'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 29, 2007

The Murderous “Mind-Sets” of Mysticism

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

Ayn Rand identified and named the two species of anti-man, anti-life mystics that have largely governed man’s history: the mystics of spirit, and the mystics of muscle.

It is rare that two prominent mystics appear on the world stage at the same time to deliver their ultimata: Pope Benedict XVI and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Pope Benedict’s appearance and utterances on September 23 passed almost unnoticed, while Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University on September 24 garnered international headlines.

Columbia University’s invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak to an audience of students, faculty and the public provoked a firestorm of opposition, chiefly from those who challenged the propriety of extending the courtesy to a dictator who not only imprisons, murders and brutalizes people in his own country, but whose government funds international terrorism and whose agents are helping to kill Americans in Iraq.

Aside from the impropriety of inviting a self-proclaimed enemy to speak anywhere in this country, never mind at a noted university, there is the question of what President Lee C. Bollinger of Columbia thought he could accomplish by the invitation. He cited the prerogative of making such an invitation in the name of “free speech.”

Since the Press Law of Iran cited by Bollinger forbids criticism of the government in any form whatsoever, that is, forbids freedom of speech, why extend the right to a dictator responsible for the censorship and repression? Is the right to free speech extended to convicted criminals? By any objective standard, for having committed capital crimes, have they not forfeited the right to freedom of speech? Is not that forfeiture a part of their punishment and incarceration?

In defending his decision to invite Ahmadinejad, Bollinger said during his opening remarks at the event that “this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech….”

What are those norms? Bollinger did not elaborate. Do those norms include welcoming a monster who, at his Nuremberg-like rallies in Tehran, regularly calls the U.S. the “Great Satan” and predicts and prays for its destruction at his hand?

One also must wonder what he believed he could accomplish by accusing Ahmadinejad of exhibiting “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” and by reading from a list of crimes committed by the dictator. Did he expect Ahmadinejad to acknowledge the truth of Bollinger’s damnation, suffer an incapacitating guilt attack, then wreathe and weep in heart-wrenching contrition? What was the point? If he was hoping for a “robust debate” of his charges against Ahmadinejad, the robustness of the “confrontation” was an eminently one-sided one. The vulpine Ahmadinejad demonstrated agility in evasive sophistry matched only by Hillary Clinton when cornered by facts and fault.

Bollinger’s list of charges against Ahmadinejad included the jailing and execution of Iranians for demanding freedom of speech, in addition to denying the Holocaust, advocating the destruction of Israel, funding terrorism, providing men and weapons to fight Americans in Iraq, and denying that Iran is working to develop a nuclear bomb.

Ahmadinejad slithered around every one of those charges and every one of the pointed questions put to him by members of the audience. Reading a transcript of his address, there is in it not a single direct answer to any one of Bollinger’s charges or an honest answer to any of the audience’s questions.

Bollinger expressed his subtle estimate of Ahmadinejad during his rationalization of why the dictator should be allowed to speak:

“It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament.”

But if the enemy is already known, and if one knows that his mind is evil (or what Bollinger characterized as Ahmadinejad’s “fanatical mindset”), why “confront” it in debate? Did we debate with Hitler of Nazi Germany or Tojo of Imperial Japan the rightness or wrongness of their aggression and atrocities?

Bollinger cautioned against “the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear.”

But Ahmadinejad has no idea but one: brute force. He does not wish to “engage” with ideas he dislikes and fears and which do not conform to his intrinsicist universe of Islam. Ideas emanate from minds, and it is minds he wishes to bypass and ultimately subdue or destroy – which is the leitmotif of Islam. He dismissed Bollinger’s moral indignation as irrelevant, almost comical.

Bollinger also revealed himself as an intrinsicist. His premise was that knowledge of the “good” was somehow an innate resident of Ahmadinejad’s mind as a repressed operative, and that what he wished to “discourse” with Ahmadinejad was why the dictator did not acknowledge it.

Ahmadinejad did not acknowledge it. He has his own set of intrinsic values, all subsumed under Islamic theology. He called Bollinger’s charges “insulting.”

Ahmadinejad’s address was not so much a speech or a lecture as a sermon, and he began it, appropriately enough, with an invocation. “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful….Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness….”

Perhaps it was lost on or forgotten by Bollinger and the audience, not to mention the press, that Ahmadinejad regards himself as the next “Mahdi,” the expected spiritual and temporal leader of Muslims, and in that role he is preparing the way for the return of the Hidden or Twelfth Imam by laying the groundwork for Armageddon or the Apocalypse. The joke was on Bollinger and the audience; the Mahdi had arrived, and he was Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad’s sermon was such a vile and bizarre soufflé of Koranic references, prattlings about science, scholars, light and “realities,” oblique insinuations of the crimes of American “imperialism” past and present, commiserations about the plight of the Palestinians, and querulous babblings about the ill-treatment of Iran, that it would be fruitless to try to summarize it all here. Its general tone was a combination of an appeal to pity and an appeal to guilt.

(Ahmadinejad’s speech at the U.N. was even more bizarre. He lectured the General Assembly almost exclusively on the virtues of the Hidden Imam. But then, the U.N. is a bizarrely immoral, anti-U.S. institution anyway, which the U.S sanctions with its membership.)

If one wanted proof of Ahmadinejad’s mystical roots and fundamental irrationality, one statement of his at Columbia stands out:

“Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, [they are] just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.”

Ahmadinejad has read his Koran and his Kant. Both Bollinger and his “guest” are intrinsicists, but Ahmadinejad harbors a strong streak of whim-worshipping subjectivism, as well, against which Bollinger’s anger was impotent. He ended his rant with, “We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.”

He loves them enough to either conquer them or destroy them, just as Hitler loved Europe and Japan loved Asia.

One does not invite killers to a civilized venue to merely scold them for their crimes. One arrests them, or shoots them, or eradicates their murderous governments. Ahmadinejad in this instance was the enemy and should have been denied entry into this country. Instead, both Bollinger and the U.S., in the names of “fairness” and diplomatic protocol, allowed him to come here to take advantage of propaganda platforms, and he left “victorious and in good health.”

It was not Allah or God who was merciful and compassionate and who answered Ahmadinejad’s prayers. It was the State Department and the President of Columbia University. It is such mercy and compassion that will be the death of us.

Pope Benedict’s pronouncements on Sunday the 23rd were a kind of warm-up act to Ahmadinejad’s. In his own sermons, according to The Scotsman of the 24th, under the headline, “Pope urges rich to turn from Satan and help the poor,” he “denounced what he called the world’s ‘profit mind-set’…warning that money can turn people into ‘blind egoists’ as he urged the wealthy to share their riches with the poor.

“Benedict said life was about making choices between good and bad, between altruism and egoism, honesty and dishonesty….Ultimately, he said, it was about making the choice between God and Satan.”

Yes, life is about making choices, and knowing that those choices enable one to live – if one’s purpose is to live. If one makes the wrong choices, one suffers or dies. Benedict has those choices inverted, however. If one chose between good and bad by his criteria, one would indeed suffer or die. It requires honesty to assert that one owns one’s own life, and that one lives selfishly. It requires dishonesty to profess otherwise.

“…When the mind-set of sharing and solidarity prevails, you can correct your course and change it to a sustainable and equal development,” said Benedict.

“The pope called for a ‘conversion’ of economic goods,” said The Scotsman article. “’Rather than using them for self-interest, we should also think about the needs of the poor, imitating Christ,’ he said.”

Once a National Socialist, always a National Socialist. There’s a “mind-set” for you.

One might innocently pose these questions to Benedict: If the rich and the middle class heeded his altruistic homilies, and shared their wealth with the poor – then what? Who or what would generate more wealth to give away? Would not such a mass transfer of wealth trigger an economic collapse, and impoverish everyone? Would not everyone then be literally staring starvation and death in the face?

Aye, there’s the rub! That is the secret, unexpressed mutual goal of both Ahmadinejad and Pope Benedict. They are humanitarians, “lovers” of mankind, mystics of muscle and mind.

Rand had personal names for them: Attila and the Witch Doctor.

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 3 Comments

Iran's Proxy War Against The United States

I note, with great satisfaction, that this essay from the conservative thinktank, the Claremont Institute, begins with the same call for a vigorous national defense that we call for at the top of our sidebar here at Infidel Bloggers Alliance. They assert that this injunction is called for by the Constitution and indeed it is. Additionally, it is implicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence which asserts that, if the established government of a people can not provide for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then that government should be "abolish(ed)",

"to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

And, as I always say, if the governments of the world can not get that through their thick skulls, then regime change will be necessary.

We here at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance call on our governments to protect us from the radical Jihadi terrorist cells in our midst. If we find that our governments can not effect such protection, then they will be abolished and replaced. That is my promise to them.

So, let it serve as a warning, if we are attacked, we demand that you respond with greater force than that with which we are attacked. We demand that you put down our enemies. We demand that our government provide that which is necessary for our "Safety and Happiness."

That being said, let us read about Iran's proxy war against America. One has to wonder just how far our government believes they can let things go before our "Safety and Happiness" is disrupted.

The Claremont Institute’s National Security Studies series is devoted to the serious discussion of what will be required to defend the United States and the West. Our Declaration of Independence teaches that government is instituted among men to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution’s injunction to provide for the “common defense” requires a vigorous and vigilant approach to national security. American foreign policy dedicated to the security of the interests and rights of its citizens requires not only informed and prudent statesmanship, but also a responsible citizenry that is engaged in the national discussion about friends and foes. It is in this tradition of spirited self-government that we publish these studies.

Iran has long been one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism worldwide. Iran’s ruling mullahs are extending their regional influence in the fog of the Iraq conflict. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile capability continues apace. Thomas Joscelyn argues that Iran is guilty of far more.

An emboldened Iran has vicariously waged war against America for nearly three decades, yet America’s leaders are unwilling to admit what is plain for all to see.Because of our reluctance to confront this terrorist state openly, we are losing ground on a vital front in our war against radical Islam. Through careful analysis of open sources, Joscelyn explains both the intelligence establishment’s misreading of history and the numerous but unfounded assumptions by today’s elite concerning Iran and its link to terrorist operations.

One of the most damaging and unwarranted assumptions made is that sectarian differences within Islam should prevent cooperation in operations against the West. A brief look at the evidence shows that Iran and others have had no trouble in putting aside differences in theology to harm their enemies, especially America.

Specific links include the Iranian connection to al-Qaeda in the Sudan, a partnership brokered by Hassan al-Turabi, one-time leader of Sudan’s ruling party, the National Islamic Front. Next, there is Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah’s master terrorist, who helped Osama bin Laden upgrade al-Qaeda’s capabilities in the early 1990s.

The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, long suspected to be the handiwork of Hezbollah under direction from Iran, may also have had a junior partner in al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission established that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were the work of Hezbollah-trained al-Qaeda operatives.

There are disturbing signs that may implicate Iran in, at the very least, facilitating travel for some of the 9/11 hijackers. Finally, there is extensive evidence that Iran aided al-Qaeda’s retreat from Afghanistan in late 2001 and has allowed al-Qaeda agents to operate from Iranian soil ever since.Recognizing this pattern is a prerequisite to restoring a sound policy towards Iran. We must be honest about Iran’s past actions over the last three decades.

Read the whole thing.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Austria/Iran Economic Ties

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

The Guy From Boston

I think you will like this guy.

A couple months back, me and fellow-Infidel Jonz really got into it, here at IBA, with some guys from the British National Party (which is a party in the UK whose primary agenda is to stand up for White Britons).

Jonz, who is British himself, and I tried to explain to the BNP people that immigrants are not the problem but, instead, the problem is immigrants who will not assimilate. The preponderence of immigrants who will not assimilate are Muslims. So, in general, most of the problems with immigration in the Western world are caused by Muslims.

Anyway, here in America, we have a problem with Mexican immigration, but it is not dangerous in quite the same way as Muslim immigration is. Mexican truck drivers, for instance, are just trying to make a living. They are very unlikely to detonate a nuclear warhead in one of our major cities.
Muslim extremists, on the other hand, seem destined to do so.

Anyway, my larger point here is, look at this guy. He's Mexican, by heritage. But, he's a real American.

I friggin' love America. We're such a ballsy, obnoxious group of mofos. I totally love it. Even our women walk with an imperious swagger.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Storm Track Appeasement: Muslims Say “No Christmas for You This Year”

Here’s another example of our ‘learned’ leaders in education willing to sacrifice our traditions on the altar of political correctness and multiculturalism.

So long Halloween parade. Farewell Santa's gift shop.

The long-celebrated holiday traditions are facing elimination in some Oak Lawn schools this year after complaints the activities are offensive, particularly to Muslim students.

Final decisions on which of the festivities will be axed will fall to the principals at each of Ridgeland School District 122's five schools, Supt. Tom Smyth said.

Parents expect the announcement to add to the tension that's been building since school administrators agreed earlier this month to change the lunch menu to exclude items containing pork to accommodate Muslim students. News that Jell-O was struck from the menu caused such a stir that officials since have agreed to bring the popular dessert back.

Jello?! Is anti-Islamic?

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

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

It is my judgement that Iran, while blustering, IS FULLY confident of victory in any set of circumstances, and this guides their policy

It also means there will be war.From Gertz:
Iran threatens counterstrike at Israel with 600-missile arsenal

Iran has prepared a vast intermediate-range missile arsenal for an attack on Israel and U.S. targets throughout the Middle East. Iranian military sources said Teheran has amassed an arsenal of 600 Shihab-3 and -4 missiles, with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers.

"A key target will be Israel's nuclear site at Dimona," a military source said.

Iran missile test in 2004 [ZOOM].
The sources said Teheran has deployed its arsenal in both western and northern Iran. They said much of the arsenal has been directed toward Israel and could destroy the Jewish state in a first strike.

Iran's missile arsenal has been tested several times. In January 2007, Teheran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conducted a massive missile exercise that demonstrated its capability to fire more than 100 missiles in a single salvo.

Capt. Mohammed Rostami, a member of the Iranian Center for Military Studies, said Iran has developed an arsenal that does not depend on Western suppliers. Rostami said Iran has developed an advanced command and control system that could ensure the launch of 600 Shihab-3 and -4 missiles within a minute.

The first salvo, Rostami said, would be followed by others as mobile launchers concealed by the huge Iranian mountains in the north and west of the country. He did not rule out that Iran would install nonconventional weapons in missile warheads.

Now we can either see this stuff as Saddam like WMD emptiness or not, but if it's a bluff, it is one which will guarantee actions by the people which it is intended to fake out, thus guaranteeing its own failure as a policy.

Today Ahmadinejad announced that the US govt was responsible for 9/11 as a pretext for invading the middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq among others).

What shall we make of such people who believe this stuff, threaten our people and our allies with extinction for 28 years WITHOUT CESSATION , and believe fervently that in the event of Armageddon, a perfect being will come out of a well to bring peace and happiness? Will the world be more stable if they do all this AND have nuclear weapons? Will our lives be better? WIll even people in the street in Teheran be better off if Israel maintains all 300-600+ nukes on launch on warning status? Who, there, would hesitate 5 seconds over a radar signature arcing towards a state a few miles wide given what all leaders there in Iran say and profess for more than a generation?
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

So remember that story about IRGC Commander Safavi geeting canned for a new guy?

Back on 9/13 this blog featured a story about the end of Safavi and speculated as to why

Now this from Gertz:
New IRGC commander focusing on his strengths: WMD and assymetrical warfare
WASHINGTON — The new commander of Iran's elite military force is charged with developing weapons of mass destruction.

A report by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute asserted that Gen. Mohammed Ali Aziz Jaafari, the new commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), would focus on building Iran's military capabilities. The report said that unlike his predecessor, Jaafari was not involved in regime politics and would focus on enhancing Iran's missile arsenal.

A military truck carries a long-range Iranian Shihab-3 missile during an annual military parade in Tehran. AFP/Atta Kenare
"In speeches he has given since his appointment, Jaafari has outlined the strategy he means to promote as IRGC commander, reiterating his commitment to developing Iran's ballistic missile capabilities and the asymmetrical warfare capacities of the IRGC," the report, dated Sept. 19, said.

On Sept. 1, Jaafari replaced IRGC commander Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi in what was regarded as an unexpected appointment. Safavi, commander of IRGC for a decade, was replaced amid dissatisfaction by Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei with rising domestic unrest. Safavi was said to have threatened to resign several times as part of a power struggle.shihab_multi_launch_2004.jpg

Of course, the IRGC, which for all purposes can be considered to be Hizballah, and HAMAS, and the Waffen SS all rolled in to one for both internal and external purposes, WILL be either the instrument of the mullahs actions or the victim of the US and or Israel. It's one or the other, and if you don't believe me ..you SHOULD believe the people who are responsible for guessing with money about what is ahead. They are betting on THINGS, not nations, now.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

Another Suggestion For Posting

In addition to adding your avatar at the top-right of each post, you can add your own "name" as a label. Why to do that? Because you, or any reader for that matter, can then type in your name in the search box at the top left of this blog so as to find postings by a particular author. Or, anyone, including yourself, can click on your name-label to access all postings which are so marked.

Even if you decide not to add your avatar to each posting, I still recommend that you add your name-label. The decision is yours, of course.

If you need techie help with any of the above, don't hesitate to contact me. Pastorius has my email addy.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 3 Comments

Duality And Political Islam

Since September 11 we have asked the question: "What is the real Islam?" The answers from Muslims and Westerners are contradictory and make us confused.

There is one way to gain clarity and surety about Islam—our best rational approach is the scientific method.

Let us start with the fact that the complete doctrine of Islam is found in three texts: Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (stories and anecdotes about Mohammed)—the Islamic Trilogy.

The Koran is confusing as it is arranged, but it can be made straightforward by scientific analysis.

The first step is to put the verses in the right time order, collect and categorize all of the similar stories. It is at this point that the missing parts, or holes, in the document become apparent. The life of Mohammed fills in and explains all the gaps and all the confusion falls away. Mohammed is the key to the Koran and Islam.

The doctrine breaks down in time into Mohammed in Mecca (the early part) and Mohammed in Medina (the later part). In essence, there are two Korans, one written in Mecca and the second Koran written in Medina.

The two Korans are the first grand division of Islamic doctrine.

What is intriguing is that the two Korans include contradictions. "You have your religion and I have mine" 109:1 is a far cry from "I shall cast terror in the hearts of the kafirs. Strike off their heads…" 8:12. The Koran gives a way to solve these contradictions—the later verse is "better" than the earlier verse. But the earlier verse is still true. All the verses from the Koran are true because they are the words of Allah.

The Koran defines an Islamic logic that is dualistic. Two things which contradict each other can both be true. In a unitary, scientific logic, if two things contradict each other, then at least one of them is false. Not so in dualistic logic.

All of the doctrine refers to two classes of people—Muslims and non-Muslims, kafirs. The doctrine that applies to kafirs is political in nature and is rarely neutral or positive. The part of the doctrine that applies to Muslims is cultural, legal, and religious.

The second grand division of Islamic doctrine is into religious Islam and political Islam.

It is surprising how much of the doctrine is political. Approximately 67% of the Meccan Koran and 51% of the Medinan Koran is political. About 75% of the Sira is about what was done to the kafir. Roughly 20% of the Hadith is about jihad, a political act.

Even the concept of Hell is political, not religious. There are 146 parts of the Koran that refer to Hell. Only 4% of the people in Islamic Hell are there for moral reasons, such as murder, theft or greed. In 96% of the cases the person is in Hell because they did not agree with Mohammed. This is a political charge. In short, Islamic Hell is primarily a political prison.

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

Islamic Rage Boy Speaks

Thank God for the serious journalists over at CNN. They interviewed Islamic Rage Boy.

I love it when they refer to him as "a former militant."

If IRB is not a militant, then well, I'd hate to see what a militant looks like.

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

Friday, September 28, 2007

Judge Andrew Napolitano, who I usually agree with, blows it out his tuchus. Torture, the USA, Lincoln, and free men in warfare.

We begin this trail of American policy, and morality with Hillary and Bill Clinton on the subject of torture, and Brian and the Judge, one of the best, AND most entertaining shows on the radio (XM-168 9-12 AM East Coast).
Hillary notably expressed herself against any American POLICY of torture in special cases. I agree. The example given on the radio was, we capture Al Qaeda #3 who knows where a bomb in NYC is about to go off, therefore we need an American policy to set free the interrogators in such limited circumstances to do what they have to do.

The net of that would be that America would thus have a policy to administer torture.


The men on the spot would simply have to DO WHAT THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE, and face the music as Americans. If that means 12 men and women, it's called jury nullification. If not, it's called a pardon. Everyone assumes their responsibility, including a judge who suspends sentence if needs be. The men on the spot, the DA, the jury, the judge and the governor, and/or president. But the USA should NEVER have a policy to ADMINISTER torture. It is to Israel's denigration that they had one (which didn't work so well, as I understand it). Mr. Dershowitz and I part on this as well.

On most views of this type my own feelings parallel the Judge and THIS GUY

The Judge then took his proper view on this and jumped off the historical bridge by saying that killing such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral (and thus, how could Sherman escape from this?). The intentional killing of civilians (an assumption that this was the POINT of the bombing on the Judge's part) is immoral and illegal (i.e., therefore a war crime)

Sorry Judge, but HISTORY clearly says that Japan (revisionists aside) was NOT about to give in, and in fact on the day the Emperor was about to surrender, he was almost kidnapped and or killed by the Japanese Imperial Army.

Admiral Ugaki took off AFTER Nagasaki with intent to lead Kamikazes ANYWAY. Japanese radios stations resisted occupation forces after surrender. The Japanese Army had handed out 3 million bamboo spears to the civilians, as clear a message as their is about what they expected the Japanese people to do ..their duty to die rather than do the unforgivable.

American casualty estimates were about 250,000 killed and up to a million total casualties. As it was, there were 290,000 American servicemen KIA in the ENTIRE WORLD WAR. American estimates of japanese casualties were an unbelievable 3-4 million -KILLED.

Adm Leahy who was against the use of nukes went so far as to say when considering the invasion of Japan, and US demands...
"None of the points were draconian, at least compared to those imposed on Germany. Japan was to be "stripped of all" its overseas conquests, presumably to quarantine a nation that Roosevelt believed was genetically disposed towards acts of lawless violence. The president's policy of isolating Japan from the rest of Asia may have smacked of political eugenics, but nothing was said about occupation, demilitarization, war trials, or the emperor of Japan. Nor was there any hint of the worst fear of one JCS intelligence officer: a bloody invasion of the home island that would destroy the imperial Japanese government before it could negotiate a peace"
As for Truman, as ALL of the men there at the time point out, the Japanese rebuffed the American demand for surrender at Potsdam, after Germany was destroyed and had surrendered, even though by that time even the now horrific multi-division killing effort on Okinawa was wrapping up, and it was THIS example .. with the 1st and 6th Marine Divisions at about 50% casualties ..which they faced against this power which, anyone could see was not going to win, but never the less, would NOT relent.

So Truman faced - what, and endless blockade at the end of a war during which Japan had demonstrated GASHIN SHOTAN, the willingness to 'lick liver and drink bile' rather than give in, or an invasion with millions dead, or use of nuclear weapons, with prospectively no or few American casualties and an end to the war.

Sorry Judge, but we weren't fighting for moral correctness, as the men on Peleliu could have told you any day.

And now let's turn to the idea of killing civilians, the heart of your argument, and the idea that a just war can also be, among free men, against anyone else, CIVILIZED, and one Billy T Sherman.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

Bollinger Is Jewish - And Other Sad, Strange Facts About Columbia University

Columbia University's President, who defended the idea of inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at his university, is Jewish. I guess he's the kind of Jew who doesn't mind too much when someone threatens to wipe the country that represents his people "off the map."

What's a little wiping off the map between humanist?

But wait, there's more. Read it (from National Review):

Columbia is "reeling," reads the headline in Wednesday's New York Times. Columbia is the Sulzbergers's university, and they had traditionally put a wordy buffer between what really happened at the institution and their paper's readers. Of course, that's virtually impossible to do these days. Still, it is not the Times that has excelled in reportage on Columbia during the past few tempestuous years. It is the Sun which has taken on that burden -- and, with some pleasure, I would think, since the university is a model of what the upstart daily thinks of as paradigmatic of the cowardice of liberal institutions in general. Or worse, the pusillanimity of liberal institutions when their very liberalism is being undermined from within.

In any case, Columbia is really reeling; and its wobbliness about what it stands for has been magnified since Lee Bollinger became president. He is simply scared out of his wits by Edward Said's less bright heirs on Morningside Heights. I have posted on this matter before. Actually, I am sure that Said would never have condoned an invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a lower class thug and a Shi'a besides, both an offense to Said's elitism and to his ill-fated Christian maneuvering to make Arab nationalism safely secular. I note that, with his usual discretion and allergy to street fights, Rashid Khalidi has not been heard from on the A'jad matter. He has bigger fish to fry: making sure that that vulgar practitioner of critical theory and deconstructor and rewriter of narratives, Joseph Massud, gets tenure. And that the Barnard tenure aspirant, Nadia Abu El-Haj, who believes that archeology proves there were never any Hebrews in the Holy Land, also is tenured. My guess is that, this time, the gang loses.

Of course, it is not only Columbia that is reeling. It is Bollinger himself. The faculty see this; the students certainly see this; and the trustees who typically will give a president enough rope to hang himself see that he has. My conclusion is that Bollinger is on his way out. The mandate of heaven has deserted him. He has no authority, least of all moral authority.

I also have a speculation about why the earnest protestations of Jewish students and others who were pro-Israel never could touch Bollinger about their terrible experiences in classes in the Middle East: he himself is Jewish, maybe an ambivalent Jew, maybe a frightened Jew, but a Jew nonetheless.

There are three people who have played a curious role in this drama.

One is John Coatsworth, whom Bollinger lured from Harvard to replace the sneaky Lisa Anderson as dean of the School of International and Public Affairs. What can one say about Coatsworth without having oneself strung up as a McCarthyite? Let's leave it at this: at least since graduate school at the University of Wisconsin he has been extremely radical. Why would a radical find common cause with an Islamic fascist? By the way, Coatsworth signed the Harvard divest-from-Israel petition. Did Bollinger imagine that such a person could (or would want to) restore calm to the Middle East programs at Columbia that were in his SIPA portfolio?

Richard Bulliet is the Columbia historian who negotiated with the Iranians for their president's visit. I've read what I believe is a wonderful book of his, The Camel and the Wheel, although I admit that my credentials for judgment are slight. I've also read parts of The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization, a cross-your-fingers-and-hope book, predictably well-reviewed by Juan Cole, which is by now even worse than getting a good review from John Esposito. Bulliet was a supporter of the 1979 Iranian revolution.

There's a personal angle for me in this saga. It involves a Columbia professor, Michael Stanislavski, whom I have known since he was an undergraduate at Harvard and I an assistant professor. He is a very good historian, and I've read three of his books on Jewish history.

Moreover, I've learned from them, although my view of E.M. Lilien (someone you don't know of) is different than his. About two years ago, I was scheduled to speak at a Columbia meeting protesting the patent bias of the Middle Eastern faculty against Israel. Michael asked me not to come, arguing that, among other things, it would be unfair to Bollinger who was well-intentioned on the matter and would take deliberate action to solve the situation. I had no interest in inflaming it. So I called the student who had invited me and told him why I would, in the end, not speak. Still, I left out Professor Stanislavski's role in my decision. Stanislavski and I have had difficult exchanges since on these matters. He even wrote a letter to the chairman of a Jewish scholarly institution saying Columbia would not cooperate with it as long as I was on its board. It was a preposterous communication: one professor's pique doesn't decide whether his university would have an institutional relationship with another part of the academy.

As this drama has unfolded I wondered what Stanislavski made of Bollinger's canceling A'jad last year, giving permission for his speaking this year. Inviting him and then attacking him, a cowardly act followed by an act of spurious bravery. There is in Jewish history the figure of the court-Jew. This Jew did financial and commercial business for the prince. Sometimes he was a medical doctor and cared for the prince and his family. He also tried to intercede for the Jews when trouble was coming their way. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed. I guess Michael failed. But Jews no longer need court-Jews, and they haven't for at least a century. It must be sad trying to fill a function that has been obsolete for so long.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Tancredo: Europe Should Deport It's 20 Million Muslims

From Up Pompeii:

Europe Should Deport all its 20 Million Muslims

Republican Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo told a Danish journalist that Europe Should Deport its 20 Million Muslims. This was last night on the first episode of a mini-documentary series on America, Clement in America.

This first episode dealt with the Immigration Issue. The Tancredo interview was just one of many. He was basically paraphrasing Samuel Huntington's misguided "Clash of Civilizations" when he affirmed that Europe should deport all the muslims.

Clement Behrendt Kjersgaard, is a very smart journalist and I was thrilled to see him hosting this series.

Unfortunately, I don't have video from last nights show. However, Here is the website to the program which has an English page. Hopefully the videos will be provided later. Even if you don't speak Danish, which most people in the world don't, all the interviews are naturally conducted in English.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Winds of War: What is a Moderate Muslim?

The other night I watched the movie Exodus on TV and there was one scene in it that brought home the problem with moderate Muslims. Ari Ben Canaan, a Jew played by Paul Newman, was speaking to Taha, the mukhtar or his Arab village. Taha and Ari, who lived next store in the Jewish village, grew up together and were fast friends. In fact, Ari saved the life of Taha when a radical Muslim faction killed Taha’s mother and father.

When the partition of Palestine was announced on the radio and the British mandate was divided into Arab and Jewish states, Taha was distressed. His village was now in the state of Israel and said he felt like he lost his freedom. Ari said that was absurd. The Jews and Arabs just gained their freedom from the British. To Ari, nothing had changed. Both Arabs and Jews in Jewish Palestine were now citizens of Israel.

Taha thought about this but was called away to the next room where Arab radicals told him to prepare to attack Ari’s village. When Taha returned he said he must side with his Arab ethnic group. Ari asked why? “We fought side-by-side against people like those in the past. Why not fight together to stop their radical agenda now.”

And here was the telling of the tale.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments





An event organised by “Stop Islamisation Of Europe” (SIOE)

To coincide with Islamo-fascism Awareness week in which events are being held across the USA highlighting the bullying by Islamists against non-Muslims throughout the world.

To protest against Kuffarphobia – the irrational fear and loathing of non-Muslims by Islamists.
To protest against the persecution of non-Muslims via Sharia law in Islamic countries.

To protest against the under-reporting, or even total lack of reporting, about such persecution in Western media.

To protest against the Islamisation of Europe by the changing of existing Western laws and practices to suit Islamic practices, in the name of “multicultural diversity”.

Images below are from a previous pro-Freedom/anti-Cartoon-Rage rally at Trafalgar Square, in London, in March of 2006.

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

A New Suggestion For Posting Here At IBA

Hey Everyone, Always on Watch made, what I think, is a good suggestion. Her idea is that we all develop an icon and post our posts here with the icon on the right side, so that readers know immediately who they are reading as they start at the top of the post.

You can see my "Pastorius" displayed on the top=right side of this post, obviously.

It was developed for me by my friend Michael, so thank you very much to him.

If anyone is lacking in ability with developing visuals, let me know, and maybe I can help you come up with an icon which fits your name.

Here at IBA, we don't really enforce rules, so if you don't want to participate in this new idea, that's fine.

Have a great weekend, and keep kicking ass.

Thanks to everyone for all the great work.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 7 Comments

The Real Occupation: All Y'all Want Is A Piece Of My Land

You gotta check this out.

The Real Occupation is a hip hop video by Kosha Dilz; a band who support Israel.


Thanks to Hip Hop Republican:

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

Pat Buchanan Says: Belgium Will Be The Next European Country To Break Apart

From Brussels Journal:

A quote from Patrick J. Buchanan, The McLaughlin Group (PBS), 14 September 2007

The next European country to break apart will be Belgium.

If the governments of the world can't get these truths through their thick skulls, then regime change will be necessary.

Are you hearing me, Belgium? We're gunning for you next.

See you soon, Brussels.

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

Fjordman Asks: Does Anyone Still Think Eurabia Is A Conspiracy Theory?

From Brussels Journal:

Does anyone still think it is a conspiracy theory to say that there is a coordinated campaign going in Europe to destroy the established nation states and surrender our countries to Muslims?

Government Advisors: Dutch Should Adapt to Muslims

Tolerance for Islam is too low and question marks on the sexualisation of Dutch society are justified. In the report, the WRR also says that the integration debate is not helped by the fixation on the concept of 'national identity'. The report says that there is nothing wrong with the dual nationality held by most immigrants in the Netherlands. The WRR already produced a controversial report last year (Dynamics in Islamic activism) when it complained that many Dutch politicians are involved in "Islam-bashing" and urged dialogue with "moderate movements such as Hamas." According to newspaper Volkskrant, the WRR will also advise that primary schools should be encouraged to have ethnically mixed pupil populations. They should be given the statutory commission to create a 'link' between population groups, said WRR member and Labour (PvdA) Upper House member Pauline Meurs in the newspaper.

British history ‘needs rewrite’

British history should be rewritten to make it "more inclusive", says Trevor Phillips, the head of the new human rights and equality commission. He said Muslims were also part of the national story and "sometimes we have to go back into the tapestry and insert some threads that were lost". He quoted the example of the Spanish Armada, which was held up by the Turks at the request of Queen Elizabeth I. "It was the Turks who saved us," Mr Phillips told a Labour fringe meeting.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Update On This Week's Radio Show

Update @ 7:38 P.M, on Thursday, September 27, to this posting here at IBA: We are now expecting Christine of The Center for Vigilant Freedom and Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the think tank Center for Security Policy, as our interviewees for the first half hour of the show. The topic of discussion for that portion of the show will be The Law of the Sea Treaty.

Labels: , , ,

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

What The Blogosphere Can Do

Check out this news at The Center for Vigilant Freedom. Excerpt:

...Esam Omeish of the Muslim American Society will step down from the Virginia Commission on Immigration, to which he was appointed by [Virginia] Governor Tim Kaine....

Read the whole thing.

Labels: , ,

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Ahmadinejad Has A Rough Ride

Apparently, some in the British press think we Americans were a tad rude to old Mahmoud:

The limits of free expression

Sep 27th 2007 NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

A rough ride for Iran's president

NEW YORK is used to the drama (and the traffic) created by visiting dignitaries. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, caused more stir than most. He started by asking whether he could lay a wreath at Ground Zero as a show of respect. "Access of Evil" cried the tabloids; "Zero Chance", and "Go to Hell". Condoleezza Rice called the idea "a travesty". Fairly swiftly, the visit was ruled out by the New York Police Department on security grounds. But Mr Ahmadinejad then prompted an even bigger ruckus when he appeared at Columbia University's World Leaders Forum on September 24th.


I say we haven't been nearly rude enough.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

Argentine president demanded that Ahmedinejad extradite terrorists from Iran

An important bit of news that may not have appeared anywhere in the MSM stateside, President Kirchner of Argentina called on Ahmedinejad at the UN to extradite terrorists from Iran who were responsible for the bombing of two Jewish centers in Argentina in the early 1990s that murdered at least 100 people. A short translation of the second news clip: the president stated that Iran
“has not offered any of the required cooperation”; “We hope that the Islamic republic of Iran, in the framework of applicable international law, will accept and respect the jurisdiction of Argentine justice”,
Last November, the Argentine federal judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, ordered the international capture of eight Iranian citizens for involvement in the bombings of the Israeli embassy and the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. One of those Iranian citizens is former president Rafsanjani.

This certainly wasn't reported on the BBC, maybe because Kirchner also took issue with Britain over the Falkland islands.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Avi Green at permanent link# 0 Comments

This Week on The Gathering Storm Radio Show

Listen to the nearly famous Gathering Storm Radio Show, that AlwaysOnWatch and I co-host. The show broadcasts live every Friday for one hour at NOON, Pacific Time.

Friday, September 28: Our guest this week at the bottom of the hour is The Merry Widow of The Merry Widow blog, which presents a Christian view of events, near and far.

The Merry Widow will be discussing with us the North American Union, developments about which she has been following for some time. She will provide background on the NAU and will bring us up to date with the latest happenings occurring under the radar of most mainstream media sources.

And at the top of the hour, we will have Christine from Vigilant Freedom on to discuss the Laws of the Seas Treaty and why it's supporter's goal is nothing less than the establishment of world government at the expense of traditional sovereignty.

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

If you are unable to listen live to the radio show, you can listen to recordings of the radio broadcasts later by CLICKING HERE.

The call-in number again is (646) 915-9870. Converse with my co-host and I, chat with our guests or if you must, just air your spleen!
Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Storm Track Appeasement: A Useful Idiot Stresses the Positive Side of Islam

It’s not bad enough that the author of this piece is a blatant apologist for Islam. What’s worse is that it is written by a rabbi.

The following is an excerpt from a speech Rabbi Eric Yoffie delivered Aug. 3 to the Islamic Society of North America's 44th annual convention in Chicago. Yoffie is president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish religious movement in North America, consisting of more than 900 congregations and 1.5 million Jews.

You can read the whole thing here. But I comment on some of the more ridiculous statement he made.

There is no lack of so-called experts who are eager to seize on any troubling statement by any Muslim thinker and pin it on Islam as a whole. Thus, it has been far too easy to spread the image of Islam as enemy, as terrorist, as the frightening unknown.

How did this happen?

How did it happen that Christian fundamentalists, such as Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, make vicious and public attacks against your religious tradition?

How did it happen that when a Muslim congressman takes his oath of office while holding the Quran, Dennis Prager suggests that the congressman is more dangerous to America than the terrorists of Sept. 11?

How did it happen that a member of Congress, Tom Tancredo, now running for president, calls for the bombing of Mecca and Medina?

Anyone who, in the slightest way, wandered off the reservation of the MSM can answer the rabbi on the above. But it’s this comment that goes straight to core of the problem we face with Muslims who adhere strictly to their religion.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

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

Colossal and Premeditated Abuse of Women in America by Muslims

By Cassandra (USA)
Author of Escape! From An Arab Marriage:
Horror Stories of Women Who Fled From Abusive Muslim Husbands

What is normal for one culture is not necessarily normal for another. Neither is what might be considered “normal” the equivalent of “sameness”. So, while any given culture promulgates practices that are “normal” for that specific culture, those same practices will not necessarily be the “same” or “normal” from culture to culture.

Individuals within a given culture are presented with, and conditioned from the time they are children to use, the societally preferred way to think, to do things, to manage their environment, and to perceive the world around them by their parents, by the schools they attend, by the religious precepts they are taught, and by the culture’s governing bodies. This conditioning is usually lifelong and consistently reinforced. As a result, these preferred ways seem “right”, especially when an individual finds himself in an environment unlike the one in which he grew up. To follow the ways of the culture he came from, to the extent that it is possible, helps him to feel that he is in control of his own situation and to maintain his own self-image. While he may make an effort to adapt to his new environment in order to wend his way successfully in society and will often fit in quite well as a result, he will always find the way in which he was brought up to be “the way it should be” and to be the most comfortable manner in which to live life. The traditional way to do things is considered the best way simply because it is the most familiar.

The above is especially true where relations with the opposite sex are concerned, especially in cultures with a long history. The Muslim male’s behavior patterns, no matter where the individual may be living, are prime examples.

* * * * *

The practices of degradation, exploitation, humiliation, subjugation, and physical abuse of women by Muslim men have been, and still are, time-honored traditions since the 7th century.

Muslims’ abominable treatment of the fairer sex was established by Muhammad and copied by his Beduoin Arab followers. They swept across Arabia and into neighboring countries, butchering the male inhabitants, looting and stealing their belongings, and taking their women and children captive to be raped, sodomized, forced into slavery, and shipped off on in droves to the harems and households of the wealthy men of the day.

Muhammad based his “right” to the above behavior on conveniently timed justifications which he passed off as “revelations” on the subject. Because he was ruthless in eliminating anyone who disagreed with him, his followers let him get away with this practice.

After Muhammad died, the bits of bone and leaf and other materials upon which Othman wrote his utterances (Muhammad was an illiterate trader), were organized by him into what are today called the suras of the Qur’an. They were arranged by length, the longest being first, rather than by chronology.

It is the suras concerning women in this collection of statements, and in the thousands of comments and analyses called the Hadith by Muslim jurists and philosophers based on the words of Muhammad, which began the institutionalization of relegating women to the status of non-persons to be used and exploited in any way Muslim males chose. Those jurists and philosophers who hated women took every opportunity to craft ever more limitations on how women were to be thought of, how they were to be treated, and what they were and were not allowed to do.

The following are “authorities” of that express the prevailing opinion of Muslim males from Muhammad’s time until today. Because it is forbidden to question or analyze the Qur’an and the Hadith, these statements, set forth 14 centuries ago, remain unchanged and written in stone to this day.

Sura al-Baqarah 2:23: Your women are a tilth to you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will, and send good deeds before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will one day meet Him.

Sura an-Nisa 4:34: As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them.

Sura an-Nisa 4:24: And all married women are forbidden to you save those whom your right hand possesses (captives).

Sura al-Baqarah 2:222: They question thee concerning menstruation. Say it is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not unto them till they are cleansed.

These are called in Islam the “golden rights and provisions for all Muslim women:”

The right to be treated as diseased and as sex toys
The Qur’an – 2:222; Sahahi Bukhari -3.31.172

The right to be used as a sowing field
The Qur’an – 2:223

The right to enjoy another husband after the third divorce from the previous husband (hilla marriage)
The Qur’an – 2:230; Sahih Bukhari – 8.73.107; Sahih Bukhari - 7.63.187

The right to engage in Islamic prostitution through Mut’a marriage
The Qur’an – 4:24;Sahih Bukhari – 8.3246, 3247, 3248;
Sahih Muslim – 8:3252, 8:3253, 8:3258

The right to be treated as impure or as a drunkard
The Qur’an – 4:32; The Qur’an – 16:92

To uphold the inalienable superiority of men over women and the right to be beaten by husbands—no questions asked
The Qur’an - 16:92; Sunaan Abu Dawad - 11.2142; Abdur Rahman – 1 DOI, the recognized authority on Sharia in his book, Women in Society”

To uphold the right of the husband to have four wives at any time and any number sex-slaves for all times; in case of objection by any wife, the husband can beat her
The Qur’an – 4:3; Sunan Abu Dawad – 30.2.13; The Qur’an – 23:5-6, 70:29-30

The right to be treated as a dog, a pig, a monkey, or an ass
Sahih Bukhari – 1.9.490, 493, 498 Sahih Muslim – 4.1039;
Sunaan Abu Dawad – 11.2155; Mishkat ul-Masabih – vol 2, p.114, Hadis no. 789

The right of ordinary women to be treated as crows
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

The right of a Muslimah to be stupid and to become a servant
Sahih Bukhari – 1.6.301; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

Muslim women forfeit their right to travel alone
Sahih Bukhari – 2.20.192, 193; Sahih Bukhari – 3.29.85, 4.52.250
Abdur Rahman 1 Doi, the recognized authority on Sharia in his book, “Women in Society

Women must keep their sexual organs ready at all times for the husband to enjoy them unhindered at any time—night or day
Sahih Bukhari – 4.54.460, 7.62.81; Sahih Muslim – 8.3367, 3368;
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 43

Women have the right to breast-feed an unrelated bearded man to make him haram (forbidden to her in marriage)
Sahih Muslim – 8.3424, 3425, 3426, 3427, 3428

Women are slaves (prisoners) and men are their masters (owners)
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 33; Hedaya – p. 47

Islamic marriage is about sex for money (prostitution)
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2105, 2.11,2106; Milik’s Muwatta – 28.4.12;
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2126; Hedaya – p. 44

If a woman wishes to get rid of her tyrannical husband she must refund the ‘sex money’ (Mahr) she received from him during marriage
Sahih Muslim – 7.63.197, 198, 199; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 12,2220;
Malik’s Muwatta – 29.10.32

Women have the right to undergo female circumcision (FGM)
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 41.5251

Women are slaves and infidels—they are not fit to join the moral police force
Ghazali – vol 2, p.186

A husband has the right to have sex with his wife by force (the right to rape)
Hedaya – p. 141

Women are cheap—you can have sex with a woman by simply teaching her how to recite a few verses from the Qur’an
Sahih Buhkari – 6.61.547, 548; Ghazali – vol 2, 31

Barren women should be confined at home—they are fit only to be in the house-prison
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 24; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 3.29.3911

A woman has no say when her husband decides to add more wives in his harem; she can’t even ask her husband to divorce her
Sahih Bukhari – p. 141

A wife has the right to decorate her husband when he goes out to have sex with his other wives
Sahih Bukhari – 1.5.270

A woman should never be selected or elected as a ruler
Sahih Bukhari – 5.59.709; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

Muslim women uphold the right of Islamic Jihadists to rape captive women right in front of their vanquished husbands
The Qur’an – 4:24; Sahih Muslim – 8.3371, 3373, 3374, 3377;
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 2.11.2150, 8.77.598

Women are devils; they are as dirty and filthy as private parts are
Sahih Muslim – 8.3240, 3242; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 26, vol 2, p. 43

Fear the company of women—they bring bad luck
Sahih Bukhari – 7.62.30, 31; Bukhari – 4.52.110, 111;
Malik’s Muwatta – 54.821, 22; Sahih Muslim – 36.6603. 6604;
Ghazali – vol 3, p. 86, 87

Women have very little intelligence—their own testimony is inadmissible in rape cases; in other matters their testimony is half to that of a man
The Qur’an – 4:14, 2:282; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 3.40.4662

Women are less human—they get one-third of blood money, no booty (for Jihad) for them
Malik’s Muwatta – 43.64b; Sahih Muslim – 19.4458

Women are worse than dead persons—they cannot follow a bier
Sahih Muslim – 4.2039

Men should always oppose women
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

Women are easily expendable—a divorced woman gets no maintenance or alimony from her ex-husband
Sahih Muslim – 9.3519, 3522

A woman has the right to stay at home solely to provide sex to her husband
Hedaya – p. 54

A woman becomes a harlot when she wears perfume
Mishkat al-Masabih – vol 2, p. 255

Muslims grow up with these unchallenged opinions which have engendered, for 1,400 years, the attitude that men are ordained to be “superior” and treated as ‘gods” in their own households. Women are considered “inferior” from birth.

It is drilled into the women that their bodies are shameful to the family, that the family honor rests on the purity of those shameful bodies, and they are to be obediently submissive to and subjugated by their male relatives at all times. Even the slightest suspicion of a woman’s contact with any unrelated male will earn her a death sentence in order to save the family “honor”.

Is it any wonder that Muslim men feel free to subject American women to the same depraved treatment? After all, abuse, degradation, and the killing of women are the “manly” things to do.

When you and I look as an American woman or girl, we see a person with beauty, intelligence, an open and lively expression which shows a joy of living on her face, and a sense of self-respect and dignity in the way that she carries herself. And we rejoice at what we see.

When a Muslim male looks at an American woman or girl, he sees an inferior being dressed in jeans and a color-coordinated top that reveals her figure and very likely bare arms, a mass of uncovered bright hair, and that she walks with pride, joy of living, self-respect, and self-assurance. He also observes that she has the nerve to look him straight in the eye, speak to him as though he is her equal, and that she does not hesitate to contradict him or tell him “No.” if she feels like it. And he hates her and her freedom deep inside even while all he can think about is raping her on the spot to “teach her a lesson about the proper place of women”. He also considers her a slut and a “whore” because she doesn’t scuttle around in a black shroud with nothing showing but her eyes.

Muslim males hate American women or any other women who have self-respect and are accomplished in their own right because they are anathema to Muslim males who desire to have all women degraded, terrified, psychologically traumatized, available for sex on command, and endlessly pregnant with their babies—that is, when they are not cooking or cleaning.

There is very little that gives Muslim males more pleasure than taking out their frustrations, inadequacies (which includes very small penises, according to a nurse), and lack of competence at just about everything on the women in their household who are not allowed to defend themselves. It makes the males feel like they are “in control” and that they are “real men”.

This would be especially true in the case of American women who would not hesitate to snicker and point the instant they observed the undersized fungus between the Muslims’ legs.

There is an added political element that makes abuse of American women by Muslims of even wider civilizational significance than was originally perceived because . . . Everything jihadi Muslims in particular do in the United States is to further the successful destruction of American freedoms and the replacement of our Constitution with their detestable, backward, woman-hating Sharia (Islamic law).

A key point in the Muslim war strategy to overthrow America by the year 2020 is Point 9 which states,

“Accelerate Islamic demographic growth. Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years—since one cannot have the Muslim legal permission to marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America”.
In other words, Muslim men coming to the United Sates are to be on the prowl for naïve and therefore gullible American women who haven’t a clue about what Muslim men normally do to women they have under their control (because the women are terrorized on a daily basis). When they find these women, they charm them and tell them everything every woman wants to hear about being the most wonderful creature in existence until the women finally believe them. At that point, the males pressure their prey every day to marry them and live happily ever after as soon as possible.

Only there is no “happily ever after”.

The instant the women become wives of these Muslims, their new husbands pressure them to sign citizenship and permanent residence papers for them so these guys can stay indefinitely, set up terrorist cells, and possibly bring their endlessly extended families here to become citizens as well. But they never tell their wives all of this.

The new husbands also begin criticizing the way their wives dress, think, and act. The wives are told that because they are now wives of Muslims, they need to convert to Islam, cover themselves in shrouds from head to foot (no hair can show!), obey their husbands from morning ‘till night and beyond, stop associating with their ‘infidel” families and friends, quit their jobs if they are working, stay home, and have babies. And if the wives tell their husbands where they can go, the husbands proceed to beat them up within an inch of their lives, threaten to kill them if they tell anyone what has been done to them, and then repeat the process almost on a daily basis until the wives are so terrified they cannot think straight, much less summon the courage to leave and go home to their birth families.

Somewhat later, the husbands will have all joint bank accounts put in their names only so that their wives have no operating funds. If their wives own property, these “flowers of Muslim society” will also terrorize them until the wives either sell their property or take out huge mortgages on it and hand the money over to their husbands which leaves the wives with nothing—no home, no money, and no assets to fall back on.

When they have children, a new chapter in the lives of American wives of Muslims begins. Once the children are no longer nursing and can get around on their own somewhat, the mothers of these children are at risk at any time of having their children abducted without warning and taken back to the Middle East where they will have no chance of ever seeing their mothers again, much less of ever being returned to them. Their mothers are left high and dry, desolate and bereft of their children for as long as they live.

And, to add even more misery to already abused lives, if any of these wives were forced to convert to Islam and leave it to return to their own religion, they will have to live in fear of being killed for their return to their original faith. Islamic law requires that anyone who leaves or rejects it is considered apostate and must be killed at the first opportunity by any ‘good Muslim’ at any time.

The Muslim husbands will return to the United States under other names, move to other parts of the country, establish new identities, and repeat the process at least five times as directed. If the husbands do not leave the States, they will demand that all children they father be raised as Muslim since this helps swell the Muslim population in this country, and they will fight the mothers for custody of these children for years until the children are 18 and free of such coercion.

Muslims figure that they are going to gain control of the United States one way or another. If they cannot do it by force of arms, they will try to do so by overwhelming population numbers accomplished by forced conversions and by breeding little Muslims.

American women do not matter to them except as tools to be used to gain citizenship, steal other people’s property, and to increase the Muslim population.

The solution? Stay as far away form Muslim men as possible and warn all your friends to do the same. Spread the word everywhere, as far and wide as possible. If they want to hear it from someone with personal experience, send them to me.

Labels: , , , ,

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

And, apparently, the largest cyberwarfare army as well

From China, With Love: Cyberwar the Next Big Threat to the U.S.?

THE BLOTTER : The White House is preparing a new initiative to protect against what it fears could be a crippling attack against the U.S. by computer, from overseas, and in particular, from China.

After a series of cabinet-level meetings this month at the White House, computer security analysts say the Bush administration is considering creating a new agency or cyberwar center to better protect the federal government's computers and find ways to help private companies and public utilities fend off computer attacks.

Those attacks, which could be just a few key strokes away, could shut down U.S. power grids and communication and banking systems, security analysts warn.

How could such a thing come to pass?

Oh and btw,

Chinese, US citizens charged with espionage in San Francisco

A Chinese national and a US citizen have been charged with conspiring to steal sensitive microchip designs capable of use in military technology, justice officials said Wednesday.

The US Attorney's office in northern California said Lee Lan and Ge Yuefei had been indicted on multiple charges of conspiracy to commit economic espionage and to steal trade secrets.

Lee, 42, a US citizen, and Ge, 34, a Chinese national, had sought to steal secrets from their employer, NetLogics Microsystems, and from the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, a statement said.

The two men had set up a company for the purpose of developing and marketing products related to the stolen trade secrets, and had attempted to secure funding from the Chinese government, it added.

"The vigorous enforcement of intellectual property statutes increases the economic vitality of this region, and adds to the security of our nation as a whole," US attorney Scott Schools said


US Video Shows Hacker Hit on Power Grid

WASHINGTON (AP) - A government video shows the potential destruction caused by hackers seizing control of a crucial part of the U.S. electrical grid: an industrial turbine spinning wildly out of control until it becomes a smoking hulk and power shuts down.


The video, produced for the Homeland Security Department and obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday, was marked "Official Use Only." It shows commands quietly triggered by simulated hackers having such a violent reaction that the enormous turbine shudders as pieces fly apart and it belches black-and-white smoke.

The video was produced for top U.S. policy makers by the Idaho National Laboratory, which has studied the little-understood risks to the specialized electronic equipment that operates power, water and chemical plants. Vice President Dick Cheney is among those who have watched the video, said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because this official was not authorized to publicly discuss such high-level briefings.

"They've taken a theoretical attack and they've shown in a very demonstrable way the impact you can have using cyber means and cyber techniques against this type of infrastructure," said Amit Yoran, former U.S. cybersecurity chief for the Bush administration. Yoran is chief executive for NetWitness Corp., which sells sophisticated network monitoring software.

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

An Observation And Some Speculation

Yesterday, LA Sunsett made the following comment, related to this posting about Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University:

Although I applauded the castigating introduction by the President of the University, I found it interesting that the lectern had Columbia University covered up. Normally, they would have proudly displayed this emblem, but this time they did not.

Did anyone else notice this?

Check the podium in this video.

Because of LA Sunsett's comment, last night I took a look at Columbia University's logo. Click directly on the image below to enlarge it:

Do you see what I see? Three crosses. Could the presence of those crosses be the reason that Columbia University's logo was shrouded when Ahmadinejad spoke there?

Or maybe the usual logo on the podium is the following one:

The motto reads In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen, which is a paraphrase of "In Thy light shall we see light" (Psalm 36:9b).

Psalm 36:9 reads as follows in its entirety: "For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light."

You can read all of Psalm 36 HERE.

Now, perhaps I'm way off base with my suspicions as to why that podium at Columbia University was covered up a few days ago. Or maybe I'm not. You decide.

Labels: ,

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

Older Posts Newer Posts