion of a proper “strategy” (a means to attain policy ends) without proper definition of the end that the strategy is intended to achieve. There is nothing more un-realistic than to try to create a plan without knowing where we are going—or to assume that no plan is possible, since reality is “really” always in flux. The realism that we need is the recognition that those supporting Political Islam—meaning, not a type of Islam, but rather Islam considered with respect to its political characteristics—are the real enemy. I'll gladly listen to someone who has a different strategy for eliminating Islam as a political power all the while ending the threat to us—but I’ve not yet heard it.

    In the long run, however, this is an intellectual battle. My stress on integrity means that we must understand the issues, and talk the talk as well as walking the walk. We have not properly stated our own goodness, and why we have a right to defend ourselves. It is the job of the intellectuals to state and defend these truths philosophically. If we do not present an alternative to the Qu’ran, and are unwilling to destroy those building nuclear bombs in order to impose it, then why should anyone re-write it? This may take five generations—but it will never happen if the political success of Islamic Totalitarianism is allowed to continue

    Friday, January 05, 2007


    Think of the words "Muslim community" and what do you see? A succession of veiled women walking silently behind their husbands? Bearded men gesticulating outside mosques? But there is another version of the Muslim community other than the radical one in the West.

    It is easy to dismiss Muslim parents as old-fashioned and traditional, but when the rest of the world is busy wondering how to respond to a culture of rampant disrespect, it is worth considering whether we can learn from Muslim values. Muslim children are more likely to be brought up in two-parent families rather than the single-parent households that are increasingly common in Britain or the US.

    Muslim parents also tend to be less interested in child-centered parenting and more into parent-centered parenting. For example, when I was growing up there was no possibility of answering back to my parents, and this was accompanied by an all-pervasive fear of letting them down. This was a model of parenting that put great faith in deference, while at the time it felt regressive, it was also what kept my generation in check.

    Amid calls that Muslims learn to integrate into their adopted cultures a bit better than most have to date, Muslims in Europe and America are always suggesting that their own sense of family values makes their "religion" superior to those of the West.

    Yes, it's wonderful to have a close extended family. Family is one of the foundations of society. The breakdown of the family has led to many tragedies in Europe and America, but that doesn't give Muslims carte blance to insist on sharia law, or many of the traditions of Islam. Families are also a part of a larger community and each member has a duty toward others who are not of their tribe or faith.

    Even insular communities have a duty to others. The Amish live differently from many Americans, but they obey the traffic laws and pay their taxes, just like everyone else. Muslims cannot expect to escape their own responsibilities toward others in the community.

    Labels: , , ,


    SACRAMENTO, Jan. 4 - Sen. Barbara Boxer rescinded a certificate honoring a local leader of a Muslim American civil rights group after the organization was accused on conservative Web sites of supporting terrorism.

    Basin Elkarra, executive director of the Sacramento chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had received a certificate from Boxer's office in November "in recognition of (his) outstanding service."

    "We made a bad mistake not researching the organization," the California Democrat said. "My organization created this problem. I caused people grief, and I feel terrible. Yet I need to set the record straight, and I'm setting the record straight."

    Boxer said the award was made by her staff without her knowledge. After the certificate was presented, she said she saw an online account accusing CAIR of pro-terrorist activities and asked her staff to research the group.

    Boxer's communication's director, Natalie Ravitz, said CAIR had refused to label Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations and noted two former members of the council had been sentenced to prison.

    One of its Texas chapter members, Ghassan Elashi, was sentenced in October to 80 months in prison for engaging in financial transactions with Hamas leader Musa abu Marzook. Another member, Ismail Royer, a former CAIR communications specialist, was indicted in 2003 on charges of being part of a conspiracy to support terrorist activities overseas and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

    A letter withdrawing the certificate was sent to Elkarra on Dec. 21, Ravitz said.

    A leader of the group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the organization did not support terrorism and was being misrepresented because of the actions of a couple of former officials.

    "Anyone who doubts where we stand on the issue of terrorism does not understand Islam, the Muslim community or CAIR," said Nihad Awad, the group's national executive director.

    Awad said CAIR strongly condemned bin Laden by name after the Sept. 11 attacks. He said Elashi and Royer were not involved with CAIR when they committed their crimes.

    "This is true guilt-by-association," he told The Sacramento Bee. "We have tens of thousands of members nationwide, and it will be very unfair to hold the organization responsible for the actions of an individual."

    Asked about criticism that the council had failed to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah, he said, "We have condemned attacking civilians regardless of whether they are Israelis or Palestinians."

    End of article

    Uh? Where does this man think he's slinging his garbage? Bucketfuls of images and media reports depicting the Muslim community across the globe gesticulating on the issue of terrorism have not escaped our attention. Reckon not a single one of these screaming raving maniacs we see and hear so often intermixed with other captures of calm, veiled women hoisting placards of death is a Muslim. Not a true one, you say. Yes, yes, I've heard the speech. Enough already. How did all these thousands of miscreants misrepresenting your "religion of peace" manage to inflitrate all those Muslim lands, then, and still live to do it again, and again, and again without losing their own heads? Isn't that the punishment for apostacy, or is it true you are all on the same team, just like many of us already know you are.

    From Nihad Awad, CAIR executive director, as quoted above, "Anyone who doubts where we stand on the issue of terrorism does not understand Islam, the Muslim community or CAIR."

    He's got to be kidding, or missing a few too many fruit loops from his breakfast of champions. Geez, what a automaton. But on the brighter side, let's issue a vote of thanks to Senator Boxer, what a shock, for her recent ephipany, and might I add for the benefit of Mr. Awad and CAIR's cult of fascist ideology:

    "Anyone who doubts where America stands on the issue of freedom and liberty for those who practice it does not understand the US Constitution, the American community, or the true sons of Abraham.


    The Pentagon even has 'toleration classes' for Islam—and separate bathrooms—and are in the process of setting up special places for them to throw down their prayer rugs, etc. These activities are so absolutely ridiculous. Muslims now claim they can't use the same bathroom as everyone else. We banned this type of "special" treatment in the 1960s. But now a few short decades later, it is happening in the Pentagon, according to the Christian Science Monitor as an honorific, of all things.

    The Pentagon—that same place left with a massive hole on one side on 9/11, the Pentagon, the place we place our trust and depend on for our defense. Nothing ecumenical about this particular jizya. Just let the Muslims feel like superior beings. After all, they must be. Some of them have lots of oil.

    This riff about the US military needing to have Muslims who speak Arabic is just plain contrary to common sense. Does it take an Arab to speak Arabic, a German to speak German, an Englishman to speak English. One is to believe that ordinary ethnically mixed soldiers are just too damned American to pull off the stealth undercover work that today's new army so much depends upon, so rather than pursue the enemy with all we've got with the Euro-Afro-Hispanic stock on hand and among proven allies, some soft cell in military intelligence figures it's best to trust our security to someone who is a bona fide "Arab" who may or may not harbor feelings of jihad in his heart (uh, like Jimmy Carter and his lustful heart).

    After all, we just built him a separate prayer room to keep him clean and sanctified and away from dirty Jews and filthy Christians. He will like us for that, and will make war against his brothers and cousins for us because it just makes sense, right?

    Labels: , , , ,


    The following was written by Tom Knowlton:

    The recent "Letter to the American People" allegedly authored by Osama bin Laden is a virtual ideological manifesto for Islamic extremists. It serves to outline the perceived grievances of radical Muslims against Israel and the West.

    The letter claims, "It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses," dating the conflict between Jews and Arabs back to the Biblical conflict between Abraham's two children: his eldest son, Ishmael (from who Arabs are believed descended), and his younger son, Isaac (from who Jews are believed descended). Some Muslims believe that Isaac usurped Ishmael's birthright.

    Likewise, prominent imams such as Abu Qatada, Omar Muhammad Bakri, and Abu Hamza regularly echo this claim that Arabs and Jews have been bitter enemies from the dawn of time. However, if one examines the history of the Middle East, there is very little evidence of constant warring and animosity between Jews and Arabs.

    In fact, when the city of Jerusalem fell to Christian Crusaders in 1099, the defenders of the holy city had been a combined force of Jews and Muslims. After the Crusaders captured the city, they massacred Muslim and Jewish citizens alike and left the survivors to flee Jerusalem. Not until the Muslim hero Saladin defeated the Crusaders in 1187, did the Jewish population even begin to return to Jerusalem.

    Jerusalem's Jewish community continued to prosper under the Muslim Nahmanides in 1267. But the community's true renaissance occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries, when a large influx of Jews were welcomed into Jerusalem by the Ottoman Empire after being expelled from Spain.

    For four centuries under Ottoman rule, Arab and Jewish neighborhoods peacefully coexisted. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the region came under British mandate. The early days under the British also saw relatively peaceful coexistence continuing and manifesting itself in the form of Arab and Jewish neighborhoods springing up in the "garden neighborhoods" of Talpiot, Rehavia and Beit Hakerem.

    However, after over 700 years of peaceful coexistence, the true start of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be dated to 1920 and the rise of one man, Haj Amin Muhammad Al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem. As grand mufti, al Husseini presided as the Imam of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the highest Muslim authority in the British mandate.

    History shows Al Husseini to be a brutal man with aspirations to rule a pan-Arabic empire in the Middle East. He rose to prominence by actively eliminating those Jews and Arabs he considered a threat to his control of Jerusalem's Arab population, and he heavily utilized anti-Jewish propaganda to polarize the two communities.

    In 1920 and again in 1929, Al Husseini incited anti-Jewish riots by claiming the Jews were plotting to destroy the Al Asqa mosque. The riots resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Jewish civilians and a virtual end to the Jewish presence in Hebron.

    The 1936 Arab revolt against the British is believed to have been at least partially funded by Nazi Adolf Eichmann, and Al Husseini again ordered armed Arab militias to massacre Jewish citizens.

    When British authorities finally quelled the rebellion in 1939, Al Husseini fled to neighboring Iraq and helped to orchestrate a 1941 anti-British jihad. As in Jerusalem, the British successfully put down the rebellion and Al Husseini fled to Nazi Germany.

    Al Husseini found the Nazis to be a strong ideological match with his anti-Jewish brand of Islam, and schemed with Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy to create a pro-Nazi pan-Arabic form of government in the Middle East.

    Dr. Serge Trifkovic documents the similarities between Al Husseini's brand of radical Islam and Nazism in his book The Sword of the Prophet. He noted parallels in both ideologies: anti-Semitism, quest for world dominance, demand for the total subordination of the free will of the individual, belief in the abolishment of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community (in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism, the herrenvolk or master race), and belief in undemocratic governance by a "divine" leader (an Islamic caliph, or Nazi führer).

    The Nazis provided Al Husseini with luxurious accommodations in Berlin and a monthly stipend in excess of $10,000. In return, he regularly appeared on German radio touting the Jews as the "most fierce enemies of Muslims," and implored an adoption of the Nazi "final solution" by Arabs. After the Nazi defeat at El Alamein in 1942, Al Husseini broadcast radio messages on Radio Berlin calling for continued Arabic resistance to Allied forces. In time, he came to be known as the "Fuhrer's Mufti" and the "Arab Fuhrer."

    In March 1944, Al Husseini broadcast a call for a jihad to "kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion."

    On numerous occasions, Al Husseini intervened in the fate of European Jews, most notably blocking Adolph Eichmann's deal with the Red Cross to exchange Jewish children for German POWs.

    Moreover, Al Husseini personally recruited Bosnia Muslims for the German Waffen SS, including the Skanderberg Division from Albania and Hanjer Division from Bosnia. The Hanjer (Saber) Division of the Waffen SS was responsible for the murder of over 90 percent of the Yugoslavian Jewish population.

    SS leader Heinrich Himmler was so pleased with Al Husseini's Muslim Nazis that he established the Dresden-based Mullah Military School for their continued recruitment and training. In 1944, Hanjer commandos parachuted into Tel Aviv and poisoned drinking wells in Jewish communities in an effort to stir up ethnic tensions.

    After the fall of Nazi Germany, Al Husseini fled to Cairo, Egypt in 1946 rather than face war crime charges for his actions in Yugoslavia. But he continued his operations.

    In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Al Husseini worked closely with a pro-fascist group in Egypt called Young Egypt. In 1952 Gamal Abdul Nasser, a prominent member of Young Egypt, was among military officers who seized control of the Egyptian government from King Fu'ad. Al Husseini is reported to have been responsible for bringing Otto Skorzeny, the Nazi commando once labeled by the OSS as "the most dangerous man in Europe," into the employ of the Nasser government.

    Similarly, Al Husseini had a strong influence over the founding members of both the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'ath party. Strong evidence exists that al Husseini was instrumental in the arranging of Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner's employment as an advisor to the Syrian general staff.

    However, al Husseini's central role in the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 is perhaps his most indelible mark on the Middle East today.

    The radical Imam was the spiritual mentor of the first chairman of the PLO, Ahmed Shukairi, and saw that much of his ideology was instilled in the organization. More importantly, Al Husseini used his extensive connections to recruit financial supporters for the PLO throughout the Arab world.

    Almost 30 years after al Husseini's death in 1974, the Palestinian people still revere him as a hero and embrace his radical theology. The "Arab Fuhrer's" close Nazi association and virulent anti-Semitism is perhaps the reason that Hitler's Meinf Kampf is ranked as the sixth all-time bestseller among Palestinian Arabs.

    Several of his descendants remain active in Palestinian affairs today.

    Al Husseini's grandson, Faisal Husseini, was part of the PLO since 1964 and served as minister without portfolio in the Palestinian National Authority, with responsibility for Jerusalem until his death in May 2001.

    The radical imam's nephew, Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el Husseini, has been a major player in Palestinian terrorism for almost 40 years. He was the guiding force behind the merging of the Fatah faction into the PLO. In 1990, Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el Husseini was responsible for the Palestinian community's support of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

    Most Mideast observers today recognize the younger Al Husseini by the secular name he adopted as his own in 1952, Yasser Arafat.

    By the late 1980's many of the PLO's radical Muslim financiers had become disillusioned with the increasingly secular nature of the Palestinian movement. Yasser Arafat's support of Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s strongly angered and prompted many of these extremists in the Persian Gulf states to reduce or all together withdraw their financial backing of the PLO.

    An astute emerging Sunni terrorist, Osama bin Laden, capitalized upon Arafat's political misstep and transformed his al Qaeda organization into the prime recipient of financial support from Sunni Muslim radicals. That funding has enabled bin Laden to wage terrorist attacks on western and Israeli interests for over a decade. His most recent "Letter to the American People" echoed al Husseini's propaganda claim that "the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque."

    The is little doubt that throughout history the Arabs and Jews have encountered the kind of friction that comes from any two distinct religious or ethnic groups sharing the same geography. However, that history has largely been one of relatively peaceful coexistence.

    The divergence from that pattern occurs in 1920 with the rise of a virulent anti-Semitic mufti of Jerusalem whose ideology embodied more similarities to that of Nazi Germany than to the historical Islam of Saladin or the Ottoman Turks.

    The wave of extremist Islam that has plagued the world in the latter days of the 20th century and into the opening days of the 21st, has little to do with ancient history or Islam. The cause lays largely at the feet of Haj Amin Muhammad Al Husseini, who utilized murder and anti-Semitism to consolidate his power over his fellow Arabs and further his personal quest to be caliph of the pan-Arab world.

    The above article still seems to whitewash most of the harsher notes Islamic dominion has ALWAYS belted out to its dhimmi brothers, and buys into the line that Saladin was the most gracious warrior-philosopher in history until Mahatmas Ghandi appeared on the scene, but otherwise provides some interesting information to concerned readers.

    Labels: , , , , ,


    There are those who suggest that Islam needs to be outlawed and recognized for the Nazi-like belief system it is. Here is one opinion:

    Much more than a religion, Islam is a religious-political entity with global ambitions. Did you know that year one of the Islamic calendar (unlike the Christian calendar) is not the birth of the founder but the first year Muhammed became a POLITICAL leader. Islam seeks not only to eradicate all other religions from the face of the earth but all other political systems and replace them with Islamic Shiaria law.

    Democracy is particularly anathema to Islamic totalitarianism. Liberty is not an option. Blind obedience to the Qu'ran and its wielders is the only choice. While Iranian students protest and demand a more Western-styled nation rich in its own Persian culture, the government of Iran continues to taunt Israel and the United States as it pursues nuclear technologies and gesticulates toward a confrontation.

    Bordering on insanity with its ridiculous pronouncements, Iran's continued wickedness makes international news almost daily. Today, in arresting and killing innocent Christians the black robed mullah's regime reveals the morally banckruptcy of this backside of the desert "philosophy" called Islam.

    The Iranian Evangelical Church has denounced a crackdown by authorities on its members. Under a new government measure, pastors with the official churches will have to provide a list of names of all those who take part in functions to the intelligence ministry. Pastors will also need an authorization from security forces to celebrate mass. Christians are less than 1 percent of Iran's population of over 68 million. And none of those of the cross have taken up arms against the people or government of Iran.

    Yet the appeasers in this country try to thwart every attempt to protect its own borders from violent jihadists sneaking in under a lax immigration enforcement policy or those already here..

    According to one informed Iranian source, periodically, representatives of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) arrest and severely torture Christians in several cities, including Tehran. Others, working with a certain legal organization defending human rights are accused of using it as a “cover” for church activities.

    For those who argue that anti-jihadist alarmists in America are no better than these Islamic countries who routinely persecute Jews and Christians, I say, should take a good long look at a global map of jihadist hotspots and honestly ask themselves who's persecuting whom, and simply do the math. And they dare speak to us of ignorance...

    In the United States, the Constitution is under seige by proclaimed enemies and defenders alike. Even the Supreme Court gets in on the act in tearing down the liberties and freedoms of citizens in good standing. Witness the recent decison to ignore simple language in the Constitution which forbids government officials from taking the property of one person and giving it to another.

    Groups like CAIR with its history of whining and whingeing must be revealed to be the type of organization it is—just another hategroup masquerading as an antidefamation league, designed of, by, and for the us against them dualties inherent in the Qu'ran itself, there for anyone to read in black and while. No mysteries. No subtleties. Nothing but a guidebook to deceit and trickery. Nonmuslim apologists and supporters of Islam and even nonreligious people in general should wake up, and wake up now!

    If "peaceloving" Muslims do this to its own native Christians, what pray tell are your chances once "moderate" Islam sheds its mask, and turns violent to reflect its its world leadership, which continues to proclaim violent jihad on new global fronts every day, commands its own critical mass of soldiers ready to pounce? After all, there is no disunity in Islam. There is only once voice in Islam, and that voice calls for unapologetic world domination.

    Apathetic democracy is no match for this beast rising up out of the east. Often stated, but here it is again: the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. Underestimating the Islamic menace is sure to be precisely that.


    It has become plain to see that many Americans simply fail to understand the few platitudes sprinkled through the Qu'ranic Surahs which call for mutual reciprocity, charity, tolerance and respect apply to "brother muslims" alone. None apply to disbelievers.

    In general, Americans don't understand that the Ten Commandments, of which the Nazarene condensed to a mere two, as well as the so-called Golden Rule are missing in the third "Abrahamic Religion" and are only spoofed in a believer versus unbeliever parallelism predicated to the totalitarian thrust of its sole commandment. This commandent is an aggressive call to convert the entire world—by the bloody sword if need be—in total and absolute submission to Islam (and its death cult leadership). These naive 21st century Americans "of the book" seem content to believe that Allah means "God" in a generic benevolent way, and thus is compatible to their own simple notions of a loving god.

    Frankly, that's certainly not too far off the mark these days in the hallowed halls of Islamophilia where politically correct shamans and deceivers are dutifully busy setting up the chessboard for future contests; however al-Lah is somewhat of a franchised brand name from one of many pre-existing desert cults competing for supremacy in the 7th century until Mohammed's armies won the battle, and consolidated, played forward to contemporary times. Since the al-Lah cult came to monopolize thought in large swaths of the world for enough time, al-Lah became Allah by the same mechanism we refer generically to soft drinks as 'Coke' or facial tissues as 'Kleenex' or photocopies as 'Xeroxes'. It is a matter of brand dominance leading to simple name substitution. Al-Lah is not the same as Yahweh and never was.

    If those Americans who still hold dear their own religious identity but are still fuzzily projecting these same ideals upon the Mohammedan smokescreen wake up and begin to recognize these distinctions, perhaps some progress can be made in separating truth from taqiyyah before militant jihad and sharia law can take root in our own soil.

    How long do we tolerate the notion of "religious superiority" now popping up everywhere across the nation? Not Christianity. Not Judaism. But by all means, let's roll out the red carpets for Mohammedism. This disasterous sentiment is prelude to a much worse outcome if Americans do not begin to realize what it is up against.

    Peaceful and integrated Muslims need to prove themselves worthy of the affiliation. The fallout from the incident of the Flying Imams is just another example of something quite different at work.

    Tell me. Why on earth does the ACLU support every trumped up CAIR posture that flutters across the worldstage but initiates war against groups like the Boy Scouts of America? After all, they both refuse to endorse homosexuality within its ranks. Within the former group, the ACLU doesn't seem to care. With the latter group, however, that is precisely WHY the ACLU wars against them.

    Meanwhile, Muslim leaders across the globe continue to blame any resistance these radicalized or belligerent Muslims face for services rendered as mired in ignorance. Might I suggest, the ignorance is all THEIRS.

    Scenario 1
    American goes to Malaysia, flies Malaysian Airlines, stands up before the flight begins, and loudly prays the rosary, and asks for submission of all Muslims to Catholicism. Oh yes, and he demands in his everyday life in Kuala Lumpur that he be considered a Malaysian citizen. He would branded an “ugly American.”

    Scenario 2
    Muslims migrate to America to pretend to be American citizens but in reality aim to make America a nation under sharia law in the next few decades. Six imams, knowing American sensitivity towards terrorism, in order to mock it and celebrate how they sympathize with terrorists, stand on an airplane and pray. They don’t assimilate; we must assimilate to them. Are they “ugly Muslims?” No, they are victims of capitalist, imperialist oppression.

    This, dear readers, unfortunately, is the logic of the Left, the naive, the US government, and spiritual slackers everywhere...

    I applaud freedom and liberty for truly empathetic Muslims, and I say with full force of personality, "Welcome to America!" But to those who persist in this duality of deception and betrayal of core American values, for those who are laying in wait for the seige of America to begin, I condemn as I likewise condemn and predict a rude awakening to those who claim citizenship from generations past, as this nation is judged by Yahweh the Almighty Creator and Judge of Humanity, as it is written in terrible detail for these who comprehend the harsh end times of our bold nation's earliest birth pangs.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Wednesday, January 03, 2007


    The following information is adapted from a newsletter I received from Brigitte Gabriel's anti-jihadist organization—The American Congress For Truth. Ms. Gabriel is a Lebanese-American Christian who grew up in war torn Lebanon, and now speaks out against what she believes is an all out proto-Islamic assault on the West and its core values.

    Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. These words and their general meaning and purpose are familiar to anyone familiar with American TV and film spy thrillers. But we should know that Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret and a synonymous term. And another is kitman, which is mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

    Taqiyya and kitman or "holy hypocrisy" has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: "he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives."

    The skillful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

    During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the "holy water". In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the "mujahadeen" to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: "the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy".

    Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counterterrorism would be counterproductive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

    According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty. "Verily the most honourable of you in the sight of God is the most pious among you; verily, God is knowing, aware!"

    Shi'a interpret the phrase above as "he among you who exercises Taqiyya most".

    Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split "the enemy" wherever conflicts arise. A favored tactic was "deceptive triangulation" aimed to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.

    Al Taqiyya is with tongue only; not the heart. A believer can make any statement as long as the "heart is comfortable". The 9/11 terrorists lived and visited in the United States for two years before the 9/11 attacks. How did they acculturate? By the use of taqiyya. Meaning: I hate you but I smile at you - in public.

    In contemporary political discourse and debates Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of "outwitting". The matter under discussion is not to be debated or discussed; rather the opponent is to "outwitted" through taqiyya, by diversion of the subject and obfuscation aided at times with a mystical reference to God or Allah.

    The claim that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English make communication with non-Arab speakers difficult or impossible, is another form of outwitting. The tactical use of a translator offers considerable advantage.

    Roleplaying As Victim
    Claiming to be "the victim" of religious discrimination and intolerance during debate or discussion is another form of distraction and "outwitting".

    Manipulating Ambiguity
    Sheik Hilaly of Sydney, Australia is on public record as (a) "condemning" the 9/11 attacks in ambiguous terms and (b) praising suicide and martyr operations. However, Islamic spokesmen will rarely condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.

    For example, questions relating to the 9/11 terrorists attacks will be diverted by a causally irrelevant counter-reference to the plight of the Palestinians, the nefarious role of Israel and US foreign policy and support for Israel as "causes" of terrorism. Anti-Semitism, a core belief of Islamic fundamentalism is also skillfully diverted by misleading and exaggerated historical references to the alleged status enjoyed by Jews and non-believers under Islamic rule, thereby deflecting critical examination of the virulent contemporary Islamic anti-Semitism.

    Demanding Evidence
    Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as "cognitive denial" by repetitive and extreme requests for "evidence" and "proof" of alleged terrorist acts, which they know cannot be disclosed.

    Tactical Denial
    Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a state of affairs can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms. For example, "It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorist", which is false and "Islam forbids suicide", which is true, but irrelevant as suicide or martyrdom attacks are not forbidden in the Koran.

    Exploiting Cognitive Dissonance
    Islamic spokesman tend to be baffle television interviewers and puzzle viewers as they resort to double talk "cliches and platitudes" concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance—holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them—is induced in viewers as they attempt to process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion with the dissonant facts of Islamic terrorist acts and operations.

    The Islamic "defense" script
    Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable platitudes concerning Islam in London as do Islamic spokesmen in Seattle and often appear to follow a prepared script from "Islam is tolerant and peace loving" to the claim by Islamic spokeswomen invariably claiming that wearing the veil offers them more freedom (women in Muslim countries are therefore "freer" than women in western countries), thereby precluding further examination into the real status of women under Islamic rule.

    Islamic platitudes are also echoed uncritically by Western politicians. For example "A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great religion". The timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the "hijacking" of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic 'spokesmen" in the United States shortly after the 9/11
    terrorist attacks.

    The "Islam has been hijacked" diversionary theme is now a conventional media and political reference deflecting attention from empirical and historical examination of the doctrinal, political and religious continuity of Islamic terrorism. A related theme that a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism is utterly irrelevant as Islamic terrorism is always perpetrated by 'small minorities" or more accurately" small groups".

    Australia television viewers noted that interviews with terrorist suspects raided by security authorities invariably featured veiled women holding small children or a baby as they protested their husband's innocence and attested to his innate goodness. Trembling fingers pointed to "damage" to the family residence. In some interviews the suspect/father holds the child, whilst denying involvement or knowledge of terrorism in any sense of the word: an example of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception management.

    The contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is Jihad of the sword. Egyptian-based Islamic fundamentalists, from whom Bin Laden recruited his key operatives, believe jihad is the fourth pillar of Islam and is a binding belief and integral to the faith. Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state of personal struggle is taqiyya. In contemporary terms, Jihad means—holy war—against unbelievers and it in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals refer to Jihad as "Holy War" against infidels.

    The study of taqiyya and kitman is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism ranging from the issuing of false terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al Qaeda in the form of "intelligence chatter" to the use of taqiyya and kitman by terrorists during interrogation and the use of systematically misleading expressions concerning Islam and terrorism by Muslim 'spokesmen".

    All in all, this sounds eerily similar to typical American political speech patterns. But look again. This is our enemy's speech. It is being used against us. To infiltrate us, and take us down from within. The trojan horse approach, get it? And as noted above, our own greedy leadership parrots most of it right back to us, and tells us to swallow it, or else be condemned as a race baiter or worse. And the politically correct are too mushy mushy to notice what all this means to them down the road when all the blinders are off.

    Something is radically wrong here.

    Labels: , , , , ,