So Turkey wants to join the EU...

Well, let's see...

Case 1. A Muslim teen murders a prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist by shooting him three times almost at point blank and shouting "I shot the non-Muslim". What do you think should be the reaction of a Turkish official to this?

Sevket Kazan, Deputy of the Saadet Party (SP) of Turkey, argued that the CIA and Mossad planned and organized the murder of Armenian Turkish journalist Hrant Dink. "The boys were used in Trabzon and in Sisli attacks and murders, but the real murderer are the CIA and the Mossad" he said. Sevket Kazan further continued in his Diyarbakir speech: "Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is a victim of an assassination. Of course, it is an event to be condemned.... Both a priest in Trabzon and Dink were killed by boys under 18. The CIA and the Mossad are behind all these murders, yet they use domestic tools for these crimes. Their main aim is to destabilize Turkey."

Case 2. A Turkish father takes his daughter for a walk. (hat tip: The Religion of Peace)



Would you like these to happen in your streets, Europe?

Crossposted at Eye On The World.

Another reason to read Dilbert

Who thinks Scott Adams is going to get into trouble with the CAIR grieviance mongers for putting this on his blog?

I’ve been told that in Muslim cultures you use one hand for eating and one hand for wiping your ass. By my count, that leaves no acceptable hand for masturbation. That’s why you might think you need a temporary wife whore – preferably one with three hands.

What the West needs to defeat Islamic Imperialism

The problem with the Iraq issue is that GW Bush initiated the war for the right reasons, but then has tried to justify it on the wrong ones. In the old times USA would have alleged national defense as the basis to wage that war. Nowadays they try timidly to justify with "liberating the Iraqis", which is nonsense.

The war with Afganistan against the Talibans was totally justified on the grounds that it had a government that was aiding and abetting US enemies, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks and would attack again. It was for similar reasons that the war on Iraq was originally started, apart from the suspicion that Saddam was cooking Weapons of Mass Destruction. When the US forces failed to find any hard evidence of WMD in Iraq, then the government resorted to the argument of "after all, to democratize Iraq would be in and of itself a good justification for this war."

Opportunity and Priorities

In truth, before attacking Iraq, it would have been better strategy to address the ayatollahs in Iran. Iran is a stronger and more dangerous enemy than Saddam Hussein was. Iran supports and subsidizes Hizbullah and HAMAS, apart from the fact that they also assist Al-Qaeda (despite the fact that they are enemies themselves). Now they are obviously looking to get the bomb, if it's not the case that they have it already, although in that case they would still not have an importantly large arsenal so as to use it as nuclear shield and threat with it to Israel and others in the Middle East, but they are working on that.

Wrong Reasons

When the USA dropped those two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only reasons alleged in its support were the need for victory. That was it. After all, it wasn't the US that initiated that war, it was Japan. And the reason why that war was waged was to bring the Japanese imperialist threat to an end. It certainly wasn't waged with the purpose of "liberating and bringing democracy to the Japanese people."

Hesperophobia and Anti-Americanism

But in our own times, when Postmodernist relativism is king, and when the Blame-America-First has become the favorite pastime among the peoples in the West (even among many Americans), everything that America does is wrong because America did it. So Americans, no longer certain of their own right, no longer with believe in themselves, have to look for timid excuses to justify what is their moral right to defend themselves from aggression.

Just look at how many people in the mainstream media in the West have echoed lamentations for the execution of that good guy Saddam Hussein, but don't bother to say anything any time that adolescent girls are executed in Iran because they had pre-marital sex. Or when in Saudi Arabia a thief gets his hands cut off, or when they execute apostates (in Islam it is forbidden to leave Islam for any other religion, and the penalty is no other than death). They say nothing about those repeated and instituted violations of basic human rights, but as soon as that angel Saddam Hussein is hanged, they lose no time in pointing out the barbarity of the Americans (even though it weren't the Americans who judged, sentenced or executed Hussein, it doesn't matter, it was, as with everything, America's blame).

It is in this context that we have the Americans trying very timidly to justifie with the wrong reasons, what is easily justified on the basis on the Just War Theory: the right to defend from aggression, actual or imminent. Whatever country whose government hides, protects, finances or in any other way assists the enemies of America, will suffer the consequences. This is the only justification needed.

If you are or were a dad or mom of an American soldier in Iraq that is risking his life, would you feel good that your son or daugther is risking his life for a cause of other people? Contrast it with the pride associated with knowing that your son is there risking his life in order to protect you and the rest of us. There is a huge difference.

But as long as America continues trying to justify the past war with Iraq and its current occupation, with arguments like that of bringing democracy and prosperity to the Iraqi people, we will continue witnessing the moral retreat of the West in the face of the Islamic threat. Until it happens again that one or several terrorist plots succeed, with several thousand deaths, and then Americans wake up and understand that the enemy is very real.

In the face of the Communist threat during the Cold War, the West was able to defeat it and win only when it finally had leaders who were certain of the moral superiority of the West, and were willing to say it over and over again, valiantly and with no remorse. The Cold War was won only when Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope Johannes Paulus the Second were brave in denouncing that Communism was inherently evil, and not only another way of life. It is that kind of moral certitude that we need now for the people in the West to wake up to the fact that the Islamic imperialist threat is also inherently evil and not just another, valid way of seeing things.

To hang women for going out in public without wearing a burqa, or for having pre-marital sex, or for marrying someone not approved by her family, and to behead people for the "crime" of apostasy, are not simply another way of life. These are evil practices founded upon an evil, totalitarian ideology, and they are evil because they go against the most basic human liberty and dignity. An ideology that orders that these barbarous acts be committed, is an evil ideology and as such it has to be fought. When we in the West again come to have leaders who understand this and are willing to say it and fight for it, we will again be ready and capable to win a war against totalitarianism, just as we won it in WWII and the Cold War. But not any earlier.

Posted in Spanish at Libertad y Razón.

What The Hell Is Wrong With Dinesh D'Souza?

From Jihad Watch (Thanks to Revere Rides Again):



The problem is not America...or me: An invitation for Dinesh D'Souza Jihadwatch
In any case, I just discovered, via referrals from Powerline, that D'Souza goes farther, and blames me also for Islamic terrorism. I have his book but haven't finished reading it yet -- when I wrote this and this about interviews he conducted, I didn't know this was in his book. But I just found this on page 278:

Two of the three books he mentions, of course, are mine: Islam Unveiled and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. His point about them, however, can just as easily be used against him: I have many times emphasized that the jihad threatens all Americans, both leftists and rightists. There is probably no better way to repel anti-jihad leftists, and push them into the arms of the jihadists (with whom so much of the left is already allied), than to dub them "the enemy at home." But irony aside, D'Souza's point here is wrong in numerous ways. First and foremost, he seems to assume that the jihadists have -- that's right -- "hijacked" the Religion of Peace. Dean Barnett puts this very well:

This view of things is dangerously misguided, and dangerously ignorant. The Radical Islamic world doesn’t hate us because our TV shows are too racy or our women too provocative. The Radical Islamic world hates us not for what we are but for what we aren’t. Specifically, the haters at issue loathe us because we’re not Muslims.

Here’s how the Ayatollah Khomeini put it:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.”

One of the things that makes “The Enemy at Home” so strange is that D’Souza never grapples with this side of Islam. Especially odd is the fact that even though D’Souza quotes Khomeini at several points, he never cites this particular speech. This is almost inexplicable; the above quote comes from a 1942 Khomeini work that is more or less the equivalent of the madman’s Gettysburg Address. It’s his signature piece. It defies belief that D’Souza delved even superficially into the Khomeini collection and these comments didn’t catch his eye.

Second, he assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims. That is indeed very likely true, but it makes hash of his entire thesis -- that social conservatives should ally with these "traditional" Muslims. For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if such presentations will just drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place?

This is a fundamental question, and it warrants debate, not the mainstream media's usual treatment (yes, both liberal and conservative) of assuming the correctness of one point of view without due consideration.

With full awareness of how important this question is, I will be working on a full review of his book this week. Certainly there is a personal element in this now, since he named my books, and I believe a reputedly responsible commentator such as Dinesh D'Souza should know better than to blame me (and Srdja Trifkovic) for terrorism, but the issues involved are far more important than personal affronts. I am hereby inviting and challenging Dinesh D'Souza to a debate, on the topic of "Is Critical Examination of Islam Helping Or Hurting the Defense Against the Jihad?" Or a similar topic of his choosing, in a venue of his choice, to which I will happily travel at my own expense. I also invite C-Span or anyone else to film this debate when it happens, and broadcast it far and wide. Or I will debate him on television, on radio, in print, or in all three.

I have no contact information for Dinesh D'Souza -- we were scheduled to debate on a show last week but he didn't show up. If anyone reading this knows him, please convey this invitation to him.

Hamas threatens Canada

Basically, it's a straightforward attempt to blackmail Canada into changing sides. An unsuccessful attempt.

GAZA CITY -- Canada risks making itself an enemy of the Palestinian people and of the broader Islamist movement by boycotting Hamas and openly siding with Israel, Palestinian foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar said yesterday after he was shunned by visiting Foreign Minister Peter MacKay.

During an hour-long interview that he said was a replacement for the meeting Mr. MacKay denied him, Mr. Zahar alternated between saying he was anxious to open a dialogue with Canada and saying he looked forward to the moment that Canadians voted the "extremist" Conservative government out of office. (what a mighty ironic statement, eh? - ed.)

Continue reading here.

Irai MP: Without America, The Strong Would Devour The Weak

Here's an Iraqi who gets it:


Interviewer: "How can the Iraqi public, which is anti-American, and which believes the U.S. is the Great Satan, support people who talk the way you do?"

Iyad Jamal Al-Din: "Whoever believes America is the Great Satan should not shake its hand. I do not consider the U.S. to be the Great Satan. I view it as the sponsor and founder of the project of democracy, and the defender of democracy in Iraq.

You can be sure that if America were to withdraw today, there would be Shiite massacres of Shiites, Sunni massacres of Sunnis, and Kurdish massacres of Kurds. The strong would again devour the weak, until somebody would be back the next day - there's no doubt about it.

We are still far from democracy."


God bless this man. Watch the video of the interview.

The sad thing is that this state of the strong devouring the weak is the reality of life under Islam. There is nowhere in the world where Islam reigns where the strong do not devour the weak. It starts with wholesale war among nations, and it ends with the subjugation of women and the killing of people caught in sin.

Storm Track Infiltration: British Intelligence or Keystone Cops

Associated press reported that a third terror suspect absconds in Britain.

A terror suspect under police surveillance has disappeared, Britain's top law-and-order official said on Tuesday. The suspect was being monitored under the so-called control order regime, British Home Secretary John Reid said in a written statement to parliamentarians. Under the program, suspects who have not been charged are released from custody but remain under observation and can be electronically tagged, kept under curfew, denied the use of telephones or the Internet, and prohibited from meeting outsiders.

I guess state-of –the-art surveillance technology is not one of Britain’s string suits these days.

The suspect, whose identity is protected by an anonymity order, absconded earlier this month, Reid said. The man was the third terror suspect to disappear while being monitored under the control order.

Reid's announcement came as the government faced criticism for another Keystone Cop blunder.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.

US Intelligence now regards Hizballah as a direct military threat in any future engagement, DUH

Sometimes 'intelligence' lags behind common sense and the shockingly obvious...Mr. Gertz is responsible for this report

WASHINGTON — The U.S. intelligence community regards Hizbullah as a major threat following its war with Israel in 2006.

The intelligence community has assessed that Hizbullah would be Iran's key military proxy in any war against the United States. Hizbullah could be used against U.S. targets in Iraq, Lebanon and throughout the Middle East.

Funny how they still miss TARGETS IN THE USA, I mean, no one would be crazy enough to attack us here, would they? Unimaginable, right?

"As a result of last summer's hostilities, Hizbullah's self-confidence and hostility toward the United States as a supporter of Israel could cause the group to increase its contingency planning against United States interests," said U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

In testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Jan. 11, Negroponte said Hizbullah's war against Israel has increased the confidence of the Shi'ite militia. Syria has also "grown more confident about its regional policies, largely due to what it sees as vindication of its support to Hizbullah and Hamas and its perceptions of its success in overcoming international attempts to isolate the regime," he said.

In contrast to assessments by Israel's military, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that Hizbullah's military capabilities were not diminished following the 34-day with Israel. Hizbullah has returned to its pre-war military strength and was not deterred by the Jewish state.

"Hizbullah's leadership remains unscathed and probably has already replenished its weapons stockpiles with Iranian and Syrian assistance," Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Maples said.

Continue reading "US Intelligence now regards Hizballah as a direct military threat in any future engagement, DUH" »

Capturing the Islamic World

Josh Scholar asks in the comments:

For a long time I've wondered if there was (to some small extent) a connection between Islam's prohibitions on art and it's emphasis on triumphalism (conquest, hostility etc). It's as if without fantasy, Muslims have nothing to dream about but paranoid conspiracies and conquest...

But looking at those beautiful photographs made me think, there may not be a prohibition on photography because it isn't drawing or painting, it's a mechanical reproduction... Is that the case? What is the state of photography as an art form in the Muslim world?

Photography is not considered a respectable profession among the umma. I can think of three different and possibly overlapping reasons for this. (My apologies for the fragmented nature of this post.)

1. Islam. (Shocking!)

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 34, Number 318.

Narrated Aisha: I bought a cushion with pictures on it. When Allah's Apostle saw it, he kept standing at the door and did not enter the house. I noticed the sign of disgust on his face, so I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I repent to Allah and His Apostle. (Please let me know) what sin I have done." Allah's Apostle said, "What about this cushion?" I replied, "I bought it for you to sit and recline on." Allah's Apostle said, "The painters (i.e. owners) of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, 'Put life in what you have created (i.e. painted).' " The Prophet added, "The angels do not enter a house where there are pictures."

Oh yes, all you Muslim artists out there have a reserved space in Hell. Of course, this is grade-A superstition: somehow drawing or photographing an animate object is bad behavior because it's like mimicking Allah!

And we can't have that. One can do a search for "pictures" at the Hadith database and find tons of stuff that showcases the moronic musings of Muhammad -- the guy who is the moral gold standard for Muslims.

Very often, your average Muslim is not aware of these sayings, so they ask imams about the matter. A few examples:

• Is it okay to take pictures with a digital camera?
• Is it okay to store pictures that aren't "printed" (like on a computer)?
• Is it okay to wear pyjamas with pictures on them?
• A detailed question with a long answer.
• This one made me :) and :(

Read the rest if you wish.

The Kid from Brooklyn: "Can't Take it No More"

The following video message is a follow-up to the one below posted by Pastorius.



If it doesn't open for you, click here.

An Open Letter to Islamic Freedom Fighters Around the World

Heh, I like this guy's style. I hope he doesn't mind, but I'm lifting his entire post, and recommending you go check out the rest of his blog:


Greetings to Al Qaeda, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat Islamiya, and CAIR.My name is Dennis Reilly, and I am writing to you as a representative of the entire non-Islamic world--I speak for the United States, Britain, Australia, Spain, France, Denmark, Thailand, Japan, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Canada…you get the picture.

First of all, I would like to thank you for your persistence in getting out the message about Allah and Mohammed. Here’s what I think we’ve all come to understand about Islam. (Please email me at dreilly1974@yahoo.com in case I’ve gotten any of this wrong. I’d love to hear from you.)

1. Islam is the one true religion. All other religions are wrong and perverse.
2. Allah is the one true God. There are no other gods besides him.
3. Mohammed is his Prophet, and we aren’t to draw pictures of him. Also, we should say “peace be upon him” after we say his name.
4. Jesus and Moses and some other people were prophets, too.
5. Muslims are supposed to spread the word about Islam.
6. Muslims are supposed to kill the enemies of Islam.
7. Muslims can marry more than one woman, and Muslim women have to obey men and wear lots of clothes.
8. The law of Islam is the perfect law, and all Muslim lands should be governed by this divine law, and not by man’s laws.
9. Eventually, all the world will be under the banner of Islam.
10. You will not stop fighting until the entire world is under the banner of Islam.

I hope I got all that right.

Having said all that, I would like to announce, on behalf of all the non-Muslim people in the world, that we are all now Muslim. We had a meeting, and we’ve all agreed. We’ve converted to Islam. All of us.

So, there you go. How easy was that? We finally just decided that was the easiest way to end this conflict.

Okay, then. You win. And I really feel better. I’m glad to know I’m going to heaven now. Thank you for all you’ve done to help me realize the folly of my ways.

Well, okay. I guess you can have your men put away their guns and bombs. The peace of Islam can now rule the world.

Thank you for your time,
Dennis Reilly
Dreilly1974@yahoo.com

P.S.I almost forgot--Jews are pigs.

Winston Churchill On Islam

We've had this posted here before a couple times before, but it's one of those that you have to repost every so often so that anyone who hasn't seen it before can see it (thanks to Religion of Pieces):


"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries; improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step. Were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Couldn't CAIR Less

New York Daily News is a left-of-center daily published by Mortimer B. Zuckerman. In Sunday's edition it published the following letter from one Jim Autino (unknown to this author):

Muslim groups need to get a grip and realize that most Americans don't need TV shows like '24' to fuel out 'Islamophobia' ('Muslims fear "24" nuke-plot follout,' Jan 19).

That gaping, smoldering hole in lower Manhattan and the daily atrocities and barbarism we read about in the papers are more than enough to remind us who our enemies are---and that many of them are already living here.

The so-called law-abiding and peace-loving imams and other members of the American Muslim community---especially the ones who claim 'we never wish that any harm be infliccted on this country'---could also be a great deal more demonstrative in their support by helping us root out the sleeper cells and other murderous scum living among them.

I'm sure many Americans will join me in holding our collective breath until that happens.

Whoever Jim is, he gets the IBA letters-to-the-editor award for the week.

DANIEL PIPES -vs KEN LIVINGSTONE LONDON 20/1/07

Sunday, January 21, 2007

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS -full post

I have given an overview of the seminar and the course of events , darius gives an indepth analysis of Livingstone "multiculturalism

The clash of civilizations

I met urban11, anton, derius and Bjorn a Canadian man who had come to witness this event on Saturday morning, none of us knew what to expect.

We made our way to the venue and took our place in the large queue, we eventually got in, I must admit I was annoyed at having to go through security checks to get in but thanks to our Islamic population we all have to go through these procedures now.

The Brief for the Conference was as follows:

“Some argue that the world is going into an era of conflict and war driven by a 'clash of civilisations'. The Mayor of London's policies are based on the exact opposite idea - that the multicultural city is part of creating a new concept of world civilisation that corresponds to a globalised world.”

Gavin Esler, BBC Newsnight presenter, chaired the main debate between Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, and Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum, an American think tank that advises US policymakers on the Middle East, on these contrasting approaches and their implications for Londoners.

Other speakers included :

* * David Aaronovitch, Times columnist and author
* * Tariq Ali, Writer
* * Dr. Abdul Bari, Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain
* * Martin Bright, Political Editor, New Statesman
* * Alistair Crooke, Director, Conflicts Forum
* * Doudou Diène, UN Special Rapporteur on Racism and Xenophobia
* * Professor Danny Dorling, specialist in Human Geography
* * Gavin Esler, BBC's Newsnight Presenter
* * Jonathan Freedland, Journalist
* * Professor Conor Gearty, Rausing Director, Centre for the Study of Human Rights
* * Kirsten Hearne, REGARD
* * Andrés Izarra, Venezuela's TeleSur TV
* * Doug Jewell, Liberty
* * Oliver Kamm, Times columnist and author
* * Mejindarpal Kaur, Director, United Sikhs
* * Bruce Kent, Peace Campaigner
* * Antony Lerman, Executive Director, Institute for Jewish Policy Research
* * Douglas Murray
* * Susan Nathan, Writer
* * Cristina Odone, Columnist
* * Alasdair Palmer, Telegraph
* * Agnès Poirier, political and cultural commentator
* * Professor Tariq Ramadan, Senior Research fellow at St Antony's College (Oxford)
* * Councillor Salma Yaqoob

Gavin Esler opened the debate by introducing all of the speakers

Professor Daniel Pipes spoke first, I am not going to quote all of what he said in his address but give you what I understood his words to mean.

Dr Pipes challenged the words, clash of civilizations, he did not see any such clash, he saw a battle between the civilized and barbarianism, the “barbarianism clearly referring to Islam.

Dr Pipes went on to say what the hallmarks of being civilized were such as having a democratic process for solving conflicts where ever possible, tolerance of difference and how Islam and its tenets were clearly the opposite of this.

Dr Pipes referred to the tensions between Islam and the west as a war and that he was looking for a victory in that war, victory he said comes when the other side gives up.

He went on to demonstrate this point citing the US defeat in Vietnam, the Americans were not defeated because of lack of personnel or equipment, they gave up.

It is my understanding from this analogy that Dr Pipes will see a victory when Islam gives up.

In short, it is my opinion that Dr Pipes sees this conflict as one between civilized countries and the barbarian, not a clash of civilizations because purely because they are civilized , doctrines such as Islam and its inherent barbarity would not arise.

Dr Pipes commended people such as Hirsi Ali and many others for their stance against Islam and it tenets, this brought the audience to its feet applauding long and loud.

Dr Pipes went on to say how the UK was now the biggest terror threat to the US because of Muslims in the UK he cited Richard Reid and the UK connections in the 9/11 atrocity, this brought a standing ovation from the supporters of Dr Pipes because they recognised the damage that was being done to UK-US relations because of the presence of these people in the UK.

Maybe I have taken a rather simplistic view and in interpretation of what Dr Pipes said, I do not think for one minute that Dr Pipes is suggesting that we all sit back and wait for Islam to give up, Islam has to be made to give up and that, in my opinion is the message that Dr Pipes was giving.

Mr Livingstone was the next speaker.

Mr Livingstone extolled the wonders of London, praised the fact that large percentages of the people who lived in this city were born “outside” of the UK

He praised the “enormous” contribution that the Muslim population has made to the city and how London was a better place for that.

He held London up as a model for a global community

Mr Livingstone went on to say that one of the main reasons London got the 2012 Olympics was because more languages were spoken in London than any other major city in the world.

He held this up as the “success” of multiculturalism,.

Mr Livingstone also referred to the 7/7 bombings and how Londoners did not go on the rampage targeting Muslims, he said, if I remember correctly that there was only one incident where a Muslim was injured in an attack after the 7/7 atrocity.

Mr Livingstone then went on to the subject of America, the UK and the “cold war”

In this part of his address he vilified America and the UK in how they treated the Soviet bloc.

Mr Livingstone wants a multicultural state where all are equal this includes the Barbarism that Dr Pipes spoke of, he wants a multicultural state where people like Dr Qaradawi are allowed full and free reign.

Dr Qaradawi was hailed by MR Livingstone as the “moderate voice of Islam” and that he Mr Livingstone would continue to involve such people in his efforts to achieve a true multicultural state, Dr Qaradawi holds these views amongst many others, he is by no means “moderate”

Salma Yacoob came to the rostrum

I have to say it, the usual victim role of Islam was trailed out, she claimed that 9/11 , 7/7 and others were reprial attacks because of what America and the UK had and still are doing in the muslim world, “ do you expect us not to fight back” she said.

Listing the Palestine conflict and Britains role in that she agreed that all people have to have a country but there was no right to give Arab land away in Palestine, Ms Yacoob could not bring herself to say the word “Israel”, a member of the audience actually challenged her on this point, she would not say the word Israel.

She is a supporter of the introduction of Sharia law.

As for Iraq, she said the Coalition forces are invaders and likened them to the Crusades, and that America only invaded because of Oil.

Dr Pipes corrected her on this point and she did not reply to his statement.

This ladies attitude was venomous and hateful and I am certain that I was not the only one that picked up on that.

Douglas Murray took the rostrum.

He came out all guns blazing, he was not looking for prisoners, he cited many instances of Islamic atrocities and the actions of Islam in Darfur, the way Islam is behaving in the UK.

He directly challenged Salma Yacoob on her assertion that 9/11 an 7/7 were acts of reprisal, reprisal for what, Israel has a right to exist (she did not acknowledge this)

And the Iraq war happened after 9/11 ,( it is at this point that a member of the audience who had lost a member of their family in the7/7 atrocity directly challenged Salma Yacoob on her “reprisal” assertion, Ms Yacoob did not respond)

Douglas Murray came out with many , many, match winning points I cannot remember all of them, he was superb and also got standing ovations . I do not wish to detract anything from his performance by trying to remember and probably misquoting him, suffice it to say:

He took no prisoners and in my humble opinion Dr Pipes and Douglas Murray certainly won the day

derius posted this view of Mr Livingstones idea of multiculturalism, thank you derius

Ken Livingstone and Multiculturalism

It was with some trepidation that I attended the “Clash of Civilisations or Civilisation versus Barbarism conference” in London. One of my main reasons for doing so was that a number of seminars were to discuss multiculturalism, and whether it is working in this country today. My views on the subject seem to be distant from the general opinion of its validity.

Multiculturalism is in essence the ideology that all cultures and all belief systems associated with those cultures are of equal worth, and therefore no cross cultural judgements can be made. It is the child of moral relativism, and has a strong following with the academic elite and politicians in the West today. Ken Livingstone, in particular, seems particularly keen to push forward his vision of a multicultural London, and it was he who had organised the conference I was attending.

As all cultures are considered of equal worth, it makes any positive judgement towards a culture incorrect by definition, as all cultures are equal. Therefore, under multiculturalism, Western Values concerning freedom of speech and religion are apparently no better or worse than Islamic teachings, which state that blasphemy and apostasy (leaving Islam) should be punishable by death. This is why I believe multiculturalism to be morally bankrupt.

Multiculturalism also states that no cross cultural judgements should be made, as all cultures are equal, and yet deciding that all cultures are equal is in itself a cross cultural judgement. Therefore, multiculturalism actually contradicts itself. Multiculturalism is also dangerous as it does not state the belief that all cultures are equal, but instead states that it is a fact that all cultures are equal. Therefore, if you disagree, you are wrong by definition. There is therefore no room for discussion, or to agree to disagree, and so, if you challenge multiculturalism, you are seen as a cultural bigot. This is why I believe multiculturalism to also be intellectually bankrupt.

However, in Ken Livingstone’s own speech at the conference, he specifically stated that multiculturalism did not allow all cultural practices to be practised. Therefore, he was in fact saying that Western values should supersede other values in certain areas, which actually goes against multiculturalism. As much as I was happy with this statement, it then became clear to me that Ken was a little confused, as he was supposed to be defending multiculturalism and not dismissing it. It then occurred to me that perhaps Ken has another definition of “multiculturalism”, so I expected him to go on and define what he considered “multiculturalism” to be. Not surprisingly, he never actually defined it, and nor did any other speaker at the conference, so it was certainly the first conference that I have attended where nobody actually knew what exactly was being discussed.

I therefore had to listen intently to what Ken Livingstone said that would highlight his vision to me. Two statements stood out. The first was words to the effect that “everybody wants the same things in life”, and the other was the idea that we should all base our society on our shared values. I will address these things in turn.

Mohammad Atta, to name one of many examples, wanted to martyr himself in the cause of Allah. Does everybody therefore want to be martyred in the cause of Allah? I certainly don’t, but apparently I do if you believe that everybody wants the same things in life. Does every adult want female children to be circumcised by that particularly unpleasant form of genital mutilation? Some clearly do, otherwise why does this practice occur in the first place? Does that therefore mean that all adults believe in this practice? Of course not. Therefore, Mr Livingstone’s first statement was in fact probably the most ridiculous statement I heard at the conference, with the exception of his assertion that the Cold War was the fault of the West, and nothing to do with Stalin, Communism or the fact that the USSR invaded half of Europe.

As for his statement that we should base our society on our shared values, well what values would they be? What values do I share with those that believe that the Sharia should be installed in this country? And if I do happen to share any values with them, whatever they may be, how could they be enough to decide on all political decisions that need to be made? Whose values should take precedence when there is a conflict? It was simply more half baked ideas that had only been quarter way thought out.

Still Ken at least realises that if an argument is inherently flawed but it is repeated enough times, then people will begin to believe it. Another two hour seminar on multiculturalism at the conference that was put on later in the day had all three panelists speaking in favour of multiculturalism, and none against. Clearly the tactic of indoctrination that Communists have used in the past is deemed acceptable by Communist Ken.

Another seminar I attended at the conference discussed the question “Is there an Islamic Threat?” I was rather expecting the debate to evolve around how serious the threat was rather than a complete denial that there was one in the first place, but even this meagre expectation wasn’t met. Tariq “Taquiyya” Ramadan and Salma Yaqoob were of the opinion that the Islamic threat is non existent, and any attacks that occur are the result of aggressive Western foreign policy. Well, what about the attacks on Buddhists in southern Thailand, the Jihad being waged against Christians in Darfur, the destruction of churches in Indonesia or the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh, to name a few, all committed by Muslims? How exactly the Hindus in Bangladesh or the other groups I have just mentioned are linked to Western foreign policy was not made in any way clear.

The caption “We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go” was repeatedly flashed on the screen. Whether this was an attempt at subliminal messaging is not clear, but in any case it had the opposite effect on me. I instead began to wonder exactly where we were going, and whether we have actually got a long way to go before we reach it. I then thought of Lebanon, which forty years ago, had a liberal government and a Christian majority, and a society that is similar to our own. I then thought about how Lebanon is now, after forty years of widespread Islamic immigration. How many Christians there now are celebrating their country’s diversity, and do not instead wish that they could turn back the clock and have things as they were back in the 1960’s? I then realised that we were heading towards a situation similar to Lebanon’s, and we don’t have very far to go before we get there.

Ken Livingstone was clearly hoping that the arguments presented at the conference would be enough to make any rational British citizen want to forget our Western cultural heritage, our values and our achievements, and instead embrace his vision of an undefined multicultural nation.

Storm Track Disinformation: Muslims – Soul Searching or Mental Illness?

At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you. We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

But in the same debate, held on the prestigious grounds of Dublin's Trinity College in October, many people in the crowd objected. One dissenter said: "These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology,” one young Muslim man said waving his finger at the radicals. “It's a mental illness."

But a Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice, who considers himself a centrist, took issue with that dissenting opinion.

Sadly, it is not an ‘mental illness’ at all and calling it like that denies the very real danger this ideology poses to non-extremist Muslims and to non-Muslims. It is not a mental illness, it is a very dangerous ideology, that appeals to quite some young Muslims for different reasons....There is a battle going on for the soul of Islam (in Europe), so much is clear.

Well, Mr. Gandelman, I disagree. That battle over Islam today is not over its soul – but its mind.

I’ve written quite about Islam and mental illness. The struggle between the Islamists and those moderate Muslims of Islam is not over Islam’s soul – but over its mind.

Here’s just one sign of why I think Islam is a mental illness and produces bizarre perceived offences.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.