Will America Survive Islamofascisim?

Will America Survive Islamofascisim?

FOLLOW THE LINKS IN THE ARTICLE THEY ARE EYE OPENING

   
Thursday, 01 April 2010
Nearly 1400 years ago, a large number of Muslim jihadists from across the scorching Arabian desert, motivated by the ideology of Islam,  indoctrinated by Muhammad, unafraid of death, conquered Iran (Persia), one of the greatest, strongest and most tolerant empires known throughout the history of man. The Bedouin Arabs who toppled the Sassanid Empire were propelled not only by a desire for conquest and to steal Persian Jewels and treasures, and also to enslave Iranian women and children, while imposing their barbaric ideology upon the entire population. With that, they almost destroyed one of the most benevolent religions of all humanity, Zoroastrianism, often called the mother of all revealed religions.
The political nature of Islam demanded that a conquered people, not only convert to Islam but also to regard its past history as a time of darkness before the light of Islam came. Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran is busy purging Pre-Islamic Persian history from children text-books. Islam required conquered people to scorn their own past and love their Islamic Arab conquerors by striving to imitate them. According to Islam, all history before Islam was an era of “darkness” and should be discarded.

The prophet of Islam
motivated his rapidly growing body of followers to rally around him by proclaiming: if they are victorious they will have the treasures of the infidels as well as their women and children as slaves to hold or sell; if the faithful kill the infidels in doing the work of Allah, further reward awaits them in paradise; and, in the unlikely event that they are killed, they find themselves in Allah’s glorious paradise for eternal life of joy and bliss. The Persians underestimated the power and dedication of this newly formed Islamic ideology of hate and vigilance by the desert dwellers. Their unorthodox attack on Persian army caused the Persian army to fall into the hands of the butchers of Islam and eventually the culture of death prevailed and the era of Islamic terrorism began.Islam once again, 1400 years later, flushed by petrodollars, is seeking world domination through worldwide Islamic terrorism. It is seeking the destruction of everything in the world that is good, and intends to replace it with the most barbaric ideology known as Sharia law. Islam sees Christian America as a formidable enemy standing in its path of world-domination. Hence, it has waged stealth jihad on Christian America.

In many surprising ways America resembles the great ancient Persian Empire. Like the ancient Persians who were the first world managers and the most tolerant empire-builders, America, by its constitution, is also the most tolerant and benevolent nation in the world.  Is America’s destiny will end up like the Persians?

Reading about the Islamic religiously mandated horrific acts and even seeing them on television or the Internet may momentarily repulse, but does not terribly concern many Americans. After all, those things still are happening on the other side of the world and away from their homes, we are safe in fortress America, so goes the thinking. Wrong!

 “Fortress America” is a delusion that even the events of 9/11and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan massacre seem to have failed to dispel. Many prefer to believe that the assault of 9/11 was an aberration, since nothing like it has happened again, and it is unlikely that anything of the sort will ever happen again, so goes the wishful thinking. The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a fortress, given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in its constitution; where Americans live by humane ethos diametrically different from those of Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer great advantage to the Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

The breach of “Fortress America” from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of many more forthcoming heinous assaults, about which we have been repeatedly warned by Muslim thugs living in caves.  Unless we abandon our way of thinking, we will suffer the consequences of a dangerous complacency. We need to stop relying on the invincibility of the law-enforcement people and willingly make the sacrifices that would protect our way of life.

I have never claimed that the reported 1.2 billion Muslims are all jihadists aiming to destroy civilization and establish Muhammad’s Ummah over all of us. I certainly know that the active jihadists are a small minority. Yet, it takes a blind eye to ignore militant minorities. Did Hitler become the Chancellor of Germany because he and his gang got the majority vote in Germany? More than 65% of Germans were not supporters of Hitler and his party and viewed the Nazis as louts and worthless. Yet, we all know what this little minority did while being ignored.

What about forest fires? You cannot ignore a little smoldering fire here, a little smoldering fire there because the rest of the forest is not on fire. Only a fool will ignore these fires, because they will eventually devour the forest.

Now, wishful thinking and being optimistic on the basis of some evidence here and some evidence there is the way some people prefer to deal with the Islamic threat. In the process, they tell us how some Muslim Turkish officers are working to combat Islamic terrorists or how some Pakistanis are also helping the West. Surely these folks don’t want to look at the horrors of this “minority” in places such as Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and every other Islamic country.

A longstanding Islamic practice is to be meek while weak and assume despotic intolerant power as it gains strength. Recent migration of Muslims to non-Islamic lands began as a seemingly harmless, even useful, trickle of cheap needed labor. Before long, greater and greater numbers of Muslims deluged the new territories and as they gained in numbers—by high birth rate as well as new arrivals—Muslims began reverting to their intolerant ways by, for instance, demanding legal status for Sharia (Islamic laws), the type of draconian laws that for the most part resemble those of man’s barbaric past.

Just a sobering note; mild Islamism is already here. As an example, there is the Muslim cab driver of the Minneapolis Airport’s refusal to ferry passengers with alcohol or even those with seeing-eye dogs, Muslim inmates demanding to be served only halal food, Kentucky Fried Chicken opens first halal restaurant in New York City, honor killing, Muslim students badgering universities for special facilities for their meetings, and, for the first time ever Muslim Congressman’s assuming the office by swearing on the Quran and not the Bible.

Islam need not even literally destroy the civilized world. All it needs is to gain enough power to impose its worse than death Sharia on everyone. If you are not up to speed with the horrors that Muslim governments and their jihadist foot-soldiers commit on a daily basis, you need to open your eyes and deal with this deadly threat of Islam with much more realism.

“Hitler knew that it would be an easy matter to transform the skilled, young glider aviators into fighter and bomber pilots. As the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad know today that once they have enough enriched uranium, have the missile tested out for their range and have other building blocks of nuclear technology in place with uranium enrichment, it would be a walkover to a nuclear weapons suite to blackmail and then destroy the civilized world,” while the rest of the world is snoozing.

Ignoring the smoldering fire and relying on a few local “firefighters” to keep the fires from spreading is either naive or outright criminal. But it is certainly the easiest thing to do. That’s why I have chosen to fight the fire and I am calling for help to put out Islam, the source that raises arsonists — the minority that they may be. It takes one arsonist to set a fire that a thousand firefighters will have difficulty putting out, right? The few Muslims who are brave enough to advocate reform of their religion are tossed out of mosques or, very likely, much worse.

When our leaders, for instance, call Islam a great religion, they are appeasing, if not lying outright. We the people elect our leaders and we hold them accountable to be honorable: using their voice to call a great religion a most deadly threat to everything we cherish as a great religion legitimizes Islamofascisim, on the one hand, and infuses the rest of us with a false belief.

In this relentless campaign, the Islamists have a vast cadre of “experts,” “talking heads,” and for-purchase politicians who keep endlessly broadcasting the false mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. This latter bunch is criminally complicit in making the populace complacent and furthering the work of the Islamists.

While President Obama glorifies Islam, the barbarians have made it inside our fortress. They have infiltrated our system of government. This time around, the people of the sword have their collaborator, Useful Idiots, inside busily doing all they can to dismantle our republic and replace it with the tyrannical Islamofascisim by appeasing our enemy.

Is the Gitmo Bar Pro-Islamist?

Is the Gitmo Bar Pro-Islamist?   [Andy McCarthy]

I appreciate Jonah’s kind words. In fairness to Stephen Jones, I didn’t know about his essay and I don’t know whether he was told I’d be writing one. It wasn’t pitched to me by the Journal as a point/counterpoint thing. They asked me to write about the issue from my perspective, and the only guidance I got was a suggestion that I address some precedents if any seemed relevant. (I thought Eric Holder’s Heller brief was highly relevant — particularly, the fact that no one came close to suggesting that the position he staked out on the Second Amendment as a private lawyer was off-limits in considering what he might do as a top policy-making official.) I imagine they did the same thing with Mr. Jones. By contrast, when I did a point/counterpoint thing for USA Today earlier this week, I was told in broad outline what themes their editorial would hit (I wasn’t shown the actual editorial) so I had a better idea what I needed to respond to.

Now, to the more important question posed in the last paragraph of Jonah’s post. Let’s put DOJ’s ten (and counting) Gitmo lawyers to the side and just talk about the volunteer Gitmo bar in general. I believe many of the attorneys who volunteered their services to al Qaeda were, in fact, pro-Qaeda or, at the very least, pro-Islamist. Not all of them, but many of them. The assistance many of them provided went disturbingly beyond any conventional notion of “legal representation.” (And let’s not forget that what Lynne Stewart called her “legal representation” of the Blind Sheikh was later found by a jury to be material support to terrorism.) I expect we’ll be hearing much more about this in the coming days.

Islamism is a much broader and more mainstream (in Islam) ideology than suggested by the surprisingly ill-informed comments Charles Krauthammer made about a week ago (see Dr. K’s commentary here; Mark Steyn’s reaction, with which I agree, is here.) Jihadist terrorists are a subset of the Islamists, but many Islamists disagree with the terrorists’ means — they are mostly on the same page as far as ends are concerned.

Personally, I don’t think there is much difference, if any, between Islam and Islamism. In that assessment, I’m not much different from Turkey’s Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who claims it is “very ugly” for Westerners to draw these distinctions between Muslims as “moderate” or “Islamist” — “It is offensive and an insult to our religion,” he says, because “there is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.”

Islamists are Muslims who would like to see sharia (Islamic law) installed. That is the necessary precondition to Islamicizing a society. It is the purpose of jihad. The terrorists are willing to force sharia’s installation by violent jihad; other Islamists have varying views about the usefulness of violence, but they also want sharia, and their jihadist methods include tactics other than violence. I reluctantly use the term “Islamist” rather than “Islam” because I believe there are hundreds of millions of Muslims (somewhere between a third to a half of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims) who do not want to live under sharia, and who want religion to be a private matter, separated from public life. It is baffling to me why these people are Muslims since, as I understand Islam, (a) sharia is a basic element, and (b) Islam rejects the separation of mosque and state. But I’m not a Muslim, so that is not for me to say. I think we have to encourage the non-sharia Muslims and give them space to try to reform their religion, so I believe it’s worth labeling the sharia seekers “Islamists” in order to sort them out. But I admit being very conflicted about it because I also concede that the Islamists have the more coherent (and scary) construction of Islam. We wouldn’t be encouraging reform if we really thought Islam was fine as is.

In any event, Islamist ideology is multi-faceted. You can be pro-Islamist, and even pro-Qaeda, without signing on to the savage Qaeda methods. And the relevant question with respect to progressive lawyers is not so much whether they are pro-Qaeda as it is whether, as between Islamists and the U.S. as it exists, they have more sympathy for the Islamists. That’s a fair question, but a very uncomfortable one to ask. Indeed, as Jonah broaches it, he softens it to whether the insinuation that the lawyers are pro-Qaeda is “counter-productive.” That’s an interesting question but a very different one from whether the insinuation is true.

In a column a few days ago, I addressed the insinuation this way:

“Al-Qaeda Seven” reminds me of another legal shorthand expression: “mob lawyer.” It’s a common expression — everyone uses it. I’d wager that a number of the DOJ’s Gitmo lawyers have either used it or been in conversations where it rolled effortlessly, and without objection, off the tongues of other prosecutors. “Mob lawyers” are lawyers who regularly represent members and associates of the mafia. It’s such a commonplace that even the mob lawyers call themselves “mob lawyers.” It’s a handle; it doesn’t mean the people who use the term don’t see the moral difference between mobsters who commit heinous crimes and the lawyers who defend them. Same with the “al-Qaeda Seven.”

Much of the commentary on this point, including from some people who usually know better, has been specious. The normally sensible Paul Mirengoff, for example, huffs, “It is entirely inappropriate to suggest that these lawyers share the values of terrorists or to dub the seven DOJ lawyers ‘The al-Qaeda Seven.’” The values of the terrorists? Which values?

Jihadists believe it is proper to massacre innocent people in order to compel the installation of sharia as a pathway to Islamicizing society. No one for a moment believes, or has suggested, that al-Qaeda’s American lawyers share that view. But jihadist terrorists, and Islamist ideology in general, also hold that the United States is the root of all evil in the world, that it is the beating heart of capitalist exploitation of society’s have-nots, and that it needs fundamental, transformative change.

This, as I argue in a book to be published this spring, is why Islam and the Left collaborate so seamlessly. They don’t agree on all the ends and means. In fact, Islamists don’t agree among themselves about means. But before they can impose their utopias, Islamists and the Left have a common enemy they need to take down: the American constitutional tradition of a society based on individual liberty, in which government is our servant, not our master. It is perfectly obvious that many progressive lawyers are drawn to the jihadist cause because of common views about the need to condemn American policies and radically alter the United States.

That doesn’t make any lawyer unfit to serve. It does, however, show us the fault line in the defining debate of our lifetime, the debate about what type of society we shall have. And that political context makes everyone’s record fair game. If lawyers choose to volunteer their services to the enemy in wartime, they are on the wrong side of that fault line, and no one should feel reluctant to say so.

Islamists Respond to Terror Cases with Denial

Islamists Respond to Terror Cases with Denial

By Sid Shahid

As homegrown terrorism grabbed headlines at the end of 2009, Islamist pressure groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American Society (MAS), and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) felt the need to look as if they were responding forcefully. However, all they offered was spin and denial of the very radicalism that they themselves have helped breed.

First we witnessed the typical smokescreen that attempts to paint Muslims as victims. For example, in a November 6 press release commenting on the Fort Hood massacre, Mahdi Bray of the MAS Freedom Foundation strongly condemned the actions of Major Nidal Hasan, but quickly segued into warnings about an anti-Muslim backlash: “Let us be cautious, however, in drawing conclusions based on the ethnicity of the perpetrator of this tragic incident. … The perpetuation of negativity in such instances often unwittingly serves as an equally unnecessary exacerbation of the atmosphere of hate, violence, and Islamophobia under which the Muslim community already exists.”
Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of CAIR, played a victim card of his own on November 15. Participating in a discussion on TV One’s “Washington Watch,” Hooper asked, “Why can’t the killer at Fort Hood just be a crazy guy? Don’t take it out on American Muslims because you’re upset about another issue.” He then claimed that CAIR had received death threats since the shooting. “Are those terrorist threats or is it only a terrorist threat if a Muslim does it?” he added.
More obfuscation followed the terror-related arrests of five Virginia Muslim men in Pakistan, as self-appointed Islamic spokesmen could not bring themselves to acknowledge fully the roots of radicalization taking place among America’s Muslims. For example, at a December 9 press conference about the detentions, Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, did grant that a “problem” exists in the Muslim community, yet he remained in complete denial about its source: political Islam (Islamism). Particularly illuminating is Awad’s statement that there are no “similarities or connection,” ideological or otherwise, between the disappearance of the jihadist Somali youths from Minneapolis and the jihadist young men from Virginia. He was succeeded at the podium by MPAC’s Haris Tarin, who did little more than pay lip service to the “problem” by calling for better Muslim community relations with law enforcement.
The Islamist stage show continued two days later. Speaking to reporters at the mosque that the young men attended, Mahdi Bray proclaimed: “We are determined not to let religious extremists exploit the vulnerability of our young children through slick propaganda on the Internet. We are sending a message loud and clear that those days are over when we don’t respond. We are going to be active, proactive.” However, Bray’s denial — or intentional avoidance — of Islamism was most evident when, according to AFP, he “acknowledged that the emotions of young Muslims were stirred by ‘injustices’ they see unfolding in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Then, on December 17, barely more than a week after admitting to a vague radicalization “problem,” CAIR opened up the victimology playbook once more with an e-mail blast excerpting, among other things, a Salon.com article from December 14 entitled “The Allegedly Growing Domestic Muslim Threat.” The piece sarcastically minimizes the danger of radical Islam to the U.S. and instead pins the blame on American foreign policy in the Middle East.
As expected, none of these so-called leaders addressed Islamism as a real and thriving movement or recognized the fuel of anti-Americanism that perpetuates it. How could they? If they did, they would have to concede their own complicity in its spread. So they dissimulate.
Without addressing political Islam, anti-radicalization efforts like the one announced by CAIR at the December 9 press conference are mere public relations ploys. Worse, declaring that problems within Muslim-majority countries are the sole result of American policies is not only factually inaccurate, but dangerous. It should be no surprise that when such unqualified anti-Americanism is fomented by Islamists with deep pockets, some community members like Nidal Hasan crack under the pressure.
The contrast between the above groups and truly moderate Muslims was especially pronounced in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. Moderates such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), were out front on the fact that Hasan’s actions had been motivated by his Islamist ideology. Jasser and other leading anti-Islamists consistently were featured on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and elsewhere, calling Hasan what he is: a radical Islamist.
Real anti-radicalization efforts from the Muslim community require a balanced perspective that integrates our faith with our American citizenship. One can debate U.S. foreign policy, human rights abuses abroad, and democracy-promotion without poisoning the minds of Muslims and creating a childish and artificial barrier that separates them from the Western world — thus forcing men like Nidal Hasan to choose between being a proud American and a proud Muslim.
Of course, CAIR, MAS, and MPAC are not likely to change. That is why the time has come for true American Muslims — along with politicians and the mainstream media — to stop promoting and legitimizing Islamist groups in the United States as “Muslim civil rights organizations.” They are anything but.
Sid Shahid is the director of research and publications for the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). He can be reached at sid@aifdemocracy.org. This article was sponsored by Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Islamic “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive

Islamic “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive

By Ted Belman (written in Oct ‘07)

On October 26, 2005, Ahmadinejad gave a speech to the “World Without Zionism” conference in Iran. The New York Times’ published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:

    Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

Iran Broadcasting on its English-language website filed a story entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map,

Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over

    “the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power”, and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as “acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.

There is an attempt in certain quarters to argue that he didn’t mean that all Jews should be killed but that Israel should be removed as a political entity. I want to focus on the latter.

It is not only Iran that takes this uncompromising stand but also Saudi Arabia, the guardian of Mecca and Medina, and all Arab countries in their orbit, do also.

Fatah’s Constitution states

    Article (12)
    Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Hamas’ Charter is a religious affirmation of the following principle

    Article Eleven
    The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have the right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations , be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.

Do not think for a moment that Saudi Arabia doesn’t agree with all these articulations. That’s why it wants to unify Fatah and Hamas. They all have the same goal. And remember, “Palestine” includes Israel.

When Ahmedinejad spoke at Columbia he said,

    “And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with? [The Balfour declaration preceded the Holocaust by 24 years.] The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn’t have any problems. [They attacked Jews throughout the 24 years.]
     

    And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don’t have any serious problems. [Yes they do.]

    But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself? [The Arabs not the Jews must take responsibility.]

    So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. [There is no such people.]

    This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. [The UN created Israel]

Essentially he is saying that the creation of Israel should be undone and that the nation of Palestine including Jews, Muslims and Christians must decide by democratic vote. Of course he includes all Palestinian refugees throughout the ME in such a referendum, knowing full well that the Arabs would outnumber the Jews and thus Palestine, which for Muslims has always included Israel, would replace Israel as the political entity.

Now, when Saudi Arabia or Muslims in general offer “peace”, we must understand what they mean. According to About.com

    Critics and observers must not forget, though, that “peace” here is inextricably intertwined with “submission” and “surrender” — specifically to the will, desires, and commands of Allah, but of course also to those who set themselves up as the transmitters, interpreters, and teachers in Islam. Peace is thus not something achieved through mutual respect, compromise, love, or anything similar. Peace is something that exists as a consequence of and in the context of submission or surrender.

This is an excellent rendition of what Islam holds forth.

Thus “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive.

Hugh Fitzgerald wrote in The “Two-State Solution” Folly based on folly

    But Bush and Rice and Company are desperate for a “victory”. And whenever a “victory” is needed, it’s Peace Process Time in the Middle East. That’s always good for all kinds of sentimentality, and exaggerated false hopes, and studied inattention to the dismal facts, including the central fact ” the unavoidable fact, the absolutely critical fact ” of Islam, and the impossibility of Arab Muslims ever, ever conceivably accepting the permanence of the Infidel (and what’s still worse, Jewish) state of Israel. Peace treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims are always Truce Treaties, to be broken at the earliest opportunity.

The Arab League has offered “normalization” only and only after Israel retreats will it be discussed. This is just a long word for “Hudna.” What’s worse, neither Israel or the US is demanding an end of conflict peace agreement.

The impetus and the financial backing for the ISM, the PSM, Apartheid Week and all the Boycott campaigns comes from Hamas which comes from the Muslim Brotherhood and they all are against the two state solution and for the destruction of Israel.

If that is not enough there are many people on the left who believe the creation of Israel was a grave mistake and that it should be undone. Recently, the University of Michigan began distribution of a book published in Britain which advocates just that.

Written by a professor of social studies at Bard College, Joel Kovel’s Overcoming Zionism advocates abolishing the State of Israel and replacing it with a single secular state with no ties to the Jewish people.

Now I ask you, why should the Arabs settle for less. Every concession by Israel brings the Arabs closer to their goal.

All of this begs the question of whether Islam is content with wiping Israel off the face of the map or whether it also intends to wipe he Jews off the face of the earth. Francisco Gil-White writes to advise

    Both the Fatah and PLO constitutions call for the extermination of the Jews. The Fatah constitution says that armed combat is a “strategy, not a tactic.” In other words, killing Jews is itself the political goal. And the PLO constitution says in Article 9 that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” By Palestine they mean Israel. In my view, you have misinterpreted the constitutions. They call for genocide. My full analysis of the PLO Charter or Covenant is here.You state that Saudi Arabia wants to unify Fatah and Hamas. The problem here seems to be a short attention span. It was in part through YOUR work, if you recall, that I was able to demonstrate conclusively that Hamas and Fatah have never been rivals, but two branches of the same movement. Saudi Arabia cannot be trying to unify something that is already a unit. You are mistaking the theater of politics for the political reality, even though you know better (this appears to happen repeatedly, the reason being, in my view, that it is just much too difficult to remember that there is a theater of politics, and you keep wanting to take it seriously — you want the world that you think you see to be real).
     

    The best guide the Iranian ruling elites intentions (and, by the way, Ahmadinejad has ZERO power, it is really the Ayatollahs who run things) is, as always, what they do. And what they do is this: they have created and financed Hezbollah, and Hezbollah means to kill every last living Jew.

THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION.

BETTER JUDEA AND SAMARIA WITHOUT PEACE THAN “PEACE” WITHOUT JUDEA AND SAMARIA.

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rated 5.0 by 3 people [?]
 

 

You might like:

  • The Gilad Shalit Dilemma is Challenging Israeli Society: the Logical vs. the Human Decision (Hebrew Online Blog)
  • Spencer and Geller are leading the fight (this site)
  • Sultan Knish Lists Pro-Hamas, Pro-CAIR Members of Congress (this site)
  • Militant “Islam” Stopped at Tours: 10 October 732 (this site)

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:38 pm |

TOP US intelligence officials believe al-Qa’ida or associated groups are “certain” to attempt a further terrorist attack on the US in the next three to six months.

Al-Qa’ida ‘poised to strike US again’

  • Brad Norington, Washington correspondent
  • From: The Australian
  • February 04, 2010 12:00AM

TOP US intelligence officials believe al-Qa’ida or associated groups are “certain” to attempt a further terrorist attack on the US in the next three to six months.

The director of US national intelligence, Dennis Blair, gave the dire warning in a Senate hearing yesterday as part of his annual threat assessment.

Questioned by senators, Mr Blair’s view was shared by other officials present, including CIA director Leon Panetta and FBI director Robert Mueller.

Although indicating no specific information about a pending attack, the intelligence chiefs singled out the evolving tactics of al-Qa’ida as the most serious threat to the US.

“My greatest concern, and what keeps me awake at night, is that al-Qa’ida and its terrorist allies and affiliates could very well attack the United States,” Mr Panetta told the Senate intelligence committee.

Related Coverage

The testimony of intelligence chiefs follows heightened anxiety about the prospect of further attacks on US soil after the failed attempt to destroy a domestic airliner on Christmas Day shortly before its arrival in Detroit.

According to Mr Blair and his colleagues, the biggest threat is unlikely to be a large-scale, highly co-ordinated attack similar to the hijacking of aircraft on September 11, 2001.

Instead they believe al-Qa’ida is adapting its methods to make them more difficult to detect.

Mr Panetta said US intelligence agencies believed al-Qa’ida was relying more on recruits with little history of involvement in terrorist organisations and giving them little training and using simpler devices.

Another increasing concern was “homegrown” extremists

acting alone, following the attack on fellow soldiers at the Texas military base in November by accused army major Nidal Malik Hasan.

“It’s the lone-wolf strategy that I think we have to pay attention to as the main threat to this country,” Mr Panetta said.

The elevated terrorist warning came as officials confirmed that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of trying to blow up the jet in Detroit, had started co-operating again with investigators. After his arrest, Abdulmutallab provided information for almost an hour to interrogators about how he had been trained by an al-Qa’ida branch based in Yemen. But he stopped talking and asked for a lawyer when he was advised of his “Miranda rights” under US law, which allow the right to remain silent and to call a lawyer.

Yesterday’s Senate hearing degenerated into a bipartisan wrangle at one point as Democrat and Republican senators argued over whether accused terrorists should be read their Miranda rights and face justice in military rather than civilian courts. It emerged yesterday that Abdulmutallab agreed to start talking again to investigators last month after authorities flew two members of his family from Nigeria to the US to speak to him.

Officials are most interested in any contact he had with Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric now in Yemen.

Mr Blair, who has previously said Abdulmutallab should have been questioned first by a special interrogation group that is not yet fully operational, changed his tune in the Senate hearing yesterday. Indicating he supported the FBI’s decision to read the suspect his rights soon after capture, he said: “The balance struck in the case was a very understandable balance. We got very good intelligence.”

He also said criminal courts or military commissions should be decided case by case.

Why Islam must be criticized–What the West Needs to Understand About Islam a must read!!!!!!

Why Islam must be criticized

What the West Needs to Understand About Islam
by Arslan Shaukat

How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!

The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn Warraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.

Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with an axe and knife, entered Westergaard’s house and tried to kill him.

This incident prompted me to write this article.

The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here.

He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It’s interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it’s not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.

This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.

First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and ‘inflammatory actions’ when it’s already given that Muslim world will react violently.

Second: What is the use of such ‘transgressions,’ i.e. what good will come out of it?

WHY ISLAM SHOULD BE CRITICIZED:

1. Firstly: Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It’s a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.

2. Secondly: A great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad’s life, are very disturbing and worrying. It’s not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:

a. Al-Quran:

This supposedly ‘holy’ book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:

– O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).

– Fight those who do not believe in Allah…nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).

-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).

The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.

b. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:

– He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).

I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.

3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So it’s nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.

I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.

WHY CRITICIZE ISLAM WHEN ISLAMISTS WILL REACT VIOLENTLY:

Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.

Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:

Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn’t it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just ‘respect’ everything than?

Secondly: It is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.

Thirdly: One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma. The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)

Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.

Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.

WHAT GOOD WILL COME OUT OF CRITICIZING ISLAM?

Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me explain.

I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a minor yet subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.

Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these ‘westernized and liberal’ Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.

One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, formerly the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to “propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law.”

Islam4UK; the caption in itself explains the agenda. The UK government recently banned the organization for its vitriolic rhetoric. This is indeed a ‘great set back’ for Anjem (pun intended). All he has to do is change the name of Islam 4 UK and come back to the forefront of Islamist propaganda machine to forward its message.

In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain).” In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was “a matter of time”; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.

England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population; that will amount to ~ 20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.

So how can we meet this challenge?

Well, one strategy to confront such people and fanatics is the strategy of Political correctness (PC) , ‘opening a constructive dialogue’, ‘better understanding of their problems’, ‘addressing underlying socio-economic issues’ that fuel such feelings.
But such a strategy of PC and appeasement is utterly flawed, short sighted and doomed to fail. I will say a few things as to why it is so:

WHY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK:

This is perhaps the most important point of this whole article:

1. What the West must realize is that Islamists and Muslim fanatics are actually practicing and pious Muslims who follow the Quran and Sunnah and Muhammad. They have not hijacked Islam. They are simply following it to the letter. The above mentioned Quranic Surahs and a few tidbits of Muhammadan life is just a glimpse as to what Islam actually says about infidels and war. Thus, the strategy of PC, a ‘constructive dialogue’ etc; which assumes that there is something wrong with such people and their interpretation of Islam; in itself is illogical and fallacious.

The problem is Islam, Quran and Muhammad. People like Anjem Chaudary are but good Muslims. Tackle Islam and through that, tackle such Islamists.

2. These Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam and Quran. Nothing the west may do to appease these Islamists will work. Absolutely and literally nothing.

3. Dialogue is possible only where there is something to discuss. The West doesn’t realize that there is absolutely nothing to discuss with Islamists and those who indulge in religious rhetoric. Such people follow Quran and Sunnah and according to those sources it is incumbent on every practicing Muslim to forward the message the Islam in what ever way and manner.

4. Also, what the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.

Although people like Anjem Chaudary are a fringe minority, to underestimate them will be disastrous. Even one good Islamic preacher and Islamist can sway, arguably, hundreds of moderate and westernized Muslims towards his/her Islamic ideology. It is an ideological war that such people are waging and they need to be taken very very seriously. The concept of tableegh or preaching Islam is central to Islamic dogma and such people have historically been very successful in swaying large number of westernized Muslims.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos. There is no other alternative. Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analyzed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.

Ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:

1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system and in true democracy; criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.

2. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.

3. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.

4. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.

Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done. Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.

If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.

Comments and feedback is welcome at: arslanshaukat706@yahoo.com

Arslan Shaukat is an ex-Muslim residing in Britain.

Posted by Robert on January 29, 2010 5:23 AM

Bin Laden wording ‘indicator’ of upcoming attack: monitor

Bin Laden wording ‘indicator’ of upcoming attack: monitor

Sun Jan 24, 1:19 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Osama bin Laden’s word choice in the latest audio message attributed to him is seen as a “possible indicator” of an upcoming attack by his Al-Qaeda network, a US monitoring group warned Sunday.

IntelCenter, a US group that monitors Islamist websites, also said that manner of the release and the content of the message showed it was “credible” that it was a new release from the Saudi extremist.

“The Osama bin Laden audio message released to Al-Jazeera on 24 January 2010 contains specific language used by bin Laden in his statements in advance of attacks,” IntelCenter said in a statement.

The group said it considered the language “a possible indicator of an upcoming attack” in the next 12 months.

“This phrase, ‘Peace be upon those who follow guidance,’ appears at the beginning and end of messages released in advance of attacks that are designed to provide warning to Al-Qaeda’s enemies that they need to change their ways or they will be attacked,” the group said.

In a statement carried by Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden praised the Nigerian man who allegedly tried to blow up a US airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas Day.

He warned the United States that, “God willing, our attacks against you will continue as long as you maintain your support to Israel.”

IntelCenter said the audio statement “appears to be exactly what it purports to be, an audio message from bin Laden.”

“The manner of release, content of message and other factors indicate it is a credible and new release from bin Laden,” it said.

The center said similar language attributed to bin Laden was made in a March 19 2008 condemnation of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed which was followed by an attack on the Danish Embassy in Islamabad on June 2, 2008.

The phrase also was used in bin Laden’s April 15, 2004 European truce offer, which was followed by Al-Qaeda attacks in London in July 2005, according to the IntelCenter, which said the 14-month lapse could be explained by the “difficulty” in actually putting an attack into operation.

Audio releases were bin Laden’s normal vehicle for statements, with video statements having been very rare since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that killed almost 3,000 people, IntelCenter said.

“Consequently, audio messages are the rule, not the exception, and thus speculation as to health or anything else merely because the message is in audio form and not video does not hold up to analytical scrutiny,” it added.

Bin Laden has a 50-million-dollar bounty on his head and has been in hiding for the past eight years. He is widely believed to be holed up along the remote mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

He last made a public statement when he was quoted on September 25 by the SITE Intelligence Group monitoring service as urging European countries to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan.