| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
LGF links a report from the NY Police Dept. that analyzes how Muslims may become radicalized and devoted to violence.
Yesterday the LA Times published additional information related to this subject:
After more than a decade of warning that the greatest threat of homegrown terrorism for the United States came from individual lone-wolf radicals, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have begun focusing on what they say is a greater threat -- small, anonymous groups of disaffected men who radicalize one another and turn to violence.
Federal officials say that most of the domestic terrorist threats now under investigation involve such groups, though they continue to rank Al Qaeda as the greatest danger globally.
Known among counter-terrorism officials as BOGs, for "bunch of guys," or GOGs, for "group of guys," the cells may offer greater opportunities for detection and infiltration than the lone-wolf threat because they are more numerous and most members are amateurs.
And even the LA Times didn't try to hide the key detail: the small groups of guys they are finding, are Islamic.
To illustrate the small-group threat, authorities cite the case of Derrick Shareef, a young Muslim convert. Shareef was arrested near Chicago in December on suspicion of plotting to use hand grenades to attack holiday shoppers.
Originally, authorities described Shareef as a loner. Now, they say that he was plotting with another American Muslim convert who allegedly had ties to terrorists in the United Kingdom. The two were discussing a variety of targets and tactics, including sniper attacks on U.S. troops and assaults on military recruiting stations, a federal prosecutor said at a July 28 court hearing.
..."It's an international phenomenon," according to one U.S. intelligence official, who said such cells were being monitored in the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere.
"There is no useful profile to assist law enforcement or intelligence to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization. Rather, the individuals who take this course begin as 'unremarkable' from various walks of life," the NYPD said in a report released Wednesday.
"It is a phenomenon that occurs because the individual is looking for an identity and a cause and unfortunately, often finds them in extremist Islam," the report said.
..."I am from America, and this tape is to let you guys know, who disbelieve in Allah, to let the enemies of Islam know, and to let the Muslims alike know, that the time for jihad is now," Shareef said in a martyrdom video, according to the affidavit.
It's notable and praiseworthy that a MSM publication such as the LA Times would print such an article -- one that presents the facts, and does not leave out the M-word.
What can be done about the situation discussed in the Times' article? The key is to observe that radical mosques do not give specific directions to commit acts of violence; that is, they don't, as the Mafia did, have leaders who identify specific targets for attack. Instead, these mosques act by general direction, filling their members with rage toward the non-Islamic society around them in general -- as well as with an approval of violent acts. The results that are now being documented, are that a number of the members of such mosques are itching to commit violent acts, and some of them proceed to do so.
Quoting from the NYPD report:
The jihadist ideology combines the extreme and minority interpretation [jihadi- Salafi] of Islam with an activist-like commitment or responsibility to solve global political grievances through violence. Ultimately, the jihadist envisions a world in which jihadi-Salafi Islam is dominant and is the basis of government.
...Two key indicators within this self-identification stage that suggests progression along the radicalization continuum are:
• Progression or Gravitation Towards Salafi Islam
• Regular Attendance at a Salafi mosque [emphasis in original]
As these individuals adopt Salafism, typical signatures include:
o Becoming alienated from one's former life; affiliating with like-minded individuals
o Joining or forming a group of like-minded individuals in a quest to strengthen one's dedication to Salafi Islam
o Giving up cigarettes, drinking, gambling and urban hip-hop gangster clothes.
o Wearing traditional Islamic clothing, growing a beard
o Becoming involved in social activism and community issues
This is the precise nature of the cancer. These mosques produce killers who go out and violently attack the people around them.
In short, these Salafi mosques are filling their members with hate in a way that is documented to produce murderers. These mosques must be shut down. We must develop the legal structure which will permit us to shut down such mosques, for the safety of our nation.
Chris Burgard and Larry Elder
With the engaging film, "BORDER," Chris Burgard emerges as one of America's most watchable and compelling new documentary filmmakers. The film effortlessly mixes laughs, outrage, and compassion, as it presents what for most viewers will be revelations about the state of our southern border.
It's a border where American ranchers are afraid to leave their homes unattended, or to take walks on their own property, because of the armed "coyotes" (guides of illegal immigrants) who frequently come through, and who frequently raid unattended ranch homes.
It's a border where many American ranchers, on a nightly basis, see bands of 20 - 30 men and women illegally cross into the U.S., often backpacking in drugs worth up $90 million -- just in the backpacks of those 30 individuals.
It's a border where there have been hundreds of documented armed paramilitary incursions into our territory.
It's a border where many American ranchers commonly find dead bodies of the illegals who were betrayed and abandoned by their "coyotes" within a few hundred yards of their property.
It's a border that is permitting people to enter this country with dreaded diseases that have been unheard of here - like the mass killer of men, tuberculosis, and the ancient horror, leprosy.
How much more dangerous does a situation have to get before our government will act to protect us?
As Larry Elder said afterwards, our government isn't composed of leaders, but of followers, and it's up to us to lead them. As Burgard said, we don't get the government we deserve - we get the government we put up with.
Why does our government permit such a clear and present danger to the citizens of this country? The film includes footage of George W. Bush stating to Congress - to great applause - that the American economy cannot survive without immigrants. Fine. Let them be legal immigrants, who follow our laws, are disease free, don't traffic in drugs, pay taxes, don't treat our hospital emergency rooms like an HMO (causing the closings of dozens of overburdened hospitals), and who regularly return home to their families.
"BORDER" makes the case that the right way to do legal immigration is in just that way. Each migrant would make a deposit in a bank account. A percentage of each paycheck goes into the same account. At the end of his legal stay, he must leave the country to collect those moneys. With, for example, $10,000 at stake, the migrants will leave. They can see their families. And they can return here, safely and conveniently, to work again.
This would work.
In the Q&A, Burgard said (from my handwritten notes - not expected to be verbatim):
The "coyotes" are all part of the drug cartels now. The cartels have killed or driven out all the mom and pops. They run the migrants around for 7-8 days until they're just about dead. Then they say, you want water? That'll be $300. You want some MRE's [meals ready-to-eat - a military term]? It's $300. Afterwards, they say, now you owe me $5000. You have to make payments every week. If you don't, I know where your family lives, and I'll kill them.
In the Q&A Burgard also made a surprising statement: he's opposed to building a fence on the border. He said that the fence:
He said that the right way to do it is to station 40,000 U.S. National Guardsmen or troops on the border. He believes that this number would be sufficient. He has footage from a month in which troops with tanks were stationed along part of the border -- and he personally saw it work. It stopped the "coyotes." Then someone in Washington forced the troops to leave.
It could be done in two weeks: in two weeks, the troops could be in place, and our border would be secure -- as opposed to the many years it would take to build a porous fence. The incremental costs are zero, since we already maintain the troops. Looked at in absolute dollars, the costs would be far less than the $12 billion required to build the fence.
We must make sure that the next president of this country understands the terrible - and completely unnecessary - danger of the current situation, both to citizens of the U.S., and to those of Mexico. We have to take control of our southern border back from the drug cartels, for the safety and security and financial success of all.
Burgard has been screening "BORDER" to full houses, and is planning a 30-city tour, to be followed up with a DVD release. If you care about this issue, make sure to see this film. Click here for more information.
I had high hopes for Condi. But this can't be explained favorably: she's signed onto the disastrous "land-for-peace" policy, that has been demonstrated to fail since the Oslo accords.
On the first day of her Middle East tour, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday signed a joint statement with Egypt, Jordan and six Persian Gulf states, endorsing the 2002 Arab peace initiative as one of the foundations for Middle East peace.
Visiting the region with Rice is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
The initiative offers Israel normalized relations with all Arab countries in return for full withdrawal from the territory Israel captured in 1967.
The absurd land-for-peace strategy practically has billboards advertising it as a failure, in the form of rockets lobbed onto Israel from Gaza as a result of the last time Israel gave away land per this foolish strategy.
The reason the strategy doesn't work is that the Islamists don't want the peace and they don't want the land. They want to destroy the state of Israel. Cutting up pieces of Israel and giving them away to the Islamists is like telling a robber that you'll make a deal, that if you give him 10 bucks, he won't take the rest of the money in your wallet.
Can Condi be deluding herself, after decades of proof to the contrary, that such a strategy makes sense? The answer appears to be found in an insight provided last February by Bruce Hershensohn:
...The State Dept. believes that they are the permanent government of the United States. They believe that Presidents are a nuisance -- a temporary nuisance that they can put up with. They can put up with them for 4 to 8 years, and then they're gone. The State Department believes in stability -- not in liberty. They believe that Patrick Henry said, "Give me stability or give me death."
This is likely the explanation. Condi's been captured by the culture of the State department. She doesn't care if Israel is destroyed. She doesn't care if she's rewarding those who make war specifically for the purpose of destroying a U.S. ally and a U.N. member nation.
All she wants is short-term peace.
It's a narrow, limited vision, that is conducive to long-term tragedy.
Spread the news far and wide: CAIR made big moves this week to use the threat of lawsuits to destroy our freedom of speech - and Americans who heard about it are getting sick and tired of it, and are standing up to defend our way of life from those who seek to destroy it.
First came the news this week that CAIR had pressured PACE university to get a student, Stanislav Shmulevich, arrested for throwing a Koran in a toilet at PACE university. This move has generated millions of dollars in adverse publicity against CAIR, via talk radio, blogs, newspapers, and on TV.
Evidently emboldened by what they foolishly considered a success, CAIR then sent a letter threatening legal action against the Young America's Foundation, unless they shut down an event at which Robert Spencer was scheduled to speak. The YAF responded: “CAIR can go to Hell and they can take their 72 virgins with them.” This is a rallying cry ranking with "Nuts!" and "Give 'em Hell, Harry!"
In an ill-considered, knee-jerk response to pressure put on it by CAIR, PACE University has called the police and had arrested, a student, for putting a Koran in a toilet. This, when flag-burning is protected free speech, and desecration of Christian religious symbols is called "art" and put in museums. The public outrage from Americans who love free speech is threatening to turn this into a firestorm of public outrage directed against PACE. The topic is red-hot on LGF and is looking like a gathering blogswarm, with Google showing 110 blog posts on the subject in the past 12 hours. It appears likely that this subject will dominate talk radio tomorrow.
Earlier today I emailed this to the President of PACE University, Stephen J. Friedman:
Dear Mr. Friedman,
PACE has called the police to prosecute Mr. Shmulevich in response to pressure put on PACE by CAIR. Please reconsider. PACE is about to be on the receiving end of a massive public outcry from Americans outraged that PACE has, in error and without specifically intending it, launched a legal attack on U.S. freedom of speech.
To see the depth of the passion of Americans who love our free speech and our way of life, I strongly advise you to read the comments on this post (link) on a site that has tens of thousands of visits a day. There are already over 500 comments as I compose this email.
You are unintentionally making PACE the center of a firestorm of public outrage. And PACE is on the wrong side - standing against freedom of speech, which should be the top priority of a great University such as yours.
Act now to prevent a debacle, and massive international damage to PACE's reputation. Stand up for Mr. Shmulevich's right to free speech. Drop the charges.
I included the first 460 comments from the second LGF post on the subject, including:
#1 pbird 7/29/2007 8:20:06 am PDT
You described it perfectly Charles. I am speechless. So frightening.
...#3 m 7/29/2007 8:20:30 am PDTAnd Mr. Shmulevich needs a paypal account. This is ########.
#4 BabbaZee 7/29/2007 8:20:56 am PDT
re: #3 m
Amen.
#5 newsjunkie_ky 7/29/2007 8:21:48 am PDT
This scares the sh*t out of me. What next?
#6 NinoBrown79 7/29/2007 8:22:08 am PDT
A koran in the toilet and the guy gets thrown in jail? Is this America or Iran?
#7 mrsoc 7/29/2007 8:22:44 am PDT
Well, are we going to help him, or not?
#8 albemarle 7/29/2007 8:22:46 am PDT
How long before he gets his own fatwa ?
#9 Cartman 7/29/2007 8:22:56 am PDT
This is gonna be really interesting.
#10 christheprofessor 7/29/2007 8:23:18 am PDT
I can't seem to find any instance of PU's (somehow, that abbreviation seems so appropriate) having arrested somebody for burning an American flag....
#11 Roger 7/29/2007 8:23:37 am PDT
Will do, Charles.
I can't find which campus?
If anyone knows a good timing and if they are going to go, let me know.
#12 m 7/29/2007 8:23:41 am PDT
Who the f' was he harassing? The plumbers? Aggrevated harassment at that!
#13 Armigerous 7/29/2007 8:23:55 am PDT
From what I understand about the case,the Koran in question belonged to the university and not to him personally....can anybody verify that?..that would seem to be the crux of the problem
#14 BabbaZee 7/29/2007 8:24:11 am PDT
re: #7 mrsoc
Absolutely we are going to help him.
Any way we can.
...#16 distwalker 7/29/2007 8:24:21 am PDTYou can burn an American flag and get police protection.
You can create an image of the Virgin Mary in elephant dung and get it in a New York museum.
You can create performance art in which you insert a crucifix in your anus on stage and get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.
You can burn a pile of bibles and get an article in the New York Times.
One Koran in the toilet results in two felony charges?
People, this is the center of the god damned storm. This is where we make our stand. If we can't win this one for this man, we have lost the war.
Institutions like PACE respond to pressure from the public. So far, CAIR is pressuring them, and they are responding. If they start hearing directly from us, demanding the protection of free speech, and the destruction of nascent double standards for Islam, the situation will change.
From StrategyPage:
July 24, 2007: The surge has basically been chasing the terrorist and criminal gangs around the suburbs of Baghdad, or even into northern or western Iraq. This has taken its toll. Time spent in flight cannot be spent planting IEDs or killing people. Putting all these guys on the road, also makes them more susceptible to capture. A lot of important terrorists have been captured this way. The chief liaison between al Qaeda headquarters and al Qaeda in Iraq was nabbed, as well as many mid-level terrorist cell leaders.
What most of the troops, and Iraqi civilians, notice is the lower level of violence. Since the surge offensive began four months ago, Iraqi (military and civilian) deaths have declined by more than 50 percent, and American casualties are down by over a third. U.S. troops are still taking the lead in moving into hostile areas, and being exposed to ambush and IEDs. But U.S. tactics and training have made enemy efforts much less lethal. This has helped demoralize an increasing number of terrorists. Many are tired of killing Iraqi civilians, and the increasing difficulty at getting at American troops. Look at this from the Iraqi perspective. In a very good month, Iraqis make a hundred or more attacks a day on American troops, and kill, on average, about four of them. While the terrorists make a big deal out of every American killed, they know that most of their attacks were not only failures, but got a lot of their buddies killed. On average, 10-20 terrorists die for every American killed. This has been going on for years, and an increasing number of Iraqi fighters are demoralized and quitting. Many either become informers, or surrender and speak freely. This is resulting in fresher intelligence, and raids that are catching terrorist cells preparing for operations, and in possession of weapons, bombs and incriminating documents.
The terrorists like us to think that it's impossible for an army to fight a force that can melt into a civilian population.
But maybe it's not impossible.
Maybe it's just a little more expensive.
If it were to be confirmed as official policy in Egypt, this would be historic:
Egypt's religious advisor says Muslims can choose own religion
CAIRO: Egypt's official religious advisor has ruled that Muslims are free to change their faith as it is a matter between an individual and God, in a move which could have far-reaching implications for the country's Christians.
"The essential question before us is can a person who is Muslim choose a religion other than Islam? The answer is yes, they can," Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa said in a posting on a Washington Post-Newsweek forum picked up by the Egyptian press on Tuesday.
...In many Muslim societies, those who convert to another religion are considered apostates and can be subject to capital punishment.
..."Even though it is not a criminal offence in Egypt, they get detained under emergency laws or are put on trial for contempt of religion if they wish to convert," said Hossam Bahgat of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.
"This (ruling) is significant, especially coming from Gomaa," he added. "Between 2004 and now there have been many court cases involving Christian converts to Islam that want to convert back to Christianity who are unable to do so."
To underscore the importance of such an advance, here's a quote from Wafa Sultan, who last year was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
When Muslims say, there are 1.3 billion of them, it makes it sound like they are the whole world. But the rest of the world is 5 billion. Muslims are a minority and they have to act like it. Those Muslims have no choice of religion, they are forced to be Muslim. Give those 1.3 billion Muslims freedom of religion, and then see how many Muslims there are in the world!
You'd think Hillary would at least want the story to go away. You'd think she wouldn't want to remind people that the Pentagon had warned her she was 'reinforcing enemy propaganda.' For the record, here's the background info:
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda. In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
But, on the contrary, she's working hard to keep the story alive - and even to drag other Democrat senators into it with her.
Hillary Seeks Support in Pentagon Fight
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday enlisted the help of other Democratic senators in her feud with the Pentagon over end-of-war planning in Iraq.
She wants to be commander-in-chief - but she's in a feud with the Pentagon. Hopefully many voters will remember that the Pentagon itself has warned her, that she's helping the enemy - the enemy that is killing American troops in Iraq.
As you may know, yesterday - astoundingly - the Democrats killed an amendment that would protect "John Doe" whistleblowers from being sued. This amendment is needed because CAIR is suing the whistleblowers in the flying imams case, so as to intimidate future whistleblowers from giving us advance warnings of terrorist plots. CAIR's action is shocking - and the Dems supporting it is almost beyond belief.
I really didn't think the Dems were capable of this. This is a new low for them.
No Republicans voted against the amendment. Not one.
I just called Nancy Pelosi's office, via the Congressional switchboard, at 202-224-3121. It was answered very politely. I said I had a comment on the Democrat's efforts to kill this bill, and I was sent to a tape recording. Here's the comment I left:
Hi. I'd like to make a comment on the Democrat's killing of the "John Doe" amendment that would protect our whistleblowers from lawsuits. At this time, when we are all in so much danger from terrorists trying to blow things up, to leave the whistleblowers, the people who are trying to protect us, open to lawsuits - this is too horrifying, too terrible. It will lead to many deaths if those people are intimidated and unwilling to come forward. And my friends are starting to say, has our government been bought and paid for by the Saudis? So I'm asking you, please, please, put that amendment back in, or put it in somewhere else, or pass a stand-alone bill to the same effect. Thank you.
I then looked up the phone numbers of my Senators - Senators Boxer and Feinstein - using this web site. I first called Boxer's office. There was a nice tape of Sen. Boxer saying that because of the high volume of calls, I would be put on hold, and listen to classical music, until someone could speak to me. It also gave the number of her San Francisco office. Then the line was disconnected!
At her San Francisco office, a very nice woman answered the phone, and politely listened to my comments, which I gave her in a concerned, polite manner.
I then tried the number for Sen. Feinstein's office. It rang - then became a busy signal. I then called the Congressional switchboard, at 202-224-3121 and asked for Feinstein's office, and was put through to a number that was answered quickly and politely. The man who answered said that the correct way to refer to this issue is as "the John Doe amendment," to distinguish it from corporate whistleblowers. After finding out that I was in favor of the amendment, he said he would pass along my comments, and tried to cut me off, but I asked him to wait and listen to a few brief words, which he politely did. My sense of it was that he would try to cut off everybody after finding out their position, pro or con, on the amendment; I didn't feel he was trying to avoid taking my comments because I was in favor of the amendment.
Call Nancy Pelosi and your Senators (via the Congressional switchboard, at 202-224-3121) and support the John Doe amendment. Per Frank Gaffney:
Every one of us who understands the indispensable role alert private citizens can - and must - play in protecting the American people from future terrorist attacks should immediately contact Speaker Pelosi's office (202-225-4965), their own congressional representatives and their favorite talk radio show hosts and bloggers. The message should be clear: Enact the King amendment - because our lives, literally, depend upon it.
From the Washington Times:
A Muslim civil rights group yesterday blamed the Bush administration for promoting "Islamophobia" and said the "war on terror" won't stop terrorists.
"The new perception is that the United States has entered a war with Islam itself," said Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the national board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
"Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot eradicate it by declaring a war against it. The war on terror is causing us infinitely more harm than the terrorists could have ever imagined."
Mr. Ahmed, who spoke at a CAIR symposium at the National Press Club, said the war against terrorists is driven by an "irrational" fear that the Bush administration has inculcated in the American public. The chance of being killed in a terrorist attack, he said, is 1 in 80,000 over a lifetime.
There are about 300 million people in America. 1 in 80,000 means that Ahmed is predicting that 3,750 of them will be killed by terrorists - more than the number killed on 9-11. And he also says, in another implied threat, that the war on terror won't stop it. Yet there hasn't been another 9-11 since 2001, despite the efforts of the Islamists.
Ahmed knows that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are committed by his co-religionists in the name of their religion. Yet CAIR's opposition is directed against U.S. efforts to put an end to those attacks. CAIR itself makes little effort to put an end to those attacks. This recent Ramirez cartoon says it well:
Ahmed's implied threat of future attacks, and his organization's lack of actions to prevent such attacks, show what goals CAIR - an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding case - is pursuing.
DVDs from the Conference on the Collapse of Europe, which I blogged extensively, are now available for $15 each.
[This article is by guest poster, Shawn Steel. Steel is the former President of the California Republican Party, co-founder of the Davis Recall, and is currently Director of the Club for Growth. - VR.]
One of the most remarkable women today is former Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her biography is an unrelenting page turner. Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali 2007, Free Press.
Ali is one courageous author, witness and political leader to confront the Cancer within Islam.
All great religions and ideologies always contain seeds of its own destruction. Islam is no exception. Given that America is one of the most tolerant societies is recorded history, many of our citizens still cannot understand the violent and extreme phenomena called Radical Islam.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells the story of the growth of the Radical Cancer in her homeland Somalia. Her father was a revolutionary working against the Marxists who seized Somalia in the early 80's. American's most unsuccessful President, the fall of Somalia was part of Carter's legacy when the last gasps of the Soviet conquests extended from Afghanistan, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada and many more.
Her family was clan based with a heavy dependence on Islam. She learned early on that Islam considered women inherently inferior. Despite her education, academic success, multiple language skill [six] and courage, when she personally rescued many family members from war torn Somalia, the men in her family still considered Ayaan a lesser human.
Ultimately she was ordered to marry a Somali man who migrated to Canada, because too many Somali girls were "corrupted" there. Ayaan was ordered by her father to submit to Allah's will and marry a man she didn't know. Instead, while traveling to Canada via Europe, she escaped to Holland and claimed political refugee status. She learned Dutch and in no time was elected to Parliament.
But when she began to publicly debate the growing menace of Radical Islam in Dutch society she became quite famous and attracted serious murder threats.
After she helped write a film called Submission, directed by Theo van Gogh [ yes, the grandson], about the cruel lives of many woman forced to lived marginal lives in radical Islamic communities, Theo was murdered for his work.
The murder itself was an effective metaphor for the seriousness, the outrage and insanity of Radical Islam. Van Gogh while riding on his bicycle was shot eight times by Mohammad B. a well off Arab who benefited from Dutch society. Mohammad cut van Gogh's throat nearly decapitating Theo. Mohammad then plunged two knives into van Gogh's chest. A five page note was thrust into van Gogh's heart with a written pledge to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Ayaan's story is not to be missed. It timely, important and a brisk read. To learn more about Ayaan, who recently, moved to the US to continue the war against Radical Islam, her book is crucial.
With many Conservatives criticizing GWB these days, it's worth remembering his substantial successes to date:
Per William Kristol in the Washington Post:
Why Bush Will Be a Winner
...With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow.
...What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.
I like the odds.
In many cases, even Conservatives have fallen for the never-ending drumbeat of biased reporting from MSM, and have come to the conclusion that he's a disappointment.
On the plus side, in this environment - in which MSM continuously feeds the public a biased view of the news - it may help the next Republican presidential candidate get elected, to distance himself from GWB.
But it appears to me that in 20 years, GWB's presidency will be held in very high regard.
One of the great things about blogging is, it enables conversations between people from all over the world. Last night, in response to a post regarding Islam, this comment came in from Eagle in Pakistan:
There is not any religion in the world which teaches violence. All religions give some way or path to its follower. This concept about Islam is also wrong that it favours violance. It teaches that to kill a man is like killing a whole mankind.
There is need to respect all religions. The violance in the world is due to us, not due to religions.
Religion is an important part of life. We cant ignore it.
everyone in the world should try for peace and humanity on individual level. We should not wait for some revolution at country level or world level. We need to change ourselves. Look beside you, dont ignore poors which are near by you, speak well to your servents, be honest in your duties, try for the betterment of yourself and the people around you, stick to a path which u think is right..
Be a good man, everything in the world will be alright.
Welcome to the site, Eagle. I'm glad to hear that this is your view of Islam. However, when you read the Koran, you may find something different from the view you support. For example, let's take the verse you refer to:
It teaches that to kill a man is like killing a whole mankind.
Here's the verse from the Koran (5:32):
For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
So this verse, is as much a justification for killing your fellow men, as it is a call not to do so. Unfortunately, it says that you can kill your fellow men for "corruption in the earth."
Now, what could that be? The next verse talks about it. Here's the very next verse:
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
So "corruption in the earth"/"corruption in the land" is made by anyone who makes "war upon Allah," and such people are to be "killed or crucified."
Islam declares war on everybody who isn't a Muslim. From About.com:
A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.
So, Islam declares war on anybody who isn't a Muslim. Anyone who is, as a result, at war with Islam, is making "corruption in the Earth," and is to be "killed or crucified."
The result is that the part you quoted, from the verse, only applies to Muslims. It doesn't apply to non-Muslims.
Just in case anyone might think that Islam looks kindly on those of other faiths in any situation, a few verses later (5:36 and 5:37), the Koran says:
As for those who disbelieve, lo! if all that is in the earth were theirs, and as much again therewith, to ransom them from the doom on the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them. Theirs will be a painful doom.
They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom.
Taken with the preceding verses, it appears that the Koran is saying that Muslims cannot co-exist with others.
This does not look very much like a "religion of peace."
Your misfortune, is that if you tell your kids that the Koran is the word of Allah, some of them are likely to read it and come to the conclusion that, according to the Koran, Allah says to kill non-Muslims. And they're going to be in grave danger of wasting their lives by devoting themselves to racism, violence, and hatred.
It appears that the only way Muslims are going to be able to co-exist peacefully with others - which you are good enough to say is your goal - is to explicitly and publicly repudiate these verses - and other similar ones - from the Koran. A Muslim thinker from Sudan has shown a philosophical basis on which this can be done. As discussed by Daniel Pipes:
...note the original thinking of the Sudanese theologian Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85). Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for the Shari'a, or Islamic law.
Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha's ideas accepted, most of the Shari'a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.
Eagle, would you consider the approach suggested by Taha, so as to save your children from the danger of wasting their lives by devoting themselves to racism, violence, and hatred?
Yesterday morning I watched the film "Muslims Against Jihad," produced by Frank Gaffney and Martyn Burke. I'd like to comment on a particular passage in it. Here it is, as quoted on the Foehammer blog:
Around 8 minutes into the first segment of the program is the Omar Bakri statement that I believe is one of the most important utterances from an Islamist that I have ever heard:
"The only way you can stop us, by give up your democracy. If you give up democracy and Freedom of Speech, and start to stop us and ban us the way you started to do, that the way you can stop us. But that mean we succeed. We say to the people: 'You see? Democracy-Hypocrisy. We have always said so.' You do not believe in democracy."
What exactly is Bakri referring to? Why does he say we have to give up democracy in order to stop people who want to destroy democracy? Here's the background that specifies what Bakri is referring to.
1. Islam is a political project with the goal of dominating any society in which it can implant itself. In the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Islam is a political project. It is a supremacist movement. It has a three-tiered stage, and has always had that. And those stages - the first one is dawa, or missionary work, persuading individuals to agree with the basic tenets and principals of that political project. The second is hejira, or emigration - spreading the faith, by planting people who have been converted to the faith, in other areas. And finally there's the stage of jihad. And that, I don't have to tell you.
2. A key strategy for domination of the host society, is the filling of the Muslim community with rage and hatred so that there are always Muslims itching to do violence. As I have posted recently:
Ayaan is describing the phenomenon we are all beginning to become aware of. Islamists emigrate into an area, and once there in sufficient numbers, they begin threatening the public with riots and violence. They do this not by specific direction; that is, they don't, as the Mafia did, have leaders who identify specific targets for attack. Instead, they do this by general direction, as per the Koran, to be at war with non-Muslims in general. This effectively results in enough acts of violence because the Islamist culture is intentionally filled with hate for non-Muslims, so that there are always more than enough Islamists itching to do violence. The non-Islamic host culture is unused to such an attack. Arresting the specific perpetrators of violence doesn't solve the situation, since the Islamist culture always produces more violence-prone Islamists. The non-Islamic host culture typically has no systems in place to root out the Islamist culture that is attacking it. Blindsided, without thinking about the long-term implications, the non-Islamic host culture usually attempts to appease the Islamists by giving them more and more of whatever they demand, hoping that they will then abandon violence. But Islam doesn't seek co-existence; as Ayaan says, Islam is a political project. It seeks political domination and supremacy. In many cases the result is that the non-Islamic host culture is destroyed, in a manner comparable to a body attacked by cancer.
This is a strategy that is brilliantly crafted to attack non-Islamic cultures. It has been developed and honed literally over centuries.
3. One of the principal methods used by the Islamists to fill the Muslim community with rage and hatred, is the continual exhortation of crowds at mosques, by Imams, to hate all non-Muslims. A few examples:
- British TV exposed the hate-filled preachings of the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England.
- The Society of Americans for National Existence exposed similar events at mosques in the U.S.
- Religious, government, and media leaders in Islamic nations, routinely call for murder to be done in the name of Islam:
Egyptian Cleric Hazem Sallah Abu Isma'il on the Rewards of the Martyr
Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi Justifies the Killing of Israeli Women and Children in Suicide Operations
So Bakri is saying that democracy protects his right to fill Muslims with rage and hatred, such that there will always be some Muslims who, on their own initiative, without being specifically directed to do an attack, go out and commit murders, a la the many murders attempted and/or committed by Muslims almost weekly in various nations - including last week in England and Scotland.
Which brings me to the comment I'd like to make on Bakri's statement. Under our present system, Bakri is right that there is nothing we can do to stop Islamists from pursuing the strategy of jihad to commit murder and destroy our culture. We must figure this out; we must make an adjustment to our laws to enable us to shut down Islamist leaders who preach hatred of non-Muslims. It should be doable. We've rightfully made it impossible for anyone to say anything hateful about Blacks. Why shouldn't we be able to make it impossible for Muslims to say anything hateful about non-Muslims?
The alternative - and not an unthinkable one - is to recognize that Islamists have declared war on us, from within our midst; and to declare war back on them, and throw the hate-preaching Islamists in jail under the rules of war, rather than under the rules of civil society.
It's probably going to have to be one or the other of these two alternatives.
That the Islamists have declared war on us is not a matter of question. From About.com:
A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.
In Islam, by "peace and tranquility," is meant the absence of free speech; the oppression and eventual absence of Christianity, Judaism, and atheism; separation of men from women before marriage; the absence of freedom for women; legal status for women as being one-half that of the legal status of men; so-called honor killings of women by their own family members; beatings of wives by husbands; the instilling of rage and hatred into little children; and the whole list of specifications for hell on earth that is actually put into practice in Islamic nations today.
