Monday, December 31, 2007

“Surrender Is Not An Option”—Perhaps, Perhaps Not*

Paul Eidelberg

Two Munichs occurred in 2007: (1) the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, and (2) the U.S-sponsored Annapolis Conference. The two Munichs may lead to a world war that destroys what is left of a decaying Western civilization.

The National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran had stopped its nuclear-weapons development program in 2003. This gives Iran the green light to complete that program. A nuclear-armed Iran will control Saudi Arabia as well as pacifist Europe on which America’s economy and survival depend. Of course, a nuclear-armed Iran dooms Israel.

The Annapolis Conference buys time for the United States, while Israel retreats to its indefensible 1949 borders to accommodate the establishment of Palestinian state which, in a second stage orchestrated by Iran, will cover all of Palestine.

Pundits attribute the first mentioned Munich to a “shadow government” in the American State Department working in conjunction with dovish elements in American intelligence agencies. The same shadow government is committed to Israel extinction.

This marks a stunning victory of the godless Left and satanic Islam—allied in a war against the nation-state and the source of West civilization, the Bible of Israel.

The trans-nationalism that animates the American State Department is more dangerous than the trans-nationalism of Islam! Let us probe this department with the help of John Bolton, whose book, Surrender Is Not an Option, was published only a few months ago. By the way, President Bush’s appointment of Bolton to a full term as U.S ambassador to the UN was blocked by Senate Democrats because of Bolton’s reputation for “muscular diplomacy.”

Returning to America’s “shadow government”: it is simply the State Department’s permanent bureaucracy. It consists of highly educated Machiavellians who know how to manipulate secretaries of state as well as American ambassadors. These secretaries and ambassadors are political appointees. Generally speaking, they have little or no professional experience in foreign affairs. In theory, they are supposed to implement the president’s foreign policy. Yet State and the CIA blocked implementation of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which provided for drawing up a constitution for post-Saddam Iraq; developing an interim legal code; and training thousands of Iraqis for police functions. The president was not on top of events: State and the CIA thwarted his policies.

Condoleezza Rice, like her predecessor, Colin Powell, has been captured by the State Department’s permanent bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is dominated by liberal-leftists. Leftwing ideologues have dominated State for more than seventy years, and it requires a strong-willed and an intellectual fortified president to counter State’s leftist approach to foreign affairs. Such presidents are rare.

One consequence is that American ambassadors often succumb to what Bolton calls “clientitis.” They end up representing not American interests so much as the foreign policies of the countries to which they have been posted—with Israel a notable exception.

Moreover, the very training or experience of the permanent bureaucracy in the domain of diplomacy inclines them to overestimate the efficacy of negotiations when dealing with Arab dictatorships. (I have written extensively on this subject in my book Jewish Statesmanship, where I discuss the inability of democratic diplomacy to compete with martial diplomacy.)

Not only is the State Department dominated by liberal leftists, and not only do they tend to be internationalists or globalists, but they know how to forge links with their ideological counterparts in Congress, especially when Congress and its foreign relations committees are controlled by Democrats. When Congress is controlled by Republicans, or when the president is himself a Republican, State knows how to obstruct conservative or nationalist oriented foreign policies. President Bush simply failed to appoint competent, conservative secretaries of state to implement his foreign policy agenda. Let us probe even deeper.

Few countries are more anti-American than America’s own State Department! State has been anti-American for many decades. In my book Beyond Detente: Toward an American Foreign Policy, published in 1977, I pointed our that the State Department, which consists of the most highly educated civil servants in American government, has long been tainted by the university-bred doctrine of moral or cultural relativism. This doctrine denies the existence of good and evil.

It undermines confidence in the justice of a nation’s cause. It erodes Americanism and patriotism. The anti-Americanism rampant among academics has become notorious.

In Surrender Is Not an Option, John Bolton emphasizes that relativism or “moral equivalency” permeates the State Department. The left-wing culture of moral equivalency has very much contributed to America’s fainthearted foreign policy; especially its anything but “even-handed diplomacy” in the Middle East, as witness Annapolis. Secretary Rice’s moral equivalency in dealings with Israel and the Palestinian Authority is nothing less than moral reversal.

Bolton—a man of superior intellectual and moral courage—may have chosen the title of his book, Surrender Is Not An Option, because he feared that America, like England and Europe, is in danger of surrendering its national sovereignty to Islam or to an Islamic-dominated United Nations.

Surrender seems to be the option of Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who confessed, before a New York audience, “We are tired of being courageous.” It seems that President Bush is also tired of being courageous.

The defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the toppling of Saddam Hussein were not enough to sustain his post-9/11 momentum. What stopped him was not simply an underestimation of the military forces required to prevent or overcome the insurgency in Iraq. Such errors are made and overcome in many wars. More significant is Mr. Bush’s inability to define America’s enemy.

The enemy is not “terrorism,” a vacuous concept. The enemy is Islam, more specifically, Islamic imperialism, which dates back to Muhammad. But one cannot say such a thing in a liberal, pluralistic democracy, especially one whose intellectual elites are steeped in moral relativism, or in the multiculturalism that prompted the eminent American political scientist Samuel Huntington to write Who Are We? Mr. Bush can speak of an “Axis of Evil,” but he dares not attribute evil to any religion. That would be unadulterated racism!

And so, the day after 9/11 he called Islam a “religion of peace” and does so even now! Americans are given to believe that Islam was hijacked by “extremists.” Many experts foster intellectual dishonesty by defining the enemy as “Islamism” or “radical” Islam” or “Islamic fundamentalism.” Today, “IslamoFascists”—a more subtle piece of obscurantism”—has become au courant.

We are told of “Muslim moderates,” and we are happy to learn of these exceptional Muslims. But take a random sample of the thousand mosques in the United States to learn about these moderates. See whether these mosques denounce Islamic extremists and preach peace with “infidels” as readily as they preach hatred of America, Jews, and Christians.

How can American politicians criticize Islam without violating the law? How can they expose a religion whose devotees danced in the streets on 9/11 and admire Osama bin Laden? How can America confront a religion whose faithful slaughtered more that 200 million people since the seventh century? But this means that American liberalism has become obsolete vis-à-vis Islamic imperialism. It cannot muster the ruthlessness required to confront an enemy that exults is suicidal murder.

And so America, like Israel, is committing national suicide. National suicide is inevitable given the moral relativism American universities have been propagating for more than sixty years.

These universities provided the people that dominate the “shadow government” entrenched in the American State Department. Therein you will find the doctrine that led to the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 and Annapolis. Therein you will find that surrender is no longer an option because it has already taken place—first in the minds of men.**

—————————————
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, December 31, 2007.

**For a happier conclusion, read my book A Jewish Philosophy of History. Order it online at Lightcatcherbooks.com. And to hasten that happier conclusion, support the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy—the pace setter on systematic in-depth analysis on Israel.

Here is the link to LISTEN NOW (Click to listen):
http://www.israelnationalradio.com/

Sunday, December 30, 2007

WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE WILL TO DEFEAT ISLAM

or

WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STOP ISLAM - II

SEE NEW UPDATE!!! - APPENDED AT END OF THIS POST

(the original post "WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STOP ISLAM" at http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-your-government-will-not-stop-islam.html
[now censored] can be seen at http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-your-government-will-not-stop-islam.html)

from Jihad Watch December 28, 2007 :

Pro-Muslim Pentagon officials pressuring one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on jihad Infiltration.

Infiltration. "Muslim pressure," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times (scroll down):

Pro-Muslim officials at the Pentagon are putting political pressure on one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on Islamist extremism, according to defense officials.

Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic law on the Joint Staff, met recently with Hasham Islam, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England's close aide. The officials said Mr. Islam, a Muslim who is leading efforts for the Defense Department's outreach to Muslim groups, sought to convince Mr. Coughlin to take a softer line on Islam and Islamic law elements that promote extremism.

There is also evidence that a whispering campaign is under way to try and discredit Mr. Coughlin as a "Christian extremist with a pen" and force him out of the building, according to the officials.

Mr. Coughlin came under fire from pro-Muslim officials after a memorandum he wrote identified several groups that are being courted by Mr. Islam's community outreach program as front organizations for the pro-extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Coughlin based the memorandum on documents released as evidence in a federal terrorism trial that he stated "are beginning to define the structure and outline of domestic jihad threat entities, associated nongovernmental organizations and potential terrorist or insurgent support systems."

Mr. Coughlin noted that the documents identified one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups as the Islamic Society of North America, whose leaders were hosted by Mr. England in April at the Pentagon, raising concerns that the deputy defense secretary does not understand clearly the nature of the Islamist threat he is working against as the No. 2 official.

Mr. England has been a leading advocate of what critics in the Pentagon say is a misguided attempt to reach out to the wrong Muslims, regardless of their views, in an effort to counter Muslim extremism.

That approach has kept military and civilian officials from conducting much-needed assessments of how Muslim extremists are waging war because doing so would involving analysis of Muslim religious tenets, a politically taboo subject area.


Aye, there's the rub.

Posted by Robert [Spencer] at 2:33 PM Comments (72)

[Click on "Comments" above to see these.]

As to "WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT CANNOT STOP ISLAM," see
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-your-government-cant-stop-islam.html

and

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/02/infiltration-how-muslim-spies-and.html


BUT . . . IT GETS WORSE, MUCH WORSE . . .

Your Government is already in the clutches of the jihadists . . . read on


UPDATE!!!

from Jihad Watch:


January 4, 2008

Pentagon fires key specialist on Islamic law and jihad after complaints by pro-Muslim officials

Infiltration Update. Here is a travesty for which Gordon England should be held accountable.
"Coughlin sacked," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:

Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.
He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.

Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.

The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon.

After word of the confrontation between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam was made public, support for Mr. Coughlin skyrocketed among those in and out of government who feared the worst, namely that pro-Muslim officials in the Pentagon were after Mr. Coughlin's scalp, and that his departure would be a major setback for the Pentagon's struggling efforts to develop a war of ideas against extremism. Blogs lit up with hundreds of postings, some suggesting that Mr. England's office is "penetrated" by the enemy in the war on terrorism....

Posted by Robert at January 4, 2008 3:52 PMPrint this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us











WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STOP ISLAM

(Photo: You-know-who and the CAIR gang, right after 9-11-01*)


[Also, be sure to click on WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE WILL TO DEFEAT ISLAM (WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STOP ISLAM - II)]

"governments won't do the things you want them to do until there are enough people like you forcing them to do it openly."
Posted by: rudekid
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014474.php#comments

THERE ARE TOO FEW IDEALISTS ON OUR SIDE

IN GOVERNMENT, MOST ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY, AND THE CREATURE COMFORTS IT WILL BUY.

. . . men who have power through riches, intrigue, or office will administer the State at will, and ultimately to their private advantage.

--Admiral H. G. Rickover, U. S. Navy
"Thoughts on Man's Purpose in Life"
from:
http://www.limes68.blogspot.com/


The United States of today has nobody to save it from the consequences of appeasing the Moslems.
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm

The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed is a prerequisite for maintaining US superpower status and for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam. Will the ideals of democracy prove too weak to overcome cupidity?
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm

[Does] the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses?
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm

We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us.
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/12/what-real-war-looks-like-by-elan.asp

U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers," putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington's self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.)
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/12/what-real-war-looks-like-by-elan.asp

To win this war, [Bush] needs to clean out the Augean stables at his intelligence services and put as many as possible of the Arab-American agents and potential agents for the enemy under lock and key. Some new blood at the State Department not contaminated by longstanding yet outworn policies that can still provide a share of Moslem oil wealth for some multinational corporations but no longer help the US economy and have begun to endanger America’s security would also help. And then - when he is ready – the Moslem terrorists and the states aiding them must be hit, simultaneously or one after the other, but so hard that their confidence in their ability to destroy or seriously harm the United States and its allies is utterly broken.
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001d.htm

tgusa says:
Don’t confuse kindness with stupidity. We as westerners try to get along. Now we have allowed an alien culture to infiltrate our world. They don’t want to live in it they want to destroy it. So what does that make these islamopoligists in the west? Traitorous rats who would not even stand up for our women and children. They aren’t selling me out, no one could do that, I’m not sellable. Can we really call these leaders Men? I don’t think so, at least not the image of Men that I have. Never include me and millions of others in that group, my ancestors fought against tyranny and won, mark my words we will do it again.
Posted by: tgusa [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2006 03:01 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014618.php

tgusa, your entire post hit home. While islamists are the real enemy they would not do squat had it not been for the sellout traitors in office. Can one imagine increasing students visa to saudi wahhabbis after 9/11? Yet that is exactly what dubya did. To borrow your phrase: Traitorous Rat!
Posted by: Alert [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2006 04:21 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014618.php

_____________________________________________________
*Photo of Bush and Moslems:

Caption:

Dangerous Group? President Bush met with Muslim-American representatives on Sept. 17, 2001. Second from right is Nihad Awad of CAIR, which Sen. Boxer lately decided may not be a savory group.
from Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384987/site/newsweek/
______________________________________________________
Boxer rescinds award
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014614.php#comments

Yes, first with Jihad news most of the time!

But check out this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384987/site/newsweek/

Sept 17, 2001 -- isn't that six days after Sept 11?

Isn't that bush meeting according to the caption, Nihad Awad of CAIR second from the right, in a mosque/cultural center?

WHY?

I'm not sure if I am overly cynical, but why do I not get the impression that bush is mourning the loss of 3000 people in New York -- if the time frame is correct??

"Why" is
Posted by: witness [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2006 08:25 AM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014614.php#comments
[emphasis mine. lw]

Fritz Kuhn's Bund and William Pelley's Silver Shirts were quite bold in their pro-Nazi and antisemitic activities. The Bund held a famous rally right in the middle of New York City, in Madison Square Garden, as late as 1940. But after December 7, 1941 the Bund was disbanded, its members harried, some arrested, and all lapsed into silence. And so did the members of the other groups tracked by John Roy Carlson in "Under Cover."

The equivalent of December 7, 1941 in this war-wihtout-end that began earlier, but was not marked by one spectacular attack, the Jihad that had fallen over the past two centuries into desuetude only because of Muslim weakness, and was revived when three things occured to make Muslims believe that they could now go for broke, and achieve superiority over their permanent, because non-Muslim, enemies.

These three things were:

1) the past, present, and continuing OPEC oil revenues, which since 1973 have amounted to ten trillion dollars

2) the tens of millions of Muslims permitted by heedless elites everywhere to enter and settle and and make themselves at home in Infidel countries, all over the Bilad al-kufr, behind what they are taught to regard as enemy lines

3) the exploitation by Muslims of Western advances in technology, such as audiocassettes (so useful to Khomeini in 1978-79, videocassettes, satellite television (Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, and others), and the Internet, on which all those Muslim websites preach the faith, inveigle the Spiritual Searchers, and offer videos of decapitation of Infidels that apparently are such a useful recruiting tool for the cause of Jihad.

During the Cold War those who were regarded as agents of the Soviet Union were tracked. Some were arrested. Some lost their jobs. Some were punished for membership in the Communist Party, by the government or, informally, by fellow citizens unwilling to tolerate such an allegiance.

Why does CAIR behave so boldly as to attempt to thwart, completely without fear, and at every step, the most modest measures of self-defense? Why does it think it can get away with the kinds of things it does?

Because it can. And will until enough people, including those from quarters CAIR least expects, have learned enough to be implacable in their mistrust and their relentless hostility to CAIR and everything for which it stands, and in a thousand ways, that go beyond what trivial measures are taken by the government, make life as difficult as they can for CAIR and for all its supporters. Just as they would have, in 1941, for supporters of Fritz Kuhn's Bund.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2007 07:21 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014704.php#comments


Fitzgerald: Infidels can have an effect

Fritz Kuhn's Bund and William Pelley's Silver Shirts were quite bold in their pro-Nazi and antisemitic activities. The Bund held a famous rally right in the middle of New York City, in Madison Square Garden, as late as 1940. But after December 7, 1941, the Bund was disbanded. Its members were harried, some were arrested, and all lapsed into silence. And so did the members of the other groups tracked by John Roy Carlson in Under Cover.

There are three things that amount to the equivalent of December 7, 1941 in this war-without-end in which we are now engaged. This war began earlier, but was not marked by one spectacular attack. The Jihad had fallen over the past two centuries into desuetude only because of Muslim weakness, and has now been revived when three things occurred to make Muslims believe that they could now go for broke and achieve superiority over their permanent, because non-Muslim, enemies.

These three things were:

1) the past, present, and continuing OPEC oil revenues, which since 1973 have amounted to ten trillion dollars.

2) the tens of millions of Muslims permitted by heedless elites everywhere to enter and settle and make themselves at home in Infidel countries, all over the Bilad al-kufr, behind what they are taught to regard as enemy lines.

3) the exploitation by Muslims of Western advances in technology, such as audiocassettes (so useful to Khomeini in 1978-79), videocassettes, satellite television (Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, and others), and the Internet, on which all those Muslim websites preach the faith, inveigle the Spiritual Searchers, and offer videos of decapitation of Infidels that apparently are such a useful recruiting tool for the cause of Jihad.

During the Cold War, those who were regarded as agents of the Soviet Union were tracked. Some were arrested. Some lost their jobs. Some were punished for membership in the Communist Party, by the government or, informally, by fellow citizens unwilling to tolerate such an allegiance.

Why does CAIR behave so boldly as to attempt to thwart, completely without fear, and at every step, the most modest measures of self-defense? Why does it think it can get away with the kinds of things it does?

Because it can. And it will, until enough people, including those from quarters CAIR least expects, have learned enough to be implacable in their mistrust and their relentless hostility to CAIR and everything for which it stands, and in a thousand fully lawful ways, that go beyond what trivial measures are taken by the government, begin to make life as difficult as they can for CAIR and for all its supporters. Just as they would have, in 1941, for supporters of Fritz Kuhn's Bund.

One of the founders of CAIR and its former Board chairman, one Omar Ahmad, is a self-described "Palestinian." He has been quoted, famously, as saying that Islam is in the U.S. to become dominant, and the Qur’an the only law of the land. He now denies saying it, but the original reporter stands by her reportage. One wishes to add that Omar Ahmad, in addition to his tireless work on behalf of Islam and its promotion until it assumes what he regards as its rightful place in America and the world, meanwhile makes his living as CEO of a company called Silicon Expert Technologies.

That company can be searched for online; among the companies that have a "partnership" with "Silicon Expert Technologies" is Azerity. One would like to think that computer engineers, and computer executives at other companies, in choosing whether or not to "partner" or have other dealings with Omar Ahmad, would first fully inform themselves of what CAIR does, and what Omar Ahmad does and says and thinks. They could perhaps factor that information into their mental equation, and even, one would like to think, into their business decisions. One would hope, as well, that those alive in 1938 would not have bought Voigtlander cameras, or in 1953 bought Baltic amber from official Soviet outlets, such as Vneshtorg, which would use that valyuta or hard currency for purposes inimical to the health of liberal democracies.

Everyone is free to consider the wellbeing and safety of our own Infidel ways and institutions and their continued existence, in making decisions as to what partners one wishes to have, and what companies one wishes to hire to provide goods and services. And others, in turn, can make their commercial decisions as to whether or not to have dealings with that second company as well.

Or not, as the case may be.

Perhaps Infidels, in their own small way, can have an effect on the businesses which those who run CAIR, or contribute to CAIR, or support CAIR in any way, may rely on for their livelihood.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for that famous gander.

Posted by Hugh at January 6, 2007 01:16 PM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014721.php#more

Fitzgerald: Saudi Arabia ridimensionato

Why has the American government not read Saudi Arabia the riot act? Why haven't the hate-filled pamphlets collected at mosques around the country that were built and are now maintained by Saudi money brought together by Rice or Bush and put out on a table at the White House? And then the Arab ambassadors could all be invited over to see this "Special Exhibit," an exhibit to which representatives of all the major networks and the major newspapers here and abroad will be invited and urged to cover?

And then why does Bush or someone else not have a little private meeting with the enraged Saudi Ambassador, to tell him that there is much more in that sort of "Special Exhibit" -- which could of course tour the country -- if he doesn't stop funding the mosques and madrasas in this country, and stop allowing Saudi money to pay for Muslim missionaries in the prisons, to prey on the psychically as well as economically marginal.

If the American government had a mind to do it, it could bring the Saudi government around in no time.

But it doesn't, because so many former government officials and those who listen to them are directly or indirectly on the Saudi or other Muslim dole. Who pays Eugene Bird, and pays for the ads of the "Council for the National Interest" that is virtually identical in its views to the Saudi government? Who pays for "consultancy" by Raymond Close, or James Akins? Who pays for that magazine about the Middle East, full of Arab propaganda, that another ex-diplomat, Andrew Kilgore, runs? Who pays or has paid fees to Brent Scowcroft? To George McGovern? What Presidential libraries have been battening on Saudi and other Arab money? Who has received those million-dollar lecture fees in Kuwait, or from that Arab-funded lectureship at the Fletcher School (hint: Bush, Clinton)? Who has been getting what?

Ask yourself why since 1973 there has been not a move toward decreasing, through the simple device of taxes, demand for oil and gasoline? Why for thirty years did American energy policy consist of trusting "our staunch ally Saudi Arabia" to keep prices low, when it never happened, and never could have happened? Why was no one aware until the last year or two of what, inevitably, OPEC oil revenues would fund? Why was Prince Bandar the only foreigner allowed in on the plans for invading Iraq? Why today do we worry about what the Sunni Arabs want, and believe that we have a duty to remain in Iraq to protect those Sunnis (i.e., keep the "catastrophe of civil war" from happening)?

And that is just the beginning of the list of questions that need to be asked.

Meanwhile, as long as the Saudi "royal" family (self-anointed monarchs since they defeated the Jabal Shammar in 1920, or soon thereafter) exists, and appropriates most of the nation's wealth, there will be those who will as Muslims find their resentment and outraged channeled into Islam as the total explanation of everything. And terrorism will continue in Saudi Arabia until the end of time. Let it. The only business the Infidel world should have with Saudi Arabia is to attempt to have as little business with Saudi Arabia.

For the moment great sums of money flow in, and they will continue to flow in. But this does not mean that every effort cannot be made to diminish that flow of money (instead of aiming at a ludicrously irrelevant "energy independence" for the United States, which is both unachievable and would have no effect on Saudi Arabia or other Muslim oil states, for oil not sold to America will simply be sold to others, unless collective demand goes down).

Saudi Arabia needs to be "ridimensionato" -- that is to say, cut down to size. "Money can buy everything - except civilization." It is a barbarous place; its government is barbarous, its economy barbarous, the mental state of its inhabitants barbarous. A very few, who have spent a long time in the West, can appear to have acquired the habits of thought of Western man. And a very few of those may actually manage to do so. But no one should be fooled by the oleaginous new ambassador, Al-Jubeir.

Posted by Hugh at January 6, 2007 01:03 PM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014720.php#more

"This world is an unsafe place for Americans--and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people."
"how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory--not just stalemate"
http://www.aei.org/books/filter.all,bookID.650/book_detail.asp

Wiretap mosques, Romney suggests
Pushes gathering of intelligence

WASHINGTON -- Governor Mitt Romney raised the prospect of wiretapping mosques and conducting surveillance of foreign students in Massachusetts, as he issued a broad call yesterday for the federal government to devote far more money and attention to domestic intelligence gathering.

In remarks that caused alarm among civil libertarians and advocates for immigrants rights, Romney said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that the United States needs to radically rethink how it guards itself against terrorism.

''How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who have come from terrorist-sponsored states?" he said, referring to foreign students who attend universities in Massachusetts. ''Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them?"

''How about people who are in settings -- mosques, for instance -- that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror," Romney continued. ''Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what's going on?"

* * *

But that activity is deeply troubling to civil rights groups. Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrants and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, called the methods Romney suggested misguided and ineffective. Tracking people based on their ethnicity, he said, will only sow resentment among immigrant communities and prevent their cooperation with authorities.

''Blanket eavesdropping and blanket profiling only erodes the safety and security of our country," Noorani said. ''People who really know what national security is and what intelligence is realize that we need to build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities."

Elyes Yaich, president of the Islamic Society of Northeastern University, said that foreign students, especially those from Islamic countries, already face unfair scrutiny coming to the United States and that subjecting them to specialized monitoring would further invade their right to privacy.Continued...


etc.

continued

read the whole thing at

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/15/wiretap_mosques_romney_suggests/

© 2007 The New York Times Company

Don’t Apologize, Governor Romney!
Monitoring radical mosques is exactly what we should be doing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200509190947.asp

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N39/wiretapping.html

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17592&only

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/12/backlash-behavior-of-moslems.html

The loss of trust in the Muslims has forced the Westerners to adopt, in their own countries, such measures as they feel are necessary to preempt their wrath. This they have begun doing after realizing that an agitated Muslim can become more ferocious than a hungry hyena of Serengeti.

Do you want to lose your life and the life of your children and grandchildren to the swords of Islam? If you don't, then please act now and face the Muslims with a firm determination. And also be aware of those who are coming to your country on one pretext or another. In these two actions, lies the safety of your life and of your future.

http://www.annomot.com/MohdAsghar/WestMuslimFear.htm
NO "PALESTINIAN" STATE!


Israel has been "afflicted by a non-nation and a loathsome people"

. . . since the military victory in 1967, the governments of Israel have turned away from its roots and identity; they have spurned the nation’s birthright. As part of Israel’s retreat from these historical imperatives, from itself, since September 2000 the Arabs have engaged in Jew-killing and pillage that cripples prosperity and seems to make peace a pipe dream. Indeed, so perverse are our times that in regard to Israel and the Jews settled there, "peace" has been defined as the expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria overseen by a long-time hero of the IDF. Moreover, the Executive Branch of Israel’s "best friend,’ America, particularly its State Department is committed to creating a terror state named Palestine in the heartland of Israel and airbrushing from history 3700-years of Jewish presence and worship there, airbrushing, too perhaps, the West’s indebtedness to Israel. And if that means cutting America off from its own roots, well, that is essential to fashioning a "Brave New World.’

* * *
. . . the State and people of Israel have been ‘in the wilderness’since then [1967], led by "a government of fools" that chases the mirage of peace through alienation rather than grasping the joys of identity, settlement, abundance and sovereignty. And so Israel has been "afflicted by a non-nation and a loathsome people," a rabble whose "nationhood’ may be the greatest political fraud of a century of horrible frauds by which "the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, and the lie became truth." But, as Eidelberg often has written, the historical function of this non-nation, the "Palestinians’ was to prevent Jews from forgetting who they are and to remind them that only by grasping and fulfilling their entire mission and morasha will they secure its rewards.

excerpt from
A Jewish Philosophy of History by Paul Eidelberg
Reviewed by Dr. Eugene Narrett
Examining God’s Plan: A Book Review of A Jewish Philosophy of History

About the reviewer…

Eugene Narrett earned his BA, MA, and PhD from Columbia University in New York City. During the past twenty-five years he has been teaching literature, philosophy and art in the Boston area and has written extensively on culture, politics, and art. He currently Directs and teaches in the Baccalaureate Program in Multidisciplinary Studies at Cambridge College.


More about Israel, "Land for Peace," and the futility of creating a "'Palestinian' State"

Two excerpts

Links for full texts given at end

The Camp David formula “land for peace,” the basis of the forthcoming Annapolis Summit, is rooted in an erroneous and fatal assumption. That certain Arab leaders agree to negotiate with Israel on the basis of this formula has induced politicians in Israel and abroad to regard such Arabs as “moderates.” This assumption stands in striking contrast to principles of statecraft enunciated by Prince Metternich, the great 19th century Austrian statesman on whom Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral dissertation.

According to Metternich, “to base one’s conduct in an important undertaking on faith in the moderation of one of the contracting parties is asking for trouble … to build on air, to gamble the future on one throw.” This faith animated Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, the architects of the disastrous Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993. The same faith animates Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on “reciprocity” when dealing with Arab leaders. It was this historically unfounded faith that led him to sign the Wye River Memorandum, which surrendered large areas of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat—a major step toward an Arab Palestinian state.

As Metternich saw, to expect the leaders of a dictatorship (such as the Fatah- or Hamas-led Palestinian Authority) to be moderate is like asking them to destroy the foundation of their existence.
SACRIFICING ISRAEL - AGAIN

and

“The idea of creating another Arab state in addition to the 21 already in existence, has no chance to survive. The creation of a Palestinian state will only bring chaos and steps toward it have not brought any good to Palestinians on the ground,”
NO "PALESTINIAN" STATE

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Friday, December 21, 2007

Take a look at "By the Rivers of Babylon . . . "

The Inevitability of Genocide

by Yashiko Sagamori




An Israeli friend, a wise and gentle man, told me once, after having spent a few days at a hospital, that his favorite doctor there was an Arab. My friend simply could not imagine that a doctor so competent, so pleasant, so attentive to a Jewish patient could possibly be an enemy of Israel.

“Are you sure he doesn't send half of his salary to Hamas?” I asked, cynical as usual.

“I don't know, could be,” my friend said. “But he seems knowledgeable and kind, and I can't imagine that he dreams of destroying Israel and exterminating the Jews.”

A bright young man, a freshman at a large Mid-Western university, who had read some of my articles, presented me with irrefutable proof that everything I had ever written about Islam and Muslims was wrong. He shared his room at the dorm with a Muslim kid, he told me defiantly.

“So?” I asked.

“And he is nice!” the boy said.

“And?” I still missed the point.

“I mean, really nice.”

“Do you mean to tell me that we cannot be at war against nice people?” I asked.

“Can we?” he snickered at me.

What a question. What a perfectly understandable question. How much easier it must've been to be at war against vampires or cockroaches.

We have all read so much about German atrocities during World War II, that it looks to us as appropriate retribution for those atrocities. We feel that the act of killing a German soldier was, in essence, the execution of a condemned criminal who, in all fairness, did not deserve to live due to the extreme depravity of his actions.

In reality, more often than not, the dead German soldier was a high-school kid, decent, honest, respectful of his parents, hoping to live through the war, to come home, to meet the girl of his dreams, to become a husband and a father, and to spend the rest of his life as a scientist, or a farmer, or a businessman. More often than not, prior to being killed, he had demonstrated uncommon courage and excellent fighting skills in battle against a formidable enemy. More often than not, he had done absolutely nothing to deserve being killed. Regardless of his personal traits, his death was not a punishment. Killing him was as impersonal an act as issuing a parking ticket. He was killed only because we were at war with Germany and he happened to be wearing a German uniform. À la guerre comme à la guerre.

Contrary to what most people think, we didn't enter the war in Europe to punish Germany for its crimes against humanity. The atrocities that took place in Cambodia under Pol Pot, in North Korea under both Kims, in the Soviet Union under Stalin, or in China during the Cultural Revolution, were no better than the Nazi atrocities, and yet we never declared war on any of those countries. Besides, most people on our side knew little and cared less about those German crimes. As a matter of fact, when it was absolutely impossible not to print the news of German atrocities, the papers did their best to bury it somewhere between articles about a drought in Togo and a beauty contest in Rio de Janeiro.



Come to think of it, our own, passionately beloved FDR was personally responsible for the death of a few hundred German Jews who had managed to escape from Germany and arrived at US shores after trying and failing to gain asylum in several countries on the American continent. Nobody wanted them. America was their last hope. When President Roosevelt refused to let them enter this country, they were forced to return to Germany, where they were promptly transferred to a death camp. An Estonian or Ukrainian immigrant responsible for one tenth of FDR's accomplishment would be tried for war crimes even today and, with comparable evidence against him, most certainly convicted. And rightly so.

Here's the thing. We had to fight and defeat Nazism not because Nazi doctors were all butchers with awful bedside manners or because Nazi college students made unpleasant roommates. We didn't fight Nazism because of the Nazi crimes either, even though those crimes were perfectly real, my eulogy for the dead German soldier notwithstanding. We had to fight Nazism because its existence had become incompatible with the existence of our way of life. If we wanted freedom and democracy to survive in the United States of America, we had no choice but to fight Nazism in Europe and destroy it.

Today, if we want freedom and democracy to survive in this country, we must fight Islam and destroy it everywhere it has established roots, which means everywhere, period. It's not because we are good people and Muslims are bad people. Of course, they do a lot of things that we find disgusting and inhumane. But, believe it or not, we also do a lot of things they find disgusting and inhumane. That is not a reason to go to war. At least, not to us.

Sometimes, if you want to understand what's happening in the world, you shouldn't apply moral criteria, because moral criteria are never absolute. They become meaningless and invalid as soon as you cross the border of the culture that produced them. Instead, you must look at the conflict as if you were an extraterrestrial with no personal stake in the outcome. Or, if sci-fi metaphors leave you unconvinced, try to look at it the way you watch a documentary about wild life in the African Savannah. The lions are trying to eat the antelopes; the antelopes are doing their best not to get eaten. You are watching it with a detached amusement; you don't really care whether any animal that happens to get into the frame survives until the time you switch the channel to something less boring. If the filming is good and you don't flip the channel too soon, your cynical attitude may help you understand the dynamics of daily life in the Savannah.

By the way, if I were an antelope, I would be wondering why the lions, instead of hunting us relentlessly, don't graze peacefully together with our entire herd. We never claimed any exclusive rights on the grass; we welcome everyone to join us. I feel inspired by the vision of lions peacefully munching the grass alongside the antelopes, enjoying the advantages of the herbivorous way of life, and teaching their young not to kill but to be extremely kind to every living creature in the universe.

The beauty of the antelopes' way of life must be plainly obvious to anyone with an ounce of brain: you don't have to exert yourself chasing your prey; you don't have to choose between dying of hunger and committing murder; and you don't have to suffer from terrible guilt recalling all the innocent lives you have taken. And all you need to do to enjoy it is join the antelopes and all the grass in the world will be at your feet.



I have to add that if I were an antelope, I would most probably be a dead one, because I would be irresistibly tempted to enlighten the lions by presenting my perfectly logical arguments to them. Since antelopes, as all herbivores, are not really famous for their superb intellect, I would be most likely remembered as a hero rather than a fool, and my example would inspire other well-intended idiots to follow in my hoofsteps.

If Sean Hannity were an antelope, he would firmly believe that the absolute majority of lions in Africa are dreaming of becoming vegetarians. He wouldn't be able to tell what stops them from doing so.

If George W. Bush were an antelope, he would capture a couple of lion prides and waste the rest of his term as an antelope unsuccessfully trying to convince the captured lions to look happy while he stuffs grass down their throats. Seeing that it doesn't work, he would try to improve the situation be feeding them, first, Israeli grass and then Israeli people. As you should know by now, that wouldn't work either, and the captive lions, deprived of their usual quarry, would try to tear each other apart at the every opportunity.

Here's a simple fact beyond the grasp of an antelope: Even the kindest, gentlest lion in the world is no more capable of living the life of an herbivore than even the cruelest, most vicious antelope in all of Africa is capable of hunting down another animal, crushing its windpipe, and devouring it while it is still struggling.

Unfortunately, we are the antelopes rather than the lions in that analogy. We don't want to kill anyone. All we want is to be left alone. We wholeheartedly welcome anyone to graze on our grass, and when lions come in overwhelming numbers and mix with the herd, we suppress our healthy instincts with the politically-correct, but absolutely baseless assertions that most of those lions have come here not to crush our windpipes and devour us while our hearts are still beating, but merely in search for greener grass, for which our pastures are so deservedly famous all over the world.

Despite the obvious beauty of my analogy, even I have to admit that it is not quite perfect. Herbivores and predators are condemned to follow their respective biological imperatives. We, on the other hand, both Muslims and infidels, are equally human. We belong to the same wondrous species; we share the same dreams…

No, let's stop at the species; dreams, with the exception of wet ones, are not a product of biology. They are shaped by purely societal stimuli. They are culture-dependent. They are the byproducts of civilizations, and different civilizations induce drastically different dreams. While antelopes are dreaming of grass, lions are dreaming of antelopes.

The antelopes in our midst keep bleating that Islam is just another religion. This is not true. Islam does not stop at stating a religious dogma to those who follow it willingly. Unlike any other religion, Islam imposes its own peculiar way of life on every person within its power, regardless of whether that person is Muslim or not.

I am a Jew, but my way of life is not really different from that of my Christian relatives, friends, neighbors and colleagues. They go to church on Easter and Christmas; I go to the temple on Passover and Yom Kippur. That's the extent of the difference, although when the time comes for the Jews to march to the gas chambers again, other aspects of it may be revealed to everyone's surprise. When presented with a choice between imposing our religious beliefs on others and productive coexistence with each other, we wisely opted for coexistence and turned our faiths into an intimately personal matter. As a result, tolerance has become our way of life. Thank God for that! How can you not love the grass?

Now, if, instead of an antelope, I were a lion, my view of the conflict would be entirely different.

My faith is Islam, but my way of life is jihad. For 14 centuries, never letting up for even a minute, Islam has demanded of me that I continue jihad until the last infidel stops breathing. How can you counter my upbringing? By reeducating me? By trying to teach me to live on grass? You won't succeed even if you keep at it for the next 14 centuries, but, considering your staying power (or, rather, lack thereof), your effort is not likely to last 14 months.

I don't expect the infidels to approve of it; after all, it's my sword against their throats. But even they must admit two facts. First, Islam has always kept its doors open for newcomers. Grazing at your side doesn't attract me the least; but if you decide to say the shahadah, you are welcome into the pride.

Second, my way of life has a huge seniority over yours. My way of life existed for at least 12 centuries before the half-baked ideas of democracy and tolerance began having their first practical effects on the Godless society where they emerged.

While my world, Dar el-Islam, was enjoying comfortable stability in the course of many centuries, the West kept changing itself, its ideology, its philosophy, its way of life. And every time they came up with something new, they were so proud of themselves, so sure that the folly they were living at the moment would last forever. This is a special kind of blindness that Allah inflicts upon the infidels. How can they expect that I will give up my way of life in favor of theirs?

“But wait,” an antelope is sure to ask. “Can't you enjoy your way of life without destroying mine?”

No more than a lion can survive on grass. In His infinite wisdom, Allah created the antelopes as sustenance for the lions. In His infinite mercy, He gave every antelope an opportunity to become a lion. Don't blame the lions for your failure to make the right choice.



Your peacemongers may sing sweet songs about Islam's benevolence, but the truth is: Islam and jihad are as inseparable as the two poles of a magnet. A smart demagogue may describe them as two opposites, but you know as well as I do that the two cannot exist without each other. Jihad is the only state in which Islam has ever existed since the day when the infidel fools exiled the Prophet from Mecca. Jihad is the only state in which Islam can exist.

A Muslim's ancient urge for jihad is so great, so unquenchable, so uncompromising that whenever he is deprived of his sacred right to murder the infidels, he will inevitably begin killing his own brothers, using obscure tribal or sectarian distinction as the cause of war. Just look what's going on in Iraq today, where Muslims successfully resist the infidel occupation by murdering each other.

The history of Islam is the history of jihad. The purpose of jihad is expansion. We don't send out missionaries. We send out warriors. We give you a fair choice to accept Allah and His Messenger or die. That's the extent of Allah's boundless mercy to the infidel. That's the extent of benevolence your female Secretary of State so lavishly praised.

And if you don't destroy Islam at least as thoroughly as you destroyed Nazism, Islam will destroy you as thoroughly, as it has destroyed everything and everybody in its way during the 14 centuries of unending jihad.





The article above is presented as a public service.
It may be reproduced without charge — with attribution.

To read my other articles or to make a donation,
please visit
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/

To be added to or removed from my mailing list,
please contact me at
mailto:yashiko.sagamori@gmail.commailto:zack.lieberberg@gmail.com

© 2002—2006 Yashiko Sagamori. All rights reserved.

MOSLEM INROADS ON BARBADOS, WEST INDIES

http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/barbados-muslims-wont-kill-anyone-unjustly-bajan-muslim-commenter-on-barbados-free-press/

Thursday, December 20, 2007

HOW MANY OF US ARE OUT THERE?
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-many-of-u-s-are-out-there-at-dhimmi.html
Strictures in U.S. Prompt Arabs to Study Elsewhere
Australia Is Viewed As 'More Welcoming'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902501.html?nav=rss_world

Good or Bad?

You make the call
ANTI-JIHAD BLOGS


ISLAM AWARENESS IN THE BLOGOSPHERE

The incomparable najastani, one of the finest "watchmen" warning of the overt, covert, and clandestine advances of Islam against our lives, has compiled a most excellent tool for all of us who are hammering the jihad to use: a list of Islamically Aware blogs--blogs that stand against the Islamic jihad!

najistani said...

Here in Britainistan we're coming to the end of the lavishly petrodollar-funded ISLAM AWARENESS WEEK, with the 'Religion of Peace' message being proclaimed throughout our schools and colleges. Every British child now knows that 'Islam means Peace' and that Muslims cannot possibly have carried out the terrorist attacks for which they've been blamed, and they're bringing home the glossy booklets to prove it to their bigoted Islamophobic parents. Allah Akhbar!!!!

So as my own humble underfunded contribution to Islam Awareness Week, I've compiled a list of Islamically Aware blogs which allow unrestricted comments and are active as of 24-NOV-2007 . Let us go forth and share Islam Awareness throughout the blogosphere!!!

http://americanjihad.blogspot.com/

http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/

http://baldheadedgeek.blogspot.com/

http://barnsley-nationalists3.blogspot.com/

http://bfbwwiii.blogspot.com/

http://boycott-islam.blogspot.com/

http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/

http://covenantzone.blogspot.com/

http://covert-tactics.blogspot.com/

http://culturismnews.blogspot.com/

http://www.dizzyfatplonka.blogspot.com/

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/

http://english-rose-uk.blogspot.com/

http://fieryspiritedzionist.blogspot.com/

http://firebaseamerica.blogspot.com/

http://fortressaustralia.blogspot.com/

http://fulhamreactionary.blogspot.com/

http://goatsbarnyard.blogspot.com/

http://godhelpbritain.blogspot.com/

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/

http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/

http://johnofgwent.blogspot.com/

http://jovan66102.blogspot.com/

http://kirkleesresistance.blogspot.com/

http://lancaster-bnp-freespeech.blogspot.com/

http://libertyplanet.blogspot.com/

http://www.lionheartuk.blogspot.com/

http://masada1234.blogspot.com/

http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/

http://olehmichael.blogspot.com/

http://nationalisminourtimesofneed.blogspot.com/

http://nationalistblog.blogspot.com/

http://neoconcommandcenter.blogspot.com/

http://newportcity.blogspot.com/

http://www.noburqua.blogspot.com/

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/

http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/

http://politicalbeachgirl.blogspot.com/

http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/

http://scottishbritishandproud.blogspot.com/

http://www.simondarby.blogspot.com/

http://spartanspectator.blogspot.com/

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

http://thebuckshotter.blogspot.com/

http://thedoctor44.blogspot.com/

http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/

http://worcestershirenationalist.blogspot.com/

http://westerndefence.blogspot.com/

http://whenworldscollidge.blogspot.com/

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/

http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/


NOTE: I will try to add any blogs that I run across. If you have a blog or know of a blog that deals with Islamic Awareness--in the anti-Islamic jihad manner--please do not hesitate to post it as a COMMENT to this post.
Thanks. lw
___________________________
*published as a COMMENT to http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-annapolis-middle-east-conference.html

This list is not complete, as new anti-jihad blogs are popping up as fast as more and more people become aware of Islam's plans to dominate the world.


and , as always, remember




Islam delenda est





Islamic Danger - home
Political Anti-SemitismDriven By Islam

Wednesday, December 19, 2007















HELLO!

and goodbye

NO, not from here. The goodbye is to the http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/ blog. It has served us valiantly and well. It will stay open for your reading pleasure as long as it can. (If that link doesn't take you where you can access the last message there, try
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/12/go-over-to-islamic-danger-fu-to-see-any.html )

Anything that you like over there, copy it NOW. Some of the stuff will come in handy as factual material--always properly referenced as to source--whilst the struggle against our sworn enemies mounts. It is not over. It will not be over until one side wins.

I will not quit, even when out of ammo, not until the bloodied kukhri* drops from my lifeless hands.
____________________
*my Christmas present to myself. I originally wanted to start this post off with "Merry Christmas!" so as to chap you-know-who's behinds. But this is after all a season with a message of Peace on Earth, not of war and mayhem, as our enemies have turned a large part of the world into. So, it's become a message of hope for the New Year. Now, that I've got this explanation for the weapon out of the way, I can extend a Merry Christmas wish to all who want to accept that, and Seasons greetings to the more secular, a repeated Happy Hanukkah** to Jews, and--I have not forgotten our East Indian, Hindu and Sikh, friends and allies to whom I dedicate a blog of their own--Islamic Danger to Bharat (India)--Namaste!

Another note regarding the "spirit of the season," go to http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/19/omar-bakri-says-christmas-day-is-not-off-limits-for-attacks/ and see who loves ya, baby.

** a footnote inside of a footnote! A breach of something (once more into the breach dear friends, once more, or close the wall up with our English dead . . . etc.***) oh, this is about Hanukkah, if you haven't read the Hanukkah story and message, and a hard slamming down again of the enemies, go to Hanukkah

About the kukhri or better Khukuri, the weapon of Nepal's Gurkhas (pictured above),

KAPHAR HUNNU BHANDA MARNO RAMRO

(GURKHA PROVERB)

"IT IS BETTER TO DIE THAN TO BE A COWARD"

The last thing an enemy of the Gurkhas hears is,

"AAYO GURKHALI"

the gurkhas' war cry

"THE GURKHAS ARE UPON YOU!"

Right below, I am repeating the story of what happened to you-know-whom in Nepal when their "Glaubengenossen," that is ideological compatriots killed a group of Nepalese workers in Iraq. It is the old "do unto others as they have done unto you," not really fitting right now, when everyone's thoughts are on "Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards all men (and women also, of course, who you think we are here? The enemy?)" but may this trespass be forgiven as have my prior trespasses:

"Let me point out another recent [written in 2005] incident
As you know muslims in Iraq have been kidnapping and beheading foreigners
About 3 months ago, they beheaded 12 Nepalese hindus
In response, muslims in Nepal got a 'Gujurat^type reprisal'
( about 30000 Nepalese muslims got ethnic cleansed by Nepalese hindu mobs )
and no more Nepalese have been kidnapped in Iraq
Whereas they non-stop behead western hostages"
__________________________________________
^Gujarat riots^^
^^Godhra Train Burning
__________________________________________
from DRASTIC TIMES CALL FOR DRASTIC MEASURES
__________________________________________

***Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!

Henry V, Shakespeare


Act 3, Scene 1


SCENE I. France. Before Harfleur.

Alarum. Enter KING HENRY, EXETER, BEDFORD, GLOUCESTER, and Soldiers, with scaling-ladders

KING HENRY V [addresses his cohort]

. . . and so to all, I bid a good night

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Stupidity and Avarice:

Two Bases of American Foreign Policy


http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/
HOW TO COUNTER THE DANGER FROM ISLAM


Click

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3484222,00.html

have patience, worth the wait.
WHAT IS TOS?

It is The Objective Standard . . . a quarterly journal of culture and politics based on the idea that for every human concern—from personal matters to foreign policy, from the sciences to the arts, from education to legislation—there are demonstrably objective standards by reference to which we can assess what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong. The purpose of the [TOS] is to analyze and evaluate ideas, trends, events, and policies accordingly.

If you do not agree with this partial premise, you are not in violation of TOS, but in disagreement with it.

It is difficult to violate the magazine, The Objective Standard. Unless, you consider not reading it a violation of TOS.

Now there is something that can be violated, and that is our--my--freedom of speech. I know that this is not guaranteed everywhere in this country--not in privately controlled environments, corporations, or other enterprises, it is, however, guaranteed in a public forum, which some entities pride themselves to be--with a caveat.

. . . and what is that loophole that allows censorship to arbiters--to those qualified or not--who set themselves up now to be judges over us.

They have their rules: no hate speech against race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

They listen to the whines of ideologues who imagine themselves to have been injured--humiliated perhaps. Why? Because we do not agree with neither their ideology nor their method of attempting to enforce it--to make us knuckle under to it.

These followers of an ideology that condones killing, maiming, beating of all non-believers, complain and there are those who fold and do what the ideologues demand.

Now, these ideologues are neither of ONE race, ethnicity, nor of a religion as that can be defined unequivocally. They are followers of one ideology.

One who does not agree with that ideology is judged by whomever to be in violation of something called TOS. That is not The Obective Standard but Terms--not of endearment, because they are set up so that self-styled judges can arbitrarily rule one way or another, lightly, shutting up anyone, even if that one is telling the truth--unvarnished, unabashedly.

These TOS are set in stone as Terms of Service. They are rather a disservice to the freedom of speech that we do have here in the United States but not in the lands controlled by the unnamed ideologues. They are used to shut up a certain point of view. While they accept another, the opposing point of view--simply out of fear, or is it caprice?

These TOS can easily become TOD. And apparently they have.


Want to know what's going on? Click on http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/ or try and google " islamic danger blog "and see where that takes you and what it says. Another way that you can try to get back to the islamic danger blog is to try
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/12/go-over-to-islamic-danger-fu-to-see-any.html

I can't guarantee that'll get you into the old islamic danger blog, as I don't control anything (except what's left of my brain--I try to, anyway).
WELL, HERE'S WHAT WE WISH THEM (GUESS WHOM) BACK!

Comment on the Jihad Watch post UK's "Islam Is Peace" campaign wishes you a Happy Eid

Re: UK's "Islam Is Peace" campaign wishes you a Happy Eid ad placed in British newspaper

"Muslim group places 'Seasons Greetings' ad in press," from KUNA (thanks to Twostellas):

"On the occasion of the completion of the Hajj, Muslims across Britain would like to wish everyone a Happy Eid", the "Islam is Peace*" project advertisement said.

Well, here . . .

'TIS THE SEASON TO BE JOLLY

the season for skiing, tobogganing, snowboarding--and for the jihadist on your list, waterboarding*, the newest sport for those who want to kill us, our women and children

Y'all come on over here, we'll teach you this lovely new sport, you probubbly never heard of: this "waterboarding."

Here's a picture of it, in full swing. The person in red is being water-boarded. Fun on the water for you all, fun on the snow-covered slopes for the rest of us. So, a Merry Christmas to All! Ho-ho-ho-ho!




from the post 'TIS THE SEASON TO BE JOLLY



(NOTE: there's nothing jolly about those who claim they are speaking for "peace." They are liars--deceivers--and deserve neither respect nor mercy.)
____________________
*What a crock! Islam a "whatever "of peace?" has killing and war against all those who do believe the babblings of its founder codified in its most "noble" scriptures. An ideology of murder rape, and robbery is more like an accurate description of what it is.
PUZZLED BY WHAT'S GOING ON IN WASHINGTON?

"Governments won't do the things you want them to do until there are enough people like you forcing them to do it openly."
Posted by: rudekid
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014474.php#comments

THERE ARE TOO FEW IDEALISTS ON OUR SIDE

IN GOVERNMENT, MOST ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY, AND THE CREATURE COMFORTS IT WILL BUY.

. . . men who have power through riches, intrigue, or office will administer the State at will, and ultimately to their private advantage.
--Admiral H. G. Rickover, U. S. Navy
"Thoughts on Man's Purpose in Life"
from:
http://www.limes68.blogspot.com/

The United States of today has nobody to save it from the consequences of appeasing the Moslems.
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm

The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed is a prerequisite for maintaining US superpower status and for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam. Will the ideals of democracy prove too weak to overcome cupidity?
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm

[Does] the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses?
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm

We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us.
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/12/what-real-war-looks-like-by-elan.asp

The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed is a prerequisite for maintaining US superpower status and for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam. Will the ideals of democracy prove too weak to overcome cupidity?
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm

[Does] the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses?
http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001c.htm
Repeated here on purpose

tgusa says:Don’t confuse kindness with stupidity. We as westerners try to get along. Now we have allowed an alien culture to infiltrate our world. They don’t want to live in it they want to destroy it. So what does that make these islamopoligists in the west? Traitorous rats who would not even stand up for our women and children. They aren’t selling me out, no one could do that, I’m not sellable. Can we really call these leaders Men? I don’t think so, at least not the image of Men that I have. Never include me and millions of others in that group, my ancestors fought against tyranny and won, mark my words we will do it again.Posted by: tgusa [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2006 03:01 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014618.php

tgusa, your entire post hit home. While islamists are the real enemy they would not do squat had it not been for the sellout traitors in office. Can one imagine increasing students visa to saudi wahhabbis after 9/11? Yet that is exactly what dubya did. To borrow your phrase: Traitorous Rat!
Posted by: Alert at December 30, 2006 04:21 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014618.php

Taken from WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STOP ISLAM

Also see

Stupidity and Avarice: Two Bases of American Foreign Policy
MERRY CHRISTMAS !

'TIS THE SEASON TO BE JOLLY


BE SURE TO CLICK ON http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2007/12/tis-season-to-be-jolly-season-for.html

and Happy Holidays to All of Us
From Serge Trifcovic's
Kosovo as a Symbol of Anti-Postmodernism

Reference sent to us by DP111

Let us look instead at the manifestations of the Western elite class’s pathology in their own countries, or—to be more precise—in the countries over which they rule but to which they no longer feel any natural bond of kinship and obligation.
The present technological, cultural and financial strength of Europe is a façade that conceals an underlying moral and demographic weakness.
***
Europe’s demographic self-annihilation is a phenomenon of world-historical proportions.
***
Europe is losing the ability to define and defend itself, to the benefit of unassimilable multitudes filled with contempt for the host-society. One consequence is that active Jihadist networks now exist in every country west of the former Iron Curtain.
***
The capital of the European elite class is Brussels, the headquarters of the European Union, which has decreed that member countries of the European Union no longer make the law on their immigration policies.
***
A century ago Europe’s ruling classes shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, or Paris, depending on the season. Their lingua franca was French. Englishmen, Russians, or Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions. Today’s "United Europe" is light years away from that a century ago. It does not create social and civilizational commonalities, except on the basis of wholesale denial of old inherited values and "traditional" culture. It creates cultural similarity that has morphed into dreary sameness of anti-discriminationism.
***
An ideological commitment to neoliberal globalization has turned multiculturalism and open-ended Muslim immigration into two inviolable Euro-dogmas. They are pursued independently of any electoral test.
***
Even if the Serbs are robbed of Kosovo, Islam will not thank the West. There will be no synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between Europe and Islam. It’s kto-kogo. As things stand now the outcome appears almost fatally preordained. The tradition of a peasantry ruled by its "betters" has been turned on its head: in Europe most nations want to defend themselves—even the ultra-tolerant Dutch have seen the light after Theo van Gogh’s murder—but cannot do so because they are hamstrung by a ruling class composed of guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers.
***
For those reasons too, Serbia must not give up Kosovo. By giving it up it would encourage the spirit that seeks the death of Europe and its surrender to the global totalitarianism of Muhammad’s successors.

This are excerpts of some cogent points made by Mr. Serge Trifcovic
from his
Kosovo as a Symbol of Anti-Postmodernism

You must read the whole thing at Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture
to gain a deeper understanding about whose gain will be Europe's loss.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=416

Also, see

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/12/problem-of-resurgent-islamic-jihad-and.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/12/israel-and-u.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/12/puzzled-by-whats-going-on-in-washington.html