Lies, damned lies and Islam








In July of 2001, Dennis Moreno-Lacalle, a Filipino Christian residing in Saudi Arabia was arrested by the Muttaween. He was one of fourteen Christians caught praying or using his private residence for a prayer meeting. He was charged with engaging in ‘illegal Christian activities.’ He was told that if he converted to Islam he would be freed immediately. It was just a suggestion—there is no force in religion. But wouldn’t it be nicer to be a Muslim going about his normal routine than a Christian stuck in some God-forsaken jail cell for only Allah knew how long? Of course it would be nicer. But Moreno-Lacalle didn’t think so—he refused to convert. He spent six months in the slammer before he was finally released. During this period his family did not know where he was or what had happened to him. They were kept in the dark; the terror was complete.


In May of 2002, Jeddah police arrested ten Christians who had gathered for a weekly prayer meeting. It was a routine arrest. More Christians are jailed in Saudi Arabia for praying than for jaywalking, safecracking and armed robbery combined. And why not—in Saudi Arabia praying is a more serious crime.


In 2003, the Muttaween arrested four Pakistani Christians. No reason was given. Two were eventually released and expelled. The fate of the others remains unknown to this day.


In 2004, a religious policeman accosted Brian Savio O’Connor, a cargo agent for Saudi Airlines, near his home in Riyadh for ‘not attending prayer.’ A Catholic from Indian, O’Connor showed the officer his papers. He was a Christian—he did not need to attend prayer. Maybe Brian was too uppity. It was said he ‘resisted arrest.’ He was taken to a police station, hung upside down and beaten. He was told that if he did not convert to the Religion of Peace he would be killed.


Was it an isolated incident? Not at all! Saudi jails are full of Christians who have taken advantage of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance to engage in ‘illegal activities.’ These scofflaws are worse than the Jews that defiled the streets of Nazi Germany in the 1930s—so it is said.


On April 25, 2008, the Saudi Allah Squad made another routine neighborhood sweep. Joe Friday could have learned from these fellows.  They had everything down to a T. If Eliot Ness had followed the Muttaween manual Al Capone would have lasted one day and Prohibition less than a week.


This is how it goes down: Step one: an operative breaks down the gate. (Ness used a truck as a battering ram. This is now thought to be amateurish.) Step two: the first operative inside the prayer room sticks a gun in the face of the nearest infidel and demands his residency permit and cell phone. This is done quickly and efficiently. Once the infidels have been subdued, the house is thoroughly searched. The Allah Squad haul on April 25 included 20 Bibles, some religious tracts and the money in the Collection Box (500 Saudi Riyals—about $130). The infidels are then exposed to the jeers and taunts of their neighbors before being dragged down to the police station.


Eliot Ness should have been so lucky. Capone’s lawyer was always at the police station waiting for Ness with a writ of habeas corpus. “It’s legal beer, Ness, it’s legal beer! If you don’t stop persecuting my clients I’ll report you to the Mayor.”


The Christians arrestees on April 25 were charged with singing and preaching. That’s right—singing and preaching! Well, they should have known better than to sing, “I got you, Babe,” in a Muslim neighborhood. Oh—it wasn’t “I got you, Babe,” it was “Rock of Ages” or something similar but just as offensive, and they were not singing, they were humming, and there was no preaching, they were whispering—or maybe mumbling. One of them might have been saying, “Let’s flush a Qur’an.” No one will ever know what was going on in their minds—what they were thinking. Thinking…there does not seem to be much thinking in the Muttaween—certainly no more than in Herr Hitler’s Gestapo. Whatever.


And just three weeks ago, George W. Bush’s great friend, King Abdullah, who had visited the Texas Gunslinger at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and had been kissed on both cheeks, had addressed an Interfaith Conference in Madrid, Spain, and had called for reconciliation between Muslims, Christians and Jews! Lions and Tigers and Bears—it sounds familiar.


“The image of al-Andalus made us hold this conference in Spain,” said Abdullah al-Turki, Secretary General of the Muslim World League.


Ah, yes, the fabled al-Andalus, Islam’s Shangri-La, a land that would have delighted Mary Poppins and Morey Amsterdam, a land of peace and tolerance, of unrestricted joy, a paradise without the 72 virgins, where the devotees of the three great Abrahamic religions, lived side by side in an amity so precious and amazing as to be incomprehensible to the modern mind. So they say…


But there are doubters—those who say al-Andalus never was. There is Andrew Bostom. Listen to Bostom:


In 711 or 712 Islam ‘subdued’ Toledo. In 713 the conquered nobles of Toledo revolted. The Religion of Peace responded with a heavy hand. Toledo was pillaged, the ranks of the nobles were decimated, their throats were cut and their property seized. In 730 the Bishop of Cerdagne was buried alive. Christians and Jews were separated from the rest of the population. They were not allowed to build new churches and synagogues. If one should happen to be destroyed—burned to the ground by a ‘careless’ caretaker—it could not be replaced. Christian peasants were given a choice between serfdom and conversion to Islam. Those who desired neither and fled to the cities were hunted down and mutilated or crucified. There were mass murders in Toledo, in Cordoba, in Saragossa, in Merida.


Ah, yes, let us return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when the cry of “Allahu akbar” sent shivers up and down the spines of al-Andalus’ terrified non-Muslim inhabitants.


One does not want to accuse King Abdullah or al-Turki of lying. That would be too easy. It is entirely possible that they are totally unaware of lying. Islam has been falsifying its History for 1,400 years, perhaps to escape its sordid past, to cover its crimes, to make it feel good about itself.


One should pay attention to the words of Vaclav Havel. “He who fears facing his own past must necessarily fear what lies before him,” said Havel. “Lying can never save us from the lie. Falsifiers of History do not safeguard freedom, but imperil it.” Havel has read “1984,” King Abdullah hasn’t, and if he has, he has learned nothing from it. There is a difference between Spanky and Alfalfa telling their teacher Spuds MacKenzie ate their homework and what King Abdullah said at Madrid. There are lies, damned lies and Islam.


The charges lodged against the Christians arrested in the April 25 sweep were reduced to holding a dance party and collecting money for terrorism. By then the guilty parties had already signed confessions. So what if they were written in Arabic—a language none of them could read or write—they had signed of their own free will, hadn’t they? They were released within three days. On August 5 they were expelled. The promises Abdullah had made at Madrid were ignored or forgotten.


But don’t despair. Being expelled from a Muslim country cannot be the worst thing that can happen to a Christian in Islam’s Twilight Zone, there is death and worse yet, the ultimate ignominy—forced conversion.

Coming to a Neighborhood Near You: The Axis of Evil

Coming to a Neighborhood Near You: The Axis of Evil
By Kenneth R. Timmerman | December 8, 2006

The unsurprising victory of Venezuelan song and dance artist Hugo Chavez in his re-election bid on Sunday was warmly welcomed around the world.

Chavez friends in Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua were pleased. Castro and Daniel Ortega must think someone flipped a switch and they’re back in the early 1980s – only this time, there’s no President Reagan and no Contras.

 The Iranian Foreign ministry welcomed the Chavez victory, and didn’t even threaten to raise oil prices to $200 per barrel. That’s for next week. Al Jazeera knew the results even before the votes were cast, and showed Chavez with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran earlier this year, rigged out in orange hard hats, the best of buddies. “If the North American empire and its lackeys attempt another coup, or don’t acknowledge the electoral outcome, we will not send them one more drop of oil,” al Jazeera quoted al Jefe as saying. Oil is mainly what distinguishes Chavez from his mentor, Fidel Castro. Venezuela is the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter, and supplies the U.S. with about 11 percent of our daily oil supplies. And Chavez controls the oil. Instead of inviting the children to spend their summer holiday cutting sugar cane, as Fidel did in the 1960s, al Jefe is offering sugar plums to the poor via his wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, CITGO, which controls 6% of all U.S. refining capacity. In July, Chavez had CITGO break existing distribution agreements with 1,800 independently owned service stations in ten predominantly red states, because he reportedly wanted to break contracts “that benefit U.S. consumers more than Venezuelans.” Now he is offering to supply discounted heating oil to “the poor” in several U.S. states as a public relations ploy. Even USA Today is asking if Citgo is no longer an oil company, but a “political tool” for Chavez. The Citgo offer of discounted fuel has won support from unexpected circles. On Friday, the parent company of the conservative Washington Times will be hosting Venezeuan ambassador Hernando Alverez Herrera to a “citizens forum,” where he will expound on Chavez’s kind and generous offer to supply discounted fuel to the poor. As a daily reader of the Times (and a former senior writer for Insight Magazine, an investigative newsweekly closed by the Times last year), I was surprised to learn that Herrera would be a featured speaker at a Washington Times event. I was even more surprised when the spokesman for the Citizens Forum, Brian Bauman, told me that he was planning to allow Herrera to speak unchallenged by any panelist who would focus on Venezuela’s strategic ties to Iran, a founding member of the axis of evil .“That’s not the direction of this forum,” he said. “It’s to speak to the cost of energy in the Washington, DC area. One facet of that is the Venezuelan program.” Come hither, Little One, said the Crocodile… Venezuela under Chavez ressembles Castro’s Cuba in important ways. Just as Castro did after he seized power, Chavez has sought to expand his influence throughout the region through covert action. He bankrolled Ortega’s return to power last month, and has helped leftist leaders win power in Bolivia and elsewhere. Also like Castro, he has sought the protection of a powerful opponent of the United States, in this case the Islamic Republic of Iran. Castro was powerless to prevent Nikita Krushchev from deploying nuclear-tipped missiles to Cuba, an act that nearly provoked a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. And Kruschhev was no radical Islamic fundamentalist. He was rational to the extreme, believing in the cold calculus of power politics. Ahmadinejad has stated publicly that the goal of his government is to bring about the return of the Imam Mahdi, the 12th imam of Shiite Muslim lore who only comes out of his well after a devastating world war. Unlike Krushchev, who understood that he and his regime were doomed if nuclear missiles actually began to fly, Ahmadinejad believes that through death, he wins. It’s hard to deter such a regime. Iran does not currently have nuclear warheads – at least, so far as the CIA professes to know. But they do have missiles which, if deployed in Venezuela, would be capable of hitting the United States. But it goes against the pattern of Iranian regime behavior to act so overtly against the United States. Tehran’s mullahs prefer acting by indirection, through proxies, just as they are murdering Americans today in Iraq through proxies. Suppose for a moment that Iran has acquired a nuclear weapon – either on the black market, as many sources believe; or through a clandestine uranium enrichment program, which the CIA discounts (because they have no spies in Iran who might detect such a program). Iran could send a heavily-shielded nuclear warhead to Venezuela, where it would be fitted to a short-range missile and stowed on board a U.S.-bound cargo ship. That cargo ship would not be owned by Iranians or by Venezuelans, but perhaps by some Qatari millionaire through a front company in the British Virgin Islands. The deadly ship would then depart Venezuela carrying perfectly legitimate, declared cargo for the port of Newark, New Jersey. Perhaps the ship might not even be bound for the United States at all, but for Halifax, Nova Scotia, further up the Atlantic seaboard. Either way, the likelihood it would be inspected on the high seas are very low. Steaming along in commercial shipping lanes one hundred miles off the coast of Washington, DC, the ship’s international crew brings the missile launcher up from the hold and prepares it for launch. Under the cover of darkness, they fire their weapon, then stow the launcher and continue on their way. Two minutes later, Washington, DC is hit with a fireball that obliterates the White House, the Capitol Building, and the national monuments in seconds. And no signature links this act of war back to Iran. This, of course, is just fiction. But the technology is known and available. Iran has been testing sea-launched ballistic missiles since 1998. Well before any kind of military strike on America, both Iran and Venezuela are working to get America to surrender, by first admitting our helplessness. That is why Chavez is offering discounted oil through Citgo to Americans. You are poor, you are weak, and your government won’t take care of you. But we will, if only you will accept our gift. That is why Iran is trying to get the United States to accept its help in Iraq, and is working through proxies in America (since it has no legal equivalent of Citgo) to get its seductive offer across. We will stop the insurgency, Iran says, if only you will recognize the legitimacy of our regime, accept our nuclear program, and stop all efforts to support pro-democracy movements inside Iran. We can keep Americans from getting killed. “Come hither, Little One,” said the Crocodile, “and I’ll whisper.” In Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories, the Elephant’s Child is tempted by his ‘satiable curtiosity’ to seek out the Crocodile, and cannot believe the beast will actually try to eat him. As the Elephant’s Child pulls and pulls to free his nose from the Crocodile’s teeth, it grows and grows – and that is How the Elephant got its Trunk.We won’t get off so easily.

Click Here to support

Whose obsession?

Whose obsession?

I’ve just been watching the Fox News special called ‘Obsession‘, which is about the threat of ‘radical Islam.’ To tell you the truth, it was too revolting to watch all the way through, but I watched it in part, as much as I could stomach.

The thing I noticed, and which I fully expected, was that throughout, the ‘talking heads,’ the pundits, like Steve Emerson and Daniel Pipes, were very careful to use the PC construction, ‘radical Islam’ or ‘Islamists’, rather than speaking of Islam itself; the point being, of course, that it is just a ‘minority of extremists’, aka ‘Islamists’ who are the threat.

Some of the footage of the various Moslem TV programs and the rabble-rousing speeches by the mullahs and sheiks, was absolutely chilling. There was absolute cold evil in their eyes, the tone of their voices, and of course, most importantly, the words they were speaking. And it’s clear that to them, there are no ‘good Americans’, no decent infidels. They see the world in stark black and white, and they, in their twisted minds, see themselves as ‘good’ and us as ‘evil.’ They don’t trouble themselves with any niceties such as saying that ‘there is only a tiny minority of extremists’ in America who are their enemies; no, they say that America, all of it, is the cause of all evil and trouble.

This is all, of course, not news to anybody who pays attention to recent events in the world and who is semi-educated about Islam; it may, however, open the eyes of some of the more somnolent people who don’t bother themselves to keep up with world events, or who are satisfied with the PC view of the news as fed to us by the old media. I do hope that some people in that category were truly shocked by watching ‘Obsession’ and that they will realize the profound threat we are under, all of us in the West.

There has recently been quite a controversy, although seemingly a contrived one, about the administration’s use of the term ‘Islamofascists’; the quibblers say that the ‘fascist’ part of the term may be an inaccurate usage. That’s as may be, but to me, the problem with the word is, that like the made-up term ‘Islamist /Islamism’, or ‘radical Islam’, it is a way of splitting hairs. It is a way of drawing a distinction which is one of those ‘distinctions without a difference.’ All of the above terms imply that there is an aberrant or mutant form of Islam which is militant, and which preaches violence. And it’s distinguished, supposedly, from generic Islam, or ‘real’ Islam, which is that fabled ‘Religion of Peace’, which has ‘benevolence at its heart’, as Condi Rice said. This may be a convincing line of argument for those who haven’t taken a look at the Koran, or at an honest history book. Simply reading history books shows us that there were what are now termed ‘Islamofascists’ before there was such a thing denoted as ‘fascism.’ And a cursory reading of the Koran shows beyond any doubt that Islam is a violent religion, suffused with incitements to violence, saturated in the idea of killing and butchering the infidel in some instances, subjugating and enslaving him when killing is not prescribed. The Koran as well as the Hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed, are chockfull of violent and hateful rhetoric and dogma.
The fact is, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not posit the existence of a merciful God whose grace gives us a way to salvation; the only sure ‘salvation’ for a Moslem is via martyrdom, via killing infidels and martyring oneself in the process.
And the fact is, jihad is enjoined on all believers. And yes, we have been told that ‘jihad’ merely means ‘inner struggle’, but we also know that there is an Islamic practice called ‘taqiyya’, deceiving and lying to the infidel. So their explaining away the idea of jihad is not terribly convincing.

Still, the official line on Islam is that it is a mild, peaceful religion which is merely misinterpreted by a ‘tiny minority.’ Now the problem remains: how on earth do we infidels discern who is part of that dangerous ‘tiny minority’ who want to kill us, and destroy our country, and the ‘good Moslems’, the peaceful, law-abiding ones? If they present a meek and mild demeanor, does that guarantee they are benign? There have been countless incidents of Moslems who have been law-abiding people until they strap on a bomb belt and kill people, or until they hijack a plane or get into a car and mow down strangers, or get a gun and start shooting at random infidels. It’s happened. Someone, perhaps Robert Spencer, wryly coined the term ‘sudden jihadi syndrome’ for the people who, out of the blue, commit murder and mayhem, and in some cases, martyr themselves in doing so. There is no certain way to predict who among us will suddenly turn murderous in the name of ‘allah.’

As another example of the difficulty of discerning the harmless from the dangerous is the presence of some prominent Moslems who are ‘on our side.’ In the ‘Obsession’ documentary, they were represented by Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat, among others. These people are always cited as proof positive that most Moslems are decent, law-abiding people, just like us. They are held up as examples of how Moslems can be exemplary citizens, who assimilate to America or the West.
Many people who seem absolutely desperate to be PC and to appear ‘tolerant’ eagerly seize on the fact that such friendly Moslems exist, and cling to these people to convince themselves, perhaps, that Moslems are basically just like us, and that these Moslems are simply being corrupted by a few evil pied pipers like Abu Hamza, the hook-handed mullah living in the UK, and others like him.

It’s well to remember, on this subject, what the late Oriana Fallaci said:

There is not good Islam or bad Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it.”

Nevertheless, despite the evident threat of Islam, it is obviously all-important to a lot of Americans to show that they are not ‘prejudiced’ against Islam. Even the tough-talking, ex-military pundit Ralph Peters has written a few diatribes defending ‘good’ Islam and lambasting ‘Islamophobes and bigots.’ This idea that we must lean over backwards in order to be ‘fair’ and tolerant has been beaten into our heads for decades now, to the point that we have started to deny the plain evidence of our senses and of common sense itself. We force ourselves to ignore many egregious acts by Moslems and focus on the few rare exceptions, like Nonie Darwish, like Walid Shoebat, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the few others who have denounced the religion of their birth. But the fact is, they are anomalous within Islam; they are not typical, nor should we try to convince ourselves they are. To do so is dangerous self-delusion.

I will go further, and say something which no one seems willing to say: the presence of the few ‘good Moslems’ like Darwish, Shoebat, Ali, or whoever, makes us more vulnerable to the terrorists. The presence of those ‘law-abiding’ peaceful Moslems, that friendly Moslem neighbor or co-worker, enables the presence of the terrorists among us. Now, I am not saying they knowingly enable terror; not at all, but their presence does. The presence of the good, law-abiding Moslem enables us to say, ‘see, they really are just like us, and we can’t condemn them all. Maybe we can bring democracy to the Islamic world after all, and surely they can assimilate to the West. ‘ And thus we close our eyes to the threat of the Abu Hamzas or whoever else is among us fomenting terror. We pretend they don’t exist, or we turn a blind eye to them because of the benign Moslems we respect.

The terrorists surely know this; they know they can effectively hide among the law-abiding Moslems. The presence of large enclaves of Moslems in the West, made up of mostly unthreatening people, provides cover and camouflage for the bad guys. The good guys are essentially the sugar coating on the poison pill of terrorism.

Still, we focus on that sugar coating and deny the harmful ingredients inside the pill.

I am certain that during World War II, there were many decent, law-abiding Germans and Japanese people, yet I don’t think our government insisted that we ignore the threat of the Axis powers because they had good citizens in their midst. Thank goodness we didn’t have the politically correct albatross around our necks then, as we do now. The wartime propaganda was no doubt harsh and tended to caricature (or to ‘demonize’, as the leftists like to say) the enemy. Had we wrung our hands and said, ”but, but the Germans and the Japanese are mostly good, law-abiding people, and their governments have been hijacked by Nazis and ‘extremists’,” no; we recognized a mortal threat and acted on it. There is no way to declare war on just part of a population, when there is no way to distinguish who is dangerous and who is not. One has to act on the presumption that all may be dangerous. Unfair? Probably, but life is not fair. And it would have been unfair to ourselves to be so squeamish that we could not act effectively to win the war as quickly as possible.

Nowadays, we are a different people than our parents and grandparents. ‘The past is another country’, and in the new country that has taken the place of vanished America, we can’t act to protect ourselves by deporting or repatriating people. Niceness and tolerance trump survival. So we accept mass immigration from terrorist-sympathizing countries, with the implicit calculus that we will accept a certain number of terrorists for the sake of being open to the ‘majority’ of law-abiding Moslems. The same bizarre logic is at work with the illegal invasion: the government has all but said that yes, there are and will be a certain number of criminals entering: murderers, rapists, thieves, molesters — but never fear; it’s only a minority of them. The majority are ‘hard-working folks’ so we have to take a few bad apples in order to get those ‘good-hearted folks’ so beloved of our President. And if those bad apples among the Mohammedans or the Mexicans happen to kill or maim Americans, well, that’s just the luck of the draw, and what’s a few thousand lives here and there, as long as we are diverse and tolerant? And if we give up some basic freedoms and conveniences so as to protect our safety while still welcoming the threat among us, then that’s just the price we pay for this wonderful diversity.

I wonder if the title ‘Obsession’ might just as easily describe our current regime’s obsession with ‘tolerance, inclusion and diversity’? What other word describes the willingness to court death and destruction in the name of some goal, if not the word ‘obsession’? We in the West are as obsessed as the Moslems are, in our own way: our obsessive ‘niceness’ and passivity provides the perfect complement to their need to conquer and subjugate. Obsession indeed.

The ‘Obsession’ special ended with the mandatory politically correct disclaimer, spoken by E.D. Hill. I knew it was coming all along; still, I had to groan when she intoned those familiar words, something like ‘We must remember, the majority of our Muslim citizens are peaceful and law-abiding people.’

I mean, what’s up with that disclaimer? Do our elites in the media and government think so little of us that they believe we will take up torches and head towards the nearest mosque, after watching ‘Obsession’? Even though they have just succeeded in showing us just how malevolent Islam can be, we are not supposed to take it to heart. And the implicit message is: ‘yes, Islam is a scary belief system that seriously unhinges many of its followers, who become rabid killers, but don’t fret about it; there’s not a blessed thing you can do anyway. Have a nice day.
Oh, and don’t forget: celebrate diversity, because it’s our strength.’

Airliner Horror Averted In Germany

Airliner Horror Averted In Germany
By Stephen Brown | November 22, 2006

It just never ends.

Islamic terrorists’ endless fascination with explosives and Western passenger jets exhibited itself most recently last Friday in
Germany where six Arabs were arrested for plotting to blow an airliner out of the sky with a suitcase bomb. The terrorist attack was probably to occur last summer during soccer’s World Cup tournament that
Germany was hosting, most likely to ensure as big an audience as possible for the heinous crime. The targeted aircraft is believed to have been Israeli.


What makes this particular case perhaps more frightening than others involving airplanes, Islamists and bombs, however, is that none of the plotters planned to give up his own life to commit yet another aerial mass murder of infidels, but rather they enlisted the help of a worker at Frankfurt Airport who, for a price, was willing to smuggle the deadly suitcase onto the El Al plane. The French recently suspended 72 workers from Charles de Gaulle Airport near
Paris with connections to terrorist groups, about 60 of whom had ties to radical Islam.


One German newspaper report said some of the arrested cell members were Palestinians from
Jordan, while the others were from different Middle Eastern countries. Five of the six suspects were released from custody on Saturday after a hearing. Preliminary proceedings have been launched against them for membership in a terrorist organization, although German papers reported it was not yet clear whether the plotters belonged to al Qaeda or a similar terrorist outfit, or to an autonomous group. The police are also investigating other suspects in the case, who are involved the plot’s background.


Investigators stumbled onto the homicidal conspiracy during an eavesdropping operation regarding drug offenses. The scheme was still in the early planning stages; the price to load the suitcase onto the plane had still not been agreed upon between the Islamists and the airport worker, showing that murderous Muslim extremists at least respect the free market when it comes to killing their fellow human beings. Nine apartments in Mainz and Wiesbaden were also searched when the suspects were arrested and taken into custody.


This latest Islamist plot to kill hundreds of innocent people is the fifth such terrorist attack to be thwarted in
Germany in the last six years. Islamist terrorists based in
Frankfurt planned to bomb the Christmas market in
Strasbourg in 2000. In 2002 the al-Tawhid terrorist group planned to bomb a Jewish establishment in
Berlin and throw hand grenades into Jewish-owned pubs and pubs frequented by Jews in
Dusseldorf. And members of Ansar el Islam based in
Germany plotted to assassinate the then visiting Iraqi president, Iyad Allawi, in
Berlin in 2004.


But perhaps the deadliest Islamist terrorist plot in
Germany that never came to fruition occurred only last summer when suitcase bombs were placed in two commuter passenger trains that could have caused hundreds of casualties and the trains’ derailment. Only the bombs’ faulty construction prevented another Madrid or London commuter tragedy from occurring in Germany. One of the arrested suspects, a student in
Germany at the time, had the wonderful first name of Jihad, which somehow did not disturb German visa officials. Jihad, now under arrest in Lebanon, claims the publication of Denmark’s Mohammed caricatures in Germany was the reason for his willingness to commit mass murder.


And while one may question German immigration authorities’ wakefulness in Jihad’s case, others in Germany are complaining about the security situation at Frankfurt Airport, the third largest in Europe that handles about 52 million passengers a year.
Germany’s police union says security controls at the airport have worsened since privatization of the airport’s security services as this has caused a decline in the quality of security personnel. The union is calling on politicians to follow the American model and put all airport security in the country under government control.  


Ironically, this latest attempt to destroy a passenger airplane in flight comes at a time when one of the 9/11 terrorists, Mounir El Motassadeq, a member of the infamous Hamburg cell that produced suicide pilots Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah is set to appear before a court for the third time to receive a new sentence. The previous two sentences were found invalid due to trial-related problems. Motassadeq signed Atta’s will and is believed to have been involved in the logistics end of the conspiracy.  The Moroccan Islamist paid the 9/11 plotters’ rent and other bills, so they could, it is believed, live outwardly normal lives.


So at least for this Islamist murderer, this hopefully will be the end.


Click Here to support

The Deep, Deep Sleep of England

The Deep, Deep Sleep of England

A quote from Paul Goodman MP in a speech in the House of Commons, 15 November 2006

Islamism divides not on the basis of class or of race, but on the basis of religion. To this politician, it has three significant features. First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam – the house of Islam – and the dar-al-Harb – the house of war – and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict. Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma – that is, the worldwide community of Muslims. Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law. […]

Let me give a hard example of what that means […]. The Home Secretary was recently and notoriously heckled at a public meeting in Leyton by Abu Izzadeen, another convert to Islam, who was formerly known as Trevor Brooks. He said to the Home Secretary:

“How dare you come to a Muslim area?”

That was not some random insult or interruption; Mr. Izzadeen knew what he was doing. He was asserting that Muslims are in a majority in the part of Leyton in which the Home Secretary was speaking. He was therefore claiming that part of the country as part of the dar-al-Islam. He was saying, in effect, that sharia law, not British law, should run in Leyton. Mr. Izzadeen’s version of sharia law would be consistent with dispensations for Muslims from some aspects of British law, the application of a sharia criminal code, special taxes for non-Muslims, a public ban on alcohol consumption and the closure of pubs and bars, and a ban on conversions from Islam to other faiths.
We can, of course, choose to dismiss Mr. Izzadeen as an isolated fanatic, but such a view may be unwise. There is polling evidence to suggest that his views tap into a reservoir of sympathy and support. For example, an ICM poll that was commissioned last February found that four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced to parts of this country. It is important to note that that almost certainly represents a degree of support for what I would call soft sharia – in other words, for the application of some sharia law in relation to family arrangements alone. None the less, even the implementation of soft sharia would mark, I think for the first time, one group of British citizens living under a different set of laws from other British citizens. […]
The leadership of the Muslim community that I know best, in High Wycombe, is moderate and sensible. The community makes a huge contribution to the town. It is well integrated into both the main political parties and it produced the first Conservative Asian mayor in the country – Mohammed Razzaq – in the 1980s. However, it is clear that nationally, and especially among the alienated young, the moderates are not making the running; the Islamists are making the running. […]
George Orwell once wrote of the

“deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.”

On 7/7, we heard the roar of bombs in London. I sometimes worry that the deep, deep sleep that Orwell described in the 1930s is still here in relation to Islamism in sections of the Government, parts of the political and media establishment, the House and the country. This is one of the most urgent problems facing us, and if we are in that deep, deep sleep, it is time for all of us to wake up.

Not again –This is the big news of the day. Or rather, in a non-O.J., non-Hollyweird-drenched, non-trivialized world, it would be the big news of the day.

NYPD warns business owners about female jihadists evading security

NYPD warns business owners about female jihadists evading security

There will no doubt be an uproar from Muslim advocacy and civil liberties groups about “profiling,” and if Nancy Pelosi had her way, it would be much easier to take security agencies to court (civil and criminal) over such actions, and win. “Jihad’s femmes fatales,” by Robert F. Moore for the New York Daily News:

That’s not a pregnant belly – that’s a bomb.

The NYPD is warning business owners to be on the lookout for female jihadists who can hide explosives by faking pregnancy or sweet-talk their way past security officers.

“The threat posed by women is real, and it can’t be overlooked,” Rachel Weiner, an NYPD intelligence specialist, said at a security conference yesterday.

The warning was not in response to a threat against any specific targets in the city, but a general caveat for private security in light of the radicalization of women in other parts of the world.

“What this means is that we don’t have the luxury of ignoring 50% of our population in assessing whether someone is a threat,” Weiner said.

Cossor Ali, a young mother among two dozen suspects accused in a London-based plot to blow up U.S.-bound flights, intended to use her 8-month-old baby’s bottle to hide a liquid explosive, authorities said.

Counter-terrorism experts noted that 19 of the 41 Chechen militants in the 2002 siege of a Moscow theater were women, part of a group known as the “black widows.” More than 120 civilians were killed.

Experts said yesterday that female terrorists achieve martyr status among radicals. Wafa Idris, widely considered the first female Palestinian suicide bomber, killed one person and injured more than 150 in an attack in Jerusalem in 2002. She has a Palestinian summer camp named in her honor.

A growing number of female terrorists are housewives, scientists or even teens schooled in the U.S. and Europe, officials said yesterday, blurring the profile of would-be bombers.

During the NYPD Shield conference yesterday at police headquarters, cops also gave business owners tips on the general behavior of potential terrorists. The NYPD Shield is a security partnership between cops and private businesses designed to prevent terrorist attacks.

Peter Patton, an NYPD intelligence specialist, drew from an “Encyclopedia of Jihad” found at an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, saying that 80% of jihadists’ information is drawn from public sources.

They read newspapers and scour the Internet for maps and shareholder reports, he said. The other 20% of their information comes from taking panoramic photos of potential targets, casually interviewing security staff, examining surveillance equipment and traffic patterns onsite and observing product delivery schedules.

Activities also easily carried out by either gender.

Chavez leads gloating over vote

Chavez leads gloating over vote

By David R. Sands
Published November 9, 2006

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez yesterday led a global chorus of Bush administration critics gloating over the outcome of Tuesday’s midterm elections, but some foreign leaders expressed concern over what the Democratic victory will mean on issues such as global trade and the Middle East.
    Latin American populists, European leftists and Islamic fundamentalists were all quick to point to the U.S. vote as a repudiation of Mr. Bush’s aggressive, go-it-alone approach on Iraq and the global war on terror.
    The resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also sparked praise from leaders of countries from the heart of what Mr. Rumsfeld once memorably dismissed as “Old Europe.”
    The Democratic sweep ranks as “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world,” 200 members of the Socialist bloc in the European Parliament declared in a joint statement yesterday.
    Said Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema, “A cycle has ended. The cycle of pre-emptive wars, of unilateralism, ends in great failure.”
    With Mr. Bush still in charge of U.S. foreign policy for another two years, the pugnacious Mr. Chavez was one of the few world leaders to comment publicly on the elections.
    “It’s a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption” inside the Bush administration, he told reporters in Caracas. “All this fills us with optimism.”
    Informed of Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation as he was speaking, Mr. Chavez said, “Heads have started to roll. The president should resign on moral grounds, and Rumsfeld should go to jail.”
    Iran’s state-controlled television said in a commentary that U.S. voters were rejecting “Bush’s wrong strategy in the Middle East,” as well as “financial corruption in the United States.”
    Sudan, which has clashed with the United States over the humanitarian crisis in its Darfur region, is hoping for “relations of cooperation, not confrontation” with the chastened U.S. administration, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs al-Samani al-Wasiyla said.
    The celebration was not universal, with some foreign commentators worrying that the new Democrat-led Congress will be more protectionist on trade and will disappoint those hoping for a major U.S. shift on issues such as Iraq, North Korea, global warming and the International Criminal Court.
    Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, urged the United States to make a “renewed commitment” to revive faltering World Trade Organization talks for a new global trade pact.
    A spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox said the Democratic gains could soften the U.S. stand in talks on illegal immigration.
    “We hope this new makeup of Congress can be a catalyst for the U.S. government working toward a migration reform with the characteristics proposed by Mexico,” spokesman Ruben Aguilar said.
    Mr. Bush’s diminished clout also was a cause of concern for some allies.
    Japanese press commentators worried that a weakened Mr. Bush will not be able to push through major trade deals or stick to the hard line he has taken against North Korea’s nuclear-weapons programs. Analysts in India predicted Democrats may demand new concessions in the massive civilian nuclear pact Mr. Bush has championed, putting the deal in doubt.
    Alexander Pikayev of the Moscow-based think tank Scholars for Global Security noted that U.S.-Russian relations historically fared better under Republicans than Democrats.
    “As a result of the election, we expect the political struggle in the United States to toughen, and this may lead to sudden, spontaneous jumps of the American elephant in the international arena,” he told a Moscow radio interviewer yesterday.
    Foreign leaders closely aligned with Mr. Bush, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, were undercut by the U.S. vote.
    John McDonnell, a leftist member of Mr. Blair’s ruling Labor Party and a critic of the Iraq war, said the U.S. results “mean that Blair is now totally isolated in the international community.”
    •This article is based in part on wire service reports.   

Columnist in Egyptian Government Newspaper: I Am Happy at the Death of American and British Soldiers in Iraq

Columnist in Egyptian Government Newspaper: I Am Happy at the Death of American and British Soldiers in Iraq

In his October 27, 2006 column in the Egyptian government evening paper Al-Masa’, Muhammad Foda wrote that he was happy to know that American and British soldiers were being killed in Iraq.

The following are excerpts from the article:

“I Am Very Happy When I Learn That an American or British Soldier Has Been Killed”

“By my nature, I cannot stand the sight of blood spilling out of a bird or an animal, not to mention of a human. My heart does not let me watch a chicken being slaughtered or a knife being waved over a lamb’s or calf’s neck on the Festival of Sacrifice. If I see a predator on television, like a lion or a tiger, chasing after a deer, I flip to another channel so as not to see the weak prey becoming a tasty meal in the claws and teeth of this beast.

“Nonetheless, I am very happy when I learn that an American or British soldier has been killed by the resistance forces in Iraq. It is true that this soldier and his family have no choice but for him to be in Iraq, so I express my condolences to the family for [the death of] a person like ourselves. However, I am happy at the downfall of the American statesmen, and especially President Bush, his vice president Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who dragged their people into this quagmire in order to murder the Iraqi people and slaughter its children and women.

“In October 2006 alone, the Americans lost 101 soldiers in Iraq… This number is relatively large in comparison with the number of dead in past months, and this proves that the Iraqi resistance is growing stronger day by day, week by week, and month by month. Thus it is developing its methods and is focusing on occupation soldiers at their posts, in their lodgings, in their training [facilities], and in their military bases.”

“We Hope That the Resistance Forces Will Focus More on ‘Hunting’ American and British Soldiers”

“We hope that the resistance forces will focus more on ‘hunting’ American and British soldiers, and in this way will harm Bush and his people, who seem to be determined to stay in Iraq at any cost – even if over 50 soldiers are killed every hour. What matters to them is the implementation of their policy, even [if this be] over the remains of their soldiers’ corpses.

“When the American President George Bush, Jr. and his English partner Blair understand that there is a high price for their forces’ remaining in Iraq, and that Iraqi soil will be a graveyard for their invading soldiers, [only] then will [they] – this bloody man and his partner who walks in his footsteps – [understand] that they are guilty before their own countries, before they are guilty before Iraq and the Iraqi people.”

‘I only buy and sell weapons for al-Qaeda’

‘I only buy and sell weapons for al-Qaeda’

Abdullah Khadr, the most visible exponent of what has been dubbed “Canada’s Al-Qaeda family,” details his relationship with the organization. By Colin Freeze in the Globe and Mail, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Asked by the Mounties if he were part of al-Qaeda, Abdullah Khadr responded, “No, I only buy and sell weapons for al-Qaeda.”Over the course of five interviews with the RCMP last year, the 25-year-old terrorism suspect admitted that he “knows everybody” in al-Qaeda and ran guns for the organization to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But he also insisted that if any terrorist “had anything planned for Canada, I’d be the first one to stop it.”

The Crown this week released two volumes of interviews Mr. Khadr gave to the RCMP between the time he was detained in Pakistan in 2005 and was released to Canada last year. Days after he landed in Toronto, the U.S. government had him arrested and launched an extradition case against him.

Mr. Khadr, a Canadian citizen who grew up in Afghanistan, seems to have been forthcoming during long questioning sessions with police. His lawyers suggest, however, all of the testimony could be tainted by torture he said he suffered in Pakistan.

Al-Qaeda Playbook Alert.