"Regime Change
Will Be
Necessary”
click.jpg

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Taqiyya in Action

IN THE BOOK, Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America, Rita Katz wrote about being at an IAP conference in Chicago. IAP is the Islamic Association for Palestine. There were lots of booths at the conference for "charitable" organizations, and at one of these booths, Katz met a man she already knew about: Muhammad Salah. She pretended she didn't know who he was, and he introduced himself as a "Muslim human rights activist."

Katz, a non-Muslim woman dressed as a Muslim, wrote, "He was small, thin, nearly bald. Totally harmless looking." He told her these conferences were so important because "we can teach you about the oppression and sufferings of Muslims in America and all over the world."

Then he told Katz his story. He had been a Palestinian with an American citizenship, a used-car salesman, working in Chicago when he went to Israel to "visit family and friends." But in Israel he was arrested by the Israeli authorities and thrown into prison for five years!

Katz looked appropriately appalled and asked
why in heaven's name would they put him in prison? "Because the Israelis oppress innocent Palestinians," he said. "And do you know what is the most shocking part? When I returned to the U.S., after I was tortured and I thought I was going to die in that prison, the Americans placed me under investigation and froze my assets! Me, an innocent citizen, a car dealer, a family man, father of five!"

To any other kafir this probably would have been a convincing story. The poor, oppressed Muslim! It's just wrong to treat people that way. Those Israelis must be very cruel. Those Americans are so oppressive to Muslims!

But Katz was not an ordinary kafir. She researched people like Salah for a living. She knew all about him. This frail, innocent-looking man was the leader of the worldwide military wing of Hamas, a brutal terrorist organization! When he was arrested in Israel he had a hundred thousand dollars in cash on him. In his testimony, he admitted the money was supposed to go to "members of Hamas's military wing." He displayed detailed inside knowledge of Hamas's structure and funding, and his testimony was later used as evidence in the New York trial of Musa Abu Marzook, the leader of the political bureau of Hamas (and the man who had appointed Salah to his position as leader of the military wing).

Katz writes:
"Salah disclosed (in his testimony) that he'd been authorized by Marzook to recruit individuals for training in the uses of explosives to fight in the 'holy war.' In the United States, Salah began training ten such recruits, three of whom were chosen to carry out attacks. In addition to supervising the building of bombs, explosives, and remote detonation devices, Salah was instructed by Marzook to develop biological and chemical weapons for Hamas."
When Nasser Hidmi was caught trying to detonate a bomb in Israel, he said he had been chosen by none other than the poor, innocent, abused, oppressed Muslim, Muhammad Salah.

This is an example of taqiyya, the principle of religious deception. According to mainstream Islamic doctrine, Islam is in a permanent state of war with any non-Muslim who opposes the rule of Shari'a law. And in war, deceit is a legitimate tactic.

In other words, as long as it helps the Islamic goal of making the whole world submit to Shari'a law, it is perfectly all right to lie and deceive.

When I was trying to figure out what I would choose as the three most important things to tell a non-Muslim about Islam, taqiyya was one of the three. The use of taqiyya is the main reason most non-Muslims are so confused about the real nature of Islam — they are constantly being intentionally deceived by Islamic supremacists posing as reasonable, "moderate" Muslims, who are thoroughly fooling everyone from political leaders to the media that "Islam is a religion of peace" and that "Islam has been hijacked by extremists."

What they don't want non-Muslims to know is that Islamic teachings are highly political and it is a Muslim's religious duty to strive to accomplish Islam's primary political goal — the establishment of worldwide Shari'a law — in any way he can for his whole life.

Why wouldn't Islamic supremacists want non-Muslims to know this? Because they can make a lot more progress toward their goal if most of us are in the dark.

But now you know. If you don't, read the Qur'an and find out for yourself. And then spread the word.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Citizen Warrior at permanent link# 4 Comments

Our Two Realities:

President Obama: Two Steps Forward, 900 Billion Back

Now that I have somewhat recovered from the depression caused by Obama becoming President;

I fully and proudly acknowledge the historical significance here. No doubt about it. But, Obama was the wrong man. The package oftentimes hides not so sweet contents, that is the case here. Do we as a nation choose our president simply based on making history. Would we (will we) elect a woman simply because she is a woman?

That is what happened with regards to Obama. My instincts tell me that one day, alot of people will realize this mistake.

Following is a Glen Beck interview with the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson. Due to my life circumstances, I am able to see both sides. Black people in the inner city have been taken. For the most part, they don't realize just how badly.

Fox News

GLENN BECK, HOST: BECK: 500 million people will lose their jobs every month. Yes, comrade, Pelosi. Yes, we can. Now, some pigs will say $7.6 billion for rural advancement for the communities; $1.7 billion for the National Park System; $87 million for a polar ice-breaking ship, $50 million for the National Endowments for the Arts. That's really -- that's not going to save the country.

But of course they would say that. What do they know about the struggle of the noble worker? We, comrades, must keep up the fight. We must show them the way. Stay strong, comrades. Victory is finally near.

Stop. You know, yesterday I did a segment like this, and The Drudge Report, you know, "Oh, look. They call it communism." You know what? Look, you want to be a social socialist? Be a socialist. That's fine. You want to be a communist? Be a communist.

Why are we hiding this? Why is it that we're not having the conversation now about universal healthcare? Let's have that conversation, not the conversation of, "Quick, our country will never recover if we don't pass all of this bull crap which we're still printing out, unless we act now."

Is socialism taking over our country? It has in our inner cities for a long time.

In Los Angeles is Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson. He's the president and founder of Bond Action, a cultural organization.

Reverend -- Philadelphia. I lived in Philadelphia --

REVEREND JESSE LEE PETERSON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, BOND ACTION: I loved that comrade update, by the way.

BECK: Thank you very much. A lot of people love it, and then again, some don't.

PETERSON: Yes.

BECK: I lived in Philadelphia for a while, and it's a great city, a really, truly great city. But it is a city that has enslaved itself with socialism and corruption like I haven't seen.

PETERSON: That's right.

BECK: Why is it -- why is it, Sir, that some of our Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia -- our biggest cities -- are enslaving themselves?

PETERSON: Well, most of the inner cities are run by black liberal Democrats. The mayor, for the most part, is black. The police chiefs are black. City council men and women are black. And yet the cities are out of control because one of the business -

BECK: OK. Wait. Hold it. You're not implying that it is a black thing, are you?

PETERSON: Well, it is a liberal and Democrat thing. But for the most part, the inner cities are now controlled by the black liberal, Democratic politicians.

BECK: OK.

PETERSON: And one of the big mistakes that black Americans made was to elect politicians, especially liberal politicians, thinking it was going to enhance their lives. They thought if they had black Democrats in control of the city, somehow or another, the black life would get better.

.......

Most black Americans -- not all, but most black Americans have a socialist mentality. That's why they elected Barack Obama as their president, because he is the first black liberal socialist Democrat. And they think that somehow or another, their lives are going to get better by electing him.

BECK: You know, Reverend, I tell you, you know, I pointed out all of the Marxist tendencies of President Obama when he was just running.

PETERSON: Yes.

BECK: And nobody really seemed to care. People dismissed it. Now, people are going to come out of the woodwork saying, "Oh, look at what you were saying about - "

Look, if that's what you are, then make the point. We are being lulled into this and it's all being denied. I mean -

PETERSON: Yes.

BECK: As a conservative, you don't have problems coming out and saying, "I think we should have smaller government." Why is it that -

PETERSON: That's right.

BECK: Why is it that so many progressives or socialists have a problem saying, "I'm a socialist? I believe in gigantic government?"

PETERSON: They know it doesn't work and that's why they won't admit it. I have to tell you, Glenn, the electing of Barack Obama was about black racism and white guilt. White Americans want to make up for past history, slavery and they have been blamed for what is happening today.

And they think by electing a black socialist liberal, somehow or another, black Americans are going to overcome their racism. But the only thing that is going to change their racism is black folks have to forgive. They have to drop their anger.

My concern - we have 10 reasons to fear Barack Obama's socialist agenda. Barack Obama-nation -- and if the people are going to have a Web site, they can read some of them.


Now, Back to the other Reality
(Cause it ain't all about the money)

S.U.B.M.I.S.S.I.O.N. [incl. Rashid Khalidi]

by Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy
February 2, 2009
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p17860.xml

How appropriate that Barack Obama featured Aretha Franklin in his inaugural festivities since her signature song is "Respect." Literally from the moment she finished belting out "My Country Tis of Thee" on January 20, the new President has been conveying his "respect" the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the way he practices it seems to be spelled S.U.B.M.I.S.S.I.O.N.

Several observers have noted in recent days that Mr. Obama's outreach to the Muslim world is not only defensive and apologetic. It explicitly embraces a narrative that is factually erroneous and deprecating to his own country.

For example, in his inaugural address, the President spoke of seeking "a new way forward [with the Muslim world], based on mutual interest and mutual respect." He amplified this idea during his first post-inaugural interview which was granted to a Saudi-owned network, al-Arabiya: He is determined to "restore" the "same respect and partnership America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

The problem with this formulation is that it misrepresents the more distant as well as the recent past, even as it panders to those (abroad and at home) who would blame the United States for the ills of the Muslim world. As Charles Krauthammer put it in his syndicated column last week, over the past 20 years, "America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them….It is both both false and injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized."

The President also told al-Arabiya that: "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries." Lest there be any doubt about the priority he attaches to this messaging, Mr. Obama repeated the point. "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

For good measure, the new President described America as a country of "Muslims, Christians, Jews" and others-- a presumably intentional upgrading of adherents to the faith of his father, Islam, from the second place position he accorded them in his State of the Union address several days before. (The rankings of both orderings obviously reflect something other than demographics; there are far fewer Muslims than Christians in the United States and, according to independent estimates, only half as many-- or less-- than Jews.)

Mr. Obama has also seriously mischaracterized our enemy as "a far-reaching network of violence and hatred," averring "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence done in that faith’s name." Such statements deliberately ignore the animating and unifying role in jihad of authoritative Islam's violent and hateful theo-political-legal program: Shariah.

What is really worrying is that Mr. Obama’s actions and rhetoric are almost certainly being perceived by his target audience as evidence not of respect but of subservience-- precisely what Islam (literally, "submission" in Arabic) requires of all of us, Muslims and non-Muslims, alike. Consider the following:

* Mr. Obama has made no secret of his desire to cultivate improved relations with the mullahs of Iran, who have repressed their people and threatened ours for thirty years. It appears that he started to do so months before his election, as a senior campaign advisor, former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry, met repeatedly with a representative of Iran's genocide-supporting president, Mahmoud Ahamadinejad. In recent days, Obama special envoy for Afghan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, hired as a senior advisor Professor Vali Reza Nasr – an Iranian expatriate with an appalling record of shilling for the Islamic Revolutionary Iranian regime.

* According to GeostrategyDirect.com, a newsletter published by ace national security reporter Bill Gertz, "Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from al Qaeda in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. 'For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,' a diplomatic source said. 'Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.'"

If surrender in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were not enough, upcoming opportunities for Mr. Obama to exhibit American submission to Islam include: ordering U.S. participation in the UN’s "Durban II" conference-- thereby legitimating its Iranian-dictated, rabidly anti-Israel, anti-American, Holocaust-denying and "Islamophobia"-banning agenda; adopting the program for undermining Israel promoted by longtime Friends-of-Barack Rashid Khalidi and Samantha Power (the latter just appointed a senior National Security Council official); and reversing the FBI’s long-overdue decision to end its association with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent front organization of the Muslim Brotherhood (whose stated mission is "to destroy America from within.")

Whatever Barack Obama’s intentions, the kind of "respect" he is exhibiting towards Shariah-adherent Muslims will surely be seen by them as submission. And that spells only one thing: D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Christine at permanent link# 5 Comments

Translation Of Al Qaeda Tape With Former Guantanamo Bay Detainees, Part II

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 1 Comments

Who is Hamas?

h/t The Jawa Report


Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

The Sad Necessity of Anonymity

Most all of us here, for varying reasons, remain anonymous online. This is one of my reasons.



A Wisconsin middle school teacher has been placed on administrative leave after somebody informed school administrators of an internet photo of her with a rifle. Betsy Ramsdale had been a teacher at Beaver Dam Middle School for a little over a year when the bru-haha erupted. Superintendent Donald Childs states a "concerned staff member" reported the photo to school administration. Childs goes on to say that he is "unaware of any sinister intent" but he still suspended the instructor because the use of the photo on a personal Facebook page "appears to be poor judgment".

Gun owners who walk among hoplophobes in the daily course of their professional lives have long known that their jobs could be in jeopardy if too much is made of their gun ownership. If the wrong person in charge has a fear and loathing of firearms, they could find themselves in the unemployment line at a severe disadvantage. Many gun owners use pseudonyms online not because they fear government oppression, but because they recognize the very real, unjustified and ill informed snap judgements that can and probably will be made if they are exposed as gun owners in the workplace. It is sad that the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of many law abiding gun owners is placed in jeopardy if they exercise their first amendment right to speak about their second amendment rights.



More on this story at WKOW Madison, Wisconsin.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 9 Comments

First They Came for the Second Amendment. . .

"The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes. " -- Sarah Brady , Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Trib., Oct. 21, 1993 (interview with Sarah Brady).

(note: original quote removed. As Pasto points out in comments it is of questionable veracity. We gun owners have enough trouble without using lies, knowingly or otherwise, to support our fight. If further interested in the campaign against guns try this: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html
Thanks for the heads up, Pastorius)

Remember that as we enter thse dark times. It's not just the First Amendment at risk. It's all of them. And the Second Amendment was put there to protect the others. The Founders knew the risk of a disarmed populace, knew that an armed population would help keep a government from running amuck.

With that in mind, a recent clip of Rahmadan E. Start with one list, others will follow. And who decides who goes on that or any other list and why? Wonder if anyone told Biden they'll be coming for his Purdeys, too, at some point?

First spotted at The Breda Fallacy:


Egads can they be any more blatant?

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 10 Comments

Two Views

Here is some very unusual art work from Pakistan
Rashid Rana

Born in Lahore, Pakistan, 1968
Lives and works in Lahore

Rashid Rana is part of the young and thriving artistic scene from Pakistan and is one of their most unique and celebrated artists. Rana’s interest lies in the ‘here and now’. He uses iconographic images that challenge the viewer’s perception of contemporary Pakistani art. His work addresses issues of faith, popular culture and incorporates a social/political commentary and parody.

Employing a range of media, Rana’s work reflects a spectrum of issues from popular culture to problems of gender and violence. Exploring the stereotyping of women, Rana in his Veil series looks at two extreme representations of women. From a distance, the image appears to be a group of veiled women. On closer inspection, it is a composite of hundreds of tiny hardcore porn photographs gleaned from the Internet. “I’m not making a statement here. The Internet is a major part of our lives these days and almost 70 percent of what you get on it is porn. It’s also about how men in western countries look at women from non-western or Islamic countries and how men in non-western countries look at western women ”.


How men in western countries look at women from non-western or Islamic countries

VEIL # 1

VEIL #2
VEIL #3
How moslems in non-western countries look at western women

Detail from VEIL #1

Detail from VEIL #2
Click on image for larger view
Warning, image maybe offensive

Detail from VEIL #3
Click on image for larger view
Warning, image maybe offensive

Labels: , ,

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

There's no such thing as Voluntary Hijab!

Here is a great article I stumbled on, and I think warrants to appear in full.

There's no such thing as Voluntary Hijab!

By Soraya Shahabi

For all women, hijab (the veil) universally and unquestionably signifies subjugation and servitude. It is so everywhere and in every case. It is argued that there are some adult women in Europe who 'choose' to wear the hijab. This is a seemingly sound 'legal' argument. In real life, however, few veiled adult women ever get to taste any degree of freedom of choice in any respect of family, married and social life, be it in clothing, social life, behaviour, or even a simple thing like food. Few adult hijab-wearing women have not experienced the fear and terror of Islamic environments hanging over their lives. They are not citizens with freedom of choice but human beings fearful of jack knives, deprived of social rights, subjugated, and alienated by the atmosphere of terror existing in Islamic patriarchal environments. Under such conditions, speaking of 'volition' or 'free choice' in dress is a travesty of these concepts. Choosing the hijab as a mode of dress by adult women is no more 'voluntary' than, for instance, the 'choice' to stay in family relations that abound in terror and torture. In fact, in today's world, the concepts of volition and choice have clear, comprehensible meanings. They can hardly be interpreted arbitrarily. However, these clear concepts are easily made obscure when it comes to the rights of women living in Islamic environments due to concessions made to religion and racism towards those born into Islamic environments.

It is not hard to understand the reason why women living in Islamic environments surrender. In Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia where honour killings are daily threats to women's lives, speaking of choice in dress is an offensive joke. In Islamic environments where even women's breathing is measured, there are some adult hijab-wearing women who stop attempting to bring about change. 'Choice', or, more precisely, surrender, can be understood by reviewing the deprived childhood and adolescence of these women. They have simply surrendered in order to 'survive'. We know surrendered human beings want dignity to survive. They need to make themselves and others believe that they have some control over some corner of their lives. They 'deceive' themselves in order to be able to cope with the limitations. 'Voluntary hijab' of adult women is supposed to provide a sense of control over something in their life, as well as give a little self-confidence.

In fact, the surrendered justify their captivity and slavery and portray it as logical and tolerable in order to gain some respect in their lives. It is here that some racists take snap shots of the 'high' status of these victims, share in the victims' self-deception, justify their servitude and theorize this justification through cultural relativism. They say that the hijab is the 'free choice' of these women. This choice is made as 'freely' as the choice made by a European woman to remain in an abusive relationship! Legally, this choice is as legitimate as the choice and freedom to remain in a sadistic relationship!

Child Hijab

The veiling of children is another matter all together. It is where discrimination and force are imposed on children. It is where society, the family, and adults attack children. The veiling of children must be declared illegal all over the world as a form of violence against children. Children do not have any type of 'voluntary' or 'compulsory' hijab. The deprivation of under-age girls from freedom of comfortable, prevalent, nice- looking clothing, despite any justification to the contrary, must be forbidden just as it is prohibited to cover their mouths, cuff their hands or blindfold their eyes. The former should be prohibited with the clarity of the latter. If one's conscience, public opinion or a 'contemporary' state categorically rejects the idea of allowing a group of young girls being paraded around one part of town with their eyes blindfolded, their hands cuffed, and their mouths duct-taped, then they should categorically not tolerate child veiling either. However, we have seen, and continue to see, that this is not the case. We have seen, and continue to see, how Western states like Sweden, Canada, Britain, and Germany have for years watched such parades without moving an eyelid. For such 'modern' states, the girls being paraded under the shroud of hijab, prior to being human beings and citizens, are 'immigrants', 'foreigners', 'outsiders'. They measure the rights of these 'immigrants', even if they are residents and citizens, with the yardsticks of nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Their rights are not covered by international conventions pertaining to human rights, women's rights, children's rights, elderly rights, criminals' rights and civil rights. Their basic rights are conditional to the religion, ethnicity, and traditions of their family and place of birth. And they call this sickening hypocrisy 'respect for all cultures'. Cultural relativism is thus a practical platform for discriminating against girls and women. It leaves the life, education, and health of girls at the mercy of religious families, religious schools, and the ethnocentric values of the father. They have no belief in the universality of the rights of children or human beings. They are racist!

The veil is not just another kind of clothing; opposing it is not just defending the right to freedom of clothing even though it is put forward as such. It is not something that a woman decides to put on for a change one day and to take it off the next. It is not a costume put on a young girl who is going to a costume party! Veiling young girls teaches them that they belong to an inferior sex and should be ashamed, and that they are sex objects and must limit their physical movements. By the same token, young boys are taught they belong to the 'superior' sex, and that girls are inferior and sex objects. An unbridgeable gap is thus created and institutionalized between the two sexes at the expense of young girls' deprivation and young boys' 'empowerment'. That is when the license for violence against women is issued. This marks the beginning of 'sexual apartheid', the official subjugation of women during childhood and the nipping in the bud their potentialities to enjoy a happy, creative life. It marks the beginning of the process of making two unequal sexes out of two born-equal ones. This is the beginning of human alienation. The goal is to produce two 'deformed' sexes, i.e. superior and inferior, master and slave, bread-winner and dependent, strong and weak. Much more than an item of clothing, the hijab is a decree of prohibition enforced on young girls; it is a series of laws, threats and tools designed to subjugate and enslave them.

Child hijab is an extreme form of violence against children: * Children are deprived of sports and movement. * Girls are transformed into sex objects from the age of nine. Their 'coming of age' is celebrated and they are virtually prepared for all sorts of sexual abuse. * They are robbed of their self-respect, self-esteem, ambitions, aspirations, and sexuality. * They begin to see boys as inherently 'dangerous', rapists and cruel. * They are deprived of the right to freely socialise with boys and are perceived by boys as sex objects, weak, ignorant, wrongdoers who must be put under men's guardianship. * They are denied music, dancing, and skipping around, of practically all sports, and of certain fields. * Their freedom of personal taste is denied and divided into sacred and profane.

In a nutshell, child veiling is a system of brainwashing girls and boys; it is a tool to marginalise half of society's children. It aims to alienate the two sexes. It must be eliminated. The Hijab and Honour Killings in the 'West'

Western governments have paid so much 'respect' to the violations of girls' and women's rights in Islamic environments in their countries, that their contemporary and progressive societies have become 'unsafe' and slaughterhouses for a large number of girls and caused alarm among people. We know that they would continue to portray their society as 'safe' were there not progressive activists from protest campaigns opposing these atrocities.

The honour killings of young girls are not accidental. They are the natural product of the imposition of the hijab over the lives of young girls and boys in Islamic environments. One cannot be outraged by honour killings and at the same time ignore the roots and cause of these atrocities. Every decent person who reads about the tragic lives of Fadime, Sarah, Pela, and tens of other young girls will undoubtedly search for the cause. Islamic violence occurring in the centre of the 'civilised' West is no accident. These atrocities are not the result of desperation, poverty or addiction. These murders are official Islamic sentences for 'disobedient' women. If a father, brother and husband do not kill their 'wanton' daughter, wife, and sister, they will be stripped of their 'honour'. These are what they put in the heads of young innocent girls in Islamic schools and with the veil.

There is only one way to stop these atrocities. By giving them real protection, the killing of children and young girls in Islamic environments can be opposed. It is only by rescuing their lives, freedom, and education from the influences of Islamic environments that these tragedies can be efficiently prevented. This protection should undoubtedly begin with prohibiting child veiling. Children's rights as human rights are universal and must be applied to Islamic environments as well.

It is five years now that the communists from Iran and Iraq have been saying that something must be done! Children and girls in Islamic environments must be helped. They must be able to enjoy the same rights as other children and women. We have said that the veiling of children and under-age girls must be prohibited. Religious schools, which are the centres for teaching inequality between sexes, misogyny, discrimination, violence, and so on, must be closed. Mansoor Hekmat wrote extensively about the prohibition of child veiling five years ago (Islam, Children's Rights and Hejab-gate, June 1997). If it is not right to deprive 'Mike' and 'Helen' from a life in which the two sexes freely mingle and socialise, and if it is not right to send them to religious schools, then it is not right to do so with 'Mohammad' and 'Nahid' who are born in an Islamic environment! If it is wrong to cover 'Rosa' or 'Julia' from head to toe in a shroud-like, dark piece of cloth called the hijab, then it is equally wrong to do so with 'Shahin' or 'Maliha'. If it is prohibited to teach children violence, inequality, and patriarchal ideas in schools, then Islamic schools must be eliminated. Understanding these objective truths about the equality of human beings irrespective of sex, race, religion and nationality in the 'centre of civilisation' is being reached at the expense of the rights tens of girls in Britain, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Canada.

'Immigrant' children and young girls are daily struggling for their rights as equal citizens. These rights, including the right to the freedom of clothing and socialising with members of the opposite sex, must be taken for granted like the right to breathing is. These rights cannot be taken away from a Swedish, German or British girl; it must be made impossible to do so in the case of those born children and girls born into Islamic environments.

Labels: , ,

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

UN to investigate Hamas' use of children as human shields?


From Jihad Watch:

This sounds good, until you see Coomaraswamy implying that if she could meet with Hamas on an official level -- which would require removal of its designation as a terrorist organization -- everything would be A-OK. "UN to probe Hamas for use of children," by Ruth Eglash for theJerusalem Post, February 6 (thanks to Block Ness):

The United Nations is ready to address Hamas's use of children as human shields during last month's IDF offensive in Gaza, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

"We have not yet dealt directly with the human shield issue, but we will now mention it in our reports," Radhika Coomaraswamy said in an exclusive interview following a four-day visit to the region.

"It is still very difficult for us to say that it was actually happening and we still need to conduct a full investigation into what exactly took place... but we are not denying that it happened; it is absolutely possible that Hamas was using its civilians as human shields," she said.

However, Coomaraswamy said that the UN's policy not to meet with leading members of the Hamas government - because it was officially considered a terrorist organization - seriously hampered all types of humanitarian relief work in the Gaza Strip.

"It makes all our humanitarian jobs very difficult, because we cannot meet with Hamas at a political level," said Coomaraswamy, who this week met with high-level Israeli and Palestinian Authority officials, including PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad, as well as with many children in both Gaza and Ashkelon to hear about the conflict from a more personal angle.

Coomaraswamy, who was appointed to her position three years ago and reports directly to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said the work of UN aid agencies and other relief efforts over the past two and a half weeks since the fighting stopped meant that "basic humanitarian needs are being met" in Gaza.

However, "the children are still in urgent need of assistance, including the restoration of basic services and the immediate reconstruction of schools and hospitals," she said in a press statement later on Thursday.

"UNRWA says that in order to avoid a crisis it needs roughly 400 aid trucks a day, but at the moment only about 130-140 trucks are allowed in to meet with humanitarian needs," she told the Post....

And those are the ones Hamas loots.

Why was the possibility that the UN might investigate Hamas' use of children as human shields so surprising? Here's why -- in an excellent short film by Pierre Rehov.



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

Everyone Loves Allah

In this video, we get to see the petulant god Allah in all his gory ... I mean, glory. (Sorry about that.)

This is absolutely brilliant. My hats off to this guy.

Ingmar Bergman wishes he had created this extraordinary piece of cinema, depicting the Allah, the creation of man, and the co-eternal word of god.

Oh yeah, and then there's Satan. But, never mind that.

We were talking about Allah.





Oh, and by the way, the narrator chick has a very sexy voice, doesn't she?


Thanks to new IBA contributor Kevin for letting me know there's a sequel:

Allah the Second



Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 13 Comments

Mother of USS Cole Victim won't meet Obama

The Mother of USS Cole Victim James Rodrick McDaniels has refused to meet with Obama. Here's a video of her making her case on Niel Cavuto's show on Fox.

McDaniels isn't the only one upset with Obama's coddling of terrorists.

...and the president’s order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.

“Personally, I am very disappointed he has gone forward with this,” said retired Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show. “But more important is the impact that has on the families who have waited for eight years for justice to have to wait another 120 days.”

Lippold’s comments were a glimpse of what Obama will hear at a Friday meeting with families of victims of the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks. Lippold said he will be in attendance.

The judge overseeing military trials at Guantanamo ordered charges Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, reversing an earlier decision that the case must go forward despite a request by the president to delay the proceeding.

“We had a legal process in place,” Lippold said. “Now justice delayed, is justice denied.”
Host Joe Scarborough didn’t try to hide his disapproval of Obama’s decision.

“The parents of 17 dead sailors understand we had the process, Mika,” Scarborough said to his co-host, Mika Brzezinski, who was questioning the legal process. “I wonder what President Obama says to the 17 families of these dead soldiers. It seems, Mika, like there is very little to be said.”

Nashiri, who has been in U.S. custody since 2002 but was first charged last year, remains in U.S. custody. After he was charged, he testified that he had confessed to certain crimes after having been tortured over the five years he had already been detained.

Of course, allegations of torture are straight out of the al Qaeda training manual, specifically:

1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

Here's some background on Nashiri.

Abd_al-rahim_al-nashiri_1 Al-Nashiri was propelled into al-Qaeda's senior leadership after the success of the USS Cole bombing.

He joined his cousins and uncles in militant Islam after completing intermediate school in Saudi Arabia. He took part in Khattab's insurgencies in Tajikstan and Chechnya and became a trainer at Khalden camp in Afghanistan in 1992.

Accompanied by Tawfiq bin Attash, he first met bin Laden in the mid-1990s, but al-Nashiri initially refused to pledge loyalty to him because he found the idea distateful.

In 1997, he joined the Taliban and later began work for al-Qaeda. He and his cousin Azzam were tasked to smuggle Russian AT-3 Sagger antitank missiles into Saudi Arabia to use against American targets there. The attack did not take place.

In late 1998, he was tasked by bin Laden to attack an oil tanker off the coast of Yemen. This plot was modified in 1999 to a U.S. Navy warship. Nashiri's operatives failed on their first attempt when an overloaded bomb boat sank in January 2000, but the Cole attack 10 months later succeeded.

His cousin Azzam was the suicide bomber at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1998.

An associate described him as utterly committed to al-Qaeda, suggesting he "would commit a terrorist act 'in Mecca inside the Ka'aba itself' (the holiest site on Islam) if he believed there was a need to do so."

At the time of Nashiri's arrest, he was involved in a number of plots, including one to crash a small plane into the bridge of a U.S. or allied warship in the United Arab Emirates.

He was one of 14 key al-Qaeda operatives and associates transferred from CIA custody to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2006.
Bookmark and Share
posted by kevin at permanent link# 2 Comments

Islam = Cultural Genocide



The performers of the jaipongan, a Sundanese traditional dance, now have to change their costume and type of performance on stage. Besides covering up their bodies, dancers are also asked to make their moves more modest. "Exposed parts of the body should be covered," said Herdiwan Iing Suranta, West Java Culture and Tourism chief, contacted by Tempo in Bandung yesterday.

According to Herdiwan, the request came from West Java governor, Ahmad Heryawan, as conveyed to West Java Culture Office official, Wawan Ridwan. "During the hand over, Wawan conveyed the governor's message," Herdiwan said.

Herdiwan confirmed the information yesterday, following the issue concerning the ban on jaipongan dance in West Java. The issue upset many dance artists in Bandung.

Herdiwan said the governor did not directly give him the instruction, however, the previous official conveyed the governor's mandate specifically to him.

Other than covering the "bare shoulders' of the costume, the dancers should also reduce the hip movements in the dance. "It's like reducing just 10 percent of the movement. It won't affect the beauty of the dance," Herdiwan said.

The controversial pornography law has been blasted for targeting cultural heritage, after West Java Governor Ahmad Heryawan used it as a legal basis to forbid Jaipong dancers from wearing "sexy" costumes and executing "provocative" dance moves.

Herdiwan said he agreed with the mandate, pointing out that the government was not banning jaipongan, but only reminded that some groups in the community feel uncomfortable with the bare parts of the dancers' body and the demonstrative hip movements. "It is not to discourage the artists' creativity," he said.

The West Java administration's ban has prompted severe criticism from artists and legislators who blast it as a move to curb the traditional arts and culture of local people.

Bandung-born singer and dancer Dewi Gita said she did not see the need for the administration to delve into the matter when there were so many other problems affecting the province, including floods, poverty and expensive education.

"You see, Jaipong has nearly vanished. It is our unique heritage and we should do our best to keep it alive. But instead of supporting the internationally recognized dance, the authorities encourage its extinction," she said.

Dewi, who traveled the world performing Jaipong in the 1990s, said that in the pre-reform era, she could travel abroad five times a year to perform, and always won huge praise from overseas audiences. But now, she said, a once-a-year international performance was considered lucky.

"Jaipong has nothing to do with pornography, it's merely a cultural expression. The dance is actually derived from the traditional ketuk tilu dance, which is a way that girls attract boys in Sundanese traditional customs. No wonder, the girl must be provocative and sexy," she said.

Noted Sundanese artist Gugum Gumbira created Jaipong to help indigenous dance and music compete with Western popular shows, after then president Sukarno in 1961 banned rock and roll and other Western music.

Although an urban dance, Jaipong is based primarily on village forms of ketuk tilu and on pencak silat, the Indonesian martial arts.

Yes some groups in the community feel uncomfortable with the bare parts of the dancers' body and the demonstrative hip movements.

Yet in Java, the same as all over the muslim world in the predawn darkness, Starting as early as 3.30 in the morning, a muezzin (ascended in the minaret of the neighborhood mosque) calls out in all directions to the faithful to kneel on their prayer carpets, face towards Mecca, and say their prayers to Allah. The mosques are so numerous and spread out here that there isn't a direction you can go in and not hear them. They do these mandatory prayers (salah) five times a day.



To me the most beautiful times are totally destroyed by some fungus faced
Cleric hollering the call for prayer sounds like someone is standing on his nuts and that he was begging for someone to put him out of his misery

I've found that sitting at any elevated place at sunrise or sunset is a pretty, spiritual and cosmic experience. No music or chanting is really necessary. It makes you realize we are tiny little beings sitting on a planet in a vast ocean of space-time.

Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

Obama keeps saying "The Arabic Call to Prayer is the most beautiful sound on Earth"

Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent.

Obama chanted it with pride and finesse.

Wake up, this cacophonous attack is heading your way, you are already being softened up with bile like Desert Rose.

How long before this shit hits you between the ears.

Labels: ,

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

A Different Viewpoint

What really happened with Flight 1549



Oh so SHAMELESSLY pinched from American Sheepdog

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 5 Comments

Shouting At The Devil

This may start pedestrian but bear with me, there's a point here, somewhere. I hope.

Tonight was Karaoke Night for 5th & 6th graders at the school. Yours truly drew duty as Mrs. MR (heh) was busy eating much better food at a Pampered Chef party.

You've all heard White Men Can't Dance. Well, their children sing even worse. Imagine a 5th grader trying to get through all of Bohemian Rhapsody. And, because we're really close to Taylor Swift's hometown you can imagine how many times I had to listen to Our Song. & I LIKE Taylor Swift. But egads.

Despite ourselves daughter # 3 and I had a really good time. Lousy pizza but a good time.

Pedestrian part over.

I'd seen them before at school functions. Couldn't miss them because we don't have a large community of them. 10 yrs. ago I wouldn't have given them a second thought.

But now. The mother dressed in full flowing hijab. The 5th grade daughter wearing a dark black hijab. Singing Karaoke. Eating Hot Dogs. Doing no one any harm whatsoever.

And I wanted to get up and yell. And Scream at them Why are you covering yourself like that? Just from seeing only your face you're a stone cold knockout WHY ARE YOU HIDING IT?!?! Why are you forcing your very beautiful little girl to hide it, too? How must she feel, all the other typical (man this all sounds so hateful to me) American kids are having a good time and you force her to stand out by hiding her? Do you think maybe, just maybe, she'd like to dress and dance and have fun the same as her peers?

Why must you adhere to a Cult that hates? That makes me angry at you just for worshipping it, when you, yourself, have done me no ill nor disservice. That sends it's young men (and women) to kill themselves and others to feed a bloodthirsty god THAT DOESN'T EXIST. MO WAS A LIAR. THERE IS NO ALLAH. He made it up. Probably too many mushrooms. Don't you understand that? Don't you see?

And of course I have to choke all this back. 300 kids and parents running around screaming, singing (well. . .) it won't do, of course, for me to make a scene like that against someone whose name I don't know.

To top it off the beautiful little girl is in the same class as my daughter. They eat lunch -- break bread -- together on occassion. So I need censor myself at home, when my kid's nearby. She knows my views but I don't want her suddenly spouting them off in school (Hello, Mr Rider, this is the principal. There's been a little incident here at the school. . .) especially when, at that age, she'd be largely parroting what I say & the things I say should not be parroted by anyone under the age of 40. Especially without benefit of clergy. I'd much rather she come to understand why without just my ranting. Nor do I want to taint a friendship "you can't play with her. she's a muslim." Christ what would that make me?

And what does that make me? Feeling like this? It's not hate. It's anger. So am I Obssesed? Arrogant? A Bigot? Self-righteous? Does being angry like that at someone I don't know make me as bad as those that have driven us to this point? I really don't know. But it makes me want to fight even harder to destroy Islam.

GOD DAMN YOU MOHAMMED for driving me, driving us, to this moment in history.

I hope you're burning in Hell.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 10 Comments

Last Chance for Diplomacy

Wherein Jacques Chirac comes off sounding kinda smart

from Olivier Guitta at the Middle East Times via Counterterrorism Blog

Last Chance for Diplomacy
By OLIVIER GUITTA (Middle East Times)
Published: February 02, 2009


This coming week, for an umpteenth time the P-5 plus one –the U.N. permanent five members plus Germany - will meet to talk about Iran and try to adopt a common position. It will be the first time the U.S. Barack Obama administration will take part in the discussions. With an affirmed will of breaking from the precedent administration, the Obama team has a lot at stake. At this point, with Iran inching so much closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon, the next few weeks might be the last chance for a diplomatic solution.

Obama's opening to the Tehran regime has been received quite coldly. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replied by demanding apologies for the crimes the United States has allegedly committed. He also asked for the U.S. withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. But that is not all, when it comes to the core issue of Iran's military nuclear program, Aliakbar Javanfekr, a senior aide to Ahmadinejad, stated that Iran had no intention of stopping it.

That sounds pretty definitive. A non-starter, really. Interestingly, the White House muscled up its tone when it warned Iran that military action is still one of the options on the table. But at the same time the very dovish German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier reiterated his view that only diplomacy should be used, therefore removing a large stick from the negotiating table. Indeed, if Iran thinks there will be no major repercussions for defying the international community, then what incentive has Iran to stop?

And that is the crux of the matter: the international community has very different views about how to tackle the Iranian issue. Russia and China are more than lenient with Iran, to say the least, and are going to block real hard sanctions on Tehran one way or another.

At this point it is really "divided we stand," and the Iranians could not be happier. Furthermore, the past six years negotiating with Iran have led nowhere except buying time for Tehran. Former French President Jacques Chirac explained how pointless it is to discuss with the mullahs, "These people don't think like us, we will always have problems understanding each other: when one thinks that an agreement has been reached, then boom they will make you start negotiating from scratch with a new team. They always try to lead you astray."

Maybe that's why France and the United Kingdom have been very active in the past months to increase the pressure on Tehran by working on having the European Union adopt tougher sanctions on Iran. But the 27 members of the EU are divided at this time. Spain, Greece and Cyprus want to continue dialogue without further sanctions. Sweden wants to leave the sanctions process to the United Nations. Austria and Luxembourg are totally against upsetting their Iranian trading partner, especially since Austrian oil firm OMV has a large contract with Iran and Luxembourg financial institutions are not favorable of dumping their Iran business.

When it comes to Germany the Chancellor Angela Merkel's camp is for new sanctions while foreign minister Steinmeier is against.

The French and British plan is to target Iran's energy and banking sector. It consists in curtailing European businesses to provide equipment for Iran's oil industry, therefore choking 85 percent of Iran's revenues. Also, they want the EU to ban the two Iranian banks - Saderat and Melli - that have already been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury. Interestingly France, the United Kingdom and Italy have since December been advising companies in the banking, insurance and energy sector to stop contracting with Tehran.

But one thing that the 27 agreed on, was announced last week: the largest anti-mullah Iranian group, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, was removed from the EU terrorist list. That sends a message loud and clear to Tehran. Will the United States follow suit? That remains to be seen.

Actually, some Europeans are concerned that they are strongly pushing for sanctions while they have no idea about Washington's new intentions. Also European diplomats are concerned that they might be left at the station and that Washington might decide to negotiate directly with Tehran.

Several credible reports are pointing to Iran's possibly going nuclear this year. That means the international community has to find quickly ways to get Iran to give in.

A sanctions route that specifically targets energy is the most straightforward and efficient option. But if not, why not follow the French example?

After France got proof of Iran's involvement, through its proxy Hezbollah, in the wave of terror bombings in France in 1985-1986, plus the kidnapping of its citizens in Lebanon, France played hardball. Then president Chirac decided to humiliate Tehran: "Like all peoples, Iranians hate losing face. They have their dignity. So if you treat them like chimpanzees…" The best method according to Chirac was to cut off diplomatic relations. "As long as you will behave like animals, we will not have diplomatic relations with you." France did just that in 1987 and restored them in mid-1988 only after the last French hostages in Lebanon were freed.

It looks like Tehran could not bear its new image as a pariah on the international scene. Regaining its honor enticed Iran to compromise on some aspects. Maybe if some major countries were just threatening Iran of cutting diplomatic relations then possibly an agreement could be reached.

Lessons need to be learned from the past negotiations with Iran: carrots do not work. So since Israel cannot afford a nuclear Iran and will not sit on her hands, the world has to come up with bigger sticks.

Interestingly enough, when former U.S. President George W. Bush asked Chirac after Sept. 11, 2001 what he thought about a rapprochement with Iran, Chirac replied, "Don't even think about it. These people are lunatics! Don't think there are moderates with whom you can negotiate."

That's advice from the former president of France that Obama might want to consider.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Friday, February 06, 2009

Pub Prep

Hey Bartender! Shot and a beer please!

NO! NO! NO! You Crazy Jihadis not THAT kind of shot! Check those Kalashnikovs at the door! Sheesh

May the sidewalks of your Pub Crawl be soft and smooth beneath you and rise gently to meet you.

Tom Waits --

Tom Trauberts Blues: Four Sheets to the Wind in Copenhagen


J J Cale & Eric Clapton

Call Me the Breeze


B B King, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Etta James

Midnight Hour


Muddy Waters, Junior Wells, Buddy Guy (oh man)

That Same Thing


CHEERS, INFIDELS!

Infidel Disclaimer: You Crazy Jihadis should try this last one yourselves. Save us some trouble. . .

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Good For Him!

President Nicolas Sarkozy dropped an "intellectual bombshell" this week, surprising the nation and touching off waves of protest with his revision of the school curriculum: beginning next fall, he said, every fifth grader will have to learn the life story of one of the 11,000 French children killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Read the whole article in the New York Times.

The article says: "Political opponents dismissed the plan as his latest misguided idea, unveiled without reflection or consultation. Some historians argued that the focus on victims could steer attention away from the Vichy government’s collaboration with the Nazis. Still others warned that the plan could backfire, creating resentment among France’s ethnic Arab and African populations if they felt their own histories were getting short shrift."

I don't know this for sure, but I read this paragraph more like this: "Muslims and multiculturalists criticized the plan in every way they could think of that would sound reasonable and plausible. The Muslims and their appeasers gave a subtle, underhanded warning that denying them their holocaust denial would result in uprisings and violence."

I couldn't help but see Sarkozy's plan as a direct opposition to the Muslims' denial of the holocaust. If so, I think it's a victory for our side.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Citizen Warrior at permanent link# 4 Comments

Obama Is Setting Himself and the West Up for Complete Failure!

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure. – Mark Twain, Letter to Mrs Foote, Dec. 2, 1887

The West faces two great challenges today: The survival of capitalism, an economic system which has brought prosperity to the masses; and the survival of Judeo-Christianity, a religious system which has brought civilization to us all. Without both, we would be very much more impoverished today, and we probably would still be living in a state of benightedness. Alas, because of recent failures in the economic system, our commitment to capitalism is appearing weak and shaky, and because of the Jihad being waged against a weakened West, our commitment to Judeo-Christianity is appearing weak and shaky, too.

We need to renew our commitment to both the economic system and to the underpinnings of our civilization, but to do that, we need good, strong leadership, and leadership from people who are equally committed to both capitalism and Judeo-Christianity. Sadly, such commitment is nowhere to be found.

In order to surmount these two great challenges we are now facing, we need crystal clear thinking and total commitment to the purpose. To-date, there is evidence of neither crystal clear thinking nor commitment to the civilization which is the keystone of our freedoms and way of life.

President Obama was swept to power in the belief that his administration would usher in a new dawn. He came to power on a promise of hope and change, though before the election, he omitted to explain to the electors what that “hope” stood for, and what that “change” would mean for Americans and for the world.

Obama’s confidence was so great that he promised us all that after his administration, the world would be a very different place. The “audacity of hope” indeed. One could also add the audacity of an upstart!

We all know that Obama wishes to stimulate the American economy by spend, spend, spending. The stimulus package worth $825bn shows Obama’s commitment to spending other people’s money: Taxpayers’ money! For as we all know, governments do not have any money; they have only other people’s.

This stimulus package is being hailed as some kind of stroke of Obama genius, whereas, in actual fact, it is old hat. He is only proposing what socialists have proposed down over the ages: To tax and spend. The only thing that is possibly new about Obama’s proposal is the scale of the stimulus package.

Spending money on roads and other infrastructure is all well and good, and doubtless there are many areas in America which need road-renewal programmes, and badly; but such spending will take a very long time to have an effect on the American economy. The lead-in times are going to be long; these projects are not going to have the immediate effects that Obama will surely be hoping for.

Further, spending public money on this vast scale is a sure recipe for corruption. Contractors, and many others, will be able to dip their hands into the overflowing pots of gold, and help themselves. If Obama thinks he can develop a system that will prevent this from happening, then he is naïver than even I thought.

Then there is the problem which spending public money on such a grand scale will bring with it: It will bring impoverishment to future generations, since future generations will be burdened with the massive debt which today’s generation is in the process of getting itself into.

Government intervention is now the order of the day, and on both sides of the Atlantic. But for government intervention, you can read socialism. For that is the path we are now going down. Wherever and whenever governments get involved in private businesses and corporations, their intervention and the ensuing government regulations end up crippling business communities and stifling initiative.

There is no doubt that we have got into this dire economic situation because of greed; and that greed was born in the complete and utter deregulation of the Reagan and Thatcher years. But what they did was not wrong at all, for their policies proved to be vote-winning, and they led to prosperity. The problems arose not because of the Reaganite and Thatcherite policies themselves, but because they were allowed, over the years long after both leaders had left power, to go on and on, unchecked.

So now, instead of following Friedmanite principles, principles which have been proved to work, we are in the process of throwing out capitalist principles: We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. And, as a consequence, we are being taken down the socialist route, taken down the road which leads to higher and higher taxes, increasing government interference, and stifled initiative. It is a road which leads to no paradise! Of that, be sure!

Of course, the excesses of many, especially bankers and their ilk, need to be curbed. It makes absolutely no sense to allow such people to keep paying themselves vulgar and enormous bonuses, especially when many others are experiencing difficulty in feeding their families. But that is an argument for strong government to put a stop to the worst excesses of the capitalist system; it is not an argument for abandoning the system altogether.

We need to reaffirm our commitment to the system by making it possible for people to start up businesses. This can be done with substantial tax breaks and, where necessary, government loans, subsidies, and grants. Unburden the people of their onerous taxation! Set the people free! Let them work and keep the fruits of their labours! Encourage manufacturing! Encourage initiative! Bring out the best in America!

In my judgement, the way Obama is going about correcting the economy, when Obama will no longer be the president of the USA, others will be left to pick up the pieces and pay the high taxes which he will surely introduce, since there is no other way to finance such an ambitious stimulus package. In short, President Obama shows no commitment to capitalism; on the contrary, his way of government is based on the socialist model.

But what is equally worrying, perhaps more worrying still, is Obama’s lack of commitment to Judeo-Christian civilization. In matters of faith, his vision is blurred to say the least. This is probably due to the nature of his family background. >>> ©Mark Alexander | Friday, February 6, 2009

All Rights Reserved


The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback (US) Barnes & Noble >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Hardcover (US) Barnes & Noble >>>

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Mark at permanent link# 17 Comments

More on the Bubonic Plague outbreak in the Maghreb amongst AQIM

Rumors of a plague outbreak among al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) members in the caves of Algeria's eastern Tizi Ouzou province first appeared in Algiers' Arabic language Ech Chorouk el-Youmi newspaper on January 6. The story gathered little attention until a new version was published by London tabloid The Sun on January 19, 2009, under the sensational heading: "Anti-Terror bosses last night hailed their latest ally in the war on terror - the BLACK DEATH." The article went on to describe how "At least 40 al-Qaeda fanatics died horribly after being struck down with the disease that devastated Europe in the Middle Ages." The AQIM unit, based in caves of the coastal Tizi Ouzou province, "was forced to turn its shelters in the Yakouren forest into mass graves and flee," with AQIM leaders fearing the survivors would surrender to "escape a horrible death" (The Sun [London], January 19).


Various news agencies quickly found "experts" who were willing to speculate on AQIM's alleged experimentation with biological weapons. Asian News International (ANI) quoted "a leading expert on chemical warfare" who suggested that, instead of bombs, terrorists could send people with infectious diseases walking through cities (ANI, January 20).

A Washington Times story cited an anonymous "senior U.S. intelligence official" who claimed a mishap during the development of biological weapons forced AQIM to close their Tizi Ouzou base, based on an intercepted (but undisclosed) message sent from Algeria to al-Qaeda leadership in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region (Washington Times, January 19). The story then went on to use then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's long-discredited testimony before the United Nations as "proof" of al-Qaeda's development of biological and chemical weapons. Other anonymous sources were cited as saying that al-Qaeda was worried the plague could spread to their personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan (UPI, January 19). A new twist on the story suggested the outbreak may have occurred after Algerian security forces used a biological weapon against AQIM's Tizi Ouzou base (al-Arabiya, January 26).

Dr. Saada Chougrani, an expert on infectious diseases with the University of Oran, stated that the rumors of plague in Tizi Ouzou were not taken seriously by Algerian health professionals, including the Laboratory for the Plague of the Pasteur Institute in Oran and the medical bacteriology laboratory in Algiers (ProMED [International Society for Infectious Diseases], January 21). Anis Rahmani, an Algerian security expert, noted that AQIM had trouble making explosives from fertilizer - the complicated and expensive process of weaponizing plague bacteria was far beyond the capability of the cave-dwelling insurgents (al-Arabiya, January 26).

Last week, AQIM issued a denial of all reports of plague sweeping through their ranks, blaming their appearance on the Algerian intelligence services:

On January 6, 2009, several journalists wrote reports, based upon information they had received from their bosses in the Algerian intelligence bureaus, about dozens of mujahideen who died from contracting the plague. According to their claims, this disease was spread throughout the ranks of al-Qaeda organization and that it will soon cause the collapse of this organization! (...) We wanted to announce that there was no truth to these rumors... We don't know anything about this so-called plague, because it never happened - other than perhaps in the minds and hearts of those collaborators who falsely carry the title of 'journalists' (Tout sur l'Algerie, January 26; NEFA Foundation, January 28).

A 2003 outbreak of bubonic plague in the Algerian port city of Oran led to 11 confirmed and seven suspected cases of the disease. It was the first confirmed case of plague in Algeria since 1950. A study of the 2003 outbreak notes reports of plague in Algerian records dating back to the 14th century, though the disease has gradually disappeared in the last century for unknown reasons. Nearly all outbreaks occurred in port cities rather than the interior (Bertherat E, Bekhoucha S, Chougrani S, Razik F, Duchemin JB, Houti L, et al., "Plague reappearance in Algeria after 50 years, 2003," Emerging Infectious Diseases, Oct 2007).

It is not impossible for AQIM to have experienced an outbreak of plague or another infectious disease in their rural camps (where conditions are similar to those experienced by the victims of the 2003 plague outbreak near Oran), but the very fact that no legitimate case has been reported suggests that this reported outbreak is unlikely. AQIM, like any militant group, does not exist in complete isolation - there are contacts with local farmers to obtain food, messengers to communicate with other AQIM sections, etc. Despite this, the epidemic does not seem to have spread (if indeed it ever existed). What can certainly be discounted is the possibility of AQIM conducting experiments in weaponizing the plague or other infectious diseases in their remote mountain hideouts.

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

Andrew Sullivan Conflates Jews With Neocons And Lies Outright About Their Policy

From John Podhoretz at Commentary Magazine:

Andrew Sullivan has decided that he now knows the truth about neoconservatism:

We patiently listened as neocons told us that the Palestinians are too dysfunctional a people ever to have democratic rights or their own state, but that the the ancient sectarian warfare of Iraq can be transformed in a few years!…I took neoconservatism seriously for a long time, because it offered an interesting critique of what’s wrong with the Middle East, and seemed to have the only coherent strategic answer to the savagery of 9/11. I now realize that the answer - the permanent occupation of Iraq - was absurdly utopian and only made feasible by exploiting the psychic trauma of that dreadful day. The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right.

Now let us see how many errors there are in this darling little passage.

First: neoconservatives told Sullivan Palestinians could never have their own state. In fact, neoconservatives were and remain the most determined supporters of George W. Bush’s June 24, 2002 speech in which he said specifically that the United States would accept a Palestinian state just so long as that state was a democratic one. Indeed, some of the most violent attacks against neoconservatives have come from  hard-line Israelis who do believe what Sullivan claims neoconservatives believe — and who believe COMMENTARY betrayed them and Israel because it published work supporting the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In Israeli political terms, an American neoconservative would fall somewhere in the soft center, and would be roundly despised by the “Israeli right” he thinks has the neoconservatives in its thrall.

Now, as to Iraq. Seems to me the original complaint against some neoconservatives wasn’t that they wanted “permanent occupation,” but that they wanted no occupation at all — that Richard Perle, to take one example, argued we should put an Iraqi protectorate in place in the first few weeks and get out while the getting was good. What was the rap against the supposedly diabolical neocons circling Donald Rumsfeld like a monstrous set of phylacteries in Andrew Sullivan’s lurid imagination — Wolfowitz, Shulsky, Zackheim, Feith, and six others to form an evil minyan on E-Ring  — but that they refused to prepare adequately for a long occupation?

Others — Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan most prominently — did argue that we had prepared inadequately for the occupation, and that we needed far more troops. That was the claim as well of General Shinseki, who has been lionized for his honesty and supposed martyrdom by Andrew Sullivan over the years. Was he a neoconservative? The fact that Kristol and Kagan were in disagreement with Wolfowitz and Perle and Feith and many others over the course of the first few years of the war should give the lie to the notion that the “neoconservatives” were driven by a single strategy. We did all have a single goal — victory rather than defeat. Because, as patriots, we believed and believe it would be better for this country, and for the world, if we actually won the war in Iraq.

Andrew Sullivan no longer is interested in winning in Iraq, in fact is probably quietly eager for a defeat there, doubtless out of a combination of a certain degree of conviction, a ravenous hunger for leftist Web traffic, and because having decided a few years ago he’d picked the wrong horse in supporting it, he finds it unbearable to imagine that the wrong horse may prove to be the right horse after all.

So he must hold the neoconservatives to blame, first, for gulling him into support — you know, we Jews are fiendishly clever, with our Svengali hypnotic powers overcoming the will of poor, weak-minded Catholic bloggers — and must now be held to account for holding views about Israel and Iraq and democracy we never held and have, in fact, been attacked by some of our oldest friends who do hold them. But of course, those attacks by our old friends aren’t real, nor are the divisions among neoconservatives real. Because we Jews are all in it together.

At least Henry Ford knew how to make a car.

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


Older Posts Newer Posts