Friday, March 28, 2008
Dr. Richard L. Benkin
Tuesday, 25 March, 2008
In an article published Monday in The American Thinker, the man who secured the release of self-described Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was "the only member of the US Congress or Senate who passed on helping the imprisoned and tortured journalist." Dr. Richard L. Benkin of Chicago said that he approached about 15 percent of the US House and "a handful of Senators." Everyone took some action, he wrote, except Obama. Although The American Thinker is an influential journal of conservative thought in the US, Benkin makes it clear that this is not a liberal-conservative issue. In the article and elsewhere, he sites liberal and conservative members of Congress who went on record to protest Choudhury's persecution. "Since I'm from Illinois, I naturally approached both of my Senators for help. Dick Durbin came through. He recognized the matter as "an important human rights issue" and wrote a letter of protest to the Bangladeshi government. Obama, however, was another story. I spoke with him personally on two occasions, met with his people in Washington, and sent them a ton of information on the case. I never even got a form letter. If everyone did the same thing as Obama did, Shoaib Choudhury still would be in jail-or worse." Benkin also notes that when he brought the matter before his Congressman, Mark Kirk, he took immediate and powerful action, calling the Bangladeshi in his office where the three of them had an hours-long meeting. Three weeks later, Shoaib Choudhury was released. The American Thinker article can be accessed at:
Barack Obama Would Let Shoaib Choudhury Die
By Richard L. Benkin
an article in the Wall Street Journal about
Fitna a film by Geert Wilders and Scarlet Pimpernel
This article and links to where you can watch the film are available at Islamic Danger 2U - Fitna, a film by Geert Wilders and Scarlet Pimpernel
About the Wall Street Journal article:
I strongly disagree with three statements that the writer of the Wall Street Journal article cited and linked above made:
"Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like 'Fitna,' as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith."
COMMENT: This is so so much bullsht and appeasement of Islamics. Islamics are disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of any faith but the ideology known as Islam.
"The film . . . reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned"
COMMENT: The film contains no such thing. It does not insult the koran, it only reproduces its words and accompanies them with images of the results of carrying out these words.
"I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film)."
COMMENT: There is nothing here to disagree with. The words are from the koran, the images from acts sanctioned by the koran. Nothing more. An excellent, moving film.
AND in this I strongly agree with Mr. Hoekstra:
"While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist 'waiting game,' based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration."
All in all this is an excellent article, except for the portions commented on above, which are based on anticipation of inflammatory material as screamed about by Moslems, not in the film itself.
THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT
In three of its parts:
The Administration, the Cabinet, and the Agencies and Bureaus, in any order that you like. You can dub each of these three monkeys with the name of any of the three governmental parts in rotation or at random: the result will be the same.
As for the monkeys, the first one says: " I do not see the Islamic enemy." The second one says: "I do not hear the Islamic enemy." and the third: "I do not speak about the Islamic enemy."
The Administration: president and staff
The Cabinet: Departments--State, DOD, DOJ, etc.
Bureaus and Agencies: FBI, ATF, CIA, etc.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Reprinted from Islamic Danger October 21, 2007
Muslim leaders and organizations here in the U.S. call for the overthrow of our constitutional form of government and refuse to denounce jihad and terrorism, while leaders at all levels of our government bend over backwards to not only accommodate Islam but affirm Islam as a “religion of peace.” Dozens of American Muslim organizations are unindicted co-conspirators in the terrorist financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation. These Muslim leaders and organizations are not the “extremist fringe” of Islam in America — they are the mainstream of Islam in America!
Sharia By The Inch
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Islamofascism: In a monumental nod to political correctness, the Empire State Building [was] lit up green in honor of the Muslim holiday Eid. The separation of Islam from terror is officially complete.
Six years ago, Islamic terrorists screamed "Allah is Greatest!" as they slammed fuel-laden jumbo jets into two other New York skyscrapers. Six years ago, New Yorkers were worried about the Green Menace.
Now, for the first time, New York's remaining famous skyscraper will be aglow in green – the color of Islam – to mark the end of Ramadan, a month of intense Islamic renewal. Officials say it'll be an annual event, in the same tradition of the yearly skyscraper lighting for Christmas and Hanukkah.
Going green six years later.
What's next, Ground Zero festooned with crescent moons and stars?
Political correctness is running amok. . . . the White House held a Ramadan dinner for Muslim leaders and activists, even though we are still waiting for them to condemn Islamic terror groups by name.
To their delight, President Bush praised, and even suggested we all worship Allah. "I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian or any other religion, prays to the same God," he said, adding, "I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace."
A nice sentiment. But militant Muslims believe peace cannot be attained until Islam dominates the globe. And they make up much of the Muslim establishment in America. We know this by the words they've been caught on tape mouthing to Muslim audiences. We know this by their radical associations.
But more damning, investigators recently uncovered smoking-gun documents revealing that many founders of the major Muslim groups in the U.S. were involved in a secret plot to take over the U.S. by using our religious and political freedoms against us.
They call themselves Americans, but they view our system of government, our way of life, as an abomination to Allah. They've devised a scheme to sabotage our "miserable house" from within and dismantle it piece by piece, replacing it with "Dar al-Islam" — the House of Peace.
Then, and only then, will there be the kind of peace the president believes Islam represents today.
Ignorance and blind tolerance only make it easier for the Islamists to make inroads. Inch by inch, sharia is creeping into our society. We see it:
At airports, where authorities have agreed to Muslim taxi drivers' demands to build footbaths in public restrooms for Islamic washing and praying.
On college campuses, where trustees have agreed to demands by the Saudi-tied Muslim Student Association to add Islamic holidays, prayer rooms and footbaths.
In Congress, where officials have set aside a room for a growing number of Muslims to meet and pray inside the otherwise high-security Capitol building.
At Quantico, where Marine brass have agreed to build an Islamic center at the request of a former Gitmo imam who previously insisted on Islamic meals, Qurans, prayer beads, oils and other amenities for the terrorists held there.
At West Point, where Army officials have followed Quantico's lead and set up their own mosque for Muslim cadets.
In Brooklyn, where school officials agreed to provide local Muslims and Arabs with their own publicly funded madrassa.
In Detroit, where city planners have caved to demands to let mosques broadcast the call to prayer in Arabic five times a day, including the early-morning hours, noise ordinances be damned.
And on and on . . . until we, too, resemble Eurabia.
Foregoing from ACT for America P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 http://www.actforamerica.org/
CAN THERE BE SUCH A THING AS A MOSLEM-AMERICAN?
Reprinted from Islamic Danger February 1, 2007
An "American Moslem?"
Can a Moslem be a good American?
Can a Moslem even be an American?
I don't mean an "American citizen," because they can perjure themselves when swearing to uphold our Constitution and get citizenship.]
MusHuntCowboy over at Jihad Watch, answers that question for us.
let's listen to him:
I have received this via email---
Can a good Muslim be a good American ?
This is something I've wondered about for some time now: How & why do the
Muslims hate us & everyone else so much? Doesn't their God teach them to
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was sent to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam
and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns
in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends
with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat
and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution
since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow
freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
Every Muslim government is e ither dictatorial or autocratic
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the
Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent
Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very
suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both
"good" Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.
If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above
statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who
understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
Pass it on, Fellow Americans.
The war is bigger than we know or understand.
Click on date above [February 1, 2007 04:44 PM] to get to the pertinent Jihad Watch page.
Reprinted from Islamic Danger
. . . but why there is hope that things will change
. . . IN June 2005, then vice premier Ehud Olmert gave an American audience his opinion of the Israeli people. "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies," he whined.
Young people like J. and his colleagues, secular, yet deeply rooted Jewish sons and daughters of Galilee and Negev farmers, like their religious friends prove everyday that Olmert was not speaking for his countrymen. Whatever messes Olmert and his colleagues in the government still manage to make before they are finally thrown from office, it is absolutely clear that these young people and millions like them are willing and able to clean them up for themselves, their countrymen, and for the next generation of Jews in the land of Israel.
Read how they are doing it and will continue to do it at . . .
Our World: The new Guardians of Israel
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST
IMRA - Independent Media Review Analysis
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Looks as if we have Islamic illegitimates (and their supporters) all over the place in OUR country.
We must never forget WHO let them in here--who encouraged them, who allowed Saudi "students" to come over here and assume the persona of "Westernized Moslem Arabs" so that they could be used to fly planes into the WTC.
Our government is foul with appeasers of Islam and its adherents. Our universities, colleges, and schools--public and private Moslem--are spreading the propaganda of Saudi-financed Islam.
Whether citizens or not, a Moslem is a Moslem is a Moslem. Unless he renounces the ideology of Islamic supremacy, he cannot be a "fellow citizen." He remains an undercover enemy of freedom.
We do need laws passed to define the followers of Islam as enemy aliens, with the stress on "enemy."
Right now, it looks pretty grim. We have no one in positions of sufficient influence in our government to make a difference. The presidential candidates on the Democrat side are hopeless as far as doing what must be done. The Republican is a big question mark.
Governmental agencies and the Departments (including the sensitive DOD) are rife with Islamics and their fellow travellers, many in the pay of the arch villains of this farce: the Saudis.
Change (that word has lost its meaning being used too often by those who want it for the worse) must come from the grass roots--not from the power elite.
A ground swell must arise from a populace that has become aware that it has been sold a bill of goods, that its malaise stems from Islamic attempts to destroy our economy. (Saudis will not increase oil production, although Bush begged them to.)
Case in point: amnesty for illegals in the country. The power elite wanted it, the populace did not. Pressure was applied and, as we still have the vote, those in power backed off.
Education of more of the populace is necessary (you'd be surprised how many people are already savvy to what's going on with catering to Moslems by the government).
Yes, there are still the so-called "liberals" that see Islam as just another religion or those who know "nice" Moslems.
When the % of moslems in the country reaches the point where they really start chomping at the bit and demanding everything, more of our people will join us.
What will happen eventually is up to us--no one else. We cannot depend on government.
from American Congress for Truth:
The following analysis of how Islam progresses within a culture came to us via email over the weekend. While we have not yet read Peter Hammond’s new book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam, the following is reportedly adapted from his book.
Irrespective of the source of this analysis, its conclusions are historically and empirically supported. As George Santayana wrote: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Regarding Islam, we don’t have to look back hundreds of years to learn from history. All we need do is look at what has happened in Great Britain over the past three decades.
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
[NOTE: Also on this same subject, look at http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/even-more-drastic-times-call-for-even.html ]
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm
American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Who are these despicable useless creatures?
The "Islamic Danger" blog that you are looking at is a descendant prior "Islamic Danger" clubs and groups* to warn the West against the danger of Islamic infiltration into its lands with the aim of subjugation of free people. The goal of the Islamics, as it has been since the early days of desert brigandry under Mohammed, is to have a subjugated heavily-taxed population that the Mohammedans could then milk and live off.
The predilection for Islamics to live off the work of others is a fact that can be seen in the EU welfare states where they rushed for "asylum." Conquest by demographics is a fact of Islamic striving to conquer the free world. Their abhorrence of work can be seen from the Saudi penchant for having an oppressed and sexually brutalized foreign "underclass" do manual labor in lieu of the usual Christian and other non-Moslem slaves that have been used by Mohammedans for the past 13 centuries(1).
1. . . . [Donald Rumsfeld] observed that oil billions have shielded [Moslems] "from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis[**] while their young people remain unemployed. An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism.”
Related to the above:
Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror: The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers
[**] Not to forget Filipinos and Filipinas
an Islamic Danger blog post "AGAINST THE JIHAD" of which this post here is part.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
5. Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize "its" oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.
Read the complete piece at
Friday, March 21, 2008
by John Lewis (March 20, 2008)
On March 13, I gave my talk “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” to an audience of about forty at Georgia State Technical University. In the talk, based on my article in The Objective Standard, I rejected all forms of theocracy, but emphasized the danger posed by the Islamic state and argued for the destruction of its most obvious manifestation, the regime in Iran. I was prepared for opposition to the idea of war with Iran, and I acknowledged up front that those who recognize that religious law is wrong might disagree with my conclusion that a war against the Iranian state is necessary. But I was not prepared for the strident defense of Islamic law and jihad—and for the condemnation of me for even raising the issue of Islamic jihad—that was to come.
The onslaught began with the first “question,” actually a monologue that lasted nearly fifteen minutes. The monologist claimed that: (1) there is a long history of separation of church and state in Islam; (2) Islamic law is good; (3) whenever imposed, Islamic law has brought peace; (4) jihad is a “wonderful idea” and does not mean war; (5) Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism; (6) the tax leveled against subjugated peoples is just, because they are protected by Muslims in return; (7) I am “ignorant of history” if I do not acknowledge the “truth” of these claims.
I listened to him without interrupting—and even asked a legitimately annoyed member of the audience to allow him to finish—so that he could fully reveal himself. In answer, I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders—as well as a young girl on Lebanese television—call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned me for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence—to condemn those who raise Islam’s violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one’s religion has no basis in reality.
(I at least got a good laugh out of this exchange when I concretized the meaning of the tax on subjugated peoples. Suppose a Mafia thug came to your door, I said, and he offered to protect you for, say, $100 a month. You would ask the thug, “From whom do I need protection?” to which he would reply: “Us.”)
Following this was more of the same: combinations of Islamic apologizing and ad hominem attacks. I was told, for instance, that I could not possibly understand Iran if I had never been there myself. By this standard, history as such is impossible; no one today can know what it was like a decade, a century, or a millennium prior to his birth. But the apologists have no problem suspending this standard for themselves when it serves their purposes, in this case to glorify Mohammad (“a peaceful man”) and 7th-century Arabia.
But one “questioner” in particular stands out: After reading a sentence from my article Notes on the Near Eastern Roots of Islam, with no context or explanation for the audience to even understand what it meant, he attacked me by saying that I should remember “logic” and the fact that I was at a “scientific” school before making statements such as those that I had made. But rather than explain to me what was illogical or unscientific about my views—let alone ask a question in the question period—he continued his ad hominem attack by stating that my views were so obviously wrong that only a “criminal mind” (a phrase he repeated) could have come up with them. Again, he never stated what was wrong with my quote, never established any reasons for his conclusion, and never asked me to clarify my reasoning—he took his assertion of the “criminality” of my mind as a self-evident fact.
On the face of it, the “scientific logic” he employed was nothing more than arbitrary name-calling—obviously a cherished technique by his “method.” But what motivated his calling me a “criminal mind”—twice?
The topic of my talk was theocracy and Islamic law. Islamic governments, as ideological states founded on claims to divine revelation, must jail—or worse—those who speak out against the clerics. This was the thug’s ideal: In lieu of rationally demonstrating the “truth” of his beliefs, he would criminalize me, or jail me, or perhaps kill me, to stop the spread of ideas contrary to his. In Iran, this ideal has already been achieved; there I would have been arrested, condemned, and thrown into solitary confinement. But in America, the thug’s ideal is frustrated; without the power of the law to silence me he was reduced to name-calling.
What deeper attack on civilization, freedom, the mind, and human life could be possible than to propose the establishment of thought crimes in an American university? His was the voice of a dark-age Nazi brownshirt longing for the day when he can destroy those who vocalize ideas that make it difficult for him to evade the irrational nature of his whims. Who is it that should be empowered to peruse articles and determine which ones constitute crimes? The thug made that very clear. Unfortunately, with but one exception, the Muslims in the audience did not say anything against him.
For a taste of what develops when people like the ones I faced have their way, read this article about a university lecturer in Iran who was sentenced to death in Iran for the “crime” of polling Iranians about their attitudes towards America. This is the real meaning of Islamic law: the destruction of the mind, and death to those who use their minds.
The content of my article is irrelevant in the face of such attacks on the mind. But, for the record, the passage that the thug read was this: “There is a need for an external enemy, as a point of focus for the rage which would otherwise turn into civil war.” And here are the next two sentences: “The Arabic tribes were in constant warfare, until Islam pointed their energies outwards, into conquest. To this day, the civil wars return to such areas whenever there is no external enemy, or no dictator to keep order by force.” I wrote this because it is true. Dictatorship or anarchy is largely the rule in the Middle East today—as it was under Mohammed in Arabia, which he conquered internally and then turned outward to foreign conquest.
On display the night of my talk were the theory and practice of Islamic totalitarianism—the soul and the fist—in the evasions about Islamic history and its practices today, and in the open wish to criminalize those stating these truths.
There were, however, two bright spots to the evening. The first was a man who described himself as a thirty-year emigré from Turkey. He noted with pride that his homeland had a thoroughly secular government and he praised Kemal Ataturk for bringing Turkey into the modern age, for instance, by banning the headscarf. But today Turkey’s secular government is being undercut—by Americans who describe its government as “moderate Islamic” and thereby blur the line between theocracy and secularism. This opens the door to the establishment of Islamic law. The man’s message was this: There can be no compromise between theocracy and secular government; it is either–or. To accept "moderate Islam" into government is, in principle, to establish theocracy. I wonder if he realized that, by the standards of the brownshirt in my audience, he was a criminal for holding such a view.
The second bright spot of the evening was a young woman who asked me excitedly about Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness. As the young woman struggled to understand Rand’s challenging ideas, our conversation continued into the hall and outside. She apologized for the actions of the audience; I told her not to be concerned with them, only herself. I am certainly glad that, for now at least, she lives in a society where she can remain focused on her own intellectual development—and safely ignore those who would stifle or slaughter her “criminal mind” before the wings of her intellect have a chance to grow.
About the Author
John Lewis is a contributing writer for Capitalism Magazine. He is also a Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard.
ACT for America P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 http://www.actforamerica.org/
Monday, March 17, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
by Hugh Fitzgerald (March 2008)
Is it somewhere written that the countries of the advanced West are required to admit Muslims into their lands, or to continue to endure their large-scale presence, no matter what new information may come to light, and greater understanding as a result, of the meaning and menace of Islam? It is by now quite clear, to all who are paying attention, that there is something deeply worrisome about that ever-increasing presence of Muslims in the Bilad al-kufr (Lands of the Infidels). And it is clear to those who are a bit swifter of apprehension than others that this has led to a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for the indigenous Infidels (and for other, non-Muslim, immigrants) than would be the case were there no such large-scale Muslim presence.
Is it impossible to halt all Muslim immigration to the West? To return Muslim non-citizens promptly to their countries of origin? To impose restrictions on money coming from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to fund those mosques and madrasas all over the Western world? To do nothing that would openly demonstrate an unwillingness to change our legal and political institutions in response to Muslim demands or a Muslim presence? To do nothing that would, instead, demonstrate the opposite, that is a steely and well-informed and public refusal, to modify our own institutions and understandings, in order to meet demands from Muslims for changes, demands that, even if not met at first, will always and everywhere continue to be made, and made by appeals both cunningly couched in whatever language is appealing (the appeal to “true diversity” for example), or if that doesn’t work, in the language of threats of violence, and of actual violence. Is it impossible to create the conditions where True Believers in Islam, with all that that implies, may have to make a choice between remaining in the Lands of the Infidels, where a "full Muslim life" will only with great difficulty be lead (and there are ways to let the "whisperings of Shaytan" become louder), and sticking with Islam by remaining in, or returning to, Muslim lands.
Islam is not mainly, or merely, a "religion" as we understand that term. It is a Total Belief-System. If we come to see it as the threat it is, to the legal and political institutions that have been created over time, the institutions that we have inherited, and that we have a duty to preserve, then we will be far more willing to consider, and then to take, the kind of measures that have been taken, within recent memory, when a tolerant and advanced people had had enough, had experienced enough, and decided they were under no obligation to continue to endure, for the sake of some theoretical "standard of tolerance" that, after all, is merely a human construct, that they were free to accept or to modify, and not to cling to as a suicide pact. and should not be considered a suicide pact, and indeed did handle such a perceived threat by acting as they did, in the case of the Czechs, with those quintessential Europeans of the civilized old school, Jan Masaryk and Eduard Benes, when they passed, and then put into force, what came to be called the Benes Decree.
Awareness of such things would go a long way to opening eyes to what makes sense. For example, more people should be reminded of the case of the Czechs, with those quintessential Europeans of the civilized old school, Jan Masaryk and Eduard Benes, and the decision, in 1946, to expel the “Sudeten Germans” who had lived, for hundreds of years, along what was then the border separating the Czechs from the lands of Deutschtum, and who had before the war been willingly used by Hitler to whip up Western opinion against the Czechs, and who, during the war, were to a large degree supporters of the Nazis and of Germany, and were like all Volksdeutsche given the same rations, and treated in other ways the same, as the Germans themselves, and not as the non-German peoples of Occupied Europe.
Knowledge of history helps. So do does the study of literature, as it used to be conceived, requiring attention to words, an attention still to be found in the way in which literature is taught in European high schools, for whatever else their problems, Eurepean teachers have not yet begun to emulate the fashion, or possibly mania, of American teachers, in focusing the attention of students on the racial, ethnic, sexual backgrounds of authors, rather than on analysis of the words themselves.
Literary study, rightly conceived and conducted, can help encourage the right use of language and the exercise of the muscle of imagination, valuable for themselves, and needing no further justification, but useful, it should be recognizing, in understanding, and in articulating, the permanent meaning and current menace, of Islam. The study of history helps students to apprehend the movements that matter, of longue duree, to recognize durable continuities, and to recognize, and worry about, what happens to people, and to peoples, when they fail to apprehend a threat in time.
But the two areas of study that have suffered the most from modern mental fashions are, precisely, Literature and History.
The tesserae need to be fitted into their proper slots, and individual items need to be seen as part of the larger pattern, and responded to in the same way. When we hear the unhappy news that Hezbollah is planning a terror attack on America in retaliation for the killing of Imad Mughniyah, we realize that this means only that our government will order some people to be on a “heightened state of alert” and that, wherever a particular plot is uncovered, those directly involved – a half-dozen plotters – will be picked up.
And thought is given as to how to re-assure, in every way, the Muslims now living in America, and to re-assure non-Muslims in America that Islam itself has nothing to do with the perceived behavior and attitudes of Muslims, nothing to do with the nth plot by the nth-to-the-nth-degree plotters. No one suggests, as they would have in previous wartimes, in prevous wars, that a a pre-emptive sweep of Dearborn and other such areas is, given the perceived threat, both necessary and legitimate. By "sweep" I mean a determined effort to locate all non-citizens in such areas likely to harbor Hezbollah supporters or admirers (and supporters and admirers of other groups conducting the same kind of violent Jihad), and to remove them from this country. The reaction to such a sweep by the Presidential candidates would be telling, and should be known now, and not after the election.
Other measures can be taken to make sure that it is well understood that any attacks in this country will lead to a steady deterioration in the position of those who either have openly declared that they share the ideology of the attackers, or who, it is reasonable to assume, share that ideology. And what is that ideology? It is, of course, that of Jihad. In other words, all those who believe in the duty, and necessity, either of participating in, or supporting in any way those who participate in, the "Jihad" or struggle to remove all obstacles, anywhere, to the spread, and then dominance, of Islam, for these people pose a permanent danger to the legal and political institutions of this country, to free expression in art and free inquiry necessary to science, and furthermore, pose a physical threat to Americans that cannot and will not be tolerated.
Those Muslims who claim to be completely opposed to the idea of "Jihad" as it has been widely understood, and acted on wherever possible, over the past 1350 years, should understand why those familiar with Islam look upon their assertions with a skeptical eye (and those who are the defectors from Islam, such as Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq, are the most skeptical of all), given that by continuing to describe themselves as adherents of a Total Belief-System that makes "Jihad" a central duty, they hold themselves out as Believers in every respect. And part of a Believer’s duties is that of accepting the duty, central and not tangential, to engage in Jihad to tear down all obstacles to the spread, and then the necessary and inevitable dominance, of Islam.
Those Muslims who do not agree that they have such a duty, and whose Islam is more a matter, not of belief, but of inherited cultural baggage – people are born into it, into states and societies and families suffused with it, and do not realize that in non-Islamic societies they are free to leave Islam, and some find themselves defensive about the faith, and willing to misstate its contents, or to participate in campaigns intended to confuse or distract Infidels, campaigns that often require those “moderate” semi-disbelieving Muslims to offer assurances that they surely know are false, but out of embarrassment or filial piety, keep on making. Those who continue to insist that they are “moderate” Muslims need to do something, anything, to alleviate the fears of non-Muslims. Misrepresenting what is so clearly in the texts, and that form the tenets, of Islam, is not the way to alleviate those fears.
They can start by forthrightly stating the uncomfortable truths about the ideology of Islam, even as they distance themselves from it, and do what they can to undermine Jihad as a duty. If done with conviction, that may, at least in some part, relieve some non-Muslims of justifiable, perfectly reasonable, assumptions and suspicions.
For anyone who continues today to call himself a Muslim (not a "cultural Muslim" and not a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim), can be held to know the contents of the texts (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira), and therefore the tenets of Islam, and the attitudes and atmospherics of states, societies, families suffused with Islam (many Infidels have been educating themselves, and it is getting harder and harder to hide the truth from, at least, that ever-expanding number of people in the West), and has an affirmative duty, as the lawyers say, to distance himself, not by denying what Islam teaches (and especially the manner in which the world is divided, in Islam, between Believer and Infidel), but by acknowledging what it teaches and insisting that this particular "Muslim" is entirely opposed to such teaching.
Still, one has to make allowances for:
1) Ignorance of the real history of Muslim conquest -- as with the mass killings of tens of millions of Hindus.
2) Ignorance of the actual mechanism of conquest and then, more importantly, of the islamization over time of the conquered populations and of the arabization that frequently accompanied it.
3) Filial piety, including memories of sympathetic older relatives who were quietly pious and did not seem to wish harm to anyone -- such as the parents, for example, of Magdi Allam, who writes about them so touchingly.
4) The desire to spare oneself knowledge of certain truths that would call into question the entire value of what has been, in so many ways, central to one's sense of self, or rather of the self immersed in the umma, or collective, or community of Believers. How difficult it is for those who are essentially not in free societies, subject to the constant din of Islamic propaganda, in lands suffused with Islam, where this total belief-system offers a simple explanation of the universe, a complete regulation of life, and thus a comforting way to organize and make sense of the universe.
5) Among Arab Muslims, their ethnic identity reinforces a desire to protect, to defend, not to question, Islam -- and that can be true of non-Muslim Arabs -- the "islamochristians" -- as well.
These are explanations, not justifications. But they should give slight pause to those who insist that every Muslim everywhere surely must know exactly what the texts and tenets are all about, and should be denounced, therefore, with the same intensity as one would denounce the ideology.
But certain things will have to be done, for those who think they can continue to live within the Infidel lands, where our way of life -- of taking planes or trains or busses, for example -- has already been altered, for the worse, by the threat that comes from Muslims, acting according to unambiguous Muslim texts, attempting to participate in Jihad, not by using non-violent instruments -- Da'wa, demographic conquest, the Money Weapon (which have the same goal, and in the end are even more dangerous to Infidels)-- but rather, violence, the violence of qitaal, or combat, now held by many Muslims to legitimately describe what we non-Muslims have no difficulty describing as "terrorism."
Let it be understood that with every act of attempted or completed terrorism in this or another Infidel country, the position of Muslims in that country becomes ever more tenuous. Collective punishment, you say? No, not any more so than the treatment of enemy aliens during any war. If one wishes to disassociate clearly and convincingly from the ideology of the enemy, there are many obvious ways to do so. One is to work to help the authorities locate, and investigate, and prosecute, all those who are likely to be dangerous, or those who encourage others to engage in violence. It isn't hard to work with, rather than to work against, those attempting to protect the people of this country. Failure to do so, when one is well-placed to do so, should be carefully noted, carefully taken in.
Here is a partial list of measures that should be undertaken immediately:
1. Education of Infidels, so that they are well aware of the contents of the texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira.
2. Education of Infidels, so that they understand how, over 1350 years, those texts have been received, and acted upon, by Believers.
3. Education of Infidels, so that they know a good deal about the history of Islamic conquest, and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslim peoples in the lands conquered -- a subjugation that, no matter what the land, or the kind of non-Muslims conquered, the result was always the same.
4. Education of Muslims within Infidel countries, so that they will understand that the failures of Muslim societies -- political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral -- are the direct result of Islam itself.
5. An end to all Muslim immigration to Infidel lands.
6. Imposition of tests for naturalization that require a detailed knowledge of the history and cultural achievements of the Western country in question -- see "Going Dutch" for one, admittedly exaggerated-for-effect example.
7. Inclusion, in the test for naturalization, of a loyalty oath, swearing sole allegiance to the political and legal institutions of the particular Infidel nation-state. In the case of the United States, allegiance to the Constitution would be considered adequate. Subsequent proof of perjury would, in the law, be considered valid grounds for stripping a naturalized citizen of that citizenship.
8. Making any support, direct or indirect, for Jihad -- defined as the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, including but not limited to the political and legal institutions of the host country – illegal.
9. Preventing any foreign funds from entering the country to be spent for the building or upkeep of mosques or other institutions connected to Islam, or for campaigns of Da'wa.
10. Curtailing in the prisons campaigns of Da'wa, on the grounds that the evidence shows that those who convert contain a high proportion of people who subsequently present a threat to society.
11. Refusing to bow to any Muslim demands for changes either in schools or in workplaces to accommodate Muslim rituals or Muslim ideas of what is fitting, from the hijab (where banned, as in France) or for extra time off for prayers in the middle of the work-day. This is not the sort of accommodation that Infidels, in Infidel lands, should be expected to make. In other words, the policy should be No Changes For Islam.
12. Reciprocity in the current number of mosques. Taking into account the absence, for tens of millions of non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands, of churches, Hindu temples, and other houses of worship, the policy should be to reduce the number of mosques in Western lands until there is a change in the Muslim lands. Reciprocity is a concept most people can understand and justify.
13. Reducing benefits so that large families (likely to be Muslim) cannot continue to be formed by those who assume they will be supported by the state. Muslim women will be expected to work in the same numbers as non-Muslim women, and will no longer be supported by the Infidel state (that is, Infidel taxpayers) to be breeding machines.
14. Enforcement of the laws against polygamy will be increased. Those practicing polygamy will be subject to being stripped of citizenship and returned to that Muslim state from which they, or their closest relatives, came. Since so many Muslims in Western Europe continue to observe, in Muslim enclaves, the mores of the countries that they, or their parents, or their grandparents, came from, the argument that they cannot "go back" can be dealt with. There is no obligation for the countries of Western Europe to live with the colossal error of their immigration policy.
15. There will be not the slightest concession made to Muslim sensibilities on the subject of aspects of Islam, including Muhammad. Those who wish to live in an environment where Islam is to be free of criticism are free to move to Muslim countries. There are many dozens of them. They control vast land areas, and vast natural resources. This is not a case of a tiny people having no place to go.
16. Efforts should be made to publicize the most celebrated defectors from Islam, to publish and distribute their books, to make much of them. This should be done both for the education of Infidels, and for the conceivable education of those who, born into Islam, may be persuaded to leave it.
The countries of North America and Western European countries can do much to make the practice of Islam, and campaigns of Da'wa, harder to support, and to make those Muslims who are intent on adhering to this ideology so dangerous to non-Muslims think again about remaining in the Western world. Benefits can be limited. Foreign sources of aid can be cut. The general atmosphere of continuing refusal to yield, and of ever-increasing Infidel awareness of the texts of Islam and the history of Muslim conquest, will naturally create conditions of suspicion and hostility that are not, to the well-informed, either wicked, or baseless but, alas, entirely reasonable.
Hugh Fitzgerald's Articles at New English Review:
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS ISLAMIYYA
Sharia--Islamic Law is being imposed on us.
Just Keep Your Mouth Shut--If not, you'll get hurt . . . or dead" is the message sent out by Moslems, "moderate" and those straining at their leashes to kill us.
Should we take it? Or should we say, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more?"
In his article "Submit or Die,"Clifford D. May says "[Moslem] Protesters are laying down the law.
"[They are] not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: 'It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.' They are saying: 'It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.' They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate 'infidels' criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism — and much worse — from Muslims.
"They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and 'unbelievers' submit — or die. Call it an offer you can’t refuse."
[Daniel Pipes writes about a 1952 novel] . . . which contains passages no less blasphemous than those in [Salman Rushdie's] The Satanic Verses. [the author] has the would-be Hollywood producer of a film about the Prophet Muhammad vent his views:
Mohammed struck me as a kind of a gamey figure for a religious leader, I mean for a man God spoke to personally. I didn’t know what to make of him really, sort of a blend of Saint Teresa of Avila, Jane Addams of Hull House, William the Conqueror, and Casanova. . . . When he has his midlife crisis Mohammed gets the Call, and has visions, and goes into a trance and Allah dictates all these Suras [chapters] to him, which together make up the Koran. And either Mohammed is plagiarizing the Bible like mad and is a hysterical plagiarist or it’s one hell of a coincidence. . . . He’s always praying to Allah for guidance and if Mohammed really wants something bad enough you get the impression Allah is going to tell him it’s okay. I mean Allah can’t seem to say no to him. [Richard Grenier, The Marrakesh One-Two (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983), pp. 5-7. The movie Ishtar is loosely based on the story in The Marrakesh One-Two.]
We live in a free society, the First Amendment to the Constitution declares the Congress shall make no law abrogating free speech. If the United States Congress is prohibited from taking away our right to free speech, what law do Moslems think supersedes the laws of the United States? [ed. note: "Not yet, Ibrahim Cooper, not yet. Not ever. There are millions of non-Islamic Americans that will see that it will never be sharia that replaces the Constitution. If you whine about "islamophobia" now and about "discrimination" against Msolems, you ain't seen nothing yet, if push comes to shove. That ain't a threat. It's a promise.]
If Moslems want to live under sharia--Moslem law--then let them go and live in countries under Moslem government.
There is even a Fatwa issued to that effect:
It's been translated into German. Briefly, this Moslem guy is a "missionary" for Islam--a peddler of da'wa, seeking converts for Allah and his "messenger," Mohammed. He asks one of these Isamic clerics," How should I deport myself, here in America? I believe America will soon be Islamic country because of huge number of mosques all over this land. Should I stay or should I go?
Answer from Dr. Abdul Hay Yussef, in the form of a fatwa (a religious lawful edict declared by an Islamic cleric of high standing):
America is in the "House of War,"(arab. bait al-harb). It has hurt Moslems all over the world. Moslems are not allowed to live there, if you get the chance, get out of there. "Allah's prophet" [sic] says "I don't know any Moslem who lives in the land of the polytheists."
America is not an Islamic land. You neither hear the call of the muezzin to the faithful for prayer norare Friday and the Islamic holidays officially celebrated. Sharia (Islamic law) is not the law of the land. When your studies are finished, see to it that you leave that land for a Moslem land as soon as you can.
To which I hasten to add for the benefit of this guy and any other Moslems "And don't let the door hit you in the ass."
Fatwa (Rechtsgutachten) von Dr. Abdul Hay Yussef
Ich bin ein Propagandist für den Islam (arab. Da'ia; ein "Missionar"; IFI). Ich glaube, Amerika wird aufgrund er großen Zahl an Moscheen überall im Land auch bald ein islamisches Land werden. Wie soll ich mich verhalten?"
Antwort: "Amerika ist Kriegsgebiet. Es hat Muslimen in der ganzen Welt Schaden zugefügt. Daher gehört es zum "Haus des Krieges" (arab. bait al-harb). Muslime dürfen dort nicht leben, wenn sie die Möglichkeit haben, auszuwandern (Sure 4, 97). Allahs Prophet sagte in der Überlieferung:
'Ich kenne keinen Muslim, der im Land der Polytheisten lebt.'
Amerika ist kein islamisches Land. Man hört dort keinen Ruf zum Gebet, und man erkennt den Freitag und die (muslimischen) Feiertage nicht an. Die islamischen Riten werden nicht in der Öffentlichkeit praktiziert. Wenn Sie z. B. ein Problem mit Ihrer Ehefrau haben, wird Ihr Fall nicht nach dem Gesetz des Islams und dem Koran beurteilt ... Wenn Sie Ihr Studium beendet haben, sehen Sie zu, dieses Land so schnell wie möglich zu verlassen und in ein muslimisches Land auszuwandern."
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Let us suppose, Islam is more and more victorious in the world. Europe has fallen to them and they have made such inroads in the United States as holding majorities in both houses of Congress as well as having, say, three Moslem justices on our Supreme Court, and of course Moslems in the cabinet, CAIR crowing triumphantly, and a couple of Moslem candidates vying for the presidency of the United States.
What is left for us, Americans who don't want to see our children become Moslems, who want our country back?
Answer: Resistance, the Underground, for us, the people intent on overthrowing the Islamics.
Remember, there is no Constitution that protects the government from being overthrown when shariah reigns supreme.
THE "MODERATE" MOSLEMS IN OUR MIDST
There are Moslems living now in the United States--whether immigrants, residents, or American citizens--like that "nice family a couple of houses down the block," lovely people, just like us, only that they go to mosque on Friday instad of to church on Sunday. They dress as we do, speak perfect English, explain Islamic customs and are eager to relate the history of Moslem holidays.
These are what we consider to be "moderate" Moslems. As contrasted to the "Islamic extremists," our governmental authorities babble about. There are those who pretend to be that, the undercover jihadists. But when Islam rules supreme, these will come out of the shadows, eager to be recognized as devout Moslems.
The Real "Moderate" Moslems
To my mind, if you are a Moslem who believes that the koran is holy and comes directly from a Moslem god, and that the life of Mohammed was exemplary and that every Moslem should follow this journey in the world by this "perfect man," you cannot be "moderate."
It is, as has been said before ad nauseam, similar to being pregnant. You cannot be "moderately" pregnant as contrasted to "fully" pregnant. I mean the state either is or is not. Likewise, a Moslem either is a full believer or he is not.
Yes, there are "secular" Moslems or "Moslems-in-name-only" as Hugh Fitzgerald, Vice President of the Board at Jihad Watch, so insightfully observed. There are Moslems who imbibe alcohol and do not emulate the "oh-so-pure" life of Mohammed (lacking in "purity" in sexual matters, however so there's plenty of room for them in that arena).
These "luke-warm" Moslems still feel their "Moslemhood" at critical times, such as when the umma celebrates a successful al qaeda strike against one of the two "Satans."
When push comes to shove and an angered populace starts cleaning out berobed, koran-wielding Moslems from their midst, will these "in-name-onlys" side with us or will they feel the pull of their "Moslemhood" and side with their more devout ideologues.
More appropriate yet is an instance when, let us suppose, the ummah (Moslem world) is more and more victorious, to repeat: Europe has fallen to them and they have made such inroads in the United States as holding majorities in both houses of Congress as well as having, say, three Moslem justices on our Supreme Court, and of course Moslems in the cabinet, CAIR crowing triumphantly, and a couple of Moslem candidates vying for the presidency of the United States.
When "it is good to be a Moslem," will these "moderate," "slightly pregnant" Moslems join in with Islam triumphant? Or will we be able to depend on these Moslem "good ol boys" on being on our side, the Resistance, the Underground, the people intent on taking our country back?
*The worst-case scenario of course is that the United States is taken over by Islamic forces--Moslems--and the Constitution is supplanted by sharia (Moslem law). In that case, we will be living under an Islamic tyranny. Eventually, we will end up as Persia ended up--what it is today: the population is Moslem--the few remaining Christians, Jews, Zoroastrian are persecuted and made to feel so uncomfortable that some will opt out, become Moslems. It is no longer Persia, it is Iran.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
*The Writings of George Washington (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1938), ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, vol. 27, p. 254 (capitalization and spelling in the original).
from Immigration and Individual Rights by Craig Biddle
This article is from TOS Vol. 3, No. 1. The full contents of the issue are listed here.
TOS = The Objective Standard
--gasoline, petrol, gasolina?
Gas prices going up and up and up!
"WHO DISCOVERED THE OIL UNDER THE SANDS OF ARABIA ANYWAY?"
You'll be surprised at the answer! (It's given right here, in this post!)
What to do?
TAKE THE OIL AWAY FROM THEM!
What! How dare you! Unheard of! How can you say this! Most unfair! Poor Arabs!
What has been given by us, can be taken away.
We have the power to do just that.
Interesting aside re seizing Saudi oil fields:
. . . a briefing given to a Pentagon advisory group [quite some time ago] . . . . The briefing declared Saudi Arabia an enemy of the United States and advocated that the United States invade the country, seize its oil fields, and confiscate its financial assets unless the Saudis stop supporting the anti-Western terror network.
We* GAVE them the oil. Not only the Saudis, but wherever oil was found under Moslem lands, WE made that possible.
We explored for it, discovered it, developed it, produced it, marketed it.
Sure, today they can do the last two processes by themselves, but had we not paid for the first two, they would be as they were before OIL: nomads, roaming over sterile sand ("kings" and "princes" my foot!).
OIL AS A SOURCE OF ENERGY IS FAST FADING OUT!
But not fast enough
When petroleum (oil) is replaced by non-fossil energy sources, the entire Islamic resurgence will collapse--financed as it is by the unearned riches of the Saudi Wahabbis.
This is not happening fast enough. In the meantime, the Saudis and other Arabs are financing the worldwide jihad that wants to force us to accept the verkackte** ideology disguised as a religion patched together by a desert Arab and his "companions." That instigator, jealous of the avanced theology of the Jews, attempted to ape and surpass it with his pastiche of misunderstood and perverted portions torn from the living whole of Judaism and the appropriated parts of Christianity. Just look at the perversions: Jesus Christ was not crucified, Mohammed/Allah knew that the Jews had not observed their own religion as well as if not better than the Hebrew Prophets. This would-be prophet who came up with an entire rationale (not based on reason) as to why he and his Arabs could rob, rape, and plunder for their made-up deity, they called Allah after one of the idols of the shrine built over a black meteorite.
Be that as it may, let them keep their Islam, their Mohammed, their Allah, as long as they don't try to force the whole mess down our thoats. And they're trying to do it today, financed by the money that the oil brings 'em. The oil that we discovered and developed, and foolishly, with a stupid concept of "fairness" and the belief in the inevitability of awakening nationalism amongst the undeveloped, we gave them--hoping that they would sell it to us--without gouging us.
But gouge us they did! They are holding us up! Daylight robbery! Charging us more than $100 a barrel for the oil that without us they wouldn't have!
It's time to take the oil away from the Arabs and other Moslems that have us by the short hairs (or other dangling parts of our bodies).
They scream. howl, squeal, whatever. Who cares? We shouldn't. We found it for them. (Sure we made a profit, more than our money back, but that's business, that's gambling and winning. The Arabs that benefitted most put up nothing. They didn't gamble, they got it all--giving nothing but insults and haughty arrogance in return).
What are the Arabs without oil? A tribal society that, without slaves and a tax-paying underclass of conquered peoples, is nothing but a useless mass of humanity that takes and gives nothing in return but grief--death, destruction, unreason.
The other Islamics, seeing the way of the Arab--living off the production and products of the conquered--these wanna-be Arabs, fancy themselves as-good-as Arabs--whether Persian, Assyrian, Berber, Hindu-Indian, Afghanis, and whoever else "accepted" Islam or was made to accept it--these wanna-be, would-be Arabs must learn that what you get you gotta earn. The time of Islamic conquests is over! The time of Islamic highway robbery is still here:
LET'S BRIDGE OVER THE SHORT TIMESPAN UNTIL FOSSIL FUEL--OIL--BECOMES OBSOLETE, BY RETAKING THE OILFIELDS THAT WE DISCOVERED AND EXPLOITED FOR THEM.
Quoting --Shabana Muhammad:
Terrorists need money to kill you and your family and without oil they won’t get that money. Once we stop depending on oil, terrorists won’t get the money that they need. For example, Iran’s ability to fund nuclear weapons programs solely depends on the revenue it generates from the sky-rocketing prices of oil. Every sane individual must understand the crisis our world would face once Iran becomes a nuclear weapon country.
from "Ways and Means of Fighting Islamofascism"
*When I say "we" about finding the oil and developing the extraction and marketing, the "we" includes "me--I." I worked for and with oil companies exploring for petroleum outside of the United States. L.W.
APPENDIX - PISSED OFF BY HIGH GAS PRICES?
Indiana_jones says in the "Comments" at Jihad Watch:
The only treasure Muslims have is OIL but on second thoughts their intellectual level is so low that unless we had not invented methods to use it and drill it out for use in cars and planes(again ---our inventions) they would have just stayed on top of the OIL without ever realizing its value.
Posted by: Indiana_jones [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 13, 2007 12:43 AM
An excellent exposition of this is given by "exsgtbrown" also at the same Jihad Watch "Comments:"
........And the Muslims did not discover their oil, It was discovered by an Australian in 1908..back then as it is now.."Persia was devoid of infrastructure and politically unstable."...The Muslims were never stable , being basically a bunch of 7th century nomads and perverts...same as today...nothing has changed...Through the centuries, Muslims never developed a viable social order....their leaders were always the most bloodthirsty and ruthless...Muslims have always been a thrill kill machine....
....Maybe back in 1908 had someone thought to change the social infrastructure and bring the Muslims into the 20th century instead of prioritizing the bringing of oil to the surface, things would be somewhat better today.....
....Muslims have always been a violent people and it is oil that has made them extremely violent.....They have always hated the Jews too...Now the Muslims want no Jews and all the oil....
I found the following info interesting:
"BP originated in the activities of William Knox D'Arcy, an adventurer who had made a fortune in Australian mining. In 1901 D'Arcy secured a concession from the Grand Vizier of Persia (now known as Iran) to explore for petroleum throughout most of his empire. The search for oil proved extremely costly and difficult,
since Persia was devoid of infrastructure and politically unstable.
Within a few years D'Arcy was in need of capital. Eventually, after intercession by members of the British Admiralty, the Burmah Oil Company joined D'Arcy in a Concessionary Oil Syndicate in 1905 and supplied further funds in return for operational control. In May 1908 oil was discovered in the southwest of Persia at Masjid-i-Suleiman, the first oil discovery in the Middle East. The following April the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was formed, with the Burmah Oil Company holding most of the shares."
....And the rest, as they say, is history.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=[TypeKey Profile Page]" at February 13, 2007 07:10 AM
[Note: clicking on the date above also takes you to the Jihad Watch post and the Comments]
New Material added on November 28, 2007:
THE DISCOVERY OF OIL IN THE SANDS OF ARABIA (NOW SAUDI ARABIA)
"In 1932, a 37-year-old engineer employed by the Standard Oil Company of California (Socal) made a habit of climbing the highest point on the island of Bahrain, about 20 miles across the Persian Gulf from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. From that hilltop, he stared at the topography of the mainland, over the blue-green waters of the gulf. There, Fred Davies (B.S. ’16), a University of Minnesota graduate in mining, saw a landscape similar to the one that he was standing on. In the distance, he could see a cluster of hills forming a dome above the countryside.
"Davies had just drilled the first successful oil well in Bahrain through similar terrain. Now his training, experience, and inIn stincts told him that there was more oil to be had across the water—much more—in those hills on the other side of the flat shoreline. In fact, he was confident enough in that assessment to advise his employers that they ought to be here, in the heart of Arabia, where no other oil company in the world had yet drilled.
"It is no exaggeration to say that all of the momentous history that has subsequently linked the United States to the Middle East began with that appraisal. From it stemmed a series of events that brought U.S. oil companies to Saudi Arabia to begin extracting the single largest petroleum deposit in the world. From those wells have flowed billions of barrels of oil, trillions of dollars in commerce, and a steady stream of turmoil. "
from Beneath Saudi Sands
By Tim Brady
More about that--lots more--read it at the link given above.
Here are some pictures and some more background as to who found the oil and how the Americans had to grovel before these Sowdi primitives.
Fred Davies (left), chairman of the board at Aramco, with King Ibn Saud (seated) and others in the Aramco dining hall in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. (From the Seal-Aramco Collection of Photographs, Box 1 Folder 4, Georgetown University Library, Special Collections Division, Washington, D.C.)
Fred Davies (second from left) at a camp east of Riyadh. (From the Special Collections Department, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
Fred Davies (second from left) with other Aramco officials in Saudi Arabia. (From the Special Collections Department, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah.)
[wearing Arab garb. Speaking of sucking up to the Sowdis--even if it was for profit.]
In the early 1930s, King Saud was strapped for funds with which to govern his new nation and looked to the West for support through the sale of oil concessions. Historically, Britain had been the one western power that had dominated the pursuit of oil in the Middle East, but its concessions and reserves had come from Iraq and Iran. It had never explored the interior of the Arabian peninsula for oil. Though it seems hard to imagine today, there were questions whether oil even existed beneath these desert lands.
. . . Saudi Arabia was just emerging as a modern nation. The Bedouin tribes, which had dominated the region for centuries, had been consolidated under the leadership of King Ibn Saud and a monarchy, whose territory stretched from the Red Sea in the west to the Persian Gulf in the east, was formed. It was the heart of the ancient land known as Arabia and held the two cities most sacred to Muslims all over the world: Mecca, where the Prophet Muhammad was born; and Medina, where the Prophet had died. Because of its importance as the religious center of Islam, Saudi Arabia was and remains a special land for all the world’s Muslims.
The British were dealing with a number of economic and diplomatic difficulties in the wake of War I. Among them was their effort at maintaining a colonial empire under reduced circumstances. As a nation and economic power, Great Britain simply didn’t have the resources it once had, and the upshot for King Saud was that Britain’s interest in Arab oil exploration was surprisingly tepid.
The United States was a latecomer to the pursuit of Middle Eastern oil, but it jumped into the fray in the late 1920s. Socal had tried, with little success, to find oil in Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, the Philippines, and Alaska. Some within the company were less than enthusiastic about the prospects for oil in the Persian Gulf. These same skeptics viewed the exploration in even dimmer light as the Great Depression swept over the globe and a costly hunt for crude in Arabia seemed like an extravagance
Oil seekers within the company won out over its accountants, however, and Socal became the first American oil business to send explorers to the Middle East. Davies was the man picked to lead the crew, and Bahrain was the first site for drilling. After his successes there, Davies crossed into Saudi Arabia with the hope of talking to Ibn Saud about the possibility of exploring that dome of hills near the gulf coast for oil. But he failed to get an audience with the king and headed back to the United States empty-handed.
Ibn Saud’s need for cash remained, British interest in the region’s oil remained cool, and Davies, back in the States, continued to lobby for the exploration of oil in Saudi Arabia. Two new representatives of Socal were sent to the Middle East and won an audience with Saud in 1933. Through these emissaries, Socal was able to sign an agreement to begin the process of looking for oil in eastern Saudi Arabia.
By 1934, Fred Davies was back in Bahrain. A year later, he was in Saudi Arabia, serving as camp boss in the first American effort at digging oil wells in those same hills that he’d spied three years earlier, now called the Damman Dome.
As a nation, Saudi Arabia’s income was derived primarily from Muslim pilgrims making the trip to Mecca. Otherwise, Davies said in an Aramco statement, it was "a nomadic society [dependent] on the scant and uncertain provisions of the desert." The culture was tribal, patriarchal, Islamic, and ancient. According to Davies, it "could not have changed much since the days of the Prophet."
The agreement signed between Socal and the Saudis made patently clear that the Americans were in Arabia at the invitation of the Saudis and would adhere to the customs of the people and the land. That meant, among other restrictions, alcohol was strictly forbidden and consorting in any fashion with the women of Saudi Arabia was a crime punishable by death. In the eyes of the Saudis, the Americans were infidels, working in their lands at their own invitation and for Arab profit.
The Arabian-American Oil Company (Aramco)
Aramco was formed in the late 1940s out of a joining of Socal, Texaco, Exxon, and Mobil. At the time, Davies was asked to step aside from the presidency, which went to a Texaco man. Davies, "a good soldier," in the words of one co-worker, became vice president in charge of operations for Aramco and in 1949 moved back to Dhahran in Saudi Arabia with his wife, Amy, where the two would spend the rest of Davies’s career.
In 1952, the headquarters for Aramco were moved to Saudi Arabia, and Davies, already there and in charge of operations, was named chairman of the board and CEO. Along with the Texaco executive, who remained president of Aramco, Davies worked as a co–chief officer until his retirement in 1959.
from Beneath Saudi Sands
By Tim Brady
[On a personal note: I (Leslie White) met with a Texaco executive and was offered job possibilities in Saudi Arabia (with Aramco) and, when I declined because of the repressive conditions in the oil camps in Arabia (1), exploration opportunities in Turkey. I refused to consider these possible positions because I did not want to work nor set foot in any Islamic country. This was some time ago, so that my aversion to Islam predates the present confrontation with that ideology now again on the war path (jihad).]
1 The agreement signed between Socal and the Saudis made patently clear that the Americans were in Arabia at the invitation of the Saudis and would adhere to the customs of the people and the land. That meant, among other restrictions, alcohol was strictly forbidden and consorting in any fashion with the women of Saudi Arabia was a crime punishable by death. In the eyes of the Saudis, the Americans were infidels, working in their lands at their own invitation and for Arab profit.
NOTE: "a crime punishable by death . . . Americans were infidels . . . " unless you were really greedy for money or strapped for it, you had to be nuts to work under these conditions. Oh, and by the way, if you went outside the American camps, and were seen smoking, any Arab could slap the cigarette out of your mouth with impunity. I know this from personal communication by an American who had worked in Sowdi. lw. And then about "alcohol . . . strictly forbidden," lashes could be given for an infraction, and one British woman--I believe she had been a nurse--was sentenced to a whole shtload of those (sentence never carried out though).
HOW DID THIS ANACHRONISM KNOWN AS "SAUDI ARABIA" GET ITS START?
WHEN AND HOW DID ARABIA BECOME "SAUDI ARABIA?"
How did "Sa'udi Arabia" get its start? I have bypassed Saudi sources, Aramco sources, and the BBC, because I did not want a fluff job. So, I went to the Jewish Virtual Library, in the belief that the folks there would not embellish the accomplishments of the ruler of Mecca and Medina, the stomping grounds of the greatest enemy the Jews have had since Amalek: Mohammed.
Here's how Saudi got started:
Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud (Ibn Saud)
(1880 - 1953)
Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud, also known by several abbreviated forms of this name, or simply as Ibn Saud, was first monarch of Saudi Arabia. He was born into the House of Saud (also Sa'ud), which had historically maintained dominion over an area of what was then known as Arabia called Nejd.
He was born in Riyadh. In 1890, at the age of ten, Saud followed his family into exile in Kuwait following the conquering of the family's lands by the Rashidi. He spent the remainder of his childhood in Kuwait as a "penniless exile." 
In 1901, at the age of 21, Ibn Saud succeeded his father, Abdul Rahman bin Faisal, to become the leader of the Saud dynasty with the title Sultan of Nejd. It was at this time that he set out to reconquer his family lands from Ibn Rashid in what is now called Saudi Arabia. In 1902, together with a party of relatives and servants, he recaptured Riyadh with only twenty men by assassinating the Rashidi governor of the city. Ibn Saud was considered a "magnetic" leader, and many former supporters of the House of Saud once again rallied to its call following the capture of Riyadh.
For two years following his dramatic capture of Riyadh, Ibn Saud recaptured almost half of Nejd from the Rashidi. In 1904, however, Ibn Rashid appealed to the Ottoman Empire for assistance in defeating the House of Saud. The Ottomans sent troops to Arabia, setting Ibn Saud on the defensive. The armies of the House of Saud suffered a major defeat on June 15, 1904, but his forces soon reconstituted and resumed the offensive as the Turkish troops left the country due to supply problems.
Ibn Saud finally consolidated control over the Nejd in 1912 with the help of an organized and well-trained army. During World War I, the British government attempted to cultivate favor with Ibn Saud, but generally favored his rival Sherif Hussein ibn Ali, leader of Hejaz, whom the Sauds were almost constantly at war with. Despite this, the British entered into a treaty in December of 1915 making the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. In exchange, Ibn Saud pledged to again make war against Ibn Rashid, who was an ally of the Ottomans.
Ibn Saud did not, however, immediately make war against Ibn Rashid, despite a steady supply of weapons and cash (£5,000 Sterling per month) supplied by the British. He argued with the British that the payment he received was insufficient to adequately wage war against an enemy as powerful as Ibn Rashid. In 1920, however, the House of Saud finally marched again against the Rashidi, extinguishing their dominion in 1922. The defeat of the Rashidis doubled the territory of the House of Saud, and British subsidies continued until 1924.
In 1925 the Sauds defeated Husayn in battle.
In 1927, following the defeat of Husayn, the British government recognized the power of the Saud family, led by Ibn Saud, over much of what is today Saudi Arabia. At this time he changed his own title from Sultan of Nejd to King of Hejaz and Nejd.
From 1927 to 1932, Ibn Saud continued to consolidate power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In 1932, having conquered most of the Peninsula, Saud renamed the area from the lands of Nejd and Hejaz to Saudi Arabia. He then proclaimed himself King of Saudi Arabia, with the support of the British government.
Oil and the rule of Ibn Saud
Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938, and Ibn Saud responded by granting substantial authority over Saudi oil fields to American oil companies. In the early days of the oil boom most oil revenues received by the government of Saudi Arabia were immediately directed to the coffers of the royal family. As the income from oil grew, however, Ibn Saud began to spend some revenues on improving the lives of his subjects.
Saud forced many nomadic tribes to settle down and abandon "petty wars" and vendettas. He also began to fight crime in Saudi Arabia, particularly crime against pilgrims visiting the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Ibn Saud positioned Saudi Arabia as neutral in World War II, but was generally considered to favor the Allies.
In 1948, Saud participated in the Arab-Israeli war. The contribution of Saudi Arabia was generally considered token.
Ibn Saud died in Taif.
Ibn Saud had 52 children (of which 37 were boys), by several different women.
See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/AlSaud.html for the names of the 52.
Here's everything that you ever wanted to know about Saudi Arabia and then some:
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud
Fahd bin Abdul Aziz
Faisal bin Abdul Aziz
Khalid bin Abdul Aziz
Saud bin Abdul Aziz
Blood Libel in Saudi Daily
Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud (Ibn Saud)
House Unamiously Passes Resolution Condemning Saudi Boycott of Israel
The “Islamic Affairs Department” of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Kings of Saudi Arabia
Letter From President Roosevelt to the King of Saudi Arabia Regarding Palestine
Modern Saudi Arabia
Potential Threats To Israel: Saudi Arabia
Reagan Welcomes King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
Saud bin Abdul Aziz
Saudi Arabia Bans Jewish Visitors
Saudi Arabia Continues Boycott of Israel
Saudi Financial Support to the Palestinians
Saudis Providing Aid to “Martyrs”
Saudis Ban Pokemon Because of Zionist Symbol
Saudis Disseminating Hate Propaganda in U.S.
islam delenda est