A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.
Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."
"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.
Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.
According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."
Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.
"They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said.
The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.
#2
Lemme see. A mid-level Treasury political appointee with inside info on how bushitler and his Haliburton handler are going to establish a dictatorship, and the warplan with Iran. Right.
You have to admit he has all bases covered: "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."
Real or staged...bushitler and Haliburton are coming after you.
#4
Roberts is in with that whole Lew Rockwell crowd, a bunch of ultra rightwing antisemite anarchists. I used to read stuff at their site before 9/11, and they were pretty good at theory in a world that thought it had ended history.
Too bad reality spoiled their little party. These folks are as looney in their own way as the moonbat left is in theirs.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/24/2007 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
IIRC - Roberts made serious legitimate pronouncements/editorials in the 90's - CAT Scan, stat! Either a tumor or an HRC-ear worm
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/24/2007 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Novosti. And if ya can't trust a Russian news website, who can you trust?
I wonder what he thinks of the civilization living under the earth?
A new Newsweek Poll on American attitudes toward Muslims and Islam has found that 46 percent of Americans believe that the United States is taking in too many Muslim immigrants. 32 percent think that Muslims in America are less loyal to the United States than they are to Islam. 28 percent believe that the Quran condones violence, and 41 percent hold that Islamic culture glorifies suicide. 54 percent are either somewhat worried or very worried about Islamic jihadists in this country, and 52 percent support FBI surveillance of mosques, with the same percentage rejecting the claim of American Muslim advocacy groups that Muslims are being singled out by investigators and police.
What are we to make of these figures? Do they mean that American Muslim advocacy groups have to do more to combat Islamophobia? That is the likely response: watch now for the follow-up stories about Islamophobia, in which the onus for all the attitudes displayed in this poll is placed firmly and solely upon non-Muslim Americans, as if Muslims were an entirely innocent, passive group that was doing nothing whatsoever to make anyone suspicious or angry at all. Newsweek itself led this off by asserting in another article published along with the poll that Muslims in America are vulnerable as never before. That story began with an account of a Muslim in Cleveland asking George W. Bush: What are we doing with public diplomacy to change the hearts and minds of a billion and a half Muslims around the world? The unspoken assumption behind this question is that Muslim fury at the West stems entirely from the actions of the United States and other Western countries, and not from anything within the Islamic world itself. Daud Abdullah, the Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), expressed another aspect of this view after the recent jihad plots were discovered in London and Glasgow, when he suggested that the religion of the attackers was incidental to their plots: Lets not create a hypothetical problem it can be the work of Muslims, Christians, Jews or Buddhists.
The prevailing view is that the Islamic Faith of todays terrorists has nothing to do with their actions, and those who suspected otherwise are simply bigots who are drawing an unwarranted connection between Islam and terrorism. But it is some Muslims who are themselves making that connection, as the recent Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America revealed: twenty-six percent of Muslims between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine affirmed that there could be justification in some (unspecified) circumstances for suicide bombing, and five percent of all the Muslims surveyed said that they had a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. Given the Pew Centers estimate of 2.35 million Muslims in America, and the total of thirteen percent that avowed a belief that suicide bombings could ever be justified, thats over 300,000 supporters of suicide attacks. And 117,500 supporters of Al-Qaeda. Rest at link
Posted by: ed ||
07/24/2007 11:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
five percent of all the Muslims surveyed said that they had a favorable view of Al-Qaeda.
#2
Personally, I am islamophobic. I admit it. I am wary of islam, and do not trust muslims. I would not want a muslim in a sensitive position in government. And I sure as heck would not want a muslim covering my "6" in combat.
Is it wrong? I am sure. Am I sorry? Yes, I am sorry that islam is so contaminated that it has jaundiced a "Pollyanna" like me.
#5
Americans felt the same way about Germans in the early 1900's that's why we stopped eating sauer kraut and started eating Liberty Cabbage. The muzzies should consider that the plurality of Americans had German blood and no Germans flew planes into buildings but look at what happened to Germany in the next 50 years. They are really messing with the wrong folks.
#6
Nimble__ those "folks" are long gone. Folks these days want to ignore the fact that half the world wants to destroy them
Posted by: Thaigum Scourge of the Weak3823 ||
07/24/2007 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Given the Pew Centers estimate of 2.35 million Muslims in America, and the total of thirteen percent that avowed a belief that suicide bombings could ever be justified, thats over 300,000 supporters of suicide attacks. And 117,500 supporters of Al-Qaeda.
Those numbers are bothmost likelyunderstated and reason enough on their own to deport every single American Muslim tomorrow yesterday. Each passing day makes it only more clear that American Muslims have ZERO intention of fighting Islamic radicalism either here or abroad.
why hasnt the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recent times? Nyazee says it is only because they have not been able to do so: "the Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it."
The Western world is beyond foolish in allowing Islam to gain any further strength. It must be crushed at the earliest opportunity and vigorously suppressed until extinction or reformation happens, I care not which.
the ideology that fuels those who are determined to destroy us is deeply rooted within Islam, and peaceful Muslims are doing little to root it out.
Which makes them not very "peaceful", now doesn't it? Whatever number of truly "peaceful" Muslims there are, they are so few in total as to be entirely negligible. They have done so little to reverse the current state of Islamic hostility that their continued survival is no longer anyone's responsibility but their own.
It should provide the foundation for a new public call to Muslims in America to renounce Sharia and Islamic supremacism, and to institute comprehensive programs in American schools and mosques that teach against the jihad ideology and the necessity for Muslims to live peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis.
Taqiyya makes any such notion irrelevant. Islam's self-absolution of its own perfidy disqualifies all Muslims from participating in civilized society. They must be recongregated back in their nations of origin and left to rot in the corruption they are so very fond of.
For the people who are somewhat worried or very worried about Islamic terrorism in the U.S. today are not Islamophobes. And they deserve a realistic appraisal of this problem by their elected officials.
This had better become the byword for any politician that wants to set foot in office. Until Americans hold their political leadership to this one single standard we will experience nothing but more terrorism at home and overseas.
#8
All of the proof for suspecting a large percentage of muslims and their religion is in the Pew Survey, recent histories like the bloody borders project, and the stated doctrines of Tayyiya etc. What we are facing isn't the absence of a reasonable basis for suspicion, heightened surveillance and limiting to zero all additional immigration. What we are facing is the foolish ignorance of our own countrymen and political leaders who simply cannot reconcile these proofs with the way they wish the world would be..... self delusion because the alternative would be the collapse of moral relativism, secular humanism that has a flawed basis, and the realization that Islam isn't a religion of peace but conquest.....
Oh and they would have to accept that we had to be suspicious and mean to them... and that we neanderthal conservatives might actually have it right...
God Save the Republic from our own weak-willed, ignorant fellow-citizens....
If you see something, hire a lawyer. Then, perhaps, you can say something. That would be the new mantra for passenger vigilance replacing the ubiquitous If you see something, say something if Democrats get their way in Congress. They oppose an amendment to the homeland-security bill sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), that would protect anyone from civil lawsuits who, in good faith, offers a tip about suspicious activity on mass transit.
The case of the flying imams prompted Kings amendment. On Nov. 20, 2006, six Islamic clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis after passengers complained about behavior they considered suspicious. The imams prayed before boarding the plane, didnt sit in their assigned seats arranging themselves in a pattern associated with the 9/11 hijackings and asked for seatbelt extenders. Authorities questioned and eventually cleared them.
Twenty-first century America wouldnt be a boon to grievance-mongers of all varieties if such an incident didnt occasion a lawsuit. With the help of the Muslim pressure group the Council of American-Islamic Relations, the imams filed a discrimination suit against US Airways and the passengers who alerted the airline to their worries. The imams allege a conspiracy to discriminate against them that was intentional, malicious, willful, wanton and callous.
This conspiracy was launched in the boarding area by an older couple who was sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch them as they prayed. Then, the older gentlemen made a cell-phone call, and while observing the Plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into his cellular phone. We are supposed to believe that this man was just waiting to stumble upon a few Muslims whom he could arbitrarily inform on for no purpose other than denying them their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Obviously this wouldnt have happened if the men werent Muslim, but fears of Islamic terrorism necessarily focus on Muslims. If the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London, and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant an extra measure of suspicion. This is not discrimination, but a common-sense reaction to the facts of life.
A good-faith response from the flying imams would have been to say, We dont like it, but we understand. Instead they seek damages for their fear, anxiety to fly, humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and financial injury. Their agenda and that of CAIR is to make everyone ignore the association of Islam with terror that has been forged by jihadists, and to punish anyone who acts on knowledge reinforced in headlines every day.
Because we cant have police everywhere, civilian tips are indispensable. A video-store clerk alerted authorities to the Fort Dix plot after he saw a tape of men in Muslim attire firing guns but not before he wondered, Should I call someone or is that being racist? Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didnt ask for a special search of them because I was worried about being accused of being racist.
If the King amendment doesnt make it into law, people in such agonizing situations will have to worry not just about being called racist, but about being sued if their suspicions prove unfounded. The King amendment garnered 304 votes in the House and 57 in the Senate, but a majority of Democrats voted against it in both houses, and now key Democrats are trying to keep it out of a House-Senate conference committee.
The Democrats oppose fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, oppose key provisions of the Patriot Act, oppose President Bushs electronic-surveillance program, oppose Guantanamo Bay, oppose the aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects, and now they oppose lawsuit-free passenger vigilance. If only they took the terror threat as seriously as that man who may have to defend his cell-phone call in court.
Posted by: ryuge ||
07/24/2007 08:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Piss on CAIR. The only people outside of Robert Mugabe that are committing genocide, suicide attacks of all flavors and stripes, mass murders are muslims.
Get over it, muslims...or clean the cockroaches out of your "faith".
#2
Mouse the cockroaches are Islam and the Dhimmicrats and Euro weenies are the ones feed it. God save us if the liberals get their ways on this one.
Shit I was in the airport when those flicking Imams got dragged off. Just wish I could have seen it in person!
#4
Yep. Between the lawyers and the media its a wonder Bush is still in business and we are killing muzzies all over the world. They have screwed our armed forces both ways - ROE and morale - but we keep slugging it out. Having the law and press against you is hard enough but then to have politicians with the low gradient of snakes supporting them is evil personified.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/24/2007 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
here is a case in which it would be beneficial to have the dem operatives succeed in their effort to kill the 'good faith reporting'
Peter King and Joe Lieberman can bring it up later in the session, then in the next session and even in the period when there are presidential primaries
I probably have spent all my life pleading with the relevant quarters not to support militancy, whether directed towards our eastern or western neighbour. However, I have always given a 'sermon' about bleeding the Indians and the doctrine of strategic depth when it came to supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. India did not really bleed in the nineties and early part of this decade, except that the Muslims in the Indian-held Kashmir and the foreign mujahideen waging a jihad did; the Indian defence forces nevertheless definitely also incurred a cost, both financial and a substantial human loss. A few major bomb blasts in Mumbai and Delhi also resulted in extensive damage. While the Indians bled we were not spared either and had our own share of bomb blasts coinciding with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and continuing till date. In fact, we also experienced something that the Indians did not: sectarian violence that led the factions to even kill worshippers in mosques while praying.
We may blame 9/11 for turning the tables but things had started to deteriorate prior to that. The withdrawal from the Kargil heights in 1999 was seen by many in the Indian-held Kashmir as a great betrayal and broke the back of the freedom movement that was already experiencing immense difficulties. However, 9/11 forced Pakistan to discontinue `its moral, diplomatic and political support to the freedom fighters of Kashmir'. The attack on the Indian Parliament and the consequent belligerent reaction resulted in President Musharraf making his famous January 2002 speech renouncing and denouncing all support to terrorist outfits. Several mujahideen organisations were banned following that speech.
There is no turning back and it has been our continuous fate to bleed since. The freedom fighters and the mujahideen have apparently decided to first free themselves and us from the clutches of the American sponsored rulers before turning their attention to neighbouring states. Most of these outfits have an Islamic orientation and thus also inclined to attack Shiites. The situation is thus chaotic, to say the least as the unemployed freedom fighters are constantly looking for excuses to hit at the state while the Taliban on our western borders are consolidating themselves in the tribal areas and also practice target shooting on our troops.
The most ironical part of this whole development is the sizeable support that these militants enjoy throughout Pakistan, particularly in most parts of the Frontier Province and the tribal areas. It is thus almost a `catch-22' situation in that any move to crush the militants results in gearing more public sympathy for them. The fact that the whole exercise to oppose the Islamic militants is widely seen as an American sponsored ploy does not help matters.
The Lal Masjid fiasco must be seen in light of the above context. The Indians experienced such sieges a number of times in the Indian-held Kashmir. It was now our turn to bleed. Not everybody can operate a sub-machine gun as competently and professionally as the militants did at the Lal Masjid. They were obviously trained. Where were they trained? And by whom?
Pakistan also remains one of those few countries left where one can buy machine guns, grenades and anti-air craft guns especially from the tribal areas and even from rest of Pakistan as easily if one was purchasing detergents. Our intelligence agencies most of the time know the minutest details about the personal lives of our politicians and other relevant personalities, particularly those opposed to the rulers, but cannot seem to find out how sophisticated arms reached the mosque and the madressahs. No one could even tell till the end about the estimated number of militants, students, children and women holed-up in the mosque. This is nothing short of shocking and a shame as the crisis did not erupt suddenly and had been brewing since January this year. What were our agencies and the interior ministry personnel doing all this time?
It is for history and the public to judge as to how the crisis was handled. However, it became obvious to all that the country has no force and mechanism to deal with such situations. There are special forces constituted to control such eventualities in other countries. Special committees or task forces are automatically convened in such situations. We had none and the government did not even bother to call a meeting of the National Security Council in the midst of such an embarrassing quandary. We ended up doing what we always do in such situations: rely on the military. The civilians were nowhere in the picture.
The prime minister mercifully was not on a foreign tour but the interior minister was in Rome to advise the Afghans about improving law and order in their country, while the interior secretary was in Delhi to jointly control terrorism with the Indians. It did not matter that these two key personnel of the interior ministry were not in the country.
The army is not trained to conduct such rescue missions. Patience is the name of the game in such situations while the army usually employs brute power, coupled with tactics, to crush the enemy and this is exactly what we eventually witnessed. It is not the job of the army to negotiate; however, the terms of reference for such assignments in our country are inter-mingled anyway as almost one-third of our top-most diplomats posted abroad are former military generals.
There were no professionals available to negotiate on the government's behalf and the president of the ruling party ended up being the top negotiator. The militants within the Lal mosque till the end kept complaining that they had a hard time understanding Chaudhry Shujaat on the mega-phone and asked him to negotiate face to face; they should have known better. There was no one willing and available to represent the Government of Pakistan in front of these talibs, most of whom were probably in their twenties.
The irony is that nothing has changed even after this bitter experience. The whole world was being told for the past five years that the western media was unnecessarily maligning the madressahs that were rendering immense service. The Americans were rolling in millions of dollars to institutionalise madressahs and improve their system of functioning and they were led to believe that their dollars had turned these religious schools into nothing less than regular high schools in California. However, the fact that a school in the capital of Pakistan right under the noses of our rulers and intelligence agencies was armed to the teeth goes to show the level of inefficiency of our institutions.
The problem is that the world may like to write us off and may avoid us as if we have the plague. But we remain one of the major countries in terms of population and export of terrorism if even a small segment of the populace could prove to be nightmarish for the world. And what are those opposed to militancy and freedom fighting supposed to do in these circumstances? There may be millions in this world who did not clap when the twin towers collapsed in New York but did not clap either when the Americans bombed Iraq and Afghanistan back to the Stone Age? Where do these folks fit in this era of `enlightened moderation?'
The writer is a freelance columnist
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/24/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
These jihadist look for an enemy wherever they can because they are unemployed,brainwashed and most importantly losers!!!!
Posted by: Paul ||
07/24/2007 4:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
damn what a mess Pakland is.
The next few years are going to be very interesting gentlemen.
#4
But we remain one of the major countries in terms of population and export of terrorism if even a small segment of the populace could prove to be nightmarish for the world.
So give us money! Or else!
No wonder VS Naipaul calls Pakistan "not really a state, more a criminal enterprise"
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/24/2007 8:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
After a few years of reading an occasional article on Pakistan, I've come to a conclusion.
There are only two differences between Pakistan and Paleostan (two "nations" arising from the dying convulsions of British imperialism).
(1) Pakistan is way bigger.
(2) No Paleo-fatima comes even close to Benazir in the looks department.
Some of our finest military combat leaders have commanded our troops in Iraq. Although they do not control the war's purse strings, Baghdad' political leadership or sway Congress' support, Yet they must share the blame for the mess in the Middle East in large part for their lack of candor.
Under the existing laws and regulations, could Ike be Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces Europe? No. Didnât have the time in service or the ârightâ assignments. In order to avoid getting truly incompetents promoted above to their Peter Principle, the âsystemâ also insures that it takes a goat***w to get the right leader in the key position, if that is possible. Even then, the âsystemâ demands that the person ârotateâ out of the position whether the job is accomplished or not. So we end up with something better than failure, but also something less than definitive success. Itâs all modern personnel management. Itâs one thing to do it with a corporation, its another thing to do it with an Army. The consequences are far more damaging. Time and again, its been demonstrated that good managers in peacetime are not necessarily the best leaders in a real combat environment. Especially, those who play the 'system'. However, as Rummy said, you go to war with the Army you have.
And weâre not even addressing the idiocy of allowing others than the Theater Commander run things in theater before the âwarâ is even concluded. All agencies need to be subordinated to and coordinated by a single commander till he determines its time for transition, unencumbered by âpoliticalâ pressure to do so.
For their part, the generals are happy when left to their sandbox.
Thatâs figurative as well as literal. Just look at the issue of soldier blogs that have had more contact with the public than anything generated by battalions of PAO who pander to dead tree media. The oâG2 boys have convinced the clueless general officer corps that it is a threat to âsecurityâ and that something needs to be done about it which in the end means the company command structure, which doesnât have time to censor everyoneâs communications, just shuts it down. So the one piece of technology that allows the military to end run the âgate keepersâ of information and allies of AQ, is throttled. The Generals, no matter how often at the War College they reiterate Clausewitzâs dictum that âwar is an extension of politicsâ, ignore that all wars are fought on two fronts, in theater and at home. Since WWII, the uniform services have âoutsourcedâ the telling of the story completely to MSM. And they wonder why they have to fight in Washington for their operations. They donât understand a basic concept, you can win all the battles and still lose the war. All those lives you think you are saving by blind OPSEC, may well mean that you forfeit victory and therefore make all the sacrifices moot.
Decades of observation of our generals taught me that battlefield lions turn to jellyfish in Washington.
Yeah, that has something to do with the long tradition of âblind subordination to civilian authorityâ. With Congress at 14% approval rating, unless youâre looking for Sulla, it may be something you might not want to change just yet. While it would be entertaining to finally see an righteous outburst by the usual arrogant and self important Senator be countered by a GO with the reply âwhy are we letting you sit here?â, I am not looking forward to it.
The generals point out that they don't control the strategic decisions, that all they can do is to follow orders, that then-secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't listen to anyone,
Take a look at the force structure today and the flow of the funding. Now compare it to 1997. Do they match? No. It was that same GO Corps that fought for their branch, equipment, procurement, and turf that were providing advice. No wonder the SecDef didnât listen that carefully. The good old boy choir that influenced and directed expenditures for over a decade socked billions into systems that are not being exploited on the real battlefield today, werenât geniuses either. However, they did know how to procure and protect their interests. They were still arguing a Soviet era rationale, rationalized for âupcomingâ threats the need for more âsystemsâ. Where do you think all the new equipment for the grunts would be if we still plowing all those DoD dollars in to fleets of F22s?
Full list blogged here
Exceprt:
Verses 28-32 is mainly concerned with warnings of Allahs judgment, but v. 28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as friends or helpers (َأَوْلِيَا a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them. This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for guard in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan hence the increasingly familiar term taqiyya. Ibn Kathir says that the phrase Pickthall renders as unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them means that believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers may show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them. Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection. While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shiite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shiites, it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Quran 3:28. The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.
Posted by: ed ||
07/24/2007 11:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Spencer knows his stuff. For all practical purposes, all english language summaries of the Koran done before the past few years had been done by Islamic apologists or by people who only accepted Islamic apologists as primary sources.
#2
Whoever they can't recruit, Muslims kill or oppress. Christians dissassociate from non-believers. Matthew 7:6 (from the sermon on the mount,) "Do not give what is holy to dogs, or your pearls to swine, lest they may never trample them under your feet, and turn around and rend you." (KJV) I am an atheist, and Christian friends only ask that I keep my views to myself. Good idea.
#3
Sooner or later the leaders of all other religions must band together and denouce taqiyya for the being the ultimate ethical and moral crime that it is. If there is a God, taqiyya is truly a most egregious crime against Him.
It occurs to me that Islam's santification of such moral trespassing is what makes it a cult. No true religion is allowed to absolve its own followers of what it would condemn or punish in others. Rest assured that any dhimmi would surely incur the wrath of a Muslim for dissembling or prevaricating. Yet, somehow it is permissible for a Muslim to do so without a second thought.
Even if Islam were to renounce terrorism and end the practice of abject gender apartheid, taqiyya would still invalidate its moral base. That Western leaders continue to ignore this fundamental and fatal character flaw residing within Islam's core is a philosphical betrayal of our values.
The time has come to end all recognition of Islam as a religion. No True Faith can be so lopsided in its treatment of othersnot to mention its own women followersand deserve the least bit of respect from civilized society. This sham has gone on for far too long and must end immediately.
#4
So, in a nutshell, the Koran outright Tells them to bear false witness. So interesting that I have refrained from the rest of the list that I found... for the short term.
A land grab proportionally equivalent to a foreign power occupying Arizona.
Posted by: ryuge ||
07/24/2007 08:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
I should have known then that anything "verified" by the U.N. must be checked at least twice. I should have known, too, that anything to which Mr. Annan devoted his personal attention would inevitably become worse. Last September, Mr. Annan paid a visit to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad after the latter had declared he would treat any attempt by the U.N. to deploy peacekeepers along the Lebanese-Syrian border as a "hostile act." To defuse the impasse, Mr. Annan simply accepted Mr. Assad's assurances that Syria would police its border and prevent arms smuggling. "I think it can happen," said the diplomat at a press conference. "It may not be 100%, but it will make quite a lot of difference if the government puts in place the measures the government has discussed with me."
What happened, predictably, was the opposite. In May, Fatah al-Islam, a terrorist group whose leadership was imported from Damascus, attacked Lebanese army outposts outside the Palestinian refugee camps of Nahr El-Bared and Biddawi, causing a bloody standoff that continues till this day.
Kofi Annon, heh ? We really have to get serious about the UN.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
