Friday, November 28, 2008
Track your Senators' and Representative's votes by e-mail.
In a new service provided by Congress.org, they will send you updates in your email. Each week (that Congress is in session) you will receive:
• Key votes by your two Senators and U.S. Representative.
• Links to send e-mail to your members of Congress using pre-addressed forms.
• Upcoming votes for your review and a chance to offer e-mail input before they vote.
Use this weekly vote monitor to track the decisions made by your elected officials on key issues.
Find out how your senators and representative votes on key issues.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
This story may be one of the breakthroughs we've been looking for. We need a fuel that doesn't come from Islamic states and that's cheap enough to compete with it. A good candidate has just been discovered in the Patagonian rainforest.
A team led by a Montana State University professor has found a fungus (see photo) that produces a new type of diesel fuel, which they say holds great promise. Calling the fungus' output "myco-diesel," Gary Strobel and his collaborators describe their initial observations in the November issue of Microbiology.Read more:
Another promising aspect is that the fungus can grow in cellulose.
"That's the most common organic molecule on earth," Scott Strobel said. "It's all around us, everywhere."
Scientists in a variety of disciplines should be able to work together to optimize production and find a way to turn what is essentially a vapor into a burnable, liquid fuel, he added.
The discovery may offer an alternative to fossil fuels, said Strobel, MSU professor of plant sciences and plant pathology. The find is even bigger, he said, than his 1993 discovery of fungus that contained the anticancer drug taxol.
“This is the only organism that has ever been shown to produce such an important combination of fuel substances,” said researcher Gary Strobel from Montana State University. “The fungus can even make these diesel compounds from cellulose, which would make it a better source of biofuel than anything we use at the moment”
New Type Of Diesel Fuel Found In Patagonia Fungus
Deep in the Jungle, A Fungus Pumps Out Diesel From Wood
Rainforest fungus makes diesel
Oil Creation Theory Challenged by Fuel-Making Fungus
Bio of Dr. Gary A. Strobel
They (people of the book, meaning Jews and Christians) disbelieve in Allah and confound truth with falsehood (3:70-3:71). Christians lie when they talk about the son of God (18:4-5).
Jesus taught them compassion and mercy in the Gospels, but Christians turned to monasticism…many of them are evil-livers (57:27).
Fight against them, kill, convert, or subdue them and (only if it is beneficial to Islam) force them to pay a tax that Muslims do not have to pay (9:29-35). If they refuse to pay, kill them. (Other option is slavery).
Non-Muslims are condemned to hell/cursed/doomed/bad/evil/turned into swine or apes, etc. (2:61, 4:48, 4:50, 4:116, 4:47-52, 4:55, 4:157, 4:160, 5:12-5:13, 5:37, 5:51, 5:53, 5:59-60, 5:72-73, 5:79, 9:29-35, 18:52, 33:26, 59:14, 98:1).
Jews will face Allah’s wrath because they made friendships with those who disbelieve (5:80).
Must convert to Allah only, or else be doomed (2:62-65, 3:85). Note that 3:85 refers explicitly to the Islamic religion as the “Surrender.” Jews are wrong-doers who will face a painful doom unless they believe in Allah (4:160-161).
He who ascribes partners to Allah is lost, as if a bird has snatched him out of the air and taken him away (22:31)
Mohammad (Allah) says Jews look ugly and they are foolish (62:5). Jews are greedy (2:91), and are evil-livers (5:59).
Allah will mock Christians when they burn in Hell, asking them Where are your partners now? (40:73).
Priests and Rabbis do “evil work” (5:63). Many Jews guilty of evil conduct (5:81). Jews act like Christians when they are around Christians (5:82).
Some of them (people of the scripture) are believers, but most of them are evil-livers (3:110), wretchedness is upon them because they disbelieved, slew the prophets wrongfully, were rebellious and transgressed (3:112).
Muslims won’t get hurt fighting them (the people of the book), who will turn and flee and afterwards will not be helped (3:111)
The Jews and Christians flung the scripture behind their backs and gained evil (3:187)
Christians and Jews who disbelieve scripture are the worst creatures in Allah’s sight (98:6) and will receive hell-fire.
Idolaters are unclean (9:28). Turn away from idolaters (6:106). Don’t pray for idolaters (9:113). Let the idolaters kill their own children (6:137).
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
"American Muslim groups responded with uncustomary silence on Tuesday to the news that leaders of a Muslim charity shut down by the federal government had been convicted in a retrial of money laundering, tax fraud and supporting terrorism," says an article in the New York Times.
I love this:
Hina Shamsi, a lawyer with the National Security Project of the A.C.L.U., said, “The Islamic Society of North America does a lot of outreach and interfaith dialogue, and works in cooperation with the F.B.I., and yet, as a result of this stigma, its reputation has been deeply harmed.”Yes, of course, everyone knows how helpful it is to have Muslims with intimate ties to terrorists, who are funneling money to terrorists, and who help keep the American non-Muslims confused about Islam, how helpful it is to have those people "helping" the FBI with their counterterrorism efforts! What, is Shamsi on their payroll too?
“The irony is obviously that this is the very community whose cooperation the government most needs for effective counterterrorism,” she added.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
ON THE ARTICLE, At War With Islam, I got the following comments from Rick of Italy, and I am publishing them as an article with his permission (and with some editing). The Islamization process is much further advanced in European countries than it is in the United States. Their Muslim citizens are a larger percentage of their populations. And here is what at least one man in Italy is experiencing:
The problem is not only American. I am based in Italy and our government and political parties keep stressing the "difference" between so called "moderate" Muslims and integralists.
Integralists are those who're more prone to be terrorists...those who behead people, while "moderate" are those whom, in the safe living room of their safe houses in their safe Western welcoming countries clap at the actions of the integralists. And when they go out they show disregard (rarely) against terrorism.
I can see the increased arrogance of black African Muslims in Italy miles away. Till they were only a bunch of people we all helped them thinking they were needy. Many of us swallowed the pill of multiculturality. Now that they increased in number, they are showing their real colors...for those who can see. Superiority complexes, subtle implies threats about their future dominations, etc. All this in the total blindness of our government, no matter which party.
Seven years in the UK and France showed me enough of Islam and how they treat women and how double-sided they are.
It is so obvious what they are doing that I am amazed at how people can keep thinking they are nice people. And they are the same slowtards whom, later on will say "Who could imagine they would do something like this! My neighbor was so nice and his kids used to play with mine."
They are exactly the same people! More than the media...it's people's blindness. If they only took a world map and saw what Muslims are doing around the world, bribing politicians in the EU to rectify history, bribing more politicians in single countries to get Shari'a enforced, etc. If they saw this they wouldn't be so happy and positive about it.
Mind blindness and lack of mental clarity is one of the worst things a human being can happen to have and at the moment. Most people are biased by the idyllic (and fake) theory that we're all alike (created from scratch after WW 2 just to avoid new Nazism cases in Europe and the world). We are not all alike and Muslims are the best proof of what I am saying. Background, upbringing, religions, family education and brainwashing all make people different from one another. Paradoxically, if we were really ALL ALIKE ALL EQUALS....WE WOULD ALSO BE ALL NAZIS and the ANTINAZIS WOULD BE NAZIS. It's a theory that crumbles down on its own pillars.
WE ARE NOT ALL ALIKE and ISLAM has declared (not so) silent war on the rest of the world.
A Muslim woman interviewed in Italy said, "You don't have to fear; we'll eventually outnumber you and then we'll turn Italy into an Islamic country. It's the natural order and was forecast by Mohammad. After all, for every kid you (Catholics/atheist Italians) make, we (the Muslims) make 3, 4 or 5."
And that's only one. They say it with a satisfied grin on their face, with the self-confident arrogance of those who know nothing can happen to them for the things they say!
[At this point, I told Rick I had just seen the video What Islam is Not, and that one of the ways to wage jihad is to have lots of children.] Then Rick wrote:
I am based very near to Africa in Italy, so we have a lot of "imported" Muslim Africans. There is not even need to watch all those movies (which I have widely seen on other occasions). I simply need to stop one on the street and ask him. He'll tell you what his opinion is, with such a self-confidence you can't even imagine.
Only two things I don't share with your analysis, as I've read around the posts on your blog, and they are:
1) Freedom as a unifying factor. Religion is more powerful than the concept of freedom for many reasons. Religion still is a strong unifying value. And democracy is undergoing a crisis due to corruption, etc. And Muslims are very much aware of this.
2) The fact that you can stop them with "civil" actions.
My personal opinion is that we'll end at war with them, sooner or later. I don't know why our governments are doing what they are doing, but sooner or later someone will begin to act within the government influence or out of it. In Europe there is a growing Islamophobic tendency. It's hidden because they blame you immediately for racism (especially in Northern Europe — in the UK, Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries in particular), but people are really fed up. Fed up of Muslims, fed up of our governments allowing them for oil, and trade, and careers, and personal interests, etc. There is also a rebirth of extreme right movements, inspired by Nazism but with a strong Islamophobic nuance (and of course against Jews too but Muslims are item number one on the agenda).
In my opinion, immigration should be left aside of trade agreements, while at the moment it is a primary item in the agenda and that's not good. You can't mix wolves, lions and sheep together.
My idea is we'll end up at war with those. We have known Muslims for centuries here, and they don't give up until you leave them one chance to do something. Letting them in a country to do what they do can only be because of two factors.
1) Ignorance and/or...
2) Personal interests (Bribing, corruption, career issues, etc.)
People like me will never even wonder what they do in places like Guantanamo or when the U.S. exerts forced "pickups" of Muslim leaders in our countries. People like me wonder WHY GOVERNMENTS KEEP LETTING THEM IN.
For example, Italy it's a Catholic country. ONE WIFE/ONE HUBBY. Muslims are polygamous and polygamy is expressly forbidden. But they keep bringing in their 3 or 4 wives here and all those kids, and then live on the dole with houses, minimum wages, etc. provided by the government.
You ask a police officer, "Why don't you punish him for his 4 wives?" The answer is: "Well if I put him in jail they will claim we're intolerant and will begin to make public manifestations on streets. Plus, communist/left organizations will begin to protect them and we will have to release them."
That's the situation here! We had Imams clearly stating they are here to Islamize Italy. They claimed that on TV, in front of a million people and they are still there.
Hence, I don't think our governments know what they are doing.
[That's what Rick of Italy had to say. I agree with him about governments. Most of the people in politics don't know even the most basic Islamic principles, and even if they did, they probably wouldn't know what to do about it. It's up to ordinary citizens to do something about it, to spread the word, to help educate our fellow citizens, to figure out solutions, and to put pressure on the politicians to do what needs to be done. It's up to us. Like Rick, I don't think our governments know what they are doing.]
The following is from an article called Pirates Exploit Confusion about International Law:
On Saturday, off the coast of East Africa, pirates seized their largest catch ever: a giant Saudi-owned oil tanker called the Sirius Star. The brazen attack came on the heels of the capture of a Ukrainian vessel (loaded with armaments destined for Kenya) by Somali pirates in September. Humanitarian food shipments into Somalia have had naval escort for nearly a year — evidence of how much the security of sea-lanes has eroded. Media reports suggest that Somali pirates have already attacked more than 80 ships in 2008. [You will see in the report below, the number is already up to 95.]
By the 1970s, as a part of a growing chaos in parts of Africa and Asia, incidents of piracy began to pick up. But it was not until the 21st century that piracy has experienced a meteoric rise, with the number of attacks increasing by double-digit rates per year. Last year, according to the International Maritime Bureau, 263 actual and attempted pirate attacks took place. Large maritime areas have now become known as pirate heavens, where mariners can expect to be routinely molested.
Experience — especially that of colonial America — suggests that a few sporadic antipirate efforts will not be enough to solve the problem. Only a dedicated naval campaign, along with a determined effort to close the pirates' safe havens, will succeed in sending piracy back to the history books.
There has been some progress on this front. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has dispatched a formidable multinational force — including British, Italian and Greek ships — to join the American, French, Canadian and Danish vessels already cruising off Somalia's vast coastline. France has also aggressively pursued pirates, freeing captured vessels and hostages.
One thing is certain: As in the war on terror, the new campaign against piracy will test the mettle of Western governments. It will also require them to balance the rights of lawbreakers against the indisputable rights of the law-abiding to not live their lives in danger and fear.
The following is quoted from an article called Somalia's Dangerous Waters:
In the bad old days they used to hang them on the mast. Today the "international community" is worried about their "human rights." But they remain what they have always been — criminals of the high seas or, simply put, pirates. In recent years they have been active in a number of places — Nigeria, the Malacca Straits and, most blatantly, Somalia. The difference is that in the former two cases pirates are mostly freelancers, while in the latter case piracy is the national industry (together with the cultivation of khat, the Somali narcotic of choice). Piracy flourishes along the Somali coast because it is profitable and it can be done at small risk. [Not to mention the fact that imitating the example of Mohammad is obligatory on all Muslims, and Mohammad was a raider of caravans, usually taking the plunder to fund his jihad and ransoming the wealthy people he captured, and enslaving the rest.]Something can and should be done about this, and the rest of the article goes into detail about what needs to be done.
As Mary Harper reported for the BBC: “Whenever word comes out that pirates have taken yet another ship in the Somali region of Puntland, extraordinary things start to happen. There is a great rush to the port of Eyl, where most of the hijacked vessels are kept by the well-armed pirate gangs. People put on ties and smart clothes. They arrive in land cruisers with their laptops, one saying he is the pirates’ accountant, another that he is their chief negotiator. Special restaurants have even been set up to prepare food for the crews of the hijacked ships.”
Reporter Jonathan Clayton, meanwhile, provided this portrait of life in a pirate city: "Activity in Eyl moves up a gear. Clan elders arrive, eager to broker a deal between their young clansmen, who use speedboats to board vessels, and shipping companies eager to pay a ransom for cargoes and staff. The ransoms are sometimes paid into foreign accounts in places such as the United Arab Emirates and even Western Europe, and may also be paid in cash through middlemen in neighboring Kenya. These have spawned more pirate gangs, armed with better weapons and better attack boats.” [This is the same mistake Europe and America made in the 1500's, 1600's and 1700's with the Muslim pirates on the Barbary Coast. They armed and funded the enemy.]
Even Abdullahi Said O’Yusuf, the mayor of Eyl, has admitted that pirates use ransom payments to "buy houses in big cities" in different parts of the country. All of these activities mean local jobs, a share of the loot, delivered through clan elders, and strong popular support. It also involves the shrewd manipulation of Western respect for the law, a concept that does not exist locally.
Since the beginning of 2008, pirates operating off the Somali coast have seized 95 ships, the most spectacular being the Saudi-owned Sirius Star, a supertanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil, more than a quarter of Saudi Arabia’s daily exports and worth about $100 million. Insurance companies have so far paid hundreds of millions of dollars in ransoms for ships and crews, with the rate per ship varying from $300,000 to $1.5 million. As a result, insurance premiums have gone up by 10 percent and the increasingly frequent change of ship routes, from the Suez Canal to that around the Cape of Good Hope, is 30 percent longer and 20,000-30,000 Euros a day more expensive.
The cartoon riots successfully intimidated many news sources in the "free world" into silence, as you can read about here: Muslim Violence Censors Western Media.
But along these lines, I thought I'd share this interesting observation form an article by Daniel Pipes:
The violence by Muslims responding to comments by the pope fit a pattern that has been building and accelerating since 1989. Six times since then, Westerners did or said something that triggered death threats and violence in the Muslim world. Looking at them in the aggregate offers useful insights.
1989 – Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses prompted Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death edict against him and his publishers, on the grounds that the book "is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran." Subsequent rioting led to over 20 deaths, mostly in India.
1997 – The U.S. Supreme Court refused to remove a 1930s frieze showing Muhammad as lawgiver that decorates the main court chamber; the Council on American-Islamic Relations made an issue of this, leading to riots and injuries in India.
2002 – The American evangelical leader Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a "terrorist," leading to church burnings and at least 10 deaths in India.
2005 – An incorrect story in Newsweek, reporting that American interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, "in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet," is picked up by the famous Pakistani cricketer, Imran Khan, and prompts protests around the Muslim world, leading to at least 15 deaths.
February 2006 – The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes twelve cartoons of Muhammad, spurring a Palestinian Arab imam in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, to excite Muslim opinion against the Danish government. He succeeds so well, hundreds die, mostly in Nigeria.
September 2006 – Pope Benedict XVI quotes a Byzantine emperor's views that what is new in Islam is "evil and inhuman," prompting the firebombing of churches and the murder of several Christians.
These six rounds show a near-doubling in frequency: 8 years between the first and second rounds, then 5, then 3, 1, and ½.
Michael Savage, a member of the top twelve Islamophobes, gives us a little history lesson:
Sponsored by Morocco and the city-states of Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli, the pirates preyed on civilian vessels, plundering their cargoes and kidnapping their crews. "It was written in the Koran...that it was their [the pirates'] right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners," the emissary of Tripoli's pasha told a startled John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in London in 1785. The emissary demanded $1 million from the United States — one-tenth of the national budget — to suspend the assaults or face losing the valuable Mediterranean trade, representing one-fifth of all American exports.
Read more: How To Deal With Pirates and Pirates Exploit Confusion About International Law.
In an article on the Infidel Bloggers Alliance, The Cultural Invasion Project, which was about a document found in a raid that showed a long-term plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to eventually replace our culture with Shari'a law and Islamic culture, the article received the following comments:
muslim from brooklyn said...
Monday, November 24, 2008
In the Netherlands, they've had a blasphemy law on the books since the 1930's. Muslim immigrants started using those laws to censor speech and writings critical of Islam's political, totalitarian, and suppressive teachings.
So the Dutch government repealed the blasphemy laws on November 1st, 2008. Religious criticism is a legitimate activity in a free country.
You can read more about this important victory here: Blasphemy Law Dropped in Netherlands. Here are a few excerpts from the article:
Blasphemy will no longer be a crime in the Netherlands, the Dutch government announced last week. On Nov 1 Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin said the country’s coalition government would repeal a 1930s blasphemy law in favor of strengthening the current anti-discrimination legislation.
Religion not be given a privileged place above free speech.
The push to reform the blasphemy laws comes in response to heightened tensions with the Netherland’s Muslim minority. Criticism of Islamists and Islam by comedians, cartoonists, filmmakers and politicians has led to threats of prosecution for offending Muslim sensibilities.
The Home Secretary in Britain announced a new measure that prevents foreign Jihadis from coming to Britain to promote hatred. The Jihadis in Britain responded by having an event where Omar Bakri Muhammad spoke to the British crowd with a live feed. Omar was in Lebanon. The event was covered in an article in the Evening Standard. Here are some excerpts from the article:
More than 250 Muslims at a packed public meeting in Tower Hamlets were told by organizer Anjem Choudary, (a lawyer): "We have a special surprise, a special treat for you. Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad will be joining us on a live feed from Lebanon." He added: "As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister — Bush or Brown — or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah."Read the whole article here: Islamic Radicals Make Mockery of Hate Laws.
"It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours," Choudary said. "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."
To loud cheers of "Allah Akbar" [God is great], he railed: "There are three types of Muslims, those in prison, those of us that are on our way [to prison] and non-practicing Muslims. Brothers and sisters, if you do not fear your home being raided by the Kufar [non-believer] police, you are not enforcing the Sharia."
Apart from a group of elders with long groomed white beards sitting in the front row, most of the 200 men in attendance were Muslims in their late teens or early 20s, mostly dressed in shalwar kameez with westernized accessories — trainers, hoodies and jackets. At the back of the hall, segregated by partitions, were more than 50 women wearing burkhas.
Besides Bakri, there were three other speakers. Each spoke for 40 minutes, their talks interspersed with video clips from Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo that were designed to fuel the meeting's "grievance theme" of Muslims being oppressed by Britain and the West.
Abu Muaz spoke out against UK imams, claiming they are too soft and tolerant. He said that "speech was not enough" and that it was time to "take action". "You must destroy the West," he declared.
But the most provocative was student leader Abu Rumaysah, who spoke to the crowd as if they were trainee terrorists. "Delete unnecessary material from your computers, take precautions not to attract attention to yourself and prepare your family for [police] raids," he said. He added that they should support the families of Muslims who were arrested and that Islam will only take over the UK if Muslims are proactive and enforce Sharia law in their own communities.
When a woman in a burkha asked how he could justify this when Islam was supposed to be a religion of peace, the crowd mocked her. But it was Choudary who rose to put her in her place. "Islam is not a religion of peace," he said. "It is a religion of submission. We need to submit to the will of Allah."
Sunday, November 23, 2008
I just watched a movie with my wife called An American Rhapsody. It was not my kind of movie, really. Sort of slow-moving and emotional. But it was a great demonstration of an important principle. It's a true story of a family that escapes Communist Hungary in 1950. They escape with one of their daughters but they can't take their infant daughter because they have to sneak out of their country, and babies make noise.
For six years they tried to get their baby, and finally succeeded. But of course, the child was being raised by somebody all that time. As it turned out, she was raised by two very kind, very loving people.
So Suzy, the American name for the girl, shows up at six years old in America to live with her family in a nice neighborhood and it's a whole new world for her. From that point on she grows up feeling out of place, alienated, and she misses "home." At fifteen years old, she convinces her parents to at least visit Hungary.
When she gets to Hungary, she finds out what life is like behind the Iron Curtain, something her parents have gone out of their way not to tell her about.
She discovers that people in Hungary don't have enough of anything. They can't get what they want. People try very insistently to buy her blue jeans off of her, because those are hard to come by. The couple who raised her for the first six years of her life now live in a small apartment because five years ago the government took their little farm so someone in the government could use it for a summer home.
She visits her mother's mother and finds out why her parents moved away — because one day Suzy's mother, grandmother and grandfather were sitting in a cafe when a Russian soldier came over to the table and manhandled Suzy's mother. The grandfather stood up to defend her, and the soldier shot him dead.
Suzy learned a lot on her visit to Hungary and decided to go back to America to stay.
She walked her grandmother back to what used to be a beautiful house. Her grandmother's house. Now there were fifteen families living there with her grandmother. Government's orders.
Suzy came back to America a changed person.
How I wish many more young people could have a similar experience. So many young people have the same kind of unappreciative rebelliousness and even hatred for their country that Suzy had before her trip. They have no understanding of how much freedom and equality they enjoy because they've never been without it. So they take it completely for granted.
I can't say I was much different at fifteen. But by the time someone is twenty-five, they should damn well know better.
I know full well America is not perfect. But to despise the government and to hate our culture can only be done from a profound ignorance of the world as it is and as it has been through history.
The guy in the film is Abu Izzadeen, born as Trevor Brooks, is a spokesman for Al Ghurabaa, a Muslim organization banned under the Terrorism Act 2006 for the glorification of terrorism, that operated in the United Kingdom.
Abu Izzadeen was arrested because of these films placed on an internet site. The police also arrested five others during the same raid. He was convicted on charges of terrorist fund-raising and inciting terrorism overseas on 17th April 2008, and sentenced to four and a half years in jail. He is currently serving his sentence.
Abu Izzadeen is a British man born in Hackney, East London to a family originally from Jamaica. Brooks converted to Islam a day before he turned 18, on the 17 April 1994, changing his name to Omar, but preferring to be called Abu Izadeen. He is fluent in Arabic.
He trained and once worked as an electrician. He and his Arab-born wife Mokhtaria were married in 1998; they have three children.
In 2006, he placed a personal advertisement on an Islamic matrimonial website, seeking to marry up to three more wives in order to father more than nine children. Polygamy is illegal in the UK. Izzadeen did not respond to questions from the Evening Standard about the ad and it has since been removed.
Abu Izzadeen met Omar Bakri Muhammed and Abu Hamza al-Masri at Finsbury Park Mosque in the 1990s; this is when he is thought to have been radicalized.
He visited Pakistan in 2001, before the September 11 attacks, as part of Al-Muhajiroun; he claims he went there to give a series of lectures. He also claimed to have attended terror training camps in Afghanistan.
He described the 7/7 suicide bombers in London as "completely praiseworthy".
On the eve of the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks in London, he was filmed preaching to a group of Muslims in Birmingham (UK) mocking and laughing at the victims of 9/11 and threatening further terror attacks in the UK.
He has openly stated that he wishes to die as a suicide bomber.
On 20 September 2006, Abu Izadeen and Anjem Choudary disrupted Home Secretary John Reid's first public meeting with Muslims since his appointment. He called Reid an "enemy" of Islam.. John Humphrys interviewed Izzadeen on the 22 September 2006 edition of BBC Radio 4's Today programme. In a heated discussion Abu Izadeen stated that his aim was for the UK to become an Islamic state and that this should be achieved without following the democratic process.
In early February 2007, ITV broadcast a video made in the summer of 2004 that was discovered on a password-protected website by Glen Jenvey. In the video Abu Izadeen told his audience in Regents Park Mosque, to murder British and American Muslim soldiers:
"Whoever allies himself with the Kaffirs against the believers - he is one of them. So those so-called enemies to Allah who join the British Government - 'cos remember the British Government, my dear Muslim brothers, are crusaders... crusaders come to kill and rape Muslims. Whoever joins them - he who joins the British Army, the American Army, he is a mortal kaffir and his only hukum (punishment) is for his head to be removed. Indeed, whoever changes his deen (religious way of life); kill him."
Glen Jenvey found the tape soon after it was recorded, handed it to the police at New Scotland Yard but it was not acted upon, just like in the Abu Hamza case. Glen Jenvey was behind the evidence which led to the arrest of Abu Hamza.
British police arrested Abu Izadeen on charges of inciting terrorism on 2007-02-08. A spokesman for Scotland Yard said the arrest is related to an "on-going inquiry," involving a speech Abu Izadeen gave in the West Midlands area in 2006, which predates the 20 September 2006 incident. the video was downloaded by Glen Jenvey
He was arrested again in a pre-dawn police raid on 2007-04-24 under the Terrorism Act 2000 "in connection with inciting others to commit acts of terrorism overseas and terrorist fundraising". The police raid came after information was past via www.glen-jenvey.com website released a video to a TV network. The video was uncovered by Glen Jenvey.
On 2008-04-17 Izzadeen was among six men convicted at Kingston Crown Court of supporting terrorism, while the jury failed to reach a verdict on a third charge of encouraging terrorism. He was subsequently jailed for four and a half years.
In an article entitled, The Muslim Brotherhood "Project," Patrick Poole had some illuminating insights into what Islamic supremacists are doing legally within the United States to ultimately replace the pluralistic, individualistic, freedom-and-equality-loving culture we now enjoy with Islam. Let me say that again. They have been working a plan for over twenty years to eventually replace our culture with theirs. And they've been doing it so cleverly that most of us don't even know it's happening.
"International law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies," writes Poole, have "discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of 'cultural invasion' and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades..."
The document "was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11." They raided "a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland...The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11."
"Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to 'establish an Islamic government on earth' — identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by 'Islamic researchers' associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
"What makes The Project so different from the standard 'Death of America! Death to Israel!' and 'Establish the global caliphate!' Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the 'cultural invasion' of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood 'master plan.' As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe — including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent 'cartoon' jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London — the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful."
Just to give you an idea of what The Project entails, here are some features of the plan:
- Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
- Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
- Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
- Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
- Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
- Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
- Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
- Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
- Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
- Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
- Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world.
Poole writes, "For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world."
Read the whole article here: The Muslim Brotherhood "Project.
This is what it says: I join in unity with all free people and nations in the world against Islamic religious hatred and intolerance being fomented against our human right of freedom of expression. We stand against the vicious threats of bodily harm and destruction being made in blatant protest of this basic right. We ask our leaders to stand up against these threats of intimidation. We ask them to send a strong message to the Islamic world and the perpetrators of hate and intolerance that threats to our freedoms or acts of violence and terror against us will not be tolerated. We demand that our governments of free and democratic nations and all of their legislators speak out in one voice denouncing this growing, fascist, religious assault against human rights and take immediate action to protect the freedoms therein from intimidation and fear of death or destruction.
"Today is 17th Ramadan - a day which marks the anniversary of the Battle of Badr," I just read on the Muslim Public Affairs Committee website. And this holds special meaning for Muslims. Muhammad was persecuted by his enemies. Poor ol' Mo. Of course it had nothing to do with his constant abuse of his enemies and his raiding their caravans and killing their people. He was unfairly persecuted and of course needed to "defend Islam" (and keep the booty).
The article asks, "What lessons can Muslims draw from this event?" Because, it says, poor ol' Muslims are persecuted and abused by their enemies today, so history is mysteriously repeating itself. Of course it has nothing to do with their constant bombing of non-Muslims everywhere, or their constant push to squeeze more concessions from the non-Muslims, or their overt purpose of subverting democratic governments. They are unfairly persecuted and must, of course, "defend Islam."
Such a meaningful and important lesson to ponder while you're fasting, eh?
"The central problem that we now face is Islamic extremism, for which the only real solution is to arrest it and to demonstrate its incapacity to achieve its objectives. Otherwise, the momentum is going to become stronger and stronger."
(10/10/2008) Henry Kissinger to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
I came across another list of possible solutions to the relentless Islamic political encroachment. This is an answer to the question, "So what do you think CAN be done about all this besides moral grandstanding and warning about 'our failure to act?'" This one seems very reasonable, and all of these proposals are attainable and would be effective. This list is from a longer article by Dr. Babu Suseelan, Pathways to Jihadi Terrorism. Here's his list:
1. Ban or reform all Islamic madrasas.
2. Deny permission to construct mosques.
3. Consider limiting immigrants from Islamic countries to free countries.
4. Closely monitor students studying in free countries from Islamic nations.
5. Stop the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to American Islamic schools.
6. Deny visas to Muslim Imams from India, Pakistan and the Middle East.
7. Establish radio and television stations in and around Islamic nations.
8. Use mind manipulation techniques to denounce evil practices of Jihadis.
9. Stop immediately the conversion of correctional populations into Muslims. This is a serious consideration. The U.S. has 2.5 million offenders in federal correctional institutions, state prisons and local jails. 95% percent of them will return to our communities. Converted Muslims with criminal proclivities are a potential danger. They could work as sleeper-agents in our communities. Most of the prisons employ Imams and 95% percent of them are from Pakistan, India, Iran, and from the Middle East.
Number one would be difficult to do, but I think it is perhaps the most important. Number 8 refers to psychological warfare using mainstream media to produce shame and guilt.
All of these could help answer the question, "Okay, then, what do you think should be done about it?" What are you trying to accomplish? How do you propose accomplishing it?
I would add, of course, applying sedition laws and massive educational programs to non-Muslims about Islam.
The following is an excerpt from an article called How To Beat Jihad by Ali Sina, an Iranian ex-Muslim, who makes some interesting points, and because he grew up in a strict Islamic country, his insight adds a unique perspective. Reprinted with permission.
Our responsibility is to awaken the non-Muslims and warn them of the danger of Islam. The danger comes from Islam and not the Middle Eastern people. Unlike Muslims, who discriminate, violate and abuse the human rights of non-Muslims, the non-Muslims have difficulty with discrimination. However, they must understand that Islam is just a belief and beliefs do not have rights. Humans have rights, beliefs don’t.
Muslims can become feral dogs if their religion is criticized. Savagery should not be tolerated. Those Muslims who choose to defend their religion with savagery should be locked up or kicked out. Dialog should be welcomed, but there should be zero tolerance for violence.
Once dialogue begins, Islam will be discredited and Muslims will be set free. Once their source of pride becomes a source of shame, they will no longer cling to it but rather will be embarrassed of it and would want to dissociate themselves from it.
The Western culture is guilt-based. The Eastern culture is shame-based. For us Easterners, everything is about image and how others see us.
The opposite of guilt is innocence. If your ethos is guilt-based, you have an inner police that stops you from doing wrong because doing wrong makes you feel guilty.
If your ethos is shame-based, all you care is to preserve your image. The opposite of shame is honor. You can do wrong but as long as no one sees it, your image is not tarnished and you can still be seen as an honorable person. In a shame-based culture, wrong and right have no meaning. It is all about shame and honor. If the stain of shame is removed, even if it means the murder of your own daughter, honor is restored. These are two very different worldviews. Unless we understand them we will not be able to make sense of Muslims and their minds.
Shame-based cultures are primitive. All Eastern cultures are shame-based even when they are not Islamic. Japanese culture, for example, is, or it has been, a shame-based culture. Our Persian culture is also shame-based. Proverbs like “I keep my cheeks rosy with slaps,” are telltales of a shame-based culture, where image is more important than facts. This proverb says that I may be starving but my pride does not allow me to let anyone know it so I slap myself to keep my cheek rosy. Because poverty is the source of shame as long as I hide my poverty, I have preserved my honor.
Islam is a fear-based philosophy that has taken root in a shame-based milieu. This is a very dangerous combination. When you combine fear and shame moral codes, you give birth to the most insidious ethos imaginable. That is Islam. Islam is an illogical doctrine that is based on fear and is defended through honor. This makes Islam more dangerous than Nazism. Muslims are not concerned about the irrationality of Islam or about good or evil. They are mostly concerned about losing face and upholding the image of Islam.
You can help get the word out with these fine products:
It’s known as “libel tourism” and here’s how it works: A book published in the United States names an individual abroad who supports terrorist groups. That individual – for the sake of discussion, let’s say he’s a Saudi petro-billionaire with a home in London – goes online and orders a few copies which arrive in the mail. He takes those books to a British attorney who files a lawsuit complaining that his client has been libeled.
The billionaire knows it will be much easier to prevail in the U.K. than it would be in an American court where the First Amendment and decades of case law provide free speech protections. (Under English law, by contrast, the burden in a libel case is on the defendant to prove his innocence – which can be impossible if he’s been using confidential sources or even just sources who don’t want to cross an ocean and take part in a courtroom battle.)
The legal costs are chump change for the billionaire, while few non-fiction writers command similar resources. If the writer chooses not to spend months living in a hotel and fighting it out in court, the case will be forfeit and he will be hit with a “default judgment.” If he doesn’t pay, he’ll never again be able to set foot in the U.K. and other countries that enforce British court judgments.
But more important is this: The message gets sent, loud and clear, to journalists, scholars and publishers, that researching and writing about terrorists and those who enable them is verboten – even in America.
I just read a good article on Geert Wilders. He said something I really liked:
"Right now, people are speaking without really saying what they mean. It’s not enough to talk about immigration. You have to get to the core of the issue, which is that Islam is incompatible with democracy.”That basic thing — simply speaking directly about the issue — seems to be one of the main barriers to getting anything done to stop Islam's relentless encroachment. Political correctness and multiculturalism seem to have constrained and impeded free speech so much that in high political circles or in newspapers it is almost impossible to find anyone willing to speak normally about it. All you manage to get is a very carefully-crafted vagueness. No problem can be solved that way.
Below is a quote from an excellent article entitled, Your War On Jihad:
"Every one of us that values equality and liberty has a role and an obligation in this war against Islamic supremacism and Jihad. No matter who you are, no matter how busy you are, no matter how many other responsibilities you have, this is your war on Jihad.
"None of us have a choice in this fight. This war is not an option for us; it is not something we can do when we have nothing else to do. Good intentions are not enough. Our nation, our people are at total war in a battle for the very values on which America was founded. We can't expect 'ordinary lives' during this war."
If you have ever tried to tell friends and family about the dangers of Islam (and I certainly HOPE you have!) you've probably run into what seems to be a brick wall, at least occasionally. People seem to deliberately refuse to understand what you mean. Why?
In an article at Political Islam, Bill Warner has a great list of what's getting in the way of people really listening to you. He says, "Once you understand the doctrine of political Islam, there is a question that naturally arises. Why doesn't everyone know about this? ...It is not only that we don't know, we have also developed a systemic social theory of why we will not learn."
Those of us who want to reach the people who do not yet know what we know (and I should think that includes all of us) better clearly understand what this brick wall is made of, so we can fashion ways over or around it.
I think Warner's list is good. Probably a few more things could be added to it.
His list is (he explains each in more detail in the article):
2. What will we have to do?
3. I know this Muslim and he is nice.
4. Afraid of being called a bigot.
5. Islam cannot be worse than Christianity, so why learn?
6. It's too hard; non-Muslims cannot learn Islam.
I would add that you sometimes see a look in someone's eyes that says, "I think you're one of those nutballs who gets obsessed with some obscure paranoid threat, and I don't know if I should encourage this by listening."
By the time I finished reading the 24-page report put out by Smearcasting.com, (about the top 12 Islamophobes in America) I had made so many notes in the margins, I could have easily written a document twice its size in commentary on the ridiculous PR effort to convince readers that those who are trying to educate the public about Islam's relentless encroachment, Islam's political goals, and the methods of Jihadis are all "Islamophobes" who are doing nothing more than smearing the good name of Muslims everywhere and stirring up "racial hatred."
The whole 24-page document, entitled Smearcasting, criticizes, insinuates, implies, but doesn't really say anything substantial, but displays a virulently hateful and sarcastic tone about these "Islamophobes." Ironically enough, they seem Islamophobe-phobic and yet in the entire document, they never once refute any of the quoted claims of their hated dirty dozen.
On top of that, they do not acknowledge — and I think this is a significant omission — two significant facts. And the ommission of this acknowledgment makes the document lose all credibility. The two facts they omit are:
1. Muslims are committing large numbers of violent acts in the name of Islam.
2. There are intolerant and clearly violent portions in the Qur'an.
These are such glaring and pertinent facts, I don't think any amount of whitewash of Islam or vilification of these pundits could gain any credibility unless they are addressed, or at least acknowledged.
But the article, Smearcasting, actually cheered me up because first of all, they offered nothing that caused any doubt about the work we're doing. And more important for my morale, I discovered the impressive reach of these pundits. It was heartening to know so many people are hearing this message and apparently wanting to hear this message.
Micheal Savage has a radio show that reaches 8.25 million readers per week. According to the article, Savage "sees a monolithic Islamic scheme to take over the U.S." This, as well as many other statements are never refuted in the article, by the way. They must have assumed they were speaking to multicultural journalists who would accept the implication that these claims were preposterous, when almost all the pundits' comments they quoted in the article (in order to ridicule the statements) were accurate, reasonable assertions and statements of fact.
Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor show reaches 3.5 million listeners. Michelle Malkin and Robert Spencer both have bestselling books. Glenn Beck has the third highest-rated national radio talk show among adults ages 24 to 54, and he has "repeatedly associated Islam with Nazism. He drew a parallel between Mein Kampf and 'jihad' because, he said, both mean 'my struggle.'" This is another statement the article left standing, as if it was self-evident this is ridiculous, when in fact it is an accurate statement.
Anyway, it was a relief to know these antijihad pundits were so popular. Our message doesn't have nearly the reach we need, but this is a good start, and the numbers were bigger than I expected. And it was pleasing to know that in this well-researched onslaught meant to defame and hopefully destroy these twelve kings and queens of Islamophobia, that the best they could come up with was completely toothless.
"Perhaps the greatest of all ironies in the present-day Middle East, as David Horowitz has pointed out, is that Arab Israelis enjoy more social, legal and political freedom than do Arabs in any one of the fifty-three Muslim countries."
- From an article on TROP, Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Islam is certainly not a race. It is an ideology. In fact, it is a political ideology in that it intends to impose its own system of laws on all of us.There is no such thing as Islamophobia, as you are, no doubt, well aware. Muslims are calling religious criticism and political criticism "Islamophobia" for no other reason than it works as a tactic to shut people up. This is a free country and we are allowed to criticize religions and political ideologies. Here's the list:
Therefore, it is necessary that we be able to criticize it. It is necessary that the laws of free speech apply to criticism of Islam.
The Dirty Dozen: Who’s Who Among America’s Leading Islamophobes
David HorowitzThe PDF report is worth reading to discover some techniques used by some of the most successful counterjihadists in the field. I'd like to thank CAIR for informing me of this valuable resource.
This is an excerpt from an excellent article entitled The Muslim Brotherhood's US Network:
Following a 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in which the need to engage in propaganda efforts was discussed, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded in Washington DC. Its stated mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.This line, in particular, struck me with a lot of impact: "The Brotherhood highlighted the importance of training activists to present a “view of the IAP” that would be acceptable to Americans."
Although these objectives sound innocuous enough, the Muslim Brotherhood (of which many of CAIR’s founders were members) often uses terms like these as euphemisms for more insidious actions. A Brotherhood memo written in 1991 makes reference to a “dictionary” that the Ikhwanis (the core group of the Muslim Brotherhood) use to decipher the true meaning of their words, which are put in quotation marks in written documents.
The fact is that CAIR was created by Ikhwanis for influencing the U.S. government, Congress, NGOs, and academic and media groups. The Brotherhood identified the media as “stronger than politics,” highlighted the importance of training activists to present a “view of the IAP” that would be acceptable to Americans. One of CAIR’s founders, Omar Ahmad, explicitly suggested the need for “infiltrating the American media outlets, universities and research centers.”
...The Holy Land Foundation trial documents also proved that CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood linked network created to help Hamas in the U.S. Even though it has portrayed itself to be a civil rights group, and is often described as such by the mainstream press, its top leadership is made up of the IAP and the UASR principals mentioned earlier. Despite public denials, CAIR leaders have been heard expressing their support for Hamas both in public and on FBI surveillance tapes. CAIR has received support from, and lent support to, Hamas financial conduits in the United States. Several CAIR officers and employees have been indicted on terrorism-related charges.
That's what we need to do as well. We need to educate the public, but try to do it in a way that is acceptable. We need to tell them the truth, but tell it in a way it can get through to them, in a way that takes their already-existing point of view into account and doesn't ignore it, but gently alters the point of view.
Right now, CAIR is out-finessing the anti-jihadists. That's got to stop.
Read more: The Cultural Invasion Project.
This year, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the government implemented strict rules governing all aspects of Uighur religious life. Henceforth, according to a recent report out of Xinjiang province, “official versions” of the Koran will be the only legal ones; imams will be barred from teaching the Koran in private; the study of Arabic will be allowed only at special government schools; and Muslim students and government workers will be “compelled to eat” during the Ramadan fast. Those Uighurs wishing to make the hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, will be obligated to do so through government-run tours that are virtually unaffordable to the average Chinese Muslim.
The Chinese government is crippled by no moral qualms about how to respond to terrorism. The Chinese Muslims being held in Guantanamo Bay would have been tortured and killed long ago had they been captured by the Chinese instead of the Americans. In fact, this was the main argument against repatriating them to China.
Serge Trifkovic said most of the conflicts in the world involve Muslims, and if you ended all conflicts that involved Muslims right now, the world would be a pretty peaceful place.
Muslims, both moderates and extremists, are always quick to point out that Islam is a religion of peace. But Trifkovic's statement made me curious, so I've been searching on Google for a map of world conflicts (and which ones involve Muslims). I haven't found what I was looking for yet, but I found two maps (on two different web sites that have nothing to do with each other) that are interesting when you see them together.
The first map is by Freedom House, an organization that tracks democracies around the world. It shows their map of world freedom. The purple countries are the least free:
A few clicks later, I found this map of populations of Muslims. It shows by color where the densest population of Muslims live in the world (the highest population of Muslims is darkest blue):
Pretty interesting, huh? One of the things I've advocated repeatedly is that we can reduce Islamic terrorism by pushing for women's rights.
In order for women to have rights, the Muslims cannot have Shari'a law. Or it would have to be so modified as to be unrecognizable. To weaken the hold of Shari'a would probably weaken the population's belief that the Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah, which would include the instructions to take over the world. This would make it more difficult for jihadis to recruit new soldiers. And hopefully those young men would find more productive things to do with their time than blowing themselves up.
And all this could be brought about by focusing solely on promoting women's rights.
Do you think every woman should have human rights? Yes? So does almost everybody else in the world. This is a place we can join together in a mutual and important purpose.
In the war against the Islamization of the world, this is the place where the strength of the free world can overcome the weak spot of Shari'a.
I was going to post this Monday, but since AOW has already discussing it, I'll post it now. Being the sneaky bastard that I am, I subscribed to the newsletters of all the pro-Muslim groups in America I could find. It has been an incredibly rich source of inspiration and insight. I've decided to become a Muslim. Just kidding.
It's fascinating to see how they spin the news, what they strongly dislike, and how they promote their cause.
CAIR has taken exception to the massive promotion of the movie, Obsession. Of course. In one of their op-ed columns, Ahmed Rehab (I'm not making this up) tries to make a good case against the movie, but fails miserably. He wrote, "First, it exploits Americans’ unfamiliarity with Islam and Muslims to suggest that deviant groups are somehow representative of most, if not all, Muslims."
And it went downhill from there. The movie doesn't, in fact, suggest that deviant groups are representative of most Muslims. It goes out of its way to suggest otherwise. In one of my few criticisms of the film, I think it goes TOO far out of its way to suggest otherwise. It does, however point out that "deviant" Muslims are following mainstream Islamic theology, which is an entirely different point leading to entirely different conclusions.
Also I thought it was interesting that Mr. Rehab would recognize Americans' unfamiliarity with Islam. It is this unfamiliarity that has made America so vulnerable to the relentless Islamic political encroachment CAIR strives to accelerate.
Rehab also wrote, "while the Muslim world has its share of fanatics, they comprise a tiny fraction of the population and are highly at odds with a mainstream society that aspires to peace and prosperity."
Now of course he might have meant the mainstream non-Muslim society. But even if he was referring to mainstream Muslims, he can say that in all sincerity. He and his audience know that the peace and prosperity they seek can best be achieved by a constant, unrelenting invasion and undermining of the U.S. government (and every other government). When all the world's governments are Islamic, they will have the true peace they aspire to. And when all those Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists who do not want to give up their religion pay their jizya, they will have the prosperity they aspire to as well.
Some of Rehab's readers may know very little of this. If not, it is their own fault they live in ignorance of a faith they profess. They should either learn what they're professing or get the fuck out. But you can bet Rehab knows all about it. His bullshit is unadulterated taqiyya.
In a "game" researchers use to test personalities and winning strategies, they often employ the Prisoner's Dilemma, which is a hypothetical situation played between two people.
The Prisoner's Dilemma says "imagine you have two men who committed a crime together. They have been caught and the police are interrogating them separately. Both prisoners are offered the same deal: If you rat on your partner and if he keeps quiet, he'll get a life sentence and you'll go free. But if you both keep silent, we have enough evidence that you'll both get a year in prison. If he rats and you don't, you'll get life and he'll go free. If you both rat on each other, you'll each get twenty years in prison."
The dilemma is often played repeatedly with the same two people, who choose to cooperate or take advantage of the other through successive rounds of the game.
The Prisoner's Dilemma game is designed to parallel real life. If two people in real life cooperate with each other, it very often works to their mutual advantage. But if one person cooperates and the other takes advantage, it often works out very well for the selfish one and the good person gets screwed. But to go around preempting people — trying to take advantage of them before they take advantage of you — results in great loss all around. That's the dilemma. What is the best strategy?
The best strategy, it turns out, is "tit for tat." On the first round, be cooperative. After that, do whatever the other one does.
I didn't mean to go into so much detail, but I just wanted to make a point. Damien sent me a link to an article about the battle going on in Thailand between Buddhists and (guess who?) Muslims. Buddhism is truly a religion of peace. But when you are interacting with someone who will only take advantage of you and never cooperate with you, or who will kill you if you let them, you are left with one choice: Fight back or be eliminated.
The Buddhists are choosing life. They are fighting back. I never thought I'd see the day.
In 2004, revered Queen Sirikit bluntly urged people to defend themselves, and she sponsors arms training programs that cater almost exclusively to Buddhists. After the attack on the van (where 8 Buddhists were ambushed in their van and killed) her military aide, Gen. Napon Bunthap, quoted her as saying: “We have to help people there to survive. If they need to be trained, train them. If they need to be armed, arm them.”I applaud the Queen. They have a new Prime Minister in Thailand. The previous Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was heavy-handed in his use of force, and he was, of course, criticized for it. "But Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont’s softer approach and offers of negotiation have also failed and the violence has worsened..." Duh. I could have told them that would happen.
The insurgency has claimed more than 2,000 deaths in the southernmost provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, which are 80 percent Muslim in the otherwise Buddhist-majority country. The rebels have never made public demands, but are believed to favor separation from Buddhist-dominated Thailand to form an Islamic state.Of course they are. Everywhere they can they will infiltrate, raise their numbers, and agitate for political control or a separate state. This is the essence of jihad.
Islam is a ratchet. It only goes one way.