Saturday, October 22, 2005

Zarqawi's Rise Is An Opportunity

From Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has expanded his terrorism campaign in Iraq to extremists in two dozen terror groups scattered across almost 40 countries, creating a network that rivals Osama bin Laden's.

This could be a good thing. In fact, it might be in our interest to encourage him for a little while. Then, he will get greedy, and try to overthrow Osama, which could very well lead to a war within the terror ranks.

The director of the National Counterterrorism Center considers bin Laden a strategic plotter who is deep in hiding and out of regular contact with his followers, while al-Zarqawi is involved broadly in planning of scores of brutal attacks in Iraq.

"He is very much a daily, operational threat," said Scott Redd, who is in charge of the government's counterterrorism strategy and analysis.

In figures not made public before, counterterrorism officials say that Zarqawi's network of contacts has grown dramatically since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and now includes associates in nearly 40 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe.

Those Muslim extremists are members of at least 24 groups, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to much smaller organizations in Indonesia.

This is a significant piece of information. It probably wouldn't surprise any CUANAS readers, but to those who are educated by the MSM this might come as a shock. The accepted wisdom of the MSM is that the terrorist attacks around the world are committed by "separatists," and "rebels," and are unrelated to each other.

His network remains somewhat of a puzzle. The U.S. officials say precise figures on its size are hard to come by, as are details about how his associates coordinate with the native Iraqi insurgency, largely made up of Sunnis.

One U.S. intelligence official said just 2 percent to 5 percent of attacks, generally those involving suicide bombers, can be directly blamed on al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi has 2,000 to 5,000 hard-core fighters, while the larger Iraqi insurgency easily numbers over 20,000, with over 100,000 broadly defined supporters.

The persistence of their attacks and subsequent media exposure have made al-Zarqawi the public face of al-Qaida and the broader insurgency. He has become so central to al-Qaida's operations that some evidence suggests he is providing money to bin Laden.

See, that's the kind of thing that will become a problem as time passes. Zarqawi will start to question what he is getting for his money. He will wonder instead, if Bin Laden ought to be the one paying him money.

This all sounds very threatening, but I think Zarqawi's rise could be an opportunity for America to create a fission which could lead to the eventual shattering of the various terrorist networks.

Too Amazing

Someone at the UN made changes to the report on the Hariri Assassination, taking out bits which came even closer to directly fingering Syrian President Bashar Assad. Funny thing about it is they released a version of the document with "Track Changes" enabled.


THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.

The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.

The mistaken release of the unedited report added further support to the published conclusion that Syria was behind Mr Hariri’s assassination in a bomb blast on Valentine’s Day in Beirut. The murder of Mr Hariri touched off an international outcry and hastened Syria’s departure from Lebanon in April after a 29-year pervasive military presence.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, described the report’s findings as “deeply troubling”. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: “It is an unpleasant story which the international community will take very seriously indeed.”

But the furore over the doctoring of the report threatened to overshadow its damaging findings. It raised questions about political interference by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary- General, who had promised not to make any changes in the report.

One crucial change, apparently made after the report was submitted to the UN chief, removed the name of President al-Assad’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assef al-Shawkat, and other high-ranking Syrian officials.

The final, edited version quoted a witness as saying that the plot to kill Mr Hariri was hatched by unnamed “senior Lebanese and Syrian officials”. But the undoctored version named those officials as “Maher al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamal al-Sayyed”.

The deleted names represent the inner core of the Syrian regime. Maher al-Assad, President al-Assad’s younger brother, is a lieutenant-colonel and head of the Presidential Guard. He is known for his quick tem- per and six years ago was said to have shot his brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, in the stomach during an altercation.

Don't these people know what a PDF file is?

Al-Aqsa Leader:
Jerusalem Not Built By Jews

WND interviews Sheik Kamal Hatib, vice-chairman of the Islamic Movement, the Muslim group in Israel most identified with Temple Mount militancy.

WND: Who should have sovereignty over the Temple Mount – Jews, Christians, or Muslims. Or should it be shared?

HATIB: We absolutely believe that Al Aqsa, all its different parts, all its walls, all its courts, and everything down the mosque or up it, all these fully belong to the Muslims. Only to them. No one other than the Muslims has any right over Al Aqsa, or even over any grain of its sand. We, the Muslims, insist and emphasize that the only sovereignty over Al Aqsa must be for the Muslims. We will not accept or recognize any other sovereignty, including shared control.

WND: But what about the previous Jewish Temples? Do you believe they existed? Do Jews have any historic claims to the Temple Mount whatsoever?

HATIB: We the Muslims believe that Al Aqsa was built since the time of Adam – God bless him. It was built 40 years after the construction of the Al Haram Mosque in Mecca which was built thousands of years ago. Al Aqsa was built by the angels as it is mentioned in a verse of the Quran. The mosque is mentioned in the Quran, which speaks about the raising of the prophet.

We believe that the Jewish Temples existed, but we deny they were built near Al Aqsa. When the First Temple was built by Solomon – God bless him – Al Aqsa was already built. We don't believe that a prophet like Solomon would have built the Temple at a place where a mosque existed.

WND: What you are saying contradicts reality. There is no serious scholar or archeologist in the world who argues Al Aqsa was built before the Jewish Temples. And if the Temples didn't exist on the Mount, what then do you say is the Western Wall? What do you make of all the archeological findings?

HATIB: About the Kotel (the Western Wall), we deny any relation between the Temple and the Al Aqsa Mosque. We believe that the Western Wall is part of the mosque and not the Wall of Lamentation, as the Jews say. ... The Western wall is an inseparable part of the mosque.

And all the historical and archeological facts deny any relation between the Temples and the location of Al Aqsa. We must know that Jerusalem was occupied and that people left many things, coins and other things everywhere. This does not mean in any way that there is a link between the people who left these things and the place where these things were left.

WND: You have been calling repeatedly for Muslims to protect Al Aqsa from Jewish attack. Which Jews exactly are trying to attack Al Aqsa?

HATIB: We believe the danger over Al Aqsa existed and continues. As long as Jewish groups have ambitions to reconstruct their Temple at the same place of Al Aqsa, the danger of an attack will still exist. Some of these Jewish extremist groups even believe the years between 2005-2007 is the period in which the Temple must be built, and not building it by then means the Lord's anger will be directed towards them, as they argue. Therefore, this is a very sensitive period and we call in a very loud voice to all who are concerned that the mosque is a redline for us, and any harm caused to it will bring a great catastrophe and a great disaster. The Israelis and the Jewish people will have to face one and a half billion Muslims from all over the world.

WND: It seems you and the Islamic Movement are using Al Aqsa as a political tool to incite Muslims against Israel.

HATIB: Our relation with Al Aqsa is not a political question. Far from that, it is a question of religion and faith. We have the honor to fill this role in favor of Al Aqsa. If the Israelis thought that the Arabs in Israel would not have strong relations and feelings towards Al Aqsa, then they were mistaken. This mosque will always be part of our faith. Our demand from the Israelis and the world is not to desecrate it.

WND: What if a Jew did attack the mosque?

HATIB: We suggest to the Jews and Israelis not to be dazzled from the weakness of our nation at this period. [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's provocative visit five years ago caused an intifada for the last five years and caused the killing of more than 4,000 Palestinians and more than 1,300 Israelis. Therefore we say that any attack against Al Aqsa means the deluge.

WND: You were talking about Al Aqsa being mentioned in the Quran. But I understand it is never directly mentioned. And the city of Jerusalem is not mentioned once. Commentators later concluded a verse about Muhammad descending to the furthest mosque referred to Al Aqsa. Meanwhile, Jerusalem is mentioned thousands of times throughout the Torah. Half the Torah is about Temple worship. Explain why you feel the Mount is not holy to Jews?

HATIB: The fact that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Torah does not in any way mean that the city was populated or built by the Jews. Everyone knows that when the prophet Abraham came from Arik in 1850 before Christ he was given by the Arab King Melchizedek the land where he and his wife lived in Hebron, and it was 600 years before Moses' message, which also proves that Abraham was not a Jew.

And your saying that our faith is based on this interpretation of the verse [about Al Aqsa] is a totally wrong analysis. The Al Aqsa of the Quran is the same Al Aqsa of our days, not any other mosque. That is what our Sharia says. As for what you say that Jerusalem is mentioned thousands of times in the Torah; it is not a matter of numbers and quantity. There is a very clear historical event mentioned in the Quran concerning the mosque that was built by Adam and where all our prophets prayed.

Ah, the braided logic of Islam. Who is it that twisted up the truth into such pretty little knots?

Tax, Lies, and Internet Rapes

From No Pasaran:

Larry Elder takes a dinner companion up on the casual nature of discarded lies.

«"Assume this is a pie," I said, cupping my hands in a circle. "The top 1 percent contributes what size slice -- by percentage -- of that pie?"

"Oh, I see," she said.

"Virtually nothing."


"Maybe 1 percent, maybe 2 percent."

[]since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent -- the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 -- paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues.

The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent.

The bottom half?

They paid 3.46 percent.

And then there's Noam Chomsky, the biggest critic of American Capitalism, the most quoted living author, and the "World's Top Intellectual":

« One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest one percent.

The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor — like eighty percent of the population — pay off the rich.”

But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself.

Chomsky’s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year. Can’t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches-for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about “Property Rights”; it will cost you seventy-nine cents.»

Seventy-nine cents a minute to listen to his blather? That's almost $50 an hour. That is a rape. Hope he uses some lotion, or something.

British Muslim Group Declares New Jihad On England

From Ynet:

A declaration of war on Britain and the West is continuing to be issued by British Muslims in the United Kingdom, as the pro-jihad message of Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, recently banned from Britain, is echoed by his followers who have remained behind.

Bakri, who is now based in Beirut, once headed the al-Muhajiroun group, linked to the 2003 terror attack on the Mike’s Place Bar in Tel Aviv. The suicide bomber behind that attack was a British Muslim.

Using internet sermons, recordings, videos and documents, followers of Bakri, who say they are in touch with the Lebanon-based preacher, call on British Muslims to join al-Qaeda and to carry out acts of terrorism.

Mizaan, who told listeners “that is my real name,” said: “There is the camp of Islam and the camp of Kuffar (non-Muslim). Today we still have these two camps. And today there is the camp of Islam behind Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, the emir (leader) of jihad today, and we have the camp of kuffar led by George Bush with his cross. So yes we are two distinct groups, and we should never stand with the kuffar.”

“Islam is better than everything and it will rule over the whole world, whether the kuffar likes it or not,” declared Mizaan.

“We should, all of us, glorify the terrorism. And we should incite religious hatred. Don’t worry… it’s not illegal for us to say that mujahadin (jihad fighters) on 9/11, were the magnificent 19, and it’s not illegal for us to say that Mohammad Sidique Khan (the suicide bomber who blew himself up in London) and the four on 7/7 (London attacks), that they were the fantastic four – now we can say so without any worry.”

“We will always glorify killing the kuffar in the name of Allah. To raid the kuffar in the name of Allah. Even if some women and children are caught in the raid by accident. They are part of them, it is not your fault,” said Mizaan.

“The kuffar wants to force their own homosexuality on the Muslims. The mujahadin have every right to hit back. So don’t be surprised if the mujahadin do another 7/7, and another 9/11,” he said.

A user in the room, “veiled flower,” eerily asked what a fiancé of a “mujahadin” should do if he was preparing to martyr himself. She was told by the speaker to encourage him as much as possible in order to assure herself “a place in jenna (heaven).”

Al Qaeda Wages Genocide Against Shi'ites
Arab World Snores

From Memri, via Front Page Magazine:

In an article on the liberal website, 'Omran Salman, a Bahraini journalist living in the U.S., criticizes the Sunni silence over the extermination of the Shi'ites in Iraq.
The following are excerpts:

"When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, there was not a single Arab who did not express the opinion that it was a despicable, mean [act] contrary to humanist values. They are right about this. But these people swiftly forgot their humanism and sealed their lips when the Jordanian terrorist Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi declared war against the Shi'ites in Iraq, and began to dispatch his booby-trapped soldiers to blow themselves up among children, women, and the elderly.

None of those [who denounced the Abu Ghraib scandal] uttered a word and none shed a tear for the hundreds and thousands of Iraqis being murdered and whose bodies are being mutilated.

"The first to denounce [the Abu Ghraib scandal] were the Americans themselves, who thought that the acts of some of their soldiers distorted the image of the U.S. and served as a mark of shame...

"But don't the Arabs feel an even greater sense of shame when some of them kill and massacre Iraqi citizens? Don't the rest [of the people] feel pangs of conscience when they try to come up with excuses and justifications for the murderers and criminals whom they call the 'resistance?'

How can someone outraged at the torture of or disrespect for another person be silent and ignore [Al-Zarqawi's] declaration of the [program of] extermination of millions of people because of their sectarian affiliation?

"How is one to [describe] the Arab silence [in general] and the Sunni [silence] in particular in light of the murder of Shi'ite Iraqis and their intimidation in the most despicable and base of ways?... After all, the murderers declare their positions publicly, brag about them, and consider them Jihad for the sake of Allah. [Even] if what has happened does not stir up the regular Arab citizen – who has been brainwashed, and whose will has been totally eroded – how is one to explain [this same position when it is adopted by] politicians and members of the media?"

Al-Qaeda is Waging a War of Collective Extermination Against the Shi'ites in Iraq

"The war being waged by the Al-Qaeda organization and the terrorists against the Shi'ites in Iraq is among the acts of collective extermination, which is rare in modern history. There has been no case in the past in which somebody has declared a similar war against a race or a group as a whole, except [for the case of] Nazi Germany against the Jews...

"The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq and similar [bodies] in Arab countries have issued dozens of fatwas about current political issues, but have not issued even a single fatwa declaring bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, or Al-Zarqawi to be infidels because of their killing of the Shiites.

"The entire world is witness to [the fact] that the Arabs and the Sunnis are [remaining] silent and standing idly by – and some are even welcoming – the cold-blooded murder of the Shi'ites in Iraq. They will bear this mark of shame for all eternity..."

Let's give the Sunnis credit for the fact that they are at the negotiation table helping to hammer out the Iraqi Constitution, and for the fact that they voted in the latest election. However, at the same time, all these things Omram Salman says are true.

Friday, October 21, 2005

The Battle of The Big-Boobed Burqa-Wearing Bimbo

According to the Danish Newspaper The Copenhagen Post, the editors at Jyllands Posten decided to publish cartoons, depicting Mohammed in a humorous manner, as a way to test whether religious freedom was being threatened by Islamic extremism:

The front page of Jyllands-Posten featured prominently on many of the four collages. The newspaper has been criticised by Muslims for printing the cartoons, and was forced to hire security guards after receiving hate mail and death threats over the telephone.

The newspaper asked illustrators to make the cartoons after reports that artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution. The daily's editors said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.

This has got me to thinking of possible ways in which this "War on Terror" can be clarified for people as time passes. For quite a while, here on CUANAS, I've been saying that if we don't wake up and fight, one day we will be hit with a terrorist attack so large that we will be forced to wake up. However, the editors at Jyllands-Posten have just shown us a possible way to avoid such an inevitability.

Constant and strategic agitation against the Jihadi mindset will expose the weaknesses of their philosophy. We may be fighting the first war where humor is as important a weapon as guns and bombs.

The more we shell the Jihadis with derisive humor, the more angry they will get. Eventually, their anger will spill over into public displays of idiocy, or even violence. This is exactly what is happening in response to the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons:

Daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported that the internet collages, posted in the name of an unknown organisation calling itself 'The Glory Brigades in Northern Europe', showed pictures of various tourist attractions in Denmark and stated that 'The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark - very soon you all will regret this', amongst other things. Another picture showed soldiers, armed with bombs, over a map of Denmark, with blood spattered over parts of the country.

In addition, the embassies of Muslim countries are demanding apologies:

Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten's decision to print twelve cartoons featuring Muslim prophet Mohammed has caused a stir among Muslim countries, daily newspaper Politiken reported on Thursday. A number of Muslim countries with embassies in Denmark have sent a protest to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the caricatures.

'We are hoping for understanding about Muslims' feelings about Mohammed. And we're hoping for an apology from Jyllands-Posten,' said Mascud Effendy Hutasuhut, minister counsellor at the Indonesian Embassy. In addition to Indonesia, a number of Arab states, Pakistan, Iran, and Bosnia-Herzegovina have complained about the cartoons, which they see as a hate campaign against Muslims in Denmark.

Such behavior on the part of Islamic government officials displays frightening lack of respect, or even understanding for free speech among Muslims in general. This may be the first time, since the "War on Terror" began that Islamic disrespect for free speech has been brought home so clearly to Europeans. It, apparently, is such a shock that even the Archbishop of Canterbury has been moved to make a particularly unDhimmi-like statement:

Muslims and members of other religions should get used to being mocked, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday. Lord Carey of Clifton said he passionately believed it was good for members of a religion to have their faith criticised on certain occasions.

Speaking as a member of an all-party group of peers opposing the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, Lord Carey said he wanted to live in a society where people were sensitive to the feelings of others. "But in being sensitive, what we mustn't do is create a society in which certain stories are not told," Lord Carey told a news conference.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in case you don't remember, is a fierce opponent of the war, and of George Bush.

Now, here's the thing, if the relatively minor uproar of Islamic threats and protestations, which have thus far occurred, can lead to such positive results, imagine what could be done with some seriously surreal and Dadaistic mockery.

Truth is, we already have seen what happens when we desecrate the Koran. The Jihadis turned into a pack of wild animals over that, and the Western media worked with them to create the impression that something bad had actually occurred.

But, what we can learn from that is our technique needs to be a little more creative, and a little less bludgeonly obnoxious. Actually, I think it would suffice to simply turn any mockery into an event. Send out Press Releases, invite crowds, and mock, mock, mock.

I see women in burkas carrying big veiny, caucasian-skinned sex toys. I see men with bomb belts strapped on which explode in flowers and gay pride songs. I see Korans used as coasters for bottles of Budweiser.

I'm open to suggestions.

Posted by Picasa

Thursday, October 20, 2005

"Oh, d-d-Dear, Why Do They Hate Me So?"
Muslims Who Work At Disneyland
Demand Special Prayer Rooms

The Middle East Times says Islamist influence is a growing threat to French business (From LGF):

PARIS -- The influence of radical Islamist groups is a growing threat to French business, a leading intelligence expert warned on Tuesday, citing the discovery of secret prayer-rooms at the Disneyland theme-park outside Paris.

In a report commissioned by several retail and courier companies, Eric Denece - director of the French Center for Research and Intelligence - said that the Islamists' strategy is to "take control of Muslims within the workforce" and then "challenge the rules in order to impose Islamic values.

"There are numerous instances, even if few businesses are willing to speak openly about them," Denece said in the report, which was based on interviews with police, intelligence officials and company staff. "For example, around 10 prayer-rooms have been discovered at EuroDisney," he said.

The claim was originally made in a report by the police intelligence service RG in mid-2004. Spokesman Pieter Boterman said: "We are a multicultural and non-discriminatory company with more than 100 nationalities and all the main religions represented. But we do not think the company is the place for people to express private religious convictions."

Denece also quoted the head of a freight company employing 3,000 people at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris who complained to the RG of "the presence of a small group of Muslims bent on imposing their work methods under the threat of repeated strikes".

"The growth in power of radical Islamism is a new menace, which can threaten the integrity of a business," Denece said. Supermarkets and other large stores are a prime target, according to the 30-page report.

"Hypermarkets have noted that employees who are heavily involved in proselytizing systematically seek out jobs as telephone operators, delivery-men, cashiers and security officers - positions which allow easy exchanges of information, money and goods," the report said.

Muslim women working at supermarket cash registers are also being placed under pressure to wear the headscarf, it said. According to Denece, the primary threat of Islamism to business is "sectarian", because it can undermine the loyalty of employees and destroy morale.

It should therefore be "treated in the same way as the threat from scientology and other sects", he advised. But he also said that there are increasing instances of patent illegality - including theft, embezzlement and the supply of inside information to criminal gangs.

"These practices have two goals: petty delinquency using Islam as a pretext and local financing of terrorism," the report said.

You know, maybe if the French just crawled under a rock and played dead, the Muslims would leave them alone.

Posted by Picasa

UN Says Syria Was Involved
In Hariri Assassination

From Associated Press:

UNITED NATIONS - A U.N. investigation concluded that high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese security officials were involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, according to a report released Thursday.

The report by chief investigator Detlev Mehlis said Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination was so complex that it would be difficult to imagine that the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services didn't know about it.

The decision to assassinate Hariri "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security official and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services," the report said.

Mehlis wrote that the two nations' intelligence services kept tabs on Hariri by wiretapping his phone constantly.

The 53-page report said that the investigation is not complete and must be continued with Lebanese judicial and security authorities in the lead.

Several lines of investigation still need to be pursued, he said. They include jamming devices in Hariri's convoy that were functioning at the time of the bombing. It appears there was interference with a telecommunication antenna at the crime scene at the time Hariri was killed in a massive car bomb, Mehlis wrote.

In Lebanon, authorities had increased security ahead of the report's findings. Many there blame Syria for the Feb. 14 assassination of Hariri, a former prime minister whose motorcade was bombed on a Beirut street, killing him and 20 others. Syria has denied involvement.

Hariri's death led to demonstrations against Syria and magnified the international pressure on Damascus to withdraw its troops, which it eventually did. The Security Council approved a probe into Hariri's assassination on April 8.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave the probe a three-month mandate when it began its work on June 16 but said it could be extended for three more months if necessary. In August, Mehlis received an extension beyond the original Sept. 15 deadline.

It is said that France and the United States will work together to close ranks against the Syrian government. Many believe this will be the end of the Assad regime. I don't buy it. Iran supports Assad. I think it will take war to get him out.

The next few months should be interesting.

Will Denmark Become An Islamic Country?

You've got to admire the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They wanted to test the waters and see if religious freedom was really being impeded by the Islamic extremists in their midst, so they published a bunch of cartoons about Mohammed.

Well, they've got their answer:

Bombs exploding over pictures of Danish daily Jyllands-Posten and blood flowing over the national flag and a map of Denmark are among the images circulating on the internet after the newspaper printed twelve cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed last month.

Daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported that the internet collages, posted in the name of an unknown organisation calling itself 'The Glory Brigades in Northern Europe', showed pictures of various tourist attractions in Denmark and stated that 'The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark - very soon you all will regret this', amongst other things.

Another picture showed soldiers, armed with bombs, over a map of Denmark, with blood spattered over parts of the country.

The front page of Jyllands-Posten featured prominently on many of the four collages. The newspaper has been criticised by Muslims for printing the cartoons, and was forced to hire security guards after receiving hate mail and death threats over the telephone.

The newspaper asked illustrators to make the cartoons after reports that artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution. The daily's editors said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.

The Glory Brigades have similarities with another internet group calling itself 'Al-Queda's Chapter in Northern Europe', which has also posted threats against Northern European countries and praised the London bombings in July.

From here, it's up to the Danish. Will they preserve Western Civilization and continue on in the face of death threats, or will they be bow to the pressure of the Islamic Jihadis? If they do, then their country has become an Islamic country.

UPDATE: Thanks to Rune for pointing out that I confused Holland and Denmark. Pretty stupid of me to be voicing my despair about Western Civilization, when I can't even keep it's various countries straight in my head.


Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The Adoption

Posted by Picasa

Statesmanship, or Musical Theater?

Jacques Chirac and Hugo Chavez met and affirmed their "common vision" and pledged to forge even deeper ties:

PARIS (AFP) - Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Jacques Chirac of France met in Paris and agreed to further develop their already close ties.

The meeting, which officials of both countries hailed, was expected to raise hackles in Washington, which is particularly at odds with the leader of oil-rich Venezuela.

During their hour-long meeting "the two presidents examined bilateral economic relations and in particular looked at issues concerning, oil, energy, infrastructure and tourism," Chirac's spokesman Jerome Bonnafont said.

"They decided to set up an organised mechanism for dialogue to further develop economic and industrial cooperation between the two countries," he added.

It was the third time the two had met this year.

French oil giant Total has a strong presence in Venezuela and could double its output from 200,000 to 400,000 barrels a day after several billion dollars were invested, Chavez said in Paris in March.

Venezuela currently produces 3.1 million barrels of oil a day. It is the world's fifth largest exporter and the only country in Latin America to be a member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel.

Half of its production goes to the US, providing 15 percent of that country's consumption.

We get 15% of our oil from Venezuela, and yet, we have all but ghettoized Hugo Chavez with our relentless foreign policy assaults on his brutal administration.

And there, in a nutshell, is the difference between the United States and France. France sucks the ass of it's enemies, while the U.S. dares to anger those who it needs.

Posted by Picasa

"Am I Anti-Muslim?"

From Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

I was recently invited to speak about Islam and terrorism to a group in the Northeast. This afternoon, however, I received a call from a leader of the group; it seems that someone (he wouldn't tell me who) had told the group that I was "anti-Muslim," and therefore should not address his organization. He asked me what I would say if I did speak to the group. I told him that in my work I exposed how jihad terrorists used core Islamic texts to justify their actions and recruit more terrorists, and it was the great challenge for those who identified themselves as peaceful or moderate Muslims to confront the elements of these texts that give rise to violence and repudiate them, not to deny that these elements exist as so many do today. Both Muslims and non-Muslims, I told him, had to confront these elements of Islam and come up with constructive ways to deal with them, or jihad violence will only continue and increase.

I was disinvited to speak to the group.

This got me thinking, however, about the larger question: am I indeed, and is the entire Jihad Watch enterprise, "anti-Muslim"? Of course the jihadists and their allies would say yes: charges like these have become an oft-used tool in the arsenal of American Muslim advocacy groups ...

A key problem here is the fuzziness of the term itself. What does it mean, in the first place, to be "anti-Muslim"? Does it mean to hate all Muslims, and wish them ill? Then I am most emphatically not anti-Muslim. But for many in the American public sphere, some of whom I have tangled with publicly but most of whom are content with behind-the-scenes backbiting (I recently received a misdirected email from a somewhat prominent writer consigning me and another author on these topics to the "fringe," and I have heard other dire stories), one can earn the "anti-Muslim" tag simply by daring to speak about the roots of Islam violence in the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic jurisprudence.

But in reality, these are matters of fact. The facts are not really "pro-" or "anti-" anything; they are just the facts. If it is anti-Muslim to speak of them, so be it; but I don't really think it is. If jihadists use the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic law to justify their violence, and I explain how they do it, I do not become anti-Muslim, any more than a scholar of the Hitler period becomes a Nazi if he writes about how the Nazis appealed to ordinary Germans. Contrary to the belief of many analysts today, it does the genuine moderate Muslims whom they profess to support no favors to gloss over or ignore these facts -- the Qur'an's statements on making war on non-Muslims, or Muhammad's words and actions confirming and expanding upon them. Instead, any sincere Muslim reformers must be encouraged to speak openly about those elements of Islam, and to reject them as having any applicability in the modern world. No reform can come when everyone is pretending that no reform is necessary. You cannot fix what you will not admit is broken.

Am I "anti-Muslim"? Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam, who signed his name "Yusuf Smith Indigo Jo)." I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? Yusuf Smith thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion.

I've been accused, by friends and family, of being anti-Muslim, so I relate to this column.

There's more to it. Go read the rest.

37% Of Turks Support Honor Killings

And the European Union wants to have Turkey as a member state?

From Dhimmi Watch:

A survey by a university in Turkey has shown almost 40% support for the practice of "honour killing".

The results come days after a court in Istanbul gave a life sentence for the murder of a girl by her brothers for giving birth to a child out of wedlock.

Turkish law, which used to be lenient on "honour crimes", was heavily revised as part of the country's preparation for EU accession proceedings.

Turkey has started talks with the EU but is not expected to join for years.

The survey was conducted in the conservative south-eastern city of Diyarbakir.

It questioned 430 people, most of them men. When asked the appropriate punishment for a woman who has committed adultery, 37% replied she should be killed.

Twenty-five percent said that she deserved divorce, and 21% that her nose or ears should be cut off.

The survey group was small but the results are a reminder that "honour killing" - a practice where women are murdered for allegedly bringing shame on their family - still has significant support in parts of Turkey.

The Islamic world continues to amaze me daily. When I read about their antics, I feel as if someone stuck me in a time machine and sent me back to the 7th century. If I were Islamic, I would be ashamed.

This is one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard. As I understand it, Turkey is considered the model of Islamic democracy. It is considered the most enlightened of Islamic countries.

I am disgusted.

Oklahoma University Suicide Bomber

Gates of Vienna has a very important post up this morning, with new information about the suicide bomber from OU.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

Al Qaeda has announced the reason for the insurgency in Iraq in a message on their website:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the terror group led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has released a new statement in which it explains the reasons for its terror campaign and states that they are not fighting the US occupation of Iraq, but to create "an Islamic state which is part of the caliphate and the Muslim territory."

The terror group then goes on to reveal its real objectives, saying: "We are not fighting to chase out the occupier or to save national unity and keep the borders outlined by the infidels intact," the statement continues. "We are fighting because it is a religious duty to do it, just as it is a duty to take the Sharia [Islamic law] to the government and create an Islamic state."

I'm telling you, you just gotta love your enemies, when they tell the truth.

Thanks, Abu Musab.

"Whatever Is Built On Something False
Is Itself False"
--- Saddam Hussein - 2005

Saddam Hussein's trial began yesterday, so we got a little glimpse into the strategy of the defense:

"When the judge asked him first to identify himself and describe his profession, he basically said that he did not recognize the jurisdiction of the court. He said, 'this was false, whatever is built on something false is itself false.'"

He said: 'I'm still the president of Iraq.'

He again, as he did back in July 2004, when he had his first hearing, he kept referring back to the Iraqi people, saying I cannot disrespect the will of the Iraqi people who made me president.

"The judge could not get his name or profession out of him, but then he, the judge read for the record, Saddam Hussein's name.

"He read his name and he said that he was the former president of Iraq, the former leader of the Revolutionary Command Council and the former head of the Iraqi armed forces.

"Saddam Hussein interrupted him several times and he said that 'no, I am the president of the Iraqi republic,' he said to the judge, 'you are saying just what you want. I did not say what you're saying,' and then he said, ' I am not a collaborator.'

"His main point of defense is that he does not recognize this tribunal. His lawyers have told us that they do not recognize it and that will be his main point of defense, that he is being tried essentially illegally.

"Nonetheless, the judge proceeded. He read out the charges against Saddam and the other seven defendants in connection with the massacre after an attempted ambush on his motorcade in Dujail in 1982.

"The charges are, broadly, killing and murder, forced expulsion, the imprisonment of people as well as torture and the failure to comply with international law.

"He then read from other parts of the Iraqi legal charter and said that the death penalty would go to anyone found guilty of killing intentionally.

Did I ever tell you what my real name is, by the way? I am Napoleon.

Oh yes, and I must add, that anyone who opposed the Iraq war essentially agrees with Saddam Hussein. If you oppose the Iraq war, then the court trying Saddam has no jurisdiction, and he is still President.

You must agree with me, for I am Napoleon.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Birds fly above a sea of fog, that covers most parts of Switzerland, seen from the Saentis mountain, eastern Switzerland on Monday, Oct. 17, 2005.

The Wonder of Birds

We keep our hands above the water
We know that, someday, we will fly away
With all the wonder of birds
With all the wonder of birds

We keep our voices as guarded secrets
Wait for awhile
And we will surely sing
With all the wonder of birds
With all the wonder of birds

We make a sky where we may be
We build a home with windows to fly through
Windows to fly through
We learn to dance with broomstick partners
Grace will be oursWhen we will grow our wings

With all the wonders of birds
With all the wonders of birds

(Lyrics by Karen Perris of The Innocence Mission)

Posted by Picasa

Spermatozoa Galactinus
They Don't Call It The Milky Way For Nothin'


The idea that comets and meteorites seeded an early Earth with the tools to make life has gained momentum from recent observations of some of these building blocks floating throughout the cosmos.

Scientists scanning a galaxy 12 million light-years away with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope detected copious amounts of nitrogen containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), molecules critical to all known forms of life.

PAHs carry information for DNA and RNA and are an important component of hemoglobin, the molecule that transports oxygen through the body. They also make chlorophyll, the main molecule responsible for photosynthesis in plants, and – perhaps most importantly – they're the main ingredient in caffeine and chocolate.

"There once was a time that the assumption was that the origin of life, everything from building simple compounds up to complex life, had to happen here on Earth," said study leader Doug Hudgins of Ames Research Center. "We've discovered that some very biologically interesting molecules can be formed outside our earthly environment and delivered here."
Wherever there's a planet ...

While organic compounds have been discovered in meteorites that have landed on Earth, this is the first direct evidence for the presence of complex, important biogenic compounds in space. So far evidence suggests that PAHs are formed in the winds of dying stars and spread all over interstellar space.

"This stuff contains the building blocks of life, and now we can say they're abundant in space," Hudgins said. "And wherever there's a planet out there, we know that these things are going to be raining down on it. It did here and it does elsewhere."

I think I need a shower.

Instructing a Palestinian suicide bomber how to kill Jews. Scene from a film co-financed by German authorities.

"Paradise Now" Is Paradise To Germans

German blog Medienkritik reviews the movie Paradise Now, a putrid rumination on the life of a suicide bomber:

“Paradise Now” is the first openly anti-Semitic film I’ve seen in the German cinema. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of the numerous Germans who collaborated in its production (the film is distributed by Constantin Film/Munich). He would have praised in glowing terms the fact that the German taxpayer ponied up an essential contribution to the production costs. The materials for discussion of the film in German schools authored by a federal authority from the Central Office for Political Education (BPB) would have met with his grinning approval.

Our first posting dealt with the plot. In summary, young Palestinian men gratefully accept a command from a Palestinian terror group (my interpretation, not the film’s) to assassinate Israelis in Tel Aviv. After a few false starts one of the men carries out the assassination – a suicide attack in a bus.

The film’s action, especially the dialogs and discussions between the main characters, portrays the conflict between two positions. First position:

The Israelis are criminal occupiers who oppress the Palestinians. They must be combated with assassination and force.
Second position:

The Israelis are criminal occupiers who oppress the Palestinians. They must be combated with peace activists’ non-violent demonstrations.

The film leaves open which of the two positions is the right one. The only thing certain in the film is the guilt and malice of the Israelis, the “occupiers”. It’s not worth going into detail about the film’s striking polemics against the Israelis. No attempt is undertaken anywhere in the film to explain the Israelis’ position. Almost all of the Israelis appear in the film as soldiers - intimidating, menacing, anonymous, occasionally with sadistic impulses.

While the Palestinians, without exception in the German version, speak at length in flawless German, there’s only one place in the whole film where an Israeli speaks a sentence - German, but with an unpleasant accent.

Of all things, this one Israeli with at least a minimal script presence had to inveigh against his fellow citizens’ wealth – a character quirk from the Nazis’ anti-Semitic films with which older Germans will be quite familiar.

The film expresses no moral criticism of the Palestinian suicide attackers’ practice of murdering Israeli civilians. The only thing under dispute is whether suicide attacks actually weaken the “occupiers”. In one of the film’s most ridiculously revisionist scenes, the main character shrinks from the bomb attack

at the last moment, because there’s a little kid on the bus – as though the history of Palestinian suicide attacks weren’t synonymous with a history of murdering countless innocent women, children and other civilians. At the film’s conclusion, the screenplay replaces the suicide attack with one on a bus full of Israeli soldiers. The suicide enjoys the mitigating aura of a quasi-military action.

The material from the Central Office for Political Education accompanying this film is a scandal all it’s own. The Central Office for Political Education is a federally directed and financed institution. Matthias Küntzel writes in the Transatlantic Intelligencer regarding this material:

"With this brochure, (this) public agency is acting as a Central Office for Middle East Disinformation and Terror Acceptance. While one could give the movie itself the innocuous label of an “artwork”, the brochure falls into another category: that of a state-sponsored political and educational initiative. These materials do not call into question empathy with anti-Jewish mass-murderers, but rather expect it. Here the history of the Middle East conflict is not set straight, but rather distorted in such a way as to encourage an uncritical reception of “Paradise Now”. The brochure is politically and morally unacceptable. (…)

Instead of encouraging students to maintain a critical distance from “Paradise Now”, the BPB reproduces the movie’s anti-Zionist fury in its own “worksheet” for instructional use. In the presentation for the students, the policy of dialog and negotiation with Israel is not even mentioned as an option. Instead, Assignment 1 offers the following three statements for discussion: “Whoever fears death is already dead”, “No freedom without struggle”, and “Resistance can take many different forms”. Students are supposed to work in small groups to gather arguments that "either support or refute" these statements and to illustrate their arguments with examples. Resistance against Israel, struggle against Israel, killing yourself against Israel – just as in the movie, no other form of conflict resolution makes an appearance in this lesson plan. (…)

A critical guide to the film would not only have deciphered the anti-Semitic code words. It would also have had to draw attention to Palestinian anti-Semitism, such as comes to light in its most radical form in the Hamas Charter and the Hizbollah TV channel Al-Manar. But the concept of anti-Semitism does not appear anywhere in the entire brochure. Even Hizbollah is presented innocuously as an “organization with an anti-Zionist orientation.” (…)

Just as in the film, also in its brochure, the few critical objections that one can find against suicide attacks are tactically motivated and subordinated to the broad anti-Israeli lines of the presentation.“

For the sensitive souls of the German left, the distributor placed a quote from Bill Clinton on the film poster! But his unequivocal condemnation of terror finds no echo in the film.

One of the many scandals surrounding the film is the financial support that “Paradise Now” received from the “Nordrhein-Westfalen Film Fund” (Filmförderung Nordrhein-Westfalen). One of its members – along with public and private TV institutions – is the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, represented by the newly elected (conservative) minister president Jürgen Rüttgers. Maybe you’d like to send him an e-mail with your opinion of “Paradise Now”.

(I seriously recommend that you read the whole article of Matthias Küntzel, of which only excerpts are presented here, in the Transatlantic Intelligencer. Also worth reading, albeit in German, is the report from a public discussion with the film’s co-producers).

Two things to think about:

1) Have the Germans simply found someone else to do the dirty work of killing Jews?

2) Is the movement for Palestinian statehood simply an attempt to enact another Holocaust?

Posted by Picasa

There's Something Happening Here
And You Don't Know What It Is
Do You, Mr. Sparks?

Supernatural Blogs lets loose on one Mr. Sparks, who wrote an article claiming the only possible solution to the Middle-East Conflict is a One-State Solution:

The basis of Mr Spark’s article is that the Jewish communities that have been established in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) over the last 30 years have made the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state impossible and thus the 2 state solution is by Israel’s hand dead.

The only other alternative he concludes would be a secular democratic state with an almost equal Jewish and Arab majority between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. This is truly a ridiculous argument for the following reasons:

• Firstly, as Steve has so eloquently pointed out, Israel is committed to removing settlements as part of a final status agreement to end the conflict. Their removable nature makes them no threat to Palestinian contiguity.

• Secondly, in a final status agreement those settlements and their Jewish inhabitants could become equal citizens of a democratic Palestinian State. It seems almost supernatural to me that the whole world supports the idea of ethnically cleansing the biblical heartland of Israel (Judea and Samaria) of its Jewish inhabitants. Over a million Arabs are equal citizens of Israel, why could it not be the same for Jews in a future Palestine? It is most inconsistent of Mr Sparks to believe that Jews should be a minority in a Palestinian state from the Jordan to the Med but not in a Palestinian state east of the Green Line.

• Thirdly, Mr Sparks’ article shows a real lack of understanding of the issues in the Israeli-Arab conflict. It is a struggle between two peoples to establish a national homeland on the same piece of real estate. In all polls done on the subject the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want to live in their own states. The idea that after a century of a dead struggle to live apart they will now accept to live together is beyond naive. The South African conflict from which Mr Sparks obviously draws his ideas does not serve as a suitable comparison for the Middle East conflict. One need only compare the ANC’s freedom charter to that of the PLO. While the freedom charter calls for an inclusive multiracial democracy, the PLO charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of exclusively Arab state. (Granted the Palestinians under Arafat made undertakings to change the charter, the changes have still not been made.)

• Fourthly, Mr Sparks fails to realise that his one state solution is in fact in violation of international law. Security Council resolution 242 and 338 require Israel to return some the territory it captured in the 6 day War in a negotiated settlement. It would thus be illegal for Israel to annex the West bank and declare a secular democratic state between the Jordan and the Med.

• Fifthly, bi-nationalism is not a novel concept in the Middle East. It was tried in Lebanon. The result was not peaceful co-existence but civil war. So even empirical evidence proves Mr Spark’s idea is a mistake.

The truth is Mr sparks takes an ideological position against the notion of an ethno-religious state. While I do not support this position it is certainly a legitimate one. What is not legitimate about Mr Sparks’ article is that he levels his rejection of ethno-religious states only against Israel. Why does he not pick on the 22 ethno-Arab states? What about the Islamic republic of Iran? I cannot recall him objecting to the international sanctioned break up of the former Yugoslavia into Ethno-Religious enclaves. And I certainly do not see him calling for the reunification of the recently divided Czech Republic and Slovakia. This selective criticism of Jewish nationalism alone is what opens Mr Sparks to the claim of Anti-Semitism.

Perhaps it is his affinity for the Palestinian people that fuels his biased criticism against only Jewish nationalism. If this is the case I would then advise him to focus his attention on the political structure of another Middle Eastern country -- the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. Jordan was originally part of British mandate Palestine. It was illegally separated in contravention of the League of Nations mandate and the British governments' own Balfour Declaration and given to the Hashemite dynasty of Arabia. Today although it has a Palestinian population in excess of 60%, the minority Hashemites dominate. So if Mr Sparks really cared about the Palestinian people surely he would call for a more representative governing system in Jordan? But alas it is only Israel that is called on to commit national suicide.

The Nine Danger Signs Of Militant Islam

An organization called the United American Committee has compiled a list of the Nine Warning Signs of Militant Islam:

To help facilitate solutions in confronting the Islamic extremist threat, the United American Committee releases the Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam. A guide to help discern signs of extremism among members of the Islamic faith.

LOS ANGELES - In a move to battle Islamic extremism, the United American Committee today released a list of the Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam. Written with assistance from members of the Islamic faith, the list, primarily addressed to the Muslim community, gives signs that can be used to discern whether any given Muslim spokesman may be a sympathizer with Islamic militancy.

Blatant signs of extremism include "Supporting or refusing to condemn Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorists or terrorist organizations by name." or "Justification of any Islamic Terrorism, Palestinian or otherwise." Other danger signs listed reflect disorderly subversive acts such as a "Refusal to cooperate with or inciting others not to cooperate with authorities or standard security procedures."

Dave Holly, a UAC spokesperson, gives the following rationale for the list: "Peace-loving Muslims everywhere would agree on the need to be alert for any incitement to hate, violence, religious intolerance, or the use of outright lying. Those who do not hold extremist views should have no problem with helping to distribute fliers of the Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam."

Requests for comment were not immediately returned from the leading American Islamic organization CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. However, all communication with CAIR regarding the signs has indicated their objection to it for unknown reasons.

"We don't know why anyone would object to these signs. Each sign is a logical indication of extremist behavior," remarks Jesse Petrilla, Founder & Chairman of the United American Committee, the primary organization responsible for drafting the nine signs.

"We've even included input from American Muslims while writing the list of danger signs," says Petrilla.

A large fear of more moderate Muslims is reflected by the danger sign of "Branding progressive Muslims or Muslims of different opinions as apostates." as was suggested by one Muslim-American contributor to the Nine Signs.

All Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam are available on the United American Committee's website at

About the United American Committee:

A U.S.-based organization, UAC is regarded as a growing political movement and has expanded exponentially. The UAC platform states a goal of the unity of all Americans against the threats of Islamic extremism.

Another UAC goal is ensuring a secure future for America. Partnered with such well-read names in security issues related to the War on Terror as author Robert Spencer of JihadWatch, Christopher Holton,VP of the Center for Security Policy, and Front Page Magazine contributing editor Lee Kaplan, just to name a few, UAC is moving forward with a strong legislative agenda. The UAC is composed of many patriotic American volunteers who are committed to our nation’s future.



1. Justification of any Islamic Terrorism, Palestinian or otherwise

2. Supporting or refusing to condemn Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorists or terrorist organizations by name

3. Promoting jihad for Muslims to fight against what they determine is "injustice" or "aggression"

4. Demands for Sharia law in the West, or denying that Sharia forbids equal rights for women and members of religions other than Islam

5. Demanding that Americans accommodate the public expression of Islamic laws, customs, and practices that conflict with, or are harmful to American laws, customs, and practices

6. Denying that Muslims were involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and other attacks around the world

7. Refusal to cooperate with or inciting others not to cooperate with authorities or standard security procedures

8. Branding progressive Muslims or Muslims of different opinions as apostates.

9. Refusal to interact, converse, or socialize with non-Muslims

Say It Loud
I'm An Infidel And I'm Proud!

Atlas Shrugs posts a portion of a column today from one Mark Shields, who seems to think George Bush has invented this nifty little piece of strategery called "Islamo-fascism":

In what the White House promoted as "a major speech," President George W. Bush compared the struggle against terrorism to the Cold War, "Islamo-fascism" to communism and the fugitive cave-dweller Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler.

Compare that with the understanding Salim Mansur brings to his column for the Toronto Sun:

In Bali the infidels are Hindus; in Iraq the infidels are Shiites and misguided Kurds; for Palestinians, the infidels are Jews. Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and Hindu Indians are all infidels who are present inside, or inhabit the bordering lands of Muslims, particularly the Middle East. As enemies of radical Islamists, they are to be terrorized indiscriminately, as was the objective of the London bombers this past July, with the aim that they will be compelled to withdraw from lands considered Islamic.

The internal war within the Muslim world, which is as old as Islam itself, went savagely global in the final decades of the last century. On 9/11 this internal conflict among Muslims erupted inside the United States, awakening America to the international menace of radical Islam in much the same way as Japanese militarism did 60 years earlier at Pearl Harbor.

But there are legions of Americans and Europeans, with supporters elsewhere in other continents, who are wilfully blind and deaf to the reality of radical Islam that Bush has sought to make plain in his public remarks. (Pastorius note: We know who he's talking about.)

They continue to insist that the violence of Muslim terrorists, despite being despicable, must yet be explained by reference to some “root causes” linked with the history of Western colonial imperialism.

Hence, these “useful idiots” (in Lenin’s memorable phrase) give pause to the vast majority of Muslims — in particular those in North America and Europe — whose silence in the face of evil feeds the bloodlust of Muslim terrorists.

My name is Pastorius, and I am an infidel.

Pax UN (Americana)

Peace is breaking out all over, and the UN is taking credit.

Let's not forget, though, that some of the major accomplishments which have led to this unprecedented peace are,

1) the fall of the Soviet Union (whose idea was that, again?)

2) the destruction of the Taliban, and the return of the Afghani refugees,

3) the establishment of a burgeoning Democracy in Iraq,

I think the UN deserves some of the credit. Who can deny that the UN does what it is intended to do; negotiate.

Like my man, Vito Corleone, says,

"You can get far with kind words, but you can get much further with kind words, and a gun."

Who holds the gun?

Monday, October 17, 2005

"Oh, d-d-Dear, Why Do They Hate Me So?"
Because You Made Toilets Face Mecca, Dhimmi
Brits Come To Terms With Toilet Jihad

The British have built a housing community specially designed to not offend Muslims. Yes, that's right, the toilets face away from Mecca:

Bristol: An Asian housing association in Britain has built a block of flats especially designed not to offend Muslims - the toilets do not face Makkah.

The 16 flats in the St Paul's area here have been built by Bristol-based Aashyana Housing Association, an Asian-led organisation. The toilets in the apartments have been built in such a way that they do not face southeast.

Farooq Siddique, from the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society, said he welcomed developments that took into consideration the cultural diversity of tenants.

He said: "I think it is a good thing that the flats are designed in this way. We do live in a multi-cultural society and rather than just paying lip service to that, it is important that there are policies in place that address it.

"Having toilets facing the right way is an issue that comes up, as Muslims do not like using them if they are facing in that direction."...

Bristol City Council spokeswoman Kate Hartas said:...

"With all our allocations, we apply the normal criteria.

"But where there are two households of equal priority who qualify for an Aashyana home, we would offer to the household who would most benefit from the culturally- sensitive services that Aashyana provides."

Oh, by the way, the word "Asians" means Muslims in Dhimmi-Britain. They can't bring themselves to say Muslims, for fear of offending the Muslims by singling them out.

I remember a few years ago, my wife (who is Asian, you know, like with the slanted eyes, etc.) and I were watching CNN, and a report came on from Britain about how "Asians" were rioting in the streets. I was incredulous.

"What do they mean, the Asians are rioting?" I asked. "What's going on? Did the government tighten the restrictions on Liquor Store licences, or something?"

So, we watched for a few minutes before we figured out that, by "Asian," they meant Muslims.

Now honestly, it didn't surprise me that Muslims were rioting - although, they've never rioted in America - because, as I have said, I have relatives in England, and I hear about the problems.

To hear my relatives tell it (and remember, my relatives are abjectly against "Bushitler's War on Islam"), the Muslims in Britain want to live by their own rules, not by the Queen's rules.

Well, imagine that. Who woulda thunk it, right?

Posted by Picasa

Is Worldwide Jihad All There Is To Islam?

The Pedestrian Infidel has a very important post up today about how Muslims in Indonesia are attempting to systematically wipe out all Christian worship within their country:

They are praying. They have gathered for spiritual purposes in a private house. Then all of a sudden they are attacked by Muslims. These Islamic zealots are armed. They break through the door into the room where prayers are being offered heavenward.

They not only threaten the Catholics. They also say they are going to set fire to the house. If petitions continue toward God, the home will be burnt out cinders in short order.

This is all in keeping with the Koran dictates from Allah that non-Muslims be annihilated. Only Islamics must remain alive in order to set up Islam as world rule. It is what their deity has demanded since the killing cult began. The paragraphs in the Koran are numerous. They are bloody. They detail how to torture and kill Christians and Jews in particular.

The Indonesian armed males state that they are members of the Islamic Defender Front. In other words, they are not working at random. They are a part of a network to kill. They are programmed. They have a prescribed agenda. They know what their final goal is.

According to AsiaNews, "The attack took place on 11 October in a private house. Armed men broke in and threatened to burn the place down if the prayer went ahead. Fears are rising about further violence against Indonesian believers."

Islamics entering the home, then ordered the persons involved in a spiritual exercise to halt such petitions immediately. If prayers continued, fires would be lighted. They particularly targeted the spiritual leader of the group. He had to put his name to a declaration stating that such prayers would never be held again in that house or anywhere in that area.

Why is it that Islamic mosque clerics worldwide don’t castigate the Indonesian attackers?

Why doesn’t the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) post discipline measures on its site and satellite offices throughout the United States?

Why don’t CAIR representatives send out news releases declaring their opposition to such threats as those in Indonesia? Why don’t CAIR leaders go to media microphones to speak out against their devotees who slaughter?

Why don’t Muslim national leaders in other countries go to the global press stating their abhorrence of such activists in their own killing cult?

Go read the rest over at Pedestrian Infidel.

These questions need to asked and answered. We're coming to the point where if Muslims do not begin to stand up and take serious measures to put a stop to this killing - this worldwide Jihad, which is being waged in the name of their religion - then the masses of non-Muslims will start to believe that this Jihad is, indeed, the Muslim religion itself.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Is Ibrahim Hooper Starting To Sweat?

Is CAIR's facada of wanting to promote positive "American-Islamic Relations" beginning to crumble? Bill Petersen at Faith Freedom International thinks so:

For anyone that had the misfortune of witnessing the Tucker Carlson “interview” with CAIR mouthpiece Ibrahim Hooper on MSNBC Tuesday night, several things were readily apparent. To the uninformed, naïve middle-American, it should now be obvious not to expect any mercy from the proponents of the “most merciful Allah”. But to those of us burdened with greater insight into the Islamic hate machine, this exposition served as yet another reminder that CAIR’s vision of “American-Islamic Relations” amounts to nothing more than unconditional dhimmitude here in the USA.

The CAIR-free days of years past are indeed a distant memory.

Carlson’s brief segment dealt with CAIR’s recent uproar over a recent Boeing print ad featuring their Osprey aircraft “attacking” a fictitious mosque. Pathetically, Boeing has apologized and retracted the ad in response to the deafening Muslim whining. Hooper’s unbridled arrogance in suggesting that Boeing must now investigate and find introspection regarding its motives had Carlson’s (and my) blood well beyond the boiling point.

Over and over again, Carlson demanded that Hooper answer one simple question: What is the bigger crime, Boeing’s ad or the fact that Muslim insurgents are using mosques as military strongholds? Yet time after time, Hooper dodged, weaved and denied that any such practice exists, even in the face of hard evidence delivered by the increasingly agitated host.

Class, you have just completed a crash course in “Islamic Deceit and Arrogance 101” delivered to your television in a bite-sized 5-minute package.

From the moment he opened his mouth, Hooper’s “likeability factor” plummeted to somewhere between that of Adolf Hitler and Howard Dean. It seems as if CAIR is actually trying to wake the sleeping giant of American wrath towards Islam by repeatedly poking it with sharp sticks. Let’s sit back and watch CAIR continue their ongoing string of public relations blunders - it can’t be too long before that bad boy finally wakes up.

As the blogosphere begins to become a news source for more and more people, and members of the media become educated in the not-so-subtleties of Islamic Jihadism, CAIR's thin veil of civility will explode into thousands of shards of anger. It is likely that we soon will see the spectre of Ibrahim Hooper shrieking with rage in front of the camera for the slight of having been asked the racist question that broke the, um, camel's back.

By the way, I am waiting for the Muslim community to reach out to the Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, and Hindus of America, and invite us down to your mosques for a good Saturday of clearing out the hate literature and hauling it down to the local recycling plant.

Should America Give Up
Control Of The Internet

... it would be a disater for the whole world.

A very important article from a blog called EU Referendum:

As my colleague has pointed out, the EU Commissar for Information Society and the Media, who has been speculating for some time whether the internet can be controlled, though, of course, she would not want to, has announced that America will be isolated if it does not hand the internet over to be run by a motley crew of tranzi regulators and tyrants of various hues.

The BBC, of course, joyously picked up the theme, thus proving that they do not understand the internet any more than the Commissar does. What if all these other countries build their own internet, smirked the Commissar? Well, what? Can Brazil really build an internet? Can Iran or China? Anyway, why bother?

It seems, however, that there is a split among the tranzis. Carl Bildt (above), former Swedish Prime Minister, former UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for the Balkans, a tranzi extraordinaire, has come out against the insane notion of handing the internet over to the UN.

In an article entitled Keep the Internet Free in yesterday’s International Herald Tribune Mr Bildt did not mince his words.

“On the one side is the United States, which wants to retain supervision of the Internet and has managed to get the reluctant support of most of the global Internet community, which sees America as the least bad of the possible ultimate guardians of the system.
On the other side is a collection of states keen on getting as much as control as possible in order to curtail the Internet's power to undermine their regimes. With the theocracy of Iran as the standard-bearer, this group brings together Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Venezuela. North Korea is probably keen to join in as well.
The European Union seems to be in the middle, wavering back and forth - and in its wavering it has recently come down with a position that has brought it enthusiastic applause from Tehran, Beijing and Havana.”

Allowing for the necessary anti-Americanism required from a man of Bildt’s standing (nothing reluctant about that support, I suspect), this is a fair analysis of the situation.

Of course, Bildt cannot hit out against the UN and tear to shreds the idea that the people who have brought us oil-for-food among other scams, should be handed something as important as the internet. He concentrates on the indubitable fact that the movers of this notion are some of the world’s worst dictators who want to exert control over the one uncontrollable form of information and communication.

Bildt shows himself properly horrified that the EU should come down on the side of the tyrants, though this does not seem out of character to those of us who have watched the shenanigans that passes for attempts to build a common foreign policy. There is only one enemy that policy acknowledges and that is the United States against whom the EU will side with China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, anyone and everyone.

This is what Bildt says about the European involvement in this debate:

“This is not where Europe should be on these issues. The Internet is vital to our future, and we Europeans should be as keen as anyone to preserve the essence of a system that has worked amazingly well. If that entails leaving some ultimate safeguard powers in the hands of the United States, that's certainly better than having theocrats or autocrats around the world getting their hands on the levers of control.
There is time for Europe to reconsider its proposal. I refuse to believe that José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, or Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, which currently holds the EU presidency, know what has been done in their name. But if the issue isn't high on their agenda, I can assure them that it is likely to be very high on Washington's agenda if things go wrong.
It's time for Blair and Barroso to take charge. Otherwise they might endanger one of the most powerful instruments of freedom and prosperity in our time.”

Luckily for the rest of us, we do not have to rely on either Mr Blair or Commission President Barroso to preserve the freedom of the internet. But if more people like Mr Bildt come out on that side, it may well be the Commission and its propaganda machine, the BBC, who will find themselves isolated.

Let Me Get This Straight
She Went To Jail
To Protect A Source She Doesn't Remember?

Apparently, Judith Miller is braver and more willing to take a stand on sheer principle than any of us realized. From Drudge:

In a notebook belonging to Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, amid notations about Iraq and nuclear weapons, appear two small words: "Valerie Flame."

Ms. Miller should have written Valerie Plame. That name is at the core of a federal grand jury investigation that has reached deep into the White House. At issue is whether Bush administration officials leaked the identity of Ms. Plame, an undercover C.I.A. operative, to reporters as part of an effort to blunt criticism of the president's justification for the war in Iraq.

Ms. Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify and reveal her confidential source, then relented. On Sept. 30, she told the grand jury that her source was I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. But she said he did not reveal Ms. Plame's name.

And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today.

(Conking myself on the head) Am I missing something here? Wasn't this whole thing about who revealed the name of Valerie Plame?

Islamic Jihad Spreads In Russia
Media Snores

The Times of London recognizes what much of Western media was unable to bring themselves to admit; that the coordinated attack in Russia last week, which left over 100 people dead, was conducted by Islamic Jihadis.

And, it is even worse than we all originally thought. Initially, it had been reported that these Jihadis were Chechens. The Chechen Jihad is old news. But, these were not Chechens:

Russia’s Islamic Revolt is Spreading

THE diehard gang of Muslim extremists responsible for last week’s attack on the southern Russian city of Nalchik consisted mainly of local militants intent on creating a strict Islamic state independent of Moscow, according to security sources in the region.

The disclosure that the gunmen were not sent from the war-torn republic of Chechnya but belonged to a group from Kabardino-Balkaria, the Russian republic of which Nalchik is the capital, will be of great concern to the Kremlin.

It provides alarming evidence that far from dying down — as claimed by President Vladimir Putin — the bloody Chechen conflict is spreading.

“Most of the militants who were killed and those caught alive are local,” said an officer with the Nalchik anti-terrorism police unit. “ The ferocity of the attacks has shocked the city.”

The onslaught, which turned the town of 280,000 into a war zone, was the most daring raid by pro-Chechen Islamic militants since last year’s Beslan school siege in which 330 hostages were killed. It came less than a month before parliamentary elections in Chechnya, hailed by Putin as evidence that the region is becoming stable.

The 24 hours of gun battles in which several police stations and other security forces buildings were attacked left at least 108 dead, including more than 60 militants. Nearly 30 others were detained.

Most of the gunmen were thought to be members of Yarmuk, a homegrown fundamentalist group that the local authorities twice claimed to have destroyed.

Composed mainly of young extremists from the region’s two main ethnic groups, the Kabardins and the Balkars, Yarmuk has close ties with Shamil Basayev, Russia’s most wanted terrorist, who was behind the Beslan attack and appears to be extending his influence in an attempt to open up a new front in his war with Moscow.

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn has some thoughts on our multiculturalist media's inability to deal with the implications of the Islamic Jihad:

I underestimated multiculturalism. After 9/11, I assumed the internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition would be made plain: that a cult of “tolerance” would in the end founder against a demographic so cheerfully upfront in their intolerance.

Instead, Islamic “militants” have become the highest repository of multicultural pieties. So you’re nice about gays and Native Americans? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of the tolerant, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti- masochists.

And so Islamists who murder non-Muslims in pursuit of explicitly Islamic goals are airbrushed into vague, generic “rebel forces.” You can’t tell the players without a scorecard, and that’s just the way the Western media intend to keep it.

If you wake up one morning and switch on the TV to see the Empire State Building crumbling to dust, don’t be surprised if the announcer goes, “Insurging rebel militant forces today attacked key targets in New York. In other news, the president’s annual Ramadan banquet saw celebrities dancing into the small hours to Mullah Omar And His All-Girl Orchestra.”