According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Feminism is defined thus:

Date: 1895

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

Who can ever forget the iconic cover of “The Female Eunuch”, by Germaine Greer?

It was everywhere when it was first published in 1970.

It was virtually the next best thing that had happened to women since Emmeline Pankhurst and her Suffragettes worked to get women the vote. So we were told.

And certainly you cannot deny the benefits and progress that have come from these two women, and the many others who have taken over the baton and changed the lives of millions.

Many of today’s other famous feminists are living very comfortably on self-earned wealth: fine with me, it’s well-deserved.

They have turned their politics and activism into income sources by working in journalism and other media.

People listen to them.

They have power, enormous power.

Camille Paglia is but one of many whose opinions are highly respected, and it is easy to see why.

Germaine Greer is still going on strongly about all kinds of issues.

Gloria Steinem is another member of this esteemed crowd and there are also very many not-so-famous feminists.

These feminists are in almost all professions from politics to pianists, parents and yes, prostitutes – the oldest “profession” of them all!

Then of course there are the other women in the world who don’t occupy this rarefied space but who have decided, and yes, it is a decision now, to become homemakers and mothers. Some of them decide to resume successful careers and some chose not to.

But I wonder if we all really received so many benefits from all these feminists? Some of us didn’t.

With all that is good and liberating in human progress there are often side effects and “unintended consequences”.

Sadly there are goals that have not, and will not, be achieved.

Certainly many of us get equal work for equal pay nowadays, but not all of us.

Then there are those who chose to be wives and mothers, who are often scorned, or looked down upon, for their choices.

“They had jobs, but feminists weren’t satisfied; every other woman had to get one too. So they opened fire on homemakers with a savagery that still echoes throughout our culture. A housewife is a “parasite,” [Betty] Friedan writes; such women are “less than fully human” insofar as they “have never known a commitment to an idea.”

And….

Housewives, not men, were the prey in feminism’s sights when Kate Millett decreed in 1969 that the family must go. Feminists do not speak for traditional women. Men cannot know this, however, unless we tell them how we feel about them, our children, and our role in the home.

Men must understand that our feelings towards them and our children are derided by feminists and have earned us their enmity. Whether or not this understanding garners men’s support, traditional women must defend ourselves because the feminist offensive is, most essentially, a breach of solidarity with us, a disavowel [sic] of the obligation to honor the Women’s Pact [that religious celibates, professional women, and homemakers respect each other] that women in the movement owed to us” (Source).

Oh yes, this site has more. Feminism today goes on and on, intellectualising and re-defining feminism to the extent where it is almost too difficult to follow, let alone comprehend.

Quite frankly I am more interested in the practical day-to-day realities.

I take the two definitions at face value and I note it doesn’t specify any nationality, political allegiance or religion.

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

It is true a lot of this has happened in the West but rather than have Greer et al espouse “intellectual yada yada” I would rather see these women get militant again and do something to help their long-suffering sisters who live in Islamic countries, and who can but only dream of the lifestyle many of their famous feminist sisters enjoy.

All too often I see stories of honour killings, rape, female genital mutilation, subservience, domestic (and other) violence, forced marriage and utter discrimination perpetrated against women in Muslim countries and now also in the West.

Some women are getting hymenoplasties and buying repair kits before they marry.

Some are being recruited as homicide bombers.

One is punished for drinking beer, others face lashings or stonings.

Recall the recent case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Fate not yet known, but not looking promising. Here I admit many westerners got under the skin of the Iranian Mullahs. At least they tried.

An Australian Islamist tries to justify poligamy for everyone. Why not? Let’s normalise this situation, let’s legitimise it. How do you suppose women would fare in such a relationship that is so one-sided in favour of the male gender?

There are women who suffer terribly from acid attacks quite frequently.

Women in Gaza are not allowed to ride motorcycles, and Somali women are being scrutinised for wearing a bra!

Where’s Germaine when you need her, or would this make her happy I wonder?

Yet in spite of these incidents feminists like Naomi Wolfe manage to defend discrimination towards women in Islam and it then takes a compassionate feminist, Phyllis Chesler, who has actually lived in a Muslim country, to sort it out for her!

I know many feminists, and women in general, can be fearless fighters.

Code Pink, for example, have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. True, they are an anti-war movement, but perhaps, just perhaps, they could have drawn some attention to the women who live and suffer in the war zones they are so adamantly against.

They could have easily added one more mission statement to what is on their website which mentions “social justice” – an insidious phrase which bears investigating.

How about some “equal justice” instead?

Indeed, any other anti-war group could easily have done the same. I know they do not define themselves as feminists per se, but why not do more?

Could they not have met with Malalai Joya and offered some help?

Now of course, in hindsight, one knows far more about Code Pink. They are not an anti-war movement at all. They have been helping orchestrate the “Arab Spring” in Egypt.

Together with Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn they are political activists of a rather nasty kind – and I am being polite here!

And they have the full backing of the Obama Administration.

When I read about the case of Sahar Gul, 15 years of age, I wonder how these feminists can sleep at night.

(Warning – very graphic images.)

Not to mention the wife of Rafiqi Islam who had her fingers chopped off because she wanted an eduction!

I would like to see some of our famous feminists, female politicians and celebrities who spend so much time choking on their own venom over Sarah Palin instead do something useful for the women in Islam.

Are they afraid? “You betcha!” as Sarah Palin would say. Afraid and gutless!

Or are they simply not interested in the women’s issues of today because they think it is another culture and therefore they shouldn’t interfere when they often stick their noses where they may not be wanted.

They know it isn’t right but they can turn a blind eye to it, even as it happens under their noses, and in their own backyards.

How can one respect these women anymore?

It’s a cop-out.

The improvement of the condition of women in Islam is, to me, a far loftier goal than getting to wear trousers, getting equal pay, getting an abortion on demand, and having a man treat a woman more like a man!

This was definitely an “unintended consequence” for me: trivial as it may seem.

I am much heartened by the fact that progress is being made, albeit in small steps.

Kuwati women in parliament refuse to wear the veil. How long will they be able to keep it up?

An Egyptian Cleric wanted to ban burquas and other facial coverings.

Not going to happen anymore with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge!

The women in any country controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood are going to have it worse than ever before.

Strict Sharia Law will prevail.

Honour killing or Honourcide is getting more attention. The tragedy of this is that we are seeing it in the West more and more and little is being done about it.

Lubna Hussein got a lot of media attention over her sentence for wearing trousers.

Najwa Bin Laden and her son, Omar, wrote a book about their now late husband and father, Osama, and seem to be fearless about it. They have provided a fascinating insight into this man as well.

I think the real “feminist”heroines now are the ones who have literally put their lives on the line, not only for women in Islam but for the world in general.

Their goals and commitment are what is truly deserving of our respect and support.

I am referring to women like Dr Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji and women like them.

Although Ms Manji has not left Islam it is still worth noting she has put herself out there and for this she deserves credit.

There is another one who would have possibly made it to this list – the face of the Iranian Green Movement: – Neda Soltan -

Tragically she cannot, but in spirit she can inspire so much. I feel she deserves a mention among these brave, dedicated and fascinating women.

This is my challenge to today’s feminists. Use your power again.

I am not a celebrity, a journalist or a politician. I do not have your platform and power.

Justice and equality for women in Islam is indeed a most worthy cause to support and fight for now more than ever.

First Published on “Muslims Against Sharia”.

This is the updated version with permission from the author.

I say deliberate.

With thanks to AIM:

Obama’s Gift to Iran

At the strategic level, naivety can do more damage than outright malevolence. And President Obama came to the Oval Office with no knowledge of, and little interest in, foreign affairs and security. His core agenda was domestic, and, gushing self-confidence, he assumed that he could solve international problems in his spare time–challenges that had frustrated the best efforts of far-more-experienced men and women. A babe in a poisoned woodland thick with wolves and witches, he assumed that he could smile and persuade the wolves not to eat him and the witches to cast their spells in his support.

One grim result is his abandonment of Iraq to Iranian influence. The strategic consequences are potentially catastrophic. At best, he has made a mockery of 5,000 dead American troops and our tens of thousands of wounded. And the worst of it is that he didn’t even try to play this to our nation’s advantage.

He didn’t even show up on the field. He simply threw the game to Iran by his absence: Our troops did their duty—and won. And their commander-in-chief went Absent Without Leave.

Before detailing the current administration’s myopia and ineptitude regarding Iraq—and Iran’s skillfulness—it’s essential to be fair: Obama has grown in the job, learning, painfully, that foreign leaders are not all susceptible to his ward-politician charm and self-congratulatory rhetoric.

He still has a great deal to learn (including humility), but this borderline pacifist evolved to become the president who dramatically increased the use of drones to target terrorists; who green-lighted killing bin Laden and Awlaki; who didn’t close Gitmo—despite his campaign promise to do so; and who, after his customary dithering, ultimately backed the French and British in their determination to remove Qaddafi from power in Libya (despite diplomatic lies, the goal was always to get Qaddafi out).

He even has shown signs of realizing that the Pakistanis are not our friends, that the Palestinians are not all oppressed innocents, and that China does not have our best interests at heart.

But he’s always had a blind spot regarding Iraq. And Iraq’s the big one. Everything that he’s gotten right over the past year is small change compared to our looming confrontation with Iran. And Obama just handed Iran an enormous strategic advantage by fleeing from Baghdad.

Why does Iraq matter? Location, location, location, for a start. It’s the geographical keystone at the head of the Persian Gulf, still the most-crucial oil-producing region in the world. And it borders Iran: Consider how useful even small US bases in Iraq would be, were we forced to take military action to derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions—action that would amount to serious warfare, not just surgical strikes. And Baghdad has enormous emotional resonance in the Arab world. Iraq’s also the fault-line state where Shia and Sunni Muslims collide on one of the most-volatile frontiers of religious culture.

And there’s more: A pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad outflanks our key regional partners (not allies, but partners with shared interests). Instead of providing a buffer for Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, a Shia-dominated, pro-Iranian government in Iraq becomes a threat to them. An Iraq subject to Iranian influence also facilitates Tehran’s support of the Assad regime in Syria and, by extension, Hezbollah and Hamas—it’s a lot easier to drive arms and assassins across Iraq than to ship them all the way through the Suez Canal.

Even a small remaining US presence in Iraq (about 20,000 troops would have been right) also would have continued to provide the much-needed fig leaf for Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs not to go at each other again. With our troops leaving, there’s at least an outside chance that Iraq will tumble back into civil war—and this time it would draw in other regional powers. At the very least, terrorists of various stripes will be empowered.

Obama sees none of it. He remains a prisoner of his own anti-Bush rhetoric. Iraq was Bush’s war and, therefore, bad. But the left needed to “prove” it was strong on security, too, so Afghanistan, a worthless land of pederasts and dung heaps, became our strategic priority that Bush “neglected.”

The problem is that Iraq truly matters on multiple strategic counts, while investing in Afghanistan is about as smart as investing in cathode-ray-tube technology (or solar-panel manufacturers) in Silicon Valley. The sole reason to keep even a small US contingent in Afghanistan is to continue to kill terrorists across the border in Pakistan. Beyond that, everything we do there is wasted. But, thanks to Obama, we’re mired in Afghanistan and abandoning the strategic prize of Iraq to Iran.

And the mullahs and political leaders in Tehran have taken advantage of Obama’s blindness with breathtaking effectiveness. While pursuing nuclear weapons, backing Syria’s Assad with weapons, money and secret-police assassins, egging on Hezbollah and Hamas—and killing US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq–Iran has not had to pay a single meaningful price.

Our government huffs and puffs, then does nothing at all. The Obama administration (and, to be fair, the Bush administration before it) has allowed the Iranians to run wild.

Naturally, Tehran concludes that we’re weak-willed, exhausted and scared. Hence the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US right in Washington (not that I would have wept for His Excellency myself…).

The Iranians in 2011 have come to the same conclusion that al Qaeda did in 2001, in the wake of the cowardice of the Clinton administration: They’re convinced that, no matter what they do, we’ll simply cower and take it.

And they might be right.

I’ve long been fond of pointing out that, while we play diplomatic checkers, the Iranians play chess (the game was a Persian invention, after all). I have to admire the skill with which Tehran has manipulated both the Iraqi political scene and the Obama administration: The Iranians recognized that the issue of legal immunity from Iraqi law for US troops was the perfect lever to hoist us out of the country.

First, we could never agree to allow our Soldiers and Marines to be hauled up on bogus charges and tried in kangaroo courts in the immature (to put it kindly) Iraqi judicial system.

Second, the Iranians understood that this was an issue that would resonate with the Iraqi population, given our mindless employment of mercenary thugs from the former Blackwater and other “security” companies—some of whose employees appear to have used Iraqi civilians for target practice…then walked free. Iran’s agents made hay out of the bad behavior of the psychopaths who had been on the US payroll.

Working through their proxies in Baghdad—primarily, but not only, Moqtada al Sadr’s radical Shia block—the Iranians made it impossible for either side to back down. And “Poof!” The Americans, having deposed Saddam, paid in blood, and spent almost a trillion dollars on Iraqi freedom and reconstruction, are headed home, while Iran moves in. Tehran won without losing a single Iranian life. At most, the mullahs doled out a few minor bribes.

Obama simply quit—and was relieved to do so. He did it because he was blind to the looming consequences. He did it to please his restive base. And he did it because he had been too nearsighted, lazy and politically bigoted to develop personal relationships with Iraqi leaders who could have helped us through this “made in Iran” crisis.

But it isn’t Obama who will pay the price. It’s our troops, if the region blows up. It’s Iraqis. It’s our regional partners. It’s consumers, if the deteriorating situation in the Persian-Gulf region leads to catastrophically higher oil prices. Ultimately, it’s you.

Obama’s real political ancestor is, ironically, the diehard segregationist Woodrow Wilson. Both men have pacifist roots, and both put us on the path to a major war (stay tuned for our coming confrontation with Iran). Both fit the mold of the idealist ungrounded in reality. Both were consumed by ambitions that far outstripped their abilities.

The only faint good news in Obama’s early holiday gift to Iran of Iraq’s integrity and freedom is that any Iran-Iraq strategic collusion will only last from the short-term through the mid-term. In the long-term, conflicting interests and, above all, Persian condescension toward Arabs will alienate most Iraqis. But the danger zone is that short-to-mid-term stretch, with Tehran rushing to develop a nuclear-weapons capability and Iraq’s internal rivalries and grudges unresolved. The best we can expect is continued low-level violence in Iraq.

The worst ranges from a civil war that tears Iraq apart, to a violent, extended military confrontation with Iran that closes down Gulf oil production amid a widespread regional conflict.

Obama’s pigheaded determination to get our last troops out of Iraq and praise himself for doing so could be the worst American diplomatic blunder since Yalta. At the very least, it’s a wanton gift to our determined enemies.

Muslim Kurds opposed Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Muslim Kurds oppose the Assad clan in Syria and they oppose the anti-western, pro-Islamic regime of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. But the Kurds are nonetheless Muslims, with all that this implies.

Muslim Extremist Murders Kurdish Christian Children

Kurds Kill Christians – The Enemy of your Enemy is NOT ALWAYS YOUR FRIEND

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?”

YouTube video by the Shark Tank:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by intub8or on Sep 3, 2011
Excellent words by brilliant patriot and proven warrior!

Rep. West speaks on multiculturalism, learning what the Qur’an is all about, defending western civilization, and the death of Theo Van Gogh.

More about Florida politics at The Shark Tank.

Allen West: First Principles for National Security

Allen West spoke at a Center for Security Policy event in New York City on the national security threats America faces, specifically in the Middle East.

Just for starters: Libya DOES NOT fit within the War Powers Act, and was unconstitutional from the get-go.

Rep. West exposes the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and its role in the “Arab Spring,” predicts the result of the draw-down of US troops, explains the need for secure borders for Israel, and warns of the dangers of Islamic infiltration and political correctness in the US.

He also points out that the rivalry between Iran and Turkey for hegemony over the Muslim world brings NATO into a potentially deadly conflict.

Watch it all; there’s much more in the video.

Russia Profile Weekly Experts Panel: A War With Libya?

Introduction by Vladimir Frolov 03/25/2011

The UN Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 1973 on March 17, authorizing “all necessary measures” against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the establishment of a no-fly zone, which includes the possible use of military force, against pro-Gaddafi forces. Ten UNSC members voted for the resolution, including the United States, Great Britain and France, while Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India abstained. Is Russia right in tacitly accepting the use of force by not exercising its veto power in the UNSC? What does Russia gain by taking a position that opens the door for intervention without fully pledging its support for the West?

Here is the contribution by James George Jatras:

James George Jatras
Director, American Council for Kosovo,
Deputy Director, American Institute in Ukraine,
Washington, DC:

From an American perspective, almost as dismaying as the fact that president Obama has now mimicked his predecessors and blundered into his very own ill-advised foreign intervention, is puzzlement about the decision of Russia (and of China, which presumably followed the Russian lead) not to veto the Security Council resolution authoring force in Libya.

To address the Russian question first: it didn’t take a “Kristol ball” to guess that the Western powers would immediately exceed the UNSC’s mandate, in effect treating Resolution 1973 as a carte blanche to intervene in the Libyan civil war. Perhaps president Medvedev didn’t want to disappoint his “reset” partner, president Obama. Or perhaps Moscow was applying some geopolitical judo in facilitating America’s tumble into yet another sand-trap, and then criticizing us for it. (For all of Paris’ and London’s grandstanding and Riyadh’s and Abu Dhabi’s prodding, accusing fingers again will be pointed at the United States for lots of dead Muslims served up for Al-Jazeera’s cameras).

Evident disarray at the top militates against the likelihood that the Russian move was calculated. Prime Minister Putin castigated the Western campaign as reminiscent of a “medieval crusade” –an inapt characterization, first because the Libyan operation (as will be seen below), far from being anti-Islamic, instead is furthering the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and their ilk.

Secondly, Putin should appreciate that as a historical matter, the real Crusades were a legitimate if flawed Christian counterattack against centuries of jihad aggression, not an episode to be used as a term of opprobrium. Then, to further tangle things, Medvedev criticized him just for uttering the word “crusade,” the mere sound of which offends delicate Muslim ears and aggravates the “clash of civilizations.” In short, what the Russians really have in mind is not at all clear.

But the muddle in Moscow pales beside the latest outbreak of imbecility along the Potomac. The report is that Samantha Power, National Security Council special advisor to Obama on human rights and one of Obama’s campaign advisors on foreign affairs, was primarily responsible for convincing her dithering boss to proceed, with support from U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and, of course, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Power became an obsessive advocate of “humanitarian intervention” during her stint as a journalist in Bosnia and advocates a philosophy called “responsibility to protect” (RTP), with military intervention ostensibly to protect human rights raised to a cardinal principle of American foreign policy. She outlined RTP in her 2003 book “A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” that Richard Holbrooke of Balkan infamy commanded his underlings to read. Power’s militarism is boundless. For instance, at the height of the Second Intifada in 2002, she advocated military action against Israel to create and protect a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. On the other hand, nobody’s holding his breath waiting for Power to demand we bomb Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates over Saudi and Emirati abuses against Bahraini Shia protesters).

In any case, the Power-Clinton-Rice triumfeminate was sufficiently potent to squelch cautionary advice from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough.

The U.S.-led action follows calls by the international Islamic party Hizb-ut-Tahrir, whose members have long been suppressed and killed in Libya, for Gaddafi to be overthrown by the Egyptian army, and for his assassination by a leading figure of the Muslim Brotherhood active in the successful Egyptian revolt. As an indication of the likely beneficiaries of Western help in overthrowing Gaddafi, a 2008 West Point analysis of a cache of al-Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters (actually, mainly suicide bombers) in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya was nearly double Saudi Arabia as the jihadis’ top country of origin. Almost all of them were from the eastern region of Cyrenaica (Benghazi, and especially Derna), a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda and, not coincidentally, of the anti-Gaddafi insurgency.

While the spectacle of the Western powers and Islamic militants, including al-Qaeda, acting effectively as allies, may come as a surprise to some, it shouldn’t to observers of U.S.-led interventions since America supported Afghan mujahidin against the Soviet Union. Not only did Washington help create al-Qaeda itself during the anti-Soviet war, the pattern was set for subsequent “pro-Muslim” interventions: in Iraq (twice, under George H.W. Bush in 1991 and George W. Bush in 2003), in Afghanistan (Bush in 2001), Bosnia (Bill Clinton in 1995), and Kosovo (Clinton in 1999). In each case, an armed intervention justified as “rescuing” or “liberating” Muslims paradoxically resulted in greater Islamic rage against the United States. In each case, the hoped-for “democracy” – at least recognizable to Western eyes – eluded us. And in each case the resulting social order was more oppressively Islamic, as measured by treatment of women and non-Muslims.

For example, in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Islamic militancy was suppressed (along with other opposition forces) and women went unveiled. Now, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, half of Iraq’s Christian population has fled in terror from Muslim militants and women had better cover up if they know what’s good for them. Similar patterns can be discerned in the venues of other interventions, notably the near-eradication of Orthodox Christian Serbs in areas of Kosovo under the control of Muslim Albanian drug, slave, and organ-traffickers. Already in post-Mubarak Egypt constitutional “reforms” favored by the Muslim Brotherhood have been approved by referendum, and fears are rising for the future of Coptic Christians – the largest remaining Christian population in the Middle East. Aside from the serendipitous fact that Libya has few Christians to persecute, prospects for a post-Gaddafi “democracy” in that country are decidedly slim.

However, in Western thinking, the repeated failure of a policy evidently is considered insufficient grounds to abandon it. With respect to Libya, perhaps policy-makers in Washington, London, and Paris calculate that this time for sure the Muslims will love us, no matter how many of them get killed along the way. This time for sure, when Gaddafi is gone, Islamic “democracy” will look a lot like Switzerland. (Just as it has in Gaza, where “democracy” has empowered Hamas, or in purple-fingered Lebanon, now under a Hizballah-led coalition). Each time we are surprised and disappointed, but we never learn. When the Muslim Brotherhood takes power in Egypt – and in Libya, in Yemen – Power and company will also be very surprised and disappointed.

http://russiaprofile.org/experts_panel/34077.html

On Patrol – No Buddy Left Behind

(h/t: Nevergiveup)

by Samantha L. Quigley

Burt the Fallujah Cat

U.S. warriors hold tightly to some very distinct ideals. One of the most revered is that no one gets left behind.

So it should come as no surprise that Marine Corporal Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo didn’t want to leave her new best friend, Burt, in Iraq when her tour with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit ended.

Sure, Burt was loud and opinionated, but he was special. For the only female Marine in the unit, he was a non-judgmental shoulder to cry on and provided much needed support throughout her deployment. “Sometimes, even though you’re one of the guys, it’s hard for them to relate to you when something happens and you need comfort,” Kirk-Cuomo, a combat photographer, said. “I returned after a really bad day and was feeling like I wasn’t going to make it to the end of the deployment, and then I heard that voice. Burt was outside the tent screaming hello at me and telling me to get my butt outside and say hello back. I hadn’t seen him in weeks and I just about broke down seeing those gold eyes in the fading light that night,” she added. “I think I sat out in the dirt with him for hours and he never left me.”

Obviously Burt is a very unusual friend. But he’s not your typical friend. He is a cat—a beautiful orange tabby with big gold eyes. And he was Kirk-Cuomo’s unofficial therapist.

“[He] was something and someone that had nothing to do with war. He had no motivation other than food and love. He wasn’t going to yell at me unless I stopped scratching behind his ear,” she said. “It didn’t matter if you were a guy or a girl, it was an animal that had unconditional love for you in a world that seemed like the twilight zone at times.”

Burt, whom Kirk-Cuomo met within her first few weeks in Fallujah, isn’t the only Iraqi animal to be “adopted” by a U.S. service member. While on patrol, Kirk-Cuomo encountered dogs that had attached themselves to Marine units, and protected their Marines with a loyalty as fierce as that between brothers-in-arms.

“Those kinds of bonds are only forged through the hardships of war,” she said. “Those dogs were just as much Marines as any of us wearing a uniform. [They were] willing to die for the safety of their brothers.”

Kirk-Cuomo’s story of a connection with an Iraqi animal, is one often heard in the years since the United States entered the war in Iraq. Dogs and cats have become unit mascots and unofficial sources of furry therapy to many troops. But until two years ago these buddies stood little, if any, chance of going home to live with their service member in the States.

An email from a soldier to SPCA International asking the animal welfare organization to get “Charlie” home changed all that.

“In September of 2007, we received an email from a soldier who was desperately contacting every animal welfare organization he could find asking for help getting his unit’s dog home,” said Stephanie Scott, director of communications for SPCA International. “Once we were able to rescue Charlie, other people, other soldiers heard of what we were trying to do… and we started getting more calls.”

Two weeks after Charlie set paws on U.S. soil, representatives from the SPCA International program, Operation Baghdad Pups, returned to Iraq and brought home two more dogs. Liberty and K-pot—named for the Kevlar protection helmet his soldiers found him snuggled in one day when they returned from patrol—completed the first trio of rescues.

Then came Socks, Oreo, Bags, and Kujo. At some point the “cat people” caught wind of the program and the first two cats, Jasmine and Hope, became happy, pampered American cats.

Since those first few rescues, Operation Baghdad Pups has rescued 206 pets adopted by U.S. service members serving in Iraq, including 35 cats, at an average of $4,000 per pet. The cost of each rescue is completely funded through donations, with most of the money spent on security teams hired to retrieve pets that can’t be easily transported to Baghdad International Airport.

“At least half of our soldiers can’t get their dogs or cats into the airport,” Scott said. “Obviously you don’t just jump in a jeep and drive to the airport whenever you want.”

The security firms, however, go to the farthest reaches of Iraq to pick up animals.

“It actually takes a convoy of three armored vehicles to go get one dog, and every vehicle has to have three people in it,” she said. “That’s a total of nine people to get one dog.”

If a security team’s mission to go get a dog turns into a two-day journey that dog’s trip home can cost closer to $10,000.

“It’s very expensive, but it’s well worth it every time we get to witness a dog and a soldier reuniting,” Scott said. “It is a very, very special moment.”

No matter the cost, service members are not asked to pay to get their pooch or cat home. They are asked to contribute $1,000 to the program, but Scott said no one’s request has ever been turned down because they couldn’t afford the donation. The pets come home, regardless.

Service members requesting Operation Baghdad Pups get their pets home from Iraq are faced with a good deal of paperwork before their pets can be brought in to the U.S. The point is not to discourage a service member from bringing their pet home, but to impress upon them the weight of their decision and the fact that pets might need some TLC to make the transition successfully. Iraqi dogs and cats sometimes have a hard time adjusting to life in the United States where there’s grass, fences, and leashes.

Once requests are approved, Terri Crisp, Operation Baghdad Pups’ program manager, and a team of experienced rescuers fly from the States to Kuwait City. Then, on a staggered schedule, each rescuer goes into Baghdad, picks up to five pets and returns to Kuwait. From there it’s on to Amsterdam before returning to Washington-Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia. Once they clear customs, a pet’s service member or his family meets them. Those not met by their new families are seen by local veterinarian Chris Carskaddan, owner of the Clocktower Animal Hospital near the airport, before heading to their new home.

“When they get off [the plane] they’re bouncing around. They handle it amazingly well,” Carskaddan said of the animals. “Compared to everything they’ve been through, I think the trip is nothing to them.”
Nearly all of the animals are incredibly healthy, he said. This is probably the result of a combination of factors, including the fact they’re all mixed-breed, which are reputed to be healthier.

“I’m amazed at the overall [good] quality of the health of the animals,” said Carskaddan, who gives the animals any vaccinations they might need and microchips them. “They generally have no congenital abnormalities. They’re well taken care of, and aside from some that have had significant trauma from explosions and that sort of thing, they’re in really good shape.”

Getting out of Iraq is the start of the good life for these pets, Crisp said.

“We joke that for these dogs and cats it’s like they’ve won the lottery,” she said. “The life for a dog or a cat living in Iraq is pretty bleak.

“Many of the animals that have been befriended by the troops have been pulled out of the hands of [those] that were [mistreating them],” she added.

Crisp said that while it’s easy to judge or criticize people with so little regard for animals, it’s a different culture and circumstances. Most animals in Iraq are strays and therefore are not vaccinated, so adults teach children to be afraid of them.

Nearly all the animals brought home through Operation Baghdad Pups were adopted as puppies and kittens under two months old and have had regular vaccinations and medical care.

That service members find ways to make that happen in a country like Iraq is a testament to their love for and devotion to these animals. Bringing them home is simply a payment in-kind for what the animals have already given their service members.

Much more here.

YouTube: Saving strays from Iraq

(h/t: (CritterBlog)

Operation Baghdad Pups, which airlifts dogs and cats that were befriended by U.S.soldiers in Iraq, landed today at Newark Liberty International Airport. The pets, mostly dogs, were fed and bathed today and will be flown or driven to the homes of their owners in the coming days. (Video by Scott Lituchy /The Star-Ledger)

How You Can Help:

Operation Baghdad Pups: Helping Soldiers’ Pets

Originally posted on Translating Jihad

Translated from the website of influential Kuwaiti salafi Shaykh Hamid al-’Ali, who according to the Jamestown Foundation is also designated by the U.S. government as a global terrorism financier and supporter, 20 March 2011:

Question: Eminent Shaykh, why does no one sympathize with Gaddafi while he is under attack from the West?! What is the difference between the occupation of Iraq in 2004, and the Western assault on Gaddafi?!

Questioner: Guest

Date: 20 Mar 2011

Answer from the Shaykh: The Islamic world has not and will not sympathize with Gaddafi, that Satan and son of the Jewish woman, and his mercenaries, while the entire Islamic world–except for the traitor Safavids [i.e. Iranians]–stood against the Western occupation of Iraq, for these fundamental differences:

The description of the Iraqi situation as a Western occupation: It was in a state of hostility with the West, and resistance to its policies, and was under a crippling embargo, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis continued to die because of it for several years!

The description of the situation of the son of a Jewish woman: He was providing the West with oil, for more than 85% of his oil exports went to Europe. And besides oil, he acknowledged that he was financing Sarkozy’s election campaign! The United States also gave him all of the weapons that he has, and the West was fine with everything, until they overthrew him!

The Iraqi situation: Iraq was not in a situation of widespread popular rebellion against the regime, and all Iraqis–except for those traitors loyal to Iran–were against any foreign intervention.

The situation of the son of the Jewish woman: The people stood up to him because of his tyranny–following the example of the success of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions–and he used Jewish and non-Jewish mercenaries to destroy his Muslim people. He continued to slaughter the people, then the strikes came, and he placed his knife on the necks of his Muslim people, and sliced them with all malice. Therefore he already repudiated his allegiance to the Ummah! So who would sympathize with him?!

The Iraqi situation: Iraq had supported the Palestinian issue.

The situation of the son of the Jewish woman: The evil one did not support them at all, but in fact called for Palestine to not be liberated, and to accept what he called the “Isratine” state.

The Iraqi situation: Iraq was invaded in revenge for the 9/11 attacks, and under the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction.

The situation of the son of the Jewish woman: Everyone knows that it is true–and not a lie–that he has violated the blood of Libyan Muslims, and he is truly one of the biggest liars of all of mankind, and the greatest tyrant and oppressor.

The Iraqi situation: Iraq had defended the Arab nation in its war against the Safavid (Iranian) barbarians.

The situation of the son of the Jewish woman: Gaddafi was in the same trench as the Syrian regime in support of the Safavids (Iranians) against the Arab nation and the Islamic nation.
The Iraqi situation: The following which was seen from the son of the Jewish woman, was not seen in Iraq:

The situation of the son of the Jewish woman: He disbelieved in the Sunnah by denying it, and mocked the judgments of the Islamic religion, and disavowed himself from Muslim history, except for that which he called “The Fatimid State,” and also disavowed himself from Arab history, and from the Arab race altogether!

The Iraqi situation: The Iraqi occupation came after the declaration of the Bush campaign and that of his gang, which adopted without reservations the Project for the New American Century, to subjugate the entire world to America, and construct the Greater Middle East, which is a new colonialism built by military might. It also came after the declaration of the “Crusader War” by Bush! This came in the shadow of media attacks from the Bush gang on Islam, Muslims and the Prophet (peace be upon him).

The situation of the son of the Jewish woman: The strikes came under the umbrella of his military advance on his people, and his violation of the Libyans’ blood!

The Iraqi situation: The traitors loyal to Iran [i.e. the Iraqi Shi'ites] cooperated with the American occupier on the ground invasion and the occupation of Iraq, and toppling Baghdad with Western armies. It was like a gigantic earthquake on the Islamic Ummah, and everyone rose up against it except the traitor Safavids and the (prostrated) sect which is well-known for its betrayal of the Ummah.

The situation of the son of the Jewish woman: The Libyan rebels announced their opposition to any foreign presence on Libyan soil.

For this reason no one will sympathize with this deceitful tyrant, and in fact the Muslim Libyan people are against him, and not with him or his mercenaries. He has no history except that of hostility to the Islamic Ummah, and recently to the courageous Libyan people who have rebelled against their tyrant.

This answer describes reality as was requested by the questioner. Now the response to the Western attacks on Libya was presented in a previous fatwa. There is no doubt that this wicked tyrant will meet his end Allah-willing, and will enter into the dustbin of history with good riddance, just as his ancestors among the enemies to our Ummah.

Allah knows best.

First of all…

It is long past time for us to decide exactly what we are fighting for in Afghanistan. And when it comes to that, the infamous lefty rag, Rolling Stone, does all it can to add to the confusion.

Awhile back, Rolling Stone caused a major brouhaha by exposing the internal dissention between Gen. McChrystal and the Obama Administration regarding the war in Afghanistan. Though the problems were real, the intent of Rolling Stone was to undermine our military and thereby help our enemies.

To give the devil his due, the US was, and is, on a self-defeating path. I would be the first to admit that I am no fan of the way in which the war in Afghanistan is being fought. The difference is that Rolling Stone wants the US, and Judaeo-Christian civilization, to lose the war against the jihad, while I want us to win.

I am fundamentally opposed to the Wilsonian pipe-dream of “nation-building.” No country can bestow give liberty and a functioning civil society to anyone else; they have to be earned, and they can never be earned by a predominantly Muslim population. That is because Islam is not a religion in the sense that we understand it, but rather, it is an expansionist, enemy, totalitarian political philosophy that requires perpetual warfare against unbelievers, and that seeks to rid the world of everything but itself. Any people espousing Islam cannot govern themselves without bringing in a totalitarian system of shari’a law. They regard it as sinful to do otherwise. Enacting this as part of a new constitution simply sets it in stone. The new constitutions enacted under US hegemony in both Afghanistan and Iraq are specifically Islamic and implement shari’a law. Why did we send our troops to fight for this?

The purpose of warfare is to defeat enemies so that they cannot and will not do us any further harm. It will always be beyond our power as a nation to turn foreign evildoers into decent human beings.

The current US “rules of engagement” (ROE) are nothing short of suicidal. It makes no sense to run what amounts to a day care center for our enemies who are stuck in a mindset that reflects the worst that the seventh century has to offer. Our enemies (including those who are supposedly “civilian”) do not play by any rules whatsoever, while our side is hogtied by rules that make it impossible to retaliate effectively or even to protect our own troops from enemy attack.

Rolling Stone beclowns itself again

Rolling Stone has made one more attempt to undermine and smear the US military in Afghanistan. But it turns out that they believed an ex-officer who is, to put it bluntly, an openly adulterous, self-promoting, and disloyal ignoramus. So now Rolling Stone has egg on its face.

Big Peace: Psyops on Senators in Afghanistan? Not Hardly

Posted by Jim Hanson Feb 28th 2011 at 4:34 am

…Rolling Stone is out hunting for Generals again and they have found a willing dupe in LTC Michael Holmes. Although calling him a dupe is unfair, he is a willing participant in this grotesque farce. Let’s tee this up in case you missed it. He claims that while on the staff of LTG Caldwell in Afghanistan he was tasked with coming up with ways to influence the opinions of visiting Senators. Seriously, that’s it. The massive outcry from the media was over something that anyone with an above room temperature IQ, including the Senators, knew happens all the time. The problem is that Holmes’ IQ is well below room temperature.

Before we explore the sad little world of LTC Holmes let’s remember that Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone Jackwagon, also wrote the hit piece that took down Stan McChrystal…

Back now to Holmes. He pitched this story to a newspaper or two, but couldn’t get them to bite. But he threw it at Rolling Stone and it stuck to their wall and obviously fit their agenda. Sadly keeping their rag afloat with tabloid level journalism is their only real option. So we have this spy movie sounding scenario where our Generals are plotting a la Dr. Strangelove and using psychological operations against visiting Senators. The reason they can conjure up this fiendish plot is because of a lack of understanding about Psy Ops, which is one part of Information Operations (IO) and the separate field of Public Affairs (PA). The simplest explanation is IO works to affect the enemy and the theater of operations and PA tells our stories to Americans and the press. Holmes was part of the IO staff and so normally he would have been working on information aimed at the enemy. But the mission he was part of on LTG Caldwell’s staff was to train the Afghan Army, so there was no need for IO operations. Consequently LTC Holmes was given a new assignment, part of which involved helping influence the opinions of visiting Senators.

…Holmes was sent home from Afghanistan in disgrace for multiple violations of orders and military law. Even worse, he was planning on cashing in on his experience with a civilian strategic communications company he had formed with a female officer who worked directly for him. That cunning plan crashed and burned when he and this officer, MAJ Laural Levine, made such a public nuisance of their “inappropriate relationship” that it became common knowledge among the staff. In addition to that, they were regularly heading off base in civilian clothes and were either weaponless, had surrendered them to the restaurants they frequented, or worse had carried them concealed. The first two are offenses against the General Orders for Afghanistan, the last is a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare. If they had been captured while carrying concealed out on the town, they would have been unlawful combatants.

Now how did we find these things out? Well in addition to being as discrete as Lady Gaga, Holmes is also an ultra maroon (yes I just quoted Bugs Bunny). He posted photos of he and his “far-too-intimate-female-associate” on Facebook. Then they go ahead and flirt like Junior High Schoolers in the comments while discussing photos that show them violating their orders. That’s right, a guy and gal who think they are smart enough to advise the government and corporations on strategic communications, busted themselves out on Facebook…

Read it all.

The bottom line? Never trust Rolling Stone or anything you read in it.

What has been missing from public discourse so far are constructive suggestions about how we should address the very real Islamic threat from a political and military perspective. Counterjihad blogger Sultan Knish offers some excellent ideas:

Canada Free Press: A Fourth Approach to the Muslim World

By Daniel Greenfield – Thursday, July 22, 2010

…The Fourth Way is Accountability and it is simple enough. Stop arguing over who will rule in which Muslim country. That is a decision that only the inhabitants of that country can make. And they won’t make it through elections, so much as through dealmaking among their oligarchy, tribal leaders and occasional outbursts of armed force. It would take a massive project of decades to have any hope of changing that. But we don’t need to. What we need to do is make very clear the consequences of attacking us to whoever is in charge.

Rather than trying to shape their behavior by shaping their political leadership, we can use a much more blunt instrument to unselectively shape all their leaders. A blunt instrument does not mean reconstruction. It doesn’t mean Marines ferrying electrical generators. It doesn’t mean nation building. It means that we will inflict massive devastation on any country that aids terrorists who attack us. If they insist on using medieval beliefs to murder us, we will bomb government buildings, roads, factories and power plants to reduce them back to a medieval state. We will not impose sanctions on them, we will simply take control of their natural resources and remove the native population from the area, as compensation for the expenses of the war.

Accountability means no more aid to tyrants or terrorists, and no grand democracy projects either. It means that we stop trying to pick a side, and just make it clear what happens when our side gets hurt. We gain energy independence and never look back. And when we’ve done that, the Muslim world will no longer be able to play America against Russia, against Asia and Europe. Instead it will suddenly find itself stuck with a predatory Russia looking for an energy monopoly, a booming China expanding into their part of the world, and no Pax Americana to protect them from either one.

America has provided the stability that kept many Muslim countries from imploding. It has protected others directly and indirectly from being conquered more times than anyone realizes. All the treachery and terrorism that has been carried out, has been done under an American umbrella. Now is the time to furl up the umbrella, and let the rain fall where it may.

It will be a cold day indeed, when Russia and China realize that they can do what they like in the Muslim world, without the US to stop them. And a colder day still, when European countries realize that there is nothing standing the way of deporting their insurgent Muslim populations, because the US will not lift a finger to protect them, as it did in Yugoslavia. That is accountability. And in both its active and passive forms it will exact a high price from the enemy, and none from us. To employ it, we must be prepared to use massive force casually without considering any collateral damage. We must achieve energy independence at any cost. And we must be prepared to realize that everything else we have tried has failed. Only by disengaging from the Muslim world, can we ever be free of it.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.

Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Read it all.

Originally posted on 2.0: The Blogmocracy

US Government Wasted Billions in Rebuilding Iraq
h/t: NoThreat2U

By Kim Gamel, AP

KHAN BANI SAAD, Iraq — A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children’s hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets

As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in American taxpayer funds has been wasted — more than 10 percent of the some $50 billion the U.S. has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency.

That amount is likely an underestimate, based on an analysis of more than 300 reports by auditors with the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. And it does not take into account security costs, which have run almost 17 percent for some projects.

Read it all.

What a waste!

We need to rebuild America, and we can do it only by restraining our spending, by cutting the deficit, by deregulating, and by lowering taxes.

“Foreign aid” is one place where we need to stop spending money. I do not mean that we should merely “cut” spending, I mean that we should stop entirely. That also means not a penny more for QUANGOs or NGOs such as USAID.

Nation-building = EPIC FAIL

Presidents in both parties like to use the often illusory and temporary benefits that the US government provides for overseas beneficiaries as a PR move and sometimes a backdrop for photo ops. Too bad nobody ever asks the American people whether we want or can afford to spend this money.

The amount of waste, graft, and simple incompetence taking place place on government projects overseas tends to be even higher than that which takes place on the same type of government project at home. One reason is that distance is always and everywhere the enemy of accountability. The other reason is that the US has so often been trying to modernize Islamic countries, which is inherently impossible to do without eliminating Islam. This is one area where I do fault George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Due to their backgrounds in the oil industry, and due to their indoctrination in the fraudulent Wilsonian ideology, neither one of them is intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually capable of comprehending the threat that is Islam.

Money sent to Islamic nations is not received with gratitude. It is interpreted either as an attempt at manipulation on the part of the Judaeo-Christian West, or as a form of jizya and a sign of weakness and dhimmitude.

Any US government spending overseas costs us heavily at home. We cannot afford it; more often than not, it is counterproductive; and the sooner we put an end to it, the better.

GWB and the Republican Party have paid the price for these fruitless attempts at ‘nation-building’.

The exchange of comments that appeared on a prior thread on 2.0: The Blogmocracy, regarding this very issue, underline my point:

1389AD wrote:

Speranza wrote:

Rodan wrote:

@ 1389AD:
Bush has a Progressive Pro-Islamic Wilsonian foreign policy. He really believed they would love Democracy.

Islam and democarcy are not compatible.

Islam and anything other than Islam (with the proven historical exception of Nazism) are not compatible.

(Visit this link to read the other comments.)

What to do?

Our politicians must be taught the lesson that ‘nation-building’ is always and everywhere doomed to fail. But that will happen if, and only if, people like ourselves hold their feet to the fire.

If you are an American, I ask that you write, call, or better yet, VISIT the offices of your US Senators and your US Representative. Tell them NO more tax dollars should go to foreign aid or nation-building, and that the money should go instead toward deficit and tax reduction. If you visit their district offices, you will usually be able to talk with a staffer. That’s just fine – the staffers relay constituent concerns to the legislator, and your message will get through.

Keep those cards and letters coming!

From the 1389 Blog Mailbox:

From: slvrfox55
Subject: WHY MICHELLE CAME HOME
Date: August 11, 2010 2:16:17 PM EDT

Sheppard Smith, Fox News:

“If you check President Obama’s last trip over-seas, his wife left just after their visit to France…She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. Why is Michelle returning to the states when ‘official’ trips to foreign countries generally include the First Lady.”

Here’s one thought on the matter.

While in a Blockbuster renting videos I came across a video called “Obama”. There were two men standing next to me and we talked about President Obama. These guys were Arabs, so I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following the President’s recent visit to France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband. They told me she could not go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iraq…I said “Why not,(?) Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Dubai..” They said that Obama is a Muslim and therefore he is not allowed to bring his wife into countries that adhere to Sharia Law.

Two points of interest here:

1. I thought it interesting that two American Arabs at Blockbuster believe that our President is a Muslim, who follows a strict Islamic creed.
2. They also said that’s the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world, acknowledging his religion.

For further consideration, here is a response from Dr. Jim Murk, a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert on Islam. This is his explanation of what the Arab Americans were saying.

“An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices Sharia law, particularly Saudi Arabia where the Wahhabi sect is dominant. This is true and it is why Obama left Michelle in Europe. She will stay home when he visits Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this includes, bowing to the Saudi King. Obama is regarded as a Muslim in the Arab world, because he was born to a Muslim father; he acknowledged his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus. Note that he downplays his involvement with Christianity, by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C. And occasionally attending the chapel for services at Camp David. He also played down the fact that America is a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense.

He has publicly taken the side of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel and he ignored the National Day of Prayer, something no other President has ever done. He is bad news! He conceals his true faith to the detriment of the American people.” — Jim Murk, Doctor of Philosophy in Middle Eastern Culture & Religion.

ACTIONS speak louder than words. Another interesting item regarding Sharia Law. Why has Barack Hussein Obama insisted that the U.S. Attorney General hold the trials of the 911 Muslim Terrorists in Civilian Courts as Common Criminals instead of as Terrorists who attacked the United States of America ? If the Muslim Terrorists are tried in Military Tribunals, convicted and sentenced to death, by LAW, Barack Hussein Obama, as President of the United States, would be required to sign their Death Warrants. He would not be required to sign the death warrants if they are sentenced to death by a Civilian Court…Recently, Muslim Jihadist, Army Major Hassan slaughtered non-Muslim, soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas rather than go to Afghanistan and be a part of anything that could lead to the deaths of fellow Muslims. He stated that Muslims ‘could not and should not kill fellow Muslims.’ Is the motive for Barack Hussein Obama’s insistence on civilian trials, to make sure he doesn’t have to sign the death warrants for the Muslim Terrorists? Why would he, as President of the United States, not sign the death warrants for Muslim Terrorists who attacked the United States and murdered over 3,000 U. S. Citizens on 9/11? Could it be that he is FORBIDDEN by his RELIGION to authorize the execution of Muslims?

Think about that! Open your eyes, ears and mind to who the President is, how he behaves and what he is doing.

Originally published at 2.0: The Blogmocracy.

by 1389AD

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. – Ephesians 6:12 (King James Version)

In General Casey obscures the pellucid air of Aspen, Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch gets it almost completely right. After roundly condemning George Casey for his dhimmitude under the guise of “diversity,” he proceeds to question America’s entire vision of what we are up against. And rightly so:

Former Vice President Cheney famously said that this would be a “Long War.”

And now General Casey, and those behind and above him, say that at the very least, this war in Afghanistan alone may go on for another five or ten years. And hearing this, we may ask ourselves where else will this war, fought this way, be taken – will it go to Somalia, or to Yemen? Will these be the next Stations of the National Cross we are collectively made to bear, because those who rule over us do not know, and do not want to know, and may even not know that they do not know, what is necessary if a sensible policy of managing the war of self-defense against all those who take the duty and doctrine of Jihad seriously can be constructed and applied?

That war of self-defense is not a “Long War.” It is not a war that might go on for “five” or maybe “ten” more years, in Afghanistan or anywhere else, and then be over with.. It is a permanent war, a war without end, because the doctrine of Jihad is a permanent, and central, not tangential, part of Islam. The duty to engage, directly or indirectly, in Jihad – which should not be thought of only as involving terrorism or other forms of violence – does not disappear. It did not disappear in the century-and-a-half, from roughly 1800 to 1950, when Muslims were so obviously weak that those who wanted to engage in Jihad simply could not. But now things have unalterably changed: the OPEC trillions (more than 13 trillion dollars since 1973 alone to the Muslim members of OPEC), with more piling up every year, and the millions of Muslims foolishly allowed in, through the casually criminal negligence of political and media elites, to the countries of Western Europe. All this, and then the exploitation of Western technology that is useful in the dissemination of the message of Islam, both to Muslims (some of whom might heretofore have been unaware of the full message of Islam, but can remain so now only with difficulty) and to non-Muslims who might be seduced by the siren-song of whatever melody (e.g., “social justice”) that Muslims conducting Da’wa might wish to underhum.

Far from being “realistic” in their supposedly “glum” assessments, Cheney with his “Long War” and General Casey with his “five or ten more years in Afghanistan” are actually misleading themselves, and us. For they are refusing to grasp the nature of the war. They are thinking in terms that do not make sense. To wit: It might take us “five or ten years” to stamp out Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, in both its Afghani and Pakistani versions, and then, supposedly, we will have our “victory,” we will have “won.” But no “victory” in the conventional sense is possible. And there is to be no “winning” but only, rather, the minimizing of the threat and the conceivable damage, from Muslims. Why? Because there is no sell-by date to the doctrine and duty of Jihad. It goes on forever. And when anyone tells you, with a sober mien that is supposed to convey the message that “I’m not naïve, I’m a grim realist, I know this is going to be a long hard slog and it might take five years, ten years, twenty years, in Af-Pak and the Horn of Africa,” you should not think to yourself that at long last someone has dared to tell the truth, someone in authority is leveling with you…

Fitzgerald then pokes some well-deserved holes into the unalloyed madness and idiocy that passes for long-term strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan:

And a second part of the Aspen speech by George Casey also merits attention: “Casey highlighted job, education and economic growth as essential to success in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

This is what we are so drearily familiar with, the idea that we should do with Muslim lands what we did with the countries of Western Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan (indeed, Al-Jaafari and others in Iraq have more than once called for a “New Marshall Plan” for Iraq, in which the United States taxpayers foot the bill; “Marshall Plan” is a phrase strangely familiar to many Arabs and Muslims). We have an official unemployment rate of nearly 10% in this country (and more, if one counts those who have given up looking for work, and still more, if one counts all the greatly under-employed). We have a collapsing educational system. We do not have economic growth. But Casey, and those for whom Casey also speaks, thinks that Americans should pay for “jobs and education and economic growth” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never mind that Iraq has the second or possibly first largest reserves of oil in the world, and thanks to the United States had its entire debt of nearly $100 billion cancelled by the Western nations (but notice that the Arab creditors did not cancel what was owed to them), and will be raking in hundreds of billions. Never mind that “education” may make an enemy more formidable, not less, and if “education” never questions the teachings of Islam, but merely makes Muslims more dangerous because better educated, why is this something we should encourage?

After facing all of this horror head-on, Fitzgerald reaches a conclusion that is far rosier than his own evidence warrants:

Is there time for Obama to begin to see things differently, and to get rid of the brennans and bring on board the ship of state, now a dangerously listing Narrenschiff or S. S. Naufragium, others, less ignorant and less self-deceived? Yes. There is time. But only just.

No, there is no time, simply because Obama is not one of us; he is among our enemies. He sympathizes with the jihadis and he will continue to do everything he can to ensure that they win.

Read the rest.

Originally published at 2.0: The Blogmocracy.

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. – Matthew 24:6 (King James Version)

In his new article, The Immorality of the Moral High Ground, Sultan Knish explains why Israel and the West keeps losing, and the jihadis keep winning. It’s because we have been manipulated into trying to claim the moral high ground in a struggle that leaves no room for morality. The eventual result is capitulation to evil.

We can’t win the War on Terror so long as we hold to liberal definitions of the Moral High Ground. We can’t even begin to really fight it. What’s worse, is that not only does this warped understanding of morality result in more American deaths, it results in more deaths of both fighters and civilians on the enemy side. Because where the soldier understand that the most moral way to win a war is, quickly. The bleeding heart liberal thinks that the most moral way to win a war is, never. To a liberal if we must fight a war, we should do it with our hands tied behind our backs, and after a decade of senseless bloodshed, we’ll finally come to realize that war is a bad thing.

As the Biblical quotation reminds us, war has always been, and always will be, part of the earthly human condition. Violent conflict is a part of the fallen nature of mankind, which is the very thing that the “progressives” attempt to deny by insisting that they can perfect mankind by perfecting the structure of society. This is why the efforts of so many people to prevent war, or to legislate rules for fighting war, serve only to worsen it when it inevitably happens.

Putting liberals in charge of determining what soldiers can do in a war is like putting die hard big government advocates in charge of privatizing the government. Not only will they see that the whole thing fails, they’ll make sure that it fails as painfully and horribly as possible in order to serve as a lesson to any future government that might flirt with any similar notion. They did it with the War on Terror, intimidating military interrogators with threats of legal action and exposure, while helping the terrorists realize that all they need to do is claim torture in order to be set free. They did it brilliantly in Iraq, subverting the reconstruction in the aftermath of a successful war, from within, until the entire thing collapsed into squabbling factions. They did it on Iran, feeding false claims that there was no nuclear program long enough for Bush to leave office.

But of course, the liberals never apply the same moral standards to our enemies.

Why? Because they want our enemies to win, that’s why.

Why does Israel have a terrorist problem, and not Jordan, which has the same Arab population that Israel does? It’s not simply because Israel is mostly Jewish and Jordan is mostly Muslim, though that is a contributing factor. A primary focus of Islamists is to take over countries with majority Muslim populations in order to build the Caliphate. The reason is because in 1970 when the terrorists began hijacking planes and declared that a part of Jordan belonged to them, King Hussein sent in the army. He didn’t kill a mere 52 Palestinian Arab terrorists, as Israel did in Jenin. Or a mere 107 in Deir Yassin. Not even the 800 or so killed in fighting between Arabs in Sabra and Shatilla. No, according to Arafat, King Hussein’s troops killed an estimated 25,000 Palestinian Arabs.

This wasn’t some sort of unique event by Middle Eastern standards. When the Islamists tried to stage an uprising in Hama, Syrian troops killed somewhere between 20,000 to 40,000 people. When Arafat sided with Saddam during the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinian Arabs. Why did they do it? Because by 1990, Kuwait had some 564,000 native Arabs, and some 450,000 Palestinian Arabs. So the Kuwaitis began bombing Palestinian Arab neighborhoods, top officials boasted about “cleansing” Palestinian Arabs from Kuwait, and tanks and troops were sent into Palestinian Arab neighborhoods, setting up checkpoints, killing, imprisoning and torturing thousands. There were plenty of atrocities that got brief mentions in the media, before the Palestinian Arabs were gone from Kuwait, and everyone moved on.

Just to grasp the sheer scale of the double standard here, in the same year that the Bush Administration was pressuring Israel to negotiate with the PLO in the name of human rights, President H.W. Bush gave a blank check to the Kuwaiti royal family to do anything they wanted to the Palestinian Arabs in their country. He told the Kuwaiti ambassador, “The war wasn’t fought about democracy in Kuwait” and justified everything the royals were doing, saying, “I think we’re expecting a little much if we’re asking the people in Kuwait to take kindly to those that had spied on their countrymen that were left there, that had brutalized families there, and things of that nature.” The Kuwaiti government newspaper Sawt Al Kuwait, featured Bush’s comments under the headline, “We Would Be Asking a Lot, If We Asked Them to Show Mercy.”

And that just about says it all. The same Western governments which think it’s asking a lot to expect Muslims to show mercy, make those demands of Israel all the time. They make those demands of their own forces, while never expecting Muslims to show mercy.

Sultan Knish explains what we must do instead:

…In the same way, stamping out the first terrorist attacks will save you from engaging in a prolonged struggle. That means doing it with decisive finality. This is a simple truth that every Middle Eastern country, but Israel understands. And a simple fact that every Muslim country understands, but the United States does not. Throw a dart at any major Muslim nation, and you find repression, mass graves and even genocide. Indonesia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Turkey– it never ends. There’s a very simple reason for that. In Islam, force is the only real morality.

Mohammed is not the Prophet of Islam because he offended the Meccans and got killed for it. He’s the prophet of a worldwide religion, because he killed everyone in his path. And then his followers killed everyone in their path. And then their followers went on doing the same d— thing for over a thousand years, right into the present day– where Muslims are still killing and making war on everyone who isn’t a Muslim, and refuses to become one. Islam has only one real revelation, death. But it has to be death with a purpose. The purpose is the triumph of Islam. If victory is possible, then the Islamists have plenty of volunteers to die, because they believe in the Islamic paradise and its 72 virgins. If on the other hand, the Islamists get stomped into the dirt, their religious credibility runs at an all time low. When victory is impossible, Islam withers and goes into the long sleep of cultural hibernation to awaken in a more permissive time.

There’s only one way to defeat terrorists. To fight them without any more restraint than they impose on themselves. Under such conditions, superior force and technology makes the victory of the civilized side inevitable, and creates an incentive for the uncivilized side to become civilized, or pay the price. The Moral High Ground, the whole idea that restraint toward those who would kill you is the essence of morality, is one of the most perniciously self-destructive ideas ever coined. It is suicide with a slogan. The Moral High Ground is not moral and it is not the high ground, it is the way by which civilians go to their death over the cliff of their own warped ideals.

There is only one Moral High Ground that that can defeat, the moral high ground of standing up for civilization, against those who would drown it in the ichor of their own hate, the stench of their own greed, the lust of their own power and the blood of their endless murders. It is not moral to let your family be murdered, rather than harm the murderers. He who slays those who kill his loves ones, stands on the true moral high ground. The only true Moral High Ground that there is.

Read the rest.

Sadly, it is not only the dhimmis in the Obama administration (and in the administration of every US president since Reagan left office) who are to blame for our current predicament. It’s the fact that the US has let itself be fooled by the leftist elite, not only in Washington DC, but also the Ivy League, the think tanks, the NGOs, the Hollywood left, and the rest of the mainstream media. As Sultan Knish also mentions, Israel has its own left that exerts a pernicious influence, to the detriment of Israel’s security and survival. And as Gates of Vienna tells us every day, the same is true in the EU.

Perhaps most of all to blame is the UN and all of its pomps and all of its works. As I personally tried to warn everyone over a decade ago, Israel would be next in line to suffer the condemnation that was visited upon the Serbs for daring to defend themselves against the jihadi onslaught. And so it was.

There is no joy in pointing out that I was right, after it is too late to mitigate the damage. At least for me, to say “I told you so” is not so much a temptation, as Thomas Fleming once warned, to the sin of pride, but to that of despair.

Expansionist Islam is directly targeting Europe as a target for colonization and takeover. This is no secret; its spokesmen make no effort to hide their intentions.

From today’s mail:

By: Filip Dewinter

Published on : Cities against islamisation: Initiatives and in Dutch on Anjem Choudary: “België is zeer beloftevol. In de steden is een derde van de bevolking islamitisch: dat heb je nergens anders in Europa!”

“Belgium is a promising country. In the cities, one third of the population consists of muslims: that’s unique in Europe!”

During an interview with the Flemish magazine Humo, Anjem Choudary, the leader of the fundamentalist organisation Sharia4UK, announced that he would soon move to Belgium, because “Belgium is better than Great Britain.” “The laws there are less severe. In Belgium, I can say what I believe and do what I want.” According to Choudary, “Belgium is a promising country. If I’m not mistaken, one third of the population in cities as Antwerp and Brussels consists of muslims, and their number is constantly growing. That’s fabulous! That’s unique in Europe. Those people will no longer tolerate oppression.”

“I’ve been to neighbourhoods that are exclusively Islamic. It’s looking really good,” Choudary says. His intentions are clear as well: “We want the European people to understand that Islam is not just about spirituality, but it is a complete model of society, just like capitalism or communism (…) Islam is not a foreign invader: for centuries, we have controlled large parts of Europe. Spain, Portugal, the Balkan, parts of Switzerland and Austria,… That time will return.” Even more stunning is what Choudary thinks of terrorism: “There are two kinds of terrorists. The ones that kill innocent civilians, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are against life. And then there are the terrorists that fight against the enemies of God, the enemies of Allah. They are pro life. Those terrorists are no terrorists.”

It is clear for Vlaams Belang that Anjem Choudary cannot be welcome in Belgium. Choudary, whose organisation is prohibited in Great Britain, is an enemy of our European Society and has to be regarded as an undesirable person. Who calls for violence and who supports, praises and minimizes terrorism has to be refused entrance to our country.

Kind regards,

Hans Verreyt
Cities Against Islamisation