Friday, August 31, 2007


What Really Happened: Israel has continued to be victimized by the Arabs and the world at large, despite the best intentions of the United Nations, Great Britiain, and her own people after World War II. Check out this video, a well-produced piece by Terrorism Awareness contradicting with detailed fact the foul propaganda of Jimmy Carter and the anti-Israel lobby. Not much news here for the truly informed, but the video is a powerful testament to the absurdity of the thinly veiled quasi-Palestinian argument.

Knowing Jihad: The threat is worldwide and coming to an explosion near you. Forget the mainstream media who raged against the CIA and FBI about missed connections of dots pre-911. Well, the MSM have a more than a few dots of their own they refuse to connect.

The Islamic Mein Kampf: Sure. It's again old news, but our hapless leadership bought and sold by Saudi petro-bribes and our far Left mainstream media watchdogs refuse to recognize that these connections are real, very real, very very dangerous, and very very much at war marching in goosestep or sneaking toward your door and mine. This news needs to be taken seriously. Watch this video. It's a bit weak in terms of not presenting all the wealth pf hard evidence I saw on a History Channel program about these Nazi-Islam connections, but it's a good start for those of you, who have no knowledge on the topic whatsoever.

All three of these videos are produced for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Labels: , , , , , ,


If you draw a line aground the Muslim world, you draw a line through 90% of the conflict zones in the world. Teachers murdered in Thailand and the Phillipines, students blown up in Russia, Christians kidnapped in Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan, one atrocity following after the other. Year in and year out Muslims with no so-called Al Qaeda links have committed heinous crimes against innocent people, mostly from other religious cultures in a perpetual religiously-ordained land grab, and among their own in an aggressive act of religious oppression. Recently an Imam based in England said he would dance with joy if Iran nuked Israel. The death of 2-3 million people would cause this religious figure an orgasm of joy.

No other people in the world stake a claim to high morality and yet happily pursue the mass murder of others. Why are Muslims so full of hate and intolerance for others, except that this behavior is ingrained in their specific Islamic personality, as dictated by the Qur'an? In this day and age this is the only question worth asking in Islamic Studies. Islamic Art and Poetry are pointless to the main question of the world today. Any Islamic studies course needs to make the connection between the conduct and teaching of Mohammad and the modern day conduct and attitudes of Muslims.

Five Reasons Why, Among the "Great Religions," Islam Is A Focus of Particular Concern:

Reason #1
Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. This is found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as in Islamic jurisprudence. Many like to point to violent passages in the Bible as an alleged equivalent to this, but actually the Bible contains no open-ended, universal command for believers to wage war against unbelievers, as does the Qur'an (9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193, etc.).

Reason #2
Muhammad said, "If someone changes his Islamic religion, kill him." That bit of gentleness from Muhammad can be found here in the most canonical of hadith collections, Bukhari.

Reason #3:
Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes [Danish linguist] Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," writes Magaard, adding, "Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Qu'ran for fighting against people of other faiths. If it is correct that many Muslims view the Qu'ran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence."

Reason #4
Since 9/11/01, thousands have died in Islamic terror attacks all over the globe.

Reason #5
But perhaps the greatest reason many people focus worried scrutiny toward Islam is that it commands Muslims to use persuasion (which would include voting), deception, terror, and demographic jihad (immigration and reproduction) to spread the rule of Islamic law all over the globe, and to subordinate non-Muslims to the status of debased, second-class citizens.

Qur'an, Chapter 9, verse 29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

In response to worries about efforts to impose Islamic law around the world, and of late particularly in Europe some Muslim apologists respond that when Spain was dominated by Islam, it was a multicultural paradise for Christians and Jews.
Not so. An excellent reference is the book "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. Even noted Medieval scholar Maria Rosa Menocal in her extended whitewash of Muslim Spain called The Ornament of the World, as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has pointed out, admits that the laws of dhimmitude were very much in force in the great Al-Andalus [Muslim Spain]:

The dhimmi, as these covenanted peoples were called, were granted religious freedom, not forced to convert to Islam. They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax—no Muslims paid taxes—and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals.

About Muslim Spain, Andrew Bostom and Bat Ye’or write:

Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes. Most churches were converted into mosques. It proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings.

Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis—like elsewhere in other Islamic lands—and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains.

The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis [Christians and Jews under Muslim rule] and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres, as in Toledo (761, 784-86, 797). After another Toledan revolt in 806, seven hundred inhabitants were executed. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa from 781 to 881, Cordova (805), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and later in 868), and yet again in Toledo (811-819); the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in Qur’an 5:33.

The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20,000 families expelled. Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia [Muslim Spain], where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the Christians and Jews.

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade.

The Muslim Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations. This devastation—massacre, captivity, and forced conversion—was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra.

Although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: "The Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us. Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they."

Europeans came over and conquered America. In the conflict, both sides did bad things. But the smoke has cleared and most Americans honor the Country’s Indian heritage. I was involved in a construction project whereby the taxpayer built twenty-some nice new homes on the Reservation for Indian families, free of charge. Sports teams go by the names of Indian tribes. Look at the number of US towns named after the Indians. America’s premier coin is the $50 American Buffalo, with an Sioux warrior on the face side.

Compare Manifest Destiny with Islamic expansion where Buddhist statues are blown up, Jewish remains are destroyed, and locals are converted, subjugated, or killed. These muslims can stand around and make direct threats, we see them posted in the news and on blogs all the time like: "UK your 911 is on the way!", meanwhile the infidels stand back, take it, with no visits to the courts.

Draw one cartoon and that schizophrenic religion is afire while the nihilistic Western dhimmis comment with awe about how these thugs are so passionate in their beliefs. Must be simply fabulous to be a Muslim, since neither he nor she has to worry about being politically correct. This outrage, any Muslim outrage is not about the pope, a Palestinian homeland, Israel, or any of the endless red herrings they toss out. It is about a belief system that would collapse under it own weight if the truth could be told without cities burnings and thousands if not millions people dying.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 28, 2007


It doesn't take a weather man to know which ways the wind blows, sang the poet. So why does the President of the United States continue to treat the Saudis as America's staunch allies? The following article blowing the whistle on the Glass House of Saud is authored by Youseff Ibraham of the New York Sun...

A former prime minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, recently declared he was returning home to try to regain power after six years of exile—in Saudi Arabia. The day that the monster of Uganda, Idi Amin, was removed from power in 1979, he flew to a country where sanctuary as a Muslim African leader would be guaranteed upon his arrival—Saudi Arabia.

And in 1970, immediately following the death of an Egyptian dictator, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leadership of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood movement returned home in droves to try to Islamize their native land—after two decades in Saudi Arabia. Thus, Saudi Arabia ever expands its fundamentalist cage.

Robert Baer, a 20-year veteran of the CIA and the author of "Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude," has often described the Saudis as the world's primary financiers of terrorism, the source of much of Al Qaeda's leadership, and an incubating station for radical Islam.

Though such activities have come back to haunt the Saudis and their allies in America—Islamist terror struck home in 1995, 1996, and 1998 bombings, two American embassies were attacked in Africa, and the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen in the leadup to the attacks of September 11, 2001—the Saudi system continues to perpetuate the model. The reason, according to Mr. Baer and other Middle East analysts, is that Saudi Arabia runs on two currencies: the riyal and Islam.

Neither Saudi society nor its ruling establishment can escape: All of its constituent elements—from business and charity to religious instruction, law enforcement, and foreign relations—rattle inside the cage of the country's fundamentalist obsessions: The Saudi flag contains a Koranic verse. The Saudi monarch wraps his authority in Islam as "the custodian of Mecca and Medina." Saudi foreign aid is based on building fundamentalist madrassas and mosques, supporting such fundamentalist groups as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and spreading Koranic instruction worldwide.

Arab and Muslim expatriate workers who have lived and worked in Saudi Arabia—easily numbering 50 million over the last three decades—return imbued with a model of militancy that duplicates an Osama bin Laden-style path toward jihad against their home societies.

This vicious cycle mattered little when oil was cheap and the Saudis were a mere curiosity. But Saudi Arabia's power grew as it was transformed into a prime energy source in the 1970s, a huge financial influence in the 1980s, and an immense lobbying presence in the 1990s.

By the late '90s, there were full-size mirror images of Saudi Arabia's stilted brand of Islam in Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, the Philippines, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Kosovo, as well as among Muslim communities in Europe, Australia, and America. More mirror images are in the making.

In one of his many interviews since leaving the CIA, Mr. Baer gave an interesting analysis of the elements that make for the creation and exportation of this model, describing Saudi Arabia as both hapless and evil.

"They feel humiliated by colonialism, by the United States, by Israel—call it what you want. They feel they are citizens or subjects of a country that has never fought a war, and yet spends so much money on defense. They're humiliated that they don't take the Israelis on, because their army is worthless. They sit around and they read the Koran. And they get on these Islamic Web sites, and they watch Al-Jazeera. And they go to the mosque."

In other words, the Saudis do little except rattle around within the cage of their own fundamentalism. This deep confusion is reflected throughout the ruling family, which contains both princes who are Westernized—in such vulgar aspects as drinking, womanizing, gambling, and wearing diamond-studded Rolex watches—and others who leave a mosque only to enter a charity that nurtures madrassas turning out little bin Ladens.

Their schizophrenia is exemplified in such global personalities as Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a multibillionaire businessman who simultaneously invests his billions in America while funding both the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is the American chapter of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood.

In the end, the Saudis are just rattling around in their cage. A society with no social project except to produce more Muslims, deeper Muslims, better Muslims, ends up as one that produces Muslim fanatics and terrorists.

Now, with oil prices having moved north of $70 dollar a barrel, a lot more trouble will be coming our way out of the Saudi cage.

وهكذا يقول الرب : "الناس يقولون ان هذه الالغام. وهي شرف لي مع الشفاه ، ولكن قلوبهم بعيدة. والعبادة هي مهزله ، لانها مجرد تدريس حقوق الاوامر والتعاليم

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, August 27, 2007


DALLAS—Prosecutors have produced scores of documents, audio and videotapes, and intercepted phone calls in their attempt to prove that a Muslim charity based in a suburban Dallas office park was actually a fundraising arm of Middle Eastern terrorists.

Much of the evidence has surfaced before in books, newspaper articles and previous trials. But those who track terror-financing say the document haul from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development has also produced new information. They say the documents shed light on a web of related organizations of militant Palestinian supporters in the United States, some of whom saw their goal as destroying Western civilization.

The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on "work for the Palestinian cause on the American front." The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government. The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.

One was Holy Land, which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas.

Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.

And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.

For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI. The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity's leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine...

"It's clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States," Farah said. "It's in their own words, it's a political infiltration that worked for 40 years."

Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denied that his group or its current or former leaders had any ties to Hamas. "That's one of those urban legends about CAIR," he said. "It's fed by the right-wing, pro-Israeli blogosphere."

Ahmed said the Philadelphia gathering attended by CAIR's founder "was an open meeting of Palestinian activists who came together to discuss the Olso peace accords and their struggle to gain a homeland."...
One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.

The memo's writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, August 25, 2007


As a 6’3”, 250-pound weightlifter of Middle Eastern descent, who sometimes wears a full beard, seldom wears a (perfunctory) smile, and who’s last name is “Ibrahim”—a name that sometimes appears in rather “unflattering” headlines, such as the recent attacks in Glasgow—I don’t mind telling you that, well, sometimes I get askance looks of “concern” whenever I board airplanes. Do I take any special delight in that? Not really. Do I understand it? Totally.

Since 1984, 20 of the 27 airplane hijackings have been carried out by Arabs, Pakistanis, Turks, et. al.—all people of “Middle Eastern” appearance. Moreover, since 9/11, the lion’s share of dramatic and fatal terrorist attacks carried around the world—such as the Bali nightclub bombing, where 202 were killed, or the Madrid train bombings, where 191 killed, or the Chechen hostage crisis, where 344 civilians, including 186 children were killed, or the London train bombings, where 52 were killed, or the Sharm al-Sheikh bombings, where 64 were killed—have all been committed by Muslims. This is not to disparage but simply state a fact.

It is understandable, then, why I, a non-Muslim, whose last name is nonetheless Ibrahim, may be a source of special attention in an airport or airplane. Yet so long as I am not unduly harassed or slighted and am treated professionally—and, most importantly, since I have nothing to hide—I am always happy to comply. It simply makes sense. Even so, I don’t believe that I have ever been treated differently than the majority—no doubt because I don’t go out of my way to be conspicuous.

A practicing Muslim associate of mine—call him Ishmael&151;once told me that, while riding the train, he noticed a bearded man dressed in traditional Pakistani garb, swaying back and forth in his seat in recitation while holding a Koran. At the next stop, Ishmael exited the train and chose to wait for the next one, adding, “I pray and recite from the Koran, too, but since 9/11 I know better than to engage in easily misconstrued activities”—activities from a fellow Muslim which worried him enough to board another train.

It is in this backdrop that one should best appreciate the current debate about the “John Doe” provision and the infamous case of the “flying imams.” Unlike myself and Ishmael, these six imams, exploiting religious freedoms granted them that their own religion, Islam, does not grant others, and no doubt fully aware of the scene they’d inevitably cause, decided to fall prostrate in prayer in the middle of an airport, chanting “Allahu Akbar”—the usual last words of Islamist suicide bombers prior to detonation—and then when they boarded the plane, began talking loudly in Arabic, with only words like “Osama bin Laden” being intelligible to English ears.

Why is it that Ishmael and myself and countless other people of Middle East and/or Islamic backgrounds are cognizant enough to know that discreet behavior in airports and airplanes goes a long way in ensuring a hassle free flight, while these imams decided to take an “in-your-face” approach?

Ironically, airports provide non-denominational “meditation” rooms, but, as I’ve heard before, many “pious” Muslims—such as the “flying imams,” one can be assured—feel their prayers are sullied if recited next to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus—that is, infidels. So they take to the middle of the terminal floors.

More ironic still, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is trying to make it so that any American who observes such “aberrant” behavior and decides to report it—you know, to avert another 9/11—can be sued. So now, supposedly Muslims who were raised in stoic environments—whether run by dictatorial, authoritarian, or theocratic governments—and who themselves support the draconian dictates of sharia law (stoning adulterers and murdering “apostates”); Muslims whose attire is markedly different from their Western hosts and who must therefore be used to constant stares—supposedly these same Muslims are now “hurt” and “traumatized” and need monetary compensation because some concerned citizens thought, due to their totally inappropriate behavior in an airport, that they may have had nefarious intentions and thus reported them to the authorities. This is CAIR’s approach at trying to foster better “American-Islamic relations”—its own namesake—threats, fear, and intimidation.

Of course and for the record, should the imams wish to avoid a similar incident next time they board a plane, behaving “normally” (yes, there is such a thing)—like everyone else, both Middle Eastern and non-Middle Eastern, Muslim and non-Muslim—is a sure bet that they most likely won’t be harassed.

Raymond Ibrahim is the editor of the Al-Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 23, 2007


Let's hope this Congressional action doesn't go the way of the 1986 Immigration reform bill...

WASHINGTON (AP) - The specter of a nuclear bomb, hidden in a cargo container, detonating in an American port has prompted Congress to require 100 percent screening of U.S.-bound ships at their more than 600 foreign starting points.
The White House and shippers maintain that the technology for scanning 11 million containers each year doesn't exist, and say the requirement could disrupt trade. Current procedures including manifest inspections at foreign ports and radiation monitoring in U.S. ports are working well, they contend.

Nonetheless, President Bush earlier this month signed the measure into law, praising its shift of funds to states and cities at higher risk of terrorism attack and saying he will work with lawmakers to ensure the cargo screening provisions don't impede commerce.

Scanning containers at their point of origin in other countries is a highlight of that law, intended to fulfill recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for safeguarding the United States from terrorist attack. It sets a five-year deadline for having the system in place but—recognizing the technology might not be ready—gives the Homeland Security secretary the authority to extend that deadline by two-year increments.

"If a terrorist manages to conceal a weapon of mass destruction in a shipping container, it must be discovered long before that container reaches our shore," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in support of the measure.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a chief proponent, said the costs and complexity involved in the new system pale beside the devastating effect of a nuclear attack launched from a big city port. "The truth is, we cannot afford not to do it."

The White House issued a statement strongly opposing the scanning requirement, saying it was "neither executable nor feasible." Opponents warned that it could cause huge backlogs at the nation's seaports, which handle some 95 percent of goods coming into the country.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "it would be wonderful" if all containers were inspected before they left foreign ports. "But it's got to be done in a way that reflects reality and also reflects the fact that we're not the only players in this pool."

Industry groups that lobbied against the 100 percent screening asked whether Congress intends to cut off trade with small-volume ports that can't install the needed technology. They also warn of foreign governments retaliating by requiring U.S. ports to set up the same inspection regimen.

"You have to have the permission of all these foreign points," said James Carafano, a defense expert at the Heritage Foundation. "There are a lot of people around the world who are going to be really teed off about this." The Bush administration argues that its current risk-based, layered approach to port security is a success. That approach has several main components:

  • Under the Container Security Initiative, teams from Customs and Border Protection now review manifests at some 50 ports covering more than 80 percent of the container cargo shipped to the United States. Containers identified as high risk are subjected to X-ray and radiation scanning. Markey argues that this is nothing more than a paperwork check that relies on descriptions of content supplied by shippers. Less than 5 percent of containers get scanned, and only a fraction of those are opened up and inspected.

  • Homeland Security, together with Customs and Border Protection, has set a goal of screening, by the end of 2007, close to 100 percent of all containers entering the country by sea for radiological and nuclear material, using what are called Radiation Portal Monitors.

  • Under a pilot program called the Secure Freight Initiative, created in a port security bill passed last year, Homeland Security is testing high-volume scanning at six ports in Pakistan, Honduras, Britain, Oman, Singapore and South Korea.
    The program should give some indication of the practicality of the 9/11 Act provision, which requires containers to undergo both a radiation check and a scan with nonintrusive imaging such as X-rays that might locate highly enriched uranium or other materials that don't emit a lot of radiation.

    Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office also plans to award up to $1.2 billion over the next five years to develop and acquire a next generation radiation monitor for land and sea cargo known as Advanced Spectroscopic Portals.
    Lawmakers have questioned whether the new technology offers much improvement over current monitors that are prone to false alarms set off by naturally occurring radioactive material in medical isotopes, ceramics or kitty litter.

    Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairmen of the Senate and House Homeland Security committees, said preliminary tests indicate the effectiveness of the new advanced monitors "may fall well short of levels anticipated."

    Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., a critic of the new provision, noted that those unhappy with current technology are among the same people calling for 100 percent scanning. "You can't have it both ways," he said, adding that "the technology is not there at this point."

    Democrats, in successfully arguing for the scanning provision, said that if the United States could put a man on the moon within the same decade that John F. Kennedy challenged the nation to that goal, it can certainly come up with effective nuclear warning technology in five years.

    Markey also disputed the contention that the new system would be too expensive, citing estimates that the cost of 100 percent scanning, including the application of tamper-proof seals, would be about $100 per container. He said that's insignificant compared with the average $66,000 value of goods shipped in each container and estimates that the cost of a disruption of U.S. port operations from a successful terrorist attack could reach $58 billion.

    The Congressional Budget Office quoted a figure of $1.5 billion over three years to acquire and set up the scanning and detection equipment. The United States could provide financial aid to smaller countries, but the CBO said it expected most of the costs to be borne by foreign ports in order to maintain trade with the United States.

    Among opponents of the new law is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Jason Conley, its senior manager for homeland security, said there is no really good cost estimate, but predicted that the amount of money needed to implement and operate the system, deal with false alarms and handle delays and disruptions will be very high. He said foreign governments and ports would probably pass along the costs to shippers and consumers.

    But cost is not the main reason that 100 percent scanning provision is opposed by major cargo shippers and America's key trading partners, according to the World Shipping Council.

    It said the new law doesn't adequately address who will buy and maintain the equipment, who will do the scanning, how the data will be analyzed, how radiation-linked health issues will be handled and what might happen when foreign governments demand that U.S. ports install similar equipment.

    Markey said the technology exists, the warnings of trade disruptions are overblown and the bottom line remains the same: If a nuclear bomb reaches a U.S. port or city, it's already too late.

    Labels: , , , , ,

  • Wednesday, August 22, 2007


    Orginally published by Jihad Watch

    Given that war, as both Sun Tzu and Mohammed preached, is deception, it behooves us to understand accurately the enemy's motivations and not be fooled by his deceiving propaganda. Yet in the current war against Islamic jihad, the West has stubbornly refused to take seriously what the jihadists tell us, believing instead what Thucydides called the "pretexts" with which an enemy rationalizes his aggression. Osama bin Laden and his theorist Aymin al Zawahiri in particular have provided us with numerous texts outlining the Islamic foundations of their war against the West. A few of these pronouncements and manifestoes have long been available, but now thanks to Raymond Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader, writings previously unavailable in English can be studied and analyzed. Such study will provide powerful evidence that contrary to the deceptions of apologists and the naïve delusions of some Westerners, the bases of the jihadists' actions lie squarely within Islamic tradition, not in the alleged Western crimes against Islam.

    Fluent in Arabic and trained as a historian in the ancient Middle East, Ibrahim is currently a technician in the Library of Congress' Near East Section, where he discovered al Qaeda documents that had not been translated into English. He has organized these writings into two sections: theology, writings intended for fellow Muslims that ground al Qaeda's war against the West in the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad; and propaganda, writings meant for Westerners that cast bin Laden's war as a just response to the depredations of Western powers.

    The documents in the first section make a sustained, coherent argument for offensive jihad based on the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of the words and deeds of Mohammed), and the Ulema (past and present scholars of Islam). Indeed, as Ibrahim notes, "Zawahiri's writings especially are grounded in Islam's roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran the Sunna [words, habits, and practices] of Mohammed, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema." This extensive grounding weakens the "highjacking" charge apologists use to explain Islamic jihad. On the contrary, al Qaeda's arguments are unexceptionally traditional—which is why, of course, millions of Muslims accept them.

    In these writings addressed to fellow Muslims, bin Laden and Zawahiri argue against the notion of "moderate" Islam; the compatibility of Sharia (laws governing Islamic society) with democracy; the idea of accommodation with the enemy; and the prohibition against killing women and children. In other words, they meticulously attack as distortions of Islam all the popular assertions about Islam's nature promulgated by apologists, Westernized Muslims, and even many Christians. As bin Laden himself writes in "Moderate Islam Is a Prostration to the West"—a letter written to the Saudi theologians who in 2002 publicly advocated coexistence with the West—such moderation necessitates the adoption of Western values: "They [the Saudi theologians] first acknowledge their [Westerners'] values and ideologies in their entirety, while shying away from evoking the truth valued by the Religion [Islam] and its foundations."

    Even the notion of "co-existence" is a Western idea contrary to Islam: "As if one of the foundations of our religion is how to coexist with infidels!" Quite the contrary: the traditions and foundations of Islam urge believers to "wage war against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be ruthless against them" (Koran 66:9), a verse Zawahiri quotes along with the commentary of al Qurtubi, 13th-century author of a 20-volume exegesis of the Koran: "There is but one theme—and that is zeal for the religion of Allah. He commands the waging of Jihad against the infidel by use of sword, sound sermons, and the summons to Allah."

    So too with other Western notions such as tolerance and "dialogue," which bin Laden correctly asserts are "built on Western conceptions, which themselves rest upon the most loathsome, secular principles." Indeed, bin Laden has a strong case, for he appeals for evidence to the life and practices of Mohammed and his companions—along with the Koran the Muslim's guide to every aspect of life—and asks sarcastically, "What evidence is there for Muslims for this [dialogue and shared understanding]? What did the Prophet, the companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover 'shared understandings' between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread—in such a satanic manner as this?"

    History shows that bin Laden has the better understanding of Islam than do Western apologists; as Ibrahim summarizes the argument, "'radical' Islam is Islam—without exception." In this same vein, Zawahiri argues in his "Loyalty and Enmity" that the only relationship one can have with the infidel is enmity. Zawahiri buttresses this argument with numerous quotations from Islamic theology, the most important coming from the Koran 60:4: "'We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.'" On this authority comes the necessity to wage jihad against the infidel.

    Perhaps the most important document in Ibrahim's collection is Zawahiri's "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents." For years, we have been told that terrorism is un-Islamic because Islam forbids suicide and the killing of non-combatants. Zawahiri, however, teases out from Islamic tradition a perfectly rational and coherent argument in support of terrorism and suicide bombings.

    Zawahiri starts by repeating Islam's acceptance of deception in war as justified, thus legitimizing suicide bombings, which are deceptive by nature. Next, he builds his argument on selected hadiths, which as Ibrahim notes requires some interpretive stretching. Zawahiri gets around this difficulty by resorting to analogy, "a legitimate tool of Islamic jurisprudence," as Ibrahim reminds us. Zawahiri focuses on intention, why the Muslim kills himself, not who kills him: "Thus the deciding factor in all these situations is one and the same: the intention—is it to service Islam [martyrdom] or is it out of depression and [despair]?"

    As for killing women and children, Mohammed himself provides a precedent during the siege of Ta'if, where he used catapults. The Prophet's response to the question of killing women and children, which of course catapult missiles would do perforce, was "They [women and children] are from among them [infidels]." Again, the ultimate intention is the key: referring to al Shafi' and the Hanbalis, two schools of Islamic jurisprudence, Zawahiri argues that it is permissible "to bombard the idolators even if Muslims and those who are cautioned against killing are intermingled with them as long as there is a need or an obligation for Muslims to do so, or if not striking leads to a delay of the jihad."

    Zawahiri's reasoning in defense of suicide bombing may be ultimately unconvincing to many Muslims, or unsustainable by more careful exegesis. But the mere fact that such a case can be made—something impossible to do in the Christian, or Hebraic, or Hindu, or Buddhist traditions—and that millions of faithful Muslims accept the case, speaks volumes about the "religion of peace."

    These leftist bromides appear over and over in subsequent speeches and manifestoes, and testify to bin Laden's shrewd recognition of the West's Achilles heel: the appeasing proclivities of its elite intellectuals who, riddled with self-loathing guilt, are incapable of defending their way of life and its highest goods.

    The Al Qaeda Reader, simply by letting our enemies speak in their own voices, explodes the popular delusion that Western crimes and policies are responsible for the "distortion" of Islam that al Qaeda represents. As Ibrahim writes, "This volume of translations, taken as whole, prove once and for all that, despite the propaganda of Al Qaeda and its [global] sympathizers, Radical Islam's war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances—real or imagined—but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith."

    This means that the fight will be long and hard, that leaving Iraq or creating a Palestinian state will not buy peace, and that the side that accurately understands its enemy and has confidence in its own beliefs will ultimately triumph. Thanks to Raymond Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader, we have the means for achieving that understanding.

    Labels: , , , ,


    Another fine moment in defining the depth of the Islamofascist threat to contemporary civilization!

    Yes, it is true that sometimes the tragic seriousness of the Islamic threat manages to pierce the usual fog of silliness that cloaks the "new, improved Saudi-patrolled" Fox News organization. In this particular case, Robert Spencer, in what has been noted as a soft-spoken but characteristic frankness, once again reminds us that the struggle for clarity in this hot war against Islamic jihaists and the cold war against those Islamic allies who provoke the West with a Koran-grounded disinformation campaign is one best understood in historical terms.

    Labels: , , , , ,


    While I have little truck with Mr. Pat Robertson's whose evangelical and extracurricular follies, in my opinion, are too many and too diverse to list here, I do harbor a certain measure of respect for the person and the scholarly work of Robert Spencer, who has authored several books and operates the Jihad Watch website, a valuable resource to this Bellicose Augur. Here is an interview with Spencer conducted during the February '06 "cartoon rage" then whipping across the globe as the Islam street violently protested the publishing of a set of political cartoons in the major newspaper of Denmark.
    Suffice it to say, now that I am beginning to utilize the YouTube phenomenon more regularly as a material resource, other dated but still critically important interviews and videos will find a place in this blog. As a closing comment however, I would like to say that I found it both humorous and frankly inspiring as Robertson, when introducing Spencer's book, stumbled over the title in speaking of "The Politically CORRECT" Guide To Islam.

    Frankly, all infidels, and that includes Jews, Christians, hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans, and atheists should get to know what the Islam thinks about Christianity and its views on Islamic eschatology. Whether an accident of history or a carefully scripted response to "those people of the book" by some human or supernatural intelligence, it is a twisted version taken straight from the Bible.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,


    And only if wars could be won solely with words, tit for tat, and all that jazz in the same way we might wish that drug pushers and diamond thieves would stop their crafty hijinx and get a real job, the world would miraculously transform into a place like that Walgreen's commercial. And the secular progs dare accuse the religious types of believing in phony miracles.

    Wake up people. Like Smokey the Bear says, "Only YOU can prevent forest fires (and the trees that cause them)."

    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, August 20, 2007


    Everyday as the sheets are continually pulled back a bit more on the political bedfellows in the West, I am flummoxed by the realization that this twisted alliance of Leftists and Islamists is hardly puzzling at all. But as some of us who are standing up against this alliance have realized they can not maintain their ties indefinitely and will come to blows at some point.

    The saying...

    "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is surely undergoing modification in this case to "the enemy of my greater enemy is my friend until they help me defeat my greater enemy, then this weak friend can be disposed of".

    The greatest threat to the Islam takeover is Judeo-Christian traditionalists in power, and Leftists are the idealogical enemy native to the West. Thus, Islamic interests generate taquiyya, and use these frothing idealists in alliance to attack the Judeo-Christian powerbase.

    These Leftists making the proverbial deal with the devil in their mutual hatred of anything Judeo-Christian with Islam don't have a clue obviously to the true nature and history of Islam, but a quick litmus test would show that these willing partners to our enemies are infidels just like the rest of us and are destined to the same fate as any other resister under sharia.

    Labels: , , ,


    Here's an insight into these global events by a man named Frank:

    I think it was Yeltsin who said of the USSR that in the end the society had become a land of hypocrites where no one would dare speak the truth and the few who did were in grave danger. The malaise, the stagnation of everything was blamed on the US and a false front was put up of a land of equality, a place where there was universal health care, no homelessness, etc. We were told the USSR was nothing like America and even Dan Rather waxed warm on the pre-schools and day care for Soviet kids in one of his reports. But it was all a lie, self-deception, delusion. It is much like that with Islam. And as with the USSR, every reason for Islamic failure is projected outward and there is no self-criticism, no permissions to critical analysis, no alternatives are possible because no one is really free to dissent from the system.

    I once read a description of the Soviet system as being "meta-stable". Apparently it's a word from physics that means a system appears very stable until outside forces are introduced and then it becomes violently unstable. The Islamic world, especially the Mideast, is affected by the transport and communications revolutions of the past 50 years and those revolutions are striking and shattering their metastable system. Islam is in a condition similar to the Soviet system but it's more dangerous and its potential for lethal violence is greater than the Soviet system. We are in a period of history more dangerous than the Cold War.

    Labels: , , ,


    Sheikyermami says, "When the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran he immediately set upon the useful idiots who were assisting him in what they believed would be some kind of socialist revolution. When the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan they left an operator named Najibullah behind. Google 'Najibullah' and check what happened to him, which is likely what would happen to Karzai, the darling of the West."

    Word to that. V S Naipaul—in Among the Believers—spent time with the earnest Persian socialists—the people who read the leftist and Soviet literature and truly believed in people's revolution and all that. Khomeini took them—and their Russian sponsors—for a ride.

    The Jihad mobsters used left-speak, communist speak, anything available to persuade the Ruskies to hand over weapons, money, et cetera. In other places, other times, they used different, Western-style jargon to persuade the West to hand over weapons, money, et cetera. The 'Palestinians' were particularly clever at this maneuver—until Hamas ripped the mask off.

    Frankly, the driving force has been Islam, Islam, Islam all along.

    I would BET my bottom dollar that just as America and the EU are being fed a truckload of taqiyya and kitman, so too are the Chinese and the Russians. Just because the Russians and Chinese are users of propaganda, doesn't mean they are any more immune to an ancient and lethal system that is 1200 years older than theirs is. Living in an fog of lies makes you more, not less prone to be deceived.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Sunday, August 19, 2007


    Adapted from an amalgam of JW commentators...

    Mohammad Khatami said on Saturday that failure of the socialist and nationalist movements have led world people to embrace Islam. So here you have it: The Islamic leadership's own words. Islam—it's not just a religion.

    There is much deception and self-deception with Islam. Islam is an imperialist rationalization system which resulted in the Arab Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the colonialism that resulted in Islamic presence in Slavic regions of Europe, in India, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. When are they leaving Kosovo? When are they giving Constantinople back to the Greeks? The Arabs were and are at present extensively involved in the African Negro slave trade. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: when are Islamic Imperialists going to apologize for and cease their exploitation and destruction of the many indigenous cultures and peoples across this huge swath of the planet?

    Practically every other group that has engaged in Imperialist-Empire activity have apologized for their Imperialist rationalization systems that permitted the subduing and exploitation of others. It's time for the Arabs (and Turks) to apologize for their Imperialist systems, and stop glossing over and rewriting history (as all imperialists do) to sanitize their Imperialism to show everyone its essential "tolerance".

    The truth is that Islam is, at its core, the Engine of Arab Imperialism. Islam should be studied as an Imperialist rationalization system.

    Early on the Muslim Brotherhood embraced Socialism as a "vehicle" for spreading Islam and a system of governance for Islamic rule. The SS General's students were of the founders of the popular modern movement which advocated against it and chose to turn to more pure Islam which is believed to be a perfect form of Religion and Government in and of itself. This is part of the reason why those among us should constantly write elected officials protesting them allowing a Foreign Govt [Saudi] to build mosques and support their STATE RELIGION which is also setting up centers for future Islamic Rule in America. The process is a clear violation of US Constitution and a direct subversive act against the Government of the United States. It is NOT a freedom of religion nor a freedom of speech issue. The mosques are being set up for future Islamic rule. Islam IS Government.

    The principals of Hitlerian-Gobbles style propaganda, the "spiritual terror" tactics of "a barrage of lies and intimidation" against any critic while at the same time lauding moderate "weaklings" (as Hitler called them), also includes never admitting any wrong and constantly accusing others of the tactics one engages in in an overall "big lie" strategy (as per Gobbles) . The methods of "spiritual terror" (lies, slander, law suits, stunts) and physical terror (cartoon rage) are no accidents in the Islamic world. People like the psychotic in Iran, as well as other demented Muslims, are well acquainted with Mein Kampf and the theories of Goebbels. We should harbor no doubt of it.

    The fact that Mein Kampf is as popular as the Quran in the Mideast is a good reason to take a close look at Hitler's book. It is also time to study the propaganda methods of Goebbels, especially Goebbels' ideas on the intimidation of opposition, and the manipulation of "the masses".

    Labels: , , , , , ,

    Friday, August 17, 2007


    In a very sparsely word announcement, the BBC has reported that Interpol has circulated an arrest warrant for the oldest daughter of former Iraqi leader—Saddam Hussein. Raghad Saddam Hussein, who fled the US-invasion of Iraq in 2003, is accused of terrorism and other offenses. Escaping the fate of her brothers, she helped organize the legal defense of her father, who was hanged last December for crimes against humanity.

    Last year Iraq put Raghad and her mother, Sajida, on a list of its most wanted fugitives, alleging they supported the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraqi Interior Ministry told the BBC that Interpol had notified member countries on Friday.

    Before her father was executed last year, Raghad asked for his body to be buried temporarily in Yemen until, she said, such time as coalition forces were expelled from Iraq. The Jordanian authorities said last year that she was living in their country as an asylum seeker, but it is not clear where she is at present.

    Labels: , , , ,


    Islamic civilization, the various golden ages of Islamic civilization always occur early in the first few centuries in which a new territory is occupied. Wherever the various Muslim vanguards invaded, the vast majority of the population was non-Muslim. It would take many years for this population to be converted and assimilated. These non-Muslims or recent converts are the ones who carried on the work which many historians are prone to attribute to "Islamic" civilization. Thus, a distinction must be drawn between the so-called high Islamic civilization and the religion of Islam. Eventually as the process of Islamization proceeds the non-Islamic component of the population becomes a small minority and stagnation sets in. This process is evident in the first centuries of the Arab conquests where the process of Arabization and conversion to Islam took a few centuries to complete; this was the "Arab" golden age, a product of unconverted or recently converted Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.

    Re Arab mathematics, the so-called Arabic numerals were simply systematized from Hindu texts. From Boyer and Merzbach, A History of Mathematics: The famous Arab mathematician al-Khwarizmi wrote two books on arithmetic and algebra; One of these concerning the Hindu Art of Reckoning. In this work, based presumably on an Arabic translation of Brahmagupta, al- Khwarizmi gave so full an account of the Hindu numerals that he probably is responsible for the widespread but false impression that our system of numeration is Arabic in origin. When subsequently Latin translations of his work appeared in Europe, careless readers began to attribute not only the book but also the numeration to the author. Ultimately the scheme of numeration making use of the Hindu numerals came to be called algorithm, a word derived from the name of al-Khwarizmi.

    Algebra had a more mixed origin; it was only partly derived from Hindu texts. The word algebra was also obtained from al-Khwarizmi’s book Al-jabr wa’l muqabalah. Moreover, in certain respects, the works of al-Khwarizmi were at a lower level than those of his Greek and Hindu predecessors. Boyer and Merzbach write: " …in two respects the works of al-Khwarizmi represented a retrogression from that of Diophantus. First it is on a far more elementary level … and second … [it] is thoroughly rhetorical, with none of the syncopation found [in the works of Diophantus] … or in Brahmagupta’s work. Even numbers were written out in words rather than symbols! … Nevertheless, the Al-Jabr comes closer to the elementary algebra of today than the works of Diophantus or Brahmagupta, for the book is not concerned with difficult problems in indeterminate analysis but with a straightforward and elementary exposition of the solution of equations, especially of second degree."

    Thus, the Arabs must be credited not with inventing algebra, but with making it more accessible for the solution of simple problems. As for the ultimate origin of modern algebra there are three schools of thought: “one emphasizes Hindu influences, another stresses the Mesopotamian, or Syriac-Persian, tradition, and the third points to Greek inspiration. The truth is probably approached if we combine the three theories.” Historians of mathematics Boyer and Merzbach conclude: "It is probable that al-Khwarizmi typified the Arabic eclecticism that will so frequently be observed in other cases. His system of numeration most likely came from India, his systematic algebraic solution of equations may have been a development from Mesopotamia, and the logical geometric framework for his solutions palpably was derived from Greece."

    The example of algebra is an ideal case illustrating the role of cultural cross fertilization in the short-lived period of high civilization under the early Pax Arabica. Algebra was derived from a combination of ideas developed by the oriental culture superseded by Islam, the classical learning of ancient Greece, and an impetus from a far-off land, in this instance India that became accessible due to the vast extent of the Arab empire. And, of course, it reached its full development in a land that still contained a majority population of non-Muslims and recent converts who were well versed in their ancient traditions.

    Furthermore, the Hindus had a continuing role in the development of algebra subsequent to al-Khwarizmi as the civilization of the Arabs ossified under the deepening influence of Islam. The radical sign, and many algebraic symbols appear to have been invented by the Hindu mathematician Bhaskara in the twelfth century. For a comprehensive view of the sources of the so-called high Islamic civilizations see Islamic Expansion and Decline.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Tuesday, August 14, 2007


    Muslims demonstrate on Bern for the Islamization of Switzerland

    Imagine if George Bush had said this about Christianity. Double standards, as if Islamic words don't impact the intended populations just as powerfully as American ones. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that rule of Islam on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings. "There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind," said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul.

    President Ahmadinejad said nations are today distancing themselves from culture of materialism and selfishness and look for a new way for their prosperity, that is the path of Islam.

    He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is. "Nations today have no haven but religion," the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots.

    He said, "All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks," adding that the Iranian nation today feels more than ever the need to stand beside the Afghan nation. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has kindly received their Afghan brothers and will continue to do so in future. Minor issues will cannot affect Iran's policies on Afghanistan."

    The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.

    When will the West wake up? National Health Service in the U.K. is asking its employees not to eat lunch at their desks during Ramadan so as not to offend Muslims. Will this become yet another sacrifice forced upon indigenous British citizens to appease Muslims? I certainly hope not. Will it eventually become illegal to eat in a public place during Ramadan? is it just me, or are the English are willing to sacrifice almost anything to make Muslims happy, even though we know first hand that Muslims will never be happy until the whole globe in under sharia law, and the Sunnis have wiped out the Shi'ites, or vice versa.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Friday, August 10, 2007


    Sign the petition to ask Brussels mayor to reconsider his banning of a September 11 memorial protest march by the group "Stop the Islamization of Europe" - a protest in front of the EU headquarters..


    These are the rallying cries that people all over Europe are shouting far and wide to Islamists both within Europe and in other countries who seek to impose Sharia law upon European citizens.

    It is not only to Muslims, who seek to expand Islam across the whole of Europe, that Europeans are saying "Enough" it is also to our politicians who connive with Islamists to establish Sharia law by stealth. From building regulations to burial rights, the majority of Europe's population is increasingly expected to adhere to Sharia law.

    "Hate" laws now make it a crime to speak out against Islam even though it is just another totalitarian political system.

    Our free speech, which has been gained over many centuries by defeating tyrannical regimes through many bloody wars, is now being removed solely to protect Muslims from being offended. Nobody has the right to not be offended.

    SIOE is a Pan-European movement determined to not merely stopping the surreptitious Islamisation of Europe, but reversing it.

    The first step in this reversal is a march comprising people, from many European countries, all demanding that all non-Islamic European nations remain non-Islamic and a halt to encroachment of Sharia law.

    To those of you who don't have a clue what this is all about, you have now heard about it here, first. Now, you, along with all the appeasers and nay-sayers, allies and co-conspirators, I suggest you get informed. Don't take my word. But sharia, if not stopped first, is coming to a neighborhood near you. It may already be there, lurking in the shadows. It may arrive in the heat of night next month. Next year. Or ten years down the road. But it's coming.

    And all the wishful thinking in your liberal or conservative, obviously good intentioned mindset will not change this fact. The warning signs are everywhere. But you must make a choice. Ignorance of the world in which you work and play will not save you, or your loved ones from the terror of sharia once it takes root. You must arm yourself with the facts.


    Labels: , , ,


    By Art Moore for

    A Muslim analyst for the New York City Police Department is suing the city for workplace harassment, alleging he was subject to a regular stream of "anti-Islamic" messages from an e-mail list run by a former adviser who trained detectives in counter-terrorism. The contracted adviser, retired 21-year CIA veteran Bruce Tefft, is also a defendant in the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan last December.

    But Tefft—a founder of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Unit—told WND he believes the analyst, who is not named in court papers, has no case against him. Tefft, noting the suit so far has cost him $50,000 in legal fees, cites First Amendment protections and argues NYPD personnel signed up for his e-mail list at their own will and were completely free to unsubscribe at any time.

    He also points out his employer at the time, the private intelligence firm Orion Scientific Systems, covered his entire salary and expenses, effectively donating his services to the NYPD.

    A hearing is scheduled for next month on a motion to dismiss the case.

    Tefft continues to send out about 50 to 60 e-mails a day comprised mostly of unclassified material and news reports from around the world related to terrorism and Islam. In a fraction of those dispatches he adds his own comments, some of which became a focus of the complaint.

    "This is a global war we are in," Tefft said, explaining the relevance of the e-mailed reports to domestic officials. "The enemy is a global enemy. Jihadists are all over the world. So whatever goes on around the world has value here."

    The suit by the Egyptian-born analyst – who filed as "John Doe Anti-Terrorism Officer" because he works undercover in the Cyber Unit – says the e-mails "ridiculed and disparaged the Muslim religion and Arab people, and stated that Muslim- and Arab-Americans were untrustworthy and could not reliably serve in law enforcement positions or handle sensitive data."

    He also claims he was subject to disparaging remarks by NYPD personnel and that on one occasion, Muslim and Arab-American employees of the intelligence unit were asked to leave the room after giving a presentation, while other employees were allowed to stay, according to the New York Observer.

    The suit contends that despite the analyst's repeated complaints to supervisors about Tefft's e-mail distribution over a period of three years, the city "failed to do anything to stop it."

    "Tefft's hate-filled and humiliating email briefings were distributed to virtually all City employees who worked in the NYPD's Intelligence Division, including the highest-ranking members of that division and Plaintiff's supervisors," says the complaint.

    The Muslim analyst's lawyer, Ilann Maazel, was not available for comment.

    The analyst, a former prison guard at the city's Rikers Island jail, has been assigned since 1998 to the NYPD's Intelligence Division, where he helped form the Cyber Unit in 2002, Maazel told the New York Times in December. The members scan the Internet to monitor potential threats, and Maazel said the analyst's family in Egypt could be harmed if the nature of his work were revealed.

    Not a sentimentalist...

    According to the suit, Tefft's personal notes on the e-mails included comments such as "a good Muslim … can't be a good American," "Burning the hate-filled Koran should be viewed as a public service at the least," and "This is not a war against terrorism ... it is against Islam and we are not winning."

    On one article headlined "1 in 4 Hold Anti-Muslim Views," Tefft added, "Then 1 in 4 is well-informed." On another one titled, "Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?" he commented, "Excellent idea, if true."

    Tefft, who spent 17 of his 21 years in clandestine services stationed overseas, including hot spots such as Mogadishu and Angola, makes no apologies for his views. "I won't dispute what I was saying; I could justify what I said about Islam," he told WND.

    Tefft believes the threat of Islam to the U.S. is so serious he has no time to mince words. "I'm not a sentimentalist, and I'm not hate-filled either," he said. "Hate is an emotion. I don't feel emotional about it at all. I feel analytical and logical."

    Tefft insists there clearly is a link between fundamental Islam and terror. "There is nothing un-Islamic about Osama bin Laden," he said of the al-Qaida leader. "If there were, he would have been declared apostate, non Islamic."

    Maazel, in a December interview with the New York Times, called the e-mails "racist," but Tefft says that is absurd. "I don't consider Islam a race," he said. "So to call me racist is ridiculous. I have good friends who are Egyptian officials. I've worked all over the world."

    Islam, he maintains, should be regarded as a political ideology bent on world conquest....

    Labels: , , , ,


    A point made by James Martel concerning the plight of Islamic women:

    Islam is the most sexist major religion when it comes to women. Just look at the child marriage, the sexual exploitation of female workers in Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia is listed as the worst country for human trafficking.

    This is the dirty secret of Islam and apologist for Islam try to avoid it or dismiss the sexism as just cultural and not Islamic. A good exploration of Islamic hadith shows rampant sexism that is of a couple orders of magnitude higher than any other major religion.

    That feminists have not challenged Islam head on is very telling about feminism real interest in women. There are 500,000 million women under the slavery that is Islam. Why more feminists do not work for the liberation of Muslim women from this sexism is something to ponder.

    Did you know that some of the major purchasers of light boxes are Muslim women. Their men keep them locked up in their homes so much (even in desert countries, i.e. most) that they get sick from not enough sunlight. No wonder they must punish Muslim women who want to marry Christians. Christian men make better husbands, just as Buddhist, Janist, Baihi, Zoroastrian husbands.

    Islam must enslave their women or many will leave. If this is not so, why have a law against leaving? Yes, yes, Islam is so pure and perfect and divine. Give me a break, it is about access to women and controlling them. That is why Islam forbids women leaving? If Islamic marrage is so wonderful then give women the freedom to leave.

    Labels: , ,

    Thursday, August 09, 2007


    A following piece, posted to Dhimmi Watch by a contributor named Wimbledon Womble, buttresses the sorry state of affairs Europe finds itself in the wake of two events. One concerns an anti-sharia rally set for September 11, being banned in Brussels by its Socialist mayor Freddy Thielemans. The other event talking place just a few miles away in the Netherlands offers another take on things as the Dutch populist MP Geert Wilders suggests that the Koran should be banned as a “fascist book” alongside Mein Kampf because it urges Muslims to kill non-believers. WW's analysis:

    Europeans walk a fine line between defense of free speech and curtailing of free speech. Unlike the US, you see books banned, speech banned, etc. in many European countries. It's usually hateful things, like Mein Kampf, but lately it's been used to ban other things like some of the late Oriana Fallaci's books that do not advocate genocide. I think maybe they should just not try to ban anything at all, even hateful things, as it is in the US. Although, even in the US, we know that flushing Korans down the toilet is a hate crime, while putting a crucifix in urine is art.

    Certainly, though, the internal contradictions are reaching a boiling point. On a day when one Dutch politician calls for banning the Koran, something that would never stand a chance in hell of being banned, an anti-sharia rally is banned. If anti-sharia rallies can be banned, and if Mein Kampf is banned, then why not the Koran? It's pretty selective application of anti-hate speech/writing laws. Either ban everything that can reasonably be construed as hate-filled by a large group of people or don't try to ban anything, and let all ideas out, so that people can make up their mind.

    But Europe is paternalistic and hypocritical and pro-Islam in many ways, which is the kind of thing CAIR is trying to bring to the US as step one in sharia-fication of America. Europe doesn't need CAIR, though, to bring this about. The Eurocrats themselves are doing the same job in Europe that CAIR does in the US.

    Labels: , , , ,


    Amazing how many of the comments on the New York Times article reporting on Tancredo's recent statement bluster with such horror that the US may bomb a few holy sites in response to a nuclear attack on America. Be assured there are Islamic imperialists plotting this very minute how they may obtain a nuclear weapon and set it off in the heart of America.

    Where is the outrage that these "hijackers" are planning on murdering upward of a million American citizens, leaving our own nation in economic and political disarray? We must imagine these bloggers feel America deserves it. The people who would attack the United States do not give a fig about blowing up sacred sites in Iraq, school children, mosques.

    Is Mecca holier than Portland or Los Angeles? Are there more civilians who would be murdered by a dirty bomb in Mecca than in Los Angeles? The radicals are not going to be detered by threatening to bomb their children. They strap bombs to their own children. The only thing the radicals value as holy or cherish is public religious display. If the Muslims explode a dirty bomb in the US, say Los Angeles, will you feel safe in Des Moines? Will you wonder how many bombs they have and when they will strike again.

    Many seem to have forgotten some of the Allied tactics of World War II. Everyone knows the Germans bombed civilians in London and environs, but memory fogs over in regard to the extensive and demoralizing bombing that was carried-out against civilians in various German cities. Dresden. Heidelberg. Berlin. Purely shock and horror bombing, meant to help defeat a very real and determined enemy. Any citizen of the West should reflect on this before preaching about what we should be morally precluded from doing.

    To point to acts of sectarian violence in Iraq and elsewhere indicates a lack of the most basic knowledge. Just because Sunni extremists destroy Shiite holy places (which they do not recognize as legitimate or sacred) doesn’t mean that they will not be bothered by the destruction of the two holiest sites in all of Islam. In fact, the revered nature of Mecca and Medina as holy sites that every single Islamic sect accepts and embraces, is probably the only thing the Sunnis and Shi'ites hold in agreement.

    We are not at war with Islam, but current (and historical) indications in that direction are overwhelming. Tancredo’s statement was not the most brilliant approach, but then most of us have deceived ourselves into believing that nothing like World War II will ever, or could ever, revisit us. It does not take two crazy parties to get a war going, just one.

    Labels: , , ,


    Is this discussion getting out of hand? While liberals trot out their usual stuff, and conservatives, well, do kind of the same thing, here's a fresh perspective from the annals of hindsight:

    Maybe he's not so crazy. Back in 1968, Curtis LeMay was running as George Wallace's Vice president. He said we could stop North Viet Nam from over running South Viet Nam by dropping 2 bombs on Hanoi and Haiphong. Liberals and conservative called him nuts; however if he had done so, There would have been no Communist victory and the deaths of about 250,000 would have prevented the deaths of 4 million, North and South; not to mention and additional 35,000 Americans. Maybe Tancredo has a point and it is not the top of his head.

    Charles B. Tiffany
    Kissimmee, Florida

    Labels: , , ,


    Tancredo spikes again, after the MSM continues to ignore him as a marginal candidate for for the US presidency. The following article by Hugh Fitzgerald originally posted on Jihad Watch on July 18, 2005, pulls the argument together in an even clearer light for today’s readers. Fitzgerald writes:

    A two-year-old posting on the matter, put up the last time Tancredo raised the matter of deterrence and a retaliatory attack on Mecca:

    "Congressman Tancredo, a former history teacher, has almost alone in Congress bothered to begin to investigate what Islam teaches, what it is all about. For this he deserves the support of everyone, and everything possible should be done to help re-elect him—if for no other reason, than to ensure that at least one member of Congress will speak the truth about the belief-system of Islam. He deserves to be supported to the hilt, in any possible way.

    And the Congressman did not recommend that "Mecca be bombed." While many people have in the past suggested that—see the redoubtable Fred Ikle, for example, he who was so important in the Reagan Administration—Congressman Tancredo said something different, and perfectly understandable.

    He was asked about rumors that Muslim terrorists might have already smuggled into the country nuclear devices that they planned to set off, and what kinds of things might deter them. He mused aloud, that one of the things that might deter them would be the threat to bomb Mecca. That was all he said. It was hardly remarkable, and the only thing remarkable about it has been, as has been repeatedly suggested at JW (see, for example, the recent article by Rebecca Bynum)is that all the different ways to inflict damage on the belief-system of Islam have not been discussed. But on the other hand, as long as we are conducting either a "war on terrorism" or a "war on an ideology of violent extremism" that remains carefully unnamed, perhaps in the end it is not surprising that we have no discussion of the kinds of deterrents that would work, and on whom.

    For example, there may be no way of deterring the groups and groupiscules of fanatics. But there are ways to threaten, and deter, the Saudis from continuing to send money abroad to support the entire Muslim infrastructure that, as the recent Freedom House report showed, encourages not merely Islam but the most hate-filled brand of Islam—in other words, there are threats of seizure of assets that might get the attention of the rulers of Saudi Arabia (and the U.A.E. riding pillion), to have them cease using the "money weapon" to pay for mosques and madrasas and Da'wa throughout the Western, Infidel world.

    But Tancredo was addressing a different problem. and he did not offer an answer. He offered one among many possibilities that he thought deserved intelligent discussion. And he was right. And this is not a clear-cut case. There are many ex-Muslims, for example, who appear to believe that Tancredo is absolutely right—that this may be the one thing which, if threatened, or at least considered, could cause Muslims to rethink. It is already clear that the change in the atmosphere in the Western world, the beginning of a glimmer of an understanding that the very matter of Islam needs to be examined, has caused such things as this absurd public-relations effort in damage-limitation, this so-called "fatwa" to be issued by some Muslim groups in America, and announced by that more than doubtful organization, CAIR—of course the wording will require the closest kind of reading, the kind we ordinarily would reserve for Shakespeare, Keats, or Hardy, applied to the banal taqiyya of Muslim bureaucrats.

    But the mere fact that people who have been defending certain acts now feel they must, for Infidel consumption, seem to be distancing themselves, is a sign that when danger is perceived, there is a drawing-back. It is certain that the mere discussion of bombing Mecca has both good and bas aspects. The bad aspect is that it is the kind of remark that allows many to get on their high moral horse, and huff and puff, and "deplore" this wild man, Tom Tancredo. Anyone can imagine what editorials in The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon deploring Tancredo might look like. But in our Infidel hearts, we are all secretly pleased, and relieved—are we not?—that such a discussion of deterrence has at least been begun. For without such a discussion, there is no way to begin to think straight about the problem of Islam world-wide—not of "terrorism" but of Islam.

    Every intelligent Western observer has noted what Tocqueville, who had been in Algeria, referred to as the "morbid" quality of Islam. Churchill, in "The River Wars," had nothing good to say about the foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism of the Muslim warriors, but he did note that they did not fear death, for the sensual Paradise that awaited the warrior who died in Jihad was a reality.

    And because the usual kinds of threats might mean little to fanatics, one has to figure out what might work as a deterrent. In Israel the punishment of destroying houses has some deterrent effect, given that the families of the "martyrs" will suffer—and some "martyrs" are willing to die, but don't want their family members left behind to have to build a new home. It is not true that such deterrence does not work. There are other possibilities. Much Muslim behavior inimical to the West can be deterred.

    For example, the family that has seized, and treats as its private property, the vast territory of Arabia—the House of Al-Saud—both directly or indirectly helps to support, and even help to create, fanatics in two ways. Within Saudi Arabia, its own despotism and corruption causes young Saudis who are enraged by them to embrace, not Jeffersonian democracy, which is un-Islamic, but rather Al Qaeda or other groups, which provide them with the vocabulary, the imagery, the categories that Islam itself supplies to define opposition to a corrupt caliph or ruler. For it does not do, within Islam, to denounce someone as corrupt, or as a despot. The rulers, after all, are the rulers, and the habit of mental submission that Islam inculcates, and the inshallah-fatalism that is within Islam, helps in large part to encourage submission to the despot, however corrupt—unless that despot can be seen as, defined as, placed in the category of, "Infidel."

    Then anything and everything can be done to destroy that "Infidel." And that is exactly what happens among those who oppose the Al-Saud, or the Mubarak Friends-and-Family stratokleptocracy in Egypt—save for a pitiful, nearly nonexistent Western-style secular opposition in the latter, the opposition will always take on a Muslim cast. Muslims can do no other. And the corruption of the Al-Saud helps create the odd scion of plutocrats who, in Muslim terms most nobly, gives it all up to fight for "justice" against the corrupt rulers, but "justice," alas, Muslim-style, with the Muslim worldview, which means that all evil comes from Infidels, and all who are genuinely evil must be defined as, and treated as, Infidels, even if they may claim—falsely, obviously—to be Muslims, as do so many of the corrupt princes and princelings of Saudi Arabia.

    That is one way the Al-Saud help swell the ranks of the Muslim terrorist groups.

    The second way they do so is in building, and paying for the maintenance of, mosques and madrasas all over the world, but especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr, where those mosques, and those madrasas, can encourage the worst brand of Islam (this does not mean that a "milder" brand does not inculcate hatred of Infidels, for it must—it is a question of with what intensity, with what fervor, with what single-mindedness, the particular brand of Islam inculcates what is common to all of them, part of Islam itself). Nearly $100 billion has gone from the Saudis as part of the propaganda weapon on behalf of Islam, as part of world-wide Da'wa, and to pay for Western hirelings who will do the bidding and promote the interests of, and deflect criticism from, the Saudis as they continue their malevolent activities throughout the world.

    The Al-Saud are rational actors. They can be threatened, and forced to cease their support for the mosques and madrasas and hate-filled propaganda. they can be threatened with seizure of their assets abroad. They can be threatened with a total removal of American guarantees, which they assume are permanent, for their safety. They can be threatened with a loss of secure American or other Western refuges if and when they are overturned. They can be threatened with the removal of Western doctors, and teachers, and a refusal to allow their children to study in the West, or for them to find medical care in the West. These are very dangerous threats—imagine if someone threatened you that you would never again be allowed access to advanced Western medical care.

    And in the end, if they think they have that ace-in-the-hole, oil—you can show that you are willing to seize the oil in the al-Hasa province, oil conveniently close to tankers in the Persian (Persian, not Arab) Gulf, and that there are a thousand-and-one ways to deal with this situation. But this requires a complete change of tone to get the Saudi attention. Such attention will not be attained if those who continue to prate about a "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia, which one finds in such deplorable examples of the appeasement-of-the-Saudis mindset in the Op/Ed of one Flynt Leverett, described—even more disturbingly—as "former senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council"—and someone who has clearly been one of those who fails to understand that Saudi Arabia is not, and never has been, and never can be, the ally of an Infidel country, but that, if treated correctly, certain kinds of behavior on its part can be prevented, and certain other kinds of behavior forced from its rulers.

    Congressman Tancredo, in raising the question of what would, or would not, work as deterrence, was performing a great service to discussion. It is of course difficult to predict what bombing Mecca would do. I tend to think it would be far better to discuss all the other kinds of deterrence that one knows will work, on the rational actors or quasi-rational actors within the dar al-Islam. And as for the fanatics, one can consider how to limit access to Mecca, airfield by airfield, port by port, highway by highway, until it should be as remote as the highest Himalayas, or some impassable and steaming jungle, or the frozen wastes of Ultima Thule. Mecca would still be there, but to get to it—that would be the problem. And that kind of deterrence would be a step-by-step affair.

    But the question of the psychology of Muslims—of their combination of grandiosity and living in some mythical great past, and resentment over the miserable and obviously miserable present, where murderous hatred of Infidels is so often part of some grotesque ten-step Self-Esteem Program for those Muslims who have tasted the West, may even have used drugs or lived as criminals and now wish to go straight, Islamically straight—needs more examination.

    However the debate over this or that kind of deterrence goes, the mere fact that such a debate takes place is good, for it automatically ends certain taboos. It makes clear that this is not a "war against terror" alone but a long campaign, very likely without end unless the migration of Muslims to the West is stopped and reversed (and while hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the U.K. claim to "wish to leave" one does not see any of them leaving—but more significantly, one has not heard, even from the most antisemitic and anti-Israel brigands, any pleas for them to remain), and unless the unearned and entirely unmerited OPEC oil wealth is so diminished that the Saudis, and the rest of them, can be pushed back into that state of obscurity, poverty, and general irrelevance that they were in before an accident of geology gave them power. In the meantime the Infidels, for their own safety, must work to create those conditions—or to do nothing to prevent the creation of those conditions—by which, like those in the Soviet Union who concluded that their own system had failed, Muslims themselves will be forced to confront the evident political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of their own peoples and polities, and will have to attribute those failures, correctly, to Islam itself.

    Finally, it is hard for Infidels to judge the effect of a threat on Mecca, or a threat to limit access to Mecca, on Muslims. Who might best have some insight into this? Possibly ex-Muslims themselves, the many articulate and acute students of minds formed by Islam, who managed to undo its manacles, and escape from its closed circle. One wonders what views they would have on the threat to bomb Mecca, or to limit access to Mecca, as something that might work on the groups and groupiscules that, unlike the sneering but carefully calculating members of the Al-Saud, are less subject to the ordinary threats of loss of income, loss of access to all the goods and services of the advanced Infidel world, even loss of life."

    Labels: , , , ,


    Perhaps, it should be noted once again what a certain Muslim, a leader of present day Turkey, once proclaimed, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, the believers our soldiers."

    Labels: , ,

    Wednesday, August 08, 2007


    There are rumors, this is Washington, after all, that the Chinese government has initiated a campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation. Iran has already done this, and Saudi Arabia has threatened to do this, although my source in the US State Department has told me that the Saudis have already begun swapping in their dollars for Euros.

    Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress to redress the US-China trade imbalance.

    Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels. It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

    Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US. "Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added.

    He Fan, a Chinese official, reportedly has suggested in bold terms that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so. "China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings.

    The US Senate has drafted a bill backed by the Senate Finance Committee which calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation.

    The yuan has appreciated 9% against the dollar over the last two years under a crawling peg but it has failed to halt the rise of China's trade surplus, which reached $26.9 billion in June.

    Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, said any such sanctions would undermine American authority and "could trigger a global cycle of protectionist legislation." Paulson, a China expert from his days as head of Goldman Sachs, has opted for a softer form of diplomacy, but appeared to win few concessions from Beijing on a unscheduled trip to China last week aimed at calming the waters.

    So I guess it's time to stop buying Chinese.

    Labels: , , , ,


    Old news, but here is a new video linking the Pan-Arabian mindset with Hitler and Nazism. In particular, a specific Mufti, Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini is known to conspired with Hitler in his own determined advance of the extermination of the Jews. The video also stipulates that the planned extermination of the Jews by the Muslims is merely the prologue to a sustained assault on the West and the entire globe until Islam has conquered all the earth.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Tuesday, August 07, 2007


    RIYADH, 6 August 2007—A new convert to Islam, fired with zeal to do a righteous act, had no idea that he would pay a heavy price for helping a sick woman, one that has landed him 50 days and counting behind bars. The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice found him guilty for committing a crime: Being in the presence of a woman who is not a relative (a so-called “illegal state of seclusion”).

    Arab News tried several times to contact Ahmed Al-Jardan, spokesman for the commission, but phone calls were not returned. A written fax sent to the commission’s main center asking for comment was also ignored.

    Ibrahim Mohammed Lawal, a Nigerian student of Islamic studies at Badiya Islamic Center in Riyadh, learned that his neighbor, a 63-year-old woman, was indisposed and needed medical attention. So he took her to various hospitals in Riyadh, including the Riyadh Medical Complex at Shumaisy, all of which refused to treat her. It was only after the intervention of Sheikh Fawaz, director of Badiya Islamic Center, that the Badiya Hospital admitted the case. Despite the charitable act Mohammed ended up in detention, accused of immoral behavior because he was neither married nor related by blood to the elderly woman.

    Speaking to Arab News on phone from his cell in the Malaz prison, Mohammed said that after the woman received treatment and after he returned to Riyadh after three days in the Western Region, he was arrested after checking up on the woman’s health. In the woman’s apartment were three other women related to her.


    “I wanted to do a good thing for a woman who was sick, and this is what I get in return,” he said. “I lost the support of my family in Nigeria, where my wife and children are upset with me—and here I am languishing in prison.”

    Labels: , , ,


    The following article was written by Ari Abramowitz & Jeremy Gimpel and originally published by Arutz Shiva, Israel National News.

    Question: There is a growing initiative in the US for Christians students to advocate for Israel on campus. Why does it seem like the Jewish students are not advocating themselves? —Anonymous

    If you see a group of dignified suit-clad men walking down the streets of Paris wearing awkwardly positioned Yankees caps, it is a safe bet that they are Orthodox Jews. The universal warning meted out to Jews in France is not to display any outward signs of Judaism for fear of vicious and unprovoked attacks, which have been commonplace in many places throughout Europe. Logic would dictate that the comfort level of wearing a kippah, or yarmulke (skullcap), is an accurate yardstick for anti-Semitic sentiment, and orders to refrain from publicly expressing one's Judaism is cause to be concerned about the future of Jews in that country. By that standard of measurement, it is time for American Jews to be concerned; if not yet in the entire country, then, for now at least, on college campuses.

    Universities throughout America are the fastest growing hotbeds of anti-Semitism in the country. While the traditional outright Jew-hatred is out of style and politically incorrect, the new mask with which this old hatred has disguised itself is hatred of the Jewish state, which is no less vitriolic and venomous. These haters are zealous, energized, and equipped with sound-bites full of hypocritical indictments, perverse distortions and twisted lies. Many religious Jews on campuses throughout America are throwing up their hands and putting on their baseball caps as well. "They are just not up for the fight," one student explained. Considering that the students of today are the leaders of tomorrow, the hate spewing forth from the lunchrooms to the classrooms of US universities may very well be the harbinger of a bleak future for American Jewry.

    Our rabbis explain that we should not view the difficulties and challenges in our lives as punishments, but rather as a perfectly tailored education, explaining "a person is measured in the manner that he measures others. Samson pursued the desire of his eyes and therefore lost his eyes at the hands of the Philistines; Absalom was haughty about his hair and was therefore hung by his hair...." (Tractate Sotah 8b) King Solomon explains in Proverbs that "a fool doesn't desire understanding." It is therefore incumbent upon us to search for this elusive understanding and to discern how this fermenting plague of hatred we face in American academia is for our growth and benefit.

    The fact that liberal academics are at the forefront of these attacks should raise some eyebrows. Universities, colleges and establishments of higher education should theoretically be bastions of free thought and exchange of ideas; yet, it is from these very institutions that the loudest boycotts and most hateful sentiments emanate. Liberalism supposedly stands for individual rights and equality of opportunity; yet, these progressive "liberals" vilify Israel, one of the most liberal democracies in the world, in favor of governments that not only prohibit women from voting, but routinely condone honor killings and legalize the violent abuse of those unfortunate ladies who lose track of time and burn supper. Freedom of anything is unheard of in these countries, and many of these liberals would be killed the minute they stepped foot in the countries for which they march.

    Adding insult to injury, American Jewry has historically been overwhelmingly liberal, and many of the honest would even confess theologically liberal, as their liberalism often replaces their Judaism as the religion of choice. As we have so often seen throughout history, it is with the very idols that we have created that G-d disciplines us, revealing their inherent emptiness and futility, as well as what He desires of us.

    What is most telling, however, is the strategy of the assault. The main attack is not about roadblocks or separation barriers, but about Israel's very right to exist. The beauty of the attack on the fundamental legitimacy of the Jewish state is that we are being forced to articulate a defense. The majority of advocacy training that the relatively few students with the will to fight receive exclusively defends Israel's establishment with secular political explanations involving various United Nations resolutions and international treaties. Nearly 60 years down the road, however, these defenses not only don't assuage the attacks, but they don't even satisfy the Jewish students themselves. Crediting Harry Truman and the United Nations with the rebirth of the Jewish State after two thousand years of exile elicits lukewarm interest in these Jewish students, which is dwarfed by the vicious fervor of their adversaries, causing them to sit this fight out, taking the kippah off and putting the patriotic school cap on.

    Students are starting to realize that, while these secular defenses are valid, they are nonetheless incomplete. Unfortunately, no one is coming to their aid and giving them the education and understanding for which they so clearly thirst. If Jewish students don't understand that Israel is their historical homeland, their Biblical birthright, and an integral part of their Jewish identity, then the battle is lost. If Jewish students don't understand that their right to the Land of Israel is based on the Torah, then we are destined for defeat. The preeminent Biblical commentator, Rashi, explains that the Torah begins with the creation of the world in order to establish G-d's ownership and His right to bestow the Land of Israel to the Jewish people according to His will. If the students don't know whether they believe this themselves, then it is time to investigate the existence of G-d and the veracity of the claim that the Torah is Divine. It is these questions that we are supposed to be asking, and we should be unrelenting in our pursuit of their truthful answers.

    The Jewish people are charged with the task of being a "light unto the nations." This does not merely mean we should invent vaccines and technology, but that we should provide morality, truth and an awareness of G-d to the world. The prophet Havakuk declares that "the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of HaShem's glory, as the waters cover the seabed." (2:14) With perfect Divine justice, the void that we have left by not fulfilling our role as teachers of truth to the world has been filled by professors shamelessly teaching lies.

    Only when we pursue our right to Israel to its logical conclusion can we possibly understand why G-d has used this mechanism to discipline us.

    There is no reason to allow these "liberal" haters to dictate the language and terms of the debate – we must penetrate to the very root of the matter and teach them why Israel is truly ours. Only then can we proudly defend our homeland and fulfill our mission as the Jewish People. Only then will the baseball hats come off.

    Labels: , , ,