Sunday, November 30, 2008

The Jihad in India

Hindus, Jews, and Jihad Terror in Mumbai

By Andrew G. Bostom

Sunday, November 30, 2008

click on American Thinker on Mumbai & Indian History


Cross-posted at as The Jihad Explodes in India: Mumbai's Moslem Massacres

Directed to American Thinker by Shadow Warrior
where it is posted as American Thinker on Mumbai & Indian History
"Here's an article from American Thinker."
Posted by san at 11/30/2008 04:05:00 PM

India: Islamic websites rejoice over Mumbai attacks

India: Islamic websites rejoice over Mumbai attacks

Mumbai, 27 Nov. (AKI) - Al-Qaeda websites on Thursday were swamped with messages from people who were celebrating the devastating Mumbai attacks which have left over 100 people dead and 281 injured. "Oh Allah, destroy the Hindus and do it in the worst of ways," was one of the comments that appeared on Islamist forums on the Internet immediately after the attacks.

"The battle that is underway in Mumbai is a battle for Allah between its servants and the infidels," said another message published on the al-Falluja forum.

Several Al-Qaeda sites also posted several pictures of the victims in Mumbai and provocative statements.

The Legacy of Jihad in India Andrew Bostom
Mumbai gunmen were British Jihadwatch
Massacre in Mumbai: Up to SEVEN gunmen were British and 'came from same area as 7/7 bombers'

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Financial Times of UK alleges Mumbai Islamic Atrocity staged by lndian Hindus

Financial Times Alleges Terrorists Were Hindus

from Shadow Warrior

Friday, November 28, 2008

The Financial Times of UK insists that this terrorist atrocity might have been a "false flag" attack staged by local Hindus to frame Muslims. Read their article:

I was totally stunned and horrified by their blatant fabrication. Talk about tinfoil hats! This is just like those idiots who insist that the Israeli embassy warned all Jews to stay home on 9/11, or that CIA timer-chargers brought the Twin Towers down. But this is the Financial Times peddling this crap! What slimy journalism from those with an Atlanticist bent.
Posted by san at 11/28/2008 11:18:00 PM
Labels: , , , ,


Anirban said...
That suggestion is a bit like saying that the 9/11 was an inside job. Of course, India's "secular" media will never say that 7/7 was a "false flag" job carried out by British vigilantes.
11/29/2008 4:39 AM

slim_shady said...
Unbelievable quote below. The man they found with the 'Hindu thread around his wrist' (photo #5 at this link) was caught around Girgaum, Mumbai and has an Islamic name with ties to Pakistan. It would appear someone greatly sympathetic to Pakistan and Islamist terrorism got a word into this FT editorial."Both Islamist and Hindu extremists have been bombing their way across India in an attempt to polarise opinion, especially ahead of general elections next year. Some of these appear to have been “false flag” attacks, including by Hindu supremacists masquerading as jihadis. One of the Mumbai attackers, presumed to be Islamists, was photographed wearing a sacred Hindu thread around his wrist."
11/29/2008 7:54 AM

Ghost Writer said...
The slimeys are trying very hard cover up the fact that many of these "Hindus" were Mohammedans of British origin
11/29/2008 8:42 AM

Friday, November 28, 2008

The Fault Lies with Islam - whether apologists for it like it or not


[and don't forget to look towards Pakistan (ISI)]

Why agonize over trying to tie the "Deccan Mujahadeen" or whatever these Islamic murder squads call themselves with Al Qaeda?

What connects the two slaughterers of whomever does not believe in the melange of evil garbage that goes by the name of Islam--with its koran, "sayings of the 'prophet,'" "life of the 'prophet'" and whatever--is Islam.

It is in the name of Islam that such monstrous slaughters of us--the "unbelievers"--are carried out.

The slaughter of innocents who were guilty of only one (or two or three) things, not being believers in Islam first ("infidels"), being "Westerners" (not East Indians), and of course the prime target of any Moslem with murder (jihad) on his mind: Jews.

No matter how the taqqiya* artists wind their minds and tongues around the idea of jihad (killing of all who do not believe in the sickening dribble from the mind of Mohammed) the blame for slaughter of innocents who meant no harm to Moslems falls directly on the product of Mohammed's mind and those who follow that ideology of evil must be ascribed to Islam.

You want to know what taqqiya is? Read Appendix B to this post. It contains a constant stream of it spewed out by a proponent of this Islamic technique of conquering us.
*taqqiya - lying in the name of or to promote or excuse islam



Comment Submitted by Jesse Collins (United States), Jun 13, 2006 at 11:57

True Believer:

First. you did a magnificent job with the responder to your article which well done and researched well in the first place. Second, "sane" used typical left discussion adhomenom Stalinist model. He gave you a great opportunity to show people who don't know how that combination of sects (leftist, Islam Al Taqqiya, and Stalinism works) and to overwhelm it with truth. The amount of historical and even modern study of Islam and its sunnah support you unequivocally. Please continue to break hard on these guys with your eloquence and the country will be allright (as long as it is defended by scholarly truth presented by people like you).

If you are not aware of Al taqqiya, I believe it is the principal model used by Islam supporters to facilitate the allusion of a "peaceful" Islam. Supposedly passed down directly to Mohammad from God, and then to Mohammad followers, they - believers (Muslims) - when applying the first apparently non agressive aspect of Jihad as Muslims immigrate into the target country to be conquered and before Dhimmitude is established, are told by God to lie to the members of the host country about Islam's aims, that is establishment of Islam as the only way of life under dhimmitude and sharia, including destruction of the civilization, whether Hindu, Christian, Jewish, or other. The lie and referenced Allah - Mohammad contriving process is called Al Taqqiya, or Taqqiya. The formal definition is applied at the end of this note.

Good luck to you. Keep pouring the coals to them. With your efforts and others like you defending us through discussion, maybe we can head off hand to hand, which otherwise seems inevitable with this group.


Al taqqiya, mandated dissimulation by Muslims to non-Muslims. Lying to infidels is desirable and recommended

Reader comment on article: Islamic Law at Belmont Uin response to reader comment: Question to Mr Daniel Pipes: Why does the west pamper moslems
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.
Issa Muhammed Moussa - Classical case of the thief accusing the cop of robbery.Reader comment on article: Islamic Law at Belmont U in response to reader comment: True Beliver! Again giving false information!
Submitted by true believer (India), May 22, 2006 at 05:04

[taqqiya Alert! the following is by a Moslem making the case for excusing Islam for what it is: a potpourri of bits and pieces from the Torah and the New Testament plus the utter ignorance of the creature dubbed Mohammed]

Banu Quraiza was attacked because they were Jews and they did not support the quraish tribe when it attacked Medina. They were not warriors but artisans and businessmen who belonged to the Jewish Al-nadhir tribe. Otherwise there is no evidence that they persecuted Mohammed or his gang, it a deliberate attempt to mislead us.

You said "They used to through dead animals parts while prophet and his followers praying in Masjid. They stolen their cattles and killed them and finally they forced them to leave Mecca" Sounds more like a political hate speech. It was the pagan Arabs who forced Mohammed and his followers out Mecca, not the Jews of Banu Quraiza as you wrongly claim. Give me the relevant ayas or hadiths that tell that the people of Banu Quraiza did this.

You ask "Now tell me he should leave them or punish them?" They did not start the war. They had surrendered after two weeks of seige by moslems without killing a single moslem. What would you have done ? Do you mean that Bosnian Serbs were doing the thing right in Foca ? Do you think the Israelis should do the same to the Palestinians today. Believe me there are passages in Deutronomy that can justify something similar to this, only that nobody is insane enough to follow that. What punishment are you talking about ? Killing all men including boys who have grown pubic hair ? Raping their wives and daughters ? Rahyana bint Zaid was "married" the same night by Mohammed the same night her father and husband were beheaded by mohammed and co, and consumated his marriage.. aka raped ..on the terrified Rahyana. She chose to be a lowly concubine instead of converting from Judaism to Islam till her death. Men were simply killed because they refused to convert from Judaism to Islam. Initially mohammed had tried unsuccessfully to win over the jews and make them accept him as a prophet by celebrating the jewish passovers and observing their fasts. Note that Judaism does not have the concept of Takkiyah.

Later mohammed had signed a ten year no war treaty (Hudaibia) with Meccans then two years later sneaked up on them with thousands of jehadis and attacked.It was he who broke treaty and attacked Mecca . He was the first one to break a tenet of the treaty by not returning Meccan women. They were instead gang raped and sold off. Of course he convinced his fool hardy followers that Allah okayed it all. Quran confirms both.The late Yasser Arafat of PLO brought up Hudaybiya to tell his followers: "If Muhammad, the most respected man in all Islamic history—can make peace with his enemies, so can I."

Go through the following to get a better perspective.
Saheeh Bukhari - 33, 41, 2004, 4101, 4103
Saheeh Muslim - 1765, 1766, 1767, 1769
Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003, 3004
Musnad Ahmad - 10613, 13808, 22823, 23464


Submitted by Issa Muhammad Moosa (Kuwait), May 20, 2006 at 01:33

Dear TRUE Believer!

"Banu Quraiza " protected Prophet Muhammad's followers killers, looters and hypocrates who made his life difficult in Mecca and finally he migrated to Medina. They used to through dead animals parts while prophet and his followers praying in Masjid. They stolen their cattles and killed them and finally they forced them to leave Mecca. When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) got some followers in Medina, he went back to Banu Quariza and asked them to hand over all criminals who made his and his family members and followes life hell... in Mecca to punish them or forgive them if they accept their sins......but they refused to give back and declared war. Now tell me he should leave them or punish them? When Al Qaida attecked on USA (9/11), USA asked Taliban to hand over Osama but they did not....and finally USA attecked on whole Afghanistan. Same Saddam case.

I agree when war start most of the time innocent also suffer.

More reader comments on this article at



from COMMENT to REGARDING: Terrorists seize Chabad offices in Mumbai

TAQQIYAH ALERT!!!! [Islamic lying propaganda. Read with a grain of salt!]
the following is by a Moslem making the case for excusing Islam for what it is: a potpourri of bits and pieces from the Torah and the New Testament plus the utter ignorance of the creature dubbed Mohammed

akhter said...
Lesly , my dear those Muslims who are doing such things are the result of our leaders faults,so do not blame it on ISLAM!

ISLAM and terrorism are as incompatible and as opposed to each other as fire and water or night and day. Even militancy is alien to Islamic culture. How can a faith condone terrorism much less foster it, when it preaches: “Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel the evil deed by one which is better. Then lo! He, between whom and you there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend?” (Pickthall: Fussilat 41:34)

Muslims continue to adhere strictly to this sermon. They revere the Prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus, son of Mary, as messengers of Allah just like Mohammad (SAW), “making no distinction between one and another of His Messengers” (Al Baqarah: 285).

Some Christians say offending things to denigrate Christ. For example, James D. Tabor in his new book, The Jesus Dynasty, argues that Jesus had a human father other than Joseph, mentioned in John 6:42. He claims that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier named Pantera, quoting a Greek philosopher, Celsus. But Jesus’ virgin birth is an article of faith with Muslims. Others asperse on his relations with Mary Magdalene.

Similarly, an article in the March 5 issue of The Guardian, quotes Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as saying, “As far as Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don’t believe, or a legend, which I don’t believe either. Or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics.”

According to the professor, “Moses was probably also on mind-altering drugs when he saw the burning bush.” But for a Muslim, even a ‘terrorist’ one, such utterances would be blasphemous, even though Islam and its Prophet are made the objects of damning cartoons, defamatory movies and obnoxious literature.

Killing innocent people is an act of terrorism, even if it is not intended. But there is no concept of ‘collateral damage’ in Islam.

Therefore, where an innocent person is killed, such terrorist act is hit by the injunction “…and whosever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he killed all humankind, and whoever saved the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all humankind” (Pickthall: Al-Maida: 32)

The above injunction is universal in application. It mentions just “a human being.” That human being may belong to any faith or even had no faith at all.

It is a reminder that as human beings, a believer and a pagan are equal before Allah, because He created all. He is rubb-il ‘alameen, the Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds.

A terrorist who claims to be Muslim is not a ‘practising’ Muslim. He is a disobedient Muslim like those who wilfully avoid offering prayers and fasting, paying zakat, or who drink or commit other major sins. He (or she) is at best a rebel against Islam, who acts in clear defiance of its teachings.

There is no difference between him and those Christians who put millions of non-Christians to death all over the world, in blatant disregard of Christ’s instruction: “And unto him who smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other…” (Luke 6:20)

Therefore, to blame Islam for the acts of those who wilfully defy its injunctions is as wrong as blaming Christianity for the excesses of its followers. Muslims are stereotyped as terrorists. But it is not enough to be content with condemning terrorists through an op-ed piece in a newspaper.

That is already being done more forcefully by others. Saudi Arabia has circulated a consensus fatwah and more recently a large, all-India congregation of ulema at Deoband, expressed similar views. The is need to find ways to combat and prevent it. That would require understanding the problem. The fact is that terrorism as indulged in by Muslims today has two aspects. One is political, the other religious.

Political terrorists like the Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians offer some defence for their terrorist acts. Howsoever flimsy, yet it cannot be entirely discarded. Often it is the spontaneous reaction to the excesses perpetrated by the other side.

But for religious terrorism such as sectarian killings and attacks on each other’s mosques and funerals, there can be no excuse. These acts amount to wilful massacre of innocent souls and desecration of places of worship.

Moreover, whereas political terrorism is aimed at non-Muslim invaders and occupiers, religious terrorism is directed against Muslims. It is blatant fratricide, because, “the believers are nothing other than brothers.” (Al hujurat: 10).

Between the Wahabis and Hanafis the differences are almost like between Puritans/Protestants and Catholics. Once upon a time they, too, were at each other’s throats. But they put all that behind long ago. Differences exist but violence has ceased. By contrast Muslims seem still to be wallowing in the Dark Ages.

Sunnis, Shias, Wahabis, Hanafis etc., all are united on the belief in Allah, His Messenger Mohammad (SAW), Day of Judgment, Resurrection, angels, prayer, fasting, hajj and zakat. These are the basic tenets.

All else is supplementary and personal, for which every person is responsible to Allah alone. This is what the Quran repeatedly says: “No bearer of burden can bear the burden of another?” (Al-Najm: 38 and elsewhere).

Moreover, when even with regard to non-believers Islam asks Muslims to tell them, “To you your religion; to me my religion” (Kafirun: 6), and rejects compulsion in the matter of faith (la ikraha fid-deen), why should Muslims of one sect try to impose their interpretation and practice on their brothers of another sect with violence and bloodshed?

How can those who perpetrate such acts claim to be the followers of one whom God sent as Mercy for the universe (Rahmat-al lil alameen)? It is high time that people endowed with wisdom (ulil albab) reflected, imbibed and imbued others with the essence of Islam to receive Divine Mercy.
November 27, 2008 1:30 PM
Post a Comment [at original post site THE JEW IN YELLOW REGARDING: Terrorists seize Chabad offices in Mumbai]
**Pièce de résistance is a French term (circa 1839), translated into English literally as "piece of resistance", referring to the best part or feature of something (as in a meal), a showpiece, or highlight. It can be thought of as the portion of a creation which defies (i.e. "resists") orthodox or common conventions and practices, thereby making the whole of the creation unique and special. The phrase gives the sense that the referred-to element is the defining essence of the whole, that part that makes it memorable or gives it its unique character.

Monday, November 24, 2008

A Two-Pronged Approach to the "Pirate" Problem

1. Armed decoy vessels that fire on and sink pirate vessels when approached and fired upon or tried to be boarded.

2. How were the Barbary pirates put out of business? Not by picking off individual pirate vessels but by going into the pirate's nest.

see To the Shores of Tripoli

The pirate nests today are in Somalia, Nigeria, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean and West coast of South America (and wherever else they can be detected).

Are all pirates Moslem?

Who cares? Pirates are pirates and should be strung up from the yard arm at sea or hanged on shore as an example to all other pirates.

BUT (from Caroline Glick's "Civilization Walks The Plank"
reprinted at


In centuries past, in accordance with established international law, it was standard practice for naval captains to hang pirates after capturing them. Today, when Europe has outlawed capital punishment, when criminal defendants throughout the West are given more civil rights than their victims, and when irregular combatants picked off of battlefields or intercepted before they attack are given - at a minimum - the same rights as those accorded to legal prisoners of war, states lack the political will and the moral clarity to prosecute offenders. As Casey and Rivkin note, last April the British Foreign Office instructed the British Navy not to apprehend pirates lest they claim that their human rights were harmed, and request and receive asylum in Britain.

The west's perverse interpretations of human rights and humanitarian law, which bar it from handling one of the most acute emerging threats to the international economy, is a consequence of the West's abdication of moral and legal sanity in its dealings with international terror. In the 1960s and 1970s, when international terrorism first emerged as a threat to international security, the West adopted international treaties and conventions that tended to treat terrorism as a new form of piracy. Like piracy, terrorism was to be treated as an attack on all nations. Jurisdiction over terrorists was to be universal. Such early views were codified in early documents such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft from 1970 that established a principle of universal jurisdiction over aircraft hijackers.
...over the years, states have managed to ignore or invert international laws on terrorism to the point where today terrorists are among the most protected groups of individuals in the world. Due to political sympathy for terrorists, hostility toward their victims, or fear of terrorist reprisals against a state that dares to prosecute terrorists found on its territory, states have managed to avoid not only applying existing laws against terrorists. They have also refrained from updating laws to meet the growing challenges of terrorism. Instead, international institutions and "enlightened" Western states have devoted their time to condemning and threatening to prosecute the few states that have taken action against terrorists.

The inversion of international law from an institution geared toward protecting states and civilians from international lawbreakers to one devoted to protecting international menaces from states and their citizens is nowhere more evident than in the international community's treatment of Hamas-controlled Gaza.

One of the reasons the international community has failed so abjectly to take reasonable measures to combat terrorism is because international terrorism as presently constituted is the creation of Palestinian Arabs and their Arab brethren. Since the 1960s, and particularly since the mid-1970s, Europe, and to varying degrees the US, have been averse to contending with terrorism because their hostility toward Israel leads them to condone Palestinian Arab terrorism against the Jewish state.

Read the rest and all of this excellent article at


The Two Prongs of anti-Piracy

How to Defeat the Pirates

1. Wipe out the source. Leave not one vessel afloat in the harbors of pirates' nests.

2. Sink all pirate vessels--with all hands--that are offering hostility to merchant shipping and naval vessels

Captured pirates must be tried and excuted according to the old laws of the sea: hanged and deep-sixed, not returned to "the country of their origin" to be tried by their fellow "Barbarous Pirates" countrymen.

Too strong for your weak stomach or lily liver? Then be prepared to pay 30% more for goods that can no longer pass through the Gulf of Aden, West African waters, or the pirate seas off Southeast asia.

Obama Wins, Muslims Divided

By Daniel Pipes

Ali ibn Abi-Talib, the seventh-century figure central to Shiite Islam, is said to have predicted when the world will end, columnist Amir Taheri points out. A "tall black man" commanding "the strongest army on earth" will take power "in the west." He will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, Hussein. Ali says of the tall black man: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."
Barack Hussein in Arabic means "the blessing of Hussein." In Persian, Obama translates as "He [is] with us." Thus does the name of the presumptive American president-elect, when combined with his physical attributes and geography, suggest that the End of Times is nigh - precisely what Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been predicting.

Back down on earth, the Muslim reaction to Obama's victory is more mixed than one might expect. American Islamists are delighted; an umbrella group, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Election, opined that, with Obama's election, "Our nation has … risen to new majestic heights." Siraj Wahhaj, Al-Hajj Talib Abdur Rashid, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Muslim Alliance in North America responded with similar exuberance.

Hamas, and Islamist movements in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, India, Indonesia and the Philippines delighted in Obama's election. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch generalizes that jihadists and Islamic supremacists worldwide showed "unalloyed joy." The New York Times finds public reaction in the Middle East mostly "euphoric." John Esposito of Georgetown University emphasizes the Muslim world's welcome to Obama as an "internationalist president."But plenty of other Muslims have other views.

Writing in Canada's Edmonton Sun, Salim Mansur found John McCain the "more worthy candidate." Yusif al-Qaradawi, the Al-Jazeera sheikh, endorsed McCain for opposite reasons: "This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you… to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]." Al-Qaradawi also argued that twice as many Iraqis died during Bill Clinton's two administrations than during George W. Bush's.

Iran's hardliners also favored a McCain victory (according to Iran's former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi) "because they benefit more from enmity with the U.S., which allows them to rally the Islamic world behind their policies and at the same time suppress dissent at home." The Taliban took note of Obama's election promise to increase U.S. troops in Afghanistan, warning that, should he fulfill this plan, "jihad and resistance will be continued."

Iraqis are intensively divided about Obama's plan quickly to withdraw U.S. troops from their country. That plan, plus promises to end U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and to negotiate with Iranian leaders, rattled the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf governments.

Some commentators argue that Obama cannot make a real difference; an Iranian newspaper declares him unable to alter a system "established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists." Predictably, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff confirmed Palestinian perceptions of an omnipotent Israel lobby. A commentator in the United Arab Emirates went further, predicting Obama's replication of Jimmy Carter's trajectory of flamboyant emergence, failure in the Middle East, and electoral defeat.

In all, these mixed reactions from Muslims suggest puzzlement at the prospect of a U.S. president of Islamic origins who promises "change," yet whose foreign policy may buckle under the constraints of his office. In other words, Muslims confront the same question mark hanging over Obama as everyone else:

Never before have Americans voted into the White House a person so unknown and enigmatic. Emerging from a hard-left background, he ran, especially in the general election, mostly as a center-left candidate. Which of these positions will he adopt as president? More precisely, where along the spectrum from hard- to center-left will he land?

Looking at the Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, will Obama's policies reflect Rashid Khalidi, the ex-PLO flak he befriended in the 1990s, or Dennis Ross, his recent campaign advisor and member of my board of editors? No one can yet say.

Still, one can predict. Should Obama return to his hard left roots, Muslim euphoria will largely continue. Should he seek to make his presidency a success by moving to the center-left, many - but hardly all - Muslims will experience severe disillusionment.

(Mr. Pipes ( is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.)

arrived at this article via

Saturday, November 22, 2008

What is "Jihad?" Is it "Holy War?" "Inner Spiritual 'Struggle?'" or . . .

. . . Islam's Attempt to Subjugate the whole World to its Own god?

Does Jihad Mean "Inner Struggle?"
Islam is primarily a political doctrine, not a religion. Simple statistics reveal the true nature of the political/religious idea of jihad. When the word jihad is used, Muslims say that there are two kinds of jihad. There is the religious jihad, the "greater jihad" — the inner struggle against personal problems. And the war jihad is the "lesser jihad." The Hadith of Bukhari gives all of the tactical details of jihad. A simple counting method shows that 3% of the hadiths are about the inner struggle, whereas, 97% of the hadiths are about jihad as war. So is jihad the inner struggle? Yes, 3%. Is jihad the war against kafirs? Yes, 97%.
----- Bill Warner
IBA Quote of the Week

Friday, November 21, 2008

Obama-the House Negro

Of Interest
The transcript of Zawahiri's Message to Obama
Walid Phares on Zawahiri's Message to Obama

Obama-the House Negro

The media has been atwitter with Al-Qaida's Ayman al-Zawahri's insult of Obama by calling him the house Negro. What he actually said was abeed al-beit. Abeed is not just a slave, but a black slave. Islam's refined doctrine of slavery includes over 40 words for slaves, including the slave's race. If you were white, you would be a mamluk, a white slave.Mohammed and his wife owned black slaves, along with every other kind of slave, including sex slaves. Mohammed's favorite sexual partner at one time was a white slave, Mary, a Coptic Christian.Zawahri's insult was pure Islam. The Koran is filled with insults and curses by Allah. Insults and curses are part of Islamic logic. Kafir (non-Muslim) logic advances an argument by analogy, syllogisms, cause and effect--scientific logic. Islamic logic is based upon making you submit to Islam. Therefore repeated force, threats and insults are all part of the logic of simply overpowering the other. This is similar to a thug using brute force and yelling to "persuade" the vicitm.The Koran instructs Muslims on how to use insults and

The Koran instructs Muslims on how to use insults and curses against kafirs:

74:16 No, I [Allah] say. He is an enemy of Our revelations. I will impose a dreadful punishment on him because he plotted and planned.
74:19 Damn him! How he planned. Again, Damn him! How he planned.

And here we have the Koran insulting Jews by calling them apes (a favorite insult by Muslims about Jews):

7:156 But when they [the Jews] persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them, "Be as apes, despised and loathed."

Here we have Mohammed repeating the insult when he attacked the Bin Qurayza Jews of Medina:

Ishaq note 684: Mohammed called upon his troops, and they headed for the Jews. Mohammed rode up to the forts and called out, "You brothers of apes, has Allah disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?"

Mohammed and Allah repeatedly insulted others who didn't agree with Mohammed. The worst insult is kafir. Most Korans translate this word as unbeliever, but that is a neutral term. The Koran goes further to say that Allah hates kafirs and plots against them. Over half of the Koran is written about kafirs and it is uniformly negative. Kafirs may be murdered, tortured, enslave, raped, robbed, insulted and deceived with impunity.

Zawahri's insult of Obama is an insult by a person. However, it is not a person, but Allah, the creator of the universe and the sole deity that says that I am a kafir. That is not a personal insult, but a universal, omnipotent, sacred insult. Kafirs are lower than animals.

So when a Muslim comes home from work and says to his wife that he met a nice kafir today, the insult is so deeply ingrained, that he does not even think about it. After all, both Mohammed and Allah say that those who do not believe in Mohammed are kafirs, "the lowest of the low."

But what is interesting is how Zawahri's insult does not rub off on Islam. After all, Zawahri is called a radical Muslim, not a "real" Muslim. Therefore, what he says does not trouble people about Islam. Zawahri is not a radical Muslim, but one who follows the Islam of Medina, the violent Islam. He is a moderate Muslim of the Medinan sort, a 100% Muslim.

What if a white Christian Republican said the same thing? The media would not be atwitter, but in full outrage. This would be headline, long-lasting news. Not only would the white Christian speaker be condemned, but all white people and all Christians. Not only would the speaker have personal guilt, but also every group he was a member of would share in corporate guilt. But no Muslims will be condemned because of Zawahri's slur. Muslims do not share in corporate guilt.

Another oddity is that some Obama supporters may think that since he has been insulted by a Muslim it proves that he is not in the Islamic camp. Such thinking ignores the fact that the person most apt to insult a Muslim is another Muslim. In the same way, a Muslim is much more apt to be killed by another Muslim than by a kafir. Once you get into the insult, curse and kill business, it is hard to limit it to kafirs.

There is some good news for Obama's supporters. He may have been called "house Negro" (and actually the N-word is a better translation for abeed than Negro) but at least he was not called Hussein.

Bill Warner

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

The Arabic Language as a Weapon of Conquest

Modern Arabic: French fabrication of a fake language to de-personify, de-valorize, radicalize and barbarize

Excerpted from:

Through the creation of a fake modern Arabic language , the French prevented a genuine Nation building in the area, ensured that the local peoples would never have access to their identity, and like this gave the Wahhabist sheikhs a most powerful tool of de-personification, de-valorization, radicalization and barbarization. The so idiotically venerated French ‘mission civilisatrice’ is truly speaking a ‘mission barbarisatrice’.

The French created what is the concept of Arabic as Modern Language, and (as an extension to it - at a second stage) the Arab nationalism - supreme stage of the colonialism.

What existed, as linguistic - ethnic groups’ situation, in 1798 throughout all the lands that belong to modern state members of the Arab League, is this:

1. Arabic had ceased to exist as native language (with the aforementioned exception); it was only the religious language of the Muslims, but it was a dead language - which means that it was not native to anyone. . . .

Continued at

Monday, November 17, 2008

Tales of the Muslim Brotherhood

On Tariq Ramadan and the Muslim Brotherhood

The Questions Tariq Ramadan Refuses to Answer
With thanks to JW

The Muslim Student's Association (MSA) was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood

Muslim Student Assoc.Teaching Islamo-Fascism on American Campuses
The Radical Islamic Movement in North America is not something that was created to fight Israeli "occupation" or US involvement in Iraq. The Muslim Student's Association (MSA) was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine almost 45 years ago (the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine morphed into Hamas).

More at

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Second Thoughts About Obama

No, not by me but by "Bones." I know where I stand as concerns Obama. By now, you should too (know where I stand as concerns Obama).

The rest of this post is by Dry Bones:

Second Thoughts About Obama

by Dry Bones

It's really weird. It seems like some formerly anti-Obama people are now ready for something good, fresh, and innovative to come out of the Obama Presidency.

To see what the thinking is in Iran and the Arab States I had to turn to MEMRI, the folks who translate media reports from the original Arabic and Persian.

MEMRI quotes . . .

Iran's Ayatolla Khatami in this past Friday's sermon:

"It will be a foolish thinking if one thinks there will be change in U.S. policies. There are others behind the stage." -more

and says that. . .

Abd Al-Bari 'Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi called on Obama to:

"'Impose American Model of Equality, Rights, and Opportunities on All Arab Countries,' Saying: In an Arab Country, Obama Would Be Told, 'You Are a Slave'; 'We Arabs Are The Epitome of Racism'" The interview aired on BBC Arabic TV on November 7, 2008:" to see the clip (subtitled in English) click on MEMRI TV

and, in an overview, MEMRI reports that

Reactions in the Arab world to the election of Sen. Barack Obama as U.S. president fell into two main categories: expressions of appreciation for the American democracy which had made his victory possible, and attempts to assess the impact of his election on the political future of the region. For the complete MEMRI review click on MEMRI Overview

-Dry Bones- Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973

Friday, November 14, 2008

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Arab Media on Obama: 'That Black Man Will Not Change US Policy'

Cheshvan 8, 5769,
06 November 08 10:43
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
referred to the original article by

English-language Arab newspapers have largely expressed hopes that President-elect Barack Obama will be supporting the Arab world, but many Arabic language newspapers mocked the victory.

The English Saudi Gazette daily headline, "Gulf Arabs hail election of 'Muslim-linked' Obama," and English newspaper in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia also expressed optimism. However, the Beirut Daily Star took pains to note that President-elect Obama faces "an entire subculture [that] operates within the American political arena …widely known as the 'Israel' or 'Jewish' lobby.

Arabic-language media expressed harsher views.

The Egyptian daily Al-Qaradhawi stated, "The Democrats Are like a Snake That "Kill[s] You Slowly without You Noticing," according to a translation provided by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it – and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body."

The Iranian daily Jomhouri-ye Eslami's editorial was headlined, "That Black Man Will Never Change U.S. Policy." It added, "The most that that black man can do in the White House is to replace some of the staff and change some ceremonial procedures. He will never manage to change the structure of the American regime, which was established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists."

Although major Arab newspapers favored Obama, the Syrian daily Al-Watan wrote after the elections, "Some claim that if Obama wins he will be no better than Bush, if not worse... They may be right, since it is well known that no American president has ever stood on the side of the Arabs – rather, they have all stood on the side of Israel…" %ad%

The Saudi Arabian Al-Watan editorialized, "There is no significant difference between Obama and McCain. They disagree only on the means to achieve America's chief goal, which is to rule for another hundred years."

A more moderate view was expressed by Daoud Al-Shiryan, columnist for the London-based Saudi Arabian daily Al-Hayat and deputy director of Al-Arabiya Television. "The U.S. elections afford a kind of change that does not occur in the Arab 'democracies'... The faces [in the White House] change in a way that we find impressive," he wrote.

© Copyright

Well and good. But here are a couple of Comments to this article:

It's Just "Arabia", not "Saudi" Arabia

There is no other Arabia, so there is no reason to use an adjective in the name of the only country in the world whose leaders have such an inferiority complex (*) that they eed to have the name of their chief bandit clan incorporated into the name of their sand dune. One does not call the UK "Windsorian England."(*) On the other hand these clowns don't just have an inferiority complex, they really are inferior in spite of all their goofy titlessuch as "prince" and "king."
Johnny, Providence (06/11/08)

Come ON! Don't Be Blind!
These are the very same Muslims who were just dancing in the streets about Obama being elected. Why the sudden about-face? BECAUSE the Muslim leaders cannot have their tools (tools being the Muslim people) OPENLY loving Obama. This would be a disaster for Obama! This would bring all kinds of questioning as to Obama's links to extremist Islam, this would cause Obama's followers (maybe) to start having second thoughts.

So the status quo must be maintained. The Muslims are liars, and will present whatever face to the world that will further their goal of Jihad and global rule. If they are seen as Obama's enemies, they can continue to get their demands met, just like they have under Bush for 8 years while pretending to be his enemy.It's all bullocks, people. Don't fall for it. Muslims and Obama have the SAME GOALS in mind for Israel and the Jews - EXTERMINATION. Global Jihad.
SarahRachel, Los Angeles (06/11/08)

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Selling us out to Saudi Arabia

click on the above to read

"The Islamisation of the west is proceeding according to plan, as the Times reports . . . "

Sunday, November 2, 2008

UK: Soldiers of the Queen - Betrayed at Home by an Islamic-Appeasing Establishment and the Afghani Poppies

Lionheart: The young Lions return
by Lionheart at


What a travesty that whilst they are fighting in foreign fields for us back home there are enemies living amongst us planning and plotting the destruction of Great Britain with no real action to prevent it by those who control the State.

Soldiers abused in hospitals by Moslems, abused and spat at in the street by Moslems, forced to wear civilian clothes so as to not upset Moslems and all after putting their lives on the line for their Country.

Appeasement, Surrender and Denial of the enemy at home is the consensus of the day by those in ultimate charge over all parts of the British State, but those on the frontlines in the streets at home know the truth because its staring them in the face each day, they dont live in tax paid ivory towers in the safest places they can afford to find in 21st Century Britain.

Those in charge of the 'Power of the State' use all the powers at their disposal and the laws that they have created and put in place, to silence the true reality of what is unfolding upon our streets across the Nation, exactly like what is happening to me because I was forced into a corner by Pakistani Moslems who have taken over my community.

Read on at