Saturday, September 23, 2006

Hell


Song by Squirrel Nut Zippers





Here are the lyrics:

In the afterlife
You could be headed for the serious strife
Now you make the scene all day
But tomorrow therell be hell to pay

People listen attentively
I mean about future calamity
I used to think the idea was obsolete
Until I heard the old man stamping his feet.

This is a place where eternally
Fire is applied to the body
Teeth are extruded and bones are ground
Then baked into cakes which are passed around.

Beauty, talent, fame, money, refinement
Top skill and brain
But all the things you try to hide
Will be revealed on the other side.

Now the d and the a and the m
And the n and the a
And the t and the i-o-n
Lose your face, lose your name
Then get fitted for a suit of flame


A Religion
Of
The Sword


One Sunday, a couple years back, my Pastor gave a sermon in which he compared Christianity and Islam. He concluded by calling Islam a "religion of the sword." When I heard him say that I thought, "Wow, that's a bit extreme." Those were in the days shortly after I began to become aware of the rise of the new anti-Semitism. At that point I still thought was more or less like any other religion, but perhaps with a few more crazies.

Today, a stellar piece of writing on the subject of Islam appears over at the Australian News today. I suggest reading
the whole thing, but will excerpt this section here dealing with Islamic scriptures which support violence:


Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam.

Abdel went on to urge people to read the Koran and Sunnah (the record of Mohammed's teaching and example) for themselves, pointing out that the Koran, Islam's equivalent of scripture, has been translated into many of the world's languages: "Those who read the Koran and the Sunnah can understand the facts."

On this at least the Archbishop of Sydney and the Saudi Grand Mufti do agree, for in an address earlier this year, Pell also urged people to read the Koran.

Accessing the facts: So what are these facts contained in the Koran and Sunnah that the Grand Mufti would have us read? As it happens, reading the Koran is not without its difficulties. There is, for a start, the thorny problem of context. The Koran gives little help with this: it does not mark off specific passages one from another and its 114 chapters (suras) are not laid out in chronological order.

The keys to unlocking the context for individual passages of the Koran can be found in the life of Mohammed, the Sunnah. The sources for the Sunnah are the traditions (hadiths), of which Sunnis recognise six canonical collections, and biographies of Mohammed (sira literature). Although the volume of this material is considerable, it is now largely available in English translation, much of it on the internet.

In addition to the inherent difficulty of the sources, many secular Westerners rely on certain crippling preconceptions. One is the often-heard mantra that "all religions are the same". Another is the claim that "anyone can justify violence from any religious text". This idea stretches back at least to Rousseau, who considered any and all forms of religion to be pernicious.

Either of these views, if firmly held, would tend to sabotage anyone's ability to investigate the Koran's distinctive take on violence.

There is another obstacle, and that is Western culture's own sense of guilt and suspicion of what it regards as Christian hypocrisy.

Any attempt to critique some of Islam's teachings is likely to be met with loud and vociferous denunciations of the church's moral failings, such as its appalling track record of anti-Semitism. And did I mention the crusades? Finally, the reality is that Muslims adhere to widely varying beliefs and practices. Most people are understandably afraid to come to their own conclusions about violent passages in the Koran, lest they find themselves demonising Muslims.

But does the Koran incite violence, and how does its message compare with the Bible?

The Koran: It is self-evident that some Koranic verses encourage violence. Consider for example a verse which implies that fighting is "good for you": "Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not." (2:216)
On the other hand, it is equally clear that there are peaceful verses as well, including the famous "no compulsion in religion" (2:256).


Resolving apparently contradictory messages presents one of the central interpretative challenges of the Koran. Muslims do not agree today on how best to address this. For this reason alone it could be regarded as unreasonable to claim that any one interpretation of the Koran is the correct one.

Nevertheless, a consensus developed very early in the history of Islam about this problem. This method relies on a theory of stages in the development of Mohammed's prophetic career. It also appeals to a doctrine known as abrogation, which states that verses revealed later can cancel out or qualify verses revealed earlier.

The classical approach to violence in the Koran was neatly summed up in an essay on jihad in the Koran by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid, former chief justice of Saudi Arabia: "So at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory: (1) against those who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) ... (2) And against all those who worship others along with Allah."

At the beginning, in Mohammed's Meccan period, when he was weaker and his followers few, passages of the Koran encouraged peaceful relations and avoidance of conflict: "Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." (16:125)

Later, after persecution and emigration to Medina in the first year of the Islamic calendar, authority was given to engage in warfare for defensive purposes only: "Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God does not love transgressors." (2:190)

As the Muslim community grew stronger and conflict with its neighbours did not abate, further revelations expanded the licence for waging war, until in Sura 9, regarded as one of the last chapters to be revealed, it is concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged more or less at any time and in any place to extend the dominance of Islam. Sura 9 distinguished idolators, who were to be fought until they converted - "When the sacred months are past, kill the idolators wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Sura 9:5) - from "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews), who were to be given a further option of surrendering and living under Islamic rule while keeping their religion: "Fight ... the People of the Book until they pay the poll tax out of hand, having been humbled." (Sura 9:29)

The resulting doctrine of war was described by the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)


Let me point you over to my sidebar where I now have a link to the Koran and Sunnah, the sacred scriptures of Islam.
If you have trouble believing anything in this article, look it up.

I highly suggest everyone read Sura 9 of the Koran at least once, and keep in mind when you do that that chapter is one of the last things Mohammed wrote. Therefore, its commandments and assertions abrogate (take precedence over) earlier passages.

That is why, while there may be many decent people who are Muslims, there is no major moderate Muslim political organization, media outlet, academic institution or government anywhere in the entire world. The more seriously one studies the Koran the more one must come to the conclusion that Mohammed's kingdom Dar al-Islam and Sharia law) must be spread and violence must be used, if the Infidel resists.


We have a big problem on our hands.

The Geneva
Conventions
Are Chilling


I love the No Pasaran blog because the writers there know how to say a lot in just a few words. Check this out:


... what the Geneva Conventions really say (instead of) what the press is alleging and selling as received wisdom.

Under them (the Geneva Conventions) the al Queda scum are un-uniformed irregulars who target civilians. They can be shot on sight under the protocols. Call them "troops" and they can be locked up for the duration of a conflict.

Still want that thar' Geneva Convention in place, pally? Or just some statute you can vainly hold up that you're convinced makes terrorists just innocent, misunderstood naïfs?


Heh.


Islam Is
As
Islam Does



A stellar essay by fellow Infidel Blogger W.C.


I’ve written before that how muslims are seen and treated in the West depends entirely upon them and if they don’t make a very public effort to distance themselves from the jihadists, there will come a day when any and all muslims will be seen as an enemy to a nation and be treated like the Japanese-Americans were treated in WWII. But this threat to their freedom hasn’t sunken in yet and they continue to blather on. First, they play the victim card over and over again, and second, they haven’t awoken to the fact they – and no one else - have the responsibility to confront those who, as Bush has deemed, hijacked their religion.

But it seems they will do neither.

A selection of news items proves out these facts. First the victim card.

Imams, academics and Arab leaders convened at a central London hotel last week for a three-day event sponsored by the International Moderation Center, a Kuwait-based research institute which attempts to promote cross-cultural understanding of Islam. The gist of the conference was this. “More needs to be done to improve tolerance of Muslim minorities across Europe”
Now think about that for a minute.


Why is it Europe’s problem – not theirs? The Islamists use very subtle language to infer that that intolerance towards muslims some how appeared for no reason at all. This ‘intolerance’ argument sounds like a petulant child who has been given everything from their host country, and they still want more. Europe had bent over backwards – to the extent that European countries like France, Germany, England, and Scandinavia are funding their own colonization.

But the Islamists demand more. Even a separate set of laws – the Sharia – for muslims as they demanded - yes demanded – in Sweden. The dhimmis in Sweden have not entirely lost its mind yet and the PM said ‘completely unacceptable”.

Then we have Iraq – yes our partners in democracy – whose Parliament speaker wondered why the West pressures the mulim world over nukes and not Israel and accuses the free democracies of continuing to put down muslims and continue their colonization. I guess the speaker didn’t read my blog entitled “Winds of War: Dealing With Liberals and 4 Year Olds” about how childish nations do not play with adult toys.

But as far as victimization goes – this one take the cake. Or maybe it’s just another example of the muslim mind’s inability to confront reality. Parvez Ahmed, the board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (our so called moderate muslim friends at CAIR), "A Sensible Way to Describe Terrorists." He ended with a thought-provoking question. "Why is Islam being unfairly singled out?" How about finding the answers here, here, here, here, Mr. Ahmed, and I can go on and on.

Let’s go on to my other point. Muslims incapacity to see the threat before them and their unwillingness to confront it.

The police and intelligence services are beginning to wake up to the treats that local mosques are posing to our security – and are taking action. It is a fact that mosques have been and are still be used for jihadist propaganda and recruiting, and command and control of terrorist operations in the Europe and America. Our police response – monitor them. And they have been successful both here and in Europe in ferreting out those who would slur the good name of Islam.

And response from the Islamic community for exposing and arresting those who would hijack their religion? A big thank you? Perhaps even supported the police in the investigation? In your dreams. The response from the muslim community was this from the New York Times. “Many Muslims believe that the use of informers set back the police's campaign to win their trust and cooperation.” And this. “Wherever police spies are found among the Muslims, they must be rooted out. There must be zero tolerance for cooperation with the oppressors.” The title of the article says it all – “US MUSLIM COMMUNITIES FINALLY CATCH ON TO POLICE SPIES”

And then this piece of ridiculous tripe. The conviction of a Pakistani immigrant on charges he plotted to blow up one of Manhattan's busiest subway stations has sparked mixed emotions within the city's Muslim community about undercover police work. The response from the muslim community?

"This is a real setback to the bridge building," said Michael Dibarro, a Jordanian immigrant who until recently worked as a clergy liaison with the New York Police Department. "We had meaningful meetings. We thought we were going somewhere with this."

Yes! YOU ARE MAKING PROGRESS! It’s called catching those who will defame the reputation of your religion and you should be screaming support for the police from the rooftops sending a signal to the jihaists among you that you will work with the police and turn them in. What is so difficult to understand? Or like any fundamentalist religion, it dims the mind to rational thought.

Imam Shaker Elsayed of Dar Alhijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., worried many Americans equate Islam with terrorism rather than peace. In many cases, Elsayed said, Islam itself "is accused of being the disease rather than the cure."

Yes, Mr. Elsayed, you are correct. Islam is the disease and, as stated here, the irrational response of the muslim community in Europe and America proves the point.

Finally there’s this. A correspondent for an Arab newspaper in Washington DC, frets about the revelations of the NSA and it’s spying on potential terrorists. It seems he feels threatened by his correspondence with his Islamic trained father in Sudan. I quote. “Words such as bomb, explosives, jihad and infidels. My father uses some of those words. But sadly, my father's words can now raise red flags in the United States. The last time I spoke to him, he said he was going to send me a long written prayer in a letter. I said that regular mail would take too long and suggested that he give it to one of his computer-literate grandchildren to e-mail to me. But now I worry: Can NSA computers tell the difference between a prayer and a terrorist plot?”


I have to admit that, on occasion, I also have trouble distinguishing between an Islamic prayer and a terrorist plot.

Does that make me a bad person?

Friday, September 22, 2006

On And On


Erykah Badu

Damn, y'all feel that?




The
Hate America
Industry


Just remember, Noam Chomsky is worth some serious bank.


From Victor Davis Hanson:


When bin Laden praised William Blum’s Rogue State, it soared to the top of Amazon’s sales charts. So too now has Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival—as soon as the semi-literate Hugo Chavez held it up at the United Nations. The Left sees it as McCarthy-like to even suggest that our own are the ideological godheads of the enemy. But it is true.

I am going through the rough draft of a new Al-Qaeda reader this morning, translated and edited by Raymond Ibrahim, soon to be released by Doubleday. What do Dr. Zawahri and bin Laden complain about from their caves in Pakistan? Why, of course, the American failure to sign Kyoto, our desecration of the environment, George Bush reading a goat story on the morning of 9/11, Halliburton, and—that critically-important concern of radical Islam— the lack of campaign finance reform in the United States. Much of their rants are simply jottings and notes taken from watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and killing time in hideouts by listening to talking heads on CNN.

This is all fine and good in a free society, but there are two concerns—other than the abject hypocrisy of these comfortable prenatal Americans kicking at their own embryo. A tenured Chomsky—who thrives in pleasant, secure surrounds, makes a living through secure air travel, and is paid by a university rich in Pentagon contracts—can rant only on the surety that what he sees in the abstract as evil and so must end won’t quite fall apart in the concrete. William Blum said he was pleased by bin Laden’s endorsement, but wouldn’t want the terrorist to call him. But why wouldn’t he, since both agree on the central evil of our times—and the need to address it?

And that’s the point: there is a hot-house plant feel to this shrillness, in which authors sell books, and filmmakers rake in profits, but their invective supposedly doesn’t really weaken the system enough to imperil them and their children. But for a terrorist to read from these American intellectuals that the United States is the greatest source of terror in the world is not to begin a “conversation,” but to embolden them even further to try ending American altogether.


Go read the whole thing.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Song To The Siren


This Mortal Coil


Grace


Song by Jeff Buckley




CFR Vice Chair:
Ahmadinejad
Is A Clear
And Present
Danger


The Vice Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations, Maurice Greenberg, came away from his meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the impression that he is a real danger to the world:



Q: Please give us your perspective of President Ahmadinejad’s much-publicized performance yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relation, where only members were invited and no televisions cameras were present. Could we start with your personal exchange with the president of Iran?

Maurice R. Greenberg: He has been quoted many times, including last evening, that the Holocaust needs to be explored as to whether or not it really occurred. And he says, “Well you know, every time somebody tries to do that, they get imprisoned.” Well, the reason some have been imprisoned is because it’s against the law in some places to deny that the Holocaust occurred.

Of course it occurred. And when he said that, I responded: “Listen, I went through Dachau during the war. To suggest it didn’t occur is simply a lie.” So he turned around and asked me how old I was, to determine if I was old enough to have been there. And then he changed the subject.

Q: So that was the extent of it?

MRG: Yes, but then there was a lot of follow up on that. He wanted to know why there was an objection to have professors and historians explore whether or not it had occurred. The fact of the matter, obviously we said, is that it’s a recognized fact that it occurred; it was 6 million Jews that perished in the Holocaust and that any single individual that denies that is not only wrong but is also trying to be revisionist of history.

Q: Was it your sense that he truly doubts whether the Holocaust occurred or was he grandstanding? He was presumably playing just to that audience because there were no television cameras there.

MRG: No, no, but there were reporters there. Look, he has said this on many occasions, not just last evening. And it’s offensive. I would say that this man, he’s not only out of touch, he’s very clever and I worry about what he’s capable of doing. And I do believe that the administration’s, and the president’s in particular, view of Iran and the danger that it presents to the world, particularly our country and Israel, is not only real, it reflects a real and present danger. I do not think that we can take lightly what he stands for and is capable of, if he came into possession of nuclear weapons.

Q: Give us more insight on the man himself. Clearly you feel that he’s dangerous, and that the administration’s characterization of him is correct. Can you elaborate? You’ve dealt with many foreign leaders, given your position in the business community. Is there anything in particular that strikes you about Ahmadinejad?

MRG: Yes: How a man like this came to power. He’s very clever. He responds in an oblique way: never directly to the question. He changes the subject. He goes on and on and raises issues. For example, regarding those in prison in Iran, including members of the press-he doesn’t answer the question. He says, “There are 3 million people in prison in the United States. What are they in prison for?” He just throws back something that he believes is improper in our country. Not on any factual basis, it’s just his method of never answering the question.

The man... I wouldn’t call him nuts. He’s not crazy. He’s crazy like a fox.

Q: So bottom line: In your view, can we do business with him or is it impossible to do so?
MRG: I think it’s almost impossible to do business with him as long as he has those views. He says: “Why should the Palestinians suffer even if there was a Holocaust? What does one have to do with the other?” I mean, they have nothing to do with each other. We don’t link them together. And we discussed that. They’re not linked.


He thinks the Palestinians should be permitted to return, that’s never going to happen. If the Palestinians returned to Israel, they’d swamp the country and there wouldn’t be an Israel. But he doesn’t want an Israel.

Q: It sounds like he didn’t make any effort to try to reach out...

MRG: No, no. There was no effort to reach out. He’s offensive. He’s smug. He’s a danger.


Citgo
Gas Stations
Are Owned
By Chavez'
Venezuelan
Government


Your local CITGO gas station is owned by Hugo Chavez.

Pass it on.

Go Ahead, Make My Day


Yesterday, Little Green Footballs ran a post on how Steven Windmueller, a former winner of the Los Angeles Commission on Human Relations Award, was giving his award back in protest against the fact that the Commission plans to honor anti-Semite Maher Hathout with the award this year.

The LGF post contained this amazing quote from the Daily News article, from Commission President Adrian Dove:


“We were looking to find anybody from the Muslim community that was discouraging terrorism, that was encouraging engagement in the dialogue and that was a potential bridge. While you may not have perfection, it is a starting point you can build upon,” Dove said.

“I challenge you to find another party in Los Angeles who is a practicing Muslim leader who would be less controversial.”


Now, I'm going to say something controversial with the hope that someone, anyone, can prove me wrong:

There is not a single moderate Muslim political organization, media outlet, academic institution, or government of any appreciable size, anywhere in the world.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. It will make my day. Because, like Adrian Dove said, I would love to find a bridge to a better relationship with Muslims. But unlike Adrian Dove, I am not willing to delude myself.

Please, please someone prove me wrong. I will say, it might rather hard to do, considering the official website of a major Islamic nation admits that Islam is spread by fear:


After God empowered Muslims to enter Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear. This was particularly evident in the tribe of Quraysh, who had responded to the Prophet Muhammad’s new message of Islam with unrelenting persecution, eventually putting its resources in the service of the ever growing new religion. The Prophet then saw it preferable to contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means. History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he wrote:

‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.



I mean, what are you going to say?

Prove me wrong. Please, please, prove me wrong.

The
Sound
Of
One Hand
Clapping


Little Green Footballs points out a very important fact:


Astoundingly (or maybe not), yesterday 35,000 people turned out to demonstrate for Israel and against Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

...and not a single mainstream media source carried the story.

LGF reader Scott Silverstein writes:

From an information science perspective it is as clear evidence of world news media collusion and bias as any.


Additionally, I would point out that the Christian Church has not en masse spoken out against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He claims he wants to see Israel wiped off the map. He is about to aquire nuclear weapons, and yet the Christian Church does not speak out.

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were to carry out his plans, the record of the Christian Church, with regards to the second Holocaust of Jews, would be even worse than our record on the first Holocaust.

UPDATE: The Anchoress points out that the media has also gone missing on the insane speeches given by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavex this week at the UN:


... the press is trying to go as quiet as possible on Hugo and the UN gigglers and Ahmadinejad - so beloved of Mike Wallace - didn’t come off too well, either. I said yesterday that a “smart” press “would bury” the Chavez and Ahmadinejad stories…but I never said they “should.”

John Reid In Londonistan


British Home Secretary, John Reid, simply didn't know that the he had happened into a neighborhood that the locals consider to Islamic land (Dar al-Islam). Listen as Islamist Abu Izadeen shouts at Mr. Reid, "How dare you come to a Muslim Area ..."

I think John Reid handles himself very well here, never allowing anger to intercede, never allowing reason to be impeded, he replies, "My friend, there is no part of this country which any of us are excluded from."

Of course, the Islamists would beg to differ, and that is why it is important that everyone view this clip.



Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Springtime for Hitler


Considering the spectacle that we've been treated to at the United Nations the past few days, I think it's time for a little "Springtime for Hitler."


Tuesday, September 19, 2006


Stealing
Their
Souls












I think this is supposed to be funny, and, of course, it is. Was it the Native Americans who believed that the act of a camera capturing a photographic image was literally the stealing of a soul?

Oh, if only we were so superstitious about the human soul in modern times, what with women walking around in full-on portable concentration camps, unable to project any personality whatsoever into the outer world.

Ahmadinejad
In English
And In Arabic


Time Magazine this week features an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he says the following:


I gave some recommendations to President Bush in my personal letter, and I hope that he will take note of them. I would ask him, Are rationalism, spirituality and humanitarianism and logic?are they bad things for human beings? Why more conflict? Why should we go for hostilities? Why should we develop weapons of mass destruction? Everybody can love one another.


Now, just for the record, here is what Ahmadinejad says when he's in his own country:

Monday, September 18, 2006

Blow My Mind


What is it like for a non-drummer to see something like this? As a drummer all I can tell you is my mouth hangs open, drool comes out, I'm in a zone going, "WTF, has some sort of angelic being entered these dudes and blessed them with a pristine, precise to the millionth decimal, view of rhythm, or something?"

Jesus Christ!




The Wooden
Palestinian
Horse
In The
Christian Church


From CaribPundit (with thanks to Olivia):


The Palestine Solidarity Movement held a meeting at Georgetown University in D.C. in which they laid out a strategy to achieve Jewish genocide (a one-state solution in which Israel folds into "Palestine" is a prescription for genocide—the acid test: look at any Arab-Muslim country and find out what you can about its Jewish or Christian community).

One of the tactics include using the churches by pretending to be Christian as a way of winning Christians to their cause; another is making the "Palestinian" cause analogous to that of American blacks striving for Civil Rights.

By drawing that deceptive analogy between the American black situation and that of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, what is left unmentioned is that the goal of American blacks was not genocide of whites, but their constitutional right to full equality under and before the law. Yet, no doubt, some, ignorant of history, will float away on a tide of emotion and assent to the Arabs' genocidal objectives.

Worse than this appeal to the darkest period of American history for blacks is the plan to obtain Christian help with genocide. Toward this end, the Muslim Arabs—read the text, it is evident they are not Christian—will strive to seem to be Christian: they will offer rosaries, "holy water," talk about the plight of Arab Christians. What they will never reveal is that the plight of Arab Christians is a result of their support for the viciously oppressive Arab Muslims.

What will remain unmentioned is that all around the globe, Muslims are slaughtering Christians because we are Christian. Now, they come to us with lies so that we can help them slaughter Jews.

The scope and extent of the intended-deception is breath-taking. What I find so extremely offensive about it is the use of the Church by people who, having achieved their genocidal aims, would then destroy the Church.


Go read the whole thing.

They Hate Us -
They Really
Hate Us


More from yesterdays Muslim demonstration outside Westminster Abbey:


In London, more manifestations of Pope Benedict's great error in implying in any way that Islam was not peaceful. From
Joee Blogs (thanks to all who sent this in):




Holy Mass on a Sunday is the very source and summit of the Catholic week, so my family decided this Sunday to make the trip to Westminster Cathedral together. As we came out about 100 Islamists were chanting slogans such as "Pope Benedict go to Hell" "Pope Benedict you will pay, the Muja Hadeen are coming your way" "Pope Benedict watch your back" and other hateful things.


Wretchard, at Belmont Club, comments:


If you look very carefully at the pictures at a Catholic Londoner it will be obvious that this demonstration at a church is as much about gangsterism and intimidation than anything else. And it's a gangersterism -- under color of religion -- fueled almost entirely by Western political correctness and a refusal to insist upon basic reciprocal civility. This is learned behavior, the kind of behavior that is practically invited by the sickening double standards of modern "enlighted" attitudes. Compare the pictures above with the ones below.

British police officers speak to Iranian Reza Moradi, 29, who displayed a banner containing the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, at a demonstration rally supporting freedom of expression in Trafalgar Square, London, Saturday March 25, 2006. About 200 people held a free-speech demonstration in central London on Saturday, with several displaying posters of the cartoons that infuriated much of the Muslim world.



Yes, it seems like both the Islamofascists, and our leaders, hate us.

Al Qaeda
To Muslims
In US:
Leave
America Now


Guysen News is reporting that Al Qaeda is ready:


An official of the Al Qaida terrorist organization has called on Muslims in the United States to leave the country. Al Qaida said that it has completed its preparations for a huge non-conventional attack on New York and Washington.


A few days back, Infidel Bloggers Alliance ran this story about how Al Qaeda had warned that there is a nuclear attack on America coming soon.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be speaking at the United Nations tomorrow. I say, listen carefully to his words. They will be filled with threats couched in calls for peace.


Go to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for more on this story.

Sunday, September 17, 2006


Islam
Will Conquer
Rome


Today when churchgoers came out of services at Westminster Abbey, this is what greeted them.

This photographer didn't get the best shot of her, but notice the woman down in the left corner with the sign reading, "Islam Will Conquer Rome."

Mark their words. I have a feeling we will be seeing attacks against Rome in the near future.

Lebanese Foreign Minister
Unhappy
Germany Wants Israel
To Continue
Existing


From Guysen.Israel.News:


Lebanon is calling on Germany to take an active part in Unifil. "We expect a balanced and objective action from a friendly country like Germany", Fauzi Sallukh, Lebanese Foreign Minister said. He also criticized Angela Merkel for having said that her country was sending naval forces to Lebanon to defend Israel's right to exist and to promote a peaceful solution to conflict in the region.