From The Glenn Beck Show, approximately 40 minutes:
Monday, November 27, 2006
Charles Rangel Fails to Disappoint
The Esteemed Congressman from New York City speaks:
I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
Here is a link to the video of Mr. Rangel in action. Watch his face say these words yourself.
As a former soldier, let me explain this to you who have never been in service. As with any stereotype, there is a grain in truth. There are some who did join for the ability to get the heck out of their homes, and the college fund is a big draw. There are some who have come to a crossroads in their lives, and signed up for a tour to get into a new environment to sort out things. Some did find their niche, others finished out their tours and were discharged. Still, others thought they were Spicolli at Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and got chaptered out, and forfeited their college funds.
For the many who got out of their dead end areas, this gave them a chance to grow up, and be a man in the old fashioned sense of the word. To leave the ghetto and gang culture, and belong to something bigger than themselves to which they could be proud. To not be a wandering drunk in a town where, once the sawmill closed, the town packed up and died. Same as when people flee to Hollywood to be at the epicenter, if their dream is entertainment, or to Alaska, to be on the last frontier. For these, joining the service vs. staying behind and wallowing in their own misery is proof of higher intelligence. Someone moved their cheese, and instead of drifting the streets of Flint, Michigan or Gary, Indiana, they grabbed onto something universally esteemed and appreciated across the country.
And there were many who joined the army because they wanted to be soldiers. Because when some people were looking to go to the auto plant, and others were going into some other field, they had the dream of being Airborne, or being a tanker, or a sailor, or flying or repairing jet aircraft. Or just in general, being a part of the few who dedicated their lives to the defense of this country.
And of those who joined for their change of scenery, or to use their service to better themselves for once they returned to civilian life, did they have this as their only option? Was this all there was to choose from? I've known many who also came from hardscrapple beginnings who worked midnights to put themselves through school because they chose not to go to the military. The point being, no one has the military as their only option in life.
Rangel is right - no one signs up to fight just for the money. Whether they are smart, or whether they are stupid. And no one goes into the service where they think for a moment that they aren't joining up with something that may involve their fighting in battle for their country.
But to say that no one smart would join, to insinuate that the military is the last refuge for the pathetic miserables who can't even qualify for the most menial jobs in the private sector, that the job is, by extension of this logic, the toilet of professions in America, is an insult to the many dedicated soldiers who have made the service a career. They want to fight, if the country sees a need for them to go into action to defend it. All the while, there are many who probably can beat a good part of Congress on the Mensa test if there was ever a smart-off.
By the way, what good is it to go into the service for college money if you're as dumb as a rock? Kind of an oxymoron, Mr. Rangel? They're too stupid to do anything else but fight, yet they joined for college tuition.
In conclusion, for those who don't think someone wants to fight for this country in spite of their being able to found successful businesses, or be hired for productive careers, I offer you the Reserves. The thousands who answered the call to arms and left behind their firms, their jobs, and most importantly, their families. The most famous example of someone who had something great going in his life, and who raised his right hand for he felt that America was at risk, and he wanted to do his part? I offer you Mr. Pat Tillman.
Dear Mr. Congressman Sir, you're party has been listening a little too much to Cindy "This country is not worth fighting for" Sheehan, and not enough to the soldiers. The heroes, like college graduate (Rochester Institute of Technology) Brian Chontosh. And as far as the desire to fight, go look up Michael Burghardt.
Hat tip Hot Air.
I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
Here is a link to the video of Mr. Rangel in action. Watch his face say these words yourself.
As a former soldier, let me explain this to you who have never been in service. As with any stereotype, there is a grain in truth. There are some who did join for the ability to get the heck out of their homes, and the college fund is a big draw. There are some who have come to a crossroads in their lives, and signed up for a tour to get into a new environment to sort out things. Some did find their niche, others finished out their tours and were discharged. Still, others thought they were Spicolli at Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and got chaptered out, and forfeited their college funds.
For the many who got out of their dead end areas, this gave them a chance to grow up, and be a man in the old fashioned sense of the word. To leave the ghetto and gang culture, and belong to something bigger than themselves to which they could be proud. To not be a wandering drunk in a town where, once the sawmill closed, the town packed up and died. Same as when people flee to Hollywood to be at the epicenter, if their dream is entertainment, or to Alaska, to be on the last frontier. For these, joining the service vs. staying behind and wallowing in their own misery is proof of higher intelligence. Someone moved their cheese, and instead of drifting the streets of Flint, Michigan or Gary, Indiana, they grabbed onto something universally esteemed and appreciated across the country.
And there were many who joined the army because they wanted to be soldiers. Because when some people were looking to go to the auto plant, and others were going into some other field, they had the dream of being Airborne, or being a tanker, or a sailor, or flying or repairing jet aircraft. Or just in general, being a part of the few who dedicated their lives to the defense of this country.
And of those who joined for their change of scenery, or to use their service to better themselves for once they returned to civilian life, did they have this as their only option? Was this all there was to choose from? I've known many who also came from hardscrapple beginnings who worked midnights to put themselves through school because they chose not to go to the military. The point being, no one has the military as their only option in life.
Rangel is right - no one signs up to fight just for the money. Whether they are smart, or whether they are stupid. And no one goes into the service where they think for a moment that they aren't joining up with something that may involve their fighting in battle for their country.
But to say that no one smart would join, to insinuate that the military is the last refuge for the pathetic miserables who can't even qualify for the most menial jobs in the private sector, that the job is, by extension of this logic, the toilet of professions in America, is an insult to the many dedicated soldiers who have made the service a career. They want to fight, if the country sees a need for them to go into action to defend it. All the while, there are many who probably can beat a good part of Congress on the Mensa test if there was ever a smart-off.
By the way, what good is it to go into the service for college money if you're as dumb as a rock? Kind of an oxymoron, Mr. Rangel? They're too stupid to do anything else but fight, yet they joined for college tuition.
In conclusion, for those who don't think someone wants to fight for this country in spite of their being able to found successful businesses, or be hired for productive careers, I offer you the Reserves. The thousands who answered the call to arms and left behind their firms, their jobs, and most importantly, their families. The most famous example of someone who had something great going in his life, and who raised his right hand for he felt that America was at risk, and he wanted to do his part? I offer you Mr. Pat Tillman.
Dear Mr. Congressman Sir, you're party has been listening a little too much to Cindy "This country is not worth fighting for" Sheehan, and not enough to the soldiers. The heroes, like college graduate (Rochester Institute of Technology) Brian Chontosh. And as far as the desire to fight, go look up Michael Burghardt.
Hat tip Hot Air.
From Melanie Phillips's Diary
Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, had this to say on November 27, 2006:
The above was Ms. Phillips' commentary to this piece by Carolyn Glick. Excerpt:
I've got the sinking feeling that the famed "W Resolve" is going down the tubes.
Those who know President Bush say that alarm over Baker and Gates should not be overdone, since Bush is a man who means what he says and is unlikely to retreat from his stated positions over seeing it through in Iraq and not tolerating Iranian nuclear weapons. Against that, however, is the fact that he does rely on Condoleezza Rice; and no less disturbingly, that he requires his people to present him with a consensus for action. This means he does not hear rival proposals, and instead gets served with proposals which are forced to embody the lowest common denominator. This is not the leadership required for the defence of the free world.
The above was Ms. Phillips' commentary to this piece by Carolyn Glick. Excerpt:
…The most pressing question today then is whether Bush will give in to Baker and the Democrats and agree to capitulate to Iran and Syria in Iraq, Lebanon and indeed throughout the world. Unfortunately, things look bleak given that Bush relies most heavily on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice has been blocking US action against Syria and Iran for the past two years. She was the primary architect of UN Resolution 1701 this summer, has been pushing for dangerous Israeli concessions to the Palestinians and is known for her good relations with Baker.
I've got the sinking feeling that the famed "W Resolve" is going down the tubes.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Infidel Bloggers Alliance Babe Of The Week
The actual babe of the week is our sister blog Infidel Bloggers Alliance of the UK. Go check them out. Fellow IBA-Founder,J, started IBA-UK as a forum for UK-specific stories. However, I'm sure that many of us non-UK readers will probably checking in with IBA-UK on a daily basis.
I know I will.
Anyway, while we are honoring of IBA-UK as Babe of the week, we might as well post a picture of a hot chick as well. We have decided that we would have a duel Babe of the Week posting. J chose Sienna Miller (famed here in the United States for calling Pittsburth, "Shitburgh"), and having seen her, I have to say, maybe J ought to pick all the Babes.
Damn, she's so hot, I wouldn't even care if she is the Moonbat Bitch from Hell. I'll just sit here, nod, and say, "Ok honey, whatever you say."
Especially if there was any chance of the evening ending with her spread out on the Pastorius Pallet, as she is here in the photo to the right.
Wait, what am I saying? I'm a married man. Well, let's just, in my dreams I can fly.
"My Year Inside Radical Islam"
David Gartenstein-Ross converted to Islam when he was a young man. Here's an article which discusses his experience. From the San Francisco Chronicle (with a hat tip to Olivia):
THE DAY after the 9/11 attacks, MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote of the need "to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators." What struck Daveed Gartenstein-Ross about Chomsky's response was that "Chomsky made no real effort to enter the minds of the perpetrators. Instead he simply projected his own grievances against the United States onto them."
Gartenstein-Ross had a much stronger idea as to what motivated the 9/11 attackers. After converting to Islam in college, he held a job at the Ashland, Ore., office of Al Haramain, a Saudi-funded charity that sent money to al Qaeda.
In a fascinating memoir due in stores in February, "My Year Inside Radical Islam," Gartenstein-Ross describes how he was drawn to Islam because he saw it as a religion of peace.
Over time, however, he watched himself and those around him seduced into a fanaticism that required them to loathe not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who belonged to the wrong sect, listened to music or shaved. He had expected an open, accepting religion, only to hear sheikhs arguing that Muslims who leave the religion should be killed, that it is acceptable to kill civilians for jihad and that good Muslims should work to replace democratic governments with Shariah law.
The hate chased Gartenstein-Ross from Islam, but only after it sucked him into believing that unacceptable actions were holy.
He believes Americans need a more fact-based understanding of Islam, which requires the media to do a better job of reporting what Muslims think and say -- instead of papering over radical rhetoric. Once when a local reporter visited Al Haramain to write a piece on Ramadan, a co-worker refused to shake her hand, launched a defense of sorts of Algerian terrorists and lambasted a French policy that prohibited schoolgirls from wearing the hijab in class. The comments never made the story. Gartenstein-Ross writes, "And so, as I often did, the reporter chose not to acknowledge that a real clash of values existed here."
Islam's approach to homosexuality is another area that the left ignores in deference to multiculturalism. (Think of Bay Area liberals who voice outrage at the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but are silent about the Shariah policy on homosexuals -- 100 lashes or death.) Ditto the status of women.
Gartenstein-Ross also takes issue with those rose-colored-glass wearers who deny that there is any theological basis for Islamic extremism. "It's important to note that they do have an argument," he told me, if only to be able to engage them in argument and understand where they get their ideas.
Gartenstein-Ross is a strong storyteller, who enables the reader to feel the ineluctable draw to fanaticism, as well as the anguish and disillusionment that led him to support violent jihad, but ultimately reject it. He has no use for those who, a la Chomsky, pat themselves on the back for having the intellectual fortitude "to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators."
There are forces in this world that would kill these elites for the apostasy, but elites are so blinded with their sense of superiority over their political enemies -- like President Bush -- that they can't even see the dagger pointed at their throats.
THE DAY after the 9/11 attacks, MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote of the need "to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators." What struck Daveed Gartenstein-Ross about Chomsky's response was that "Chomsky made no real effort to enter the minds of the perpetrators. Instead he simply projected his own grievances against the United States onto them."
Gartenstein-Ross had a much stronger idea as to what motivated the 9/11 attackers. After converting to Islam in college, he held a job at the Ashland, Ore., office of Al Haramain, a Saudi-funded charity that sent money to al Qaeda.
In a fascinating memoir due in stores in February, "My Year Inside Radical Islam," Gartenstein-Ross describes how he was drawn to Islam because he saw it as a religion of peace.
Over time, however, he watched himself and those around him seduced into a fanaticism that required them to loathe not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who belonged to the wrong sect, listened to music or shaved. He had expected an open, accepting religion, only to hear sheikhs arguing that Muslims who leave the religion should be killed, that it is acceptable to kill civilians for jihad and that good Muslims should work to replace democratic governments with Shariah law.
The hate chased Gartenstein-Ross from Islam, but only after it sucked him into believing that unacceptable actions were holy.
He believes Americans need a more fact-based understanding of Islam, which requires the media to do a better job of reporting what Muslims think and say -- instead of papering over radical rhetoric. Once when a local reporter visited Al Haramain to write a piece on Ramadan, a co-worker refused to shake her hand, launched a defense of sorts of Algerian terrorists and lambasted a French policy that prohibited schoolgirls from wearing the hijab in class. The comments never made the story. Gartenstein-Ross writes, "And so, as I often did, the reporter chose not to acknowledge that a real clash of values existed here."
Islam's approach to homosexuality is another area that the left ignores in deference to multiculturalism. (Think of Bay Area liberals who voice outrage at the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but are silent about the Shariah policy on homosexuals -- 100 lashes or death.) Ditto the status of women.
Gartenstein-Ross also takes issue with those rose-colored-glass wearers who deny that there is any theological basis for Islamic extremism. "It's important to note that they do have an argument," he told me, if only to be able to engage them in argument and understand where they get their ideas.
Gartenstein-Ross is a strong storyteller, who enables the reader to feel the ineluctable draw to fanaticism, as well as the anguish and disillusionment that led him to support violent jihad, but ultimately reject it. He has no use for those who, a la Chomsky, pat themselves on the back for having the intellectual fortitude "to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators."
There are forces in this world that would kill these elites for the apostasy, but elites are so blinded with their sense of superiority over their political enemies -- like President Bush -- that they can't even see the dagger pointed at their throats.
Anti-Semitism In Print
I'm a little confused. The story on CNN involves a rocket attack on Israel only moments after another ceasefire was announced. Can you guess what the headline is- "Ceasefire Broken" or some clever wordplay along those lines? Well, no, in fact it's almost the exact opposite-
13,000 Palestinian Security Forces Maintain Ceasefire
Come again? You see, the 11 rockets launched after the ceasefire was brokered were claimed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You know, the kinder, gentler, more "moderate" Hamas everyone has come to know since they were elected into government. So, Hamas can fire rockets and still claim to be holding a ceasefire? Unbelievably Olmert has announced that Israel will take no action- hey, ceasefires need time to "take".
Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad insisted that all Palestinian factions are "100 percent" behind the cease-fire.
Hamas' militant wing and the Islamic Jihad militant group claimed responsibility for firing several rockets into Israel after the cease-fire took effect at 6 a.m.
So, which is it? CNN doesn't seem to care that either they got their facts wrong or Hamas are lying through their teeth- and the fact that the elected leaders of Hamas are involved in firing rockets randomly at towns in Israel is no big deal either. I guess, depending on how you want to view it, you could either define this as state-sponsored terrorism or an act of war.
And yet, the Western media doesn't seem to be too perturbed. I suppose they save that for when Israel retaliates to these acts of aggression aimed at civilian targets. Funny, isn't it, that the press which got so worked up about innocent civilians being targeted by Israeli forces during the Lebanon conflict, should be so unconcerned about other civilians being targeted now. As far as I can tell there are only two differences- Hamas and their ilk are using crude, unguided rockets aimed at towns instead of military targets (positioned in the middle of civilian areas on purpose), and the targets now are Jewish.
Could it possibly be that there's some anti-Semitism at work here? Because I can't think of any other explanation for why a story like this would be reported in this manner.
13,000 Palestinian Security Forces Maintain Ceasefire
Come again? You see, the 11 rockets launched after the ceasefire was brokered were claimed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You know, the kinder, gentler, more "moderate" Hamas everyone has come to know since they were elected into government. So, Hamas can fire rockets and still claim to be holding a ceasefire? Unbelievably Olmert has announced that Israel will take no action- hey, ceasefires need time to "take".
Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad insisted that all Palestinian factions are "100 percent" behind the cease-fire.
"All of them now, without exception, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Fatah and other factions, they decided to respect the agreement and also to be committed 100 percent to this agreement," Hamad told CNN.
And those rockets, well, apparently they were fired just before the ceasefire took effect so, in the eyes of Hamas nothing untoward happened. Which is odd, and apparently fine with CNN, despite the fact that a few paragraphs before this we learned-Hamas' militant wing and the Islamic Jihad militant group claimed responsibility for firing several rockets into Israel after the cease-fire took effect at 6 a.m.
So, which is it? CNN doesn't seem to care that either they got their facts wrong or Hamas are lying through their teeth- and the fact that the elected leaders of Hamas are involved in firing rockets randomly at towns in Israel is no big deal either. I guess, depending on how you want to view it, you could either define this as state-sponsored terrorism or an act of war.
And yet, the Western media doesn't seem to be too perturbed. I suppose they save that for when Israel retaliates to these acts of aggression aimed at civilian targets. Funny, isn't it, that the press which got so worked up about innocent civilians being targeted by Israeli forces during the Lebanon conflict, should be so unconcerned about other civilians being targeted now. As far as I can tell there are only two differences- Hamas and their ilk are using crude, unguided rockets aimed at towns instead of military targets (positioned in the middle of civilian areas on purpose), and the targets now are Jewish.
Could it possibly be that there's some anti-Semitism at work here? Because I can't think of any other explanation for why a story like this would be reported in this manner.
"Sindh's Stolen Brides" - Excerpts
I first came across this disturbing article, “Sindh’s Stolen Brides“ several months ago but forgot to post it.
I read it again today…with a mixture of dismay, anger and helplessness…
Is anyone listening to the plight of these poor families? Where are our BJP friends? Why dont they raise this in Parliament? and Vishwa Hindu Parishad? Surely this is a serious matter? or do Hindus in Pakistan matter less than Hindus in India? How about Arundhati Roy? better still Amnesty International? Anyone?
The article , written by Mariana Baabar delves into how Hindus in Sindh, especially girls, are forced into Islam. Some excerpts :
I read it again today…with a mixture of dismay, anger and helplessness…
Is anyone listening to the plight of these poor families? Where are our BJP friends? Why dont they raise this in Parliament? and Vishwa Hindu Parishad? Surely this is a serious matter? or do Hindus in Pakistan matter less than Hindus in India? How about Arundhati Roy? better still Amnesty International? Anyone?
The article , written by Mariana Baabar delves into how Hindus in Sindh, especially girls, are forced into Islam. Some excerpts :
- Hindus constitute about 2.5 per cent, or 26 lakh, of Pakistan’s population.
- Though sprinkled all over Pakistan, 95 per cent of Hindus are in Sindh.
- Only Tharparkar district in Sindh has Hindus in majority: 51 per cent.
“…I’m travelling in interior Sindh to verify specifically the reported widespread menace of abduction of Hindu girls, their forcible conversion to Islam and betrothal to Muslim men. My first port of call is the district court of Mirpur Khas. I promptly mingle among the crowd waiting for the court’s decision on a kidnap-and-conversion case. Different voices narrate contradictory stories. I am befuddled for the moment.…
A 13-year-old choosing to convert and marry? A 13-year-old testifying in the court, without her family by her side?…
Standing next to me is Kanjee Rano Bheel. He works for an NGO in the education sector; volunteers for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) as well. “In just two hours Mashu was converted and married,” Kanjee says incredulously.
Disappointment and helpless rage fleet across his face. “In Darul Aman the girls are kept away from parents and pressured into issuing statements favourable to the abductors. They tame stubborn girls through death threats.”
…In Mirpur Khas, truth resembles the mirage of the surrounding Thar desert, teasing and tormenting me as I drive from Karachi into interior Sindh…Wherever I go, and whoever I meet, in disconsolate voices the Hindus talk about ‘missing girls’; their stories resemble Mashu’s—the theme of abduction, conversion, often followed by marriage, is common to most narrations. The girls then appear in courts to issue statements declaring their conversion was voluntary. All links to the natal family and the community are severed; they are lost to the family forever.
On January 4, 2005, Marvi, 18, and Hemi, 16, were kidnapped from Kunri village in Umerkot district; three months later, on March 3, 14-year-old Raji was abducted from Aslam Town Jhuddo, Mirpur Khas. The script in their cases was similar to Mashu’s.
…Rehman told Outlook that the HRCP (Human Rights Commission of Pakistan) has, between Jan 2000 to Dec 2005, documented 50 cases involving conversion of Hindu girls to Islam. Its investigations too endorse what I had found in interior Sindh. In many cases where it was claimed the girls had eloped with their Muslim partners, the HRCP found that most were, in fact, abducted, forcibly married to Muslim men or sold to them.
…Nuzzhat Shirin, who works for the Lahore-based ngp Aurat Foundation, understands why the girls don’t reveal their plight at the time they are presented in court. “When a Hindu is forced to become Muslim, such a ruckus is made that if the young kidnapped girl appears in court, the fanatics yell, scream, throw rose petals in the air and follow the youth into the building so that she’s intimidated and can’t speak,” Shirin explains. Social stigma arising from the loss of virginity, and the consequent difficulty of finding a groom, prompt these women to accept their misfortune—and hope for the best. …
Human rights activists are perturbed by the erosion of minority rights, particularly the alarming frequency with which cases of forcible conversion of Hindu girls are surfacing. Ansar Buney, chairman of the Ansar Buney Welfare Trust, is dismayed: “It’s heart-rending to see forced conversion of Hindus to Islam, since the Pakistan that Jinnah had envisioned granted absolute religious freedom to the minorities.” He then asks, “Have you ever heard of an Indian Muslim girl being forced to embrace Hinduism?”
Human rights activist Hina Jillani says Hindus and Christians in Pakistan are looked down upon. “That is why they have to take up inferior jobs; their chances of rising in any field is low,” she told Outlook.”
*******
I would encourage everyone to read the article in full. The story needs to be retold and disseminated widely….this would be just a small step in trying to help these poor girls…and if anyone has any ideas of what else we can do, please email me at jai.dharmaATgmail.com
Why The Death Penalty Is Necessary For Murderous Dictators
The Los Angeles Times calls for Saddam Hussein to be restored to power.
... allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.
Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.
At the outset of the war, I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.
When idiots think, they are a danger to themselves and others.
... allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.
Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.
At the outset of the war, I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.
When idiots think, they are a danger to themselves and others.
The Letter That Got Him Kicked Out Of The Mosque
From Western Resistance:
US: Oklahoma Mosque Members Support Al Qaeda
News from Oklahoma, in the form of a video from News 9. Jamal Miftah (pictured) is a recent migrant to the United States. He wrote a letter to the Tulsa World newspaper after seeing a video by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command of Al Qaeda.
His letter, entitled "Message of Islam is not jihad, fatwahs" was published in Tulsa World on October 29. In this letter, which we reproduce below, he stated that Zawahri and bin Laden were cowards, getting young and ignorant men to become suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians.
His letter was impassioned, but it was well-intentioned. He said that Muslims throughout the world should stand up to those who advocate jihad, and to decry such behavior as being against Islam. But the letter caused only recriminations at his mosque, the Islamic Center at Tulsa.
He was threatened by several members. He protested, and then was told by the management of the mosque that he cannot return until he has apologized.
Miftah was told by members of the congregation that he should never have criticized Islam in front of non-Muslims. The thing is - he did not criticize Islam, only the radicals who preach jihad. It is a sad testimony to the fact that many Muslims in the West make no distinction between Al Qaeda and Islam. There is a concept in Islam called takfeer, which is the action of condemning a Muslim as a heretic.
Takfeer is a Muslim "crime" if not made by a senior cleric. Islam is a club which welcomes any members into the Ummah, no matter how despotic or murderous they may be. If a person has said the Shahada, they are a Muslim. If they have killed non-Muslims, or even Muslims, they are still regarded as pat of the Ummah.
This bizarre reasoning was brought home to me on an internet forum, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the butcher of Baghdad, was killed in June. Several Muslims who had early said that Islam is peaceful refused to condemn Zarqawi for the obvious monster that he was. The victims whose heads he slowly sawed off, as they gurgled their last breaths through torrents of blood spurting from their throats, were non-Muslim and Muslim alike. Yet, for the Muslims on the forum, Zarqawi was a Muslim. Worse - he was a "good Muslim" even if he had killed other Muslims.
I pressed these apologists further, and reasoned that what Zarqawi did was wrong, even if he did it thinking he was doing it for Allah. Eventually, one of these individuals admitted Zarqawi had done monstrous things. I was told of takfeer and how they feared to criticize any Muslim, lest on Judgement Day they received punishment for denouncing another Muslim as bad.
Sadly, this blinded mentality is what is destroying the credibility of Islam in the eyes of any rational being. People who claim to be Muslim, people who claim to live in the West as "peaceful citizens" may condemn acts of terrorism. But press these individuals further - ask them if they condemn the perpetrators of terrorism by name, and you will be met with obfuscation or a stony silence. How many Muslims have carried placards denouncing Osama bin Laden? Very few. Those who denounce the actions of Al Qaeda will never name the individuals who commit Al Qaeda atrocities, such as Mohammed Atta, or others, as "bad Muslims".
This is a fundamental problem with logic. I suggest you try it. Next time you engage in a discussion with a Muslim who claims to denounce terrorism, name a specific Muslim terrorist, and see if the denouncer of terrorist acts has the moral fiber to denounce that named terrorist. I assure you, you will find the answers surprising.
This is the letter that Jamal Miftah sent to the Tulsa World:
Message of Islam is not jihad, fatwahs
By Jamal Miftah.
I moved to the United States in March 2003, with my four kids and wife from Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. There was a call by a local jihadi organization to fight the coalition forces in Afghanistan. One of my dearest friends, Mirza Kohistani, fell prey to that call and joined the group, despite my advice and that of his wife to him.
All the leaders of that organization returned safely after the fall of the Taliban empire, but they left behind the body of my friend and hundreds of other innocent people like him.
I am obliged to respond to Ayman al-Zawahri's recent video message, portraying himself as champion of Islam and others as liars.
My message to Ayman al-Zawahri and Muslims of the world: "Islam" means submission and is derived from a word meaning "peace." Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the same origin, the Prophet Abraham. The prophet of Islam has said that God has no mercy on someone who does not have mercy for others.
I ask that al-Zawahri look at his deeds and those of his master, Osama bin Laden, and other so-called Islamic jihadists.
Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam. They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam.
Cowards like al-Zawahri and bin Laden are inciting the ignorant and innocent youths to commit suicide bombings to kill innocent civilians including children, women and the elderly, while they hide in spider holes and caves. They never send their own sons and daughters, born out of half a dozen of their wives, to get killed in the name of Islam. They are themselves hypo crites, cowards, thugs and liars. For 12 years they misappropriated aid received from the U.S. and the West to fight Russia. Now they are ensuring smooth flow of petro dollars from Arab countries in the name of jihad against the West.
Even mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S. and around the world have become tools in their hands and are used for collecting funds for their criminal acts. Half of the funds collected go into the pockets of their local agents and the rest are sent to these thugs.
They are the reason for branding the peaceful religion of Islam as terrorism. The result, therefore, is in the form of Danish cartoons and remarks/reference by the Pope.
I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression.
I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.
I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice.
Regional Ibloga - UK
Today marks the grand opening of the UK edition of the Infidel Bloggers Alliance. If all our UK contributors can e-mail Pastorius [hope u don't mind m8], who can then pass your e-mails onto me so I can sign you up.
Thanks,
J
Ah, the new site can be found by clicking here
Thanks,
J
Ah, the new site can be found by clicking here
The Eurabia Myth
UPDATED AT BOTTOM OF POST
Writers such as Mark Steyn and Bat Ye'or have been predicting, for the past several years, that Europe is destined to fall to its Muslims inhabitants due to the twin fates of demographics and lethargy. While I respect Mark Steyn, and believe his points to be salient and important, I do not share his pessimism as to the fate of Europe
However, that does not mean that I think all will be well with Europe. It has always been my opinion that Europe will be what Europe always has been; a land of brutal and barbaric defenders of what they perceive to be their culture.
It looks like Ralph Peters agrees with me (Hat tip to Olivia):
November 26, 2006 -- A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become "Eurabia," with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.
Well, maybe not.
The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.
The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.
In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds.
Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.
THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.
And Europeans won't even need to re-write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with an Islamist theme - real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims. Europe hasn't broken free of its historical addictions - we're going to see Europe's history reprised on meth.
The year 1492 wasn't just big for Columbus. It's also when Spain expelled its culturally magnificent Jewish community en masse - to be followed shortly by the Moors, Muslims who had been on the Iberian Peninsula for more than 800 years.
Jews got the boot elsewhere in Europe, too - if they weren't just killed on the spot. When Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice," it's a safe bet he'd never met a Jew. The Chosen People were long-gone from Jolly Olde England.
From the French expulsion of the Huguenots right down to the last century's massive ethnic cleansings, Europeans have never been shy about showing "foreigners and subversives" the door.
And Europe's Muslims don't even have roots, by historical standards. For the Europeans, they're just the detritus of colonial history. When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened - a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.
Sound impossible? Have the Europeans become too soft for that sort of thing? Has narcotic socialism destroyed their ability to hate? Is their atheism a prelude to total surrender to faith-intoxicated Muslim jihadis?
The answer to all of the above questions is a booming "No!" The Europeans have enjoyed a comfy ride for the last 60 years - but the very fact that they don't want it to stop increases their rage and sense of being besieged by Muslim minorities they've long refused to assimilate (and which no longer want to assimilate).
WE don't need to gloss over the many Muslim acts of barbarism down the centuries to recognize that the Europeans are just better at the extermination process. From the massacre of all Muslims and Jews (and quite a few Eastern Christians) when the Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099 to the massacre of all the Jews in Buda (not yet attached to Pest across the Danube) when the "liberating" Habsburg armies retook the citadel at the end of the 17th century, Europeans have just been better organized for genocide.
It's the difference between the messy Turkish execution of the Armenian genocide and the industrial efficiency of the Holocaust. Hey, when you love your work, you get good at it.
Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch - all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.
I'd love to hear what our European contributors have to say about this article.
UPDATE: Mark Steyn responds via Powerline:
I don’t know whether Mr Peters is referring to my book, because, as usual when this particular columnist comes out swinging, he prefers to confront unnamed generalized opponents: thus, he refers to “a rash of pop pundits” predicting Europe will become Eurabia. Dismissing with airy condescension “a rash” of anonymities means you avoid having to deal with specific arguments.
Had he read America Alone, for example, he would know that I do, indeed, foresee a revival of Fascism in Europe. He concludes: “All predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.” Which of us predicted anything about “going gently”? As I write on page 105 of my book: “It’s true that there are many European populations reluctant to go happily into the long Eurabian night.” What I point out, though, is that, even if you’re hot for a new Holocaust, demography tells. There are no Hitlers to hand. When Mr Peters cites the success of Jean Marie Le Pen’s National Front, he overlooks not only Le Pen’s recent overtures to Muslims but also the fact that M Le Pen is pushing 80. As a general rule, when 600 octogenarians are up against 200 teenagers, bet on the teens. In five or ten years’ time, who precisely is going to organize mass deportations from French cities in which the native/Muslim youth-population ratio is already – right now - 55/45?
As I’ve said innumerable times, the native European population is split three ways: some will leave, as the Dutch (and certain French) are already doing; some will shrug and go along with the Islamization of the continent, as the ever-accelerating number of conversions suggests; and so the ones left to embrace Fascism will be a minority of an aging population. It will be bloody and messy, as I write in America Alone, but it will not alter the final outcome. If you don’t breed, you can’t influence the future. And furthermore a disinclination to breed is a good sign you don’t care much about the future. That’s why the Spaniards, who fought a brutal bloody civil war for their country in the 1930s, folded instantly after those Madrid bombings. When you’ve demographically checked out of the future, why fight for it?
Ralph Peters is late to this debate. If he’s going to join the discussion, he might do better to tackle the facts. But that would require him to acknowledge real specifics rather than “a rash of pop pundits”. You’ll notice that his column and mine differ not just in their approach to worldviews but in their approach to argument: mine cites four specific persons, their actions and assertions; his boldly batters anonymous generalizations. I know which I regard as more effective.
My response is that just because a few cities are destined to have a Muslim majority in a few years does not mean that Europe itself is destined to have a Muslim majority. France, for instance, is approximately 10% Muslim. England is approximately 2% Muslim. That's an awful long way from a majority.
As to the aging population argument. That is trickier I do admit, but the Euros do still run things, and that, of course, means they own everything, including all the big guns.
As for the notion that there are no Hitlers on the horizon, Mark Steyn knows history well enough to know that Hitler came out of nowhere and rose to power pretty damned quickly. Believe me, there are young men out there who see their opportunity to change the course of history. As long as there is youth, there is ambition. Hopefully, they will have a vision for a better course of action than that of Hitler.
When I participated in a group interview with Mark Steyn, I posed the question to him of whether he was aware that, in the aftermath of 9/11, we had a baby boom in the United States? The reality is, when a civilization is subject to a mortal threat, the instinctual response is the opposite of what one would expect. People do not curl up and say, well, the future looks dark, we'd better not have children. Instead, they say to themselves, our civilization is worthwhile, I want to pass it on.
I know this from personal experience, because this is exactly the decision my wife and I made after 9/11, and we were joined by countless friends. A huge group of women within our circle of friends were all pregnant at the same time.
Europe is going to fight and it is going to win.
Writers such as Mark Steyn and Bat Ye'or have been predicting, for the past several years, that Europe is destined to fall to its Muslims inhabitants due to the twin fates of demographics and lethargy. While I respect Mark Steyn, and believe his points to be salient and important, I do not share his pessimism as to the fate of Europe
However, that does not mean that I think all will be well with Europe. It has always been my opinion that Europe will be what Europe always has been; a land of brutal and barbaric defenders of what they perceive to be their culture.
It looks like Ralph Peters agrees with me (Hat tip to Olivia):
November 26, 2006 -- A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become "Eurabia," with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.
Well, maybe not.
The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.
The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.
In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds.
Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.
THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.
And Europeans won't even need to re-write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with an Islamist theme - real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims. Europe hasn't broken free of its historical addictions - we're going to see Europe's history reprised on meth.
The year 1492 wasn't just big for Columbus. It's also when Spain expelled its culturally magnificent Jewish community en masse - to be followed shortly by the Moors, Muslims who had been on the Iberian Peninsula for more than 800 years.
Jews got the boot elsewhere in Europe, too - if they weren't just killed on the spot. When Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice," it's a safe bet he'd never met a Jew. The Chosen People were long-gone from Jolly Olde England.
From the French expulsion of the Huguenots right down to the last century's massive ethnic cleansings, Europeans have never been shy about showing "foreigners and subversives" the door.
And Europe's Muslims don't even have roots, by historical standards. For the Europeans, they're just the detritus of colonial history. When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened - a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.
Sound impossible? Have the Europeans become too soft for that sort of thing? Has narcotic socialism destroyed their ability to hate? Is their atheism a prelude to total surrender to faith-intoxicated Muslim jihadis?
The answer to all of the above questions is a booming "No!" The Europeans have enjoyed a comfy ride for the last 60 years - but the very fact that they don't want it to stop increases their rage and sense of being besieged by Muslim minorities they've long refused to assimilate (and which no longer want to assimilate).
WE don't need to gloss over the many Muslim acts of barbarism down the centuries to recognize that the Europeans are just better at the extermination process. From the massacre of all Muslims and Jews (and quite a few Eastern Christians) when the Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099 to the massacre of all the Jews in Buda (not yet attached to Pest across the Danube) when the "liberating" Habsburg armies retook the citadel at the end of the 17th century, Europeans have just been better organized for genocide.
It's the difference between the messy Turkish execution of the Armenian genocide and the industrial efficiency of the Holocaust. Hey, when you love your work, you get good at it.
Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch - all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.
I'd love to hear what our European contributors have to say about this article.
UPDATE: Mark Steyn responds via Powerline:
I don’t know whether Mr Peters is referring to my book, because, as usual when this particular columnist comes out swinging, he prefers to confront unnamed generalized opponents: thus, he refers to “a rash of pop pundits” predicting Europe will become Eurabia. Dismissing with airy condescension “a rash” of anonymities means you avoid having to deal with specific arguments.
Had he read America Alone, for example, he would know that I do, indeed, foresee a revival of Fascism in Europe. He concludes: “All predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.” Which of us predicted anything about “going gently”? As I write on page 105 of my book: “It’s true that there are many European populations reluctant to go happily into the long Eurabian night.” What I point out, though, is that, even if you’re hot for a new Holocaust, demography tells. There are no Hitlers to hand. When Mr Peters cites the success of Jean Marie Le Pen’s National Front, he overlooks not only Le Pen’s recent overtures to Muslims but also the fact that M Le Pen is pushing 80. As a general rule, when 600 octogenarians are up against 200 teenagers, bet on the teens. In five or ten years’ time, who precisely is going to organize mass deportations from French cities in which the native/Muslim youth-population ratio is already – right now - 55/45?
As I’ve said innumerable times, the native European population is split three ways: some will leave, as the Dutch (and certain French) are already doing; some will shrug and go along with the Islamization of the continent, as the ever-accelerating number of conversions suggests; and so the ones left to embrace Fascism will be a minority of an aging population. It will be bloody and messy, as I write in America Alone, but it will not alter the final outcome. If you don’t breed, you can’t influence the future. And furthermore a disinclination to breed is a good sign you don’t care much about the future. That’s why the Spaniards, who fought a brutal bloody civil war for their country in the 1930s, folded instantly after those Madrid bombings. When you’ve demographically checked out of the future, why fight for it?
Ralph Peters is late to this debate. If he’s going to join the discussion, he might do better to tackle the facts. But that would require him to acknowledge real specifics rather than “a rash of pop pundits”. You’ll notice that his column and mine differ not just in their approach to worldviews but in their approach to argument: mine cites four specific persons, their actions and assertions; his boldly batters anonymous generalizations. I know which I regard as more effective.
My response is that just because a few cities are destined to have a Muslim majority in a few years does not mean that Europe itself is destined to have a Muslim majority. France, for instance, is approximately 10% Muslim. England is approximately 2% Muslim. That's an awful long way from a majority.
As to the aging population argument. That is trickier I do admit, but the Euros do still run things, and that, of course, means they own everything, including all the big guns.
As for the notion that there are no Hitlers on the horizon, Mark Steyn knows history well enough to know that Hitler came out of nowhere and rose to power pretty damned quickly. Believe me, there are young men out there who see their opportunity to change the course of history. As long as there is youth, there is ambition. Hopefully, they will have a vision for a better course of action than that of Hitler.
When I participated in a group interview with Mark Steyn, I posed the question to him of whether he was aware that, in the aftermath of 9/11, we had a baby boom in the United States? The reality is, when a civilization is subject to a mortal threat, the instinctual response is the opposite of what one would expect. People do not curl up and say, well, the future looks dark, we'd better not have children. Instead, they say to themselves, our civilization is worthwhile, I want to pass it on.
I know this from personal experience, because this is exactly the decision my wife and I made after 9/11, and we were joined by countless friends. A huge group of women within our circle of friends were all pregnant at the same time.
Europe is going to fight and it is going to win.
A Decision To Be Unhappy
In one of my posts, I said the tears of the “Palestinians” were manufactured. I hold that many of their displays of grief we see on the TV screen are manufactured; I did not say “all”, for I do not have enough information to say such a thing—information that usually lies hidden with a man’s heart, or at best divulged only to insiders, and in Arabic.
That a great deal of their emotions are for Western Leftist eyes’ consumption is a reasonable assumption from their track record: there’s no reason why those who put children’s toys in the rubble of Hizbullah’s strongholds in Beirut (or real live children before said strongholds are reduced to rubble) should be above staging their emotions for a self-hating Western media that rewards them so richly with worldwide sympathy. Certainly there is something to be said about people supposedly lacking the bare necessities of life coming out in front of the cameras with quite nicely prepared placards in intelligible (if sometimes colored by the idiom of the area—“Jihad is the Hump of Islam”, for example) English, or throwing eggs at a building. It’s, to make an understatement, a little fishy.
However, as I said, I can’t know what goes in the hearts of people, nor am I (or ever could be) an insider in their societies. For this post I will assume that, beyond the blatant shows and stagings, there is in the Muslims a core of a real feeling of being wronged. I will take their word for it that they remember “the glorious days of the Caliphate and its prosperity”, and are grieved by the comparison of those days to the present, and dream of restoring those happy days. And I will say, frankly, that I think the resultant picture is even worse than if all of their sadness is staged.
Allow me to begin with a few analogies. No one would look down on a new programmer at a small software company who expressed a desire to become its Chief Executive Officer. In fact, such ambition, so long as no foul play is carried out in furthering it, is the lifeblood of economic progress. But if that programmer expressed a desire to become the CEO and make his company as successful as Microsoft, most people would tell him to fly a little lower. And even if that programmer expressed the desire to become the CEO of that currently small company but not bring it to the level of Microsoft thereafter, yet predicated his happiness upon being CEO, most people would tell him to change that attitude, perhaps to get professional help. For he is indeed a pitiful person who puts the fulfillment of high-flying future dreams as the condition sine qua non of his happiness!
[...]
In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
That a great deal of their emotions are for Western Leftist eyes’ consumption is a reasonable assumption from their track record: there’s no reason why those who put children’s toys in the rubble of Hizbullah’s strongholds in Beirut (or real live children before said strongholds are reduced to rubble) should be above staging their emotions for a self-hating Western media that rewards them so richly with worldwide sympathy. Certainly there is something to be said about people supposedly lacking the bare necessities of life coming out in front of the cameras with quite nicely prepared placards in intelligible (if sometimes colored by the idiom of the area—“Jihad is the Hump of Islam”, for example) English, or throwing eggs at a building. It’s, to make an understatement, a little fishy.
However, as I said, I can’t know what goes in the hearts of people, nor am I (or ever could be) an insider in their societies. For this post I will assume that, beyond the blatant shows and stagings, there is in the Muslims a core of a real feeling of being wronged. I will take their word for it that they remember “the glorious days of the Caliphate and its prosperity”, and are grieved by the comparison of those days to the present, and dream of restoring those happy days. And I will say, frankly, that I think the resultant picture is even worse than if all of their sadness is staged.
Allow me to begin with a few analogies. No one would look down on a new programmer at a small software company who expressed a desire to become its Chief Executive Officer. In fact, such ambition, so long as no foul play is carried out in furthering it, is the lifeblood of economic progress. But if that programmer expressed a desire to become the CEO and make his company as successful as Microsoft, most people would tell him to fly a little lower. And even if that programmer expressed the desire to become the CEO of that currently small company but not bring it to the level of Microsoft thereafter, yet predicated his happiness upon being CEO, most people would tell him to change that attitude, perhaps to get professional help. For he is indeed a pitiful person who puts the fulfillment of high-flying future dreams as the condition sine qua non of his happiness!
[...]
In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
Storm Track Infiltration: al-Google & al-YouTube?
From The Gathering Storm
I’ve blogged before about the use of cyberspace by the jihadists for recruitment, indoctrination, and control and command. This article at First Coast News does a fabulous job showing how well developed this channel of propaganda has developed.
JACKSONVILLE, FL-- It's a video showing a room full of children sharing their dreams. They are not excited about being doctors, lawyers or teachers. Instead, the children shout, "We are the nation of Hezbollah. I shall sacrifice my life for Allah." A group of children in training to be a mujahideen, or holy warrior. Online there are videos of those warriors. One suicide bomber announces he is readying himself to blow up a group of American soldiers. The video goes on for eight minutes and even shows the explosion. In the background are cheers from those taking the pictures. The video is just some of the many the First Coast News I-team found on the internet from sites like Youtube and Myspace.
But it gets worse.
"I think right now we are a ticking time bomb," says Tom Hayden, a retired Lt. Col Marine, who is also a counter terrorism expert. Hayden says some of the videos, while disturbing, are online for a reason. "Something like myspace, probably the most well known, popular website right now, it's even being used to transmit messages," says Hayden….."There is a specific time that a message is coming. Then it's on there and then it is taken off," says Hayden. He says hidden messages are also being sent in pictures and videos and the solider is already equipped with the code to unlock the secret. "It's being used quite frequently."
This is known as steganography.
In fact, some of the videos we found and recorded were gone in a matter of days, removed by the user. There was no trace of what was there or who the page belonged to. The experts will tell you that's a problem, because there is a new breed of terrorist out there. "You won't see anymore like we have Mohammad Atta and that group that came," says Hayden.
So Google? What you gonna do about it? Of has your dhimmitude been complete and you’re now working for the enemy?
The Pope as a Snake: Where are the Catholic Riots?
From The TelegraphAlready, the 1981 would-be assassin of Pope John Paul II, Mehmet Ali Agca — back in prison after being briefly released this year — has warned the pontiff that someone will try to kill him. The country's bestselling novel, Plot Against the Pope, shows Benedict on the cover, targeted by a bearded sniper in front of a burning cross.
At the beginning of this month, a man was arrested outside the Italian consulate in Istanbul for firing a gun to protest against the PopeAli Bardakoglu, the head of Turkey's state-run religious affairs directorate, told fanatics that the Pope must "experience that Islam is a religion of peace"
What does is mean to be worth saving?
When we observe the fact the war is cruelty, one is always, in a liberal democracy, confronting the question of whether the society is worth saving.
I believe we have not confronted this question. Our enemies ALWAYS confront this issue ..."I was ordered to fight all men until they accept....". But to resist this absolutist 'god authorized' command to make war, to resist against the greater jihad, one will have to, in the end, exercise every cruelty imaginable. To give the opportunity for democracy as an antidote to perpetual war, we will have to be sure of our ground. Many here ASSUME we are better, but when confronted by the deaths as result of resistance to terrorist, national and supra national armed dawa, feel that vague unease about not all bullets magically attracted to bad guys.
Is what we offer a better answer than surrender to the austere spartanism of jihadistanism, and the blank walls of salafist grimness, or the theofascist list of shia najis (Ali al-Sistani states that Jews and the Christians who do not accept the prophethood of Muhammad "are commonly considered najis) of others (such as jews outside in the rain).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)