Israel's "hasbara" service is fouling up again

There was a recent incident around the same time as the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv, where some Jewish shephards were attacked by Islamists with rocks, and one of the Jews had to kill in self-defense, but was badly injured. Yet he's made out to be the villain here, and the US government drew a moral equivalence, calling the Jews "terrorists", not unlike how parents in Virginia concerned about transsexuals committing violence in schools were called "domestic terrorists" by the US government too. The Arab suspects were arrested, but moral equivalence still seems to dominate:

Five Palestinian Authority Arab suspects were arrested Sunday night by IDF forces on suspicion of involvement in a lynch attack on Jews.

In the Friday lynching, one of the Arab mob was killed when a Jewish victim defended himself.

On Sunday, the arrests of Elisha Yered and Yehiel Indor were extended by five days, on suspicion that they were involved in the death of the 19-year-old Arab.

Indor opened fire since he was concerned that his life was in danger, but later found himself arrested, despite having suffered injuries to his head during the lynching. As a result of his injuries, he was not present at the hearing and was not interrogated.

In addition to suspicions of involvement in the Arab's death, Yered is also suspected of disrupting the process of investigation. He is a former spokesperson for MK Limor Son Har-Melekh (Otzma Yehudit).

During the court hearing on whether to extend the arrests of Indor and Yered, the police representative said that the crime of murder was "entered into the system automatically at the start of the investigation." Following the interrogation it was decided that the crime which they are suspected of is "manslaughter." The representative also said that "there is no claim that there wasn't violence from both sides."

According to him, the Palestinian Authority Arabs who were involved in the incident were not interrogated, despite the fact that it is "important," but he noted that "there is an intention to arrest them." He could not say whether Indor fired before he was injured, and the police file does not include a photo of the crack to Indor's skull, though it includes a medical document.

Indor's attorney slammed the police for not including a photo in the file despite the fact that police representatives have been at Indor's bedside throughout his entire hospital stay. He also claimed that family was not allowed to remain in the room during the operation. The police representative countered that the family was in fact given the opportunity to remain in the room.

They attorneys and others are rightfully concerned at all the resources that've been focused on the 2 shephards. And one can only wonder if one of the guy's connection with a right-wing Knesset member had to do with this persecution, which must cease.

Ariel Kahana addressed the PR failures here:

The killing of Muhammad al-Durrah has gone down as one of Israel's most colossal hasbara failures ever. After the incident, which took place at the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the Palestinians claimed that IDF soldiers killed the boy in Gaza, and then-IDF spokesperson quickly assumed responsibility and issued a public apology on Israel's supposed targeting of the 12-year-old.

When it transpired, several months later, that he was actually killed by Palestinian fire, it was too late: Public perception had already been cemented; the world was convinced that the Jews killed him and there was no fact, video, or investigation could change that false impression.

The IDF repeated its grave mistake from 2000 over the weekend, after the dust settled following the deadly clash between Jewish herders and dozens of Arabs in Burqa – a village off Nablus. The clash ended with one Palestinian dead and one Jew gravely injured. Although the facts were blurry, and despite one side's version of events taking hold, the IDF and the entire defense establishment were quick to label this incident as "Jewish terrorism." This narrative is what was communicated to the Israeli media and the US.

"We are greatly concerned about all the attacks that we saw in Israel, in the Palestinian territories over the weekend. We strongly condemn those attacks," US State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller said this week. He added that "the IDF spokesperson called the attack in Burqa 'nationalist terrorism'."

Practically all those dealing with the incident – from the IDF, the Shin Bet security agency, and the Israel Police – have denied making a definitive determination that this was Jewish terrorism, or that they communicated as much to the Americans. In that sense, it appears that someone is lying. Part of Communications 101 is never to make your views clear until you have checked the facts with all sides of a story. In this case, Israel provided a version that adopted the account of only one side before it had the actual information of what unfolded; in fact, it is still unclear what really transpired.

Such conduct inflicts major harm that ultimately hurts Israel's image the world over. Rather than rely on the Palestinians for this incident, Israel should have simply said the following: This is an open investigation; the facts are not clear, but we will hold those responsible accountable. In fact, the cautious approach is all the more necessary in light of the judge's decision to let the main suspect in the killing, the settler Elisha Yered, be released provisionally on house arrest (pending appeal), and said the evidentiary material did not meet the minimum threshold to establish that crimes had been committed. His friend, Yehiel Indore, who sustained severe wounds in the incident, is still hospitalized and has yet to be interrogated due to his condition. The Shin Bet is no longer part of the investigation, suggesting this is no longer considered a Jewish terrorism case.

While it's lucky if they're stopping that narrative and angle, there's only so many more staffers who shouldn't continue to be employed at taxpayers' expense if this is how they're going to operate. They've caused only so much gigantic damage to Israel's reputation, and the worst part is they were probably doing it deliberately. Exactly why they don't belong in such positions. We must hope the injured shephard is cleared and recovers.

Does This Count As An Act of (Psychological) Terrorism?

During the day I frequently listen to our local conservative talk-radion station WTKK in Boston. Today two of the talk-show hosts reported an incident that occurred during a remote broadcast yesterday, which I consider to have been an act of deliberate "psychological terrorism", or at least blatant intimidation. I don't have a written account I can post, but here is what listeners were told.

On Thursday, 12/09/10, WTKK did a remote broadcast from a large shopping mall south of Boston for the benefit of a US military personnel support organization called Fisher House. This was announced in advance on the station. The remote was set up in an open area of the mall, and right next to the visit-Santa set-up.

According to the talk-show hosts, about 5:30 in the afternoon an man in Islamic garb plus a large heavy overcoat (it was extremely cold in NE yesterday) approached the remote set-up, "glared" at the personalities manning the table, then proceeded to perform his evening Muslim prayers (sans prayer rug, apparently) in a very loud voice in the middle of the mall's open area. Both the talk-show hosts who reported the incident said that they felt intimidated and wondered if this person represented either a threat or was someone enacting a "dry run". He was not carrying any shopping bags and appeared to have entered that area of the mall for the express purpose of staring down the people at the remote set-up and performing his prayers at that location.

Though I assume there was security present in the mall, apparently no one attempted to interfere with or even monitor this individual (though of course we can't know who was watching on the mall tv monitors). When he completed his prayer, he left. I don't know if they legally could have done anything about it anyway, but my impression is that this was a deliberate act of intimidation and perhaps even provocation, and that his intent (besides his delusion of bringing down the wrath of Allah) was essentially psychological terrorism. The people who were there aren't quite sure what to think.

What do you think?

Say It Isn't So: Qatar Poised to Acquire Christie's Auction House?

I do a (very) small business in collectibles and antiques, and subscribe to several trade papers. Today I opened my December 2010 issue of Kovels on Antiques and Collectibles and was greeted with the following brain-freezing news:

Will Qatar, the Gulf state near Saudi Arabia, become one of the art capitals of the world? The oil-and gas-rich country has been buying pieces for its Museum of Islamic Art. There's even talk the country is thinking of buying Christie's auction house as part of its plans to become a cultural destination.

Christie's, founded in London in 1766, is one of the premier auction houses of the world. However, sales are down and hundreds of staff jobs have been cut. As noted in its Wikipedia entry, "Although the economic downturn has encouraged some collectors to sell art,others are unwilling to sell in a market which may yield only bargain prices."

Previously a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange, since 1999 Christie's has been privately owned by Francois Pinault. According to Wikipedia,

On 28 December 2008, the Sunday Times reported that Pinault's debts left him "considering" the sale of Christie's and that a number of "private equity groups" were thought to be interested in its acquisition.

I don't know what this means in strictly business and financial terms. But the very thought of an Islamic state acquiring ownership of Christie's leaves me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Am I over-reacting here?

Taqiyya: The "Invisibility Cloak" of Islamic Aggression

Continuing to work my way through Trencherbone's excellent "Understanding Islam" series I discovered this gem on the history of Mohammed and the origins and purpose of taqiyya.

During the first 13 years that Mohammed preached Islam in Mecca, his approach was peaceful and conciliatory. He gained barely 100 followers. But after Mohammed established himself in Medina he met with 75 Medinans and formed a group known as ‘The Pledge of War’. This group began the tribal activity of ‘razzias’ or caravan raids, basically pirate raids for spoils such as goods, animals, slaves and ransom. They were very "successful" and as Mohammed's reputation as a ruthless warrior grew, converts flocked to Islam. Not surprisingly, he decided that this was a far more reliable and efficient way of expanding his new religion.

The question naturally arises: If Mohammed was the "perfect man" to be emulated in all ways, what Muslim can justify choosing to live a "moderate" life in peace with his kuffar neighbors, when the Prophet's example demonstrates that war, terror, savagery, rapaciousness, force, and humiliation is the "proper" stance of the true Muslim towards the Dar-al-Harb?

However, since this approach does not go down as well in the modern world as it did amongst the desert savages of the Dark Ages, modern Muslims increasingly rely on the "cultural tradition" known as "taqiyya".


The Islamic Principle of Taqiyya

In order to understand the Islamic mind we have to understand the Arab Bedouin Tribal culture. This is a culture based upon tribalism and the hard nomadic values of tribal warfare by raiding neighbouring villages and taking over their women and children as slaves and concubines, their possessions, their stock and their grazing lands and killing their men with the exception of those who would accept Islam. The people are mainly illiterate, but cunning, and resourceful in order to survive. They are also extremely proud and arrogant people, especially the men. The masculine Arab culture placed a very high value on ‘honour and shame’ associated with his place in the social order of his family, his tribal group, or his society. It is important that he does not suffer ‘a loss of face’...

“Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honour and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wit and cunning for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honour on their own account and vice versa for the opponents. If honour so demands it, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.”

Thus by skilful manipulations, by dissimulation, deceiving, lying, confounding, deflection of accusations, it is possible to foil or block or fend off an attack or accusation, and thus turn a humiliation into a positive outcome and the save one’s face or one’s life. This same skill is part of the tribal Bedouin life and it has been adopted into the Islamic way of life in the defence and protection of Islam. This skill is known as ‘Taqiyya’ and greatly enhances the capabilities of Muslims to defend and promote Islam. This skill, Taqiyya, comes so naturally to Muslims that they are not even aware that they are using it to communicate dissimulate Islamic information to the less informed. It is a part of their way of life since childhood. This trait can also be observed in many other cultures especially in the East.

To give a few examples of Taqiyya as an illustration, Muslims will deny that “terrorist suicide bombers killed innocent people” were Muslims who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers in New York. And they are right because Muslims do not approve of Suicide (Haram, so they could not have been Muslims) and wanton murder of innocent people (but Muslims do not consider non-Muslims as innocent. They are the enemy and so are legitimate targets.). So Muslims may safely say that they condemn any terrorist acts, because terrorists are not identifiable as Muslims. But Muslims knew that these were acts of Islamic Jihad, and thus were truthful in denying it was “an act of terrorism” by Muslims, because they were actually “acts of martyrdom” or Jihad not “terrorism.”

Muslims do not do “terrorism.” (Taqiyya)(Semantics) Yet this is what the Koran commands her followers:

Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Qur’an:8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

Those who prattle about "moderate Muslims" do not understand that, in Quranic terms, "moderate Muslims" are blasphemers and apostates. If they do know anything about their own "religion", they know that the sociopathic caravan raider who formulated it established the way of terror and war as the template for his followers. But to show that face of Islam to the kuffar is to risk a breach of the compact of "multiculturalism", arouse suspicions, and cause inconveniences. So, to protect themselves, they employ taqiyya to deflect suspicion -- because, in a sense, they too must "feed the crocodile" to persuade it to eat them last.

But in this case, we kuffar are the crococile and our job is to avoid being turned into luggage before we get to the end of the buffet.

MEDIA: WHORES

The dhimmis and stealth jihadists at CNN are running a puff piece on Imam Feisal Rauf one day after they barely covered our protest rally against the Cordoba (Whore)House/Park51 mosque. The theme is "compassion" so you know what to expect if you want to bother with another stoll down taqiyya lane.

It was obvious to anyone who encountered representatives of "journalism" at the protest yesterday that their attitude is biased, often belligerently so, that their level of ignorance is indefensible, and that they are interested in furthering their own careers by toeing the Obamadoring, Islam fostering libtard party line to an extent which will unhesitatingly be extended to include sedition if that is what is "required". They will, of course, refuse to allow themselves to recognize, much less acknowledge that what they are doing is at best malpractice and at worst treasonous fraud.

They had their last chance yesterday. They blew it.

Obama Muslim Entrepreneurship Summit Marks "Important Shift in Foreign Policy"

Latest Obamullah's smoke-and-mirrors, last week's Presidential Summit on (MUSLIM) Entrepreneurship ", left at least one Harvard senior fellow all tingly, calling it "a turning point in U.S. foreign policy" built on "collaborative engagement" and "exchange programs".

But it appears that real entrepreneurs are not buying it, since the Muslims were all by their lonesome at the conference except for a few government hacks.

Looking for entrepreneurs in the Muslim world

By Amy Wilkinson, Special to CNN
May 10, 2010 8:07 p.m. EDT

Amy Wilkinson is a senior fellow at Harvard University in the Center for Business and Government. She is writing a book on entrepreneurial leaders that focuses on how globalization, technology, and a shift in public service models create new paradigms for rising leaders.

Washington (CNN) -- The Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship late last month marked a turning point in U.S. foreign policy. Did you hear about this summit? Likely not, as headlines focused on the oil spill, the bomb scare in Times Square and the Supreme Court nomination. And with the U.S. unemployment rate at nearly 10 percent, promoting prosperity abroad is difficult for the White House to tout at home.

Still, President Obama pledged in Cairo, Egypt, last June to build a new beginning with Muslim nations, and entrepreneurship provides an innovative new tool.

Obama was keeping his promise to deepen partnerships between the United States and the Muslim world when he invited 275 entrepreneurs from Muslim-majority countries to participate in the Washington summit. Selected delegates came from more than 50 countries, including Iraq, India, Indonesia and Kazakhstan.

The gathering marked an important shift in foreign policy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who spoke at the event's conclusion, said "the summit reflects the new approach to foreign policy that President Obama described last year at Cairo University, one that we have been putting into practice through partnerships based on shared values, mutual respect and mutual responsibility."

In the past, U.S. engagement with the Muslim world has focused primarily on defeating al Qaeda, ending the war in Iraq and deterring Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[...]

If the goal of the summit was to get participants to collaborate, the buzz in the room provided a positive indication.

"People are happy to be with each other," said Jacqueline Novogratz, founder and CEO of Acumen Fund, a nonprofit venture fund aimed at eradicating global poverty. It remains to be seen if the summit will turn into more than a successful public diplomacy event.

What did participants gain from attending?

First and foremost, they had a chance to meet each other, build ties, exchange ideas and find others interested in partnering or funding their endeavors. Abdulsalam Haykal, a Syrian entrepreneur, pulled a stack of business cards from his pocket and said, "This is the start of a global network. It's about connecting with people."

In their home countries many delegates received media attention for being selected; for entrepreneurs the chance to promote their organization provides a boost.

"It is about shining a spotlight on high-impact entrepreneurs," said Linda Rottenberg, CEO and co-founder of Endeavor, a nonprofit that supports entrepreneurs in emerging markets.

Collaborating with an all-star cast of White House officials couldn't hurt either. The White House rolled out the red carpet with Obama participating as well as Clinton, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, National Economics Council Director Lawrence Summers and Dr. Rajiv Shah, administrator of USAID.

While the administration aimed to "galvanize" entrepreneurs from Muslim-majority countries, these Muslim upstarts shied away from pigeon-holing into a religious or ethnic category.

When asked to define "Muslim entrepreneur" in a panel discussion, Tunisian business woman Douja Gharbi said, "There is no difference between a Muslim entrepreneur and any other entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is an entrepreneur. "

For the White House, the purpose of the conference was to send a political message of collaborative engagement. For summit delegates, however, the focus was on building their fledgling businesses.

Noticeably absent from the summit were U.S. entrepreneurs. Of the Americans participating, most represented U.S. government, not business. And, for Muslim entrepreneurs, the absence of their U.S. counterparts was a disappointment.

For many, the conference still marked a paradigm shift in public policy.

"Obama has turned his Cairo vision into a reality," said Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith Youth Core and a Muslim-American from Chicago. "At the same time, he has advanced the culture of entrepreneurship to an inflection point."

The summit spurred companion events outside of government. In the same week, more than 30 partner organizations hosted events in Washington, including IBM, Cisco, the Kauffman Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution and Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.

As for next steps, Obama announced the administration's plans to launch exchange programs to bring entrepreneurs from Muslim countries to the U.S. and send their American counterparts to Muslim-majority countries. The prime minister of Turkey said he will host the next entrepreneurship summit, set to become an annual event. Commerce Secretary Locke announced an upcoming social entrepreneurship conference in Iraq.

Clinton announced four initiatives:

-- The Global Entrepreneurship Program.

-- Partnerships with two Silicon Valley-based incubators.

-- The launch of Partners for a New Beginning.

-- A new effort called e-Mentor Corps.

These initiatives all aim to further catalyze ongoing collaboration through sharing of best practices. Entrepreneurship is the new global engagement. Last month, the U.S. reached out to upstarts in hopes that they will become new diplomats for change.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Amy Wilkinson.

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy: Burkas OK. Also Ski Masks.

You say you want to be able to see the face of the pharmacist who fills your prescription, kuffar? What are you, some kinda racist?

From FOX, the latest genuflection to CAIR from those who should be putting patient safety and professional integrity ahead of the requirements of dhimmitude :

Massachusetts College Relaxes Ban on Head Coverings After Muslim Uproar
Thursday, January 07, 2010

BOSTON — A Massachusetts college that banned students from wearing head coverings that obscure the face has announced a religious exemption following criticism from Muslim groups.

The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences bans students from wearing clothing such as burqas and face veils, as well as ski masks and scarves.

The school amended the policy Thursday, saying those exempted on religious grounds will be required to remove any covering to verify their identity for security purposes.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations had asked federal officials to investigate, saying the policy would have "a disproportionate impact on the religious rights of Muslim employees."

The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy is situated in the midst of what is known as the Longwood Medical Area, encompasing Brigham and Women's Hospital, Beth Israel Hospital, Children's Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health. Therefore, this ruling means that any student -- or other individual -- claiming exemption on religious grounds, can wander around this area incognito (including on security cameras) unless actually "required to remove the covering to verify their identity for security purposes."

UPDATE:

Whoops, forgot to mention that Tarek Mehanna, of Sudbury, MA, arrested last October on charges of planning terrorist attacks against Americans, is a Massachusetts College of Pharmacy grad. And his dad, Ahmed Mehanna, teaches medicinal chemistry at the school.

CAIR Finally Under Investigation

From Robert Spencer in Human Events:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a longtime partner of the FBI in its efforts to reach out to American Muslims, now appears to be under criminal investigation by that same FBI. It’s a refreshing breakthrough of sanity in the FBI’s dealing with the domestic terror threat -- and it came to light just as CAIR was poised to win yet another victory in its ongoing campaign of harassment and intimidation against anyone who dares draw attention to jihadist activity in the United States.

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Yet despite the many indications that CAIR was not exactly a paragon of patriotism and loyalty to Constitutional values, the FBI worked closely with CAIR for years – until the organization’s unindicted co-conspirator status was too much even for the politically correct Feds, and the FBI ended work with CAIR in fall 2008.

Yet even then, there was no public indication that CAIR was under investigation. That came to light through a series of improbable events. A young man named Chris Gaubatz, posing as a new convert to Islam named David “Dawud” Marshall, secured an internship with CAIR in 2008 – and began to carry out of CAIR headquarters 12,000 pages of documents and even audiotapes of CAIR officials.

This material became the basis for the explosive book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America, by Chris’s father David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, which contains numerous revelations about the group’s shady internal dealings. Muslim Mafia confirms what veteran CAIR-watchers have long suspected: that CAIR is an integral part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s apparatus in the U.S.

The Brotherhood is an international Islamic organization, the parent group of both Hamas and Al-Qaeda, that is in its own words dedicated in America to “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.” Muslim Mafia contains details of how CAIR has tried to block anti-terror investigations -- and has meanwhile insinuated itself into the highest levels of power in Washington.

As a result of the revelations in Muslim Mafia, Representatives Sue Myrick (R-NC) Trent Franks (R-AZ) Paul Broun (R-GA) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, requesting that he “provide each Member of Congress a summary of the evidence and findings by the DOJ and FBI which led them to name CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism trial.” Holder has not publicly complied, but CAIR is by no means out of the woods yet.

When Muslim Mafia hit bookstore shelves, CAIR did not deny any of its allegations, resorting instead to its tried-and-true tactic of shooting the messenger, defaming the Gaubatzes and Sperry as “hatemongers” and suing to recover the documents, claiming that the material had been stolen and even that Chris Gaubatz had trespassed on CAIR property.

A court ruled in CAIR’s favor, but just as CAIR was about to regain control of the documents, the FBI stepped in with a subpoena, taking the documents for its own hitherto unknown investigation of CAIR.

This investigation is long overdue. The respect and access CAIR has enjoyed from government and law enforcement agencies, as well as the mainstream media, has long been out of sync with its steadfast opposition to virtually every anti-terror measure that has been devised since 9/11; its assistance in an attempt to sue airline passengers who reported on suspicious activity by Muslims in an airport; and its relentless demonization of everyone who speaks honestly about the jihad threat in the U.S.

CAIR should be closed down, and its officers prosecuted where prosecution is justified. And if that ever happens, Americans will finally be able to be sure that the resistance to jihad activity in the U.S. is on track.

Flight 297 Passenger: Incident Bigger Than AirTran Claims

Take note, the man quoted in this article is Brent C. Brown, CEO of Chesley-Brown International.

In the body of this article, AirTran claims,

"Because of privacy laws, the airline would not identify any of the men involved in the November incident."

They should clarify that they have no intention of identifying any ME men involved since AirTran had no problem calling Petruna a liar by name!

From WSBTV:

ATLANTA -- Rumors continued to circulate Monday via e-mail and the Internet about what exactly happened on an AirTran flight at HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport in November.

At the time, AirTran told Channel 2 Action News that an unruly passenger on a cell phone forced the pilot to take the plane back to the gate. Monday, a passenger said the situation went well beyond that.

“It was extremely intense. I’ve never experienced anything like that,” said passenger Brent Brown.

Brown runs a security consultant company and is a frequent flier. But even for him, he said the events of Flight 297 were disturbing and frightening. As the Houston-bound flight taxied to the runway, several in a group of about a dozen men of Middle Eastern descent started walking the aisles and using their cell phones, Brown said.

Brown said he could tell from the flight attendants' actions that the situation was more than just a single passenger misbehaving.

"This was a big step ahead of that. You could tell that they were distressed and that they were getting very much uncooperative people in the back," said Brown. "So when the pilot turned the plane around, not only was I not surprised I was proud that he had made that effort to secure the cabin."

Back at the gate, Brown said the situation did not improve. He said he was sitting toward the front and he never saw law enforcement enter the plane. He also said that no one informed passengers of what was going on.

"They weren't speaking to us. And they didn't speak to us at all for at least an hour. Our only interaction was with the crew that was already upset at the way they were obviously being handled," said Brown.

Within days, the incident went viral on the Internet which prompted news coverage. Internet rumor control sites seemingly couldn’t make heads or tails of the incident. AirTran responded by posting an article that called most of the claims an "urban myth."

"And then after the fact, when (AirTran) apparently issued a statement that says, in effect, that this was a customer service issue or someone was on the phone...they're dead wrong," said Brown.

The crew, including the pilots, decided not to continue with the flight. Brown said AirTran put about 10 of the 12-man group back on the plane with a new crew. Most of the original passengers chose not to re-board and instead got on a different flight.

Because of privacy laws, the airline would not identify any of the men involved in the November incident.

An AirTran spokesman called the incident "isolated" and said the airline considers the case closed.

Pushing Toward The Caliphate

When Moslems know their numbers and power are too small to push harder against a nation's prevailing culture, Moslems blend into the background and cause few problems. When, however, they sense they are getting closer to gaining the upper hand, they act upon their convictions about Islamic supremacism.

From this posting over at Down Under on the Right Side, an Australian-based blog:

A SYDNEY couple has withdrawn their two children from a public primary school, claiming their 11-year-old son was bullied by Muslim students because he ate a salami sandwich during Ramadan. …Mr Grigoriou said he removed his son and a younger child from the school on Tuesday after the boy was punched in the eye and kicked in the legs by a Muslim student. …The Department of Education and Training said it had a zero tolerance policy towards racism.

…Other parents also complained to The Daily Telegraph about bullying at the school and claimed victims received too little protection. One said her 12-year-old son was scared to open his lunch box at school because he was harassed about what is in it. “He has been bullied from day one … about being a Christian and about the hot salami in his lunch,” she said. “My boy has a Greek background … the bullying is extreme. “He has been called a fat pig and hit on the back with a stick.” Another mother said her young son refused to go on school excursions for fear he would be bashed.

MK, the blogmaster at Down Under on the Right Side comments:

...I’d hate to be a the father of those kids and I feel for them, but in a way I’m glad this sort of thing is being reported in the news and people are becoming more aware of it. This is what muslims have been doing all over the world for centuries now, there is no tolerance or acceptance of infidels in muslim lands, but there is no criticism of it and we’re all supposed to sing kumbaya and all cultures are equal and glorious.

So, Patients' Rights Don't Apply to Dhimmis?

Why should there even be a question about this if it is not a religion-affiliated hospital? This woman is a doctor, not a chaplain. She has a responsibility to her patients to not make them uncomfortable by foisting her religious views on them. But obviously she thinks her comfort, to say nothing of the advancement of the cultural jihad, is more important. She demands to wear her hijab while working as a doctor when a doctor in Saudi Arabia would be able to tear a cross or any non-muslim symbol off a patient? Hah.


Clinic Forbids Muslim Doctor to Wear Hijab
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Associated Press

DALLAS — A Muslim doctor interviewing for a job at a suburban Dallas medical
clinic says officials there told her she couldn't wear her headscarf while working.

Dr. Hena Zaki of Plano said Friday that she was shocked when CareNow officials told her in person and later by e-mail that a no-hat policy extended to her hijab.

Zaki had been on a tour of an Allen CareNow clinic two weeks ago when she said the regional medical director told her he didn't want her to be surprised about the policy during orientation.

"He interrupted the interview and said he didn't want me to take this the wrong
way," Zaki said. "Like an FYI."

Zaki wants an apology and a change in CareNow's policies to accommodate expressions of religious belief — "whether it be a turban or facial hair."

However, CareNow President Tim Miller said he doesn't see anything wrong with the policy.

Neither do I. (Fine with me if this bitch wants to grow a beard, however.) I know the "anti-discrimination" laws hamstring most employers, but there must be something in most hospital patients' bill of rights about medical staff not being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on patients.

Read the rest. Guess who wrote CareNow a letter.

Kent, CT Town Official: "Feelings" of Muslims More Important than Truth

There is an appalling story up now on FOX news about a Kent, Connecticut, man whose request that any town memorial to his son James, killed at age 23 in the north tower of the WTC on 9/11/01, include the words "Murdered by Muslim terrorists" has been turned down because, in the words of selectman Ruth Epstein, "We perceive ourselves as a very warm, loving town... we have at least one Muslim family living here with children and it... would be just awful to have them see something like that." Apparently it means nothing to this craven unctuous collaborationist bitch that Peter Gadiel had to watch his son burn or fall to his death from the Cantor-Fitzgerald offices on the 103rd floor of the WTC. There was nothing "just awful" about that. The "warm and loving" town of Kent does not extend its warmth and love to a grieving father, but prefers to protect the sensibilities of those whose co-religionists murdered his son.

If the "one Muslim family" in Kent had any class they would support Mr. Gadiel's request or at the very least appear in person at the selectmen's meeting to either acknowledge or deny their support of the actions of their fellow Muslims. It is the refusal of the vast majority of "moderate Muslims" to do so that has led to Mr. Gadiel's request.

Father of 9/11 Victim Fights to Have 'Murdered by Muslim Terrorists' Inscribed on Son's Memorial
by Douglas Kennedy


KENT, Conn. — Peter Gadiel wants everyone to remember his son, James, who was killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks. And he also wants people to remember how he died: "Murdered by Muslim terrorists."

For Gadiel, any tribute to his son would be woefully incomplete without those words.

"I think it's important, because I think there's a nationwide effort to suppress the identity of the people who were involved in the attacks," Gadiel told Fox News. Eight years ago, 23-year-old James Gadiel worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center. He died when a hijacked plane crashed into the North Tower.

For years, Gadiel's hometown of Kent, Conn., has wanted to honor the young man with a memorial plaque next to its town hall. But the tribute has hit a snag because James' father wants to include the phrase, "Murdered by Muslim terrorists," under his son's name. For Peter Gadiel, it is a central fact of the Sept. 11 attacks
that is often left out.

"It isn't just overlooked, it's suppressed," Gadiel said. "It's simply wrong to imply that people just died. The buildings didn't just collapse, they didn't just fall down — they were attacked by people with a specific identity, a specific purpose."

Town officials call the phrase too controversial for a small town memorial, and they recently voted against erecting the plaque if Gadiel insists on the language.

"We perceive ourselves as a very warm, loving town," said Ruth Epstein, a Kent selectman and one of two town leaders to vote the plaque down. "To disparage any one ethnic group is just against everything that we stand for here." Epstein noted that other Sept. 11 memorials, like the one at the Pentagon, don't mention Muslim terrorists, and she said she does not want to alienate any members of her small and close-knit community.

"We have at least one Muslim family living here with children and it — it would be just awful to have them see something like that," Epstein told Fox News.

But for Gadiel, it's an important message that he insists be present on any tribute to his son.

"Muslims have to acknowledge that it was their co-religionists who committed this act in their name," he said. "I am offended that unlike so many others, they refuse to acknowledge that it was their people who did this."

Pigman : 'Till the Last Drop Of Their Blood'

Miranda rights for scumbag jihadist's?

They've only earned the right to be silenced. Forever.

-Bosch Fawstin

Dhimmitude At Random House

(hat-tip to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

Fear of retaliation and political correctness have led to yet another Twenty-first Century book burning — not in the literal sense, of course. Today, the West is much more sophisticated.

Random House Inc., the world's largest English language trade publisher of fiction, nonfiction, and children's books, has backpedaled from publishing The Jewel of Medina, even though the author had received an advance of $100,000.

Read the rest at Always On Watch.