Deception and lying to infidels is Mohammed's Strategy

The Misnomer of Radical Islam America's Security Blunder
from the Right Side News
by Martel Sobieskey

There is the erroneous assertion that Radical Islam is not connected with mainstream (moderate) Islam in any way, that the religion of Islam has been "hijacked by a few extremists" that the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with the Islamofascists. Such thinking is a terrible error and a grave threat to America's national security, especially in this age of nuclear terrorism.

So what is Radical Islam and what should it be properly named? Radical Islam is actually the Islamic Military. The so-called radicals are not a fringe element; they are fully supported by the worldwide Islamic community (Ummah). If they were a fringe element, they would have been defeated long ago. The fight rages on because of strong support from the moderates both covertly and overtly. This means the Islamic Military (wrongly labeled radicals) is intimately connected with moderate Muslims who we have mistakenly labeled as innocent bystanders.

Moderate Muslims are not innocent bystanders. Moderate Muslims provide the base of operations which makes it possible for the Islamic Military to continue their terrorist operations. Hate America, demands to replace the constitution with the Koran, and outbursts for Sharia law are preached openly from nearly every Mosque in America under the guise of freedom of speech and religion. Freedom of speech and religion has morphed into a weaponized tool of Islamic psychological warfare which is defeating America's will to protect her national security. Any American who says Islam is less than perfect may become the victim of an unfair lawsuit by a "moderate" Muslim organization.

Why can one be so certain about this fact? The answer is the Koran. The Koran fuses together both moderates and their military. No Muslim dares to contradict the Koran because the penalty is -- death and loss of personal salvation. The moderate Muslims of every nation, including those in America fully support their Islamic military because worldwide conquest is the primary religious duty of all Muslims. Fellow Americans if you believe that your local Muslims are not secretly harboring in their hearts an agenda for the conquest of America by Islam then you are dead wrong, and understand nothing about the Koran.

Moderate Muslims may not carry weapons and murder innocent people hands on, but they play the role of "wolves in sheep's clothing". Moderate Muslims use two primary strategies to make conquest for Islam. The first is dawa, which is influence peddling, "wining and dining" and manipulation. You make conquest by "pleasing" your opponent, "buttering them up" -- bribery and back room dealings are common place. There is a "ton" of Muslim oil money buying preferential treatment for Islam in America. The second is taqiyya, which is outright deception and lying. Deception and lying to infidels as a strategy of conquest is one of Islam's most valued "weapons", a precedent set by the prophet Mohammed himself. Americans hear this deception everyday with proclamations that "Islam is a religion of peace." This phrase is an excellent example of successful psychological warfare which has caused Americans to let down their guard, and made us very vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, even possible nuclear attacks as several experts have pointed out.

Recent history proves that the "so called peaceful Muslims" work as a team with their Islamic Military. They immigrate to a country touting what peaceful law abiding citizens they are, establish themselves, build mosques, increase their numbers and "bingo" terrorists acts start occurring in the host country. Do the attacks in Spain, England, France, Thailand, Bali, the Philippines, Holland, Sweden and the USA ring any bells here? All these attacks have been preceded by the establishment of moderate mosque communities which in turn became footholds from which the Islamic military could launch their terrorist attacks. The larger the percentage of Muslims that occupy a country the greater the havoc they wreak. The situation is directly proportional. Reducing the percentage of Muslims that dwell in the host country is the most effective way of stopping terrorism. Western governments must evaluate this fact very seriously if they wish to win the war against Islamofascism long term.

Have we Americans become gullible fools? As long as we fail to deal aggressively and comprehensively with the intimate Koranic connection between the moderate Muslims and their Islamic military we can never stop the terrorist attacks. Have you ever wondered why, so numerous the complaints worldwide, that Muslims are not assimilating into their host nation? It is because they are not there to assimilate -- they are there to conqueror the host country for Islam as their Koran requires. Fellow Americans please read the Koran for your self. Don't take my word on it. You will learn first hand that anyone who tells you that Islam is a religion of peace is insulting your intelligence. The Penguin Classic edition, The Koran, translated by the Arab Scholar N. J. Dawood is a well respected version having sold over a million copies worldwide.

The best description of the symbiotic Koranic relationship between the moderates and their military comes from the Muslims themselves. They have a saying, "the poisonous fish swim in the sea". The "poisonous fish" are the militants and the "sea" is the moderate mosque community. For example, for their 9/11 operation, the Islamic Military (poisonous fish) used the Al Farouq mosque in New York as the "sea" from which they "swam" to pulverize the trade towers. The next poisonous fish may be swimming from the sea of your local Mosque community with a nuclear explosion. Wake up Americans we are not fighting with bows and arrows anymore. We must take aggressive preventative measures to stop the Islamic military's "euphoric" obsession to make a nuclear attack on American soil.

It is a great mistake to continue calling the Islamic military radicals because the term "radicals" has blinded us to think that the moderates are not in cahoots with their Islamic Military. In so doing we have violated the primary dictum of warfare which is to know and understand one's enemy. Consequently, we have failed to understand that the Islam of Osama Bin Laden is main stream Islam - not a radical fringe. Osama Bin Laden is one of the generals of the Islamic military which is fully supported by the worldwide community of moderate Muslims, including American Muslims. Both moderate Muslims and their military have the same goal which is the Islamic conquest of the entire world -- this is the primary religious duty of all Muslims as required by the Koran. Americans desperately need to understand this fact if they wish to protect their country from great harm.

Martel Sobieskey has 35 years research experience in the field of religious conditioning and its relationship to warfare. He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, educators, and security personnel have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched Jihadist religious conditioning inherent in Islam.

Is Mohammed a Pimp for Terrorists?

Was Mohammad the Original Motivational Speaker???

Did he contrive the vision of Paradise and 72 virgins as a reward for martyrdom to motivate his army to continue to fight?

Why would you believe in a God that will reward you with 72 virgins if you will kill innocent men, women and children?

Why is 72 virgins the magic number?

If their God did not reward them with Paradise and 72 virgins, would they still kill with the same amount of enthusiasm and with no regard for their own life?

Do they treat their 72 virgins in Paradise as brutally as they treat their women here on earth?

The lives of most suicide bombers generally suck. Of course they going to be motivated to die for the cause when they can leave their hell-hole on earth and be rewarded with Paradise and 72 virgins. It's no wonder that they're lining-up and taking numbers wanting to die.

How can you actually believe in a God that is so deranged that killing your children in the name of honor is a considered a pious act?

How perverted is it that the parents want their children to become martyrs? How can they believe in a God that has them bring children into this life for the sole purpose of killing others?

Their ultimate dilemma is if there is no more war, no one to hate and kill. When that happens, how do they get to Paradise and claim their virgins?

That's the whole point! Their religion requires perpetual war and killing.

Wouldn't these beliefs of costant killing, even within your own family, be contrary to everything a loving God would desire for his children?

I believe my God must be horrified by the disgusting, barbaric, satanic behavior of some of his children.
Just my thoughts.
Rees

Someone needs to re-write their playbook.

One Nation Under Obama - withOUT liberty and justice for all

The president is co-opting whatever he needs to remake this country. Why not religion too?

from Pajamas Media
May 30, 2009
by Awr Hawkins
image by rees

Barack Obama has long been known for his socialistic convictions and messianic tendencies. That he therefore wants to rule rather than represent and to dictate rather than debate is not hard to understand. And while he may not come right out and say it, he expects us to pledge allegiance to him. He said as much when he told Republican House members just three days after his inauguration that the quicker they quit listening to voices that run counter to his, the better for us all.

Obama has been encouraged down this kingly path by some very unsavory characters. Just a month before the 2008 presidential elections were held, he drew the praise of the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who said “when Obama talks ‘the messiah is absolutely speaking.’” And more recently, on April 24, 2009, he drew praise from communist dictators from “Boliva, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Venezuela” who are trusting Obama to join them in their efforts to prove that “capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction” by incorporating everything from health care to cell service under the guise of “human rights” — and thus under the purview of government entitlements at taxpayer expense.

The scary news is that our president is a self-aggrandizing anti-capitalist with or without the support of Farrakhan and the Latin communists, and therefore has no problem overseeing a federal government eager to take over more aspects of our everyday lives. For the more Obama co-opts, the more we have to focus on him. And please don’t fail to understand that this includes religion in the United States — especially Christianity.

Obama wants his judgments and convictions to be our guide in all spheres of life, even when his judgments run 180 degrees counter to the natural law that guided our Founders or the Bibles that guided the Puritans. Therefore, it was as easy for him to skip the National Day of Prayer on May 7, 2009, and open the door to the legalized killing of “days-old unborn children for [stem cell] research” as it was for him to tell GM what type of cars they’ll be building in the future if they want to remain extant.

Obama has long been opposed to the traditional values that undergird this nation and has been wise enough to war against those values in the name of those values, thus disorienting those whom he can’t intellectually disarm. For example, when he discusses any of his personal positions that go against the Christian faith, such as his pro-abortion stance, he always makes certain to mention that he’s a Christian in the process. The implication being that Christianity’s chief characteristic is some vague acceptance of all positions as equally valid instead of the orthodox, historical Christian insistence on truth and justice, good and evil.

Ultimately, this allows him to dismiss Christianity’s ethical claims on the life of the believer altogether. This was clear when he spoke about the tensions between his pro-abortion stance and Christianity at the Call to Renewal Conference in 2006: “Democracy demands that … religiously motivated [individuals] translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values.”

This is also how Obama sidestepped the implications of his support for abortion when giving Notre Dame’s commencement address. He made it sound like the pro-abortion and anti-abortion positions are just two viable positions that Christians can hold. While he admitted that these two positions flow from “views … [which] are complex and even contradictory … [and] irreconcilable,” he wisely avoided the use of smaller but more important words such as “right” and “wrong,” and asked that members of the “irreconcilable” factions “honor the consciences” of those with whom they disagree on the abortion issue. Never mind that this tactic allowed him to continue down the path of supporting abortion without having to explain why he supports it or to justify his use of taxpayer dollars to fund the practice.

But how dare we expect the great and powerful Obama to explain himself, as if he too were a mere serf or subject, or even a run-of-the-mill politician from days gone by?

When it comes to economics, Obama’s mode of operation is similar to that which he uses when talking to religious universities and Christian congregations. Therefore, although he’s only been in office since January 20, 2009, he’s been able to move at a speed that disorients those he can’t convert and has succeeded in the quasi-nationalization of many banks, financial institutions, and the American auto industry. He’s openly setting his sights on our health care system now, which means the Latin American communist leaders who asked Obama to join their war against capitalism should feel encouraged that things are going their way here in the United States.

Of course, Obama always says government bailouts (takeovers) are just temporary and that he only resorts to them as a last-ditch effort to save the economy. But the fact that he has that cheese-eating grin on his face every time he announces more government involvement seems dubious.

In fact, in a style which only a two-bit revolutionary could love, the always-grinning Obama acts then explains or at best acts while explaining, so that by the time his explanation comes through it’s too late to do much more than go along with him. This is the epitome of what the late Harvard Professor Crane Brinton communicated in his book The Anatomy of Revolution, when he wrote of how extremists like Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin (and Obama) cannot wait until people share their views before acting, but must act and trust that the people will eventually see why the action was necessary to further the revolution.

The bottom line is this: Forget the “one nation under God” stuff and understand that for the foreseeable future we are to consider ourselves “one nation under Obama.” The quicker we figure this out, the easier the adjustment is going to be for us all.
Click to read the article and the comments

Court: Muslim cop can’t wear head scarf

By STEPHEN ZOOK

Philadelphia Daily News
zooks@phillynews.com

A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia Police officer Wednesday lost her court fight to be allowed to wear her head scarf while on duty.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that granting Kimberlie Webb an exception to a regulation banning religious symbols while in uniform would impose an "undue hardship" on the city of Philadelphia.

Webb, a Philadelphia cop since 1995, requested permission in February 2003 to wear her head scarf while on duty. She was denied that permission, and filed complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In August 2003, Webb showed up to work wearing her head scarf. When she refused to remove it, she was sent home. This was repeated on two additional days.

"There is a history of allowing palms in police cars on Palm Sunday," said Jeffrey Pollock, Webb's lawyer. "[Washington,] D.C., New York City and Chicago all allow officers to wear religious symbols.

"Why can't the Philadelphia Police make the exception?"

In October 2005, Webb brought a lawsuit against the city, claiming religious and sex discrimination.

The court's opinion said that "uniform requirements are crucial to the safety of officers (so that the public will be able to identify officers as genuine, based on their uniform appearance)."

The appeals court also declined to consider Constitutional issues brought up by Pollock. Those issues were not raised at trial, so the court did not have to consider them, according to the opinion of the three-judge panel.

A lower court already had ruled that the city would suffer undue hardship if it were required to accommodate Webb's request.

"I respect [the judges], but I'm obviously disappointed," Pollock said.

Pollock said that no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click to read the article and comments

Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam'

from American Thinker
By Peter C Glover
March 25, 2009

A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame' Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" was circulated ahead of the Council's next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on.

Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.

The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.

Such is the domination of the UN HRC by Islamic states, backed by non-democratic members including Russia and Cuba, that the human rights agency UN Watch believes the "adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion". Last December, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that Islamic states were pursuing "the diplomatic battle with a vengeance" because of the post 9/11 war on terror and the issue of the Danish depictions of the prophet Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out, "The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights laws and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims." Neuer went on to cite the failure of the Islamic states to address human rights violations in Muslim countries. He also pointed out that the latest resolution is "not really trying to protect individuals from harm" but is attempting "to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate."

The resolution's use of the phrase ‘defamation of religion' is also misleading. Under the terms of human rights law there is no such legal concept. Laws on defamation, in most Western countries, exist to protect the reputation of individuals, not belief systems or religions.

UN Watch's Neuer describes the resolution's text as "Orwellian" and warns that it distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech and religious freedom. He also points out that a binding resolution would first target "moderate Muslims" and that: "Next to suffer from the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West." The text singles out the freedom of the Western media which allows for ‘deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.'
Click to read the rest of the article and comments

Can We Win The War In Afghanistan? Yes! But Will Obama Allow It To Happen?

from The National Review

by Rich Lowry

March 24, 2009

The War Hasn’t Been Tried

Nothing will be possible in Afghanistan without a fight.

Kabul — Could Afghanistan become another Iraq? A few years ago that would have been a question full of foreboding. Now, it expresses an aspiration.

The Afghan war has, as any American officer will tell you, long been “under-resourced,” a word that in a counterinsurgency war is almost always a synonym for failure. While Iraq had 15 American combat brigades before the surge and 20 during it, Afghanistan was in the low single digits and will only reach six brigades with the addition of the 17,000 American troops just ordered by Pres. Barack Obama.

An American general has a pointed formulation for the relative priority of the two wars over the last seven years: “If you needed it in Iraq, you got it; if you needed it in Afghanistan, you figured out how to do without it.” That has changed, but by how much and for how long will be defining questions for the Obama administration.

The challenges in Afghanistan bear an uncanny resemblance to those in Iraq prior to the surge — insufficient coalition force levels, making it impossible to secure the population; a population that is sitting on the fence, waiting to see whether the insurgency or the coalition has more staying power; an indigenous army that is too small and a police force plagued by incompetence and corruption; and a weak political leader at the top who is triangulating between the coalition and its enemies and too parochial in his outlook. (President Hamid Karzai is both unpopular and likely to win re-election in August.)

On top of all of this, Afghanistan is a broken country, shattered by the Soviets, who did their utmost to wipe out the traditional social structure, and then by years of civil war. It would be a poor and ramshackle nation — a complex patchwork of ethnicities and tribes — even without the serial catastrophes that have befallen it. It has the socio-economic profile of a poor African country.

In the Pashtun areas of the south, where the insurgency is strongest, 25 percent of children live less than five years, the average life expectancy is 45, and half of men and more than 80 percent of women are illiterate. One police sub-station in Kandahar has 45 officers — only two or three of whom can read. The opium trade equals more than half of the GDP of Afghanistan, with as much as $500 million a year of the illegal largesse going to the insurgency. By way of comparison, the operating budget of the ministry of defense is just $58 million.

All of this calls for realism about what can be achieved here, but doesn’t justify ill-informed, all-consuming despair. Afghanistan is not about to fall to a revitalized Taliban.

Click to read the rest of the article and comments

All In The Name of Honor? - Jordanian Father Beats To Death His 19 Year Old Daughter For Wearing Makeup!

Having two children of my own, it is inconceivable to me that a Father can consciously kill their daughter, all in the name of honor. This ‘honor’ thing is obviously part of their religion. It goes along with their willingness to sacrifice their children as suicide bombers. If these Muslim men believe so strongly in killing all the infidels, why don’t they become a suicide bomber and let their children live longer? They’ve obviously been on this Earth a lot longer than their children.

These Muslim men supposedly believe life after this existence is Paradise, and that there will be 72 virgins waiting for them. They profess that they are willing to martyr themselves for Allah. If they truly believe in that mythical hereafter, why are they still here? Why? It’s because they love life more than their religion and they are afraid to die!

Bottom line about Muslim men is this:

- They love their religion more than they love their children!
- They love their own life more they love their religion!
- They want everyone else to be the suicide bombers!
- They are cowards who are afraid to die!

One more question. Why don’t we hear about honor killings that involve their sons? Is there nothing there sons can do to dishonor them?
Rees

Sunday, March 22, 2009
from Holger Awakens

by Holger Danske

And wouldn't Mohammed be so proud. The disgusting news came out yesterday, seen here in this article at Yahoo News, that a Jordanian father (with the help of his two sons) beat to death his daughter for leaving the house with makeup on and for speaking to a stranger. Once again, upholding the "honor" of Islam has taken the life of one of the world's innocents. Here's some of the disgusting details:

Jordan's prosecutor has charged a man and his two sons for the premeditated murder of his 19-year-old daughter Saturday, in the latest "honour killing" to take place in this conservative desert kingdom.

The man and his two sons were charged with beating to death the daughter for leaving the house in makeup and talking to a stranger, according to prosecutor Salah al-Taleb's indictment sheet.

The father brought his daughter to the hospital after she lost consciousness and turned himself in.Autopsy showed severe injuries to the head which caused brain hemorrhage and the body was covered with bruises.

Now, I don't know when the last time was I heard of an honor killing in Jordan so one might think this is a bit out of the ordinary....well, look at this line from the article:

In Jordan, an average of 20 women are killed by male relatives each year.

And that's REPORTED figures - I wonder how many young women and girls are killed in Jordan in this same manner and their deaths are reported as murders by strangers? And since we are talking about this maniacal killing of these innocents, these young girls and women...just where is the outrage from the women's groups in America? Are they scared of taking on Islam? I don't see American women's groups backing down from attacking Christians in America who may have objections to abortion in this country but I hear crickets when it comes to them attacking the islamists for this 8th century practice of honor killings.

Let's face it...these groups in America will march in the streets in defense of a woman's body in respect to her reproductive "rights" but when it comes to defending a woman's right to live, they are no where to be found. And that, to me, is even more disgusting than this poor woman's murder.

Click to read the rest of the article and comments