[Asharq al-Aswat] There is no other way to deal with the Houthi attack on Saudi territory -- that led to the vicious deaths of a number of border guards not to mention civilians -- but with a preventitive response and by breaking the Houthi thorn decisively and quickly. What the Houthis dared to do was not incidental; it was a calculated operation with well-known repercussions. What the Houthis want is escalation with Saudi Arabia in order to move on from their predicament in Yemen, and above all, [they want] to serve Iranian goals, the most prominent of which is to preoccupy the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with a blazing front on the Saudi borders.
The area of Jebel Dukhan, or the terrestrial Saudi-Yemeni borders, is an area basically inflamed by arms smuggling operations and operations to infiltrate Al Qaeda militants into Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the clear goal that the Houthis undertook in the attack on Saudi territory and on armed border guards was to disturb and preoccupy the Saudi borders so that the Houthis could benefit from provoking the sentiments of some people in Yemen and preoccupying the Saudi border guards so that members of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization could benefit from these circumstances, thus making it easier for them to sneak into Saudi Arabia. The other point is that Tehran wants to send a message to Riyadh to the effect that Iran is very close to the Saudi borders.
Naturally, respecting the sovereignty and territories of Yemen is a decisive matter to the Saudis and it is not something that is up for debate or something that can be bargained. This is what I heard from a Saudi official [who said so] in a clear and concise manner. However the challenge against the Houthis and breaking the Houthi thorn is nothing but full support of [the state of] Yemen and before anything else it is for preserving Saudi's security, which is one of its rights after the Houthis violated Saudi's sovereignty and territory.
When we say "break the Houthi thorn" the meaning is clear in that it is to teach them and Iran's agents in the region a harsh lesson that Saudi security and territories are not matters that can be bargained. Moreover, what is happening is not a result of internal problems in Yemen but rather the result of foreign interference in Yemen developing so much that it has reached the Saudi borders.
Media support and Iran's supplying of weapons to the Houthis -- and this is something the Yemeni government has declared on more than one occasion, most recently when the Yemeni authorities seized a ship and questioned its Iranian crew, as it accused it of providing weapons to the Houthis -- is clear evidence of the magnitude of Tehran's involvement in this conflict, the aim of which is to transform Yemen into a battleground and a source of unrest.
Just as we have said time and again, Yemen's unity and security is a red line that must not be crossed, and what is happening in Yemen is a threat to Saudi's national security and to Gulf countries as well. There must not be any negligence whatsoever in this regard, and it must not be left open to false mediators [representing] anyone in search of a role in our region. Therefore, as long as the Houthis violated Saudi territory then the appropriate response must be to break the Houthi thorn just as Riyadh is doing today because there is an important message in that for those who think tampering with Saudi's security and stability is easy; a message to the effect that the price for this will be very high.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/08/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Twenty years ago on Nov. 9, a captive people of a divided continent literally with their hands dismantled the Berlin Wall. This wall represented not merely the totalitarian tyranny of Soviet Communism, but the eternal ugliness and evil of that inherent disposition in man to deny the freedom of another to live his life as he wishes.
A whole generation has come of age since then with insufficient memory, or none, of that moment in history when the grounds shook and the false gods of Marxism-Leninism crumbled to dust.
But far more troubling is knowing how faded has become the memory of those who witnessed this event of freedom breaking out in Europe, how little recall there is on this 20th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in history and how the lesson of this history is deliberately overlooked at this moment when considering the troubles in those lands, such as Iran, where the yearning for freedom is a punishable offence.
In recalling this history, the amazing fact is how swiftly and unexpectedly the end of Communism came in Europe where an iron curtain had descended, in Winston Churchill's memorable words, soon after the Second World War ended. The previous decade, the 1970s, was for the West, and the U.S in particular, one of retreat and compromise with Moscow under the banner of detente.
America's withdrawal from Vietnam seemed to indicate the influence and gains of Communism globally could not be contained, while Washington turned inward from the self-inflicted wounds of the Watergate scandal.
It was providential that the years of malaise, as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter described the 1970s, ended with the elections of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher as Britain's prime minister, and Ronald Reagan as the president of the United States.
Together these three individuals provided the sorely needed leadership to an almost rudderless west, while extending the critical moral and diplomatic support to the captive people of Eastern Europe in their struggle for freedom.
It is said that when Thatcher prepared to step into 10 Downing St. on Friday, May 4, 1979, she recited the famous prayer of St. Francis of Assisi: "Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."
Little could Thatcher have imagined at that moment how pregnant with meaning and history in the making was her prayer. The Poles had one of their own as pope with first-hand experience of Communism and the Americans in electing Reagan as president voted for a man who did not hesitate to speak publicly of the Soviet Union as an evil empire.
The failed effort by Mikhail Gorbachev to open and restructure the Soviet Union proved that tyranny cannot be reformed, only dismantled.
In the end, it was the yearning for freedom of East Europeans that became unstoppable with the support of western democracies that the president, the pope and the prime minister made certain would not be wanting.
And it was a moment that reminded all who witnessed the Berlin Wall brought down that the noblest cause to serve at any time is giving full measure of support to those denied freedom.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/08/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The lefties in western academia/judiciary/press were freed from any restraint whatsoever.
#2
The lefties in western academia/judiciary/press were neither punished nor ostracized for their work on behalf of the cruelest evil cult of the 20th Century. Instead, they were rewarded and promoted.
#3
I find it telling the Obama can find the time to jet to Copenhagen for a failed Olympic bid but can't seem to schedule a visit for the anniversary of one of the most significant victories in the 20th century behind VE and VJ days.
#5
IRRC BIGNEWSNETWORK > GORBACHEV REVEALS HOW HE STOPPED/PREVENTED WORLD WAR III BACK IN 1989.
OTOH, LECH WALESA > ARTIC Interview = opined that it was a good thing for POLAND + DEMOCRACY that GORBY WAS NOT-STRONG = WEAK SOVIET POLITICIAN??? The Cold War ended, in part, becuz Gorby was NOT your atypical HARDLINE POLITICIAN AS OFTEN HISTOR FAVORED BY THE CPSU + SOVIET POLITBURO.
I read a blog entry on American Thinker that asked a great question. Since I'm increasingly skeptical we'll hear of the facts about how Hasan slipped under the radar (reports are that his home was awash with law enforcement the morning of the attack, due to his 'giving away' all his possessions and dressed in traditional muslim garb), the 'question' reminded me of a report that I subconciously suppressed, as it made me 'extremely angry' (being lumped into a group due to a paranoid government hyper-focused on domestic ideologues that used a broad brush to include 10s of millions of patriotic Americans).
The question was, "Who was the more likely terrorist?"
According to this report
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf
DHS doesn't have a CLUE.
'Muslim' entries in the report: Zero
'Islam'?: Zero
'Christian'?: One
'Veteran'?: Eight
'Rightwing': FIFTY
Who is 'rightwing'? (I'm ignoring the title of the report to make a point. Obviously it lends to the use of the word within)
From Wikipedia:
"Right-wing libertarianism (sometimes known as libertarian conservatism or conservative libertarianism) supports a decentralized economy based on economic freedom, and advocates policies such as property rights, free markets and free trade. Russell Kirk believed that freedom and property rights were interlinked.[49] Rafael Di Tella (Harvard Business School) and Robert MacCulloch (Imperial College London) claim that economic freedom correlates with right-leaning governments.[56] Ronald Reagan said in an interview: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
I think we've been provided a particularly unique insight into the mechanics of how this administration plans on using the resources of the Government of the United States of America against its enemies, and who it believes those enemies are (remember the transition of 'war on terror' to 'contingency operation'?. From Andrew McCarthy's piece from the National Review online edition, Mar. 27, 2009, he states it best:
"Saul Alinsky, Obama's community-organizing inspiration, wrote at length about words in Rules for Radicals, about their power to inspire and to enervate. "In communication as in thought, we must ever strive toward simplicity" when it is our purpose to inspire. Such a purpose calls for "a determination not to detour around reality." An opposite purpose, Alinsky writes, calls for an opposite approach. Avoid the "force, vigor, and simplicity" of the right word, and "we soon become averse to thinking in vigorous, simple, honest terms." Instead, "We strive to invent sterilized synonyms." Such "new words," Alinsky taught, "mean something different, so that they tranquilize us, begin to shepherd our mental processes off the main, conflict-ridden, grimy, and realistic power-paved highway of life."
Tranquilized, we will sleep. As we found the last time we tried this, our enemies won't."
I'll refrain from biblical references and instead refer to a Hindu passage from around 800 BC:
"Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind."
Of course, I cannot close without observing the 'hidden' metaphorical relationship of current events to the Hindu story of Ganesha, where when Ganesha was born, his mother, Parvati, showed off her new baby to the other gods. Unfortunately, the god Shani (Saturn), who is said to have the evil eye, looked at him, causing the baby's head to be burned to ashes. The god Vishnu came to the rescue and replaced the missing head with that of an elephant.
Elephant? (I think you get the point. Ok, a 'reach'...but stay with me here...)
Shani? (I won't go there now, but you get my drift. If not, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shani and you WILL)
Vishnu?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VishnuGandhara.JPG The four-armed male-form: The four arms are said to indicate his all-powerful and all-pervasive nature. However, this metaphorical reference could be said to have his 4 arms represent the 'four branches of US government': Executive, Legislative, Judicial and, we cannot neglect, The People.
So, methaphorically-speaking, to replace BO (the Blind One) 'we' (referring to the 'people') truly do have to 'twist a few arms' to take this country back from the hands of a handful of fascist progressives. (my odd sense of humor requires leaves me with one other observation, but I'm restraining the urge to make the observation with my desire to not poison this post with 'rightwing' commentary & dilute the message with humor. However, permit me to harken back to Revolutionary times, when a lone rider is alleged to tear through the streets, calling out "__" , "__". Get it? Ohhhh...the metaphors...I'd rather be waterboarding)
#1
RENSE > [TELEGRAPH.UK Artic] FORT HOOD SHOOTER - MUSLIMS SHOULD RISE UP [ + attack Americans in retaliation for US war agz Muslims in Afghanistan = AFPAK, etc.]. HASAN = US SHOULD BE IN THE WAR.
versus
PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > [Mounting Evidences]TALIBAN STILL WORKING FOR THE CIA [ + PAKI ISI Agency]???
US + TALIBAN PROXY are adhering or following 1980's POLI SCI DEMI-GOD "ZIGGY" ZBIGNIEW BZREZINKSI'S PREMISE [book] OF A "GLOBAL ZONE OF PERCOLATNG CHAOS" designed tp prevent RUSSIA = COLD WAR USSR [now CHINA"]from becom an IMPERIAL POWER again. Ziggy's "Zone" encompasses CENTRAL ASIA, TURKEY, + WESTERN CHINA, + ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, PERSIAN GULF, + AFPAK, WORLD REGIONS WHICH ARE MAINLY MUSLIM.
The abovesame Muslim regions described in Ziggy's book is seemingly incompatible wid the agendums of so-called ILLUMINATI whom are deemed as "SATANISTS".
* PDF POSTER > opined that "'TRUE US POTUS'" IS OSAMA BIN LADEN, NOT the Bammer; AL QAEDA is POTUS OSAMA'S CABINET-GOVT, + ISRAEL EXISTS ONLY BECUZ POTUS OSAMA BIN LADEN IS "HALF-JEWISH"???
Written by a teacher at NYU. Please give me a few seconds to get out of the way . . . .
New York -- Can we talk? What've we been doing? This is a blog.
That is, can Americans really communicate? The word means, literally, "To make common." And at times like this, I wonder if it's possible. When did "talk" start to mean "to make common"? And what's "to make common" mean? I would expect it to mean "to articulate," "to communicate using words formed into coherent sentences," "to speak," "to discuss" or any of the other meanings which are common across all Indo-European and most other languages. "To talk," in fact, is the basis of language, the audible expression of "to think." To have "talk" without "think" results in "babble."
I didn't hear about the Fort Hood shootings until several hours after the news broke, but when I did, much of what I heard wasn't true. That's often true with news events...
Some people told me that the suspect, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan was a "convert" to Islam; others, that he had several Muslim accomplices; still others, that he had links to Al Qaeda. All those are statements that began in someone's mind as "did he..." From there they lept into the category of "rumor."
False. False. False. Easy to say in retrospect, isn't it? I could pick up some decent change betting on the recently completed World Series if I could put my money down today instead of last month. I could make some major bucks betting that Don Larsen would throw a perfect game in the '56 series... All those rumors were propagated by the media, mostly the old media with a little new media thrown in. This is the same media that got virtually every fact about Hurricane Katrina wrong. Mostly it's just the confusion that occurs with breaking events with a layer of incompetence and another layer of rushing to meet a deadline. So of course the media got most of the Fort Hood story wrong at first. The question is whether they'll continue to get the story wrong. We should ask Chris Matthews.
I got home to find the Internet aflame with vitriol, much of it directed at Islam itself. "Hasan is a BLACK MUSLIM," read a typical blog post. I'm not sure that's "typical." If so, I missed it. He's obviously not black.
"This was a sleeper Muslim cell terrorist attack ... WITH MORE TO FOLLOW.... Unite AGAINST Islam now people!" This must be the right's point of view. He doesn't appear to have been a sleeper cell, but he does appear to have been almost a cliche. Of Paleostinian descent, he was mouthing all the usual nonsense about the war on a terrorist sect being a war against all Islam. He was strutting around in grocery stores and such wearing a brassiere cup on his head and a Pak-style salwar kamiz on the rest of him. He was a man who had rejected our culture and adopted that of the wahabs of Arabia and the wazirs of Wazoo.
He's not the only one who was doing so. My guess is that there will in fact be more to follow. I'm surprised that previous instances have been so barely noticeable -- a Jewish center here and there, the occasional murder where the victim or victims have coincidentally been kufrs and the murderer coincidentally a Moose limb.
But I also found posts defending Hasan, who was reportedly facing overseas deployment. "They wanted to send him away to kill his own brothers and sisters in Iraq," one post screamed. "I would have done the same thing!" This must be the left's point of view. But had he been an American rather than a Muslim that wouldn't have been a factor, would it? If he had been an Iraqi in 1991 he wouldn't have had any problems bumping off Kuwaitis, would he? Or if he's been an Iraqi through most of the 80s he wouldn't have had any problem icing Muslim Medes & Persians. If he had gone to live in Pakistain he would have been perfectly happy sending the local Shiites to the promised land. Once the rejection of culture takes place the kufrs become mere targets.
Finally, others argued that any discussion of Hasan's ethnic or religious background was itself a form of discrimination. "I think giving out the Middle Eastern sounding name of the perpetrator is hate speech," a blogger argued. "No doubt this will give ammunition to patriotic Americans who value national security over diversity." The PC POV. We have a crime that's motivated by religion but PC requires that we ignore the motivation and thrash about for something else? And if you really hate something, what's wrong with indulging in hate speech about it? Besoeker refers to the guy as a turd, others in terms approaching that in odor and texture if not in definition. I refer to the guy as a murderer, not even "alleged." I'm revolted at the thought of an officer in the same Army that I used to be in acting so utterly dishonorably. Having adhered myself, however fallibly, to those same standards I hate him. Why's it a requirement to be "understanding" when the act is heinous, the failing egregious?
But that's precisely the discussion that we need to have: how to balance security and diversity, unity and freedom. How can we keep our country safe, but still respect the cultures of its different peoples? How can we join hands as a nation, but remain free as individuals? Dr. Phil's POV. Personally, I'd start by ejecting anybody in the country who refuses to adopt our culture, which is the true basis of nationhood.
And it's the same debate we've been having since 1776, when a Congressional committee suggested e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one" -- for our new national seal. But this discussion -- like any real dialogue -- requires agreement on a few basic ground rules: civility, reason, and tolerance. When one side is being civil, reasonable, and tolerant, and the other is standing on a table with a .357 Magnum and shooting everybody in sight it's not "talk." It's communication at a much more basic level, kicking up fight or flight instincts.
During wartime, to be sure, Americans have often lost sight of these values. Consider attacks on German-Americans during the World War I, when several states banned the speaking of German in schools and on the streets. Or think of the internment of Japanese-Americans -- and the confiscation of their property -- during World War II. The practical POV. Consider the fact that many German-Americans of World War I had a habit of being loyal to Kaiser Bill. The German-American Bund was active in the USA prior to World War II -- I believe they wore blue shirts, but I'm not sure. But neither were most German-Americans nor most Italian-Americans interned during the second war, joining up just like everybody else precisely because they didn't want to be shoved around by Gauleiters and similar vermin. They'd mostly signed up for the American culture. The case of the Japanese in a more race-conscious world was a little different, but the Isei, the first generation immigrants, were more likely to retain Japanese culture and Japanese loyalties. Internment may have been cruel in many cases, and an instrument to deprive hard-working people of their property in just as many, but it wasn't baseless.
The Internet attacks on "Islam" since Thursday's tragedy lie firmly within this tradition of nativism, bigotry, and hysteria. The shooter was Muslim, and what else do you need to know? Apparently, not much. The realistic POV. Not quite. The shooter was a Muslim who followed one of the radical strains of Islam. Let's not waste limited time and resources looking at the ocean when we need to troll for the fish swimming in it. The writer displays his own ignorance of Islam. Apparently 'not much' means that he doesn't understand Sunnis, Shi'a, Wahabis, etc. This says more about him than about us. Lots of Shiite Medes and Persians have come to this country and assimilated quite well. The reason they're here is the religious nuts running their former country, and they've mostly bought into the prevailing culture here, which recognizes freedom of thought. The guys running over their daughters for becoming too westernized are, I believe, exclusively Sunni, which is not to say that no bad habits at all have been brought from the Olde Countrie by the Men of Shia. I think the Hezbollah fifth column is pretty small in this country, and its members are always subject to seduction by a culture that's not afraid of a beer on a hot day, a ham sandwich, or boobies on a pretty girl. So we're looking at a particular strain of Sunni Islam for the most part, not at all Islam.
But irrationality and bad faith are hardly exclusive to the political right. The Fort Hood shootings have also triggered bouts of left-wing hysteria. I'll buy that for a dollar.
An extreme variation takes the form of the old syllogism, "My enemy's enemy is my friend." You don't like the war in Iraq; neither did Hasan; ergo, he must be OK in your book. Never mind that Hasan gunned down more than three dozen innocents, or that he reportedly defended suicide bombers in Web postings. He's against all the right things, so you're for him. ... said Molotov to Ribbentrop...
More commonly, left-wing posters have refused to acknowledge any tension between freedom and security -- or any threat to the United States from radical Islam. Hence the bizarre attacks on news organizations for noting Hasan's ethnic and religious background, as if any such information is irrelevant. The Legacy Media's POV.
It isn't. There are people living here who want to commit acts of terror, and almost all more than a few of them are radical Muslims. And Texas has seen its fair share. We tend to think of Texas as mesquite and cattle and Stetson hats and and oil and the occasional space center, but it's actually pretty cosmopolitan...
In 1993, Kuwaiti immigrant Eyad Ismoil was living in Dallas when he was recruited to drive a bomb-laden van into a parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. Five years later, Lebanese-born Wadih el Hage -- Osama bin Laden's personal secretary -- was arrested in Tarrant County, Texas, for his involvement in the bombings of two US embassies in Africa. After 9/11, a federal jury convicted five members of a Texas-based Islamic charity of funneling money to terrorists. And just last month, authorities arrested a 19-year-old Jordanian immigrant, Hosam Smadi, for allegedly attempting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper. Texas is also the second largest state in the union, both geographically and in population, ranking behind Alaska in the former and Caliphornia in the latter.
None of that means that Hassan was part of a terrorist conspiracy, of course, or that we should view every Islamic immigrant with suspicion. I view every Islamic immigrant wearing a brassiere cup on his head or who keeps his wife and/or daughters in a burka with suspicion. If you can tell at a glance they've rejected our culture then chances are better that they're the enemy. At few more will get tossed into that category when they open their mouths to denigrate the kufr culture around them. There are varying levels of suspicion, unless one's actually paranoid, so a personable fellow named Moe running a lunch counter doesn't make the needle twitch too badly.
But it does mean that we have a serious security problem on our hands. And it's simply irrational to deny it. To deny what? Irrationality is the stock in trade of the left. If it's counter-intuitive they're for it, whether it's correct or not -- maybe more for it if it's not.
Indeed, by wishing the problem away, we put off the discussion that we so urgently need. What should we do about potential Islamic terrorists in our midst? Kill the ones that're armed, deport the rest.
How can we protect national security and individual liberty, all at the same time? Seems to me that terrorists place themselves there on purpose. The same way they hide behind women and kiddies.
These are tough questions, as old as the republic itself. But we'll never get good answers unless we really talk about them. So far, it's not clear that we can. After all, we've only had since 9/11/2001 to think about it. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author, most recently, of "Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory."
#3
This is not a what the right and left got wrong issue. It's a typical misinformation and guesswork in the opening hours of a big story. That's unfortunately the world we live in when we get the news instantly. Don't like it, turn off the electronics and read the sanitized version in Newsweek.
#6
TW: Not quite. The shooter was a Muslim who followed one of the radical strains of Islam. Let's not waste limited time and resources looking at the ocean when we need to troll for the fish swimming in it.
I guess I should make it clear that I feel that the majority of muslims would not partake in this kind of behavior. That very same majority does seem to tolerate it way more than they should, however. I wish they would think about this and come to some kind of coherent position about this, meaning both in word and deed.
If I hear someone is muslim, it doesn't mean much more to me than hearing someone is male or white or gay whatever.
When I hear that a some kind of violence has been perpetrated by a muslim however, the first thing I find myself thinking that the following information is going to suggest some kind of jihadist act, and I'm always usually right. Strangely enough, I don't hear of muslims committing much in the way of violent criminal behavior. So they seem to be better behaved than other groups for the most part, but they seem to walk a little too close to the jihadi line for me to like it. I would rather they moved away from that and head back towards center.
What is the last time you heard of a muslim holding up a convenience store?
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is the owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing. He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT). He is the co-author (with Paul Sperry) of the new book, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld thats Conspiring to Islamize America. He can be contacted at davegaubatz@gmail.com.
FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
A terrible tragedy occurred yesterday at Ft. Hood, Texas. Because you are the co-author (with Paul Sperry) of the new book Muslim Mafia, I would like to ask you this: are there any correlations between your message in the book about the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and the murder spree at Ft. Hood?
Gaubatz: Thanks Jamie.
Yes. The murders by Malik Nadal Hasan at Ft. Hood, TX are not a lone wolf incident as being described by most media organizations. Hasan had been taught the ideology that is being advocated by hundreds of Islamic scholars and Imams in the U.S. We as a country can continue to deny there are numerous Islamic leaders and their supporting organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and MANA, to name a few, who advocate killing innocent men, women, and children whom they allege oppress Islam.
How many more incidents similar to this that have been occurring in America does it take before even the media wants to report the truth? Politicians will always say or do whatever will get them their next vote in an upcoming election, but there was a time in our history when journalists reported everything and were not concerned with political correctness.
This type of journalistic reporting is dangerous and in itself is a national security issue. Journalists and their affiliated news organization are so afraid of being labeled or sued by organizations such as CAIR that they will withhold the truth from the American people. In part, the murders of innocent people are partly the fault of such journalists and politicians who support organizations such as CAIR.
FP: Your thoughts on CAIR and what happened at Ft. Hood?
Gaubatz: My team and I have conducted first-hand research at over 200 Islamic Centers in the U.S., and in various Islamic organizations such as CAIR. There is one common denominator: There is an open hatred being advocated by Islamic scholars toward Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not adhere to all aspects of Sharia law (Islamic law).
The materials being distributed by these scholars are very clear in their message: violence against anyone who oppresses Islam is justified. It makes them subject to the punishment of death. Rifqa Bary (the 17-year-old Muslim girl who left Islam for Christianity) tried to speak out, but has been ignored. Many more Muslims have tried to speak out but the PR machine of the Muslim Brotherhood (backed by Saudi and Egyptian money) keeps them silent.
Young Muslims know what is being taught at their mosques, but have no other choice but to follow their parents and the Imams. If they try to speak out they know there are few politicians, law enforcement, lawyers, or judges who will help them. They are afraid of becoming the victims of people like Malik Hasan who will carry out the orders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
FP: Can you give us some examples of what Muslims in America are being taught and why you believe Malik Hasan was carrying out the orders of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Gaubatz: Jamie there are numerous examples. I will provide a few. Investigative journalists need to ask Imams across our country what these following statements mean and if it is likely and very possible that Muslims could use these teachings to commit acts such as occurred at Ft. Hood, Va. Tech, Trolley Square (SLC, UT), and numerous other locations.
[1] The objective of Islamic Jihad is to put an end to the dominance of the un-Islamic systems of government and replace them with Islamic rule, Islam intends to bring about this revolution not in one country or in a few countries but in the entire world. Although initially it is the duty of every member of the Muslim party to work for revolution wherever he lives the final purpose is nothing but a world revolution. Any revolutionary ideology which upholds the good of all mankind, and is not of a mere national unit, cannot limit its horizons to those of any single country or nation.
Book: Come Let Us Change This World, pp. 106107. Author: Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi. Founder of Jamaat-e-Islami (The Islamic Party), a political party in Pakistan.
[2] If you accept the whole of Islam in your life a time will come when Communism will fear for its survival in Moscow, Capitalistic democracy will tremble for its safety in Washington and New York.
Book: Come Let Us Change This World, p.83. Author: Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi. Founder of Jamaat-e-Islami (The Islamic Party), a political party in Pakistan.
[3] It is learnt from this Hadith that physical jihad will continue right till the day of resurrection and will be waged as such in some part or the other of the world. We do not deny the benefit of waging an academic and intellectual war. However, an intellectual war alone cannot be fought everywhere. There are special places and occasions for it. In short, despite waging a jihad with the tongue, pen, rationale and intellect, the Muslim community cannot be absolved of the duty of waging physical jihad.
Pamphlet: 40 Hadith on Jihad, pp. 21 -22. Author: Maulana Abdus Samad Siyal. Published in Pakistan.
[4] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land, will be that they will be killed.
Booklet: Duties of the Learned to Ignorant Muslims, p. 5. Author: Abdul Qadir Oudah (Muslim Brotherhood/Egypt). Published in Pakistan.
[5] The person who raises arms in order to curb tyranny and oppression and to eradicate evil is the blessed soul who fights in the way of Allah.
Pamphlet: Jihad in Islam, p.15, by Abdul Hameed Siddiqi. (Jemmah Islamiyah) Published in Pakistan.
[6] Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. Islam requires the earthnot just a portion, but the whole planet. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is Jihad.
Pamphlet: Jihad in Islam, pp.9 -10. Syed Abul Aal Maududi (founder of JI terrorist organization).
FP: Where do Muslims get this type of material?
Gaubatz: This type of material is openly provided to Muslims across America. Islamic scholars have convinced our politicians, courts, and law enforcement that this type of material is covered under our U.S. Constitutions First Amendment.
Americans need to determine for themselves if the calling for the destruction of our country and the safety of our children was intended by our forefathers. I believe most reasonable people would say violence advocated against innocent people was not the intention of our forefathers, thus this conclusion would leave open the debate that many current politicians are not reasonable people and/or have been bought by professional lobbyists within CAIR and similar Muslim Brotherhood organizations. Their personal agenda is leaving our country vulnerable to attack from within.
Posted by: ed ||
11/08/2009 00:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...professional lobbyists within CAIR and similar Muslim Brotherhood organizations. Their personal agenda is leaving our country vulnerable to attack from within."
Any group with the words 'Islam' or 'Muslim' in their name should be put under a microscope. Every word, every action should be monitored whether they like it or not. To do otherwise is foolish and will lead to more of what we've had to witness this week.
Islam does NOT mean Freedom of thought or freedom of Religion. That's from the gitgo.
Islam does NOT mean freedom from Censorship and it DOES mean exclusion from Economic or Political Equity.
Islam creates dirty poverty and it promotes illiteracy. Every islamic country on Earth is a toilet. You dont get a good University education in Islam, no one flocks to Islam for Learning or Science.
Islam puts women in bags and makes them walk ten feet behind men. Slap your mouth and tell you to shut up....Islam has it all.
Islam does NOT mean Peace. It mean SUBMISSION. You dont question Mohammed...you OBEY Mohammed. And you can bend over and grab your ankles if you think we can live with Islam.
The murderous killing spree carried by Maj Nidal Malik Hasan will be seen by many Americans as a terrorist attack from an enemy within rather than the act of a lone madman.
It will take weeks to assess all the reasons Hasan acted. But the evidence of his devout Muslim faith, antipathy towards women, arguments in favour of suicide bombing and opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars point to a religious and political motivation at least in part.
The United States has grown sadly used to mass shootings. This case, however, is shockingly aberrational. The fact that it was unarmed soldiers cut down on an Army base in Texas makes it an attack on the nation rather than on a group of random victims.
Many of Mr Obama's supporters were deeply worried that as the first black president he would be especially vulnerable to an assassination attempt by a white racist.
When the issue of his fiery, anti-American former pastor Jeremiah Wright threatened to derail his campaign, Mr Obama was eloquent in addressing the issues of racism, black anger and white fear.
The atrocity at Fort Hood is an altogether more difficult subject for Mr Obama to address.
Mr Obama played down his Muslim background on the campaign trail for fear of being portrayed as un-American. At one point, young Muslim girls in hijabs were moved from a campaign stage to prevent Mr Obama being filmed with them as a backdrop.
Since winning the White House, however, he has referred to himself as "Barack Hussein Obama" as a way of presenting himself abroad as uniquely placed to build bridges with Islam.
While he will rightly want to avoid fuelling any backlash against Muslims and to resist being seen to jump to conclusions, if he avoids any reference to the evidence of religious and political motivation then he will be accused of trying to avoid inconvenient truths.
Relatives of Hasan are already claiming that the ultimate reason they have stopped short of suggesting it was a justification for the Army psychiatrist's action was that he was mocked by fellow soldiers for his Muslim faith.
That claim, when juxtaposed with the apparent reluctance of the military authorities to take action against Hasan despite his praise for suicide bombings, is potentially incendiary and could bolster those Americans calling for a less tolerant attitude towards Islam.
Posted by: ed ||
11/08/2009 00:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I will say it. I for one, have no problem with internment camps.
#2
Since winning the White House, however, he has referred to himself as "Barack Hussein Obama" as a way of presenting himself abroad as uniquely placed to build bridges with a vile, psychopathic death cult known as with Islam.
#3
no on internment camps. if they are dangerous enough to inter, they should be deported outright.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
11/08/2009 1:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've a dream. A dream that one day the people of the World will understand that Islam is not a religion such as the concept understood in the West---it's an ideology of robbery and murder given superficial religious trappings.
#7
I believe we will learn more about Major Hasan and what our government may have known about him prior to the shooting. I doubt any of what we learn will be reassuring.
#10
I believe we will learn more about Major Hasan and what our government may have known about him prior to the shooting. I doubt any of what we learn will be reassuring.
I would like to add that it is my sincerest hope that if additional information comes out it hurts our presidents chances at another term.
A question for other 'Burgers. Has anyone seen in the MSM anywhere that this shitbag was one of the people that worked on Obamas transion team on Homeland Security?
Posted by: MIke N. ||
11/08/2009 10:49 Comments ||
Top||
#11
he wasn't. As much as I'd like to tack Hassan to the Zero's coattails, that one's not valid:
participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute's presidential transition task force last year.
The task force was not officially affiliated with the White House. It was a project of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, an independent thinktank housed at George Washington University, aimed at drafting policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration.
According to the task force's May 2009 report [pdf], a "Nidal Hasan" from the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine was a task force event participant. Other participants included Senate and House staffers, Department of Homeland Security officials, Defense Department officials, and reporters for Politico, the Washington Post, and the London Times.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/08/2009 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#12
So it was a University project. Damn.
Posted by: MIke N. ||
11/08/2009 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#13
A dream that one day the people of the World will understand that Islam is not a religion such as the concept understood in the West---it's an ideology of robbery and murder given superficial religious trappings.
Once upon a time we did. Read Churchill.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2009 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Now we put everything into a dreamland perspective in order to protect ourselves from mental pressure of difficult choices.
Posted by: MIke N. ||
11/08/2009 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
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.
