| July 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Per ReligionOfPeace.com, since 9-11 there have been 2,375 terrorist attacks conducted by Islamofascists, resulting in 15,716 dead, and 34,575 injured. Not a good track record for the "religion of peace."
The proposed new British anti-terror legislation would target:
It would target people "providing or receiving training in the use of hazardous substances and in other methods or techniques for terrorist purposes".
...Inciting terrorism directly is already against the law and the new law would try to cover indirect incitement.
Ms Blears said: "It would apply where people would seek to glorify terrorist activity, perhaps, for example, saying 'isn't this a marvellous thing that this has happened' and 'these people are martyrs'."
On this basis, it appears that there could be a whole lot of arrests in England.
I had lunch today with a British friend, whose views on many subjects are quite different from my own. However, it was a very useful and illuminating conversation. He told me about the legislation discussed in this post.
He confirmed that the British view in permitting so much outspoken support for Islamofascism in England, was to make it easy for the authorities to identify and keep track of those supporters. He stated that as a result, it is now fairly easy for the authorities to go after them. (This appears to confirm something I've previously posted: "Perhaps it will make the terrorists even more vulnerable to England, than it makes England to them.")
His view, having lived in England, is that the vast majority of Muslims in England do not support terrorist actions. I'm skeptical of this, per evidence such as that included in posts here, here and here. On the other hand, I would like very much to find out that my friend is correct. Surely a subset of the Muslims within London cannot long survive a concerted effort by those around them to root them out and identify them to the authorities.
My friend stated that he expects passage of the new legislation within a matter of days, if not hours.
RENEWED PATRIOT ACT GETS BOOST IN HOUSE, SENATE PANEL. Funny how a little thing like having people blown up in London by Islamofascists can encourage this sort of thing.
IRAQ THE MODEL REPORTS ON LOSSES TAKEN BY THE TERRORISTS IN IRAQ -- losses which often fail to make the MSM reports. He concludes with these moving words:
Who thinks that a war can be won without losses and sacrifices is far from reason.
Yes, sacrifices, efforts, time and costs are all factors that make us seriously worried but we have to remind ourselves that abandoning the mission before it's fully done would be a disaster for all of us.
I'm positive that Iraqis have no intention of giving up and so do their allies and friends while those who think that our position is weak are actually allowing lies and illusions to control their thinking and were driven away from the larger image by the narrow image provided by the media.
The future is ours, there's no doubt about that and we shall win.
Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says:
LONDON (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.
Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.
"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.
"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.
I have an alternative theory I'd like to check out. My alternative theory is that militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until this damned imam, and the other leaders of the society in London that supports terrorist actions, are arrested, and until a substantial number of their followers have been made to feel unacceptable consequences (e.g. deportation) to themselves personally as a result of these attacks.
Mavenette, the proprietor of the Cynicistan blog, is in Egypt, and emails this report (printed here by permission):
To answer your question, the initial reaction here in Egypt was "Ya Allah, there goes some crazy Muslims again!" Everyone that I talked to here seemed positive that no Egyptians had something to do the London bombings, unlike Sept 11th. As for the Egyptian chemist in London, the Egyptian press is protraying him as a scapegoat.
I asked why they felt Egyptians would be part of Sept 11th, but not part of the London attacks.
Remember, the ringleader of the 9/11 19 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was an Egyptian.
Brutal abuses of human rights got little bad press for Sudan:
Genocidal Intent
A United Nations panel created last fall to investigate the crisis in Sudan has found the government is responsible for "widespread and systematic" abuses against human rights. The five-member commission found the Sudanese government and its militia – the Janjaweed – has systematically engaged in violence including "murder, torture, kidnapping, rape, forced displacement and the destruction of villages."
But rough up a few members of the press and all of a sudden they discover:
‘There is no freedom of the press here’
Why would the reporters think there was freedom of the press in a country that's committing "murder, torture, kidnapping, rape, forced displacement and the destruction of villages."?
At one point, Sean McCormack, the assistant secretary for public affairs, said to his Sudanese counterpart, "I'll convey your desires about not permitting reporters to ask questions, but that's all I'll do. We have a free press." And his counterpart said, "There is no freedom of the press here." Which kind of told the whole story.
What a shock to the Liberal MSM, that there is no freedom of the press in Sudan! Where have they been?
The Top 10 Web Fads Ever (So Far).
MEMRI reports that an official website edits out calls by a prominent imam for attacks on Israel:
It should be noted that the website www.alminbar.net, which regularly posts Al-Sudayyis's sermons, edited out the above segment, as did the Saudi Gazette, which regularly reports on his sermons
Diablo Valley College lets an imam teach a class that Israel is evil. Folks, just let things like this go on long enough, and we'll be able to have our own London-style bombers right here.
In some weddings, "'til death do us part" is going the way of "to honor and obey" — that is, out the window.
Tapscott quotes a NY Times editor as bragging that MSM newspapers are distinguished from blogs by their careful fact-checking. Meanwhile, the NY Times doesn't even accurately report what's happening on its own best-seller book list.
In light of today's new bombings in London, it is essential to note that we can't eradicate terrorism by arresting and killing only the terrorists themselves, because the society that produced them can always produce more of them. Instead, we must show such societies, that there are unacceptable consequences to them for doing so.
From AP: "Even in Britain, Moderate Muslims Don't Always Agree That Suicide Bombing Is Wrong."
Sure. Why should they agree it's wrong? There are no consequences to them for teaching their children to kill women and children. In England, imams publicly call out for war on England, and Muslim parents let their young children attend lectures from people who support terrorism and teach them to hate. The friends of the London killers are happy to show how they support such actions. And what are the consequences to them? Zero. Instead, the British government goes after only those who personally helped carry out the attacks.
In this they follow the example of Israel. In madrassas, in mosques, in what they see on Al Jazeera, in what they see all around them, Palestinian children are raised to hate and to kill. When one of them actually does kill, what are the consequences to the society of people that taught them to do so? Zero. Israel targets only those immediately involved in the terrorist killings of civilians. The larger society is free to celebrate, as in Palestine; or to openly admit they support terrorism, and to write articles about how "sassy" they are for doing so, as in London; and to go on supporting terrorism and producing more terrorist killers, as in both cases.
The Islamic citizen in both cases -- the shop-keeper, the coffee-house owner -- can laugh off the response of the attacked nation as a big joke. It doesn't touch him. He doesn't care if the terrorists get caught or killed -- that was their job.
But if there are consequences that affect the larger society that produces terrorists -- the shop-keepers, store-owners, the guys who run the restaurants near the mosques that teach people to kill, the friends who encouraged the killers -- if there are consequences to them personally, that will be another story. It won't be so funny anymore. Then they will have to rethink their support of the killing of women and children.
Terrorism cannot long continue in the face of severe blow-back to the societies that produce the terrorists.
What are appropriate consequences? It doesn't matter, as long as they are sufficiently devastating. In England, deportation of all the members of a Mosque at which an imam preached the killing of civilians, would be powerful in making the Islamic community understand, that they can no longer go on supporting the killing of civilians.
I just got back from hearing Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca speak to the Hollywood Congress of Republicans. Among other things, Sheriff Baca noted that LA County currently spends $1.3 billion a year to jail 40,000 illegal immigrants who have been caught breaking laws (other than immigration laws). Baca stated that a majority of criminals who are deported later re-immigrate illegally. In his view the reasons no national politicians have yet moved strongly against illegal immigration are:
Bush “Temporary Worker Proposal” Caused Increase in Illegal Immigrant Crossings, New Docs Show:
President Bush’s proposal lured greater numbers of illegal immigrants to violate the law. Approximately 45% of respondents crossed illegally based upon rumors of a Bush amnesty program.
