Telling the Truth is Islam Bashing?

Telling the Truth is Islam Bashing?
Thursday, 17 July 2008

I am bombarded by hate and threats by the Allah-fearing fanatics, simply because I speak the truth about Islam. If telling the truth about Islam is Islam bashing, then mea culpa.

Question: Does Islam get a pass because it is a religion? Who says Islam is a religion? Millions do? What is the evidence? The words of masses of brainwashed carriers of the Islamic virus, transmitted to them by their parents, are worthless as evidence. What counts is the irrefutable fact that this creed, claimed to be the one and only religion of Allah, has been and continues to be a source of great suffering for non-Muslims as well as the ignorant masses of Muslims themselves.
will share with you just a few of thousands of horrific things that Muslims do to people of other religions or those without any religion at all. In model Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, for instance, women don’t dare complain about their Allah-decreed chattel status. If they protest in the least, they are beaten by their husbands. And if they dare to demonstrate in public for equal family rights with men, they get severe beatings by the police and hauled to jails for additional indignities and violence.

One may wonder then why is it that millions of Muslim women meekly submit to their subservient rank and worship and thank Allah for it. These women are virtually imprinted by their parents and the clergy from birth to adopt the gender inequality as well as the entire pathological Islamic ethos.

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.” Quran 4.34

Even Egypt, the crown jewel of Arab-Islamic world is practicing a form of slow genocide against its own Baha’i citizens by depriving them of just about all rights of citizenship. Baha’is are still denied the indispensable identity card, simply because the powerful clergy want to eliminate the peaceful minority. Among other things, Egypt denies education to Baha’i children, taking a page from the “Mein Kampf” of the fascist Islamic Republic of Iran.

The record of atrocities performed by the proponents of the “religion of peace” clearly condemns it as an unmitigated cult of the worst kind.  The savage Muslims forced their creed of hate and violence at the point of the sword on my people. They did and continue to do everything they could to wipe out any vestige of our magnificent Iranian culture and heritage. Now, they are ruling my native land with an iron fist, demeaning everything that we have treasured in our egalitarian-humanistic exemplary culture. They are forcing our women into prostitution by depriving them of means of livelihood, compelling hundreds of thousands of Iran’s best and brightest to leave for other lands, spearheading a vicious campaign of terrorism far and near, and muffling any voice that does not sing their praises.

The Bible says “By their fruit shall ye know them.” I said this before and I’ll say it for as long as this vicious cult keeps up with its abominable deeds: Islam is violence. Islam is intolerant of non-Muslims. Islam is a vestige of a barbaric past. Islam must be confronted, shown for what it is and stopped from overtaking the world.  Here are just a few examples of what these people of Allah had done recently.

A guy stops a car in the city of Shiraz in Iran and asks the driver to give him some gasoline, pretending that his car has run out of fuel. The total stranger siphons gas from his own car and gives it to him. Suddenly some other guys show up from their hiding places, tie the man to a tree, douse him with the gasoline he had generously given to a total stranger, set him on fire and speed away in the sham “out-of- gasoline” car. Why? The target of the torching was a non-Muslim, a Baha’i. The “sin” of not being a Muslim made him a deserving party for being burned alive. These thugs of Allah, the savage torchers, call themselves the Unknown Soldiers of the Lord of the Age, (Imam Zaman), the Shiite’s much revered and expected savior.

To make matters worse, all manner of “good Muslims” walked by and didn’t do a lick to help the man. Miraculously the man was able to put the fire out and call the police on his cell phone. It took the police over 30 minutes to respond and take the man to the station for questioning. Now that’s the Islam that is on the march. It has penetrated deeply and spread widely in Europe. It is changing Europe to its ways and holds every promise of doing the same to the United States.

Many Europeans are fleeing their ancestral homeland ahead of the Islamic fire which is engulfing their countries. These are the affluent and the ones with foresight. Others are either oblivious to the threat, aim to accommodate it as the holy grail of multiculturalism, or will end up one day seeing themselves in the fight of their life. For Islam does not believe in multiculturalism. Islam is a mono-culturist: the barbarian culture of Islam. As Islam gains more power, it will inevitably impose itself and its ways on all others. And there will be those who will eventually wake up from their stupor, they will either completely capitulate or fight the Muslims back in bloody bock-by-block, street-by-street battles.

Truth is not always welcome and can often be greatly disturbing. But truth is the best weapon against evil and falsehood. When I point out the horrific teachings of the Quran, I don’t make them up. I cite surahs from their holy book, surahs that exhort the Muslims to carry out all kinds of evil deeds against non-Muslims. This book of Allah is a license to kill. When I point out that Muhammad set terrible examples for his followers by his own deeds, I cite from their own sources to document my assertion.

Is there anyone in this messed-up world who doesn’t read, see, or hear about the daily Islamic atrocities performed by these savages, with every act justified on the basis of Allah’s holy book?

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”

Why is it that these self-righteous Islamist villains don’t bother to prove me wrong? Why don’t they document what I say as being false? Instead, I am showered by all kinds of unspeakable profanity. Some of the more civil of the Muslims don’t stoop as low as their foul co-religionists. These latter types let out a hue and cry that they and their religion are smeared and victimized by people like me. They consider my criticisms of Islam as Islam bashing. They accuse me as a divisive- racist who enjoys Islam bashing. For good measure, they also label me Zionist, in the pay of Israel and Israeli lobbies. Who is bashing whom? Please prove any one of my charges to be false or fabricated and I’ll happily repent. If, on the other hand, you fail to do so, you owe it to humanity to abandon your allegiance to the scourge of Islam.

1.3 Million Signature Petition to Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, Delivered To GOP Leadership

Planning to Ignore the Facts

Planning to Ignore the Facts

By Rich Lowry
New York Post | 7/17/2008

AT some point, Democrats decided that facts didn’t matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party’s new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground.

It’s gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but – despite some wobbles – Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position.

Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush’s troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false: Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence,” and the new strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” He referred to the surge derisively as “baby-sit[ting] a civil war.”

Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed, he credits our troops’ heroism and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Yet our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that he lacked the military judgment – or political courage – to support.

Obama states that “the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true,” citing the strain on the military, the deterioration in Afghanistan and the fiscal drain. All are important, but pale compared with the achievement in Iraq – beating back al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could’ve benefited.

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he’s executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there’ll be a “residual force” of American troops to take on “remnants of al Qaeda.” How can he be so sure there’ll only be “remnants”? If there are, it’ll be because the surge he opposed has pushed al Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely it is to mount a comeback.

Obama treats as a vindication a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling for a timeline for withdrawal of US forces. But neither Maliki nor anyone around him talks of an unconditional 16-month timeline for withdrawal as being plausible. His defense minister says Iraqis will be ready to handle internal security on their own in 2012 and external security by 2020.

The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama’s plan surely are al Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of a US president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they’ve had in months. His withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq and increase their sway in Iraqi politics.

Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis “have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis – progress Obama threatens to reverse.

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq “responsibly.” There’s nothing responsible about his plan. US commanders on the ground say it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he’s elected he’d give the military a new mission – to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations: Either Obama is dangerously sincere or he’s a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace. Watch this space.

Petrol Procrastination

Petrol Procrastination

By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu | 7/17/2008


The old saw we often heard from our parents about “Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today,” has never been more applicable. Since September 11 Americans have procrastinated about serious national security issues; now they have reached crisis level. High on the list – but by no means exhausting it – are energy, military strength levels, threat identification, and proliferation issues. As are most things in life, these are intertwined, so that delaying decisive action in one adversely affects the others.

It has taken a sharp spike in gasoline prices to convince most Americans that a business as usual approach to petroleum products has not worked. Many now perceive the dangers of reliance on offshore oil producers – several of which have interests inimical to the U.S. One would think that this key lesson had been learned in the 1970s oil crisis, but sometimes it takes more than one hit on the head with a 2×4 to get the point home.

For decades – perhaps dating from popular acceptance of the flawed science in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring – Americans have permitted energy policy to be driven by agenda-driven environmental interest groups. While a series of hysteric predictions of disaster have proven wrong over the past decades (e.g., utter depletion of the Earth’s resources by 1980, mass starvation due to overpopulation by 1987, and a return of the ice age at any moment in the 1970s, to name but a few) the proponents of such bizarre theories are rarely held accountable.

To the contrary, their influence has grown with each new dire prediction. Books predicting impending disaster sell well, but with an erroneous track record ought to be reclassified to the fiction category. Hysterical forecasts have been lucratively promoted by gullible media and compliant Hollywood actors and film makers. As a consequence, rational decision making on key components of energy independence such as increased oil exploration and extraction from known reservoirs off-shore and in Colorado or ANWR have been stymied.

The repeated arguments that such resources would have limited value or would not be available for decades have been refuted. In simple point of fact, had oil extraction begun in ANWR, to cite a single example, when the original Congressional release was killed by President Clinton, that oil would be flowing today. While not in itself a long-term solution it would certainly contribute to the overall energy independence of America and would buy time for longer-horizon R&D to provide improved alternatives.

Furthermore, despite a litany of warnings about the ultimate depletion of petroleum sources we continue to learn of new discoveries like the recently disclosed enormous pools in the deep Gulf of Mexico and offshore Brazil. More exist and could be successfully tapped.

Reliance on free market initiatives – rather than self-perpetuating government projects – would be sufficient to encourage auto manufacturers and alternative energy developers to become decisively engaged in solving this issue. Already we see the rapid emergence of alternatives in many fields. This trend will accelerate.

But at present America has lost precious time. While the country has 104 active nuclear plants producing electricity the need is far greater and the technology increasingly safe. Countries like France and Japan – ironically the only country to suffer actual nuclear attack – rely almost exclusively upon nuclear produced electricity for their needs. Yet Americans, still befuddled by the old anti-nuclear film The China Syndrome, approach the subject as if every nuclear plant is a potential Chernobyl.

In Frank Gaffney’s excellent book, War Footing, an entire section is devoted to means to make America energy-independent. Newt Gingrich has a large part of his organization devoted to similar efforts. We have watched a failed policy of reliance on outside energy sources gut our economy and shake our force projection capabilities. Americans need to get educated quickly on these issues so that we can direct our elected leadership – unduly influenced by far too long by extreme environmental special interest groups – to make the necessary changes to policy.

With an economy weakened by the price of imported oil, our military capabilities have diminished. At the moment we are engaged in global war. Two fronts on that war – Iraq and Afghanistan – draw most attention, but the conflict is indeed global, with definite domestic implications. That our military, boots-on-the-ground capability has been stretched thin is no longer debatable.

America desperately needs military reform that produces more of what this type of warfare demands: light infantry, special operations units, and units that can operate in the civil-military plane such as military police and engineers. Instead, we continue to pour billions into showy but unnecessary, high-ticket, high-tech weapons systems that are useful for Cold War applications but lack utility to defeat today’s enemies.

Furthermore, we as a nation lack realistic threat identification. We are still shy about naming our foe. Historically we began to see a reluctance to name the real enemy emerge in Korea. While fighting Chinese forces we hesitated to call the Peoples Republic our enemy. In Vietnam the legend persists to present day that we fought “ragged guerrilla” forces when in fact the unnamed enemy of North Vietnam send tanks, infantry divisions, and sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons to fight in the South.

Today we continue to dither, hamstrung by political correctness, moral equivalency, and cultural relativism. Unless we ultimately face the reality that we are engaged in a confrontation with elements of radical Islam, we will be unable to prevail. Instead, we have so convoluted the debate that we are at the point that we castigate anyone who actually points this out and tie our courts in knots fighting for civil rights for enemy combatants.

In addition, we treat enemies, such as Saudi Arabia, as allies, and ignore or excuse aberrant dictators like Hugo Chavez, Bashar Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il. We issue platitudes about the sanctity of “peace processes” and bless rigged elections and reassure ourselves that notorious terrorist organizations are in fact changing their spots.

Meanwhile, we ignore the ominous gathering storm of America’s enemies banding together against us. We overlook the deadly connections that link North Korean scientists and engineers to missile proliferation in rogue states like Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Major research programs in these countries float under the collective radar while we watch fatalistically as incremental improvements continue unchecked in their biological, nuclear, and chemical warfare capabilities.

Perhaps it will take something as mundane yet impactful as the price of a gallon of gasoline to be the catalyst that will provoke America’s wake-up call. Certainly energy reform – and concomitant energy independence – will be a good first start to correcting the imbalance. Nevertheless, ignoring the ever-ticking clock allows our enemies time to aggregate and build strength.

At some point very soon an awakening must occur. We must recognize collective threats and identify responses necessary to deal with them. Otherwise we will – as we have been warned from youth – pay the high price of endless procrastination.


Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu has been an Army Green Beret lieutenant colonel, as well as a writer, popular speaker, business executive and farmer. His most recent book is Separated at Birth, about North and South Korea.

Green Light For Profiling

Green Light For Profiling

By Stephen Brown | 7/17/2008



Nearly seven years after the 9-11 attacks, the Bush administration is finally reconsidering its opposition to one of the most effective counterterrorism weapons at its disposal. In the months ahead, FBI agents may be able to profile potential terrorists on the basis of suspicious traits and activities, including their ethnic and religious backgrounds. Those most likely to commit acts of Islamic terrorism will no longer be able to hide in plain sight.


It is a modest step. The Justice Department insists that the “FBI is not going to open an investigation simply on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.” Still, the fact these factors can now be taken into consideration at all represents significant progress. Contrary to what one may hear from its opponents, profiling has a record of proven success on the counterterrorism front.

Consider the case of Maher “Mike” Hawash. Outwardly, Hawash was an immigrant any country would want. Young and educated, a successful engineer and family man, the Palestinian-born Hawash had arrived in America in 1984, at age 20, and appeared well integrated into his new country’s society.

But that changed in 2000. Hawash began to grow a beard, wear Arab clothing, and pray five times a day at his mosque. In his home, he hosted suspicious Middle Eastern-looking men.



Concerned neighbors took notice. They reported Hawash’s unusual lifestyle changes to the FBI that year, triggering an investigation. In 2003, agents arrested Hawash, who subsequently received a seven-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to aiding the Taliban.


Even before 9/11, the Hawash case demonstrated that ethnic and religious profiling could be a powerfully effective counterterrorism tactic. Indeed, security authorities have long been aware of the efficacy of profiling. As a result, they have been requesting permission to use it since 9/11, with the aim of doing what Congress, and the American public, expect of them: preventing terrorist attacks.


It is only this month, however, that the Bush administration has gotten the message. In early July, Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced that he is “revising guidelines relating to investigations.” The new guidelines may finally allow the FBI to practice ethnic and religious profiling.


Under the revised rules, authorities will be able to monitor factors like:

  • travel to countries with high levels of terrorist activity;
  • military or weapons training; and
  • suspect ideological or occupational backgrounds. 

This will enable the authorities to launch investigations on the basis of terrorists’ demonstrated profiles and patterns. It is all in keeping with a move to adapt the FBI from a reactive, crime-fighting organization into a modern counterterrorist agency tasked with preventing the loss of American life. 

Why hasn’t this transition taken place earlier? The Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald offered several explanations as long ago as 2004. Topping the list was former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. A Democrat appointed by President Bush as part of his futile effort to “reach across the aisle,” Mineta refused – even post-9/11 – to implement what most would consider a logical and life-saving measure.


Mineta’s opposition to racial profiling was rooted in his personal experience and ideology rather than any assessment of the data. Of Japanese ancestry, he had been interned, along with his family and 77,000 other Japanese-Americans, during World War II. After 9/11, he opposed racial profiling until his resignation two years ago – despite the fact that the terrorist enemy was easily identifiable by culture, religion, and geographic origin. Unmoved by that reality, Mineta, the only Democrat on President Bush’s cabinet, suggested in an interview that a grandmother from Vero Beach, Florida, should be considered no more suspicious by airport security than a young Saudi male. And although proponents of ethnic profiling advocated nothing of the kind, he also warned that WWII-type internment could occur again were profiling to be enacted.


The issue had been further complicated by the Bush brand of compassionate conservatism. The Bush administration distanced himself from racial profiling for domestic crime early on, and some in his cabinet extended this to terrorism. “This administration…has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history,” boasted Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002. Administration officials declined to explain why the prohibition of a demonstrably effective counterterrorism measure should be cause for celebration.


To be sure, the Bush administration isn’t solely to blame. Legal Left pressure groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and Arab-American lobbying groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, played a pivotal role in delaying the implementation of a sensible profiling policy. Underlying these organizations’ opposition to the measure is their shared belief that both the policy and the agencies that would enforce it are “racist.” Fearing the label, the Bush administration followed the politically correct line, refusing security agencies the use of this critical tool for the past seven years.


It is not the first time that these groups have adversely influenced national security. Both the Muslim and civil libertarian organizations were responsible for getting the Gore Commission on aviation security, set up in 1996 in response to the TWA 800 crash, to water down its profiling recommendations. The 1996 commission wanted the aviation industry to adopt the computer profiling system an airline company had already developed. But these groups made sure that there would be no profiling on the basis of “race, religion, or national origin of U.S. citizens.” This prevented Americans from preventing 9/11, the 19 hijackers of which all fit a highly specific profile, were permitted to board freely.


Not that these groups are in any way repentant. The ACLU’s Caroline Frederickson has spread fear about revived profiling, claiming the FBI would now be able to proceed “by assuming everyone is a suspect, and then you weed out the innocent.” Only last week, the ACLU asked Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to “avoid suggesting that Americans of a certain religion or ethnicity have a greater proclivity for ‘homegrown terrorism.’”


According to Frederickson, to take such factors into consideration would be “a grave national security mistake,” since a potential Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski could be overlooked. This disingenuous reasoning for a number of reasons. Racists and violent extremists are not only profiled but their groups are often subject to infiltration by FBI informers. It ignores the fact that the list of Muslims convicted in America of terrorism or terror-related activities is much longer than any list of white, native-born American terrorists. Moreover, while the Oklahoma Bomber and the Unabomber were essentially loners, Osama bin Laden has tens of thousands of Muslim followers who have committed thousands of terrorist acts around the world. But they are not dedicated to perpetrating destruction just anywhere; they are doing all they can to unleash unthinkable pain and suffering on American soil.


Fortunately, the Bush administration finally seems to realize that it cannot afford to keep an essential weapon out of its anti-terrorist arsenal. With al-Qaeda reconstituting itself to breach American security walls, it is past time. And while some will always disapprove of profiling, it has one compelling argument in its favor: It works. Just ask Maher Hawash.

Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history. Email him at

While Saudi king promotes interfaith dialogue, Saudi textbooks still teach hatred and intolerance of everything — and everyone — non-Islamic

July 16, 2008

While Saudi king promotes interfaith dialogue, Saudi textbooks still teach hatred and intolerance of everything — and everyone — non-Islamic

True enough. For all the Saudi king’s “gestures” of peace and goodwill, what Saudi children are being taught on a daily basis says it all. “New Report Shows Saudi Ministry Textbooks Still Teach Extreme Intolerance,” from Market Watch, July 15:

Today the Center for Religious Freedom of the Hudson Institute released a 90-page report (, 2008 Update: Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance, with a foreword by R. James Woolsey. It was prepared in consultation with the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. 

This report compares the 2007-2008 textbooks that are currently posted on the website of the Saudi Ministry of Education with those analyzed in our 2006 study, and shows that the same violent and intolerant teachings against other religious believers noted in 2006 remain in the current texts.

They assert that unbelievers, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not share Wahhabi beliefs and practices, are hated “enemies.” Global jihad as an “effort to wage war against the unbelievers” is also promoted in the Ministry’s textbooks: “In its general usage, ‘jihad’ is divided into the following categories: …Wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them.” No argument is made here that such references to jihad mean only spiritual and defensive struggles.

Lessons remain that Jews and Christians are apes and swine, Jews conspire to “gain sole control over the world,” the Christian Crusades never ended, the American universities of Cairo and Beirut are part of the continuing Crusades, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are historical fact, and on Judgment Day “the rocks or the trees” will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews.

They teach that it is permissible for a Muslim to kill an “apostate,” an “adulterer,” and those practicing “major polytheism.” Shiites are among those identified as “polytheists.” One lesson states that “it is not permissible to violate the blood, property, or honor of the unbeliever who makes a compact with the Muslims,” but is pointedly silent on whether security guarantees are extended to non-Muslims without such a compact. Other lessons demonize members of the Baha’i and Ahmadiyya groups.

A lesson from a tenth grade text now posted on the Saudi Ministry’s website sanctions the killing of homosexuals and discusses methods for doing so.

In the lessons examined in this report, the Saudi government discounts or ignores passages in the Qur’an to support tolerance.

All of these textbooks have been reissued at least once and all but two of them reissued twice, yet overall the changes to the passages in question have been minimal, and the degree of substantive change has been negligible. Taken together, the report concludes, revisions in the currently-posted texts amount to moving around the furniture, not cleaning the house.