Sunday, April 30, 2006

Brain Scan of a Liberal Democrat

This scan is very useful in explaining why the loonies on the left are so ill-prepared to handle the Jihad's declaration of war on us infidels.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

You Can Trust Bush--to be Bush


The Left in America rise in high dudgeon anytime anyone questions their patriotism. Of course, we quit questioning it a long time ago--except for asking for which country they are patriots.

So, here comes GWB. Any idea for whom he is working?

AOL News - Bush Approves Takeover of Military Plants by Dubai

Updated: 12:40 PM EDT
Bush Approves Takeover of Military Plants by Dubai
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP

WASHINGTON (April 28) - President Bush on Friday approved a deal for a Dubai-owned company to take control of some U.S. plants that manufacture parts for American military contractors.

Initial reactions from Congress indicated that there would not be the opposition to the deal that prevented another Dubai-based company from taking over operations of several U.S. ports.

"This was a transaction that was thoroughly reviewed and closely scrutinized," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in confirming the deal. "In the view of the committee, it does not compromise our national security."

As a condition of the president's approval, the company signed an agreement that promised an uninterrupted supply, McClellan said. The White House was in the process of informing key members of Congress of the president's decision.

House leadership aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said lawmakers from both parties on the relevant committees had been briefed on the deal, and had agreed that necessary safeguards were in effect. They said there had been numerous contacts with the administration.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a leading opponent of the port deal, also said he did not plan to oppose the transaction. "There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai Ports deal," he said in a statement. "First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way; and second this is a product not a service and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable."

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which must review foreign transactions of this kind, began its review of the transaction on Jan. 28 and made its recommendation to Bush on April 13. He had 15 days to make a decision, a timeframe that expired Friday.

The decision follows a political uproar earlier this year after Bush backed a deal allowing another Dubai-owned company to operate several major U.S. port terminals. The company, DP World, decided to sell the U.S. operations that it acquired in its purchase of a British firm to an American firm after Republicans and Democrats in Congress balked, saying the transaction could compromise America's security interests.


Heads, he wins. Tails, we lose.

Friday, April 28, 2006

The Incompetent War!

If ever there was an admission of failure by the Bush Administration, then this is it! The war being waged against the United States and the rest of the West is now called ‘The Long War’! It should never have been allowed to come to this.

The US is doing Saudi Arabia’s dirty work for it! Why? Because GWB and his administration have been too timid to wage the war as it should have been waged: with clear thinking, sound strategy, courage, fortitude and resolve! And with the determination to win at all costs!

The day after 9/11, the Saudis should have been put in the hot seat. They should have been told that it was their responsibility to track down Osama bin Laden and his henchmen, not ours, i.e. not the US’s! Further, they should have been put on notice: The US’s support for the régime is dependent on their co-operation to find these savages.

Why on earth should the US foot the bill of tracking down these savages anyway? Has the West gone mad? After 9/11, so much was made of the fact that the US was not at war with Islam. The fact of the matter is clear though: Islam was, and still is, at war with the West. The West shouldn’t have allowed the King of Saudi Arabia – who is, after all the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques, and therefore the supposed head of the faith – to get away with hiding behind a smokescreen. They should have been told: Find these people, or else!

George W Bush has been making excuses for Islam. This, we all know. He has come out with ridiculous statements about the loving and kind nature of Islam, statements which are so obviously false. In short, he has placed the West on the defensive. What he should have done is place the West on the offensive by placing the Saudis on the defensive. No war was ever won on the defensive. And this war will be no different. We will not win it this way. Be sure of that!

The Saudi régime depends on the US for its continued existence. The rulers should have been told that if they expect the US (and the rest of the West) to keep on propping it up, then they had better track OBL & Co. down forthwith. If their dynasty would have been put on the line like that, then they would have pulled out all the stops to track down and find the people who are now wreaking havoc with the West.

Political leaders the West over are blinded by oil. Their thinking is therefore muddled. The money being made in the West by the top echelons – and being made often in a corrupt manner – means that the West has been locked into this protracted war. As the saying goes: Our leaders are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. But it won’t work. The result of this protracted war might well bankrupt the States. That, by the way, has always been a stated aim of OBL. The US is playing into his hands!

Why should the Americans allow themselves to be bankrupted like this? Why not let the Saudis, with all their new riches from oil do the spending? They wish to be propped up; so let them pay for it. Why should the American taxpayer foot the bill? And why, indeed, should the taxpayers in the rest of the West foot the policing bills that all this Islamic terrorism is creating? This is ludicrous!

The fact is, however, that Bush and his administration, and the governments of other Western countries, are running scared of Islam. No war will ever be won that way! Name me a war that was ever won when fought from a timid position!

The Saudi régime should be made to feel scared, not Bush and his administration. The royal family of Saudi Arabia would have a great deal to lose if the US suddenly withdrew its support for their régime. For the Saudi royals know that their régime is deeply unpopular at home. The country is, after all, being run like a private family business, with the royals taking a healthy cut of all the contracts going into the country.

I remember well the time when the then leader of Romania, Nicolai Ceauscescu, was heavily criticized for running that country as a private business. It had made the man extremely rich, and, rightly, it was thought to be malpractice on his part, as well it should have been. But for some inexplicable reason, when it comes to the oil-rich kings, princes and sheiks of the Gulf, the practise is thought to be acceptable, even when the average Saudi is kept very short of money! How strange! And how hypocritical our Western leaders can be when big oil and armaments deals are at stake!

It goes without saying that we need to get the better of this jihad being waged against us. We need to crush it before it crushes us! But as things stand at the moment, we are not going to be able to do that. This is why our strategy needs to be changed, and changed rather quickly, before too much more serious damage is done to Western economies. In short, we need to place the unpopular Saudi royal family on the defensive, we need to put them on the spot, we need to make them take the initiative, we need to make them fight this war for us.

It is not for Bush and Blair to talk about Osama bin Laden as being a renegade who doesn’t speak for his faith. Let the Saudis do the talking! If they consider him (and his cronies) to be renegades, then it should be up to them to find them and punish them.

We need to start fighting this war against the jihad as a real war, for a real war it most certainly is. The kid gloves need to be taken off. If we don’t start fighting this real war soon, instead of this phony war we are engaged in, we will fail; and the fate of the West will be sealed. As things stand, the war we are now waging would be more accurately called ‘The Incompetent War’! For incompetent it indeed is!

©Mark Alexander

'Moderate' Malaysia Update

It's another Friday here in the Islamic Republic of the Malays (et al). And you know what that means--time for another haranguing at the neighborhood mosque.

And what happens if Muslims don't go? Well, in the fair Malaysian state of Kelantan (AKA 'Kelanstan') Muslims who skip a trip to Allah's house risk a quick trip to jail.

Muslims who skip Friday prayers can be punished

KOTA BARU: Skipping Friday prayers is a major sin for Muslims and it is punishable under the (Kelantan) state’s Syariah laws, said Kelantan Bar Committee chairman Datuk Wan Harun Shukri Noordin.

Therefore, Muslims in the state must remember that Friday prayers are compulsory, otherwise they can be jailed or fined by the religious authorities, he said yesterday.

He was commenting on a recent case in which a Muslim man was fined by the Syariah Court here for not attending the weekly prayers.

Wan Harun said Syariah laws may differ slightly between the various states and their religious councils, but skipping Friday prayers was a clear offence in Kelantan and this rule applied to all Muslims working or residing in the state.

State Local Government Committee chairman Takiyuddin Hassan said all states had similar legislation stating that it was an offence not to attend Friday prayers, but in Kelantan, the enforcement was more orderly.

That was the reason why the man was hauled to court for not going to the mosque on a Friday, he said.

Is that that euphemism now, 'more orderly'? Just like Hitler's Germany was 'more orderly', I would be willing to wager.

So technically, Muslims who fail to attend Friday prayers anywhere in the country could be arrested at any time, if Allah's police chose to be, ahem, 'more orderly' regarding their enforcement.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

The Traitor in the White House

We already knew it. It's just another confirmation. Bush is a traitor to the conservatives of America. He is a full blown liberal, spend with no end, open borders fanatic, Islam loving traitor. Why, oh why did I ever vote for this man? The lesser of two evils is the only reason I can give. Et tu, Bush? I despise the man.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.
Several officials familiar with the meeting also said Democrats protested radio commercials that blamed them for Republican-written legislation that passed the House and would make illegal immigrants vulnerable to felony charges.

Bush said he was unfamiliar with the ads, which were financed by the Republican National Committee, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

At another point, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other members of his party pressed the president about their concern that any Senate-passed bill would be made unpalatable in final talks with the House.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, had been "intractable" in negotiations on other high-profile bills in the past. Bush did not directly respond to the remark, officials said.

The Republican and Democratic officials who described the conversation did so Wednesday on condition of anonymity, saying they had not been authorized to disclose details.

Bush convened the session to give momentum to the drive for election-year immigration legislation, a contentious issue that has triggered large street demonstrations and produced divisions in both political parties. Senators of both parties emerged from the session praising the president's involvement and said the timetable was achievable.

"Yes, he thinks people should be given a path to citizenship," said Sen. Mel Martinez., R-Fla., a leading supporter of immigration legislation in the Senate.

Martinez said it was implicit in Bush's remarks that many of the immigrants illegally in the U.S. would be permitted to remain during a lengthy wait and application period.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

I know this is the right thing to do, but wait…

I was reading the article NOW Do you believe it? on Always on Watch's fine blog and read very interesting comments on the post there. This is a post about a man named Zacharias Moussaoui, whom informed people already know about very well (uninformed people should follow the link above). The comments were very interesting and this post is in answer to some of those comments. I am being very general in this post, so I will not reproduce all or any of the comments here. I am jumping right into the discussion so it is better you read the comments over at Always on Watch first and then read here. Enjoy!

Should the US Government put Moussaoui to death, or should he get life imprisonment, or does he merit a more novel punishment like, say, working in a pig farm (good one!)? He would think he is a 'shaheed' (martyr) if he is killed and indeed this is what he has openly wished for. The Moslem world would certainly see him as a shaheed if he was executed by an infidel government.

But that's what they say and think when any Moslem dies fighting for Allah, killing innocent women and children. They blow themselves up on the streets, in the buses and the malls and then they're hailed as martyrs, heroes who died bravely fighting the Great Satan (USA) or Little Satan (Israel). What should we do then? Should we stop them from blowing themselves up? We try that but even that ends up with them dead. The way you guys are thinking about it, we lose no matter what.

What should we do then? Should we let this man live? Should we give him a room with his own bed, his prayer rug, his Koran and his private time so he can thank his sick Allah for choosing him for the job? And all at US taxpayer expense for the rest of this man’s natural life? Should we let his brothers (CAIR and the likes) on the outside constantly bitch (pardon my language) against the American system for letting him flush his Koran down the toilet (remember what happened in GITMO)? And should we then give him his lawyer too on the expense of the American government? Should we do all this just because we don’t want a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers 'thinking' that they won?

What about the 3000 people who lost their lives on 9/11 just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Many of them may have never even heard about Islam. Some of them, I think, must have thought that Islam was a religion of peace and so did their relatives. But does Islam distinguish between people who think in a different way and those who do not? No matter what you say or think—Islam will go about doing what it is here to do, to subjugate you, all non Muslims.

Some say that Communism was defeated just by exposing it. Do you believe that that will work for Islam too? If you do, I am sorry to say, that’s a bunch of bull****. How can you even compare Communism with Islam? Unlike Communism, many Moslems (if not most) are true believers in Islam.

What would your answer be to someone who says 'I don’t give a **** about what you have to say about Islam, Allah wanted it this way, nothing you can say or do is going to change my beliefs in it.' Would you then again go about telling him, 'Dude, Islam has these problems, please understand' until he blows you to bits? Would you only then think about taking care of the problem the way it has to be dealt with?

Charles Martel knew what Islam was and he knew how to knock it back on its heels. Crusaders knew what Moslems were capable of and what they were ‘thinking’ and they handled the situation the way it should have been handled, at least at first. It was the fear that stopped them, the fear of someone winning against their Allah’s will; the fear that there was someone stronger, more powerful; the fear that now they were matched in their brutality and their actions; the fear that now their actions had even stronger reactions. It was the fear and not the love—it was our barbarity in answer to theirs and not the exposition of some flaws in their Koranic system. We just stopped short of winning it all—we were too nice.

‘Kill all the infidels wherever you find them…’ I say we match it with ‘kill all the Moslem terrorists wherever you find them…’ No matter how inhumane it sounds today, it will save lives; it will save the next generation and the generations after that. Let the terrorist live today and we will have millions of his kind eating, drinking and being merry at the expense of American tax payers.

I would rather have the shaheeds stuffed in coffins, or something cheaper.

No matter what happens, I will not give up on the Western Civilization that—even though I live in the East, in the heart of the barbaric religion called Islam—gives me hope, a hope that one day I and millions others like me can live in peace and the little children have no fear whatsoever of Allah, a barbaric god who has no mercy.

No matter what they think, I will not flag or fail, for this is what I live for and this is what Moslems plot against and kill for. We are at odds with each other. If I let their thinking and their strategies affect my thoughts and my plans, I have lost the war already; how could I expect to win otherwise? I am a fool if I do—and I don’t like to be one.

I am raising my voice today, and for any number of tomorrows, if needed. I will not hesitate to raise my hand against anyone who plots against Western Civilization. I have faith that I will be victorious. But because of their own faith, the Moslems will not change their mind about fighting against us.

Did you ever think of that?

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The Futility of Interfaith Dialogue

Have you ever wondered about this thing called 'interfaith dialogue' - the dialogue so beloved by our weak politicians and clergy? Well, wonder no longer. Please let me elucidate...

For dialogue with an enemy - and make no mistake about it, Islam is the enemy of the liberal and democratic West - please read my earlier article here - to serve any purpose, there must be a possibility of finding some middle ground. A compromise must be found. If it is not possible to find a compromise, then engaging in dialogue becomes not only futile, but meaningless, too. Engaging in such a dialogue with Islam, a so-called 'interfaith dialogue', is precisely that: futile and meaningless.

You might well ask how I can say this with such certainty. Well, the answer is really quite simple to comprehend...

In Islam, we have a faith which is diametrically opposed to everything Christianity says is true. The tenets of both faiths couldn't be more different. Christians are taught that God had a Son, born of the Virgin Mary, who came down to earth and died for their sins, quasi to redeem them, to save them. Hence, Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour, their Redeemer. He died on the cross to save their souls. Further, to Christians, God is loving and forgiving, merciful and compassionate indeed.

Muslims are taught, by contrast, that God never begat a son; indeed, in Islam it is sacrilege to believe so. The whole concept of the Trinity, so essential to the belief system of a Christian, is considered to be shirk, or polytheism to any practising Muslim.

Furthermore, Jesus in Islam, although revered as a major prophet, is nothing more than this. He is not considered to be the Godhead. Muslims have an unshakeable belief that God is unique and one - tawhid - and cannot conceive of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Christians, in their eyes, are considered to be guilty of polytheism for believing in the Trinity! The abstract concept of there being three bodies in one - actually just like the human body - is beyond their understanding and comprehension.

So, to believe that Jesus is man's Saviour and Redeemer is totally and utterly alien to Muslims. As far as they are concerned, indeed as far as they are convinced, Jesus was not crucified at all. They believe that a look-alike was crucified in his stead!

For a devout and practising Christian, there can be no compromising on these issues; likewise, for a devout and practising Muslim, there can also be no compromising on them, either.

So would someone like to explain to me what all this 'interfaith dialogue' is about? For what compromise is there to be? Perhaps I'm missing something; but I don't think so.

You see, the differences between Islam and Christianity are so clear in even the basic understanding of the concept of God in the two religions. The name for God in Islam is Allah. Allah is also the name for God for Christian Arabs. But the Christians' understanding of God (and the Christian Arabs' understanding of Allah) is very different from the Muslims understanding of Him. For anyone seriously to believe that these two deities are the same, he would have to be seriously deluded. To a Muslim, Allah is to be feared; to a Christian, He is the kind and understanding and merciful Father.

The fact of the matter is clear: 'Interfaith dialogue' is a mechanism thought up by the weak and ineffectual in a desperate attempt to find a solution to the growing chasm in Western society, a chasm between the ever-growing Muslim population and the rest. (Do we ever hear calls for 'interfaith dialogue' from Muslims?) But it is merely a Band Aid. It will never solve the problems that have been shored up for us over the past few decades, never solve the problems of increasing tensions which will inevitably ensue.

Truth is: Our politicians, because they have lacked the foresight to see the inevitable outcome of their lax immigration laws, because they have lacked the courage to enact sensible laws to stem the growing problem of immigration in this country, and because they have failed to lead, they have got us all into a fine mess. Believe me: The storm clouds are gathering on the horizon. It's only a matter time now before we will witness their devastation.

©Mark Alexander

"Equal rights for women" and the truth


Part 1: From ‘I do’ to ‘May God bless her soul’

(Start of a fictional story inspired by the true events that happen all around Pakistan on a regular basis.)

Today her dreams are coming true. She is leaving her parents’ house, where she was brought up just for this day—she steps out of the door, looks back and says good-bye to the house. Her parents and brothers bless her and tell her that the only time she should leave her husband’s house (except in case of divorce) is if she dies. Tears flow from her eyes—tears of sadness because she’s leaving her parents, and tears of happiness because she has dreamed of this day all her life.

She sits in her palanquin (a special Pakistani cart for new brides) and she goes to her new house…

Eight days later…

The mother-in-law, mother of her new husband, all of a sudden, starts noticing all manner of flaws in her son’s bride—she doesn’t sit properly, she doesn’t walk properly, she doesn’t talk with respect, she sleeps too much, she doesn’t cook well, etc. The woman tries to approach her daughter-in-law about this, but the new bride ignores the criticism, goes to her room and shuts the door. This infuriates the mother, as nothing else could.

The son soon hears about his mother’s doubts about his new wife, with his mom telling him what she thinks about her and adds that the wife was very disrespectful when she tried to discuss this with her. Without further ado, the enraged son goes to his room where his wife is, not asking her any questions, or for her side of the story, and then proceeds to savagely beat her. This is how a husband in Pakistan and much of the Islamic world teaches a lesson to one of his wives, by beating them without mercy. Of course, there’s no one the victim can talk to about this, and she has to live with whatever she is facing because, now, this is her only home. She sleeps in pain and torment.

The same brutality continues each and every day that follows…

Two years later…

She has a one-year old son, and she is pregnant again. Today is Sunday, and everyone is home. She is planning to cook something special. The relatives are whispering, no one is telling her anything, they’re talking to each other, looking at her in a weird way, like this is the last time they’ll ever see her and this gives them satisfaction. She asks them what is happening and why the strange looks, but mom tells her she should finish cooking quickly as they’re all hungry.

She goes into the kitchen, which in most Pakistani homes is a stand-alone room away from the bedrooms and the rest of the house. The kitchen smells strange today, but since no one really gives a damn about what she has to say, she looks for a match to light the stove up—she lights it, and just as quickly, there is a massive explosion, and oblivion…

A day later…

She is buried in the graveyard near her parents’ house. Her life has ended, she is forgotten, no questions are asked—after all she was just a daughter, a woman and now she is no more, end of story.

Her husband remarries and life goes on. Except for his first wife and unborn child, of course.

(End of a fictional story inspired by the true events that happen all around Pakistan on a regular basis.)

Part 2: From ‘I love you’ to ‘May she burn in hell’

(Start of a fictional story inspired by the true events that happen all around Pakistan on a regular basis.)

She has known him for three years now. They communicate regularly through hand-written letters. She receives another letter from him today, in which he promises her that he will come and marry her. She couldn’t be happier. She can’t hide her happiness.

A few hours later…

Her father comes out of her room with the letters of her lover in his hands. He can’t control his rage, and he beats her up. She can’t share anything with anyone because everyone in her family hates her. She sleeps in pain and torment.

The next morning…

The whole village gathers, the rich on one side and the poor, including the girl and her family, on the other. The rich hear the story of the girl from her father. The father presents the evidence, the letters, but they aren’t even important—she hasn’t even touched the guy but that doesn’t matter. The decision is easy to make: She has brought a bad name on the family and the village and Islam. The punishment: She should be raped by the villagers in front of her father, mother and brothers and then her father must kill her.

Everything is followed to the letter.

A day later…

She’s buried. The father is congratulated because he did the right thing and for that he will get a beautiful place in paradise. No blame on anyone. No one says anything about the girl’s lover. It is always the woman’s fault. Those who raped her didn’t commit any crime; those who killed her did no wrong. She is forgotten—after all she was just a daughter, a woman and now she is no more, end of story.

Life goes on. Except for the woman, of course.

(End of a fictional story inspired by the true events that happen all around Pakistan on a regular basis.)

Part 3: Turn a blind eye or cry over it

People can deny this all they want but the concept of honor killings (as described in ‘Part 2’) is very common and strongly embedded in the system of Islam. It happens everywhere, from Islamic countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, Sudan, etc to countries where Moslems have emigrated to such as Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, etc.

Beating women up is the norm in Islam. Men have Allah-granted authority over women; they can do to them whatever they want. This is because Islam has verses like this:

Koran Sura 4, verse 34, “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.”
and

Koran Sura 2, verse 223, “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.”
It shouldn’t be surprising if women are considered sub-humans or just ‘things’ by a majority of Moslems because, as we just read, even Allah says that.

The unfairness, when dealing with women, is stitched into Islam so deeply that you can not get rid of it without destroying the religion itself.

There are chauvinists in western society too but what's different is that they are not a part of the system but are there in spite of western values. How is it that the man-made system of the West is so superior to the so called divine system of Islam? How is it that nothing is ever done to make the so-called ‘divine system’ better while the West, being man-made and hence ‘inferior’ to Moslem eyes, is constantly working to make itself better and better?

What I have written about in parts one and two is all based on true events that are almost never published in Western newspapers , except for the cases like Mukhtara Mai and another Pakistani father who killed his four daughters earlier this year. Believe me, these are not ‘isolated incidents’ at all, but merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

So what are we to do? Are we to ignore it and let the monsters continue doing what they’re doing, or are we to cry over it? When we believe in the lies of leftists and liberal Moslems, I don’t see any other options available for us.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Islam--a false religion

Another top-notch op-ed from the crew at Faithfreedom.org:

Islam: A False Religion

By: Amil Imani
2006/04/17

“In science it often happens that scientists say, you know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion”. Carl Sagan

As has been said, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise . Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell." However, this has not been the case in Islam. Islam is based on big lies and contradictions.

The biggest scam in Islam, especially Shi’a Islam is perhaps the notion of “Taqqiyeh”, an immoral tactic to lie for a good cause and later retract your words. (The belief that the end justifies the means) Islam is all about schemes, war and violence.

Prophet Mohammed was an extremely violent man, a man of war. Historically, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. The opposite is true of Prophet Muhammad. That is why we see so many suicide bombers in our era. They simply are following what the prophet of Islam had planned for them. Islam rewards those who become martyrs with 72 virgins. So sex is what the Arab Muslim murderers die for. It is all about sex. This must tell us a lot about the prophet’s own appetite for sex. He did not spare anyone; even 9 year old girls were not immune to his sexual wrath. Worshiping a sex-maniac and a child molester? I think NOT.

Muslims are true victims of Islam. However, they fail to realize that Islam is a cult, and the prophet was a demon, possessed by a huge sexual appetite. Yes, true Muslims firmly believe, that those who die in the act of killing the infidels (Christians, Jews and other non-believers) will not only gain entrance into heaven, but will be greeted by 72 virgin women--most likely, Seventy-Two 9 year old girls.

Being politically correct has backfired and the world seems to be taken hostage by the Islamic fanatics. The more politicians give in and declare Islam as a peaceful religion, the more they give the Muslim fanatics impetus to harass and intimidate people of the host countries where they have been given shelter to live.

Galileo said: "I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."

The statement above was true then as it is true today. God has bestowed upon humans many different senses, including “intelligence” so that we use them for a better life. The senses he has given us should lead us to enlightenment and prosperity, not the other way around. Is it possible that the almighty has given these treasures to only a few people and abandoned the rest of his creatures in bewilderment?

Intelligence is discerning between true and false or the real and illusory. Islam ultimately defines the real nature of intelligence as coming to realize the absolute nature of Allah and the relativity of all else that is other than He. The Qur'an calls those who have gone astray from religion as those who cannot think, 'la ya'quilun', those who cannot use their intelligence correctly.

It is true that all religions are founded on fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of death. However, throughout the years, many of the world religions were able to find ways to reform themselves, but NOT Islam. Islam prides itself on having remained unchanged. The Islamic Revolution in Iran presents a clear image of Islam. We do not need to go back to 1400 years ago and see what the prophet of Islam did. We can see a total replica in the words of his disciples, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the new selected president of Iran , Mr. Ahmadinejad. That is how Islam advanced rapidly around the world, with terror and fear.

“Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God. Mehrab means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, just as all the wars of Islam used to proceed out of the mehrabs. The prophet has [had] sword to kill people. Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people.”

“In the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people; in the same way that he massacred the Jews of Bani Qurayza because they were a bunch of discontented people. If the Prophet used to order to burn a house or exterminate a tribe, that was justice.” Ayatollah Khomeini.

Many Islamic scholars vow that Islam is a religion of logic, wisdom, moderation and peace. They vow that Islam invites people towards insight and knowledge and uplifts the position of women in society. This is far from the truth. Islam cannot stand what is logical and it does not invite people towards insight, but entraps humans with a deadly poison. Once one becomes Muslim, there is no way out.

Islam is about forcing women to wear the “hejab” the symbol of backwardness, stupidity and fanaticism. Women are second class citizens in the Muslim world. The prophet Muhammad takes his 9 year old wife to bed. What kind of man, not to mention a prophet of God, would commit such horrible act of pedophilia? The Quran says women are to be beaten by their husbands, yet Muslim women apparently are fine with this violence, or they could not wait to divorce Islam and run away. Quran says four wives are allowed but Muhammad had at least 20 or even more. They say, in paradise, women are chained in different areas for men's pleasure.
Islam definitely is not compatible with logic and democracy. As a matter of fact, Islam is against liberty and freedom. The problem with the Islamic scholars is that they are in denial that the genie is out and now it is way too late to put it back in the bottle.

Khoshroo Gholamali, Deputy Minister for International and Legal Affairs of the Islamic Republic at the Munich Conference on Security Policy said, “Islam’s prime objective is to strike a balance between Islamic tenants and democratic mechanisms. The extremists have manipulated, misconstrued, and tried to hijack Muslim tenants.”

What Mr. Gholamali said in the conference is misleading and untrue. What Mr. Gholamali did not talk about was the achievements of the Islamic republic for the past 27 years as a model country for the Muslim world. He did not mention about the Islamic executions, floggings, stoning and amputations of limbs in public since this peaceful religion invaded Iran.

He did not speak about the promotion of international and domestic terrorism through Islamic jihad, the creation of the Hezbollah who have conducted many terrorist attacks against innocent people and the promotion of Islamic fundamentalism. He did not say this moderate religion has oppressed the religious minorities in Iran and made them to flee their country. He did not mention how savagely the Islamists in Iran have raped innocent girls before executing them because Islam forbids executing virgins, so raping them was very Islamic. Yes, Islam is very democratic, but only for the Islamic terrorists.

Javid Amir in his article “Views of a Muslim-American” says “it must be understood that it is a mistake to imagine that Islam is an inherently violent and fanatical faith. Islam is a universal religion and there is nothing extremist, monolithic and anti-western about it. Doctrinally, Islam is as blameless as other of the great Universal religions.”

But, Mr. Amir, Islam ‘is’ an inherently violent and fanatical faith. It is all written in the holy book of Quran. So please stop lying to the population and face the facts. The problem with Islam lies not only in the holy book, but it lies in the life of the prophet himself. Muslims incessantly proclaim that the mainstream schools of thought misinterpret the holy book of Quran, yet they fail to recognize that the prophet of Allah lived such an unholy life himself and it is due to his narcissistic life and personality that his followers savagely follow his behavior.

It is due to Muhammad’s way of life that Muslims act barbaric and run amuck and burn cars and Embassies each time someone draws a picture of the holy prophet. Behaviorally, the prophet of Allah hallmarks a cult. In other words, we cannot compare Islam to other religions because due to the prophets narcissistic manners, Islam falls in the category of a cult, not a religion. Yes, Islam is a cult founded by an Arab man from Mecca in Arabia , by the name of Mohammed, who lived from 570-632 A.D. A huge problem is that cults are incredibly difficult to dismantle intellectually. The brainwashing is grandiose.

Indeed, the Prophet of Islam’s deeds and words, Islamic law and its interpretation, has always been totally intolerant and he practiced an unholy life. According to Muslims, the prophet of Islam was Khataman Nabiyyeen (The last prophet) and Allah will no longer send prophets. Well, if God chose a man like Muhammad who butchered, raped, terrorized, massacred and killed so many innocent people with the sword of Islam, then we are dealing with a terrorist God here.

Until we understand this and put a stop on this widely spread contagious disease, many innocent people will continue to die. The very survival of the civilized world is dependent upon our understanding that Islam is mankind’s greatest enemy.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Can Islam be reformed?

I found a nifty post on the vexing and topical question of reforming Islam. Lots of non Muslims are talking about the fanciful notion of an Islamic Reformation--is it even possible or is it so much moonshine? Perhaps the question should be rephrased--if there was an Islamic Reformation, what would it look like and what form would it take?

I think this question is best answered by Callimachus over at Done with Mirrors. Here is (in part) his answer:

You Say You Want a Reformation

People in the West talk about the need for an "Islamic Reformation." By which they mean, perhaps, something that will have the same effect as what happened in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, when a monolothic theopolitical power cracked and what emerged, over time, was a Christianity that overall was less oppressive, less domineering, less dogmatic than what had come before.

Something like that -- the picture is oversimplified (and never mind that barrels of blood were spilled in the process). Or maybe they really just want someone to stand up and be Mecca's version of Martin Luther and say, "enough of this foolishness."

It's a hopeful vision. It's optimistic, and I've learned to be optimistic about the world -- like Churchill, because "it does not seem to be much use being anything else." So I like this idea, too. But I'm not so optimistic that I think it will happen.

For one: We want there to be an Islamic Reformation. There's no particular evidence that Muslims, in sufficient number and in the right places (i.e., not living in America or Canada) want there to be an Islamic Reformation. Reformations don't happen because rival civilizations want them. If the Ottoman sultan in 1519 had said to the Pope, "Just this and this and this needs to be changed in Christianity so we can get along better," you can bet Rome would have responded with a papal "Bull!" In fact, if the Sultan had been advocating for exactly the same things Martin Luther spoke up for, you can bet Luther never would have got past the Wittenberg church door.

For another: There already was an Islamic Reformation. It happened while we were sleeping. The result is Wahhabi dominance, and Islamic Brotherhood, and Bin Laden. This is the Islamic Reformation. We're fighting it now.

When religions "reform" -- note the "re-" prefix -- they swim back toward their sources. And in every case, they carry the baggage of the present with them. Every attempt to reform Christianity during the 16th and 17th centuries sought the wellsprings. It turned away from the Catholic Church not because it was wrong to mix political power with religious authority, but because that's not how it was in the Gospels.

So they set out in search of the Christianity of Paul. But they always dragged their own time and place with them -- how could they not? If the command was, "be separated from the world," the shape of your separation would be determined by the shape of the world you lived in. Thus the same motivation, and the same Gospel, in different times and places led one group of people to be Quakers and another to be Pentecostals.

Or Amish. Look at an adult Amishman: he has a beard, but no mustache. Why is that? Because in 18th century Germany it was fashionable for young men to wear mustaches but no beards. So to get back to the Gospel and be not of this world, the Amish enshrined the exact opposite style. And they still wear it.

When Christianity reforms -- when it goes back to its roots -- it tries to foreswear the world. When Islam goes back to its roots, it tries to conquer the world.

And it takes modern conflicts and technologies with it.

Read the rest here.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

License to Kill

When does a nation have a license to kill? That's easy enough to answer. Any Islamic and/or Arab country, with Russian and/or Chinese support, pretty much has a free hand to perform as much 'ethnic cleansing' as they want. Or they are free to oppress any designated minorities within their borders (Jews are preferred in this role, but any non Muslims will do in a pinch). Chinese and Russian support can include any preferred business relationships, diplomatic support, or weapons deals. Having friends in Beijing and Moscow also brings along the all-important UNSC veto, which is very handy in keeping away sanctions. Just ask Sudan about that.

Friday, April 21, 2006

More Details on Why CAIR lost its nerve suing Anti-CAIR

Several weeks ago CAIR dropped its lawsuit with prejudice against Anti-CAIR, which was a great victory for Andrew Whitehead.

Daniel Pipes has an excellent article about this and exactly what Andrew Whitehead demanded in discvery. Whitehead's counsel, Reed D. Rubinstein of Greenberg Traurig LLP's Washington, D.C. office is smart and an asset for all of us in-the-know infidels. Saving ourselves, we'll save all those absurd dhimmi infidels like Condi Rice, Chirac, Blair, Straw, most all the EU 'leaders,' and pretty much all the State Dept. Who can name them all? Who has time? Thank God Bush has quit saying Islam is the religion of peace. He has, hasn't he?!?!

I think I would like to write a letter to Mr. Rubinstein thanking him for doing this fine pro bono work. You have to fight a scorpion with one of your own, then get away. Just kidding.

CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR
by Daniel Pipes

A less rousing point of view

Ally and fellow blogger Mike Jericho is less than sanguine about us infidels' prospects against the Islamic monolith, at least for the Eurabian corner of the realm. Mike is one of the more bluntly worded bloggers I know of out there in the b-sphere and I make no apologies for his direct approach to writing. If you can't handle a few four-letter words, read no further.

Unlike most anti-Islamic bloggers, I do not believe it likely that the Islamic advance can be curtailed before a significant portion of Europe has fallen.

That's the same Europe who unfortunately possess ICBMs.The Europeans won't recognise the problem, not even after they have fled to sanctuaries like Australia and the USA. They'll delude themselves into believing that they didn't flee, and that Europe was always destined to become Islamic. Then they'll go on voting for far left parties until there's a bloody civil war in what remains of the west.

So from now on, most of my posts will be less rousing. I'm not attempting to change people's minds anymore. If you're too fucking ignorant to know when your enemy is sneaking up behind you with a big fucking axe, nothing I can say is gonna save your ass.

From now on, I'm just going to chronicle our descent into darkness.

For more reasons as to why the future is a bleak one, go here and here.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

The Religion of Peace continues to kill

For a true picture of Islam, ignore the inane Sultans of Malaysia and read this superb article from today's StrategyPage:

The war on terror, and Islamic terrorism, has masked the ongoing worldwide conflict between Islamic populations and any non-Moslems in the vicinity. This Islamic violence against non-Moslems has been a problem for centuries, and has only become worse because of the recent increase in Islamic terrorism.

For example, on Friday, April 14th, a Moslem man, armed with two knives, attacked worshippers during mass at two Coptic churches in Alexandria, Egypt. A 78-year-old man was killed, and between five and fifteen others injured before the perpetrator was apprehended, attempting to enter a third church. Although the police described the man as suffering from "psychological disturbances," many Copts reject that assertion, and believe he acted from religious motivations, possibly at the urging of the radical Moslem Brotherhood. Copts are believed to make up about 10-percent of Egypt's population and are subject to considerable harassment by Egypt's Moslem majority. Last fall and again earlier this year there were anti-Copt riots in many Egyptian cities, including church burnings, and the Muslim Brotherhood has openly threatened to kill Coptic Pope Shenouda III.

On Saturday, the 15th, the funeral for the victim turned into a protest, then into a demonstration, and finally into a riot. Coptic rioters broke up Moslem shops and beat several Moslem, at least one of whom subsequently died. The police arrested 15 people, all Copts, and imposed a cordon around the Church of the Saints, one of those attacked on the 14th.

The next day, police found themselves simultaneously battling young Coptic protestors at the Church of the Saints and a Moslem mob trying to break through the cordon to get at the church. Reinforced to a reported 2,000 officers, the police were able to impose calm, after about 45 people were injured and 55 arrested (about 10 Copts and the rest Moslems). The situation remains tense. Police are reportedly on high alert, as Friday the 21st is Good Friday in the Coptic calendar, and Sunday the 23rd will be Easter.

Similar hostility is shown towards Christians throughout the Middle East, in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. In Saudi Arabia, Christians are not allowed to openly practice their religion, a prohibition no Moslems suffer from anywhere in the world. Moslem terrorists regularly attack Christians, Hindus and other non-Moslems in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Indonesia. Islamic radicals affiliated with al Qaeda murder and terrorize Christians in the Philippines. In Africa, Moslems not only attack Christians, but attempt to subject them to Islamic law (Sharia).

This widespread hostility and violence against non-Moslems is sanctioned and encouraged by Moslem clerics, who also praise Islamic terrorists. In this kind of atmosphere, it's no surprise that there are still volunteers for al Qaeda and similar organizations. Most of the violence takes place in countries or provinces where there is a majority Moslem population, and the government is run by Moslems. While Islamic radicals insist the violence is a matter of self-defense against Christian aggression, it's really just the oppression of religious minorities. The Islamic radicals insist that the only authentic Moslems are those that continue to spread Islam by force. They do not see Islam as a religion of peace, and they have many supporters throughout the Moslem world. While many religions go through a phase of expansion by aggression, Islam is the only major religion that still has many believers who still condone this form of violence. Until this faction of the Moslem community settles down, the war on terror won't be over.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Mohammadens to 'settle down'. At any rate, time is one luxury we can't afford.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

'Give true picture of Islam'

This is an article in one of today's papers: "Give true picture of Islam". These statements are from one of Malaysia's sultans; every state here has one--each king (AKA 'raja') has their own little kingdom to call their own. Now, this particular sultan is either a taqiyya master or a master of naivety about you-know-what. Perhaps he's able to be both at the same time?

‘Give true picture of Islam’

KUALA KANGSAR: It is the responsibility of every Muslim to portray Islam as a moderate religion.

Perak’s Sultan Azlan Shah called for a collective effort to promote Islam as respectful of other religions and cultures at an investiture ceremony at Istana Iskandariah here yesterday.

He said through their speech and actions Muslims would determine how others viewed Islam.

“Muslims should understand the realities of living in a multiracial country where its people come from different religious and cultural backgrounds,” he said.


As soon as one can build a new church or temple in Malaysia as easily as one can build a surau or mosque, and as soon as one can change his/her religion on one's national ID card without hassle, then I will believe Islam here is 'moderate'. Until that time, Mr Sultan can take his ridiculous rhetoric elsewhere. I don't wanna hear it.

He drones on in the same vein:
“Avoid being too rigid in your interpretation of issues affecting those from other religions, as it could lead to unrest in our country.

“Islam forbids the practise of extremism among its followers. It must be made a religion that is respected and not feared.”

So, the time-honored Islamic practices of calling for the deaths of apostates, homosexuals, adulterers, and banning all religions save Islam in many Middle Eastern states is not 'extremist'? Executing rape victims isn't 'extremist'? Iran's calling for the destruction of Israel and genocide isn't 'extremist'? Sudan's ethnic cleansing, under cover from the Arab League and the Malaysian-chaired OIC, isn't 'extremist'? Jihadists murdering civilians in Tel Aviv, London, Madrid, Bali, New York and countless other places isn't 'extremist'?

Earlier, in his speech, the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah urged Islamic leaders to take an active stand in providing an accurate picture of Islam to the West to support world peace efforts.

He said the tension between the West, especially the US, and Islamic countries and communities was a major challenge.

“There are too many conflicts between the two, with each leaning towards war in an effort to attain peace,” he said.

“But peace will never be reached through battle. Peace can only be achieved through dialogue with open hearts and minds, and the intention towards identifying common areas and building relationships.”

Oh yeah, of course. Malaya was freed from Imperial Japan's rule through 'dialogue' and so was Nazi-occupied Europe. Give me a break!
Raja Nazrin further pledged to participate at world forums and discussions to help in building bridges of understanding between Islam and the West.
'Bridges of understanding' sounds, to me, an awful lot like 'getting the infidels to submit to what we want'.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Guest blogger--Islam's Agenda is nothing less than World Conquest

This piece was submitted to PI by a friend of ours, a guest columnist from Europe named Leon. It's refreshing to see that another infidel 'gets it' and sees the knife that is at our collective throats.

Before 9/11 the extent of the terrorists’ hatred -- not just towards Israel but towards all democratic nations -- was virtually unknown.

But today, radical Islamic terrorists stand exposed for who they are and what they plan for the non-Muslim world.

Their true goal of destroying anyone who doesn't accept their Islamic religion (as ‘Allah’ and Mohammed have said – “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.” -- surah 3:85) has been made clear to the whole world. But for some strange reason, politicians and other people in secular society bend over backwards for Muslims and make absurd proclamations such as “Islam is a religion of peace”.

This realization has to be a serious ''wake-up call'' to all peoples (Christians and non-Christians) within the secular western nations.

Today there are dozens of Islamic terrorist groups operating all over the world such as Al-Qaeda, Jemaah-Islamiya, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Ansar-al-Islam, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, Hisballah, etc… What unites all Muslim terrorist groups is their commitment to Jihad (a holy war to conquer nations which are not yet Muslim). Whoever you are, you need to understand that in Islam the Koran teaches that the world is divided into two geographical and spiritual regions, known as the ‘lands (or house) of submission’ (dar-al-Islam) and ‘lands (or house) of war’ (dar-al-harb). The ‘lands of submission’ are those nations which have been subjugated by Islam, and the ‘lands of war’ (dar-al-harb) are those nations which are not yet conquered by Muslims –but must be! Also, when you hear Muslims (or fearful Muslim pleasing secular politicians) quoting from the Koran a verse that seems nice and peaceful – remember that these relatively few verses apply only to the peoples in the lands that have been conquered by Islam – so basically they are Muslims!

The Koran also permits Muslims to lie to non Muslims and make peace if it eventually helps spread Islam. A good example of this was Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who spoke publicly about having peace with Israel and the West. But privately, to Muslims, he said – “In the name of Allah…...believe me there is a lot to be done. The Jihad (Muslim 'holy' war) will continue…... And I have to speak frankly, I can’t do it alone without the support of the Islamic nation…... you have to come and fight and to start the Jihad.”

Today almost every conflict in the world has its roots in Islam and the spread of the Muslim religion -- the Balkans, Sudan, Nigeria, Israel, Chechnya, Kashmir, Indonesia, southern Thailand, the Philippines, and many other African and former Soviet countries. Also almost every terrorist group in the world is Muslim!

Secular society is afraid to speak out against Islam because Muslim groups come down on all those who are against them like a ton of bricks, and many European nations are more than 10% Muslim now. The numbers of Muslims in Europe(through births and unchecked immigration, legal and illegal) continues to rise
rapidly.

On average, surveys show that the global population of Muslims is around 1.4 billion, which is almost 25% of the world population. Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, particularly in Europe.

The last question I would like to ask you all is this -- who is this god 'Allah' who inspired Mohammed to write the Koran and start this Muslim religion which has been trying for centuries to destroy the Christian faith?

The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai


Every now and then, I light up with joy over some book that really makes a huge difference in my understanding. Raphael Patai’s, The Arab Mind; Hatherleigh Press; ISBN: 1-57826-117-1; Revised Edition, 2002, was one of those books.

It never was hard to understand the philosophical principles of Islam. In fact, one of the reasons for its success, in my view, is its simplicity welded into its ability to govern ALL aspects of an advocate's life. Still, something was missing.

It is one thing to break down some body like Islam into its components. It is a very Western thing to do, and it is how we understand so much. Much, much harder, however, is figuring out HOW THESE PRINCIPLES GET INTO KIDS AND DEFORM THEM INTO MUSLIMS IN GENERAL AND JIHADISTS IN PARTICULAR. Then came Patai.

Books are like movies--few do I reread any more than reseeing most movies. Not so with Patai's book. There have been things new on every page on each reading, and rereading has been easy because the book has been so well written.

To follow is a portion (excerpts) of that review. All of the review is on our website 6th Column Against Jihad.


As I dug ever deeper into Islam after the events of 11 September 2001, I realized that my understanding of Islam needed something to supplement it, to make it more complete. Of course, I had needed to understand Islam itself. For this, I turned, among other places, to the books of Robert Spencer (Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers), Ibn Warraq (Why I Am Not a Muslim), and others. As valuable as these were, and they were, and are, magnificent, I needed something else, something qualitatively different.

After I read Raphael Patai's, The Arab Mind, I knew that I had found an exceptionally important explanation of the other component of the Islam problem: the Arab mind itself. In Dr. Patai, I had found an explanation of how Islam works on the Arab mind to produce its characteristic persona. In fact, I had found a key to being able to develop an explanation of how Islam takes normal human beings and turns them into killer robots (kill-bots) set relentlessly onto jihad. I regard this book as one of the most important books I have found about Islam and Arabs.

Dr. Patai wrote before the disease of "political correctness," spawned in the philosophical sewers of the 1960s and 1970s, had taken hold. Nowadays, he would be accused of racial stereotyping by writing about the Arab personality. However, he defined his subject and the boundaries of his examination. He asked, "What can be common to a group is a specific feature, or a set of specific features, that social psychologists and anthropologists have reference to when they talk about national character or modal personality?" He adds, "The basis of modal personality or national character studies is the observation that human beings who grow up in a common environment exhibit, beyond their individual differences, a strong common factor in their personality."

It is this modal personality or national character that he addresses. "I would, therefore, venture to define national character as the sum total of the motives, traits, beliefs, and values shared by the plurality in a national population" (his emphasis). That is why and how he can identify, study, and conceptualize the Arab mind, and he is as correct today as he ever was, regardless of the tenor of our times. This is the basis for our recognizing and separating peoples as belonging to nationalities, races, genders, and so on, based on common characteristics, and none of this involves the devaluation of any member because of it. The context of who is an Arab is very simple: "Persons whose mother tongue is Arabic may be brought up in a non-Arab culture (e.g., in French culture in North Africa), and still consider themselves Arabs and be so considered by others." Identity comes from language for these people. Islam and the Arabic language are seamlessly fused: Islam shaped Arabic; Arabic shapes Islam; and both shape Arabs.

This book is so rich with material that it cannot be contained in any review...I will focus on some of the key elements of the book which opened my mind to the nature of the Arab.

Arabs put exceptionally high value on their language, and they are exceptionally influenced by it. Dr. Patai likens Arabic to music because of how extensively is the language linked to the emotions of Arabs. Arabs tend to be wordy, or, as Dr. Patai says, they engage extensively in "rhetoricism." Linked seamlessly to rhetoricism is their proneness to verbal exaggeration and overemphasis. If we wish someone a "speedy recovery," the Arab will tend to say "May there be upon you nothing but health, if Allah wills." Our mutually exchanged "Good Morning" becomes something like "May your day be prosperous," and you likely will receive in response, "May your day be prosperous and blessed." During the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the Iraqi Prime Minister proclaimed to the Arab joint chiefs that all they needed were a few brooms to drive the Jews into the sea. We know, however, what really happened.

Dr. Patai explains this exaggeration as the mental phenomenon "... [I]n which the desired event is represented as an accomplished fact." This is pure primacy of consciousness epistemology which says something is so because I want it. Baghdad Bob was a shamelessly typical user of Arab exaggeration and overemphasis [in essence, "Pay no attention to those American tanks behind me. There are no Americans in Baghdad, and we have vanquished the infidels totally."]. He sounded comical to us, but Baghdad Bob was deadly serious. If we do not learn how Arabs think, we can never deal with them effectively.


Read all of the review, minus the excerpts, here.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Palestinian murderer du jour

The terrorist state of Hamastan has, apparently, belatedly managed to celebrate the recent Easter holiday in their own, ahem, 'quirky' way.

How did they do it? By blowing up a sandwich shop in Tel Aviv that was full of evil Joooz, of course.

Here's the spin on it from the Mainstream Dhimmwit Media...with helpful PI clarifications inserted within:

TEL AVIV (AFP) - Eight people were killed and dozens wounded in Israel’s commercial capital Tel Aviv when a Palestinian militant (AKA terrorist) blew himself up in the deadliest suicide bombing (and the wordhacks at AFP can't call these things 'martydom operations'? AFP must be Islamophobes!) of the last 20 months. The attack took place hours before the swearing in of the new Israeli parliament following last month’s election won by the centrist Kadima party of Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

The blast struck next to a fast food stand at around 1:45 pm (1045 GMT) in the southern Neveh Sha’anan district, close to the site of Tel Aviv’s old bus station. The area has been the scene of several previous attacks, including one in January.

The attack — the deadliest since a suicide bombing in August 2004 — was claimed by the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad (we dare not call them terrorists, not ever), which has been behind all of the most recent bomb attacks in Israel.

(Allegedly) moderate Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas condemned what he called an act of terrorism while Olmert vowed that Israel would react in the “necessary fashion”.

The Palestinian militant (thugs and murderers) group Hamas, which recently formed a new government following its upset victory in January elections, laid the blame at Israel’s door, calling it a natural consequence of its “aggression”.

Nothing but the usual schtick here, blaming the victim for fighting back.

Urbi et orbi

I just learned that the Pope wants Catholics to help the Palestinian people to build up their own country! Is that what he is using his Easter sermon for this year? Urging Catholics to donate to Muslims, and not, say, other Christians in poor countries? How about paying back its debts to the Jewish population first? Not that what has been done in the name of Christianity over 60 years ago could ever be made up with by money, though, I assume that everybody knows from what country this pope comes from.

The Christian Peoples Party of Switzerland (or CVP, whose members are Catholic, it’s one of the largest political parties in the country) had its annual meeting just last week. At the press conference they announced that they want to help Muslims to become, and I quote, “…better integrated in our country.” They want them to feel accepted and integrated, which might prevent them from feeling isolated, which of course must be the cause for Muslims the world over becoming violent.

I don’t think I need to comment on the above any further. It simply speaks volumes about itself… and European policy.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

A quick note on Easter

To the members of the real Religion of Peace, PI would like to wish all Christians a blessed and happy Easter weekend. We should not forget those who are practising Christianity and celebrating Easter in secret (like in so many places in the Muslim world), those who have 'reverted' from Islam to Christianity, and those Christians who are, daily, oppressed, persecuted and murdered at the hands of Muslims. Let us not forget their suffering this year or any other year.

Amen.

Friday, April 14, 2006

A Coalition of One?

Gerard Baker at Real Clear Politics has a great column on Iran as they continue to defy the world with their nuclear weapons program, and how a war with Iran may only be, in the end, ultimately waged by a coalition of one--the US.

By the recent ominous standards of Iranian political theatre Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's declaration this week that his country had promoted itself to the nuclear club was at least mildly entertaining.

From the TV pictures, it looked a little like a low-budget version of an Olympic Games opening ceremony. Austere, athletic-looking men in traditional garb pranced to and fro against a backdrop of doves in flight, while orotund pleas for peaceful cooperation fell earnestly from the mouths of political leaders.

Sadly, like the Olympics it was all a magnificently empty charade. In the nuclear weapons field, Iran is the diplomatic equivalent of one of those Eastern European shot-putters, urgently protesting its innocence while frantically pumping itself full of opposition-crushing chemicals in the locker room. Teheran should have failed its steroid test a long time ago and yet it's still in the international game.

Read the rest here.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Background on the Plan to Regulate Conservative Blogs by Democrats and Liberals

Democrats and Liberals despise talk radio because it is dominated by conservatives. Likewise they hate the political blog world because it is dominated by conservatives. They hate Fox News because it is conservative. It is not enough for them to have all the MSM newspapers and major network news and CNN and most of the major event rags like Time and Newsweek. No, they must curb talk radio and political blogs.

There is an excellent background story on what is being cooked up by Democrats and liberals to try to shut down conservative blogs at Ice Viking (originally published at FrontPage). This article is from January 2006 but is an eye opener on the Democrats' and Liberals' scheme to shut down conservative opinions on the web. Oh, and who among the Republicans is their ally? McCain of course. To me if you are going to have a Democratic platform and agree with Democrats more than Republicans, you should not be a Republican, but a Democrat. McCain, leave the Republican party. You are dragging us down.

Quotes from "The Plot to Shush Rush and O’Reilly" by Brian C. Anderson
FrontPageMagazine January 24, 2006:

"The rise of alternative media—political talk radio in the eighties, cable news in the nineties, and the blogosphere in the new millennium—has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The Left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party’s current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media’s vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today’s liberals quietly, relentlessly, and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations."

"Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what’s going on—and resist it."

"The most imminent danger comes from campaign-finance rules, especially those spawned by the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. Republican maverick John McCain’s co-sponsorship aside, the bill passed only because of overwhelming Dem support. It’s easy to see why liberals have spearheaded the nation’s three-decade experiment with campaign-finance regulation. Seeking to rid politics of “big-money corruption,” election-law reforms obstruct the kinds of political speech—political ads and perhaps now the feisty editorializing of the new media—that escape the filter of the mainstream press and the academy, left-wing fiefdoms still regulation-free. Campaign-finance reform, notes columnist George Will, by steadily expanding “government’s control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government,” advances “liberalism’s program of extending government supervision of life.”

Fox and Comedy Central Chicken Out on South Park

South Park ran the final episode of the two part 'Cartoon Wars' last night. Will Fox and Comedy Central bow down and submit to the Muslims? You bet. In the last few minutes of the show where the scene with Mo was to be shown, you instead got a black screen with the words along the line of "Fox and Comedy Central refuse to show the picture of Mohammed." Of course I am disappointed. Dhimmification of the infidels isn't something that happens overnight. It is a slow grinding down process that can take years. Yes, we are in an accelerated phase now. Look at Europe, which is establishing a politically correct lexicon to replace those evil insulting words like "Islamic terrorist" and "jihad."

I am sure Trey and Matt are very disappointed with Comedy Central, Fox and Rupert Murdoch. After all, the decision to censor those 2 to 3 seconds showing Mo probably went all the way to the top. It is a failure of the West but just another in a long list of failures, failure to stand up against the threatened violence of Muslims, failure to understand the enemy, failure to understand that appeasement is perceived as weakness and strengthens the jihad. The result will be more demands, more appeasement for 'insults.' It is a slippery slope indeed. You should watch this show if you get a chance. Kyle gives a speech explaining to the Fox President why he must not give in. It is quite good. Cartman calls them "gay speeches." Even Trey and Matt have learned that when it comes to Islam, the powers that be believe appeasement is the best path. The final scene that Matt and Trey inserted is quite blunt, with cutout caricatures of Matt, Trey, President Bush and others all being crapped on by each other. To prove their point that Islam gets special privilege, they have Jesus Christ join in the crapfest, crapping on all of them.

Et tu Fox? Et tu indeed.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

France responds to its latest problems in their usual way



... by surrendering, of course. The proposed, relatively modest reforms that could have breathed at least some life into the permanently moribund French economy have been permanently shelved. The spineless, corrupt Chirac and his toady Villepin have indeed surrendered to the temper tantrums of its spoiled brat of a population, who, like any drug addict, is utterly unwilling to kick its socialist perks.

Meanwhile, the Muslim shadow of sharia and supremacy looms larger and larger over the entire bankrupt French enterprise. But since when have the socialists of Europe let a little thing called reality intrude into their multicultural paradise?

The Uranium Dancers

See the 'pigeon' of peace in the background? It doesn't matter that Iran is an economic basketbase and their people are as poor as dirt and ignorant. All they know is Islam, and Islam must rule the world. Dance, dance dance!

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Kennedy: The Anarchist Within America

Kennedy Tactics on Immigration Vex Democrats
By CARL HULSE

Published: April 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 11 — To Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the complex issue of immigration policy is simple enough.

"We are the land of opportunity," he said. "Our streets may not be paved with gold, but they are paved with the promise that men and women who live here — even strangers and newcomers — can rise as fast, as far as their skills will allow."

While those words could have been part of his speech Monday to those rallying on the Mall in Washington, they were delivered more than 40 years ago on the Senate floor as Mr. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, managed his first major piece of legislation — an immigration bill. [Look what a disaster that was.]

Decades later, Mr. Kennedy, the liberal leader and descendant of Irish immigrants, is back in the thick of another immigration fight, pushing strongly for a bipartisan compromise that would toughen border security while providing a route to legal status for millions of illegal residents. And some of the fight is with his own Democratic colleagues.

Mr. Kennedy's drive to strike a deal with Republicans is making some in his party nervous. They worry that the senator, in his desire to bring about changes in immigration law, will cede too much to Republicans and that the end product will fall short on the guest worker and citizenship provisions favored by most Democrats. They believe Mr. Kennedy made similar miscalculations when he cut initial deals with Republicans on Medicare drug coverage and education policy.

"Just about everyone in the caucus is worried that without safeguards that this is headed into an unfair, unbalanced bill," said one Democratic senator, who would talk about internal party criticism only on the condition of anonymity.

Republicans acknowledge that Mr. Kennedy served as a valuable ally last week when he broke with the Democratic leadership in its efforts to blame Republican recalcitrance for the collapse of the immigration legislation. Mr. Kennedy, in a split with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he was sympathetic to the Republican demand to offer amendments — a sticking point with Democrats.

"He certainly helped, by our lights, to make it a more truthful understanding of what happened, and that leaves the door open for us when we come back," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader.

In an effort to improve their prospects, Mr. Frist and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert announced Tuesday that they would drop one of the most contentious provisions from an immigration bill passed by the House, a proposal to make unlawful presence in the United States a felony.

The subject of immigration runs deep in Kennedy family lore. According to a biography by Adam Clymer that focused on Mr. Kennedy's legislative accomplishments, the senator used to regale his staff with how his maternal grandfather, John F. Fitzgerald, who was known as Honey Fitz, had opposed a literacy requirement on new immigrants while serving in the House in 1897.

As a senator, John F. Kennedy opposed quotas on immigrants from outside Western Europe, a cause Edward Kennedy and another brother, Robert, pursued as members of the Senate. They took on Southern lawmakers who objected to giving Africans the same opportunity to immigrate as those from Britain.

"This is one of his core issues, one of the things he has been concerned about the longest," said Mr. Clymer, a former reporter for The New York Times, whose book recounted Mr. Kennedy's 1965 floor speech.

As public outrage over increasing illegal immigration soared in recent years, Mr. Kennedy joined with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to find a solution that went beyond border controls to making accommodations for some of the millions of working illegal immigrants.

The two veteran lawmakers managed to bring other influential senators on board and presented a comprehensive plan that provided part of the framework for legislation approved by the Judiciary Committee. Though that plan met resistance from Senate Republicans who viewed it as amnesty for those who had entered the country illegally, the Senate announced a tentative agreement that embraced a version of the Kennedy-McCain approach. But it lasted only hours. Mr. Frist, confronted by angry members of his party, insisted on the opportunity to allow consideration of some amendments. Democrats balked.

In a meeting Thursday evening in Mr. Reid's office, Mr. Kennedy argued for moving ahead with the bill, confident that the votes were there to beat back objectionable changes and that the debate could build momentum for the measure. Mr. Reid and his leadership team countered that the amendments were meant to derail the bill. They feared that without some assurances by Mr. Frist on negotiations with the House, the bill could be hijacked by Republicans. Mr. Kennedy lost.

A top aide to Mr. Reid said Tuesday that he was still determined to get a bill and disputed assertions that he had made a political calculation to block it.

"Senator Reid is doing what is right for both his caucus and real immigration reform," said Susan McCue, his chief of staff.

Mr. Kennedy said Tuesday that he believed the setback was temporary. "I think the momentum in our caucus is strongly in favor of immigration; there is a difference on tactics," said Mr. Kennedy, noting that the situation is far different for Republicans, who are split over the idea of allowing illegal residents a chance to qualify for citizenship.

As he took in Monday's immigration rally here, Mr. Kennedy said he heard the echoes of the civil rights movement and concluded that change was inevitable.

"There is too much velocity to deny it," he said. "This is an extraordinary grass-roots movement, and I think it is really one that we will have to answer." [The fignt is not over Mr. Kennedy. Not by a mile.]

Bush's Low Approval Ratings on Immigration Reform

Today, a new Post/ABC poll has Bush's favorable opinion at a new low of 37%. But further down in that poll is the public's opinion on Bush's 'open border' policy - 33% approve. This President has betrayed America. His alliance with the left and the 'open border' anarchists is the final nail in the coffin. He is a RINO.

WashPost/ABC Opinion Poll

Iran War Watch--The Twelth Imam gets his uranium

Assuming this is true, and not yet another part of the ongoing Taqiyya campaign, here's the MSM treatment:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Tuesday that Iran has successfully enriched uranium. "Iran has joined countries with nuclear technology," he said.
It's all for peaceful purposes, you got that, you infidels?

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn reports in his most recent column (which coincidently is about Iran):

...as the Daily Telegraph in London reported: “Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.” Hmm. I’m not a professional mullah, so I can’t speak to the theological soundness of the argument, but it seems a religious school in the Holy City of Qom has ruled that “the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.”

Steyn's writing is as effective as the UN is completely ineffective. Read the rest of his column here.

Iran continues its march to nuclear armageddon, all in accordance with the Shia Islamic apocalyptic worldview, and the west does nothing.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Brigitte Gabriel Recounts How Muslims Harassed and Threaten her at U. of Memphis

I am a bit stunned. Brigitte Gabriel is a lovely, charming woman. We are living in an ALIEN NATION. BTW, did you call your Congressman and Senator today and tell him to build that wall and stop Muslim immigration and not consider any guest worker or amnesty until AFTER the wall is AT LEAST half complete?

Muslims Muzzling U. of Memphis

Brigitte Gabriel

Universities, for those of us who lecture on campuses, are the battleground for the heart and soul of the next generation of leaders. They are the battleground where we must fight to win back the opinions and allegiance of American college students. This is made harder when Islamists in both the college and local communities try to intimidate us and deny our free speech on campuses in some of the least likely places.

We have grown to expect these things on the major East and West Coast cities “elite” university campuses that harbor radical professors and anarchist student and radical Muslim community activities. But not in the heartland where I spoke last week at the University of Memphis. What was shocking was that it occurred in the South, in “Bubbaland” as my friends from the region call it.

I was invited to give a lecture sponsored by Professor David Patterson of the Judaic Studies Program. When news about my appearance spread, the Muslim community both on and off campus launched a full-scale campaign to stop my lecture. They demanded that Dr. Patterson cancel my speech. E-mails flooded the University of Memphis administration and Dr. Patterson from Muslim students on campus and Muslims in the community and mosques. Here are some of their comments:

People like Brigitte are plenty in the world, they are the true enemies of Islam. And despite their rubbish talks, the truth about Islam is spreading like a wildfire across Americas and across the globe (All Praise to Allah).

Dr. Patterson, hosting of this lady is orders of magnitude worse than hosting of the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Do you honestly think the scheduled lecture will serve any useful purpose other than inflaming the Muslims, insulting them and spilling poison in the community?

It is interesting to see the reaction of the Muslim community to someone with Muslim-fired shrapnel in her body who speaks against butchering innocent people in the name of Allah. If they would put the same energy into condemning the radical element within Islam and join us in saying that slaughtering people in the name of Allah is murder not Jihad, maybe we wouldn’t be tempred to question their loyalty as American citizens. Dr. Patterson refused to bow to their intimidation and insisted on going on with the scheduled speech.

By the time I showed up at the amphitheater style lecture hall on campus, police officers were already standing at each entrance. Nearly half of the hall was filled with Muslims with their leaders dressed Osama Bin Laden style sitting in the front two rows at eye level making “their point,” that I wasn’t going to get away with speaking freely.

Just as the program was about to begin, a Muslim student walked to the front and asked the crowd to raise their hands if they believed that this lecture was “undemocratic.” They complained that I would be taking questions on cards instead of allowing them to ask them publicly. Experienced in these settings, I knew they would make speeches, spew anti American and Israeli sentiments and create chaos in the room during the Q&A. I decided that they were not going to do that. The provocative Muslim student behavior before I even began my lecture proved my foresight. Dr. Patterson explained that taking questions from cards distributed to the audience was normal protocol at university speaking events like mine.

Patterson tried to calm the unruly crowd but nothing was working. Fed up, I went straight to the podium and ordered everyone to sit. I told them, this is my lecture and I run the show. If they didn’t like the way I conducted my lecture and my questions they could leave the room, now. Shocked at my behavior and authority they shut-up. The non-Muslim members of the audience applauded.

I finished, asked Professor Patterson to make introductory remarks and returned to my seat.

Dr. Patterson introduced me by telling the audience what an eye opener this lecture had become because of the reaction. He stated that he never realized that here in Memphis a speaker should be threatened for his/her safety just to speak on a college campus. He introduced me and I delivered my speech with police officers on both sides as well as about eight others in the lecture hall and around the building.

Unknown to me, a Muslim student attending the University of Memphis was arrested weeks prior to my lecture for, among other things, possession of DVD’s on pilot training and charts on the layout of the Memphis airport. They found links on his computer to sites associated with a radical Sunni Muslim organization in Iraq, and searches for information on how guns and bombs can be smuggled past airport security. After witnessing the Muslim reaction to my lecture and what happened few weeks ago at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill when an Iranian Muslim student drove into, for Allah’s sake, innocent students gathering on university grounds, the Memphis police were not going to take any chances.

It is a sad state of affairs when any speaker on any American University campus has to be surrounded by police officers to protect their freedom of speech and person from intimidation and menace. America is the country where free speech is protected under our constitution. Who would have expected that in the home of the Beale Street Blues, W.C. Handy and Elvis, I would be confronted by Muslims trying to muzzle my free speech and perhaps all of us?

At the end of the lecture the Muslims immediately in front swarmed over me questioning and intimidating. Police officers quickly moved in and pulled me out straight to the police cars as the enraged Muslims started shouting.

Based on what happened to me in Memphis, I think its time for Americans to wake up as to what is occurring within their very midst. It is time to be energized and empowered to stand up and fight to take back our universities. Its incidents like this that spurs speakers like me to defend our civilization and everything it stands for.

Brigitte Gabriel is an expert on the Middle East conflict and lectures nationally and internationally on the subject. She’s the former news anchor of World News for Middle East television and the founder of AmericanCongressforTruth.com.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Crazy Jihadin' Mo's birthday

This week marks more than Tax Day for the US infidels. This Tuesday also marks Crazy Jihadin' "Prophet" Mo's Birthday. This fine occasion is an official holiday not only here in the Islamic Republic of Malaysia, it's one in the rest of Dar al Islam as well. The fact that Mo and his kindred spirit Adolf, two homicidal psychopathic megalomaniacs cut from the same cloth, have birthdays only a fortnight apart in the same month is a supreme irony. One that is certainly lost on Mo's devoted followers, I would be willing to wager.

Here are my top ten ways for celebrating this year's birthday of Molestin' Mo:

10. Buy pork, eat pork
9. Post Mo's cartoons in some more places, online or elsewhere
8. Draw some new Mo cartoons, and share
7. Buy alcohol (Danish booze is a plus)
6. Buy the books of any counter-jihadist authors, like PI's own Mark Alexander
5. Read the Q'u'r'a'n and laugh
4. Send money to Jihadwatch
3. Convert a Muslim into a Christian
2. Go to church next Sunday
1. Put the Qurans at Borders on the bottom shelf