95 THINGS THAT FUEL MUSLIM EXTREMISM

The conclusion concluded from the National Intelligence Estimate by many concluders in solemn conclusory conclave assembled: “The American presence in Iraq fuels Muslim extremism.”

Ninety-Five Other Things That Also Fuel Muslim Extremism:
1. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”
2. The British government’s protection of Salman Rushdie.
3. The American coup against Mossadegh in 1953, cited by some Iranians as the direct cause of the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini more than 25 years later.
4. The remarks of Pim Fortuyn about Muslim attitudes toward liberal Dutch mores.
5. The movie by Theo van Gogh about the subjection of women in Islam.
6. The election of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the Dutch Parliament.
7. Hindus passing by mosques as Friday Prayers end.
8. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Sunni insurgents.
9. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Shi’a militias.
10. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Kurdish desire for independence.
11. The failure of Americans in Iraq to give Baghdad an instant makeover so that it resembles the most prosperous and advanced American city.
12. The failure of Americans to solve every economic problem in Iraq, to make Sunnis and Shi’a friends, to get the oilfields pumping at full capacity, and to make donations even beyond the many tens of billions spent directly on reconstruction in Iraq.
13. The failure of the Americans, in obtaining debt relief from all Infidel creditors for Iraq (but not from any of the Muslim Arab states), to persuade those same Infidel countries to supply another $50-$100 billion.
14. The refusal of the French state to permit the wearing of the hijab.
15. The insistence, by the French state, that texts by Voltaire, Montaigne, Proust, and other writers deemed or perceived to be anti-Islamic by Muslims, be assigned to students, as required reading, by the Ministry of Education.
16. The selling of alcohol by Christians in Basra.
17. The existence of Christians in Basra.
18. The continued functioning of Christian churches in Baghdad.
19. The Copts in Egypt who complain when Muslims attack their churches and other institutions, or kidnap and forcibly convert Coptic girls to Islam.
20. The Filipinos who try to hold private religious services in Saudi Arabia, land on which no non-Muslims should be present in any case.
21. The American airmen who were assigned to bases in Saudi Arabia and who showed insufficient obeisance to their Saudi masters, all daggers and dishdashas, with their sneers of cold command.
22. The obvious superiority of Western economies.
23. The obvious superiority of Western education.
24. The obvious superiority of Western medical care.
25. The obvious superiority of Western artistic achievement.
26. The obvious superiority of Western (fill in here whatever you like).
27. The failure of Muslims living in the countries of Western Europe to have a standard of living equal or superior to that of non-Muslims.
28. The continued refusal of non-Muslims in the West to institute a formalized long-term system of Jizyah, by which Muslims can be supported; they now must make do only with the benefits provided by Infidel taxpayers on a year-to-year basis.
29. The financial support given by the Americans to the Mubarak regime in Egypt that enrages the Muslim Brotherhood.
30. The financial support given by the Americans to successive Jordanian kings and kinglets, which enrages the Muslim Brotherhood.
31. The diplomatic and other support given by the Americans to the corrupt Al-Saud family of “Saudi” Arabia, which enrages Al-Qaeda and its local supporters.
32. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from the Mubarak Friends-and-Family Plan, which whips up anti-American sentiment among Egyptian Muslims.
33. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from Pakistan if it does not collaborate less meretriciously in the soi-disant “war on terror,” which whips up anti-American sentiment among Pakistani Muslims.
34. The temporary withdrawal of Infidel support for the “Palestinians,” who deserve to receive Infidel aid of every kind, and permanently.
35. The discussion by some in the West of ways to diminish, in order to prevent further global warming, the use of oil -– which discussion is seen as damaging Arab and Muslim interests, and must therefore be regarded as a deliberate attack on Islam.
36. The reference by Pope Benedict to a 14th century Byzantine emperor’s remarks in the course of a scholarly address at Regensburg.
37. The refusal of Pope Benedict to continue to apologize, and his apparent refusal to completely humiliate himself, before Muslims demanding such humiliation.
38. The Israeli “occupation” of Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank after the Six-Day War.
39. The Israeli “occupation” of Gaza and the West Bank after the Camp David Accords.
40. The Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank after the full withdrawal from Gaza.
41. The Israeli “occupation” of the sacred Arab and Muslim soil on which the only Jewish state was created in 1948.
42. The presence of Jews in the Middle East.
43. The presence of Jews, uncowed, anywhere in the world.
44. The presence of a strong, self-assured community of Christians in Lebanon.
45. The presence of Copts in Egypt, who sometimes act as if they, too, too, have a right to regard Egypt as their land.
46. The refusal of Italian authorities to prosecute, before her death, Oriana Fallaci.
47. The refusal of Italian authorities to ban Dante in schools because of the mention of Muhammad in The Inferno.
48. The refusal of Italian authorities to remove or cover over frescoes in Bologna that depict Muhammad in an unflattering manner.
49. The refusal of the government of Denmark to punish a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for daring to exercise the right of free speech.
50. The refusal of Hindus to abandon any claim to ancient sites, where Hindu temples once stood until destroyed by Muslim invaders.
51. The refusal of some Hindus to forget the history of India.
52. The refusal of some European governments to permit Muslim mosques of any size to be built wherever, whenever, and with whatever towering minarets and electronic amplifying equipment, as Muslims believe is their sacred right.
53. The attempts by some Western police to enter mosques where they have found, in the past, false passports and other documents, as well as weapons including guns and explosives, sometimes hidden in false ceilings.
54. The attempt to permit Europeans to continue, even outside Denmark, to exercise the so-called right of free speech, as has happened with Charlie-Hébdo and other French newspapers.
55. The refusal of the University of Geneva to renew the contract of Tariq Ramadan.
56. The public displays of piggy-banks, and of allusions in English pub names such as The Saracen’s Head, which may offend Muslims.
57. The discussions by some national authorities in Holland and state authorities in Germany of the need for more stringent qualifications for nationalization, and in some cases the institution of those more stringent qualifications.
58. The single mention by President Bush of the word “islamofascism” -– a word which Muslims all over insisted must never again be repeated by him, and which he never again repeated.
59. The behavior of American soldiers who have on several occasions returned deadly fire coming at them from mosques in Iraq.
60. The behavior of the British police in not notifying Muslim authorities well in advance of any planned raids on any suspected Muslim terrorists in Great Britain; this is a grave offense which has now apparently been rectified in order to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds.
61. The belief that some in the West continue to hold, that Jews do have a historic as well as religious connection to the part of Dar al-Islam they call Israel.
62. The outrageous way in which Infidels refer to the Prophet Muhammad as if he is not universally regarded as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
63. The mention by Infidels of aspects of Muhammad’s life—such as the Khaybar Oasis attack, the Banu Qurayza decapitation, the murder of Asma bint Marwan, the marriage to nine-year-old Aisha; these are not true, or if true, are not things which Infidels have any right either to discuss or even to know about.
64. The belief of some Infidels that those who give up on Islam, who are apostates and therefore traitors to Islam, could after their act of treason conceivably continue to know anything about Islam, given that Allah clearly takes away from such people all their previous knowledge of Islam at the very moment when they decide to apostasize.
65. The outrageous belief by some Infidels that nonetheless they may have reason to listen to the testimony of ex-Muslims as to the real contents of Islam.
66. The outrageous and insulting mention, by Infidels, of such words as “taqiyya” and “kitman.”
67. The outrageous mention, by Infidels, of the word “dhimmi,” about which they can not possibly have any accurate conception, and which they have no right to discuss in the first place unless they are Muslims.
68. The outrageous attempt to suggest that people are not born Muslims.
69. The outrageous attempt to suggest that the spread of Islam was ever undertaken through violence, when everyone knows it was a case of sudden mass conversion.
70. The refusal of this or that Infidel religious leader, political figure, writer, artist, comedian, or simply you, or simply I, to exhibit the proper attitude toward Islam, Islam, Islam.
71. The wherewithal provided by OPEC revenues that enables the Saudis, especially, to fund mosques and madrasas worldwide and thereby to naturally increase the numbers of “extremists” in the Lands of the Infidels.
72. The wherewithal of OPEC revenues that pay for an army of Western hirelings, including former diplomats (mostly English and American), former intelligence agents, former and present journalists (especially those covering the Middle East), public relations experts, businessmen eager for contracts in the Gulf, and many other fixers and middlemen. This helps delay the day of new energy policies that could conceivably diminish the OPEC oil revenues that fund the Jihad, and also prevents the unwary from regarding Saudi Arabia as anything other than a “staunch ally.”
73. The willingness of journalists to overlook obvious links between the practice of Jihad and the doctrine of Jihad, encouraged by journalists who still do not feel any obligation to learn about Islam. This encourages Muslims to make demands for changes in political and legal institutions in the West, or to insist that outspoken Infidels—the Pope, Theo van Gogh, Jyllens-Posten—must stop speaking or writing about Islam. Any such refusal to comply with Muslim demands engenders—“fuels”—Muslim “extremism.”
74. The refusal of the Buddhists in southern Thailand to stop being Buddhists.
75. The refusal of the Christians in the southern Philippines to submit to the demands to hand over lands to the Muslims of As Sayyaf.
76. The refusal of Christians in Sulawesi to stop holding church services.
77. The refusal of the Israeli government to stop trying to protect ancient archeological sites in Jerusalem, many of which have been severely damaged by the Muslim construction on and deep within the Temple Mount.
78. The refusal of Hindus in India to concede to Muslim demands for the full application of Shari’a to the Muslim community.
79. The refusal of Orthodox priests in monasteries in Bosnia and Kosovo to abandon the monasteries to Muslims who are clamoring to destroy them.
80. The outrageous insistence by the world’s Armenians and by many others that Turkey stop denying the mass murder of Armenians by Muslim Turks between 1915 and 1920.
81. The outrageous demands by many Infidel lands that outside forces be brought in to protect the non-Arab Muslims from the Arab Muslims in Darfur, despite the express opposition of both the government of the Sudan and the Arab League.
82. The outrageous demands by some Infidels that Muslims should be permitted to open mosques only on the basis of reciprocity—that is, on the basis of similar permission being granted to non-Muslims in Muslim lands.
83. The outrageous refusal of some Infidel countries to prevent transmissions of Al Manar and other satellite channels run by terrorist groups.
84. The refusal of many Western countries—Great Britain, Germany, Canada—to yield to demands of local Muslims that they be made subject only to the Shari’a and not to the manmade laws of the Infidels.
85. The refusal by Australia to cease contributing troops to help their American allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
86. The continued existence of Jews.
87. The continued existence of Christians.
88. The continued existence of Hindus.
89. The continued existence of Sikhs.
90. The continued existence of Buddhists.
91. The continued existence of followers of Confucius.
92. The continued existence of agnostics.
93. The continued existence of atheists.
94. Everything.
95. Nothing.

—Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch.

THE ART OF WAR, MUSLIM-STYLE

As if all the recent spate of unfalsified news now trickling out of Kosovo-Serbia about who the "true" victions of that conflict are (hint: it wasn't the American-backed Muslims of Kosovo) isn't shocking enough, let's reach deeper into this vat of deception and deceit that is rendered to us as an awkward alliance between the western Left and historical Islam.

From Antiwar.com:

Future historians studying the decline and fall of the American Empire will probably focus on George W. Bush's disastrous Iraqi adventure—the modern-day equivalent of Alcibiades' Sicilian expedition—to explain the pathology of a global hyper-power. However, while Iraq has been, beyond any doubt, a significant factor in depleting Imperial power, it is arguably not the conflict that destroyed the Empire's authority. Since it is the authority that marks the difference between the State and a gang of street thugs (i.e. the perception of legitimacy in the use of force by the populace against which it is being used), its loss is much harder for an Empire to recover from.

Before there was Iraq, there was Kosovo—another "war of choice," another war of aggression against all international law, national constitutions and alliance charters, waged to show the world that the United States and its NATO military arm asserted the right to attack anyone, anywhere, for whatever reason. It was packaged and sold as a "humanitarian" war, waged to "prevent genocide" and "stop ethnic cleansing." There was nothing humanitarian about targeting civilian infrastructure. There was no genocide. And the ethnic cleansing that ended up taking place was the expulsion of Serbs, Jews and Roma from the "liberated" province—much as the Jews, Christians, and others who ended up in the "wrong" areas became refugees from "liberated" Iraq.

For those who believe what the Muslims believe themselves, that the Qur'an has never changed and Muslims obey the commandements of Allah and the practices of Muhammed the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, here's a little wake-up call for what's coming down the pike when these masters of deception (religion of peace, et cetera) finally reach their magical (Qur'an dictated) number or critical mass where they feel all-out war on the infidels is mandated by their God.

They may start slowly, but once their blood thirst reaches it's heights, those heads will roll...

From Wikipedia:

The Skull Tower (Serbian: Ćele Kula) is a monument to 19th century Serbian rebels. It is situated in Niš, on Zoran Đinđić Boulevard, on the old Constantinople road leading to Sofia.

On May 31, 1809 on Čegar Hill a few kilometers northeast of Niš, Serbian insurrectionists suffered their greatest defeat in the First Serbian Uprising against the Ottoman Empire (1804-1813). The insurrectionists' advance towards Niš was stopped here and, when the far stronger Turkish forces attacked, the battle was ended by the Serbian commander Stevan Sinđelić, who sacrificially fired at his gunpowder depot in order to avoid surrendering to the Turks, killing himself, the rest of his men, and the advancing Turks.
After the retreat of the Serbian rebel army, the Turkish commander of Niš, Hurshid Pasha, ordered that the heads of the killed Serbians were to be mounted on a tower to serve as a warning to any other would-be revolutionaries. In all, 952 skulls were included, with the skull of Sindjelić placed at the top. The scalps from the skulls were stuffed with cotton and sent to Constantinople (modern Istanbul) as proof for Sultan Mahmud II.

The tower stood in the open air until the liberation of Niš in 1878. By that time, much of the tower had deteriorated from weather conditions or from the removal of skulls for burial by relatives of killed rebels. In 1892, with donations gathered from all over Serbia, a graceful chapel designed by the Belgrade architect Dimitrije T. Leko was built to enclose what was left of the tower. Today, only 58 skulls remain, including Sindjelić's one.

In front of the chapel stands the monument to Sinđelić, and a small relief depicting the battle, both from 1937. The monument commemorating the battle in the form of a guard tower was built in 1927 on Čegar Hill by Julian Djupon. The lower part is made out of stone from the Niš fortress.

If this warning gto all and sunder be fearmongering, so be it. Contemporary culture only seems to want to complain about who knew what and when AFTER the fact, while sunning themselves and gorging on fluff, self-satisfied and petulent in the lead up to the very worst fears of their lives. But the signs are everywhere that something really bad in terms of war and mayhem is on its way. Now that we've all had a taste of rainy day women, don't say you weren't warned.

Remember, it's not the pious moderate Muslim you need to be concerned about. It's the pious moderate Muslim who changes his approach in a twinkling of a cobra's eye that should concern you.

Yes, I'm feeling rather bellicose this today. So I appeal to history for justification of this concern.

The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)

The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)

The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians & modern Sudanese (650)

The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)

The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)

The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)

The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)

The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)

The Jihad against Chinese (751)

The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)

The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)

The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)

The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)

The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)

The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)

The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)

The Jihad against Romania (1350 to 1699)

The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)

The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)

The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)

The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)

The Jihad against Albania (1332 to 1853)

The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)

The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)

The Jihad against Austrians (1683)

Lest some of us reject the ancient past as bridge under the water pulp, let's have a closer look at Jihad in the Modern Age covering the 20th and 21st Centuries to date:

The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)

The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)

The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)

The Jihad against the Germans (1945 onwards)

The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao (1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)

The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)

The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)

The Jihad against Latin America (2003 ongoing)

The Jihad against Australia (2002 ongoing)

The Global Jihad today (2001 ongoing)

The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001 ongoing)

Of course, if one has a preconceived notion that Muslims are not the offending party, but the oppressed people in question in each of these war zones (what about Muslim on Muslim raids), and will not let go of that notion no matter how many persuading facts and relevant perspectives are delivered, well, there's some old line about a horse and water I must avail myself.

Here are six compelling paragraphs by Archimedes2:

Language stands in our way here. Although this article hits much closer to the mark, there is still an impediment to identifying the true nature of the enemy in that it is slighly misidentified. The word "terrorist" is very abused these days, and one envisions here a group that willy-nilly tosses money and resources, or agitates in favour of, groups that bomb teenagers in coffee shops and commuters on trains or fly planes into buildings.

It is this stereotype that will lead such articles to ridicule. For, although the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) has in the past been directly involved in such activity and now is more covertly involved in supporting groups like Hamas, they can legitimately claim not to support or validate attacks in the West (or, at least they can argue that this is an unfair characterization of their work and goals).

It is important that we describe clearly and precisely what these folks are up to. They would be quite happy, if possible, to set up a Caliphate in the U.S. and eliminate the constitution, without shedding a drop of blood. To simply characterize them as "terrorist" or "pro-terrorist" is facile and at best only close to the mark.

The Ikhwan are radical, vehement islamists bend on world domination. That this puts them in bed with some terrorist groups is true, but they are careful about with whom they associate. You can pin them down on Hamas, but they will argue that this is a legitimate government group or "freedom fighters".

But you will not successfully associate them with ... say, Al Qaeda. Read the Ikhwan literature: they are quite clear that, although they share many common objectives with Osama's army, they condemn them outright as unislamic and an illegal breakaway group. If pushed the right way they may even say that Osama is Takfir.

They have no qualms about condemning jihadist groups, and their actions, if they are not affiliated with those groups. So, to come out guns-blazing and saying the Ikhwan is out and out terrorist, or even pro-terrorist, is to play into their hands. They can, and will try to, bring ridicule to such claims. Watch how they handle these proceedings, particularly when it comes to anyone who oversimplifies by calling them terrorists instead of focussing on their agenda and subversive activities.

Read more...