I'm a Monkey! You're a Monkey, and you had better behave and not insult Islam. Let me misbehave: Islam sucks. A crap ideology of imperialism that enslaves the feeble minded.
Report: Malaysian leaders want curbs on bloggers
First posted 10:16 AM 07/29/2007
KUALA LUMPUR--Government leaders have stepped up calls for bloggers to be controlled, after Malaysia's anti-graft body cleared its former leader and the national police chief of corruption allegations that emerged on the Internet, reports said Sunday.
"Slander by bloggers, if not curtailed, will in the end cause the people to lose their confidence in the government, and it is for this reason that they should be made accountable for their reports," Nazri said in the report.
Nazri was quoted as saying that it was time to control blogs to avoid slander being hurled against leaders. He warned bloggers to exercise caution in their articles and to lodge reports directly to the Anti-Corruption Agency, rather than post unfair accusations on their web sites.
Nazri sparked concerns over online freedom last week after he said the government was drafting new laws for bloggers and would not hesitate to use the Internal Security Act, which allows for detention without trial, against bloggers who insult Islam or stir sensitive topics.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was quoted by the Sunday Star as warning bloggers not to go overboard as they were liable for defamation.
"It is wrong for bloggers to go overboard, especially if they post slanderous articles on the [king] and Islam on their Web site. This is not something one can take lightly," he said.
Khairy Jamaluddin, deputy youth leader of the ruling Malay party and the prime minister's son-in-law, called for legal action taken against bloggers who spread lies and slander.
"There are no laws in the cyberworld except for the law of the jungle. As such, action must be taken so that the monkeys behave," Khairy was quoted as saying by Bernama.
Concerns about online freedom of speech have risen after authorities earlier this month said they were investigating opposition politician Tian Chua for possible slander after he posted a fake photo on his blog linking Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak to a high-profile murder.
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said Thursday that "any new laws tailored to censor the Internet would represent a significant step backward for press freedom in Malaysia."
Monday, July 30, 2007
I'm a Monkey! You're a Monkey, and you had better behave and not insult Islam. Let me misbehave: Islam sucks. A crap ideology of imperialism that enslaves the feeble minded.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The EU Constitution went down in flames because citizens were allowed to vote on it and France and the Netherlands said no. What are the EU elites to do? Repackage the same crap as a 'treaty' and say only parliaments should decide. The EU elites and their henchmen in the EU countries' parliaments want this and the less that the citizens have to say about it, the better. You know, this sounds a lot like the Shamnesty Bill President Bush and his henchmen (Graham, Chertoff, Kennedy, etc) tried to do. Keep the peasants in the dark and ram it through. But this is even bigger. This 'treaty' creates a superstate and strips the individual countries of their sovereignty for hundreds of policies. If a country doesn't like the EU legislation spewed out by the elites in Brussels, too bad.
I'm with Fjordman. The EU needs to be destroyed. Here in America, our elites are planning the same thing with the SPP and the proposed NAU (North American Union.) We mustn't let our country fall to the same evil elites that control Europe.
Just like the constitution, say friends and foes of new EU treaty
24.07.2007 - 09:42 CET | By Lucia Kubosova
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Both advocates and critics of the complete draft of the new EU treaty highlight its similarity with the bloc's failed constitution. While advocates consider it the argument for a swift ratification through parliaments, critics maintain it should be decided by public referendum.
Diplomats and legal experts from EU member states are gathering on Tuesday (24 July) to kick off the first round of talks over the bloc's Reform treaty, formally unveiled as a full 277-page version at a meeting of foreign ministers on Monday.
According to EU officials, the launch of the "Intergovernmental conference" on the new treaty should be a smooth process of clearing away minor differences over technical details rather than serious political issues.
The draft is based on a detailed outline agreed by the bloc's leaders in late June. It stems from the legal text contained in the draft EU constitution, which was given a red light from French and Dutch citizens in 2005.
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former chairman of the European Convention which drafted the 2004 constitution, has pointed out that the changes transforming it into 'Reform treaty' are purely "cosmetic".
But while the constitution was supposed to be adopted by referendum in several countries, the new document looks likely to be ratified predominantly by national MPs, with only Ireland openly signalling a popular vote.
For some, the similarity in content between the two documents should be followed by the same ratification method previously envisaged for the constitution.
"I haven't found one single difference in legal obligations," argues a veteran Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, from a eurosceptic Group for Independence and Democracy in the European Parliament.
"The form is different, but the content is the same. That is why I propose a referendum in all EU," he added in a statement.
Heated debate in the UK
The same message is expressed by UK conservative opposition and eurosceptic political activists, such as Open Europe which argues that its analysis has shown 96 percent of the new text is the same as the rejected constitution.
"If Brown now tries to carry on pretending that this is somehow a different document, it will be one of the most audacious political lies in the last couple of decades. It would be simply ludicrous," said the group's director Neil O'Brien.
But while the British prime minister Gordon Brown has not yet openly ruled out a popular vote on the issue, his Europe minister Jim Murphy suggested the calls for a referendum were "frankly absurd," in his speech to the UK's House of Commons on Monday (23 July), according to the UK Daily Telegraph.
Similarly, the British foreign minister David Miliband argued in Brussels, "The concept of a constitution has been abandoned. That is made clear in the new treaty. In that context we don't think there needs to be a constitutional referendum."
The notion that popular votes should be avoided so as to prevent the 2005 French and Dutch scenario became part of the strategy following the decision by German chancellor Angela Merkel to revive the constitutional process, in a bid to save the institutional reforms the charter was to introduce.
Advocates of a parliamentary ratification of the new treaty argue that national deputies are representatives of EU citizens and so their vote should not be played down as less significant to public opinion.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Is it just me or do doctors have BIGhead syndrome? This jerk last week made a 911 call from the airport payphone saying the flight he just missed has a bomb onboard. He did this three times! Why? Because he saw the plane taxiing or taking off as he was calling the first time, second time, and third time and he could tell in realtime that the plane DIDN'T turn around and come back to the gate as HE wanted! But it's not his fault! He fell off the antidepressant bandwagon you see. Save me from the tears. Here's a DOCTOR, educated, should have money and the good life, and he does something this stupid. Doesn't give you a lot of confidence in his diagnosis skills does it?
Seattle PI - Physician charged with airline bomb threat at Sea-Tac
Tennessean called 911 after missing flight, FBI says
P-I STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
A 31-year-old physician from Tennessee who allegedly admitted to calling 911 three times to make a fake bomb warning at Sea-Tac Airport was charged by federal prosecutors Thursday with making a false threat against an aircraft.
Kou Wei Chiu of Bellevue, Tenn., a Nashville suburb, is accused of making the bomb threat because he missed his Northwest Airlines flight, forcing the plane to turn around in flight and return to Sea-Tac.
Chiu made an initial appearance Thursday afternoon in federal court in Seattle. A detention hearing was set for Friday.
According to an FBI affidavit filed in support of the complaint, Chiu admitted that he used an airport pay phone to call 911 three times after he arrived at gate S-7 too late to board his flight Wednesday. "Flight 980 Memphis. There may be a bomb on board," Chiu was quoted as telling the emergency operator.
"After his first phone call, he looked outside at the plane and saw that his call had had 'no effect,' " FBI agent Gary France wrote. "He made a second phone call and noticed that this call, too, had no effect. This led to the third call.
"Chiu stated that he made the calls thinking that the airline 'would ground the plane for a couple of hours,' because bomb threats are taken seriously.
"When asked how he thought other passengers might react when they overheard his calls, he conceded that he thought 'they would be traumatized.' "
Chiu also told investigators that he had been off his antidepressant medication in recent days, France wrote.
His lawyer said Thursday that Chiu is eager to return to his family.
The plane was in the air by the time Chiu was arrested, and it was brought back to the gate and grounded for several hours while authorities determined the threat to be a hoax. Northwest estimated that it lost $70,000 in fuel, gate fees and other expenses.
The plane finally departed again for Memphis and arrived late Wednesday night.
DEFINITION – Fascism: …As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, … and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. … [Source: Dictionary.com]
With the death of Hitler and the defeat of Nazi Germany, most people thought that the world had been rid of fascism. Today, however, we cannot be so sure, because there is evidence aplenty of its revival. These days, many people talk of another form of fascism in particular: Islamofascism. Some people believe this term to be apt for the radical religio-political movement based on Islam, which is currently spreading through the world like wildfire; others, especially Muslims, find the term insulting and demeaning. Who is right? Are the infidels right to be shocked, disgraced and indignant, or are infidels right to use the term to point out to the unsuspecting the dangers we face. Why? Even the President of the United States of America himself, George W Bush, has used the term in public when referring to the antics of Al-Qa’eda and its determination to cultivate mayhem throughout the free world.
When we refer to Islam and radical Islam, we have to be careful not to confuse people. In this politically correct world, a world in which nobody seems willing to upset ethnic groups and people of other religions, it has become customary to dance around the truth so as not to offend. Therefore, our politicians have become accustomed to speaking in riddles, when clearer, more appropriate language would serve the needs of the electorate far better.
In times of danger, clarity of thought is essential. Prevarication serves no-one’s best interest in the long-run. Prevarication might well buy us some time; but it certainly doesn’t solve issues for the long-term good of the nation, for the long-term good of our civilization.
Let’s take a look at the real Islam…
The real Islam is exclusive in the extreme, just as Nazism was. It tells the believers – the Muslims throughout the world – to kill the unbelievers, to kill the infidels. This cannot be disputed, since it is there in black and white in all versions of the holy book of Muslims, the Qur’an.
They [the infidels] but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God [Allah] (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. – Al-Qur’an, Al-Nisa’ (Women), Surah IV, 89 (Translation by A Yusuf Ali)
And then we have the following:
… When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. … – Al-Qur’an, At-Tawba (Repentance), Surah 9, 4 (Translation by N J Dawood)
These exhortations are also redolent of Nazism. They are certainly as violent and brutal and cruel.
These are the words of the founder of Islam or the words of Allah, according to your viewpoint and according to where you stand on the matter of Islam being a great and authentic religion. Muhammad certainly managed to make those who submit to Allah feel superior and exclusive, since Muslims are considered (by Muslims) to be superior to all other human beings. They are, after all, Allah’s ‘chosen people’, just as the Aryan race was the superior race in Hitler’s Germany. This is surely another similarity between these two ideologies.
There is no doubt about the fact that Muhammad was a 'great' and magnetic personality. This is quite indisputable, since were he not to have been so, then Islam would surely have died out long ago. But don’t all fascist movements rely on a magnetic personality to lead the followers, to lead the masses, to lead the people who cannot think for themselves? Think of three great examples of the twentieth century: Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All had quite magnetic personalities: people just had to watch them and listen to them and their rants.
The fact that Muhammad died more than fourteen hundred years ago makes no real difference, since his personality is no less magnetic today than it was when he roamed the sands of the desert. His words are still harkened unto by 1.4 billion people worldwide, and we are still counting.
Muhammad must surely rank as the dictator par excellence, since his words were clothed in a deity. Hitler, when he was sitting in his Bunker with Eva that day in 1945, when he was contemplating biting that cyanide capsule and plucking up the courage to shoot himself through the temples, must surely have regretted with every fibre of his being that he hadn’t been smart enough to clothe Nazism in a deity, just as Islam had been about fourteen hundred years before. How much more successful Hitler might have been!
Does Islam qualify so far, according to our dictionary definition, to be classified as a form of fascism? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.
We are then informed that fascist dictators rally their followers by means of mass parades. Well, we cannot say with any certainty whether Muhammad did this. In all probability, he did not, since Islam, in the days of the Prophet, was in its infancy, and there would have been too few followers to rally. What we can say, however, is this: In the modern world, the dictators of the Islamic world have no difficulty whatsoever in getting rallies together on the streets of their cities. Often times, they are genuine; yet at other times, the numbers in the rallies are made by ‘rent-a-mob’. Either way, we must decide whether Islam passes this next test of a true strand of fascism. You decide!
Then we are informed in the definition that fascism appeals to strident nationalism. Well, there is no doubt that Islam is an Arabo-centric movement, worldwide. When praying, all Muslims must face Makkah (Mecca), and this takes place five times a day for the pious and faithful. One is certainly not allowed to ignore the Arab world if one is an adherent of the ‘religion’ of submission that is Islam. Added to this, of course, we have the Ummah, which is the community of Muslims throughout the world. When one enters the fold of Islam, when one becomes a follower, when one submits to the ‘will of Allah’ – some would say the arbitrary ‘will of Allah’ – then one joins the ‘nation’ of Islam worldwide. In this sense, can we not conclude that Islam is a form of extreme ‘nationalism’, a form of Islamic nationalism, a 'nationalism' that transcends geographical borders and frontiers?
Then we are told that fascism promotes suspicion and/or hatred of foreigners and impure people. Well, can we not conclude with the copious and available evidence that we have that Islam is certainly exclusive, since anyone who is not a Muslim is treated as inferior, and actually unclean, as in Kafir (pl. Kufar). The term used in Islam is Naji for such an unclean and unsavoury person. Does this remind you of the way that the Nazis thought of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and Slavs and Russians? Nazis called them Untermenschen (unclean sub-humans); Muslims call them Najis (unclean disbelievers living in a state of Jahiliyyah, a state of pre-Islamic chaos), people who are unworthy of the human condition.
One other thing that Nazis, in particular, had in common with Muslims was this: They both hate(d) the Jews; both groups are deeply anti-Semitic. This, of course, is true to this very day. Mein Kampf, Hitler’s infamous book written whilst he was incarcerated, the title of which means ‘My fight, or my struggle’ (a title which bears a striking resemblance to the term Jihad, if you hadn’t noticed) was replete with anti-Semitism. One can but wonder why this very book is such a bestseller even to this day in countries in the Middle East, and even in Turkey. The book is an endless source of fascination to Muslims.
Fascism is a form of totalitarianism, but then isn’t Islam a form of totalitarianism, too? Fascism doesn’t demand state control of the means of production; but then Islam doesn’t either. Though it does have its own economic principles, economic principles which are neither capitalist nor socialist, economic principles and theory which are simply Islamic. This theory of economics demands neither state-ownership of the means of production nor does it demand equality among the faithful. But Islamic thinking certainly does call for infidels to be treated in an inferior manner, to be treated as dhimmies, or protected people who are not afforded the same rights as those who have submitted to Allah’s will.
Jews in Nazi Germany were made to wear a yellow star to mark them out from the crowd. Non-believers in an Islamic country, according to the ‘Pact of Umar’, are also subjected to similar indignities. Here we have another similarity.
The cult of personality, we are told, is the cornerstone of fascism. Do you think that Islam measures up on this score? Does Muhammad qualify? Was Muhammad charismatic enough? Has Muhammad passed the test of time? Can we conclude that Muhammad is the Gestalt which can truly be described as the non plus ultra of Gestalten, the non plus ultra of personality cults.
Whether ‘Islamofascism’ is a justified and apt term or indeed a calumnious one to describe what we are witnessing around the world today as Islam becomes ever more resurgent is for you, the reader, to decide. Do, by all means, think long and hard about this matter, for the future of the free world depends on our getting this right. It depends on our careful handling of this most thorny of contemporary issues.
All rights reserved
Thursday, July 26, 2007
I don`t know whether this has been published before, I don`t know whether it`s a fake letter or not... all I know is: I fully agree with the author of that letter, whoever it is, I fully agree where it comes to her/his/their/its feelings regarding muslim terrorists. As for the part about USA being a great country I am not going to comment since I am not American and therefore can not share these feelings.
I got this from a friend from Israel:
ONE HELL OF A LETTER
Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one pissed off lady.
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -you guessed it -I don't care ! ! ! !
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country!
And may I add:
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem." Ronald Reagan
I have another quote that I would like to add and.......I hope you forward all this
"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
also by... Ronald Reagan
One last thought for the day:
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said:
"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in, and how many want out."
Monday, July 23, 2007
I strongly suspect I know what incited the Malaysian fascists to do the below:
Umno lodges police report against Malaysia Today
By IZATUN SHARI
KUALA LUMPUR: Umno has lodged a police report against Malaysia Today for carrying a series of comments and remarks that it deemed as insulting the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, degrading Islam and inciting hatred and violence in Malaysia's multi-racial society.
Party information chief Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib lodged the report at 12.57pm at Tun H.S. Lee police station here Monday.
He said the comments and remarks, consisting of criminal elements and inciting religious and racial sentiments which could affect the country’s security, were carried by the blog on July 11.
This is the article I posted on July 11.
Friday, July 20, 2007
By the Anti Jihadist
Much talk in Malaysia as well as in the West centers around the perceived need for an “Islamic Reformation.” What is probably meant by this is something that will have the same effect on Islam as what happened to Christianity in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, when a monolithic theo-political power (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) cracked and what emerged, eventually, was a Christianity that overall was less oppressive, less domineering, and less doctrinaire than what had existed before. Of course, this picture is oversimplified … and do not forget that barrels of blood were spilled in the process. Or maybe what people really want is just someone to stand up and be Mecca’s version of Martin Luther and say, “enough of this foolishness.”
It’s a hopeful, optimistic vision, and who doesn’t want to be an optimist in these restive times? However, even zealous optimists must take care so as to not misplace their hopes. Hence, the question is this--given Islam’s dogmatic and traditional nature (to say the least), is reforming Islam a feasible endeavour?
In order to answer this question with any precision, the true circumstances surrounding the founding of Islam must be examined, and in particular, the actions of the founder of this ideology need to be critically scrutinized. Islam was founded by the self-proclaimed prophet Mohammed in the seventh century (not withstanding the Muslim claims of “everyone since Adam has been a Muslim”). Without Mohammad, Allah, the Quran, and Islam would be unknown. Islam has never existed, and cannot exist, without invoking the example of Mohammed’s life, his actions, and his words. He is the religion's sole prophet, Islam’s solitary example, and Allah’s lone conduit. Mohammed has been hailed by 14 centuries of Islam as the perfect soul, and the noblest model of behaviour that every Muslim must strive to emulate.
So what did Mohammed spend his one life on earth doing? According to authentically Islamic sources (specifically Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Mohammed and Bukhari’s Ahadith, both generally accepted by Muslims as reliable), here is what Mohammed did in his lifetime:
-He had political opponents murdered
-He murdered prisoners of war, sometimes after the most brutal of torture
-He seized the women and children of his victims, using them for sexual favors, taking them as wives and concubines, selling them into slavery for profit, or sometimes all of the above
-He persecuted the Jews in particular until his oppression and butchery were borderline genocidal
-He agreed to peace treaties with his enemies (“hudnas”), and then broke the agreements as soon as such action was to his advantage
-He and his followers stole anything and everything they could get their hands on, in order to finance their movement and obscenely enrich themselves
-He and his followers had repeated sexual intercourse with children
This foregoing list is but scratching the surface of Mohammed’s depravity. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” goes the Biblical parable, which is just a fancy way of saying that one’s worth or true character can be ascertained by one’s actions. Judging Mohammed by his actions, he was plainly no prophet—rather, he was a pirate, terrorist, brigand, paedophile, thief, liar, and murderer.
Remember, Muslims hold up Mohammed as the *perfect* model of behaviour. Therefore, what Mohammed did in the 7th century, according to Islam, is still just as praiseworthy and respectable now as it was then, and will be for all time. Furthermore, this ‘fact’ can never be up for discussion or revision—the mere suggestion of anything so untoward in Islam is in itself blasphemy and heresy!
How can any honourable, decent movement or religion ever be based on or draw its inspiration from such a man like Mohammed? Any house built on such rotten foundations will itself be rotten, and be beyond fixing. Trying to fix such a structure would be a colossal waste of time, money, and effort. Ask anyone in construction, or any engineer, and they can tell you—if the foundations of a building are fundamentally unsound, the only solution is to start over from scratch.
Throughout fourteen centuries, despite endless attempts to do so, no one has ever come close to succeeding to ‘repairing’ Mohammedanism. “Islam Hadhari” is but the latest effort in this regard, and there is no reason to suspect that it will be any more successful than the rest. For that matter, why should we expect any future attempts to succeed? In fact, most such ‘Islamic reform movements’, like the Wahhabis of Saudi Barbaria, have only managed to enhance Islam’s inherent wickedness. Also, bearing in mind how the Salafists themselves got their own start as ‘reformers’ of Islam, one can already argue that the Islamic reformation happened already--i.e. the Wahhabists, the Muslim Brotherhood, Bin Laden, et al--and we’re fighting it now.
So here’s how I see it. Trying to ‘reform Islam’, considering the indisputable actions of its founder, is like trying to build a respectable political party based on Hitler’s crackpot racial theories. It simply can’t be done!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Apparently, the Washington Post has reached level 4 in dhimmitude.
OUTRAGE: Washington Post Refuses to Run Ad for Book on Jihad & Doctors
By Debbie Schlussel
A couple of weeks ago, in the aftermath of the Muslim Medical Doctors Terrorist Jihad, I told you about Adam Dorin, MD--a successful and brilliant anesthesiologist who trained at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University Medical School.
Dr. Dorin--who has followed the issue of Muslim Medical Doctors and jihad in America since 9/11--maintains a website on Jihad and American Medicine/Preventing Medical Terrorism. And he wrote a book, "Jihad and American Medicine: Thinking Like a Terrorist to Anticipate Attacks via our Health System," published soon.
First, Do Harm
But now The Washington Post is censoring him. Hoping to capitalize on the news about the Muslim Doctor Terrorists, he wanted to place a classified ad in the paper to drum up early sales. But, after initially accepting and confirming they'd publish the ad, The Post refused to run his benign ad, which contained merely the title of the book and the price. Here is the text of the ad:
Book--Pre-order: "Jihad and American Medicine," $49, Prevent Terrorism, www.adamdorin.com
Here is the e-mail correspondence between Dr. Dorin and The Washington Post:
From: Alina Massey MasseyA@washpost.com
To: Adam Dorin, MD
Sent: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 6:47 am
Subject: Re: Ad#40342
After speaking with my supervisor we determined we are not able to run your advertisement due to content.
From: Adam Frederic Dorin, M.D., MBA
Sent: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:59 am
Subject: Fwd: Ad#40342
Please explain why this ad was turned down. I have copies of the original ad (and many others have reviewed the ad--all of whom see it as perfectly "benign"), which lists an upcoming book by Greenwood Publishing Group/Praeger Securities International (Fall 2007) and is listed on Amazon.com. I fear that individuals of Arabic or Muslim background have misinterpreted my book (which is about counter-terrorism in the health care setting) and exercised their own brand of bias against my book. Here is the ad:
Book--Pre-order: "Jihad and American Medicine," $49, Prevent Terrorism, www.adamdorin.com
I will forward the Washington Post's own receipt for my ad separately.
Adam Frederic Dorin, M.D., MBA
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Why Don't We Know The Enemy First?
Today I was reading another misguided article about Islam and the war on terror. It was by Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn at Townhall.
What the Republican candidates for president need to do right now
By Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn
They want Republican Congressman and candidates to issue a statement of alliance with Bush on staying in Iraq. You know the story. So I commented and it turned into a summary of my feelings in 4 paragraphs. The point is that the Iraq war is the wrong strategy in a war where the real enemy is Islam.
Why Don't We Know The Enemy First?
Isn't that the first rule of war? There is no islamist, there is no islamofascists, it's Islam. And what does Islam want? According to ALL the theologians, the MUSLIM theologians, not the Muslim taqiyamasters and infidel expert apologists for Islam (MESA is only the university wedge), Islam must dominate the world by jihad and subdue or convert the infidels. Those who don't like those 2 choices get death. Sharia must be the law of the world, and the jahiliyah (the artifacts of the 'time of ignorance' before Islam came) must be swept away. Knowing that, why would we journey off into a 'light unto the Muslim nations' folly because our leaders remain ignorant about Islam?
The second rule is to divide and weaken your enemy. Yet we are spending billions in jizya to try to get them to work out their differences in Iraq, in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Thailand, in Kosovo, in Kashmir, need I go on?
Leave Iraq, set in play the conspiracies, let them kill each other and use all their weapons of jihad - the tongue, the money, the sword - on each other. Better than buidring madrassas, oh excuse me, mosques, in Dar al Harb.
People say 'if we leave, there will be anarchy.' So what? Do you really believe that Iran can just roll into Iraq and set up house. We have no hand in their war. Protect us and keep the Muslims at bay from the West.
Muslims cause bombings. Stop Muslim immigration to the US and you reduce the risk without cost. There are a lot of low cost tactics to reduce our risk if you know Islam. So far we have spent $500,000,000,000.00 on the Iraq war. What could we have done in America with that money to reduce our dependence on oil, to reduce our expenses for security internally? These are the legitimate questions but only if you understand Islam.
I love our soldiers. They are spectacular. I want new leaders, smart leaders who understand Islam and don't lie to us or worse don't even know they are lieing about Islam to us.
My latest Malaysia Today submission
By the Anti Jihadist
Since I have started posting regular columns here at Malaysia Today, I have been taken to task by any number of commenters over my blunt writing style, and particularly, for my direct swipes at a certain ideology that shall, for the moment, not be named. Certain members of this esteemed site, no doubt followers of the ideology that need not be named, have (among other things) repeatedly shrieked for me to take ‘responsibility’ in regards to my work. Use of this word, in this context, is nothing more than a thinly-veiled reference to outright censorship, self-imposed or otherwise. Sorry to disappoint my many ‘fans’ out there, but I’m not about to go anywhere. Nor am I about to censor myself.
It is virtually certain that many followers of a certain alleged ‘prophet’ hope that I am silenced, by any means necessary. They are, after all, only emulating the example of their prophet and founder of said ideology, who during his life had every one of his critics either assassinated, or forced them to flee for their very lives. By precedent and design, this certain ideology deliberately aims to strike fear into the hearts of all who resist its aggression, or speak truthfully of its designs on the world. The so-called ‘religion of peace’ is really the religion of fear, and don’t expect these people to make any apologies for it. Quite the opposite, actually.
If followers of Islam are offended by what I have to say, then steer your eyes and your browsers elsewhere. No one is forcing anyone to go to Malaysia Today, to click on my articles, or to read them. As a kafir, I’m offended by what I see in the government-owned (pro-Muslim) Malaysian mainstream media every day. Now that I have articles posted here, and the shoe is on the other foot in a small way, what is the harm in it? Why is it ok for infidel beliefs to be ‘degraded’ daily, but the beliefs of Muslims are to remain forever inviolate? Why are so many so quick to exclaim that there no room whatsoever in any forum for viewpoints such as mine?
Despite my writing at M-T, this is hardly an equal contest. Unlike my pro-jihad or pro-Muslim opponents, I certainly don’t have a television station at my command, a daily newspaper at my beck and call, or an Information Ministry to issue statements on my behalf. I am only one person. I am working alone, on modest resources, fighting back practically single handedly against the lies and deception of Islam, the encroachment of sharia, and the erosion of all values and freedoms that I hold dear. But for those suffering from Thin-Skinned Derangement Syndrome (TSDS), even one lone writer that dares to criticise Islam is one too many.
For anyone who has grown up in a totalitarian and criticism-free (i.e. Islamic) environment, let me clue you in as to what many of you so offhandedly refer to as ‘freedom of speech.’ Freedom of speech precisely means the freedom to offend people, anyone and everyone, be it with cartoons, diatribes, or satanic verses. In dynamic, prosperous, and genuinely free societies, everything is up for discussion and debate, and no topic should be beyond the pale. In fact, offensive speech is the vital, necessary exhaust of free societies. If offensive, boorish or insensitive speech is banned, outlawed or ‘discouraged’, then there is no freedom of speech, and the society in question has taken a giant step closer to fascism.
Undoubtedly, many Malaysians suffering from undiagnosed and untreated TSDS -- from the Prime Minister on down -- consider ‘freedom of speech’ to be some sort of ‘issue’ that necessitates ‘responsibility’. This of course usually means self-censorship, or failing that, an ‘inducement’ from the friendly religious police, UMNO’s youthful thugs, or perhaps the Internal Security Ministry armed with an ISA ‘detainment’ order.
Well, sorry to poop on your party, but I refuse to go along with the Islamofascist programme. Ladies and gentleman, the only solution to freedom of speech … is more free speech.
Monday, July 16, 2007
It high time for the Saudis to come into the civilized world! It is also high time that the Western world shun Saudi Arabia until they do so, regardless of the cost. Some things are more important than money, profit, or oil!
You can sign a petition here: SAVE RIZANA
Barbaric Practices of 'Our Friends and Allies': Saudi Arabia to Behead Teenage Maid
Please help her
Sunday, July 15, 2007
For a good laugh, check out this ridiculous video interview from Avi Lewis, Canada's absurd liberal who has a show On The Map in Canada. At least he doesn't try to cover up his absurd liberal views. I love Ali's rebuttal to his trashing of America. Too funny. Is Avi Lewis a self hating Jew, or is he uberliberal gay or is he both?
Aayan Hirsi Ali Interview - CBC-tv by Avi Lewis
One of the goals that may be within our reach after the next spectacular is passing legislation banning Muslim immigration to America. We will try to do this in the next legislation, but I believe only a spectacular will convince the politicians that Muslim immigration must be banned.
There was an excellent comment about this and the beneficial side effect of banning Muslim immigration - the piercing of liberalism's veil so that it's ugly face is revealed.
From Lawrence Auster's View from the Right email comment - Why the Islam threat will lead to the breakdown of liberalism
I, like many other immigration restrictionists and race realists, have been contemplating what the future will hold for the immigration question now that amnesty got shot down.
My opinion, after thinking about recent developments in the immigration debate, is that banning Muslim immigration is going to be the DECISIVE fight in the immigration question and winning this battle will be the key to fatally wounding liberalism as the governing ideology of our civilization.
Let me explain ...
One conundrum I have been mulling over is why exactly did the backlash against illegal immigration also develop into a nascent backlash against legal immigration among the public at large and among a number of establicons.
For example, during the immigration fight in the Senate, a major establishment conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, came out strongly against unskilled legal immigrants and chain migration by correctly arguing that unskilled legal immigrants take more tax dollars in government services than they pay in taxes. Other Republican conservatives, like Malkin, have tepidly raised questions about the cultural impact of importing immigrants who are too different from ourselves. There are other examples.
Frankly, I was extremely surprised to see the anti-illegal immigration backlash, to an extent, bleed over into the legal immigration question like ink bleeding into a pair of khakis.
Before the Senate battle began, I assumed that Beltway Republican thinkers would continue to repeat their old song and dance on legal immigration: "I'm not a racist, I LOVE legal immigration. I love importing low IQ Rwandans, Iraqi Arabs and Mexican welfare mothers so long as they come in legally!."
Fortunately I was wrong and the legal immigration was addressed albeit in a limited way, and after the London terror plots the public and some commentators are wondering if we should ban Muslim immigration, which is another big step forward for the anti-legal immigration movement.
Why has the legal immigration debate come up at all?
Legal immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular are coming up as an issue in the public mind because the illegal immigration debate has allowed the public to start thinking and talking openly about GROUP differences. Because Bush has forced the illegal immigration debate to the fore, the public has taken a hard look at Hispanic illegal immigrants as a GROUP and determined that their actions are not compatible with our ways. (The Iraq fiasco has had a similar effect on the average American's thinking regarding foreign policy--another big worry for left-liberals and neocons.)
By thinking about group differences, the immigration debate has opened the door to an embryonic discussion about LEGAL immigrants and how legal immigrants act and behave as a group--not as individuals.
This change in public consciousness is a mortal danger to modern liberalism.
Radical anti-white liberalism is centered on the assumption that group and racial differences are nothing more than airy social constructs that can be erased by bureaucratic manipulation and putting the screws to whites.
According to this theory, group differences are merely empty concepts invented by evil heterosexual white men, and so group differences do not ACTUALLY exist. This is why "The Usual Suspects" in Britain, National Review and elsewhere are agonizing so much over the Muslim immigration question.
On the one hand, The Usual Suspects recognize at some level of consciousness that Muslims are a danger as a GROUP because Muslims ARE Muslims. Muslims are distinct. But as liberals, The Usual Suspects cannot acknowledge that group differences are a concrete reality of life on earth or else their entire world view will come crashing down.
Acknowledgment of group differences as a fundamental reality of society is the greatest danger to liberalism.
If the U.S. government were to say that a group of people, as opposed to individual trouble makers within that group, who compose approximately 20 percent of the human race are unfit to live among us, the government will in effect be saying that WE are a distinct people, not a concept. WE are distinct and THEY are DIFFERENT from us.
For the U.S. government to acknowledge that Muslims are incompatible with OUR nation would mortally wound liberalism as an ideology because then white Americans will be free to talk about who we ARE and what other groups--not individuals--are compatible and not compatible with who WE are.
That is a defeat that Liberalism cannot ultimately survive because it is liberalism, not race and culture, that is the empty smoke and mirrors phenomenon that has no basis in logic or reality. Because liberalism has no basis in reality, liberals must NEVER allow large portions of the public openly and aggressively to question and challenge the underlying assumption and concept of liberalism which is radical non-discrimination, or else all the other societal dominoes liberals have built up will begin to fall.
That is why left-liberals and a number of right-liberals, following the next series of inevitable terrorist attacks, will fight with all their corrupt power in the United States to prevent popular opinion from forcing the U.S. government to ban the immigration of approximately 20 percent of the human race from America.
When the next terrorist attack hits the U.S., as it inevitably will, simply because we have over two million Muslims here and have open borders, liberals MUST win the debate over Muslim immigration which will follow.
If the liberals fail, and the public backlash forces the government to ban Muslim immigration,--just as the illegal immigration backlash forced the government to throw in the towel on amnesty--liberalism itself as the central world view of Western society will begin to unravel rapidly and a new world view will be poised to take liberalism's place once liberalism has been mortally wounded.
Lil’ Kim seems to be a bit worried (more than usual) about losing his precious power nowadays. The usual DPRK rampant paranoia has led of late to some fascinating and utterly bizarre developments up north.
First of all the Norks have recently shut down karaoke joints:
The lifestyle police are out and about in North Korea. Karaoke bars and video parlors (where you can watch DVDs on large TV screens) are being shut down. Along the Chinese border, police are searching homes and businesses looking for cell phones (which can get a signal from towers just across the border) and smuggled goods (particularly South Korean DVDs and music CDs).
…many North Korean leaders are not sure their people could handle the truth, about the decades of lies about how much better North Korea was doing economically, than the rest of the world. Too late for that. Most North Koreans now know, but are too busy just trying to survive to think about a revolution. But the government knows their history. Revolution comes as the economy improves. Thus a substantial improvement in the economy could bring the revolution North Korea's leaders have long feared. What to do? Close Karaoke bars.
And the Korean fascists went after internet cafes too:
North Korea has ordered the shutdown of Internet cafes as part of a battle to stem a flood of South Korean pop culture, media reports said. A directive issued by the Ministry of People’s Security called for the closure of all unauthorized video-screening rooms, Internet cafes and online game rooms, wrote Philstar.com.
The move is part of a campaign to curb South Korean pop culture, which has been spreading fast in the hard-line communist country, the newspaper said.
Defectors say South Korean pop songs and movies are popular in the isolated country, despite a steady campaign to weed out what state media has termed “decadent foreign culture and ideals.”
Who would have guessed that vapid, consumer-driven Korean pop culture could itself be a weapon? Then again, the Kremlin worried about American Rock and Roll, and so it goes with Lil’ Kim and his henchmen, fearing pop music, game shows and soap operas.
Whether it’s the Norks’ “worker’s paradise”, Kelantan, the USSR, Iran or Saudi Barbaria, all are variants of the same dreary fascist/totalitarian mold. And all are destined to utterly fail.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
By the Anti Jihadist
There is a fundamental lack of understanding between many Muslims and non-Muslims. This problem has ballooned to gigantic dimensions, in part, because Muslims and non-Muslims think in very different ways.
Consider the concept of ‘tolerance’. The problem is that in Islam, “tolerance” means “we’re the dominant religion, and you (kafirs) practice yours according to our rules; you pay special taxes, there are restrictions on art, music, media, and so on, and, by the way, we can change our minds at any time.” Any questioning of this decidely one-way arrangement will be immediately condemned as "islamophobic", "intolerant", "fascist", "racist", or otherwise "hampering harmony between the races". Any of this sound familiar?
Thus, there is a situation where, in most countries where the population is split between Muslims and non-Muslims (like Malaysia), it is the Muslims who are doing most of the persecuting. At the same time, these Muslims insist they are doing it in self-defense, which of course makes no sense, especially to their many victims. Islamic intolerance doesn't end there. In Malaysia, as is the case in many other Muslim states, it is government policy to give Islamic law an edge over civil law. The infamous Lina Joy case is but one recent, and prominent, example of this phenomenon. It certainly won’t be the last.
For another example of Islamic tolerance, look at Saudi Arabia. In the Saudi kingdom, the heart of Islam and the location of the ‘Two Holy Mosques’, the government has long proclaimed the Quran as its constitution. Therefore, civil law does not exist and there is only religious law. In accordance with these beliefs, the Saudis have set up a religious and lifestyle police force, at government expense, to enforce draconian Islamic behaviour on everyone, both locals and foreigners alike. Some Muslims privately may not agree with this, but there is really no Islamic opposition to such long-standing policies, or even a whisper of condemnation. How can anyone condemn such proper Islamic mindsets while being followers of Mohammed? They cannot without first leaving the global gang, a.k.a the ummah.
Next, consider the Islamic version of logic. Many infidels make the presumption that logic is identical for everyone, and should certainly be the same for Muslims as it is for the kafirs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Any reading of the Quran shows that it is filled with contradictory statements. In fact, the Quran itself refers to saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time. One verse can contradict another, so how can the Quran be true or perfect?
In the unitary logic used by infidels, if one thing contradicts another, then at least one of the things is false. If someone told you it was raining outside, and you looked and saw that the ground was dry, you would not believe that it had been raining. There is a contradiction between dry and the rain. Science and math, fields that kafirs tend excel in and Muslims do not, are based on unitary logic.
The formal way Islam deals with the contradiction is called ‘abrogation’. The later verse cancels out, or abrogates the earlier verse. But that is not the way Islam really works. In actuality, as anyone who has read Malaysia Today for awhile can readily attest to, Muslims will use any verse in the Quran when it is needed. The peaceful verses are used when needed and the (rather more copious number of) war verses are used when those are needed. Hence, in Islam, both sides of the contradiction are true. Besides, since all of the verses are the product of a ‘perfect god’, then each is true. As a Muslim would no doubt say, “How can a verse from god be false?” Therefore, Muslims do not use the same logic to determine truth as the kafir does.
This is logic and tolerance under Islam. Both are contradictory, and like Islam itself, fatally flawed.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Do you ever ask yourself, "Why am I paying taxes so that our government can give it to Muslims to kill us?" I do. Over the years in the Iraq war, the US government has been flying in PALLETS of brand new US DOLLARS as Iraq is running two parallel currency systems. There is little doubt that the amount of US dollars floating in Iraq approaches one hundred billion. How much of that has disappeared and into whose hands? We'll never know. Don't you love how our government gives money to people who absolutely despise and hate us and who plot against us and finance terrorism and our downfall? Now Dar es Salaam (Land of Peace) Bank had $300 MILLION in US currency. Gee what did they offer as collateral to get that $300 MILLION? A promise to pay it back to the US? Ha ha ha, oh, it hurts so much.
This Administration and that idiot Bush and his clueless sidekick Condi are doing their best to bankrupt and destroy America with their 'light unto the Muslim' nations thing, their 'project.' Oh I don't know about you, but I have had enough of these idiots in the driver's seatt.
Thieves steal nearly $300 million from Baghdad bank
Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:43AM EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Thieves have stolen nearly $300 million from a bank in Baghdad, police and a bank official said Thursday, in what is probably one of the biggest thefts in Iraq since the 2003 war to topple Saddam Hussein.
Police said the thieves were three guards who worked at the private Dar Es Salaam bank in Baghdad's Karrada district.
They said that when bank employees arrived for work on Wednesday they found the front door open and the money gone. The guards, who normally slept at the bank, had also disappeared, they said.
An official at the bank said about $300 million in U.S. dollars had been stolen, as well as 220 million Iraqi dinars ($176,000). He declined to give further details.
Police said the Interior Ministry and the Finance Ministry had set up a committee to investigate the theft.
It was not immediately clear why the bank had so much cash on hand, but Karrada is a key commercial district in Baghdad.
Ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, most transactions have been conducted in cash because of limited facilities to transfer money through banks or other financial institutions.
Huge amounts of money were looted from Iraq's banks during the invasion.
A friend of mine has sent me below article. Some of you might already have read it but even for them... it`s worth a re-read.
It`s scary... but it`s realistic and what is worse.. it`s not only Muslims who are to be blamed, it`s just as shameful that Christian clerics are joining in:
Only two days ago I signed a petition, that was issued by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a petition urging to stand up against that Polish, anti-semitic priest (you probably all heard of it)make it easy for Islam to spread, people like that priest are (more or less) secretly applauding Jihad and this means ...supporting JIHAD!!!
At a Theater Near You ...
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (July 4, 2007, Wednesday (NYT); Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 17, Column , 812 words
I knew something was up when I couldn’t get a cab. Then there were sirens and helicopters whirring overhead. I stopped a passerby to ask what was going on. He said something about a car bomb outside a disco six blocks from my hotel. A few hours later, I finally found a taxi. The driver warned me that it was nearly impossible to get across town. Another bomb had been uncovered in a car park. Next day, more news: a suicide bomber had driven his Jeep into an airport and jumped out, his body on fire, screaming “Allah! Allah!”
Where was I? Baghdad? Kabul? Tel Aviv? No, I was in England. But it could have been anywhere. The Middle East: Now playing at a theater near you.
But this movie gets more confusing every time you watch it. When you watched it on 9/11 it was about America’s presence in the heart of Arabia. And when you watched it on 7/7 it was about unemployed and alienated Muslim youth in Britain. In Jordan not long ago it was about a wedding at a Western hotel. In Morocco recently it was about an Internet cafe. And two days ago in Yemen it was about seven Spanish tourists who were killed when a suicide bomber drove into them at a local tourist site. Wasn’t Spain the country that quit Iraq to get its people out of the line of fire?
Because these incidents are scattered, we’re growing numb to just how crazy they are. In the past few years, hundreds of Muslims have committed suicide amid innocent civilians — without making any concrete political demands and without generating any vigorous, sustained condemnation in the Muslim world.
Two trends are at work here: humiliation and atomization. Islam’s self-identity is that it is the most perfect and complete expression of God’s monotheistic message, and the Koran is God’s last and most perfect word. To put it another way, young Muslims are raised on the view that Islam is God 3.0. Christianity is God 2.0. Judaism is God 1.0. And Hinduism and all others are God 0.0.
One of the factors driving Muslim males, particularly educated ones, into these acts of extreme, expressive violence is that while they were taught that they have the most perfect and complete operating system, every day they’re confronted with the reality that people living by God 2.0., God 1.0 and God 0.0 are generally living much more prosperously, powerfully and democratically than those living under Islam. This creates a real dissonance and humiliation. How could this be? Who did this to us? The Crusaders! The Jews! The West! It can never be something that they failed to learn, adapt to or build. This humiliation produces a lashing out.
In the old days, you needed a terror infrastructure with bases in Beirut or Afghanistan to lash out in a big way. Not anymore. Now all you need is the virtual Afghanistan — the Internet and a few cellphones — to recruit, indoctrinate, plan and execute. Hence, the atomization — little terror groups sprouting everywhere. Everyone now has a starter kit.
Gen. Michael Hayden, the C.I.A. director, recently noted in a speech that during the cold war “the enemy was easy to find, but hard to finish,” because the Soviet Union was so big and powerful. “Intelligence was important” back then, he added, “but it was overshadowed by the need for sheer firepower.”
In today’s war against terrorist groups, said General Hayden, “it’s just the opposite. Our enemy is easy to finish, but hard to find. Today, we are looking for individuals or small groups planning suicide bombings, running violent Jihadist Web sites, sending foreign fighters into Iraq.”
I’d go one step further. The Soviet Union was easy to find and hard to kill, but once it died, it was dead forever. It had no regenerative power because it had no popular base. The terrorists of Iraq or London are hard to find, easy to kill, but very difficult to eliminate. New recruits just keep sprouting.
Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists. But it’s been widely noted that virtually all suicide terrorists today are Muslims. Angry Norwegians aren’t doing this — nor are starving Africans or unemployed Mexicans. Muslims have got to understand that a death cult has taken root in the bosom of their religion, feeding off it like a cancerous tumor.
This cancer is erasing basic norms of civilization. In Iraq, we’ve seen suicide bombers blow up funerals and schools. In England, seven out of the eight people detained in the latest plot are Muslim doctors or medical students. Doctors plotting mass murder? Could that be? If Muslim leaders don’t remove this cancer — and only they can — it will spread, tainting innocent Muslims and poisoning their relations with each other and the world.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
In response to the recent news blurb about the Marine who put two rounds ("double tap") in a wounded insurgent's head in Fallujah, here's a response from one Marine who has been there:
"It's a safety issue, pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, we put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters,there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around on the target. You clear the space, dump the chumps, and move on dot org. Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey Libs ... worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist. It's much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ [full metal jacket].
By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners; they are carcasses. Chopping off a civilian's head is another reason why these idiots are known as "unlawful combatants." It seems that most of the world's journalists have forgotten that fact.
Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers.
Here is your typical Marine sitrep (situation report): You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform - breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (rockets), some 40mm grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason.
Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or vest made of explosives. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room. You're already speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy. You are speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what!!!
What about the Geneva Convention and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it? Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experience on a minute-by-minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same ... Marines end up getting hurt or killed. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.
If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self-evident. If you are not a veteran then at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes"."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
By the Anti-Jihadist
An essential question that everyone, Muslims included, should ask is this—why are Muslims among the worst performing groups (nations, societies, etc) anywhere on the planet? Name any area of achievement, any field of human endeavour—patents filed, literacy, quality of life, degree of civil or political freedoms, transparency, world-class universities, and so on. In every case, the nations of Islam are at or near the bottom in every category, and only barely beat sub-Saharan Africa in overall performance. How has this dreadful state of affairs come to pass?
The answer is simple—Muslims are intellectually paralyzed by their own philosophy.
In matters of the intellect, Muslims are a miserable failure. It isn’t because their genes are so different from everybody else’s. It’s because their philosophy (a.k.a. Islam) has sucked their minds dry from infancy onwards. In this respect, it is the best in human history, as no other philosophy has been so successful at institutionalizing failure among its followers. This onerous process begins at birth, when it is the tradition in many Islamic countries for the father to recite the Shahada (the Muslim declaration of belief) in the newborn’s ear. It’s all downhill from there.
To analyse philosophical differences effectively, one must first know the difference between the different branches of philosophy. Philosophy has five major branches, listed and generally defined as follows:
Epistemology—the methods that knowledge is found or made valid
Ethics—the cultural standards of good or ‘right’ behaviour
Politics—the application of ethics to social behaviour
Metaphysics—concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of reality, and lastly,
Aesthetics (to be explained below)
In a nutshell, here are the differences between Islamic philosophy and the Judeo-Christian (a.k.a. Western) one:
Western epistemology = reason and the scientific method
Islamic epistemology = “revelation”, or whatever Allah sees fit to reveal
Western ethics = the sanctity of human life
Islamic ethics = the spread of Islam by any means whatsoever
Western politics = recognition of individual rights
Islamic politics = submission and totalitarianism
Western metaphysics = the universe, and all of existence, follows natural law
Islamic metaphysics = every event at every moment is controlled by Allah’s whim
Note on Muslim metaphysics: The expression “if Allah wills (it)” or “insh’allah” that you hear so often among Muslims is not a mere social convention or sign of respect for Allah—it is the craven fear of someone who thinks he has no control over his own destiny.
The last philosophical branch, aesthetics, needs a brief explanation.
Art, in all forms, is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical values. The values are communicated non-verbally, of course, but very effectively. Just look at “The Scream” by Edvard Munch—everyone has had days like that! Or contemplate the sculptures of ancient Greece, where the human form was often portrayed as graceful, beautiful, and even triumphant.
Art is heavily censored in totalitarian societies, for fear that the artist’s values will conflict with the governing power’s values. In the Soviet Union, for example, only the glory of the collective, the group, and the state was permitted to be portrayed. It could be portrayed in many ways, but the subject matter was limited pretty much to glorification of the state. Many Soviet artists were jailed for art that deviated from that restrictive policy.
In Islam, the censorship is even more severe, and reflects the way they value, or rather, “disvalue” life, particularly human life. Except for plants, lifeforms are forbidden in Islamic art. Yes, there are some places here and there where “life” has sneaked in under the tent flap and is seen, but wherever the “purest” kind of Islam is practiced, it is never seen.
Islam makes the excuse that “only Allah can create life, and that achievement cannot be attempted by mere human artists.” The *real* reason is that Islam does not value life, especially human life, and it is terrified that some artist, somewhere, might try to smuggle in, via his art, some value forbidden in Islam.
In the West, the artist is free to project into his work anything he values, whether anyone thinks it makes sense or not. But “life” is highly valued by most Western artists, and it is a very popular subject of artistic work, in profound contrast with Islamic art.
That Muslims have a fine sense of what is beautiful is evident, despite the crushing limitations placed on them. If they but had the freedoms of thought and self-expression, which would require them to drop the shackles of Islam from their minds, then there is no doubt that they could excel in every branch of human achievement.
No one can say that Muslims are stupid. It's just that their minds have been destroyed under the continuous, unrelenting assault of a viciously anti-human philosophy.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Since at least the 9/11 attack, like Cato the Elder ending his every speech with the demand that Carthage must be destroyed, we have been saying over and over that "Muslims do not belong in significant numbers in any Western country, period." Leaving aside for the moment the question of what to do about Muslims already living in the West, the Pedestrian Infidel position means, at a minimum, that all Muslim immigration into the U.S. should stop, not just the immigration of Muslims from Muslim countries, but the immigration of Muslims from any country.
And now for the first time a mainstream opinion maker--Cal Thomas-- has taken the same position. The fanaticism of the open borders camp led by President Bush, and now the Muslim Doctor's plot, has made the immigration problem more critical than ever.
Listen to Cal Thomas standing by his position in this video.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
My latest post for Malaysia Today.
Many years ago, the infamous jihadist apologist and now former Malaysian prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad authored his now famous tome, “The Malay Dilemma.” Well, Dr. Moonbat was right about one thing -- Malays do indeed face a dilemma.
The first aspect of the Malay predicament is their near-psychotic fixation on race and 'racial' success, which is a significant driver in Malay politics and culture. For Malays, everything begins and ends with race and racial identity, a dangerous cultural ‘quirk’ that virtually begs for institutionalized paranoia. Making matters even worse is the fact that Malay racial politics or ‘racialism’ is official government strategy.
This relentless Malay mania for racial identity seeps into every facet of Malaysian life. All manner of Malay ‘rights’ are hard wired into the social contract and Federal Constitution, and is the enduring raison d’etre for long-standing government (i.e. UMNO) policies like NEP that trump logic, fiscal reality, and common sense.
Malay racial obsessions also percolate into places one might not expect. As an example, a long-running and intractable debate exists concerning exactly what race Malaysian national hero Hang Tuah was. The Malays eagerly declare him as one of ‘their own’, while the Chinese-Malaysians are equally passionate about claiming him as one of ‘theirs.’ Isn't it good enough to just pronounce Hang Tuah as a Malaysian historical figure and leave it at that? Judging by the fervor this historical argument continues to generate in Malaysia. Apparently it isn’t. On the other hand, compare Hang Tuah to American founding father George Washington. In the US, nobody argues what precise ethnicity Washington was -- suffice it to say that he was an American, which is good enough to end any arguments in the US on the matter.
How would it sound if people in other countries chattered non-stop about their ‘racial success’ like the Malays do? You don't hear about the need for white ‘dominance’ or ‘privileges’ in places like the US or the UK... except for certain, mostly irrelevant xenophobic elements (such as the British National Party, et al.) who are virtually shut out of the body politic. In those countries, the focus is where it should be -- not on race or racial success, but on nation and national success. However, in Malaysia, ‘racial success’ is not on the fringe, but is part and parcel of the political, cultural and social landscape. In other words, the inmates here are running the asylum.
Even many of the so-called 'deep thinkers' and intellectuals in Malaysia have an unhealthy obsession with race, which is a notoriously slippery and subjective issue in the best of circumstances. Despite their good intentions, the inherent exclusionary nature of racial groupings could eventually pave the way for race-based demagoguery. Of course, some would argue that this is already a fact in present-day Malaysia.
Multi-racial countries can only succeed if they play down racial divides and divisions and emphasize an overarching national culture, as multi-racial, free-market, secular democracies like the US, Australia and Canada have managed to do. But standing four-square in the way of this task in Malaysia is the official regime’s policy of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ -- Malay Supremacy.
Racialism is bad enough, but there is another catalyst of the Malay dilemma that cannot be overstated. What is this catalyst? For the answer to this question, look no further than your nearby neighbourhood mosque. Since Islam’s unfortunate export to the Malay Archipelago some centuries ago, Malays have been wedded to this aggressive and intolerant ideology, rather like a battered spouse who is married to an unstable and abusive partner. The Malays have been trapped in this unhealthy union for so long, that they cannot imagine existing or getting by without it. They have unwisely wrapped up their entire self-worth within the tentacles of Mohammedism, and any thought of the battered spouse leaving the harmful marriage is not only beyond the pale -- it is heresy, if not outright treason.
Islam is largely responsible for many if not most of the Malays’ problems in the first place. Islam cripples the mind, destroys critical thinking, enforces rigid ‘group think’, and breeds intolerance for anything 'un Islamic' or not Islamic enough. Wherever Islam goes, backwardness and primitivism goes in its wake. Islam in Malaysia magnifies the ‘us’ (Muslims) versus ‘them’ (Non-Muslims) divide, as it does wherever Islam can be found. Racialism and Islam amounts to a negative-reinforcing feedback loop -- one feeding off the other in a hysterical, endless vortex of suspicion of ‘others’ and ‘otherness’.
Like any other group, Malays are a product of their environment. The bona fide Malay dilemma of dysfunctional ideologies, dysfunctional cultural traits, and misguided government policies lead to equally dysfunctional and poorly-performing people. Unless these true root causes are sincerely addressed, anything else is just window dressing.
If Malaysia continues its self-defeating policies, and race-based Islam-based culture, then it is eventually going the way of another multi-racial country -- Yugoslavia. And that's one multi-racial state that you can no longer find on any map.
Friday, July 06, 2007
A Malaysian woman held for months in an Islamic rehabilitation centre says she was subjected to mental torture for insisting her religion is Hinduism. Revathi Massosai, the name by which she wants to be known, says she was forced to eat beef despite being a Hindu.
Miss Massosai was seized by the Islamic authorities in January when she went to court to ask that she be registered as a Hindu rather than a Muslim.
The case is one of a number that have raised religious tensions in Malaysia.
Miss Massosai was born to Muslim converts and given a Muslim name, but she was raised as a Hindu by her grandmother and has always practised that faith.
However, under Malaysia's Islamic law, having Muslim parents makes one a Muslim and, as such, one is not allowed to change one's faith or marry a non-Muslim.
But Miss Massosai married a Hindu man in 2004 and the couple have a young daughter. When in January she asked a court to officially designate her a Hindu she was detained and taken to an Islamic rehabilitation centre.
Her detention was twice extended to six months, during which time she says religious officials tried to make her pray as a Muslim and wear a headscarf.
However, the claim that will particularly shock Hindus is that the camp authorities tried to force her to eat beef.
A lawyer representing the Malacca state Islamic department responsible for Miss Revathi's arrest, rejected her allegations and said officials believe that she can still be persuaded to embrace Islam.
She is adamant that she will remain a Hindu. In the meantime, Miss Revathi and her daughter have been placed in the custody of her Muslim parents.
Source: Ummah News Links
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Rewritten for Malaysia Today
Urban life in the early 21st century has been utterly transformed from what it was just a few short years ago--the quiet signs of upheaval are ever-present. Everyone talks on or messages one another on mobile phones. Ipods zombies drift through the streets, oblivious to all around them. Laptops and gadgets are seemingly everywhere.
And there is another nagging reminder of how life has recently changed--publicly posted anti terrorism messages. One cannot watch television, travel on public transportation, or traverse public spaces in cities as diverse and far-flung as London, New York, Sydney, Seoul, or Singapore without seeing conspicuous reminders to watch out for public enemy number one. This photo here is one such recent public anti-terrorism announcement posted in downtown Sydney. The Australian government has placed similar messages throughout Sydney and in all the other major cities in Australia. The same holds equally true for other cities in the UK, the US, and elsewhere.
Regardless of nation or location, all such announcements constantly exhort the same message. ‘Report anything suspicious or out of the ordinary. Report unattended parcels to the authorities.’ It’s a somber, ubiquitous reminder of the restive times that we live in.But there are some places where ignorance is seemingly preferred. And Malaysia is one of those places. So, what does this precisely mean?
Well, walk through the streets of Kuala Lumpur, or any other Malaysian city, for that matter. Mingle with the tourists in downtown KL, many of them from South Asia or the Middle East. Ride the trains and the buses. Watch the local TV channels. How many anti-terrorism messages will you see or hear?
Zero. Zip. None.
You won’t find any anti-terrorism awareness programs for the masses in Malaysia, not in English, Mandarin, Bahasa Malaysia/Melayu, or any other language. A very curious silence, indeed.
And it’s not just the authorities. Not one Malaysian seems to be ready to even consider the possibility that terrorists may strike their country. It’s a nationwide case of denial and an entire nation essentially sticking their collective heads in the sand--it can’t happen here, it won’t happen to us. It amounts to group think and cognitive dissonance on a mind-bending scale.
When Malaysians are asked about the possibility of terrorism occurring on Malaysian soil, they usually shrink back from such questioning, aghast. They are horrified at someone even daring to think such things, let alone say it out loud. The answers invariably run along the lines of, “Malaysia is peaceful,” “Malaysia has no enemies”, and so on. All these notions are fanciful in the extreme, for anyone who knows the genuinely savage and bloodthirsty nature of the adversary.
Now, what could possibly explain this total lack of anti-terrorism information in the Malaysian public sphere? Well, there is a theory which might possibly explain this peculiar Malaysian myopia.
For the Malaysian government, it is far better to pretend that Islamic terror doesn’t exist. And why? Well, too many Malaysians—quite likely the majority of the population—and including major decision-makers in the government, are only too willing to continue believing that Islamic terrorism, despite all evidence to the contrary, is actually one or more of the following:
1. a figment of the paranoid West’s imagination
2. merely an understandable--if perhaps misguided--Muslim reaction to evil non-Muslim governments and/or policies (and hence entirely the fault of the infidels)
3. a massive plot of the West/Israel/CIA etc. (you name it) to discredit Islam
4. all of the above
Once you've bought into this line of, ahem, 'thinking', then any such 'anti terrorism awareness programme' for the public becomes not only superfluous, but subversive.
And the real causes of Islamic terrorism--namely Islam’s intrinsic intolerance, aggressive teachings, and violent tendencies? Well, in Malaysia, mention of any of these inconvenient facts is discouraged if not outright banned in the media, the schools, and in government circles. Even private discussion of such truths is risky.
This is the true reason why anti-terrorism as a message is so dangerous, as in politically destabilizing, to Malaysia. No one must be allowed to think about terrorism too deeply, and why terrorism is almost exclusively a Muslim enterprise nowadays. Nevertheless, it is a tragic, but undeniable fact that many, if not most of the recent victims of the Jihad have been other Muslims...either as ‘collateral damage’, or as the intended victims.
This dangerous degree of denial can only make terrorism ultimately more likely in Malaysia, not less. So it’s not a matter of ‘if’ the Great Jihad will attack Malaysia.
Sadly, it is only a question of when.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
We know Bush doesn't want to enforce our laws against illegal immigration, so what do you do if you are Bush? You get a defeatist, a sympathizer, a liberal like Michael Chertoff to carry the water. Chertoff, on the Sunday commentary circuit, tells us, that after 20 years of law creation to try to stop illegal immigration, he just has so little to work with.
Debbie Schussel tagged Chertoff with the nickname 'Montgomery Burns' for his skin and bones appearance and it's good for a laugh. But for him to say "you know, I am Secretary over a multibillion dollar department, an empire with over 100,000 employees, but we have no way to effectively enforce the laws", I don't buy it.
Why do so many government officials begin to believe their own personal feelings overrule the responsibilities mandated by their appointment or election? If you don't believe in the responsibilities of the job, why seek it?
Chertoff: We can't really enforce laws on illegals
Homeland Security chief rips Senate for failing to pass immigration bill
Posted: July 1, 2007
1:59 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff is blasting the U.S. Senate for failing to pass an immigration bill, and claims the federal government doesn't have the ability to enforce laws when it comes to illegals working in America.
"We're going to continue to enforce the law. It's going to be tough," Michael Chertoff said. "We don't really have the ability to enforce the law with respect to illegal work in this country in a way that's truly effective."
Chertoff appeared on both "Fox News Sunday" and ABC's "This Week."
As WND reported, a procedural vote in the Senate effectively killed the controversial immigration reform bill crafted by the White House, Democrats and key Republican leaders.
Chertoff said Senate opponents deprived his department of the ability to ensure stricter enforcement by requiring companies to enter in a system to check their employees' work status.
"That would be the single greatest additional weapon we could use if we're serious about tackling this problem," he said. "I wish we had some of the tools that were left on the floor of the Senate when they abandoned the bill last week, but we will do what we have to do with the resources we have at our disposal."
Though lawmakers from both parties have said further action on immigration was doubtful this year, Chertoff expressed hope an overhaul of the current system was not dead.
"I think we're going to say to the members of Congress who think they have a better way that they should produce legislation and pass legislation, which they have not done for the past two years," he said.
The West isn’t working. This world order isn’t working, either. It’s time for a change. If the West wants to survive, then things will have to change. The way things are going on, the West will be on its knees in a short time, and in short order. At the moment, everything revolves around the Middle East, and around Middle Eastern money and oil, and around Middle Eastern influence.
The culture and ‘civilisation’ of the Middle East is diametrically-opposed to our own; but Middle Eastern petrodollars are being used to buy power and influence here in the West. Therefore, if we wish to preserve our civilisation, if we wish to preserve our way of life, we need change. The claptrap coming out of the White House, the claptrap coming out of Number 10, the claptrap coming out of the Foreign Office is not helpful to the preservation of freedom, liberty, and democracy.
The people at the top are like junkies – they are addicted to Middle Eastern money. They don’t call those people potentates for nothing! It is a sad fact of life in the twenty-first century that our leaders are far more interested in making money than they are in preserving our civilisation.
We have got to the point in which it is far more important to earn a fast buck than it is to re-affirm our commitment to the Judeo-Christian culture which has served us so well - a culture which has brought us civilisation, compassion, liberty, dignity, and justice. Islam, with its barbaric practices of beheading, amputation, lapidation, whipping, and torture doesn’t come anywhere close to Judeo-Christian civilisation. Indeed, it is light years away!
President Bush dreamed of bringing democracy to Iraq, nay, to the Middle East. He has been living in ‘cloud cuckoo land’! As has his partner: Tony Blair. Islam and democracy just don’t mix. A fool would have known this. Apparently, neither the White House nor Number 10 did!
Today, Tony Blair left office. He no longer resides at 10 Downing Street. He is no longer the prime minister of Great Britain. Mercifully! In ten years at the helm, Tony Blair has inflicted a lot of damage on Great Britain. Much of that damage is in the loss of democracy, to say nothing of the uncontrolled borders.
It would appear that the West is being driven by the petrodollars of the Middle East. The tail is wagging the dog! And while this state of affairs exists, there will be no good outcome. No good outcome at all! Inherent in capitalism is greed. Greed is no good principle on which to steer our economy, to say nothing of our civilisation. Now that is not to say that I think that capitalism is bad; it isn’t. But unbridled capitalism needs to be reined in if we wish our freedoms and liberty to proliferate.
Osama bin Laden accuses the United States of being “a paper tiger”. It would appear that there is much truth in this description of our friends’ country; especially since President Bush has run that wonderful country. Why do I say this? Because it has been impotent in stopping the growth of Islam in America, and therefore impotent in helping stop the growth of Islam in the West, because it has failed to stop the influence of Wahhabism in America, and it has failed miserably to stop the uncontrolled growth of Salafism in the States, too. Indeed, in the past ten years, Islam has grown apace in the US, in the UK, and in the West in general. The power and influence of Muslims and the Middle East is at a frighteningly high level! And all the while democracy has been weakened at home.
It is no good trying to bring democracy to another part of the world – a part of the world which can never be democratised while the prophet Muhammad is the people’s guide – and it is no good trying to change the nature of a people, either. The nature of a people depends on the philosophy which guides them. Islam guides Middle Easterners; so, as Islam and democracy are diametrically-opposed, there is little point in trying to bring democracy to that region. For democracy to flourish, the sine qua non is that there be a separation of the temporal from the sacred, a separation of politics and religion. Without that separation, there is absolutely no hope of establishing a democracy. None at all! No democracy cannot exist without a separation of church, or mosque, and state. It is impossible! What Bush and Blair embarked on could be labelled “mission impossible”! For mission impossible it most certainly was. Here we are, several years later, and nothing, absolutely nothing, has been achieved; and nor will anything be achieved in the future, either. From nothing, comes nothing!
But what bothers me most is this: We are destroying the life we have grown to love and respect. Corruption abounds. Billions of dollars, billions of pounds, are paid to the the potentates of the Middle East. Politicians in the West are reluctant to uphold the status quo for fear of upsetting their paymasters. They are also worried that they will not get the lucrative deals after they leave office that they might if they spill the beans. All quite understandable, of course; but all quite disgusting all the same.
If the West is to survive in its present form, if the West is to remain whole and free – and with the number of immigrants that have entered the West, that is a big question! – the West has to sever the umbilical cord which binds us to Middle Eastern oil, which binds us to Middle Eastern funds, which binds us to Middle Eastern influence. Sucking up to Saudis just won’t cut the mustard. We will have to break loose!
There is no other way for the survival of the West, there is no other way for the perpetuation of freedom and liberty and no other way to ensure the dignity of man. If Islam wins the day – which, as things are going at the moment, it most certainly will – then we all have dark daysto look forward to. There is no other way: This world order isn’t working. It’s ‘broke’. And when something is broken, it needs to be fixed. It’s time for a new world order. Now!
All rights reserved