ISLAM'S FRANTIC SEARCH FOR PEACE

IT'S INTERESTING THAT those characters who summarily dismiss current affairs around the globe as nothing worth noting while simultaneously lining up to defend Islam against those who dare document the evidence or issue the clarion call of present or inevitable danger, tend to mumble on about the so-called Palestinian land grab. Many also express the need to know just who initiated this conflict between Islam and the West, just like the Islamists themselves.

The emblematic Islamists and their Leftist friends in the West often cite the conflict in Israel as the main cause of current antagonisms, but animated with furious certainty Islamist spokesmen themselves often drag in other old wounds to lick publically as a show of their eternal victimhood, the emotionally-stunted calling card of Leftists everywhere. Shall we recall a few of them?

Let's play spin the bottle, the old kiss and make out game. When did this "war against violence" begin? Was it snapped into place on 9/11, was it during the Taliban uprising, or maybe the claws finally sharpened during Desert Storm, or was it USS Cole? Was it Qadaffi's grievance as Reagan began bombing Libya, killing a son, or was it bombing the US embassy in Lebanon? Was it the Iranian students and the Shah of Iran, or that string of various hijackings and bombings of commercial airliners?

Was it various wars against Israel, was it British and French colonialism, was it Lawrence of Arabia, was it Armenians and Turks, was it Tribal warfare, was it oil, was it the Crusades, was it the destruction and elimination of Buddism from their birthplace in India? How dis Pakistan become Muslim anyhow? Oops, let['s not forget the Barabary pirates, the Somalian pirates, Muslims all. Was it Fort Hood or Fort Dix?

Was it the establishment of the Mafia in Sicily in a 200 year fight to cast out the Moslems, Was it sacking the Vatican, Was it the Moorish conquest of much of Europe and Asia/ Was it Jesus and his disciples speading Christianity long before Mohammed and Islam was conceived? Was it the Romans, the Greeks, the Assyrians, the Pharoahs? Or did some caveman steal another caveman's food.

But let's not forget. Islam is the religion of peace, (submission, and domination).

Mirror, mirror on the wall, tell us please, who among us is truly the most peaceful of all...

The point is that men have always been at war and likely will continue to wage war against each other until the end of time. But right now, right here (everywhere), Islam is on the march seeking domination). That is a fact, no money-grubbing dhimmi-breath weak-spined Western politician or creative class hack can change, and it is a fact no red-blooded Koran-carrying virgin-hungry Islamist would deny.

And yes, it was Islam who started it, when the warlord Muhammed launched his global initiative inspired by the sword. History is very clear about what happened next, religious garb notwithstanding.

Left to those terms, it's a simple analysis. The life of Christ versus the life of Mohammed. Which de-apotheosized role model would a rational, hopeful person choose if secure from the peer pressures of one's herd? But that's not really the question, now is it? Not unless one side or the other makes it the only decision standing between one's mortal life and imminent death. Even then the shady procurements of afterlife intrude upon rationality. But that's all we have. The god of George Patton versus the god of Old Mo and Andy Choudry. Being a westerner myself, I'll stick with Charles Martel, thank you very much. There, unfortunately, is no third way with regards to the current Islamic assault on the world, an Islamic assault made bold by weak western policies and flush crude oil revenues.

Here is an example of what the mantra that silly appeasers insist on parroting despite the evidence:

You are such a hypocrite, complaining and complaining about muslims.

Let's get this one fact straight, there are over 10 million muslims in america, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, muslims will be the majority in france by 2020. There are over 1.2 billion muslims in the world, which equates to them being 99.99% peaceful.

ARE THEY ALL OUR ENEMENY???? NO!

You forget that Christians have throughout history murdered 100ks of us jews and yet you keep crying wolf with the FALSE THREAT. Muslims believe in the Old testament, the prophets, like Abraham, moses, david, etc..They are allowed to marry jews and christians.

We jews need to understand that these dumb propoganda sites like this dont really get no where. They just cause more hatred for no reason. And let me remind you for every jihadwatch site out there there ARE 10000's of JEWWATCH(jewwatch.com) sites out there spewing the same JEWISH HATRED as you spew MUSLIM HATRED.

Wake up!

Uh, no they don't, and several of your numbers are suspect. You can find the true nature of Islam elsewhere in this blog, and many other places that are WIDE AWAKE, not merely praticing multiculturalism's political corruptedness, which we actually identify as taqiyya, an Arabic word meaning "it is okay to lie through one's teeth to further the cause of global Islam." But then again, frequently boastful, truth and an Islamic warrior, often merge, as in this citation:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

—Houari Mohamed Boumedienne
President of Algeria, 1965 – 1978
in a 1974 speech at the UN

Islamic grievance is matched only by Islamic pride. Together they create a pernicious stew.

THE TALIBAN REIGN OF TERROR

From the haunts of Hell brought to us by those who believe in their religion more than they allow others to believe in theirs.

PESHAWAR—Girls’ education remained the prime victim in Swat where over 119,248 females in private and public sector schools have been affected while 122 schools for females and 65 others for boys destroyed since the ongoing violence erupted in the town, a study disclosed.

Two police stations, 12 police posts, 80 video centres, around 300 CD shops, 25 barbershops, 24 bridges, 15 basic health units, an electricity grid station and a main gas supply line were either destroyed or severely damaged by the militants during the past few months’ violence in once the tourist haven. Two cable networks were closed while another was blown up in the district during the recent past.

The study carried out by some non-government organizations reveals that 700 hotels were closed in the area that made 30,000 workers jobless....

Containing them and fighting them by proxy might be the most efficient way to win. To try to civilize Islam is perhaps a Sisyphean task. But simply contrive to turn Islam's own ugly fangs against itself, and maybe Muslims would finally learn, and learn more swiftly, than they could from democratization and education efforts. And that is how Christian-inspired authors (among others) often arrange to have the bad guy punished: at his own hands.

In some of the more interesting theologies, the divine doesn't punish. God doesn't create hell. God merely sets bounds to hell, so that hell won't spread over the whole world. And the boundaries are not impassible, provided one who is accustomed to hell can bear to leave and can then endure the more powerful experiences of heaven. (See The Great Divorce, a brilliant, witty, allegory by C.S. Lewis.)

—Traeh

DECONSTRUCTING THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE

Holy War and Anti-War: An Axis against Nature
by Walid Phares

The oddest of all factional relationships is the open alliance between the Jihadists and the so-called "antiwar" neo-Left movement in the West. The jumble of causes thrown together is mind-bending: globalization hobnobs with the caliphate, class struggle with Wahabism, proletariat with infidels, and North Korea with Palestine.

While still shedding each others' blood, the Reds (neo-Left) and the Dark Greens (Islamists) are conducting a joint offensive against both democracy-pushing America and the democracy-craving Middle East. They are not letting old or new grudges get in their way.

The Wahabis fiercely fought the Soviet Communists in Afghanistan;

the Muslim Brotherhood and the Marxists have been at each other's throats for decades;

the Salafists butchered left-wing intellectuals in Algeria and assassinated progressive bureaucrats in central Asia after the Soviet collapse;

the Taliban killed socialists and shut down art institutions;

the Khumeinist regime in Iran decimated the Tudeh Communist Party in the 1980's.

Despite all the mutual mayhem across the Mediterranean and throughout the Middle East, an unnatural alliance was established by elites of the two camps, even while blood was being shed in the 1990's. Setting ideologies and history aside, the Islamist tacticians and neo-Left pragmatists gradually converged on a two-lane path against liberal democracies and the specter of a free market and pluralist Middle East.

The Jihadi concern with Western involvement in the region is logical: free societies in the Arab and Muslim world, joined finally to the international community, would shatter fundamentalism's control of the region's political cultures. To have Arab and Iranian youths, in addition to minorities, hooking up directly with the peaceful and prosperous societies of the West would leave the Islamists without a base to recruit from.

Jihadism is joined with the antiwar movement even while promoting "holy war," which is the essence of their rissala (mission). The ideology of the Salafists and Khumeinists is to prepare for, mobilize for, incite, and engage in a constant war of jihad against the infidels, who are supposed to be all those who aren't Islamists, including moderate Muslims.

Theoretically, the jihadi connection to the antiwar concept is impossible. But in the realm of reality, it does occur, mainly because of the mutating "pragmatism" of both of the antidemocratic movements. The radical Islamists, as I argued in "Future Jihad", have undergone a strategic mutation that has allowed them to coalesce tactically with ideological foes, among them Baathists, Neo-Marxists, and anarchists.

The last group, under an international neo-Left umbrella in the West, created the anti-war movement, which is reminiscent of the old Cold War Communist-controlled "peace movement."

Islamists found it easier to insert themselves as partners in an "antiwar" movement than a "peace" movement. Effectively, in the jihadi aqida (doctrine), seeking permanent peace with others is a non-issue, given that jihad is constant, regardless of its form. Jihadism cannot accommodate a peace movement in principle.

However jurisprudence based on al Haja (necessity) would allow the jihadists to accept an interim cessation of war and work in more sophisticated ways to stop wars that they cannot win. Thus it is in the interest of the radical Islamists to stop a war that can't be won by them, at least until the balance of power is restored and a winnable war becomes possible again. They are against the West's war for tactical reasons. But they are not at all in favor of peace until they win.

In the case of the War on Terror, the "political Islamists" joined the "no war" crowd in order to stop the military efforts of the United States and its allies against the terrorist forces of the jihadists. Hence Islamic militants marched in the demonstrations against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a way to give respite to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The antiwar movement exposed its broken rationale when it marched against some but not all wars. It demonstrated against the military efforts to overthrow the Taliban and Saddam but ignored the wars waged by the Sudanese regime against the African peoples in the south and Darfur; it marched against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but ignored the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Worse, in the eyes of millions of Middle Easterners, were the highly publicized "red buses" filled with antiwar militants who headed to Iraq to "support" dictator Saddam Hussein. They traveled from London, Berlin, and Rome through Eastern Europe without a word in remembrance of its struggle against the Soviet occupation, and crossed Syria without comforting the thousands of political prisoners tortured and assassinated by the Baathist regime.

And for an apex of irony, the buses rolled through sinister Halabja, a Kurdish town gassed by Saddam in 1988, and past the Shiites' mass graves, stopping only to "shield" Saddam's castles, built from oil revenues that rented the buses and lodged their occupants in fancy hotels. This antiwar movement was convenient for the jihadists, as it was a form of war against the rise of democracies in the region. For the movement, mostly bourgeois in nature, never showed up in Darfur, among Berbers in Algeria or Lebanese under Syrian occupation, or to shield women under the Taliban.

Hence it wasn't surprising for viewers around the world to see the Islamist militants in Europe taking to the streets alongside the "bourgeois Neo-Marxists" to protest the governments that supported the War on Terror. In Europe, the most revealing action of the Islamist militants was when—in the same year as the red buses—they marched in support of the French government against U.S. intervention in Iraq, and then burned shops and cars in 200 French cities and towns during a "French intifada."

The jihadi manipulation of the bourgeois-Neo-Marxist "struggle" has played a central role in the so-called "mass demonstrations" in the West since 2002, and the demonstrations themselves are an important component of the "War of Ideas" against democracy. On campuses, both in North America and Western Europe, the jihadi-antiwar axis has planted deep roots, and thanks to the skills of university-based anarchist groups, the jihadists have found a cover they can hide under, instead of simply becoming members of the typical Wahabi-controlled Muslim Student Unions.

But this "marriage of convenience" with the extreme left has not deterred jihadists from conducting another, simultaneous, wedding with the extreme right. But that's another story.

Dr. Walid Phares is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of "War of Ideas", "Future Jihad", and other books.

A quite-thorough biography is available—within his web site, here

TALIBAN IMPACT ON INDIAN VILLAGE

Barely 25 km from the bustling township of Karnal, India is the village Mundogari, where people don't buy television sets, don't get themselves photographed, or even listen to Hindi film music.

It's not because they don't have the financial wherewithal to do so; it's because the 5,000-strong Muslim population of the village is under the near-total sway of retrograde maulvis whose edicts have barred the folk from any form of recreation.

With just one Hindu Dalit family in Mundogari, the village has more or less been reduced to a Talibanised relic. It's not the rule of law that enshrines personal freedoms that prevails here; it's the fatwas from maulvis, who interpret the Koran according to their blinkered vision, that calls the shots, preventing people from exerting their right to freedom in a country that celebrated its 60th year of independence in August this year.

Read it all...