The PC Commandments For Islam

Hat tip to Athos:


1. Thou shalt not judge Islam by the deeds of prophet Muhammad
2. Thou shalt not judge Islam by the contents of Quran
3. Thou shalt not judge Islam by the Sharia law
4. Thou shalt not judge Islam by the preaches of Imams
5. Thou shalt not judge Islam by the actions of Moslems who claims to follow pp 1.-4.
6. Thou shalt not judge Islam by what is come about in the Islamic countries
7. Thou shalt not judge Islam by what moslem immigrants are committing in your country.


We have all seen stories, over the years, which have endorsed on or another of these "Thou shalt nots".

Please provide links if you have any good examples. We'll complete this, and add it to our sidebar.

The commander of U.S. strategic and nuclear forces said recently that the military is studying ways to deter Al Qaida from using WMD (HAH!)

Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, told reporters recently that military strategic planners are looking for "nuanced" measures as part of a 21st Century strategic deterrence, contrary to the force-on-force nuclear deterrence of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Gen. Kevin Chilton

The deterrent strategy will examine what motivates enemies, what do they value, what do they fear and what is unacceptable risk and in what areas.

"And it may not be in a military solution at all. It may be in an economic solution or diplomatic solution."

Nuclear weapons deterrence will still be required in the future, and additionally the military is developing "prompt global strike" weapons with conventional and non-nuclear weapons, which will allow attacks to be carried out world wide very rapidly, he said.

On Al Qaida, Chilton asked Al Qaida would be dealt with if it achieved its goal of getting a weapon of mass destruction and using it against the United States. "These are really hard questions that we believe we have to address and think about, report on," he said.

Asked about deterring Al Qaida, Chilton said Strategic Command officials are "looking at that and thinking about those types of problems."

He did not elaborate, but other defense sources have said among the considerations are holding states accountable in the Middle East and South Asia that have capabilities to deal with Al Qaida and making it known they will be attacked if Al Qaida conducts nuclear, chemical or biological weapons attacks against the United States.

HOWEVER....

Jihadist posts anthrax-making instructions

In a chilling sign that Islamist terrorists continue seeking weapons of mass destruction, a jihadist website recently posted instructions on making deadly anthrax for biological weapons.

The website disclosed the illustrated instructions March 17 and included additional links, and promised to provide information on a delivery system in the future, a Cessna airplane.

Think quick, Chilton, what do you do, what do you do?

"The wait has been long, but the time has arrived, God willing. It is the glad tidings of being able to use biological weapons against the enemies of God. So, allow me to present to you a simple recipe for making anthrax, God willing," the web site stated.

"Anthrax is an effective and lethal weapon," the report said. "It is cheap and easy to make. One kilogram of anthrax may be produced in a small test tube with a spore sample that is kept in a special incubator for just 96 hours."

"Sprinkling 50 kilograms of powder containing anthrax spores along a distance of 2 kilometers will form a lethal cloud that could travel with the wind a distance of more than 20 kilometers, reaching people inside their homes -- even with sealed doors and windows."

To produce a kilo of spores costs about $50 and a lethal doze is no more than one-millionth of gram, or no bigger than a speck of dust.

The posting includes the text of one of the anthrax letters sent to U.S. officials in 2001.

The instructions include using Petri dishes to multiply samples of anthrax, and then adding powder that will allow it to float in the air.

The writer appears to be Saudi as he mentions the cost of several items in Saudi riyals. "I would be happy if you used biological weapons against the enemies of God," the poster stated.

As for delivery systems, the report said he would post instructions on how to make a Cessna 182 aircraft from parts obtained separately.

Islamic Expert: "In some Islamic countries, the age of (female) maturity can be 8 or 10 years"

Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-'Ubeidi, an Iraqi expert on Islamic law, aired on Al-Rafidein TV


Most of the time we act according to what is acceptable to most people, and indeed, most men do not marry a girl until she is of age. In some Islamic countries, the age of maturity can be 8 or 10 years. In Yemen, a girl might get her period at the age of 8. In cold countries, such as Russia, Belarus, Scandinavia, New Zealand, Canada, and so on, a girl might not reach maturity until she is 22 years old. She might not get her period until then. Therefore, the greatness of Islamic law is manifest in the fact that marriage is not just for pleasure. True, it is the basic objective for marriage, but there are some cases that require solutions.

Here then see a typical bride, except tin Roooosia I suppose.

Many criminals, the enemies of Islam, ask: "How could the Prophet Muhammad, at 52 years of age, marry 'Aisha when she was only 8 years old, and consummate the marriage when she was 9 years old?" I say to them: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Why do you permit your young girls to fornicate? They consider it one of their liberties. Therefore, in these stupid countries, you rarely find girls aged 10 or 12 who are still virgins. They permit this. They have even legislated laws stating that if a girl is under the age of 18, and her girlfriend [sic] or whatever has had sex with her, she has the right to have an abortion. How can you permit the outcome without accepting the cause? Why do you allow your girls to have sex and say this is an individual liberty? It is okay to fornicate with girls there or force them to have sex, and so on, and they have the right to have an abortion. If you permit all this before the age [of 18], without a marriage contract and without any legal grounds - how come you forbid marriage?

Now what we have here, is a failure to communicate.
Pictures found at random in google image search.

Anyone else simply at a loss for words in this year, 2008?

Storm Track Appeasement: This is Why They’re Called Moonbats

So here’s the plan - at least in the minds of the fuzzy pea-sized brains of the moonbats.

You see, Fitna has been giving moonbats fits. (Excuse the pun) They would like to have the film pulled from every nook and cranny of the Internet. Unfortunately that is now impossible. Fitna has gone viral.

So what to do? What to do? Here’s their plan. Since they can’t remove it from public viewing and know that the poor little victimized Muslims are demanding an apology – they will apologize themselves. Scroll down at that URL for more examples.

You see, they’re tired of waiting for an apology from those that belive in free speech, so a group of moonbats are doing it themselves in their moon bat fashion.

And in their usual disgusting submissive style, this is what they have to say about their submission to Islam. And it IS disgusting.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

The West Should Applaud the Brave Geert Wilders for His Courage to Air the Film, Fitna, Against Great Odds, Pressure and Criticism

Ever since Geert Wilders released Fitna last week, all we have heard from the mainstream media and from politicians is criticism of the Netherlands’ best-known, most courageous, and clearest-thinking public figure.

So many people, spineless ones mainly, have said that Mr Wilders set out to insult the Qur’an and Muslims. What a ridiculous thing to say! Surely, what he set out to do is plain to see: He set out to inform the Dutch (and by extension , other Westerners) that they were in danger of losing their country (ies) to a backward, regressive ‘culture’: Islam. He stated categorically that this was the last chance for the Dutch to do something about the explosive growth of Islam in their country.

Now what is extreme about that? And what is "far-right" about it, as far as that goes? Yet Geert Wilders is almost always portrayed as a "far-right", "extreme" politician by just about all the media. Why? Just because he wants to warn his fellow countrymen of the dangers that lie ahead? Seems like good old-fashioned common sense to me. Patriotism, even!

I have been warning for years of the danger of the explosive growth of Islam in the West. And just in case anyone out there thinks that I entitled my book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age, for reasons of sensationalism, think again! That title was carefully chosen, for I truly believe that we are heading for a "New Dark Age" if our politicians do not stop passing ridiculous laws to mollycoddle Muslims. They need to change course, and quickly.

I have just finished reading Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone. Clearly, he has taken up the theme in my book; since he refers to the coming "New Dark Age" often enough in it. So I am obviously not alone in my judgement that a "New Dark Age" is dawning here in the West.

In the past days, it has come to light that many Muslim countries, that oh-so-Western country Turkey included, are calling for the film Fitna to be banned. Clearly, Muslims don’t want to be confronted by the truth, for obviously they are hurt by it. The truth, as they say, so often does hurt.

So what Muslims now want the West to do is close down freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If we do that, it will be a fast track to a "New Dark Age". It is freedom of expression which so clearly delineates our two worlds: the world of the West and the world of the East. Were our politicians to be so stupid as to contemplate such a move, then they will surely deserve to incur the wrath of the electorates around the Western world!

Like so may others, I waited patiently for the film, Fitna, to be released. We had to wait a long time for it, but it was well-worth the long wait. I had expected the movie to be controversial, and it was. But in actual fact, it wasn’t that controversial at all; on the contrary, I found the film to be rather mild and measured. There was very little in it which most of us haven’t seen before. But it was very cleverly put together, and the choice of music was superb. All in all, Fitna impressed; and it had a message which all Westerners should take the time to ponder, since so many Westerners go about their daily lives, oblivious of the dangers which lie ahead of them.

I take my hat off to Geert Wilders for a number of reasons: First and foremost among them is for his courage in stating the things which almost all other politicians are far too cowardly to state. I also applaud him for his clear thinking, and for his refusal to obfuscate the truth.

The images in the film were, in some ways, shocking; but only to the uninitiated. For people who are familiar with the blogosphere, they were mild indeed. But powerful for all that.

The Dutch government has egg on its face! Those politicians made such a fuss over the impending release of that short film that they showed themselves up to be the wimps they truly are.

Oh, and a point on Islamophobia, something which so many Muslim countries seem to view with increasing alarm…

As I have said before, the term ‘Islamophobia’ is a misnomer, since a phobia is an irrational fear of something. Many people fear Islam; but that fear, alas, is not ‘irrational’. People’s fears are based on solid experience and history. It is an undeniable fact that the intention of Islam is to take over the Western world, and replace our way of governance with the Islamic way. Given the track record of most Muslim countries, it is surely not phobic to fear the exceedingly fast growth of Islam here in the West. On the contrary, actually, it would be irrational not to fear that explosive growth!

Moreover, I should like to say this: If Muslims don’t want their religion to be feared, if they want to be liked and welcomed around the world, they have to change their behaviour. Governments cannot legislate for its people to ‘love’ Islam. Only Muslims can make themselves loved and welcomed; and to bring these changes about, then they need to change their own behaviour. They need to stop their inexorable programme of expansion around the world, they need to free up their peoples, and they need to stop the cruel punishments: the beheadings, the stonings to death, the amputations for theft - the general cruelty which is so obviously part and parcel of their way of life. And they certainly need to put a stop to putting people to death for apostasy.

The expression, "In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful", is found in almost every chapter (Surah) of Al-Qur’an al Kareem. Isn’t it high time that Muslims started to follow the example that Allah has supposedly given them? Isn’t it high time that Muslims started to show the same compassion and mercy that Allah supposedly shows His followers?

In summary, I would say this about Fitna. It was an excellent film, well worth waiting for. It was in no way insulting to Muslims; though I appreciate that many might have been hurt by it. But then, as I have already stated, the truth is usually hard to swallow. Nobody, Muslim or non-Muslim, likes to be confronted by the harsh realities of life. I applaud Geert Wilders for having the courage and bravery to raise issues in the Netherlands (and in the West) which should have been raised long ago. Bravo, Mr Wilders! Bravo!

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved

Video: Mohammad Cartoons and Muslim Islamic Outrage

About four minutes in length:



YouTube Link

MUSLIM ROULETTE

By Bosch Fawstin

Islam vs Muslims

A is A. Islam is Islam.
There is no such thing as ‘Good’ Islam vs ‘Bad’ Islam.
Islam is a totalitarian religion, while Muslims are individual human beings who may or may not practice Islam faithfully. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are active Muslims and there are passive Muslims, the faithful and the unfaithful, the submitted and the un-submitted in Islam, but there is No obvious way to tell the difference between them, which has its benefits for those who are committed to spreading Islam by any means necessary. Mohammed said ‘War is deceit’ and practiced it, and Muslims have followed their leader in using deception against non-Muslims to this day. When Islam, the very antithesis of peace, is sold to us by Muslims and their useful idiots as being the very definition of peace, and actually gains traction, it would have made Hitler blush.
That Islam must be misrepresented by Muslims in order to appear at all appealing to non-Muslims speaks volumes, and its purpose is to make Islam appear harmless until it’s too late. And the enemy’s major weapon against us is us. From our multiculturalism which the unicultural enemy exploits, to our crippling political correctness which ‘protects’ us from the truth we need to know and act upon, to our irrational tolerance of the intolerant. Another weapon the enemy uses against us is that the majority of Muslims are Muslims in name only, and the false perception that they themselves represent Islam makes Islam look good. But they do not embody Islam, they are not its true, consistent practitioners. They are hacks when it comes to doing their Islamic duty as the Koran demands of them. And then there are those who are moderately Islamic, but who advertise themselves as ‘Moderate Muslims’, who have hijacked the normatively immoderate Islam, not by thoroughly repudiating the inherent violence within Islam, but by merely mouthing the words ‘Islam means peace’, and allowing our desire to believe it to do the rest.
The widespread usage of the term ‘Moderate Muslim’ is a tacit confession of Islam’s extremism.When’s the last time you heard the term ‘Moderate Christian’? Moderate Jew? Moderate Hindu? Moderate Buddhist?
But let me add this, after making it clear that Muslims are individuals who may or may not be following Islam: Most Muslims have shown us that when it comes down to it, the majority of them will side with Islam against the non-Muslim world, no matter what. They’ve made it clear, in their indifferent silence and inaction in the face of the daily horrors committed in their religion’s name, that in the end, they don’t give a damn about anything except Islam and its reputation. I’ve read one too many accounts of Muslims whose first response after a particularly horrific Muslim terrorist attack, was to run to the rescue of Islam, the ideological source of the attack itself. ‘Education by Murder’, as Daniel Pipes* writes of it. The price we're paying for not knowing the full truth about Islam is too high, but it looks like it will take more death and destruction for the civilized world to learn about Islam and the evil at the heart of it before we are ready to ruthlessly act on our behalf against it.

*About Pipes, I appreciate his efforts against Jihad and I know that counter-jihadists don’t necessarily have to agree with every conclusion we as individuals arrive at, so long as the big picture is in sight…… but his unwarranted preoccupation with ‘Moderate Islam’ is a Pipes Dream, it is his subjective wishes overstepping reality. There is no such thing as ‘Moderate Islam’, there is only Islam. And that there may be moderate Muslims doesn’t exonerate Islam, which was built to be even Muslim proof. When a Muslim concedes the Islamic point that the Koran is the verbatim word of allah, who is he to deem himself to be allah’s editor?
No, Muslims will only rethink Islam, will only consider transforming the religion, when their desire to destroy the non-Muslim world is trumped by their desire to survive.
© 2007 Bosch Fawstin

Saudis Bulldozed Mohammed's House To Build Public Toilet

The Los Angeles Times reviews Steve Coll's new book, The Bin Ladens, which is a history of the infamous family. The book actually sounds worth a read. Funny thing is, the review uncorks a real bombshell of breaking news, and the LA Times is too stupid to know what they've got on their hands.

Here it is:


What's most striking about Coll's book is its undidactic but unflinching account of just how rancidly dysfunctional the Saudi royals' governance has been and of how the Bin Ladens -- canny, but in so many essential ways incompetent -- have benefited from their patrons' venality through a breathtakingly supine sycophancy and simply bribery. Corrupt, hypocritical, frightened and inept at everything but self-preservation, the Sauds have essentially looted their country's foreign-developed oil riches, using the Bin Ladens to dole out development only when it was absolutely necessary to placate a restive populace.

The results have been particularly appalling in the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina, where Saudi-financed construction projects undertaken by the Bin Ladens essentially have eradicated the historic pilgrimage sites.

Not too many years ago, the remains of the Prophet Mohammed's house in Mecca were bulldozed to construct a public toilet.

These projects not only allow the Saudis to profit more from the hajj, which religious Muslims are obliged to make at least once, but also have imposed a Wahabi straitjacket on the pilgrimage. Formerly, Shia and sufic pilgrims observed the hajj with all sorts of individual rituals and visits to shrines and tombs they referred. Now, thanks to the Bin Ladens' demolition and construction projects only a Wahabi version of the pilgrimage is possible.


Now, practically speaking, the news that the Sauds have instituted a Wahabbi-dominated Hajj is a disaster for the world.

But, as far as Muslims are concerned, the real blasphemy here is that the Sauds care so little about the Prophet Muhammed (pieces be upon him) that they were willing to destroy his home so people could shit where he once prayed.

Gee, I hope I wasn't too graphic there.

Oh well, you know me.

You almost have to admire the Sauds adherence to the anti-idolatry creed of Wahabbism. Yeah, almost. Considering the glitzy Vegas-style sin city the Sauds are making of Mecca, I doubt they were adhering to any creed other than that of Money.

If you ask me, it seems like the Sauds hate the Prophet Mohammed.

Anyway, here's another section of the article which contains a stunning admission, considering it is coming from the LA Times:


Finally, Coll's book makes an important contribution to the contemporary debate by putting to rest the myth that Jihadism is fueled by a passion to see justice for the Palestinians. In fact, garden-variety anti-Semitism of the most repellant kind has been part of the Saud/Bin Laden axis from the start. Abdulaziz was a rabid anti-Semite, though he'd never met a Jew nor heard of Zionism. Faisel, apparently the best of the Saudi kings because he stole the least, nonetheless peddled every sort of outlandish anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, along with copies of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Today, the son of one of Osama's half-brothers runs a group called the World Assembly of Muslim Youth out of Falls Church, Va. He has a Saudi diplomatic passport and the special mission of reaching out to American Muslims with Wahabi religious materials, including one that says:"The Jews are enemies of the faithful, God and the angels; the Jews are humanity's enemies; they foment immorality in this world."


Am I awake? Is this true? The LA Times has actually admitted that the Jews are not responsible for the Jihad?

Wow.

Peace in the middle east alert for Condi and Bush..."Jews are a people who cannot be trusted"

NYT:

In Gaza, Hamas's Insults to Jews Complicate Peace

By STEVEN ERLANGER

GAZA -- In the Katib Wilayat mosque one recent Friday, the imam was discussing the wiliness of the Jew.

"Jews are a people who cannot be trusted," Imam Yousif al-Zahar of Hamas told the faithful. "They have been traitors to all agreements -- go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing. Look what they are doing to us."

At Al Omari mosque, the imam cursed the Jews and the "Crusaders," or Christians, and the Danes, for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. He referred to Jews as "the brothers of apes and pigs," while the Hamas television station, Al Aksa, praises suicide bombing and holy war until Palestine is free of Jewish control.

Its videos praise fighters and rocket-launching teams; its broadcasts insult the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, for talking to Israel and the United States; its children's programs praise "martyrdom," teach what it calls the perfidy of the Jews and the need to end Israeli occupation over Palestinian land, meaning any part of the state of Israel.

Such incitement against Israel and Jews was supposed to be banned under the 1993 Oslo accords and the 2003 "road map" peace plan. While the Palestinian Authority under Fatah has made significant, if imperfect efforts to end incitement, Hamas, no party to those agreements, feels no such restraint.

Since Hamas took over Gaza last June, routing Fatah, Hamas sermons and media reports preaching violence and hatred have become more pervasive, extreme and sophisticated, on the model of Hezbollah and its television station Al Manar, in Lebanon.

More pervasive than the Abbas whose doctoral thesis at Patrice Lumumba U in Moscow was a study on how the Holocaust contained 600,000-750,000? And by the way about that SIGNIFICANT progress Fatah has made ...

Intended to indoctrinate the young to its brand of radical Islam, which combines politics, social work and military resistance, including acts of terrorism, the programs of Al Aksa television and radio, including crucial Friday sermons, are an indication of how far from reconciliation Israelis and many Palestinians are.

Hamas's grip on Gaza matters, but what may matter more in the long run is its control over propaganda and education there, breeding longer-term problems for Israel, and for peace. No matter what Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agree upon, there is concern here that the attitudes being instilled will make a sustainable peace extremely difficult.

"If you take a sample on Friday, you're bound to hear incitement against the Jews in the prayers and the imam's sermon," said Mkhaimer Abusada, a political scientist at Al Azhar University here. "He uses verses from the Koran to say how the Jews were the enemies of the prophet and didn't keep their promises to the prophet 1,400 years ago."

Mr. Abusada is a Muslim and political independent. "You have young people, and everyone has to listen to the imam whether you believe him or not," he said. "By saying the same thing over and over, you find a lot of people believing it, especially when he cites the Koran or hadith," the sayings of the prophet.

Radwan Abu Ayyash, deputy minister of culture in Ramallah, ran the Palestinian Broadcasting Company until 2005. Hamas "uses religious language to motivate simple people for political as well as religious goals," he said. "People don't distinguish between the two." He said he found a lot of what Al Aksa broadcast "disgusting and unprofessional."

Every Palestinian thinks the situation in Gaza is ugly, he said. "But what is not fine is to build up children with a culture of hatred, of closed minds, a culture of sickness. I don't think they always know what they are creating. People use one weapon, language, without realizing that they also use it against themselves."

Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli group, said Hamas took its view of Jews from what it considered the roots of Islam, then tried to make the present match the past.

Hey, the muslim brotherhood, and HAMAS is just a BRANCH of it, was nazified in the 1930's.
However the real feeling is because the jews are not dhimmis and the quran.

Abu Saleh, who asked that his full name not be used because of his critical views, is worried about his children. His eldest son, 13, likes to watch Al Aksa, especially the nationalist songs and military videos. "I talk to them about Hamas, but to be honest, it's scary and you have to watch it over time," he said. "When kids are 17 or 18, you don't know what happens. They get enraged and can attach themselves to radical groups."

Marwan M. Abu Ras, 50, an imam who taught at Hamas's Islamic University for 25 years, has an advice show on Al Aksa. He is proud that his show uses sign language for the deaf.

The chairman of the Palestinian Scholars League, and a Hamas legislator, Mr. Abu Ras is popularly called "Hamas's mufti," because he is ready to give religious sanction to Hamas political structures.

Last month, he criticized Egypt for closing the Gaza border at Israel's request. He complained, "We are besieged by the sons of Arabism and Islam, as well as by the brothers of apes and pigs."

He tried to distinguish between religious and political language, and then said: "The Israelis can't accept criticism. They overreact, like any guilty person." Israel for him is an enemy. "This is an open war with Israel, with each side trying to press the other," he said. A war? "If it's not a war, what is it?" he asked.

The Future:

Mark Regev, spokesman for Mr. Olmert, called on "Arab leaders who are moderate and believe in peace to speak out more strongly against extremist elements." He called the "incitement to hatred and violence standard Hamas operating procedure," adding, "In Hamas education and broadcasting they turn the suicide bomber who murders the innocent into a positive role model, and they portray Jews in the most negative terms, that too often reminds us of language used in Europe in the first half of the 20th century."

The "serious question," he said, "is what ethos are they promoting?"

Hazim el-Sharawi, 30, the original host of the Farfour character on Hamas television, and known as "Uncle Hazim," has no doubts. It was his idea to have Farfour killed by an Israeli interrogator, he said. "We wanted to send a message through this character that would fit the reality of Palestinian life."

Israel is the source, he insisted. "A child sees his neighbors killed, or blown up on the beach, and how do I explain this to a child that already knows? The occupation is the reason; it creates the reality. I just organize the information for him."

The point is simple, he said: "We want to connect the child to Palestine, to his country, so you know that your original city is Jaffa, your capital is Jerusalem and that the Jews took your land and closed your borders and are killing your friends and family."

Condi, GW, your pressure on Israel could hardly be more moronic. Find a way for people like Abu Saleh to speak up and not be murdered as apostates and collaborators and then in some years PERHAPS you will have progress. Of course, that means HAMAS will have to be dead. And all they stand for....like the Quran.

Best of luck

Storm Track Disinformation: Peace is NOT the Absence of War

Those in the peace movement suffer under a major misunderstanding about peace.

In an article in Dissident Voices, the writer states:

Men keep going to war. They go for many reasons. The only defensible reason, however, is self-defense – of one’s family, one’s community, one’s country.

Typical of a liberal mind. If it were true that the only reason to go to war was for self-defense then we would never had helped Germany and Japan - and by the way, just about any enemy we ever fought - reestablish its nation after we defeated it. The logic of the article would follow that we smash and eradicate the nation so it can never threaten us again.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Moderate muslima in Germany on Fitna ..'I'm Not the Least Bit Offended'

From Der Spiegel we hear from Fatma Aykut.
The money line ...

"these images lost their impact long ago. We've seen them in the news a thousand times, much like images of Hamas supporters in Gaza, waving machine guns in the air and bellowing anti-Semitic slogans at the camera."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...well I said I found Fitna vanilla. But it doesn't lose it's critical nature by repetition.

A desire to shock also compelled Wilders to include footage from the beheading of a hostage, uncensored and uncut. The camera fixes on the severed head as the scene fades out. The only problem is that the news value of this footage is absolutely zero. The viewer finds herself wondering: "When is Wilders actually going to shock me?"

I agree. But how can we be shocked any more? We have come to expect, that when the TV signal goes to static for more than 10 seconds, New York is gone, or Atlanta finally got whacked by anthrax, or Chicago is the victim of a dirty weapon. We are looking for an ebola outbreak with every local flu mini grouping. We see bodies galore whether it is the Israeli victims beside a pizza parlor, in a museum DEDICATED to the the murderers at the pizza parlor, or the Americans falling, falling next to the towers. I don't feel less rage, but I feel no shock.

And then...... the mistake, the excuse, the BUT:

Wilders' accompanies these "shocking images" with quotations from the Koran, an effort to expose Islam's holiest text as a well-spring of hate. That makes it difficult for me, a totally average Muslim, to defend Islam as a peaceful religion. These quotations are not made up -- they can actually be found in the Koran. Passages from the holy book that rail hatefully against Jews have, unfortunately, long been misused as propaganda. That is tragic, as it is tragic that similar anti-Semitic passages are just as common in the Bible.

Niener niener, it's not just us? Well...

A number of Christian scholars have concluded that the root of antisemitism in the [Christian]] community is ultimately found within the New Testament. Some Christian theologians such as Rosemary Ruether and A. Roy Eckardt claim that the entire New Testemant is antisemitic whereas others such as Gregory Baum claim that it is not antisemitic at all.

There are some verses in the New Testament that describe Jews in a positive way, attributing to them salvation John 4:22 or divine love (Epistle to the Romans 11:28) while others have been used by antisemites. The two harshest verses are those in which Jews prompt Jesus' crucifixion and say "His blood be on us, and on our children" Matthew 27:25 and when Jesus calls certain Pharisees "children of the devil" John 8:44

But there is JUST ONE SMALL DETAIL here...those names, Matthew, and John...they are people, fallible, breathing, weak people. The Quran MUST be the immutable and revealed word of a perfect and RACIST god or it is NOTHING. Funny you forgot that. Oh and one other thing ,,, we dispute the hsitorical accuracy of this stuff ALL THE TIME. However ... she is right on here....

Al-Qaida could post Wilder's work as a promotional video on their Web site

Of course, that's a major part of his point, but you, seem to miss that

Worst of all, here is her fault finding on the reality of muslim extremism IN eurotopia

But he chooses to ignore certain realities of Muslim life in Europe: The high rate of unemployment among immigrants, the slim chances of receiving a good education, the daily encounters with racism and the countless immigrant children -- particularly boys -- who are abandoned.

So which came first -- the chicken or the egg?

If they were rich and educated, then Madrid, London and 9/11, even the necessity to blow up pizza parlors in Israel would be unnecessary?

Last time I checked Atta et al were all FINELY educated and getting more, able to live and go anywhere and CHOSE FREELY the path they took because they learned what the Quran says.

If it is not the economic, and non assimilation excuse, then what is left?

READ IT ALL, worth it for the education on the views and inner wishes of those whose consciences ARE appalled by the Islamist, but are stuck.

The ' A plague on them all' view of Iraq from an Iraqi and Cordesman

Healing Iraq:

"This is not a battle against the Jaish al-Mahdi nor is it a proxy war between the United States and Iran," military spokesman Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner said, using the Arabic term for the Mahdi Army. "It is the government of Iraq taking the necessary action to deal with criminals on the streets."
(Link.)

This would be amusing if it were not so tragic. The US military, knowingly or not, is fighting Iran's wars for them in Iraq, not against Iran. SIIC and Da'wa (Iran's strongest allies in Iraq) are determined to retain control of the Shi'ite south, and the crackdown against the Sadrists, which caused them to revolt, is a feeble attempt to prevent them from taking over in the upcoming provincial elections. And to describe this ongoing intra-Shi'ite conflict as "the government of Iraq against criminals" is ludicrous at best, as the so-called "government of Iraq" had no problem in the near past when those hordes of criminals were taking to the streets cleansing Baghdad and the south from Sunnis with the active participation of "Iraqi security forces." But as we say in Arabic: 'If you know then it is a calamity. If you don't know then it is a greater one.'
This does not mean that the central government should not reassert control of Basra. It is not peaceful, it is a significant prize as a port and the key to Iraq's oil exports, and gang rule is no substitute for legitimate government. But it is far from clear that what is happening is now directed at serving the nation's interest versus that of ISCI and Al Dawa in the power struggle to come. It is equally far from clear that the transfer of security responsibility to Iraqi forces in the south is not being used by Maliki, Al Dawa, and ISCI to cement control over the Shi'ite regions at Sadr's expense and at the expense of any potential local political leaders and movements. Certainly, the fact that these efforts come after ISCI's removal of its objections to the Provincial Powers Act may not be entirely coincidental.

Is the end result going to be good or bad? It is very difficult to tell. If the JAM and Sadr turn on the US, or if the current ISCI/Dawa power grab fails, then Shi'ite on Shi'ite violence could become far more severe. It is also far from clear that if the two religious-exile parties win, this is going to serve the cause of political accommodation or legitimate local and provincial government. It seems far more likely that even the best case outcome is going be one that favors Iraqracy over democracy.

Anthony Cordesman

Much of the current coverage of the fighting in the south assumes that Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr militia are the "spoilers," or bad guys, and that the government forces are the legitimate side and bringing order. This can be a dangerous oversimplification. There is no question that many elements of the JAM have been guilty of sectarian cleansing, and that the Sadr movement in general is hostile to the US and is seeking to enhance Muqtada al-Sadr's political power. There is also no doubt that the extreme rogue elements in the JAM have continued acts of violence in spite of the ceasefire, and that some have ties to Iran. No one should romanticize the Sadr movement, understate the risks it presents, or ignore the actions of the extreme elements of the JAM.

But no one should romanticize Maliki, Al Dawa, or the Hakim faction/ISCI. The current fighting is as much a power struggle for control of the south, and the Shi'ite parts of Baghdad and the rest of the country, as an effort to establish central government authority and legitimate rule.

The nature of this power struggle was all too clear during a recent visit to Iraq. ISCI had de facto control over the Shi'ite governorates in the south, and was steadily expanding its influence and sometimes control over the Iraqi police. It was clearly positioning itself for power struggle with Sadr and for any elections to come. It also was positioning itself to support Hakim's call for a nine governorate Shi'ite federation -- a call that it had clear Iranian support.

The US teams we talked to also made it clear that these appointments by the central government had no real popular base. If local and provincial elections were held with open lists, it was likely that ISCI and Dawa would lose most elections because they are seen as having failed to bring development and government services.

There was no real debate over how bad the overall governance of the south was at the provincial level, how poor the flow of capital was from the central government in Baghdad, and how poor government-related services were even in Shi'ite areas. As recent ABC polls show, incompetence and corruption are not sectarian. The south may be more secure, but Shi'ites only receive marginally better treatment from the central government than Sunnis.

Members of the US team differed over how much the Sadrists had a populist base and broad support among the poor Shi'ite Iraqis in the south, and how well the Sadrists could do in any provincial and local elections, although most felt Sadr still had a broad base of support in Baghdad. One of the key uncertainties that emerged during visits to the south was over how elections would shape up when there were no real political parties operating with local leaders, and in a framework of past national elections that only allowed Iraqis to vote for entire lists (most with many totally unfamiliar names) for the main parties and that made no allowance for the direct election of members of the COR that represented a given area or district. Optimists hope for a populist upswell; realists foresee an uncertain mess.

There were also differences over how much Sadr was waiting out the effort to defeat Al Qa'ida before allowing the JAM to become active again, and how much he was repositioning himself to strengthen his political and religious position for a more normal political life. In practice, he may be doing both, may be as confused by the uncertain nature of Iraqi politics and security as everyone else, and may be dealing with a movement so fractured and diverse that effective control of even its mainstream is difficult to impossible.

It was also clear that Basra was a special case. The British position had essentially eroded to the point of hiding in the airport. There was a fair amount of bluster about joint planning, training, and patrols, but little evidence of substance. Moreover, the power struggle in Basra differed sharply from the struggle in the other Shi'ite provinces. Basra was essentially divided up among Shi'ite party mafias, each of which had its own form of extortion and corruption. They sometimes fought and feuded, but had a crude modus vivendi at the expense of the rest of the nation. Basra also had far more Iranian penetration in both the civil and security sectors than the other Shi'ite governorates. However, it was clear that Iran and the Al Quds force continued to be equal opportunity supporters of all the Shi'ite militias, and that Iran effectively was ensuring that it would support the winner, regardless of who the winner was.

No Jeffersons in sight.
I wonder if we looked as screwed up from Europe in 1785?

HYPOCRISY DEFINED

H/T: Liberal Hypocrisy

The Mustard Seed In Global Strategy

Spengler's analysis of the Pope's baptism of ex-Muslim Magdhi Allam (thanks to Felix):


A self-described revolution in world affairs has begun in the heart of one man. He is the Italian journalist and author Magdi Cristiano Allam, whom Pope Benedict XVI baptized during the Easter Vigil at St Peter's. Allam's renunciation of Islam as a religion of violence and his embrace of Christianity denotes the point at which the so-called global "war on terror" becomes a divergence of two irreconcilable modes of life: the Western way of faith supported by reason, against the Muslim world of fatalism and submission.

As Magdi Allam recounted , on his road to conversion the challenge that Pope Benedict XVI offered to Islam in his

September 2006 address at Regensburg was "undoubtedly the most extraordinary and important encounter in my decision to convert". Osama bin Laden recently accused Benedict of plotting a new crusade against Islam, and instead finds something far more threatening: faith the size of a mustard seed that can move mountains. Before Benedict's election, I summarized his position as "I have a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it." Now the mustard seed has earned pride of place in global affairs.

Magdi Allam tells us that he has found the true God and forsaken an Islam that he regards as inherently violent. Magdi Allam has a powerful voice as deputy editor of Italy's newspaper of record, Corriere della Sera, and a bestselling author. For years he was the exemplar of "moderate Islam" in Europe, and now he has decided that Islam cannot be "moderate".


Go read the whole thing.

9/11 Truther Appointed By UN To Oversee Middle East Conflict

Oh, for God's sake, what is wrong with our world that we would put such a man in charge of watching over the Middle East conflict for the United Nations?

From the aptly named, Guide to the Perplexed:


I can't believe I overlooked this--and that everyone else has, as well: Princeton prof Richard Falk, newly-appointed by the UN Human Rights Council as its "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967," is also a devoted supporter of the crackpot "9/11 Truth" movement, which denies that Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

Check out this radio interview, as well as the foreword Falk wrote to David Ray Griffin's 9/11 conspiracy theory book, The New Pearl Harbor. According to this Troofer website, Falk even worked to find a publisher for Griffin's book.

This is the man who will be reporting on Israel's human rights violations for the next several years. The U.S. should immediately demand the removal of this man from his post. Or, better yet--keep him there, the better to discredit every one of his bogus reports.