Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 06:44:27 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81367 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 233 234 [235] 236 237
11701  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 27, 2006, 07:35:28 AM
Failure to assume a German (Or other nation that applies) identity and allegence. You may not be able to read a mind, but you can observe their actions. The immigrant should speak, read, dress and act German. Any mosque preaching anything that clashes with German values shouldn't be tolerated. Germany doesn't allow swastikas, Mein Kampf or neo-nazi gatherings. The same laws should apply to jihadist groups. You couldn't flaunt your decadent western ways in an islamic country, the same rules should apply to them in the west.
11702  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 27, 2006, 06:03:52 AM
11703  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 27, 2006, 06:03:16 AM
Why are there youngsters packing a buchload of guns and going into their high school on a rampage?

Hard to say. I guess its many components playing together;
  • lack of cultural identity
  • self hatred
  • feeling of exclusion (from society, friends, family)
  • suicical tendencies
  • depression

I'd say these convert jihadist are an exception and no rule.

What do you think?

I think there is a massive body of evidence to correlate violence to islam. Not every muslim, but as a rule the more religiously observant, the more likely to engage in jihad, or at least support it due to islam's core theology. Those that might have joined the Brownshirts 70 years ago or the Red Army Faction or Bader-Meinhof 30 years ago are converting to islam and becoming jihadis today. The commonality between the various groups is the endorsement, even sanctification of violence to meet their communal goals.
11704  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 27, 2006, 05:38:49 AM
There is a difference between patriotism and malignant nationalism. I think the distinction is lost in europe's politics.You can love Germany without it becoming "Deutchland uber alles". You eject people who have outside loyalties, either to other nations or to the "umma". Applying to be an immigrant is like applying for a job. You are asking, not demanding. The weight is on the immigrant to prove they deserve citizenship.

Draw clear lines about what it means to be a German (Or other nation). If they can't or won't meet the standard, then they need to find another country. If Biergardens and women walking around without the hijab offend you, then look elsewhere for a place to live. I know that if I as an American was living in Germany and complained to Germans about how some aspects of Germany didn't jibe with my American cultural values you'd feel free to tell me off. Why should you then treat any other group any differently? Give non-intergrating immigrants the same venom usually only reserved for America. 
11705  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 27, 2006, 01:20:26 AM
Well, that doesn't really contradict to what I'm saying...

Quoted from one of your articles:

The phenomenon is not confined to Europe.

Yes, but please explain to me how you take a european muslim convert (Or American, Canadian, Australian convert) and then get a jihadist. You don't have the "victim" status you claim is what is fueling the jihad with middle eastern, south asian, african ethnicities that face discrimination in europe.
11706  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 26, 2006, 07:51:31 AM
**And the european converts to islam become suicide bombers because.....**

SPIEGEL ONLINE - May 30, 2006, 04:01 PM
War on Terror

German Women Vowed to Mount Suicide Attacks in Iraq

By Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark

German authorities may have thwarted suicide bomb attacks in Iraq by German women. According to intelligence sources, three women were prevented from travelling to Iraq after one of them had announced she planned to blow herself up in Iraq.

Car bombs and suicide bombs remain a daily feature of life in Iraq. On Monday, some 39 people were killed in multiple bombings in the country.

SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that German intelligence agencies have prevented three German women from travelling to Iraq in recent weeks. The women, who have close contacts to the Islamist scene in Germany and at least one whom has converted to Islam, came to the attention of intelligence agencies after one of them had announced on an Internet site that she intended to blow herself and her child up in Iraq.

After the Web posting were spotted, Germany's domestic and foreign intelligence agencies mounted an intense search for the three women. One of them was located in Berlin, the other two are believed to come from southern Germany. The Berlin woman's child was taken away from her and she has been put in a psychiatric clinic. The two other women were also prevented from leaving Germany. One of them is also believed to have a child.

It's not clear yet how serious the women were about their claims and how far their plans for an attack had progressed. There has been no official confirmation. Well-informed sources say the women have had contacts with sympathizers of Ansar al Islam, a militant group linked to al-Qaida and suspected of smuggling suicide bombers from Germany to Iraq. The group is also suspected of raising money for the resistance to the US-led forces in Iraq.

There have been several such cases in the past and German security officials have long been worried that Islamic militants are increasingly recruiting young Muslims with German passports for suicide attacks.

It has become almost routine for foreign bombers to be used in Iraq. But the use of European citizens could be a new and dangerous trend. Last November a female Belgian convert blew herself up near Baghdad.


  Posted September 13, 2006 03:31 PM  Hide Post,20867,20408791-2703,00.html

Western-born Muslims seen as biggest threat
Richard Kerbaj, Herzliya, Israel
September 14, 2006

YOUNG Western-born Muslims recruited in universities, mosques and on the internet are increasingly being turned to jihad by terrorist networks, which train them in Islamic countries to support and conduct attacks on their homelands.
The return of brainwashed sleeper agents trained in counter-intelligence and covert fundraising, as well as the use of explosives, was the "biggest threat to humanity in modern times", said Boaz Ganor, founder of the Israeli-based Institute of Counter-Terrorism.

"They are looking for them in mosques ... in the youth centres ... on the web ... relying on social acquaintances and also family ties and universities," Dr Ganor told a conference hosted by the institute in the resort city of Herzliya yesterday.

He said terror organisations used psychological strategies to win the hearts of "specific" young Muslims through either indirect recruitment platforms such as the internet, and direct ones such as combing radical mosques and prayer halls.

Extremists looked for recruits who were not integrated into Western society and wanted to reinvent themselves.

"They are looking for people who are alienated from society, they're looking for people that have religious devotion, they're looking for those who believe that they are discriminated against," Dr Ganor said.

Converts to Islam with a proclivity for violence and fanaticism were also considered good recruits. "They are using this idea of divine command, saying 'we are just messengers and it is God that demands you to do this job ... we have to save Islam'.

"(But) when you spread a network like that, sometimes you get fissures that you don't expect to get because these alienated, frustrated youngsters are not just in the Muslim society, and therefore we see another phenomenon, which are converts."

Last month, The Australian revealed that dozens of violent criminals in Sydney were being brainwashed by hardliners and converting to radical Islam in jail, creating a serious national security time bomb.

Dr Ganor said of the recruits: "They are usually being trained in other countries - it could be Pakistan or another place - and then they are infiltrated again into the old society as an indoctrinated, trained sleeper that are just sitting and waiting for the order.

"Some of them are being used for fundraising missions, some of them are being used for collection of intelligence and for recruiting others. But we have to understand ... that some of them are being used for this mission of launching a terrorist attack on Western society."

Another expert on Islamic terrorism who spoke at the conference, Steven Emerson, told The Australian that terrorist organisations were increasingly shifting towards training their recruits on how to become better intelligence agents and expose the weaknesses of their enemies.

"It's in al-Qa'ida's manual to do better counter-intelligence, to do observation, surveillance, reconnaissance," he said. "That's critical to any good terrorist apparatus. You always have to have a reconnaissance man.

"Hezbollah excels in reconnaissance - sending back to Tehran videos that they have witnessed in terms of the vulnerabilities."

Dr Ganor said Muslim communities worldwide needed to take the initiative in exposing and thwarting the actions of radicals.


Al Qaeda exploits 'blue-eyed' Muslim converts
12 October 2005

PARIS/BERLIN: What prompts someone to convert to Islam and to sign up for global "holy war" in the name of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda?

Security agencies are asking that question with increasing urgency as they confront a growing catalogue of actual or attempted attacks in which Muslim converts are suspected of playing prominent roles.

Christian Ganczarski, a German suspected of involvement in a 2002 bombing in Tunisia, converted at 20 before embarking on a jihadist career in which, investigators believe, he became a close associate of bin Laden's.

Other high-profile militant converts include Jamaican-born Germaine Lindsay, one of four suicide bombers who killed 52 people in London in July, and Briton Andrew Rowe, jailed for 15 years last month for possessing terrorist materials.

Frenchman Lionel Dumont, a suspected Rowe associate and another convert, will go on trial in December accused of a series of attacks in the 1990s, including an attempt to bomb a Group of Seven summit in Lille.

"It's striking, the number of converts engaged in terrorist activities," said Michael Taarnby, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies who has studied the recruitment and radicalisation of Islamist militants.

Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France's top anti-terrorism judge, told the newspaper Le Figaro in an interview: "The converts are undeniably the toughest. Nowadays the conversions happen more quickly and the commitment is more radical."

The phenomenon is not confined to Europe.

John Walker Lindh, dubbed "the American Taliban", was convicted and jailed in 2002 for fighting alongside the Afghan militia, and US citizen Jose Padilla has been held for more than three years as a suspected enemy combatant in connection with an alleged "dirty bomb" plot.

In Australia, British-born Muslim convert Jack Roche was jailed for nine years in 2004 for conspiring to bomb the Israeli embassy in Canberra.

In interviews with Reuters, European experts said the vast majority of those who converted to Islam did so for legitimate personal reasons. Some convert in order to marry Muslims.

Many converts were drawn, the experts said, by the appeal of a universal faith that transcended national and ethnic barriers, offered a sense of belonging and brotherhood and provided a new identity, including the choice of a Muslim name.

However, a small fraction were extremists who saw in radical Islam a vehicle to challenge and overthrow the existing world order, said Olivier Roy, research director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

The advantage for militant groups and the problem for security agencies is that converts can often move more freely and attract less suspicion than people of obviously Middle Eastern appearance.

"If you are a youngster in the French suburbs, your mates are second-generation Muslim immigrants and you want to wage war against society, the system, where do you go?" said Roy.

"Thirty years ago, you joined the Maoists, the Trotskyists, the far left, the Baader group, Action Directe. Today, where do you go? Bin Laden." A German intelligence official cited cases where radical foreigners had acquired residents' status by marrying local women, complicating authorities' attempts to kick them out.

"It gives them more security in their legal status. If they're married to a German woman, it's very hard to expel them," he said.

Some of the best-known extremist converts whose cases have come to trial were drifters on the margins of society.

David Courtailler, a Frenchman convicted last year of abetting terrorists, was drawn into radical circles when he converted to Islam at a British mosque and was approached by a stranger there who gave him money and an air ticket to Pakistan.

Reid, Rowe and Ganczarski all had records as small-time thieves or drug dealers.

"They are people who feel devalued, despised and by becoming terrorists they suddenly become supermen, heroes," said Roy.

Once they converted, the experts said, such people often moved towards violence quickly, driven partly by a need to prove themselves. They might also be more easily manipulated by extremists because they lacked the cultural grounding to distinguish between true and distorted versions of Islam.

"Basically, you can tell them just about anything and they're willing to believe it," Taarnby said. "They're not asking the right questions. They're just accepting what they're being told at face value."

The advantage for militant groups ? and the problem for security agencies ? is that converts can often move more freely and attract less suspicion than people of obviously Middle Eastern appearance.

"Thanks to their physical appearance they can penetrate targets in Europe much more easily without being spotted," said Roland Jacquard, head of the International Terrorism Observatory in Paris.

In theory, white Europeans attending radical mosques would be easy for intelligence services to identify. "But when they are taken on by terrorist organisations, they are asked to ensure they don't draw attention to themselves in that way," Jacquard said.

Such individuals are insiders who understand perfectly the nature of the Western societies they are trying to subvert, Jacquard said. "They know the mentality, the lifestyle that the terrorist organisations want to strike." He said al Qaeda's recruitment of "blue-eyed" Europeans dated from the Bosnian war.

"Now, when you take Muslim converts whose mother and father are French, English, Spanish or Italian and who live in society normally, with society's habits, they are absolutely undetectable."

11707  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 26, 2006, 04:19:43 AM
**On the whole, the western born/western educated jihadists tend to be from middle class, even upper class socioeconomic backgrounds. So we know they aren't "depraived because they are deprived".**

British Terror Trial Traces a Path to Militant Islam

In 2004, the British authorities received a tip from a suspicious employee of a storage warehouse outside London, above, that Nabeel Hussain, one of the defendants in the conspiracy trial, was storing a large amount of fertilizer there.

Published: November 26, 2006

LONDON, Nov. 25 ? More than half a ton of ammonium nitrate fertilizer suitable for making bombs was locked in a rented storage warehouse. A cookie tin of aluminum powder was hidden behind a garden shed. Young British Muslims underwent military training at guerrilla camps in remote parts of Pakistan. Suspects, surreptitiously taped by the police, talked about bombing targets in Britain.

At the storage site, the police found more than half a ton of ammonium nitrate fertilizer which could fuel a blast.

A search at a defendant?s home turned up a cookie tin of aluminum powder, another possible bomb ingredient.

Omar Khyam and Salahuddin Amin, defendants linked to an alleged bomb plot; Mohammed Junaid Babar, a prosecution witness; and Mohammed Momin Khawaja, awaiting trail in Canada in connection with same case.

Enter a computer technician in Canada experimenting with remote-controlled detonation devices and a collaborator-turned-informer from Queens testifying about secret meetings with operatives of Al Qaeda.

For eight months, the tale of the Operation Crevice Seven has been unfolding in a cramped, windowless courtroom in the Old Bailey in London.

On trial are seven men, ages 19 to 34, six of them with family roots in Pakistan. Arrested in 2004, they are charged with involvement in a criminal conspiracy to make explosives to commit murder, allegations that they all deny. Their target, the authorities say, was unclear ? a nightclub, perhaps, or a shopping mall, public utilities, a British airliner or even the House of Commons.

But investigators say the evidence reveals the workings of the kind of cell most feared by officials in Europe. Young Muslims, radicalized by local imams and trained at military camps in Pakistan with vague connections to Al Qaeda, plan an attack at home with help from outside terrorists.

The July 7, 2005, London transit bombings and the alleged London-based plot uncovered last August to blow up airliners also involved disaffected British youths of Pakistani descent, some of whom had traveled to Pakistan for family visits, study and perhaps training.

In a speech this month, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of the British security service known as MI5, disclosed that intelligence officers were watching 1,600 people ?who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas.?

She said they had identified nearly 30 plots that ?often have links back to Al Qaeda in Pakistan and through those links Al Qaeda gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here.? She said other countries ? Spain, France, Canada and Germany ? faced similar threats.

Dame Eliza?s comments echo concerns among intelligence officials throughout Europe that remnants of Al Qaeda?s network, disrupted after Sept. 11, were reconstituting in the tribal areas on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Crevice defendants deny they were a conspiratorial cell. Some admit to training in Pakistan but insist they had a goal other than attacking Britain, notwithstanding the fertilizer stored near London. They said they supported jihad in Afghanistan and the liberation of Kashmir, a disputed area between Pakistan and India.

One defendant, Salahuddin Amin, a 31-year-old part-time taxi driver from Luton, testified Tuesday that he started donating money to help Kashmir in 1999. Then he moved to Pakistan in 2001 and became a conduit directing assistance from Britain to Afghan refugees in Pakistan, he said.

But prosecutors charge that Mr. Amin, who knew some of the other Crevice defendants from Britain, became a link between them and militants in Pakistan. They said he and others attended a two-day course in Pakistan to learn to make fertilizer-based explosives. In videotaped confessions to the British police after his arrest in 2005, he admitted being ?mixed up with terrorists? and said he provided a formula for explosives to one of his co-defendants through an Internet chat room.

On the witness stand, Mr. Amin proclaimed his innocence, saying he confessed only after being jailed for 10 months in Pakistan, where he said he was beaten and threatened with a whirring electric drill. ?I would never take part in plots like that,? he testified.

Heeding the Call to Jihad

Omar Khyam, 24, considered by prosecutors to be the ringleader of the group, began his journey to extremism as a teenager in Crawley, just south of London.

Mr. Khyam, a standout cricket player, planned to study electrical engineering in college, but when he was 16 he began spending time with members of Al Muhajiroun, a radical group active in Crawley and dedicated to a global Islamic community under Shariah, the legal code based on the Koran. The group, led by Omar Bakri Mohammed, is now banned in Britain.

Two years later, instead of preparing for his high school exams, Mr. Khyam ran away, leaving a note saying he was off to join Islamic freedom fighters in Kashmir.

His uncle told a British newspaper that ran an article in 2000 about Mr. Khyam?s sudden departure that his nephew had been indoctrinated by Al Muhajiroun. Mr. Khyam?s family persuaded him to return home, but not before he had attended a training camp.

?They taught me everything I needed for guerrilla warfare in Kashmir, AK47s, pistols, RPGs, sniper rifles, climbing and crawling techniques, reconnaissance and light machine guns,? Mr. Khyam testified in the Crevice trial in September.

After enrolling in college in Britain, Mr. Khyam returned to Pakistan in 2001 for a friend?s wedding and crossed into Afghanistan to meet members of the Taliban movement before it was overthrown after 9/11. ?They were soft, kind and humble, but harsh with their enemies,? he recalled in court.

Meanwhile, in Luton, a town on the other side of London and another center of Al Muhajiroun recruitment, Mr. Amin also heeded the call to jihad.

His videotaped confessions to the police tell the story of his rejection of his Western way of life, his turn to prayer and the rules of Islam and his political radicalization.

It was in a Luton prayer center that he first met some of the men accused of being Crevice conspirators, including Mr. Khyam and a man accused of being a Qaeda operative, Abu Munthir, who was visiting from Pakistan.

Videos showing the slaughter of Muslims in Chechnya and Bosnia jolted Mr. Amin into sending money to ?freedom fighters? in Kashmir to buy arms and ammunition. The lectures of the radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri at the Finsbury Park mosque in London shortly before 9/11 and the American-led invasion of Afghanistan helped persuade him that he should join the Afghan fight.

Two months after 9/11, Mr. Amin sold his house in Luton and went to Pakistan in search of training with militants, according to his confessions. The prosecution argues that over the next three years, Mr. Amin, Mr. Khyam and their associates entered a hidden world of terrorism with tentacles on three continents.

Secrecy was maintained by using aliases and coded language. Cellphone conversations were avoided. Rather than using e-mail messages, communications were passed through Internet chats or by electronic messages stored for others to pick up later with passwords. Computer hard drives and cellphone SIM cards were discarded and replaced often.

The prosecution?s guide through that world was a Pakistani-American named Mohammed Junaid Babar, who said he worked for the New York chapter of Al Muhajiroun.

Defense lawyers portray Mr. Babar as a fabricator and possibly an agent for the United States government. ?You are a liar, a deceitful, self-centered, arrogant fantasist,? Michel Massih, a lawyer for one of the defendants, told Mr. Babar during cross-examination last April.

Mr. Babar acknowledged having lied when first questioned by the F.B.I. He pleaded guilty in New York in June 2004 to providing material support for terrorists, and he said in court that he was testifying against the Crevice suspects to reduce his sentence.

Yet during 17 days on the witness stand, Mr. Babar, the star witness for the prosecution, told a riveting story.

A militant networker, Mr. Babar said he moved to Pakistan in November 2001 with money and instructions from Al Muhajiroun. A year later, on a fund-raising trip to London, Mr. Babar said, he first met members of what he called the ?Crawley lot,? including Mr. Khyam and Anthony Garcia, an Algerian-born aspiring fashion model who had changed his name and is now accused of purchasing the secreted fertilizer.

Mr. Babar said Mr. Khyam told him that he and other ?brothers? from Crawley were not just a local operation but reported to a man called Abdul Hadi, described by Mr. Khyam as the ?No. 3? in Al Qaeda.

In mid-2003, the prosecution said, the Crevice suspects began coming together in Pakistan where Mr. Babar?s home in Lahore was a haven for young, radical Britons of Pakistani descent.

Bomb-related equipment like detonators, fertilizer and aluminum powder that can be used to fuel an explosion, and beans to make the poison ricin were stored in a bedroom cupboard, he said. The backyard was used for small-scale experiments with explosives, including the detonation of a spice jar packed with chemicals.

Mr. Amin, meanwhile, was living close by. He said in his police confessions that he had been collecting money and materials for fighters in Afghanistan and passing them on to the man accused of being a Qaeda operative, Abu Munthir, who had once visited the Luton prayer center.

When Mr. Khyam arrived in Pakistan in 2003, hoping to train to fight in Afghanistan, he was told there were enough fighters there, according to Mr. Amin?s confessions. Instead, Abu Munthir sent word that if he was really serious, he should ?do something? in Britain, Mr. Amin told the police.

Later that year, Mr. Khyam, Mr. Amin and another man traveled to a safe house in Kohat, Pakistan, for two days of training in making explosives, including fertilizer bombs, Mr. Amin said. Mr. Khyam then organized a session in the mountains around Malakand near the Afghan border, allegedly to teach others what he had learned.

Mr. Khyam and a core group of three other Crevice suspects, including Mr. Babar, made their way there by posing as Western tourists looking to visit lakes and glaciers.

Mr. Babar said one of the men he brought along was a Canadian named Mohammed Momin Khawaja, a computer engineer, now 27, who is accused of being the detonator-maker in the plot.

Mr. Babar recalled in court that the first test with fertilizer-based explosives failed; the second was moderately successful.

?It created a U in the ground,? Mr. Babar testified. ?It went down, sideways and back up the other way.? The group videotaped the scene, he added, hoping to produce a ?a minimovie-type thing? with Koranic verses or songs, to inspire others.

If Mr. Babar is to be believed, Mr. Khyam became so determined to carry out an attack in Britain that during this time he also took a 10-day trip to seek more guidance from Qaeda operatives.

Mr. Babar said Mr. Khyam told him that the instructions from Abu Munthir were for ?multiple bombings,? either ?simultaneously or one after the other on the same day.?

Mr. Babar recalled Mr. Khyam saying that Britain was as responsible as the United States for what was happening in the Middle East and should be attacked. ?He said we need to hit certain spots like pubs, nightclubs and trains,? Mr. Babar said.

An Undercover Investigation

Precisely how and when the authorities learned of the group?s activities is unclear, but by early February 2004, they had begun one of Britain?s largest antiterrorist undercover investigations. Operation Crevice, aided by the United States, Canada and Pakistan, involved round-the-clock human surveillance, audio wiretaps in cars and homes and video surveillance.

On Feb. 20, investigators got an extraordinarily lucky break: a suspicious employee at a self-storage warehouse outside of London called the police to report that someone named Nabeel Hussain was storing a large amount of fertilizer.

The police inserted an undercover officer called Amanda as the receptionist and secretly replaced the fertilizer with a benign substance. A hidden camera was installed and filmed Mr. Khyam when he showed up to check the contents.

The police continued to watch and listen, and their 3,500 hours of surveillance tapes are at the core of the prosecution case. Some of the most chilling conversations played in court are between Mr. Khyam, whose Suzuki sport utility vehicle and apartment had been bugged, and Jawad Akbar, 23, a college student whose apartment had been bugged.

In a conversation recorded in February 2004, Mr. Akbar talked of an ?easy? target, like a nightclub, ?where you don?t need no experience and nothing and you could get a job.? In such a place, he said, ?no one can even turn round and say, ?Oh, they were innocent,? those slags dancing around,? using a slang term for loose women.

When Mr. Khyam asked what he would do if he got a job at a place like the Ministry of Sound, London?s largest nightclub, Mr. Akbar replied, ?Blow the whole thing up.?

In March, Mr. Khyam talked about a simultaneous attack of Britain?s gas, electricity and water systems.

?The electrics go off so it?s a blackout, and then the gas lot move in and bang,? he said. ?Then something goes wrong with the water, a simultaneous attack.?

In late March, when Mr. Khyam and his younger brother, Shujah Mahmood, 19, also a defendant, bought tickets to fly to Pakistan on April 6, the police feared that an attack in Britain was imminent.

On March 30, 700 police officers raided two dozen locations, shutting down what they suspected was a cell and arresting six of the defendants.

They found the cookie tin containing aluminum powder behind a shed at Mr. Khyam?s family home in Crawley. They also found a dozen CD-ROMs giving detailed plans of Britain?s electricity and gas systems that they charged had been stolen from the National Grid Transco utility company by an employee, Waheed Mahmood. At 34, Mr. Mahmood, a father of four, is the oldest Crevice defendant.

The police seized a list of British synagogues and computer video files containing parts of an explosives handbook and a military training manual. Investigators also found instructions for how to react if contacted by counterterrorism authorities.

Meanwhile, Mr. Khawaja, who had recently returned from visiting Crevice suspects in Britain, was arrested in Canada. Electrical equipment, described by British authorities as remote-control devices that could be connected to bomb detonators, as well as guns and ammunition, were found at his home. He is awaiting trial in Canada, the first suspect to be tried under Canada?s 2001 Antiterrorism Act.

The Prosecution?s Case

Prosecutors acknowledge that they have not been able to identify either a fixed target or a date for an attack, but they do not have to. To win convictions, they only have to prove that the seven defendants conspired to cause an explosion ?likely to endanger life? in Britain.

Mr. Khyam, Mr. Garcia and Mr. Hussain are also charged with possessing 600 kilograms, or about 1,320 pounds, of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, and Mr. Khyam and Mr. Mahmood with possessing aluminum powder, in both cases with the intent to use the ingredients to commit an act of terrorism.

In considering the surveillance tapes, defense lawyers argue that their clients may have been doing a lot of talking about deadly chaos, but that it was nothing more than talk. Some of the schemes seemed like fantasy, like injecting poison into beer cans at soccer games. Others were more frightening, if true: Mr. Amin is accused of making inquiries about buying a radioactive ?dirty bomb? from the Russian mafia in Belgium.

As in other criminal cases in Britain, some of the evidence against the suspects is not permitted to be disclosed ? either to the jury or the public ? until the trials are over for fear that juries will be improperly swayed. Even the news media is under a strict order by the judge to avoid revealing certain information about the case.

The evidence presented shows that the radicalization of the defendants began years ago, raising questions about how well the British security services monitored militants in their midst before last year?s transit bombings. The authorities continue to investigate any links between the Crevice defendants and the 2005 bombers, one of whom, the government says, had visited a training camp in Pakistan before the attack.

Investigators closely watch traffic between Britain and Pakistan. But that is a significant challenge with nearly 400,000 visits by residents of Britain to Pakistan in 2004, of an average length of 41 days. And it is even more difficult to determine which, if any, of those visitors are militants following the dangerous route of traveling to Pakistan for indoctrination and training.

?Counterterrorism efforts haven?t been able to penetrate the process of radicalization and recruitment,? said Sajjan M. Gohel, director for international security at the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation. ?For every individual captured or killed, there are at least five more coming down the assembly line.?

Ariane Bernard contributed reporting.

11708  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 26, 2006, 03:55:35 AM

I think you make some excellent points. However, I have to dig a little deeper:

1) Much stricter immigration laws, rigorously enforced How? Big walls? More border control agents? Incentives to home countries to keep their emmigrants home? Deportation? Quotas? For all the recent talk on border security, we seem to not be making any progress.

**Because many of the republicans are in the pocket of big business and drag their feet on stemming the flow of low wage illegals and most of the democrats think that demanding that people obey the laws is some form of racist discrimination. Thus, for decades the borders haven't been secured. We've done amnesty several times saying "Ok, this this is the last time. We're serious. Really". The end result being that the flood of illegals has increased, waiting for the next amnesty. The borders need a fence. Not a "virtual fence". A secure barrier. Hammer those who employ illegals with civil and criminal penalties and the jobs will dry up. No money and many of the illegals will self-deport. Law enforcement, especially on the local level needs to be brought into enforcing immigration laws. We deal with illegals constantly. If we could arrest and put them into the federal system for deportation directly, it would make a huge impact.**

2) It's reasonable to not fund jihadist clerics who preach hatred in the mosques. I'm guessing a good portion of their money is not going through Bank of America or Credit Suisse. How about a thorough investigation into all mosques sources of funding? How about making mosque members accepted members of the community and not marginalizing them?

**Mostly in europe, the worst jihadists calling for the destruction of europe live off of the dole. Not only should they not be funded by the taxpayers, they should be booted out. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. As far as tracing outside funding of terrorist groups, it is one of the few success stories of the USG in the GWOT. Much has been done to dry up islamic charities that fund terror. Of course nation states like our good friends the Saudis fund terror globally and there is no easy way to end this right now. As far as not marginalizing muslims domestically, the problem is as Crafty pointed out, they marginalize themselves many times. Many of the allegedly "moderate" muslim imams that President Bush met with post-9/11 to intone the "Religion of Peace" mantra with have been arrested and connected to terrorist activities. CAIR, which likes to pretend to be a "civil rights group" is a documented front for jihadi terrorism. A Freedom House paper a few years back found that roughly 80% of US mosques had Saudi funded jihadist litature filled with what the left likes to call "hate speech" towards the west in general and of course the jews in paticular.**

3) If I was moving to Germany, i'd study the language, laws and culture in great detail to make sure i'd be able to function when I arrived.
So would I, but what of those who don't have the resources/time/wherewithall to learn English before their arrival?? What about cases of defection? Perhaps we should follow the example of New Zealand and only allow skilled migrants or individuals in highly specialized fields?

**For the most part, to legally enter the US requires that you meet high standards. I know US immigration laws quite well as my wife is a legal immigrant. She has an undergraduate degree. Fluent in english and speaks 4 other languages with a background in international business. She's been here for years and we are still waiting for a green card. As i'm her sponsor, i'm legally responsible for any potential costs she could impose on the taxpayers. Even if we were divorced, I must file with the USG my residence information every time I move until she is either naturalized or permanently leaves the US, because if she were to get any gov't assistance of any kind, Uncle Sam will then bill me for the costs, plus and other fees they might impose. US naturalization tests require english compitency and an understanding of US laws and culture. This is as it should be. What is frustrating is at the same time illegals flaunt the laws, use ERs for every medical need and impose costs on tax payers at every turn  while making a massive impact on the criminal justice system and them DEMAND citizenship. Again, if you want to immigrate, then EARN it.**

4) Intermarriage is a powerful intergenerational tool of integration. True, but unfortunately cultural custom often trumps all. In many countries and cultures (including some parts of our own), it is forbidden to marry outside of your religion, caste, race, etc. How do we break through these cultural barriers?

**If you don't want to leave your culture behind, then stay where you are. I don't care if female genital mutilation is accepted where you are from. We lock people up for that in America, that's our custom. You come to our country, you learn are ways. Want to live under sharia? Then stay home. We speak english here and we live under the constitution and the rule of law, not sharia. If that's not what you want, don't come here. Very simple.**

5) When in Rome, do as the Romans do Easier said than done. Some friends of mine returned recently from Seatlle,Washington. After a long two years of silence, their neighbors finally had a conversation with them before they moved. Why the long delay? The simple fact that they were from California. Now, imagine moving into suburban Iowa with your Pashtun bride and three kids. I'm gonna guess that doing as the Romans is going to take some work.

**It's the immigrant's job to blend in. I can say firsthand that my wife has been treated very well in her time in the US. Most Americans have a sort spot in their hearts for immigrants as most all of us are descended from immigrants. When people see immigrants trying, they are almost always willing to help them. This doesn't mean that the street signs need to be in Hmong or some Serbo-Croat dialect. Again, the burden is on the immigrant to become one of us, not the other way around. We aren't bringing people here at gunpoint.**

Viable integration into a society takes serious commitment from both sides. I think we need to re-evaluate our own track record on immigration/integration/cultural reform before we can start acting like we have the solutions to other countries ills.

**Our track record is outstanding. Compare what you find in the US to what happens most elsewhere in the world. Most white Americans are an amalgam of europeans that in their home countries were often deadly enemies. Just in my extended family, there are multiple skin colors in the family photos. My dad's side of the family mostly came from Germany, i'm a voting member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with some distant african ancestry (My tribe had lots of escaped slaves intermarry), one cousin is married to a Swedish citizen of Russian ancestry, another is married to an American of Japanese ethinicity and another cousin is hispanic. All this and i'm from the "pickup truck with a gun rack" part of the country. The people I know in east coast cities tend to be even more diverse.

A few years ago, my wife and I were walking through a urban area on the Marine Corps birthday. The streets were filled with Marines in their dress blues. The skin colors ranged from sub-saharan african to pale scandanavian tones. All were Marines, all were Americans.

I've trained with different law enforcement officers all over the US. As a group, I can tell you that the color blue transcends almost always. A black cop from urban New Jersey is as much my brother as a white state trooper from the midwest might be.

Does this mean everything is perfect in the US? No, but we've come a long way in a short time. We are the first universal nation and we've done much more good than evil. We still have work to do but isn't not productive to dwell on our mistakes while ignoring everything we've done right.**

11709  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 25, 2006, 09:05:52 AM
Much stricter immigration laws, rigorously enforced. If one wishes to emigrate to the west, it should be because of a true desire to join that society, not just to enjoy the goodies while proclaiming how you hate the west and work to destroy it. The US doesn't allow legal immigrants welfare (illegal aliens are welcome to commit welfare fraud however). It's reasonable to not fund jihadist clerics who preach hatred in the mosques. If I was moving to Germany, i'd study the language, laws and culture in great detail to make sure i'd be able to function when I arrived. I wouldn't be upset if the street signs, and official documents weren't written in english and accuse you of discrimination because Germany isn't just like the place I left.

Intermarriage is a powerful intergenerational tool of integration. Remember, the Anglos and the Saxon were once warring tribes. If you move to the west from Pakistan, find a wife locally. Don't import a child bride to the west who is then hostage in a foreign land where she doesn't speak the language and doesn't know that domestic violence isn't legal in her new home. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, not the Pashtuns.

You can't have a workable nation made up of a "mosaic". It's all about the melting pot. The American experiment is imperfect, but we managed to do a lot with a vast mix of humanity and create what has been a cohesive nation out of it. You can have a nation of different "races"/ethnicities, but there has to be one common language and one loyalty to the nation.

The "West" has to move past the self destructiveness of "multiculturalism" and the constant self-flagellation of the less savory aspects of the west's collective sins. We (the collective western world) are not perfect, but do you see many people lining up to move from Berlin, or London, or Toronto to go to Somalia? Our good far outweighs our sins. The world's people vote with their feet when they can and we get the vote. We are in a long struggle for survival, we've got to remember what we are fighting for. Lots of people sacrificed so that we live the good lives we do, we honor their sacrifice be passing on to the next generations the best that we were given.

This is what leaps to mind thus far....

11710  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 24, 2006, 03:44:45 PM
You are free to say what you wish about Jesus or Christianity or Jews and mostly you'll get a collective shrug from their adherents.

Sure, I want to see you doing that in the US bible belt.

**Actually I live in a pretty "bible-belt" region of the US. I'm not aware of anything like what happened to Theo Van Gogh happening to those who critique christianity.**

As we speak, pacifistic Buddhists are being slaughtered in Asia by muslims to the cry of "Allah Akbar!".

Where is that happening?

**Thailand. I'll be happy to post lots of articles in whatever thread Crafty would like.**

They communicate, train and support each other globally.

Sure they do. But not as connected as you may wish. The jihadists not only lead an asymetrical warfare, they're also very asymetrical structured. The jihad nowadays is something you can download from the internet. You can get your fatwah (hope you know what that is), your plans for bombs, your motivational speeches and your violence porn. In terms of military intelligence IMO it would be a grave error to think that there is a larger ultimate network. A splinter cell can be organized and structured without doing any training. Therefore considering the terrorists to be a broad network may make you blind for all the small scale developments. In order to contain a splinter cell in any country, you have to check the security situation specificially and not generally.

**It's a distributed network, not a formal structure. In amny ways it's even more dangerous because of that.**

The AQ idea has separated from Bin Laden. If you want to see it that way, Bin Laden has been quite successful in lighting the flame for his idea with the attacks on 9/11. Now it doesn't matter anymore if he's alive or not, his jihad is omnipresent - but not omnistructured.

A steady stream of jihadists with EU passports have been fighting in Iraq.

Well, that stream is coming most of all from Syria, Saudi-Arabia and Iran.

**Passing through, not originating from.**

When the children were murdered by the hundreds in Beslan, it wasn't just Chechens shooting belt-fed machine guns and detonating bombs, it was muslims from many different nations taking part in the "jihad".

Wrong. Yes, these terrorists were muslims, but they were all exclusively coming from the nearer surrounding of Beslan. Somehow I don't see the point in this argument.

**Actually there were multiple arabs involved in the attack, not just Chechen and other muslims from the region. I've been to training with John Giduck who investigated the attack right after it happened. I don't have the book with me at the moment or i'd cite exactly the breakdown of the Beslan terrorists.**

I feel like it's 1937 or 1938 and i'm pointing out some trends in Germany, Italy and Japan and i'm getting "peace in our time" in response.

Well, if you see it that way then IMO you're completely diminishing what happened in the time between 1933 - 1939.

**I don't think so. I see history repeating and again precious time is being wasted while the enemy is growing while the west sits in denial.**

"Ya know, the Nazis aren't what most Germans are like and those Japanese pilots have hijacked the peaceful Japanese culture."

Look, don't take me for being stupid.

** I don't take you for being stupid and it is not my intent to communicate that. No insult intended.**

11711  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 24, 2006, 03:00:41 PM

The problem is that indeed there is global cooperation between various jihadist factions from various geographical and ethnically diverse groups. This isn't wild speculation or conspiracy mongering but well documented fact. One real accomplishment of Osama Bin Laden is to have facilitated the global networking of these groups, both Sunni and Shia to wage jihad using the west's technology for it's asymetrical warfare. Once upon a time, there were jihadist groups that fought each other as much, if not more than the US, Israel or other targets. Now we collectively face a rainbow coalition of jihadis, from every part of the globe waging jihad with a unified goal in mind. Atheists, Buddhist, Hindus, Animists, Christians and of course Jews are all suffering at the hands of those who act "In the name of Allah". Islam demonstrates a special inability to coexist with other religions and cultures.

QUOTE:"As I restrain from calling Jesus a "pathetic hippie freak who lacked the ganja"  to a christian or calling the toras a "bunch of rotten paper full of shitload" to a jew, i refrain from calling Mohammed a "genocidal rapist" to a muslim, unless of course I want to provoke a fight with each of them."

See, here is the problem. You are free to say what you wish about Jesus or Christianity or Jews and mostly you'll get a collective shrug from their adherents. Jews in paticular, especially these days live with constant implied and direct antisemetic slurs against them. Draw a cartoon of Mohammed and go into hiding. Make a movie about how Islam oppresses women and be shot and stabbed to death in the once placid Netherlands. You need not even do or say anything seen as "provocational" and still die at the hands of the jihadis. As we speak, pacifistic Buddhists are being slaughtered in Asia by muslims to the cry of "Allah Akbar!".

"If I'd put an american evangelist from kansas and a russian orthodox from siberia in one room, those two most probably wouldn't have very much in common, except that there are muslims, who consider them christians and therefore thinking, both want to defeat their culture. But that evangelist and the orthodox wouldn't even be able to communicate and if so, most probably not have to say very much to each other. Now if you take a muslim from algeria and one from pakistan, both would seem very much alike for us; dark-skinned, muslim and of course  equating the same threat. But these two have not very much to talk about with each other, as well. Now take a magreb from Paris, a turk from Berlin and a pakistani from London. Not very much in common except us considering them muslim."

Sadly you are so very wrong on this. The global jihad is networked. They communicate, train and support each other globally. The US has detainees from all over the globe captured in Afghanistan. A steady stream of jihadists with EU passports have been fighting in Iraq. When the children were murdered by the hundreds in Beslan, it wasn't just Chechens shooting belt-fed machine guns and detonating bombs, it was muslims from many different nations taking part in the "jihad". This is why a group of muslim students in Hamburg can end up creating a smoking hole in the Manhattan skyline and a few thousand less Americans one bright morning

"I get the impression that there is certain faction in the US that is not so much interested in hindering Europe from becoming Eurabia (or enhance Euro-US solidarity) but pursuing own domestic policy agendas and grateful pick up arguments thrown at their feet like this."

Funny, I feel like it's 1937 or 1938 and i'm pointing out some trends in Germany, Italy and Japan and i'm getting "peace in our time" in response. Actually, it may be even worse than that. It's after Pearl Harbor and we still have people saying "Ya know, the Nazis aren't what most Germans are like and those Japanese pilots have hijacked the peaceful Japanese culture."

11712  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 24, 2006, 07:06:16 AM

It is my opinion that we are now living in a period of reactivated jihad and dhimmitude. Those of you who have laboured in South Sudan and Darfur and have seen the atrocities there will recognize these legal tactics of jihad described in my books or in any Muslim texts on jihad. What is happening in Iraq evokes the events in the 8th century described in Mesopotamia by the Christian Syriac cleric Pseudo-Dyonisos of Tell Mahre, quoted in my study on The Decline of Eastern Christianity which is available here in a German edition. These events are confirmed at that same period by Armenian chronicles and by Egyptian priests describing Muslim internal feuds and atrocities in Egypt against dhimmis, or by Jews in Palestine, and with the passing centuries the chronicle of the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioche (in Syria), Michael the Syrian, that covers a period till the end of the 12 century. We have countless accounts on the devastation by the Arabs and Turks in Anatolia, in the Balkans, and all along the European Mediterranean coasts and islands.

Today, as in the past, jihadist terror is waged not only against Israel, Judaism, but also against the West, that is Christianity. Beheading the enemies of Islam, like the prophet did when he set a sacred model by beheading the Jews who refused to convert ? was repeatedly done by jihadists during all the jihad conquests of Christian lands. Abducting infidels for ransom fills up countless historical accounts. Suppressing by terror all criticism by infidels of the Muslim religion or policy is mandated in the land of dhimmitude. Jihad and dhimmitude are the two forces that have eliminated the indigenous non-Muslim populations from their Islamized homeland. Jihad today is displayed in all its traditional manifestations: military and economic warfare, terror, abductions, corruption for the control of the Western media, the universities and public opinion.

Dhimmitude is applied now against non Muslims ? mainly Christians ? in most Muslim countries. Shari?a laws or laws inspired by shari?a discriminate against non-Muslims, mainly Christians, the Jews having fled or been expelled. Now it is the Christians ? in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere ? who are leaving because in Islam anti-Jewish hate is always connected to anti-Christian hate and vice-versa as it grows from the same source. Hence, anti-Zionist European policies adopted in order to protect Europe and local Christians from Islamism is useless.

Why have we regressed to a situation all too common throughout history till the 19th century and in some countries, the 20th? It is my opinion that 1973 was the fatidic date when political decisions were made that would lead Europe along the path to dhimmitude. It was the period ? after the Kippur War ? when European independent states, threatened with PLO terrorism and an Arab oil boycott, accepted to submit and adapt their foreign policies to Arab and Palestinian political demands. This is when the European Palestinian appeasement policy began. Europe helped spread the new death cult: Palestinianism, which is the sacralisation and legitimisation of the jihad against Israel. For decades Europeans have been conditioned by Euro-Arab Palestinian propaganda and Israel?s demonisation. To achieve this end a whole culture of denial of historic jihad and dhimmitude has been conceived and propagated throughout Europe. The responsibility for terror and war was deliberately shifted from the jihad ideology to Israel?s right of existence. Palestinianism is just the modern continuation against the Jews of the jihad onslaught waged against Christianity for over a millennium.

By justifying the Palestinian jihad against Israel, Europe entered into a suicidal dynamic. The repudiation of Israel?s historical legitimacy and its replacement by a jihadist world order with its own Islamic conception of justice denies Europe?s own sovereignty and legitimacy. In the Islamic context, Palestinians incarnate jihadist ideology against infidels and Muslim replacement theology; whereas, in fact, Israel represents the liberation of the Jewish people from the yoke of dhimmitude. For decades the European Union has provided the Palestinians with the intellectual, cultural and media ammunitions against Israel. It was Arafat, the subsidised ?mignon? of Europe, who invented modern international terrorism ? including air piracy against Israel in 1968 ? and created a culture of hate and a policy of chaos since September 2000 that have now become global. Europe?s alliance with the Palestinians and the Arab world against Israel and America was based on its own denial of jihad ideology. Because of this denial Europe encourage a large-scale Muslim immigration for economic and strategic interests. This is why Europe is today deeply submerged by an anti-American and anti-Zionist culture.

For Christians, Israel is central in this context, because jihad is waged in the name of Islamic replacement theology, whereby Isa replaces Yeshua or Jesus, and the Koran replaces the Gospel. Christians are linked to the Jews by the Bible. If Christians want to break from this bond, they will have to forego the First Testament, including the Ten Commandments, the Prophets, and the Psalms and somehow, link the Gospel to the Palestinian Muslim Isa of the Koran. This is the challenge that Christians are facing now. And this is the spiritual meaning of Israel for Christians now: either Christians will resist or they will convert and Europe will become one more Islamized Christian territory. The jihad against Israel is also a war against the Christian world.

It is my opinion that Europe has become the new land of dhimmitude and I will explain why. I have described in Eurabia, my last book, the causes that have triggered the dhimmitude of Europe. I will not develop this theme now but I will explain why politically and intellectually we have become dhimmis.

We accept to have our life continuously disturbed and threatened by the global jihad. From the moment the European Community, instead of fighting terror, submitted to the Palestinian threats, it lost the control over its own security. European policy with the Palestinians is a total failure because it was deliberately based on false assumptions and the denial that the PLO?s war against Israel was a jihad. Europe gave an unconditional support for Arafat, and paid billions of euros without any control to the Palestinian Authority. The result of European?s unilateral solicitude for the Palestinians has resulted in the election of Hamas, a terrorist jihadist movement. Europeans behave like dhimmis who have to pay tribute money for their security and the development of Muslim economies without even being thanked. Massive Muslim immigration, linked with the 56 Muslim countries weighs heavily on European policy. We have seen it during the Danish Cartoons Affair. According to Islamic law, dhimmis cannot criticise the Prophet or say that Islamic law has a defect without risking death. Hence, the Islamic blasphemy laws ? even at the United Nations ? have been imposed on us, and particularly on the Western media. The Islamists control the foreign, domestic and security policy of Europe through terror, the ongoing intifadas in France and the policy of chaos in the suburbs, jihadist-martyrdom bombings in Spain and England and persistent threats everywhere. It is such threats that keep the level of anti-Americanism and the hate against Israel so high in Europe.

The European policy of symbiosis with the Arab-Muslim world which I have described in Eurabia has set up a vast Euro-Arab demographic, political, economic and cultural zone encompassing immigration and multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a crucial dimension of the Euro-Arab strategic alliance. Since 1975 the texts of Euro-Arab meetings and of the EU require the establishment of cultural and political Muslim centres in European cities. The problem is that Muslims and Europeans have contradictory views on their common history. Europeans consider jihad a barbarous war causing huge massacres and enslavement, while for Muslims jihad represents a peaceful progression of Islam. Dhimmitude is a dehumanizing system, but for Muslims it is a generous tolerance offered to non-Muslims. In order to accommodate the Muslims and their integration in Europe, European leaders have promoted the Islamic view of history. Therefore, they have justified and lauded the tolerance of dhimmitude, as for instance the Andalusian myth. For this reason, Europeans ignore totally what is jihad and what is dhimmitude. While we are currently living a period of jihad, and while Europeans are already conditioned to dhimmitude, they do not realise it because the historical framework has been obfuscated.

Cultural jihad with its antisemitic, anti-American and anti-Western characteristics develops within the context of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism thus becomes the instrument for the subversion of Western thought, aimed at imposing Islamic historical and theological thinking such as the justification of Islamist terrorism ? based on the Muslim self-perception of victimhood. The erroneous affirmation that it was Islamic culture that has triggered European civilization in medieval period, is an attempt to prove Islam historical, cultural and demographical legitimacy in Europe, and consequently the implementation of shari?a principles today. It also affirms Islam cultural superiority over the West.

To conclude: There has been several interfaith dialogues but with poor results. Europe has paid billions to Muslim countries worldwide but the culture of jihad is flowering in spite of Europe?s appeasement policy. Palestinianism which is a replacement theology was the tool that led to Europe?s Islamisation and dhimmitude. By joining the Muslim jihad against Israel, the Christian West has obfuscated its own history, and now faced with a global jihad it is unable to assess correctly the situation and defend itself. Israel represents the liberation of man from dhimmitude, whereas Palestinianism represents jihad and dhimmitude ideology based on replacement theology. Europe, enslaved by Palestinianism, has chosen servitude instead of freedom. If we want peace to prevail, the Muslim world must abandon the jihadist ideology, it must recognise Jews and Christians as different and not see them as apostate Muslims. And this must start with Muslim recognition of the legitimacy of Israel, because jihad started against the Jews and it can only end with the rehabilitation of the Jews and Israel, which will bring the rehabilitation of all non-Muslims. We can achieve it if we speak the truth, if we teach in our schools and universities jihad and dhimmitude. Then, masses of peaceful Muslims, liberated from the jihadist ideology of hate, will join us to build together peace. But we cannot help them if, ourselves, we are doomed in dhimmitude.

Bat Ye?or, born in Egypt, is a pioneer researcher on ?dhimmitude? and ?Eurabia?. Her four major books translated from French into English are: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, (1985); The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, (1996), German edition: Der Niedergang des Orientalischen Christentums unter dem Islam, (2002); Islam and dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2002), and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, (2005). German translation in preparation.
11713  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 24, 2006, 07:05:50 AM
**Here is a good primer on Bat Ye'or views.**

Bat Ye'or: Europe and the Ambiguities of Multiculturalism

Here is an address given by Bat Ye'or, the pioneering scholar of dhimmitude, at Paul Gerhardt Church in Munich, Germany, at Christian Solidarity International's 29th Annual Meeting, which was held from November 2 to November 4, 2006.

Ladies and Gentlemen
It is for me a great honour to be invited by CSI, an organization that has been so active on so many humanitarian fronts in order to denounce slavery, war crimes and genocide, and to alleviate human suffering. And I am thinking particularly of its struggle on behalf of human rights and dignity in Sudan since 1992, and CSI?s freeing over 80.000 Christian and other Sudanese slaves under the leadership of John Eibner and Gunnar Wielback.

The globalization of our world and the policies that have led to large-scale Muslim immigration, adopted by the European Community from 1973, has introduced into Europe conflictual situations and prejudices common in the Muslim world against non-Muslims that have been documented by Orientalists familiar with Islamic theology, law and history. But the politization of history initiated by Edward Said has obfuscated the root causes of Islam?s traditional hostility toward Jews and Christians from the seven century onward. Edward Said was a Christian raised in Egypt and educated in America; he taught English literature at Columbia University. A great admirer of Arafat and a member of the PLO?s top Committee, he endeavored to destroy the whole scientific accumulation of Orientalist knowledge of Islam and replace it with a culture of Western guilt and inferiority toward Muslims victims. The obliteration of the historical truth that he constantly pursued from 1978 ? starting with his book Orientalism ? as well as his hostility to Israel, has prevented an understanding and the resolution of problems that today assail Europe and challenge its own survival.

I will examine the relations between Islam and Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Judaism and Christianity and the tensions created by a Muslim immigration into a European Judeo-Christian civilization. I will speak of those issues in that order.

In the relationship between Islam and Christianity, we can examine both the theological and the political levels. The theological pillars of Islam are: the Koran which is Muhammad?s revelation; the Hadiths, a compilation of his acts and sayings which have a theological and normative value; and the early biographies written about him. According to these three sources, Islam sees itself as the primal and sole true religion. Islam is the pure religion of Adam and has preceded all others. The Koran uses biblical names like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and others but they represent different people than those in the Bible ? and all are considered to have been Muslim prophets who preached Islam. Jesus is also a Muslim prophet called Isa, endowed with a different life; he brought a book: the Gospel, in which he preached Islam. We have, in fact, a Jesus named Isa, a Muslim prophet, and Yeshua, the Jewish Jesus, ?born in Bethlehem of Judea? (Matthew 2:1). According to several hadiths, Isa has a mission: at the end of time he will return to destroy Christianity and impose Islam as the sole religion over the whole world. These hadiths, often quoted in sermons, speak of him killing the pig, breaking the cross ? which means destroying Christianity ? and the hadiths continue: he will suppress the jizya or poll-tax and the booty will be boundless. The suppression of the jizya refers to the suppressions of all religion other than Islam. In the Islamic optic, what is Christianity? Christianity is a falsification of Islam and of the true message of Isa, which is the same as that revealed to Muhammad: Islam. It follows that a good Christian is a Muslim. True Christianity is therefore Islam.

And what about Muslim-Jewish relations? They are more complex but they follow the same pattern. When Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina, he found there large Jewish tribes well organized with their synagogues and scholars. On their festive days they assembled and studied the Bible. Pagan Arabs were jealous and complained that they were illiterate and ignorant and didn?t have a book like the Jews and the Christians. Hence, Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the prophet whom the Jews were awaiting, an Arab prophet sent with a revelation in Arabic given by Gabriel, which was the same as that revealed to the Jews and Christians. The discrepancies between the Koran and the Bible were noticed by the Jews. Muhammad answered by accusing the Jews of hiding the truth and by saying that their Bible was a later falsification of the Islamic revelation given to the Muslim prophets: Abraham, Jacobs, Moses, and all the others. The true Bible was the Koran. Since Jewish objections hampered his predication, Muhammad decided to get rid of the Jews of Medina. Some were expelled and their belongings confiscated and shared among Muhammad and his followers; others ? from 600 to 900 males, according to Muslim sources ? were beheaded and their wives and children enslaved. This is the origin of Islamic hatred and accusations against Jews. Muhammad?s various decisions against the Jews in Arabia also set the theological jihadic laws against Christians and other non-Muslims. Muslim law gives to Jews and Christians the same legal status. That means that, in Islam, Jews and Christians are treated identically as ?the People of the Book? (ahl al-khitab). Christians, whatever their efforts to dissociate themselves from Jews or from Israel, are put into the same category of the Jews by Islamic law.
In short: Jews and Christians are left with what? The true Bible is the Koran, the Holy Scriptures of Jews and Christians are just falsifications, and all the biblical figures are Muslim prophets who preached Islam. In practice, what are the consequences?

1) Biblical narrative in the Holy Land is Muslim history, and Jews and Christians had no history there as they came after Islam. Their history and their sacred scriptures are in the Koran. This motivates Muslim opposition to the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The Bible is considered a travesty of Muslim history.

2) Because Judaism and Christianity originate from one unique trunk, which is Islam, these two religions are unrelated. It is false to assert that Christianity unfolded from Judaism. This is why the Islamized Churches in the Muslim world have developed a kind of Marcionism, abandoning the Jewish Jesus in order to link Christianity to the Palestinian Arab Muslim Isa. This trend which originated in the Palestinian and Arab Churches (Sabeel Centre in Bethlehem) is growing in Europe, supported by the antisemitic/anti-Zionist wave created by Palestinianism.

Palestinianism is the new European salvific theology created to help the Arabs destroy Israel, but which in fact is eating away at the roots of Christianity. Palestinianism teaches that if justice is granted to the Palestinians, suddenly the global jihad and the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands will disappear. ?Justice for the Palestinians? in reality means the elimination of Israel. This elimination will bring peace to the world. Since 1973, this has become a joint Euro-Arab policy. The cultural and media war to delegitimize Israel accredits also the Muslim belief that Jews and, therefore, Christians have no historical roots in the Holy Land. Another consequence of Muslim replacement theology is that when we speak of Judeo-Christian values, we are in fact referring to Muslim values. And when we refer to biblical narratives and figures, or to their iconography, we offend Muslims because they do not fit in the koranic model.

Now let us see the political context. Since Muhammad was a prophet, a legislator and a war leader, legislation and politics are united in the service of the religious expansion and domination of Islam. The ultimate goal is to impose Islamic rule over the whole world. In this perspective, Muslim political doctrine divides the world into two eternal enemies: the land of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the land of war (dar al-harb) inhabited by the infidels which must ? in the end ? be conquered by Islam. Between them no peace is possible, but only temporary truces in case Muslims are too weak to conquer them. This is the doctrine of jihad which is a comprehensive legal system of war based on theology that regulates every aspect of Muslim behaviour toward non-Muslims. Jihad is a religious duty incumbent on Muslims, individually and collectively, and this is preached regularly by imams in sermons worlwide.

Jihad covers several fields: military actions, terrorism, abductions, ransoming, enslavement, and armistice conditions, the jihad by the pen ? that is to say, propaganda ? and the jihad of the hearts, which means corruption. Jihad has been waged for thirteen centuries against non-Muslims and huge geographical areas have been conquered and their population subdued, enslaved, deported or massacred. The non-Muslim population targeted by jihad is given a choice: conversion to Islam or the payment of a ransom to the Muslim authority and recognition of its sovereignty. If they refuse both they will face war. After a land has been conquered and its population accepts to submit and pay a tribute for its security this population becomes a dhimmi people. It is ?protected? by a pact of submission, called the dhimma. Protected from what? From the jihad onslaught. Non-Muslims dhimmis are protected only as long as they pay the tribute, which is a poll-tax, and submit to oppressive and discriminatory shari?a regulations.

Islamic law covers the rights and obligations of dhimmis in great details. This has been the subject of my research. I call dhimmitude the Islamic system of governing the non-Muslim peoples subjected by jihad. This system is linked to jihad and like jihad it is a theological, political and legal institution. Dhimmitude is, in fact, the peaceful continuation of jihad because it is dhimmitude that destroyed the massive non-Muslim majorities that were conquered.

11714  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 24, 2006, 05:35:30 AM
**This author amplifies my point.**

Finding Out the Truth About Muhammad

by John Hawkins
Posted Nov 22, 2006

Yesterday, I interviewed Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch about his new book, ?The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion? (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company). What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation:

Now, Muhammad was around for quite a long time before he claimed to see visions and became a religious leader, wasn't he?

Muhammad was about 40 when he first claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel. According to the earliest Islamic traditions he did not actually start preaching immediately. He only told his wife and a few people who were very close to him for the first couple of years after that. But, then he got the command to begin to preach. It was at that point he began to develop a...following.

Now, I've heard that Muhammad borrowed heavily from the pagan religion many Arabs worshipped at the time, as well as Judaism and Christianity. Is that true?

Yes, there are clear signs in the Koran of influences from not only the Jewish and Christian scriptures, but also Jewish and Christian oral traditions and from the teachings in particular of Christian heretical groups, most notably the Gnostics, who denied the crucifixion of Christ and said that Judas had been made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place. (That) notion appears in the Koran, in Chapter 4, where it says that they did not kill or crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. In Islamic tradition it is identified also here with Judas, that it is he who is on the cross, not Jesus.

Now, by today's standards, would Muhammad be considered a pedophile?

By today's standards, he probably would because you're talking about a man who did, according to the earliest Islamic traditions about the incident, consummate a marriage with a nine year old when he was in his early fifties.

Now, that being the case, however, it is also true that he is the supreme example for human behavior within Islam; he is imitated in this. That means that you have child marriage being very common all over the Islamic world where it is also not regarded as pedophilia today.

Now in his time, was it regarded as pedophilia or unusual for a man his age to marry a nine year old?

No. In his time, it was taken for granted. No one criticized him (for) it. No one felt like he was doing anything wrong by doing this. Only the fact that he is imitated makes it problematic.

Would it be fair to call Muhammad a warlord or bandit leader, similar to the sort of bad actors we have in Afghanistan today?

Well, certainly there are quite a few similarities and that's not an accident either because these are people who are pious Muslims and who believe that he gave them an example for human behavior -- and he did lead battles, he ordered his followers to fight on his behalf and to offer his enemies conversion, subjugation as 2nd class citizens, or war. So, there's considerable precedent within Muhammad's life, in his words and deeds, to support that kind of a life.

Along similar lines, would it be fair to say that Muhammad lied, pillaged, murdered, and condoned rape and the murder of infidels?

He said, "War is deceit." He ordered his followers to pillage and the Koran contains very detailed instructions, both in a chapter called the Spoils of War and elsewhere in the book, for dealing with the results of that plunder. ... Murder is certainly in the aspects of the invitation to infidels that I mentioned just now. He said to his followers that they should offer non-believers conversion or subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law or death. So obviously, murder is condoned in that context. Also, he ordered the assassinations of some of his enemies?including several poets who had made fun of him in their verses and rewarded the killers, including the killers of a ... pregnant woman and a man who was according to the Islamic traditions, over 100 years old.

Muhammad ... took for granted that his followers would be having sex with the women that they captured in these battles?the wives of the pagan warriors that they had killed and the wives of the Jewish tribes that they had killed. ... In the Koran actually, it says that a Muslim may marry up to four wives and have sex with the captives that his right hand possesses, which refers to slave girls captured in battle.

Now, images of Muhammad?we've got them on the Supreme Court, for example. There are plenty of them out there. When did that get to be such a big deal?

Well, it's really a big deal when a non-Muslim makes them. Images of Muhammad are rather common in Shiite Islam. Sunni Islam tends to reject that kind of image making. But really, the main offense in the Danish cartoon controversy and also an earlier controversy that CAIR tried to stir up about that (frieze) at the Supreme Court is that non-Muslims are transgressing the limits proscribed for them within Islamic law and are not to depict Muhammad or insult Allah or Muhammad in any way. So, you have a situation where these kinds of protests, the cartoon protests in particular, the murders of innocent people and riots worldwide, were ... an element of a larger effort to impose Islamic standards of behavior onto the non-Muslim world.

So, a big part of the issue was not necessarily the images, but that infidels had made them, right?


The Shiia and Sunni (branches of Islam) came about in a dispute over succession to Muhammad. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

Can you explain to people how that came about?

The prophet Muhammad died rather suddenly and he did not leave clear instructions as to his successors, as to who would succeed him as leaders of the community. The Party of Ali it was called or the Shi'at Ali believed that only a relative of Muhammad could legitimately take over his role as the leader of the Muslim community that he created. The other party believed that it was not necessary that somebody be a member of the Prophet's family, but only that the best man be chosen.

So Ali was not chosen, was passed over for the first three times in the choice for the succession to the leadership, and finally was chosen but was rather shortly thereafter murdered and his sons also were murdered. ... These became the cardinal incidents for Shiite Islam and are celebrated today, yearly, in extravagant displays of mourning of which you've seen pictures. ...

... People cutting themselves with swords ...

... Yes, people cutting their heads with swords in mourning for Hussein, the son of Ali. Really, there's not much difference between Sunni and Shiite practice of Islam although the Shiites do tend to be more spiritually minded?have more of a mystical tradition?and are certainly more emotional and extravagant in their piety and have a little bit more of an emphasis on, let's say, the cult of the Saint. But otherwise, certainly in terms of jihad warfare against infidels, there's not any significant difference between the Sunnis and Shiites.

One last question: Tell us a little bit about the 12th Imam that (Ahmadinejad) seems to be so enamored with.

The 12th Imam is, in Shiite Islam, the 12th successor of Muhammad. In Shiite Islam, the Imams, beginning with Ali, have some of Muhammad's prophetic powers and some of his luminous spirit, such that they are infallible in matters of faith and are to be regarded with this quasi-mystical devotion. However, the 12th Imam, the 12th successor to Muhammad, is supposed to have disappeared as a child, is said to be still alive, and will return at a moment of great persecution and hardship for the Muslims. There's great excitement in Shiite Islam today and it seems to be held by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran that these are the times when the persecution of the Muslims is coming to the breaking point that will hasten the return of the 12th Imam who will come back to destroy the enemies of Islam and institute the rule of Islamic law over the world.
11715  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 24, 2006, 12:19:41 AM
I, in no way suggest running through the streets shooting muslims. I'd love to see a "reformed" islam that is compatible with the rest of humanity. For that to be would require a lot of islamic theology to be thrown out. I'm not sure much of the muslim world is willing to do it.
11716  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 21, 2006, 04:17:41 PM
In your discussion of my points raised, you already make on predestination: That the takeover of muslims over Europe is scientifically proven process which evidently will take place. I don't think so.

***I don't think it's a done deal, but the trends don't look good.**

I think in general, europe is very much in denial, from the top down as to the changes taking place around them.

That is not true. Some countries in Europe like France and England, due to their colonialist past, have always had to answer the question of how to integrate their former "subjects" into their motherland society. Scandinavian countries f.e. had to deal with this question at a much later point. The first to raise the prediction that Europe will become 'Eurabia' have been Americans. That is in itself a very radical view upon the processes which are right now taking place and IMO not reflecting reality appropriately.

***Actually, Bat Ye'or is credited with coining the term "Eurabia". I suggest you read some of her writing on the subject. She is a Egyptian born British citizen who lives in Switzerland.***

A unwillingness to examine the crisis coupled with deeply ingrained "political correctness" prevents a basic discussion of the problem.

Not true. Political correctness is something that Americans have invented and certainly isn't deeply ingrained in Europe.

***Actually the term originates within marxism, if I recall correctly and not within the US. I'll look around and see if I can find some good examples of what I would consider european "political correctness" to cite.***

Statistics are empirical evidence.

They are empirical. But most somewhat reasonable statistician will tell you that there are exceptions to what statistics are capable of and what not. They first and foremost are not the 21st tarots cards to predict whats going to happen in the future - history has shown that most predictions drawn from statistics have not become true. Statistics do certainly reflect tendencies and thus are able to give a hint as how something will develop if it remains in the very same state at the point that statistic has been made. The larger the area and the more diversity of ways that data has been collected, the more inaccuraricies sneak into a statistic.


I guess we first of all have to agree that Europe is not a unified state like the USA. The EU and EFTA primarily are two economic structures. In the past years the EU has been joined by new countries which 15 years ago would have belong to enemy of the NATO. The new EU has a great diversity now, hard to make generalizations.

***Yes, but the EU as a structure is working to dissolve the european nation-state in any meaningful way, successfully for the most part, with some good but to my mind more harm to induvidual freedom.***

I'm not sure if the author intends to say that the UK and France have a better or worse problem with immigrants due to a colonial past. I'm assuming the author is aware of the ongoing problems ...

They are having a worse problem and yes, the author is aware of these problems. The french intifada you are talking about is first and foremost a social problem and no clash of cultures. These young people are all french - and most of them would like to be much more European than they're allowed to. France has done some grave errors with integration. Most probably not covered in American media are the attempts of the local muslim leaders to stop the violence.

***So when the "Youths" light a car (or person) afire and yell "Allah Akbar!" I shouldn't assume there is a connection to islamic identity?***

I wil not further delve into your picture of Islam as being a religion of a "genocidal rapist". I will not take the standpoint to argument for Islam, but I would like to suggest that you dig a bit deeper into history. There have been a lot of muslim rulers which by have been much more civilzed than most christians ever were. Being an Atheist myself, I still have large respect for the follower of any religion, wether it be Jews, Christians and Muslims. There're aspects about being a muslim we in the west could only wish for that some of their followers live and express more vividly.

***I would argue that I know the history quite well and my statements are well based in historical fact. Muhammad was in his 50's when he married Aisha, his third wife. She was 6, though he is supposed (according to islamic theologians) not to have consummated the marriage until she was 9 years old. The direct affect of this is girls of the same age being married to adult men all over the muslim world. When an observant muslim asks himself "What would Muhammad do?" the answer is usually something very bloody, as that was his response throughout most of his life. I'll put this article in here, as I think it clearly explain the point i'm trying to make much better than I could.***

Khaybar, Khaybar
By Robert Spencer | August 9, 2006

As Hizballah fires its Khaibar-1 rockets into Israel, Kuwaiti demonstrators recently chanted, ?Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud? ? that is, ?Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.? (The Kuwait Times rendered this as ?Khaybar, Khaybar, O Zionists, The Army of Muhammad is coming,? but this is probably sanitized for Western consumption: it is unlikely that the protestors chanted ?Zionists? rather than ?Jews? ? the former doesn?t rhyme in Arabic as does the latter, and the chant with ?Jews? is rather common.) Meanwhile, last Thursday, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon?s leading Shi?ite cleric, praised Hizballah for waging a ?new battle of Khaibar.?

Reporting Fadlallah?s remarks, AP blandly noted that ?at Khaibar, the name of an oasis in what is now Saudi Arabia, Islam?s prophet Muhammad won a battle against Jews in the year 629.? Reality was somewhat different. As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Truth About Muhammad (coming October 9 from Regnery Publishing), Muhammad was not responding to any provocation when he led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews ? many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina. One of the Muslims later remembered: ?When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him?.We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ?Muhammad with his force,? and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ?Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people?s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.??[1]

The Muslim advance was inexorable. ?The apostle,? according to Muhammad?s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, ?seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them.?[2] Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa?d, reports that the battle was fierce: the ?polytheists?killed a large number of [Muhammad?s] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them?.He killed ninety-three men of the Jews??[3] Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants? wealth. A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: ?Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?? Kinana said yes, that he did know that.

Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: ?Torture him until you extract what he has.? One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana?s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him.[4] Kinana?s wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night. He halted the Muslims? caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.[5]

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry.[6] The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver.[7] He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually.[8] Muhammad agreed: ?I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire.?[9] He warned them: ?If we wish to expel you we will expel you.?[10] They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators? land.[11] A hadith notes that ?the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives.?[12]

During the caliphate of Umar (634-644), the Jews who remained at Khaybar were banished to Syria, and the rest of their land seized.[13]

Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, they are doing much more than just recalling the glory days of Islam and its prophet. They are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.

That Khaybar is repeatedly invoked today as a historical model for Hizballah should be a matter of grave concern for Western analysts and policymakers. It should play a significant role in discussions of whether and how a ceasefire should be pursued, and how much of a Hizballah presence can be tolerated indefinitely in Lebanon. But because most Western analysts are still dogmatically committed to the proposition that Islam has nothing, or nothing important, to do with the present global unrest, they recuse themselves from considering such data.

The costs of this willful blindness will do nothing but continue to mount.


[1] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq?s Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, translator, Oxford University Press, 1955. P. 511.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibn Sa?d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, S. Moinul Haq and H K. Ghazanfar, translators, Kitab Bhavan, n.d. Vol. II, pp. 132-133.

[4] Ibn Ishaq, p. 515.

[5] Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, Darussalam, 1997, vol. 1, book 8, no. 371.

[6] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 136.

[7] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 137.

[8] Bukhari, vol. 4, book 57, no. 3152.

[9] Imam Muslim, Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Kitab Bhavan, revised edition 2000. Book 10, no. 3761.

[10] Ibn Ishaq, p. 515.

[11] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 137.

[12] Bukhari, vol. 5, book 64, no. 4200.

[13] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 142.

***Ok, long but worth reading and it explains how the acts of Muhammad directly shapes the global jihad today.***

It won't be Europeans, as we know them now that we'll be confronting.

In my eyes this is a pretty paranoid view of the world. Do you know any Europeans in person?

***I've known quite a few. I spent most of my times overseas in asia, not europe. I do however read a lot of european media and think i'm fairly well aquainted with today's western europe. Most of my DNA came from europe, if that is worth anything.

Muslims are not one homogenic movement.


The muslims in Europe are very different from each other, each having their own agendas. I certainly admit that Europe is having a problem with uneducated, poor and badly integrated children of foreigners. Most of these foreigners are coming from a war torn country or a very archaic society. Their children are the second generation here. Unfortunately those well educated and with more financial means, are much better integrated than those from the working poor.

***I strongly suggest you look up another european author on the topic
I'll post here in the future on the Muslim Brotherhood. If you aren't aware of the group you may be surprized at the sophistication of their attempts to use both the "hard jihad" and the "soft jihad" together towards their goal of islamic world domination.***

There isn't the one muslim, as there isn't the one jew or the one christian. No devil with the turban swinging his sword, uniting secrectly to take over Europe. We have a very heterogenic mix of people. Some highly intelligent and some very desparate. But they're all together people like you and me.

***They are all people, some are like you and me. Others are very different. I wouldn't dream of walking into a crowded resturant wearing a bomb so I could blow the legs off of "infidels" and I doubt you would either. However, we are at war with those who would. You may not be interested in the global jihad, but the global jihad is interested in you.***

11717  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 20, 2006, 02:58:06 AM

What Do We Do With the Remains?
November 19th, 2006

Press and politicians have decided Iraq?s fate. And so we ask them: What do we do with the remains?


Of Iraq?s 13 million aged 19 or less, how many will join Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups as America leaves? One percent is 130,000, half a percent 65,000.

What does your projection say?

Over 8,000 Iraqi soldiers and police have been killed since Saddam fell. How many more need die before all give up fighting for their country?

What then will those 300,000 US-trained fighters do?

Women now serve in the Iraqi parliament. Will they after America leaves?

Will Iraq have a parliament at all?

What do we do with the new $592 million US embassy? Will an American ambassador be welcome? If so, what will he do?

If Al Qaeda takes over Iraq, what will it teach in its schools?

What will Iraqi girls do?

Other scraps

The UN proved Iraq developed WMD and had the know-how rapidly to produce even more. How many of its scientists will Al Qaeda recruit ? willingly or not?

With America gone, will Iraqi Shias turn to Iran as their ally?

How will Israel react?

What then is the plan for dealing with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and others in the Middle East?

Since China?s signing oil contracts around the world, how soon after America goes will they ink Iraq?

How high will gas prices rise?

Will Turkey stay an ally if Iraqi Kurds declare independence and urge Turkish Kurds to rebel?

Will Iraqis turn to Russia for tanks, planes, ships, missiles, mines, rockets, and nuclear enrichment?

Or will it be to the Chinese?

What will Saudis say? 

How high will gas prices go?

More scraps

When do we cease spending billions on research to stop IEDs causing over half of American combat deaths? Since we?ll leave Afghanistan soon after abandoning Iraq, what good will anti-IED tactics do? 

When do we announce the new American policy that we refuse to go anywhere IEDs are used, especially if eventually they?re chemical, biological, or dirty nuclear?


The American commander in Iraq says Iraq can protect itself by next Fall or the following Spring. Who takes over their training when the US goes? How many Iraqis will sign up then? Who?ll be in command?

Will an Iraqi general control the country if the current Iraqi government falls?

Will he be a Musharraf or a Mubarak?

As American troops withdraw, what will remaining ones do?

How will they be protected?

If by air, where based?

Will American planes still be accepted on Iraqi soil?

If not there, where?

If elsewhere in the Middle East, will Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia open its air space?

Which ports will still be open to US ships?

Other Angles

Some insist on additional US troops. Saddamists hid when they saw 140,000. Will they surface if they see more?

Will Syria and Iran offset American boosts?

Will Al Qaeda?


Bill Clinton had been in office

? 13 months before the World Trade Center was bombed,

? four years when Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States,

? six years when Al Qaeda destroyed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,

? eight years when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked.

How much time did he need to protect the US?

Five years ago the Twin Towers fell. How much more time does New York need to rebuild?

Iraq has had its constitution for 13 months, its prime minister less than six.

Time?s up.

?We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves,? the incoming Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee noted.

Could he tell us what we do with the remains?

Michael J. O'Shea
11718  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 20, 2006, 02:23:23 AM

What a Strange Way to Wage a War
By Josh Manchester : 16 Nov 2006 
I found myself seated at a meeting the other day next to a correspondent for an influential national news outlet. The discussion turned to Iraq. Having spent several years covering the Balkans in the 1990s, my counterpart voiced his concern that he sees in Iraq now many of the same actions - forced migration, for example - that proved to be the incipient signs of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans then. Then he surprised me. He stated that his fear was that should the US leave precipitously, such atrocities would become headlines rather than speculation, and the world would have no one to blame but the United States.

Nevertheless, over the abyss we happily plunge, with sober heads nodding as Sen. Carl Levin appears on a Sunday morning talk show calling for a "phased redeployment" of US forces to begin in "four to six months."

Why not now? What does the distinguished gentleman from Michigan believe will be accomplished then that isn't already? If the entire enterprise is a miserable failure, why ask our military, whom Mr. Levin will no doubt be the first to vociferously support, to stay one day longer? What magical event will occur four months hence? An optimist might wonder whether Mr. Levin was attempting a clever bit of early April Fools' Day humor, but such levity coming from Levin seems unlikely.

Rather than concerning ourselves with April 1st, 2007, or January 1st, or July 10th, or August 4th, or Saint Swithins Day, there is but one day that should be foremost in our minds during these debates, and that is the 5th of October, 1938. On this day, Winston Churchill addressed the House of Commons, beginning "by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing . . . that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat." Churchill was the wet blanket at the parliamentary party to celebrate Neville Chamberlain's efforts at the Munich Conference, where the Sudetenland had been ceded to Hitler. About Czechoslovakia, Churchill said, "All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, [she] recedes into the darkness."

And so it will be in Iraq. When comparing the two, it is hard to know which is more ignoble: in one case, Britain bargained away a portion of another sovereign state; in our own, we are ready to cede a sovereign state to (insert here: Iran, Al Qaeda, or pure chaos), after having bought such real estate with the blood of thousands of our young.

Some Senators, mindful of the disaster a withdrawal will prove to be, warn against a precipitous exit. Yet precipitous or not, it is an exit that they seek. Yes, this is truly the problem. Having suffered decades ago from an affliction known as the Vietnam Syndrome, we seem forever destined to have periodic relapses, punctuated by someone offering a cure for our national hangover with a remedy called the Powell Doctrine.

It's an interesting brew, this one: it contains a dash of the idea that we should only fight wars that we know in advance that we'll win, even though no such creature exists; a bit of the notion that at the same time, we'll do so with every possible ally; and most importantly, a bit of whimsy called an "exit strategy," which in every other part of the world, where the inhabitants don't move every two years as we do, means that sooner or later the Americans will bail.

What a strange way to wage a war. It's almost as though everyone were promised . . . that they'd never really be waging one at all! Contrast that concoction with Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis, who related over the summer his reply to an Iraqi who asked when we would leave the country. "I said I am never going to leave. I told him I had found a little piece of property down on the Euphrates River and I was going to have a retirement home built there. I did that because I wanted to disabuse him of any sense that he could wait me out."

Iraq is dangerous. Progress is measured in weeks and inches, not minutes and miles. It is weakly governed when governed at all. But to leave too early will be to compound these seemingly intractable attributes with the most deadly of sins: a failure of willpower. The world will know that when Iraq becomes the next Taliban-like state, or the next Rwanda, that it was only because the United States, the most able, powerful, and wealthy nation in the history of the world, gave up. If that disturbs you, imagine how much it delights our adversaries.

When the "phased redeployment" begins, and the cries of "peace in our time" are shouted from the ramparts, the only important difference between now and 1938 will be that the British at least had a Churchill to tell them, "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting."

Josh Manchester is a TCSDaily contributing writer. His blog is The Adventures of Chester
11719  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 20, 2006, 02:15:16 AM
**There is no military force capible of pushing the US out of Iraq. Putting ugly images on TV until the sheeple grow weary is their only viable strategy. Sadly, it seems to be working.**

The Human Calculus of National Security
By Philip R. O'Connor PH.D   
Following the Democratic mid-term triumph, California U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer told National Public Radio that the recent average daily loss of three military people in Iraq necessitated disengagement as soon as possible. Sen. Boxer has posed a fundamental question: What price in American lives are we prepared to pay for our national security policies?

There is a cold-blooded calculus at the heart of decisions that must be taken by the leaders we choose. No one likes to talk about it but it's the elephant in the room. Let's stipulate that every life is precious and every one of us cringes when we switch on the TV and hear casualty reports. Let's also stipulate, however, that we expect our elected leaders to make life and death decisions mindful of the interests of the broader society and of generations to come.

Any leader disposed toward treating these decisions in exclusively personal terms is unfit for leadership. But what happens if our leaders have no referent for the human calculus of preserving the nation's security? Suppose they have no idea or refuse to even consider the price they are willing for us to pay for our security. We recognize the inevitability of deaths in our police and fire services and among our utility and sanitation workers. As a society we know that, taken together, these four professions alone have an average daily duty-related death rate of about one per day. But we also appreciate the absolute importance of those jobs for our daily well being.

Let's look at the record on precisely the terms Senator Boxer suggests, the daily average rate of military fatalities. As in any analytical exercise, we must simplify as well as recognize that over the years our casualty reporting systems have become much more precise. We also need to realize that the lethality of warfare is not measured solely in those who perish but also in terms of the injuries suffered.

Over time, the ratio of wounded to dying has risen significantly, from about 1.7 to 1 in both World Wars, to 3 to 1 in Vietnam and about 7or 8 to 1 in the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also must put aside the average daily death rate in the military since the post-Cold War downsizing began of about between two and three per day from training and auto accidents, disease and so forth.

Let's look then only at military fatalities from all causes during our major wars and consider those wars as part of long term national security policy strategies. And we will not treat the losses suffered by our many and varied allies over the years, including those in the current conflict. Further, the Confederate dead of our Civil War must be included. Lincoln himself would have wanted it thus.

In the full sweep of U.S history, from the commencement of the Revolution on Lexington Green in April 1775, until the sunny morning of September 11, 2001, our average daily sacrifice has been between 14 and 15 military fatalities (1,217,000 fatalities/83,461 days = 14.6/day). Since 9/11, the average daily sacrifice has been 1.7 per day (3200/1900=1.68).

From the Revolutionary War until the American entry into World War I, the average daily rate was about 11 per day (578,000/52,231=11.07). From World War I through the break up of the Soviet Union, the rate was over 16 per day (636,000/38,811=16.39). Or in our long running confrontation with Soviet communism following World War II until the collapse of the Soviet empire, the rate was over between 6 and 7 per day (112,400/16,892=6.65).

As things stand, the conflict with Islamic radicalism involves the lowest average daily military fatality rate of any long run national security era. It may worsen, it may improve. If Congress had been asked on September 12, 2001, to endorse a national defense posture against Islamic radicalism that traded up to 2 military fatalities per day over the subsequent five years in return for no additional homeland attacks, the deposing of terror friendly regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ending of Libya's nuclear program, what would they have done? Would Congress accept that bargain today?

In making the national defense calculus our leaders cannot ignore parts of history they don't like and choose just the parts they want in order to pretend that national security can be achieved at little or no human cost over the long haul. We can no more remove Vietnam or Korea from the Cold War calculus than we can the Italian campaign or the re-taking of the Philippines from the World War II calculus. Those costly campaigns, seen by as some as inconclusive, misdirected or unwarranted, are part and parcel of ultimately winning strategies. Decisive engagements usually come only after many indecisive ones.

If we choose to resist Islamic radicalism and to help others, especially in the Islamic world, to resist and defeat it, and if we believe that freedom and democracy at home and abroad will certainly demand military force - then what daily military fatality rate are we willing to accept as a matter of policy?

Philip R. O'Connor is a writer in Chicago and holds a doctorate in political science from Northwestern University.
11720  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 19, 2006, 01:18:35 AM
**This is a good analysis of the aftermath of the midterms.**

Our Enemies' Glee 
By Amir Taheri
New York Post | November 17, 2006

Radical elements across the Middle East see last Tuesday's defeat of President Bush's Republican Party as their victory.
Calling the election "the beginning of the end for Bush," Ayatollah Imami Kashani told a Friday congregation in Tehran that the Americans were learning the same lesson that last summer's war in Lebanon taught the Israelis.

Tehran decision-makers believe that the Democrats' victory will lift the pressure off the Islamic Republic with regard to its nuclear program. "It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner and will not pit itself against Iran," says Ali Larijani, Tehran's chief negotiator on the nuclear issue.

His view is echoed by academics with ties to "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei. "The Democrats will do their best to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through negotiations, rather than resorting to threats," says Yadallah Islami, who teaches politics at Tehran University. "Bush will be forced to behave the way all U.S. presidents have behaved since Richard Nixon - that is to say, get out of wars that the American people do not want to fight."

Nasser Hadian, another academic with ties to Khamenei, goes further. "With the return of a more realistic view of the world, the United States will acknowledge the leading role that the Islamic Republic must play," he says. "There is no reason for our government to make any concessions on the nuclear issue."

Arab radical circles are even more hopeful that Bush's defeat will mark the start of an historic U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. They draw parallels between the American election and Spain's 2004 vote, days after the Madrid terrorist attacks, which led to an unexpected change of government.

The radicals expect U.S. policies to change on three issues:

Iraq: The assumption is that America will cut and run.

Salafist groups linked to al Qaeda believe that this will mean a stampede of those Iraqis who worked with the Americans. Iraq's Shiite leaders would flee to Iran, where most had been in exile before Saddam Hussein's fall. Kurdish political and business elites will flee to the three provinces they have held since 1991. This would enable the Salafists, in alliance with the remnants of Saddam Hussein's Presidential Guards, to enter Baghdad and seize power.

Absent in that calculation is the role Iran might play: Will the mullahs sit back as Salafists and Saddamites lay the foundations of a new Arab regime that would turn against Shiite-dominated Iran?

Radical Shiites have their own vision of Iraq after the Americans have fled. They believe that, backed by Iran, they'll be able to move into the four Arab Sunni provinces that have been restive since 2004 - and crush the Saddamites and al Qaeda. This ignores the certainty that any Iranian intervention in Iraq will provoke a massive Arab reaction - with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (now an Iranian ally) forced to back Sunni Arabs in Iraq.

In other words, any hasty American withdrawal from Iraq could lead to either a long and bloody civil war or an even longer and bloodier regional conflict.

Iran: Radical circles are unanimous in their belief that Iran can now proceed with its nuclear program without fear of U.S. and allied retaliation. They expect Democrats to revert to Clinton-era policy and seek a "Grand Bargain" with the Islamic Republic - acknowledging Iran as the major regional power and recognizing its right to the full cycle of nuclear technology.

This perception has boosted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cause in next month's crucial elections. Ahmadinejad argues that Bush's defeat vindicates his own policy of "standing firm against the Great Satan he hopes to see his faction win control of the Assembly of Experts - a body that can elect and dismiss the "Supreme Guide." Ahmadinejad would thus control all levers of power in Tehran.

Yet the expected U.S. retreat on Iran may not materialize - or, if it does, produce the results Tehran desires. Why should Democrats be less worried about a rogue state armed with nuclear weapons than the vilified "neocons"?

Iran's entry into the nuclear club, even if not opposed by Washington, would provoke opposition in the region. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies - all would be forced to seek nuclear weapons. And the ensuing arms race would be a heavy burden on the Islamic Republic's ailing economy.

Israel: Radical Islamists in both Iran and the Arab countries believe that the Democrats' victory indicates "growing American lassitude." They believe that, once it becomes clear that Americans don't want to fight for the Middle East, many in Israel would emigrate to America and Europe to escape the constant daily pressure from Islamist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

In visits to more than a dozen countries in the past few months, Ahmadinejad has been vigorously promoting his "one state" formula for Israel-Palestine. He claims to have won the support of Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Sudan's Gen. Hassan al-Bashir, and believes that, once it becomes clear that America wouldn't fight a war in support of Israel, most Arab states would rally along.

His "one state" plan turns on a referendum in which Palestinians, including those outside the region, will vote along with those Israelis who have chosen to stay to create a single state in which Jews and Arabs live together.

This euphoria, too, may prove problematic. There is evidence that a majority of Palestinians wish to have a state of their own as quickly as possible, and see outsiders' quest for a single state as a chimera. Nor is there any reason why many Israelis would choose to flee, as Ahmadinejad expects, rather than stay to defend their country.

Also, most Arab states remain committed to the Bush "road map," a fact underlined last week by Saudi Arabia's call for a new peace conference based on the two-state formula.

The mullahs and al Qaeda may soon find out that their celebration of "the end of Bush" was premature. Some Democrats may have promised cut-and-run. But, once in power, the party as a whole may realize (to its horror) that, this time, those from whom Americans run away will come after them.

One more fact for the mullahs and al Qaeda to take into account: Their nemesis, the reviled Bush, is around for another two years, and unlikely to dance to their tune, even if the new Congress demanded it. And two years is a long time in politics.

Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.
11721  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Leave No Congressman Behind! on: November 18, 2006, 02:15:22 AM

**As a whole, the dems don't get it. Sadly the republicans are only slightly better, as a group. Until the US awakens to the war we are in, very little to address the threat will be accomplished.**

Thursday, November 16, 2006
Leave No Congressman Behind!
Posted by Dean Barnett  | 6:15 PM

Yesterday the blogosphere?s series of interviews with the leadership candidates for the Republican House Conference came to a close. Mercifully.

The last member to walk into our virtual interrogation center was John Boehner, a candidate for minority leader. Boehner is generally unpopular in the blogosphere because he was a ranking member of the last leadership team whose record was Cleveland Indians-esque. Other pundits don?t like Boehner for more substantive reasons; I?ve received a couple of emails today running down a rather exhaustive list of disastrous legislation Boehner supported ranging from No Child Left Behind to the Prescription Drug Boondoggle.

At the risk of sounding like a semi-apostate, I found Boehner to be an extremely impressive guy. Well spoken and authoritative, he was every bit the alpha-dog. After speaking with him, there was little doubt why he has emerged as a leader amongst his colleagues.

THAT?S THE GOOD NEWS. There?s also some bad news. As was the case with three previous conference call attendees, I asked Boehner the question. To refresh your memory, I had asked three other congress-people the following:

What books have you read about Islamic terrorism against America and the West?
None of the three were able to name a single book. Boehner followed suit, saying that he had read books on the subject but that he couldn?t give me any names.

There was one other noteworthy exchange during the Boehner conference call. One blogger asked Boehner what blogs he reads. Oddly, given the self regard of the blogging community (a phenomenon that I am hardly immune from), this was the first time anyone had asked any of the representatives such a question.

I thought it was a softball. I figured Boehner would say Powerline and Instapundit and of course the blogs represented on the conference call. Instead, Boehner responded that he doesn?t read blogs, but that he does have a member of his staff who reads them and periodically prepares a digest for him on what the blogs are saying.

The questioner then fired off a follow up: From where does the congressman get his news? Boehner told us that he gets his news mostly from the newspapers.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, Boehner?s series of answers regarding his reading habits and the insight we?ve received regarding other members? reading habits (or lack thereof) can help us make sense of a lot of things.

One thing most every reader of conservative blogs comprehends is the existential stakes of the current war. People who read blogs are high end gatherers of news. They?re outliers, but in a very good way. They?re people like my friend, Dr. (of medicine, i.e. a real doctor) Andy Bostom who reacted to 9/11 by learning everything he could about Islam. The product of his research was the thorough and seminal book, ?The Legacy of Jihad.?

I?m always astonished by how well informed the readers of a site like this one are. Since I put out a call for books that might help our congressmen get up to speed, I?ve been deluged by responses. Blog readers are high end news consumers, and by nature intellectually curious.

Now imagine if you didn?t read blogs and didn?t read books. Picture all the things that you know now that you wouldn?t know if you left your news gathering to the tender mercies of the mainstream media?s editorial decisions. You?d probably be unaware of the ghastly fate that awaits 200 French automobiles each evening at the hands of rampaging ?youths.? You?d definitely be unaware of the youths? affiliation with certain religious practices.

If all your news came from newspapers, you wouldn?t understand how numerous, determined and flat-out crazy our enemies are. You wouldn?t know how widespread the phenomenon of Radical Islam is because the New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal don?t report it. Every now and then you would stumble over an editorial or op-ed piece highlighting a particularly pathological incident, but you would have no concept of how massive the problem is.

AND THIS IS WHERE WE CLOSE THE LOOP. I?ve long wondered how our leaders can be so unserious about the fight we?re in given the existential stakes. Now I get it ? they just don?t understand the stakes. The newspapers haven?t told them that we?re in a fight for our lives. Lord knows the intelligence agencies don?t get it. And now we know the congressmen themselves take either no or precious little initiative to educate themselves.

So on the left you get relentless partisanship because they don?t understand that there are larger issues involved. On the right you get mantra-like chanting of ?We must win in Iraq? but with little understanding of how the battle in Iraq fits in with the greater war. This explains why we haven?t heard a single one of our leaders offer a vision of how we?re going to not only ?win? in Iraq but how we?re also going to ?win? in Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. They do not grasp the size of our challenge.

So what to do? If our congressmen have no interest in educating themselves, we must take it upon ourselves to do it for them. For too long our congressmen have been victims of the soft bigotry of low expectations. We?ve allowed them to skate by kissing babies and appearing on Hannity & Colmes without insisting that they actually bring themselves up to speed on the most pressing issue of our day.

So I?m thinking of creating a Congressional-level version of Oprah?s book club. Think of it as Deano?s Book Club. I would like to get a list of three books that absolutely every congressman must read, or at the very least have a staffer read and then explain it to him.

And we must plan to check how they?re doing on their homework assignments. Shhh - don?t tell anyone, but I have a friend in radio and we might be able to convince him to ask his guests occasionally how their reading project is coming along.

My vital three books are:

?The Looming Tower? by Lawrence Wright

?Future Jihad? by Walid Phares; and

?America Alone? by Mark Steyn

Leave your suggestions in the comments and we?ll arrive at a consensus. Remember our goal here ? leave no congressman behind.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at
11722  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 18, 2006, 01:17:54 AM
Ever since I have been introduced by you to the idea that Europe may become part muslim I have been discussing this topic with people around me I know. We all consider this a very absurd prediction.

**I think in general, europe is very much in denial, from the top down as to the changes taking place around them. A unwillingness to examine the crisis coupled with deeply ingrained "political correctness" prevents a basic discussion of the problem. The fact that this German needed to hear about this subject from an American demonstrates the core disconnect.**

1.) Yes, there will be a gap in the social welfare. After all, the birthrate prediction is a statistic and may not represent the actual situation but can only show trends. One trend is that people get children at a later age than our parents. The average family now has two children at the age of 31, before it has been at the age of 21. There are a lot of young couples around me that have children now. Europeans will not die out.

**Statistics are empirical evidence. This writer is citing anecdotal oberservations that young couples around him (I'm assuming it's him, not her) are having children. The issue isn't that europeans aren't reproducing, it's that they aren't reproducing at a sufficient rate to stabilize their population loss and the economic death spiral of socialism.**

2.) Yes, most countries in Europe have problems with their immigrants. France and England are an exception due to their colonialist past. They will face massive problems in the future. However not all of these immigrants are Muslims. There are a lot of people from former Yugoslavia and Africa. A lot of immigrants from Arabian countries however are Christians. Due to the conflicts in those countries, it has become harder for them to live there. A lot of refugees from Iraq for example are secular Christians.
**I'm not sure if the author intends to say that the UK and France have a better or worse problem with immigrants due to a colonial past. I'm assuming the author is aware of the ongoing problems with the growing French "Intifada" in the Parisian suburbs and the British lads who grew up speaking the Queen's english, cheering for Manchester United and eating fish and chips who none the less were ready to wear bomb vests and walk into the tube and become shaheeds in the midst of their fellow British subjects. They weren't poor, disenfranchised refugees living in squalid conditions. They were the products of "Cool Britiania" and the call of jihad which seems to greatly overwhelm any alligence to "Queen and Country". As far as christians fleeing the middle east, that's very true. In the US, the majority of arabs aren't muslims. The majority of muslims aren't arab. As the global jihad grows, the fate of non-muslims in muslim areas worsens and you'll see many more fleeing to non-muslim nations. For many, europe will provide only temporary shelter.**

3.) Yes, fundamental islam has become a haven for lost souls. Indeed, to a lot of young kids of former immigrants Islam gives a home. BUT, Islam does not equate terrorism, as being christian does not include being a mormon. There is fundamental islamism in Europe, as there is a by far greater number of hardworking, honest and reasonable muslims, no better or worse than a jew or christian.
**Islam doesn't always equate terrorism, but it's core theology does. It's long and bloody past and very bloody present demonstrate that islam across the globe very rarely peacefully coexists with other religions and cultures. A religion, which was founded by a genocidal rapist who funded the violent growth with attacks on caravans when his early attempts to spread his new religion by peaceful evangelization failed is a trap that which would-be reformers of islam haven't figured out a theologically viable way to escape. To create a version of islam that is willing to peacefully coexist with a secular society requires throwing out much of the koran and vast amounts of hadith and sira. It means that the core concept of islam as not only a religion, but a wholistic way of life that dictates not only personal conduct and a relationship with god, but law and government and a requirement for islam to be globally dominant must be shed. Those within the islamic world that attempt to do so in a public manner rarely die of natural causes and the jihadis can support much, if not all of their actions by core aspects of islamic theology.**

4.) Europe will NOT become semi-muslim - this is wishful thinking. There're facts you can build such a theory on. Europe rather will see another wave of Nationalism.
**It's not my wish. I'd very much prefer not to see it happen. As far as nationalism, the most likely scenario is at a certain point those europeans who wish to fight to sustain themselves will turn to right wing fascist groups and fight a very ugly civil war. A much better approach would be a rational and moderate discussion and policy changes now, but as the topic is still very much unexamined by the majority of europeans precious time is being lost.**

5.) Europe has a different mechanism of integration. While in the US an immigrant is assimiliated within one generation, in Europe it takes about 3 - 4 generations. Immigrants then also aren't assimiliated, but in a profound process the origin culture is being put under a test by European values. That brings forth a lot more conflict and takes longer.
**I'm not sure what the writer means by this. The fact that the US has and is very successful in creating Americans from immigrants is our great strength. It's ironic that the parents of european suicide bombers were much more intigrated into their adopted countries than their culturally compitent, yet rejectionist children are. Exactly how many more generations are required before the new demands for sharia law are forgotten?**

6.) Yes, Europe has an identity crisis. The changes of the 1990s were over here , not in the US. 20 years ago the new members of the EU have been our enemies. 20 years ago we learned to shoot russians in the military, now they're our ally. The US will have to show a bit more sensitivity to the changes we haven't yet been able to acclimate to anyhow. If you want Europe as a new enemy, I guess scribes like Hanson, Peters or Steyn will be very quick to give reasons for that.

**The US made possible the changes in europe and continues to provide for europe's collective protection, despite the flagrant ingratitude that seems to have become a core element of european culture at this point. It hate to break it to the writer, but Russia, especially now isn't western europe's ally. Watch how Putin is manuvering to control europe's energy supply and tell me it's out of an ally's benevolent feelings. I don't fear europe as an enemy. I fear watching it's demise. I fear seeing ancient site and artifacts destroyed because they are seen as "haram". I fear that a future crisis with an nuclear armed "Francostan". It won't be Europeans, as we know them now that we'll be confronting.**

11723  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone' on: November 17, 2006, 01:26:24 AM
Vive La Caliphate
By Jeremy Rabkin
The Weekly Standard | November 16, 2006

America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
By Mark Steyn
Regnery, 256 pp., $27.95

It's human nature to recoil from the saddest or most distressing sights. If there's another side of us that is fascinated by disaster, there are lots of disaster stories competing for attention. Cable news and the Internet make it all too easy to switch over or click on to the latest breaking tale of woe. To keep us focused on the most alarming underlying trends, we need a really entertaining writer.

So here's Mark Steyn, with all his trademarked verbal slapstick and clowning. And his new book is intensely sobering. Most of it has been said before--and by no one more insistently than Steyn himself in his regular columns in America, Canada, and Britain. But with the space now to keep spinning out the implications, Steyn offers a warning that is riveting.

The challenge starts with demographic trends. European birthrates have fallen way below replacement levels. In today's Italy, for example, there are barely half as many children under the age of five as there were in 1970. As the proportion of old people increases and the proportion of young workers declines, European welfare states face financial strains that make our own problems with Social Security look mild and manageable.

Immigration, once seen as an answer to this problem, now poses an even more intense challenge in much of Europe. Immigrants from Muslim countries have maintained high birthrates and concentrated in major cities, so large parts of major cities are now preserves of immigrant cultures. Complacent talk of multiculturalism has allowed European governments to ignore the challenge of winning the loyalties and attachments of immigrants. For children of immigrants, who have no strong attachments either to their old or new countries, extremist ideology often fills the void.

In practice, Steyn warns, Europe is trending toward societies that are not so much multicultural as bicultural--split between a growing minority that embraces Muslim discipline and identity, and a bewildered, anxious, aging population that does not. Bicultural societies are rarely stable.

Europeans scoff at the idea that Iraq could become a pluralist democracy, but then imagine that European social democracy can ensure happy harmony with people fired by some of the same zeal as Iraqi "insurgents."

You think Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia are incompatible? What do you call a jurisdiction split between post-Christian secular gay potheads and anti-whoring anti-sodomite anti-everything-you-dig Islamists? If Kurdistan's an awkward fit in Iraq, how well does Pornostan fit in the Islamic Republic of Holland?
Sure, Western decadence has an appeal, even for children of Algerian immigrants in the banlieux of Paris. But restless young people may well combine the worst aspects of Western decadence with the worst impulses of Islamist extremism: "Whether in turbans or gangsta threads, just as Communism was in its day, so Islam is today's identity of choice for the world's disaffected."

A reform of Islam? "What if the reform has already taken place and jihadism is it?" Steyn puts the challenge very sharply: "Those who call for a Muslim reformation in the spirit of the Christian Reformation ignore the obvious flaw in the analogy--that Muslims have the advantage of knowing (unlike Luther and Calvin) where reform in Europe ultimately led: the banishment of God to the margins of society."

In some places, gradual but relentless accommodation to the new culture will steer societies along a path where "there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and sharia." Elsewhere, there may be resistance, triggering street violence or political upheaval. Amidst worsening economic trends and increasing instability, more and more educated young people will seek their futures in more promising countries--hastening the dissolution of the old society. So Steyn foresees "societal collapse, fascist revivalism, and then the long Eurabian night, not over the entire Continent but over significant parts of it. And those countries that manage to escape the darkness will do so only after violent convulsions of their own."

Even if that nightmarish vision is too extreme, the strategic point remains: No matter what rhetoric our State Department adopts, European nations are not going to be confident, capable partners for American international aims. Would France help us thwart the nuclear plans of the mullahs in Tehran? The "quai d'Orsay can live with Iran becoming the second Muslim nuclear power. As things stand, France is on course to be the third."

Steyn still expresses hope for the effort in Iraq, and not just as a way of emphasizing the hopelessness of coming conflicts in Europe. In many Muslim countries, people may think about their own future more soberly or reasonably, because they're not viewing things through the perspective of mounting conflict with hedonists across town. Meanwhile, Russia, China, and Japan face their own demographic crises. The utter incapacity of international institutions will discourage smaller countries from thinking about anything more than their own immediate interests. So on Steyn's telling, we are heading to an era of ongoing crisis, an era when the world cannot bring itself even to constrain the spread of weapons of mass destruction, much less focus concentrated condemnation on such "depravities" as suicide bombing.

The United States really will be "alone" in fundamental ways. It is the one nation in the developed world that is not facing demographic decline, the one nation for which the challenge of Islamist extremism remains largely external. What is out there, of course, can come crashing into the heart of American cities as it did on 9/11. And meanwhile, we continue pouring billions of petrodollars into the coffers of Middle Eastern regimes that still seem content to recycle that immense stream of wealth into extremist religion in Europe and around the world.

Steyn offers little in the way of policy prescriptions. He argues that American self-confidence owes much to our tradition of keeping government in bounds and encouraging the self-reliance of individuals. So he ends up warning that proposals for emulating European welfare states--as in extending government guarantees for health care--will have momentous strategic consequences. Maybe. But I'm not sure invoking the imperatives of national defense in every debate about domestic spending or regulation is really a good way to get people to take defense concerns more seriously.

Steyn's main point remains. The collapse of existing political structures in Europe will require not just a reassessment of strategic calculations--NATO and all that. It will require a very considerable psychological adjustment. A calm and reasonable future is not, after all, guaranteed by the advance of technology, by the expansion of trade, or by the softening of old ideologies in the advanced countries.

The threat is not that a new caliphate will rule the world, but that the world will revert to medieval chaos and wretchedness. The United States certainly can't expect to restore the world as it was in the 1990s, but it also can't pretend that everything will be fine if we let history take its own path. We may find unexpected allies, including some in those Muslim countries that don't want to be dominated by jihadist visions. But whatever we do, we can't assume that old allies in Europe will be there for us.

Steyn's conclusion is not a joke: "To see off the new Dark Ages will be tough and demanding. The alternative will be worse."
11724  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 16, 2006, 02:16:00 PM
**More on the "ethical issues" facing the dems.
11725  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 16, 2006, 01:33:56 PM
**Let's see how Harry Reid's scandals and John Murtha's "ethical challenges" are dealt with by the democrats.**

Jefferson's survival vexes Democrats on ethics
By Brian DeBose
Published November 15, 2006

Democrats are unsure what to do about Rep. William J. Jefferson if he remains in Congress.
    The Louisiana Democrat, who was stripped of his Ways and Means Committee seat by his caucus this summer, is in a tough runoff election against state Rep. Karen Carter, a Democrat who was endorsed by the Louisiana State Democratic Party.
    Democrats refused to speculate about Mr. Jefferson's future in the party before the Dec. 9 election.
    "We have to wait and see what the voters of New Orleans do," said Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, the presumed speaker in the 110th Congress.
    Mrs. Pelosi, a Californian who attacked Republicans on poor ethics and corruption, made an example of Mr. Jefferson after a federal investigation of the eight-term congressman was made public.
    A search warrant affidavit released in May said Mr. Jefferson had solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and discussed payoffs with African officials. It also said he was involved in numerous schemes to use his family members to hide business interests in high-tech ventures he promoted.
    FBI officials said they found $90,000 in the freezer at Mr. Jefferson's home during a sting operation after the Justice Department accused the congressman of taking $100,000 in bribe money from an informant.
    Other Capitol Hill Democrats, who did not wish to be named, said Mr. Jefferson should expect nothing from Mrs. Pelosi or other party leaders.
    "I don't think he has anything coming his way," one Democrat said.
    Regardless, Mr. Jefferson is optimistic about his chances of retaining his seat.
    "We will be re-elected, and we fully expect to keep our seniority," said officials in Mr. Jefferson's office.
    Mrs. Carter, 36, placed second in Louisiana's open primary Nov. 7, with 22 percent of the vote. Mr. Jefferson led the slate of 13 candidates, receiving 30 percent of the vote. He is expected to gain a large number of the votes cast for state Sen. Derrick Shepherd, a Democrat who came in third with 18 percent.
    Meanwhile, members jockeying for leadership positions on committees have largely ignored Mr. Jefferson's plight.
    Ten House races have not been decided because of recounts in states including Pennsylvania, Florida, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Mexico and Georgia, but Mr. Jefferson's race is the most troubling for Democrats.
    If he wins, he likely will be remain under a cloud of suspicion going into the 110th Congress.

11726  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Picture WW3: Who, when, where, why on: November 16, 2006, 12:08:28 PM
**It ain't over until we say it's over.**

Why Intellectuals Love Defeat
By Josh Manchester : 13 Nov 2006 
James Carroll, recently writing in the Boston Globe, wondered if America could finally accept defeat in Iraq, and be the better for it, comparing it to Vietnam:

"But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?"

To be frank, no. In Mr. Carroll's fantasyland, the United States is deserving of defeat, and through some sort of mental gymnastics, that defeat is honorable, because it smacked of hubris to ever have fought in the first place.

I contend instead that the ultimate dishonor will be to leave hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Iraqis to violent deaths; and that this is far too large a price to pay for Mr. Carroll to feel better.

In his book The Culture of Defeat, the German scholar Wolfgang Schivelbusch described the stages of defeat through which nations pass upon losing a large war. He examined the South's loss of the Confederacy, the French loss in the Franco-Prussian War, and the German loss in World War I. He saw similar patterns in how their national cultures dealt with defeat: a "dreamland"-like state; then an awakening to the magnitude of the loss; then a call that the winning side used "unsoldierly" techniques or equipment; and next the stage of seeing the nation as being a loser in battle, but a winner in spirit. Schivelbusch expanded upon this last as such:

"To see victory as a curse and defeat as moral purification and salvation is to combine the ancient idea of hubris with the Christian virtue of humility, catharsis with apocalypse. That such a concept should have its greatest resonance among the intelligentsia can be explained in part by the intellectual's classical training but also by his inherently ambivalent stance toward power."

Who knows whether Mr. Carroll has had classical training, but should Schivelbusch meet him today, would he not recognize this idea of defeat as moral purification?

The only problem for those such as Mr. Carroll is that we have not yet lost. It is difficult not to conclude that there is a class of well-intentioned individuals in the United States like him who don't merely feel as they do upon witnessing a defeat, but instead think this way all the time. Like it or not, this mentality of permanent defeat plays a large part in the Democratic Party. It is now up to President Bush and the new Democratic congressional leadership to see that it does not become dominant.

How to do so? A charm offensive is not quite what is necessary. Instead, perhaps a combination of sobering events that will impress upon Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the gravity of our current situation would do the trick. Why not invite both Pelosi and Reid to the White House every morning until the new Congress is sworn in - and ask them to listen with the President to his Presidential Daily Brief, describing what Al Qaeda has cooked up of late? Or, why not invite them along with the President to one of his private sessions with the families of those who have paid the ultimate price overseas? Speaking of those overseas whose lives hang upon American policy, Pelosi and Reid could be participants in the next conference call that Bush has with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

The point of all of this would be to create a true bipartisan consensus on Iraq that does not leave the Iraqis and US credibility to disaster. The Iraqi blogger "Sooni," who describes himself as a "free man" living in Baghdad, recently was asked what would happen if the US partitioned Iraq. "Just imagine it this way [sic] partitioning Iraq will create a small Iran in the south of Iraq and a small Afghanistan in the middle of it!"

Leaving Iraq will be worse than leaving Vietnam, not necessarily in terms of bloodshed, though that will be no comfort to those who will be slaughtered, but because the jihadist threat today is more dangerous than the Soviet threat then. Despite lacking - so far - in similar capabilities to the Communists, our enemies more than make up for it with an insatiable bloodthirsty ruthlessness. The honor that Mr. Carroll sees in defeat will soon be forgotten should Al Qaeda establish a caliphate in Anbar Province and begin a healthy trade in the export of mayhem throughout the West. The Furies that will visit us from such a redoubt will engender much more than a little longing that we had stayed.

Josh Manchester is a TCSDaily contributing writer. His blog is The Adventures of Chester (
11727  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Picture WW3: Who, when, where, why on: November 16, 2006, 11:20:36 AM
I'm with Ralph on most of those, with the execption of any plan that gives Iran anything but airstrikes.
11728  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Watch this tonight to learn about the global Jihad on: November 15, 2006, 12:49:32 PM
**The MSM is waking up, slowly....**
11729  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Book Reviews- political and religious on: November 13, 2006, 06:48:45 PM
This is the URL of the above post:
11730  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: November 13, 2006, 06:46:23 PM


I'm getting that this is no longer available.

Also, pretty please with a cherry on top, give a description of URLS and articles that you post.


It was a new SNL skit. Worth a laugh. I will work on it Guro Crafty.  grin
11731  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Book Reviews- political and religious on: November 13, 2006, 04:34:05 PM
Pulitzer-Winning Lies
After 70 years a Pulitzer committee is reexamining Walter Duranty's Stalin whitewashes in the New York Times. How bad were they? See for yourself.
by Arnold Beichman
06/12/2003 1:40:00 PM

AT LONG LAST a Pulitzer Prize committee is looking into the possibility that the Pulitzer awarded to Walter Duranty, the New York Times Moscow correspondent whose dispatches covered up Stalin's infamies, might be revoked.

In order to assist in their researches, I am downloading here some of the lies contained in those dispatches, lies which the New York Times has never repudiated with the same splash as it accorded Jayson Blair's comparatively trivial lies:


"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933

"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."
--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6

"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
--New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18

"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."
--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13


I would like to add another Duranty quote, not in his dispatches, which is reported in a memoir by Zara Witkin, a Los Angeles architect, who lived in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. ("An American Engineer in Stalin's Russia: The Memoirs of Zara Witkin, 1932-1934," University of California Press ). The memoirist describes an evening during which the Moscow correspondents were discussing how to get out the story about the Stalin-made Russian famine. To get around the censorship, the UP's Eugene Lyons was telephoning the dire news of the famine to his New York office but the was ordered to stop because it was antagonizing the Kremlin. Ralph Barnes, the New York Herald Tribune reporter, turned to Duranty and asked him what he was going to write. Duranty replied:

Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.

And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day.

In his masterwork about Stalin's imposed famine on Ukraine, "Harvest of Sorrow," Robert Conquest has written:

As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, Mr. Duranty's denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper's prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union.

What is so awful about Duranty is that Times top brass suspected that Duranty was writing Stalinist propaganda, but did nothing. In her expos? "Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty, the New York Times's man in Moscow," S.J. Taylor makes it clear that Carr Van Anda, the managing editor, Frederick T. Birchall, an assistant managing editor, and Edwin L. James, the later managing editor, were troubled with Duranty's Moscow reporting but did nothing about it. Birchall recommended that Duranty be replaced but, says Taylor, "the recommendation fell by the wayside."

When Duranty of his own volition decided to become a special correspondent on a retainer basis for the New York Times, the newspaper published an editorial reassuring its readers that his reputation as "the most outstanding correspondent of an American newspaper during all the years of his faithful and brilliant work at Moscow will remain unimpaired in the slightest degree by the change now made." This about a man whom Malcolm Muggeridge, the Manchester Guardian correspondent and Duranty's contemporary, described as "the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in fifty years of journalism."

Duranty was one of a gaggle of Stalin's intellectual admirers. Muggeridge, whose centennial we celebrate this summer, wrote about them in these lapidary words:

Wise old [Bernard]Shaw, high-minded old [Henri]Barbusse, the venerable [Sidney and Beatrice] Webbs, [Andre] Gide the pure in heart and [Pablo] Picasso the impure, down to poor little teachers, crazed clergymen and millionaires, driveling dons and very special correspondents like Duranty, all resolved, come what might, to believe anything, however preposterous, to overlook nothing, however villainous, to approve anything, however obscurantist and brutally authoritarian, in order to be able to preserve intact the confident expectation that one of the most thorough-going, ruthless and bloody tyrannies ever to exist on earth could be relied on to champion human freedom, the brotherhood of man, and all the other good liberal causes to which they had dedicated their lives. ("Chronicles of Wasted Time," pages 275- 276.)

Let's all give a great encouraging cheer to the Pulitzer committee for undertaking a task 70 years late. And perhaps the Times will now a look back at the Herbert L. Matthews coverage of Cuba and the man he so admired, Fidel Castro.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for the Washington Times.
11732  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 13, 2006, 05:09:35 AM

Do you feel better about this newly elected congressman?
11733  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: November 13, 2006, 02:05:27 AM


I'm getting that this is no longer available.

Also, pretty please with a cherry on top, give a description of URLS and articles that you post.


11734  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: November 13, 2006, 12:22:46 AM
Michael Yon is the MAN! If you are going to read anyone, read him.
11735  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Book Reviews- political and religious on: November 13, 2006, 12:20:52 AM
Re:Sense of Ummah
These books are essential to understanding Islam.

I haven't read them all, but I can tell you that Karen Armstrong is the Walter Duranty of the global jihad and everything I can find about Natana J. Delong-Bas suggests that she is pretty much of the same ilk.

I'd recommend Bernard Lewis' book though.
11736  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 11, 2006, 02:20:49 PM
Former President Bill Clinton: "And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2/17/98)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons. ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Former Vice President Al Gore: "f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Press Conference, 1/22/03)

11737  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 11, 2006, 02:15:35 PM
So, do you want a debate or do you just want to throw out some dem "talking points" and run?
11738  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 11, 2006, 01:31:04 PM
11739  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 11, 2006, 01:23:48 PM
Democrats Find Their Values Issue 
By Don Feder | October 13, 2006

In the most bizarre twist of a surreal campaign, Republicans could lose control of the House of Representatives due in part to disgraced Congressman Mark Foley?s salacious e-mails to under-aged pages.

If that happens, the beneficiary will be the party that has uncritically embraced the gay-rights movement ? which in turn embraces other things.

Speaking of double standards:

In 1983, Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds was found to have had sexual relations with a 16-year-old male page (No mere cyber-stalking for the Bay State perv.) He was censured by the House, then repeatedly reelected by his ethically-challenged constituents, with the blessings of the Democratic Party.

In 1989, Barney Frank admitted to shacking up with a male prostitute, who he met through a personal ad in The Washington Blade (?hot bottom plus large endowment equals good time.?) Senor Large Endowment ran a prostitution ring out of the congressman?s D.C. condo. Frank was censured, then re-elected, with Democratic support. Today, he?s one of his party?s senior statesmen.

Bill Clinton copulated orally with intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Granted, Monica was an adult (chronologically, at least). But isn?t this about men in a position (you should pardon the expression) of authority exploiting young people in their charge?

His vice president, and the 2000 Democratic presidential candidate, called Mr. Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah Zipper ?one of our greatest presidents.?

And still the party of It?s-Only-About-Sex is trying to drive House Speaker Dennis Hastert from office. (?What did he know, and when did he know it?? they sputter, repeating their favorite Watergate refrain.) They intend to ride the issue like Seattle Slew ? from here to November 7th. North Korean nukes, atomic Iran, worldwide jihad? Nada compared to erotic e-mails.

Now ? at long last ? the Democrats have their very own values issue, in the person of a pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage (he voted against the federal marriage amendment) ?Republican,? who slunk around in dark cyber alleys.

So, what exactly is the great lesson Democrats want us to learn from the Foley scandal?

Don?t talk dirty to kids?

But their Hollywood friends do it all the time. Besides, what is sex education ? pushed by their friends in the teachers? unions ? if not talking dirty to kids?

Adults shouldn?t come on to adolescents?

But their allies in the gay rights movement want to lower or abolish age-of-consent laws.

Men shouldn?t be in a position where they can proposition teens?

But Democrats booed a Boy Scout color guard at their 2000 convention, because the Scouts said no to sending boys off into the woods with gay scoutmasters ? which makes about as much sense as letting Bill Clinton sleep in a pup tent with cheerleaders.

We should support parents trying to protect teens from sexual predators?

But a Democratic filibuster in the Senate killed the Child Custody Protection Act, which would have made it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for an abortion, thereby avoiding a parental-notification law in their home state. You think those 15-year-olds going out-of-state for abortions are impregnated by other 15-year-olds? In most cases, teen pregnancy results from statutory rape.

I guess the point the Hastert lynch mob is trying to make is this: The day of reckoning dawns only for Republicans.

Gay rights has become as much a part of Democratic orthodoxy as abortion-on-demand, racial quotas, driver? licenses for illegal immigrants, and a blind faith in the power of negotiations to keep Kim Jong Il from developing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats are into mainstreaming the Gay Lobby. And many members of the Gay Lobby are into sex with youth.

?              Heterosexual molesters at least have the good taste not to organize and lobby for their sickness. There is a North American Man-Boy Love Association (whose motto is ?sex before eight or it?s too late?). There is no North American Man-Girl Love Association. NAMBLA often participates in gay-pride parades.

?              Paeans to ?intergenerational sex? permeate gay literature, from the poems of Alan Ginsberg to the play ?The Vagina Monologues.? In one charming vignette in Eve Ensler?s play, a 13-year-old girl is plied with alcohol and seduced by a 24-year-old woman. The act is justified by the child?s declaration: ?If it was rape, it was a good rape.? Following a protest, the girl?s age was changed to 16 (still younger than those Foley stalked) and the ?good-rape? line deleted.

?              The 1972 platform of the National Coalition of Gay Organizations included a demand for ?repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.?

?              In 2004, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force joined with the Woodhull Freedom Foundation (an out-of-the-closet, sex-with-kids group) to focus first on studying America?s ?archaic? sex laws, as a prelude to overturning them.

?              In ?The Gay Report,? prepared by two gay researchers, 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed reported having had sex with boys, aged 16 to 19, and in some cases younger.

?              According to a study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 81 percent of priestly sex-abuse victims were boys and adolescent males. In coverage of the scandal, the media resolutely ignored this reality by referring to the perps as ?pedophile priests,? instead of homosexual pedophile priests.

?              Male homosexuals represent roughly 2.5 percent of the population, yet account for over one-third of adults who prey sexually on children. In other words, a gay male is 13 times as likely to be a sexual predator as a heterosexual male.

?We?re outraged by middle-aged men in trench coats cyber-flashing teens!? the Party of Feigned Morality declares. But if the explicit exchanges are spoken, written, or taught in the sacred name of AIDS education or tolerance training, the acts rise from the sordid to the sublime.

Consider instruction given to children as young as 12 at a March 2000 conference sponsored by ? now get this ? the Massachusetts Department of Education. (At least Foley wasn?t paid to come on to kids.)

Designated a statewide ?Teach-Out,? one well-attended session was titled, ?What They Didn?t Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class.? Here children were instructed in such good-sex practices as the placing of hands in various body cavities.

The conference was secretly taped. Here?s one exchange that took place between a student and an instructor:

Educator: ?What orifices are we talking about??

(Student hesitates)

Educator: ?Don?t be shy, honey; you can do it.?

Student: ?Your mouth.?

Educator: ?Okay.?

Student: ?Your ass.?

Educator: ?There you go.?

Student: ?Your pussy. That kind of place.?

Comparing Foley?s instant messages (?What are you wearing?? ?Don?t forget to measure for me.?)  to this smut is like comparing Flopsey, Mopsey, and Cottontail to The Illustrated Marquis de Sade.

So the newly minted Party of Virtue, the Legion of Decency reborn, insists that Hastert must go and Republicans must lose control of the House because ? unbeknownst to them ? a pathetic little perv from the Sunshine State sent suggestive instant messages to pages.

Will the Democrats now turn over a new page and denounce efforts to abolish age of consent laws, support the Boy Scouts of America, and push for passage of the Child Custody Protection Act?

Fat chance.

As soon as the election is over, their moral indignation over adults who come on to kids will be forgotten faster than Clinton?s campaign pledge of a middle-class tax cut or O.J. Simpson?s promise to spend the rest of his days tracking down the ?real killers? of Nicole.
11740  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 11, 2006, 01:18:30 PM
How the Grinch Stole Michael Moore 
By Peter Schweizer | December 13, 2005

Peter Schweizer's new book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do), is available from the FrontPage Magazine Bookstore for only $18.95.

In a recent speech broadcast on C-SPAN, Michael Moore complains that a "crazy person" (that would be me) has been spreading lies about him, including the story that he owns stock in a number of evil vicious multinational corporations, including Halliburton. "Michael Moore own Halliburton stock?" the anti-corporate activist told his supporters at the Paul Wellstone Memorial Dinner. "See, that's like a great comedy line. I know it's not true - I mean, I've never owned a share of stock in my life." He went on: "Anybody who knows me knows that, you know - who's gonna believe that? Just crazy people are going to believe it - crazy people who tune-in to the Fox News Channel." (Looks like this crazy person is in good company.)

On the back cover of my book, I include part of Michael Moore?s 990PF that he files with the IRS for a tax shelter he and his wife set up and control. The form clearly shows that Moore bought and sold shares in Halliburton and a number of other vicious, evil corporations. Look through the tax forms from 1998 to the present, and you will find more of the same.

How is it possible for Michael Moore to say he doesn?t own any stock while his tax forms say otherwise? Since Michael Moore simply never lies, this must be a case of identity theft.

Here is what must have happened. Someone set up a tax shelter and registered it at Michael Moore?s home address in Michigan. The thief transferred money from Moore?s accounts into this private foundation and then hired an investment broker to pour the money into corporate stock and bonds. The thief must have practiced forging Michael Moore?s name because the signature on the tax form is a perfect match. To make matters worse, the thief must look exactly like Michael Moore because the only other person involved with the tax shelter is his wife, Kathleen Glynn, and she never noticed anything going wrong. (The private foundation has no staff or other trustees.)

So who is behind this nefarious plot? My first guess is Dick Cheney. Think about it, Cheney has a lot of experience with this covert operations. And a look at the stocks in portfolio includes plenty from the military-industrial complex and oil industry, who are of course all of Cheney?s best friends. When the Halliburton stock in question was first purchased, Cheney was CEO. What better way to boost the stock price than use Michael Moore?s money?

But at second glance, this sort of operation is too soft for Cheney. If he wanted to get Mike, a dirty ops campaign like this would be too mild. Wouldn?t he just trump up charges and invade Michigan?

That brings us to another possibility: Karl Rove. Whenever anything goes wrong on the Left (remember those fake Bush National Guard papers?), Mike thinks Rove is behind it. He has to be behind this, too, right?

All joking aside, Michael Moore is following a tactic that too many of the liberal-leftist elite use to avoid any sort of accountability. Think about it: when was the last time you heard a leader of the Left apologize for anything? Too many seem to embrace the Stalinist precept that they cannot make mistakes.

The real question facing the Left?s rank-and-file when it comes to the hypocrites I highlight in my book is this: are you going to stand by your principles or your heroes? If you truly believe what you claim, you shouldn?t tolerate this kind of hypocrisy on the part of your leaders.

Conservative leaders who have fallen short publicly apologize, take responsibility for their actions, and work on changing. Leaders on the Left simply are not held into account in the same manner. The media give them a free pass and rank-and-file leftists do not want to question them. Being a leader on the Left means never having to say you are sorry. It?s time for that to change.

So I ask those on the liberal-Left: Who are you going to believe, Michael Moore or his tax returns?
11741  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 11, 2006, 01:17:17 PM
Profiles in Left-Wing Hypocrisy 
By Anne Henderson | September 19, 2006

The activists who preach loudest against the so-called evils of modern democracies should be exposed.

In these secular times, celebrity-styled and self-appointed moral guardians have long replaced church leaders as the average person's guide to the higher moral ground. Al Gore and his message on climate change is but the latest.

In Australia to promote his film An Inconvenient Truth, Gore was given extremely soft interviews by Kerry O'Brien on The 7.30 Report, Andrew Denton on Enough Rope and Fran Kelly on Radio National.

All ABC interviewers accepted Gore's preaching without substantial query.

The problem for moral guardians is that often they take the high moral ground while simultaneously dealing in much of what they condemn. It's called double standards. And right now the world of commentary is full of them.

In his film, to be released in Australia tomorrow, the former US vice-president lectures at length on the need for all of us to change our lifestyles to save the planet.

We are sitting on a time bomb, he tells us, a planet heating to such an extent we have just 10 years before the apocalypse. We have a choice he says - "to bring our carbon emissions to zero". We must use renewable energy and clothes lines, drive hybrid cars and cut back on consumption.

But a zero carbon emission is not a choice Gore has personally made. He owns three homes, one of which is a 930 sq m, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville and another a 370 sq m house in Arlington, Virginia.

In spite of readily available green energy, in both Nashville and the Washington DC area, writer Peter Schweizer (USA Today, August Cool has revealed "there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy".

Gore usually travels to promote his film in a private jet.

Governments and citizens around the world must heed the message that carbon emissions need to be reduced and that the earth is warming to levels that cause concern. No doubt in that. But the hype of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and his own performances in its support have given him guru status. Surely the least a guru can do is lead by example.

The hypocrisy industry is alive and well in secular democracies. Decades of campaigns from animal rights protests to anti-war marches have offered some notable Americans not only celebrity status but even comfortable incomes. This is the lucrative humbug Schweizer exposes in Do As I Say (Not As I Do) - Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

Take Michael Moore, documentary film-maker and guru of anti-Americanism and fashionable leftist causes. His hallmark characteristic is hero of the little man against the big corporations. He talks often of growing up in the working-class, wrong-side-of-the-tracks rust belt of Flint, Michigan. Flint has become a trademark for Moore - on his email address and website. In fact, Moore grew up in nearby Davison, the son of a middle-class General Motors worker who owned the family home, drove two cars and played golf after work in the afternoons.

Moore has a penthouse in New York and an extensive property on Torch Lake, Michigan, made of 70-year-old Michigan red pine trees. In spite of his so-called green credentials, he was recently cited by local authorities for despoiling a wetland in an attempt to extend his private beach.

Moore's image exudes the ordinary guy, the man who can hack it rough with no interest in consuming goods. He derides the elite for their excess and need for luxury. This is the same man who couldn't drink Poland Spring when backstage and had to have a ready supply of Evian. The same man who demanded he travel the country in a private jet and a fleet of four-wheel drives for his most recent book tour.

The hypocrisy industry has caught a number off guard in the fashionable global warming pronouncements.

Barbra Streisand took neighbour and photographer Wendell Wall to court after he took shots of her at a car dealership looking at four-wheel drives, a clear contradiction of her plea a few months before for Americans to get serious about reducing fuel emissions.

She had him arrested, pressed charges that led to bail being upped to $1 million so that he was held for three days. When the matter came to court, Wall was recognised to have been doing nothing offensive and he sued the sheriff's department for violation of his civil liberties, which was settled out of court.

Schweizer's study of the rich and hypocritical is full of such stories - of how those who preach loudest against the so-called evils of modern democracies have the biggest skeletons in their closets.

Legislators such as Democrat congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, one of the wealthiest on Capitol Hill, an anti-nuclear and environmental campaigner who owns and invests in property where environmental regulations are ignored.

Teddy Kennedy, whom Schweizer calls the king of liberal hypocrites, is fulsome in his appeals for greener choices. Yet the Kennedys, led by Ted, continue to oppose a wind project off Hyannis where they sail, even though the project is way out to sea.

And as Ted preaches against oil companies, the Kennedys have invested in oil in Texas for decades, and even own the drilling rights on land that is not theirs.

Let's save the planet by all means - but let's not be fooled by those who preach loudest but do not practise what they preach.
11742  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 11, 2006, 01:05:06 PM

Please give your definition of a "necessary war".

As far as blatant corruption, would you like a list of democratic congress members with "issues"?

A city left to drown was left that way by Ray Nagan and Kathleen Blanco, both democrats. FEMA, is at best 3rd string. More a check-writing entity than a first responder.

No one can top the left for smug self-rightiousness.
11743  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics and Stock Market on: November 08, 2006, 10:40:06 AM
Well, so much for my predictive ability...... cry
11744  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Our Troops in Action on: November 07, 2006, 04:48:44 PM
SACRIFICE Troop cradled grenade to save others
Los Angeles Times

SAN DIEGO ? Sgt. Rafael Peralta is dead, but the story of his sacrifice to save fellow Marines will live long in Marine Corps lore.

In the fierce battle for the Iraqi town of Fallujah, Peralta, with gunshot wounds to his head and body, reached out and grabbed a grenade hurled by an insurgent, cradling it to his body to save others from the blast.

The explosion in the back room of a house injured one Marine, but four others managed to scramble to safety.

Peralta, 25, an immigrant from Mexico who enlisted the day he got his green-card work permit, was declared dead en route to a field hospital.

?If he hadn?t done what he did, a lot of us wouldn?t be seeing our families again,? said Lance Cpl. Travis J. Kaemmerer, who witnessed the blast.

Garry Morrison, the father of Lance Cpl. Adam Morrison, had trouble keeping his voice from breaking when he spoke of Peralta.

?He saved the life of my son and every Marine in that room,? Morrison said in a phone call from Seattle. ?I just know one thing: God has a special place in heaven for Sgt. Peralta.?

Similar gratitude was expressed by family members of other Marines in Peralta?s unit who were close to the blast. The unit was Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division.

In a modest home in a blue-collar neighborhood here, the Peralta family feels pride but also grief, anger and confusion.

Rafael Peralta was the oldest son: strong, a weightlifter and athlete, head of the family since his father died in a workplace accident three years ago. He loved the Marine Corps.

He joined in 2000 and recently had re-enlisted. While in the Marines, he became a U.S. citizen. The only decorations on his bedroom walls are a copy of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a picture of his boot camp graduation.

As Peralta waited last month to begin the assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, he wrote a letter to his 14-year-old brother, Ricardo.

The letter arrived the day after several Marines and a Navy chaplain came to the Peralta home to notify the family of his death.

?We are going to destroy insurgents,? Peralta wrote. ?Watch the news. . . . Be proud of me, bro. I?m going to do something I always wanted to do.

?You should be proud of being an American. Our father came to this country and became a citizen because it was the right place for our family to be. If anything happens to me, just remember I?ve already lived my life to the fullest.?

Peralta had left his mother, Rosa, with similar words. She said he told her, ?I want you to be strong and take care of my brother and sisters because I don?t know if I?ll return.? His mother added, ?I?m proud of him, but my heart is sad.?

Rafael Peralta had not been assigned to the Nov. 15 attack on Fallujah. Still, he volunteered.

As a scout, assigned to perimeter security, he could have stayed on the periphery. Instead, he took the lead as his platoon stormed a house in search of heavily armed insurgents known to be hiding in the neighborhood.

The house appeared empty. Then Peralta opened a door to a back room, and three insurgents fired their AK-47s. Marines fired back at near point-blank range with M-16 rifles and automatic weapons.

Hit several times in the chest and once in the head, Peralta went down and appeared dead. Insurgents tossed a ?yellow, foreign-made, oval-shaped? grenade toward the Marines.

To the amazement of the other Marines, Peralta, apparently with his last bit of strength, ?reached out and pulled the grenade into his body,? said Kaemmerer, a combat correspondent from the 1st Force Service Support Group assigned to the battalion. Peralta?s body absorbed most of the deadly fragments from the blast.

?Most of the Marines in the house were in the immediate area of the grenade,? Kaemmerer said. ?Every one of us is grateful and will never forget the second chance at life Sgt. Peralta gave us.?

After the grenade blast, the house caught fire, and Marines repositioned in the street for a second assault. Within minutes, the three insurgents had been killed by Marines and Peralta?s body was recovered.

In the hours after the battle, Marines spoke quietly of Peralta?s heroism.

?You?re still here, don?t forget that,? Lance Cpl. Richard A. Mason told Kaemmerer. ?Tell your kids, your grandkids, what Sgt. Peralta did for you and other Marines today.?

Even in their pain, Peralta?s family members are not surprised that he decided to lead from the front.

?My brother was very courageous,? Ricardo Peralta said. ?He wasn?t scared of anyone or anything.?

11745  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 07, 2006, 03:52:20 PM
Very well said!
11746  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Read it all! on: November 07, 2006, 03:49:52 PM
 shocked Whoops! My bad.

Above is one of the best writers in the "blogosphere" who rarely posts, but when he does it's well worth the wait. In his current post he demolishes current soundbite sloganeering which is utterly false but commonly believed.
11747  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Read it all! on: November 07, 2006, 05:59:27 AM
11748  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 06, 2006, 04:34:27 PM
11749  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: God and Sex on: November 06, 2006, 04:21:55 PM
Predators like to move to positions of authority. The catholic church was infiltrated with large numbers of predators in the 60's (to the best of my knowledge that's where the current problem really began) and has failed to root out this perverse subculture, preferring to deny/avoid the problem.

As with other issues, the longer people avoid dealing with a problem, the worse the problem gets.
11750  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia and NZ too on: November 06, 2006, 01:52:43 AM

Radical mufti finds backing here

Saturday November 4, 2006
By Simon Collins

A Sydney mufti who compared unveiled women to "uncovered meat" has gained followers in New Zealand, despite an attempt by the country's official Muslim body to disown him.

A former president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, Dr Abdul Hafeez Rasheed, says Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali may have used an "inappropriate" analogy, but his message that women should cover up was "quite legitimate".

Another Auckland man, 23-year-old website developer Eyad Arwani, wrote on a local Muslim discussion website: "Just as there is [sic] thieves among men, there are those who cannot control their sexual desires, and if a woman attracts attention of such men and is violated, then she can only blame herself."

Sheik Alhilali attended a conference at Auckland's Sheraton Hotel organised by the local Islamic federation and the Saudi-based Organisation of the Islamic Conference in June 2003 and claims to be the "Mufti of Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific".

In a sermon reported last week in Australia, he said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street or in the garden or in the park or in the backyard without a cover and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hajib [scarf or veil], no problem would have occurred."

But the current Islamic federation president, Javed Khan, issued a statement rejecting Sheik Alhilali's claim to be the "Mufti of Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific".

"We have no dealings with this mufti," he said. "I have been president for 3 years and I have never met him."

He said the title "mufti" was given to Islamic scholars with authority to settle issues of religious law but did not carry any administrative powers such as those of Christian bishops.

Egyptian-born Sheik Alhilali attended the Auckland conference in the same month that Mr Khan was elected the federation's president.

Mr Khan said yesterday: "I attended some of the sessions but I can't remember whether he spoke. It was before my term."

The imam of New Zealand's oldest mosque, in Ponsonby, Sheik Mohammed Abdul Rahman Ayrut, attended a dinner with Sheik Alhilali at the conference. He said that, if correctly reported, the mufti's latest sermon was "a mistake".

"You have to call people to be in good morality and to follow your religion, not to condemn them and say these ladies ... are like meat on the street," Sheik Ayrut said. "If he said that, that's wrong."

Fiji-born Dr Rasheed, now a lawyer in Mt Roskill, believed the criticism was part of an international campaign against Islam by "Zionist Christians".

He said the Koran was clear that women should cover themselves "from the wrist right down to the ankles and all over except the face - that is one interpretation. The other interpretation is that they should be completely covered."

Writing on the "Info for NZ Muslims website", Syrian-born Mr Arwani called on Muslims to support Sheik Alhilali.

"The argument that men should control themselves is ludicrous. It is just like saying thieves should not rob houses whose doors and windows are left wide open," he said.

But a Hamilton Muslim woman who wears the hajib, Anjum Rahman, responded that "self-control is the basis of Islam".

"It is the meaning of submitting your will to Allah. It is one of the reasons we fast during Ramadan. It is how we strive for Jannah [Paradise] - by controlling our desires."
Pages: 1 ... 233 234 [235] 236 237
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!