Saturday, December 02, 2006

Apocalypse on the US blogosphere

David Selbourne (author of The Losing Battle with Islam) wrote on The There is a world, increasingly driven by unreason, in which voices in the wilderness denounce each other as ‘traitors’, cry out that ‘all I want is no more Islam near me’, or allege that Prince Charles is ‘waiting in the wings to declare the UK a Muslim country the minute QEII dies’.

I know things are bad in the UK, but hopefully not that bad.
It is the world of the American blogosphere of the ‘left’ and ‘right’; the world not of the lunatic fringe, though it may often seem so, but of vox pop. It is a world of which the ‘MSM’, or ‘mainstream media’, knows too little. Yet blog-site contributors’ opinions, threats and predictions — expressed in large volume on such sites as jihadwatch, littlegreenfootballs or Daily Kos — merit increasing attention for what they reveal of the temper of our times.

Roughly speaking, the blogging ‘right’ is anti-Muslim (and not just anti-Islam), pro-gun and apple pie, anti-‘big government’ and ‘liberals’ in DC, and generally pro-British, anti-European and pro-Israel; while the ‘left’ is anti-‘extremist’, anti-‘racist’, pro-‘human rights’, anti-militarist, anti-US support for Israel and anti-corporate — the last a position sometimes to be found on the ‘right’ also.
Reason would expect that the left would be even more worried about Islamofascism than the right is, because of their support for women's rights (women have almost no rights under Islam), gay rights (gays are either executed or subjected to 100 lashes), promiscuity (Islam makes Fundamental Christians seem like proponents for free sex. They just are too stupid to see the risk.
Above all, for most of this ‘right’, all-out war has been declared on ‘the West’ by Islam and its ‘terrorists’.
Osama must be on the right side of the blogosphere, since he certainly did declare that.
But for most of the ‘left’ and ‘liberals’, war is being imposed on parts of the Islamic world by the Americans, Israelis, and their rag-tag partners in geopolitical ‘crime’, and against whom Muslim ‘radicals’ must be expected to strike back.
Totally stupid.
The differences between these mutually hostile camps, judging by the blogosphere, are growing. Moreover, as Islam’s political fortunes have advanced, irrationality in response to this advance has spread also, to ‘right’ and ‘left’. Some of it provides light relief. To bloggers on the ‘right’, the ‘left’ are ‘moonbats’, Democrats are sell-out ‘Dhimmicrats’, Saddam Hussein is ‘Sodom Insane’ and the ACLU is the ‘American Criminal Liberties Union’; the ‘left’ describes President Bush as everything from a ‘traitor’ to a ‘boil on the public butt’, and pro-Israel Christian evangelists as ‘fundie nutjobs’.

Other judgements are more serious in their portents. A blog-poster declares that the ‘left’ and ‘liberals’ have ‘done nothing but grovel at the feet of Islamofascists’; another that the entire American ‘left’ — who are no better than ‘tares in the midst of wheat’ — are ‘killing this country’. For their parts, ‘left’ bloggers see the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq as ‘useless’, and the Bush ‘regime’ as having ‘run amok’.

However, ‘left’ and ‘right’ share the perception that it is the other which is in command of the polity and of the ‘MSM’. To the ‘right’, which considers itself ‘pretty much shut out of our national corporate media’, ‘what could not be accomplished on the battlefield — an American retreat from Iraq — was instead achieved in American newsrooms’. To the ‘left’, a ‘right-wing machine’ which includes ‘experts who have sold out to it’ and ‘hateful right-wing talkshows’ rules the waves.

Paranoia and odium are on the increase. In the blogosphere, the word ‘fascist’ is thus routinely used by the ‘left’ to describe the ‘right’ of all shades — the White House, for example, is said to be ‘gripped by a fascist power lust’. The ‘right’, whose spelling is less good, not only regards Islamists as ‘facists’ but also those on the ‘left’ whom it accuses of sympathising with America’s foes.
No we refer to those on the left as being communists or socialists.
But nothing can compare with the ‘right’s’ abuse of ‘Muzzies’ in general. They are variously said to be ‘dumber than dirt’, ‘godless savages’, ‘losers’, even ‘Koranimals’. As for Islam, or ‘Islamania’, it is (for example) a ‘misogynistic genocidal cult’ which allegedly worships a ‘false pagan moon-rock god of death’ and is ‘eating at the insides of every nation until it is dead’.
Most of my criticism is not against Islam as practiced by most people, but the rabid Islamofascists that have hijacked that faith.
Of course, there are distinguished precedents even for the bleakest and coarsest of these judgements. To Montesquieu in 1748, Islam’s ‘destructive spirit’ spoke ‘only by the sword’; to Schopenhauer in 1819, the Koran was a ‘wretched book’ in which he had ‘not been able to discover one single idea of value’; to De Tocqueville in 1843, Islam was ‘deadly’, ‘to be feared’ and a ‘form of decadence’.

Today, however, it is the sheer violence of emotion on blog-sites which is most striking. The true patriot would seize American ‘appologists [sic] for Islam’, ‘hold them with their feet to the fire until they are screaming, and watch them squirm’; while a ‘liberal’ voice yells into the ether that those who have supported the war in Iraq ‘should not be given a chance to breathe. Pound them into the ground until they never get back up, evil bastards!’

In this unhinged world, now non-Muslim as well as Muslim, the counsels of action offered by ‘right-wing’ vox pop range from the near-despairing to the catastrophic. ‘Go home and leave us alone’, diaspora Muslims are told — at the mildest — ‘and take your Western lapdogs with you’; or, ‘Islamophobes need to get loud, very loud,’ says another, ‘it’s the only thing we can do now’. Here, the sense of foreboding is strong. Tougher is, ‘We are the West. Let them know who is boss. If they don’t like it, they can leave.’ Higher up the scale comes, ‘Let the military take over. I advocate a military coup.’ At the apogee are nukes. ‘Why should we restrain ourselves from nuking every Mohammedan hellhole that lacks a credible defense?’, asks one; ‘Nuke Mecca Now!’, demands another. The feeling of world-endingness, of apocalypse, is rife on the sites of the ‘right’. For some, it is ‘the West’ which is done for. ‘We have allowed Islam in. We have sentenced ourselves to death’ is its voice.
That may be true of Europe; I think if we are smart we can avoid falling into the problems they are in now.
For others, it is Islam which faces Armageddon. ‘The final day of Islam will arrive very soon’ and it ‘will be vanquished utterly’, a blog prophet promises in biblical tones.
If the President of Iran has his way, Armageddon will definitely start soon. We just have to be concerned about whether that means the return of Christ, or the return of the 12th Imam.
Or another American civil war is foreseen. ‘If it breaks out,’ declares a would-be recruit, ‘my only comfort is that the left will be killed first, since most of them don’t carry guns.’
Good point. The left would also be hurt the most should Islam win.
Moreover, just as the Islamist can assert that ‘we will not rest from our jihad until we have blown up the White House’, so non-Muslim terminators look to the day of a nuclear exchange. ‘I just hope the nuke attack comes soon. Let it be on the East Coast where it belongs,’ prays one; ‘I hope I wake up to Washington a glowing hole in the morning,’ prays another, almost in the same terms as the most violent of jihadists. ‘We would be able to fight back even with millions dead in our cities,’ predicts a third, ‘then we’d go get the oil fields.’ In this war of words as well as of worlds, reason is under pressure on all sides. The true complexity of things is being given short shrift by ‘experts’ and by vox pop alike: after all, London is no more ‘Londonistan’ than Israel is a ‘cancer’ and America the ‘Great Satan’. In particular, frustration at America’s reverses is driving many round the bend, if the torrent of opinion in the blogosphere is a guide. Or, as one poster demanded to know, ‘What the hell is our oil doing under their sand?’


Saudi Head-Chopper Discusses His Craft

lgf blogged i>From an interview on Lebanon’s LBC TV (via MEMRI TV), Saudi executioner Abdallah Al-Bishi discusses his calling and shares his favorite decapitation techniques.

Click on the image to view (with Windows Media Player). Europeans think we are cruel for executing with an injection that puts the person to sleep, then stops the heart and respiration. If this guy chops your head off he does not even use a n anesthetic. Now he does use a local when he chops off a hand, or a hand and the opposite leg. Isn't that nice of him.


Well-known GOP activist held in sex-predator sting

The Seattle Times reported Larry Corrigan, a well-known activist in local Republican politics as a backer of U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert and King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, was arrested Wednesday in an Internet sting for allegedly trying to arrange sex with a 13-year-old girl.

At ;east he did not do it in the Oval Office
Corrigan was the director of financial operations at the prosecutor's office for more than 25 years and was deputy treasurer in Reichert's 1997 and 2001 runs for King County sheriff. He was also a supporter without an official role in Reichert's congressional campaigns.
A deputy treasurer in the Sheriff's election and a supporter without an official role in a congressional election. Wow. That is sure a "well-known activist in local Republican politics". If he had been in Democratic politics, would you have mentioned such a low level worker?


Kerry to postpone decision on '08 run

Boston Globe reported Senator John F. Kerry's election-eve "botched joke" about the war in Iraq -- and the fierce denunciations his comments drew from fellow Democrats -- has led him to reevaluate whether to mount a run for the presidency in 2008 and has led him to delay an announcement about his decision, according to Kerry associates. The Massachusetts Democrat is now leaning toward waiting until late spring before declaring his intentions, even as other candidates jump into the race and begin building organizing and fund-raising teams in early-primary states. Before the joke derailed his comeback, Kerry had signaled that he would decide whether to run by the end of January.

Late spring is far too early for you to make a decision like that John. I recommend you wait until spring of 2009. Maybe by then we will have forgotten about the botched joke.
CQ blogged Oh, please. This is just more spin from Kerry's crew. What the incident revealed wasn't "lingering skepticism and resentment" from his incompetent campaign against Bush in 2004. Fellow Democrats hardly bother to hide both even to this day. What got the Democrats angry, except for Charles Rangel, is that it fed into the image of Democrats as elitist snobs that sneer at the military and the men and women that comprise it. He tried to pass it off as a joke about George Bush, which didn't make any sense since (a) Bush has an MBA and obviously pursued his education, (b) he got slightly better grades than John Kerry did as an undergraduate, and (c) both of them volunteered for the service.

And thanks to Rangel, the damage isn't done yet. Rangel insisted on extending the damage during his Fox News appearance last week, in which he claimed that anyone with any potential for a career wouldn't dream of enlisting in the armed forces. Democrats reacted in milder tones to Rangel's statement, probably because Rangel isn't running for president.

Besides, the entire idea of another Kerry run at the White House is its own botched joke. Kerry, who got selected in the aftermath of Howard Dean's primary meltdown because of his supposed electability, turned out to be an absolutely atrocious candidate. He never reconciled his Winter Soldier days of accusing American troops of being the equivalent of the soldiers in the army of Genghis Khan, the testimony that launched his political career. Kerry tried making Bush's Air National Guard service an issue in the campaign, and then screeched like an old woman when his own service record came under scrutiny. That he came within 4 points of Bush only demonstrated the opportunity the Democrats had to retake the White House, had they nominated someone even marginally competent at campaigning.

Kerry only postpones the immaterial in this delay. The Democratic Party wouldn't nominate him again even if he was the last Democrat in the nation. The longer he pretends otherwise, the more pathetic he becomes.


Friday, December 01, 2006

A new layeha for the Mujahideen

Signandsight provides a list of the rules the Taliban must follow: Every Mujahid must abide by the following rules:

1) A Taliban commander is permitted to extend an invitation to all Afghans who support infidels so that they may convert to the true Islam.

I guess the true Islam is whatever the nutcases say it is. Muslims that follow something else must be infidels.
2) We guarantee to any man who turns his back on infidels, personal security and the security of his possessions. But if he becomes involved in a dispute, or someone accuses him of something, he must submit to our judiciary.
Automatic application of the Taliban version of Sharia Law.
.... 7) A Mujahid who takes a foreign infidel as prisoner with the consent of a group leader may not exchange him for other prisoners or money.
What if he takes a prisoner without his group leaders permission?
.... 17) Mujahideen have no right to confiscate money or personal possessions of civilians.
That power is limited to the commanders.
8) Mujahideen should refrain from smoking cigarettes.
Can they drink booze?
19) Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair onto the battlefield or into their private quarters.
If they want to have a homosexual relation with another man he must have a beard.
21) Anyone with a bad reputation or who has killed civilians during the Jihad may not be accepted into the Taliban movement. If the highest leader has personally forgiven him, he will remain at home in the future.
I bet they don't impose this restriction very often.
.... 24) It is forbidden to work as a teacher under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels. True Muslims should apply to study with a religiously trained teacher and study in a Mosque or similar institution. Textbooks must come from the period of the Jihad or from the Taliban regime.
At least they won't be pretending to be teachers.
25) Anyone who works as a teacher for the current puppet regime must recieve a warning. If he nevertheless refuses to give up his job, he must be beaten. If the teacher still continues to instruct contrary to the principles of Islam, the district commander or a group leader must kill him.
Maybe the prohibition of being a teacher is just to protect the Taliban from being killed by the group leader.
26) Those NGOs that come to the country under the rule of the infidels must be treated as the government is treated. They have come under the guise of helping people but in fact are part of the regime. Thus we tolerate none of their activities, whether it be building of streets, bridges, clinics, schools, madrases (schools for Koran study) or other works. If a school fails to heed a warning to close, it must be burned. But all religious books must be secured beforehand.
They sure don't like improvements to the infrastructure do them?


Caught cheatin' ... on ethics test

New York Daily News Columbia University officials are lowering the boom on some graduate journalism students suspected of cheating on, of all things, an ethics exam.

Sometimes I think Journalism and Ethics are mutually exclusive properties, but cheating on an ethics exam is definitely not good.
The J-schoolers' alleged lapse on the final was reported yesterday by Radar Online. The exam in question consisted of two essay questions to be completed in 90 minutes any time during a 36-hour period.
That is the stupidest test I have ever heard of. They were practically asking for people to cheat. In fact, maybe that was the real test.
Students who took the test early were instructed to avoid discussing the questions with those planning to take it later, but the warning was ignored. One honorable young scholar got wind of what happened and blew the whistle, sources said.


Imam disputes tie to Hamas

Washington Times

Omar Shahin, one of six imams removed from a flight last week, says he has traveled the country since the September 11 attacks to promote understanding of the Muslim religion, but he once worked for a group linked to terrorist financing. He insists that the terrorists who leveled the World Trade Center were not Muslims
If it walks like a duck, anf talks like a duck, and carries a copy of thw Koran....
.... "We have been asked by God and by the prophet Muhammad to respect all human life. The Koran is very clear, to save one life he saves all human life, and whoever kills one person, he kills all humankind, and that is what Islam is all about."
Certainly killing all humankind does seem to be what Islamofascism is all about.
.... Witnesses and aviation-security officials say security concerns arose because of the seating arrangement which resembled a controlled pattern used by the September 11 hijackers -- two in front, two in the middle, two in the rear of the plane. Law-enforcement officials say the men were not in their assigned seats. The request by three passengers, including Mr. Shahin, for seat-belt extensions, also concerned flight attendants. "That was a dead giveaway," one federal air marshal said yesterday. Flight crews are cautioned about giving out seat-belt extenders because you can turn it into a weapon very easily. You swing that belt buckle, and you can potentially kill someone."
As I uderstand it they can also use it to connect the seat belts of two aisle seats, blocking people from going down the aisle, like in the revolt the passengers of one plane did on 9/11


Muslim Mob Kills Six Christians In Ethiopia

Christian Today The US-based human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned a mob of 300 Muslims killed six Christians in early October while 15 others were left seriously wounded by the attack during a midnight worship service in Beshasha, a town located in the Agaro province in Ethiopia.

Does anyone still think Islam is a Religion of Peace? A Religion of Pieces, perhaps.
On 14 October, a group of three hundred Muslims, carrying guns and knives approached the church where the Orthodox Christians were holding a midnight worship service. When the locked doors prevented the mob from entering the church they forced the congregation out of the church by pouring gasoline around the building. The men of the church came out first and attempted to defend the men and women but because they had no real weapons in comparison to the guns and knives used against them they were attacked by the mob. Fifteen individuals from the church suffered severe knife wounds and six people died as a result - two priests, two elderly women, and two men.


Obama is going to go for it

Lynn Sweet wrote in Chicago Sun Times

Bottom line: I think Sen. Barack Obama, who is seriously considering a run for president, is going to jump into the 2008 race.
No one knows what he stands for, but there are many that think he can give Hillary a lot of trouble, because he will pretend to be a centrist, just as she does. She has enough money that she will win the nomination, and she will probably pick this black man with just two year's experience as her VP candidate. I still don't think she can be elected, but we really need to try to urge Condi to get in the race. If she runs, Condi could destroy a Clinton/Obama team.
I predict the freshman Illinois Democrat will announce near the end of this year or the beginning of 2007, sometime after he returns from a holiday break in his native Hawaii.


11 high level Ansar Al Sunna terrorists captured

Multi-National Force reported In one week's time, Coalition Forces captured 11 suspected senior-level terrorists of Ansar al Sunna during a series of raids in north-central Iraq during mid-November. During the raids, Coalition Forces captured the terrorist emirs of Iraq, Ramadi, Baqubah, Tikrit, al Qa’im, Bayji and Baghdad. They also captured two terrorist facilitators, a courier, an explosives expert and a financier.

Good job!!!!!
The detention of these terrorists delivers a serious blow to the AAS network that is responsible for improvised explosive device attacks and suicide attacks and on Iraqi government, Coalition Forces and Iraqi civilians. The AAS network is also responsible for multiple kidnappings, small arms attacks and other crimes in the central and northern part of Iraq. AAS is considered by some to be a leading terror organization in Iraq as al-Qaida’s leadership continues to crumble and it loses its ability to function due to Iraqi and Coalition Forces systematic dismantling efforts. Although some AAS senior leadership allegedly hide in Iran, they continually plan attacks to disrupt Iraqi reconstruction efforts. This allows the AAS leadership to attempt to disrupt Iraqi reconstruction progress using their followers, while keeping the leadership out of harms way.
Why do we not go after the leadership. The Dems want us to pull our troups out of Iraq. Why don't we start that pullout by sending some Special Forces units East into Iran, to target some of these leaders, Iran's Nuclear plants, and perhaps a few of the Mullahs.


Net Force

Reuters reported The U.S. government warned American private financial services on Thursday of an al Qaeda call for a cyber attack against online stock trading and banking Web sites beginning on Friday, a source said.

Tom Clancy predicted something very close to 9/11 with his Executive Orders. He also created a very interesting series called Net Force, describing a government agency tracking down evil doers using the Internet. I hope such an organization exists, and if it does not, I hope we create one very very soon.
The source, a person familiar with the warning, said the Islamic militant group aimed to penetrate and destroy the databases of the U.S. financial sites. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed an alert had been distributed but said there was no reason to believe the threat was credible.


Thursday, November 30, 2006

Guacamole lawsuit

South Florida Sun-Sentinel repored That's the issue in a fraud lawsuit filed Wednesday against Kraft Foods, Inc., by a Los Angeles woman who claims the company's avocado dip doesn't qualify as guacamole. "It just didn't taste avocadoey," said Brenda Lifsey, who used Kraft Dips Guacamole in a three-layer dip last year. "I looked at the ingredients and found there was almost no avocado in it." She is seeking unspecified damages and a Superior Court order barring Kraft from calling its dip guacamole. Her suit seeks class-action status.

Wholly guacamole! Don't the courts have anything more important to worry about. The ingredient list on the package is telling the truth.


Iraqi Shias angry at Saudi remark on Sunnis

Khaleej Times reported Iraq’s Shiite leaders on Thursday said they were angered by a Saudi Arabian official saying that Riyadh would support the violence-wracked country’s Sunni Arabs in the event of a US pullout. Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki said: “We will not countenance any language interfering in Iraq on the pretext of defending sects.”

Especially defending a sect other than Maliki's
Saudi security expert Nawaf Obaid wrote in Wednesday’s Washington Post that withdrawal of US forces could see Saudi Arabia giving Iraq’s Sunnis funds, arms and supplies to counter Teheran’s alleged support for Iraqi Shiite militias. Obaid is managing director of the Riyadh-based Saudi National Security Assessment Project and also the private security and energy adviser to the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Turki Al Faisal. If the United States leaves, Obaid wrote, “one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis”. In the southern holy city of Najaf, Mohammed Al Juburi, secretary general of the Shiite Fadhila party, reacted angrily to the article, saying: “This is a sectarian and un-Islamic statement.”
Is the support ypo get from Iran not sectarian and un-Islamic.
“We reject any interference in Iraq’s affairs, whether from Saudi Arabia or Iran,” he added.


Anti-Clinton Donor Reported as Donor to Giuliani

NYT A leading organizer of a political action committee created to derail Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential prospects is also a major contributor to Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to campaign finance reports.

This is just a wild guess, but maybe he is a Republican.
Anchoress blogged Not just a donor to Giuliani but - gasp - an anti-Clinton donor!

The writer, the ever-obsequious Raymond Hernandez has had his head remarkably far up Mrs. Clinton’s backside for years. But this headline, and the story, just cracked me up.

Have you ever read George Soros described as an “anti-Bush donor?” Nah. He was simply a donor! A concerned guy with money! And if he compared Bush to Hitler and stuff - well, that was just politics, right? He didn’t mean nuthin’ by it!

But this fella, Richard Collins…he is much different than Soros, or Jeffrey Epstein or Steve Bing or any of the other profoundly rich people who donated heavy cash to the Democrats specifically because they detested President Bush. They were just making political donations. Collins…he is a nefarious anti-Clinton donor!

It’s one of the things that has fascinated me over the past ten years - the press’ seeming perspective that there are Clintons and Clinton supporters…and then there is the rest of the world, which contains - among other things - anti-Clintites.

Those are very, very bad people, the anti-Clintites. The don’t simply dissent, they actually focus their dissent on the god and goddess in particular. Let them be identified!

All you anti-Clinton people - thou anti-Clintites - come forth, and be so labeled! Your branding will begin after lunch!

And get this, I love this part of the story: While the Giuliani camp has no direct connection to Stop Her Now, some Democrats argued yesterday that Mr. Giuliani — who seems poised for a possible presidential run of his own — should disavow the personal nature of the criticisms that the group is leveling at Mrs. Clinton.

Awwwww…that group says mean things about Mrs. Clinton! Giuliani must publicly disavow them! Those aren’t the rules for any other politician but for Rudy (or whoever ends up running against Hillary) this will be the additional requirement: all donors must be screened to make sure they haven’t said anything bad about Mrs. Clinton and if they have, they must be disavowed by Giuliani and his whole team. And probably, if he really wanted to prove that he is a good guy and all, Giuliani should return checks to anyone who checks out as a rabid “anti-Clintite!”


Insulting Islam breeds violence???

The Sunday Times, Malta reported Turkey's top Muslim official repeated in the presence of Pope Benedict that Islam was not a religion of violence and that arguing so can only encourage those who abuse religion to do wrong.

So calling Islam violent breeds violence. Posting a few cartoons breeds violence. Quoting what someone said in the 14th century breeds violence. Is it so much of a leap to suggest that perhaps it is Islam itself that breeds violence? Especially since the Quran (Surah 9:29 ) says 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 Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Ali Bardakoglu, who heads Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs which controls Turkish imams and writes their sermons, said all Muslims were offended by accusations that their religion was violent. "Such accusations and attempts can only serve to encourage those who perform wrong-doing on behalf of religion by way of exploitation," he said in a speech.


ACLU Nativity Scene

This is absolutely hilarious (or maybe I should say Hillaryous
Young Conservatives of Texas - UT reported The Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas Chapter announced today that they will be displaying an “ACLU Nativity Scene” on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group’s intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere. The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche. “We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.” The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

Jay blogged Its always great to see young people who know whats going on and are actively doing something about it. This is a hillarious way to raise awareness on a serious issue. I applaud!


Christians must 'let go' some beliefs for sake of peace, theologian says reported To live peacefully with Muslims and Jews, Christians must put aside the notion that their faith requires the creation of a Christian kingdom on Earth, a Lipscomb University theologian told an interfaith gathering at the university.

I am not aware of an expectation that Christians are to create a Christian kingdom on Earth; we are merely to spread the news of Christ. Now what Christ chooses to do when He returns is His business, but I think He will be able to take care of any opposition
"We are not going to get very far in our relationship with Jews or Muslims if we do not let go of this idea," Lipscomb professor Lee Camp said at Tuesday's conference. The unusual gathering of several dozen clergy and lay people was devoted to resolving religious conflict in Nashville and around the world. "We need to forsake the Christendom model," Camp said. "The most basic Christian commitment … is that we say we believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But, if we claim that, how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?"
They can choose to accept Christ as their personal saviour, and thereby assure themselves of eternal life, or the Jew can rely on the compact they established with God. The Muslim is free to think that he can get to Heaven by blowing himself up and killing innocents, but the Quran says just the opposite.
Co-sponsored by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, the daylong conference was prompted by a desire to begin a dialogue about global religious conflict. After five years of rising gas prices, disturbing privacy issues that followed the Sept. 11 attacks and the fear of terrorism, it became apparent that everyday life in Nashville is directly affected by religious conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, conference organizers said.

Bryan blogged Camp is unspeakably ill-informed and naive. He’ll welcome his new Islamist overlords with open arms.


Marshals decry imams' charges

Washington Times reported Air marshals, pilots and security officials yesterday expressed concern that airline passengers and crews will be reluctant to report suspicious behavior aboard for fear of being called "racists," after several Muslim imams made that charge in a press conference Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

For one thing, Islam is not a race. And the passengers were just being vigilant, since the imams did several things that were suspicious, including not taking their assigned seats, but sitting in the first two seats in first class (they were ticketed for coach), two in the middle, and two at the back of the plane, they asked for seat belt extenders, and then put them under thir seats rather than using them, etc.
Six imams, or Muslim holy men, accused a US Airways flight crew of inappropriately evicting them from a flight last week in Minneapolis after several passengers said the imams tried to intimidate them by loudly praying and moving around the airplane. The imams urged Congress to enact laws to prohibit ethnic and religious "profiling."
The real question is why are they not now at Gitmo?


Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Did the Pope threaten a Muslim?

Robert Spencer identified inshallahshaheed as a Jihadist Website. As an example it blogged

The Pope recently made some statements in public; amongst his words, he said,
“The best way forward is via authentic dialogue between Christians and Muslims, based on truth and inspired by a sincere wish to know one another better, respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common.”
Sorry Pope, no can do.

Firstly, since you said, “based on the truth” we take that as based on Islam since Christianity is false and has become a man-made religion through its changing of the Bible; and many Bible Scholars admit this.
I am not aware of any Bible Scholars that say Christianity is false. When Mohammad invented Islam he took a lot from Judiasm and Christianity, but he warped Christianity into saying that Jesus was just a Prophet, so that he could appear to be better than Him because he was later. But it is interesting that being later is not always what Muslims want, because they despise the Baha'i
Most Muslims already know who you Christians are; you are a people that worship the wrong god, and many of you ascribe Prophet Jesus (‘alayhis salaam) as a son unto Allah
It was the angel Gabriel, sent by God, that first said he was the Son of God
– and Allah is free of all what you ascribe unto Him! Does God really need a son? How can God be the ‘All-Mighty’ and ‘All-Powerful’ when He needs a son?
There is a difference between needing a Son and having one.
How can God be self-sufficient when He needs a son? And some of you will say, “But we don’t say God needs a son, we only say that He has a son…” – and this is a clear statement of your backwardness and ignorance. If God doesn’t need a son, then you need to become Muslim since we believe God doesn’t need anything but that everything and everyone needs Him Alone.
Do you have a son? If so do you need him?. Would you be weaker if you did not have your son?
What kind of religion is this where even your basic foundation of the faith is irrational?!
You consider our faith irrational. Is it any more irrational than one where a merciful God creatrs the whole world and everything in it, and then tells one guy to lead others to kill people that do not believe as he does. That is not something God would do; that is the work of Satan.
We are not talking about a side issue or an issue for Scholarly debate or an issue of jurisprudence; we are talking about what your basic creed stands upon.
You are the one with a shaky basis for a creed.
Your creed stands on nothing but false whims and desires; if God doesn’t need a son, then what’s the point of ascribing a son unto Him? And if you say, “Because God said so…” then what a backwards religion indeed when you say that God doesn’t need something but you still ascribe something to Him that He doesn’t need.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Islam is straightforward and simple Tawheed (monotheism; pure oneness of Allah); we ascribe no partners unto Allah, nor is there a middle-man between us and Allah since Allah is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Encompassing, as well as ninety-six other names/attributes.

Secondly, you used the words, “authentic dialogue” - and there will never be an “authentic dialogue” until we, Muslims, have a Caliphate.
Why can you not talk without a Caliphate?
It’ll most probably come from either Afghanistan or ‘Iraq since events are quickly unfolding in the favor of the Muslims and Islam. Also, you will never have a proper dialogue with Muslims who hate to talk about Jihad and al-Walaa wal Baraa (loving and hating for the sake of Allah).

Thirdly, we intend to establish a global Islamic Caliphate since this was the mission of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhe wassallam). So respecting differences and all this fancy talk will not save you from paying Jizyah. All Praise and Thanks be to Allah that many Muslims are aware of your deception and cozying-up with the Muslims; if you want to be like us, why don’t you just tell us?
Why would one want to be murdering savages, like you. We want to tell you about how you can have eternal life, without having to blow yourself up, killing innocents. The Quran says where such people end up: Surat an-Nisa,093 (Quran 4.93) says "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."


Starbucks Flies Homosexual Flag

Go Pundit Go blogged A local Starbucks on University at the 805, flying the homosexual flag next to the American flag: I can think of about a billion flags that are more appropriate.

At least they used proper flag “Etiquette”, and the US flag is on the left, but I hope that someone suggests boycotting Starbucks (I don't drink coffee, so I certainly won't be going there, but I would not have in any event.).


The ACLU Targets Christians

Jay Sekulow wrote in The ACLU is at it again. With an outrageous boldness that only they could muster, the ACLU has once again set their sights on Christmas celebrations. In their never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life, the ACLU’s latest lawsuit is an all-out frontal attack on the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Let me ask you—when did a children’s Christmas program become “an illegal activity”? When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional? This is the outrageous and dangerous charge the ACLU has leveled against a school district in Tennessee. A children’s Christmas program has been deemed to be an “illegal act” because of the ACLU.

This week, our senior attorneys at the American Center for Law and Justice are working on this latest ACLU case. The ACLU is absolutely determined to censor Christmas. They have sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, TN. We represent several school officials and teachers who have been charged with engaging in what the ACLU calls “illegal acts.” The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs have been harmed, injured and “suffered irreparable damage” through the Christmas program because of its “Christian themes and songs.”

What should they sing at CHRISTMAS? Songs about Halloween, the 4th of July, or New Years?
The ACLU will then ask for these actions be declared “unconstitutional and illegal.” It gets even worse. The plaintiffs and the ACLU allege that several kindergarten students role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus—and had the audacity to sing “Away in the Manger” and “Joy to the World.” According to the ACLU, these songs are exclusively Christian in nature because they celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and are, therefore, inappropriate.
If they sang them for some other holiday, they might be inappropriate, but I still would not penalize kindergarten students. But singing them at Christmas time is absolutely appropriate. Whose birthday is being celebrated, anyway?


Marriage sans consent is over

Khaleej Times reported The Dubai Court of Cassation has upheld a verdict issued by the Shariah Court ordering the termination of a five-year marriage between a national woman and an Egyptian man after the wife’s guardian filed a lawsuit against it saying it was solemnised without his consent.

Can you believe that. A five year old marriage is invallidated because the father of the bride says he did not give his permission. And actually it was one of his sons saying that, because the father is illiterate.
The case unfolded when the woman’s brother filed a lawsuit on behalf of his father (her guardian) before the Dubai Shariah court in July, against the couple who have a daughter.
Since the marriage is invalid, does this mean that the daughter is proof that the woman had sex outside of marriage, and must she now be stoned to death?
The plaintiff demanded the termination of the marriage contract, as it was signed without the consent of the guardian of the wife (according to Shariah). The husband argued that since the marriage was done in mid-August 2000 in Egypt it had become subject of the Egyptian personal status law. A previous civil lawsuit, issued in Egypt, resulted in validating the marriage. However, the court referred to the personal status law, whereby each one of the spouses needed to obey the laws of his or her country of origin, and since the wife was a UAE citizen, the UAE law stipulated that no marriage of an adult or minor female was valid without guardian’s approval. The court thus recommended termination of the marriage contract.


Powerful Shiite Bloc Boycotts Iraqi Government

WaPo reported A bloc of Iraqi lawmakers and cabinet ministers allied with militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr launched a boycott of their government duties Wednesday to protest Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's decision to attend a summit in Jordan with President Bush.

Maliki should accept their resignations, offer their ministry posts to the Kurds in exchange for joining his coalition, and then he should green light taking out Sadr and his militia as well as the Sunni militias.
"We announce the suspension of our participation in government and parliament," said Nasar al-Rubaie, the leader of Sadr's parliamentary bloc. "We gave a promise last Friday that we will suspend our participation if the Prime Minister met with Bush and today [Wednesday] we are doing it as a Sadrist bloc."


The price of daring to teach girls

Independent reported The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy. The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.

Isn't Islam wonderful? And Pakistan wants NATO to surrender to these savages.
Mr Halim was one of four teachers killed in rapid succession by the Islamists at Ghazni, a strategic point on the routes from Kabul to the south and east which has become the scene of fierce clashes between the Taliban and US and Afghan forces.


Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes

Telegraph reported Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

If Muslims are foolish enough to submit to it rather than the British court system that is ok, but Britain must be absolutely certain not to allow it to become the law in any part of their country.
Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.
And they need to make sure it never has binding status.
However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London. Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate their victim. "All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing." Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.


Syrian network planned to kill Lebanese officials

Ynetnews The Lebanese security forces exposed a network which planned to assassinate 36 senior anti-Syrian Lebanese officials, the Lebanese newspaper al-Mustaqbal reported Wednesday morning.

This is an interesting approach to politics. Don't worry about elections, just kill your opponents. Wonder how they feel about Democrats. <grin>
The newspaper, which belongs to the family of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated last year, reported that the Lebanese security forces managed to arrest two of the network's key members. According to the report, the investigation revealed that the network trained in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and planned to execute a plot initiated by the Syrian government to assassinate 36 senior Lebanese officials.


Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells NATO

Telegraph reported Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

I guess if you can't win on the battlefield, you try to persuade your opponents to quit.
Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan
And they want to be free to resume oppressing women and harboring terrorists.
and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops. Western ministers have been stunned. "Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban," said one Western official who met the minister recently.
Does he also want them to convert to Islam?


Judge strikes down Bush on terror groups

Yahoo! News reported A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague.

If his executive order was vague, then why does he not issue another one being more specific, and including this judge and her support of terrorist organizations.
Some parts of the Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists" were too vague and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said.

The order gave the president "unfettered discretion" to label groups without giving them a way to challenge the designations, she said in a Nov. 21 ruling that was made public Tuesday. The judge, who two years ago invalidated portions of the U.S. Patriot Act, rejected several sections of Bush's Executive Order 13224 and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups. However, she let stand sections that would penalize those who provide "services" to designated terrorist groups. She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs.

Michelle Malkin blogged This same judge ruled parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional that barred giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations in 2004. The same plaintiff and lawyer--David Cole and the Humanitarian Law Project representing the Liberation Tigers and the PKK--were involved in that case as in the present one. Michael Radu had a thorough analysis of the 2004 ruling and the plaintiffs here.

His conclusion then holds now:
One can only hope that Judge Collins will be overruled, if not by her colleagues on the Ninth Circuit (yes, miracles do happen), then by the Supreme Court. But regardless of what happens, we can draw valuable observations from these developments. The War on Terror has numerous fronts, many of them, unfortunately, within America itself, where sympathetic lawyers, “human rights” militants and inane judges can be the most dedicated enemies to national security.
Not seeing much comment on law blogs on the new ruling. Would really like to hear reactions from legal types.

Jay blogged I should really just stop right there. The ruling is praised by a lawyer for terrorist sympathizing, Center For Constitutional Rights! The Center for Constitutional Rights is openly anti-American and pro-terrorist. Groups suspected of ties to terrorism give money to CCR. The granddaughter of the executed Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg works there! At its 2004 annual convention, the CCR honored attorney Lynne Stewart, an open supporter of terrorism, indicted by the Justice Department for abetting the terrorist activities of her client, the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman.

Yes, if you are wondering, this judge was a Clinton appointee from 1994. One Freeper suggests The President should simply create another terrorist group by executive order: JACC….Judges Appointed by Clinton and Carter. Designate the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and several more on the list of supporters while you’re at it. Of course we are slightly overexaggerating, but we should be seeing more impeachments for insanity like this. This will probably make it to SCOTUS in appeals.

Amboy Times blogged "This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era." Did Mc Carthy ever have to deal with 3,000 dead in one day on US soil? Just wondering. This case leaves an important question unanswered, if the Commander in Chief, with the aproval of Congress can't identify the enemy, then who will?

Brian blogged Kind of funny that they’d bring up the whole “guilt by association” thing, because if you look at one of the major election themes of the Democratic Party, that was it. Look at Abramoff, Cunningham, Fey, Foley, Libbey, etc., and that was the meme: these guys allegedly did something wrong, perhaps even criminal. They’re all Republicans. Therefor, all Republicans are criminals. Now, that’s obviously not the case, but it worked with enough of the voters to get the Dems back in power.

Anyway, back to the ruling. No surprise, but the judge was a Clinton appointee. Not that that makes all Clinton judges bad, but it sure as heck doesn’t help the notion, does it?


Bush Adviser’s Memo Cites Doubts About Iraqi Leader

NYT leaked A classified memorandum

I actually agree with the contents of the memo, but I do not think that the New York Times should have printed a classified memo, especially just as Bush is to confron Maliki on exactly this matter.
by President Bush’s national security adviser expressed serious doubts about whether Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had the capacity to control the sectarian violence in Iraq and recommended that the United States take new steps to strengthen the Iraqi leader’s position.


Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Polonium 210

Do you want to kill a spy, and make it look like Putin ordered it. Then you will be happy to know that United Nuclear will sell you 0.1uCi of Polonium 210 for $69.00. And as their website indicates No NRC license required! All our radioactive isotopes are legal to purchase & own by the general public. To ensure the longest half-life possible, we do NOT keep isotopes in stock. All isotopes are produced fresh in a Nuclear Reactor and shipped directly to you from the NRC licensed isotope manufacturer. - SORRY, NO INTERNATIONAL SALES OF RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES - We can only ship isotopes to addresses within the United States.

You are not restricted to just Alpha emitters like Polonium210. They also sell Gamma sources like Cadmium109, Barium133, Cobalt57, Manganese54, Sodium22, or Zinc65, and Beta sources like Strontium90 and Thallium204 (which they first thought was used to kill Alexander Litvinenko), and Multiple radiation emitters like Cesium137 (1uCi, 1=5uCi, or 10uCi) or Cobalt60, and you can get a 3 disk set of Alpha, Beta & Gamma sources. The ideal Christmas present for someone who thinks he has everything.

Hat tip to Pamela Geller Oshry


Reforming Islam

MEMRI reported Dr. Soheib Bencheikh was born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1961, studied Islamic theology at Al-Azhar University and received his doctorate from the prestigious Parisian Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (EPHE). Formerly the mufti of Marseilles, France, he is a member of the French Council for the Muslim Religion and head of the French Institute for Islamic Science. Recently, he announced his candidacy for the April 2007 French presidential election

If he wants to be President of France, I can see why he proposing reforming Islam. Should he be elected, I wonder whether he would continue to push those reforms, or is it like Hillary pretending to move to the center?
, and launched his election website. In addition, one of his supporters maintains a blog that includes interviews he has given to the press, as well as links to other French Muslim reformist websites.

Bencheikh believes that French-style secularism is a necessary precondition for the reform of Islam, and he calls on both Muslims and non-Muslims to participate in critiquing Islam, reinterpreting its holy texts, combating fundamentalism, and helping Islam adapt to the modern era.
I don't know how secularism is going to reform Islam. I would think that a better environment would be one of faith, but tolerant of other faiths.
The following are excerpts from interviews Bencheikh gave to French and Algerian newspapers that were posted on his official website:

Bencheikh says that Islam came into being in tribal societies and is still focused on the tribal lifestyle.
That is true. Mohammad invented Islam, but his tribe would not accept it, and he left and went to Medina and persuaded some there to accept it, then he lead an army to attack his own tribe in Mecca and force them to accept the new religion. He then went on to spread his new religion by conquering other tribes and countries.
Thus, he says, it should be reformed to address the needs of modern life: "
Like equal rights for women???
...Religious teachings were developed and formulated between the eighth and 12th centuries, and have not undergone any reform or updating since that time... In the 60s, most Muslim countries chose political modernity. Most of them became either republics or constitutional monarchies. But these choices remained completely theoretical. [There] was no reform to [adapt] Muslim theology to this historical transformation. Consequently, [Muslims today] experience a dangerous discrepancy between their status as citizens and their status as believers...

"This static theology we inherited was conceived for an Islam that was the religion of the majority and had sovereignty over its lands. Moreover, it was conceived for tribal societies. This theology was meant for times when nations hardly came into contact [with each other] - and if they did, it was in a spirit of rivalry for dominance. This theology could not care less about living in harmony with other cultures, and knows nothing of pluralism based on universal principals like secularism and religious freedom - [principles that are] applicable to all religions and granted to all." Bencheikh also explains that Islamic jurisprudence was aimed at managing Muslim life in a tribal society and must therefore be reformed: "[To take] Islamic jurisprudence - which was inherited from [tribal] societies - and turn it into a kind of universal jurisprudence applicable to all periods means to 'bedouinize' Islam and prevent Islamic societies from evolving... In Algeria, for example, fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] is still applied... If I divorce my wife, she will have to leave our apartment with her children.
In America you would probably be the one to have to leave, and pay her child support besides.
Why is it like that? Because at a time when life was organized into tribes - and not into city blocks [as in modern times] - the divorced wife had to leave her husband's clan in order to go back to her father's clan. [In fiqh,] nothing has changed, even though the social framework has changed completely."

Bencheikh states that political Islam is a heresy promoted by the Arab states: "The first heresy in Islam in the 20th century was the politicization of Islam. As soon as Muslim countries became independent came the birth of political Islam - i.e. a kind of Islam that is dictated by the state, obeys only the state, and is merely an organ of the state - since it helps the state to increase its power and oppress the people... We are all familiar with the failures and the bloody [inclinations] of political Islam.
Who blame everything on the west, hoping its people will not rebell against the true oppressors, the government of their own country.
"In the Muslim countries, the state still pays the imams' salaries. It is the state that promotes Islam - but what kind of Islam? The kind of Islam that is not familiar with [the concept of] citizenship, but only [the concept of] subjects; the kind of Islam that is not familiar with [the concept of] a state [based on citizens'] rights, but only with the rights of the prince; the kind of Islam that is not familiar with democratic elections or with the free expression of a sovereign people, but only with the oath of allegiance [to the ruler].

"I am convinced that the Islamic state promotes its own destruction by teaching a kind of Islam that does not reform itself, and that still relates to traditional, patriarchal and tribal societies."
From your lips to Allah's ear.
Bencheikh draws a distinction between Islam as a humanist religion and Islam as a political tool, stating that Muslim theologians have a responsibility to promote humanistic Islam: "It is up to us Muslims who are versed in religious science to make the distinction, in the minds of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, between a religion based on spirituality, humanism, and civilization [on the one hand], and a purely instrumental use [of religion], which aims at seizing worldly, material power [on the other]..."
Good luck
....Bencheikh draws another distinction: between the Koran's eternal message and its violent aspect - which, he says, is derived from the historical context of conflict in which it was revealed. He writes: "The Koran contains approximately 10 verses that encourage Muslims to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defense...
And a lot more that urge spreading Islam by force of the sword.
There are verses promoting respect for Jews and Christians, along with verses advocating the use of unrestrained violence against polytheists. However, most of these verses must be... seen in [the light of] their historical context... I will not be so cruel as to remind [readers] that the Old Testament also... includes verses loaded with violence.
But they either reported that it happened, or in the few cases where God ordered violence, it was against a particular group of people. The Holy Bible never said (Surah 9:29) 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 Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
However, this does not lead me to say that the Bible encourages a theology of conquest and domination. It only means that sacred texts must always be seen in [the light of] the context in which they were revealed and passed on [to the next generations]. We must reinterpret them in order to extract their eternal, universal value - instead of [using them to] legitimize political and personal agendas.".... He adds that not criticizing Islam is tantamount to contemptuous dismissal of it: "Islam must be criticized, just as Christianity was [criticized] during the Enlightenment. Islam is a message for all humanity. Therefore, it is not the property of Muslims [alone]. Everyone has the right to be fascinated by this religion, to adhere to it, to be critical of it, and even to be hostile to it... To avoid criticizing Islam is a form of segregation. We must admit that Muhammad was a human being. [As such] he was fallible, and his message is open to interpretation."
I wish you luck.
Bencheikh adds that "the majority of Muslims - the ordinary people - want an open, moderate Islam. They want to hear innovative, modern discourse. This is [the trend] I want to promote... Moderate [Muslims] are the majority, but they do not take action. This is always the case with silent majorities. Radical movements, on the other hand, benefit from groups of activists [organized in] parties... There is a need for a thoroughly new organization [that will promote moderate Islam]."


The dagger at their throats

Debra J. Saunders wrote in SFGate In a fascinating memoir due in stores in February, "My Year Inside Radical Islam," Gartenstein-Ross describes how he was drawn to Islam because he saw it as a religion of peace. Over time, however, he watched himself and those around him seduced into a fanaticism that required them to loathe not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who belonged to the wrong sect, listened to music or shaved. He had expected an open, accepting religion, only to hear sheikhs arguing that Muslims who leave the religion should be killed, that it is acceptable to kill civilians for jihad and that good Muslims should work to replace democratic governments with Shariah law.

The hate chased Gartenstein-Ross from Islam, but only after it sucked him into believing that unacceptable actions were holy. The book's message is not that Americans should distrust all Muslims. "The message is the exact opposite of that," he told me over the phone. Gartenstein-Ross understands that America needs to enlist moderate Muslims to fight the extremists. More important, in the course of his journey he saw the many benign stripes of Islam as he befriended good people whose faith made them stronger, better human beings.

Certainly not all Muslims are violent, but since the violent ones will turn on a fellow muslim just as fast as anyone else that opposes them, few stand up and challenge them.
He believes Americans need a more fact-based understanding of Islam, which requires the media to do a better job of reporting what Muslims think and say -- instead of papering over radical rhetoric. Once when a local reporter visited Al Haramain to write a piece on Ramadan, a co-worker refused to shake her hand, launched a defense of sorts of Algerian terrorists and lambasted a French policy that prohibited schoolgirls from wearing the hijab in class. The comments never made the story. Gartenstein-Ross writes, "And so, as I often did, the reporter chose not to acknowledge that a real clash of values existed here."

Islam's approach to homosexuality is another area that the left ignores in deference to multiculturalism. (Think of Bay Area liberals who voice outrage at the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but are silent about the Shariah policy on homosexuals -- 100 lashes or death.) Ditto the status of women.
I agree. It amazes me why the left is not even more outraged by radical Islam than conservatives, because if Radical Islam succeeds, it will be the gays and women that will pay the price first.
Gartenstein-Ross also takes issue with those rose-colored-glass wearers who deny that there is any theological basis for Islamic extremism. "It's important to note that they do have an argument," he told me, if only to be able to engage them in argument and understand where they get their ideas.
But can you engage them in argument, or do they just react with violence.
Gartenstein-Ross is a strong storyteller, who enables the reader to feel the ineluctable draw to fanaticism, as well as the anguish and disillusionment that led him to support violent jihad, but ultimately reject it. He has no use for those who, a la Chomsky, pat themselves on the back for having the intellectual fortitude "to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators."


How the imams terrorized an airliner

Washington Times reported Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials. Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse

They were clearly trying to call attention to themselves. Either that, or they think their Allah is hard of hearing.
and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department. Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin. "That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."
It would concern me as well.
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."


Monday, November 27, 2006

We are in a war to the death

Janet Daley wrote in Telegraph Who would have thought it? Half of Europe – the half that was so smug about having buried God several generations ago – is waiting in real trepidation for the outcome of a theological argument. When Pope Benedict XVI flies to Turkey tomorrow, he will embody the most potentially incendiary confrontation between Islam and the West since the defeat of the Turks at Vienna in 1683 brought an end to Islamic conquest in Europe.The Pope will take with him an understanding that at the root of our problems in dealing with the Islamist death cult, there is a fundamental debate to be had about the role of human reason in political affairs.

The remarks he made in a lecture in Regensburg, Germany, which implied that Islam rejected rationality while Christianity saw it as essential to faith were contentious (and almost certainly designed to be so), but they raised a question that almost no Western government has the courage to ask, let alone answer. How is a liberal democracy to deal with an illiberal religious minority in its midst?

A very good question, and one that all of Europe needs to figure out the answer to.
To understand the life-or-death significance of what the Pope does and says when he arrives in Istanbul, it is necessary to see this confrontation for what it is. This will involve some traumatic re-adjustment for most of the opinion-forming class in Britain. The first assumption that will have to go is the premise that Islamist terrorism can be understood in pragmatic, politically rational terms: in other words, that it can be addressed with the usual mechanisms of negotiation, concession and amended policy.
Civilized negotiation presumes that both sides are civilized.
The most readily accepted version of this is that a change to our policy in the Middle East will remove the grievances that "fuel" Muslim terrorism. The Cabinet has apparently been advised that all foreign policy decisions over the next decade should have the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain and that this should involve "a significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity". So Britain is contemplating constructing a foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East, that is designed to give in to terrorist blackmail.
And the Middle East conflict was intentionally staged to give oppressed muslims a reason to be mad at someone who was oppressed more, and thus not complain about their own leaders, even though the suffering Palestinians were put in that situation intentially by fellow Muslims.
Never mind that the hereditary grievance of almost all British-born Muslim terrorists is the Kashmir question, to which the almost entirely irrelevant Palestine issue has been tacked on by political manipulators with larger ambitions. (The easiest way to make a connection between the Palestine-Israel conflict and the problem of Kashmir is to construct a global theory of persecution in which British-born Muslims may see themselves as born into a victimhood perpetrated by all non-Muslim nations upon Islam.

That, as it happens, chimes perfectly with the true goal of Islamism, which is global supremacy.) So this ignominious posture – what you might call the "save our own skin; who cares what happens in the rest of the world?" view – is based on a false premise. It is not adjustments to our stance on Israel-Palestine that the international Islamist terror movement wants.
They just want power.
That demand was just a bin Laden afterthought that went down a treat with the old reliable anti-Semitic interest in Europe. What Islamic fundamentalism plans to achieve (and it has made no secret of it) is a righting of the great wrong of 1492, when the Muslims were expelled from Spain: a return of the Caliphate, the destruction of corrupt Western values, and the establishment of Sharia law in all countries where Muslims reside. That is what we are up against.
And we need to realize it.
The Pope characterised it as a battle between reason and unreason. Scholars may debate the theological and historical soundness of his analysis. But what is indisputable is that this is not an argument that is within the bounds of diplomatic give and take, the traditional stuff of international policy argy-bargy. What we could plausibly offer to the enemy, even at our most craven, would never be sufficient.

What is being demanded is the surrender of everything that Western democracy regards as sacred: even, ironically, the freedom to practise one's own religion, which, at the moment, is so useful to Muslim activists. We are forced to accept the Islamist movement's own estimation of the conflict: this is a war to the death, or until Islamism decides to call a halt. But we do not have to accept all that Islamism claims for itself: most importantly, the idea that it alone embodies the true principles of its faith. The argument that the Islamic religion is inherently violent, which the Pope was thought to have supported in his Regensburg lecture, is academic, in both the literal and metaphorical senses.
If is easily answered by reading the Quran, such as Surah 9:29 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 Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. You may agree that people should be free to pracice their own religion, but does that apply if that religion says that non members must either be dead, converted, or subjegated?
What matters for us now is that a great many Muslims – including some enthusiastic converts who cannot even lay claim to a life history of persecution or injustice for their beliefs – are prepared to use their religious affiliation as a justification to commit mass murder. How are we to deal with this? There is only one way: we must, with the co-operation of the Muslim majority, separate the faith from its violent exponents.

Liberal democracy reached an understanding with religion a long time ago: your right, as a citizen, to observe your faith without persecution will be explicitly protected by the state. In return, you will agree to make your peace with the civil law and respect the rights of others to pursue their beliefs. That's the deal. We cannot make exceptions either by removing Muslims who accept their side of the bargain from that protection, or by permitting those who refuse to accept it to flout our law (on, say, sexual equality or the overt slavery of forced marriages).

As Caroline Cox and John Marks argue in their book The West, Islam and Islamism, republished in a new edition by Civitas this week, it is imperative that we distinguish between the Islamic faith and Islamist ideology. If we accept – or even countenance – the view that the two are indistinguishable, we will either be paralysed by our own democratic commitment to religious freedom or forced to engage in all-out religious war.

If a majority of the Muslim community is prepared to separate itself, clearly and explicitly, from the terrorist faction, then we have a chance. If it is not, if it is swept up in the glamour of international victim status and the dark victory of glorious death, then we face generations of bloodshed.

To some extent, this is up to us. Britain must have more to offer than domestic confusion and international cowardice. But it is up to conscientious Muslims as well, of whom much – perhaps more than is fair – must be demanded by way of intercession and courage.


Shaking hands

Jihadist Website said they said to Ibn Hajar al-Haythami: “Is it allowed for the Muslim to extend his hand when greeting a Christian, so that he could shake it?” He answered: “No, because the Christian will feel at peace when he is shaking your hand.

So a member of the "Religion of peace" cannot even shake the had of a Christian because it will make him feel at peace.
So, it is not allowed for you to extend your hand for him to shake.”…It was narrated to me by the leader of the Islamic Movement in Jordan - our teacher, Muhammad ‘Abd ar-Rahman Khalifah:... Edit: Some might read this and think this is too harsh since there is no known recorded hadith on the forbidden act of shaking the hand of a Kafir. I posted this because Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam (rahimahullah) is referring to a higher level of Taqwa; even higher than Warr.
Taqwa is fear of Allah; I cound not find out what Warr was.


Was Litvinenko a Muslim?

M&C News reported Radio station Echo Moskvy reported Friday Litvinenko

the Russian spy that blamed Putin for poisoning him.
had converted to Islam shortly before his death. Litvinenko, it said, had been read the Yasin surah, or prayer, and given Islamic death rites by an imam invited to his hospital bedside. Ekho, a prominent liberal broadcaster funded by state-owned gas monopoly Gazprom, said Litvinenko would be buried in a Muslim cemetery in London.

AJ blogged It seems the brutal Chechen rebels (who are definitely allied with Al Qaeda) are publically honoring former KGB spy Alexander Litvenenko who died mysteriously this past week.

Pamela Geller Oshry blogged As I predicted earlier today, the fact there is a trail of Polonium would mean the poison was not just in Litvinenko but on him - which makes poisoning a bit of a stretch. Now that trail of leaked Polonium has led to Berezovsky's office - not to Putin as suspected. Now we just need to know the order of events to see where the Polonium started to contaminate Litvinenko as he travelled. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a container lost its sealed and Litvinenko never knew he was contaminated by a package he was carrying. A simply licking his fingers would have doomed him.
The reason the russian government was suspected was because it would take a nuclear reactor to create the Polonium. If he is a Muslim, then where did he get it, and even more important, what other radioactive substances do they have?


In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning

Ben Stein wrote in NYT Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay,

Who determines "what they can afford to pay"
or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap....
Best way to close the deficit gap is to cut spending.
In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say).
But because they increased spending.
Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again. By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue.
The tax cuts did add to revenue. They caused the economy to grow, which takes time, and with lower taxes the revenue was over $1 Trillion by the end of fiscal 2006. The increase in the national debt is because we spent too much, for 9/11, for Katrina, etc and did not cut spending to pay for the war.
To be fair, corporate profits taxes have increased greatly, as corporate profits have increased stupendously. This may be because of the cut in corporate tax rates. Anything is possible.
May be???


Police want power to crack down on offensive demo chants and slogans

Guardian Unlimited reporteed Police are to demand new powers to arrest protesters for causing offence through the words they chant and the slogans on their placards and even headbands. The country's biggest force, the Metropolitan police, is to lobby the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, because officers believe that large sections of the population have become increasingly politicised, and there is a growing sense that the current restrictions on demonstrations are too light.

Good luck. Britain doe have a bigger Islamist problem that we do, and they don't have a 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech to worry about, but there is article 10 of the European convention on human rights which protects freedom of expression which might get in the way.
Trouble at recent protests involving Islamic extremists has galvanised the Met's assistant commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur, into planning a crackdown. His proposals are due to be sent to Lord Goldsmith, who is reviewing how effective the current laws are in tackling extremists.


Glamorization of Islam's submission of women

Fausta blogged Now here's the latest trend: Marie Claire's Mecca Stars, a.k.a. the glamorization of Islam's submission of women. Debbie Schlussel has all the photos from the spread, and comments.... Considering how Islam tells men to beat their wives into submission, it's hardly surprising that the first page of the spread highlights an S&M item.... The photo spread shows the glamour of eating a burger under your veil at McDonald's. Irony? Humor? Of just good ole cluelessness on Marie Claire's part?.... On page 143, one of the "stars" is shown behind the wheel: To the Arabs, Women Driving Cars Is a Sinful Thing. The babe in the photo must be daydreaming, much like a little kid who sneaks behind the wheel of his dad's car wishing he could actually drive it.

I guess if you are rich enough with oil money, you can pay for things like this for your many wives to wear, in private of course.


Muslim trust gap

CSMonitor reported "9/11 created a pretty big divide and we still have a ways to go, but there has been progress," says Arsalan Iftikhar, national legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.

Yes we have foiled a number of additional attacks, both here and overseas.
"With five years of retrospect at our disposal now, we as a nation are able to see more accurately what are and what are not effective law-enforcement initiatives and how it is important to reach out to the Muslim-American community and make them feel as partners in our society."
And if they do not cooperate, then to keep a close eye on them.
There's no question the US Muslim community felt the brunt of the FBI's counterterrorism and law-enforcement initiatives after 9/11, say experts. More than 1,200 immigrants, mostly Arab and Muslim males, were detained and denied due process for months. The Justice Department's own inspector general concluded that their detentions were "indiscriminate and haphazard," with no clear distinction made between those held for immigration violations and those who were suspected terrorists.
Both of which justify incarceration.
The report also found "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse" by correction officers. Ultimately, only a handful of those detained were charged with a terrorism-related offense, and 231 were deported.

The Justice Department also set up a special program that required male visitors from 24 Arab and Muslim countries to register with local immigration offices.
A very good idea.
More than 80,000 men did so. Immigration officials found an estimated 13,000 were "out of status," which means there were problems with their visas. They're now awaiting deportation hearings.
Hopefully they are being held, or at least observed.
But experts say many of the visa problems were caused by inaccurate data and long delays in processing applications for permanent status. The Justice Department eventually canceled the program.
This was stupid.
"By singling out a large group of mostly Arabs and Muslims, [these programs] involved a massive investment of law-enforcement resources with negligible return," says James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington....
Other than catching a number of terrorists, and finding 13,000 with visa problems.
"One of the most disturbing things is that [polls show] more than half of the country views Islam as a violent or an extreme religion," says Faiza Ali, a student at Pace University, who spoke at the conference in New York.
Why whatever would make them think that? Did they read the Quran which says (Surah 9:29)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 Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Or did they read the Sunnah and Hadith (19:4294) Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war .... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
The FBI found many such misperceptions about Islam among its agents as well, according to Andrew Arena, the special agent in charge of the New York FBI office. And so, as as the bureau began a concentrated effort to reach out to the Muslim community, education became one of its first priorities. At the FBI Academy and in ongoing field training, agents are now taught about the Muslim faith - its basic tenets and things like the difference between Shiites and Sunnis.
And why they each want to kill the other, all over who should have become boss when Mohammad died.
"It's helped to make our agents more culturally sensitive to the concerns of not only the Muslim community, but all of the communities that we deal with," says Mr. Arena.


Better Late Than Never

OpinionJournal reported It's been years since federal agencies have screamed this loudly about fiscal discipline being imposed on them. GOP Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina have decided to take a stand against overspending by objecting to the nearly 10,000 earmarks, or member-sponsored pork projects, larded throughout the spending bills Congress is currently considering.

Good job, and I am very proud that my Senator was one of the two that did it.
Their obstinacy has convinced the leadership of the departing Republican Congress that they probably won't be able to pass spending bills in next month's short lame-duck session. Instead, they are likely to pass a stopgap "continuing resolution," which will continue funding all programs at last year's level
Poor babies. They have to live with last year's budget.
until the new Democratic Congress passes its own versions of the funding bills. Mr. Coburn says the decision not to pass earmark-stuffed catchall spending bills could save taxpayers a cool $17 billion. All 10,000 earmarks in the pending bills will expire if they aren't passed by the end of the year. Mr. Coburn says the decision of the congressional leadership to instead go for a continuing resolution is a sign Republicans are learning some lessons from their stinging loss of Congress three weeks ago

Blue Crab blogged Effectively, Coburn and DeMint have forced the issue onto the Democrats. They will have to step up and pass the spending bills when they take control. After campaigning on fiscal responsibility, their first test will come almost from the first day they take over. If they continue the favor factory politics, they will have already lost a major battle. This was far from an irresponsible move. It was a bit of fiscal responsibility that should have been done a lot sooner.


The War on Terror's Newest Combatant

American Thinker reported Things are getting positively biblical in the War on Terror’s African front. According to Agence France Presse, Ethiopia is about to attack the Somali Islamists single-handed, on their own hook, and with assistance from nobody. On Thursday Prime Minister Meles Zenawi told the Ethiopian parliament that the Islamists represented “a clear threat to Ethiopia” and that the government had “completed the preparations” for full-scale war. The Islamists, who triggered the crisis by declaring Jihad on the Ethiopians, have (of all possible moves) turned to the United States for mediation.

AFAIK, Ethopia does not have any troops in Afganistan, and have nothing to do with Israel or the War in Iraq, so the Islamists cannot use any of that as an excuse for their declaring Jihad on a neighbor.


Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reported Ramadan Shalah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader, publicly admits that Israel’s security fence is an important obstacle to the terrorist organizations, and that “if it weren’t there, the situation would be entirely different.”

As Robert Frost said, in the Mending Wall Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
The PIJ has carried out the greatest number of suicide bombing attacks during the past few years. On November 11, PIJ leader Abdallah Ramadan Shalah granted a long interview to Al-Manar TV, Hezbollah's television channel. During the interview, for the first time he admitted that Israel 's security fence was an important obstacle to the terrorist organizations (the “resistance”).
Click here to view the relevant footage from the interview
He noted that the suicide bombing attacks ( istishhad ) were the Palestinian people's “strategic choice,” and were meant to “create a balance of force and deterrence” in the campaign against a superior enemy.
An enemy that would never attack you if you did not send rockets, or suicide bombers, or otherwise attack him, but you are so filled with hate that you can't see that.
Ramadan Shalah noted that the terrorist organizations had every intention of continuing suicide bombing attacks, but that their timing and the possibility of implementing them from the West Bank depended on other factors. “For example,” he said, “there is the separation fence, which is an obstacle to the resistance, and if it were not there the situation would be entirely different

Meryl Yourish blogged this puts paid the theory that the fence is nothing but a “land grab.” It’s working. It isn’t just the IDF and special forces keeping the terrorists in check. The fence is achieving its objective.


This is very funny

Saudia Arabia, from a woman's perspective

Hat tip to Pamela Geller Oshry