Glimpses into Islamic Minds, III

It is endlessly fascinating to explore the thinking processes of the Arab-Islamic mind. All of the news is atwitter this morning with details about this tape allegedly released by al-Zarkawi and addressed to bin Laden. All the news media fixate on whether or not the tape is really Zarkawi. Let's focus on something else.

First, here is some background:

My Way News: Al-Zarqawi Message Now Says Wounds Minor, May 30, 8:17 PM (ET), By SALAH NASRAWI

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Iraq's insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi purportedly made an audio address to Osama bin Laden on Monday to assure the al-Qaida leader that he was in good health after being wounded in a fire fight with U.S. troops.

Now to the fun part alleged to have been spoken by al-Zarkawi:

"It was one of the greatest battles of Islam," the speaker said. "We would like to assure you that we are continuing on the path of jihad, we are committed to our pledge. We will either win or die trying."

Then, let's wrap up the news report with a look at the facts:

The U.S. military said it killed 125 militants during its weeklong offensive against al-Zarqawi's fighters. Nine U.S. Marines were killed and 40 injured during the operation, one of the largest American campaigns since militants were driven from Fallujah six months ago. The number of civilian casualties was not immediately known.

Whoever spoke on the tape exhibited very typical Arabic thinking, or Arab-Islamic thinking, if you will. This type of thinking has been beautifully delineated in one of the most important books about that part of the world: Raphael Patai's, The Arab Mind. (We have reviewed this book in depth on our website.)

Their kind of mind lives and dies by the notion of shame, or dishonor, or humiliation. Take your pick. Theirs is such a fragility of self-esteem that it provokes actions quite alien to our minds. Given how Islam destroys the role of reason in their own minds and formally forbids it, these people are left only with emotion to run their lives. Add to that how their existence rides from moment to moment on how others rate them, and you have not only volatility of behavior, but interesting, if not hilarious, statements.

The speaker on the tape says, "It was one of the greatest battles of Islam." Go to paragraph three above to see the facts. The incongruity is inescapable.

There is another thinking mechanism they employ which is involved here as well. An easy way to state it is that they truly believe that the thought equals the deed. Maybe this is why the Leftists in America are so cozy with these people since liberals and other lefties think the same way in this regard.

So, if someone proclaims that this was one of the greatest battles of Islam, then, by golly, it is.

Philosophically, this is called primacy of consciousness, both in metaphysics and epistemology, and it is a devastating thinking flaw. It means that will, wish, desire, etc., create reality and truth. It means that reality conforms to the actions of consciousness. No one anchored in reality can afford such a flaw, but every tyrant since history began to be recorded has thought this way, and many others besides.

Dr. Patai points out how a Muslim military leader in one of the Arab-Israeli wars reported to one of the Arab country leaders that the Arabs were winning gloriously, utterly crushing the Jews, thus bringing great honor to Islamia. As a result, that leader sent no reinforcements, and the Arabs were wiped out in hours.

Reality always wins in the end.

Memorial Day 2005

Memorial Day brings out the best and the worst among those who live in this country. Some get it, and some don't.

Consider this (1): At the laying of the wreath ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the protestant chaplain concluded by thanking Jesus for showing us via the military dead that love comes only from self-sacrifice. He didn't get it. He was just reiterating religious propaganda that he uses to make his own life meaningful. Sadly, very many Americans who "believe" the same thing also do not get it. Parroting is not a sign of smarts.

People uncritically pick up this notion of self-sacrifice as some moral ideal very early in life and never reexamine it or try to validate it. Thus, when military members die, these people prattle on about the glory of their sacrifice, and words to the equivalent.

To say that the deaths of our military members represent some moral ideal of self-sacrifice is morally repugnant at best. Self-sacrifice is what Muslims do. That is what Islam teaches them is the ideal, and that ideal keeps Islam in business. Suicide bombers apply this credo in order to get to the non-existent "paradise." Dying for the cause, however, is self-sacrifice in name only because the martyr still hopes to achieve something selfish--his entry into paradise with all its mythical rewards.

What makes sacrifice so repugnant as well as so absolutely wrong is its very nature. To sacrifice means to give up something of higher value for something of lower value. That's nuts, and no really ever does it, although billions have died in its name.

Our military members do not die or suffer terrible, life-changing injuries out of sacrifice, and it is time to stop insulting them parroting such drivel.

Consider this (2): Most people remember the story of Pat Tillman. Pat was an Arizona Cardinal player in the National Football League, and he was terribly good. After 11 September 2001, Pat checked his own values and enlisted in the U. S. Army Rangers. He gave up a stellar career, inevitable fame leading quite possibly to the Hall of Fame, and millions of dollars in contracts. The last figure we heard was at least $9 million.

Why did he do this? Isn't this just a perfect example of self-sacrifice?

No, it is a perfect example of why our men and women serve in our military and endure maiming and death. They do not seek it, as self-sacrifice requires. They, like Pat, put their own morally superior, selfish values first. They devote themselves to their deepest values: Of being American. Few can articulate all that being an American means to them, but they carry it with them always. They know the price required to sustain freedom. They see themselves as instruments of those values, and they place those values so high in their own hierarchies that they risk maiming and death to achieve those values.

This is why we honor them. They are valuers.

A clip on the Fox News Channel this morning had Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, USMC (Retired) speaking to us with a field of grave crosses as background. He said, "They gave their todays for your tomorrows." This redeems the awful name Christianity and Judaism have given to selfishness, self-concern, and anything to do with self.

For us, Americans, life is important, and living free reigns supreme. For Muslims, dying and death are their values. We live freely and live for our progeny and our values to endure. Muslims exercise self-sacrifice to die to achieve their values, values they never achieve because they are not achievable.

We honor our military dead for their values, not their sacrifice. They do not give us our freedom as some wrongly say, but they help us preserve it in ways only they can. We can thank them by preserving and protecting those values and furthering them against all our enemies, foreign and domestic.

Pat Tillman died from friendly fire, and that was tragic. The Army coverup was horribly wrong. None of these take away from the fact that Pat Tillman stands as an arch-typical soldier, a person of values.

And he is far from alone. This excerpt from Jeff Jacoby's article for Memorial Day in Jewish World Review tells of an America-valuing Marine:

Jewish World Review May 30, 2005 / 21 Iyar, 5765, Death of a Marine, By Jeff Jacoby

Sergeant Rafael Peralta of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3d Marines was killed in action on Nov. 15 during Operation Dawn, the epic battle to retake the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah.

What follows is chiefly based on an account by Marine Lance Corporal T.J. Kaemmerer, a combat correspondent who took part in the operation that cost Peralta his life. Reports also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The Marine Corps Times, The San Diego Union Tribune, and on ABC News.

On the day he died, Rafael Peralta was 25 years old, a Mexican immigrant from San Diego who had enlisted in the Marines as soon as he became a legal resident. He earned his citizenship while on active duty and re-upped in 2004. He was a Marine to the core, so meticulous that when Alpha Company was training in Kuwait, he would send his camouflage uniform out to be pressed.

He was no less passionate about his adopted country: His bedroom wall was adorned with a picture of his boot camp graduation and replicas of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. ''Be proud of being an American," he wrote to his kid brother Ricardo, 14. ''Our father came to this country and became a citizen because it was the right place for our family to be." It was the first letter he ever wrote to Ricardo — and the last. It arrived in San Diego the day after he died.

The Marines of the 1/3 were on the front lines in Fallujah, purging the city of terrorists in house-to-house combat. As a platoon scout, Peralta could have stayed back in relative safety. Instead, as was often the case, he volunteered to join the assault team.

On the morning of Nov. 15, one week into the battle for Fallujah, his squad had cleared three houses without incident. They approached a fourth, kicking in two locked doors simultaneously and entering both front rooms. They found them empty. Another closed door led to an adjoining room. As the other Marines spread out, wrote Kaemmerer, ''Peralta, rifle in hand, tested the handle." It wasn't locked. He threw open the door, preparing to rush in — and three terrorists with AK-47s opened fire. He was shot multiple times in the chest and face. As he fell, severely wounded, he managed to wrench himself out of the doorway to give his fellow Marines a clear line of fire.

The gunfire was deafening. To the sound of the terrorists' AK-47s was added the din of the Marines' M16 rifles and Squad Automatic Weapon, a machine gun. The battle was raging, with Peralta down and bleeding heavily and the other Marines firing at the enemy in the back room, when, in Kaemmerer's words, ''a yellow, foreign-made, oval-shaped grenade bounced into the room, rolling to a stop close to Peralta's nearly lifeless body."

As the other Marines tried to flee, Peralta reached for the grenade and tucked it into his gut. Seconds later, it exploded with such force that when his remains were
returned to his family for burial, they were able to identify him only by the tattoo on his shoulder. His five comrades-in-arms, shielded from the worst of the blast by Peralta's last act as a Marine, survived.

''Right now, people are really nice and everything," Peralta's 12-year-old sister Karen told a reporter 10 days after her brother's death. ''But I know that when it comes to later on, they are going to forget him. They're going to forget about him."

No, Karen. The Marines, always faithful, do not forget their heroes. And neither does the grateful nation that pauses to honor them this week — the nation Rafael Peralta loved so deeply, and for which he gave his last full measure of devotion.

To the men and women of America's armed forces past, present, and future: We cannot honor you enough.

The Fair Logic of Jizyah (?!?)

Leave it to Islamic subjectivists to summon the fog with terms like "fair logic" when applied to jizyah. Islam On Line has a section where readers send in questions, and experts "answer." You just have to read some of this stuff to appreciate it.

Here's a sample, edited to remove the superfluous. Someone who is not Muslim wrote in with a question about jizyah:

IslamOnline-Ask About Islam,The Fair Logic of Jizyah

Question: I recently had a discussion with a non-Muslim friend about the jizyah (ransom) that non-Muslims have to pay in Islamic states. Is it discriminatory? Why do non-Muslims have to pay such a tax? Who has to pay it and how is it calculated? Thank you. Date 2005/3/3

Name of Consultant Jasser Auda
Content of Reply

As-salamu
`alaykum, Ahmed.

Thank you for your question.

Before addressing this question, we need to differentiate between actions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were carried out based on some specific (in this case, political) situation, and other actions that are considered as essential part of the divine message of Islam, without which the message would be deviated.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that mentioned this tax, jizyah. The verse says what means:

*{Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizyah (tribute, tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.}* (Al-Tawbah 9:29)

However, it is important to ask two questions here: What is the wisdom behind that tax, which was the reason behind legislating it? The wisdom behind the tax/jizyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness. This is for two reasons:

First, Muslims were paying zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different areas (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.

In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim communities (i.e., military protection) and exemption of their men from joining the Islamic army. It was not fair to ask these non-Muslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.

Then, do all the above make jizyah an eternal Islamic obligation, exactly like zakat? The answer is no! We need not to confuse between Islam as a civilization and Islam as a religion, to make a general point.

...Scholars no longer apply the rule of jizyah or exempt non-Muslims from serving their countries’ armies. The context now is different and therefore, the ruling differs and jizyah no longer applies.


Salams.

Here is truly taqiyya and kitman combined. The simplest and most complete rebuttal to this propaganda is to be found in Mr. Robert Spencer's new book, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance.

It's astonishing how much damage ignorance causes when a book like Mr. Spencer's simply erases the ignorance forever.

The Islam On Line explanation explains nothing. It just white-washes history and facts.

Even the Koranic verse gives the whole mess away "...until they pay the jizyah (tribute, tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Those conquered by Muslim hoards who were not enslaved or killed outright and did not convert to Islam, became dhimmis and lived under a slavery called dhimmitude, a state of being subdued, as in conquered. As the Islamists said and say, these people are to be chronically humiliated. They ransom their lives with Jizyah, not out of fairness, but out of fear for their lives. The purpose of the jizyah is to support the lazy Muslims who eschew productive work.

"Fairness" was never an issue. What is "fair" to Muslims fits no objective definition in any language of the world, past or present. The jizyah was not to balance out the zakah. The zakah was a pillar of Islam but did not carry the pain of death; the jizyah did and does.

Furthermore, the jizyah was not to compensate for dhimmis being exempted from the Muslim army. They could not mix with Muslims and were forbidden to join their armies unless they converted. "Protection" was not the issue, since the dhimmis were objects of plunder at all times BY MUSLIMS. The jizyah was and is EXTORTION, and it worked only if Muslims did not experience some imagined insult to their pseudo-self-esteem or have some other whim strike them to justify their killing dhimmi men, women, and children, just-for-the-hell-of-it.

Lastly, "scholars" may not apply the jizyah these days, but Muslims damned sure do. They will not hesitate either to kill you or make you live in dhimmitude today, and tomorrow, just as they did yesterday and do today.

This is a good example of why it is impossible to trust what Muslims say--about anything. For example, at this time, there is much chatter in the news about whether the al-Zarkawi has or has not been wounded in Iraq, and just what significance it has. Who cares? You can't believe anything they say. We keep doing what we need to do, regardless of what they say.

Take President Reagan one more step: Do not trust, and always verify for yourself.

Hirsi Ali: "We Must Declare War on Islamist Propaganda"

This lady is one of those remarkable people who grew up Muslim, but she had the independence of mind and spirit to see the truth, and the fortitude and integrity to follow the truth. Life has been far from easy for her since, because of the lunatic Muslism.

She is a member of the Dutch parliament, and she speaks her mind. Who in our Congress has the dedication to truth and courage that she does? For that matter, who in the State Department would dare speak like this, even the Secretary of State.

This is an abstract from an interview with this remarkable and admirable woman. The interviewer represented a German magazine, and you can discover as much about his or her European mindset as that of Hirsi Ali:



SPIEGEL Interview with Hirsi Ali: "We Must Declare War on Islamist Propaganda" - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News, DER SPIEGEL 20/2005 - May 14, 2005


Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the most sharp-tongued critics of political Islam -- and a target of radical fanatics. Her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The attackers left a death threat against Hirsi Ali stuck to his corpse with a knife. After a brief exile, the 35-year-old member of Dutch parliament from the neo-liberal VVD party has returned to parliament and is continuing her fight against Islamism. She is now introducing her new book "I Accuse" and is working on a sequel to "Submission."

Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia where she experienced the oppression of Muslim women first hand. When her father attempted to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to Holland in 1992. Later, she renounced the Muslim religion.

SPIEGEL: Following Van Gogh's death when you knew you were targeted, were you able to think clearly about what you should do?
Hirsi Ali: No, I was constantly on the move. But I had had enough after six days. I was advised to go into hiding abroad if I wanted to sleep in one place for a longer time. The only places I would consider were Israel and the United States, because they know what the Islamic threat means in those countries. I decided to go to the United States.

SPIEGEL: So now you are once again working as a member of parliament, giving interviews and publishing. Your book "I Accuse" will appear in Germany on Wednesday. Has your life returned to normal?
Hirsi Ali: Normal? I am guarded 24 hours a day. My bodyguards are always with me, everywhere I go. There are two bedrooms in my apartment, one for me, and the other for two bodyguards who take turns sleeping. Whenever I open my door, the door to the other bedroom opens and they check to see what's going on.

SPIEGEL: You are never alone?
Hirsi Ali: Rarely. But I don't have a healthy social life either. How can you have a relationship when you must constantly be afraid of putting your partner's life at risk?

SPIEGEL: Isn't that grotesque? You fight for the liberation of the Muslim woman and now you yourself are guarded from morning to night. Your chador consists of bodyguards. Was it worth it?
Hirsi Ali: Yes. Radical Islam is too dangerous for this society, perhaps even for the entire world. It is important to fight against this threat. In the process of fighting some lives may be lost.

SPIEGEL: Now you are beginning to sound like a martyr yourself. The September 11 terrorists also died for an idea.
Hirsi Ali: I would like to draw a distinction there. If we all keep still and remain silent, there will be more than just one or two deaths. I prefer to follow the philosopher Karl Popper. He says that freedom is not to be taken for granted. It is vulnerable. One must fight for it and be willing to die for it. The Islamic scene is very aggressive. Those Muslims who wish to kill someone receive a great deal of support from their home countries. There is plenty of wealth, there are plenty of sponsors and there are plenty of desperate people who choose this path. We must defend ourselves if we wish to preserve our Western values. The price we pay is to be threatened.

SPIEGEL: You seem to be resistant against the hostility. In your book, you are unrestrained in your denunciation of Islam as backward, and you call for policies that force immigrants to become integrated. You are also in the process of preparing a second part of the film "Submission." Aren't you concerned about generating even more rage against you?
Hirsi Ali: What else can they do but issue a death threat? Now that I've already been given the maximum sentence, at least I can act freely.

SPIEGEL: But didn't the authorities [Dutch] respond to September 11?
Hirsi Ali: Yes they did. They called together the Muslim leaders, gave them money and asked them to keep their young people under control. It was laughable. Then they tried to force the many different groups under one roof. That effort produced two groups, one for liberal and one for orthodox Muslims. Their spokesmen were then expected to enforce all agreements internally. This is simply a naive expectation.

SPIEGEL: Why? After all, Islam is a highly authoritarian religion with strong leaders.
Hirsi Ali: Do you know what young Muslims who are drawn to radical Islam call these "leaders" who negotiate with the government? Charity whores. They consider them to be collaborators, traitors, idiots.

SPIEGEL: You want to see these young people be systematically introduced to Western values. But they live in closed communities, so how can they be reached?
Hirsi Ali: Start by knocking on the door! We must penetrate into their worlds.

SPIEGEL: You'll be seeing many doors slammed in your face.
Hirsi Ali: I'm not saying that it would be easy. For her book entitled "Invisible Parents," the journalist Margalith Kleijwegt did some research in the Moroccan section of Amsterdam, where Van Gogh's murderer, Bouyeri, lived. She knocked unsuccessfully on doors six times. The seventh door was opened, and then she learned a great deal about this community. For example, she learned that no parents in that neighborhood knew about the murder, that no parents even knew who Van Gogh was or had heard about the film. They only watch Arab television where they are fed with conspiracy theories about the West. They spend every vacation at home in Morocco. They can't speak or write Dutch, and they don't read newspapers. The lesson of Margalith Kleijwegt's book is that the parents are not equipped to give their children the upbringing necessary in a modern western society. They also have many children and these parallel worlds are growing. We look on without even knowing what happens in them.

SPIEGEL: Who should go in? Social workers?
Hirsi Ali: Certainly not. They are too politically correct and in most cases very young and inexperienced. No, there are other ways to get in. One is the political tool of preventing further growth of the ghettos. We need to employ a policy of integration that dictates to people where they can live and where they cannot live, thereby guaranteeing a mixing together of cultures and nations.

SPIEGEL: That sounds like a lot of trouble -- from the Dutch as well.
Hirsi Ali: So what? What is at issue is defending our values, and that can certainly lead to arguments.

SPIEGEL: Aren't you concerned that tensions would arise in these forced communities?
Hirsi Ali: The other alternative creates even greater tensions. If you allow the ghettos to grow, you'll have clashes between skinheads and Muslim extremists, for example. The second means of access should also be controlled by political means: A prohibition on all faith-based schools. Schools must be places of civilization, places that impart Western values, the purposes of democracy. We must treat the children as our children and not turn their education over to defenders of foreign dogma who indoctrinate them with anti-liberal doctrines.

SPIEGEL: Ignore the cultures of the immigrants?
Hirsi Ali: Blindly respecting their cultures is the wrong approach. Here's an example: Many children in Holland's Arab ghettos are taught the teachings of Ibn Abu-Taymiya, one of the founders of pure Islam who preaches the holy war as a way of life. Instead of studying European philosophers, the children are taught to abide by 11th century teachings!

SPIEGEL: Integration and European culture can't be imposed on people.
Hirsi Ali: But we can do something about it. This is where society comes in. Artists, kindergartens, churches, they should all penetrate into the ghettos. It's really grotesque: We have all kinds of NGOs that send people all the way to Africa to convince people to use condoms. But they don't dare touch the problems we have at home. Charity begins at home.

SPIEGEL: Perhaps this is partly because part of democracy means allowing people to think as they wish.
Hirsi Ali: Democracy also includes legitimate intolerance. The intolerable cannot be tolerated. We must declare war on Islamist propaganda. Why should we ignore that women in our midst are being suppressed, beaten, enslaved? Why should we ignore that people preach hatred and vow to destroy us?



(All emphases mine)

Opportunity Knocks: Syria Cutting Military Cooperation With U.S.

Here's the relevant information:

Syria Cuts Military Cooperation With U.S., May 24, 6:11 PM (ET), By ALBERT AJI

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Syria has stopped security and military cooperation with the United States in recent months after Washington failed to respond to repeated overtures from Damascus, Syria's ambassador said Tuesday. The New York Times on Monday quoted [Syrian Ambassador to the US] Mustafa as saying Syria had "severed all links" with the U.S. military and CIA in the last 10 days because of what he called unjust American allegations.

"The United States will not be satisfied with Syria unless Syria follows a policy that suits the American political orientation and Israeli interests ," Mustafa said, echoing widely held beliefs in the Arab world that the United States is biased toward Israel. He said the United States wants to "redraw the political map of the region in a way that suits American and Israeli interests."

(All emphases mine)

Were it so that we were acting on proper desires for us and Israel, the ones the ambassador decries so clearly. We still seem to be giving Syria a pass, no matter how many Americans and Iraqis it is responsible for killing and how much destruction it is causing in Iraq. The Syrians sponsor more terrorism than we sponsor stupid federal programs--and they sponsor these against Israel and the US. "Sanctions," which we are using, are truly akin to urinating into a hurricane.

It is easy to get Syria's attention and hold it permanently. Recall the old saying that if you grab someone by the genitals, his heart and mind soon follow.

Syria's western boundary is the Mediterranean Ocean. Its eastern boundary is Iraq. It is Appalachian poor as a productive country. Were it not for Saudi Arabian and Iranian support, Syria would have nothing and could do nothing to anyone. Do these suggest policy actions?

Carrier based aircraft could reach anywhere in Syria in minutes from the Mediterranean, as could U. S. Air Force aircraft out of Iraq. No overflight permissions would be needed, except that of the Syrians. But then, we would be bombing them.

Suppose something like this. For EVERY car bomb, EVERY road embedded IED (improvised explosive device), and EVERY attack from "insurgents" in Iraq against Iraqis and the Coalition, we drop all kinds of bombs on things the Syrians value to any extent whatsoever. No plane is to return home with unexpended ordnance.

We have all of Syria's ports, rails, utilities. We have its government facilities and all of those wonderful Ba'ath houses. And, do not forget the Bekaa Valley. A truly target-rich environment, well, at least for a while.

Just think of Assad running from a MOAB (I no longer remember what the military acronym stands for, but in common parlance, it came to mean "mother of all bombs"). How many aircraft, and how many flights would it take? And if Syria is reduced to gravel, where would Hamas, Hezbollah, Ba'athists, and all the other Muslim ne'er-do-wells stay? Lebanon is as easy to get to as Syria; and, if Turkey wants them, they deserve what they get.

Once Syria has been demolished, we could ask Saudi Arabia and Iran if they "got it." The answer would come in the form of almost complete cessation of "insurgency" in Iraq.

If not, then Saudi Arabia and Iran are accessible from carriers at sea, land based aircraft...

FrontPage magazine.com :: War Blog: ORIANA FALLACI TO BE TRIED FOR THOUGHT CRIMES

This is where they want to take you and me. Who? CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), MSA (Muslim Student Association), and many more, along with the fifth columnist anti-American postmodernists.

Freedom and rights remain always just a nanosecond away from the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages have been the default position of mankind for his history. Without eternal vigilance and the willingness to fight off all who would take our best from us every single time they try, we will lose.

I am reminded of the old expression, which deserves paraphrasing: You have have my rights and freedoms when you can pry them from my cold, dead fingers!

The Italian city of Bergamo is going to put author Oriana Fallaci on trial—for defaming Islam. (Hat tip: SoCalJustice.)

(AGI) - L’Aquila, Italy, May 24

- In Oriana Fallaci’s book “The Force of Reason” there are expressions that are “unequivocally offensive to Islam and Muslims,” said the Bergamo preliminary investigative judge, Armando Grasso, who accepting the Adel Smith’s opposition to filing away the trial proposed by the prosecutor, ordered the prosecution to formulate the charge “according to article 406 of article 403 of the criminal code,” for defamation of Islam. The well known author, therefore, will be put on trial. Adel Smith, president of the Italian Muslim Union, sued the writer on April 8, 2004, after “also in other writings Oriana Fallaci had propagated hate against Islam and Muslims, distorting real historical facts and inventing others, lying, offending, and defaming Muslims around the world. For the rest, ever since ”Anger and Pride“ the writer has injured Islam and Muslims, writing expressions such as ‘f*cking sons of Allah’,” said Smith. The Bergamo Prosecution is taking on the trial, since the book was published in the city, and now has ten days to come up with a charge. The preliminary hearing judge will set the trial date. Matteo Nicoli of Verona will represent Adel Smith.

Adel Smith is a well-known Italian Muslim activist who (among other specious lawsuits) tried to have all crucifixes removed from Italian schools.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

Keep your attention fixed to this "trial," which never should be able to occur in a civilized country, and its outcome. If Ms. Fallaci is convicted, they will be coming next for you.

Paging Dracula to the Blood Bank, STAT!

To paraphrase Shakespeare, "What fools these ignoranti be."

For CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), this was a coup. For the Americans, this was travesty. Read it and barf:

CAIR EDUCATES OHIO NATIONAL GUARD ABOUT ISLAM

Army reservists learn about Islamic beliefs, practices and
culture(CLEVELAND, OH, 5/24/05)

The Cleveland Office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Ohio chapter (CAIR-Ohio) recently conducted an educational session on Islam and the Middle East for members of the Ohio National Guard.

CAIR's training session, held at the Canton National Guard Armory, was well received by the soldiers, most of whom said they knew little about Islam and Muslims before the training. The training provided detailed information about Muslim beliefs and practices, as well as background information on Middle Eastern history and culture.

One attendee said, "Understanding Islam will help us be at ease when an obvious difference is encountered." A number of soldiers said they had more respect for Islam and Muslims after the training.

Each participant was provided with an information packet, including articles information about the basic beliefs and practices of Muslims. After the training, participants got a chance to meet each other and to exchange views on a range of issues during a luncheon provided by CAIR.

"This was an excellent opportunity to share our faith with others," said CAIR-Ohio Board Member and Chair of the Cleveland office Isam Zaiem. " Such training sessions provide the opportunity to learn about each other and allow us to avoid needless conflicts and misunderstandings."

Years ago, some comedian analogized some long forgotten--something as akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. This National Guard and CAIR encounter reminded me of the same.

Supposedly, the actor John Wayne once said something to the effect that, if you think education is expense, try ignorance. I hazard the guess that not one of the National Guard members who hosted CAIR had read the first word about Islam.

They extended the sanction to CAIR as though CAIR is some legitimate spokesman for truth. CAIR speaks only to its agenda, but these hay-seeds had not the slightest clue. Nor did their "leadership."

For CAIR, this was a coup. For the National Guard, this was a total travesty. CAIR gained strength of acceptance as a legitimate spokesgroup for an alleged legitimate "religion." And, since Islam is a RELIGION, it cannot be bad in any way.

Gullible National Guardsmen drank the Kool-Aid, and did not even know it was spiked with delayed action cyanide.

Man, is ignorance expensive!!!!!!

FrontPage magazine.com :: Leaving the Left by Keith Thompson

FrontPage magazine.com :: Leaving the Left by Keith Thompson, By Keith Thompson, SFGate.com, May 23, 2005


Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.

My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.

Now, I find myself in a swirling metamorphosis. Think Kafka, without the bug. Think Kuhnian paradigm shift, without the buzz. Every anomaly that didn't fit my perceptual set is suddenly back, all the more glaring for so long ignored. The insistent inner voice I learned to suppress now has my rapt attention. "Something strange -- something approaching pathological -- something entirely of its own making -- has the left in its grip," the voice whispers. "How did this happen?" The Iraqi election is my tipping point. The time has come to walk in a different direction -- just as I did many years before.

I grew up in a northwest Ohio town where conservative was a polite term for reactionary. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of Mississippi "sweltering in the heat of oppression," he could have been describing my community, where blacks knew to keep their heads down, and animosity toward Catholics and Jews was unapologetic. Liberal and conservative, like left and right, wouldn't be part of my lexicon for a while, but when King proclaimed, "I have a dream," I instinctively cast my lot with those I later found out were liberals (then synonymous with "the left" and "progressive thought").

The people on the other side were dedicated to preserving my hometown's backward-looking status quo. This was all that my 10-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way.

I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam. I marched for peace and farm worker justice, lobbied for women's right to choose and environmental protections, signed up with George McGovern in 1972 and got elected as the youngest delegate ever to a Democratic convention.

Eventually I joined the staff of U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio. In short, I became a card-carrying liberal, although I never actually got a card. (Bookkeeping has never been the left's strong suit.) All my commitments centered on belief in equal opportunity, due process, respect for the dignity of the individual and solidarity with people in trouble. To my mind, Americans who had joined the resistance to Franco's fascist dystopia captured the progressive spirit at its finest.

A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.

When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table.

I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.

Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.

Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.

All of this came back to me as I watched the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January. Didn't many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King's call for equal of opportunity.

These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic.

I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.

In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...).

Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that."

When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."

I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?

He is also by most measures one of the most conservative senators. Brownback speaks openly about how his horror at the genocide in the Sudan is shaped by his Christian faith, as King did when he insisted on justice for "all of God's children."

My larger point is rather simple. Just as a body needs different medicines at different times for different reasons, this also holds for the body politic.

In the sixties, America correctly focused on bringing down walls that prevented equal access and due process. It was time to walk the Founders' talk -- and we did. With barriers to opportunity no longer written into law, today the body politic is crying for different remedies.

America must now focus on creating healthy, self-actualizing individuals committed to taking responsibility for their lives, developing their talents, honing their skills and intellects, fostering emotional and moral intelligence, all in all contributing to the advancement of the human condition.

At the heart of authentic liberalism lies the recognition, in the words of John Gardner, "that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up." A continuously renewing society, Gardner believed, is one that seeks to "foster innovative, versatile, and self-renewing men and women and give them room to breathe."

One aspect of my politics hasn't changed a bit. I became a liberal in the first place to break from the repressive group orthodoxies of my reactionary hometown.

This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion.

True, it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites.

Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.

All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.

Keith Thompson is a Petaluma writer and the author of "Angels and Aliens" and "To Be a Man." His work is at www.thompsonatlarge.com. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com

Glimpses into Islamic Minds, II

Listen to them. Read their words. They are open books.

True, they might not tell you the plans of their next bombings or assassinations, but they will tell why they do what they do.

Can you imagine how nice it would be if our "leaders" took them at their words? They would stop twisting themselves into human pretzels in order NOT TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE and NOT SEE THINGS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE. Why, we might even start doing some real winning.

This speaks for itself:

MSN News and Weather Reuters � weather forecasts, latest world news, UK & sports news, 18/5/2005 4:14:27 PM ( Source: Reuters) , Iraq Qaeda leader defends slaying of Muslims -Web

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq defended the killing of "innocent Muslims" in suicide bombings against U.S. forces, saying it was legitimate under Islam for the sake of jihad (holy war), according to an audio tape attributed to him on Wednesday.

"The killing of infidels by any method including martyrdom (suicide) operations has been sanctified by many scholars even if it means killing innocent Muslims. This
legality has been agreed upon ... so as not to disrupt jihad," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said on the tape posted on an Islamist Web site.

"Protecting religion is more important than protecting (Muslim) lives, honour or wealth," said the man who sounded like Zarqawi. "The shedding of Muslim blood ... is allowed in order to avoid the greater evil of disrupting ihad."

"We know that some mistakes may happen and victims may fall and this causes us grief, but what can we do in the face of this reality in which the enemy has penetrated our land." He said Muslims killed unintentionally in such attacks were "martyrs who died for Islam".

Addressing Iraq's Sunnis, the speaker added: "We are the spearhead of the Ummah (Sunni nation) and its first line of defence in the face of the crusaders' advance. If the jihad's power subsides then the Ummah will witness calamities and disasters." (All emphases mine)

Glimpses into Islamic Minds, I

If the Islamic mind is a mystery to any Westerner or is any way perplexing, then that Westerner has not taken the time to read about them or read what they themselves say.

The following article with transcript gives a glimpse of a barbarian mentality. The rapist can neither read nor write. He is solely the product of all the Islam he absorbed in Egypt.

He demonstrates typical Islamic thinking methods: Who is to blame for his raping the girl? Why, the girl is, of course. Read his rationale.

WorldNetDaily: Egyptian rapist blames his victim, Thursday, May 19, 2005

An Egyptian rapist on death row is blaming his victim for the crime, saying she wore a short dress and such women "make" their attackers rape. The interview with the rapist aired on Dubai TV April 22. A clip of the segment with English subtitles is viewable at the Middle East Media Research Institute website. The rapist, Ayman Mahmoud, is interviewed by a young woman who is fully clothed from head to toe. (emphasis mine)

Here is the transcript of the interview:

Interviewer: How old are you, Ayman?
Ayman: Twenty-six years old.

Interviewer: What were you sentenced for?
Ayman: Kidnapping and rape.

Interviewer: What was she wearing?
Ayman: She wore a short dress, which didn't have enough material for a sleeve. If I tried using it as a sleeve it would be too tight for my arm.

Interviewer: Tell us more about the clothes.
Ayman: If she wants to wear a short dress, she should wear pants underneath. But the short dress … Even if she's unmarried, or a little girl, when someone sees her short clothes, he will find the courage, and won't leave her alone. A girl like this makes a guy …

Interviewer: She seduces him?
Ayman: Yes, she makes him take her, even if it's in the middle of town. Even if he has to kill or die, he will still take her.

Interviewer: You would be ready to kill to have a girl wearing such clothes?
Ayman: Because I can't accept this. … She's not human …

Interviewer: You don't respect her. You think she deserves it.
Ayman: If she had proper upbringing, I would stand by her.

Interviewer: If you met a girl dressed modestly, could you possiblythink of raping or even getting near her?
Ayman: You mean a respectable one?

Interviewer: Yes.
Ayman: I would protect her even if it kills me. I would free her.

Interviewer: You don't say …
Ayman: Yes, but … But getting in trouble to save a girl whose clothes don't make sense … then I'd be getting into a fight because of a girl whose behavior is improper.

Interviewer: Let's assume that a woman is wearing a short, revealing dress. Does this make you think she is not a good woman? Maybe she is good and you shouldn't get near her.
Ayman: No good woman dresses like this. A good woman is God-fearing, she doesn't go out at night, and she wears long clothing.

Interviewer: One last question. Do you pray, Ayman?
Ayman: No.

Interviewer: Why?
Ayman: I tried to pray but … No, no, I don't pray.

Interviewer: Why, Ayman?
Ayman: No.

Interviewer: Why don't you want to end you life obeying God?
Ayman: I didn't do anything good when I was out. … I didn't pray. … I didn't pray when I was out, so I should pray now that I'm in trouble?! If I'd prayed when I was out I would never have gotten here.

Interviewer: You know that these are the words of Satan. Satan is telling you … He caused you to lose your life and now he wants you to lose the world to come. He says to you: "You did this and that and now it doesn't make sense to pray." Yes, you need to pray. Ayman, ask for forgiveness and pray, and don't despair of Allah's mercy.
Ayman: Well, OK.

Interviewer: Ask Allah to forgive you. I pray that Allah forgives you.
Ayman: OK.

Interviewer: Will you pray every day?
Ayman: OK, I will.

Interviewer: And you'll ask Allah for forgiveness?
Ayman: Yes.

Interviewer: I give you this Quran, Ayman. Read it every day after you purify yourself.
Ayman: I never really learned to read.

Interviewer: You can't read?
Ayman: No, I can't.

Interviewer: Try, surely you can read a little bit?
Ayman: No.

Interviewer: You can't read at all?
Ayman: No.

Interviewer: Well, I'll bring you a cassette you can listen to.

Barbarity of this kind, blaming the victim, can be found in America's prisons, jails, ghettos, and even in college fraternities. Just like this Islamic barbarian, an American perpetrator might blame his victim for driving him into an impulsive frenzy, but he is not likely to stucco it over with Islamic rationales.

This kind of impulse-dominated person is the ideal jihadist soldier. Islam primes his mentality, such as it is, and some authority figure or figures set him in motion. His emotions do the rest, such as riot over alleged Koran flushings.

What do you think the interviewer says about herself here?

'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis: Some Fundamentals Behind the News

'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis, By Susan B. Glasser, Washington Post Staff Writer,
Sunday, May 15, 2005; A01.

This Washington Post article is a good, factual article. It tells the who, what, where, when, and how quite well and avoids opinions and conclusions. In its facts, however, are some really profound principles.

Here is my distillation of the essence of the article:

Characteristics of Suicide Bombers

o Need to experience some sense of personal values, often expressed as experiencing an Islamic religious awakening

o Need for identity, expressed as joining"everybody" flocking to Iraq

o Sons, students or from wealthy families, majors including engineering and English--identical profile of the 11 September 2001 "martyrs"

o Naive and inexperienced approach to themselves, their future, and their Islamic milieu: "...[N]ovices in warfare, attracted by the relative ease of access to Iraq and the lure of quick martyrdom." Says an expert at the National Defense University: "This is not al Qaeda's first team. These are the scrubs who could never get us in the States."

o Need for special mental state: "O Brother, I love to sleep on the floor and I need no mattress," [details about one fellow foreign fighter who was to have been married in February]. "Instead, he chose to be with the virgins of paradise," the [internet recruitment site] announcement said. "He used to talk frequently about the virgins of paradise and their beauty, and he wished to drink a sip from the sustenance of paradise while a virgin beauty wiped his mouth." Also, some bombers are married, well educated, and are in their late twenties.

National Sources

o Foreigners responsible for a higher percentage of the suicide bombings

o Saudis the leading group on this list, representing 44 - 70 percent, followed by Syrians and Iraqis 15 - 25 percent.

The principles of Islam take perfectly normal children and make them Muslims. Most Muslims are beyond hope by adolescence. Looking at the fundamentals of Islam, it is not hard to see how they deform humans to the extent that they internalize Islam's teachings. Islam has perfected the method of permanently distorting the human mind over its long history. Look around at the human debris that inhabit the Middle East, Asia, and wherever Muslims form their ghettos (ummah). Some of these young men choose to be jihadist martyrs.

What is amazing is how the Islamization process transcends education, wealth, and social standing. It is easy to understand how the impoverished, ignorant, and illiterate make the bulk of most Muslims; it is also easy to see these rabble behave as a rent-a-crowd, directed by anyone who holds any position of religious authority.

But, look at these "martyrs" from Saudi Arabia trucking over to Iraq to die. They are young men, educated, and well off. They do not fit the Marxian and postmodernist claims about those damaged by capitalism. Most are pampered and useless young men.

The downside of their education is their inevitable awareness of the rest of the world, particularly the West. They are not dumb; they see the differences. They cannot help but compare their lives, their living environment, and, most importantly, their futures. Regardless of all of the reaction-formation going on in their psyches to blot out their awareness of the unavoidable conclusions, they see enough of their lives and futures to know how poorly they compare, past, present, and future.

The upside of their education provides the fodder for their distorted struggle for significance. Just look at a thumbnail glance what philosophy Islam teaches them from infancy through the rest of their lives.

o Metaphysically, Islam denounces this world, life on earth, man and particularly man's independent mind, material progress, and happiness, and it seeks a superbeing and existence beyond anything anyone or anything can find or prove.

o Epistemologically, Islam declares the mind to be man's greatest evil because of its capacity to doubt and question which are forbidden on pain of death.

o Ethically, Islam demands eternal obedience to Islam and its representatives with the Muslim purpose in life being that of getting out of life through violent martyrdom. Islam also says that their lives are worthless except as they might be of value to Islam, and implies that self-esteem is as evil as thinking.

o Politically, Islam tells Muslims that they have no future except in service to Islam and the great collective called the ummah. Islam fuses all aspects of their lives with Islam, and their consists in living by permission at a level dictated to them, one seriously inferior to Western cultures.

o Esthetically, Islam denies Muslims not just any uplifting aspects of art to fuel their psyches, but it destroys the concept of art by reducing art to painted tiles and the like. Furthermore, these young men see how Islam creates nothing, destroys and inhibits everything, and squeezes every scintilla of joy out of everything.

What are they left with? Raw emotion and raw action, under Islam direction directly or indirectly from all of the Islamic principles they have internalized since infancy.

Islam is totally against human nature, in every respect, and these young men cannot escape experiencing that. To prevent rebellion, the adults around them stand as barriers to anything that might deviate from the rigidity imposed by Islam.

The payoff comes from educated, if not also socio-economically well off, young men with their humanity cut off, needing some outlet for their pressure-cooker feelings. A big component of those feelings is the dysphoria they feel from their living against their human nature; Mother Nature imposes that, and they cannot escape it.

Think of how you would feel were you in such an upbringing and life. They cannot go in any direction except one that Islam tells them or approves. And, most of these young men will not have enough independence and fortitude to escape Islamia to preserve their integrity.

If you have read or studied some of the great resources available today about Islam, then you know that these young men conclude that the only way they can feel any significance about themselves is to take action by going down one or the other pathways for significance which Islam provides for them. To us, it seems crazy that they would conclude that martyrdom is either useful or, even crazier, desirable. However, put your mind into their mental set, and it will cease seeming nuts to you.

To make personal annihilation work, however, they need two components. The first comes from Islam, about how all of the good stuff comes after they die. They have to get themselves to believe this. Islam has screwed over their cognition growing up, so this is not such a hard job for them. The second comes from Islam also. They must utterly deny the value of their selves, just as Islamic ethics taught them. This is harder, but the Islamic milieu tapping into their impetuous youth handles them.

Asked about the significance of the facts reported in the Washington Post story, author Richard Miniter, on Fox and Friends Sunday, 15 May 2005, stated a conclusion very seldom heard these days. He said that the object of these marytrs was "self-sacrifice" as the end in itself, not jihad or other Islamic goals. And, that is EXACTLY, the point.

Islam lives the ethics of self-sacrifice, which it has in common with all other religions, but the latter know they cannot get this kind of behavior out of their flocks. Islam can.

It is impossible in fact, but it is fun to think of being present with "martyrs" at their instant of death when they discover that even the "paradise" of Islam is just another lie. They snuffed out their lives in vain. They aren't going anywhere. They are finished. They no longer exist, and that is all there is.

Kudos to Liberty and Culture Blog

As big as the internet is, and as busy as we are these days, too much of value slips under the radar. A comment to one of our blog articles stimulated our curiosity which led to our discovering a fine blog to recommend to our readers: Liberty and Culture. From an initial examination, it looks like this blog started in March of 2004, some three to four months before we did. While we have not yet explored every nook and cranny, we can say that the blogger's approach to matters is like a glass of very cold iced tea on a very hot July day, very refreshing. We will be visiting often, and we hope you will check this site as well. It looks like you will be treated to thought and not pabulum, and you will be given intellectual ammunition instead of just ranting and raving.

Twice In The Same Week for the NY Times. Hoorah, and What's Happening?

I fear that apoplexy may be setting in. Twice this week, the op-ed section of the New York Times published that old enemy The Truth. With a few quibbles we have with him, nevertheless we applaud Thomas Friedman, a journalist who tends to wear pink glasses to look at the world, knocked one out of the part. When we began reading this, we thought we would feel the usual need to swallow some antacids. Not so.

Here are some excerpts of a pretty darned good op-ed:

The Best P.R.: Straight Talk - New York Times, May 20, 2005, by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The fact that the White House spokesman Scott McClellan spent part of his briefing on Tuesday excoriating Newsweek - and telling its editors that they had a responsibility to "help repair the damage" to America's standing in the Arab-Muslim world - while not offering a single word of condemnation for those who went out and killed 16 people in Afghanistan in riots linked to a Newsweek report, pretty much explains why we're struggling to win the war of ideas in the Muslim world today. We are spending way too much time debating with ourselves, or playing defense, and way too little time actually looking Arab Muslims in the eye and telling them the truth as we see it.

Therefore, if we have an information campaign, it must all be about explaining to them who we are, and why we are not bad people, and why Newsweek made a mistake. It must never involve us asking who they are and why they are behaving in ways that don't live up to the values they profess.

Instead of sending Mr. McClellan out to flog Newsweek, President Bush should have said "... In reaction to an unsubstantiated Newsweek story, Muslims killed 16 other Muslims in Afghanistan in rioting, and no one has raised a peep - as if it were a totally logical reaction. That is wrong.

"In Iraq, where Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni Muslims are struggling to build a pluralistic new order, other Muslims, claiming to act in the name of Allah, are indiscriminately butchering people, without a word of condemnation coming from Muslim spiritual or political leaders. I don't understand a concept of the sacred that says a book is more sacred than a human life. A holy book, whether the Bible or the Koran, is only holy to the extent that it shapes human life and behavior.

And a few days ago, a group of Iraqi journalists actually went to Jordan and got right in the face of Jordanian columnists and editors, demanding to know why they were treating Muslim mass murderers in Iraq like anticolonial war heroes. It's already changed the tone. That's the war of ideas.

The greatest respect we can show to Arabs and Muslims - and the best way to help Muslim progressives win the war of ideas - is to take them seriously and stop gazing at our own navels. That means demanding that they answer for their lies, hypocrisy and profane behavior, just as much as we must answer for ours.

Somebody is Awake Out There: Why Islam is disrespected

It ain't in terms of fundamentals, but we'll take it...


Jeff Jacoby: Why Islam is disrespected , by Jeff Jacoby,May 20, 2005

It was front-page news this week when Newsweek retracted a report claiming that a US interrogator in Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. Everywhere it was noted that Newsweek's story had sparked widespread Muslim rioting, in which at least 17 people were killed. But there was no mention of deadly protests triggered in recent years by comparable acts of desecration against other religions.

No one recalled, for example, that American Catholics lashed out in violent rampages in 1989, after photographer Andres Serrano's ''Piss Christ" -- a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine -- was included in an exhibition subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts. Or that they rioted in 1992 when singer Sinead O'Connor, appearing on ''Saturday Night Live," ripped up a photograph of Pope John Paul II.

There was no reminder that Jewish communities erupted in lethal violence in 2000, after Arabs demolished Joseph's Tomb, torching the ancient shrine and murdering a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah from the flames. And nobody noted that Buddhists went on a killing spree in 2001 in response to the destruction of two priceless, 1,500-year-old statues of Buddha by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never occurred.

Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable today for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain. But when Reuters reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers -- ''They should be hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to insult Islam and its sacred symbols" -- was any reader surprised?

The Muslim riots should have been met by an international upwelling of outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.

From the White House down, the magazine was slammed -- for running an item it should have known might prove incendiary, for relying on a shaky source, for its animus toward the military and the war. Over and over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll. Conservative pundits in particular piled on. ''Newsweek lied, people died" was the headline on Michelle Malkin's popular website. At NationalReview.com, Paul Marshall of Freedom House fumed: ''What planet do these [Newsweek] people live on? . . . Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article." All of Marshall's choler was reserved for Newsweek; he had no criticism at all -- not a word -- for the marauders in the Muslim street.

Then there was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced at a Senate hearing that she had a message for ''Muslims in America and throughout the world." And what was that message? That decent people do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's dysfunctional political culture? That the Bush administration would redouble its efforts to defeat the Islamofascist radicals who use religion as an excuse to foment violence and terror?

No: Her message was that ''disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. We honor the sacred books of all the world's great religions."

Granted, Rice spoke while the rioting was still taking place and her goal was to reduce the anti-American fever. But what ''Muslims in America and throughout the world" most need to hear is not pandering sweet-talk. What they need is a blunt reminder that the real desecration of Islam is not what some interrogator in Guantanamo might have done to the Koran. It is what totalitarian Muslim zealots have been doing to innocent human beings in the name of Islam. It is 9/11 and Beslan and Bali and Daniel Pearl and the USS Cole. It is trains in Madrid and schoolbuses in Israel and an ''insurgency" in Iraq that slaughters Muslims as they pray and vote and line up for work. It is Hamas and Al Qaeda and sermons filled with infidel-hatred and exhortations to ''martyrdom."

But what disgraces Islam above all is the vast majority of the planet's Muslims saying nothing and doing nothing about the jihadist cancer eating away at their religion. It is Free Muslims Against Terrorism, a pro-democracy organization, calling on Muslims and Middle Easterners to ''converge on our nation's capital for a rally against terrorism" this month -- and having only 50 people show up.

Yes, Islam is disrespected. That will only change when throngs of passionate Muslims show up for rallies against terrorism, and when rabble-rousers trying to gin up a riot over a defiled Koran can't get the time of day.

Don't Let This Resolution Pass: Write, Call, Email, Fax, et cetera

This is one way that your freedoms get taken away--it starts with something seeming to be so innocent. For example, who could possibly be against standing up for respecting the Koran and for a resolution which Rep. Conyers calls "...condemns bigotry and intolerance against any religious group..."? If you think this, you could not be more wrong.

The theft of one of your freedoms (following a long precedence) starts with something seemingly innocent, but which actually inserts a deadly virus-like corruptor into the law-making mechanism. It begins with a resolution and, eventually, becomes like England, with people jailed for any accusation of something "offensive" to some religions' members. Finally, it ends with state control of all speech and expression--you may say only what the state wants you to say.

Let's look at some of the details for this so-called resolution:

House Resolution Urges Respect for Koran; Condemns Religious Intolerance -- 05/19/2005: By Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Morning Editor, May 19, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - An Islamic civil rights group is urging all "people of conscience" to support a Democrat-sponsored resolution recognizing that the Koran, like the holy book of any other religion, "should be treated with dignity and respect."

The resolution, to be introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), also "condemns bigotry and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors and citizens of the Islamic faith."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called the introduction of the resolution a winning move.Rep. Conyers, who appeared at Tuesday press conference when CAIR announced the Koran giveaway, applauded the effort.Congressional resolutions express the opinion of lawmakers and do not have the force of law.

CAIR is urging its supporters to contact their congressional representatives: "Tell them the allegations of Koran desecration, now withdrawn by Newsweek, hurt America's image overseas. Strong support for this resolution will demonstrate America's intolerance of bigotry and disrespect toward any religious group," the press release said.

The first clue that something is rotten here comes from CAIR's (Council for American-Islamic Relations) mobilizing its Muslim puppets to action. While it might not be 100% of the time true, it seems to be almost axiomatic that, if CAIR likes it, it can't be good.

The second clue that something might be rotten comes from the sycophancy of Rep. Conyers. This man represents Detroit, particularly its large Muslim ghetto. Worse than simply being influenced by this enclave, he himself is so far to the Left that he fully qualifies as a House of Representatives fifth columnist socialist. You can just about make book on the principle, if John Conyers likes it, it has to be bad for America. CAIR + Conyers makes a typical "Unholy Alliance."

Here is some of what CAIR sent to its puppets yesterday by email (repetitious material removed):

SUPPORT CONYERS HOUSE RES. CONDEMNING RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY - TOP

(Washington, DC, 5/18/2005) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called for people of conscience to support a resolution that "recognizes that the Qur'an as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect."

To be introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the resolution also "condemns bigotry and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors and citizens of the Islamic faith."

"This resolution expresses America's respect for the holy texts of all faiths. If passed, it will also reiterate our nation's condemnation of bigoted behavior and religious intolerance," said Corey Saylor, CAIR's government affairs director. "It's a winner on every front."

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED:

Contact your Representative in the U.S. House (not your Senators) and ask him or her to sign-on to the Conyers resolution condemning bigotry and religious intolerance. (No number has been assigned to the resolution at the time of this release.)

1) Tell them the allegations of Quran desecration, now withdrawn by Newsweek, hurt America's image overseas. Strong support for this resolution will demonstrate America's intolerance of bigotry and disrespect toward any religious group.

2) Ask them to contact Ameer Gopalani in Rep. John Conyers' office at ameer.gopalani@mail.house.gov or 202-223-9307 to sign-on.

3.) SEND A MESSAGE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=issuesAndLegislations
(emphasis mine)

What appears so "innocent" to some, so "benign" to the undiscerning, and so "American," believe it or not, is covert jihad in action. This jihad makes small, non-violent steps, designed to change the electorate and the laws, a piece at a time, until Islam prevails. It is truly the nose of the camel in the tent, a particularly apt metaphor here.

The principle of religious tolerance cannot apply to Islam as long as its central aim is jihad, by any and all means. The aspiration to world conquest and enslavement cannot be permitted or tolerated, no matter that it is like Nazism disguised as a religion. Islam is absolutely dead set to destroy the Consitution of the United States and replace it with shari'a. I did not make that up; that is what Muslims themselves, including CAIR, say, off the record (on record, Muslims glibly lie to your face). And, CAIR has the finest legislator money can buy in its backpocket to assist it.

Another metaphor for this resolution is "trojan horse." If this resolution passes, it has no force of law, but it softens up the politically correct and the real fifth columnists in the Congress for the next step, and we have already stated what the goal is.

Is mine the voice of paranoia? Yes, if you believe that Islam is a religion of peace, one of the great religions, that it teaches love and brotherhood, and that it has no history of any kind which could belie its benign-ness. Yes, if you believe that the Koran is holy and teaches love and brotherhood for all mankind, including non-Muslims. Yes, if you have refused to read a Koran or two, Ishaq's Sira al Rasul, any Ahadith, and the loads of utterly outstanding presentations about Islam. Yes, if you either follow no current events in newspapers, broadcast media, and the internet--or if you refuse to believe the evidence of your senses. Yes, if you believe even that there might be an "Allah," that Muhammad received the Koran by divine revelation, and Muhammad was not what he was.

It is worth the time and effort to let your representatives know the truth about this resolution and some of the truth about Islam. They still might be too chicken to face up to it, but they will know you are there, that you know what's what, and that you won't forget them and how they voted.

Refreshing TRUTH from the New York Times Editorial Page

In his editorial of May 19, 2005, Bashing Newsweek, columnist David Brooks properly bashes all of the USA melodramatists in this Newsweek FUBAR, and he resets CONTEXT.

First, to the woodshed goes Mr. Brooks with the misbehaving children of the right and the left:

...Newsweek's retracted atrocity story has sent everybody into cloud-cuckoo-land. Every faction up and down the political spectrum has used the magazine's blunder as a chance to open fire on its favorite targets, turning this into a fevered hunting season for the straw men. Many of my friends on the right have decided that the Newsweek episode exposes the rotten core of the liberal media. Meanwhile, the left side of the blogosphere has erupted with fury over the possibility that American interrogators might not have flushed a Koran down the toilet. The Nation and leftish Web sites are in a frenzy to prove that the story is probably true even if Newsweek is retracting it. This, too, is unhinged.

With his strop now warmed up, he takes the administration to the woodshed:

Then ... over to the transcripts of administration statements and I can't believe what I'm seeing. We're in the middle of an ideological war against people who want to destroy us, and what have the most powerful people on earth become? Whining media bashers. They're attacking Newsweek while bending over backward to show sensitivity to the Afghans who just went on a murderous rampage. Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.

Then, he and Truth sit down for a cool long-neck:

Maybe we should all focus on what's important. Newsweek's little item was seized and exploited by America's enemies in a way that was characteristically cynical,delusional and fascistic. The people who seized upon this item, like the radical clerics in Afghanistan, are cynical in the way they manipulate episodes like this to whip up hatred and so magnify their own standing. At the same time, they believe everything that could be alleged about America - and more. They've spent so many years inhabiting a delusional mental landscape filled with conspiracy theories and paranoia that you could drill deep into their minds without ever touching reality. Finally, they are strategically ruthless. Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker, who has spent years reporting on extremists, says they use manufactured spasms of hatred to desensitize their followers. After followers spend a few years living through rabid riots and vicious sermons, killing an American or a Jew or even a fellow Muslim seems no more consequential than killing a mosquito. That's how suicide bombers are made.

The sychophantia coming from Washington is appeasing and brown-nosing the real enemy as though a sin had really been committed, when it had not, even if a billion Korans had been used for toilet paper:

The rioters are the real enemy, not Newsweek and not the American soldiers serving as prison guards. Just to restore some proper perspective, let me quote a snippet from a sermon delivered by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, which ran last weekend on the Palestinian Authority's official TV station:

"The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world - except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquillity under our rule because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."

Mr. Brooks properly does not absolve Newsweek of its error, but he does not turn that error into the entire issue and make more of the error per se than it merits. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. We could not agree more with your final statements:

These are the extremists, the real enemy. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

How nice it would be to be able to find this kind of editorializing in the Times routinely.

To Our Government: Listen to this Man

We have come to sit up and pay attention when Frank Gaffney speaks and to read whatever he writes.

Know thy enemyJewish World Review May 17, 2005 / 8 Iyar 5765, by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Newseek has apologized. The magazine's editor says he is sorry for printing a possibly "mistaken" article that accused U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo of throwing copies of the Koran into prisoners' toilets. Evidently, Newsweek particularly regrets the murderous anti-American rioting the erroneous report set off in various parts of the Muslim world.

Ironic though it may seem, we might just owe Newsweek a debt of gratitude for its shoddy reportage. After all, it provided a wake-up call to see how quickly and how skillfully our enemies seized upon evidence of America's purported hostility to Islam to advance their own agenda.

But who exactly is the enemy and what is their agenda? The instigators of the riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan and their counterparts elsewhere are adherents more to a political ideology — some call it Islamism, others Islamofascism — than to a faith. Using organizational and coercive tactics taken right out of the Bolsheviks' play-book, this Islamist minority seeks first to dominate the Muslim faith's non-Islamist majority, then the rest of us.

Briefly, we have to take issue with Mr. Gaffney's foregoing statement, the one in italics. Islam is Islam, no matter whether Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, or any others. Islam is a full philosophy, not just a political ideology, which is why it works so well among its adherents. It is also a "faith," and it goes by a number of synonyms such as "Islamofascism." None of that changes anything. Islam is Islam, and what you see and get is what Islam is all about. Occam's Razor applies: We need not try to parse Islam into all sorts of subdivisions. Mr. Gaffney seems to want to preserve the notion of "faith," but the facts of Islam make that untenable. With Islam, philosophy trumps faith totally.

For the Islamofascists, material like the fallacious Newsweek report is a godsend. They portray it as proof positive of undifferentiated Western hostility towards all Muslims. Armed with such evidence, the Islamists then strive to persuade their heretofore peaceable and tolerant co-religionists that there is no choice but to subscribe to the most virulently intolerant interpretations of the Koran — and to join in a divinely ordered violent struggle (jihad) intended to subjugate "infidel" nations and populations.

The implications of the Islamofascists' concerted, highly disciplined and organized and well-financed efforts are ominous. Unfortunately, this is true not only for places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Islamists have held sway forsome time. Or in Saudi Arabia, the financial and ideological well-spring of modern Islamofascism. Islamism is on the march in such disparate places as Western Europe, Bosnia, Indonesia, Latin America and Africa.

Worse yet, Islamofascists are also increasingly a force to be reckoned with in America, as well. A chilling new book by noted author and investigative reporter Paul Sperry makes clear that the Islamists are well advanced in their efforts to bring jihad to a country near you.

In Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington, [We have reviewed this book on 6th Column Against Jihad and recommend it highly]..., Sperry describes in well-documented detail the inroads being made by mostly Saudi-funded Islamist operations in the United States. Many of these operations are headquartered in what he calls the "Wahhabi corridor" — communities in Northern Virginia within a few miles of the Nation's seat of government. Evidence of their progress to date includes:

o The take-over of non-Islamist mosques throughout America. Typically, this is accomplished by way of mortgages provided on favorable terms by Saudi financial institutions. Along with the financing come Wahhabi clerics, textbooks and other materials and the transformation of religious schools into Saudi-style madrassas.

o Islamist recruitment in U.S. prisons. Sperry describes how Sister Susan VanBaalen, who administers the federal prison ministries, has naively allowed problematic organizations tied to Saudi Arabia to proselytize in unsupervised meetings with inmates.

o Muslim chaplains in the American military have been selected, trained and certified by Saudi-funded organizations founded by one of this country's most prominent and best-connected Islamists, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi is himself now in federal prison, having pled guilty to plotting to engage in terrorist acts.

o Islamist inroads are also being made into the student populations of hundreds of colleges and universities across America by chapters of the Saudis-bankrolled Muslim Student Association.

Sperry's most alarming insights, however, concern the success Islamist organizations have had in penetrating and influencing key government agencies. He documents how the FBI has employed translators of suspect loyalties without adequate background checks. He details how political correctness has replaced common sense as federal agencies like the Pentagon, State Department, law enforcement, the intelligence services and even the White House have "reached out" to groups known to be sympathetic — if not actually tied — to Islamist terrorism.

In some cases, such outreach has served to legitimate the Islamists in question. For example, Sami al-Arian, an erstwhile professor at South Florida University, is defending himself against some 40 federal charges of involvement in terrorist financing and activities on the grounds that he was included in numerous meetings with senior government officials, including George W. Bush.

At the very least, these meetings have facilitated political influence operations aimed at obscuring the distinctions between non-Islamist Muslims and the Islamofascists. Sperry suggests that they have also made possible the placement of individuals who may be affiliated with the latter in key posts inside the U.S. government.

Paul Sperry's Infiltration comes at a time when more and more Americans are recognizing the danger to our security, society and way of life posed by Islamofascists. They see TV dramas like Fox's "24" in which the enemy lives and works among us, even as they plot our destruction. They hear that, by some estimates, as many as 70,000 people described as "other than Mexicans" — many of whom are believed to be from Middle Eastern nations — slipped illegally last year across our inadequately secured borders.

Thanks to Newsweek's explosive gaffe, we now have further reason to recognize the need to isolate and destroy our Islamofascist foes — even as we seek to reach out to and empower truly non-Islamist Muslims. The latter hold the key to defeating our mutual enemy and, thereby, to avoiding the potentially apocalyptic "clash of civilizations" sought by that enemy.

Under present leadership we can just about guarantee a future "clash of civilizations." Since the Newsweek FUBAR, from the White House and the State Department, on down, suits have rushed to console Muslims and to commiserate and apologize for even the suggestion that our great nation and its representative might appear not to take the "holy Koran" as a sacred document. The Right rushed to reassure Islamia that they fully respect the "holy Koran," this "religion of peace," and all religions. As they might say on Jihad Watch, all of these suits have been stepping in the dhimmitude. As a result, we, the USA, look incredibly weak, and that only encourages Islamists. Sycophancy is taking us right off the cliff.

Otherwise, Mr. Gaffney is far, far more correct than not, and he should be taken seriously by Washington.

CAIR and the Reporting of "Hate Crimes"

CAIR is in the news again, reporting of hate crimes and harassment that aren't.

Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha at FrontPage offer scathing report.

Of twenty “anti-Muslim hate crimes” in 2004 that CAIR describes, at least six are invalid – and further research could likely find problems with the other fourteen instances.
Nor is this the first unreliable CAIR report; earlier ones were just as bad. Speaking about the 1996 CAIR report, terrorism expert Steven Emerson noted in congressional testimony that “a large proportion of the complaints have been found to be fabricated, manufactured, distorted or outside standard definitions of hate crimes.”

CAIR is part of the Wahabbi Lobby, "a group of Middle Eastern totalitarians headed by the Saudis that is engaged in a well-financed influence campaign targeting the United States and other parts of the world."

The Saudis are outspending the former Soviet Union in their worldwide influence operations, and much of that money has been spent in the United States, intelligence officials claim. At one point in the 1990s, some $1.85 billion was funneled through a single reputed Saudi front group in Northern Virginia, the SAAR Foundation, to fund Islamist activity, according to SAAR documents reviewed by Insight. Raided by federal agents for suspected terrorist money laundering and now closed, the SAAR Foundation was part of a network of Wahhabi-sponsored political front groups, mosques, charities, educational foundations, youth and student organizations, investment firms and holding companies. Many currently are under federal investigation as part of the Treasury Department's Operation Green Quest to track down alleged terrorist money.

Crying harassment, racism and now hate crimes, knowing these are "trigger concepts" in the West, CAIR is trying to replicate what has been done to Western culture in Europe, the U.K., and Australia where "hate-crime laws" have effectively stifled discussion of Islam and Muslims by non-Muslims who rightfully are concerned about the rapid Islamization of their societies.

In the United States, CAIR has published a slick report that describes how the media, Christian groups, the internet, and society in general have turned against Muslims since 9-11 and with every atrocity committed by overseas extremists, Muslims in the U.S. are being made to feel more afraid in their communities.

Before 9-11 few Americans were interested in Islam. Religion in America is not supposed to be involved in politics. The concept of the separation of church and state is a fundamental American value. Islam does not share this value.

Islam, a complete system, doesn't recognize the separation between mosque and state, mosque and commerce, mosque and the law, and so on. Concerned and aware Americans are now prompting discussion on Islam and immigration as many Muslims in America are immigrants. The uncontrolled borders and immigrants that refuse to assimilate are of great concern to many Americans.

It is true that before 9-11 most Muslims passed through society unnoticed, knowing that ignorance of Islam and Muslim culture kept Americans blissfully unaware of the danger that is moving among us. Islamophobia is a new term coined to stigmatize those that refuse to quietly accept the changes that are being made due to the presence of Muslims in any society, particularly those in the West. Protesters are labeled as irrationally fearful when they protest or even attempt to initiate discussion.

Why does CAIR label protesters as Islamophobes, bigots and racists and and lump together the insignificant with major events, calling them all hate crimes and protesters criminals? Why does CAIR not retract allegations of hate crimes that are proven to be false? Why does CAIR inflate hate crime statistics? These strategies were successful in influencing the parliaments of the Europeans, Canadians, and Australians to pass legislation that gave special protection and privileges to Muslims. In fact the U.S. Senate has been influenced to pass 'the 2000 U.S. Senate resolution inveighing against the “discrimination and harassment” suffered by the American Muslim community.' CAIR, the Wahabbi lobby group, is exerting pressure to affect more legislation in their favor.

A significant question is: Why don't journalists of the mainstream media do sufficient research and report on these matters. Another is: Why are the Wahabbi and other Muslim lobbies allowed to operate within impunity in the U.N. and in the United States to the detriment of the United States?

If the United States is not to follow the path of Europe that is seeing significant and escalating problems caused by the Islamification of European culture, these questions and problems must be addressed and rectified.

Dr. Youssef al-Goebbels?

You have to hand it to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). They wage covert jihad ceaselessly and effectively. They have utterly mastered the "big lie" technique, popularized by Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. They are superb activists and pose a serious threat to America and Americans. We had better take them seriously, and we had better use their own methods on them.

Tuesday, 17 May 2005, CAIR sent out this new propaganda campaign by emailing. Read it. Take it seriously. But, do what reason dictates, not what CAIR wants you to do. We offer some recommendations at the end of this CAIR text.

"In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the MercifulCAIR Action Alert #455

"HELP EDUCATE YOUR NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE QURAN

"CAIR urges Muslims to sponsor its "Explore the Quran" campaign(WASHINGTON, D.C., 5/17/05) - CAIR today announced that it would offer free copies of the Quran to the American public in response to the recent controversy generated by a Newsweek article alleging that Islam's holy text was flushed down a toilet.

"An item in the May 9 issue of Newsweek reported that investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed that interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash.Subsequently, the report of the Quran desecration sparked protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Gaza, where 16 people were killed and more than 100 injured, according to news reports.

"Although Newsweek has since then retracted its statement and offered an apology, other news reports show that allegations of religious desecration at Guantanamo are common among ex-prisoners and have been widely reported outside the United States. SEE: http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm.

"In response, CAIR is urging Muslims to help promote a better appreciation and understanding of their faith by donating to the "Explore the Quran" project. CAIR's "Explore the Quran" campaign encourages Muslim individuals, mosques and Islamic organizations to sponsor copies of the Quran, which will then be distributed to interested individuals nationwide.

"The $25 packages include a copy of the Quran with Yusaf Ali's English translation and guidelines on how to handle the Quran."In today's climate of heightened religious sensitivities and cultural clashes, now is the time for people of all faiths to better acquaint themselves with Islam's sacred text, the Holy Qur'an," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "The 'Explore the Qur'an' campaign allows the book to speak for itself and educate those of other faith traditions about the beautiful religion of Islam."

"Muslim communities and individuals can donate to the project by visiting CAIR's "Explore the Quran" web site at http://www.cair-net.org/explorethequran/. Those who wish to obtain a free copy of the Quran, can also submit a request on the same website or call 1-800-78-ISLAM (47526).

"ACTION REQUESTED:

1) Go http://www.cair-net.org/explorethequran/ to donate
generously to the "Explore the Quran" project.

2) Publicize CAIR's "Explore the Quran" project in your local mosques and Islamic Centers and encourage others to participate.

3) Organize "Explore the Quran" workshops at your local mosques, encouraging your neighbors to come and learn about Islam's holy text. "

My first reading of the Koran was a profound experience. It was after the events of 11 September 2001, and I felt a profound need to erase my ignorance about Islam. One of the first books I bought was N. J. Dawood's translation of the Koran, a Penguin Books paperback. My profundity came from experiencing how utterly nasty, mean, hostile, misanthropic, myscogenistic, racist, and literally blood-thirsty were the repeating loops of messages in the surahs. I quickly realized that the Koran was AND IS a manual for war. It was what I imagined a Nazi manual would have looked like if written in the late 8th century A.D.

If there ever was a book specializing in the hatred of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the Koran is it. It is anti-human being, anti-life itself, anti-individual, anti-mind, anti-reason, anti-this world, and anti-anyone not accepting it. It is a book meant to keep savages unified and focused on conquest and justifying a life-style never emulated in history since the inception of Islam until the coming of the Nazi and Communist empires, ideologies, and practices.

After you have read a few surahs and if you are religious and not Muslim, ask yourself if this "Allah," who supposedly "revealed" this Koran to Muhammad, is a vengeful god or a loving god. Look for benevolence and see it shown only to other Muslims while total horror must be inflicted on those not Muslim. You will find some "nice" sections of the Koran, so keep in mind the time-tested Islamic technique of "abrogation." This means that the nice parts, coming from the Meccan phase of Muhammad's life, have been superceded ("abrogated") by the Medinan versions, the mean-as-hell ones.

Keep in mind as you read that this book is not "holy." The Koran is a completely human creation, of a human devil and is devoid of any divinity of any kind. The Koran is the soul of every totalitarian tyrant or would-be tyrant who ever trod the earth or ever will, not a source of divine revelation and recipe for living life according to the demands of reality, including humans' proper nature. (We have articles outlining the very-human-and-not-divine principles underlying Islam on our website--see the listing on our Archives page.)

Perhaps I should also mention that the Koran is probably the worst organized and written book in human history. It won't take you long to see that if you force yourself to read it. What holds all of the disorganization together is the distillation of consummate hatred throughout.

Do read a Koran. Follow the excellent suggestion of several scholars: read more than one translation. A number of translators have tried to "sanitize" the Koran, and if you start with one of those making nice where the Koran actually says something else, you will come away thinking that this Islam is all benevolent. That is what such translations want you to think. Sampling from several translations will keep you from joining the ranks of the self-deluded.

Read several other books as well: Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not A Muslim; Robert Spencer's first two books, Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers; and use Craig Winn's Prophet of Doom as a superb reference book for its synthesis and collation of six or more translations with a cateloging of verses in several ways. These books, along with superb websites, can be found on our website Recommended page.

CAIR wants to give you Yusaf Ali's translation. Let them. It is one of several you should read. Just don't give them money in exchange.

Will Islam Rule America?

Will Islam Rule America?
This question is on the lips on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Palestinian Authority's latest sermon translated and provided by MEMRI, we learn that Islamists are determined to make it so.

A poster at JihadWatch makes an astute comment. (Scroll down to "Nicolei")

The thought of Islam ruling USA seems unreal and impossible, both to the liberals and American patriots here. However the Muslims take inspiration for the historical fact that within a short period of time, a rag tag Arab tribe conquered powerful nations of Iraq, Persia, and Christian nations of the Eastern Roman empire in the Middle East, Egypt and North Africa. I am sure before that, these well established cultures, Christian and Zoroastrian (Persia) nations felt superior to this group of brigand plunderers. To ignore the ability of Islam to vanquish the other great civilizations as a quirk in history is to doom oneself to see history repeating itself.
During the height of European colonization of the third world, Islam and Islamic culture were considered a has-been religion and culture, inferior to Christianity and the western culture that was rooted in Judeo-Christianity. This attitude was evident till the mid twentieth century. Up to that time, the European church was resting on its laurels on the great civilization it spawned. No one could have conceive in their mind that within five decades, the European Church which was so proud is, today, actually asking if it could survive, while Islam which was accommodated in a condescendingly manner in Europe is set to “conquer” Europe.

A study of how these great nations fell to Islam reveals some interesting parallels to present times.
The Arabs plundered poorly defended villages over the years causing food crisis as farmers moved to cities over a long period of time.
Many European and some American neighborhoods had seen their non-Muslim residents moving out in virtual surrender to the ever increasing Muslim population.
Arab migrants who settled in the non-Muslim nations helped and or joined the invading Islamic hordes. While homegrown Muslim terrorists in the west are considered “few” or in the minority among peaceful Muslims, in today’s age of bio-chemical and nuclear weapons, the few can bring about very large scale destruction and even destroy civilizations.

One should never for granted that the inconceivable will or could never happen. No one believed that contemporary Europe could be facing the throes of Islamification. We should be on guard and take appropriate preventative steps.

Did China Create bin Laden? Is China Using the Jihadist Movement for Its Own Purposes?

"It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious." -------Alfred North Whitehead

America foreign policy has been accused of creating the modern jihadist movement through intervention and imperialism directed against Islam. Jihad has existed since the beginning of Islam and was the main vehicle used to create an Arabized Muslim world that has engulfed and extinguished many cultures and even entire civilizations. In comparison, American "interventionism and imperialism" are recent phenomena. The same can not be said of another player that until now has been sitting on sidelines: China.

Few Americans are able to read either Arabic or Chinese. They have had to rely on "translations of a number of articles and books written by Chinese military analysts that have been wrestling with the problem of how to win a war against a seemingly invincible United States."

Al Kaltman has an interesting point of view:

...Only one of these has received attention by the mainstream American press. Chaoxian Zhan (Unrestricted War) proposed a total war approach to defeating the U.S. that was praised by China’s highest ranking officers. In their war fighting methodology, the authors (Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui) included the possible use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons...

In Unrestricted War, Osama bin Laden is the prototype for the "new terrorist." He has acquired capital, technical expertise and access to weapons by taking advantage of the "loopholes in the free economies of the West." (Bin Laden has boasted that his followers understand Western financial systems as well as they know the backs of their hands.) The ease with which his organization has been able to raise funds coupled with his skillful use of religious organizations and the media to gain recruits to his cause has guaranteed a ready supply of men and weaponry to carry out his attacks.

According to Qiao and Wang, the new terrorists are not restrained by "international law, behavioral norms and ethical principles…Because they operate secretly, are well concealed, and cause widespread damage, their attacks …seem uncommonly cruel. All of which when it is broadcast in real time by the round the clock coverage of the modern media further strengthens the effects of their terrorist acts." Defeating the new terrorists is difficult because a nation "which follows certain rules and will only use limited force to achieve limited goals" is at a distinct disadvantage against organizations "which do not observe any rules and are unafraid to fight an unlimited war using unlimited means." Terrorist groups rely on the fact that even though they are fighting a technologically and numerically superior enemy, the nature of their attacks provides insufficient justification for the enemy to make full use of its superiority. The new terrorists are like rats with very sharp teeth and excellent survival skills. Like rats, they strike quickly and then duck back into their holes. However, whereas rat-infested habitats can be destroyed, terrorists conceal themselves among civilian populations and any massive military retaliation is certain to result in the loss of innocent lives. When you kill innocent civilians you are condemned by the media, human rights groups and the nations most closely allied to you.

China, an ancient civilization that has gone through cycles of highs and lows, is on the upswing. As do the jihadists, they have the same goal: world domination. Both realize that neither could win a war of direct conflict with the United States and have done what the sages of old from many cultures have advised for conquering your opponent: "Know your enemy."
Analysts around the world are doing just that: studying and learning everything there is to know in order to conquer and subdue America. The sad reality is that many Americans are helping them to do so. Some of them presently form a network that extends throughout our systems of learning from university, where they first learned their ideology, to secondary, elementary, and even pre-kindergarten programs.

Many of the people educating America’s children today came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, and by and large believe that all war is wrong. The Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI), established in 1892, is the oldest professional association of its type in the United States. Its executive director considers the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq "profoundly sad and most unfortunate." ACEI takes the position that "a vital way to prevent war and bring about peace is to raise a generation of children who reject killing as uncivilized and as a barbaric, unproductive way to deal with human conflicts." While ACEI’s bold statement stands in sharp contrast to that of the other associations of American educators, which implicitly sanction antiwar teachings under the mantle of academic freedom of expression, the most widely held view is that "peace education" is the "natural role" for America’s teachers at every level from pre-kindergarten through graduate school.

And their disdain for the American way is having an effect on this nation's security:

And peace education seems to be working. The Army and the Marine Corps are failing to meet their recruiting goals. The head of the Army Recruiting Command, referring to enlistment projections as "not a bright picture," calls it "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer army." The Army is so desperate to sign up new recruits that it has begun offering 15-month active-duty enlistments. However, such a short enlistment will almost certainly mean reduced training time and lowered unit cohesiveness, which will inevitably result in greater numbers of U.S. casualties.

How did China, a civilization that once rejected all things Western, come to understand America's "peace movement?"

During the Korean War, Joseph Stalin told Zhou Enlai that the United States had "lost the capability to wage a large-scale war." Mao Zedong also believed that Americans "cannot stand wars." In his declaration of war against the United States, bin Laden cited Reagan’s withdrawal of the Marines from Beirut in 1983 after 241 were killed in a suicide bombing, and Clinton’s withdrawal from Somalia "when tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu" as examples of American "impotence and weakness." Qiao and Wang believe that "CNN’s broadcast of an American soldier’s exposed corpse on the streets of Mogadishu" was all that was needed to "shake American determination."

One day China may decide to "dance with the wolf" as they are rapidly building a formidable military system that includes a world-class navy.

Is China using the unwitting jihadists to distract and preoccupy the United States in the impossible-to-end "War on Terrorism" as it carves out an empire in Asia and world economic dominance? It's hard to imagine that the Islamists would collude with the Chinese, but necessity makes strange bedfellows.

The 'Unnaffiliated' Terrorist. Are America's New Immigrants Refusing to Become Americans?

On his way to a press conference June 5, 1968, Robert Kennedy, brother of President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a service corridor of the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel. The criminal, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab, was immediately apprehended. Throughout his trial and incarceration, Sirhan has asserted his innocence based on the perception that American foreign policy favored the Israelis over the Palestinians. For his role in this policy, Robert Kennedy was seen as an enemy of the Palestinian people.

The controversy surrounding the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy has once again been resurrected with the publication of Peter Evans’s book ‘Nemesis’ in which the author accuses Aristotle Onassis of having ‘funded’ the assassination through an official of the PLO. The controversy has also provoked a number of  Hollywood celebrities, including actor Robert Vaughn, to re-open the case.

For nearly 40 years conspiracy advocates have built their arguments not only around the controversies surrounding the ballistics evidence and the scene of the crime but the oft-repeated cry that the assassin had no real motive for his act. Yet there is a mountain of evidence to prove the contrary.

In 1968 the concept of Jihad was little known and continues to be poorly understood by the West. Jihad is a struggle. The struggle by Mohammed to create and propagate his concept of monotheism is the prototype of today's Jihad that is being waged against the West through any means possible. In the case of Sirhan Sirhan and Robert Kennedy, the means used was assassination.

A Christian Palestinian Arab, Sirhan was an unlikely candidate to wage Jihad against the West. Palestinian identity was thoroughly inculcated into Sirhan by his parents. Resentment against Israel and the United States for supporting what were perceived to be 'anti-Palestinian' policies seethed within them an many Arabs of all religious stripes.
"Palestinians" as we know them today are an invention of the second half of the 20th century. The British were in control at that time. The area known as Palestine was divided: part was "assigned" to Jordan and the rest was earmarked as a home for Jews. The explosive decision has rocked the world every since.

From the time he was a child Sirhan had been indoctrinated in ideologies that are at the center of his murderous act. Sirhan’s hatred had its roots in the milieu in which he was raised and the education he received. Later, as a young adult, Sirhan sought meaning to his increasingly hopeless life by embracing anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism  and Palestinian nationalism.

 As a child Sirhan  had been taught by Arab teachers who instilled in him the principles of the Palestinian cause. They promoted the cause of Palestinian nationalism and made constant references to the great Arab warrior, Saladin, who had expelled the foreign crusaders from Jerusalem. Teachers would attempt to inspire the children in their care to fight for Palestinian rights.

During Sirhan’s  trial his mother related  how the intense feelings of the Palestinians remained with the family even though they had been far removed from the conflict when they emigrated to America. She  told of how her family had lived in Jerusalem for “thousands of years” and she spoke of  the bitterness and hatred of the Israelis who had ‘taken their land’. Mary Sirhan believed her son had killed Robert Kennedy because of his Arab nationalism. She said, “What he did, he did for his country.” A friend of Sirhan’s, John Strathman, believed the young Arab was heavily influenced by his mother’s views.

The hatred and reviling of Jews and the disdain for America that is "under the control of Jews" was theme driven into him by his parents and others in his community.

Part of the reason for Sirhan Sirhan's act of violence is that he, a Palestinian Christian Arab, refused to assimilate into American culture. He is not alone. Today's America has immigrants from many groups that refuse to assimilate. The movements for making languages other English an "official language," the Sanctuary Movement for protection of illegal "entrants" into the United States, the call for multicultural-inclusion and wide-spread accommodation of religious and cultural difference rather than a repeat of past successful efforts to mold new citizens into Americans shows that there are deep divisions in America and "entrants," as immigrants now wish to be called, are not interested in becoming Americans as we know them, but are involved in a power struggle to remake America in the image of their home cultures.

Read the rest.

Oops from Newsweek

How a Fire Broke Out - Newsweek World News - MSNBC.com


A Newsweek report about alleged abuses at Guantánamo Bay triggered deadly unrest in Islamia. Says, Newsweek:

“The spark was apparently lit at a press conference held on Friday, May 6, by Imran Khan, a Pakistani cricket legend and strident critic of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Brandishing a copy of that week's NEWSWEEK (dated May 9), Khan read a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo prison had placed the Qur'an on toilet seats and even flushed one. "This is what the U.S. is doing," exclaimed Khan, "desecrating the Qur'an." His remarks, as well as the outraged comments of Muslim clerics and Pakistani government officials, were picked up on local radio and played throughout neighboring Afghanistan. Radical Islamic foes of the U.S.-friendly regime of Hamid Karzai quickly exploited local discontent with a poor economy and the continued presence of U.S. forces, and riots began breaking out last week.”

The Pentagon says it has found no credible evidence to support the Newsweek claims. How did Newsweek get its facts wrong, it asks itself? And how did the story feed into serious international unrest?:

Given all that has been reported about the treatment of detainees,…

the reports of Qur'an desecration seemed shocking but not incredible. But to Muslims, defacing the Holy Book is especially heinous. "We can understand torturing prisoners, no matter how repulsive," says computer teacher Muhammad Archad, interviewed last week by NEWSWEEK in Peshawar, Pakistan, where one of last week's protests took place. "But insulting the Qur'an is like deliberately torturing all Muslims. This we cannot tolerate."

Although hardly the first to report such allegations,

“the NEWSWEEK report arrived at a particularly delicate moment in Afghan politics. Opponents of the Karzai government, including remnants of the deposed Taliban regime, have been looking for ways to exploit public discontent. The Afghan economy is weak, and the government (pressed by the United States) has alienated farmers by trying to eradicate their poppy crops, used to make heroin in the global drug trade. Afghan men are sometimes rounded up during ongoing U.S. military operations, and innocents can sit in jail for months. When they are released, many complain of abuse. President Karzai is still largely respected, but many Afghans regard him as too dependent on and too obsequious to the United States. With Karzai scheduled to come to Washington next week, this is a good time for his enemies to make trouble.” Extremist agitators are at least partly to blame, but obviously the reports of Qur'anic desecration touch a particular nerve in the Islamic world.

After the rioting began last week, the Pentagon attempted to determine the veracity of the NEWSWEEK story.

Told of what the NEWSWEEK source [anonymous Pentagon leak source for Newsweek who retracted once confronted] said, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?" (emphasis mine)

Newsweek original article author, Michael Isikoff, telephone fishing for "credible sources" since his "Pentagon source" lost his credibility, found other allegations of Koranic “desecration” from Muslim detainees, all of which are cited in this current article. But, to put some reality into this Newsweek-erie,

A U.S. military spokesman, Army Col. Brad Blackner, dismissed the claims as unbelievable. "If you read the Al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," he said. (emphasis mine)

Publications like Newsweek stumble all over themselves to find reasons to castigate the United States regarding its war with Islam. Abu Ghraib has been blown into a gargantuan melodrama, all by the Left. In all of these introspective, soul-searching, hand-wringings that our Left press engage in, they conspicuously omit the one factor that could save them from embarrassing themselves.

That something is “context.” Objective journalists have it; most journalists do not. “Context” is a great unspoken part of the famed “who-what-when-why-how” five parts of journalism. All five of these parts rest—or should rest—on the bedrock of CONTEXT. Context ties the story to the relevant reality factors. These include unintended consequences and moral factors about objectivity and whom the story will affect, not just the accuracy of the facts cited.

Far too many journalists today regard themselves as objective, contextual, and even moral. Their slant, bias, and prejudice belie their own self-heaped-on self-regard.

To call everything they disagree with as something along the lines of “right wing propaganda” closes their minds just as surely as militant, ultra-right wing, reconstruction theology closes the minds of those who practice that flavor of Christianity. The Left try hard to portray all on the Right as like these Christian Reconstructionists. As for itself, the Left carry a sense of moral superiority about their perspectives, and this sense of moral superiority insulates them from critical self-examination. Such self-examination would take them off their pedestals quickly.

For example, Abu Ghraib, to the journalists of the Left, is worse than: The events of 11 September 2001; Khobar Towers; USS Cole; African Embassy bombings; the Trade Towers attempt of 1993; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; the British burning the Library of Congress in the War of 1812 ad infinitum, taken all together to the 10th power. Talk about dropping context!

The nature of Islam, the jihadic behavior of Muslims, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and so on, are also elements of dropped context, because they are ignored by so many journalists.

A little reading, with open minds, and these journalists would learn what an evil philosophy Islam really is. They would learn its evil history, and that its past is truly its prologue, if given a chance. They MIGHT even learn that Islam is as evil as Nazism ever was, for much the same reasons. Islam skates by solely because it masquerades as a religion, which utterly blinds so many on the Right, while its anti-Americanism delights so many on the Left. Journalists might learn how bogus Islam is, that it is based on lies: (1.) On the existence of a non-existent super-being called “Allah,” for which no evidence whatsoever exists now or at any time in the past. (2.) There being no Allah, there can be nothing divine about this book called the Koran or its Hitler-like brigand masquerading as Allah’s personally selected “prophet.” (3.) There being no Allah, except in the wishes, if not the delusions, of its believers, the contents of the Koran can have no divine validity. A billion people who BELIEVE in the abscence of facts do not make something so.

A little reading and these journalists would discover how Islam is a philosophy for human enslavement, not personal improvement. Muslims like it because Islam gives all the power to them. A little reading, and journalists would find that giving the benefit of the doubt to Islamists is like letting cancer grow inside of you because it is "living tissue and has rights also." Journalists could easily discover the truth about Islam, and stop transmitting the propaganda. They would easily learn that Islam--all of Islam, in terms of fundamentals--is profoundly unAmerican, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Declaration of Independence, anti-rights, anti-life, anti-freedom, among its characteristics. Journalists could stop pretending not to see the national and international Muslim statements about wanting to destroy America as we know it, to turn America into a Dark Ages totalitarian theocracy run by shari'a, the "legal" code of Islam. They would realize easily that only enough Americans would be kept alive in a state of dhimmitude to pay the jizya, or head tax, so that the Muslims would not have to lift any fingers and break any sweats to support themselves. If these characteristics do not scream "ENEMY" to these journalists, then they ought to convert to Islam.

Context might have postponed this article from Newsweek because the journalists would have recognized just how loony so many Muslims are and how opportunistic opponents of the USA, Afghan freedom, Musharef, etc., really are. The people at Newsweek could surely have imagined how inflammatory their article would be. Enemies look for every advantage against us.

Even if “desecration” of the Koran has occurred, so what? If it unglues our adversaries, pour pig feces on piles of Korans. Play this weakness of our enemies to our fullest advantage, every single time. And don’t fall for “desecration” being real or of any value, except what we want to make of it. Playing tough with these limbic system dominated humans is OK. Why? We are at war. And, we are at war with Islam. Only a few of us are willing to acknowledge it, but Islam is what is warring against us.

Bigger than PSYOPS in this war should be EPISTEMOLOGY-OPS. Ideally the two should be combined into “psycho-epistemology-ops.” The object is to defeat the enemy and take away the enemy’s capability and will to fight us. That is context. If we can screw with their minds, their emotions, and their entire internal mental systems, we just hasten the end.

What we do not need is for American Lefties out LOOKING FOR DIRT against America to be feeding the enemy’s psy-ops. That is context also.

Newsweek is scrambling to put a spin on its utter screw-up, of publishing dubious “data” internationally to make us look bad so that our enemies can use Newsweek against US. Well, you can fall down face first into a hot, steaming cow-pie and get up with a smile on your face, but the face you save will still be covered with cow s___.

Muslim Brotherhood - of Terrorists

Members of the Bush Administration, with their soft underbellies turned to currying acceptance from Muslims, enter one of the most dangerous periods of this war. Seeking "brotherhood" with the Muslim Brotherhood could not be more foolish or dangerous to you, to me, and to ours. Apparently not enough people know the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood. Here is a recent article from Front Page Magazine which gives the straight skinny:

Muslim Brotherhood - of Terrorists

By Steven StalinskyFrontPageMagazine.com

May 10, 2005

In recent months there have been multiple reports in Washington that the U.S. may begin a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood – the world's most prominent Islamist organization. As the U.S. News & World Report of April 25 reported, U.S. intelligence officials have been meeting with members of the Brotherhood and one unidentified source called them, “probably more a part of the solution than a part of the problem.” Some Washington think tanks have also begun to float this in the nation's capital.

It should be noted that the philosophy of the Brotherhood – which has inspired the likes of Al-Qaeda and Hamas (which defines itself as the groups' Palestinian branch) today is led by many telegraphic spokesman who often appear on Arab TV stations in favor of terrorist attacks. For example, Dr. Abd Al-Muni'm Abu Al-Futuh, from the General Guidance Council of the Muslim Brotherhood appeared on al-Jazeera TV on April 25, 2004, where he stated:

We, as Muslim Brotherhood and as the world leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, support the armed resistance in Iraq against the American occupier, one hundred percent. I personally, as all members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and around the world, wish to carry weapons against the American occupation…This is a matter of religion, not politics. When a Muslim land is occupied, Jihad becomes an individual duty….

Deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mahmoud Al-Sayyid Ahmad Al-Habib, made a similar appearance on Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV, on April 8, 2004:

The truth is that the resistance, whether in Iraq or in Palestine… defends the nation's honor…Therefore, the issue…martyrdom (i.e. suicide) operations carried out by boys and girls, and also the operations carried out by the Iraqi resistance – these redeem self-confidence and hope, because a nation that does not excel at the industry of death does not deserve life.

Last year Muhamad Madi Othman 'Akef took over as the Brotherhood's “supreme guide.” At the time he gave a series of interviews laying out the ideology of his group. He explained it was “a religious duty” to attack American and Israeli soldiers and speaking to the Egyptian weekly Al-Arabi on January 18, 2004, he denied being in dialogue with the U.S., which he dubbed“Satan.”

Discussing the coming collapse of America, 'Akef gave an interview to the Egyptian weekly Nahdhat Misr on January 21, 2004: “The matter of America's attempt to take over the world is not new…I expect America to collapse soon. The elements of this collapse in America [already] exist, and Allah is the Savior.”

According to the Muslim Brotherhood website last year 'Akef discussed the coming conversion of Europe and America to Islam: “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission. The Europeans and the Americans will come into the bosom of Islam out of conviction.”

Having explained the pro-jihad terrorist ideology of the Brotherhood, in this limited space, it is difficult to understand how anyone in the U.S. would consider a dialogue with the group. In fact this has infuriated many in the Middle East including some of the most prominent pro-American reformists who the U.S. should be listening to. For example, Kuwaiti intellectual Ahmad Baghdadi wrote a series of articles in January 2005 in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa and Egyptian weekly Akhbar Al-Yaum calling for outlawing and disbanding the Brotherhood.

Calling the group a “terrorist organization” he questioned the “U.S.'s silence regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the fact that [this organization] supports terrorism, whether by supporting Bin Laden … or by publishing terrorist fatwa's…calling to destroy democracy….”

Baghdadi warned the U.S. not to believe the Brotherhood and the possibility it could moderate, claiming:

The policy of bribing religious organizations is a total failure, since these religious organizations are like snakes. You can never know when and where they will bite you. Thus, the best policy for dealing with [these] snakes is to kill them right off…Reliance on these organizations means the destruction not only of democracy, but also of the future,e which the U.S. aspires to achieve through its “Greater Middle East” program. Staying silent in the face of the Muslim Brotherhood's…activities [only] multiplies its strength and reach. The day will come when the only solution for this will be confrontation, and it is better that this be now and not later.

It should be noted that Baghdadi's ongoing criticism of Islamists has led him to seek political asylum in the West.

Why Was This Airplane Not Shot Down?

Lancaster Online.com: News : Wayward pilots escape charges but not spotlight, By Ad Crable And John M. Spidaliere, Lancaster New Era, Published: May 12, 2005 1:21 PM EST

LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - Millions of Washington, D.C., residents felt that 9/11 chill in the pit of their collective stomach again. What were Hayden “Jim” Sheaffer Jr. and Troy D. Martin thinking? Apparently lost, the two Lancaster County men in an aging single-engine Cessna came within seconds of being shot out of the sky Wednesday as their small plane wandered within 3 miles of the White House, Supreme Court and Capitol over lunchtime.


“They were navigating by sight and were lost,” Kevin Madden, a Justice Department spokesman, said afterward. The incident stumped — and angered some local pilots who couldn’t believe well-liked pilot Sheaffer would knowingly enter restricted air space, which, since September 11, 2001, has been in place for 30 miles around D.C. They did not have a global positioning system device on the plane. Another Smoketown pilot, John Otto, 70, of Lancaster, said there really isn’t an excuse in the post-9/11 world for flying without GPS and not knowing you don’t fly over the nation’s capital.

Yes, shooting down these boobs and their flying tv dinner tray would have been harsh. It would not have been extreme, and the vaunted restraint was not admirable. The plane got within 90 seconds of the major governmental buildings in DC. What is the point of having a no-fly zone of restriction to protect those working in governmental buildings unless enforcement of DO NOT FLY HERE is enforced?

From the article, these people should have known better. They flew unprepared for the modern world by using Lindbergh-era technology. The article suggests they were a blend of the inexperienced and the incompetent, youth lead by someone seasoned. Their deaths would have been sad, indeed--killing them and disintegrating their rattle-trap of an airplane is not the point.

The point is: You either take Homeland Security seriously, or you advertise to the world that you are vulnerable. Had the US government already shot down a few violators, the proper message would have been out there, loud and clear--unmistakeable symbolism.

News reports say there are some 150+ incidents a year. Had some been shot down already, the problem would have long ago disappeared overnight. Second, the world would clearly see our resolve that our own Homeland Security has a deadly meaning for those who would do us harm because we take it seriously.

In so many ways, we seem to be sliding back to 10 September 2001.

Unbelievable Update to Today's Blog: "Can Your Blood Pressure Take This?"

In the third hour of the Tony Snow Radio Talk Show this morning, Mr. Snow reported that the Public Affairs department of the Border Patrol, in response to the request from his program producer to come on the show to respond to today's Washington Times story, said the following. I cannot quote, but I just heard it, so it is fresh. They said that they would not comment on the story on his radio program now or at any time in the future; in fact, they will not comment at all about the story.

Your government is at work on your behalf, as you can see. Of all the possible responses, this is the dumbest and tends to give greater credence to the newspaper report. Don't forget that C.Y.A. stands for "cover your a__."

Check out today's blog for the full story.

Can Your Blood Pressure Take This?

Once formed, bureaucracies exists primarily to sustain and serve themselves at the expense of those who are supposedly to benefit from the bureaucracy in the first place. That is why all existing bureaucracies and all new ones must have expiration limits to their existences and their regulatory powers. This story shows how the managerial bureaucrats in the Border Patrol have lost sight of the objective which caused them to be formed in the first place.

Typically, they are in the CYA mode (cover your a__) regarding the efficacy of the Minute Men.

Minute Men really just augmented the Border Patrol, but they refused artificial constraints such as political correctness. They had a clear mission and carried it out to the letter. From the President to the lowest bureaucrats, the Minute Men have been resented. WHY? Because they worked so well at their mission.

The Border Patrol managers are not concerned with protecting America. No, no, not as their main job. They are concerned with protecting their worthless derriers. And, worst of all, protecting their worthless butts means far more to them than protecting the territorial sovereignty of America.

I first heard this story on Fox and Friends this morning. Appreciative Border Patrol agents have been letting leak out what their managers have been doing to sustain Border Patrol mediocrity. Then, sure enough, the Washington Times carries the story. To follow are excerpts from their report.

Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - May 13, 2005


Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 13, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.

More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.

"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."

Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.

Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar at the agency's Washington headquarters called the accusations "outright wrong," saying that supervisors at the Naco station had not blocked agents from making arrests and that the station's 350 agents were being "supported in carrying out" their duties.

"Border Patrol agents are the front line of defense against terrorism," Chief Aguilar said, adding that the 11,000 agents nationwide are "meeting that challenge, head-on ... as daunting a task as that may sound."

The chief -- a former head of the agency's Tucson sector, which includes the Naco station -- said that with the world watching the Arizona border because of the Minuteman Project, agents in Naco "demonstrated flexibility and resilience in carrying out their critical homeland security duties and responsibilities."

But Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, yesterday said "credible sources" within the Border Patrol also had told him of the decision by Naco supervisors to keep new arrests to a minimum, saying he was angry but not surprised. "It's like telling a cop to stand by and watch burglars loot a store but don't arrest any of them," he said. "This is another example of decisions being made at the highest levels of the Border Patrol that are hurting morale and helping to rot the agency from within.

Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, blamed the Bush administration for setting an immigration enforcement tone that suggests to those enforcing the law that he is not serious about secure borders. "We need to get the president to come to grips with the seriousness of the problem," he said. "I know he doesn't like to utter the words, 'I was wrong,' but if we have another incident like September 11 by people who came through our borders without permission, I hope he doesn't have to say 'I'm sorry.' "

Several field agents credited the volunteers with cutting the flow of illegal aliens in the targeted Naco area, saying the number of apprehended illegals dropped from an average of 500 a day to less than 15 a day. More than 850 volunteers, in a protest of the lax immigration enforcement policies of the White House and Congress, sought to reduce the flow of illegal aliens along a popular immigration corridor on the Arizona-Mexico border near Naco by reporting illegals to the Border Patrol as they crossed into the United States. Their goal was to show that increased manpower on the border would effectively deter illegal immigration. Organizers said the protest resulted in Border Patrol arrests of 349 illegal aliens.

Area residents, in a half-page ad in the Sunday edition of the Sierra Vista Herald, told the volunteers: "Thanks for doing what our government won't -- close the border to illegal aliens. It was the quietest month we've had in many years ... You made us feel safe because the border was closed." (Emphases mine)

This is an issue for which Americans must really take up their pitchforks. The illegals and terrorists flow freely across the border because of the unseriousness of the managers of the Border Patrol, who want to do nothing but whine how they "couldn't help it." We citizens can make this right, if we keep our eyes on the prize.

The Koran in the Toilet Caper

1. The Event (per BBC):

BBC NEWS South Asia Riots over US Koran 'desecration'. At least four people have been killed and many injured after police opened fire to break up an anti-US protest in eastern Afghanistan, officials say. Hundreds of students rioted in the city of Jalalabad over reports interrogators at America's Guantanamo Bay prison had placed copies of the Koran on toilets. The city is now said to be calm after widespread damage to property. All but essential UN staff are being withdrawn.

2. The Chicken-Shit Response (per BBC):

The US authorities have said they are investigating the Koran allegations."Obviously the destruction of any kind of holy book... is something that is reprehensible and not in keeping with US policies and practices," state department spokesman Tom Casey said.

3. The Existential Response and Event in situ (per BBC)

Afghan National Army soldiers were deployed on the streets of Jalalabad, which lies 130km (80 miles) east of Kabul and is close to the Pakistani border, to try to bring order. A US military spokesman said US units were not deployed.

The Afghan interior ministry says four people were killed, and more than 70 injured. "Police opened fire in the air to control the mob, and some people were injured," Jalalabad police chief, Abdul Rehman, told the AFP news agency. Two United Nations guest houses were attacked, as were shops and government buildings, and the offices of two international aid groups were destroyed. Many foreign aid agency personnel are being pulled out too. Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan, Rustam Shah Mohmand, told the BBC the Pakistani consul's house had also been burned down and two cars torched. The protesters chanted "Death to America" and smashed car windows and damaged shops.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4535491.stm

Published: 2005/05/11 14:16:39 GMT

© BBC MMV

4. CAIR's response as of 11 May 2005 from their mass emailing:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful


ACTION ALERT #445


CAIR SEEKS PROBE OF GITMO QURAN 'DESECRATION'
Four die in Afghan protests after Quran flushed down toilet


(WASHINGTON, D.C., 5/11/05) - CAIR is urging American Muslims and other people of conscience to contact the White House in support of a public investigation into reports that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay flushed a Quran down a toilet.

At least four people were killed today in Afghanistan during protests over the alleged desecration. SEE: "Afghan Protest Over Quran Turns Deadly," http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=748366

The allegation was first reported in the May 9 issue of Newsweek magazine. The magazine said: "Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash." SEE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/

In its statement, CAIR said:

"The allegations, if true, can only serve to fuel anti-American sentiment. Vague assurances of a military investigation are insufficient to keep this incident from being used to further harm relations with the Muslim world. We urge President Bush to initiate an open probe of the incident, make public its findings and punish those responsible."

The twin phenomena of Islamophobia and anti-Americanism will be addressed at a CAIR conference to be held this weekend in Washington, D.C. SEE: http://www.cair-net.org/2005conference/

CAIR recently launched a website designed to help end the use and instigation of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID) by American personnel worldwide.

To learn more about CAIR's anti-torture campaign, go to: http://www.cair-net.org/antitorture/

ACTION REQUESTED: (As always, be POLITE and RESPECTFUL.)

Contact the White House:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

TEL: 202-456-1111
FAX: 202-456-2461

5. A Response from a SIXTH COLUMN reader (lightly edited):

I was just reading a story of rioting in Afghanistan. Somehow the residents learned that the military questioners at GTMO were taking copies of the Qur'an and placing "the sacred book" on the toilet, to rattle some of the detainees. To me this means using creative techniques to make prisoners comply or to get info. But some asshole at the State Dept., a "spokesman, " Tom Casey stated, "If this is true, it is reprehensible...[T]o do this to any holy book is wrong." Where in the hell did they get this guy? "Reprehensible?" When we have troops dying in Iraq, and Afghanistan? While we have sleeper cells in this country waiting for orders? Or what about the not-so-called sleeper cells like CAIR, drumming up support for the supposed increase in attacks on "innocent" Muslims here in the U.S.? CAIR has actually set up so-called "hate-crimes against Muslims." In one case a store owner, "a Muslim," blamed anti-Muslims for burning down his store; this was reported all over the country by CAIR. But fire investigators learned that the "poor discriminated Muslim" actually set fire to his own building! Did CAIR report their error? Hell no! And no one called them to the mat for this. I'm getting sick and tired of political correctness! Not one person in the State Dept. has any balls! Excuse me but this crap is really getting me pissed! All of those morons walking around willy-nilly, pretending, or worse, not knowing that there is no such thing as Muslim terrorists!--they are just Muslims following the dictates of their leader, the rapist, child-molester, pillager, human excrement. Oh, but the White House keeps up its b.s.: "These are just a few extremists that don't represent the followers of a 'peaceful religion." President Bush has lost his mind! I have always been a life-long conservative, so I couldn't possibly have voted for Kerry. Just think, if Bush doesn't have a f---ing clue, what could Kerry have done? My friends, we are between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and our leaders don't have a clue! Somewhere in time, before it is too late, we will be faced with Islamists as federal judges, senators, city councilmen, getting more and more power, while we just stand by and watch our country turn into an Islamic theocracy. What will it take America? What will it take before you wake-up and realize that our very existence is at stake? Muslims are getting invited to the White House to dine with the President, and some of these people are on the terror list! What will it take?

6. Only our reader's words do not provoke desire for emesis:

So, here it is again, once more: Islam is a fake religion. There is no Allah. The Koran is not divine; it was made up whole cloth by Muhammad from existing Christian and Jewish elements. The Koran is not the "word of Allah." NO Allah MEANS no divinity, means no revealed words (Koran), and means no Allah-declared "prophet" called Muhammad. Islam is invalid at its roots, at its basics. Only in the minds of those foolish enough to believe in Allah, the Koran, and Islam is any of this stuff "real and valid," much like delusions and hallucinations being "real and valid." If you do not believe me, read.

Michael Ledeen, Re: Iran: "We're back at September 10"

If by chance you are not familiar with investigative writer Michael Ledeen, then use this article of his to make your acquaintance. He is one of our most knowledgeable writers about the social and political situation inside Iran and involving Iran. The real fright comes less from what he has to write than the fact that the relevant members of our government are not heeding what he has to present. As a result, as Mr. Ledeen points out, our government is putting us back to 10 September 2001 in our readiness against Iran. You and I will be forced to pay a horrible price for this.

Mr. Ledeen's article is too long to reprint fully here, but some tidbits excerpted should catch your attention and, hopefully, encourage you to read his entire article. (All emphases are mine)

Michael Ledeen, Jewish World Review May 5, 2005 / 26 Nisan, 5765, The Hand of the Mullahs

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2004. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals.

As Coalition fighters repeatedly report, Iran's claw marks — often side by side with the Syrians' and the Saudis' — are all over innumerable terrorist strikes, from Fallujah and Hilla to Baghdad and Mosul in Iraq, and, with the melting snows, across Afghanistan as well. It is not hard to get this story; I have abundant first-hand testimony to these facts from military and civilian sources in both countries. Any serious news organization could get it, but none seems to want it.

The State Department knows it, and says so in its own peculiar convoluted way... Had the State Department been interested in expanding its context [in a recent statement about Iran] ever so slightly, it could have added, "and its support for the terrorists is coordinated with the Syrians." A few months ago, American forces in Iraq captured photographs and documents about a meeting in Syria between Iraqi terrorists and Syrian and Iranian intelligence officials. Similar information was found in Fallujah.

T]his raises some very embarrassing questions for President Bush and his top strategists. We know this is going on, yet we are fighting a purely defensive war in Iraq alone. The Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis have all heard the president say he wants an end to tyranny in the Middle East, because he understands the passionate embrace between the tyrants and the terrorists. The Iranian, Syrian and Saudi terror masters know that those words are aimed at their rule, and they are rightly afraid, afraid that Bush's vision will inspire their own people to become the gravediggers of the old regimes.

...[F]rom the standpoint of the terror masters, the ultimate threat — freedom — is growing stronger, just as the president wishes, and freedom is spreading even though, despite his constant promises to support democratic revolution, he is doing virtually nothing to help it. He, along with Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld, has not rallied to the side of the Iranian people, even though the Iranians have abundantly demonstrated their desire to be rid of the mullahs....[N]o one in the American Government spoke a word of support for the demonstrators, and no one has yet endorsed the one thing that unites the overwhelming majority of Iranians, whatever their political proclivities: a national referendum on the legitimacy of the regime itself. If there were a national ballot on the single question — Do you want an Islamic republic? — the regime would pass into history overnight. But there is silence in official Washington.

All of this [the myriad details Mr. Ledeen presents in this article] is public information, yet we do not hear it from our leaders, and the silence in Washington must be terribly discouraging to the Iranian people. It is long past time for the president to show that he is serious about winning the war against terror; it can't be done by speeches alone, and it doesn't require armed invasion. But it does require action: political action to support and aid the forces of democratic revolution in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

We dawdle at our peril, and yet we dawdle.


To continue to say "faster, please" is like spitting into the wind. We're back at September 10, waiting for our enemies to rouse us from our contented torpor.

The Kerry approach to such problems was to talk them incessantly until the Iranians attacked us, then respond. Bush said he must be proactive on such matters. Where, then, does the actual behavior of the Bush Administration toward Iran differ from what Kerry believes and proposes?

You STILL CAN'T Make a Silk Purse Out of a Sow's Ear

Here is a small, totally under-reported story:

Three out of four Iraqis say Islam should be source of law

Three out of four Iraqis believe Islam should be the main or only source of law and legislation in their country, according to a poll of 2,700 Iraqis.

While just over 74 percent thought Islam should be the sole or main source of legislation, just 2 percent said religion should play no role in law-making, a poll showed Friday.

The findings come as parliament prepares to draft a new constitution, which will notably focus on the role of Islam, Iraq's official religion, in society.

The poll was based on some 2,705 interviews conducted from April 11 to April 20 by an Iraqi firm employed by the conservative US International Republican Institute.

Predominantly Sunni provinces of Anbar and Ninevah, where insurgents are believed to be concentrated, and Kurdish Dohuk were excluded from the poll. Respondents were drawn from Iraq's 15 other provinces.

In findings similar to a previous poll done by the democracy group, 48 percent of Iraqis continue to believe religion "has a special role to play in government", while 46 percent believe religion and government "should respect one another."

(emphasis mine)

This article tells us how difficult it will be to achieve any government based on individual rights in Iraq. It says that Iraqis will vote themselves into an Islamic state with a sharia constitution. When this happens, our every instance of progress will disappear into a void. Every drop of blood and every dollar of treasure will have been in vain.

Our government has gone forth to allow Iraq to choose its own government. Yes, we have said that we do not want an Islamic government, and we do want a democratic republic. But, in the final analysis, we will let them choose what they want for themselves.

This poll says they will go Islamic.

If they choose Islam, what will we have accomplished overall in Iraq? The tyranny of Saddam differs from the tyranny of Islam, how?

Had we the moral clarity and certainty going into Iraq if we actually really thought this was the best place to start cleaning up the Middle East, we would have forced a representative government on Iraqis, as we did to Japan. It is in the rational self-interest of America that they have a secular government, and we should be proudly selfish enough to make sure that happens. No, they might not keep it, but it would allow us to get the hell out of Iraq with a crystal clear ending.

Whatever people may regard as tragic about our entry into Iraq, they simply have not yet seen the real tragedy. An Islamic state of Iraq will make everything we have done and spent, every horrible cost we have experienced, be utterly for naught. If Iraq goes Islamic in government, it will fulfill the deep longings and dreams of America's conservatives. These conservatives chronically bellyache about the separation of state and religion in America. Islam, then, should be their ideal. Let them watch what happens when state and religion re-fuse.

Ann Coulter Versus Postmodernism

Referring to what has been happening lately to Ann Coulter at talks on college campuses, Sean Hannity said on his radio show 5 May, “Something is happening.” He was referring to cultural changes affecting discourse between those of diverging perspectives, and he conveyed the rights' typical sense of bewilderment about these matters. On the television program, Hannity and Colmes, 4 May, Ann Coulter offered an explanation, but she, too, conveyed a sense of bewilderment:

"They're buffeted along by a liberal media, they have liberal public schoolteachers, they go to college, they have liberal professors," Coulter said. “They don't know how to argue, they can't put together a logical thought. ... Liberals – they throw food, they curse."

She was correct as far as she went.

Rush Limbaugh came closer to understanding:

"This was nothing more than a bunch of liberals that can't argue with her, that can't defeat her, can't pretend to play along with her in the arena of ideas. It's a typical liberal tactic – shut it down. If you don't agree with it, you don't want to hear it. And you don't want to hear it, you make sure somebody doesn't say it. And if somebody is gonna come say it, then you come make 'em pay a price for saying it. ... “Isn't it interesting the left fears words more than anything else? They fear words, they fear the U.S. military. Here you have Saddam Hussein – 300,000 to a million people dead and buried in mass graves, rape rooms, torture – that doesn't bother them at all. But what we say about cleaning that situation up scares the ever-living daylights out of them. ... They know they're losing. They know they're in the minority." [Protesters rip 'racist, sexist, anti-gay, right-wing bigot', World Net Daily, 5 May 2005]

Here are the salient details of the incident, as reported in the same article:

• “A University of Texas student [sophomore Ajai Raj] was arrested last night amid F-word-laced heckling and shouting during a speech on campus by WorldNetDaily columnist Ann Coulter, prompting discussion on talk radio across America today.”

• “The booing began early into Coulter's speech, the Daily Texan said, when she told a joke aimed at abortion advocates: "I wonder why those 'I Heart Partial-Birth Abortion' T-shirts aren't selling better." During the question-and-answer session, the booing and heckling became so overwhelming that Coulter said she would have to leave unless the hecklers were silenced.”

• “The noise died down until Coulter addressed the issue of same-sex marriage, which led to the arrest of Raj. After affirming she believed marriage is between a man and a woman, Raj asked approached the microphone to ask a question. "You say that you believe in the sanctity of marriage," the student said. "How do you feel about marriages where the man does nothing but ---- his wife up the ---?" According to the police report, he then ran back toward his seat, making a motion with his hand "simulating masturbation." The campus police hauled him off amid the protests of the very small student Leftist claque.


Another bit of relevant information comes from another, related, World Net Daily article of 5 May 2005 [Heckler wrote for college paper, Ann rips liberals who throw food, curse].

• The University of Texas student arrested after asking an obscenity-filled question of WorldNetDaily columnist Ann Coulter is a former reporter for the college's newspaper, and is said to be defending his actions in more graphic language…."He worked for us for about two weeks, then he just stopped showing up," Robert Inks, managing editor of the Daily Texan, told WND. "He was not acting on behalf of the newspaper [at the Coulter speech]. The guy was speaking completely on his own."

• Ajai Raj, 19, a sophomore whose major is English at the Austin campus, was taken into custody and charged with disorderly conduct after his vulgar question and lewd hand gestures following a speech by the conservative pundit Tuesday night.

• An open letter from Raj posted on DemocratsUnderground.com suggests no remorse for his actions.

I have no regrets. Was I jackass? Yes. Oh, Christ, yes. But here's the question people ought to ask themselves. Did I deserve to be arrested? Did the cops need to rough me up for saying bad words at what was at least masquerading as an open dialogue? Do the people of Texas – hell, of America – feel that "potty mouth" belongs on the list of punishable crimes along with "aggravated assault" and "armed robbery"? ...

Ms. Coulter, Mr. Hannity, and Mr. Limbaugh are knocking on the door of understanding. What they describe is reasonably correct, but none of the description explains any of it. That is what is bewildering them.

What explains what is happening on campuses and those who act like this Ajai Raj is postmodernism. Ann is so right when she attributes the uncouth behaviors to these young adults who “…have liberal public schoolteachers, they go to college, they have liberal professors…” People like this Raj are the intellectual sons and daughters of these liberal professors and are the full embodiment of the ideas broadcast by these professors.

In a few words, why do they not argue or attempt reasonable-appearing discourse? Postmodernism teaches them that ideas have no credence; thought is worthless and totally subjective; that all of life is politics, and the main task of people is to form pressure groups and acquire political power. Political power is all that counts, according to postmodernism. And, congruent with this notion, postmodernists put language into a very special category: WORDS ARE WEAPONS.

To illustrate: As the campus police ejected Raj, his soul-mates were gathering written statements from all who would give them for future "legal use," unspecified. The group doing this fits this entire scenario just perfectly. It was the Austin People's Legal Collective, a group of non-lawyer activists. Their mission statement on their website includes:

We support and will provide materials and trainings for action legal teams during mass political actions. APLC aims to plug into and help create a sustainable radical network that advocates for root changes in society by challenging the oppressive legal system. APLC aims to be a dynamic group centered upon non-hierachical power-sharing and consensus process. We are committed to the fight against global capitalism as well as, but not limited to, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, militarism and imperialism. (emphasis mine)

It's like something out of a novel, something hilarious in a perverse sort of way.


Raj asked a “vulgar question” and followed on with “lewd hand gestures.” Why did he do this, from his perspective? In his own words, he said, “Did the cops need to rough me up for saying bad words at what was at least masquerading as an open dialogue? Do the people of Texas – hell, of America – feel that "potty mouth" belongs on the list of punishable crimes along with "aggravated assault" and "armed robbery"?” These are the words of a mind-numbed robot child of the postmodern Left who gladly takes up words to war with; these are his words of war.

Look at these descriptors of the offending student: “a sophomore whose major is English at the Austin campus.” Nothing here is accidental. As a sophomore, he is caught in the maturity-immaturity abyss between the teen years and adulthood, developmentally speaking. That he is an English major should surprise no one. Postmodernism infests the liberal arts and humanities departments of America’s colleges and universities. Yes, postmodern adherents may be found in the sciences and other factual data professions, but they are far less numerous because those departments are still under some sway of Enlightenment ideas. And, the University of Texas, particularly at the Austin Campus, is just about as LEFT as is metaphysically possible. Raj's approach to his job on the student newspaper is typically negligent: he lives on feelings and the impulses of the moment, much as a grasshopper does; he regards himself as too superior, because of his superior feelings, to be held down to some capitalism influenced scheduling and responsibilities.

Welcome to the "American Weimar culture" [see Exposing America's Fifth Column: Nazism, Communism, Islam (Parts 1 and 2), also includes review of Ominous Parallels], brought to you by postmodernism [see Deconstructing the Fifth Column Left and Review: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, and see end note to this article].

By “Weimar culture,” I refer to the era of the German government from the end of World War One to the ascension of Hitler; the post-war German government was located in the city of Weimar. This period saw the emergence of a culture in Germany devoted to unreason, of irrationality still staggering even to our minds, numbed by our own current culture in America. It was the climax of the war on the Enlightenment which Germany originated with Immanuel Kant and his successors, and which prepared the German culture and the minds of Germans to accept Hitler as good and right. What characterized this war was the incessant assault on the concept of REASON, all its antecedents, and all of the subsequent concepts which depend on the validity of reason. This war spanned from the last quarter of the 18th century through Hitler and is still going on today. Only, today it's headquarters is the USA.

There is no better source for easily understanding postmodernism that Dr. Stephen Hicks’ 2004 book, Explaining Postmodernism, which we have reviewed extensively. Readers may consult this review for principles and details, which we need not repeat except for a few elements needed for clarification (also see endnote to this article).

"Postmodernism," as a term, refers to the dominant academic philosophy which is strongly influencing contemporary culture. As a philosophy, it is the culmination of nihilism, the end stage of nothing, which postmodernists worship. They call it “nothingness,” a nonsense term which tries to make nothing be something while being nothing. Postmodernism seems to me to be the end stage of the collapse of modern philosophy, the stage of death.

Raw physical force dominates postmodernism because there is nothing left after reason has been rejected. This was the state of the Weimar culture just before Hitler, and this is the state of our culture today, a little over 70 years later.

Of course, these intellectual offspring of postmodern “liberal” professors do not formulate arguments, just as Ann Coulter and many literate people experience. They not only cannot, but they do not want to. Epithets and slogans are fully sufficient for these aconceptual creatures. Words are weapons, and they live this principle fully. This Raj, who verbally assaulted and then vulgarly gestured to Ann Coulter, marshaled his very best and only responses: swear words, nasty tone, and vulgar gestures. His mind is of little use to him.

This is what Ms. Coulter is not understanding, nor is Mr. Hannity or Mr. Limbaugh. They are still trying to parse and dissect these people in rational terms. It cannot be done. Postmodernists constitute a new paradigm and require a non-standard means of evaluation. For instance, these postmodernist people eschew reason, so they cannot be reasoned with. They are carbon copies of the German university students who so strongly supported Hitler. Intellectually and spiritually, they are fifth column partners with all of the overt and covert jihadists. Like CAIR, they insist on their "civil rights.” They are totally narcissistic, however. They are concerned with THEIR rights, but not anyone else’s rights.

These postmodernists need to be expunged from our universities as well as their disciples before they make the entire culture like them.

Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh--along with so many on the Right--sputter and stop, and seem to be at the end of their thinking whenever they invoke the term "liberal." That is not good enough. It no longer explains. Once upon a time, "liberal" described people like me, who advocate individual rights and capitalism. Socialists co-opted the term to mean "socialist-without-saying-so." Now, "liberal" has become almost meaningless because the liberals of today are nihilistic, anti-American, anti-reason, anti-individual rights, anti-life and anti-man. They are postmodern nihilists who no longer seek just some socialist "nirvana" but the destruction of values, all values, and all valuers.

The first step to eradicating postmodernism comes from self-education which leads to identifying its advocates correctly, and that includes naming them for what they are. Then we must stop these academician spreaders of the disease of postmodernism and their administrative enablers. We must take back our colleges, universities, secondary, and primary schools. Parents, alumni, and ALL funding sources can carry the day, if they will.

Ann Coulter and those fighting for and against the same issues can be much more devastatingly effective by coming to understand what they really are up against. "Liberals" doesn't "cut it" anymore.

There is just nothing like getting to fundamentals to understand issues and then integrate them into your knowledge to make this knowledge effective.

---------------

A little more detail about Postmodernism: The dominant ideas of postmodernism which is decaying our own country and Western civilization match the dominant ideas of Weimar Germany. Objective reality has been replaced with the erroneous notion of reality being whatever we WANT it to be. Truth, like reality, is totally subjective; language is a tool to pressure people into giving you what you want, not to communicate and to serve as the medium of thought. Reason is dead. Morality means following your feelings because there can be no objective morality. Like truth, what is moral for me is not moral for you. Politics is pressure-group warfare of feminists, minorities, the old, the young, the poor, the environment, and so on. All of these groups must struggle to establish socialism and to defeat capitalism and its representatives, including white men, the wealthy, and, above all, America.

Army sergeant arrested as deserter; anti-American notes found in his backpack

How much is enough? Last week, Sgt. "Akbar" was found guilty and sentenced to death for murdering fellow USA soldier. Now, we have another bad actor.

The father says "Zayed Iraq says his son was always made to feel that he was an outsider." Well, Muslims are outsiders. They are because they advocate an outsider ideology which leads them to be against everything civilized. They still have a 7th century mentality. They can be trusted only to follow that ideology with that mentality.

We must purge Muslims from the USA armed forces, and much more.

WIStv.com Columbia, SC: Army sergeant arrested as deserter; anti-American notes found in his backpack

(Wellington, FL-AP) May 5, 2005 - An Army sergeant who left his Georgia post six months ago has been tracked down at his parent's home after a notebook with anti-American and anti-Semitic writings was found in his discarded backpack.

Sheriff's officials in Palm Beach County, Florida, say 25-year-old Karim Iraq has been arrested as a deserter and is being held without bail.

His father says the soldier fled Fort Stewart after the Army extended his enlistment because he had soured on the US military mission in Iraq. The father says the soldier also was harassed over his Palestinian heritage. Zayed Iraq says his son was always made to feel that he was an outsider. (emphasis mine)

Authorities arrested Karim Iraq on Tuesday, a day after the backpack was found at a gas station within miles of his parents' home at Wellington, a West Palm Beach suburb.

The father says the bag probably was left there by a burglar who had broken into the soldier's truck days earlier.

Iraq's commander will determine whether he faces administrative punishment or a court-martial. If he is court-martialed, the maximum penalty under normal circumstances is up to five years in prison. During war, the maximum penalty is death, but the Army hasn't executed a soldier since 1961.

The case has been referred to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

The only safe thing Americans can assume is that Muslims, wherever in the world, are engaged in overt jihad or covert jihad. It is suicidal to think otherwise and to treat these people as regular members of civilization.

This can be unfair to any "Muslim-Americans" who might truly be loyal first and foremost to the United States of America. However, if you read about Islam, you know that Muslim and America are mutually incompatible, in fact, mutually antagonistic.

The USA Can't Win with LOST

PLEASE DIGEST THIS ARTICLE. LET'S STOP THIS L.O.S.T. NOW!


The USA Can't Win with LOST


The USA Can't Win with LOST
By Nathan Tabor
FrontPageMagazine.com May 5, 2005


“Well, it’s the Law of the Jungle, or it’s the Law of the Sea . . . .”

That’s the stark contrast presented by legendary leftist icon Bob Dylan in a recent song. It is exactly how globalists want to frame the debate on the disastrous Law of the Sea Treaty, now pending in the U.S. Senate for the second year in a row.

Liberals desperately want the dumbed-down denizens of America to see the issue as a clear choice between the primitive violence inspired by national self-interest (“the Law of the Jungle”) and a more civilized cooperation for the common good of all mankind (“the Law of the Sea”).

But the REAL choice confronting those 100 Senators in 2005 is between the survival of the United States as a sovereign nation and the enthronement of the United Nations as a de facto world government.

What is LOST? Most folks have hardly heard of it. But the treacherous Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would give control of over 70 percent of the Earth’s surface to the UN, has been around for decades. It was painstakingly developed during the 1970s by radical leftists who wanted to sneak socialistic changes in through the back door by designating the world’s oceans the “Common Heritage of Mankind” – a Marxist concept to the core.

Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick opposed LOST back in 1982 because she saw it as a threat to American sovereignty and national security, and Ronald Reagan rejected it. According to Reagan adviser Pat Buchanan, “Reagan saw this Law of the Sea Treaty for what it was: a joint scheme of the Soviet Bloc, the Third World, and the United Nations to seize sovereignty over the oceans, mandate transfers of American technology and get kickbacks from profits U.S. companies might earn from mining and drilling. Reagan ordered it deep-sixed.”

But in 1994, Bill Clinton directed Secretary of State Madelyn Albright to sign LOST and then sent it to the Senate for ratification. There Sen. Jesse Helms, who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, courageously blocked the treaty for years. Nevertheless, LOST went into effect in 1995 with the support of 50 member nations; today, a total of 145 nations have signed onto the pact.

Now the Bush Administration, which tried hard but failed to ram LOST through the Senate in 2004, is back to try again. Bush “would certainly like to see [LOST] pass as soon as possible,” said new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her Senate confirmation hearings. Unless at least 34 Senators have the guts to stand up and say “NO!” . . . it’s likely to happen this time.

If LOST gains American support, an uncontested International Seabed Authority will regulate the oceans of the world. In fact, they are already divvying up the ocean floor in what has been called “the largest land grab in human history.” The UN will have the power to regulate and tax all undersea mining activities – which could affect vast stores of minerals and up to 20 percent of the world’s petroleum resources – and as a result will rake in trillions of dollars of revenue.

The UN will have the power to control shipping lanes and to restrict the movements of navies – possibly even banning the undersea operations of our nuclear submarines. UN bureaucrats could potentially control human activities on land, on inland waterways, and even in Outer Space, on the premise that all these might pollute the oceans. The UN, flush with its newfound tax wealth, might even float its own “Blue Hulls” navy to enforce the unappealable edicts of its international maritime courts.

“This accord would constitute the most egregious transfer of American sovereignty, wealth and power to the UN since the founding of that ‘world body,’” explains Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy. “In fact, never before in the history of the world has any nation voluntarily engaged in such a sweeping transfer to anyone.”

Politicians of both parties, big oil companies, and wild-eyed environmental groups all want to see this flawed treaty go into effect. But our nation’s very survival is at stake. True American patriots will fight against LOST – tooth and nail.

Pat Robertson Is Right!

The Los Angeles Times, of course, thought it was enjoying mud-slinging as usual by trying to demonstrate what an old fool Pat Robertson is. As usual, they failed.

I hasten to say that I seldom agree with Pat Robertson about anything. He and I are philosophical opposites, never the twain to meet. However, Pat is right about Islam and Muslims.

Here's a fragment of the LA Times article.

Robertson...is wary of having Muslims as U.S. judges, by Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer, May 2, 2005

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Robertson — who founded the Christian Coalition — also said he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships. His comments on Islam drew a heated response from Muslim leaders, who criticized them as racist and inaccurate. "They have said in the Koran there's a war against all the infidels," he [Robertson] said. "Do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn't."

The comments drew immediate fire from Islamic organizations. "Pat Robertson has taken his far-right-wing rhetoric to absurd levels," said Arsalan Iftikhar, national legal director for the Council on American Islamic Relations. "He is trying to perpetuate this notion that Islam is a monolithic entity inherently at odds with modernity and democracy. That is absolutely false…. American Muslims have long been contributing members of American society. And I guarantee to Mr. Robertson that Muslims will one day become part of the federal bench — whether or not he likes it."

Note how these "Muslim 'leaders'," address what the LA Times characterize Robertson's remarks that "he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships" as "racist and inaccurate." As long as they keep misstating, we will keep correcting them, in the interest of reality and reason: Since when is "Muslim" a name for a race? Does that mean that a "Christian" is a member of the "Christian race"? Of course not; only Muslims expect special dispensations.

Of course, the Kingdom of Boors, CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations), like their Russian communist intellectual relatives, rose immediately to bellow and roar. From their own lips so-to-speak:

CAIR,
CAIR Calls on Leaders to Repudiate Evangelist's Remarks

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 5/2/05) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on mainstream political and religious leaders to repudiate “hate-filled” remarks by evangelist Pat Robertson who said on Sunday that Muslims should not serve in the Cabinet or judiciary. The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said Pat Robertson told “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” he would be wary of appointing Muslims to positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships. “This type of hate-filled rhetoric deserves repudiation from all who respect America's long-standing tradition of pluralism,” said Rabiah Ahmed, CAIR's communication coordinator. Ahmed added that many Muslims already serve with distinction in many levels of government, including judgeships at the state and local level.

Yeah, yeah, yeah; yada, yada, yada; S. O. S. (and I do not mean the international distress signal). If you want your eyes opened about Muslims in American government, read Paul Sperry's Infiltration, which we just reviewed on 6th Column Against Jihad.

Part of CAIR's "smoke blowing" attempt to rebut Robertson's remarks in the LA Times is their assertion that "Islam is [NOT] a monolithic entity inherently at odds with modernity and democracy." Boy, do they have a vested interest in pushing that line! Islam does not belong in the same sentence with either "modernity" or "democracy." See what Andre' Servier wrote about this, over 80 years ago.

Just as there is no "moderate Islam," so there is no definable entity of "moderate Muslims." "Moderate Muslim" are an inherent contradiction, and any Muslims that deviate from Islam to become "moderate" are pariahs within Islam. Islam is as Islam was, and Islam is what Islam is. And, since the very doctrines of Islam, which CAIR fully supports, call for converting the USA into a Muslim state, run by shari'a, Robertson's concern is very well placed. Who could trust a Muslim not to revert, at who-knows-what stimulus, to orthodox Islam and jihad? How does anyone separate fifth columnist Muslims (working the covert jihad) from the so-called "peace-loving" and beatifically passive Muslims, if there are any?

By the way, where are all of these "fellow American" Muslims, loyal to America? Where are those that, according to CAIR, are "American Muslims [who] have long been contributing members of American society"? Who are and where are those American Muslims serving "...judgeships at the state and local level"?

Robertson knows Islam well enough to know Islam for what it really is. On the other hand, CAIR wants to blow smoke to obscure the real meaning and history of Islam. CAIR plays on the widespread ignorance about Islam in government, academia, journalism, and in the general populace--CAIR tells what it wants the gullible to believe.

Some of us, however, read.

CAIR goes on in its article to try to smear Robertson with these comments:

In the past, Robertson has made similar hateful comments toward Islam and Muslims. During a 2002 appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, Robertson smeared both Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. About Muhammad, Robertson said: "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam...I mean, this man (Muhammad) was a killer. And to think that this is a peaceful religion is fraudulent." Robertson also called Islam "a monumental scam" and claimed the Quran, Islam's revealed text, "is strictly a theft of Jewish theology." Robertson has also repeatedly defamed Islam and Muslims on his Christian Broadcasting Network "700 Club" program. He called Islam the "religion of the slavers" and said Americans who converted to Islam exhibited "insanity."

This "smear" attempt backfires because Robertson is telling the truth. Pick up the core documents of Islam, easily available, and read them. There's nothing complex about Islam, so it will be easily graspable. Islam's own words will tell you exactly what Robertson says, and much more. There is much that is worse about Muhammad and the nature of Islam. Even semi-objective histories of Islam shows Islam for the parasitic doctrine it is: Judaism- and Christianity-LITE. Islam lifted from them, and perverted what it plagiarized.

Of course, if you look at Islam, its behavior, and its history through the deformed mental prism of Islam, then Islam will look good, and the West will measure up as bad by Islamic standards; but this is not a normal, objective way to look at anything. People who are morally uncertain and influenced by multiculturalism will easily fall into this trap of seeing Islam the way the Islamists want you to see it.

As for the "insanity" part of Robertson's remarks, that might be true for some who convert. Mostly, however, I think that conversion to Islam reflects efforts of individuals who are attempting to fulfill pathological needs.

If Islam changes any, according to Islam, it ceases being Islam, because it allegedly comes from "Allah," to persist in perpetuity without change; changing Islam in any way is blasphemy, according to them. All of the factual details about Islam, however useful, do not address its roots, its fundamentals. The key to understanding what one needs to know about Islam once and forever more, is to know its fundamentals. One need not read four dozen Qur'an translations, all the Ahadith, and every volume ever written by any significant historian of Islam to grasp these fundamentals solidly.

Islam's PHILOSOPHICAL fundamentals expose it for what it is. That is why Robertson is right.

INFILTRATION: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington

Review of this excellent book written by Paul Sperry posted 03 May 2005 on 6th Column Against Jihad.

You Cannot Make Chicken Salad from Chicken Shit

{UPDATE: Since publishing this blog, we have found a Cox and Forkum cartoon which is not only relevant but which captures the Iran-nuke versus the West stupidity completely.}



Our policy makers and "leaders" are setting us up for the biggest blow we have ever known, and the biggest ever in the history of Planet Earth. Paralysis from Republican moral uncertainty and Democrat perfidy keeps the US from acting in its rational self-interest and crushing Iran under its heel before it can pester the world any longer. Behind the rhetoric and the posturing are people too timid to stand up any longer to existential threats to the USA, and people who are so anti-American by intent or default that they will not stand up to existential threats to the USA.

Only in government and academia do people really believe that, to borrow an expression, you can make chicken salad out of chicken shit. As a result of their looking like fools and cowards, we endure blustering verbal garbage such as this:

WorldNetDaily: Ayatollah warns U.S. needs punch in mouth, Sunday, May 1, 2005


The spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is warning the U.S. to stay out of his country's business – and, in particular, its nuclear program, which is set to resume this week. Speaking on a tour of southeast Iran, Khamenei called the U.S. "arrogant," "rude" and said the country "deserved a punch in the mouth."

Khamenei said it was not up to the U.S. to decide which countries needed nuclear technology.

It needs to be said, without oily inferences and "nuances."

The Iranians have caused untold misery to the civilized world since 1979 and have plans to make it radioactive as soon as they can. They are run by Islam, and they, like Islam, are totally evil. The Iranian theocrats deserve to be annihilated and for Iran to be turned over to the freedom-seeking Iranians after their "holy butts" have been vaporized.

No discussion is necessary. JUST DO IT! ought to be stenciled onto every bomb, explosive, and bullet as well as every warship and every military aircraft. Then, we ought to go and do what needs to be done, without any further delay.

We must put Iran out of our misery. We must do it mercilessly. We must target all of the "holy" areas and absolutely all of the "holy" people from the air and ground. We must target everything that makes life for them possible and from which they can take any hope of survival: utilities, water, food, oil, ports, etc. We must bring them to their knees, destroying their will to fight, ever again. If it takes nukes, we must use them and use them liberally. We must do it right: Fast and total warfare until they either surrender in toto or cease to exist. It really doesn't matter which. Those caught should be shot on sight. We need spend no more men and materiel collecting, holding, and processing these kinds of prisoners.

We must put Islamia and Islam out of our misery. If the rest of the world wants to do the turkey trot with them, let them. An obliterating blow against Iran and Islam would put us in the proper position of being paid attention to when we speak. We could then tell Saudi Arabia to get off the dime regarding its terror-sponsoring activities. We would need only whisper what we would be prepared to do to them as well. And, if they insisted on being typically Islamically intransigent, we could provide a persuading demonstation. There is no doubt that with the right message, Saudi Arabia would get off the dime. The rest of Islamia would not fail to get the message either. Who cares if they "like" us? I would much prefer they fear us too much to mess with us. Afterall, being liked by them is not anything to brag about.

Islam drives Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, and various and sundry other cloacas. They are not rational, and they must be treated like the unruly beasts that they are. Yes, all of the ideological changes are very necessary, but they can come only when our survival and well-being are no longer threatened by Islam and its bestial adherents.

Is this what we are doing? Yes, yes, I recognize that this is a "rhetorical question." Here is what we are really doing--looking, sounding, and acting like chickenshits:

Washington agreed to support the EU effort but signaled that Iran, which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last month labeled an "outpost of tyranny," should quickly accept it or face harsh Security Council sanctions.

Iran has and will continue to act like a chronically unruly child disrespecting a parent who threatens punishment constantly and does nothing unless it is something ineffective. The UN cannot even pay its parking tickets or find its behind with both hands. There is much cowardly wringing of hands, a la Jimmy Carter:

There is increasing concern within the administration and Congress over Iran's missile program, which has been determined by a commission of U.S. scientists to pose a serious threat to U.S. security.

What is the payoff for all of this for US? What will we have to endure in America because of our "leaders" and "policy makers"? It ain't hard to figure out. This is what the chickenshittery will get us, and it will get us:

A report first published in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a weekly, online, premium, intelligence newsletter affiliated with WND, revealed last week that Iran has been seriously considering an unconventional pre-emptive nuclear strike against the U.S.

An Iranian military journal publicly floated the idea of launching an electromagnetic pulse attack as the key to defeating the U.S.

Congress was warned of Iran's plans last month by Peter Pry, a senior staffer with the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack in a hearing of Sen. John Kyl's subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security.

In an article titled, "Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars," the journal explains how an EMP attack on America's electronic infrastructure, caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high above the U.S., would bring the country to its knees.

"Once you confuse the enemy communication network you can also disrupt the work of the enemy command- and decision-making center," the article states. "Even worse today when you disable a country's military high command through disruption of communications, you will, in effect, disrupt all the affairs of that country. If the world's industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults then they will disintegrate within a few years. American soldiers would not be able to find food to eat nor would they be able to fire a single shot."

WND reported the Iranian threat last Monday, explaining Tehran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure.

What we have is the need to clean out our stables at home while cleaning theirs out in Iran and Saudi Arabia, for starters. Our survival and well-being depend on it. We can count on Islamic Iran carrying out nuclear attacks on us fully 100.00% unless we prevent it and do so definitively.

The Making of the Arab Menace

Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia are so much a part of the political and cultural discourse on Arabs and Muslims in American society today that most do not even recognize it as racism. The fear mongering of the Bush administration and the right wing media pundits who make a living from demonizing Arabs and Muslims have inundated people with images of the violent Arabs bent on death and destruction. For media outlets like Fox Television, it is a way to sell their sensationalist news programs and for the current administration, a way to sell its wars.
The green menace has replaced the red menace, and the “evil empire” of the cold war has become the less eloquent, but just as deadly, “evil doers” of the Arab and Muslim world. People like Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis, who have a long history of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments, have been elevated from their illegitimate positions of “Middle East experts” to foreign policy advisors. 

Remarking on Muslim immigrants, Pipes said, “all immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.” On the Arab-Israeli conflict he said, the “Israelis must be encouraged to defeat the Palestinians” because the only way to peace is for Israel to militarily crush the will of the Palestinians to fight. Apparently these remarks seemed to be in line with the administration’s policies because last year President Bush nominated Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a government-sponsored think tank dedicated to “peaceful resolution of international conflicts.”

read the rest

El-Amine echoes the Islamists line. If ANYONE knows about demonizing, it is they, the Islamists. They are experts at demonizing and dehumanizing the rest of us using techniques that are centuries old. Taking their justification from the Koran, Islamists take the demonization of non-Muslims to the extreme and other more "benign" Muslims, benign only because they don't rabidly denunciate or commit acts of violence. But they do hold non-Muslims in disdain, taking to heart the maxim, "hate them for their unbelief."

Extremism is on the rise, bolstered by the tacit approval or at least non-cooperation by more pacific Muslims with the authorities that are trying to stamp out this more virulent strain. Secretly in their heart of hearts, the majority of Muslims want an Islamic world that would only be the result of a capitulation of non-Muslims through war, mass "reversion," or annihilation. This doesn't seem very friendly -- no “live and let live,” no toleration of the other, or no "there is no compulsion in religion."

Muslims demonize non-Muslims in their hearts as they "hate them for their disbelief" and refuse to assimilate in infidel societies in their countries into which they remove themselves from Muslim lands. Some are passive/aggressive, others quietly work to bring about the Islamic takeover through demographics, and others, impatient to affect the change, scream their denunciations over the airwaves and carry out suicide bombings and threaten even worse.

Is it the West demonizes and has a double standard? Such hypocrisy!!!!

Hitler's Admiration for Muhammad and Islam

Andrei Rublev, regular contributor to our website, sent a real eye-opener to us and introduced it by writing:

I just finished reading Hitler's Table Talk and today
came upon a truly explosive quote:

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers
-already, you see, the world had already fallen into
the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing
Christianity! -then we should in all probability have
been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which
glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh
Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic
races would have conquered the world. Christianity
alone prevented them from doing so."

(August 28, 1942, midday)


p. 667 "Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944" translated by
N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)

He also added that Hitler's favorite philosophers were Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietszche.

Add this to the IDEAS-DO-COUNT file, and pen an exclamation, "AND HOW!"