1389 Blog - Counterjihad! » September 11, 2001

Alfonzo Rachel Won’t Be Voting for Ron Paul

1389 — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:07:17 +0000

Ron Paul’s 9/11 Insanity: Why Ron Paul Is the Jeremiah Wright of the Right

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by Pajamasmedia on Dec 21, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is surging in the polls, but that doesn’t prevent Zo from telling you why he isn’t supporting this Texas congressman’s presidential bid. Hear more.

One minor quibble: we at 1389 Blog believe that rescinding Roe v. Wade and giving control over abortion back to the States would be a good step toward rolling back abortion throughout the US. That said, Ron Paul doesn’t seem to want to alienate his libertarian (or perhaps libertine) base by unequivocally coming out against abortion.

More at 2.0: The Blogmocracy.

Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West

1389 — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:19:18 +0000

Podcasts

Bosch Fawstin did a follow-up on this article on the podcast “Don’t Let it Go….Unheard”. The segment starts at 31 minutes in and lasts for about a half hour.
He will also appear on The Jamie Glazov Show Tuesday, Dec. 6 at 8-9pm Pacific time. Try to listen in live.

From FrontPage Magazine:

By Bosch Fawstin December 2, 2011 @ 12:38 am

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovering Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.

The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.

In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.

In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their very own terms for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as:

Islamic Fundamentalism.

Islamic Extremism.

Totalitarian Islam.

Islamofascism.

Islamonazism.

Political Islam.

Bin Ladenism.

Radical Islam.

Militant Islam.

Islamism.

Jihadism.

We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them.

And it’s no accident that Western analysts of Islam who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that, instead of sticking to what Islam is, they often write about what it isn’t, what they hope it might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam from those who have allegedly corrupted it.

The Muslim world is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam – not any alleged deviant form of it – means misogyny, censorship, anti-Semitism, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.

And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack and here he was defending the very ideology that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.

Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.

I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.

While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.

And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent anti-Semitism and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering this girl would endure under Islam, even in America.

Though we say we’ve been at war for over ten years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism.

The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post – 9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt the same about America.

We can’t be both for Islam and for ourselves. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done and move us towards victory.

Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of.

I care about the truth. I care about Western Civilization. I care about myself, my loved ones and my friends. I care about Iife. And that’s why I don’t care about Islam.

Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our morally vain politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.

We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.

So who cares about Islam? Muslims, Jihadists, Islamophiles, Leftists who naturally side with anti-American ideologies, guilt-ridden fellow travelers who think America is usually in the wrong, and religionists who believe any religion is better than none. But since Leftists and Islamophiles usually know very little about Islam, who truly cares about Islam? Those who are at war with us.

In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. This is war. We can’t be on both sides. I’m not rooting for Islam or the Muslim world.

I’m rooting for us.

Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, of which the first chapter is now available as a digital comic. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a companion to The Infidel, and the 1st print appearance of Pigman.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

October 19, 2011: Morning Roundup

1389 — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:09:40 +0000

From Rep. Allen West’s Weekly Wrap-Up

…Our force is already feeling the effects as we continue to ask our men and women in uniform and their families to make sacrifice after sacrifice on this 21st Century Battlefield.

We must develop a national security strategy that is not budget based but rather requirement based. That means we must conduct a threat analysis across the geographic areas of responsibility and then match a capacity and capability to thwart those threats. We must end the failed process of telling the military… this is what you get, go defend us.

I believe there are inefficiencies we can eradicate in the Department of Defense, mainly we should move from a Cold War era “forward-deployed” force posture to a “power projection” posture. It also means that we must stop the practice of nation-building/occupation style warfare and move towards strike operations…something which we shall discuss later.

Let me share some budgetary facts:
- $1.36 trillion used to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have funded the entire base budget of the Department of Defense for three years.
- $79.69 billion used to bailout auto makers could have funded Navy shipbuilding for over five years. Since 1990 we have gone from 546 naval vessels to 285 currently.
- $535 million taxpayer dollars dumped on Solyndra, which is not bankrupt, could have completed this year’s backlog of ship maintenance and had nearly $200 million left over.
- $3 billion spent for “Cash for Clunkers,” could have purchased some 125 transport vehicles for ship to shore operations.
- China now has over 60 attack submarines, while we are falling behind our minimum requirement of 48. The taxpayer funds spent to bailout AIG could have purchased 44 attack subs.
- The taxpayer funds we pay in interest to China on our debt could buy almost three F-22 fighter jets a week…

Herman Cain: 9 responses to 9 false attacks on 9-9-9

…Claim No. 9: It won’t pass.

Response: Politicians propose things that can pass. Problem-solvers propose things that can work. One of the worst instincts of Washington types is to judge an idea not on its substantive merits, but on their perception of its political viability. I do not underestimate the challenge of getting any good idea through Congress, but I have said all along that if you propose a good idea, and the people understand the idea, they will pressure Congress to pass it.

So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?

Atlas Shrugs: Con Ed Says It Will Evict Ground Zero Mosqueteer For Non-Payment of Rent

Once again the Ground Zero mosqueteer does his deadbeat dance. How does this guy continue to get a free pass? He expected infidel taxpayers to foot the bill. Clearly he was counting on that $5.5 million from the taxpayer 911 fund he requested, but didn’t get

Here is the truth about the Ground Zero grifter, the story that the media never tells you. This lowlife has defaulted on two bank loans, hasn’t paid his back taxes, was busted for prostitution. Gamal not only beats people up and threatens Muslims who speak out against the mosque, but he is also a tax cheat, owing a quarter of a million in taxes while defaulting on not one, but two bank loans. All this while being evicted from his Soho offices for non-payment of rent. And Mayor Gloomberg licks his boot. He has him over at Gracie Mansion for dinner. Why? What did this hustler do other than disrepect, offend and degrade millions of Americans with his 15-story triumphal mosque on Ground Zero?

Now Con Ed is planning to evict him for non-payment of rent. Go Con Ed! I will happily send my check off early to the electric company this month…

Atlas Shrugs: Video: “Occupiers” Destroy Statue of Mary

“Occupy Rome” Destroys Statue of Mary

There. are. no words. Catholic Vote has the video — the savage who carried it out of the church and smashed it wore a face covering.

“Horrific”: church attacked, desecrated in Rome violence

The Vatican has condemned Saturday’s violent clashes in central Rome including an attack by protesters on a church in which a crucifix and a statue of the Virgin Mary were destroyed.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said he “condemned the violence and the fact that a church was desecrated by some protesters who broke in and destroyed some images.” He referred to the clashes in Rome as “horrific.”

The 18th-century church of Santi Marcellino and Pietro is near St John Lateran square where much of Saturday’s violence occurred.

“When I came down, I saw the entrance door had been smashed in,” the church’s parish priest, Father Giuseppe Ciucci, was quoted by Italian media as saying.

“The Virgin Mary’s statue, which was at the entrance, had been taken away and I saw it had been thrown into the street and smashed,” he said.

“I went into the sacristy and I saw the door there was also destroyed. The large crucifix at the entrance had been vandalized,” he added

Daily Caller: Secret mission: The Horse Soldiers of 9/11

It was the news the world breathlessly waited for immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks: a report of the first American troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

All at once the world’s attention focused on an iconic photo of those Special Operations Forces doing something no American military had done in nearly a century: They rode horses into combat.

Their secret mission: secure northern Afghanistan by advising the warring tribal factions that formed the Northern Alliance. During the 2011 Veterans Day Parade on November 11, a new monument to these men — and to all Americans in uniform — will make its way down New York City’s famed Fifth Avenue on the way to its final home, a stone’s throw from Ground Zero….

Saint Nicholas Church, Ten Years Later

Sparta — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:40:20 +0000

From YouTube:

Click here to view the embedded video.

NY/NJ Port Authority Chief to Resign – His Replacement Must Rebuild St. Nicholas Church at Ground Zero

Sparta — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:43:42 +0000

From George Demos for Congress:

Press@DemosforCongress.com
(631) 648-0301

Brookhaven, NY- George Demos, the Conservative Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in the First District of New York today called on New York Governor Cuomo to fill the vacancy at the Port Authority with a new Director who will publicly and unequivocally commit to rebuilding the 9/11 Church at Ground Zero.

George Demos said:

During his tenure as Port Authority Director, Christopher Ward willfully and maliciously obstructed the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Church, the only house of worship destroyed on September 11th.

Last August, our campaign put out the first national call to rebuild this Church, and held a press conference with former New York Governor George Pataki, but Ward refused to listen.

Now that Christopher Ward is resigning, Governor Cuomo must fill the vacancy with a new Director who will publicly and unequivocally commit to rebuilding the 9/11 Church at Ground Zero.

We owe it to our nation to rebuild this Church, so that the world will know that Al-Qaeda failed to destroy God’s footprint at Ground Zero and that our nation’s Judeo-Christian values cannot be wiped out by evil.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Port Authority Chief to Resign

September 29, 2011

By ANDREW GROSSMAN And ELIOT BROWN

Chris Ward, the executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, plans to step down by the end of October, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Ward, the top official at the Port Authority appointed by the governor of New York, has found himself on the outside looking in since Gov. Andrew Cuomo took office in January. Mr. Ward was appointed by Mr. Cuomo’s predecessor, David Paterson, in 2008. It isn’t clear whether the Cuomo administration has identified a successor.

Since then, he has been credited with bringing order to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center and earned plaudits from many in New York’s business community. But his job is one that governors traditionally have filled with people loyal to them. Mr. Ward, 56 years old, a veteran of Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s administration, had few ties to Mr. Cuomo. People close to Mr. Ward had long expected him to leave sometime after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A spokesman for Mr. Cuomo declined to comment. Mr. Ward’s plan to leave by the end of October was first reported on the New York Times website Wednesday evening.

Mr. Ward’s arrival in the job in May 2008 came as a bout of luck. The head of a New York advocacy group for large construction firms, he was considered for the agency’s top position by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, but was passed over. But when Mr. Spitzer resigned less than a year and a half after taking office, his successor, Mr. Paterson, tapped Mr. Ward for the job in one of his first personnel moves.

A seasoned official known as forceful but amiable, his mandate from the new governor was clear: publicly open the books on the World Trade Center site, which was believed to be running billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.

Calling the project’s costs and timelines “not realistic,” Mr. Ward put new budgets on the tremendously complex construction plan, trimming and streamlining some pieces, while stretching out others.

The efforts then turned to the three private towers on the site being built by developer Larry Silverstein, who faced an inability to build his skyscrapers given the economic downturn.

Mr. Silverstein’s request—that the Port Authority financially back his buildings—sparked what became a fierce public battle that lasted more than a year.

Mr. Ward quickly spurned Mr. Silverstein’s request, saying that backing the towers would decimate the finances of the already-financially strained agency. Throughout much of 2009, Mr. Ward stood his ground amid intense pressure from Mr. Silverstein’s powerful backers, including Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Mr. Bloomberg, who criticized him and his agency as inflexible and unreasonable.

Ultimately, a compromise plan was hatched that allowed Mr. Silverstein to build one tower and use hundreds of millions of dollars in public money toward a second if he found a tenant and raised private money. The deal unlocked construction that had been put on hold, and repaired relations frayed by the fight, such as those between Mr. Ward and the mayor. Since then, Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly praised him.

But since Mr. Cuomo took office at the beginning of the year and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s appointees began to assert their influence at the Port Authority, Mr. Ward found himself standing mostly alone. Mr. Cuomo’s schedules posted online don’t show any meetings with Mr. Ward.

And when President Barack Obama went to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site after Osama bin Laden was killed in May, he was flanked by the two governors, Mr. Bloomberg, and the man Mr. Christie had recently appointed as chairman of the Port Authority, David Samson. Mr. Ward, who many credited with jump-starting construction at the site, stood off camera.

Mr. Ward was one of the last high-profile appointees left over from Mr. Paterson’s administration. One of the others, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman Jay Walder, is set to leave for a job running Hong Kong’s mass-transit operator next month.

Much of Mr. Ward’s career has been spent managing New York’s increasingly creaky infrastructure. During Mr. Bloomberg’s first term, he ran the Department of Environmental Protection, which controls the city’s sewers and water distribution. After that, he spent time as chief executive of a firm that manages facilities at the region’s ports.

But he also brought an uncommon pedigree to the job. The son of an Amherst College president, he earned a master’s degree in theology from Harvard Divinity School.

He had also spent time in lower-level jobs at the Port Authority, and as recently as last week said that he would stay in his job as long as Mr. Cuomo would have him.

—Jacob Gershman contributed to this article.

Write to Andrew Grossman at andrew.grossman@wsj.com and Eliot Brown at eliot.brown@wsj.com

Know Your Enemy

1389 — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:29:55 +0000

Blazing Cat Fur brings us…

Al Qaeda’s Inspire Magazine Issue No. 7 – The 9/11 Edition

This issue demonstrates that Jihad is an “inner struggle” like they always tell us.

I do get a kick out of their “Contact Us” section.

[Issue7]

Read it or download it at Blazing Cat Fur. It’ll make you angry.

Also see:

Flt 93 mother on Crescent jury: “I don’t want to reach out to those people! THEY MURDERED MY DAUGHTER!”

1389 — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:33:52 +0000

Alec Rawls, who has been working with Tom Burnett Sr. to stop the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93, explains the circumstances (related by Mr. Burnett in 2008, but not published until now).

Mr. Burnett had been telling his fellow design competition jurors that the crescent is a well known Islamic symbol. In addition to the giant central crescent (now called a broken circle) Tom also objected to the minaret-like Tower of Voices. “I made a point at that meeting,” says Mr. Burnett, “to tell people that we have an Islamist design here that can’t go forward, please, stay with me.”

One of the left-wing design professionals on the jury, Tom Sokolowski (then director of Pittsburg’s Andy Warhol Museum) thought that objecting to the crescent shape, just because it happens to be used by Muslims, was anti-Muslim bigotry. In a rude attempt to shut down criticism, Sokolowski actually called Mr. Burnett “asinine” for objecting to the huge Islamic-shaped Crescent. (Sokolowski would later repeat this performance to the press, calling a local preacher “asinine,” “small minded,” “bigoted,” “repellant,” and “disgusting” for protesting the Crescent design.)

It was in this atmosphere, charged with universal awareness amongst the jurors that the giant crescent was indeed a well-known Islamic symbol shape, but also charged with uncertainty as to whether people would be allowed to mention this fact, that another family member, Sandra Felt, started to explain what she liked about the Crescent design. She liked the “embracing” nature of it, says Mr. Burnett. She liked the way it “reached out…”

At which point another family member “lost it” (Mr. Burnett’s description), screaming in agony: “I don’t want to reach out to those people! THEY MURDERED MY DAUGHTER!”

The Park Service claims it “lost” the minutes

This extreme level of conflict on the jury over perceived Islamic symbolism should have come out years ago. The jury included a designated, non-voting, minutes taker. This was not supposed to be a private deliberation. These were volunteer citizens, doing the people’s business, and the jury minutes were supposed to be made available to the public.

The Memorial Project and the Park Service claim that the minutes were “lost.” No doubt, but that doesn’t mean the loss was accidental, and defenders of the Crescent design had good reason to make the minutes go away. Any faithful record would have been explosive, revealing these fierce objections from multiple Flight 93 family members to the blatant Islamic symbolism in the Crescent design.

The ballot wasn’t supposed to be secret either, but the Park Service refuses to account for what they claim was a 9 to 6 tally in favor of the Crescent design. What does 9 to 6 even mean on what was a ranked vote amongst three designs? Did every ballot that did not rank the Crescent last get counted as a vote in favor?

The whole thing is fishy, and there is one most obvious reason why the defenders of the Crescent might want to keep the vote details hidden. The seven family members on the jury were outnumbered by eight academics and design professionals. Thus all six of the votes against the Crescent could have come from the kin, with only Sandra Felt voting for it. This is more than just possible. It is likely.

Another mother of the murdered said only that she agreed with Mr. Burnett, and he thought that the other two men amongst the family members (Gerald Bingham and Ed Root) were on his side as well, though both have since spoken out against his ongoing effort to rescind the chosen design. Bingham and Root are angry at the anguish that the families are still being put through over the memorial design, but could such men have voted for the Crescent in the first place, in the face of that mother’s anguished cry?

A vicious left-wing ideologue like Sokolowski, yes, but it seems almost inconceivable that family members could vote for a design that other family members saw as a tribute to the terrorists, or at the very least, as reaching out to Islam. Since Bingham and Root are willing to speak out, can they please tell us whether they voted for the Crescent? If they didn’t, then the vote amongst the family members was at least 5 to 2 against.

In support of Powerline’s John Hinderaker

The immediate impetus for making these revelations public now is to support John Hinderaker’s 10th anniversary 9/11 post:

You may remember that there was considerable controversy when the design for the Flight 93 memorial was unveiled. It was called “Crescent of Embrace.” The crescent is, of course, the central symbol of Islam, and the design apparently was intended to symbolize some sort of rapprochement with that religion. The winning design was chosen by a jury, and some members of the jury, including Thomas Burnett, whose son was one of the heroes who brought down the airplane, vigorously opposed it. As I understand it, no one on the jury questioned the Muslim reference inherent in the crescent, but a majority believed that it would somehow be “healing” for the memorial to be, in part at least, a sort of tribute to Islam.

That was John’s response to Tom Sr.’s revelations, and his statement is fully supportable, but for people to know why, the supporting information has to be available to everyone. Now it is.

Given the conflict between Mr. Burnett and Tom Sokolowski, there could not have been any doubt in any juror’s mind that the Crescent was an Islamic symbol shape. Indeed, the jury made a specific request, not honored by the Park Service or by architect Paul Murdoch, that:

The crescent should be referred to as ‘the circle or arc,’ or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography.

The only question was whether the use of this Islamic symbol shape should be seen as bad, and for a majority to favor the crescent design, a majority just have decided that it wasn’t bad, even in the face of family members who found it horrific.

Maybe these left-wing design professionals actually wanted to torture the families, but the generous interpretation is the one John gives: that they saw the Crescent design as symbolizing “some sort of rapprochement” with Islam. Certainly that seems to have been Sandra Felt’s idea, and at least one family member not on the jury thought it obvious that this must have been the intent of everyone who voted for the Crescent design. Mark Bingham’s mother, Alice Hoglan, just wished that the outreach to Islam had been made explicit:

The Flight 93 Memorial selection committee has admitted to misgivings about the word ‘crescent.’ I almost wish that instead they could claim they deliberately chose the crescent design as a gesture of peace and unity with the Islamic world. If they were to make that claim, I would not object. I would welcome such a compassionate gesture.

Unfortunately, regardless of the intentions of the jurors, architect Paul Murdoch did not have a compassionate gesture in mind.

A terrorist memorial mosque

Mr. Hinderaker’s anniversary post does not investigate whether the giant crescent actually does point to Mecca (allowing it to serve as an Islamic mihrab), or whether the Tower of Voices really is a year-round-accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial. Perfectly understandable, as these claims take some work to check and John had only just learned that the memorial controversy is still aboil, after thinking that it had been resolved in 2005.

But he does provide links to the evidence, and notes that some of it is accessible just by looking. Like why in the world does the Tower of Voices have an Islamic-shaped crescent on top?

The minaret-like Tower of Voices is formed in the shape of a crescent and is cut at an angle at the top so that its crescent arms reach up to the sky, as seen on mosque minarets across most of the Islamic world.

Literally dangling down below these symbolic Islamic heavens are the symbolic lives of the 40 heroes. This symbolic damnation is repeated over and over in Murdoch’s design. The memorial is not just any mosque, it is an al Qaeda victory mosque.

So much for trying to reach out to Islam without bothering to vet what part of Islam is being reached out to. Nothing could be worse for the decent people of the Islamic world than to hand a great victory to the very worst in the Islamic world. That is the problem with doing this Muslim-outreach thing on the sly.

Knowing the American people would never go along with intentional Islamic outreach, the Memorial Project had to cover up what actually went on in the jury room, and once they got into cover-up mode, they just kept covering up revelation after revelation about what is actually contained in Murdoch’s design.

Sokolowski’s own vile cover-up: attributing the Crescent choice to the families, after vilifying family members who opposed the Crescent design

Here is how the Post-Gazette reported on local preacher Ron McRae, who believed that architect Paul Murdoch had intended the Crescent as a tribute to Islam:

It’s a memorial to the terrorists,” McRae said. “It’s not a memorial to the innocent Americans who died there.”

But Tom Sokolowski, the director of the Andy Warhol Museum, and one of the Stage II jury members, said that claim is “asinine.”

“If the families of the 40 people who were killed felt this was an appropriate symbol to honor their loved ones, then I think he is delusional,” he said. “To take this small-minded, bigoted view is disgusting and repellent.”

Sokolowski knew that family members on the jury had taken that exact same “disgusting and repellent” view because he had said as much to their faces, and now here he was pretending that it was McRae, not himself, who was vilifying the families. Absolute moral trash of the highest order, even if he is just a feckless little worm. By intent, he is as evil as Murdoch.

Gordon Felt’s defense of the Crescent design is also belied by what transpired on the jury:

Gordon Felt, whose brother, Edward, died in the crash, called the focus on the crescent an “unfortunate distraction,” from the fourth anniversary memorial service tomorrow at the crash site.

Still, he continued, “It would be silly of us to have some sort of symbolism [in the memorial] that would be offensive to people.”

This from the man whose own sister in law had spoken in favor of the “reaching out” symbolism of the Crescent, symbolism that was seen by other family members as intending to reach out to Islam, inspiring the most dreadful offense. All this is FACT, and Gordon Felt waves off any thought of it as “silly.”

Did Gerald Bingham lie in his letter to the Memorial Project?

Mr. Bingham’s letter to the Memorial Project (p. 21 here) was timed to counter Mr. Burnett’s appearance at the 2008 Project meeting. It in-effect calls Mr. Burnett a liar, denying that Tom Sr. had ever raised any protest about Islamic symbolism when they served on the jury together:

Attention: Joanne Hanley
RE: Mr. Tom Burnett’s disapproval of the Memorial scheduled to be built honoring those on United Flight 93

Please read the following letter into the minutes of the Flight 93 board meeting scheduled for August 2, 2008.

I served on the Jury to select the final design for the Flight 93 Memorial along with Mr. Burnett. As I recall, Tom liked the design with a line of rocks along a 2 ½ mile walking trail. He indicated in his discussion with me that when it came to final vote that this would be the design of his choice. After the vote was taken and his design was not chosen he was very upset. Not once during these discussions did he mention that the design chosen by a majority vote of the committee had anything to do with a “symbol to the terrorist” as he is now saying.

The final design was chosen because its’ layout fit the landscape where the plane crashed and kept with the surrounding area.

I believe that Mr. Burnett has forgotten that this memorial is for 40 individual people who were on a flight taken over by terrorists and that all 40 of those people became heroes that day. All he is accomplishing at this point is causing other families aggravation and needless controversy.

We need to forge ahead with the plans as voted upon and join together as one just like our loved-ones did on United Flight 93, September 11, 2001.

Respectfully,
Gerald Bingham
Father of Mark Bingham

Mr. Bingham’s denial that Tom Sr. said anything about Islamic symbolism is contradicted by numerous data points, starting with the fact that Mr. Burnett spoke out to the press immediately after Crescent design was unveiled in 2005:

Tom Burnett Sr., whose son died in the crash, said he made an impassioned speech to his fellow jurors about what he felt the crescent represented.

“I explained this goes back centuries as an old-time Islamic symbol,” Burnett said. “I told them we’d be a laughing stock if we did this.”

But his fellow jurors — and it turns out, many of the other family members — disagree with his interpretation.

“I got blown off.”

But not entirely. The jurors, in their final report, suggested the name of Murdoch’s design be changed from crescent to something with less religious significance, like an arc or circle.

This is corroborated by Helene Fried, who helped to manage the design competition:

Fried said the connection was raised by some history buffs on the jury during three days of deliberations last month.

“Old time Islamic symbol.” “History buffs.” And if the Jury’s statement that the Crescent name is “tied to specific religious iconography” was not in response to Mr. Burnett’s protests, where did it come from? Is Bingham saying that others on the jury were more vehement than Mr. Burnett in pointing out and objecting to this tie?

Then there is Mr. Burnett’s account of Tom Sokolowski calling him “asinine” for objecting to the Islamic symbolism of the crescent. This is corroborated by the fact that Sokolowski used the exact same language to condemn Pastor Ron McRae. Altogether, the evidence is overwhelming that it is Gerald Bingham who was lying when he accused Mr. Burnett of lying.

For the sake of the families

Bingham makes his motivation clear. He opposes Mr. Burnett because:

All he is accomplishing at this point is causing other families aggravation and needless controversy.

But notice what Bingham doesn’t say. He is willing to discuss how Mr. Burnett voted, but he keeps his own vote secret. (Gerald Bingham has been divorced from Mark Bingham’s mother Alice Hoglan since the 1970′s, so her stated approval of Muslim-outreach in the Flight 93 Memorial should not be linked to him.)

If Bingham voted for the Crescent, his secrecy about his vote would make no sense. Everyone from Sokolowski on up appeals to the will of the families. Bingham himself does this. These appeals obviously turn on whether the nine votes for the Crescent design came from family members or from the cadre of left-wing design professionals who outnumbered the families 8 to 7.

For Bingham’s objective of ending the controversy, the most weighty thing he could say is that he voted for it, but he doesn’t. And how could he have voted for the Crescent? This is a man who is so keen to avoid pain for the families that he is even willing to tell slanderous lies about the one family member he blames for dragging out the controversy. Surely such a man would never have voted in the first place for a design that was already causing the most extreme anguish to multiple family members.

Ed Root is also loud in his condemnations but mum about his vote

Jury member Ed Root also attacks Mr. Burnett and Mr. Rawls for continuing to oppose the Crescent design (p. 22 here):

Those who oppose this Memorial, for whatever misplaced reasons, have voiced their belief on numerous occasions. That is a striking example of the democracy we hold dear. When those unfounded beliefs turn to a zealotry that attempts to overthrow the very democratic process that selected the winning design it does a terrible disservice to those who worked long and diligently during the design process and, to me, it mocks those very 40 that we long to honor. Our nation is one of laws and due process. To let a few destroy what many have built is not democracy, but tyranny.

Yet Root too keeps his vote secret. It could just be embarrassment, not wanting to admit that he voted for such an obvious perversion, crammed to the gills with Islamic-shaped crescents. Or it could be that he was better than that, and despite the magnificence of Murdoch’s Crescent, was unwilling to vote for as design that other family members found so appallingly offensive.

Mr. Burnett says he liked Mr. Root, and it is easy to see why. They both believe the passengers and crew were fighting, not just to stop the terrorist attack, but to get back to their families:

“The people of Flight 93 wanted to live,” Root said while visiting “Father Al” and the chapel in July. “There’s no doubt in my mind, they didn’t want to die.”

That distinguishes the passengers and crew from the hijackers, in Root’s eyes.

“[The passengers and flight attendants] wanted to try to get control of the plane and, if possible, to survive,” he said. “But they knew from all of the phone calls that if they didn’t do something, it would be far worse. So it really is this comparison of philosophies of a free society versus a terrorist society. One is, their cause is death; the other is, their cause is life. And that’s what makes this worthy of a national memorial. That’s what makes this worth being remembered.

Maybe he can join with Mr. Burnett in demanding an explanation for Memorial Superintendent Keith Newlin’s claim that it was the passengers and crew who crashed the airplane: “They are the one’s who brought the plane down,” says Newlin. This is his way of avoiding the implication that the circle-breaking crescent-creating theme of the memorial can only be depicting the actions of the terrorists. “[The terrorists] TRIED to break the peace,” says Newlin, “but they failed.” Surely Root would disagree.

But Root is wrong about who is refusing to respect democratic principles. Their 15 person jury does not take precedence over the will of the nation, clearly expressed in the national uproar over the original Crescent of Embrace design. The Memorial Project promised to remove the offensive features—the Islamic symbol shapes—but they never did. They just disguised them.

“The difference is at best a subtle one”

Thanks to Powerline for exposing this as well:

Crescent of Embrace, left. Circle of Embrace, right.

They call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is just the original Crescent of Embrace. All they did was recolor the graphics, then add an extra arc of trees, placed to the rear of a person facing into the giant crescent, that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. As a result, Murdoch’s circle-breaking crescent-creating theme is now even more explicit, and so are its obvious terrorist-memorializing implications.

Will other front-line conservative blogs and publications take notice?

John Hinderaker is a top lawyer, a lifelong expert at evaluating evidence. When he announces that there is serious substance to the Flight 93 controversy, serious people ought to listen.

Everybody understands the difficulty. With multiple Flight 93 family members crying their anguish against anyone who prolongs the controversy, people need to actually look at the facts before taking a position. So take a look! MANY of the facts are perfectly straightforward and utterly damning. Not everyone can be as brave as Pamela Geller, but no one should let the whiff of danger stop them from examining this most important issue.

We’re talking no less than the re-hijacking of Flight 93 by an actual al Qaeda sympathizing architect. Think 9/11 folks. The whiff of danger should be an attractant, a chance to tackle a hijacker. Those lied-to and in some cases lying family members need to have their fat pulled out of the fire. Ride to the sound of the guns.

“Live to Die (for virgins in the sky)” ― Must Watch Music Video about Radical Islam

Zenster — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:21:08 +0000

This clip was removed from YouTube/Google despite how they carrying loads of pro-terrorist propaganda by Hamas, the Taliban and other Islamic sewer pipes.

WARNING: Graphic images may be unsuitable for young children.

Song by: Joe Dan Gorman .

Hat Tip: Patriot’s Corner

Hat Tip: Creeping Sharia

No Rabat at Ground Zero!

1389 — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 04:50:33 +0000

Warns MsBlue at Blazing Cat Fur:

As a hindu, I laugh at the naivety of the left who think the ground zero mosque is not a victory mosque. here is a link about the thousands of victory mosques in india, built over the destroyed remains of hindu temples.

By Sita Ram Goel [et. al.]:
Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them

Islam center’s eerie echo of ancient terror

Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is proposed is not a mosque — nor even an “Islamic cultural center.”

In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.

Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.

This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn’t be any of the above.

The groups fighting for the project know this; this is why they sometimes call it an Islamic cultural center. But there is no such thing as an Islamic culture.

Islam is a religion, not a culture. Each of the 57 Muslim-majority nations has its own distinct culture — and the Bengali culture has little in common with the Nigerian. Then, too, most of those countries have their own cultural offices in the US, especially in New York.

Islam is an ingredient in dozens of cultures, not a culture on its own.

In theory, at least, the culture of American Muslims should be American. Of course, this being America, each ethnic community has its distinct cultural memories — the Iranians in Los Angeles are different from the Arabs in Dearborn.

In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat — literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American “Great Satan,” this would be of great symbolic value.

More here.

How Will it End?

Zenster — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:19:37 +0000

Author’s note: This is the third of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate. These articles are written in memoriam of the 9-11 atrocity’s tenth anniversary and are dedicated to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on that fateful day.

How will it end?

Short answer ― The Muslim holocaust.

There is a proverb whose thread is found both in Aesop and the Bible. It reads:

“The clay pot should keep its distance from the iron kettle.”

Instead of keeping its distance, Islam has cozened its way into Western civilization and, parading under false colors as an alleged religion, it flies a counterfeit Liberal standard of interfaith Multiculturalism. Besotted with its own temporary successes and newfound “purity” ― through a recent reformation leaving it even more violent, intolerant, misogynistic and puritanical ― Islam is in the process of infiltrating Western civilization to an unprecedented degree. However, in this respect, it is the non-industrial Islamic clay pot that is getting too close to the militarily advanced Western iron kettle.

A Talmudic variation of this fable provides a different perspective: “If a pot falls upon a stone, woe to the pot; if a stone falls upon a pot, woe to the pot; either way, woe to the pot” (Esther Rabbah, 7:10). For Islam’s clay pot, violence is the stone. As Islam continues to embrace terrorism it is eagerly drawn to that stone with a dangerous degree of impetus. In its love of death and martyrdom, Islam puts the stone in precipitous motion, which just as often falls upon the heads of Muslims themselves.

In either case ― much as with so-called Islamic martyrdom ― Islam imprudently brings itself into proximity with danger and eventually this will prove its own undoing. Suffused with delusions of adequacy, Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare to an extent that Islam can only dream of, despite its supremacist fantasies.

Like a candle that sputters and flares, Islam casts outsized shadows which too many in the West mistake for genuine military potency. The exact opposite is true and it is only by using the asymmetrical warfare of terrorism that Islam holds any sway. It is a schoolyard bully writ large and every bit as cowardly. The brittleness of Islamic doctrine is too often confused with strength and its fanaticism taken for authority.

In a recent Berlin speech, Swiss Member of Parliament, Oskar Freysinger, noted that, “Islam is only as strong as we are weak.” One glimpse of how Islam remains almost entirely reliant upon Political Correctness to drive its Western agenda reveals that this parasitic entity’s success wholly depends upon the frailty of a civilization debilitated by Multiculturalism and self-doubt. This is underscored both by the physical compulsion and violence that lies beneath so much of Islamic doctrine and the fact that no nation in history has ever voluntarily adopted Islam without an application of force being involved.

Politician Barrack Obama epitomizes the danger that Liberals pose to Islam. Not only do they appease and cower before Islamic bullying but Liberalism also infantilizes Muslim men through the soft racism of lowered expectations. Thus enabled by such hollow victories, Islam is capable of duping itself into believing its own propaganda; a perilous mistake at the best of times and often fatal in a time of conflict.

Little do Liberals understand how they will be among the first who go to the wall should Islam prevail. Nor, in their haste to disarm the world, do they understand that such military ineptitude on their part will see them left with few responses other than nuclear Armageddon when confronted by WMD terrorist strikes. Through appeasement and facilitation, Liberals are Islam’s most dangerous “friends”.

This same Politically Correct doctrine has seen ineffectual campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost the multinational coalition on the order of two trillion dollars, with America shouldering a lopsided $1.36 trillion share of the burden. That is the cost of keeping in check just two of some fifty Muslim majority countries. Subduing the other four dozen Islamic nations represents at least another staggering $96 trillion dollars of expenditure and countless more military casualties. No single nation or combination of international economies can possibly afford this sort of expenditure.

This inordinate cost of conventional war needed to obtain even a modicum of peace is, perhaps, the grimmest thing about Islam’s future. As the mask slips and “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam are revealed to be mainstream and fully compatible with regularly accepted Islamic doctrine, Total War ― something Muslims continue to boast of declaring against the West ― looms evermore probable. However, the economic factors alone point directly away from conventional war.

Truth be told, in the absence of that $96 trillion dollars, there is only unconventional warfare left as a survival option. Nuclear weapons represent the sole existing and cost-effective way of managing hostilities with some 1.6 billion people. Like a proverbial trout in the milk pail, this one simple fact is difficult to ignore. Basic economics dooms perpetually hostile Islam to utter annihilation.

Any expectation of Islam pacifying, moderating or reforming itself must be dismissed out of hand. Islam has already undergone a recent reformation from which it emerged as an even more intolerant, more violent, more puritanical and more misogynistic creed. Those Muslims who do seek any pacification or sincere moderation of Islam’s violent doctrine are usually put to death by more devout believers.

Lending some much needed perspective to this nettlesome debacle is a quick estimate of the death toll that reasonably could be expected if Islam somehow managed to take over the world. Here are several, admittedly, rough estimates of what to anticipate from the establishment of a global caliphate.

1.) Extermination of all Jews:
Some 13.5 million people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.

2.) Execution of all homosexuals:
We will use what some call a “wildly exaggerated figure” for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other sexual deviants who would all be put to death under shari’a. Therefore, some 10% of the world’s population or 600 million people would fall into this category.

The remaining factors that follow are much more difficult to quantify.

3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:
It’s safe to say that nearly everyone in the counterjihad movement would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America or Europe. Worldwide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We’ll place it at a meager 100 million.

4.) Women denied access to medical care:
This is a huge number because, under Islamic law, women would only be able to be seen by female doctors—an exceedingly small fraction of this world’s medical practitioners. We’ll use the figure for global female cancer mortality rates as an example of how reduced early intervention would escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure amounts to more than 3 million per year.

5.) Liquidation of political prisoners:
Toss in another 10 million dead. Remember, Islam has many enemies, be they perceived or real.

6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:
We shall use the world’s population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death instead. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure approaches over 1 billion.

We now have a total of 1.726 billion people who would die within the first year or so of Islam establishing its global caliphate. This figure is larger than the world’s Muslim population. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its excessive demand for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants; be they political, religious or otherwise.

Concealed in all this is a small yet meaningful number of so-called “honor killings” that typically involve young Muslim girls or wives who ― through premarital sexual activity or inappropriate dalliances ― have disgraced their families and are put to death for it, typically by their own family members. In a global caliphate, over one million of these murders per year would not be an unexpected figure. Do not think for one moment that Western women would magically be immune from this stricture. Imams and Islamic mutaween (“morals police”) would cheerfully put to death any youthful or adult offenders regardless of their race or belief.

Hidden even deeper in these figures is a calculation which will probably fail to evoke much sympathy amongst knowledgeable Westerners; yet, humanity demands that it be recognized. Should the global Islamic caliphate arrive, there also would be countless more Muslim deaths, just as there are today throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East); except for now these executions would proceed briskly, unfettered by any condemnation from the world community that they, at least marginally, receive today. Rape victims being given lashes or stoned to death and other appalling injustices would flourish.

However crude the above projections are, they do not even account for a world suddenly stripped of many modern technologies considered haram (“forbidden”) by Islam. A sharp drop in agricultural productivity, reduction in medical services ― as noted above ― along with the elimination of food supplies derived from haram animals, such as pigs (including rennet, gelatin, whey and alcohol), would see mass starvations and medically preventable deaths soar upwards. These are just a bare few examples of the unknown death toll that would accompany an Islamic caliphate. Unimaginable as it may seem, imposition of global shari’a could result in the death of up to half this world’s population.

None of this deals with the tremendous loss of Western and world heritage in the form of buildings, monuments, paintings, sculptures, books and priceless documents that would be heaped upon bonfires or pulverized into rubble. The Magna Carta, America’s Constitution plus innumerable other ephemera would go up in smoke. Notre Dame’s fabulous Rose Window would follow the Bamiyan Buddhas into oblivion. They would be just the start of unparalleled and inconceivable vandalism on a global scale.

Rarely, if ever ― even among counterjihad fora ― is there any mention of either the massive death toll or the loss of heritage that would accompany global shari’a law. There remains, especially in the larger public, an almost intentional ignorance of these two devastating potentials. Eventually, in the face of so much stark evidence, it becomes difficult to deny that there exists the will not to believe.

This will not to believe carries its own loathsome price tag. Recent events in Norway show that long before Muslims manage to demographically displace native Europeans there will begin a serious backlash against the Multiculturalists who have imposed this lethal burden upon the West. It is rather doubtful that American and European culture will go quietly into the Politically Correct Islamic night.

Ironically, as Muslims continue to financially drain the West ― through exorbitant military campaigns, increased security measures, petroleum sales and abuse of social benefits in host countries ― they only increase the eventual appeal of cost effective measures that will be required to subdue Islam. There will also come a time when Western nations begin to recoil at the prospect of sending any more soldiers to die for the sake of letting Muslims erect yet another shari’a government and terrorist production facility.

Complicating all of this is how the concept of military deterrence is essentially nonfunctional as regards Islam. A culture that glorifies and worships death is more than difficult to deter. For every bit that the West shrinks from waging Total War, the necessity of posing an existential threat to Islam only increases. When it comes to the ineffectuality of deterrence, no better example exists that of modern day Iran. The ramifications of Ahmadinejad’s tutelage under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pose some serious issues. Recall Khomeini’s words during his 1980 speech in Qom, the Shi’ite spiritual hub:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

When Ahmadinejad threatens to “wipe Israel off the map” it is with the implicit knowledge that Iran, as a country, may perish as a result. In effect, he is turning his entire nation into a gigantic suicide bomber. Neither is this the end of it. Iran’s reckless pursuit of genocide against the Jews could precipitate the Muslim holocaust all by itself. Little known to most people is Israel’s Samson Option. If true, the Jewish state has quietly informed its Arab neighbors that a single WMD strike against Israel will result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) being incinerated in nuclear plasma. Hundreds of fusion warheads along with newly acquired Dolphin class submarines and cruise missiles back this up.

There is cold comfort in this for Israel but it also has quite worrisome implications for the West. At a recent pan-Arab conference Saudi Arabia’s king essentially told Ahmadinejad to “sit down and shut up” with his genocidal ravings before the entire MME is annihilated. Should he take this admonishment to heart, then the question is beggared as to who else might be targeted for an Iranian nuclear strike.

It bears mentioning how simple statistics indicate that, beyond a certain as yet undetermined number of Islamic nuclear warheads, there emerges a non-zero probability that one or more of them will fall into terrorist hands. Keeping that in mind, America ― better known to Iranians as “The Great Satan” ― suddenly materializes as a grim alternative target to Israel. What’s more, the Obama administration’s abject appeasement of Islam can only have strengthened Muslim perceptions that the United States lacks sufficient political will to respond in kind should it experience a nuclear terrorist attack.

As noted earlier, Obama and most of his cabinet have little to no military experience. With their being so unlettered in war fighting doctrine, could it not be possible that these appeasers might abruptly discover ― after repeated military budget cuts ― that massive nuclear retaliation was their sole playing card? Again, pro-disarmament Liberals rate as the most dangerous kind of “friends” that Islam could have.

Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is. A far less costly program of “wetwork” style targeted assassinations directed at the top echelons of Islam’s clerical, political, scholastic and financial aristocracy could see global jihad quickly screech to a grinding halt. Information hoarding is a way of life in the MME and even more so with terrorist leaders. Break enough strands in their networks and they will no longer function. A useful side effect of such a program would be to create numerous power vacuums that would draw violent contenders like moths to a candle’s flame. Subsequent infighting might even match the original fallout with equally fruitful results.

As noted in Part II of this essay, Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it. Belmont Club’s Richard Fernandez (Wretchard), was one of the first to note this in his 2003 magnum opus, “The Three Conjectures”:

The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

It is more than safe to say that an industrially and militarily unlettered Islam is not going to take over the world using such a feeble tool as terrorism. As was also noted in Part II, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast and that pace far outstrips any ability of theirs to perfect the mass production of intricate nuclear weapons nor muster fighting forces of even marginal proficiency. Chronic overreach is a hallmark of Islam and its habit of poking at the Western nuclear dragon with its terrorist pointed wooden stick bodes especially unwell for Muslims everywhere.

Fernandez goes on to observe:

Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Remember that for eight long years, Iran and Iraq fought to a bloody stalemate using chemical weapons and even ten year-old boys as human minesweepers. Less conservative estimates cite up to a million Muslim fatalities with both nations sending the flower of their youth into an insatiable meat grinder. Now, consider how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in two weeks. This is the “reality gap” confronting Islam and its delusory vision of world domination. No such thing will ever happen.

Given that the global caliphate is forever out of reach, whither Islam? What of its obsessive quest for global supremacy? Handily, Israel provides us with a micro synopsis of the macro global problem. Imagine a tiny nation like Costa Rica routinely beating America’s military posterior like a cheap dime store drum. That is the equivalent of Israel defeating the combined military might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Please remember that, in Arab culture, humiliation is worse than death. Abandoning conventional warfare in favor of terrorism, the Arab nations intentionally selected a strategy of low-intensity conflict whose upper limit would not trigger direct intervention by the global community.

Thus was tiny Israel left alone to defend itself against continuous terrorist attacks the like of which no other nation on earth save, perhaps, India has had to endure. What of the much vaunted peace negotiations; the Oslo “Road Map” and so forth? What about the “land for peace” concessions that Israel has so often made in the pursuit of a negotiated settlement?

Few people understand that any sort of “negotiated peace” with Israel would serve to unravel the entire Islamic Arab consciousness. Reaching even the least sort of peace agreement would be a frank admission that jihad had failed. Furthermore, any recognition of a Jewish state would contravene the genocidal doctrine that is a cornerstone of Islam. Acceptance of Israel’s continued existence contradicts Islamic canon on so many levels that any such thing is unimaginable.

Piled on top of this is Israel’s continuous string of military victories against often overwhelming Arab forces. How then to explain that away without an indisputable annihilation of Israel tucked under their Islamic belt? Deprived of any concrete proof that Islam actually can prevail against the eternally hated Jew, please do not begin to imagine that there will be any near term cessation of hostilities, if ever.

Thus we are presented with the micro model of global terrorism. Withdrawal, surrender, in fact, peace of any sort with Islam is simply out of the question. In reality, Islam offers nothing that remotely resembles an actual “peace treaty”. Instead, there is only hudna, a temporarily cessation of hostilities that is specifically designed to permit Muslims the rearming needed to then break that “truce” at their convenience. Whither Israel … whither the global community where Islam is concerned.

So long as the West does not pose an existential threat to Islam’s continued presence on earth, there will be no accommodation of any sort. This is the bottom line. That degree of political will is sorely lacking in the West and, even if it existed, there is little likelihood that anyone involved would appreciate how any such pact with the unbelievers would be broken at the first instant of advantage for Islam.

Islam has always demanded to be paid in its own bloody coin. Violence is the only tender it recognizes and all other currency is scorned as a coward’s coinage. Hudna, taqiyya and kitman all assure that there is no hope of an honorably negotiated peace. Islam wants no such thing. Global domination is its imperative and any re-scripting of those priorities is simply out of the question.

Hardest of all to remember is that this has been Islam’s central doctrine from the very beginning of its existence. The West’s opposition or threat to Muslims has no bearing on why Islam wages its barbarous terrorism against us. The hammer of violence remains Islam’s only tool and we are all nails in its sight. Islam has already determined how it will end. It is merely a matter of survival for the West and to let Islam’s chips fall where they may. Muslims will forever be cannon fodder for Islam’s eternal jihad. Until they realize this and rebel for once and all time against their warlord masters nothing will ever change.

Remember … as always; Islam wouldn’t have it any other way.

That is how it will end.

Part I: “When Will it End?”

Part II: “Why Will it End?”

Why Will it End?

Zenster — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:18:11 +0000

Author’s note: This is the second of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate. These articles are written in memoriam of the 9-11 atrocity’s tenth anniversary and are dedicated to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on that fateful day.

Why will it end?

Short answer ― Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it.

Tragically, for Islam there is no possibility of a happy ending. It has often been said that the only peace which Islam ― famously known as “The Religion of Peace” ― offers anyone is the peace of the grave. Pakistan ― which means “land of the pure” ―provides the best evidence of this in that it is a prototypical Islamic nation intended to mirror the everyday rule of shari’a law. That country’s horrific level of almost daily slaughter and mayhem clearly demonstrates how ― even if Islam were to attain global ascendancy ― the violence and terrorism would never stop.

The Islamic concept of takfir (“impure”), literally assures this in that a more devout Muslim is religiously sanctioned for killing a less pure Muslim. This lack of purity could be interpreted as someone who does not pray all five times a day or consumes food during daylight hours over the course of Ramadan. The possible paths descending into Islamic “impurity” are as numerous as they are varied and it is an ironclad guarantee that Islam will always be torn by internecine violence.

Exacerbating this situation is the West’s collective inability to discern Islam in general and why there is so little hope for it. It echoes the ancient parable about a group of blind men describing an elephant.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a tree trunk; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a snake; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a flag; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a spear.

Much to the glee of Muslims everywhere, most Westerners are still a lot like those blind men and the pachyderm. Islam is so voluminous and just sufficiently varied enough that it seems to defy description. This is especially so for the less informed who can but bear shocked witness to the endless discord and bloodshed that pervades the Islamic world. Only after gaining an understanding of Islam’s core doctrines does one obtain adequate perspective such that the elephant finally begins to emerge. The 9-11 atrocity was Western civilization’s first dawning awareness that the Islamic elephant is like a spear.

Islam is all of the above elephantine descriptions. It is a veritable tree trunk of a totalitarian creed whose roots extend over a millennium deep into recorded history. It is also a rope by which unsuspecting cultures have hung themselves many times over were they so foolish or unsuspecting as to disregard Islam’s historic threat. Like the asp which Cleopatra drew to her breast, Islam has routinely slithered away from history’s spotlight as the cause of ruined civilizations, genocides, mass enslavements and untold human suffering which transcend anything Europe or America ever aspired to in their wildest dreams.

Islam also manifests as a flag around which this world’s criminal elements continue to rally under a banner of religiously sanctioned murder, rape, pedophilia, looting and thieving which, terrorism aside ― as if that was even possible ― fills police blotters and drains global coffers with an almost enviable consistency unmatched by all but the most accomplished career politicians. Like any wall, Islam continually and everywhere builds enclaves which exclude unbelievers within their own domains and barricades Muslims from influences both external and even the threat of internal “westernization” that just as often sees young Muslim women murdered by their own families in so-called “honor killings”.

Last but, most certainly, not least is the way that Islam is like a spear. Islamic hijra has thrust Muslims deep within Western civilization only to see them infect every last institution with their steady subversion of Constitutional rights and basic liberties. Hackneyed cries of “racism” and “Islamophobia” ― as if a fear of Islam could ever be irrational ― are trotted out in response to every legitimate criticism of Islam; even as Muslims set about stifling free speech and freedom of expression around the world. At this spear’s sharp end are the over over 17,000 deadly terrorist attacks that have happened since the 9-11 atrocity.

Compounding all of this havoc are the Islamic “principles” of kitman and taqiyya. They amount to religiously sanctioned deceit and outright lying. As if this were not bad enough, the situation is further exacerbated by Mainstream Media’s adamant refusal to provide accurate and unbiased reporting about Islam’s seditious goal of toppling Constitutional democracies throughout the West.

Islam remains a predatory entity that has not been able to establish any self-sustaining degree of industry or technology for almost a millennium. It has relied upon piracy and looting for nearly the entire span of its existence. Even now the MME (Muslim Middle East) is heavily reliant upon foreign engineering and industrial facilities management in order to further develop and maintain its petroleum extraction operations. If the MME did not have access to this Western technology and was obliged to invent it from scratch, all of their oil would still be in the ground, even today.

One immense irony is that ― despite Islam’s aspirations for a global caliphate ― it is unhealthy for too many unbelievers to be converted into Muslims. Once this happens, the jizya (“poll tax”) can no longer be collected, nor can possessions, businesses or estates be confiscated so readily. There have already occurred phases in Islamic history where further conversion of natives living in occupied lands was discouraged as it interfered with the appropriation of wealth that is central to financing more jihad. It is also vital to remember that any refusal to pay the jizya is punishable by immediate death.

Conversely, there is a twin principal to jizya known as hijra which derives from the Arabic word for “migration” or “flight”. In this case, it is a that strategy involves flooding Muslim immigrants into those Western nations which cannot be overcome militarily. Displaying a regular pattern of behavior, these new arrivals ― in strict accord with Islamic law ― refuse to assimilate or integrate and form exclusively Muslim enclaves while gradually instituting shari’a law whenever possible.

This form of demographic warfare is commonly known as “stealth” or “soft” jihad and it is the strategy of choice for many within Islam who seek to conquer the West. In fact, there are Muslims who condemn the late Osama bin Laden for having prematurely tipped Islam’s hand with the 9-11 atrocity along with other subsequent terrorist attacks in Bali, Madrid, Beslan and London; preferring, instead, the gradual overthrow of indigenous cultures through demographic displacement.

This is nothing other than a process of colonization and it is reflected in how non-Muslims are routinely driven out of these enclaves through threats of violence, boycotts and extortion. Furthermore, when a sufficient population density is attained, even visiting non-Muslims are subjected to physical assault and threats of violence should they stray into one of these “no-go zones”. Due to Islamic polygamy, such population densities arrive far sooner than typical demographics for the host nations involved.

Once established, there begins a process of draining financial support from local or central government. This is in addition to criminal predation upon surrounding neighborhoods in the form of robbery, theft and extortion. Due to purdah ― the confinement and isolation of Muslim women ― typically there is a surge in the pimping, sexual assault and rape of non-Muslim women in areas around these enclaves. Minors are especially vulnerable to this because of how Islam regards Mohammad’s marriage to his six year-old child bride, Aisha, as a model of perfect conduct. Central to any understanding of Islam is that this entire process is one of obtaining tribute (jizya) from unbelievers.

This tribute is regarded as being their automatic due in that Muslims consider themselves to be the world’s Master Race. A proper understanding of Islam cannot be had without recognizing this one central point. Augmenting this process of encroachment are other criminal activities such a drug dealing and establishing businesses with the strict aim of underreporting income to evade taxes. All of these activities result in a disproportionate consumption of taxpayer monies even while shirking anything remotely approaching their own fair share of contribution to the tax base. Again, this overconsumption of taxpayer monies is regarded as a form of extracting tribute and nothing else.

To illustrate just how corrosive this process of hijra is, we shall examine the huge influx of “refugees” arriving at Italy’s tiny island of Lampedusa. To date, more than 50,000 have landed, the vast majority of them being Muslims of North and Central African origin. A little “cocktail napkin” math will quickly demonstrate the impact of these “immigrants” and their colonization of Europe.

Without including the cost of erecting or furnishing shelters for these 50,000 individuals, just the processing cost per person easily approaches €1,000. This processing cost, multiplied by 50,000 suddenly gyrates into €50 million. Remember, no food costs, utilities, security or health care expenses are factored into maintenance of the refugee centers. This is just the paperwork costs, including the salaries of those bureaucrats who process these “refugees”.

Once released into the Schengen Agreement countries of Europe, these individuals are free to apply for social benefits, subsidized housing and also to receive medical treatment. In some countries such subsidies easily approach €30,000 per year. If 50,000 “immigrants” receive just €30,000 per year in combined benefits that sum represents €1.5 billion in social service outlays annually. This disregards the fact that such newcomers are often chronically unemployable and ― as is too often the case with Muslims ― voluntarily illiterate, refusing to even learn the host country’s language so as to reduce any chance of assimilation or integration.

None of this addresses the gigantic outlays related to apprehending, prosecuting and incarcerating the criminal elements amongst these “refugees”. Throughout Europe, Muslims are disproportionately represented in rape, violent crime and imprisonment statistics. The expense of this criminality reaches into extra billions of Euros per year and does not cover property damage, victim rehabilitation and other ancillary expenses. Nor does this speak to the same criminal practices and consequences resulting from ostensibly legal immigration into Europe by tens of millions of Muslims over the past few decades.

Another relatively hidden yet devastating factor lies in how Muslims remain the world’s largest group that practices consanguineous marriage, typically to first cousins. Studies in Great Britain reveal that Pakistani immigrants ― some of the most dedicated practitioners of consanguineous marriage ― are up to thirteen times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive disorders. Due to this preference in marriage practices, Muslims experience some of the highest birth defect rates in the entire world.

Try to imagine the disproportionate drain on taxpayer funded hospitals and outpatient services that these deformed, retarded and immunologically compromised children pose to Western societies. Again, this is merely one more way of extracting tribute from an already financially hemorrhaging West. Far more sinister are studies that indicate how these retarded children often are prime candidates to be used in carrying out bomb vest attacks in MME countries. How soon before that tactic is adopted here?

All of this represents an unparalleled Islamic encroachment upon Western civilization unknown since the Moorish occupation of pre-colonial era Spain. This invasion by Islam will continue unabated until the West manifests sufficient political will to reject how Muslims march under false religious colors. Long ago, Europe threw off the shackles of emerging Christian theocracy. How then, is it that Islam’s own brand of hideously blatant theocracy cannot be named for what it most clearly is?

If there is no separation of church and state, it’s not a religion, it’s a state.

Theocracy of any stripe is the penultimate enemy of human liberty and freedom. Among all forms of governance it has the absolute worst historic track record and is unrivaled for its death tolls. Why so few are willing to rip the mask from Islam’s putative status as a religion and label it as the tyrannous political ideology that it obviously is remains one of the most puzzling questions in recent years.

Equally astonishing is the almost total lack of acrimony being show towards Islam despite innumerable terrorist atrocities and its near total violation of human rights as we know them. Mainstream Media’s own conspiracy of silence regarding this constant affront to civilization allows Islam to punch well above its weight and duck the sound drubbing that it so richly deserves. The neglect of this much needed retaliation bodes ill for, not just the West, but Islam as well.

The longer that this farce is allowed to play out, the higher that the stakes become. No better example of this exists than the imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. Should this be allowed to happen, it will go down in history as the single greatest strategic military blunder of this new century. Regardless of its Shi’ite swaddling, Iran is the modern face of political Islam replete with sponsorship of international terrorism, genocidal doctrine, abject gender apartheid and the destruction of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) antiquities. Iran embodies Islamic theocracy writ large and is a pluperfect example of what to expect from any nation that thoroughly embraces political Islam.

Furthermore, there is no possible way for Islam to accept the West’s primacy of manmade law. It flies in the face of shari’a which has been handed down by Allah and cannot be countermanded. More so, any such acceptance of democracy would diminish the dominance and validity of shari’a law, something which has always been punishable by death. Furthermore, the prosperity of Western civilization represents a direct threat to Islam. Difficult as it is to imagine, the benisons of modern industrialization are regarded by some within Islam as being toxic to jihad and Islam’s aspirations of establishing a global caliphate.

There are even Muslim religionists who declare that prosperity is bad for Islam. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda both viewed the comfort and stability of Western-induced prosperity as a potent distraction that could make Muslims stray from the path of jihad.

What [deceased second in al Qaeda command] Al-Ayyeri sees now is a “clean battlefield” in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels “secularist democracy.” This threat is “far more dangerous to Islam” than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy’s “seductive capacities.” This form of “unbelief” persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the “unalterable laws” promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to “make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad . “If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims “reluctant to die in martyrdom” in defense of their faith.[emphasis added]

This is one of the few reasonable explanations for why Muslim majority nations continue to be among the most undeveloped and technologically backward lands on earth. Poverty and deprivation are used as levers to drive jihad. Envy and jealousy are converted into hatred in order to blame the West for Islam’s manifold shortcomings. If further proof is needed, a cursory glance at Israel tells the entire story. It, too, was once arid and under-populated but in just a handful of decades has become an agricultural paradise, technological powerhouse and bastion of functional democracy amid a sea of Arab tyrannies.

As Winston Churchill noted about Islam, “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” This is why it is foredoomed to failure. Islam’s obsession with, and glorification of, death is just one signifier among many that herald its eventual demise. The harsh penalties and frequent resort to amputation or capital punishment all serve to belie Islam as “the religion of peace”. The vast majority of genocides, conflicts and outright wars being fought today are because of Islam and MME borders that literally drip with blood. Also few, if any, Muslim majority nations are not on record as severe violators of human rights.

The reputation of Muslims as predatory criminals and intensely parasitic occupiers all combines into a damning indictment of Islam. Its presence on earth only promises increased conflict, more atrocities, new genocides and unwarranted diversions of wealth that could better serve far more deserving causes. Finally, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast to where they cannot be expected to keep pursuing their own petty quarrels instead of addressing the overarching threat of jihad. The complete and total inability of Islam to coexist with any legitimate faith or other culture presages a day when its numerous victims will band together in pursuit of an ultimate victory. That is why it will end.

Part I: “When Will it End?”

Part three, “How Will it End?” follows.

When Will it End?

Zenster — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:38:23 +0000

Author’s note: This is the first of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate. These articles are written in memoriam of the 9-11 atrocity’s tenth anniversary and are dedicated to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on that fateful day.

When will it end?

Short answer ― It will end when the tipping point is reached.

This tipping point can be defined as follows:

When living with Muslims becomes more trouble than living without Muslims.

How often have you heard the following?

“Do not touch or move unattended parcels, bags or packages and report them to security.”

Everybody who reads these words has heard a variant of that announcement. It is a now-familiar litany that underscores most modern civilian travel like some sort of off-key drone note in an increasingly odious dirge. All forms of mass transportation involve similar, often intrusive, security measures and, overwhelmingly, one single entity is responsible for their necessity; namely, Islamic terrorism.

When will such public warnings finally be unnecessary? For how long are we supposed to put up with the risk of random terrorist attacks? Will our grandchildren be obliged to beware of abandoned parcels? Will their grandchildren have to do the same? How much longer will the civilized world continue to tolerate this preposterous assault upon its wellbeing and general quality of life? When will it end?

If it was possible to set aside terrorism-related loss of life ― and it most certainly is not ― the financial cost alone of combating it is absurd. Let us examine just one single factor; increased waiting times at airports. An extra hour or three doesn’t seem like much until you start doing the math.

Some 1.5 million passengers per day originate from American airports. Domestic flights have a one hour minimum wait time and international travel requires an early check in of at least three hours. We will split the difference and use an average of two hours wait. Even though a majority of domestic flights are not international, please rest assured that this slightly top-heavy coefficient will barely compensate for many other downstream factors.

Two hours of wait time multiplied by 1.5 million passengers equals 3 million working hours lost due to increased airport waiting periods. Airport WiFi services do not begin to counteract these losses in productivity because of how fax machines and other appurtenances of regular business life are usually inaccessible near the tarmac. That represents 3 million hours of lost productivity each and every day just in America alone.

The USA per capita annual income is approximately $40,000, which equals a little over $20.00 per hour. With 3 million working hours lost per day at $20.00 per hour, we are now looking at $60 million per day in effective lost wages. The actual cost is probably much higher due to how frequent airline travelers most likely earn a lot more than the national average.

With 365 days in a year, that $60 million per day equates to almost $22 billion in lost annual productivity. Then, calculate the extra costs associated with repackaging or purchasing costly miniature lotions, shampoos and shaving creams to meet low-weight security requirements. Add in the extra expense of purchasing overpriced airport food and beverages because many comestibles cannot be brought through security. These are but two very small examples of ancillary costs related to Islamic terrorism.

Now, multiply that $22 billion figure by the number of nations in this world. There are nearly 200 of them and almost every single one is obliged to employ some measure of air transportation security. While most do not approach America’s size, degree of air travel or implementation, that $22 billion number easily rockets past $1 trillion per year in extra layers of security devoted almost exclusively towards thwarting Islamic terrorist attacks.

In a sense, it is as if Islam has found a cunning way of forestalling its own dismantling at the hands of increasingly vexed Western powers. Those one trillion dollars in annual airline security-related waiting times could finance the overturning of yet one more Muslim majority nation per year. Recall, how this is just the global expense of increased airport waiting times that is being discussed.

For a quick glimpse into a related cost increase in flying, merely examine the so-called “September 11th Security Fee” of $2.50 USD per enplanement. At 1.5 million passenger flights per day in America, that is at least $3.75 million per day, totaling some $1.4 billion per year. There is already discussion underway to double that security fee to $5.00 per enplanement. Once again, this figure needs to be expanded to encompass nearly 200 nations around the world who also use similar fee structures to pay for their airline security apparatus. These collective fees probably hover somewhere in the half to one trillion dollar region.

The overall cost burden of Muslims upon Western social benefit structures, law enforcement apparatus and ― via incessant and frequently frivolous Islamic “lawfare” ― its judicial system, is orders of magnitude higher; as will be shown in the subsequent parts of this article. Taken together, these otherwise unnecessary monetary outlays could finance punitive military campaigns against Islam or, as a less bellicose alternative, sponsor all of the needed scientific research into alternative fuels that could render MME (Muslim Middle East), control of oil production moot and unprofitable.

Over and over again, Western travelers are obliged to accommodate or endure increasingly draconian security measures that do almost nothing regarding the actual defeat of Islamic terrorism. Absolutely none of this even begins to account for the increased absence of parents from the home ― due to these expanded scheduling requirements ― or the lack of quality time with family and higher divorce rates, juvenile delinquency plus overall marital deterioration that accompanies the otherwise unnecessary extension of such separations.

Those preceding societal factors are just the iceberg’s tip with respect to how intrusive and parasitic Islam’s presence continues to be within Western civilization. The actual sum total costs are astronomically higher and they do not even account for numerous other expenses related to aspects of America’s stunningly flaccid military response to Islamic terrorism.

Not even the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ― both of which were directed at proven sources of international terrorism ― can be counted as truly effective responses to Islam’s assault upon the West. These so-called “liberations” have gone on to see each country cheerfully adopt shari’a-based constitutions which guarantee they will once again revert to being terrorist manufactories the instant that Western troops depart.

So, when will it end? After explaining much of this same logic to an unnamed TSA security agent and posing the same final question, she retorted:

“When they want it to end.”

This insouciant yet incisive reply brings to mind the words of author and counterjihad expert, Serge Trifkovic:

The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.

It is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column.

This crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.

Islamic terrorism will end. It is both unsustainable and an intolerable burden upon the civilized world. Ending it is a matter of obtaining sufficient political willpower and an educated electorate that will no longer put up with ineffectual Politically Correct politicians who continue to ignore, obfuscate or simply deny the need to eliminate such a monstrous drag on global progress.

The trillions of dollars annually that are currently being diverted towards combating Islamic terrorism could be better spent curing HIV/AIDS, fighting illiteracy, ending famine and responding to natural disasters. Instead, this vast sum disappears into the gaping maw of a big-government security apparatus whose effectiveness in countering this hostile threat is marginal at best and hideously expensive regardless of outcome. The tipping point is approaching swiftly and that answers the question of; “When will it end?”

Part two, “Why Will it End?” follows.

Part II: “Why Will it End?”

Part III: “How Will it End”

Four Terror Suspects Arrested in Sweden on Suspicion of Plotting Attack

1389 — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:53:52 +0000

The Blaze has the story:

STOCKHOLM (The Blaze/AP) — Swedish police arrested four people on suspicion of preparing a terror attack and evacuated an arts center in the country’s second largest city, security officials said Sunday.

The four were arrested in the west coast city of Goteborg and were suspected of plotting terrorism, security service spokeswoman Sara Kvarnstrom said. She declined to give details on the arrests and wouldn’t say whether they were linked to the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
[…]
Swedish tabloid Expressen, citing an unnamed police source, said investigators suspect the men belong to a terror network with links to al-Qaida, and that they had acquired, or were trying to acquire, firearms, explosives and hand grenades. Security police declined to comment on the newspaper’s information.

Police in Goteborg said in a statement they had evacuated the Roda Sten arts center, located beneath the city’s landmark half-mile (930-meter) Alvsborg bridge, because of a threat deemed to pose “serious danger to life, health or substantial damage of property.”

Kvarnstrom declined to say if the arts center or the bridge were considered potential targets for a terror attack.

The Alvsborg bridge runs over Goteborg’s harbor to connect the mainland with the island of Hisingen. The six-lane passage is a vital link from the Norwegian capital Oslo to southern Sweden.

Goteborg police and Sweden’s Stockholm-based counterterrorism unit assisted security police with the arrests.
[…]
More here.

See update HERE.

London Muslims Celebrate 9-11 By Burning US Flag, Stabbing 2 EDL Members

1389 — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 01:38:53 +0000

Zilla has the story:

Today, on the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 islamic terrorist attacks that killed thousands of people for islamic jihad, a vile group of islamic supremacists burned an American flag and spewed islamopropaganda outside of the American Embassy in London, England. Members of the English Defense League, a counterjihad group, were barred from counter protesting at the US Embassy by dhimmi British cops…
Read it all.

September 11, 2001 – Ten Years On

1389 — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:02:13 +0000

Please visit these links:

Blogmocracy: September 11, 2001
Gates of Vienna: The Other September 11th
In 1683; h/t The Osprey.
Mark Steyn: From “Let’s Roll” to “Let’s Roll Over”
Noisy Room: Father of Flight 93 Hero Todd Beamer Reflects on Son Storming Cockpit, Shouting ‘Let’s Roll’
Bruce Bawer: 9-11 and the Pastness of the Past
Bawer explains how the legacy and memory of 9-11-01 has been spun and misused.
Winds of Jihad: Ten Years Later: Stand for freedom and against the deception and lies being used to subdue us!
Winds of Jihad: Never Forget 9-11
Hillel Stavis: How Harvard Remembered 9-11
Corruption comes to Harvard via Alwaleed Bin Talal’s Islamic Studies Program.
Barry Rubin: Ten Years After September 11: Who’s Really Winning the War On Terrorism?
First of all, ‘terrorism’ is not the name of a foe, but a tactic.
See-Dubya: Ten years on at the 9-11 7-11
This particular 7-11 has a dark reputation…

Eonia i mnimi, Memory eternal

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by donjose1949 on May 1, 2009

Memory eternal, Eonia i mnimi, the Phaeacian chorus, Stelio Scordilis, dir. Sts Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Honolulu – Hawaii. The 9/11 Memorial concert, September 8, 2002.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by johnvfc on Mar 30, 2010

Extract from Christian Orthodox Memorial Service for the departed Mnimosino – Eulogitaria

Viktor Wichniakov and the orthodox Choir – Eternal memory

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by MusashiTzu on Sep 20, 2008

Never heard a more uplifting piece of choir music!