Thursday, April 30, 2009
"Islamic Terrorism has become to the early 21st century, what Communism was to the late 20th century, the ultimate existential threat that the civilized world was forced to grapple with. In this article I will take a look at a few of the existing approaches, and their pros and cons, for winning the War on Terror."
Before I give my "best" solution to end (by opposing) the threat facing all of us in the West*--and India and Israel--of being overwhelmed and dominated by Islam, you owe it to yourself to read Sultan Knish's "Winning the War on Terror" at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/04/winning-war-on-terror.html.
*HERE in the United States the precursor of Islam is the socialist/fascist dictatorship being imposed on us by a narcissistic poseur of unknown but dubious qualities who sprang from an Islamic background and education.
Read it, then come back here and see what will work to stop our enslavement, death, or bowing five times a day to a location where unreason and ignorance were spouted out by a lecherous ignoramus--which geographical spot being given the final Carthage treatment couldn't hurt and even do us some good.
While you're doing that, I shall amuse myself by figuring out the etymology of the title Sultan and the other proper noun it precedes, Knish.
Wikipedia defines the title thusly:
Sultan (Arabic: سلطان Sulṭān) is an Islamic title, with several historical meanings. Originally it was an Arabic language abstract noun meaning "strength", "authority", or "rulership", derived from the masdar سلطہ sulṭah, meaning "authority" or "power".
As for "Knish," this derives from the common name for a delicacy defined as "an eastern-European Jewish or Yiddish snack food. It is a dumpling covered with a dough shell that is either baked or fried. In the most traditional version, the dumpling is made entirely of mashed potato."
--What is Knish?
But enough of that, let us get down to the less esoteric analyses of the problem confronting us (who do not want a sharia government oppressing us).
Results of my Analyses:
Sultan Knish's No. 8, and if that doesn't work, try his No. 7. Should that fail--well--there's always No. 5. that should stop this whole sorry mess that threatens to do us in.
Come to think of it, spend a minimum of time (3%) on No.8, a bit more on No. 7 (say, 7% of a total 100%), and 90% on No. 5.
Just kidding! Am I? Yeah, sure, lots'a laughs. What do you think we are? Better to believe nothing's happening, and the government is taking care of us. Make us all feel a heck of a lot better. And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Feeling good . . .
Monday, April 27, 2009
Interesting . . . and Most Informative
at the Belmont Club
a couple of comments:
. . . Pakistan falling into the Taliban’s control, Obama a Muslim himself from a Polygamous Father, smiling benignly as he does nothing to stop it or secure/destroy the nukes. NYC and perhaps other American cities die in a nuclear blast. Not from some "Good guy gone wrong" as in the feminized 9/11 fantasy of TV’s "Heroes" but real macho polygamists wanting conquest.
And in the great desire simply not to be incinerated, Obama will be removed via coup driven by the people, not the military and CIA (which will I think be reluctant passengers on the populist train). People will surprise you with a desire to live. Do awful things.
Apr 25, 2009 - 11:49 pm
. . . 20 Markers of "The End of Golden Ages." You actually hit on it in your post above, but, seemingly as an aside: Marker #1 - "Women begin rising to positions of great power."
This phenomena appears 150 to 200 years into the life of a Civilization, and, begins the slide into footnotes in "Dusty Tomes" nobody reads. It is a natural result of the "Foraging Instinct," which is linked to a "primal, biological imperative" to build safe, secure, serene and beautiful nests, where they can raise their children without knowing or having to defend against violence.
The other markers are: a flood of rules, regulations, policies, procedures, edicts, decrees, taxes, permits, certificates, etc, flowing from a flood of Bureaus, Agencies, Departments, Offices and the odd rogue Tyrannizer (like a "Great Lady" advisor to the ‘King,’ demanding that he ‘do something’); imbalance of trade commences when the "Great Ladies" begin demanding exotic things to decorate and enhance ever larger, more enviable nests (Mansions, Palaces, Castles, Compounds of the Aristocracy/Nobility); flight of Capital and Industry to Foreign Ports where the exotic trinkets, toys and doodads originate; flight of Crafts, Skills, Trades, Artisans and Engineers (I’m one who fled years ago) following the Industries to other, younger, more vibrant, less restrictive, growing, thriving societies; importation of cheap labor, or, slaves (it’s nice if they import themselves); pushing away, denigration and tyranizing of the Common Citizen; denigration and pushing away of the Citizen Soldier; hiring of Mercenaries (Local or Foreign) as Bodyguards, City Guard (Police), and, Professional Military; and, the final blow - disarming of the Common Man.
[bold emphasis mine]
The last usually happens just prior to, or, as Alexander crosses the Bosphorus (welcomed by the people as a savior), or, as Obama climbs the Hill, bringing us a new society (worshipped by many).
There remains but the final step, the "Coup de Grace" of this Golden Age (see Marker #20, above).
Obama, the Muslim Thing, And Why It Matters
by Pamela Geller
Sunday, April 19, 2009
from The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within
AND BE SURE NOT TO MISS . . .
Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?" *
At the tail-end of the Islamization of America post at Islamic Danger 2 U
* Obama, the Manchurian candidate
[from David Kupelian's "Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate"]
In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.
Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A review of Hugh Fitzgerald's analysis of the war against the Islamics who attacked us can be found at How to Stop the Islamic Jihad--How to Defeat the Camp of Islam.
For the entire article, go to http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/36181/sec_id/36181
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Hugo Chavez, who has set himself up as the dictator of Venezuela--turning the society upside down, and threatening the United States, allying himself with such as Iran and North Korea and other enemies of the U.S.
The Chavez dictatorship turned Venezuela into a socialist/fascist tyranny. Elections condoned by such a disreputable inept as Jimmy Carter, the opposition silenced and crushed, the tyranny that Chavez is emulating is that of the murderous dictator Fidel Castro and his vicious brother Raoul. Chavez admires the Jew-hating statements, saber-rattling threats, and nuclear arming of Iran's Ahmadinejad.
What is a socialist dictatorship? How does it differ from such fascist dictatorships as national socialsim? In socialist dictatorships the government owns everything--the means of production, transportation, utilities, airlines, and banks.
In a national-socialist (fascist) dictatorships--think of Hitler and his nazis--the government controls everything but allows select industries to operate (albeit under government control).
From Pam Geller's "Atlas Shrugs," comes this report. And it's official, folks!. From the horse's as--ah--mouth: Obama and his DHS (Department of Homeland Security):
SHOCKING NEW REPORT! OBAMA'S REAL TERRORISTS: TARGETING PATRIOTS AND THE RIGHT
(U) Key Findings (U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
Translation: There is no threat. Give us time, we'll create one.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
Translation: There is no threat. Give us time, we'll create one.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
American sovereignty is a radical position now?
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
Sounds like they are descrbing Bill Ayers and Bernadetter Dohrn, Obama's great friends and terrorist patriots!~
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Ah, there it is. take their guns away. Jail'em if they disagree.
— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement. —
Ban? What ban? This is a staging. Fake staging to seize weapons.
(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
Radicalize the nation's greatest patriots. Are you seeing this? The only radicalization happening on a national/global scale is Islamic jihad. Our vets????
Page 6 of 9 — (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.
Gun control. Period.
THERE'S MORE! READ IT ALL AT:
Being fitted for the dress of a "Somali Elder"
"His Magnificence" in civilian dress
Thursday, April 9, 2009
If Islam were not God’s own religion, Muslims reason, and if Muhammad were not the messenger of God, they think, then these conquests would not have taken place and would not have been so successful. These conquests can be considered as akbar dalaala alla Sidq muHammad, “the best proof of the sincerity of Muhammad,” as a comment in the Qur’an at one point expresses it.
The Advance of Islam
by Baron Bodissey
Translation from the Dutch of
The Advance of Islam
“Islamic ideology is not resistant to the free word”
By the Arabist Hans Jansen
There is not a single Muslim who is unaware of this [the Mohammedans'] century of conquests. The military successes of that time are generally perceived by Islamic theologians as proof of the truth of Islam and the correctness of the statements made by Muhammad about himself and his mission. This century of conquest plays a major role in Islamic apologetics. If Islam were not God’s own religion, Muslims reason, and if Muhammad were not the messenger of God, they think, then these conquests would not have taken place and would not have been so successful. These conquests can be considered as akbar dalaala alla Sidq muHammad, “the best proof of the sincerity of Muhammad,” as a comment in the Qur’an at one point expresses it.
Europeans who are not used to employing this kind of reasoning in a debate are sometimes left mute when they are for the first time confronted with this assertion. At some of the meetings that purportedly contributed to the dialogue between Christianity and Islam, this argument was used. Perhaps that is, after all, a good thing, because what is the use of having a quarrel?
- - - - - - - - -
But it is a ridiculous Islamic fallacy. When Christianity was able to win the Middle East and Europe over, it was without using violence. Should the Christians then be impressed that others, namely the Muslims, have managed to conquer such an area using brute military violence? No, of course not. On the contrary.
That this vital information is pointedly avoided by the treasonous cowards in the West is more dangerous than Islam's threats.
We can defeat the jihad... if we admit that it is Islam's core dogma.
Until then, the incursions, stealth invasions and legalistic underminings of the West by Mohammedans, aided by the useful idiots among us, erode our Civilzation and make the future battle more deadly.
3/29/2009 1:25 PM
Zenster Part I
Europeans who are not used to employing this kind of reasoning in a debate are sometimes left mute when they are for the first time confronted with this assertion. At some of the meetings that purportedly contributed to the dialogue between Christianity and Islam, this argument was used.
How then do these Islamists explain the way that the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) has been in a perpetual state of economic and cultural stagnation for nearly a MILLENNIA, even as Europe and America have entered the space age?
Will of Allah my arse!
We should not enter into silly contests of miracles, but may establish that a religion like this needed to make use of the force of arms to achieve approximately the same thing that Christianity managed to achieve without violence. As Muslims continue to purge all competing religions from their lands, Christians had better begin to consider how Islam's conversion by the sword mandates its DEFEAT by the sword. Several centuries and even recent history have all shown the tremendous folly of negotiating with Muslims. The punishment awaiting Islam for how it has defiled humanity is long overdue.
Because of the “confession” that is part of the Christian liturgy, Christians are perhaps trained too well in the confession of guilt, and that contrasts with the views of most Muslims, who are in fact proud of the warfare of Islam against the Christians, and of the military triumphs that were achieved, at least in the early days. That Muslims are largely immune to any sense of guilt requires aggrieved parties to force Islam into making amends. There is much that Islam has to answer for even as it continues to violate human rights and commit crimes against humanity. What is it that allows thinking people to ignore this well-established pattern of past and present misanthropy?
3/29/2009 3:28 PM
To this day they consider — and this is what modern people find the strangest — that the success that the early Muslims were able to obtain on the battlefield is a proof of God’s favor. Oddly enough, the defeats suffered by the Muslims are not seen by them as a proof to the contrary.
This is precisely what makes Islam so insidious. Confronted with defeats, Muslims do not retreat into self-examination or amendment of their conduct. Such setbacks are always viewed as punishment for not being Islamic enough. Thus are even the most vivid learning opportunities used, instead, to further entrench barbarous Islamic behavior. This is a core aspect of Muslim fanaticism and a strong argument as to why force of arms is the only sure method of reversing such pseudo-religious mania.
For if God is interfering with their wars, then, for example, in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs he is on the side of Israel.
Such a notion will only apply to rational minds. Muslims, however, are not at all rational. Few other cultures are capable of so thoroughly embracing cognitive dissonance as those of the Arab Muslims. Consider the following examples:
"The Holocaust never happened and this time we will complete what Hitler left unfinished!"
"The 9-11 attacks were staged as a pretense to wage war against Islam and Osama bin Laden is our hero for giving America a black eye!"
Both require the ability to simultaneously believe entirely contradictory ideas without experiencing any discomfort or internal conflict. Now, imagine just how fanatical such an unreasoning mind can be.
This is why Islam must be brought to heel through the use of of overwhelming military force. No other method can possibly oblige the Muslim mind to understand how Allah is a false deity and unworthy of worship.
Research with a scientific approach that might anger the Muslim elite is usually ignored by Western scholars. Not because the members of that elite might raise arms themselves, for they are all nice civilized people without blood on their hands.
This is no longer the case. Darfur is a pluperfect example of how Western scholars have so whitewashed Islam that they are now complicit in numerous ongoing Muslim atrocities that totally defy any pretense of their's being "The Religion of Peace". [spit]
The list is long, and nowadays can be found in many reference books, and it gives a pretty good idea of how false and mean people can be to one another, while always looking up piously and muttering that it is only about the implementation of the laws of God.
Considering that shari'a law dictates such minutae as how to wipe one's posterior and the exact amount of allowable fecal matter to have remaining on one's hands, I'd wager that this brutal legal code goes well beyond what God ever had the time to dictate.
Shari'a law serves one purpose alone and that is to control a large population so completely that, for fear of being put to death, they comply unhesitatingly with every last dictate until there is no time to rebel or even question such abject autocracy.
The wonderful Roman rule nulla poena sine lege, “no punishment without [clear] law” is obviously not the case under Islamic law.
I would venture it is exactly the opposite. Islam always maintains a veiled threat of imminent violence. It does so with very clear laws of such great number that violent retribution is guaranteed and it only awaits discovering exactly which rule any given individual has broken. This foreboding aspect tends to quell all opposition before the fact and inhibits any rebellion.
This article should be required reading in all Western political offices. PERIOD.
3/29/2009 3:38 PM
More--Read the whole Thing at . . .
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Are They Connected to the World-Wide Jihad and Al Qaeda? How?
We will try to answer those questions, as we examine what these Somali Pirates do and what should be done about them,
Should Somali Pirates Be Captured?
Readers will recall that the British Navy has been advised not to engage pirates on the grounds that if captured, the buccaneers can claim asylum in Europe. The Times Online reported that "the Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights. Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain. The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft."
The Captain’s Journal has weighed in saying:
This is easy. We tell the LOAC and ROE lawyers that they’re special and that they should go to their rooms and write high-sounding platitudes about compassion in war so that they’re out of the way, we land the Marines on the ship, and we kill every last pirate. Then we hunt down his domiciles in Somali and destroy them, and then we find his financiers and buyers and kill them. Regardless of the unfortunate potential loss of Ukrainian or Russian civilian life upon assaulting the ship, this weaponry and ordnance should never have been shipped in this part of the world without escort (and perhaps it shouldn’t have been shipped even with escort). Negotiations will only serve to confirm the pirates in their methods. It’s killing time. It’s time to turn the United States Marines loose.
Ralph Peters has weighed in saying:
Piracy must be exterminated. Pirates aren’t folk heroes or champions of the oppressed. They’re terrorists and violent criminals whose ransom demands start at a million bucks. And they’re not impressed by the prospect of trials in a velvet-gloved Western court. The response to piracy must be the same as it was when the British brought an end to the profession’s "golden age:" Sink them or board them, kill them or hang them.
Lt. Col. P at OpFor has weighed in saying:
Kill all of the pirates.
Seriously. Why do we allow a handful of khat-addled assholes to dominate one of the world’s most important sea lanes? We, the western powers, have sufficient naval units in the area to take care of the problem in very quick order. What we lack is the will. We apply an idiotically high standard of judicial due process to a situation that doesn’t lend itself well to a judicial solution. Anyone who has dealt with Somalis can tell you that they laugh at western legalisms, and what they perceive as western weaknesses. And then they redouble their violent efforts to take what they want from you. They do react very well to a boot on their necks, and a gun to their heads. Then they tend to wise up quickly.
Here’s how it needs to be done. Oil tanker sends distress call, takes evasive actions insofar as it is capable. (Or better yet, armed men aboard oil tanker defend by fire.) Coalition forces despatch (sic) vessels and boarding parties. Pirates who survive ensuing gun battle are lined up by the rail and shot in the head, then dumped overboard. Pirate boats are burned. If their bases or villages on the coast can be identified, said bases are raided and destroyed. No fuss no muss, no ransom, no hostages, no skyrocketing costs.
Apparently, the lawyers don’t think like we do. But for the time being, the lawyers are setting the agenda.
[color and bold emphasis mine. lw]
Map from www.noburqua.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
What Do the Pirates Say?
The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said
"We just saw a big ship," the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. "So we stopped it."
"Killing is not in our plans," [Sugule] said. "We only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger."
When asked why the pirates needed $20 million to protect themselves from hunger, Mr. Sugule laughed and said, "Because we have a lot of men."
In a 45-minute interview, Mr. Sugule spoke on everything from what the pirates wanted ("just money") to why they were doing this ("to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters") to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, "you know, normal human-being food").
He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. "We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits," he said. "We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard."
He insisted that the pirates were not interested in the weapons and had no plans to sell them to Islamist insurgents battling Somalia’s weak transitional government. "Somalia has suffered from many years of destruction because of all these weapons," he said. "We don’t want that suffering and chaos to continue. We are not going to offload the weapons. We just want the money."
He said the pirates were asking for $20 million in cash; "we don’t use any other system than cash." But he added that they were willing to bargain. "That’s deal-making," he explained.
Piracy in Somalia is a highly organized, lucrative, ransom-driven business. Just this year, pirates hijacked more than 25 ships, and in many cases, they were paid million-dollar ransoms to release them. The juicy payoffs have attracted gunmen from across Somalia, and the pirates are thought to number in the thousands.
What Do Somali Officials Say?
The piracy industry started about 10 to 15 years ago, Somali officials said, as a response to illegal fishing. Somalia’s central government imploded in 1991, casting the country into chaos. With no patrols along the shoreline, Somalia’s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.
"From there, they got greedy," said Mohamed Osman Aden, a Somali diplomat in Kenya. "They starting attacking everyone."
By the early 2000s, many of the fishermen had traded in their nets for machine guns and were hijacking any vessel they could catch: sailboat, oil tanker, United Nations-chartered food ship.
"It’s true that the pirates started to defend the fishing business," Mr. Mohamed said. "And illegal fishing is a real problem for us. But this does not justify these boys to now act like guardians. They are criminals. The world must help us crack down on them."
Will These Somali Pirates Kill?
Somali Pirates Kill Three
By Annie Jacobsen
13 Dec 2008
Three crew members from the Greek chemical tanker MT Action have been killed by Somali pirates. From the Khaleej Times:
"Three of the crew members appear to have died in fishy circumstances," Andrew Mwangura, the head of the Kenyan arm of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
"Fishy circumstances" is an unfortunate euphemism for being killed. The boat has been released, minus three living humans.
The big question being tossed around at the Pentagon is, will the U.S. military use air power to attempt to curb the jihadist takeover of Somalia?
That was "Pre-Obama Thinking in U.S. About Somali Pirates"
from The Washington Times:
Somali pirates are trained fighters who frequently dress in military fatigues and use speedboats equipped with satellite phones and GPS equipment. They are typically armed with automatic weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers and various types of grenades. Far out to sea, their speedboats operate from larger mother ships.
Most hijackings end with million-dollar payouts. Piracy is considered the biggest moneymaker in Somalia, a country that has had no stable government for decades. Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think-tank Chatham House, said pirates took up to $80 million in ransoms last year.
Before this latest hijacking, Somali pirates were holding 14 vessels and about 200 crew members, according to the International Maritime Bureau.
Is This Piracy Related to the Jihad? Connection to Al Qaeda?
Jihad Watch had this to say about this latest act:
As we have shown here before, this piracy is jihad-related. What will Obama do? Offer to talk without preconditions with the pirates? "Somali pirates hijack U.S.-flagged container ship," by Daniel Wallis for Reuters, April 8
More evidence that the supposedly "random" Somali pirate attacks are, in fact, associated with al-Qaeda's jihad. Incidentally, piracy as a jihadist activity has a pedigree at least as old as the Barbary conflicts with Europe and the United States, and the Islamic slave raiding pirates vividly described in Giles Milton's book White Gold.
"Al Qaida + Pirates = Jihad on the High Seas," from the Jawa Report, October 2:
Al Qaida has claimed responsibility for the increased pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia this year. So far this year there have been around 60 attacks against cargo ships in the Gulf of Aden, in 2007 there was 13. The islamic pirates are currently holding up to 300 crewmen hostage and 14 cargo ships for ransom.
It's the trifecta:
Somali pirates hijack cargo ships in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Then the pirates collect the ransom paid for the release of cargo ships and crewmen. This is known as jihad al-mal, monetary jihad.
Large sums of the ransom money goes to al Shabaab, the islamic Youth Movement. Al Shabaab uses the ransom money to fuel the jihad on land. Both groups are linked to al Qaida, it's all about the jihad.
H/T: Dinah Lord
In a recent communiqué, the Islamist organization claimed responsibility for this year’s surge in pirate attacks in the vital Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Dozens of vessels from different nations have been seized and held for ransom, shaking the world’s shipping industry. Al-Qaeda calls its maritime campaign "a new strategy which permits the mujahedeen" to hijack shipping, since "fighters who aspire to establish the caliphate must control the seas and the waterways."
Counterterrorism consultant Olivier Guitta revealed the al-Qaeda connection in his Asia Times column, writing that the terrorist organization "intends to take control of the Gulf of Aden and the southern entrance of the Red Sea." Guitta called the area "strategic" for the radical Islamic group.
Posted by Raymond [Ibrahim]
More about Recent Somali Pirate Attacks from the AP at http://ap.onlineathens.com/pstories/world/20090407/426785612.shtml
17,000-ton container ship Maersk Alabama, when it was operating under the name Maersk Alva, which has been hijacked by Somalia pirates with 20 crew members aboard, Wednesday April 8, 2009, while sailing from Salalah in Oman to the Kenyan port of Mombassa via Djibouti. (AP Photo/Polfoto, file)
SUGGESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON "HOW TO STOP SOMALI PIRACY" AT:
Her again we run into the old bugaboo: The Rules of Engagement (ROE). The one for dealing with the Somali pirates are designed not to stop piracy but to keep from killing the pirates.
The same goes for the ROEs forced on our troops at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The intent of these ROEs is to protect civilians from being killed. As irregulars such as the Taliban and other Moslems on jihad do not wear a uniform but must blend with the populace--as is the case with all guerrillas--this puts additional stress on troops in combat situations. It also kills troops on our side, while they are trying to save what could be innocent noncombatants.
The point of mentioning this here is that in the case of the Somali pirates as in the case of fighting the war against Islamic terrorists on jihad we want to fight without hurting or killing our enemies.
Wars are not won that way. Read about how World War II was won against Germany and then against Japan. Civilians were not targets, but neither were they spared. You want to break the will of your enemy, not show him how high-minded and moral you are and lose the lives of your troops.
If you want an example of how to fight a war and not win, no better example exists than Israel where moral highmindedness beats out winning to defend and preserve your people. Israeli soldiers are forced to take casualties in order to preserve the enemies' lives. House-to-house and room-to-room fighting is preferred by Israel to levelling positions from which enemy fire originates.
Of course, in the case of Israel, world opinion dictates the ROEs. As it appears it does in our wars and defensive or protective actions.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Photo title: "Submission"
"As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims."
from O-bow-ma and the Saudi King
by Ali Sina
The question that begs an answer is why a haughty man like Obama who snubbed the prime ministers of America’s closest allies, UK and Canada, to the point of rudeness is acting so slavishly towards the head of a religion and a country not so friendly to America?
Does Obama owe loyalty to Sheikh Abdullah? Did the latter finance his campaign? Obama spent nearly a billion dollars in his campaign. Never in history, a politician had this much money at his disposal to campaign. He never disclosed the source of that money. There were allegations that he received huge sums of illegal donations, mostly from Arab/Middle Eastern sources. There were also multiple donations of the maximum $2,000 dollar allowed, by the same donors. Could all these money have come from one source, the very man who Obama bowed so obsequiously to kiss his hand? Until an inquiry is made into the source of Oabama’s campaign financing we shall never know, but by the servile way he acted towards the King, we can guess that he was probably expressing his gratitude to his patron and sponsor.
I know every American with a grain of dignity will cringe seeing such an ignoble gesture of obeisance from their president towards the head of another state, particularly a state that hates them. I also know how Muslims rejoice watching America bow to Islam. This picture must be the wet dream of every Muslim.
Is Obama a closet Muslim? The jury is still out. But what is certain is that such a disgraceful act by an alleged American president towards the symbolic head of Islam is not a good omen. What concerns me is the hidden reality that may lie behind this gesture. Have Muslims succeeded to conquer America? Jihad can take many forms. Deception is one of them. Instead of waging a war that they knew would not win, they used deception. They bought the media, who in turn deceived the Americans, who with their own votes installs Islam’s Trojan horse, right in the White House. What a coup d’état?
Interestingly Saudis call any black man abd, (slave). Obama confirms their stereotyping. This buffoon, with all his pomposity and haughtiness at home and towards American allies, cannot act presidential when meeting his Arab masters. He reverts into his roots and acts like a slave. This must be the most disgraceful act by any American president in the history of America. Obama will bring more shame and dishonor on America and on the blacks than they bargained for.
More . . .
O-bow-ma and the Saudi King
Read the whole thing . . . and the Comments.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Bush Islamic Doctrine
from Political Islam
Posted in HomePage
We were introduced the power of political Islam on September 11, 2001. For a few people 9/11 was a declaration of war against our civilization and those people have been struggling against Islam. It is time to stop and ask: How are we doing? We are losing on every front.
A definition: Kafirs are the non-Muslims who are fighting against Islam. Dhimmis are the apologists for Islam—the media, Obama, George Bush, the professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis.
Why are the kafirs losing? Because Islam is so strong? No, because we are waging war with a strategy that is destined to fail. We are losing because we using a losing strategy. George Bush planted the seeds of our strategy when he declared that 9/11 was an act of terrorists and he laid out the strategy that would lead to our cultural self-destruction. Here is the Bush Islamic doctrine:
· Islam is a religion similar to Christianity. Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same god.
· The problem is terrorism, not Islam, hence, “The War on Terror.”
· There are moderate Muslims and a few extremist Muslims.
· A good Muslim means that Islam is good.
· “Radicals” cause the violence.
· Islam is found in the Koran.
· The “bad stuff” in the Koran is just how it is interpreted.
· Good Muslims will reform the “terrorists.”
Not a single item is true. Each and every one is false and has no basis in Islamic doctrine. But everybody bought it. Why? For the same reason that Bush said it. It was the academic doctrine of Islam that the Ivy League taught. The media, professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis had all been taught the same doctrine to interpret Islam. The Bush doctrine is not only unquestioned, but now has achieved the status of revealed truth. To deny it is to be a bigot.
So Bush did not create the doctrine, he was just a spokesman for the elites. There is a great irony in calling it the Bush doctrine, since more progressives/liberals/Leftists/Democrats believe it than do conservatives. Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama are advocates of the Bush doctrine.
Let’s see how the Bush doctrine works to prevent actual learning about the truth of Islam. Take the jihad in Mumbai, India where several Jews and hundreds of Hindus were injured and murdered. The words “Islam” and “Muslims” were barely mentioned by the media. The problem was terrorism, not jihad. The dhimmis did not want to malign the moderate Muslims by bringing up the Islam angle. It was just a few radicals who had highjacked Islam who attacked the kafirs in Mumbai.
How many mindless (mindless on the part of the Christians and Jews) interfaith dialogues have we seen? Religious leaders all get on stage and go on about how they worship the same god. Not one of these so-called Christian and Jewish leaders has actually read the Koran. It is the Koran that defines Allah and if you don’t know what is in it, you don’t know anything about Allah. But not to worry. The Bush doctrine holds it to be true and that is enough. What religious leader has had the time over the last eight years to read the Koran or the life of Mohammed? They have had plenty of time, but they don’t need to do so; they are comforted by the lies of the Bush doctrine.
The Cork in the Bottle
Let’s say that you are talking to a dhimmi and you bring up some evil of Islam. What do they say?
· Christians did bad things, too.
· There is violence in the Bible, too.
· They (jihadis) are some fundamentalist/radical types. All fundamentalists are bad. Most Muslims are just like everybody else.
· The ultimate mind cork: “I know this Muslim at work. He is nice. Subtext: I can’t hear you.” (A good Muslim means that Islam is good.)
Every thrust is parried with the Bush doctrine of Islam. The Bush doctrine is the cork in the bottle. Every time we try to pour some wine of truth into a dhimmi’s head, it is corked by the Bush doctrine.
And how have we responded to the Bush Islamic doctrine? For the most part, we have bought the Bush terror model of Islam. We try to stuff everything into terror/jihad. Since no one likes terror/jihad, it can be condemned. But Islam is very clever. There are four kinds of jihad—sword, pen, tongue and money. If they skip the terror part and go straight to the soft jihad, then the kafirs talking about the terror/jihad approach to Islam are soon ignored. The media skips the terror/jihad now. There have been numerous jihadist events in America, but the FBI and the media never admit that Islam is involved. The worst was Mumbai, India. It was pure jihad, the attack on the Jews proved that, but Islam and the Muslims were never mentioned. No Islam here. Move right along. There is no man behind the curtain.
The terror approach bears a relationship to crying “Wolf!” After while, no one really worries about terror and the lack of it proves that Islam is good.
The major problem with dealing with “terror” is that it takes away from watching the real destructive force in America—Sharia law and the slow Islamification of our culture.
Education and Debate
When you are trying to educate someone about Islam, it helps to go over the Bush doctrine and point out that not a single statement in it is true. Up front, challenge their beliefs.
The current President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of United States armed forces, whom we rely on to protect us from the Islamics who seek to subjugate and destroy our country and us
Note: at least Bush bowed only his head, he did not grovel before Arabian "royalty"*
*The muladí** Obama appears to be overwhelmed by the magnificence of the "guardians of the two holy places" (Also self-styled as "Guardians of Mecca and Medina" and “Guardians of The Two Holy Mosques.”
**[footnote within a footnote]
The Spanish and Portuguese word muladí is derived from Arabic muwallad. The basic meaning of muwallad is a person of mixed ancestry, especially a descendant of an Arab and a non-Arab parent, who grew up among Arabs and was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture
[Barack Hussein Obama is the issue of an Arab (Kenyan+Arab) and a non-Arab parent, who was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture (in Indonesia)]
Photo of Obama bowing in awe before Arabs, the "True Moslems," courtesy of
Friday Afternoon Roundup - Obama Bows Before his Master
. . . and from The Muslim Question 2
comes this . . .
"We Can Safely Assume He’s Not A Jew"
by Lawrence of Bessarabia
The internet is awash of images of the President of the United States bowing in submission and subservience to the King of Saudi Arabia.
My first thought on seeing this was of Mordechai of Purim fame refusing to bow down before Haman, because as a Jew he bows only to The Lord.
We can safely assume now that Obama is no Jew.