'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, September 16, 2006

No Sh*t Sherlock

Lies, lies all lies
Saudi Arabia's grand mufti: Pope's comments lies

Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik, said in remarks published Saturday that the pope's comments on Islam were "all lies."


"These are all lies. The prophet (Muhammad), peace be upon him, came as a mercy to the world," the daily al-Riyadh newspaper quoted al-Sheik as saying.

He said the pontiff's remarks showed reconciliation between religions was impossible. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!!!!

"Everybody should know by now that all claims about religions' reconciliation have just been proven to be lies in reality," al-Sheik said. "How can they think of reconciliation while insulting Islam and the prophet?"

The Al Sheikh family is of course LITERALLY the children of Ibn Wahab
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 2 Comments

Why there are no Muslims in space

The 9-11 week is always difficult for me--it is equal parts heartbreaking and enraging. The excellent docu-drama "The Flight that Fought Back" was showing here in Malaysia this week, although the words "ALLAHU AKBAR" were silenced out by the Malaysian government censors every time the terrorists yelled or screamed it out. Watching such reenactments (as well as seeing Malaysia's censorship of the Islamic inclinations of the 9-11 bad guys) makes me very angry.

So for a welcome change of pace, I bring to you the following (I believe fictional) anecdote (hat tip Planck's Constant):

The Iranian Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech, and walked
out into the lobby where he met President Bush.

They shook hands, and as they walked the Iranian said, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America."

President Bush said, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will."

The Iranian whispered "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Japanese, but no Muslims. My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Muslims on Star Trek."

President Bush laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador, and whispered back, "It's because it takes place in the future."

On a related, more serious note about Muslims in space...

Check out the latest offering from the Pious Infidels at Pedestrian Infidel.
Bookmark and Share
posted by The Anti-Jihadist at permanent link# 1 Comments

The Mistake Of Cultural Relativism

Maryam Namazie on cultural relativism:

Cultural relativism and its more seemingly palatable multiculturalism have lowered standards and redefined values to such depths that not only are all cultures and beliefs deemed equally valid, they seem to have taken on personas of their own blurring the distinction between individuals and beliefs (whether theirs or imputed).

As a result, concepts such as rights, equality, respect and tolerance, which were initially raised vis-à-vis the individual, are now more and more applicable to culture and religion and often take precedence over real live human beings.

This is why any criticism and ridiculing of or opposition to beliefs, cultures, religions, gods and prophets are being deemed racism, disrespecting, inciting hatred and even violence against those deemed believers. Moreover, the social inclusion of people into society has come to solely mean the inclusion of their beliefs, sensibilities, concerns and agendas and nothing more.

The above is particularly applicable to and spearheaded by Islam and political Islam as it is a religion in state power like in Iran or vying for political power in the likes of Britain and Canada. Cultural relativism has become the channel through which it and its apologists have sought to deflect criticism of its inhumane nature and at the same time undermine the very fabric of society here and elsewhere.

Needless to say, cultural relativists have it all wrong.

The distinction between humans and their beliefs is of crucial significance here. It is the human being who is sacred, worthy of the highest respect and rights and so on and so forth not his or her beliefs.

It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs.

Of course, people have the right to their beliefs no matter how absurd they may seem but that is a different matter. Having the right to a belief, culture, or religion does not mean that the belief or culture or religion must be respected or that those who disagree, oppose or choose to mock said beliefs must refrain from doing so because it is unacceptable to believers. (As an aside, given that much is unacceptable to the Islamists – including holding hands and dancing to music - there wouldn't be much left to say or do if they had their way.)

The demand of cultural relativists for 'sensitivity' and 'responsibility' (whilst thoughtfully reminding us that we have the right to mock and criticise - at least for now - in the west) are savvy attempts at actually restricting expression on and opposition to religion and culture and its adverse effects on people's lives. After all, cultural relativism is brisk business for the many self-appointed cultural and religious 'leaders' working hand in hand with the state.

Please read it yourselves.

Cross posted at Liberty and Justice
Bookmark and Share
posted by Michael van der Galien at permanent link# 4 Comments

Muslim Hooligans Continue 'Protesting'

Tigerhawk published a tremendous post about all this controversy surrounding the Pope's lecture. He writes:
Predictably, the greatest beneficiaries of the Western enlightenment blamed reason, the true victim of Muslim rage through the ages. The editors of The New York Times said this morning, to the eternal discredit of that once great paper, that

[t]he world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

This is obscene. Apart from its factual inaccuracy -- there is no evidence that any of the enraged Muslims "listened carefully" to the words of the pope -- this is like blaming a beaten wife for provoking the bastard who throttles her. It is the leaders of prayers in the mosques of the Muslim world who call on their faithful to riot in the streets. It is they who sow pain and incite violence, and anybody unburdened by a loathing of Western civilization knows it. Pope Benedict has nothing to apologize for. The leading clerics of the Muslim world have a great deal to apologize for.

Indeed. I am getting sick and tired of the non-stop (threats of) violence coming from the so-called Muslim world. Every time someone says something, or publishes a cartoon the Muslim clerics do not like, Muslims all around the world go crazy. I do not know about you, but I am completely fed up with this. For the New York Mohammed, umh, Times, to once again appease those who (threaten to) use violence, is something that infuriates me even more than the (violent) 'protests' Muslims turn to when they feel insulted (something that happens every other day or so): The New York Times should defend the freedom of speech, honesty and reason: instead it chooses to side with the Muslim hooligans. The New York Times is only able to do what it does, because of we in the West embrace before mentioned values. Without it, the New York Times would not even exist.

Bunch of cowardly, dishonest, appeasing bastards.


Also consider reading Luboš Motl marvelous take on the Pope's lecture.
From that article, about the NYT:
In their anti-papal rant sold as editorial, The New York Times have joined the primitives who call for a "deep and persuasive apology" from a Pope who "sows pain" which is "tragic and dangerous". I would have some appreciation for such journalists if they were at risk that they would be burned at stake for their outrageous blasphemy against the Holy Father. But this is not how the Western world works in 2006.

Today, they're just cheap parasites who want to sell their distasteful diatribes and they figuratively resemble hooligans who, together with a gang of wild monkeys, penetrate into a senior house to rape someone and they happen to choose a 79-year-old accomplished pianist who speaks 10 languages.

The New York Times editors should be ashamed but I am not gonna demand apologies because my attitude to the truth dramatically differs from the attitude of the Islamist and New York Times-like PC militias who apparently think that if they force someone to say something or accept a belief, it changes the truth. My opinion happens to be rather close to Prof. Ratzinger who thinks that the arguments and the good will are the things that matter.

Moreover I am not backed by thousands of terrorists who would help me to force the editors to apologize. ;-)

The sword and a forced apology don't change anything about the truth, dear Al-Qaeda, feminists, and the New York Times. Both the terrorists and the editors would be much better off if they tried to learn something from the wise Gentleman instead of piling hysterical attacks against him based on a selective misinterpretation of individual words from the Pope's speech, a speech that neither the terrorists nor the editors understand.

Read the entire post, it's a great read.

Cross posted at Liberty and Justice
Bookmark and Share
posted by Michael van der Galien at permanent link# 5 Comments

Just Some Catholic Humor

Courtesy of the Papal Shop and linked through the still-on-the-web despite the change in office Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Cardinal Ratzinger is first Pope to have had a fan club while he was still a Cardinal, and both sites still operate online, the former and the new Pope Benedict XVI Fan Club site. The bumper sticker pictured is fun if you're a Roman Catholic, and perhaps even if you are not. You tell me. Personally, I love it.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Kiddo at permanent link# 4 Comments

Muslims Prove the Pope Wrong

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade attends a rally in Gaza to protest against Pope Benedict XVI

"We carried out this shooting because of the pope's statement, and he must apologise," the caller, who refused to give his name, told AFP Saturday.

The attack came a day after a grenade exploded outside the same church and four days after the pope criticised connections between Islam and violence, particularly with regard to jihad, or "holy war".

Something about Allah's Snackbars (probably Snickers)

A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.

Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.

"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.

"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.

"We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope," he said.
Baseless - LOL!

'Down Down secular democracy, and punish the slanderers of Prophet Mohammed'. A Muslim twisting the words of the prophet to be violent when he really said nice fluffy things

Iraqi based terror group threaten Vatican and Rome
"We swear that we will destroy their cross in the heart of Rome ... and that their Vatican will be hit and wept over by the Pope," said Jaish al-Mujahideen (the Mujahideen's Army) in the statement, whose authenticity could not be confirmed.

"We will not rest until your thrones and your crosses have been destroyed on your own territory," said the group, which has claimed many attacks against US and government forces in Iraq.

[Cross posted at Drunken hic Blogging]
Bookmark and Share
posted by jonz at permanent link# 9 Comments

Religion of Broken Irony Meters

The Official Bumper Sticker for the 2006 Pope–Islam Crisis:

Picture: The statement of Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam, "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence", composited upon the picture of crazed Muslim rioters

Buckle up, it’s going to be a hbumpy ride.
Bookmark and Share
posted by ziontruth at permanent link# 6 Comments

The Religion Of Cute Little Fluffy Kittens

For the past week I have been getting an earful from a leftie friend who is insisting upon lecturing me for calling our enemy Islamofascism. I have patiently instructed this woman that the specific reason I use the term is to differentiate our enemy from common, everyday, decent human beings who are Muslim.

This is not enough for the woman, because she is a dumb appeasing hippie who is afraid of any labels. She said so herself. "I don't like the idea of labeling."

I pointed out to her that words have definitions and we use words to label things in order to make distinctions within reality. If we didn't do this, everything would be a big mush to us, and we would be unable to exert the intellectual power we have in order to create, innovate, and enact change.

Of course, being that she is a dumb appeasing leftie hippie, all logic is lost on her disappearing in a cloud of marijuana smoke, and her anger at me for being a bigot.

Well, you know what? I've decided she is right after all.

No longer will I call our enemy "Islamofascism." It's just too mean. I have been being bigoted. I should never have been so judgemental and negative. The situation simply doesn't warrant such rhetoric.

So, from now on I will call Islam the Religion of Cute Little Fluffy Kittens, and I would ask all of the bloggers here at IBA to do the same

Now this new name will not cause me to refrain from telling the truth about the Religion of Cute Fluffy Little Kittens, because for sure the followers of said religion tell us, time and again, in word and action, that they want to separate our heads from our bodies, that they want to enshroud women in portable concentration camps, that they want to kill gay people, that they want to slice women's clitoris' off their bodies, that they want to wipe Israel off the map, that they want to put an end to free speech, that they want to enslave the entire world under their medieval Sharia law, etc. etc. etc.

Aren't those just the cutest little fluffy fucking kittens you have ever seen?
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 22 Comments

"ANKARA, Turkey - A Turkish lawmaker said Pope Benedict XVI would go down in history "in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini" for remarks he made about Islam. Meanwhile, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry summoned the Vatican's ambassador to express regret over the remarks."

Wait, wait, TIMEOUT!!! I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. Pope Benedict XVI will go down in history along with Hitler, according to a Turk, due to something he said in a speech? And let's be clear about what he said:

"Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Benedict did not explicitly agree with the statement nor repudiate it."

Oddly, members of the government of Turkey, which CONTINUES to accept responsibility for, admit to the events of, or even apologize for its own genocide of million of Christians feel it perfectly acceptable to ignore its own past and demand apology from the Vatican for one quote from one speech. Let's be clear here, the Pope did NOT call for Muslims to be slaughtered. He simply quoted a historic figure speaking on the issue of jihad and of Mohammad. He did nothing to incite violence, other than mention Mohammad without the posturing acceptable to Muslims, which is considered in the West somewhat demeaning to oneself.

All that the Pope did to bring on this latest spate of violent protest and rending of garments in good ol' Dar al Islam is to accuse Mohammad of doing something that Mohammad actually did. Well, sorry if the truth hurts. Maybe he should have included what happened to the Byzantine emperors who followed Paleogos II in the face of the Ottoman Turks. Or perhaps pepper his speeches with references to what happened to all of the descendants of the pre- and post-Byzantine Christians in Asia Minor and the rest of the Ottoman Empire, or even just by the ancestors of Turkey's present government? Would another Turkish National be sent to assassinate the Pope? Wait, I assume that we aren't to mention that either. No, never repeat truths about Turkish history to the world. But especially, never say a thing about Mohammad, unless you have the entire Swiss Guard and a bullet-proof "Pope-Mobile" to keep you safe.

Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope yes, but he is also a Philosopher. He quotes freely from discussions of this type in historical records, and always has. I just find it a tad bit funny that the Turks are still seething enough from his earlier comments that Turkey should not be allowed to join the European Union (which is surely the at the heart of their dislike for this particular Pope) to jump to the head of the fray of condemnation of the entire Vatican.

So just wipe it from your mind that the Turks brutally conquered much of Europe along with the Muslim world, something they do not apologize for despite being part of the racket of those asking for apologies for the Crusades. Forget about the genocides that went so unnoticed by the world that Hitler himself mentioned them as one condition by which he could "get away" with mass slaughter of Jews. Forget that they refuse to admit to those slaughters of Armenians, Pontic and Ionian Greeks, and Assyrians (above), much less apologize. Never mind at all that there have been more attacks on Catholic Priests in Turkey in the last year than in any other nation, and no attempt to crack down on these attacks or the others on the few Christian communities left in Asia Minor. Forget the recent death threats there. And ALWAYS forget that the Turks have made amends and apologized for NOTHING in their history against Christians. Just remember, they feel a bit hurt by one speech given by the current Pope. Remember that they are enraged by one comment about the one specifically Muslim "prophet".

Keep up the arrogant posturing, "Land of the Turks". Eventually someone with a greater voice than me will call you on your hypocrisy, and eventually you will be forced to explain.

Cross-Posted Somewhere out there.....


Bookmark and Share
posted by Kiddo at permanent link# 3 Comments

Storm Track Disinformation: Mr. Zogby, Me Thinks You Protest Too Much

From The Gathering Storm

Mr. James Zogby is President of The Arab American Institute has his panties all in bunch. It seems that his “blood is still boiling” over an article published by the New York Sun (in his words “a purveyor of incitement and hate, masquerading as a newspaper.”) back in May entitled “The Three Myths About Islam”. Briefly the three myths he is upset about are:

  1. Islam is tolerant of other religions
  2. Muslim extremists are not attacking us but only ‘counter-attacking - responding to our attacks
  3. Islam is a religion of peace

Mr. Zogby says “The article sets out to demonstrate that because of liberal political correctness, Americans had come to believe a number of falsehoods about Islam: namely that it is a peaceful, tolerant and under attack. In fact, according to the author, the opposite is true. The religion of 1.5 billion, he claims, is, by its nature and history, intolerant, aggressive, and violent. In other words, a danger to be reckoned with. This is of course, a gross distortion of Islam’s history, designed to create fear and intolerance toward the religion and its adherents. It is exactly this caricaturing of Islam that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warns about in her new book, The Mighty and The Almighty. She terms such efforts as “sophistry” and notes that “a reader trolling through the scriptures for language sanctifying intolerance and war will find it whether the texts are sacred to Christians, Muslims or Jews.””

Cut the crap Mr. Zogby! You and your fellow PC correct leftist travelers love to point to the past in defense of your position in the present. But the ongoing ideological debates on what religions have said in the past or practiced then are meaningless to the debate over Islam today. For you see Mr. Zogby, whatever intolerance and hate were preached and practiced in the past by Christianity and Judaism that Ms. Albright like to hold up as a rationale for Islam’s intolerance, is not supported by those religions today.

Read the news Mr. Zogby. Who is killing in the name of the religion of tolerance? Who is encouraging followers of your religions to kill in the name of your god. Who is preaching jihad from the mosques and in the streets? Who is killing Christians in Somalia and Hindus in India and Malaysia? It’s not the Judeo-Christian religion. If you want your religion to be respected and cease having articles published like the one you are complaining about, then ease your threatening language, violent emotionally-driven behavior and tacit or complacent acceptance of the jihadists. Show us that we are wrong your deeds not your words written in the far past or written today.

One other thing, Mr. Zogby. Your side – with your allies from the PC crowd - is doing just fine garnishing support for and propagating your lies, but once they are exposed you play the victim card. But Islam is not the victim in today’s world – but the perpetrator.

And your creeping support of sharia law is making inroads in places once thought taboo when it came to religion. The Seattle Public Schools are forming a committee to examine prayer in school, particularly to "support the needs of our diverse students and families." But the committee is not organizing to examine the full diversity of the student body, only the needs of Muslim students.

And by the way Mr. Zogby, Islam does not mean peace. It translates as ‘submission’.

We will not submit, Mr. Zogby. We know your plan. We are quickly learning that something does not smell right about your religion. We will not submit. Voices are growing. We are ready to take back our country.

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Forget the Pope, worry about this


Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 1 Comments

Intelligence and Wealth vs. Poverty, Stupidity, and Fanaticism

Oscar Wilde said "there is no sin except stupidity." Voltaire said “The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity." Einstein said, “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” Source.

Looking at the map above, one can see that poverty and stupidity go together like hand and glove. Some countries have experienced severe poverty for periods of time--postwar Germany, Japan, and South Korea come to mind--then rebound out of poverty with time and outside assistance. Other countries such as Haiti are always impoverished, regardless of external assistance, opportunities, and internal resources. Then there are countries such as Zimbabwe which were once much better off, but now are among the most impoverished nations on earth.

International investors would be happy to take advantage of low worker wages in these perennially impoverished nations, as in Subsaharan Africa or muslim Central Asia, if they could expect a reasonable return on investment. The problems with employing workers in these nations are corruption and graft in dealing with government officials, and political instability--with the ever-present threat of nationalisation of the industry (as occurred recently in Bolivia to the natural gas fields). This type of government behaviour virtually guarantees that investors will stay away.

In addition, there is a shortage of trainable workers. If there are not enough people in the potential workforce intelligent enough to learn the skills and technologies involved in the industry--the situation is hopeless. A technological society requires an average population IQ of at least 90 (with 100 being the internationally standardised mean) to maintain itself. If the population average (mean) IQ is less than 90, all attempts to bring the nation as a whole into the modern technological world, are doomed.

The book IQ and the Wealth of Nations discusses this issue, and makes comparisons of average IQ between different nations. The authors admit that political and economic factors can artificially hold down a nation's wealth, even in the presence of high average IQ. Conversely, in a nation of relatively low average population IQ, an enlightened market economy can raise the nation's wealth above what it would be if the economy were more centrally commanded. Likewise, oppressive and/or unstable political regimes will depress a nation's wealth, even where the population average IQ is average or above.

It is important to optimise nutrition for mothers and children in these countries. But what if after optimising nutrition for mothers and children, significant population IQ average differences remain between nations? If it is clear that the nations are suffering because of lower population IQs, other underlying reasons for the differences should be determined and methods for removing the IQ deficits should be found.

The penalty for doing nothing may be severe.

When one contemplates how easily muslims are led into a frenzy by their clerics, one is forced to contemplate the relationship of stupidity with fanaticism.

Thanks to Pastorius for inviting me to contribute to IBA.
Bookmark and Share
posted by al fin at permanent link# 2 Comments

What is torture?

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment - Item C, Article 3 Geneva Convention

ksm_happy.jpgRecently the story of Khalid S Mohammad the murderer and planner of 9/11 and other stupidities of death has come out including the story of his spilling the beans which apparently consisted of the Red Hot Chili Peppers at volumes similar to which I listened (and still do) to Led Zeppelin, Cream and the Stones ...and uncomfortably cool rooms.

Well my wife complains about music volumes and too cold rooms all the time. Perhaps HRW should include me on their annual list of rogue torturers.

Seriously, while I don't think anyone can make any but the most 'torturous' explanation of how loud music is really torture, it would be informative to know what the temperautre of the room was when KSM whined it all out to Uncle Sam.
55 degress F can hardly be torture, while 25 certainly IS for any extended period past a few minutes (the germans put jews and others in cold water to determine the time their pilots shot down could survive)

Continue reading "What is torture?" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 6 Comments

The Great Dog Hair Dilemma

Last summer, Cubed gave me permission to republish an article. I'm finally getting around to it.

Here, in all its breathtakingly micromanagerial detail, is the solution to a very nasty problem experienced by a convert to Islam. It is offered on a sort of "ask the expert" feature of http://livingislam.org. where they can go with their most pressing concerns.

We all know that Muslims don't like dogs; they pretty much don't like anything, after all. But fortunately, they have access to painfully, even excruciatingly, detailed advice on any problems they might run into....

The way I figure it, the mullahs keep Muslims really, really busy with this sort of concern; this way, they just won't have time to rock the boat by asking - hmmmm - well, more penetrating questions, such as, "You're kidding, right?"

The questioner is a Muslim convert whose family owns a pet dog...

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 0 Comments


America, CAIR wants to dhimmitize your pope. He may not be my religious leader, my "pope" but I love him just the same. I was, understandably, disappointed in his position in the Israel/Islamic war. It was a mistake to dismiss Hezb'Allah's blood lust and murder and to hold Israel up to an impossible standard (both militarily and morally.)

But now the Pope has spoken truth to militant Islam and the barbarians are out for blood. The new fascism, the crime of opinion, Islam has no sense of justice.

Across the world, Pope Benedict XVI came under increasing critical fire t0day over comments he made about Islam, as Muslim leaders around the world angrily accused him of dividing religions and demanded an apology. In Britain, Gaza, Iraq, Syria and Indonesia, Muslim leaders registered their protest. The Parliament in Pakistan passed a resolution against the pope's statements, and the government later summoned the Vatican envoy to express official displeasure. In Lebanon, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the most senior Shiite cleric, demanded "a personal apology — not through his envoys."

And emotion spilled over in Turkey, where Benedict has scheduled a visit in November, as a top official in the Islamic-rooted ruling party said that the pope is "going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages," the official, Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan's government, was quoted on the state-owned Anatolia news agency. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."


Many Muslims are also comparing his comments with the unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad which stoked deep Muslim anger earlier this year. More here

CAIR seeks meeting with Vatican representative in Washington, D.C.

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 9/15/2006) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called for increased dialogue between Muslims and Catholics over the controversy sparked by remarks perceived as insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad made by Pope Benedict XVI. CAIR is also seeking a meeting with the Vatican's representative in Washington, D.C., to discuss the remarks.

In an address on Tuesday, the Pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor as saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

SEE: Muslim Leaders Blast Pope's Comments (Washington Post)

In a statement issued today, the Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group said:

"The proper response to the Pope's inaccurate and divisive remarks is for Muslims and Catholics worldwide to increase dialogue and outreach efforts aimed at building better relations between Christianity and Islam. This unfortunate episode also offers an opportunity for Christians to learn more about Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic concept of jihad.

"Jihad is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense (e.g., - having a standing army for national defense), or fighting against tyranny or oppression. 'Jihad' should not be translated as 'holy war.'

Who writes their copy. Those unfamiliar with the definition of jihad must read Future Jihad by Walid Phares, Bat Ye'or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Andrew Bosotm,

"In Islam, there is no contradiction between faith and reason. The first verses revealed to the Prophet Muhammad included: 'Read! In the name of your Lord. . .Read! Your Lord is the Most Gracious, Who taught by the (use of the) pen, taught man what he knew not.' Historically, whenever Islam flourished, so did knowledge and discovery.

"Let us all continue the interfaith efforts promoted by the late Pope John Paul II, who made great strides in bringing Muslims and Catholics together for the common good."

The late Pope John Paul II? Wasn't he shot by a muslim? uh...........yeah

CAIR is urging Americans of all faiths to learn more about Islam and about the life and legacy of the Prophet Muhammad by requesting a free Quran or a book or DVD about Muhammad at www.explorethequran.org and www.cair.com/Muhammad.

Bookmark and Share
posted by AtlasShrugs.com at permanent link# 12 Comments

All your apologies are belong to us

"Fadlallah, one of the world's top Shia Muslim clerics, said: "We demand that [the Pope] apologise personally"

Pope Benedict XVI was last night facing angry demands from Muslims that he apologise for a speech in which he appeared to condemn the concept of jihad as "unreasonable" and quoted a medieval ruler who said Muhammad's innovations were "evil and inhuman".

Protests swept across the Islamic world and the furore threatened a scheduled visit by the Pope to Turkey.

The Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, told Vatican Radio: "It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject, still less to offend the sensibilities of Muslim faithful."

Father Miguel Ayuso Guixot, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies, told the Guardian he feared the Pope's words had been "misinterpreted". He added: "The Pope has worked tirelessly for inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue and for tolerance."

In Turkey, however, where the Pope is due to visit in November, the deputy leader of the ruling party said Benedict had "a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the middle ages". Salih Kapusuz added: "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

Representatives of the two million Turks in Germany, where the comments were made, also expressed deep annoyance. The head of the Turkish community, Kenan Kolat, said they were "very dangerous" and liable to misunderstanding.


Continue reading "All your apologies are belong to us" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 3 Comments

There It Is - Right Out of the Horses Mouth

From The Gathering Storm

The debate is over. All the brewhaha over what to call the enemy in the so-called war on terror - terrorist, jihadists, Islamo-fascists, or whatever the name of the week is, has been settled. As Bush has said, we are fighting a political ideology and the name of that ideology is Islamism.

How do we know? The leader of French Council for Muslim Religion (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, said so. In response to the Pope's swipe at Islam Boubakeur said, "Beware not to mix up Islam, a religion, with Islamism, a political ideology".

So all you Islamists out there, both violent and peaceful, we have your number. The
French Council for Muslim Religion.
Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 6 Comments

Friday, September 15, 2006

Add one more

Turkish Lawmaker Compares Pope to Hitler...

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkey's ruling Islamic-rooted party joined a wave of criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on Friday, accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades with remarks he made about the Muslim faith. A Turkish lawmaker said the pontiff would go down in history "in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini" for his words.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 12 Comments

Storm Track Infiltration: Twisting an Innocent Game into a Jihad Training Ground

From The Gathering Storm

Paintball competitions are one of the fastest growing sports in the nation. If you haven't played, it's pretty simple: Players hunt their opponents, take aim, and splatter them with paint-filled "bullets."

But this innocent game is being perverted by the jihadists who are using it to train future terrorist according to CBN News.

“Since 9/11, several jihadists in the U.S. and Europe have been arrested and charged with using paintball as a form of paramilitary training. One of the London subway bombers--Mohammed Khan--was an avid paintball player. Likewise, 17 Toronto Muslims charged this summer with plotting terrorist attacks in Canada used paintball to train. Another Canadian Muslim charged with planning terrorist attacks, Mohammed Khawaja, also played paintball.”

Are we seeing a pattern here?

“Here in the U.S., two Georgia Muslims charged earlier this year with plotting attacks against U.S. targets played as well. The most notorious case, however, occurred in the Washington, D.C. area. A group of 11 American Muslims there have been convicted for plotting to wage jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Indian troops in Kashmir. They trained by playing paintball in the northern Virginia countryside. One of the men told a grand jury he considered paintball "a form of jihad."

Here’s the proof.

Terrorism expert Laura Mansfield and anti-jihad activist Jeff Epstein have been tracking this disturbing trend. They supplied CBN news exclusively with a shocking al-Qaeda video that was posted on an online Muslim message board in the U.S. The video begins with images of missiles taking out America. It then moves on to a speech by Adam Gadahn, an American-born member of al-Qaeda. Next come scenes of two men playing paintball. Most of the footage…shows them playing paintball. Epstein believes al Qaeda is trying to send a message to its followers with this video. He says paintball is a relatively inexpensive way to target practice--as opposed to spending a larger amount of money on securing modern weaponry and ammunition.

It gets worse. Read this account of how radical imams are rallying young British Muslims to the jihadist cause through paintball outings. Here's a sampling:

  • The party of youths pulled on their blue overalls, snapped shut their visors and, taking aim with their paintball guns, prepared for four hours of licensed mayhem.
  • But the men who pursued each other last Sunday morning through the wooded grounds of Delta Force’s paintballing park near Congleton, Cheshire, had little in common with the stag parties and company teams nearby. Instead of listening to corporate pep talks between sessions, the young Asian men were instructed by an imam dressed in fatigues on the need to unite Muslims worldwide in an international empire.
  • One senior member of the group, who is a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT), which Tony Blair has proposed should be banned, insisted that devout Muslims should refuse to vote in British elections...
  • During one game, a player said: “I’ve been shot.” His team-mate replied: “Don’t worry, the shahid [martyr] never dies.”

I wonder what the jihadists will pervert next. Ring around the rosy?

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 2 Comments

Oriana Fallaci, R.I.P.

Seven months ago, Robert Spencer put up a post on Jihad Watch titled Fallaci Beheaded. It was about an art exhibit in Milan featuring an image of Oriana Fallaci decapitated. Probably like many other readers, the title “sent a jolt through me” (the words of a commenter), thinking they really managed to get her.

This is a Religion of Perpetual Outrage, whose followers, if they have a dermis at all, have such that its diameter requires a microscope to measure. Though it would have been distressing to hear Fallaci had been beheaded, it would have been no surprise; it is to hear now, that Oriana Fallaci died in bed, that is surprising.

I strive to commemorate her as Mr. Spencer has now suggested: by emulating her actions. The more people do as she did, the less chance there will be for the arrival of the dreaded condition in which it will be unexpected, surprising for any non-Muslim to die in bed.

Into the company of G-d’s Righteous you go, Oriana Fallaci. Rest in peace.

Cross-posted on Our Children Are The Guarantors
Bookmark and Share
posted by ziontruth at permanent link# 6 Comments

Israel's quiet success: The decapitation of Hizbullah?

From Gertz ...
Despite its poor public showing in the recent war in southern Lebanon, Israeli intelligence and special operations commandos in recent days have scored major hits against Hizbullah leaders.

As many as eight of the top 10 Hizbullah leaders were killed by commandos and intelligence personnel in southern Lebanon, the officials said. But U.S. officials said the covert action campaign failed to eliminate Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who remains a key target.

Israel has stepped up operations against Hizbullah leaders since the imposition of a cease-fire. The Israelis believe that the decapitation campaign is vital to limiting the Hizbullah threat.

Hizbullah, for its part, is stepping up intelligence operations against Israel. These include plans for leadership attacks, sabotage and kidnapping.

Hizbullah will attempt to reduce its conventional military activities but increase covert action attacks in Gaza and the northern West Bank. Signs of the activity have already been detected with Hizbullah personnel and weapons detected moving into the Palestinian areas.

More on Hizbullah tunneling....

Continue reading " Israel's quiet success: The decapitation of Hizbullah" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

The Islamic Dartboard

Every once in a while, the Muslims explain and excuse their peaceful practices with some pretext, some grievance (legitimate, of course) they had with the infidels that made them do it.

The pretexts are pretty varied, and what I’ve noticed is the frequent lack of connection between them and the particular action. Because I couldn’t find any rhyme or reason to it, I decided to conduct a research. Resourceful Zionist Mossad agent that I am (just like Robert Spencer), I infiltrated an Islamic HQ located somewhere in Moonbatistan and took a photo (unreutered, I promise) of that which demystifies it all: the Islamic Dartboard. Wheresoever the dart shall land, that is the pretext that the will of Allah hath declared fitting for use on this occasion.

(click on the image for full size)

Now you get it all.
Bookmark and Share
posted by ziontruth at permanent link# 6 Comments

The racist pig Mathathir spits out what we all know Islam TODAY has become- "No such thing as a moderate Muslim "

Why is everyone so scared of pulling their heads out of the sand?

Somewhere Karl Rove is smiling .....if you believe there's a war going on, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to vote for a Dem at the national level, if you don't the reverse is true...

There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim and US President George W. Bush is mistaken in casting his war on terror in terms of a "struggle for civilisation", former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says.

Mahathir("jews rule the world by proxy"), who is known for his frequent barbs against what he has called Western double standard, said he believed even the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US were at root linked to Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. (too bad Qutb found objection to the jews in the quran)

"What is happening today has got nothing to do with religion. It has got to do with territorial disputes, mainly the dispute over Palestinian land," he told Reuters after a religious congress here.

He said Bush's description of America's "war on terror" as "a struggle for civilisation" on the fifth anniversary of the attacks was flawed, as was the West's hope that moderate Muslims would have a dominant voice.

"There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."(reason being anything we claim it to be, btw)

On Bush's comments, Mahathir, 81, said: "He's not civilised, he shouldn't be talking about civilising others."

Continue reading "The racist pig Mathathir spits out what we all know Islam TODAY has become- "No such thing as a moderate Muslim "" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 4 Comments

Oriana Fallaci 1929-2006

The counter-jihad movement today has suffered a blow.

Oriana Fallaci, the anti-Islamic cassandra of Europe, freedom fighter against the Nazis and fascists of WW2, defender of Civilization, is no more.

She is one of the few if only journalists in living memory that really did speak "truth to power".

It is incumbent upon all of us to carry on her legacy and her mission.
Bookmark and Share
posted by The Anti-Jihadist at permanent link# 3 Comments

Pathetic 911

Guest Editorial by Edward Cline:

Watching ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” on September 10th and 11th was a tortuous, grueling exercise in journalistic duty. I viewed it simply because former President Bill Clinton and many from his administration objected to it and raised the specter of censorship. ABC promoted it as a “dramatization” of the events leading up to the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon.

True, there is a difference between a “dramatization” and a “documentary.” Many of Shakespeare’s plays are imaginary “dramatizations” of the lives and actions of English kings. Doubtless, if Kings Richard, John, and the various Henrys had been alive to audit Shakespeare’s plays, every one of them might have protested, “Hey! I never said that! I never did that! That’s not how it happened!”

A documentary, on the other hand, should clearly recount the details and circumstances of a historical event, based on available evidence. The only value judgments the director of a documentary may make is whether or not a fact is true and contributes to an understanding of the event.

In her essay, “What is Romanticism?” from The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand observed:

“…[H]aving rejected the element of plot and even of story, the Naturalists concentrated on the element of characterization – and psychological perceptiveness was the chief value that the best of them had to offer….[However], that value shrank and vanished; characterization was replaced with indiscriminate recording and buried under a catalogue of trivia, such as minute inventories of a character’s apartment, clothing and meals. Naturalism lost the attempted universality of Shakespeare or Tolstoy, descending from metaphysics to photography with a rapidly shrinking lens directed at the range of the immediate moment – until the final remnants of Naturalism became a superficial, meaningless, “unserious” school that had nothing to say about human existence.”

That essentially describes “The Path to 9/11”: a shrunken, myopic lens focused on moment-by-moment actions and incidents, examining endless minutiae adding up to non-judgmental conclusions.

The protestations of Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke and others from that disgraceful regime are as irrelevant as the hypothetical objections of the English kings. They ought to feel flattered that they were even “dramatized.” Absent any moral judgment of their actions in the ABC movie, they got off easy with a mere implication of improper behavior. If “Path” had any purpose or point at all, qua “dramatization” it should have been to illustrate the impeachability of their policies and actions.

On a literary level, “The Path to 9/11” is hardly Shakespearean. A good director and cast can bring alive the dullest of Shakespeare’s plays. But director Cyrus Nowrasten’s fudged, “non-partisan” recounting of the events leading up to 9/11 is a passionless yawner. In response to the Clinton gang’s objections and reported threats of legal action for defamation of character, ABC apparently snipped and cut the original version here and there before the national broadcast of the movie. I suspect, however, that the original was just as jumbled and cobbled together as the end product, which was as flat, colorless and undramatic as “Survivor” or “This Old House” or any other “reality” program.

The Clinton gang, blinkered by their pragmatist outlook and policies, should not protest too much, for the altruist-pragmatist policies “dramatized” in “Path” also reflect those same policies as practiced by President George Bush’s administration in his failing “war on terrorism.” One could also cite Ronald Reagan’s failure to properly respond to the murder of hundreds of American Marines in Lebanon by Hezbollah, and Jimmy Carter’s failure to properly respond to the taking of American hostages from our embassy in Tehran. There is more than enough blame to go around when it comes to the politics of lying, betrayal and verisimilitude in our foreign policy.

The sequence of events in “Path” was strung tenuously and haphazardly along the thread of a story line about the actions of FBI agent John P. O’Neill, who, later as director of security for the World Trade Center, died in the South Tower when it collapsed. O’Neill was portrayed by Harvey Keitel; his was the only credible, non-anemic performance in the whole production.

One aspect of “Path” that I found distracting and annoying was the number of long scenes set in Afghanistan and other foreign locales. Most of the dialogue in them was in what I suppose was Urdu, or whatever language Afghans speak, with subtitles. Why the actors couldn’t have delivered their lines in English, I cannot fathom. It was difficult enough to focus on the actors’ expressions and actions without having to also quickly read the subtitles at the same time.

To compensate for the lack of coherence and drama, too many of those Afghanistan scenes were injected with the requisite “shoot ‘em up” battles between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. This is the usual resort of a director who makes a movie in which nothing significant happens.

And then a question occurred to me: Why does the U.S. government find it so hard to find and recruit Arabic speakers to serve as translators and decoders of the various dialects for its military and civilian programs, but Hollywood doesn’t?

Much worse – in fact, revolting -- was how the 9/11 hijackers and their handlers were portrayed in a neutral light. One would think that when proposing to spend $40 million on a movie, one would want to make a moral point about the villains. No such point was made. A writer or director of a “fictionalized” story must reveal his moral compass; he must express a conclusion about his subject.

Even Shakespeare communicated moral judgments of his kings in his dramatized “chronicles.” Nowrasten’s singular achievement is that he did not reveal a moral compass. Given the bland projection of the villains and the noncommittal portrayal of the “good guys,” it is doubtful he had a moral point to express, or, if he had one, it was repressed. Personally, the actors who portrayed the hijackers and their mentors elicited no emotional response in me. I could just as well have been watching a dramatized exposé of a gang’s plot to rob a series of 7/11 convenience stores.

Given the Naturalist character of “Path,” that was to be expected. There was no point to its production or broadcast, moral or otherwise.

Watching “Path,” I could not help but compare it with other historically based cinematic epics whose subjects were Arabs or jihadists, such as David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” and Basil Dearden’s “Khartoum.” Lean and Dearden’s moral points are clear as a bell, making their films compelling and memorable, whether or not one agrees or disagrees with their points.

The worst thing about “Path,” then, is that it deliberately failed to project the evil of our enemies. The only good thing one could say about the film is that it was an indirect, unintended indictment of the pragmatism and moral relativism that have governed this country’s foreign policy for more than half a century.

One of the most memorable lines from Lean’s “Lawrence” is an implicit rebuttal of the idea of predestination: “Nothing is written.” Nowrasten’s non-judgmental, non-evaluative signature line for “The Path to 9/11” is: “It just happened.”

Crossposted at The Dougout


In my commentary of September 14th, I quoted from Ayn Rand’s essay, “What is Romanticism?” from The Romantic Manifesto:

“… Naturalism lost the attempted universality of Shakespeare or Tolstoy, descending from metaphysics to photography with a rapidly shrinking lens directed at the range of the immediate moment – until the final remnants of Naturalism became a superficial, meaningless, “unserious” school that had nothing to say about human existence.”

I then remarked:

“That essentially describes ‘The Path to 9/11’: a shrunken, myopic lens focused on moment-by-moment actions and incidents, examining endless minutiae adding up to non-judgmental conclusions.”

I try to limit my commentaries to 2,000 words or less, and so omitted other points I wished to make. So, let’s pull back the lens and take in the context that surrounds “The Path to 9/11.”

At no point in the film did one hear a single critical comment about Islam. The focus was almost entirely on finding Osama bin Laden. Of course, the director, Cyrus Nowrasten, may have chosen to stress the obsession the Clinton and Bush administrations had with bin Laden over any wider conflict. In Clinton’s case, however, it was with his and his appointees’ collective, expedient dismissal of the seriousness of bin Laden’s threat; in Bush’s case, it was with his fallacious notion that bin Laden and his underlings hijacked a “peaceful” religion.

Then again, Nowrasten may have been following ABC’s playbook of political correctness and refrained from painting Islam and its fundamentalist followers in the least negative light. But, jihadists had been waging war on the West long before the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Apart from of the murderous depredations of the IRA, Basque separatists, Tamil Tigers, and other non-Muslim terrorist groups, Islamic jihadists have racked up the biggest body count and the most property and economic destruction in the past thirty years. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Nowrasten would feel tempted to cast at least one aspersion on Islam and its ideology of conquest and destruction as a driving force.

But, he didn’t. So, I am fairly certain that Nowrasten succumbed to political correctness and repressed any critical portrayal of Islam. Islam is too big and active a venomous hydra not to notice – except to those burdened with self-induced myopia.

Much of the cinematography of the Afghanistan scenes was gorgeous. But, heeding Leonard Peikoff’s dictum that “a picture is not an argument,” I was of two minds about what was shown in that locale. The dominant one was: But for all the SUVs, trucks, automatic weapons and cell phones, what viewers saw was the appallingly barbarous, primitive living conditions in that part of the world, whether in the areas controlled by the Taliban or the ones controlled by the Northern Alliance, conditions that had not changed in over a thousand years. Worse yet, I had the sense that those conditions are what both sides wished to preserve – as a “culture,” as a “way of life” -- including the “good guy” Northern Alliance chief who was assassinated in the end.

The lesser of my two minds was: What an education! Those conditions are what, in the end, submission to Islam (or to any totalitarianism) would ultimately reduce the entire world to! That is the root motive and end of the jihadists and their state-sponsors, in the Mideast, in Asia, and in the West, the vision of a Hobbesian “leviathan,” a global caliphate in which men are reduced to living in tents, caves, and shacks assembled from the debris of a destroyed world, lorded over by tribal chiefs who swear allegiance to a hierarchy of ayatollahs and muftis.

My last point is that “The Path to 9/11” failed utterly to convincingly project the evil of our enemies and of their ideology. Why? Because, focusing as it did on the touchy bull-headedness, obstructive foot-dragging and venality of especially the Clinton gang, it could not project an efficacious good. Aside from the frustrated diligence of John O’Neill and a few other characters, there was no powerful counterpoint. O’Neill and his allies were lost in a swamp of moral grayness that often melded into the black villainy of political turf conflicts and outright cowardice.

The current bull-headed, “stay the course” policy of President Bush concerning the “democratization” of Iraq is simply another path to tragedy and defeat. Pakistan, a dubious “ally” from the very beginning, has already shown its true colors in the “war on terrorism”: by signing a truce with terrorists to create a “sanctuary” for them in a western province, and by the recent release thousands of Taliban fighters taken prisoner by coalition forces in Afghanistan.

In the meantime, Congress is proposing to abolish torture as a means of extracting information from Muslim combatants taken prisoner in Afghanistan and Iraq. Presumably, they, like the prisoners released by President Pervez Musharraf’s government, are represented by lawyers, as well, and will possibly be released at the urging of our “humanitarian” Congress.

That would be an interesting subject of another “docudrama,” as the wind stirs the radioactive ashes of Boston or San Francisco, and as America counts its thousands of dead. Will there be anyone around to watch it? Will there be anyone to film it?
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 1 Comments

Storm Track Appeasement: Rosie’s Holy War and a Jihadist Gets a Good Citizen Award

From The Gathering Storm

Maybe she wants to be known as the left-wing Ann Coulter or maybe this is just the latest howl from a moonbat.

  • “Rosie O'Donnell says "radical" Christians in America are just as much of a threat as the followers of radical Islam who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York's Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.”

The howling goes on.

  • “O'Donnell, the newest face on ABC's "The View," yesterday let her feelings fly after co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck noted militant Islam provides a threat to free people. "Just a minute," she interrupted. "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state." She had been saying America was attacked "not by a nation." A bewildered co-host, Joy Behar, protested that Christians are not threatening to impose mass murder on Americans. "There's that difference. This group is threatening to kill us," Behar said. And Hasselback, appearing surprised, said, "We are not bombing ourselves here in the country." "No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?" O'Donnell said.

I wonder if this geopolitical analyst has gone unnoticed by the wing-nuts in California.

  • A U.S. Government entity not only awarded an Islamic terrorism proponent and renowned America-hater a prestigious humanitarian award, it turns out that state open meeting laws were violated when the Muslim leader was selected. Apparently fearful of the controversy its radical candidate for the annual award would stir, the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission evidently violated California open meeting laws—The Brown Act—when members decided to honor Maher Hathout with the “outstanding human relations work” award, which will be distributed at a ceremony next month. Hathout, the president of the Islamic Center of California, is well-known for his anti-Semitic speeches that endorse Palestinian Hamas, known chiefly for its brutal suicide bombings, and the radical Lebanese Hezbollah. In fact, at an October 2000 rally across from the White House, Hathout screamed intifada—an Arabic term for uprising--and told the assembled crowd that Israel is a racist, apartheid state of butchers.

Little Green Footballs has posted the video of that hateful speech and calls Hathout’s humanitarian award a travesty. The Jewish Defense League is equally outraged at the award’s recipient, saying that it represents an outrageous insult to all Americans and all Jews and that Hathout should instead be condemned.

Will Rosie get the next prestigious humanitarian award?

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 1 Comments

Thursday, September 14, 2006

The Bolton Vote: The Will of the American People Usurped

Once again the will of the American people is being usurped by the hate America crowd, America's fifth column. Why won't they let our elected officials vote on the damn nomination once and for all? This in today's Washington Post.

White House Seeks a Way to Keep Bolton at the U.N.

President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations appears increasingly endangered in the Senate, prompting the administration to explore other ways to keep him in the job after his temporary appointment expires in January, officials said yesterday.

The situation represents a sharp turnaround from two weeks ago, when the White House was confident it could finally push through Bolton's long-stalled nomination. But last week's surprise move by Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) to delay a vote convinced Republicans on Capitol Hill that the nomination may be doomed, prompting a search for alternatives.

"It's dead as far as the Senate is concerned," said one Republican official at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Chafee holds the decisive vote. "Chafee made it a 9 to 9 vote, and that's not going to change." A Senate Republican leadership aide added: "Chafee holds Bolton's future in his hands, and people are very worried he's going to squeeze and never let go."To view the entire article, go here

I am imploring every reader here, every person that cares, that wants to do something, to go here, Blogging for Bolton, and start making calls. Please, you can make a difference. Do it and I mean now.

Bookmark and Share
posted by AtlasShrugs.com at permanent link# 0 Comments

I think I know how Le Pen got to second round in the 2002 French elections

I remembered seeing this topic on the Aqoul blog, that, while it didn't actually mention Jean-MarieDhimmi Le Pen, it did give a very good hint just how he reached the second round in France's elections in 2002. As it says here, Lionel Jospin, who was actually one of the better liberal politicians back then
lost Arab votes ... after infuriating them by his statements against Hezbollah...
This explained everything. As noted by CNN back in 2002, Le Pen's Front National party had otherwise dropped the anti-immigrant stance from their platform, one of the reasons why the Islamofascists in France may have seen in Le Pen as the lesser evil (for them, but for us he's equal to them in such terms), and bigots like him and them pretty much go hand in hand with each other. Thus, realizing how much they had in common (they don't like Jews, Blacks, French, Asians, stuff like that), so Le Pen and plenty of Islamists pretty much broke whatever ice was between each other, and thus, an alliance was formed, as most likely stands the case now. Thus, while he may ostensibly attack certain imams for hatemongering, but NOT Islam itself, as was the case in a recent speech he gave in Toulon, he need not worry about putting off that many Muslims in France: they will be able to tell that in truth, he's on their side, and few objections will be raised even now. If there's anything that will certainly impress the Islamists, it's Le Pen's attacks on Israel in which he drew a bizarre moral equation between the IDF and Hezbollah as "militias".

Note also that in the 2002 elections, the gap between Le Pen and Jospin was very narrow, one more clue to how Le Pen got ahead.

If there's anyone whom Le Pen could very likely get votes from this coming election, it's the Islamofascists in France, and yes, there most certainly will be some who'll vote for him. Look out.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Avi Green at permanent link# 3 Comments

Wealthy Muslims Urged To Buy Influence In Media

Thanks to Religion of Pieces for making me aware of this:

RIYADH (Reuters) - Muslim tycoons should buy stakes in global media outlets to help change anti-Muslim attitudes around the world, ministers from Islamic countries heard at a conference in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday.

Information ministers and officials meeting under the auspices of the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the world's largest Islamic body, said Islam faced vilification after the September 11 attacks, when 19 Arabs killed nearly 3,000 people in U.S. cities in 2001.

"Muslim investors must invest in the large media institutions of the world, which generally make considerable profits, so that they have the ability to affect their policies via their administrative boards," OIC chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told the gathering in the Saudi city of Jeddah.

"This would benefit in terms of correcting the image of Islam worldwide," he said, calling on Muslim countries to set up more channels in widely-spoken foreign languages.

Muslim stakes in Western media are minimal. Billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns 5.46 percent of media conglomerate News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch-run group behind the Fox News Channel.

That 5 1/2% stake was enough to allow the Saudi billionaire to brag of how he had changed Fox's coverage of the Paris Riots:

... Al-waleed, who is a member of the Saudi Royal Family and investor in the Fox News parent company News Corporation, gave an interview boasting that he had called Fox to complain about coverage of the "Muslim riots" in France. He said he "called as a viewer" and "convinced them to change" the coverage because "they were not Muslim riots but riots against poverty and inequality." And "they changed" the coverage, the Saudi reportedly said.

Another report on the comments, carried by the Dubai-based newspaper the Khaleej Times, says that Al-waleed personally called Rupert Murdoch to complain. The Saudi said, "After a short while, there was a change" in the coverage.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 7 Comments

Storm Track Appeasement: A Lone Voice in a Dhimmi Flock of Sheep

From The Gathering Storm

Consider these recent quotes out of the Netherlands.

  • "If you isolate yourself in the Netherlands, the community is saddled with the financial consequences. You demand the right to apply for a job wearing a burqa and when you fail to get a job you feel you're entitled to an allowance. (...) An Amsterdammer must have the guarantee that Amsterdam will always be Amsterdam, a city (...) where Dutch principles prevail."
  • "When the Queen did not shake hands with men in the Moubarek Mosque in The Hague, Prime Minister Balkenende said that was fine. Nonsense of course, people shake hands in the Netherlands; that is the custom here. Balkenende is causing a great deal of damage by saying this. The same applies to the cuddling talk of Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen. It is counterproductive."
  • "Double nationality has a disastrous effect. Especially when MPs and other politicians also have them. It is simply unacceptable".
  • "Do away with palliative measures. Positive discrimination does more harm than good. It may yield a single immigrant a job but it creates huge annoyance among the indigenous Dutch population".

You would assume they came from a lone anti-dhimmi voice from the wilderness of the Netherlands. If so, you’re wrong. These words were spoken just recently by a Muslim leader in the Netherlands, Hikmat Mahawat Khan. He lashed out fiercely at the government who, instead of defending Dutch values, defends Muslim values and fosters Islamic behavior that does not belong in the Netherlands.

And that’s from a Muslim.

Now compare that with what was said in the recent book by dhimmi Dutch Minister of Justice, Mr. Donner, who believes that at the moment fundamentalist Muslims 'own' 2/3 of seats in Parliament, they should be able to install Sharia as the law of the Netherlands. "That is how it works in a democracy".

In other words, the Dutch minister thinks democracy should allow the overthrow of democracy. This is exactly how Hitler came to power. Once democratically elected, he systematically, through legal and violent means, dismantled the democratic government of Germany and installed his fascist regime.

Now, why does it take a Dutch Muslim to see the threat to the Netherlands and not its political leadership? For once, a Muslim voice should be heeded in Europe.

I wonder how soon a death fatwa will be declared on him from some Islamist cleric for speaking the truth.

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 3 Comments

Muslims Angry At Pope Benedict

Oh oh, the Muslims are angry at Pope Benedict now. And, you know what that will likely mean:

Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

A senior Pakistani Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmed Gamdi, said jihad was not about spreading Islam with the sword.

Turkey's top religious official asked for an apology for the "hostile" words.

In Indian-administered Kashmir, police seized copies of newspapers which reported the Pope's comments to prevent any tension.

A Vatican spokesman, Father Frederico Lombardi, said he did not believe the Pope's comments were meant as a harsh criticism of Islam.

I don't know, guys, if that ain't a "harsh" criticism of Islam, then I'm afraid to hear what Pope Benedict would say if he really got angry one of these days.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 7 Comments

How this is a World War

One of the comparatively reasoned arguments from the Left is that the confrontation that opened on September 11, 2001 cannot be called another World War, because it lacks the definitive feature of the first two: armed states engaged in full-scale battle against each other all over the world. They say World War II, for example, was such because it involved the march of German land, sea and air forces all over Europe and North Africa, while a comparison to what is going on today would have Nazi bombs detonated in Britain’s cities from time to time, which would be a nuisance but not an existential threat, and so is Al Qaeda.

The argument is a convincing one, so he who wishes to show that the talk about “World War III” (or IV, if you count the Cold War as the third) isn’t just fearmongering on right-wing politicians’ part needs to present arguments of his own. I will do this now. My argument consists of two parts: first, that there can be war, real war, all over the world, even without full-scale clashes between state armies, and second, that there is indeed a prospect of full-scale state warfare as in the first two World Wars, and a dreadful prospect it is.


In the USA, things are better, but only in the sense that the USA is some years behind Europe in its processes of ideological death and demographic takeover. America is still strongly Christian, and that is its hope for the future. However, the inept politicians, even on the Right, are making all the wrong moves, just as in Europe, like agreeing to bring 15,000 students from Saudi Arabia to be residents of the USA. The little good that may have come from sending troops abroad to the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq is being undone by letting the enemy into home territory.


If the Left does not regard, before it’s too late, the demographic jihad as every bit of a war as armed conflict, then we will have that which the Left does regard as the real thing. If you remember, that horrendous conflict of the years 1939–45, with millions dead, was caused by just three states run by a fascistic ideology: Germany, Italy and Japan. Three, that’s all it took. Today, just one state, Iran, is putting the future of the world in jeopardy. With regard to Iran, it is instructive to remember that it was a staunch ally of the USA until Khomeini overthrew the Shah in 1979, by virtue of Jimmy Carter’s bungling. That state, once a great ally of the United States, is now its bitterest enemy. And the frightening fact is that what happened to Iran can happen to any state with a Muslim majority—the Middle East (except for Israel; it is thus seen that the talk of Israel as being the USA’s only reliable ally in the Middle East is no idle figure of speech), North Africa, the central Asian “Stans”, Malaysia and Indonesia now, and Europe later.

In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
Bookmark and Share
posted by ziontruth at permanent link# 6 Comments

And the debate goes on

Six years after the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the free world was celebrating victory! Five years after the heinous crime of 9/11, the debate goes on and on and on: We haven't even come to a definitive decision as to what we are fighting yet!

Of course, there are differences in the nature of the war we are fighting now from the one we fought between 1939 and 1945. But there are also similarities. Then, as we are doing now, we were fighting against dark forces, fighting against tyranny, fighting against a people who had no respect for freedom, fighting against an implacable enemy, an enemy hell-bent on dominating the world.

After a period of appeasement, it became increasingly clear to all right-thinking people that the enemy would have to be confronted if the free world was to remain in tact. People then, though, were not in the grip of the disease of political correctness. As a result, they could see clearly who their enemy was, and there grew a determination to defeat that enemy: National Socialism.

At the present time, we are still in a period of appeasement similar to the lead up to 1939 when war broke out. There prevails a feeling that if we make concessions to the enemies, then they will come around, and let us live in peace. They won’t! Appeasement, by its very nature, is weakness. If there is one thing that Muslims despise, it’s weakness. The Islamic world is patriarchal. They have no time for weakness. Concessions, to them, equate with weakness. They only embolden them in their struggle to dominate the world.

There is another important similarity between then and now. At that time, we were fighting a political dogma: Nazism. At this time, we are also fighting a political dogma: Islam. Unfortunately, this political dogma is clothed in a deity. It comes complete with ‘Allah’s words’ and ‘Allah’s messenger’! But do not be fooled! Islam is a ‘religion’ like no other! It is nothing short of a total political system, with its very own laws and legal structures, the Shari’ah.

To complicate matters further, all Muslims are taught that the world is divided into two: Dar ul Islam, or the ‘House of Islam’, and Dar ul Harb, or the ‘House of War’. Muslims believe it is their God-given duty to fight in the way of their Lord, Allah, Rub al‘ameen, ‘Lord of the Worlds’, until the ‘House of War’, the home of the infidels, has been incorporated into the ‘House of Islam’. The fight will not be given up. At best there can be respites.

What is actually happening is clear to see; yet there is a great reluctance on the part of our leaders to admit to what is truly happening. The fact of the matter should be obvious to all: the Muslim world is fighting the jihad, or holy war, in order to conquer the world for Allah. America, seen as it is as the archenemy of Islamic values, has become the main enemy of Muslims worldwide. Hence, the United States is known as the ‘Great Satan’, and they call for its death. ‘Death to America’ is the cry from many a mosque throughout the world, and from many a street corner, too.

The problem for us is made more complicated because the Islamic world, dominated as it is by the Middle East in general, and Saudi Arabia in particular, is the home of Islam. It is also home to the one commodity the West needs in great abundance: oil.

Westerners show little desire to do without this commodity. It is, after all, one of the engines of our economies. Out of a lack of vision and short-sightedness, the West has wasted nearly forty years of research time to find a viable alternative source of energy. Where alternatives are available, Western leaders are reluctant to further their use.

This leaves us dependent in no small measure on Middle Easterners. The trillions of dollars that have made the Middle East rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams enable our Saudi ‘friends’ to spend billions of dollars worldwide to buy influence in the West. They buy up our businesses, build mosques, build schools, build Islamic propagation centres, and fund university chairs. Of course, Saudi Arabia, being the home of the pernicious brand of Islam known as Wahhabism promotes that extreme brand of Islam in the West.

Fact is, in short, we are funding the jihad against ourselves!

Muslims despise America and are intent on destroying its influence in the world. Why do Muslims hate America so much? Well, there are many reasons too numerous to mention. But here are some: America is seen as the home of capitalism, with all its evil, debauched, hedonistic, godless, fun-seeking, entertainment-obsessed ways. Muslims see Americans as choosing the enjoyment of life over piety.

Moreover, America is successful economically in a way that Muslims in most parts of the world could only dream of. Muslims in the Middle East are rich by happenstance: oil has made them rich. They happen to have it in abundance. They have not become rich by working for their wealth; rather, they have become rich simply because they have this natural resource aplenty. Americans, by contrast, have become rich through intelligence, progress, resourcefulness, creativity, and sheer business acumen. This is an enviable state of affairs.

Then there’s the concept of freedom. America espouses freedom for all. Freedom is anathema to Muslims. To Muslims, the only part of freedom they understand is the freedom to worship Allah and his messenger! That’s the only freedom they are interested in!

In addition, there are two very important matters. America supports and stands up for Israel, and Muslims hate Israel with a vengeance. Muslims, as we all know, are anti-Semitic in the extreme. They despise the fact that the US, with all its power, could have the temerity to stand up for the Jews.

To complicate matters still further, the jihadis hate the fact that America keeps the Saudi royal family in power. Many devout Muslims see the Saudi royal family as apostates, people who have left Islam, for they view them as debauched, and see that their home country is run as a private business, very much as Nicolae Ceausescu ran Romania up until 1989. They despise the Americans for its support of a rotten régime. The Islamists are even more determined to Islamize America to be able to change its political course.

In order for America to be victorious in this battle of cultures, it needs a volte-face in its foreign policy. Not one to appease the Muslims, but one to ensure the West’s ultimate victory over its enemy: Islam.

To do this, we need strong leadership: strong leadership in the US, in Europe, and in the rest of the free world. We also need leaders with vision, determination, courage, and conviction. Leaders with the will to win, and leaders prepared to take the uncomfortable decisions necessary to drive these dark forces back into the desert sands, where they truly belong.

President Bush may have done his best. But his best is not yet good enough. I would suggest that in his remaining years in office that he come to recognize the forces working against his country. The enemy needs to be called by its proper name. This war of the twenty-first century is a war between Western and Islamic culture. Furthermore, he needs to get tougher on the enemy, for it is only strength our enemy understands.

To allow unfettered access to the West for Islam is something that will only complicate matters still further. After all, could Nazism be propagated in the United Kingdom during World War II? Could communism be propagated in the US in the post-War years? Certainly not! It would have been unthinkable to allow these ideologies to be propagated! Yet Islam has been allowed to grow apace in the West post-9/11!

It helps us not one jot to say that Islam is a religion, and we have freedom of religion in the West. Let’s have freedom of religion, by all means. But in Islam, we have a religion like no other: Islam is, first and foremost, a political ideology. The kind of religion that the founders of the US had in mind when the Constitution was drawn up was something quite different. They were referring to religions that are personal and spiritual in natural. Islam is not. Islam is communal and political and trans-national. Are we really being sensible in allowing a 'religion' to grow and grow in the West which has as its main goal the supplanting of our political system with a totally different set of laws based on a totally different ideology?

To add insult to injury, Christianity, and all other religions, are disallowed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and their practice is severely restricted in most other Islamic countries, too. Moreover, Muslims have no shame in disallowing other religions to be propagated, either. This is asymmetry if ever I recognized it!

The debate needs to stop. The time has come to take off our kid gloves. The time to fight the good fight is HERE and it is NOW. We have no time to waste. We really do not have the luxury of time.

In addition, people need to start preparing for the enormous struggle that lies ahead of them. They must be prepared to relinquish many comforts, and many liberties hitherto taken for granted; and they need to be prepared to sacrifice. For truly, no war was ever won without sacrifice!

Ladies and gentlemen, previous generations have sacrificed so much for the freedoms you and I enjoy today. They sacrificed for the sake of their children, and for the sake of their children’s children. The time has come for you and me to do the same for our children! Start preparing to sacrifice now. The debating needs to stop.

©Mark Alexander
Bookmark and Share
posted by Mark at permanent link# 4 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts