#2
In April of 2006, he [(Sy hersh, that is)] wrote that the Bush administration "has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack."
To which I say: I damned well hope so! We have a whole Pentagon full of people who are getting paid to plan possible attacks on people and places we might need to attack. The fact that there's a contingency plan doesn't mean there's been a decision to go to war.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/09/2007 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Bob Baer's been saying quite a lot. One presumes that what he says has been cleared to be said. This leads one to suspect that the public conclusions based on such information (such as Hersh's) are actually desired by the CIA. That leaves as the biggest question whether CIA (State) is working for or against the Bush Administration plans regarding Iran (and all anybody can do is guess.)
#4
Glenmore: Do you mean to say that the CIA is playing Sy Hersh like a Casio keyboard?
Oooh. Excellent!
Posted by: Mike ||
10/09/2007 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I do believe that Sy Hersh has been played like a Casio keyboard for decades by his sources, any time someone wants to leak a little disinformation into the news pool, only he is too arrogant to have figured that out already.
#6
REDDIT/RUMORMILLNEWS > Tony Gambino {Mafia child/scion] > claims that Dubya + USG + Vatican were complicit in 9-11 and other criminal activities. Bush 1 [Herbert] helped kill JFK. *IOW, GAMBINO > CHURCH-STATE + USG-NPE, ETC. > ANY AND ALL ARE MAFIA ORGS - MAFIA CONTROLLED???
James Taranto, "Best of the Web," Wall Street Journal (Boldface emphasis added.)
"To chants of 'death to the dictator,' hundreds of Iranian students have mounted a vociferous protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," London's Telegraph reports:
. . .
The Los Angeles Times, which puts the number of anti-Ahmadinejad protesters at "about 50," notes that some of them cited his recent visit to New York:
"You, Mr. Ahmadinejad, claimed at Columbia University that there is freedom of speech in Iran's universities," one student said over a megaphone. "Then why are three students still in jail?"
This vindicates those of us who criticized Columbia president Lee Bollinger for allowing Ahmadinejad to be invited, at least if you assume that criticism spurred Bollinger to be tougher on Ahmadinejad than he otherwise would have been.
The L.A. Times says pro-Ahmadinejad demonstrators matched the opponents' turnout--which is rather remarkable. After all, it takes no courage to take to the streets in favor of an authoritarian regime.
It's a reminder, too, of just what phonies and blowhards our American "dissenters" are. They know it takes no courage to oppose a democratic government that holds freedom of speech sacrosanct. So they spin lurid fantasies of authoritarianism in order to convince themselves of their own bravery.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/09/2007 15:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
To the Honorable Representative of the State of North Carolina:
In order to assure the protection of the American People and the preservation of our Constitution, I think at this point in American history it would be a good idea to introduce legislation like the following:
"In no instance shall the practice of Islamic Sharia law be established or permitted within any state or territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America."
Thank you.
Watt sent back this response, dated September 14, 2007:
Thank you for your email about the establishment and practice of Islamic Sharia law in the United States.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles. Therefore, I believe that the language proposed in your email would be unconstitutional and I would not support it.
I appreciate your input on this issue. If I or my staff can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Melvin L. Watt
Paging Salvador Dali to the white courtesy phone.
Please make sure to read the comments following Robert Spencer's article. One commentor, ebonystone, makes the particularly interesting point that Islam's capital punishment of apostasy equates to human sacrifice. I find this exceptionally appropriate and yet one more good reason the ban shari'a law from all free nations.
Another commentor posts an outstanding bit of groundwork for a constitutional amendment to outlaw shari'a:
Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:
Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
Article II
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Article III
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islams history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Article IV
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
There you have it, folks. The above is what will be required if America and the free Western world intends to survive Islam. The sooner such an amendment is enacted, the less likely it is that there will be a domestic purge or mass internment of American Muslims.
#3
Here's what is scary: six years out from 9-11...six years out...this congressman thinks prohibiting muslim sharia law would be unconstitutional. This congressman has no clue what sharia law entails. Not. A. Clue.
What's worse? This guy will be re-elected because the people in his district don't have a clue either. Six years out.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/09/2007 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sharia Law is a threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. it undermines our Constitution and laws and intends to supplant our Constitution and our laws with islamic law. Why should islamic law be given First Amendment protections? Why is islam not viewed as subversive and a sub rosa means of taking over a country from within by subterfuge? It should be viewed as a criminal activity.
This country is in trouble. No, I'm not talking about the threat from outside — the biggest element of which would be Islamic radicalism. I'm talking about the threat from inside. The men who marched in bare feet wrapped in rags over frozen ground in 1776 — leaving a trail of blood for the British to follow ? would scarcely recognize us. They put their lives on the line for independence, far too many of us strive for dependence. They embraced freedom. We embrace security. The men of 1776 were extraordinary. We reject the extraordinary for the mundane.
Our schools are turning out perfect little government subjects who have been taught that, somehow, it is bad to excel, but virtuous to simply fit in.
Several weeks ago Hillary the Hideous loudly proclaimed that "privatization isn't the answer to anything." As I said at the time, this means that Hillary Rodham must think that government is the answer to everything ... including education.
If we are to save our Republic we must create a generation or two of independent-thinking young adults who value freedom over security and who know the truth of what it was that made this country great.
... According to the editorial, Today, more than six years after September 11, a large part of the problem continues to stem from the fact that Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence agency remains infested with Qaeda and Taliban sympathisers who believe that the United States is the enemy. These people work actively to thwart any effort by General Musharraf to take concrete steps to cooperate with Washington against the jihadists who operate from Pakistani territory - especially Waziristan. General Musharraf, under intense pressure from much of his own people and security establishment, has undertaken a conciliatory approach to radical Islamists who have been operating from Waziristan that has proven to be an abject failure - one that has dramatically increased the danger to American and NATO forces fighting against Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/09/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: ISI
#1
Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence agency remains infested with Qaeda and Taliban sympathisers
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
Washington Times
Objections to Borse Dubai's proposed acquisition of 20 percent of Nasdaq last week prompted Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank to quip, "In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous...What are we talking about here smuggling someone onto a stock exchange?"
It is not "who" Dubai will smuggle into the stock exchange we should worry about. It's the arrival of the world's first Islamic stock exchange exerting unprecedented Islamic influence in the heart of the U.S. and Western economies that should raise our alarm. Dubai's handsomely paid Washington lobbyists see nothing wrong with that. Rather, they claim the deal benefits U.S. financial markets, giving "Nasdaq access to rich Mideast pockets." Unfortunately, the deal also increases the appeal and influence of Islamic financing in the West.
What is "Islamic" finance? Islamic, or Shariah-based finance, is the 1920s invention of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. He ordered the Muslim Brothers to create an independent Islamic financial system to supercede the Western economy, facilitating the spread of Islam worldwide. He set the theories and practices and his contemporaries and successors developed Shariah-based terminology for "Islamic economics," finance and banking. Attempts by Muslim Brotherhood members in the early 1930s to establish Islamic banking in India failed. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser shut down the second attempt in 1964, after only one year, later arresting and expelling the Muslim Brothers for attempts to kill him. Saudi Arabia welcomed them and adopted their ideas.
In 1969, soon after a mentally deranged Australian Christian fundamentalist, Michael Dennis Rohan, tried to set fire to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Saudis convened the Conference for the Islamic Organizations (OIC) to unify the "struggle for Islam," and have been its major sponsor ever since. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan and Syria.
Based in Jeddah, "pending the liberation of Jerusalem," the OIC mandates and coordinates actions to "support the Palestinian people, assist them in recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories." The OIC's first international undertaking was the 1975 establishment of the Islamic Development Bank "in accordance with the principles of the Shariah," marking the beginning of the fast-growing, petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. From 1975 to 2005, the bank approved more than $46 billion in funding to Muslim countries. Since 2000, it has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars raised especially to support the Palestinian intifada and suicide bombers' families and has channeled United Nations funds to Hamas. Yet the bank received U.N. observer status in 2007.
Overseeing Shariah finance are the 1991-Bahrain-registered and -based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), which laid the groundwork for the global Islamic financial network and the "de facto Islamic Central Bank" the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB), established in 2002 in Kuala Lumpur "to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance." Chairing the meeting, then-Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir stated: "A universal Islamic banking system is a jihad worth pursuing to abolish this slavery [to the West]."
According to Saleh Kamel, president of the Saudi Dallah Al-Baraka Group and the Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI), more than 400 Islamic financial institutions currently operate in 75 countries. They now hold more than $800 billion in assets growing at a rate of 15 percent annually. All investments with Islamic financial institutions are subject to the minimum zakat (Islamic charitable wealth tax). On April 30, the OIC, the organization that initiated global Muslim riots after the Danish cartoon publications, established the clerical International Commission for Zakat, replacing more than 20,000 organizations that previously collected the money. Islamic clerics' "expert committee" in Malaysia now supervises and distributes those funds. The new committee will shortly distribute to Muslim charities roughly $2 billion collected during Ramadan.
But not all charities are equal. In 1999, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi decreed: "Declaring holy war [and] fighting for such purposes is the way of Allah for which zakat must be spent." If past zakat distribution is any indication, all Muslim jihadist-terror organizations (including Palestinian Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and the many al Qaeda offspring) will benefit.
Shortly after September 11, Osama bin Laden called upon Muslims "to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means. Look for the key pillars of the U.S. economy. Strike the key pillars of the enemy again and again and they will fall as one."
Most Arab and Muslim states publicly denounced bin Laden. But the impending Nasdaq acquisition, the purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange) and the vigorous expansion of Shariah financing apparently follow the Muslim Brotherhood-bin Laden script.
President Bush on Sept. 25 at the United Nations called on all nations to open their markets. Surely, he did not mean opening the markets to domination by Shariah.
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financedand How to Stop It, Director of American Center for Democracy and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Alyssa A. Lappen is a Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy.
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
10/09/2007 10:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
Peace has not come to the streets of Baghdad, but the center holds. Our very American "benchmarks" for measuring the progress of Iraq can't capture the reality of that land. There is no "oil law," it is true, but the oil bounty is being shared equitably across the regions. The Iraqi government, through a relentless insurgency, maintains and meets a payroll for 3.4 million of its citizens. And in the provinces, there is a scramble for budgets and economic projects. "A year ago, we could not give money to the provincial governors; they could not use it. Now they are in competition for funds, and economic life stirs," Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, who oversees the service sector of the government, said to me.
We ask of the Iraqis "national reconciliation" and bemoan their inability to offer it in ways we can recognize, but a broad, subtle national accord is settling upon the land. The Kurds want (and have) their autonomy but have no eagerness to break out on their own to face alone the schemes of the Iranians, the Turks, and the Syrians. The Shiites have prevailed in the war for Baghdad; primacy in the government is increasingly theirs. The Sunni Arabs know that they have lost their war against this new Iraq, that the bet they placed on al Qaeda and neighboring Sunni Arab nations has been lost.
New realism. Beyond their pride, and the fury of their feuds, Iraqis of all stripes have now come to terms with their country's desperate need of American protection and patronage. Ignore the pollsters who tell you that Iraqis have had their fill of the American presence. There is a realism that comes to men and women who know calamities, and this realism teaches Iraqis that this American project is their country's chance for a way out of a history of grief and terror.
In late August, on a day of unsparing heat, I shadowed Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, our second most senior commander in Iraq, as he toured a Baghdad neighborhood that had once been a Saddamist stronghold. In a market undergoing extensive renovation, he was besieged by petitioners. Men spoke to him of their plans for this market; a new restaurant was being readied with a front porch overlooking the river, and its owner pressed his case for a generator to provide the electricity he needs. A man with some flair and humor pointed to his old, dusty car and asked if the Americans, in their power and benevolence, might replace it with a new one.
It has not been pretty, this expedition to Iraq, and the man in that neighborhood will not get a new car. But the American determination to see this war to a decent outcome, and the fatigue of the Iraqi protagonists, have transformed the landscape. We have been burned before, and progress has often vanished like a desert mirage, but there can be no denying the change that has come to Iraq. The dispatches cite a recent "downward trend in violence." In September, 1,654 civilians were killed, a 29 percent decline from the 2,318 killed in August. The U.S. military fatalities dropped to 63 from 84 in August. A fight still rages in Iraq. This is not a country at peace, and all its furies have not burned out, but a measure of order has begun to stick on the ground.
It appears that the American debate has been transformed as well. There is to it the quiet that follows a big storm. Two men of great talent and devotion came home to report about Iraqour military commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and our diplomatic envoy, Ambassador Ryan Crocker. They told of achievements, and of frustrations. Above all, they delivered a sobering message about the consequences of failure: We are there under Arab and Iranian eyes; we can't quit the place, cede it to chaos and radicalism. And there came a startling and overdue message delivered by President Bush that there will be an "enduring" U.S. presence in Iraq. The Pax Americana, which has "security arrangements" with the regimes in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, will now add Iraq into its orbit.
We shall not have anywhere near the current 160,000 military personnel, but there shall be a substantial U.S. presence for many years to come. In public, Iraqi leaders say that they don't wish to see their country as a battleground between America and Iran. But behind closed doors, there is an acceptance by Iraq's political class of an American presence on the Iran-Iraq frontier. We may sugarcoat the truth, but Iran shall be monitored from Iraq. And the American presence in Arabyhistorically in Sunni landsnow extends to a republic led by Arab Shiites.
#1
The USA is very fortunate that Fouad Ajami has come to live in our country and has risen to such prominence. What a great writer. He has made a significant and positive contribution to the public debate about the War on Terrorism. He has made a real difference.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/09/2007 1:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Fouad Ajami is very fortunate that he has come to live in US, Mike. There is a degree of reciprocal, mutual benefit. You just can't separate one side of the coin from another.
#3
Iraqis of all stripes have now come to terms with their country's desperate need of American protection and patronage.
Mere assertion. Wishful thinking. Iraqis will happily destroy their entire country to ensure that the hated rivals can't enjoy even one drop of success.
Fouad Ajami travels throughout Iraq and talks perceptively with Iraqis of all stripes. His evaluations on this subject are more than mere assertion and wishful thinking.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/09/2007 8:17 Comments ||
Top||
#7
He's not from Iraq. He came through when I was there and someone from my office helped shepherd him around the country (this was two years back). He was disappointingly prickly and demanding in person, but I counseled my young colleague that he was worth it given his perceptive analysis and spectacular articulation.
#8
Dr. Ajami is a thoughtful and intelligent man who has maintained his optimism that Iraq would become a peaceful and stable nation over time. I hope he is proven correct, but I take a dimmer view of how the forces in play there would behave in the absence of such a robust American presence.
#3
Or rather, the Strong Horse, the one that leads the way in the everlasting fight against Western culture (or what's left ot it); had the wall never fallen, he'd still be a commie.
#6
Sounds like the sort of person Eric Hoffer was talking about in "The True Believer".
Any sort of mass movement will do, for such is attractive to the same kind of personality.
#3
Hmmm. The establishment of a state for a people that doesn't historically exist, involving the taking away of land from a people that has existed for more than 5000 years. OK. And the fictitious people are virulently Anti-American, Anti-Israel murderers and thugs. And the rightful owners of the land are pro-American and pro-democracy. Now, would that be in our interest. Hmm. Let me think.....
A superb bit of writing I stumbles across at Jihad Watch.
Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:
Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
Article II
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Article III
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islams history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Article IV
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
Posted by: Zenster ||
10/09/2007 15:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Now there is something I could get behind and support.
We're at war with fascistic Wahabbism and its de facto allies in Turtle Bay, Hollywood, Tehran, and certain other places (*cough* Office-Of-Rep-John-Murtha-D-PA *cough*), but we are not at war with all Moslems--nor should we be. There are a lot of Moslems out there in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places who are on our side--at far more direct personal risk on a daily basis than most of us here in the 'Burg have ever faced, combat veterans excepted. (My knee-jerk Dem relatives may give me guff for being a Republican, but I don't have to worry about being shot for "collaboration with the occupiers" and roadside IEDs are rare in Northeast Ohio.)
Speaking as a good old Irish Catholic boy from Ohio who does not accept the truth claims of Islam and has no intention of accepting dhimmitude, I'd cheerfully trade three Nancy Pelosis and a Michael Moore for one Mohammed Atef. Wouldn't you, Zen?
Posted by: Mike ||
10/09/2007 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Perhaps the Dhimmis here would feel free to explain how Islam itself is on our side.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. During WWII pro-Nazi sympathies didn't go over too well here in America. Nor should current Islamic agitation for sedition and treason either. As Fjordman duely notes, it's time to begin making the West Islam-unfriendly. To wit:
But above all, the West, and indeed the non-Muslim world, should make our countries Islam-unfriendly and implement a policy of containment of Dar al-Islam. This is the most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims.
The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of infidels and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.
[emphasis added]
I don't know what you think of Fjordman, Steve White, but I have found him to be a consistently well-versed and knowledgable writer on all issues Islamic. Feel free to post your own opinion of the man.
Islam desperately needs an unmistakable object lesson in reciprocity. Westerners are totally unwelcome in their lands save only to make Muslims incredibly wealthy by installing and operating technology Islamic cultures wouldn't have invented for another several centuries. We are idiots to quietly accept such a one-way street. Islam uses it against us at every turn with death and destruction being our reward.
A final question for you, Steve White. If this proposal isas you sayso "idiotic", then it is safe to state that you see something of value in Islam. Please feel free to post here what it is that you find of worth or redeeming value about Islam. I'm intensely curious and confident that others are as well. As Icerigger so astutely noted:
... feel free to explain how Islam itself is on our side.
#7
I'd cheerfully trade three Nancy Pelosis and a Michael Moore for one Mohammed Atef. Wouldn't you, Zen?
A difficult proposition at best. Fortunately, Atef is dead. My dislike for all of them is equal. If there really were three Nancy Pelosis, then I'd have to agree with you. This one democrat moron is far more dangerous than Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell combined unlessof courseone of the latter two happened to fall upon you.
#9
Such an amendment will never happen. Some of the provisions listed below may well pass into law, such as criminalizing actions supporting and advocating jihadism, Sharia and suchlike, making the properties where it takes place subject to seizure and forfeit, and the persons engaging in such behaviour subject to deportation. Others such as proselytizing of any sort, and immigration from terror-supporting countries likely will become de facto forbidden. Especially should the rate of attempted and successful terror incidents increase here at home, but there will be no amendment because
1) it takes the better part of a decade to organize these days, and
2) it isn't necessary to accomplish the key items that would change the national environment, just as a year full of highly publicized ICE raids has resulted in Canada having an illegal Mexican immigrant problem flowing across their southern border at the same time that American farmers are complaining they can't find stoop labour to harvest the crops.
#11
Ooooh, look! An insulting anonymous post. What courage, what bravery, what intellectual honesty. These faceless attacks always demonstrate the ne plus ultra in debating skills. Oh well, there's no accounting for taste stupidity.
#12
It will be interesting to see whether our bred-in-the-bone liberalism will ever allow us to take the steps necessary to protect ourselves from militant Islam. Islam will settle down if it feels itself defeated. Like after Lepanto and Vienna, or after the British wiped out the Mahdis in Sudan.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution, but Shari'a is not a religion that can be privatized as Christianity has been. Allowing militant (true) Islam here will ensure conflict.
#13
As ever, a well-balanced and well-thought out post from our dear trailing wife. Thank you for actually bringing something to the table. Unlike others.
#14
well, I'll disappoint you as well. Barring a nuking of an American city, this won't even BEGIN to happen.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/09/2007 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#15
We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of infidels and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.
Note that Fjordman's language is all behavioral - it prohibits specific behaviors. It's those behaviors and others like them that create danger to us and our way of life.
Trying to legislate correct thinking is a bit Big Brother for my taste. And as I recall, there's some pesky language in the Constitution to the effect
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
Ancestors of mine on one side of my family arrived here before our Revolution on precisely those grounds. It seems the established religious and civic authorities found their form of Protestantism quite subversive apart from any acts actually committed.
Not gonna fly. NS is right that if a US city is nuked **in ways that are obviously tied to Islam** some people will want to expel all Muslims. That's a long way from ammending the Constitution to prohibit what 1.5 billion people view as a religion, tho.
#16
I agree that a constitutional amendment to this effect is impractical. However, there are other remedies that may be just as effective, though they have fallen into disfavor in recent years.
1) Loyalty oaths. These would also impact other religions that refuse to swear loyalty to the United States, such as 7th Day Adventists.
2) Licensing of religious schools, along with the requirement that students meet secular standards on periodic evaluations.
3) That all religious court decisions must be affirmed by a secular court to insure compliance with secular law.
4) Strict interpretation of non-discrimination statutes, which would prohibit discrimination based on sex or against the handicapped with their guide animals.
5) Conversely, permitting employers to fire employees for non-compliance on religious grounds, such as handling pork or alcohol.
6) Enlargement of hate crimes laws to include the provision of hate literature, like the Koran.
#18
lotp, with all due respect: What part of Article I do you not understand?
Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
[emphasis added]
Regardless of its current legal definition, do you continue to maintain that Islam is, indeed, a true religion and not a political ideology? Please answer this one central question first so that we can all save a lot of ensuing effort.
If, by any chance, you manage to concur, then how does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." apply in this case?
It seems the established religious and civic authorities found their form of Protestantism quite subversive apart from any acts actually committed.
Are you so blithe as to not recognize how Protestants aren't flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers?
NS is right that if a US city is nuked **in ways that are obviously tied to Islam** some people will want to expel all Muslims.
Do you maintain that there is any other significant probability of an American city being subjected to a one-off nuclear attack that will not be some 99.99% likely related to Islamic terrorism?
That's a long way from ammending the Constitution to prohibit what 1.5 billion people view as a religion, tho.
Pardon my frank terminology but 1.5 TRILLION flies eat shit. Does that make it an acceptable behavior for humans? And, yes, Islam demands such insectoid behaviori.e., hive mindfrom its adherents that I fully believe the comparison stands on its own merits. Or do you continue to maintain that Islam is a true religion? If so, please elaborateas Dr. White has seemed to demure fromby expanding upon whatever worthy or redeeming features Islam presents to our world.
Thank you very much, Gr0mgoru. I would hope that my only significant difference of opinion with Frank deals with issues about pre-emption. It is a source of true gratification that I have no doubt about any of our individual dedication to American ideals.
#20
I just noticed I made an incredibly boneheaded spelling error.
The guy I wanted to refer to was Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief. With that correction, my original comment stands: I'd cheerfully trade three Nancy Pelosis and a Michael Moore for a man like him.
Your response, sir?
Posted by: Mike ||
10/09/2007 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Regardless of its current legal definition, do you continue to maintain that Islam is, indeed, a true religion and not a political ideology?
#22
'moose, I invite you to comment upon the observation of how voiding Islam's qualification as an exempt "religion" would obviate a majority of your concerns.
Mike, ya gotta be kidding me!?! Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief is worth more thanand I'll gladly exaggerate here a bit but not by muchthe entire democratic party combined. Happy? I'll needlessly thank you for having corrected an obviously egregious error.
#26
Mike, as a measure ofwhat I considered to bemutual respect, I hope you appreciate the fact that I do not object to your altering the context of my statement. I mean this quite sincerely.
#27
What's to explain? Your question assumes that religion and political 'ideology' are inherently different categories that cannot overlap.
Bullshit. I fully well know that thay have, indeed, overlapped in times past. It just so happens that the convergence of nuclear technology, the Internet and high Muslim population counts militate against Western civilization's survival.
Do you dispute this? Do you continue to maintain that Islam is a worthy Religion? You have skirted answering this question. IS ISLAM A VALID RELIGION?
#28
Even though I despise Islam and think it need some serious reformation or be destroyed, I can't get behind this. I think it does go against the freedom of religion.
However, that being said, I would fully support laws stating that "Death to America" or other death of non-muzzies preaching should be construed as planning of murder, sedition and the properties and individuals seized and imprisoned. Make no mistake, we are at war and need to act like it. You want to practice Islam, fine. You start wanting to seek the death of non-muzzies or spout the jihad nonsense, you get imprisoned and/or deported. End. Of. Fucking. Story.
#29
Your question assumes that religion and political 'ideology' are inherently different categories that cannot overlap.
A lot of people would disagree - including western Christians for most of the Middle Ages.
I think it is not a false dichotomy though there can obviously be overlap. Jesus said Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's. Not every Christian has perfectly followed Christ, but that does not invalidate or render inapplicable what He taught.
Whereas Islam, from the outset, was intended to be both a political and spiritual system, fully integrated.
Jesus rode at the head of no armed force, besieged no cities, conducted no massacres or reigns of terror nor did he encourage others to do so. Mo did. That is the irreconcilable dichotomy, not what their imperfect followers did in their names.
#30
Regarding this idea of a constitutional amendment I doubt it will happen for another reason.
When Islam reaches some critical mass in the U. S. it will overstep itself in attempting to establish or obtain preferment for sharia or in supporting domestic terrorism. In the backlash it will be found to be a political activity under the Internal Revenue Code and its tax exemption will be revoked. That will be the effective end of Islam in America.
#31
Darth and Nimble make my point about responding to behavior.
It's more than time to come down HARD on terror advocacy, financing, sedition, murder and all the rest. Yup, yea and Amen.
Americans are not likely to take kindly, I think, to what appears to be thought control and over-generalization. But we're pretty pragmatic (most of us, anyway) about behaviors. We don't like certain kinds of them and we're quite willing (most of us, anyway) to whomp those who insist on perpetrating them.
#32
"Jesus rode at the head of no armed force, besieged no cities, conducted no massacres or reigns of terror nor did he encourage others to do so. Mo did. That is the irreconcilable dichotomy, not what their imperfect followers did in their names."
-money quote bro'! I'm procuring this one for later use amongst some of the idiot prof's that make up my new aquarium. Good one NS! (I like your other post to w/the rev code)
#33
Americans are not likely to take kindly, I think, to what appears to be thought control and over-generalization. But we're pretty pragmatic (most of us, anyway) about behaviors. We don't like certain kinds of them and we're quite willing (most of us, anyway) to whomp those who insist on perpetrating them.
That's why the Mormon hierarchy doesn't support those who practice polygamy.
#37
I'm self-righteous way too often...can't recall cutting the throats of infidels or even trolls (heh, MS! :-)) that DOES constitute a difference, even for the moral-equivalence assholes
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/09/2007 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#38
That was our troll bk, He Of The Thousand Nyms. He was warned before about that. So I trolldumped the little shit.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/09/2007 22:12 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Jesus rode at the head of no armed force, besieged no cities, conducted no massacres or reigns of terror nor did he encourage others to do so. Mo did. That is the irreconcilable dichotomy, not what their imperfect followers did in their names.
Word, NS. How about it, lotp? Are you actually going to address this thread's principal issue about Islam being a political ideology or continue to skate like Tonya Harding?
#42
Heck, a lot of the muslims I've encountered admit that islam is both their religion and their politics, especially as it pertains to the ME, no news flash there. Is getting some sort of banning islam amendment passed feasible - prolly not methinks, but, you can do several things that would start relieving some issues:
1) no more new or severely limit immigration from muslim countries, plus immediate deportation for those that over stay their visas etc
2) seriously cut down on work visas & student visas to the ME
3) double security efforts on surveilance at mosques and muslim charities -- anyone caught funneling funds to anti-american agencies gets shut down, deported to mexico (I put that in 'cuz vicente fox pisses me off) or shot for treason.
#43
Thank you for your gracious input, trailing wife. This issue is far too critical. Either people understand that shari'a law is a political ideology or they continue to sip at the Kool-Aid of how Islam is the Religion of Peace. [spit]
You shouldof all people in this post-Holocaust worldknow damn well better than any of us how important it is to discredit Islam as some sort of "religious" faith instead of the vile murderous genocidal filth it is. Do you disagree?
#44
Aside from Zen's points I have to throw one out for all those Constitutional scholars here. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
That folks is from the Bill of Rights and in banning Congress from such an act it completely allows the States right to do such a thing.
Banning a proven death cult isn't out of the question. I put it to you that the only question here is how long before we are nuked and some States wake up and ban Islam.
#45
the only question here is how long before we are nuked and some States wake up and ban Islam.
With or without the federal government's participation, your question remains of the utmost pertinence, Icerigger. I am still curious how Steve White and lotp continue to remain silent about whether Islam is or is not a valid religion. For now, we'll disregard the crucial question about Islam having any redeeming qualitiesthat is unlesseither of them actually has a position on that topic.
[crickets]
Zen, I like your question, but don't you think proving "validity" would be a highly subjective undertaking? To me, a more objective question is, Is Islam a beneficial religion? Does it benefit or uplift mankind, or does it degrade, abuse and denegrate?
Any reasonably intelligent person knows the answer. And that is more than enough reason to rein it in.
#47
I'm still curious as to why you think you can dominate someone else's thread without blowback (again?), but hey, that's just me...
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/09/2007 23:01 Comments ||
Top||
#48
The problem is, I could start a 'murder incorporated' type group, and call it a religion, and get tax free status and even get money from the Ford Foundation, United Way, and a plethra of do gooder whackos, who have no clue.
Our founders didn't think some murderer would form a religion, in fact, the religion in question was our first enemy as the Barbery Pirates.
These jerks teach murder and heavenly reward for committing murder. It's just not a religion, yet it is obviously a belief in eternal peace. My peace, your blood. It's inhuman, and as such, it should be banned. And, the UN should have banned Islam, but they were never capable of doing anything right.
#49
Oh clearly Sharia law is intended to establish Muslims as masters over the infidels within the polity, Zenster; thus pursuing its establishment is a political act. And those who pursue it are not fit to live amongst us... the incorrigible not fit to live, full stop. If this leaves behind a set of people whose faith is essentially a Muslim-flavoured Unitarianism, they having made the transition to refusing traditional readings of the 95 percent of the Sunna and Hadiths that require violence and conquest, plus those who are in truth apostate but didn't want to tell their mothers, I could accept that.
We discredit Islam by conquest and seduction, as we appear to be doing successfully in Iraq (I can't imagine Maliki being reelected, given his recent antics and known connections). Also by mockery -- each time another cartoon inspires Rage Boy, each time with a less respectful response and more outright, mocking laughter in the West.
Forgive me, I'm getting tired and my thoughts are not as focussed as I would like. I hope you don't mind that we continue this another day.
#50
TW's right, this is a debate worthy of a full airing.
And as far as Iraq goes, we will pull out because we don't want to lose any more poor American boys. Then, rather than kill them in Iraq, we will sing cumbaja (sp) while they plant bombs under all our bridges.
#51
Forgive me, I'm getting tired and my thoughts are not as focussed as I would like. I hope you don't mind that we continue this another day.
I'd love nothing better, trailing wife. It would be a good thing if this debate was rolled over to a new thread. Dear moderators, please consider posting this thread as a new topic tomorrow.
#52
Yo, Steve White and lotp, would you both of you please consider rolling this particular thread over for tomorrow's delectation? Personally, I think it would go a long way towards the both of yours wholly inadequate responses towards the queries posed herein. Perhaps that's just me but I doubt there's a dearth of support for my position.
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
10/09/2007 10:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
That's because it's much safer to complain about the plight of women in suburban America. Complaining about Islam could get you killed.
They also ignore the plight of women in Hollywood (where demeaning women is a major sport) and the plight of Eastern European women who are kidnapped into prostitution.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/09/2007 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Eastern European women who are kidnapped into prostitution.
IIRC, about 300 000 in western Europe, often by (essentially muslim) kosovar & albanian organized crime families, plus (essentially muslim) russian/chechen and turkish ones, and probably a proportionally large number in Israel too, by russian/israeli organized crime.
#3
That's because the thugs and theocrats will flat out tell them to go F*CK themselves, whereas here we listen to their mindless drivel without killing them.
#5
"Womens Studies Departments Ignore the Plight of Women in Islam Everyone in the Whole Damn World Except Their Personal Selves (and Whoever They Can Misuse to Promote Their Personal Selves)"
There - fixed.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/09/2007 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
COLD WAR > Love the USSR-Commie Bloc as long as don't have to live there or be subject to Commie rule; versus GWOT > love Islam = Radical Islamism as long as don't have to live as a Muslim or Radicalist, or be subject to rules of same.
#7
Not sure if everyone here knew that there is supposed to be from 22-27 Oct a nation wide college anti-islamofacism protest. The U I'm currently assigned to is supposed to have one. I plan on checking it out and seeing if the obligatory dhimmis come out to counter protest.
Oh yeah, women's studies---another worthy academic pursuit, hahhaha......these dorks don't care about honor killings or spouse rape....unless it's carried out by the evil-white hetero american male or what I like to call us E-WHAMs.
#8
Please report back, Broadhead6. I'd be very interested to know the student response. (Sadly, we can anticipate the response of entirely too much of the faculty.)
Michael Graham discussed this on his radio show this morning.
Theyre watching you right now. They counted every beer you drank during last nights Red Sox game.
They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.
They know if youve got a gun, and where you keep it.
Theyre your kids, and theyre the National Security Agency of the Nanny State. I found this out after my 13-year-old daughters annual checkup.
Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse. Not my daughters boozing. Mine. The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think its too much, my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house. What! I yelped. Who told her about my stasher, I mean, Its an outrage! I turned to my wife. You took her to the doctor. Why didnt you say something? She couldnt, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wifes knowledge or consent.
The doctor wanted to know how we get along, my daughter continued. Then she paused. And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.
Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if shes fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.
Were not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dads bad behavior.
We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, were persons of interest. The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore legal barriers and deference to parental involvement and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.
And that information doesnt stay with the doctor, either.
Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, Does Daddy own a gun? When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc. If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying. But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her familys (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad. She also got a new doctor.
In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.
Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs. At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.
I still like my previous pediatrician, Debbie told me. She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didnt seem to have a choice. Of course doctors have a choice.
They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children. They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position. They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office. But the doctors arent asking us parents. Theyre asking our kids. Worst of all, theyre asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent. And then they wonder why we drink.
Tou'che!!! I remember thinking it odd when my first was born, of the Pediatrician asking if we had guns in the house. Of course, I lied and told them no, but they asked while we were in the room (I assume because a two-week old can't talk). And, this is in the "South" (GA). This other stuff is ludicrous, though!
Posted by: BA ||
10/09/2007 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sure, doc, I got a gun. I'll bring it with me next time and show it to you...
#6
Libs will have no problem with the family Doc spying on the family on issues deemed to be "bad behavior" but will pitch a b*tch if the gov't is listening in on overseas calls to or from "persons of interest". Go figure.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/09/2007 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dads bad behavior.
Three words: Invasion. Of. Privacy.
I'm sure this'll all change after a few doctors get blown away sued penniless.
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.
... According to the editorial, Today, more than six years after September 11, a large part of the problem continues to stem from the fact that Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence agency remains infested with Qaeda and Taliban sympathisers who believe that the United States is the enemy. These people work actively to thwart any effort by General Musharraf to take concrete steps to cooperate with Washington against the jihadists who operate from Pakistani territory - especially Waziristan. General Musharraf, under intense pressure from much of his own people and security establishment, has undertaken a conciliatory approach to radical Islamists who have been operating from Waziristan that has proven to be an abject failure - one that has dramatically increased the danger to American and NATO forces fighting against Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
