CAIR Bears: The Movie

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by TheRudeNews on Apr 3, 2008

This is a quick vid of the CAIR Bears who reside at Therudenews.com.
Feel free to stop by there and see them…

See:

• The Rude News on Facebook
• CAIR Bears Return

Yes, the bears ARE for sale. Leave a message on the blog above or on Facebook if you are interested.

The Hidden Army Of Islam in Europe

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by MrShahSaheb on Jun 9, 2011
wake up

Yes, jihadi troops from the entire Muslim world remain in Bosnia, which has become a hideout and a transit point for infiltrating Europe and other regions. Saudi money provides for continued Wahhabization of the indigenous Muslim population.

News footage shows Muslim troops beating Serb prisoners and desecrating a Serbian Orthodox church building.

PJM: Two More Terrorists Traced Back to ‘Jihad U.’

Samir Khan and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are both AlMaghrib Institute members.

October 19, 2011 – 12:00 am – by Patrick Poole

Last week, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty for trying to murder 289 innocent civilians on Christmas Day 2009: he claimed he is guilty under U.S. law, but innocent under Islamic law. Earlier this month, North Carolina resident and al-Qaeda English-language propagandist Samir Khan met his end in a drone strike targeting al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki, former imam at the Dar al-Hijrah terrorist factory in Falls Church, Virginia.

Both Abdulmutallab and Khan had connections to Awlaki, but they also had one additional tie: they were both former members of the extremist AlMaghrib Institute. (I first wrote about AlMaghrib’s extremist teaching back in February 2007.) With Khan’s death and Abdulmutallab’s guilty plea, the pair join a long line of terrorist operatives who have graduated from “Jihad U.”

Samir Khan’s connection to AlMaghrib goes back to at least October 2004, when his profile on AlMaghrib’s online forums was established (his profile is still online).

According to CNN, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab flew to Houston and attended a 16-day AlMaghrib seminar featuring hate sheikh Yasir Qadhi and dedicated to teaching young Muslims “the nuts and bolts of Islam.” A Houston TV station reported that sermon audio sets by Anwar al-Awlaki were on sale during the conference. Abdulmutallab also attended two additional AlMaghrib events held in the UK.
[…]
Considering AlMaghrib’s abject failure in deradicalizing their own students, it is all the more amazing that the National Counterterrorism Center has enlisted AlMaghrib dean Yasir Qadhi as an expert in deradicalization — notwithstanding his complaints at a meeting attended by a top Department of Homeland Security official that he was on the terror watch list. [emphasis added]

There is no such thing as deradicalization.

One has to wonder if deradicalization is actually a goal of the AlMaghrib Institute, considering the river of hate that streams from its instructors and staff. I’ve previously reported here at Pajamas Media on Yasir Qadhi’s “Hoax of the Holocaust” rhetoric and his promotion of the cause of his teacher, terror ringleader Ali al-Timimi.

Qadhi is joined by other AlMaghrib faculty members, including: Saeed Rageah, who has publicly called for Allah to “destroy” the enemies of Islam and to “damn” the “infidels”;  AlMaghrib head of Islamic history Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick, who says that gays should be killed and pronounces Jews and other non-Muslims as “filth”; AlMaghrib Vice President Waleed Basyouni, who has spied Jewish plots and claimed that only Muslims can really know God (and who is described by Dateline NBC as “an outspoken critic of extremism”); and AlMaghrib founder and President Muhammad Alshareef, who has expounded on such interfaith themes as “Why the Jews Were Cursed.”
[…]
Much more here.

Jihad U

By: Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, February 14, 2007

From the East Coast through the American Heartland to the West Coast, a rapidly growing and extremely popular Islamic studies program is bringing Wahhabi extremism and Muslim Brotherhood activism into mosques and Muslim student groups throughout North America. The Al-Maghrib Institute features motivational-style speakers, aggressive marketing, savvy use of the Internet and slick multi-media presentations as part of their for-college-credit courses leading to an Islamic Studies degree offered at mosques in at least thirteen cities:

College Park, Maryland
Fairfax, Virginia
Houston, Texas
New Brunswick, New Jersey
San Francisco Bay area, California
Seattle, Washington
Memphis, Tennessee
Sacramento, California
Detroit, Michigan/Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Chicago, Illinois
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Toronto, Quebec, Canada

Al-Maghrib also ran onsite seminars in Columbus, Ohio during 2006. In addition to the courses they offer, the Institute sponsors a site selling Al-Maghrib audio and video course lectures, EmanRush Audio, and Khutbah.com, which provides texts of sermons and articles delivered by Al-Maghrib instructors and staff.

The staple of Al-Maghrib’s course offerings are the double weekend seminars held at their permanent sites. Locations of upcoming seminars, including one held this past weekend in Atlanta, are provided on the Al-Maghrib website. In addition, the Al-Maghrib instructors are in high demand as motivational speakers at Muslim organization events all over the world. The Institute is also active amongst the 150 chapters of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) located at universities all over the US and Canada. The MSA is one of the front groups operated by the international Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Maghrib staff are also regular fixtures on several Islamic satellite television networks.

The organization’s Wahhabi-influenced extremism, rabid anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials, and militaristic preaching of jihad even have other Muslims expressing concern about the radicalizing effect of Al-Maghrib’s preaching and programs.

Al-Maghrib’s educational courses are accredited by the American Open University, which in turn is accredited by Al-Ahzar University in Cairo – the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and largest radical Islamic organization in the world. The courses offered by Al-Mahgrib count only as course credit for the AOU’s Bachelors in Islamic Studies degree, the only English language program offered by AOU.
[…]
Much more here.

Samir Khan, the US citizen and enemy propagandist who was largely responsible for al Qaeda’s magazine “Inspire” (see Know Your Enemy), was reported killed in the same drone strike that killed US-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

WBTV 3 Charlotte: Former Charlotteman killed in Yemen drone attack

Posted: Sep 30, 2011 9:28 AM EDT
Updated: Sep 30, 2011 11:03 AM EDT

SANAA, Yemen (WBTV) – A Charlotte man who ran the al-Qaida newsletter from Yemen was killed in a drone attack that also took out a prominent cleric Friday.

Khan, from Charlotte, just published a new issue of al-Qaeda's online magazine earlier this week. WBTV was the first to report about Khan in 2008 and at the time Khan began criticizing WBTV.

In addition to Khan, the U.S. airstrike Friday also killed American-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Khan, who was 22-years-old in 2008, was of Pakistani heritage from Charlotte who produced “Inspire,” an English-language Web magazine which spread al-Qaida ideology and promoted attacks against U.S. targets, even running articles on how to put together explosives.

Khan was living in Yemen and his main article in the latest issue dealt with American media.

In an earlier issue, Khan wrote that he had moved to Yemen and joined al-Qaida's fighters, pledging to “wage jihad for the rest of our lives.”

In the latest issue — out on Tuesday — he wrote that America “failed to respond” to al-Qaeda's propaganda their videos and books and other productions. By not responding, Khan says this gives al-Qaeda an edge.

What he doesn't say in his article is that federal officials know about these magazines and videos, but are choosing not to debate.

WBTV's Molly Grantham uncovered Khan's involvement in 2008. At the time, Samir Khan, responded by using his website to criticize WBTV.

He wrote that WBTV was spreading lies about his website and he claimed to have never before seen the video footage we found in attached links to his site.

In 2008, Khan called the WBTV reporting “useless” and a way to try and get ratings.

When Khan was in Charlotte he refused to answer WBTV's questions.

When discovered by WBTV, Khan worked at the McAlpine Park location of Convergys Corporation. Convergys is a firm that other companies hire to take care of customer care, H-R and billing services.

Soon after WBTV stories aired, Khan stopped working at Convergys.

His parents had sent word to us in the past they didn't support their son's anti-American beliefs.

More here.

More here:

• WBTV: Samir Khan criticizes WBTV
• WBTV: Charlotte man runs Al-Qaeda website
• WBNS 10 TV Columbus: Killing Americans: On uncharted ground in attack
• Bill Warner P.I.: FOX NEWS REPORTS That al-Qaeda Inspire Magazine Editor Samir Khan Has Been Killed With Anwar al-Awlaki.

The man behind the underwear bomber and the Fort Hood murderer is gone!

From The Australian:

RADICAL US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed with several other suspected al-Qa’ida operatives, the Yemeni defence ministry said tonight.

The ministry did not elaborate on the circumstances of Awlaki’s death in a statement released to the media.

A senior US official confirmed Awlaki’s death.

“I can confirm… he’s dead,” the senior administration official said, without providing further details.

But tribal sources said Awlaki, who was on a US wanted list, was killed in an air strike which hit two vehicles in Marib province, an al-Qa’ida stronghold in eastern Yemen, early today.

One tribal source said the plane that carried out the strike was likely to be American, adding that US aircraft had been patrolling the skies over Marib for the past several days.

The Yemeni defence ministry had previously announced Awlaki’s death late last year.

On December 24, the Yemeni government said he had been killed in an air strike only to admit later that he was still alive.

In February, the director of the US National Counterterrorism Centre, Michael Leiter, told US members of congress that Awlaki probably posed “the most significant risk” to the United States.

Awlaki, a US-Yemeni citizen who had eluded capture for years, was believed to be a key leader of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula.

In April last year, a US official said President Barack Obama’s administration had authorised the targeted killing of Awlaki, after American intelligence agencies concluded the cleric was directly involved in anti-US plots.

US intelligence officials believe Awlaki was linked to a US army major who allegedly shot dead 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, and to a Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, 2009.

ACT for America has the story.

(h/t: J.C.)

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:

• FAIL: AQAP Celebrates 9/11 …. 16 Days Late!
• Al Qaeda to Ahmadinejad: Stop ‘Ridiculous’ 9/11 Conspiracy Theories…We Want the Credit

Earlier this year, I asked: This is 2011! Why do we still have pirates?

The answer, of course, is that it takes political will to take effective action against them.

WSJ: US Expands Drone Flights to Take Aim at East Africa

WASHINGTON—The U.S. military is deploying a new force of armed drones to eastern Africa in an escalation of its campaign to strike militant targets in the region and expand intelligence on extremists, officials said.

The military has reopened a base for the unmanned aircraft on the island nation of Seychelles to intensify attacks on al Qaeda affiliates, particularly in Somalia, defense officials told The Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. has used the Seychelles base for flying surveillance drones, and for the first time will fly armed MQ-9 Reapers from the Indian Ocean site, supplementing strikes from a U.S. drone base in Djibouti.

The move comes as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other officials have stressed a need to urgently follow up on the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May with operations to destroy his terrorist organization.

U.S. officials say they are concerned that al Qaeda—under pressure from U.S. operations in Pakistan—is moving to expand operations through its affiliates in East Africa, and that a new charismatic militant leader could emerge there.

Stepped-up surveillance on the militant groups is needed to help keep al Qaeda affiliates in check, officials said.

“We do not know enough about the leaders of the al Qaeda affiliates in Africa,” said a senior U.S. official. “Is there a guy out there saying, ‘I am the future of al Qaeda’? Who is the next Osama bin Laden?”

The U.S. military has long operated a base in Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa, and has already used drones against militants in Somalia.

The new Seychelles base, with the Reaper deployment, will allow for more flights and improved operational security, giving the military a better chance at uncovering and destroying al Qaeda training camps in East Africa, officials said. Militants can sometimes spot and track drones that fly over land from the base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti—something that will be more difficult at an island base.

The Seychelles’ capital, Victoria, is about 920 miles east of the southern tip Somalia, and about 650 miles northeast of Madagascar. The new base will help increase surveillance of pirates operating in the waters off Somalia. A senior defense official said the U.S. hasn’t yet used the Reapers deployed the Seychelles to conduct armed reconnaissance on pirate ships, but the option is open to use the drones to strike at pirates who have mounted attacks.

“If there was a piracy situation gone wrong, the Seychelles are a good place from which to put something overhead,” said the senior defense official.

The U.S. stationed Reaper drones in the Seychelles from September 2009 until this past spring, when they were withdrawn. Those aircraft weren’t armed and were used only for surveillance. Officials said at the time that those drones were to be used to monitor pirates.

The new MQ-9 Reapers deployed to the Seychelles, officials said, can be configured for both reconnaissance and strike missions. The Reapers can fire Hellfire missiles, as well as guided 500-pound bombs.

The U.S. is stationing MQ-9 Reaper drones, like the one shown here, in the Seychelles to target militants in the region.

A Reaper can fly 1,150 miles from base, conduct missions and return home, military officials said. The time a drone can stay aloft depends on how heavily armed it is.

The MQ-9s are operated by the Air Force from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada and Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. An Air Force team on the ground in the Seychelles launches and lands the drones as they start and finish their missions.

Officials declined to specify what countries could be reached from the Seychelles base. However, based on the official range, an aircraft could conduct missions in Somalia and other countries in eastern Africa. A Reaper could also likely reach Yemen, if it were to land in Djibouti rather than return to the Seychelles.

It would also be able to fly widely over the Indian Ocean to hunt for pirates. “It gives us reach into different areas,” the senior defense official said.

The Central Intelligence Agency operates the U.S.’s best known drone campaign against militants in Pakistan. Drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere in Africa are currently conducted by the U.S. military…

More here.

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.

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

Web Pro News has the story:

It might surprise you to learn that the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist group most notable for their harboring Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network, is on Twitter.

The account, @alemarahweb, is linked to the official website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was the name of the ruling powers of the Taliban from 1996 to 2001 when they took control of Kabul and 90% of the country. This regime was famous for their harsh treatment of women and the Shia minority in Afghanistan. The Taliban became synonymous with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda following 9/11.

So yeah, that Taliban is now active in the world of social media.

The account in question has been around for s few months now, but it just tweeted its first English tweet late yesterday. The Guardian first reported the account and their shift to English:

Their Twitter feed, @alemarahweb, pumps out several messages a day, keeping 993 followers up to date with often highly exaggerated reports of strikes against the “infidel forces” and the “Karzai puppet regime”. Most messages are in Pashtu, with links to news stories on the elaborate and multilingual website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as the Taliban’s shadow government likes to style itself.

Today, the feed broke into English for the first time, with a tweet about an attack on police in Farah province.

When the Guardian reported on the account last night it had just under 1,000 followers. At the writing of this article it has 2,814 followers. The account is following only 12 other accounts, including an Afghani carpet weaving group and a children’s mini-circus based in Kabul. Strangley enough the Taliban’s account also follows a USAF logistics readiness officer currently deployed in Afghanistan. How’s that phrase go? Keep your friends close but follow your enemies on Twitter?

More here.

This Twitter account carries the name Mostafa Almedi and is associated with http://alemarah-iea.net/.

As of this writing (September 17, 2011), @alemarahweb has 5,721 followers, but it is following only four other accounts:

• @FeedTwit, a utility
• @kavkazcenter “News, Facts, Analysis, Events in Caucasus, Caucasus Emirate, Chechnya, Russia, Islamic World”
• @nunnasia, a Pakistani site, not in English
• @alsomood, “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, associated with http://www.alsomod-iea.com, not in English

Notice the connection between the Afghan Taliban and the Chechen jihadis.

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?”

Tidningen Realisten has the story:

2011-09-12 13:28

The night before September 11 four men were arrested at the Central Station in Gothenburg , the second largest city of Sweden, suspected of preparing criminal terrorist activity. At the same time the police sealed off the area around the Älvsborg bridge, the Röda Sten art exhibition hall, and the Swedish Transport Agency. Between 300 and 400 people were also evacuated from the inauguration of the Göteborg International Biennial for Contemporary Art.

The four were arrested on Sunday on suspicion of conspiring to commit terrorist acts. The four are 26-year-old Abdi Mahamud, 25-year-old Abdi Mohamud, 23-year-old Salar Mahmood and 24-year-old Mohamud Kulan.

Abdi Mahamud was born in Somalia and moved to Sweden on October 26, 1999.

Abdi Mohamud was born in Somalia and came to Sweden on December 30, 1991. He moved from Sweden October 26, 2007, and returned on January 9, 2008. He then moved again from Sweden August 18, 2008 and returned on June 12, 2009. He is a citizen of Great Britain and was sentenced on January 13, 2009, for assault to probation and fines.

Salar Mahmood was born in Iraq and came to Sweden on October 24, 1996.

Mohamud Kulan was born in Somalia and came to Sweden on March 19, 1993.

According to information provided to the tabloid Expressen, the detainees have links to the Muslim groups al-Shabab and Al Qaeda.

Two of those arrested demanded explicitly to be defended by lawyers Ulf Ahlstedt and Björn Sjölander.

One noteworthy fact is that Ahlstedt and Sjölander also defended 49-year-old Omar Rashaed Khalayleh and 28-year-old Mohamed Khalaili, who were arrested in late October last year on suspicion of preparing to commit terrorist acts. That case was, however, cancelled in November.

It is at the present moment still not clear what the target was for the suspected terrorist act on the anniversary of 9/11. The Älsvborg bridge is a well known symbol of Gothenburg and Islamists have previously shown a tendency to attack infrastructure. Artist Lars Vilks, who has been the target of Islamists abuse since his drawings of the Prophet Muhammad as a dog, had written on his blog that he was planning to visit the Göteborg International Biennial for Contemporary Art. However, he did not attend Röda Sten yesterday.

It sure looks as though Swedish police thwarted a planned 9-11 anniversary attack. Also, check out the suspects’ names: the “Muhammad quotient” is 100%.

More information at Gates of Vienna.

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!

Well, well, well…another wrong call by Barack Hussein Obama.

Can’t he get anything right?

Muslim Brotherhood: Islamists plan to cooperate in upcoming elections

Egyptian press reports on further evidence of Muslim Brotherhood’s intentions to co-operate with extreme Islamist groups in upcoming elections.

New evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with extreme Islamist groups has come to light as parties draw up candidate lists for the upcoming parliamentary elections in Egypt.

The Egyptian outlet Al Masry Al Youm reports on coordination plans between Jama’a al-Islamiya’s ‘Construction and Development’ Party and the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Freedom and Justice’ Party.

‘Islamists make preparations for parliamentary elections’ cites Nasr Abdel Salam, chairman of the Construction and Development Party:

‘The Construction and Development Party seeks to develop a vision for coordinating with other Islamic political parties, he said, stressing that his organization has close contact with Nour Party, a Salafi group, and the Freedom and Justice Party so that they can agree on the districts where they should each push their own candidates.’

The article also notes the party’s objective to ‘coordinate with Salafis and Brotherhood members in Alexandria, Cairo and Giza.’

Furthermore, the Salafist Front is reported to have announced that it would not be contesting the elections itself, but would instead support ‘Salafi and Brotherhood candidates’, once again highlighting the ideological closeness of the two groups.

Although Jama’a al-Islamiya has publicly renounced violence, the group was responsible for a number of terrorist acts in the 1990s including the 1997 Luxor Massacre, in which 62 people were killed.

In May Just Journalism quoted Osama Hafez, a spokesman for the organisation, referring to the uniting of Islamist groups in Egypt;

‘God’s words must rule and Islam must be in the hearts of the citizens’.

[...]

More at Just Journalism.