Betraying our dead...Forgetting the vows we made

from The New York Post
by Ralph Peters
9/11/2009

Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.

We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.

We've learned nothing.

Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.

Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.

Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.

Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.

Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container could hold 3.5 ounces of liquid.

Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.

Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.

Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.

Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures.

Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.

Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)

Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.

Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.

Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.

Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.

We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.

We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.

We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.

We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.

We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.

Are we willing to let the terrorists win?

Ralph Peters' new thriller, "The War After Armageddon," goes on sale next Tuesday.
Click to read the article and the comments

America, Canada , all Europe Needs a President like this!

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians'.

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'. 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Maybe American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths. And the same goes for other groups of people that do not embrace the “American Way of Life”

After Obama Speech - Israel is still a "cancerous tumor in the heart"

Cairo Candy
By Investor's Business Daily

Middle East: While declaring that "America and Islam . . . need not be in competition," President Obama called on Islamic countries to embrace Western ways. But Islamic hard-liners see no "new beginning."

In his much-hyped speech at Cairo University on Thursday to promote "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," the president came armed with apologies and compliments.

The West is guilty of anti-Muslim "colonialism," not to mention "a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."

The left often accused Ronald Reagan of naivete for believing the Soviet Union could be relegated to "the ash heap of history"; here we are 20 years later apologizing for defeating the Evil Empire.

According to President Obama, Islam can be thanked for everything from "Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment" to "algebra," "our magnetic compass," "pens and printing" and "our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed."

And as if speaking on the set of Dr. Phil, he claimed "we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors."

In fact, the Muslims that America has a problem with — i.e., Islamofascists — seldom have trouble expressing what they hold in their hearts. Often it's sheer hatred for the West.

Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for instance, immediately called the Obama speech "sweet and beautiful talks to the Muslim nation . . . that will not create a change," adding that Israel is still a "cancerous tumor in the heart" of the Muslim world.

After the flattery and the mea culpas, however, came an internally inconsistent message.

After saying "no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other," the president added — rather dictatorially — that "you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise . . . ."

Sounds like the U.S. system to us.

The real diktats, however, were saved for the Israelis. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," the president said.

And instead of rallying the Islamic world against a would-be nuclear Iran, he made the pronouncement that "no single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons."

Does that mean we've given up on stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb? If so, that's a very dangerous signal to send.

Compare that with another Democratic president, Harry Truman, after the bombing of Hiroshima: "Having found the bomb, we have used it. . . . It is an awful responsibility which has come to us. We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies."

This president said he seeks the day "when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together, as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer."

He intends to establish that paradise-on-earth by having U.S. taxpayers finance initiatives such as "new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops."

Sweet talk and the Almighty Dollar can buy a lot, it's true.

But only a fairy-tale mind-set could think it possible to bribe and cajole the Middle East into becoming a land of peace, love and understanding.
Click to read this and other great articles at IBD

Obama Gives Speech To Fellow Muslims

Obama's Own Speech Confirms He Is A Muslim!

from Andrew McCarthy:

In fact, even President Obama’s cordial greeting of “assalaamu alaykum” to his Egyptian audience conveys (no doubt unintentionally) something of basic Islamic intolerance. Under sharia (Islamic law), as Spencer explains, “a Muslim may only extend this greeting — Peace be upon you — to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, ‘Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,’ i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims.”

Obama’s speech was deep in fable, short on fact.

from The National Review
By Andrew C. McCarthy
June 5, 2009

The Islamic world has heard the much anticipated speech about the relationship between Islam and America from “Barack Hussein Obama” — emphasis added by the president himself, who until recently considered the use of his middle name a right-wing smear. The oration was called “A New Beginning.” “A Pretend Beginning” would have been a more accurate.

Though President Obama has won plaudits from some surprising quarters — including from National Review — the speech was warmed-over leftist dogma sprinkled with a fictional accounting of Islam and its history. NR’s editors forgive this as the “obvious consideration” that a presidential address must “stress some truths more than others and soften the harsher ones.” This is a promiscuous conception of truth. What the president did was promote various fictions about Islam while airbrushing truths that are not merely harsh but are the facts behind the rampage that has victimized us for much of the last three decades. That rampage, moreover, was substantially discounted in a haze of moral equivalence.

It would be bad enough to do this under any circumstances, but it is inexcusable to do it while paying only lip-service to one of the few truths the president did speak: namely, that any “partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.”

“What it isn’t” is a religion of peace with a legacy so overflowing with achievement in science, philosophy, and the arts that civilization, as President Obama claimed, owes a great “debt to Islam.” In fact, the ledger runs heavily in the other direction.

Islam was spread by the sword — not by the allure of its still problematic message — and many of the cultural achievements within the Muslim world that the president glossed occurred despite Islam (particularly in the areas of literature, art, and music) or are more properly understood as the accomplishments (especially in science and architecture) of better-educated peoples whom Muslims conquered. The president rehearsed the claim that Islam single-handedly “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” This is a myth. As Robert Spencer has ably recounted, it is not true that Muslims alone preserved the works of Aristotle, Galen, Plato, Hippocrates, and other pillars of Western enlightenment. More significantly, arrested development in the Islamic world owes to an anti-intellectualism that persists to this day in enclaves holding that no education beyond the study of the Koran is necessary.

The president, moreover, insisted on pulling from the Muslim apologists’ playbook the expurgation of Islamic scripture in order to render it congenial to Western sensibilities. We were treated to the hidebound claim that terrorist violence is anti-Islamic because what Obama takes pains to call “the Holy Koran” teaches that “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” This conveniently decoupled Sura 5:32 from the next verse (5:33), which, though unmentioned by Obama, is well known by Muslims to read: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land, is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: That is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the hereafter.”

Noting a bowdlerization even this egregious does not do justice to how misleading the president’s tactic was. Though Obama portrayed Islam as having a “proud tradition of tolerance,” it has a far more consequential legacy of intolerance. Islam strives for hegemony, seeking not to co-exist but to make all the world the realm of the Muslims (dar al-Islam) while regarding those parts not under its dominion as the realm of war (dar al-Harb). What Obama means by “an innocent” and what many Muslims take the term to mean are different.

Sura 5:33 is far from aberrant, and the “Holy Koran,” quite apart from its several other commands to violence, dehumanizes Jews in several places as the children of monkeys and pigs. It admonishes that Muslims “take not the Jews and the Christians as friends and protectors” (5:51). The hadiths of the prophet are replete with tales of non-Muslims slaughtered, forced into slavery, and reduced to humiliating dhimmitude. Mohammed’s vision of the end of the world foresaw Jesus returning to abolish Christianity and impose Islam, while Jews are killed by Muslims (with the help of trees and stones, which alert the faithful, “Muslim, there is a Jew behind me — come and kill him!” In fact, even President Obama’s cordial greeting of “assalaamu alaykum” to his Egyptian audience conveys (no doubt unintentionally) something of basic Islamic intolerance. Under sharia (Islamic law), as Spencer explains, “a Muslim may only extend this greeting — Peace be upon you — to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, ‘Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,’ i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims.”

To be sure, no sensible person would suggest that a U.S. president rehash these and other unpleasant facts in order to provoke Muslims gratuitously. But it was Obama’s idea to give this speech — it’s not as if he were put, through no fault of his own, to the awkward choice of telling a few little white lies or insulting his hosts. More to the point, the president takes the risible position (as did his predecessor) that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.” Islam, however, is palpably a huge part of the problem in combating violent extremism, which is serially committed by Muslims under the influence of notable religious scholars (including more than a few educated at al-Azhar University, the “beacon of Islamic learning” that co-hosted the president’s speech) who invoke some of the many scriptures the president elected not to mention.

It is true enough that Islam must be part of the solution to the promotion of peace, but for two reasons alone. First, while it is possible to ignore Islamic doctrine’s nexus to terrorism, the nexus cannot credibly be denied, and therefore the need to deal with it is unavoidable. Second, and related, there can be no peace unless Islam reforms — unless it purges its savage elements and compellingly condemns the violence committed in its name. This can’t be done as Obama and others would like to do it: by telling Muslims everything is fine, that their religion is wonderful as is, while making believe the bad scriptures don’t exist and radicals are merely a tiny fringe of crazy people. That is a strategy designed by liberals to convince other liberals who don’t need convincing, so desperate are they to believe all is well. It does nothing to discredit the violent fundamentalists in the eyes of other Muslims; in fact, it enhances their credibility because it ignores their doctrinal justifications of terror rather than offering a credible counter-construction.

Worse, assuming there is no credible counter-construction (which may very well be the case), there is an enormous amount of reform to be done — work that can only be done by Muslims. We cannot rouse them to the task by telling them we think Islam, as it currently exists, is promoting peace.

All this would require a commitment to come to grips with “what Islam is, not what it isn’t.” It’s too bad we don’t have that commitment.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Muslims gave us zero

from Don Surber
June 4, 2009

Barack Obama delivered the same myths about Muslim math that English lit professors have passed along for decades — and Rush Limbaugh called him on it.

The idea that their is a unified Muslim world (just down the road from the Buddhist community, but before you cross the Hindu Street) is as absurd as a unified Christian world. I mean 500 years after the Diet of Worms, Protestants and Catholics still argue over the wording of the Lord’s prayer.

The pandering by Obama in Cairo, though, showed the misinformation that college professors have passed along to their students for year after year. Obama was a bright student.

OBAMA: “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it could be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy, and places of peaceful contemplation — and throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Sure, Mr. President, we have seen that religious tolerance in 60 years of refusing to diplomatic acknowledge the state of Israel, and your wife’s ancestors saw that racial equality in the Muslim auctions of African slaves.

This is to history what Al Gore’s global warming phrenology is to science.

RUSH: “OK. I know we’re not supposed to criticize Obama’s speech here. I know it’s going way off the reservation here to do this. But, folks, that is outrageous. This is simply outrageous. It was absurd, in fact. Let’s see. here do we start here? ‘It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra.’ No. The origins of algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians. They were not Muslims. Algebra was temporarily developed by the ancient Greeks and later the English. ‘Our magnetic compass, tools of navigation,’ Islam gave us these? No. Recent research suggests that the compass may have been discovered by Central Americans, but if they didn’t do it, the Chinese are then its discoverers. In either case, be it the Chinese or the Central Americans, the compass was discovered centuries before the advent of Islam.

“Now, what am I supposed to say? I’m not supposed to say this stuff. Now, let’s see, let’s see. ‘Our mastery of pens and printing…’ Has anybody ever heard of Gutenberg? I didn’t know Gutenberg was a Muslim. ‘Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed…’? Are there Nobel Prizes for Medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed? ‘Islamic has given us some majestic arches and soaring spires…’ Well, sorry, folks, but arches and spires predate the arrival of Islam by centuries. I mean, come on, folks. Arches? Anybody heard of Rome? He also talked about the great gift, ‘timeless poetry and cherished music.’ The only problem there is that music — and musical instruments especially — are forbidden in most Islamic traditions. And it should be unnecessary to have to note Islam’s ‘religious tolerance’ has been demonstrated.”

Rush is right. The fact is socialist professors have idealized the Islamic faith and created out of midair this ridiculous fantasy about Spain being a great place for other religions under Moorish rule.

I am glad someone in the American media called Obama on this. More Rush is here.
Click to go to the article and read the comments

Links to 30+ Blogs reviewing Obama's Speech - Gorge yourself

My summary is that Obama's appearance in front of the world was more important to him than his so-called speech to the Muslim World. Obama is a megalomaniac with ZERO humility. Obama thinks he knows everything and has all the answers. I believe that's dangerous, because he believes he can do no wrong and that he is above being second-guessed.

He again raped Israel on the world stage. He says he is a friend of Israel, but his actions prove otherwise.
Rees

Links provided by the Bookworm Blog
June 4, 2009

Grading Obama’s speech

The voice of the blogosophere about Obama’s speech

You can read what I wrote about the speech here. Others have been writing too.

The Anchoress, in addition to her must-read Ich bin ein Muslimer takedown of the speech, has a list of blogs thinking about what he said, which I’ll just copy wholesale:

Andy McCarthy: Koranic text Obama left out
Andrew Bolt: Islam, I am your savior!
Fausta: What was missing from the speech
David P. Goldman: Why Couldn’t Obama’s writers find a peace quote from the Koran?
Abe Greenwald: Not too good on Women’s Rights
Jennifer Rubin: Abudullah is not charmed by Obama
Bookworm: Gives the speech a C and wonders about specifically Muslim formulations
Ed Morrissey: Not so bad; not much different from Bush
Michelle Malkin: Not having any; didn’t like Bush’s speeches here, either.
Rich Lowry: On the whole not bad
Max Boot: Could have been a lot worse
Ann Althouse: Commenters parse the speechJ
ake Tapper: President finds himself in Hieroglyphs
Hugh Hewitt: The World is Worse for this dishonest speech“Yes we can” in Hieroglyphics
Mike Allen: Kinda common rhetoric
Confederate Yankee: Obama’s Brilliant Delusion
Andy McCarthy: Founding Fathers Friends to Islam?
Dana Perino: Comparing two presidents, two speeches
Damian Thompson: Watch out for Christian Terrorists
!Noisy Room: United Under AllahObama’s Nixon China Speech
Flopping Aces: Charm Offenses & History
Gateway: US President won’t stand for democracy

Here are some more reads I recommend:
Joshuapundit summarizes all the of ill-informed, fatuous and foolish statements that surrounded the nuggets of smartness and decency buried in that mess.

Rick Moran about the sadness the deliberately or foolishly misinformed speech engendered in him, and Sammy Benoit chimes in.

Ira Stoll, who hoped for better when it came to Obama and the Jews, confesses that the speech brings him to a different point of view.

Peter Daou also caught that strange obsession with the hijab.

Max Boot notes that the speech could have been worse, and explains what was good. He also highlights all the false equivalencies Obama drew between the Muslim world and the west. He also deconstructs the little misuse of history, by which Obama implied that Tripoli and the US have always been partners in freedom. (I bet Boot would give the speech the same C I did.)

Jennifer Rubin also sounds many of the same notes I did.

And Abe Greenwald agreed with me on the bizarre fact that Obama kept harking back to those hijabs.

Here are John and Paul from Power Line, each of whom also damn it with faint praise and praise it with faint damns.

Reading all of these views shows that the issues I picked up upon — the vague mea culpas, the hostility to women, the hostility to Israel, the apparent willingness to protect America (thank God), the false moral equivalences, the bastardized history, etc. — were not products of my own anti-Obama imagination but were, in fact, truly present in an anything-but-earth-shattering speech to the Arab world.

Laer thinks the speech was as good as it could get, considering both audience and speaker.

Obama is "deeply saddened" vs "shocked and outraged" - which was the soldier which was Tiller?

from Michelle Malkin.com
By Michelle Malkin
June 3, 2009

The White House finally got around to releasing a statement on the jihadi attack against our troops at the Arkansas military recruitment center.

Here is the entire statement:

“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”

“Senseless?” It made perfectly good sense to a vengeful Muslim convert jihadi bent on “killing as many people in the Army as he could.”

For contrast, here is Obama’s full statement on the Tiller murder, issued just hours after the shooting:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of
violence.

Caleb Howe is underwhelmed:

“It’s in keeping with the Obama administration’s passive language, such as the euphemisms “overseas contingency operation” or “man-caused disaster” … Obama’s statement on the murder of Pvt. William A. Long is just as passive in voice and blame. He’s not outraged, he’s saddened. Not by someone who committed a “heinous act” but rather by a senseless violence. It might have been a bolt of lightning for all the pushback Obama has to share.

He waits three days and then the best he can muster is an abstract sadness at something that, judging by his statement, might well have been a mere accident of fate…

Click to go to the article and read the comments

UPDATE ON MURDERED SOLDIER: Jihad terror on American soil: Muslim kills soldier, wounds another at Arkansas military recruiting center

from Jihad Watch
June 1, 2009

"Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad -- a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe -- faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act..."

"Suspect arrested in Arkansas recruiting center shooting," from CNN, June 1 (thanks to Don):

(CNN) -- An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded nother, authorities said.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad -- a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe -- faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

The soldier who was killed was identified as Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, and the wounded soldier is Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, Thomas said....

Although military officials initially believed that the shooting was a random act, Thomas said police think the shooter acted alone "with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel."...

Thomas said police recovered three guns from Muhammad's black Ford SUV: an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a pistol....

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad had "political and religious motives." -- so says "Shooter, Victims Identified in West LR Shooting," from KATV7.com, June 1 (thanks to Benedict).
Click to read the article and the comments

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.

Iraq considers 5 day waiting period for purchasing suicide vests

Europe has surrendered to Islam

from The First Post
by Hirsi Ali
May 7. 2009

In 2006, I had a debate with Tariq Ramadan, the author of Western Muslims and the future of Islam. In the hypothetical event of a war between Egypt and Switzerland, for which community would he be prepared to die, I asked him.

Mr Ramadan has dual citizenship. He's an Egyptian by birth and a Swiss by naturalisation. His response was one of rage on different levels. Above all I think he was outraged that one should ask such a question. He refused to answer.

Mr Ramadan, like many other Muslims, may have two or more citizenships. From all that he expresses both in person and on paper, it is clear that his loyalty, above all, is to Islam. I do not doubt that he would die for Islam, like most Muslims, and that's his prerogative. But what European countries have done is give citizenship to individuals who feel no obligation to share in their societies for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer and in the event of a catastrophe, sacrifice themselves.

No debate is more explosive than the debate on the future of Islam in Europe.

In this way, they evade one of the chief criteria of citizenship. Political allegiance to the constitution of your country is the minimum requirement. It is this state of affairs that makes Christopher Caldwell's book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration and the West (Allen Lane, £17.99), which opens with the sentence, "Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind," a chilling read.

This absence of mind, which Caldwell lays bare, is reflected in Europe's immigration policies and especially in its response to Islam. No debate today is more explosive, more sensitive, more confusing and more frightening than the debate on the future of Islam in Europe.

In March this year, the French intellectual Pascal Bruckner and I spoke about Caldwell's book. Bruckner said, "Americans [like Caldwell] do not understand Europe. There are many Muslims who, in their daily lives, are more agnostic and in their practices even atheist, but are just Muslim in name."

This seems to be reassuring. But would these agnostic and unpracticing Muslims, if push came to shove, die for Islam or for France? My guess is they would, most likely, die for Islam.

Caldwell discusses this theme in an interesting light: he does not overlook the Europeans who feel that Islam is a danger to European values but asks, "How can you fight for something you cannot define?" And this is Europe's problem - insecurity about who we are, what our various flags mean, why, with every turn, we spend less and less on the military.

Europe has become a place for new religions, new creeds, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, transnationalism. Everything is thus relative. This is an uncertainty that the Muslim does not share. The Muslim ethic and tribal spirit are far more resilient and fierce in war than the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

The numbers and insights that Caldwell has collected in his book are visible to many Europeans. During my life in Holland, and in my trips back, I have spoken to European intellectuals who see the revolution that Caldwell describes so well in his book. They may not call it a revolution, they may also not see it as complete, but they see the identity crisis in Europe.

Take the debate on freedom of expression. In 1989 and afterwards, the provocations in the name of Islam were greeted with a confident, "No way! This is Europe, and you can say what you like, write what you like," and so on.

Two decades later, Europeans are not so sure about the values of freedom of expression. Most members of the media engage in self-censorship. Textbooks in schools and universities have been adapted in such a way as not to offend Muslim sentiment. And legislation to punish 'blasphemy', if not passed, has been considered in most countries - or old laws that were never used are being revived.

Today, in the name of Islam, synagogues are vandalised

Take anti-Semitism in Europe. The sensitivity and guilt Europeans feel about the Holocaust is comparable to the sensitivity and guilt that Americans feel towards black Americans. A decade or two ago, it was unthinkable for Jews to be slandered openly and be targeted for no other reason than their Jewishness.

Today, in the name of Islam, synagogues are vandalised. There are open denials of the Holocaust. There is an active network of Muslim organisations lobbying to curtail or even get rid of Israel. There are incidents of Jews being harassed, beaten, even killed. All this is met with grim silence and rationalisations that it's not really anti-Semitic but anti-Israel. Can you imagine anything like this happening today in America to black people and it being met with silence?

Take the history of women's liberation in Europe. In the 1970s, women were burning their bras, abortion was legalised almost everywhere and rape in marriage was penalised. Today, more and more European elites, including some feminists, argue that it might, perhaps, just be better to respect the culture and religion of a minority.

Women's shelters have adapted their curriculum - instead of teaching the women who come to them how to become self-reliant, the shelters facilitate prayer rooms and employ mediators from the Islamic community. All this mediation serves only one purpose - that is, to return the woman to the circumstances of abuse she left.

Here is a system, which was a tool to emancipate, that has been completely transformed to serve the Muslim purpose of obedience. If the wife obeys, then the husband no longer needs to beat her. The matter is settled.

The same applies to gays. Ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable that anti-gay sentiment would pass without condemnation. In Holland, for instance, we pride ourselves on allowing gays to have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Yet today, they are beaten on the streets of Amsterdam. To be on the safe side in certain neighbourhoods in Europe, it's advisable to conceal your identity if you are gay or lesbian.

Muslims try to abolish freedom of expression using the vocabulary of freedom

The terrifying paradox about these developments is that Muslim immigrants were admitted into European borders on the basis of universal rights and freedoms that a large number of them now trample on, while others perhaps watch passively, or seek to defend only the image of Islam.

Even worse, those who lobby to abolish freedom of expression and to discriminate against Jews, women and gays do so while using the vocabulary of freedom and through the institutions of parliament and the courts that were designed to protect the rights of all.

American observers like Caldwell, Bruce Bawer, Walter Laqeur and many others who go to Europe and write candidly about these things can return to America, where they can write on another topic, keep their jobs and their social networks.

Europeans who do the same thing as Caldwell, often face a campaign of ostracisation from their own compatriots. They run the risk of losing their jobs or not being promoted or not getting invitations to the circles of which they are a part. The more stubborn, like Geert Wilders, get prosecuted, and access to a neighbouring country is even denied.

In reality, if Europe falls, it's not because of Islam. It is because the Europeans of today - unlike their forbears in the Second World War - will not die to defend the values or the future of Europe. Even if they were asked to make the final sacrifice, many a post-modern lily-livered European would escape into an obscure mesh of conscientious objection. All that Islam has to do is walk into the vacuum.
Click to read the article and the many comments

No Drill For You! - Muslim dentist 'refused to treat female patients unless they wore Islamic dress'

image by Rees

A modern day 'Dentist Nazi' - NO DRILL FOR YOU!
Rees



from the Daily Mail Online
By Tom Kelly
May 7, 2009

Muslim Dentist Enforces Strict Islamic Dress Code On Patients

A Muslim dentist refused to treat patients unless they wore traditional Islamic dress, it was alleged today.

Omer Butt, 32, ordered women to put on head scarves or he would not register them or their families at his NHS-funded clinic, it was claimed.

At least two patients were left in pain after they declined to follow his self-imposed rules, the General Dental Council heard.

It is the second time that the dentist - who is the brother of a former spokesman of the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun - has appeared before the council's disciplinary panel on similar allegations.

Two years ago he was reprimanded for telling an Asian mother-of-two he would not register her unless she wore the Muslim hijab.

The GDC heard how Butt believed it was his duty to stop Muslim patients committing what he believed was Al-Kaba'ir, a religious sin.

He even put a laminated sign on the wall of his waiting room telling patients they would have to adhere to his strict dress code or find another dentist.

John Snell, for the GDC, said: 'He sought to impose a dress code on patients attending his practice.

'He required that women cover their hair with a head scarf, or hijab, and that male patients remove any gold jewellery.

'If he had simply expressed a preference, without imposing any compulsion to adhere to this dress code, there may be no cause for complaint.

'However, he insisted - and those who did not comply were refused treatment.

'He made compliance with Islamic dress code a condition of treatment, which is entirely inappropriate under the auspices of the National Health Service.

'Patients should have access to NHS treatment regardless of their religious observance, or otherwise.'

One patient, referred to only as Mrs F, told how she went with her husband and three children to register as patients at the Unsworth Smile Clinic, in Bury, Lancashire, in 2006.

While they were waiting to be seen, Butt called her husband into an office and told him he would have to tell his wife to wear a head scarf or the family would not be seen.They promptly left and made a formal complaint to the NHS.

Mrs F told the panel: 'I was extremely annoyed. It's my choice if I wear a Hijab or not. But he told my husband he wouldn't treat any of us until I did.

'He even offered to provide one for me to use, but I didn't want to wear it. I shouldn't have to wear it to get treatment.

'I had great pain in my tooth at the time, but I wasn't going to stand for that so we left.'

Another patient and her family had to leave the clinic in June 2007 because she would not wear the religious headdress after spending a year looking for a dentist in the area, the hearing was told.

The woman's husband, known as Mr C, was also called into a private room at the surgery where Butt asked him to impose a dress code on his wife.

His wife said: 'My husband came out and he looked quite angry and his face was red. He said 'let's go'.
'
He shouldn't say to me that he can't treat me unless I wear the hijab. He said he could provide one for us, but I didn't want to wear one. I was in pain that day.'

Butt, of Prestwich, Manchester, denies charges of misconduct for his treatment of two patients at the clinic.

If found guilty he faces being removed the dental register.

In September 2007 Butt was formally reprimanded by the GDC for similar behaviour and found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The hearing, being held in London, continues.
Click to read the article and the comments

Iranian General: It Will Take Us 11 Days "To Wipe Israel Out of Existence"

from MEMRI - The Middle East Media Research Institute
May 4, 2009

General Commander of the Iranian Army Ataollah Salehi: It Will Take Us 11 Days "to Wipe Israel Out of Existence"

Following are excerpts of statements by Iranian military commanders, from a TV report which aired on LBC TV on May 3, 2009.

Over voice: Nothing can prevent Iranian missiles from targeting the heart of Israel, if Iran is subjected to a military strike by Israel. This was the response of the Iranian military commanders to the Israeli statements about a possible military strike against Iran, because of its insistence on obtaining nuclear energy. Yet an [Israeli] attack seems improbable to the Iranians, because Tel Aviv does not have the ability to go through a war with Tehran.

Iranian Chief-of-Staff General Hassan Firouzabadi: We are fully prepared to confront any attack that would threaten the interests of Iran. We have sufficient means and the necessary force to defend our territory.

General Ataollah Salehi, general commander of the Iranian army: The truth is that Israel does not have the courage to attack us. If we are subjected to any attack by Israel, I do not think we will need more than 11 days to wipe Israel out of existence.

Over voice: Tehran denies that its military preparations are aimed at attacking any neighboring country. Iran justifies its military preparedness as a means to defend Iran and the region, which may alleviate the fears and concerns of countries in the region.

General Yahya Rahim Safavi, Khamenei's chief advisor on military affairs: Our military capabilities are not meant to threaten the neighboring countries, but only to defend Iran. Iran strives for peace, security, and stability with the countries in the region.

General Reza Pourdastan, commander of the Iranian army ground forces: The neighboring countries can rest assured that by no means will we attack any country.

Over voice: But fears about Iran's missiles remain, especially among Western countries, concerned that Iran might arm its missiles with nuclear warheads, since the superpowers doubt that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. This is categorically denied by Tehran, which says that according to the shari'a and the law, it is forbidden to obtain a nuclear bomb.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Gingrich: 'Obama is endangering Israel' - Thank You Newt for lending an American voice to this travesty

from The Jerusalem Post
By Hilary Leila Krieger
JPost Correspondent in Washington
May 4, 2009

Former US House speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday blasted the Obama administration for setting itself on a collision course with Israel and endangering the Jewish state, ahead of his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

"They are systematically setting up the most decisive confrontation that we've ever seen," the leading Republican politician told The Jerusalem Post, referring to news reports about the administration's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"There's almost an eagerness to take on the Israeli government to make a point with the Arab world," he said, speaking to the Post ahead of his speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual conference.

He called US President Barack Obama's program of engagement on Iran a "fantasy," and his Middle East policies "very dangerous for Israel." He summed up Obama's approach as "the clearest adoption of weakness since Jimmy Carter."

Instead, he maintained, the US should be sending the message to Israel that "we are for the survival of Israel" and that "we are not going to tolerate Iran getting nuclear weapons."

He added that creating prosperity among Palestinians was important, and that the US should be helping their leaders grow their society and crowd out Hamas.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, Jihadic Style. Obama needs to read this!

from Pajamas Media
May 1, 2009
by Phyllis Chesler

While I was enjoying some sunshine in Savannah, (more to come about that), World War Four continued to rage blithely on.

Al-Qaeda in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and North Africa, threatened terrorist attacks against Germany and Holland and threatened to kill a British hostage (captured on the border between Niger and Mali), if Britain does not release a radical Muslim preacher.

The Pakistani Taliban shot a couple dead for alleged adultery and their execution in Islamabad was captured on a cellphone; Egyptian police arrested a Muslim woman for having married a Coptic Christian; in Lahore, a Muslim husband killed his wife for failing to bear a son; in the Punjab, a Sikh physician-husband amputated his wife’s hand and that of her cousin with whom he suspected she was having an affair.

So much for male terrorists in foreign lands.

Last week, as I carefully smelled the roses in Georgia, there were three carefully organized explosions on one day in Iraq, which killed a total of 80 civilians. One explosion was carried out by a woman in a black abaya, holding a 5 year-old child’s hand, (probably not her own). She killed herself and 28 other Muslims in a crowded market in a Baghdad slum. The civilians, many of whom were other women, were waiting on line for free flour, cooking oil, tea, macaroni, and other staples that the police were handing out. Of course, police officers died as well.

Many people have written to me, surprised, outraged, perhaps demoralized by the fact that this latest Muslim-on-Muslim atrocity was committed by a woman and mainly against other women.
As the author of Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, which is just now being released in a new edition with a new Introduction, I am, unfortunately, not surprised. Please recall how quickly the mainstream media covered the “sensational” use of rape by the male members of Al-Qaeda as a way to recruit female human bombs. At the time, people seemed surprised by the fact that Samira Jassim, an Iraqi woman, played an essential role in the further exploitation of these rape victims.

Although women depend upon each other for emotional intimacy and social stability, they are also highly competitive with, mistrustful of, or hostile towards other women. Like men, women have also internalized sexist beliefs. Are women really sexists? Of course they are. A study of 15,000 people in nineteen countries on five continents found that women hold sexist views just as men do. However, some studies suggest that women with low self-esteem are more likely to internalize negative views of women which may account for how such women treat other women: With cruelty rather than kindness.

In addition, women are expected to compete mainly against other women, not against men, and they do so both directly and indirectly (through slander, shunning, and “backstabbing.”) In the Third World, especially in war zones, the female-female aggression is far more direct, often fatally so.

I have written a number of articles about Muslim mothers who have participated, both directly and indirectly, in the honor killing of their daughters; and about female Muslim suicide-homicide bombers who have specifically targeted other women and children.

For example, in 2008, in Iraq, one of four female homicide bombers entered a tent that provided shelter to weary female religious pilgrims. She sat down, read the Koran with them, and left a bag behind that, moments later, blew them all up. Please note that she targeted weary, religious Muslim women.

Thus, I was dismayed but not surprised when a Sunni, Al-Qaeda plot emerged, one in which male terrorists raped eighty Muslim girls and women, then turned them over to Samira Jassim who patiently, persistently, “maternally,” persuaded the rape victims, (many of whom had been targeted because they were depressed or mentally ill), to “cleanse” their shame by blowing themselves and other Muslims up. Twenty eight women did so.

In an interview with Dr. Anat Berko, the author of The Path to Paradise. The Inner World of Suicide Bombers and Their Dispatchers, she pointed out that there is “always a woman” behind the female suicide bomber, who functions like a “pimp or a Madam in a brothel.” Potential women suicide bombers are never alone again, they are always accompanied by at least one, usually older woman, who encourages, manipulates, guards, and supports the potential shaheeda–just like a mother might do.

In a culture in which girls are raised by women whose own mothers did not value them as they did boys, women may hunger for attention from an older woman–even one whose sole purpose is to ensure their jihadic death. In Dr. Berko’s book, there is a frightening example of how all the jailed, intercepted Palestinian female suicide bombers obeyed and respected one of their own: a woman who was the harshest, angriest, most mentally ill amongst them. Sadly, perhaps this most reminded them of their own mothers.

In a terrible sense, “Madam” Jassim, only exaggerated, by a bit, what is routinely and normatively done to many girls and women today in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and increasingly in countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, etc. After all, Jassim played the Evil Stepmother in a culture which fears, despises, shrouds, genitally mutilates, force-marries girls to their first cousins, and perpetrates honor killings. How different is collaborating in their rape and helping them find glory through jihad? In a sense, some may actually view this as a quantum career leap for women.

Like Madam Jassim, when women are trapped in highly patriarchal cultures, they may gain the only approval and power possible for a woman by vigilantly policing themselves and other women to extol and support the patriarchal status quo. This is true in terms of issues such as veiling which, for women, is the visual shorthand for “jihad” and extreme religiosity. I fear that we will see many more Evil Stepmother/mothers like Samira Jassim and many more raped, traumatized, exploited, ideologically empowered, and ultimately suicidal-homicidal daughters.

Attention President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton: Supporting the pro-democracy and pro-woman’s rights forces within Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and on the West Bank and in Gaza, might go a long way to reversing such ongoing tragedies. If America genuinely believes that women are human beings entitled to certain, God-given and “inalienable rights,” now is the time to share that view with the leaders of these countries.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Court grants divorce to 8-yr-old Saudi girl

from The Times of India
1 May 2009

An 8-year-old Saudi Arabian girl was granted a divorce by a Saudi court after the case increased international and local criticism of child marriage in the oil-rich kingdom.

The marriage of the girl to a man in his 50s was dissolved on Wednesday. The girl’s mother had been seeking a divorce for her daughter but a Saudi judge had twice rejected the mother’s request. The girl’s lawyer says he reached an out-of-court settlement with the man allowing the girl to divorce him.

The child’s former husband arranged the marriage with the girl’s father by agreeing to forgive his $8,000 debt. The Saudi Shoura Council, an advisory body that makes recommendations to the king, is considering drafting of a law to make 18 the minimum age for marriage in the kingdom, says al-Riyadh newspaper.
Click to read the article and the comments

Female Pakistani Singer Killed "In The Name Of Honor"

from Radio Free Europe
April 29, 2009
By Kristin Deasy, Sharifa Esmatullah

PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Ayman Udas, a rising female vocalist in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, was shot at her home, allegedly by her own brothers.

Her death has rattled the city's jittery artistic community, as local musicians and dancers in Peshawar -- a city renowned for its vibrant artistic life -- face increasing pressure as the region falls under greater Taliban influence.

Some attributed Udas's death to the Islamist militants, but her husband told reporters that his wife was killed because she broke family traditions.

A beautiful woman in her early 30s and mother of two, Udas recently remarried after a divorce. Her two brothers, Alamgir and Ismail, disapproved of her divorce, remarriage, and her artistic career, all of which disgrace a family's name in conservative Islamic society.

The honor killing, an ancient tradition in which a male family member kills a female to "save" the family name, took place on April 27 at the family's home while Udas's husband was out picking up milk. He immediately took the case to the authorities, who have made no arrests but raided several locations in search of the suspected killers.

Udas -- poet, lyricist, and popular Pakistani singer -- had recently given her first television appearance. In one of her more popular songs, "Mra shum ashna khu pa jwando ki usam, janana sta pa waswaso ki usa," she sings about the importance of courage, even to the point of defying death.

Her death "is absolutely unacceptable," Ahmad Ali Adil of the University of Peshawar told RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan, calling the crime "a murder of humanity." He said that unless society changes, several other female performers will face similar problems.

Meanwhile, Artists are coming under direct threat in Taliban-controlled areas. In January, a dancer's bullet-ridden body was left in the center of Swat Valley's capital of Mingora -- not far from where Udas grew up -- with a note warning locals that "un-Islamic voices" will no longer be tolerated.
Click to read the article and the comments

Jon Stewart: You know who was a war criminal? Harry Truman

Read these comments before watching the video - these comments show how absurd Jon Stewart's logic (if you can call it that) is. There is obviously nothing you can say to reason with Jon Stewart and his clones.
------------------------------------------
We must frog march all surviving WW II vets and everyone who voted for FDR/Truman, and send them to Spain for trial.
Only then can our nation reclaim the moral high ground.
Loxodonta on April 29, 2009 at 9:56 PM
------------------------------------------
Might as well add FDR to the mix…he built those weapons. Then, better add Wilson to the mix, as well. Set the stage for WWII, and turned the Presidency from head of the Executive Branch to the power center of national policy is is today. Maybe JFK, too…that whole Vietnam thingie? And LBJ…he prolonged that Vietnam, even after it was apparent that we were just tossing more and more Americans into the meat grinder. Couldn’t decide to win it, or just pass it along to the next guy. And, Clinton…Rwanda was a stellar day in our history, among other things that happened on his watch.
OK…what do these men have in common?
President — check.
Democrat — ditto.
The more important point here being, however, Stewart is out for giggles and ratings…and he’ll bend the truth to extremes to get a laugh and higher ratings.
This is how many Americans get their news. The Daily Show started out telling the audience it was a fake news program…satire. It has evolved since into a perceived real news show…and has the Emmy’s and Peabody’s to prove it.
News as entertainment, entertainment as news…and people wonder how we could have elected a total novice to the highest office in the Nation?
coldwarrior on April 29, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Warning - Video is unedited for language

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

posted at 9:43 pm on April 29, 2009
by Allahpundit
from Hot Air.com

Via Goldfarb, the key exchange comes at around 5:50. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved by averting a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, and all this tool can do is point a finger and mumble “yes” in response to whether Truman’s a war criminal or not. Behold the face of mindless anti-torture absolutism. Like what you see?
Click to read the article and the comments