Wednesday, December 31, 2008
. . . to all friends, readers, visitors, supporters, and supporting blogs,
from . . .
Islamic Danger to Americans
How to Stop the Islamic Jihad
Islamic Danger FU
The Jew in Yellow
islamic Danger 2U
Islamic Danger to Bharat (India)
Islamic Danger in History
Islamic Danger (original, now censored)
On the Back of My Mind
The Islamic Danger family of blogs
May the new year bring us all joy and glorious times, with the opposite to all who wish us ill and seek to destroy us.
. . . and to those mus who are my enemies . . .
watch my finger . . .
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written about 500 B.C.E., is the oldest military treatise in the world. Even now, after twenty-five centuries, the basic principles of that treatise remain a valuable guide for the conduct of war. Indeed, Sun Tzu may be of interest to the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, in view of the Arab Terrorist War that erupted in September 2000. Since then more than 1,600 Jews have been murdered and many thousands more have been wounded and maimed by Arab terrorists.
Referring to the IDF’s limited response to this Arab terrorism, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said, “self-restraint is strength”! At first glance one might suspect that Mr. Sharon had been influence by Mother Theresa. It may well be, however, that he derived that dictum from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War—or rather, from a misreading of that treatise. Sun Tzu would have an army general exhibit, at first, “the coyness of a maiden”—to draw out the enemy—but thereafter he would have him emulate the fierceness of a lion.
Of course, when the forces of the enemy exceed your own or occupy superior ground, then self-restraint is prudence. But when this situation is reversed, self-restraint is weakness. In fact, Sun Tzu goes so far as to say, “If fighting is reasonably sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbids it.”
In referring to various ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army and his people, Sun Tzu cautions a ruler against “attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom.” Although “In war, the general receives his commands from the sovereign,” “he will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.” Sun Tzu emphasizes that there are even occasions when the “commands of the sovereign must not be obeyed.”
Of course, this would violate the principle of military subordination to civilian authority—a principle Israel’s political elites would proclaim to preserve their democratic reputation, especially in the United States. Never mind Jewish casualties or sacrificing Jewish soldiers on the alter of PR.
In this connection, recall the Yom Kippur War, in which 3,000 Jewish soldiers perished. Certain general officers of the IDF obeyed the commands of the Meir Government by not launching a pre-emptive attack. Later, the Agranat Commission of Inquiry blamed them for the disaster. Sun Tsu would have agreed with the Agranat conclusion—of course for different reasons. He would have faulted the generals for “self-restraint,” that is, for heeding the commands of their Government.
Admittedly, Sun Tzu did not have to worry about journalists and humanists who make the rational conduct of war impossible, and who therefore prolong the killing. When U.S. Admiral Bull Halsey said, “Hit hard, hit fast, hit often,” he was merely echoing Sun Tzu’s advice.
We read in the Torah, “When you go forth to battle against your enemies” (Deut. 20:1). The sages ask: “What is meant by ‘against your enemies’”? They answer: “God said, ‘Confront them as enemies. Just as they show you no mercy, so should you not show them any mercy.’”
Sun Tzu would therefore be appalled by the alacrity with which Israeli governments engage in cease fires or “hudnas,” which allow Arab terrorists to regroup and accumulate more and deadlier weapons, Sun Tzu calls for the uninterrupted attack. He unequivocally opposes a protracted war: “There is no instance,” he says, “of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
Hence Israel’s Government must ignore the preachments of Washington on self-restraint—as if Hiroshima and Dresden never happened.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
again, from Sultan Knish
comes the following:
Via Jihad Watch and Infidel753 , meanwhile there are more detailed reports on the atrocities in Mumbai committed.
Disturbing photographs made available to this newspapers by police sources indicate that several of the guests at the Taj Mahal Hotel during the siege November 26 were sexually humiliated by the terrorists and then shot dead. Police sources confirm that even as the terrorists were engaged in a fierce combat with NSG commandos, they were humiliating their hostages before ending their terrifying ordeal.Photographs taken by a police forensic team after the hotel was sanitised yield a gruesome picture of some of the guests in the nude. These bodies were found away from the hotel's swimming pool which makes it clear that they were not those guests who were taken hostage from the poolside. "Even the Rabbi and his wife at Nariman House were sexually assaulted and their genitalia mutilated," said a senior officer of the investigating team, not wishing to be quoted.“We have CCTV footage which reveals how these terrorists forced some of the guests who were holed up in restaurants to strip, but there is not evidence of rape,” he added.Again, not at all surprising when you consider that this sort of brutality is the norm among Muslim Jihadis. Torture, atrocity and violation are part of the Islamic psyche going back to Mohammed. Sexual perversity is part of the larger picture.
Consider the following snapshot of how things were done under Mohammed
In early AD 628, during a raid, Zayd, Muhammad’s freedman and adopted son, was wounded and some of his men were killed by a tribe. Zayd vowed to abstain from sex until he took revenge. After Zayd recovered from his wounds, Muhammad sent him and a raiding band back to the tribe. An old woman named Umm Qirfa was taken prisoner. Would a Muslim leader spare her from death, not to mention from torturing her? No. Her death was cruel, says an Islamic source, matter-of-factly.
The executioner appointed by Zayd "tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to camels, and they split her in two." (Tabari)
It is not hard to imagine her screams. From the Islamic sources it is unclear why she, an old woman, had to die in the first place. But assuming only for the sake of argument that the initial raid was justified—a big assumption based on the belief that the old woman’s tribe was collaborating with the Jews of Khaybar—assuming this is true, did an old woman have to die in such a gruesome.
The following hadith, though not mentioning the torture, recounts the aftermath of the raid. One of the raiders kept the daughter of Umm Qirfa for himself, and brought her back to Medina, where Muhammad lived. Once Muhammad saw the girl, he shouted to the Muslim raider that he wanted her. What did he do with her? Sell her back to her family? Did he give her family the option to ransom her?
I [Salama, a Muslim raider] drove [captives] along until I brought them to Abu Bakr [Companion of Muhammad] who bestowed that girl on me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah . . . met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salamah. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day, the Messenger of Allah . . . again met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: she is for you, Messenger of Allah . . . By Allah, I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah . . . sent her to the people of Mecca, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners in Mecca. (Muslim no. 4345)
Every atrocity, every act of horror perpetrated by Muslims today is rooted in the crimes and atrocities of Mohammed, the Founder of Islam. His crimes are their crimes, and their crimes are his crimes.
Friday, December 26, 2008
from "Mumbai's The Word"
by Theodore Dalrymple (Dec. 2008)
New English Review
"I once stayed at the Taj Mahal in Bombay (as it was then still called). I didn't enjoy it as much as I might have done, because I was recovering from the hepatitis I had contracted in the South Seas. But I still recognised the magnificence of the institution, even as I regretted the modern excrescence that been added to the original building that ruined its architectural unity.
One morning as I left the hotel, a middle-aged man with a black umbrella and a medium-clean dhoti said to me . . .
Continue reading at New English Review - "Mumbai's The Word"
Thursday, December 25, 2008
'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
". . . contemporary bourgeois life in Western societies is so safe and so non-violent that a profound physical cowardice, an exaggerated fear of violence inflicted by others upon one’s person, is a common characteristic of members of the Western intelligentsia. That cowardice becomes for many an incapacitating phobia, which impairs their judgement and destroys all sense of proportion. "
"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." — D.H. Lawrence
the motto of the blog
Never Yet Melted
The person in red is being water-boarded.
This is a takeoff from snow-boarding
and applied to recalcitrants.
Apparently the balancing act on the board makes
the alleged suspect so nervous that he spills his guts.
still . . .
Matt Damon in his on- and off-screen persona
is not a fan of water-boarding, although his
reasons for opposing the sport are obscure.
J.R. Dunn, at American Thinker, discusses the Left’s successful propaganda campaign on so-called “Torture.” The Left controls the narrative in matters of this kind by using a combination of its domination of the MSM and emotionalism to shout down dissent.
from "Never Yet Melted's"
The Left’s “Torture” Fraud
Combat on the Korean Peninsula.
The horror of such forbidden cruelty
that was once used before the present era
of more genteel combat, when hurting
the enemy is a no-no.
Aren't we glad that such brutality
has been relegated to our unseemly past?
from Never Yet Melted blog
Using the Five Principles to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.
Refuting Counter-Terrorism Dhimmitude
After the Mumbai jihad a friend received a letter from someone who works in counter-terrorism. The friend is an apologist for Islam. The counter-terrorism friend poses their dhimmitude (apologies) so skillfully that it is worth countering their arguments.
The argument goes on for a full page. The conclusion is that Islam is not anyone's enemy, but radical Islam is a threat to everyone. The argument does not include a single fact taken from Islamic doctrine. Everything is based upon what some Muslims have told them. In a court of law, such "proof" is called hearsay. In short, the argument can be summarized by: I know some good Muslims; hence, Islam is good.
The background for my argument is the doctrine of Islam. Every Muslim, without exception, will tell you that the Koran is the perfect, complete, universal word of the only god, Allah. The Koran insists that Mohammed is the perfect model, pattern, of behavior for all Muslims. Mohammed's behavior is so important to Islam that it has a special name, Sunna. The Sunna is found in two texts, the Sira (Mohammed's sacred biography) and the Hadith (the sacred traditions of Mohammed). All of Islamic doctrine is based upon three texts: the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, the Trilogy.
I will not quote from the letter, but will summarize the points. They are the same points of all the other "experts."
"Moderate Muslims are not silent."
Well, we have to grasp the thick end of the wedge first. What is a "moderate Muslim?" What defines moderate? There are two references for moderation. The counter-terrorism friend's reference is "nice." A moderate is a nice person who won't harm a kafir (an unbeliever).
But we are talking about a Muslim, so the only valid reference for moderation is Islam, not "nice." It is the model of Mohammed who determines what Islam is. So if a Muslim imitates the Sunna of Mohammed, then they are moderate. Sunna is the words and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect pattern for all Muslims. The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their life. To that end Islam has an enormous literature about Mohammed in the Sira (his sacred biography) and the Hadith (his sacred traditions).
At this point we meet the main sticking point in understanding the doctrine of Islam. Muslims are to be Mohammedans and follow the Koran. But which Mohammed and which Koran do they follow? Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and gained 150 followers. In Mecca the Koran is generally religious.
Then Mohammed moved to Medina and became a politician and warrior. In 10 years time he annihilated the Jews of Medina, who were half of the town's citizens. Then he turned to attacking all kafirs. In the last 9 years of his life he was involved in a violent event every 6 weeks, on the average. He died without a single enemy left in Arabia. The Koran in Medina is political in nature and very violent.
So there are two Korans-the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran. In the same way there are two Mohammeds-Meccan Mohammed and Medinan Mohammed. The confusing thing is that the two Mohammeds and the two Korans contradict each other. But the Koran gives a rule for resolving the contradictions-the later is better and stronger than the earlier. So Medina abrogates Mecca. The bad news is that jihad developed in Medina and all the "nice" verses are weaker than the intolerant verses.
But the earlier "nice" verses are still true. After all, the Koran is the exact words of Allah, who never lies. So Islam holds two contradictory positions on all politics. This is dualism. But the dualism is very confusing. Islam must be one or the other. Right? No. It is both at the same time. There is an Escher print that illustrates this dualism very well. Look at the print. Do you see angels or devils? Notice that you can't see both at the same time.
The Western mind has been trained that both sides of a contradiction can't be true. So the question arises? Which of the two Korans is the real Koran? Which of the two Mohammeds is the real Mohammed? We see this when people say: that is not the real Islam. Or: he is not a real Muslim. The entire question of which is the real Islam misses the point that Islam embraces both sides of the contradiction. Islam is killing kafirs. Islam is being tolerant of kafirs. Islam is both tolerant and peaceful and intolerant and murderous.
Go back to the Escher illustration. Does it make any sense to ask if it is a picture of angels? Or to ask if the devils are the "real" illustration? No, it is about both and any attempt to argue one over the other misses the point. Both of them are needed for the illustration to work. In the same way, Islam can only be BOTH Mecca and Medina.
Let's return to the point of the "moderate" Muslim. Now we have to ask the question: is this Muslim a moderate of the Meccan variety or of the Medinan variety? Mohammed Atta, who was the lead jihadist on September 11, 2001, was a moderate of the Medinan sort. Just like Mohammed. Or is the "moderate" Muslim of the Meccan, generally religious and nice, type? The counter-terrorism expert does not make it clear which type she actually means, since it could be either.
The term "moderate" Muslim has no meaning because it does not identify which side of Islam the moderate is.
But we all know that what is meant is that moderate Muslims speak nicely and we are not afraid of them. They mean a Meccan Muslim when they use the word "moderate." Let's tackle his claim that the moderate Muslims are not silent. They may not be silent in dealing with kafirs, but they are silent in dealing with Medinan Muslims. Why? Two reasons. Medina was violent and most people are afraid of violence. That is the reason violence works. But there is a second reason. Remember that the Medinan jihadic Koran is better than the Meccan version. Medina trumps Mecca and Muslims know this.
"Radical Islamic groups"
What does "radical" mean? Killing, robbing, enslaving, assassination, torture, deceiving, jihad? As long as those behaviors occur with the kafirs on the receiving end, they are all acts that were performed by Mohammed. If Mohammed did them then they are not radical. Mohammed defines the middle of the road--normative behavior.
What happened in Mumbai, India, the World Trade Towers and Beslan, Russia was not radical. Each and every action at those sites was based upon the Sunna of Mohammed.
It is time to dwell a moment on the word "kafir." The strict meaning of kafir is unbeliever, but unbeliever is a neutral term. The Koran defines kafir by its usage. Kafirs can be robbed, raped, crucified, tortured, deceived, enslaved, plotted against, insulted and more. Kafir is the worst word in human language. Our counter-terrorism expert is a kafir and does not know it.
"moderates are using the Koran to prove the radicals to be wrong"
Anytime anyone only references the Koran when they are talking about Islam, you are dealing with a deceiver or an ignorant person. The Koran is only 16% of the Islamic canon. The Koran does not have enough in it to accomplish even one of Islam's vaunted Five Pillars. The Sira and the Hadith compromise the 84% of Islamic canon that shows a Muslim how to be a Muslim.
The Hadith devotes 20% of its text to jihad. The Sira devotes 75% of its words to jihad. Which "moderate" can deny those facts?
The Meccan Koran devotes 67% of its words towards kafirs, not Muslims. The Medinan Koran devotes 51% of its material to the kafir. Out of all this material in the Koran some of it in Mecca seems to promise goodness to the kafir, but the later Koran takes away the chance of goodness.
The "radicals," the Medinan Muslims, are right. The Meccan Muslims are deceivers, perhaps of themselves, but certainly deceivers without any doctrinal basis.
Let's vet the Muslim experts. If anything they say agrees with Mohammed then they are right. If anything the Muslim says disagrees with Mohammed then they are wrong. So who needs a Muslim? Go straight to Mohammed, the Sira and the Hadith. We don't need hearsay; we need facts, Mohammed's facts, and not Islamic gossip.
I don't care about what any Muslim says, except Mohammed. Actually, there is one, and only one, Muslim who will give you the straight truth-an apostate, one who has left Islam. But apostates tell us that no one believes them. Obviously, our counter-terrorism expert has never talked with any apostates.
"I don't think maligning Islam's holy man is proper behavior"
Since when is quoting from the Sira and Hadith maligning? Mohammed gave out the rules for rape in jihad. He owned sex slaves, told Muslims it was good to beat their wives, laughed when his enemy's heads were thrown at his feet. It's in the book. Such behavior goes on for page after page, year after year. Why is referring to facts maligning?
"The counter-terrorism expert is a Jew and gives two incidents of how Muslims have helped Jews. In Albania some Muslims did not turn Jews over to Nazis, some Muslims helped a Jewish kid on the NY streets and became good friends."
Sure, many Muslims have been good to kafirs. Dualism allows for that. But let's examine what Mohammed did to the Jews; that is Sunna.
In the Mecca Mohammed portrayed himself in the line of Jewish prophets and that his angel was Gabriel, a Jewish angel. Large parts of the Meccan Koran are derived from the Old Testament, but all of the stories have been modified to preach that Allah destroys all of those who do not listen to his prophets. Other than that Mohammed is the Jew's best friend.
Then he moved to Medina, which was half Jewish, and they told him that he was not a prophet. Both Mohammed's and the Koran's attitude changed about the Jews. (It is interesting how well the Koran tracks Mohammed's political progress. This parallel might cause the cynic to wonder if Mohammed wrote the Koran.)
In Medina Mohammed attacked, robbed and exiled the first two Jewish tribes. The third tribe was enslaved, sold for profit to be used for jihad and the 800 male members were executed in one day. Before that Mohammed had two different Jews assassinated for speaking against him. After every Jew was gone in Medina, Mohammed went 100 miles out his way to attack the Jews of Khaybar. They had done nothing to Mohammed. (Does this remind you of the Jews in Mumbai?)
After he had crushed them, he tortured the Jewish leader to death (does this remind you of Mumbai?), took their land and made the Jews Islam's first dhimmis. Dhimmis had no civil rights and had to pay a tax of half of all their income to Islam. Then on his deathbed, Mohammed banished the Jews from Arabia. His annihilation of the Jews in Arabia was 100%, better than Hitler
Hitler hated Jews, but it was not until the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gave him the idea of extinction (taken from the Sunna of Mohammed when he annihilated the Jews of Medina), that the death camps were planned. Only 6.8% of Mein Kamph is Jew hatred, whereas, 10.6% of the Medinan Koran is involved in Jew hatred. So the Koran of Medina has more Jew hatred than Mein Kamph, but who is counting?
That is the Sunna of Mohammed.
Andrew Bostom's seminal encyclopedia, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, is 766 pages of disgusting bigotry by Islam. But for this Jew in counter-terrorism, his three examples show that Islam is the friend of the Jews.
There are 14 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not the friend of the kafir. Here is one about the Jews:
Koran 5:51 "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
But let's be clear here. Isn't it strange that people assume that a Muslim is only influenced by Islam? Every Muslim actually has three parts: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir-Muslim.
To the degree a person is ruled by Islam, they are not a kafir's friend. But "Muslims" are also influenced by the Golden Rule (the Golden Rule is not part of Islamic dualistic ethics) and can actually be a friend of a kafir, because the kafir-Muslim is not following Islamic ethics, but kafir ethics.
So if the Muslim is actually your friend, then in that moment he is not Islamic. But there is another possibility. Mohammed repeatedly told Muslims to deceive kafirs when it would advance Islam. So the friendship may be deception. Tragic, isn't it? (Please do not respond and say that Islam has a Golden Rule. Give me the quote from the doctrine. Islam has two sets of rules-one for Muslims and a second for kafirs. The very word for all non-Muslims, kafirs, denies the Golden Rule. Mohammed treated Muslims one way and kafirs another way. Ethical dualism is Sunna.)
The counter-terrorism expert is not unique. Their arguments are the same as Bush, Kennedy, Pelosi, the FBI chief and the rest of the politicians, media experts and religious leaders. His arguments are standard Government Issue.
Here is the problem. All of my arguments are based upon the actual doctrine. When I talk about Islam I use the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Their arguments are based upon hearsay and opinion. But according to the media and university intellectuals I am a hate[-]filled bigot and they are a beacon of goodness. Lies are good. Truth is bigotry. Can we say Orwellian?
I can defend my statements. I believe in critical thinking and facts. I want our government "experts" to give an argument to defend their doctrine of hearsay and opinion. What is the argument for not reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What is the argument for deliberate ignorance?
Don't argue that the doctrine of political Islam is too hard to understand. The bookstores and web are filled with the information about the Islamic Trilogy. Look it up. This argument is only five pages long.
The counter-terrorism expert believes that they hold the high ground on knowledge and morals. Their position is the highest one because they do not indulge critical thinking. They accept hearsay as not just a better source of knowledge about Islam, but also the true source of knowledge. Hearsay is the only moral position. Those who argue from facts from the Islamic doctrine and history are bad people who contradict "nice" people. Facts must submit to feelings in political correctness.
Ignorance has become the high moral ground. Not just the high moral ground, but the only moral ground. Those who quote the Koran, Sira and Hadith should be maligned, and no discussions of the fact-based philosophy should be allowed in any venue of respectability among the government, universities, or the media.
Notice that nowhere in this argument do I deny anything he has said. I merely offer some more facts that I want to add to the balance sheet. Their arguments are not wrong, but tragically short of all the information. That is all that is needed-all the facts. But knowing all the facts is bigotry. The experts say that facts are to be suppressed and act accordingly.
Our counter-terrorism experts are doctrine deniers. They deny that Islam has a doctrine and that it should ever be read. Two kinds of people know the doctrine of Islam-Muslims and kafirs. It is the dhimmis who deny the doctrine of Islam-dhimmi doctrine deniers.
Today the complete source material for all of political Islam can be held in one hand and easily read. Therefore, it all boils down to the question: How can any "expert" justify the first statement about Islam without having read the Koran, Sira and the Hadith?
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
SMALL WARS JOURNAL smallwarsjournal.com
Friday, December 19, 2008
crossposted from http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-islam-extinguished-sacred-fire-of.html
Text of the ultimatum from Omar Ibn-Khat'tab the Calif of Islam to the Iranina Sovereign, Yazdgerd III:
Bism-ellah Ar'rahman Ar'rhim To the Shah of the Fars
I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled half the world, but see how now your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.
Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option. Allah u Akbar.
The Calif of Muslims Omar Ibn-Khat'tab
Response of the Persian King:
In the name of Ahuramazda, the Creator of Life and Wisdom.
From the Shahan-Shah of Iran Yazdgerd to Omar Ibn Khat'tab the Arab Calif. In your letter you summon us Iranians to your god whom you call "Allah-u-Akbar"; and because of your barbarity and ignorance, without knowing who we are and Whom we worship, you demand that we seek out your god and become worshippers of "Allah-u-Akbar".
How strange that you occupy the seat of the Arab Caliph but are as ignorant as any desert roaming Arab! You admonish me to become monotheistic in faith. Ignorant man, for thousands of years we Aryaee have, in this land of culture and art, been monotheistic and five times a day have we offered prayers to God's Throne of Oneness. While we laid the foundations of philanthropy and righteousness and kindness in this world and held high the ensign of "Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds", you and your ancestors were desert wanderers who ate snakes and lizards and buried your innocent daughters alive.
You Arabs who have no regard for God's creatures, who mercilessly put people to the sword, who mistreat your women and bury you daughters alive, who attack caravans and are highway robbers, who commit murder, who kidnap women and spouses; how dare you presume to teach us, who are above these evils, to worship God?
You tell me to cease the worship of fire and to worship God instead! To us Iranians the light of Fire is reminiscent of the Light of God. The radiance and the sun-like warmth of fire exuberates our hearts, and the pleasant warmth of it brings our hearts and spirits closer together, that we may be philanthropic, kind and considerate, that gentleness and forgiveness may become our way of life, and that thereby the Light of God may keep shining in our hearts.
Our God is the Great Ahuramazda. Strange is this that you too have now decided to give Him a name, and you call Him by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar".
But we are nothing like you. We, in the name of Ahuramazda, practice compassion and love and goodness and righteousness and forgiveness, and care for the dispossessed and the unfortunate; But you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar" commit murder, create misery and subject others to suffering! Tell me truly who is to blame for your misdeeds? Your god who orders genocide, plunder and destruction, or you who do these things in his name? Or both?
You, who have spent all your days in brutality and barbarity, have now come out of your desolate deserts resolved to teach, by the blade and by conquest, the worship of God to a people who have for thousands of years been civilized and have relied on culture and knowledge and art as mighty supports.
What have you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar", taught these armies of Islam besides destruction and pillage and murder that you now presume to summon others to your god?
Today, my people's fortunes have changed. Their armies, who were subjects of Ahuramazada, have now been defeated by the Arab armies of "Allah-u-Akbar". And they are being forced, at the point of the sword, to convert to the god by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar". And are forced to offer him prayers five times a day but now in Arabic; since your "Allah-u-Akbar" only understands Arabic.
I advise you to return to your lizard infested deserts. Do not let loose upon our cities your cruel barbarous Arabs who are like rabid animals. Refrain from the murder of my people. Refrain from pillaging my people. Refrain from kidnapping our daughters in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar". Refrain from these crimes and evils.
We Aryaee are a forgiving people, a kind and well-meaning people. Wherever we go, we sow the seeds of goodness, amity and righteousness. And this is why we have the capacity to overlook the crimes and the misdeeds of your Arabs.
Stay in your desert with your "Allah-u-Akbar", and do not approach our cities; for horrid is your belief and brutish is your conduct.
update to bring this post to the present time:
IRAN: OBAMA'S SURRENDER INSTALLMENT PLAN
[click on the above headline from Pam Geller's "Atlas Shrugs"]
COMMENT: Contrast the Persian defiance of Islamic threats with the arse-kissing by Obama and his Madam of State-prostitution of the now-Islamic-Arabized Iran.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Read the backstory of this book by clicking on the link above.
For those of you who want to read it online, Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia is available in five installments:
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
16 December 2008
The tragedy is that Muslims feel to say things about a religion that is not theirs. Islam recognizes other religions only to better suppress and thus only Muslim religion is privileged. There is a semantic manipulation to say that Muslims believe in Christianity and Judaism. It is a nonsense, because in this case they would be Christians and Jews as well in addition to being Muslims. This (...) continue
There is a corner of the book world that has been little known or appreciated. Before 9/11, Hindu scholarship on Islam was some of the best in a world dominated by Western dhimmi academicians.
If we choose, we can learn much from India, a country that has defied Islam's Arab and Turkish hordes for 1,300 years and continues to fight to this day, even as she sees her borders slowly shrink and dhimmitude rests harshly like a yoke around her kafir neck.
Here are some books and articles on the history of Islamic jihad in India and cultural and political analysis based on sound scholarship and hard earned experience.
The Koran and the Kafir (Islam and the Infidel),
by A. Gosh
Although this book was published 25 years ago, it remains an excellent examination of Islamic religion, culture and politics. It is a primer on Islamic doctrine in concise, easily understood language. The Islamic pattern for taking over a kafir country and its culture is outlined in unnerving detail and makes the book a valuable edition to any anti-jihad library. Here is an excerpt from one of the chapters, Islam in Action.(thanks to freerepublic.com)
by Chandmal Chopra and edited with commentary by Sita Ram GoelThe Calcutta Quran Petition was an attempt by Chandmal Chopra to have the Koran banned in India on the basis that it incites hatred and violence against the Hindus and other kafirs. Sita Ram Goel presents the Petition and adds commentaries on it and the history of Mohammed, his rise to power, and the history of Islamic jihad in India. Definitely worth a read. Book On-lineBoth of these books show how the Mumbai jihad is only the most current battle in a war for India's soul.
Pertinent Articles on the webThe History of Islamic Jihad Against the Hindus (thanks to IslamWatch.org)
An In depth scholarly article, "The Legacy of Jihad in India" by Andrew Bostom (thanks to American Thinker)
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
"Other books on the subject: "Islamic Havoc in Indian History" by P.N. Oak "Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research" by P.N. Oak The Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace" by P.N. Oak "Islam and Terrorism" by Anwar Shaikh "Islam: The Arab Imperialism" by Anwar Shaikh"
Ramachandra Abhyankar — December 16, 2008 @ 5:47 PM
Monday, December 15, 2008
by Ibrahim Lone
14 Dec, 2008
Dear free thinkers and all those who have not submitted to the will of Allah,
I, Ibrahim Lone, hereby declare that I am reverting to Islam. I invite all of you to do the same. I have realized my folly in trying in leaving Islam, and to make up for my follies, I decided to grow a beard that would give Santa Claus a major inferiority complex. I have also begun saying prayers 5 times a day again. The fact that I have been kicked out of my job for cursing my Infidel Boss is hardly of any concern to me now, since I know that Allah will be giving me great rewards in the afterlife.
However, I realized that merely reverting back to Islam was not enough to wash my deadly sin of apostasy. No way guys does Allah forgive the sin of apostasy. Therefore, in my own best interests, I decided to do something that would really please Allah. Being jobless, I decided to get hold of as many infidels and do Da’wah to them. In case you Kafirs don’t know what Da’wah means, I will tell you a thing or two about it. The word Da’Wah means calling people to the great religion of Allah, Islam. Just yesterday, I did Da’wah to . . .
. . . continued at
Author: Jacob Thomas on Monday, December 15, 2008 - 12:10 AM
By Jacob Thomas
After the Islamist terrorist group known as Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out its murderous attack on various high-profile targets in Mumbai, as could be expected the media worldwide exerted considerable effort in attempting to understand and explain the tragic event. Of particular interest to me was to ascertain how the Arab media would react to and report the events. It was not long before I found an interesting reflection on this latest terrorist attack. The online daily Elaph posted an article on December 1, 2008 with this title, “An Increase in the Islamic Terrorist Danger Facing Europe and America.” I have translated pertinent parts of the article to share with you and then added my analysis and comments.
The author of this article is very concerned about the effects of the Islamic teachings, that he calls ideologies, and which consider all non-Muslims as Infidels. Thus, as non-believers, they become targets for terrorist attacks. As he put it, “the Irhabi ideology is very much alive and attracts many who are of a criminal bent of mind, and who clothe their actions with the cloak of religion.”
It is very commendable for an Arab Muslim writer to go on record warning about the possible increase in the activities of Islamist terrorists against targets in Europe and America. Not only that, but he pointed to the presence of Muslim communities in both places as a cause for concern, since he believes the people in these communities have not changed their minds about “Others” even after the infamous “11 September Crime.” He believes they have shown themselves unable to clear their psyches of the “belligerent ideologies and teachings” that cause them to hate the Kuffar, the Infidels. He criticizes the fatwas continuing to be issued but doesn’t specifically name those issuing them. It is interesting that he frames his criticisms in terms of “ideologies” and “fatwas” and “Irhabi” groups as resulting in fear and hatred of the “Other.” He is less willing to get further back to the source, which is Islam itself.
As a further sign of clinging to prejudices about the non-Muslim “Other,” he referred to the blame game Muslims continually indulge in, pointing to Israel in particular with Europe and America and anything Western in a fluid mix of evil influences upon and source of the Islamic world’s problems. . . .
. . . More, much more at . . .
Online Muslim jihadists congratulate Lashkar-e-Toiba on Mumbai massacre, now target US, UK and Israel
Posted by jagoindia on December 14, 2008
at Islamic Terrorism in India
Popularity of LeT zooms on jihadi websites, chatrooms
13 Dec 2008, 0152 hrs IST, TNN
NEW DELHI: One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Even as Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), alongwith its parent body Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), battles international sanctions, its popularity in Al Qaida chatrooms and websites seems to have shot through the roof after the Mumbai terror attacks.
These chatrooms have been flooded by complimentary messages for LeT with some even describing it as a force on par with Al Qaida in waging global jihad. Not surprisingly, many of those who have exchanged such messages in online debating rooms have no qualms about describing themselves as wannabe LeT terrorists and exhort the outfit to carry out more such attacks. These messages are also marked by vituperative utterances against the US, UK and Israel, according to the Washington based SITE Intelligence Group.
The monitoring agency has also reported about a `jihadist’ who has exhorted Muslims to use networking site Facebook for propaganda. This plea was apparently made on a blog protected by password.
The way LeT has been eulogised in these messages would suggest that it is no longer a regional organisation bogged down by Pakistan’s strategic interests in J&K. Some of these electronic terrorists, who also dole out information on how to join LeT, urge the outfit for similar strikes in the US and UK. Ajmal Amir Kasab and the nine others involved in the Mumbai attack are described as heroes.
According to reports in the US media, the contents have led to fear among security agencies that similar attacks can be carried out there too. In fact, so much so, that the New York Police Department has sent three of its officers to Mumbai to study the attacks in detail to prevent such attacks there.
It’s well known that Al Qaida operates a network of websites which are used for general training, recruitment and indoctrination. Previously, LeT never managed to occupy much space in these websites because the outfit never managed to fire the imagination of gullible Muslim youths in the Middle East and adjoining areas. The Mumbai attacks, however, have clearly helped LeT emerged out of the shadows of Al Qaida as evident by the flurry of complementary messages on these websites.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Author: Abul Kasem on Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 02:00 AM
Read about the newly established Islamic Caliphate
Author : Abul Kasem on Dec 14, 2008 - 02:00 AM
Here is the Entire article:
Guess who is Defending Jihad NOW?
By Abul Kasem
(December 13, 2008)
Just about the time when the Islamist jihadists were mercilessly killing infidels in Mumbai, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution making the criticism of Islam a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment. The Saudi King was the greatest proponent of such a vicious universal law This UN law is designed mainly to castigate the critics of Islam for saying that Islam is responsible for the Islamist terrorism. The King, being the defender of Islam and the caretaker of the two most holy sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina, can never admit that the Islamist terrorism emanates straight from the Qur’an, ahadith, sharia and Sunna. According to the UN resolution—the victims of jihad are the culprits themselves—Islam has nothing to do with it.
This resolution cleverly says it applies to all religion; but any one can tell that it is designed specifically for Islam. No other religion in the world, so far, has urged the UN to pass such a resolution. That OIC and the Saudi King will push for the UN to pass this unfair law is understandable, because these elements are bound by the Islamic tenet to implement Islam around the globe.
What is amazing is how easily the infidel world surrenders to these forces. Is it believable that the infidel world, through their misguided, ‘please Islam’ policy, is leading the world to a catastrophic confrontation with the Islamic world? It is time to expose the hypocrisy and sheer doleful attitude of the infidel world towards the menace of Islam. Islam is a mortal threat to current civilization—the Islamists never hide this truth. To use the description, what the Qur’an describes as ‘deaf’, ‘dumb’, and ‘blind’, it is the un Islamic world that is yet to comprehend the utter danger that Islam poses to them.
Below I have compiled a short list of infidels’ apathy that defies logic and rationality. Pursue this list and you will certainly discover many such acts of infidels which, if not curbed immediately, will pave the way for Islamic victory. We must remember that the UN resolution has made it illegal to fight Islamic jihad—militarily or otherwise.
Here is the list:
Do not mention Islam: the Islamist terrorists might be offended.
Do not quote those murderous verses of the Qur’an: the Saudis will be angry, oil price might go up.
Do not say Islamic terrorism: the umma will be upset. Instead, say anything, such as: gunmen, hijackers, bombers, perpetrators, rioters…We have to keep the umma happy.
Offer a prayer room to the Islamic students in all infidel universities; else they will demonstrate in front of the chancellor’s office. We do not like agitation. Let us please Islam.
When the Islamist terrorists are slaughtering the infidels say, “Islam is peace”: we must not provoke the Islamic killers.
When the Saudi government asks the infidel government to build a mosque, we must not protest, even though the Saudi Kingdom does not allow any non Islamic place of worship. We must abide by the rule of Saudi Arabia, lest they get angry and finance more jihad.
Let the Islamists have fun with our girls; we must not date or touch Arab/Muslim girls, it injures their pride; their women are their pride possessions; our women are dirt, prostitutes, objects of enjoyment, and cat’s meat. Let Islam purify our girls.
Following the Qur’anic instructions the Taliban demolishes the Bamian Buddha statue. Let us not blame Islam: Pakistan and Afghanistan might be angry; they may not help us in the war on terror.
The root cause of animosity between Pakistan and India, or rather between the Muslims of India and the Hindus is the invasion by the murderous Arabs, Turks, the Persians, and the Mughals. Together, they have slaughtered around 50 70 million indigenous Indians and enslaved (converted to Islam by force or otherwise) millions of them. Let’s not mention this; it will spoil our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, our trusted allies in the battle on terror.
There is every proof that the Saudi financing of terror operation is the main source of revenue for the Islamist terrorists, their ideologues, trainers and sponsors. Let us not utter the word Saudi Arabia: they might cut off our oil supply, stop huge bribes to our politicians, and halt sponsoring multi-million dollar Islamic chairs in our prestigious universities. Our erudite professors will miss the oil money that supports their life style. Our professors need fat pay to survive; we do not have the money. The Saudis have; so they can buy our professors. Authors, who dare to disclose the truth, we let them face the court cases brought by the Saudi sponsors of terror. We have no fortitude to protect our writers’ freedom of expression.
Islamists threaten to vaporize the citadels of western civilization: New York, Pentagon, White House, London, Paris, Amsterdam…but let us not provoke them; we better not use counter threat—to destroy the nerve centers of Islam: Kaba, Mecca, Medina, and Damascus. We prefer to pay jizya to live in peace with Islam.
Islamists do jihad in India to annihilate the Hindu rule, to replace it with Islamic Sharia. Let us not blame Islam for this, lest the Islamic brothers in Pakistan get offended and attack Indian parliament one more time. Instead, let us blame Kashmir.
Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian exhibits Fitna depicting ‘peaceful’ Islam in action, in exactly the manner prescribed by the Qur’an. We have no guts to back up Geert Wilders. We value our Islamic friends more than the freedom of expression. We need oil money. Let us condemn Wilders for hurting the Islamic feeling of our Islamic friends, even though the Qur’an says Islam cannot be at friends with the infidels.
When an infidel woman visits an Islamic paradise she is forced to wear hijab/jilbab. Islamists do this by force of law; it is Islamic tolerance. But we have no guts to retaliate; we have little courage to enforce that a Muslimah visiting an infidel territory must discard her hijab/jilbab.
Centuries before Muhammad's birth, Jews had occupied vast swathe of land in Arabia. Ditto for the Christians. Muhammad forcibly banished them from their ancestral land. Let us not mention this, lest our Palestinian brothers start intifada in London, Paris, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Zurich…We are afraid of them; we are scared of blood in our streets. Instead, let us uphold the ‘legitimate’ rights of the Palestinians to return to their ancestral land. The Jews have no such right.
In the yearly hajj assembly the pilgrims pelt stones at three Satans (jamrat), which today, are: America, the great Satan and UK, the little Satan. The third one is perhaps Russia. Amazingly, CNN (American TV media) and UK sends TV crews and journalists to provide extensive coverage of this assembly of ‘peaceful’ Islam: We have no backbone to call spade a spade. We would rather be stoned than face the Islamic sword. Having covered this jihad assembly, CNN and western media propagate Islam. We would rather promote Islam than annoy the Saudi King and the umma.
It is incredible how an imbecile, spineless, demented infidel world is slowly succumbing to the might of Islam. When UN passes resolution banning Islamphobia, we may say the UN actually submits to the religion of ‘peace’: Islam. With the flood of oil money which entices all its fifty-seven members to vote for the resolution, it is now OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) who really controls the UN General Assembly.
Clearly, the Islamic Caliphate is right here: it is OIC. Do the infidels get the message?
Abul Kasem writes from Sydney. Send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
(c) 2008 by Faith Freedom International
All opinions expressed in the articles belong to their respective authors, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Faith Freedom International.
All articles are (c)2008 by Faith Freedom International, unless stated otherwise. Permission is hereby granted to translate and reproduce the articles in this site which are copyright by FFI. For all others, please contact the copyright holder. Please provide a link to the original article.
All views expressed in the comments are the opinions of the persons posting them, and do not represent the opinions of Faith Freedom International
Friday, December 12, 2008
How Can We Make the Dog Bark?
A charity for LeT jihad in Pakistan will challenge a ban to close it down.
A definition of taqiyya and kitman. An excellent example.
We know what the jihadis who terrorized Mumbai think of the Jews. Here is what some Arab clerical leaders think.
How Can We Make the Dog Bark?
In a Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze, the clue to the crime was that "the dog did nothing." The dog in question was a farm dog that would have barked had a stranger approached.
In the same way we have guard dogs that are supposed to warn us of danger: our government, intellectuals and the media. But we are finding out that our dogs never bark if the intruder is Islamic violence.
In the media reporting about Mumbai the words Islam and jihad were noticeably absent. Dhimmis always use nationality and culture to refer to Islam. The Islamic invasion of Spain was by Moors, not Muslims. The Islamic invasion of the Middle East was by Arabs, not Muslims. The invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks, not jihadists. So it was only natural for the dhimmi media to report that Pakistanis were the murderers. Dhimmis have been avoiding the words Muslim, Islam and jihad for 1400 years. Only the most neutral words may be used to describe the jihad and the jihadists. "Gunmen", "militant," or some other soft word can be used, but never "jihadist".
After the reporting with "soft" words comes the next stage-blame the victims. Surely the Hindus and the others were slaughtered for good reasons. Hindu extremists must be involved. And the Muslims are poor in comparison to Hindus. So the Muslims must be being cheated in some social ill (Muslims are never responsible for any of their own suffering-at least, according to Muslims). And there is always some failure of American foreign policy. All of those things must have caused the poor "gunmen" to kill kafirs.
The next media stage is worrying about the poor Muslims who did not play an active role in the jihad. Here is a possible headline: Dirty Bomb Explodes in LA. Muslims worried about being stared at in grocery lines.
But the Muslims need not worry. Islam does not have any corporate guilt. What one Christian does affects all Christians. Every German shared the guilt for Hitler. But what a few wild and crazy Muslims do does not affect any other Muslim. Besides, the "gunmen" were not real Muslims.
The next stage is for the victims to call for dialogue and making plans to do better by ignoring the doctrine and history of Islam. There will be calls for understanding.
Chabad has called for Jews to do a mitzvah, an act of kindness, and to adhere more to their doctrine. But, notice that Chabad does not call for any action, such as learning about Islam's doctrine and history, which would help prevent another such attack.
And of course Islamic organizations will issue statements about how sorry they are that kafirs have been hurt and how Mohammed may have murdered all the kafirs who would not submit, but the jihad is not real Islam. Oh wait, they don't mention Mohammed's jihad.
But our media, intellectual and government guard dogs will never bark about Islam. Newsletters like this or any of the other articles written on the web only affect the web citizens who read this type of writing. The NY Times, CNN, the State Department or the universities are not going to change because a few stupid bigots on the web are not happy with them.
How can we make the guard dog bark? We must stop waiting for a big enough catastrophe to wake up our dogs. September 11 was not enough to wake up NBC.
We must form political units that work in unison. Our nation started with conventions. Kafirs must get together in forums, groups and conventions. Before any government goes to war against political Islam, it must be pressured to do so by its citizens. Any convention must form an intellectual basis for war. That is, it must define the enemy. It is the purpose of the enemy, Islam, to annihilate our kafir civilization. Islam's goal is to control all public speech, education, finance, laws, art, literature, entertainment, the media and customs.
After the enemy is formally defined, then we must train our dhimmi guard dogs. We must be confrontational, since a mitzvah won't do the job.The only organization that seems potentially to be able to host such an event would be ACT for America.
Professor Paul Eidelberg has a wonderful article on how such an event might be managed.
But our guard dogs will never bark until they are trained to do so.
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
by Baron Bodissey
posted at Gates of Vienna
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
I’ve written previously about Sada Cumber, the American envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) who was appointed earlier this year by George W. Bush. Mr. Cumber was President Bush’s attempt to engage in outreach to the Religion of Peace, and an indication of the increasing dhimmification of the Bush administration during the waning of its second term.
With the imminent ascension of President Barack Hussein Obama, all indications are that Sada Cumber’s position will become superfluous. Mr. Obama intends to act as Chief Muslim Outreach Officer in his own administration.
Not only that, he plans to celebrate his Husseinity at his swearing in. According to The Chicago Tribune:
Barack Obama plans to reach out to Muslim world . . . and . . .
“I think we’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,’’ Obama said Tuesday, promising an “unrelenting” desire to “create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together.“The world, he said, “is ready for that message [emphasis added]”
continued at http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/12/whole-camel.html
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Enough of Radical Islam
By Ben Shapiro
Enough with the pseudonyms. Western civilization isn't at war with terrorism any more than it is at war with grenades. Western civilization is at war with militant Islam, which dominates Muslim communities all over the world. Militant Islam isn't a tiny minority of otherwise goodhearted Muslims. It's a dominant strain of evil that runs rampant in a population of well over 1 billion.
Enough with the psychoanalysis. They don't hate us because of Israel. They don't hate us because of Kashmir. They don't hate us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or because we deposed Saddam Hussein. They don't hate us because of Britney Spears. They hate us because we are infidels, and because we don't plan on surrendering or providing them material aid in their war of aggressive expansion.
Enough with the niceties. We don't lose our souls when we treat our enemies as enemies. We don't undermine our principles when we post more police officers in vulnerable areas, or when we send Marines to kill bad guys, or when we torture terrorists for information. And we don't redeem ourselves when we close Guantanamo Bay or try terrorists in civilian courts or censor anti-Islam comics. When it comes to war, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Enough with the words. Talking with Iran without wielding the threat of force, either economic or military, won't help. Appealing to the United Nations, run by thugs and dictators ranging from Putin to Chavez to Ahmadinejad, is an exercise in pathetic futility. Evil countries don't suddenly decide to abandon their evil goals -- they are forced to do so by pressure and circumstance.
Enough with the faux allies. We don't gain anything by pretending that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are true allies. They aren't. At best, they are playing both sides of the table. We ought to be drilling now in order to break OPEC. Building windmills isn't going to cut it. We should also be backing India to the hilt in its current conflict with Pakistan -- unless Pakistan can destroy its terrorist element, India should be given full leeway to do what it needs to do. Russia and China, meanwhile, are facilitating anti-Western terrorism. Treating them as friends in this global war is simply begging for a backstabbing.
Enough with the myths. Not everyone on earth is crying out for freedom. There are plenty of people who are happy in their misery, believing that their suffering is part and parcel of a correct religious system. Those people direct their anger outward, targeting unbelievers. We cannot simply knock off dictators and expect indoctrinated populations to rise to the liberal democratic challenge. The election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip is more a rule than an exception in the Islamic world.
Enough with the lies. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. If it is, prove it through action. Stop telling us that President-elect Barack Obama will fix our broken relationship with the Muslim world. They hate Obama just as much as they hated President George W. Bush, although they think Obama is more of a patsy than Bush was. Stop telling us that we shouldn't worry about the Islamic infiltration of our economy. If the Saudis own a large chunk of our banking institutions and control the oil market, they can certainly leverage their influence in dangerous ways.
Enough. After the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the plane downed in Pennsylvania, the endless suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks in Israel, the Bali bombings, the synagogue bombing in Tunisia, the LAX shootings, the Kenyan hotel bombing, the Casablanca attacks, the Turkey synagogue attacks, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, and the repeated attacks in India culminating in the Mumbai massacres -- among literally thousands of others -- it's about time that the West got the point: we're in a war. Our enemies are determined. They will not quit just because we offer them Big Macs, Christina Aguilera CDs, or even the freedom to vote. They will not quit just because we ensure that they have Korans in their Guantanamo cells, or because we offer to ban "The Satanic Verses" (as India did). They will only quit when they are dead. It is our job to make them so, and to eliminate every obstacle to their destruction.
So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasn't merely come -- it's been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers' blood cries out from the ground.
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Pak Daily Times
* India’s Military chiefs urge raid inside Pakistan
* Hafiz Mohammed Saeed incited killers
Fear of an Indian missile strike haunts Pakistani Jihad Factory…
Sheik Yer'Mami at WINDS OF JIHAD says
Enough is enough: we are at war with Islam!
Islam is at war with us since its inception. Not the other way around….
This post garnered and rearranged from Sheik Yer'Mami's WINDS OF JIHAD
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
All the 10 terrorists, suspected to have been involved in the Mumbai attacks, were trained by ex-army personnel even as the lone arrested terrorist has admitted to being a Pakistani, the police on Tuesday said.
Ajmal Amin Kamal, the only terrorist of the group of ten caught alive, has admitted he is a Pakistani and hailed from the Punjab province of Pakistan, Mumbai Police Commissioner Hasan Gafoor said.
"The group of ten had come from Karachi by ship, flew an SOS flag in international waters and then hijacked a trawler which they used to come near Mumbai's shores," Gafoor said.
The group of ten had been trained by former army personnel, some for over a year, Gafoor said, refusing to comment on the nationality of the army personnel.
When asked if there was any evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the attacks, Gafoor said, "At the moment investigations are on and if we have proof we shall present it."
He said there was no evidence of local persons involved in the attacks.
After landing in Mumbai, the terrorists broke into five pairs and went to their assigned places in taxis.
The police have also said the two blasts which took place in taxis on November 26 night were due to bombs placed by the terrorists.
"Every group had a bomb with them and two of them had kept them in taxis, one which exploded in Vile Parle and the other which exploded in Dockyard Road," Gafoor said.
©CMYK Printech Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.
See that your anti-virus software is installed and up to date. So far, I have gotten infected at Jihad Watch and warned that site of the problem.
Radarsite also appears to be infected as well as Shadow Warrior.
Please keep on visiting the above-named sites but warn the site if you find an infection
If any of you find this blog to be infected, please let me know.
I frequently run my anti-virus progam to keep the site virus-free.
Once again we have witnessed an Islamic terrorist attack incited and justified through appeals to Islam by its perpetrators. On one level it is understandable why so many in the West are unwilling or unable to connect the militant ideology of political Islam to the thousands of Islamic terror attacks that have been committed worldwide since 9/11. We extol the virtues of tolerance and pluralism and believe others in the world do so as well, so it is easy to dismiss such attacks as the work of a few “extremists,” rather than the product of adherence to an ideology.
The fatal flaw in this thinking is this: How can we successfully win a war on Islamic terrorism if we don’t correctly define the threat doctrine that motivates its adherents?
It is argued that most of the world’s Muslims are not terrorists. While true, this fact is irrelevant. Most of the world’s Muslims have never read the Qur’an or the Hadith in a language they can understand. They have not read the hundreds of passages that call for jihad against infidels, nor do they renounce such passages. They do not organize en masse to denounce the terrorist acts perpetrated by other Muslims in the name of Islam, nor do they denounce the frequent exhortations to world subjugation found in the holy books of Islam.
Yes, there are Muslims who have denounced the Mumbai attacks. But examine their denunciations closely and you will be hard-pressed to find renunciations of the supremacist doctrine of political Islam -- the foundation for jihad -- which emanates from its holy books. This is the justification commonly cited by terrorists for their actions. We in the West must come to grips with the uncomfortable fact that terrorism is a symptom of this militant, supremacist ideology. Terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself. And it is but one of many means used by those who are devoted to the supremacist ideology of political Islam.
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
About Mumbai Massacre: CAIR unconcerned with victims, but asks that there be no retaliation against Moslems
CAIR is "the Council on American-Islamic Relations"
At RADARSITE, Gary Fouse posts . . .
CAIR [is] America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, [it] has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."
The Washington-based group [CAIR] . . . asked the Indian government to protect all its citizens from the type of retaliatory attacks that have taken place following similar incidents in the recent past.
CAIR [makes a] point . . . to urge Indian authorities to protect people from "retaliatory attacks". Of course, that means protecting Muslims in India from retaliatory attacks.
[CAIR's] philosophy seems to be that they can litigate their way to acceptance by the American people in spite of the continuing scourge of Islamic terror. They are mistaken.
[italics and editing for this brief excerpt mine. lw]
Read the whole post at http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/12/cair-statement-on-mumbai.html