Repeat after me, "It has nothing to do with Islam."
"It has nothing to do with Islam."
"It has nothing to do with Islam."
"It has nothing to do with Islam."
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The Kenyan military remained in a tense standoff with Islamic extremists Sunday, as the toll rose to 59 dead, including children, and 175 wounded in the attack at an upscale mall, a Kenyan minister said.
Multiple barrages of gunfire erupted Sunday morning from inside the building where hostages are being held by militants. The radicals attacked the mall Saturday and remained inside throughout the night.
"The priority is to save as many lives as possible," Joseph Lenku said, reassuring the families of the hostages in the upscale Westgate mall. Kenyan forces have already rescued about 1,000 people, he said.
Ten to 15 attackers remain in the mall and Kenyan forces control the security cameras inside the shopping center, Lenku said. Combined military and police forces surrounded the mall in the Westlands neighborhood of Nairobi, which is frequented by foreigners and wealthy Kenyans.
Former Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga told reporters at the mall that he has been told officials couldn't determine the exact number of hostages inside the mall.
"There are quite a number of people still being held hostage on the third floor and the basement area where the terrorists are still in charge," Odinga said.
Somalia's al-Qaida-linked rebel group, al-Shabab, claimed responsibility for the attack in which they used grenades and assault rifles and specifically targeted non-Muslims.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A pair of suicide bombers detonated their explosives outside a historic church in northwestern Pakistan on Sunday, killing 75 people in the deadliest-ever attack on the country's Christian minority, officials said. A wing of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the bombing in the city of Peshawar, saying it would continue to target non-Muslims until the United States stopped drone attacks in the country's remote tribal region.
Does it have anything to do with Islam?
Silly! Don't be an Islamophobe. Just keep repeating, "It has nothing to do with Islam."
"It has nothing to do with Islam."
"It has nothing to do with Islam."
After all, a comforting lie relaxes us much more than an uncomfortable truth. As General George Casey reminded us after a previous terror attack,
“As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
Official: 143 killed by extremists in Nigeria
Published: 09.20.13, 14:03 / Israel News
An environmental department official says workers combing bushes have recovered the bodies of at least 143 civilians killed by suspected Islamic militants in northeast Nigeria.
Abdulazeez Kolomi told The Associated Press that environmental workers also found some beheaded corpses among victims of a Tuesday night attack on a major highway and Benisheik village some 45 miles (70 kilometers) northeast of the Borno state capital of Maiduguri. (AP)
So the Muslim Brotherhood is controlling Egypt (their reward for murdering Anwar Sadat) and expanding their reach throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile in the Philippines, Islamic terrorism in the service of jihad and a world-wide caliphate is rewarded as the Philippine government, with the blessings of the United States government, surrenders. Of course, we, the unenlightened masses, are supposed to see this in a positive light, as a step toward peace.
ZAMBOANGA CITY (Mindanao Examiner / Oct. 7, 2012) – The United States on Sunday praised the framework of a peace agreement between the Philippine government and Moro Islamic Liberation Front rebels and vowed to continue supporting the Mindanao peace process.
“We welcome the announcement by the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front that the two sides finalized a framework peace agreement. While much work remains, successful implementation of this agreement would improve security, stability, and development for the people of Mindanao,” said Ambassador Harry Thomas, Jr. in a statement sent to the regional newspaper Mindanao Examiner.
He said the Washington has long supported peace and stability in Mindanao.
“We will continue to look for ways to support the people of Mindanao as they accelerate broad-based and inclusive growth. We fully support the ongoing peace process and hope the parties can continue to avoid violence as they work toward a final resolution that will last for generations and benefit all the people of the Philippines,” Thomas said.
Thomas statement came after President Benigno Aquino announced the establishment of the Bangsamoro autonomous region that would expand the current Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to include the municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in Lanao del Norte province and all villages in the municipalities of Kabacan, Carmen, Aleosan, Pigkawayan, Pikit, and Midsayap that voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite. And also the cities of Cotabato in Maguindanao province and Isabela in Basilan province. (Mindanao Examiner)
Sure, surrender and appeasement, that's the ticket. It always works against Islamic jihad. Well, that is, it works for Islamic jihad. We know that now that they were handed one piece of the Philippines, they will immediately begin a terrorist war to get more - in defense of Islam, and as always, and - you'd better repeat this over and over until it sticks in your unenlightened brain - in the interests of peace. Or as the article says, the "ongoing peace process."
I wonder how many "ongoing peace processes" we'll have over the next few years as other governments give up their own fights against their Islamic insurgencies. And how long, how many generations, will the "ongoing peace process" last in the Philippines as the jihadists continue their fight, always blaming the other side for the violence that is sure to continue because that is the business of Islam?
I've been reading a huge book of George Orwell's essays. Besides being a great writer and thinker, he was a pretty good political analyst. He wasn't always right in his predictions, and as of 1943, where I am in the book, he's still a committed socialist, which colored both his political and literary analysis. Many of his essays are essential reading, but I just finished one called, "No, Not One", so that's the one I'm currently fixated on. It's actually a book review, but he uses the review as an attack on pacifism. He also regularly savages the Left and communists, which makes me wonder how he still could have been such a fan of a utopian worldwide socialism, especially since in another essay, he trashes utopias and utopian schemes.
But, getting back to his attack on pacifism,
The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality. But why should they want to make this flight, in any case? Because, rightly hating violence, they do not wish to recognize that it is integral to modern society and that their own fine feelings and noble attitudes are all the fruit of injustice backed up by force. They do not want to learn where their incomes come from. Underneath this lies the hard fact, so difficult for many people to face, that individual salvation is not possible, that the choice before human beings is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world; that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands. It seems to me that the text for our times is not “Woe to him through whom the evil cometh” but the one from which I took the title of this article, “There is not one that is righteous, no, not one”. We have all touched pitch, we are all perishing by the sword. We do not have the chance, in a time like this, to say “Tomorrow we can all start being good”. That is moonshine. We only have the chance of choosing the lesser evil and of working for the establishment of a new kind of society in which common decency will again be possible. There is no such thing as neutrality in this war.
How does this relate to today's clash of civilizations? Where the Nazis left off, Islam stepped in. And yes, I know that we're not supposed to accuse others that we disagree with of being Nazis, but if the Jew-hatred, and quest for world domination, and belief that you are the master race deserving and destined to rule over all others, and demands that the rest of the world bow to your constant demands of "sensitivity" as you rationalize the subjugation of your own women and all those who don't believe as you do shoe fits, then wear it.
But were not supposed to look at Islam that way. We're supposed to reach out to the Taliban, Al-Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all of the other terrorist organizations and their offshoots so that they will want to live in peace with us. We're not supposed to point out that that tactic hasn't worked since the beginning of Islam, nor has it ever worked against any other totalitarian ideology. Tyrants and other power mongers welcome pacifists on the other side of course, as they are useful tools.
Just as Orwell had them pegged in 1943, he still has the pacifists pegged today.
When I wrote my previous post, I was not aware or had forgotten about other destructive endeavors by Muslims against other cultures. Daniel Pipes, who does much more research than I do (which is why I'm lifting his article) has the skinny more Islamic rewrites of history.
The Islamist destruction underway in Timbuktu (including the tomb of Sidi Mahmoudou, d. 955, and the doors of the Sidi Yahya Mosque, ca. 1400) raises a question: What is it about Islam that so often turns its adherents against their own patrimony? Consider some examples:
The doors of the Sidi Yahya Mosque, built ca. 1400, which were only to open at the end of time, smashed apart today by Islamists.
The destruction of Hindu temples in medieval India.
The Mamluks using the Great Sphinx of Egypt as target practice and the Great Pyramid as a quarry.
The Turkish destruction of churches in northern Cyprus since 1974.
The Saudi destruction of antiquities in Mecca since the 1990s,
The Palestinian sacking of the Tomb of Joseph in 2000.
The Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha in 2001.
Al-Qaeda's bombing of Ghriba synagogue in Tunisia in 2002,
The pillaging of Iraqi museums, libraries, and archives in 2003.
The destruction of an historic Malaysian Hindu temple in 2006.
The destruction of L'Institut d'Égypte in 2011.
In addition, some intentions to destroy antiquities (Khomeini contemplated razing Persepolis, a grand mufti of Egypt banned exhibiting statues) might yet be realized. (On the other hand, the story about Muslims burning the ancient Library of Alexandria appears apocryphal.)
Although these examples include both non-Muslim and Muslim artifacts, motives differ in the two cases: eliminating infidel remnants establishes the superiority of Islam, while eliminating Muslim ones establishes the superiority of Islamism. In both cases, the motive is foul and the results are, historically speaking, tragic. (July 2, 2012)
The links and the pictures didn't copy, but you can see them at the link. The important thing is that this is nothing new. But we'll see how long the mainstream press can continue to ignore it in order to clamp down on possible anti-Islamic feeling amongst us infidels.
I was struck by the following two articles and was also struck that they appeared on the same day. Coincidence? Perhaps. But they do compliment each other, and they should cause everyone reading them to think.
Muslim extremists continued destroying the heritage of the ancient Malian city of Timbuktu on Monday, razing tombs and attacking the gate of a 600-year-old mosque, despite growing international outcry.
The tombs they destroyed (and obviously the mosque) are Islamic, but not the brand of Islam preferred by the terrorists. Even worse,
Scholars held out hope that the Islamists would not also attack the city's 20,000-catalogued manuscripts, some dating as far back as the 12th century. Beyond the tombs, the manuscripts are considered to be the real treasure of the region and library owners have succeeded in spiriting some of the manuscripts out of the city, or else buried them in secure locations.
"We're talking about generations and generations of culture being destroyed," said New York-based Michael Covitt, chairman of the Malian Manuscript Foundation. "It's an outrage for the entire world."
I agree, it is an outrage. Whether or not anybody with the power to do so does anything except protest, remains to be seen. Nothing was done about the Buddahs.
Getting back to the destroyed tombs,
Meeting in St. Petersburg in Russia, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee, last week placed the mausoleums on its list of sites in danger due to earlier attacks by the Islamists, said UNESCO spokesman Rony Amelan.
With that in mind, why did UNESCO side with the Palestinians in granting world heritage status to the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank city of Bethlehem?
UNESCO, the United Nations cultural body, overrode Israeli objections to urgently grant world heritage status to the church worshipped as the birthplace of Jesus.
The 13-6 secret vote in Russia's Saint Petersburg to add the Church of the Nativity and its pilgrimage route to the prestigious list was received with rousing applause and a celebratory fist pump by the Palestinian delegation chief.
So while the UNESCO crew in their St. Petersburg meeting are decrying the Islamists' destruction of historic sites in Mali, they are rewarding the Islamists of Fatah with responsibility over the Church of the Nativity. The important thing, I imagine, is that no matter what happens, they absolutely must stick it to Israel.
So now, thanks to UNESCO, one more historical religious site will be overseen by Islamists. What can possibly go wrong?
Jews are murdered in France, and against all logic, who is suspected? Anybody but a Muslim. Neo-Nazi, racist, they'll suspect anybody as long as it's not a Muslim. Never mind that for the most part right, wing anti-semitic groups have been marginalized. The only reason anybody pays attention to them is to try and keep our eyes off of Islamic and left wing (or progressive, if you like) Jew-hatred. The media and dhimmi government officials in France recalled the deeds of Anders Breivik in Norway to justify their delusional suspicions. Never mind that the Norwegian psychopath didn't target Jews. The fact that there was one terrorist who wasn't a Muslim was and is enough to ignore the fact that there have been over 18,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11.
We already know from previous experience in Gitmo that when the U.S. catches and releases Islamic terrorists, they have a 97% recidivism rate of going back to jihad and murdering more innocent Westerners. And so it goes with Mohammed Merah, who was never even detained by us or sent to Gitmo during his sojourns of bomb-planting in Afghanistan, but sent on his merry way to murder four innocent Jews–three of them young children–at Toulouse, France’s Ozar HaTorah school and other Frenchman. (Thanks, Gerald.) Not only did we NOT detain him, we sent him back to France to perform his jihadist mission. Incredible.
We're not allowed by insult Islam, but Muslims are allowed to murder Jews, and Christians, and apostates, and their daughters, and other Muslims and . . .
And we're supposed to believe that it's got nothing to do with Islam? This would be a lot easier on all of us if Western governments were working for the safety and security of their own citizens instead of trying to keep us, in the West, from insulting and humiliating members of the Religion of Peace.
One of the problems of educating poor children in modern society is that the students who try to learn, to better themselves so that they can move up in society and become a contributor instead of a parasite, is the savage peer-resistance they face. Thomas Sowell has written about this pernicious influence in the United States among black students who accuse high achievers among them of "acting white." But it's not a racial issue. Theodore Dalrymple writes of the same pathology in British schools.
What did they mean by this apparent paradox? They meant that anyone who tried hard at school and performed well was wasting his time, when he could have been engaged in the real business of life, such as truanting in the park or wandering downtown. Furthermore, there was menace in their words: If you don't mend your ways and join us, they were saying, we'll beat you up. This was no idle threat: I often meet people in their twenties and thirties in my hospital practice who gave up at school under such duress and subsequently realize that they have missed an opportunity which, had it been taken, would have changed the whole course of their lives much for the better. And those who attend the few schools in the city which maintain very high academic standards risk a beating if they venture to where the poor white stupids live. In the last year, I have treated two boys in the emergency room after such a beating, and two others who have taken overdoses for fear of receiving one at the hands of their neighbors.
Peer pressure, especially when it's violently negative, as adults know, and as we try to encourage our own children to avoid, has a tremendous effect on a child's education. Study and hard work that leads to beatings and hospitalization is a powerful incentive for giving up. The future parasites do not allow anyone in their domain to rise above that setting. Everybody must remain equal, that is, equally stupid, equally poor, equally miserable, and equally a drain on society.
Among Progressives, we are being taught to abhor differences in wealth among Americans. The distribution of wealth, we are told, is too skewed in favor of the rich. This is something new and dangerous to society. This inequality is bad news. In the name of fairness, wealth needs to be redistributed. If you are too successful, and you make too much money, you can be threatened. If you are an oil executive, you can be hauled before Congress and paraded before the American public in a glorious show trial. And to Progressives, this kind of harassment is not only acceptable, but noble. Because some people are poor, and some work hard for very little money, those who make a lot of money must justify their wealth. Businessmen who have made an honest living and have committed no crimes can be vilified and threatened by our elected officials because they're not equal, because they've used their talents are resources to rise economically above the rest of us. As our president has told us, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." How much money is enough? He didn't say. But we can assume that above a certain amount, you qualify for a beat down.
The really perverse part of this mode of thought, is that I'm pretty sure that it's shared among Obama's wealthy supporters. We know though, that as long as they keep funneling a portion of their lunch money to Obama's reelection campaign and other causes that he supports, they can never make enough money. Some capitalist oppressors are more equal than others.
And if it's not the president bullying us into poverty, it's an environmental group. How much bullying does it take before the wealth creators give up and leave the rest of us to sink into equality? Once we have an entire society of parasites though, who does that society feed off of? We only have each other.
It's no wonder the Left sides so adamantly with Islamists. They to want equality, at least their Islamic version of equality, you know, Muslim males most equal, infidel females least equal . . .
I wrote all of the above back in August. And since then, I've ignored my blog. I started posting a comic strip, but once school started, I didn't have time to draw. Between school, tutoring, non-blog pro-Israel activity, and going to the gym, who's got time to draw?
But getting back on topic, the rise of the OWS movement has proven everything I've written. There is a sample here. Make sure you watch the video. My question at the beginning is, what are they so afraid of that they refuse to cooperate with a conservative web-based news service?
Am I back? Who knows? Who cares? If I have time (ha!) I will continue my amateurly drawn comic strip.
Over at the NY Times there is a very moving photo exhibit on the Twin Towers' rise and fall. You've seen a lot of these 9/11 photos already, but we all need that occasional reminder, no matter how much it still disturbs us. We'd better never forget that the Islamofascists did this. They would do it, and more, again if we drop our vigilance. They're still out there, and still being welcomed into our country. They're on a 1400 year old mission to subjugate the entire world. All of the "outreach" in the world can't change that. Their holy text, The Protocols of the Elders of Islam - uh - I mean, the Qu'ran lays out their hideous task for them. We forget to our and our children's detriment.
We know, although we're impolite for bringing it up, that they will gladly give up their own lives in order to murder as many of us infidels as they can. They're convinced of a heavenly reward for the destruction of human life. Their religion is a Bizarro version of almost every other religion currently being practiced.
Normal human emotions mean nothing to the Islamofascists. They rejoice in the violent deaths of innocent women and children. They gloat at the pain they cause to people whose only crime is not sharing their belief system, even when their victims are other Muslims.
The only way to win against them is to fight them with all of our strength and technology. In this, thanks to the degradation of our society and the loss of belief in ourselves, we are failing miserably. Sure, we've stopped dozens of Islamic terrorists since then, but we're still letting them in. Our government is still reaching out. And we're still afraid to name the enemy. Who gets punished at every airport in the country? It isn't the imams pushing jihad.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of idiots such as those who made him their president.” — This quote was translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung of 28 April 2011.
So when does the United States get its balls back? And I ask that after being a good little citizen and not making a fuss when I wasn't allowed to accompany my 17 year old daughter into the airport. She'll be out of the country for a month, and I wanted to see her off. She's too old to be a minor, so I was out of luck. As I was walking out of the airport, I had the same thoughts that I'm sure millions of others have had - why? Why are we pandering to Islam like we weren't the most powerful nation the world has ever seen? Why are we expected to feel so guilty at being the recipients of generations of people who have, over the past two centuries created a society that has become the envy of the world so much so, that rather than try to emulate it and create wealth and plenty for all, these barbarian thugs work day and night to destroy it? And there are Americans who agree that we must tear it all down so that we can live as miserably as the poorest wretch in the in the most corrupt dictatorship we can imagine. What the hell happened to us?
Even those who don't want it torn down, still bow to the insanity of political correctness. What do we know about Islam and terrorism that we aren't allowed to say in public? And why aren't we allowed to say it? Oh yeah. We might humiliate the followers for the Religion of They're Not All Terrorists. So what?
Instead of admitting the well-documented, historically accurate, hysterically ignored connection, our government spends millions of dollars to create an airport security system specifically designed to humiliate the traveler. And they do it while apologizing to Muslims when one gets caught trying to game that system, by making it even more uncomfortable for the rest of us. Metal detectors? Sure. Take off your shoes? Of course. Only tiny amounts of liquids? You bet. Full body grope? Well . . . uh . . . I mean - Oh OK, it's for my own safety. I don't know much about Islamic humor (whether or not it's even allowed), but the imams and other Islamic authorities must laugh at us whenever they see an news article or an Internet photo of a young child groped, or a woman in a wheel chair being forced to remove her adult undergarment. Because, as we are repeatedly admonished, it's wrong to profile.
No it isn't. We force ourselves into this idiotic, suicidal situation for the express purpose of not humiliating the followers of Mohammed - who want us to abandon our freedoms and live under "enlightened" Sharia law. We could adopt the methods used by the Israelis at their airports. But that too would humiliate Muslims, wouldn't it? We wouldn't want that to happen. That would be Islamophobic.
But that's not the only problem. How many of us are buying appliances and cars dictated and designed by the environmental movement? Our children are being scared into believing that if they don't reduce their and our standard of living, the Earth will soon become uninhabitable and all the cute, cuddly animals (like polar bears) in the world will curl up and die. Politics of fear anyone?
And what happens when it does get hot outside? Take a day like today for instance? We get warnings. We have an ozone action day. We are advised how to dress and how to act while we're outside. Conversely, when the temperature dips low in the winter, we have cold advisories.
When I was growing up, there were these beings known as mothers who made sure that we were dressed properly for the weather before they threw us out of the house to play. When it was hot, we wore shorts. We played in the pool. When there was no pool, we played in the sprinkler. When we got hot and the sweat was poring down our faces from playing baseball, or football, or riding our bikes, or just chasing each other up and down the street, we drank out of the hose or we went in for a drink. Then we were kicked back outside. In the winter, wearing jackets, gloves, long johns, and boots, even though it was cold to the touch, we played with the snow. Can you believe it? We made snow men. We made snowballs and threw them at each other. And we did many other dangerous things out in the heat and the cold. Somehow, between our mothers and us, we figured out that if we're sweating, it's hot, and if our nose hairs are stiffening up when we breath, it's cold.
I'm going to end this post on a positive note. Somebody sent me the following video as an email. There are some Americans who still have balls, but we need to work together in order to reinvigorate our nation. We need to walk proudly with the understanding that not everyone is going to like us, especially if they are citizens of the 57 states - holy Obama, Batman - I mean of the 57 countries of the OIC. The only thing they deserve from us is a one finger salute. Hold all foreign aid, stop infiltration - I mean immigration - no I was right with infiltration, from any and all of these nations.
It's time to dump the Democrats. They are killing us slowly, but they will be the death of our nation.
A Major U.S. Policy Shift Toward the Muslim Brotherhood Disguised
This is actually by Barry Rubin. I was going to do the usual blog thing and copy some of it, then offer my own erudite comments. But I decided to show mercy on any readers I may still have and just reprint Rubin's piece. It really says it all.
Here’s the headline: “U.S. to resume formal Muslim Brotherhood contacts.” But that’s not true. In fact, as the Reuters article itself admits there have never been “formal” contacts before but only informal ones. Let’s examine the language, which stems from a “senior U.S. official” to see what the Obama Administration thinks about the Muslim Brotherhood.
“A step that reflects the Islamist group’s growing political weight but that is almost certain to upset Israel and its U.S. backers.”
Note how it is portrayed as an Israel-related issue. Won’t it upset people who care about U.S. interests? Won’t it upset Egyptian Christians? The Saudis and Jordanians and other relatively moderate Arab regimes? Won’t it upset Muslims who oppose revolutionary Islamism?
We are supposed to believe that only Israel and the Jews will be upset about the Obama Administration moving closer to a radical antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Western, pro-terrorist group that wants to repress women, kill gays, and overturn pretty much every existing government in the region. But just those Jews and their friends will be upset. You know, just like in the 1930s when certain people said that opposition to the totalitarian threat of those years was just coming from the Jews.
Reuters portrays the Brotherhood, as do many, as “a group founded in 1928 that seeks to promote its conservative vision of Islam in society.” Conservative? You mean they are like the Republican Party? You mean they are for the status quo? And of course one of the things they did since 1928 was to ally with Nazi Germany and the Brotherhood continues to voice the same political line toward Jews that it did back then
We are also told that the Brotherhood “long ago renounced violence as a means to achieve political change in Egypt….” This is simply not true. The Brotherhood merely temporarily renounced violence within Egypt because they knew that any resort to it would get them wiped out by the regime and the army. They postponed using violence until the revolutionary era arrived. Of course, if they can take over Egypt without violence they are happy to do so.
But there’s more. Every day for decades the Brotherhood has supported violence against Israel. It has supported violence against Americans in Iraq, and on various other fronts. Why is this so hard to see?
“The result has been a dilemma for the Obama administration. Former officials and analysts said it has little choice but to engage the Brotherhood directly, given its political prominence after the February 11 downfall of former President Hosni Mubarak.”
That is arguably true but by recognizing the Brotherhood and having contacts with it, the Obama Administration also makes a unilateral concession encouraging the Brotherhood. People who know the Middle East understand how this works: Soon many Egyptians will say (as they said in Iran and as they now say in Turkey) that the United States wants the Islamists to win.
But, the article continues:
“U.S. President Barack Obama will surely face criticism for engaging with the Brotherhood, even tentatively.” And who do they go to, Middle East analysts who can explain why this is dangerous? No, to the head of AIPAC in order to perpetuate the theme that this is merely a problem with the Jewish lobby! And who is presented to refute this? Former American diplomats. So it is the people who know versus the Jews.
And what are we told about the Brotherhood’s goals? This:
“The group says it wants a civil state based on Islamic principles, but talk by some members of an `Islamic state or `Islamic government’ have raised concerns that their goal is a state where full Islamic sharia law is implemented. The group says such comments have been taken out of context.”
“Some members” include the leader and deputy leader of the group. It is apparently too much trouble to read and quote what Brotherhood officials say, or their publications openly state, or their political platform calls for. Never are these statements fully quoted. Always they are dismissed as insignificant, like the statements of the late Usama bin Ladin once were.
Moreover, Egypt under Mubarak could be reasonably said to be a “civil state based on Islamic principles.” And since “Islamic principles” are mandated by Allah democracy is ultimately unacceptable since no human vote could alter those principles. How can an elected parliament pass a law limiting a man to one wife, or accepting religious conversion, outlawing amputations, or maintaining peace with Israel—to cite just a few examples—since those are “Islamic principles,” at least under the interpretation of Islam held by the Brotherhood.
So we just can’t tell if the Muslim Brotherhood wants a radical Islamist state before it takes power” Just like it was presumably a mystery about what Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wanted to do in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hizballah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
And finally the article doesn’t even mention the most important development in U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood relations during that group’s eighty-year history: President Barack Obama’s explicit (and uninvited) statement accepting the Brotherhood being in government. U.S. policy is paving the way for a radical, possibly Islamist, Egypt. It is a catastrophic strategy.
OK, one quick comment. There are many tactics being used, and many groups dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. I believe Obama is allied with those groups, and he is using a variety of methods to make us slaves to Islamic barbarism. Things were bad enough under the Bush Administration, when it was forbidden to admit that the terrorist thugs who were our declared enemies were Muslim. Now, under Obama, we're set to recognize those terrorist thugs, who are dedicated to our downfall, and negotiate with them. No good can come of this.
I saw the report, but I forget where I saw it originally, that in Canada, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently proclaimed and demonstrated his unwavering support for Israel, that 71 percent of hate crimes of a religious nature in 2009, were committed against Jews. While I appreciate Harper's principled stand on Israel, something needs to be done about the attacks against Jews in Canada. The first thing that needs to be done is to ask the simple question: who is doing the attacking? That was my first question. That was Barry Rubin's question too.
Now the figures for "hate crimes" in Canada have been issued and guess what? Like the FBI's statistics for the United States, the number one victims of hate crimes are...Jews. Indeed, 71 percent of the hate crimes in the religion category are against Jews. The Jewish proportion of Canada's population? Around 1 percent. That's 71 percent of the hate crimes on a religious basis against 1 percent of the population.
For Canada, 4 per cent of the crimes were motivated by race or ethnicity, 29 per cent by religion and 13 per cent by sexual orientation
Makes you think, right?
Apparently not. Because the report is vague about just who might be attacking Jews and why these numbers have tended to rise. Skin-heads? Neo-Nazis? Russian peasant pogroms? Crusaders? The Klu Klux Klan? Peronists? Anti-Dreyfusards? Know-Nothings? Knights of the Camellia? Republicans? Tea-Partiers?
Because if we don't know who did it, then how can the situation be improved? Was it Anglicans? Bahai? Catholics? Dunkers? Episcopalians (oh, wait, they're the same thing as Anglicans), Franciscan monks or Fire-worshippers? Greek Orthodox? Hawaiian traditionalists? Idolotors or Illerati or Inuit? Jacobites? Kansans? Lutherans?
Of course, we know that answer to the question. And for those who are still having difficulty admitting to the answer, let me help by asking, which religion do you desperately try not to think of when you read reports like this?
Right.
Exactly.
But to admit to anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims destroys the "Muslim as victim of Western Society" paradigm that must be upheld at all costs, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are required to maintain that ridiculous idea. There are people who will fight tooth and nail to force that paradigm on others and battle fiercely against those who point out its falseness. And some of them aren't Muslims. They are the happy dhimmis.
So this "war on terror" is a big deal that's been going on ever since 19 Islamic jihadists, who were in our country legally, flew some airliners into some prominent buildings and murdered almost 3000 Americans in the name of Allah. In response, then President Bush sent our armed forces after the perps - well, the ones who didn't sacrifice themselves in the name of the Ummah, rather they went after the brains behind the attack, and thanks to the tenacity, training, and skill of our armed forces, got the suckers.
In addition, we've had troops battling jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq ever since. Our soldiers have removed tens of thousands of these terrorist scum (or Michael Moore's minutemen depending on the accuracy of your moral compass) from polluting our Earth. So why, oh why, does our government, under both Bush and Obama continue to welcome them into our country?
Before being granted refugee status in the U.S. and settling down in Bowling Green, Ky., Waad Ramadan Alwan was allegedly a sniper and skilled bomb maker targeting U.S. forces who bragged that his "lunch and dinner would be an American."
Alwan is one of two Iraqi refugees who the Justice Department announced Tuesday had been charged for participating in an alleged plot to send cash, explosives and Stinger missiles to Iraq for use against Americans.
The men are among 56,000 Iraqis who took advantage of special programs to come to the U.S. for people who demonstrated they were in danger from militias in Iraq for their religious beliefs or because they were translators for U.S. government or media organizations.
Alwan was admitted into the U.S. even though his fingerprint was found in 2005 on an unexploded roadside bomb that was set to blow up a U.S. convoy in Iraq. The print was loaded into a Department of Defense database, but a search of that database was not then a part of the application process for refugee status in the U.S.
So all the jihadists have to do to survive the onslaught from American forces, is to claim their lives are in danger for proper and politically correct reasons and get relocated to a comfortable American suburb. Once acclimated to life in America and added to local welfare lists, they are free to resume their Jihad against the Great Satan.
Even better, if they're caught committing jihadist activities, rather than facing the business end of a Hellfire missile or a marine's rifle, and ending up as temporary decoration scattered over portions of the landscape, they get a jail cell, three meals a day, a Qu'ran untouched by infidel hands, (probably fan mail and marriage proposals) and a team of lawyers as dedicated to the overthrow of the United States as they are. And if they're convicted, they get a nice long prison stretch where they have years and years of access to the most deranged members of American society who they can convert to Islam in order to spread their poisonous message. Because some of them will get out and will be only too happy to engage in the same anti-social behavior that got them locked up in the first place. But this time, as a special bonus, their violence, any murder or mayhem they wish to engage in, is done in the name of Allah. For them it's win-win. Slaughter to their heart's content, and gain paradise because of the slaughter.
It's not so great for the rest of us, but I don't think that's of any concern to the DHS or State Department weasels who are supposed to be working in the interest of the American people, not phony Islamic refugees who are invited into Dar al-Harb to wreak havoc.
The Bin Laden backlash: Angry Muslims demonstrate outside Downing Street as Obama visits Britain
Yeah, religion of peace misinterpreted by a few twisted lone individuals. That hypothesis is once again proven by this article in Great Britain's Daily Mail.
Muslim activists descended on Downing Street today in protest at Barack Obama's state visit to London.
As the president met David Cameron in Whitehall, an angry crowd of burka clad women as well as protesters from Muslims Against Crusades gathered on the streets outside.
They were joined by a number of prominent campaigners, including Anjem Choudary.The radical cleric said that President Obama has made himself a 'legitimate target' for Muslim extremists after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
He called for Mr Obama to be dragged before a sharia court over his role in the war in Afghanistan.
For a real treat, and to check out some of these lone defilers of Islam, make sure you follow the link and view the photos. Their numbers are small, and infidel Britons still have most of their rights, but they haven't fought back yet in response to any of the demands their Muslim overlords have placed upon them. Chances are they won't. I hope I'm wrong, but their yellow streak seems to get wider at every provocation.
Netanyahu Schools Obama - and Lord Knows Obama Needs to Learn Something About How the World Works
Obama gave a speech. Here is an analysis of one of Obama's unnoticed bone-headed errors, not one of the big bold ones, but a tiny, telling one, that passed under most people's radars.
In doing his balancing act on Israeli and Palestinian fears and hostility, he says this:
“I'm convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past….We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. `I have the right to feel angry,’ he said. `So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,’ he said, `for tomorrow.’"
That’s genuinely touching. But in the specific case Obama cites—that of Izzedin Abuelaish on January 16, 2009-- there is strong reason to believe that the three girls were killed because of Hamas, that is Palestinian, actions.
But what's a bit of misrepresentation of the truth when "evenhandedness" is at stake? Truth be damned in the name of moral equivalence, a favorite tactic of Israel bashers and enemies of Western Civilization. Netanyahu begins talking about 7 minutes in, and he politely fills Obama in on some relevant facts surrounding Israel and its neighbors.
But there's more. Obama either doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand what the Israelis and by proxy, we in the United States, are facing. The Muslim world suffers from an "inner Nakba", a hatred so deep and so all consuming that it's the focus of their lives. We see it in the behavior of Hamas and Fatah in their refusal to stop the violence and the incitement, and we see it in the rest of the Islamic world in their war against Israel, in their overt Jew-hatred, and in their covert (or maybe not so covert, just not as pronounced as their Jew-hatred) hatred of Christians. For video evidence of the inner Nakba, watch this:
The lady is being honest, and a lot of people accept the fact that Muslims around the world are taught to hate Jews. When not accepted, it's rationalized. But if anyone even questions the claim that Islam is a religion of peace there are charges of racism and islamophobia. It's also accepted that Palestinians should get their Jew-free state. Ask for an Islamic-free state, and again, get ready for the name calling. Anyway, I'm rambling. The fact remains that when it comes to Israel, Obama is guided by ideology rather than facts. Israel should make no more concessions. Netanyahu needs to continue standing up to Obama. He needs to demonstrate loudly and clearly that the survival of the Jewish people is not open to compromise or concessions.
Read the following article, and you may agree that yep, something is absolutely wrong here. Here is a large portion of the article.
In the case of at Jose Guerena, the Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team were serving a narcotics conspiracy warrant at his home earlier this month. Guerena, who had been sleeping just two hours after working his shift at a local mine, was awakened by screams from his wife when she observed an unidentified man with a gun outside of their home. She grabbed her baby and hid in a closet as Guerena grabbed a rifle and proceeded to investigate. He was shot dead inside the sanctity of his own home, in the U.S. and not by some sniper in Iraq. In total, seventy-one rounds were fired at Guerena.
To make matters worse - much worse, medical treatment was withheld by the SWAT team, according to his widow and verified by police and medical logs. At this point, it would appear that Guerena was startled awake and thinking he was protecting his family from a possible home invasion, stumbled onto a police raid. He never had a chance.
As a result of the lax border security at the hands of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, there has been a sharp rise in home invasions in Tucson over the last few years. Of course, one would not know that by the “cocky football spiking” Obama from his recent speech in El Paso, where he mocked and ridiculed anyone who dared to question the state of U.S.-Mexico border insecurity.
Now, consider the raid on a south Florida Mosque at about 6:00 a.m. Saturday, by dozens of heavily armed federal agents. They pounded on the door of the Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen mosque in Miami-Dade county, armed with warrants for Muslims who are suspected of a long-running conspiracy to murder, maim and kidnap people overseas in support of the Taliban. As morning prayers were in progress inside the mosque, the armed agents respectfully waited until the prayers ended, and then entered the mosque only after removing their footwear.
So how far are we supposed to bend over for the Islamofascists? And are we expected to also make whatever sound a goat makes? Will that be enough to show sensitivity?
I've been following the news reports coming out of Israel as the-pawns-who-call-themselves-Palestinians try to force their way into Israel from Lebanon and Syria. Are they kidding? When will this idiocy end?
Yeah, I know the answer to that last question. As long as there is a Jewish Israel, the surrounding Islamic nations will be bent on its destruction by any means necessary. I also know that their job is made easier by the increasing number of useful idiots, heirs of Western Civilization, who have no idea how good they have it because they were lucky enough to be born into the greatest civilization (even with its many flaws) the world has ever known.
Tomorrow Israel will be condemned, and the few Syrian rioters who demanded death from the IDF will be be all over the news while the hundreds of Syrian protestors who were murdered by Syrian forces will be forgotten or marginalized. Coptic Christians who are being murdered by Egyptian Muslims - uh - I mean pro-democracy will be promptly forgotten. Or the world press will play the moral equivalency game, because you know, some of the Copts were protesting against being murdered. And that's probably Islamophobic.
I have to ask: have we become so weak, has our belief in ourselves become so exhausted that we're willing to put up with a primitive culture of death that in thirteen centuries of existence has given nothing of value to humanity, and bow to its will? Have we allowed ourselves to become so soft and debased that we not only refuse to name the enemy but invite the enemy into our midst and then let them force their rules on us?
Tacitus, in his Histories, (but I forget where) states that men must always be at war to avoid becoming weak. The only thing Islam has given the rest of the world is war, terrorism, and slavery. But they are in constant warfare. Islam's bloody borders, like it or not, is a fact of life. They murder us. They murder each other. But they believe that they have that right. They execute Muslims who open their eyes, see Islam for what it is, and try to leave, or even suggest that it's time for reform in Islam. We, on the other hand, not only tolerate quislings, traitors, and vandals, some of the truly stupid among us afford them respect. I want to know how these twisted Western apologists for evil think they would do if they actually had to live in an Islamic society.
Israel has its share of useful idiots, but today they defended their borders. They will be condemned by the rest of the world, but as always, the world is wrong. Israel is right.
Through American Digest, I was introduced to Ann Barnhardt. Gerard posted the following two videos. I don't have much to say about them. Mostly I agree with them. Lindsey Graham is a jackass. He does not value freedom. I do. So, obviously, does Ann Barnhardt.
If he and Ann Barnhardt ever meet in person, I hope the meeting is videotaped and posted as a lesson to the rest of our political class that there are Americans who still care and are willing to forcefully and publicly defend our country and Western civilization from the barbarians both within and outside the gate. I will beg mercy for Senator Graham in that the cameras should not follow his sobbing retreat into the men's room. Even a spineless dhimmi like Graham should be afforded a little privacy after his humiliation.
Regarding the second video, I am obsessive when it comes to books, even bad books, and I do have problem with book burning. And using bacon as a bookmark would leave a nasty stain, so forget that. It is her book, though, and she has the right to do whatever she wants with it. And she's doing it to make an important point. My obsessiveness wouldn't allow me to do the same thing. If somebody is offended, they can make their own Youtube video to express their humiliation.
If the New York Times can endanger our country by printing the things they printed under the Bush Administration, then Lindsay Graham and the rest of the dhimmi class can shut up about burning Qu'rans. Actually, they can just shut up.
And is it my imagination that so many women are standing up publicly to defend Western Civilization as many of our "men" cower under the ruses of "showing tolerance", or "cultural sensitivity", or the avoidance of being called a racist or "islamophobe?"
Part two is longer than part one, and although it it repetitious, there is a point to the repetition. There are not merely a few evil passages in the Qu'ran that have to be diligently searched for. That is a book that is full of troublesome stories and advice to Muslims.
iOTW – Your communication skills are pretty impressive, do you have a background that would have prepared you for this, or are you just a natural?
Ann – I have always been a good public speaker and writer. I do apply my talent by teaching seminars for cattlemen as part of one of my businesses, and have a DVD version of my seminar as well. I deliver one of the best five-hour economics lectures on the planet. Not that that is saying much, I know.
iOTW - Have you been a political activist in the past and were there particular issues, apart from Islam, that you focused on?
Ann – I am not a political activist. I am the owner of three small businesses who looked around two and a half years ago and said, “Oh, HELL no.” Politicians make me ill. I can never and will never be a politician. For the last two to three years I have been focusing heavily on explaining and exposing Marxism, Islam and the fraud that is Obama. But that is triple-redundant, isn’t it?
and
iOTW – Have you heard from Lindsey Graham’s office?
Ann – No. They haven’t come out of the men’s room yet.
Well, it seems that the terror apologists at CAIR (unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial) don't much care for Rep. Allen West. But then, they don't care much for anybody who has the temerity to point what various imams and other members of that tiny minority of extremist blah blah blah, have been telling us for years. Mainly that Islam is on the Earth in order to subjugate all others under the flag of Islam.
Rep. West shows his leadership qualities by not only not backing down or apologizing for telling the truth, but by having the facts that he needs at his fingertips.
A friend of mine emailed me the following video: "Colonel Allen West Answers a Marine's Question". By today's standards, at 3 minutes, 42 seconds, it's a pretty lengthy video. At my age though, I can keep my attention focused for extended periods of time. On really good videos, I've been known to watch uninterrupted for five or six minutes. But like I was saying, watch the video. I had never heard of West before, but now, I would give him my vote for president.
Here. Look.
Notice, if you will, that the man is (dare I say it?) honest. He pulls no punches in order to pander to the Islamic, or the progressive, or the delusions of peace vote. He understands the problem with Islam and isn't afraid to state it in public, on camera, without the cover of weasel words or quibbling politically correct speech. Honesty. From a congressman. It shouldn't be that surprising or unexpected. It's a shame that it is.
But wait! There's more. Read his Wikipedia page.
While serving in Taji, Iraq, on August 20, 2003, West was in charge of the interrogation of Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, a civilian Iraqi police officer suspected of having information about attacks on American troops in the area.[citation needed] Interrogators had been informed the detainee knew about a planned ambush. When the detainee refused to talk, LTC West was asked to assist. Hamoodi continued to withhold information, and West was accused of firing his pistol past the prisoner's head, frightening him into talking. According to West's sworn statement,[5] the detainee told West:
[The attack] was to occur Friday morning in Saba al Boor vicinity of the police station by positioned snipers supposedly being brought in from Fallujah. [The detainee] was to ID my vehicle and myself for these rooftop firers. We took this information and the following day established flask CPs and used AH-64s overhead. There was no attack and no further attacks have emanated from the town since the apprehension of [the detainee] and his named associates.
At least one suspect was arrested as a result of the information obtained through the detainee's information. The suspect's home was searched, but no plans for attacks or weapons were found. West testified he did not know if "any corroboration" of a plot was ever found. He added: "At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi."[8]
West, who had completed almost 22 years of active service, was charged with violating articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was processed through an Article 32 hearing in November 2003, where he stated "I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers" and was fined $5,000. LTC West accepted the judgment and retired with full benefits in the summer of 2004. Asked if he would have act differently if under similar circumstances again, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."[9]
So along with honesty, we can add loyalty, bravery, fortitude, and fearlessness.
Of course, not everybody likes West. While I was watching this video again, I noticed a video with Keith Olberman and another with Ed Schultz, both denouncing West. These are denunciations that are easily expected. Schlutz has a history of respecting Al Sharpton, whom he has interviewed on a few occasions. And Olberman? I've read and listened to things that this hateful, hypocritical, pompous twit has said about his political opponents. He is everything that Leftists claim the Rush Limbaugh is. Both of these wise guys adore Obama, who embodies none of the qualities exhibited by West.
When it comes to honesty, we have documented examples of Obama lying about the deficit, the costs of Obamacare, his support for Israel, and other policy decisions he's made. I don't know if West has lied to get to where he is. If so, Olberman, and Schlutz, and Moveon.org, and the rest of the "Progressive" noise machine will ferret out any dishonesty. So far, from the few videos I've seen, the only thing they have is character assassination.
Rep. West was loyal enough to his troops to put his career in danger in a situation where he had to think fast to possibly save American lives. In hindsight, he may have been a bit heavy handed, but he didn't have the luxury of hindsight nor did he have weeks, months, and years to reexamine the situation from every possible angle in order to come up with the perfect solution that would please everyone and harm nobody.
Judging by the way Obama threw friends and family "under the bus" when they became hindrances, one would think that he and his supporters see loyalty as a character flaw. Under loyalty, I would include loyalty to one's country, you know that old fashion concept, the former virtue known as patriotism. West put on a uniform and trained to fight for his country against his countries enemies, both foreign and domestic. Obama can't even summon the fortitude to name our country's enemies, even when those enemies proudly declare themselves.
This is not to say that Obama or those on the Left are the only politicians I don't trust. I don't trust politicians in general, and chances are that if he were elected president, he would do something either during the campaign or during his administration to set me off. The difference with West is, that he's starting from a position of strength when it comes to his basic moral character and stance. It appears that he's putting his own personal power and status behind his need to do what's best for the country. And that's something admirable in anybody.
"No one can find a safe way out for himself if socety is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result." -- Ludwig von Mises
War's legitimate object is more perfect peace. Flavius Vegitius Renatus
This is an optional footer. If you want text here, place it inside these tags, and remove this comment.
CHALLAH AKBAR
