More young Muslims back sharia, says poll

More young Muslims back sharia, says poll

The Tiny Minority of Extremists is growing, especially among young people. By Stephen Bates and agencies in The Guardian, with thanks to Charles:

A growing minority of young Muslims are inspired by political Islam and feel they have less in common with non-Muslims than their parents do, a survey reveals today. The poll, carried out for the conservative-leaning Policy Exchange thinktank, found support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil in public is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents.In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.

Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same. The survey claimed that British authorities and some Muslim groups have exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia and fuelled a sense of victimhood among some Muslims: 84% said they believed they had been well treated in British society, though only 28% thought the authorities had gone over the top in trying not to offend Muslims….

Kerry at the Anti-American Forum;Iran and the Karbala attack

The Iranian nightmare continues

The Iranian nightmare continues

Ethel C. Fenig
In addition to Michael Oren’s and Yossi Klein’s excellent, must-read article on Israel’s (and frankly the world’s) worst nightmare mentioned here, Nobel Prize mathematician, Professor Yisroel (Robert) Aumann, of Hebrew University presented another must read (and learn from) paper last week at a conference on the Balance of Israel’s National Security.   Aumann, whose specialty is game theory, of course spoke about Iran’s threat.  But, differentiating between dealing with Iran directly and with those shadowy groups Iran supports, he points out

there is a different danger in Iran’s nuclear armament-more tangible and more threatening, although more indirect. This danger is hidden in the possibility that nuclear technology will be transferred from Iran to terrorist groups such as Al Qa’ida or others-groups whose identities are indistinct, who have no address. Even these groups are not insane; they act consistently, rationally, and sophisticated in order to achieve their goals. But because they have no address, direct deterrence policy is not effective in their case. Thus, if they succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, it is unclear how we will be able to deter them from using it against us.

How to prevent Iran, either directly or indirectly, from passing on their nuclear technology?

One is to create strong and tangible motivation for the government of Iran to prevent at all costs the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to groups that do not function under its auspices. The second and less effective way is to give strong and tangible motivation to these terrorist groups we have mentioned not to use nuclear weapons against Israel, even if they have obtained such weapons. As we have said, this type of deterrence is not easy because these groups have no address, but they have goals and they have an ideological identity, and it is possible to create adequate incentives on this backdrop.

After discussing the enemies’ motivations, he analyzes how Israel can counter them; discussing Israel’s motivations–aside from annihilation of course.  While his specific conclusions are applicable to Israel’s specific situation some generalities are relevant to all those working to counter the world’s nightmare.

…now a few words about a third threat, which is perhaps the greatest of all. It does not come from Iran, nor from terrorist groups, nor from any external source. It comes from within us. “We have met the enemy, and it is us.” Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, your humble servant makes his living from game theory-among other things, very serious games: games of life and death and of existence and annihilation. The name of the game in game theory is motivation, incentives. Earlier, we discussed the motivations of those standing on the opposite side. Motivating ourselves is the most important thing, and the thing we are losing the most. Without motivation, we will not endure. What are we doing here? Why are we here? What are we aspiring to here?….
 …I think it was Churchill who said, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The preparation includes material preparation, a fantastic army, effective tools of war, but above all, we are talking about spiritual preparation, about spiritual readiness to go to war.
Roadmaps, capitulation, gestures, disengagements, convergences, deportations, and so forth do not bring peace. On the contrary, they bring war, just as we saw last summer. These things send a clear signal to our “cousins” that we are tired, that we no longer have spiritual strength, that we have no time, that we are calling for a time-out. They only whet their appetites. It only encourages them to pressure us more, to demand more, and not to give up on anything. These things stem from simple theoretical considerations and also from straight thinking. But it’s not just theory: it has been proven and re-proven in the field over thousands of years. I returned today from a trip to India, where we heard about historical stories that illustrate the same. Capitulations bring about war; determination and readiness bring about peace.

Certainly, this is not what those oh so sincere, oh so wrong, feel good, hate filled anti war demonstrators want to hear.  But then the truth is always painful.  However the alternative is worse.

Islamic Supremacism in Britain

Islamic Supremacism in Britain

by Robert Spencer
Posted Jan 26, 2007

For last week’s “Dispatches” program on Britain’s Channel Four, a reporter with a hidden camera entered Birmingham’s prominent Green Lane mosque and other leading mosques in Britain. He found Islamic supremacism, hatred of Jews and Christians, and the subjugation of women preached in them.

The mosques, of course, are in heavy damage-control mode. A press release at the Green Lane mosque website complains that “this so-called ‘undercover’ investigation merely panders to age-old anti-Muslim prejudices by employing the time-honored tradition of cherry picking statements and presenting them in the most inflammatory manner.”

The statement doesn’t address the obvious fact that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to cherry pick statements anywhere near as inflammatory as those recorded in the Green Lane mosque from proceedings in any Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist house of worship.

Among the statements recorded in the Green Lane mosque were these about women:

  • “Allah has created the woman—even if she gets a Ph.D.—deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man.”
  • “By the age of 10, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her.”
  • “Men are in charge of women. Wherever he goes, she should follow him and she shouldn’t be allowed leave the house without his permission.”

How extremist! And how inveterately Koranic. The Muslim holy book declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Koran 2:282). It also says: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

The same is true of the statements about Britain and the Islamic state:

  • “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.”
  • “We want the laws of Islam to be practiced. We want to do away with the man-made laws.”

These ideas are an extrapolation of Koranic passages such as 9:29, which assume that Muslims will wield state power over Jews and Christians, exacting from them a poll tax (jizya) and making sure they pay it “with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” There is no concept in the Koran, Islamic tradition or Islamic law of non-Muslims living as equals with Muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims must be in a superior position.

The fact that the views expressed by the Muslims in the Channel Four documentary can easily be found in the Islamic scriptures suggests that the problem is far larger than a few mosques that were thought to be “moderate” but turn out to be “extremist.” It is a problem that is quite deeply rooted within traditional Islam and must be treated as such. Muslims who sincerely reject the idea that Islamic law must be instituted in Britain and that women and non-Muslims must be subjugated should welcome the documentary as an opportunity not only to expel “extremists” from their ranks but also to formulate a comprehensive rejection and refutation of their understanding of Islam.

But so far, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, and the UK Islamic Mission have all denounced the program as “Islamophobic.” None have taken even a single step to combat the spread of the understanding of Islam depicted in the show or to mitigate the elements of Islam that incite to violence and inculcate Islamic supremacism.

And that, itself, is very telling.

Former Israeli spy chief: nuclear strike by jihadists “very likely”

Former Israeli spy chief: nuclear strike by jihadists “very likely”

1938 Alert: “World War III has already begun, says Israeli spy chief,” from AFP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A third World War is already underway between Islamic militancy and the West but most people do not realize it, the former head of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad said in an interview published Saturday in Portugal.‘We are in the midst of a third World War,’ former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told weekly newspaper Expresso.

‘The world does not understand. A person walks through the streets of Tel Aviv, Barcelona or Buenos Aires and doesn’t get the sense that there is a war going on,’ said Halevy who headed Mossad between 1998 and 2003.

‘During World War I and II the entire world felt there was a war. Today no one is conscious of it. From time to time there is a terrorist attack in Madrid, London and New York and then everything stays the same.’

Violence by Islamic militants has already disrupted international travel and trade just as in the previous two world conflicts, he said.

Halevy, who was raised in war-time London, predicted it would take at least 25 years before the battle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is won and during this time a nuclear strike by Islamic militants was likely.

25 years? How optimistic. Why will a 1,400-year-old conflict be wrapped up in 25 years?

Congress Pressured to Ban Racial Profiling

Congress Pressured to Ban Racial Profiling

And the pressure is coming from the Flying Imams incident, just as I predicted — with no notice given of the many questionable aspects of the incident, or of the questionable ties of the imams.

If this passes, as it probably will, and is signed by the President, as is likely, Islamic jihadists will have a free hand in American airports: authorities will be too afraid of prosecution to subject them to any scrutiny, no matter how suspiciously they’re acting.

By Frederic J. Frommer for AP, with thanks to Kemaste:

WASHINGTON (Jan. 28) – The repercussions of an airline’s decision to remove a group of imams from a commercial flight in Minneapolis could be heard in Congress this year, with civil rights groups pushing Democratic lawmakers to ban racial profiling.The incident happened in November, made national news and reinvigorated an old proposal that got little attention from the GOP.

Now, a champion of the legislation, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction on the issue. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who sponsored legislation to ban racial profiling in the last Congress, now chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

No bill has been introduced so far, but Feingold made it clear the issue will be a priority for him.

“Many law-abiding African Americans, Arab Americans, Latino Americans and others live with the fear of being racially profiled as they go about their everyday lives,” Feingold said. Although the vast majority of law enforcement officers don’t engage in the practice, he added, some do and it must be addressed.

“I look forward to working with Chairman Conyers in the House as well as others to ensure that no one is judged by how they look or where they worship,” he said….

Feingold’s last bill would have banned federal, state and local law enforcement officials from “relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion” during investigations.

An exemption would have been made for specific information that “links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified incident or scheme.”

Well, we have plenty of that, but the chilling effect will nevertheless be severe.

Some security-oriented groups are gearing up to fight a new version of the bill.”It would have the effect of estranging police officers from the community that they serve,” said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. “It would make them more hesitant to stop people who might well be in violation of the law for fear that they’re going to get written up because of some racial protocol.”

Peter Gadiel, of Kent, Conn., president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, mocked the legislation.

“The 9/11 atrocity was committed by 19 young single men from Arab nations. If you want to hand this country over to terrorists, why don’t you say it right out front?” said Gadiel, whose son, James, died in the attacks on the World Trade Center. “We don’t have to worry about 80-year-old ladies with bleach-blonde hair and southern accents.”

Steve Mustapha Elturk, an imam in Troy, Mich., said he would welcome a ban on racial profiling. He said U.S. authorities have detained him four times since Sept. 11, 2001 — twice at the Canadian border and twice while traveling by air — even though he has done nothing wrong.

“It is pathetic for an American citizen who has spent more than half his life in this country to have to fly fearing that I will be stopped and interrogated,” said Elturk, 52, who was born in Lebanon. “This is not the country I came to know.”

John Kerry Still Suffering From Hoof in Mouth Disease

John Kerry Still Suffering From Hoof in Mouth Disease

by Sher Zieve


Not satisfied with calling US troops stupid, via his now infamous 2006 remarks, the European wannabee Sen. John Kerry has now blasted the entire United States of America. But, then he also did that in the 1970s. Speaking from one of the “world’s stages”, this time in Davos, Switzerland, Kerry firmly placed his horsy hoof in his mouth—again—when he referred to the United States as “a sort of international pariah .” Note: John Kerry is one of the few US citizens who actually is a pariah.


Not satisfied with that lunacy, Kerry then advocated diplomacy with Islamic terrorists as a way to ensure national security! Kerry stated: “We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that’s what diplomacy is about, But, you have to do it in a context of the reality—not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories.” Yeah! That’s a great idea, Mr. Kerry. Affect diplomacy with Iran who has vowed to Islamize and destroy the West—in particular, the USA. Heck, the Islamization process is already underway. Despite the fact that Iran’s leaders have said multiple times that they will NOT indulge in any sort of diplomacy (except our unconditional surrender) shouldn’t—we know it won’t—deter you. Just keep kneeling in a supplicant manner and begging them. If you decide to convert to Islam, they might even deign to listen to you—albeit briefly. Question: Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Sen. Kerry actually understood history and the lessons it has tried to teach us? Kerry then continued to say that we foolish and less-than-intelligent US citizens only view the world “exclusively through an American lens.” We darned Americans are an extremely pesky bunch in Kerry’s view–from his jaundiced eyes. Kerry’s eyes have reflected cynicism, for virtually everything, for a very long time.


Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 22 April 1971, Kerry said of US troops in Viet Nam: “They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.” Note: Only a few individuals who claimed to have fought in Viet Nam but, were later discovered to have never been in any branch of the military, backed up Kerry’s claims.


To add additional insult to injury and to better understand the reasons behind Kerry’s continual anti-US stance, along with Hanoi Jane Fonda and others, Kerry met secretly with the leader of the North Vietnam Communist movement—Madame Binh of the PRG. Binh was known as the “Dragon Lady” of the, then, Viet Cong. Even in the 1970s, Kerry was pro-Communist and anti-US democracy. With Saturday’s comments, it appears that he has not changed his position. This time, however, he appears to be siding with Islamic terrorists.


Like other leftists and Democrat leaders, Kerry now waits until he is not on US soil to blast the United States and he is again attacking its citizens—whom he no doubt believes are as “stupid” as he says are our troops. And the people of Massachusetts keep voting for this man. Amazing…




Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets