Congressman Frank Wolf Of Virginia Attempts To Hold The Islamic Saudi Academy Accountable

(Previous IBA posts about the Islamic Saudi Academy are HERE)

Despite numerous problems, the school continues to operate without impunity or adequate investigation. Most politicians and our own State Department refuse to hold the ISA accountable. But one Congressman is trying!

From the Mt. Vernon Gazette on September 24, 2008:

U.S. Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-10) has again called for a thorough investigation and review of curriculum textbooks being used by the Islamic Saudi Academy citing the U.S. Commission in International Religious Freedom's claim that they "promote violence and intolerance."

In a September 16 letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Wolf chastised the State Department for not answering his previous letters on the Saudi Academy textbook issue and for ignoring his plea to have the controversy settled prior to the commencement of the 2008-09 school year.

"I write to let you know that I just received my first response from the State Department after having written three letters over a two-month period regarding the Islamic Saudi Academy and concerns raised by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) on the content of textbooks being used there," Wolf wrote.

"After seeming inattention to these concerns, the letter my office ultimately received in response did not address my repeated requests that you convene a meeting of relevant State Department and USCIRF representatives -- to include the expert analysts commissioned by USCIRF to translate and interpret the ISA textbooks as well as any analysts commissioned by the State Department...to conclusively determine what is being taught at ISA," he stated.

To buttress his request, Wolf included a recent report by the Heritage Foundation that stated "ISA is subject to the terms of the Foreign Missions Act" and that it is in the State Department's powers to declare ISA "a foreign mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

IN THE LETTER to Wolf, signed by Matthew A. Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, the State Department indicated that, although they had not answered previous inquiries about ISA in writing, they had kept Wolf and his staff informed of their actions.

"Your letters have raised important issues. We have appreciated the opportunity to discuss these with you and your staff in recent months. No government should produce materials that are intolerant of religious, racial, or ethnic groups, nor include such material in its educational curricula," Reynolds wrote.

When questioned as to why his letter seemed to indicate that no contact had been made by the State Department relative to his ISA inquiries, Wolf insisted, "The State Department has never been by my office." However, he did not confirm or deny any contact between his staff and the State Department over the period of time of his correspondence with Secretary Rice.

"The matter is very simple. If there is no problem with the textbooks than the State Department should act to remove the cloud. If there is a problem then remove the books," Wolf said.

"Two scholars from the Religious Freedom Commission have looked at these text books and they say there is a problem. It needs to be resolved one way or the other," he said.

Reynolds also pointed out to Wolf that, "the school has reported that it is in the process of adopting new religious curricula and textbooks for the 2008-09 school year. The ISA has stated publicly that the new school year's textbooks are currently being reviewed by professors at two American universities." Neither the professors nor their universities were identified by Reynolds in his letter to Wolf.

DEBATE ABOUT the school's curriculum and textbooks ignited in October 2007 when the Religious Freedom Commission issued a report calling for the school's closure "until such time as the official Saudi textbooks used at ISA are made available for comprehensive public examination." The Commission also sought intervention by the State Department and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

The school building at 8333 Richmond Highway, is leased from Fairfax County. That lease recently came up for renewal and was renewed for one year with an option for two one year extensions on a motion from Mount Vernon District Supervisor Gerald Hyland, in whose district the school is located.

ISA's Director General Abdalla I. Al-Shabnan, who heads the school, has insisted all along that the textbooks do not contain hate and violence imbedded within the subject matter. He has also insisted that the textbooks of ISA are not those supplied by the Saudi Arabian government.

At the outset of the controversy, Hyland had a specialist in Arabic review the texts. Her report concluded that the curriculum texts did not, on their face, contain offensive language pertaining to hate, violence and religious intolerance. However, she did conclude that certain passage should be expunged because they could be misinterpreted.

Al-Shabnan submitted the curriculum texts to two independent university scholars to have them analyzed and evaluated. A report on those findings was to have been delivered to Hyland's office no later than Monday, Sept. 22. As of late afternoon Sept. 23 the report had not been delivered and phone calls to ISA and Al-Shabnan office were received by voice mail with no call back.

"We have not received the report or any explanation from the Academy as to why we have not received it," said Brett Kenney, chief aide to Hyland.

The entire matter including both the textbook issue and ISA's lease renewal was further complicated early this past summer when Al-Shabnan was arrested as a result of his failure to report a complaint from a five year-old female student that she was allegedly being sexually abused at home by her father. Virginia law requires reporting of all such accusations by school personnel.

Al-Shabnan was originally charged with two misdemeanors of failing to report and obstruction of justice. He said that he did not believe the girl and advised the parents to seek psychiatric help for her. However, he also ordered the school's computers to be purged of any report about the complaint.

In the final analysis he was fined $500 on the failure to report charge. The school also instituted an in-depth training program for all personnel on Commonwealth requirements dealing with such matters.

Following the vote to renew the lease, Fairfax County Board Chairman Gerald Connolly sent a letter to Secretary Rice asking the State Department to make a determination not only on the textbook matter but also the lease renewal. He noted that during the Board’s public hearing on the lease no objections were voiced by the State Department or the Commission "regarding either the renewal or the textbooks."

A reply from the State Department stated, "No authorization from the Department to renew the lease is required. The Department has not used the Foreign Missions Act to regulate private pre-school, elementary and secondary school curricula." Actions by the State Department on Wolf's requests remain unresolved.

What is it going to take to get our government, which is sworn to protect us, to take a hard look at the Islamic Saudi Academy?

Missouri top prosecutors announced this week that they will threaten and prosecute critics of Barack Obama.

From Gateway Pundit:

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

Copious Dissent posted video on the Missouri Obama "Truth Squads":

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt released a statement moments ago on the news this week that leading Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs supporting Barack Obama were forming "Truth Squads" to intimidate and threaten his critics.
For Immediate Release:

Gov. Matt Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

The Examiner notes how this fits all too well with the legal threats Obama is leveling against TV stations.

From Mark Steyn:

For all the entirely false rumors about Mayor Palin banning books from the Wasilla library, the only candidate using agencies of the state to suppress views with which he disagrees remains Barack Obama. In Missouri, the Senator has managed to enlist various county officials to threaten TV stations running "untrue" anti-Obama ads. The Governor, Matt Blunt, responds:

St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment... Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.

As Stanley Kurtz, Milt Rosenberg and David Freddoso can tell you, this pattern is well established: The Obama campaign's response to uncongenial allegations is not to rebut them but to use its muscle to squash the authors. This is especially true when it comes to attempts to lift the curtain however briefly on the Senator's mysterious past. The New York Times' general line on the Obama candidacy may approximate that of Bagehot on the British monarchy ("we must not let daylight in upon magic"), but the last time I checked that was not yet constitutionally enshrined.

Throughout my travails this last year with Canada's capricious, totalitarian "human rights" commissions, I have expressed my appreciation for America's First Amendment. Free societies do not criminalize opinion. What Obama is doing via pliable Missouri public officials is disgusting - and a revealng portent of what his Administration would do to its enemies*.

Can't verify . . .but Vermont . . .
Obama Goons Call Police Over Grad Student's Questions

and 

Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned in Pennsylvania too. 

PIGMAN: THE GOOD KILLER

Killing Murderous Muslims is the Answer to Jihad. And from there, the end of the Stealth Jihad, which lives off the Brute Force Jihad. 

Bosch Fawstin

UK: Muslim Sues Supermarket Chain Because He Had To Handle Alcohol On The Job

What an ingrate.

Send him to the Muslim country of his choice.

From Islam in Action:

It is funny how Muslims do not care for the laws of the West until they can use them against us to enforce their religion. All we have to do is look past the day that we are in to see where all this is heading. Actions like the one in this article lead to this. Which will eventually lead to an Islamic call to ban alcohol in the UK completely. Do Muslims ever ask themselves why so many people are speaking out against them, or do they just not care?



Thanks to Mewzilla. 


Forced out of job by alcohol beliefs
Saturday, September 27, 2008


A Muslim from Derby is suing supermarket giant Tesco for religious discrimination because he was asked to handle crates of alcohol against his beliefs.

Mohammed Ahmed, of Upper Dale Road, Normanton, also accused Tesco of victimisation andharassment during a three-day employment tribunal.

Wilders Announces "Facing Jihad" Conference in Jerusalem

Robert Spencer has posted at Jihad Watch the full text of Party of Freedom, the Netherlands, chairman Geert Wilders' September 25th address at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem in December. Wilders concisely describes to his audience the situation of a Europe abandoned by its political and cultural leaders and facing a capitulation to Islam that may arrive even sooner than expected:

All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

But Wilders sees also the beginnings of hope in Europe:

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

As the US slips and slides towards an Obama presidency that will aide and abet Islamization in every form that it can get away with, cheered on by our own craven cultural "elites", we too must depend on the ability and willingness of enough real patriots to wake up, pay attention, educate themselves about the danger we face, speak out, and take action. Geert Wilders is once again taking a courageous and pivotal step in that direction by organizing this conference. He and all those who recognize this as yet another round in the death match between freedom and totalitarianism deserve our encouragement.

Minority in a new nation

We believe in the intent of 1776, and the corrections instituted in 1789.
We don't believe we were evil from the start.
We believe private property is the root of every freedom we have.
We celebrate invention and entrepreneurship, and don't think society has any rights to that invention, except those we GIVE IT TEMPORARILY
We actually believe all humans want freedom. ALL.
We don't want to see our countrymen suffer, but believe that real charity is opportunity, not largess. We recognize, however, that pure charity is going to be necessary.
We believe that those who wish to join us in such beliefs according to our rules, and become what we are while preserving as much of what they are as they can, are welcome.
We believe society and culture change all the time, and are prepared to deal with and embrace those changes as long as the rules of 1789 are adhered to - STRICTLY
We believe that color and religion have absolutely nothing to do with any of the above
We are a minority now. Face it.

Another society is apparently ascendent.

That society apparently believes in enforced "neighborliness" as being a definition of "patriotic" (and no, I don't meet that society's criterion for being "rich", altho I disagree with that criterion)
That society believes a vote gives them a right to the fruit of my brain, in whatever proportion they can get a vote for
That society seems to accept that it is okay to just go out and meet on equal terms with religious fanatics who believe genocide is the means god uses to express his will, and that what they think IS his will trumps any human desire for 'freedom'
That society believes that we are bad enough that it's okay that the 'chickens are coming home to roost'
That society BELIEVES the 'chickens ARE coming home to roost'
That society thinks it takes a village, and that it HAD BETTER
That society thinks central ideas about education and what is right and correct and good are mandatory, not just worth thinking about
That society believes it is more important to preserve other older social bonds than the ones of 1789, if a choice must be made
That society believes borders are racism
That society, when it sees other societies dislike it, wonders what is wrong with itself, rather than what is possibly wrong with other societies.
That society reacts to fear by changing itself without questioning why.
That society is one of feeling and not thought

I really don't know how to assign labels like liberal and conservative, but I know when something very different from the intent of the Federalist papers raises it's head.

Some people think that such difference is good.
Some people think that such difference is not as GOOD a set of ideas as those ideas.
Some people think that those who imagine that such difference is NOT as good a set of ideas represent evil, uncaring, and greed, and on balance, race and inequity
As we now observe the polls in battleground states, we can see those people who represent the new society are apparently enough to form a new majority

There is a lot of work to do

Another Glimmer of Hope?

I said in yesterday's post that in the UK a Conservative Government might be a tad better than NuLabour from the multicultural/islamification point of view. Anonymous made the comment that the Conservatives were dhimmies as well. Well, any move against the islamists has got to be better than none so anonymous missed the point.

Now we have a report from the Conservatives that they would ban islamist preachers, and islamist organisations. They would also not allow sharia law to have any legal status in English law. After all the doom and gloom in recent months about the islamification of the UK then this must be a step in the right direction and another reason for hoping the Tories take power in the next 18 months. From the Daily Express:

A TOUGH package is being drawn up by David Cameron to tackle Islamic extremism. One of the key proposals is to ban sharia law courts from operating in this country.

In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Express, Mr Cameron’s security adviser, Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, said the Tories were determined to “integrate” British Muslims into mainstream society.

Lady Neville-Jones, a former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee which advises the Prime Minister on terrorism, said: “We are not going to have any status for sharia courts. Absolutely not.”

Outlining the Tories’ wider plans for tackling Islamic extremism, she added: “We will be tough. We will be really tough on the men of violence and those who lead them to violence. That’s the real gap between us and the Government at the moment.”

She said the party would abandon the “blind alley of multiculturalism, which has deliberately gone down the road of separation for its own sake. We want unity and opportunity, despite difference, through integration.”

She was backed by Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve, who said that multiculturalism had left a “terrible” legacy and created a vacuum exploited by extremists. The Tory plans also include:

Banning a string of groups blamed for encouraging Islamic extremism.

Working with other EU countries to change the Convention on Human Rights which has blocked the deportation of hate preacher Abu Qatada and others believed to be a threat to Britain.

Changing the school curriculum to encourage teaching of British values and make youngsters “proud of their country.”

In recent years, sharia courts have been established in a number of cities. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, caused controversy by claiming the adoption of some aspects of sharia law was “unavoidable”.

Supporters claim the verdicts of sharia courts are already legally binding in a string of areas, including divorce, financial disputes and even cases of domestic violence and assault.

Critics insist the courts discriminate against women and undermine the rule of law. They also warn the use of Islamic law encourages a separatist agenda.

Lady Neville-Jones said minor disputes could be settled by “customary mediation,” including sharia and the Jewish Beth Din system, but there could be no question of the “courts” enjoying any formal legal status. “We are not going to have any legal recognition of sharia judgments that would withstand appeal to a secular court,” she said.

The Conservatives are also looking at extending the list of Islamic groups banned from operating in this country on the grounds they foster extremism.

Islamic extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which critics accuse of encouraging the killing of Jews, is a likely target.

Lady Neville-Jones said the Conservatives would also look at the activities of certain charities, including the “charitable” arm of the Palestinian terrorist group Hezbollah, which operates freely here.

The major Islamic group Tablighi Jamaat, which wants to build Europe’s largest “mega mosque” near the London Olympics site, will also be examined.

So what if the US turned down Israel's 'green light' request

Al-Guardian reported Thursday night that in May the United States turned down an Israeli request for a 'green light' to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.

The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.

The sources work for a European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position.

Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs.

Consider the source of this story. Al-Guardian is long-known as a virulently anti-Israel newspaper. My guess is that the "European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit" is Britain's own Gordon Brown, who met with Olmert in July. Brown is no Tony Blair, and while he may be cooperative on sanctions against Iran, he is less likely to be cooperative on striking Iran's nuclear facilities.

But as Caroline Glick pointed out last week, Israel may no longer have a choice as to whether to act, even if the only damage is to set Iran back a few years. Note how dispersed Iran's nuclear facilities are in the map below and read on.

Today, there is only one way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel must bomb Iran's nuclear installations. Such a strike will not end Iran's nuclear program. It will not overthrow the regime. It will not cripple Iran's economy. It will not end Iran's active support for international terrorist groups.

All an Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities will do is set its nuclear program back for a couple of years. Such a strike will buy Israel and the rest of the world time. And during that time, Iran will no doubt expand its diplomatic, terror and political offensives against Israel and the US. But if Israel and the US are wise, they can use the time as well.

If Israel and the US are wise, they will use the extra time to ratchet up international economic sanctions on Iran. They will use the time to conduct covert operations against nuclear and regime targets. They will use the time to increase international pressure on countries that do business with Iran and sell it arms. And they will use the time that an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities will buy to support Iranian democracy movements and so weaken the regime and perhaps eventually topple it.

It is clear today that the Bush administration will not take action against Iran. This week five former secretaries of state said that the US should pursue diplomatic ties with Teheran regardless of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. There will be no will in Washington to act against Iran until after Iran has attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

So it is up to Israel. Too bad we don't have a government in Jerusalem.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that what Glick is proposing is Samson committing suicide and taking as many Philistines as possible with him. But I believe that she is right that even if the costs of a strike against Iran are high, and even if they outweigh the benefits in the short-term, there may no longer be any choice. As I noted yesterday, sanctions are a dead letter.

Continue reading "So what if the US turned down Israel's 'green light' request"

IAEA's man in Syria murdered?

IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei revealed today that his agency's probe into Syria's nuclear activities has been delayed because its contact in Syria was murdered (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

"The reason that Syria has been late in providing additional information (is) that our interlocutor has been assassinated in Syria," ElBaradei told a closed-door session of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-member board. A recording of his remarks was obtained by AFP.

He did not provide any further details about the identity of the man or circumstances of the assassination.

But according to Arab media reports last month, a brigadier general thought to be the Syrian regime's liaison with Hezbollah in Lebanon was assassinated.

The Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat said the victim was a senior Syrian officer "in charge of sensitive files and closely linked to the Syrian top brass."

Al-Bawaba, an Arab news website, named the officer as Mohammed Sleiman, saying he was "Syria's liaison officer with Lebanon's Hezbollah movement."

The Lebanese anti-Syrian daily al-Mustaqbal quoted a Syrian news site as saying Sleiman was the head of security at the presidential palace in Damascus and President Bashar al-Assad's "right-hand man."

ElBaradei's revelation came on the fourth and final day of the IAEA board meeting, where Syria was the final matter of debate.

On Sunday, Al-AP reported that the results of tests taken at the al-Kibar site bombed by Israel in September 2007 did not conclusively show that Syria was developing nuclear weapons at the site. Israel and the United States have presented strong evidence that the plant was a nuclear site, which has since been plowed under by the Syrians and on which new construction has subsequently taken place. Syria has refused to let the IAEA inspect three other sites that were pointed out by the United States.

It's also very curious that Sleiman, who was known to be quite close to Bashar al-Assad and to Hezbullah, was the IAEA's man in Syria. That ought to tell you something about the (lack of) reliability and neutrality of the IAEA's contacts among El-Baradei's 'Syrian brothers.'

And finally, it's also curious that Memeorandum took down this article quite quickly. I was lucky to have seen it.

Hmmm.

Cross-posted to Israel Matzav.

MPAC's Answer: Politics IS Jihad

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a "moderate, mainstream Muslim" organization, has a Dear Abby kind of column. Here is an excerpt from one...

Question: I am a Muslim deeply involved in American politics. However the Muslims I go to school with are trying to convince me that it is haraam (strictly forbidden). They tell me such clichéd things as we must only govern by Allah's laws; that there is no room for compromise in Islam, and that we must have a Caliphate. Please explain to me what my response should be.

Answer: Actually, it is jihad — to effect change in the way of Allah inside the prevalent structures..."

Read the whole thing here.

The interesting thing is that they don't try to hide this. It's right out in the open for everyone to see, written in English. It's just politics, right? This is a democracy. It's okay to get involved in politics and try to push for change. But of course, to us kafirs, it has a whole different feel, doesn't it?

They will keep pressing, wherever they are, and in whatever way they can, for "change in the way of Allah," and they'll do it inside the prevalent structures (until they can change those structures). How can this relentless encroachment be stopped? We will probably not get any large numbers of people putting up any major resistance to their encroachment until more people feel the cold fear of grasping some basic Islamic ideas. At that point, we've already got plenty of good ideas.

For Pastorius the Impaler

U.S. Destroyer Watching Hijacked Ship Off Somalian Coast

Men are dying - Skin burns - 

hair falling out -  

sounds like possible radiation poisoning.

We reported on that the other day. It had been reported that the ship was an Iranian ship. Now, we are told it is a Ukranian ship. The Russian military is also involved in surveillance.

(An Anonymous commenter wrote in and said the Iranian ship and the Ukranian ship were two separate incidents. That could well be - Here is what Anonymous says: two separate incidents involving two different ships with two different cargos . . .

Hijacked late last month in the Gulf of Aden, the MV Iran Deyanat remains moored offshore in Somali waters and inaccessible for inspection. Its declared cargo consists of minerals and industrial products - from LongWarJournal

and 

On Thursday, pirates seized the Ukrainian ship Faina

Clearly, the United States Military is also concerned. What the hell is going on here?

From ENews:

MOGADISHU, Somalia - A U.S. destroyer off the coast of Somalia closed in Saturday on a hijacked Ukrainian ship loaded with tanks and ammunition, watching it to ensure the pirates who seized it do not try to remove any cargo or crew.

As Russian and American ships pursued the hijackers of the Ukrainian-operated vessel, pirates seized another ship off Somalia's coast, an international anti-piracy group said.

The Greek tanker with a crew of 19 is carrying refined petroleum from Europe to the Middle East. It was ambushed Friday in the Gulf of Aden, said Noel Choong, who heads the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center based in Malaysia. He said pirates chased and fired at the ship before boarding it.

In Somalia, a man claiming to be spokesman of the pirates holding the Ukrainian ship said the hijackers want $35 million to release the vessel. But there was no way to immediately verify his claim that he represented the pirates.

Pastorius question: With a U.S. Destroyer watching, what possible bargaining chip could they have in these negotations? If it was just a load of petroleum, we could simply jump them as soon as they leave the ship and take the money back, right? Would we pay pirates $35 million for a load of oil?

On Thursday, pirates seized the Ukrainian ship Faina en route to Kenya with 33 Russian-built T-72 tanks and a substantial quantity of ammunition and spare parts. Russia's navy said Friday it had dispatched a warship to the area, 

and the United States said American naval ships were tracking the Ukrainian ship with special concern because of the weaponry on board.

The hijackings were the latest in a series of audacious maritime attacks off the coast of Somalia, a war-torn country that has been without a functioning government since 1991.

A U.S. defense official said the destroyer USS Howard is pursuing the hijacked Ukrainian vessel and is now within a few thousand yards of it. The hijacked ship is anchored a few miles off the Somalia coast, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the situation.

The USS Howard's Web site says it is equipped for combat operations at sea with surface-to-air missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, antisubmarine rockets, torpedoes, and a five-inch rapid-fire deck gun.

Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua said the Faina had not yet docked at any port and was still at sea.

A man who spoke to the Associated Press in Somalia by telephone and claimed to be a spokesman for the pirates said they were seeking a ransom.

"We want the Kenyan government to negotiate with us about a $35 million ransom we want for the release of the ship and the cargo without any other intervention," said the man, who identified himself as Ali Yare Abdulkadir. "If not, we will do what we can and off load the small arms and take them away."

Abdulkadir, who local residents in the northeastern Somali region of Puntland said represented the pirates, declined to reveal his whereabouts. He said the ship is somewhere along Somalia's northeastern coast and warned against any military action to liberate it.

"Any one who tries it will be responsible for the consequences," Abdulkadir said.

A Russian Web site posted what it said was an audio recording of a telephone conversation with the Ukrainian ship's first mate. He said the hijackers are seeking a ransom and have anchored close to the Somali shore.

UK: Woman Writes Book Sympathetic To Mohammed's Pedophiliac Relationship With 9 Year-Old Ayisha - Muslims Firebomb Her Publisher's Home

From the Observer:

A suspected petrol bomb attack on the north London home of a publisher may be linked to a controversial book about the prophet Mohammed, it has emerged.

Two men were arrested outside a home in Lonsdale Square in Islington on terror charges in the early hours of Saturday morning, while a third was detained outside a nearby Underground station.

Neighbours described seeing smoke and flames in the doorway of the house, and it is believed an accelerant was used to start the fire. The property is the home and office of Martin Rynja, the director of Gibson Square, an independent publishing house which earlier this month announced it was planning to release The Jewel of the Medina in the UK. The novel, by American author Sherry Jones, was pulled by publishers in the US over fears it would anger Muslims, while a publisher in Serbia withdrew it from the shelves after protests from local Islamic leaders, who said it insulted Mohammed and his family.

Infidel's Positions

This is a summary of the answers to the question: Do You Have a Position?

Marketing guru Seth Godin said, "If you can't describe your position in eight words or less, you don't have a position." I would add, if you don't have a position, it is very difficult to persuade anyone.

Blogger Pastorius said, "I have two positions:

We're created in the image of God; free.

Sharia is Sedition.

Blogger Citizen Warrior said, "Freedom is protected by exposing the Islamic memeplex."

Blogger Pastorius said, "It might be better to scare people by saying 'The Islamic Memeplex destroys Freedom on contact.'"

Blogger Epaminondas said, "We are in a war against Islamic extremism, that war is worldwide," (quoting John McCain).

Anonymous Anonymous said, "Constitutional liberties and American justice aren't bargaining chips."

Blogger Citizen Warrior said, "We risk our freedoms giving concessions to Islam."

Blogger SamenoKami said, "1) The only good jihadist is a dead jihadist.
(Can I say that?)

2) Jews MUST have a nation of their own."

Blogger Always On Watch said, "I've been told that my mission is 'Stop the whitewash of Islam.'

That certainly is the main theme of my web site.

My so-called motto also means something to those who understand the Islamic threat: 'Go ye forth and collect fatwas.' The meaning? Stop appeasement of those sworn to our destruction."

Anonymous Anonymous said, "30 words:

«The Muslim´s claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence.»

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

Abraham's DNA won't be discovered in Muhammad's tribe.

Islam is a lie, Muhammad made it up.

Islam is not Abrahamic faith. Mo scammed.

Al Qaeda, get a real job - their wives should make them clean the floor.

MESSAGE!

Mind Virus Detected! As the dominant species on the infected planet, the burden of localization and disinfection falls squarely on your shoulders. Good Luck!

All extra-solar travel is hereby suspended until the memetic threat to the wider galactic community is verifiably eliminated.

END MESSAGE

Blogger Pastorius said, "That one is excellent. It combines suggestion with insult. Insult works against the Jihad, because it causes Jihadists to become angry, and when they are angry, they show their true colors."

Anonymous Anonymous said, "Jihadists look for a date in the hereafter.

Sharia is hate.

Mo´s paradise is a brothel."

Our current economic crisis: Could part be a terror attack on U.S. financials?

From Northeast Intelligence Network:

On this year's anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there was a sudden surge in the activity of U.S. hedge funds originating from overseas... like Dubai. There was a sharp rise in "short selling" of stocks, similar to the suspicious trades in the days preceding September 11, 2001. According to one well-known economist, the same institutions attacked on 9/11 are those suffering now. Coincidence?

26 September 2008: A week ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took the unprecedented step of temporarily banning the fairly common practice of “short selling” securities in response to the widening economic crisis in the U.S. The essence of the ban is that the SEC has placed a hold on “short selling” in 799 financial institutions until October 2, 2008, in tandem with the FSA, which is the British counterpart of the SEC.

In a press release issued September 19, 2008, the SEC made the following announcement (excerpt):

The Securities and Exchange Commission, acting in concert with the U.K. Financial Services Authority, today took temporary emergency action to prohibit short selling in financial companies to protect the integrity and quality of the securities market and strengthen investor confidence. The U.K. FSA took similar action yesterday.

In its most basic definition, short selling (or selling short) is the act of a person or entity selling a security instrument, such as a stock, expecting, for whatever reason, that the price of the security will decline. For example, a person sells the stock today to a buyer at the current price, buying the stock back later at the anticipated reduced price, keeping the difference as profit. Because a person does not actually own the stock they are selling, such transactions are conducted through securities lenders, such as Goldman Sachs, for example.

The concept of short selling is rather simple: the greater the decline of the particular stock, the more money the seller stands to make in pure profit. The inverse is also true: should the value of the stock rise, the seller would then lose money on the transaction. Perhaps the biggest factor that one must keep in mind about selling short is this: the profit is limited but the loss is unlimited. Therefore, the short seller is taking an exceptional risk when engaging in such transactions -an important fact as you read on.

Short selling of stocks: Sound familiar?

At least in part, short selling transactions have been identified as contributing to the demise or imminent demise of a number of longstanding and historically revered investment firms, including but not limited to Lehman Brothers. According to analysts and experts in the financial markets, there has been a very sharp upsurge in market transactions of this type, ultimately causing a portion of the market woes that we are presently experiencing within our financial markets.

Many might recall one of the murkier aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theories involves the speculation of airline stocks in the weeks before the attacks. It has been proven that the options market for United and American Airlines, two of the airlines involved in the attacks, was unusually busy in the days before 9/11 with an extremely heavy volume of "put options," or selling the stocks “short.” The activity was unusual enough that both the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated investigations into the unusual trading activity.

Source