American Infidel's Musts

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:21:00 +0000

Greetings Visitors...

My apologies, but work has kept me busy & will keep me busy over the next few weeks...

As soon as I get out from under this load, I shall resume posting...

Thanks...

AI

MUST READ: HATE BEHIND THE NIQAB

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:31:00 +0000

Symposium: Hate Behind the Niqab
By Frontpagemag.com

What impulses engender the desire to cover a woman with a full black body covering -- with only a small slit opening for the eyes? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel.

...

The word, niqaab (sing.) and nuqub (pl.) in its Arabic root means to bore, to pierce, to make a hole. The sexual nature of the root should be apparent. In Hebrew and Aramaic the same root meaning exists. In Modern Hebrew there is the word nikBA, which means ‘tunnel’ and more importantly, the very word for ‘female’, nekeVA comes from this root. Yet today there is no veiling remotely comparable to what is going on within the global umma.

...

The veil is about control/domination vis-à-vis submission of the female and her subjugation. The headscarf is the beginning of the slippery slope of subjugation that slides into the burqa and/or the niqab. Because it is such a sexually repressed culture, men shroud the female to avoid being sexually aroused by her essence. When exposed they feel not only highly aroused, but threatened and vulnerable, an emotional state not to be tolerated in Islam except in the presence of Allah. (personal communication, J. Lachkar)

...

When a woman is deprived of any worthiness by her religion such as the case with Islam's, she hangs on any symbols which give her respect in her society as a good woman. There is a saying in the Arabic world to a woman: "Allah Yustur Alaiki" May Allah cover your shame. Her existence as she is created by God is shameful and needs to be covered first by a veil then by a husband. The Niqab is the answer to that prayer.

...

Muhammad’s first wife Khadijah was a business lady, the richest woman of Arabia. There is no evidence to suggest she wore any form of veil during her lifetime. The same is true for Muhammad’s other wives, until Muhammad forced them to be covered in niqab, ostensibly mandated by Allah in a few verses in the Koran.

So why did Muhammad inflict this form of sartorial oppression on Muslim women? To know the reason we need to read the hadiths. The chief cause of veiling of Muhammad’s wives and the Muslim women in general is ingrained in the primitive latrine facilities in the deserts of Arabia.

After the death of Khadijah, Muhammad spent most of the wealth left by Khadijah. He became so poor that he had very little money to support himself. When he migrated to Medina, he and his followers were destitute. Under this dire poverty, Muhammad had to house his wives in places with very primitive or non-existent toilet/sanitary facilities. He had no choice but to ask his wives to go to an open field nearby and answer the call of nature.

In a hadith in Sahih Bukhari (1.4.149) we read that Muhammad permitted his wives to go out in the desert, in a secluded spot under the sky, and hide under trees and shrubs to defecate, though, he restricted them to the night hours only. That is: his wives could go out to relieve themselves only at night, when no one was watching them.

In another hadith of Sahih Bukhari (6.60.203) we read that performing sexual intercourse in the open sky, in the very spot where defecation used to take place was quite common. In other words, these spots in the desert, where there were shrubs and date palm trees, were the places where many people, who had no privacy at their homes, used to relieve themselves, as well as do sexual intercourse. It had been the way of the Arab Bedouins for millennia.

Nevertheless, Umar, the second Caliph of Islam urged Muhammad to change this.

As per the instruction, Muhammad’s wives started to go to an open field only at night to answer the call of nature without any veil or proper attire. Umar used to watch these ladies and was very uncomfortable and distressful to see them answering the call of nature in the open sky without much protection to their privacy. He requested Muhammad to cover his wives with veils whenever they went out to do their business in the open field at night.

At first, Muhammad ignored Umar’s plea. But when Umar kept pestering, Muhammad turned to Allah for His suggestion (since he did not have the pecuniary means to solve this toilet problem). Allah promptly sent down the verse on veil (33:59)

The above context of the veiling and ‘niqabing’ demonstrates that there is no compelling reason to enforce such a despicable, misogynist, barbaric system on Muslim women.

Today, we note, all around the world, that seventh century Bedouin barbaric custom is back in fashion. Not being content with the Muslim women, there is also pressure on the infidel women to cover up, because, as per the Islamic rule, these infidel women who do not wear the Islamic niqab are sluts, whores and ripe for Islamic rape by Islamic men.

According to Islam, Muslims are at perpetual war with the non-Muslims. Wherever, there is even a shred of Islam (even a single Muslim) it is incumbent upon him to enforce Islam in whatever capacity. This means, as per Islamic law (Sharia), infidel women, who do not comply with the Islamic dress codes, are captives of the Muslims living in the infidel territory. In Hedaya, the Hanafi law manual, we find that a Muslim living in an infidel land is allowed to have unlimited sex with the non-Muslim women without having the need to marry them. This should explain why, many Islamic men in the infidel world are caught for raping the ‘slutty’ ‘bitchy’, ‘whores’; of the western countries. They deserve to be purified by Islamic rape, as many such Muslim will say.

The Islamic hatred for western women who do not cover their bodies with Islamic ‘tents’ knows no bound. In 2006, the Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Hilali considered these western women as the ‘cat’s’ meat, that is: these western women deserve to be eaten (sexually) by Muslim men who chance upon them. We might not like what Mufti Hilali said, but he is absolutely correct. Islam allows Muslim men to have forced sex upon non-Muslim women who do not cover their ‘meat’. Here is the proof:

In verse 33:59. Allah says: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever of Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The most eminent tafsir (exegesis) writer, bin Kathir comments on this verse:

Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the believing women -- especially his wives and daughters, because of their position of honour -- to draw their Jibes over their bodies, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the women of the Jahiliyyah and from slave women. The Jilbab is a Rida', worn over the Khimar. This was the view of Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ubaydah, Qatadah, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Sa'id bin Jubayr, Ibrahim An-Nakha'i, 'Ata' Al-Khurasani and others. It is like the Izar used today. Al-Jawhari said: "The Jilbab is the outer wrapper. 'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that Allah commanded the believing women, when they went out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from above their heads with the Jilbab, leaving only one eye showing. Muhammad bin Sirin said, "I asked 'Ubaydah As-Salmani about the Ayah: (to draw their Jalabib over their bodies.) He covered his face and head, with just his left eye showing.'' (That will be better that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. ) means, if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not servants or whores.

Please read the last sentence once again. It reads:

[If they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not servants or whores—ibn Kathir]

The above explanation of ibn Kathir mean:

Muslim women must always keep their 'meat' covered whenever they venture out.

Infidel women who do not hide their 'meat' inside Jilbab and Hijab are either maidservants or whores.

The white Australian women who do not dress Islamically are maidservants or whores.

In Islam, Muslim men are allowed to have unlimited sexual intercourse with maidservants and/or sexual slaves. A Muslim man commits rape if and only if he has sex with a Muslim woman out of wedlock. Having forced sex with an infidel, uncovered woman does not at all constitute rape, Islamically speaking.

The natural conclusion is that Muslim men are completely free to Islamically rape these infidel women, if these whores fall in Muslim men's hands.

I quoted from the Koran and the tafsir of ibn Kathir to dispel any doubt that the non-Muslims might have about the unremitting hatred Islam has for infidel women, who do not comply with the Islamic specifications of women’s dress code.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Symposium: Hate Behind the Niqab

MUST READ: THE TWO KINDS OF DHIMMIS

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:26:00 +0000

The Two Kinds of Dhimmis
By Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

...

FP: I would like to discuss the issue of dhimmis today. Let's begin like this: who are the dhimmis? And what different kinds are there?

Warner: Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.

We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.

In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.

Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed.

In his early phase in Mecca, Mohammed only talked about religious slavery to Allah/Mohammed. The Koran promises the use of violence in Hell after death. The Koran of Mecca has 67% of its text devoted to how the kafirs (unbelievers) must submit to Allah/ Mohammed.

Then in Medina, Mohammed’s message became political, and he became violent without limits towards kafirs. Mohammed made all the Jews of Medina submit to him by robbery, murder, war, assassinations, rape, torture, executions, exile and enslavement.

After he had subdued all of the kafirs in Medina, Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar. By now he realized that you could make more money from a live kafir than from a dead one. Kafirs can be enslaved, but the slave option has a disadvantage. Slaves have to be managed and be near at hand. So Mohammed created the dhimmi. The dhimmi agrees to live in a world that is dominated by Islam in all public areas. A dhimmi is free from Islam only in his own home. Law, customs, art, education, the media, government, speech and every thing in public space is Islamic. In addition, the dhimmi has to pay a tax to Islam called the jizya tax. In Khaybar the jizya tax was 50%.

The key psychological technique is that the dhimmi is to be humiliated in all possible ways. In effect, the dhimmi is halfway between freedom and slavery, a semi-slave.

Mohammed’s power structure was now complete. His first division of humanity was into believer/kafir. Then he refined kafir into dhimmi and slave. Humanity became divided into Muslim, kafir-slaves, kafir-dhimmis and kafirs.

As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.

FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?

Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.

In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.

There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor.

FP: I see, so two kinds of dhimmis.

Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.

Our civilization is under attack by political Islam. It is the intent of Islam to do this country what it has done to every country it has invaded—annihilate our civilization. This annihilation is the goal of political Islam for a simple reason. Annihilation is the process of Islamification. We must understand that Islam is a totally separate civilization from ours. The civilization of Islam is anti-everything in our civilization. As an example, our ethical system has at its core the Golden Rule and is a unitary system. We have one set of ethical rules for all possible groups. Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs.

Kafir logic is based upon Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them must be false. Islamic logic is dualistic. The Koran establishes the logic of Islam. The Koran of Mecca contradicts the Koran of Medina, but since both Korans are perfect, both sides of the contradiction are true. Dualistic logic allows two contradictory “facts” to be true at the same time. Islamic logic is built on contradiction.

Allah is the god of duality and submission. Islamic civilization is based upon the principles of duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon the principles of unitary ethics and unitary logic.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) The Two Kinds of Dhimmis

MUST READ: SYMPOSIUM - A NEW KORAN?

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:23:00 +0000

Symposium: A New Koran?
By Jamie Glazov

The organization Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran with the violent verses removed. How legitimate and wise is this action? There is an effort in Turkey, for instance, to also revise Islamic texts. What real hope can these acts offer to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Symposium: A New Koran?

MUST READ: IRAN & TURKEY MOVE CLOSER ON COUNTER-TERRORISM COOPERATION

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:49:00 +0000

Iran and Turkey Move Closer on Counter-Terrorism Cooperation
By Giray Sadik

There are signs that Turkey and Iran intend to increase cooperation in their mutual struggle against militant Kurdish nationalists based in northern Iraq. The Turkish Interior Ministry announced in a statement on April 17 that “ Turkish and Iranian officials have signed a memorandum of understanding expressing their willingness to develop cooperation in security issues.” According to the statement, issued after the conclusion of the 12th High Security Commission (HSC) meeting between Turkey and Iran: “The increase in some terrorist movements in the region damages both countries, and the most influential way to battle this outlawed problem is the exchange of intelligence and security cooperation” (Hurriyet, April 17). The main movements alluded to in this statement are the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which seeks autonomy for Kurds in Turkey, and the closely related Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), whose members are militants from the heavily Kurdish northwestern provinces of Iran who carry out cross-border strikes into Iran.

Various media sources confirmed that the primary agenda of the HSC meeting was to negotiate new joint measures both countries can take in order to further their existing “active counterterrorism cooperation” (Today’s Zaman, April 15). It is important to recall the results of the previous High Security Commission meeting in February 2006, when Turkey and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding calling for the mountainous region of northern Iraq bordering Turkey and Iran to become “a peaceful land which is purified of all kinds of terror” (Sabah, April 14). On April 15 Iranian Deputy Interior Minister Abbas Mohtai told journalists prior to his departure for Turkey that “there is no difference between the PKK and PJAK. Turkey and Iran are the targets of terrorist attacks” (Hurriyet, April 15). To further explain the Iranian position and the purpose of his visit, Abbas Mohtaj emphasized that “the two countries fight against terror and cooperate with each other, and Iran looks at the PKK and the PJAK as a single terrorist organization under two different names. We want to increase cooperation with Turkey against the terrorist organizations” (Hurriyet, April, 15, 2008).

The visit of the Iranian Deputy Interior Minister was the first high profile security visit from Iran in the aftermath of late February’s Turkish cross-border ground operations and air strikes against terrorist havens in northern Iraq. Although Turkish ground units returned to their homeland a week after beginning a precise and effective operation, occasional clashes and hot pursuits around the Turkish-Iraqi border have continued to take place.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Iran and Turkey Move Closer on Counter-Terrorism Cooperation

MUST READ: PAKISTAN'S NEW GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES PEACE INITIATIVE W/ISLAMIST MILITANTS IN SWAT

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:48:00 +0000

Pakistan’s New Government Launches Peace Initiative with Islamist Militants in Swat
By Rahimullah Yusufzai

Maulana Sufi Mohammad, the aged leader of the banned Islamic group, Tanzim Nifaz Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM), was released in Peshawar on April 21 after more than six years of imprisonment as part of the reconciliation efforts undertaken by the newly-elected coalition government of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) (The News International [Islamabad], April 22).

His release is part of an effort to tackle the conflict in the militancy-hit Swat district and restore order in the once peaceful valley. It coincided with the signing of an agreement between the TNSM and the government. Under the six-point agreement, the TNSM renounced the use of force in achieving its goal of enforcing Shari’a (Islamic law) in Swat and other parts of Malakand region (Dawn [Islamabad], April 22). It pledged to respect the institutions of the state and accept the government’s right to establish its writ. The TNSM also distanced itself from elements involved in attacks on security forces in Swat and elsewhere. In return, the government withdrew all pending cases against Sufi Mohammad, commuted his remaining prison term and set him free unconditionally.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Pakistan’s New Government Launches Peace Initiative with Islamist Militants in Swat

MUST READ: DOSTUM - AFGHANISTAN'S EMBATTLED WARLORD

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:00 +0000

Dostum: Afghanistan’s Embattled Warlord
By Brian Glyn Williams

While the resurgence of the Taliban is the focus of interest in the Pashtun south of Afghanistan, the year started with a different story in the north that many are depicting as one of the greatest challenges to the Karzai government. Namely the surreal confrontation between General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the larger-than-life Uzbek jang salar (warlord)—who was once described as “one of the best equipped and armed warlords ever”—and one of his former aides [1].

In a move that many critics of the situation in Afghanistan saw as epitomizing the Karzai government’s cravenness in dealing with brutal warlords, the Afghan government backed away from arresting Dostum after he beat up and kidnapped a former election manager and spokesman in Kabul on February 3 (IHT, February 4). As his house was besieged by Ministry of the Interior police, Dostum appeared on the roof, defiantly waving his fist.

While many critics of President Karzai’s policy of appeasing warlords called for making an example of Dostum, Karzai limited his response to removing Dostum from his largely symbolic post of “Commander in Chief” of the Afghan Army. Karzai’s decision not to prosecute Dostum for his brazen assault in the Afghan capital was depicted as “timid and hesitant” (Asia Times, April 9; RFE/RL, February 3). Glib calls for “removing” warlords like Dostum, however, display a lack of understanding of the complex issues involved in Karzai’s delicate balancing act in a country faced with a mounting Taliban insurgency.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Dostum: Afghanistan’s Embattled Warlord

MUST READ: WHY EUROPEANS SHOULD SUPPORT ISRAEL

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:23:00 +0000

Why Europeans Should Support Israel
by Fjordman

One of the most frustrating things to watch is the powerful anti-Israeli and sometimes outright anti-Semitic current that is prevalent in too much of Europe’s media. Bat Ye’or’s predictions about Arab anti-Semitism spreading in Europe as the continent’s Islamization and descent into Eurabia continues have so far proved depressingly accurate. This trend needs to be fought, vigorously, by all serious European anti-Jihadists. Not only because it is immoral and unfair to Israelis, which it is, but also because those who assist it are depriving Europeans of the opportunity to fully grasp the threat and understand the nature of the Jihad that is now targeting much of Europe as well.

In 2005 the Norwegian police issued a mobile security alarm to Carl I. Hagen, leader of the right-wing Progress Party. Mr. Hagen had criticized Islam and could see no similarity with the concept of morality and justice found in Christianity. During the 1990s, Mr. Hagen was one of the few politicians who protested against giving money to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a part of the Norwegian-brokered Oslo Peace Process.

Hagen said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next. He felt that Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads into Europe. In an unprecedented step, a group of Muslim ambassadors to Norway blasted Carl I. Hagen in a letter to the newspaper Aftenposten, claiming that he had offended 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. Other Norwegian politicians quickly caved in and condemned Hagen. Maybe Norway, “the country of peace” and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, will get along just fine with Islam, “the religion of peace.”

Although some political leaders such as Mr. Carl I. Hagen have a clear understanding of what’s going on, they are unfortunately few and far between. Most European media commentators are hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, partly because they get angry with anybody defending themselves against Islamic Jihad instead of surrendering, and partly because they want to project their own feelings of guilt from the Holocaust onto Israel by recasting the Jews as villains and the Palestinians as victims.

French filmmaker Pierre Rehov made the film Suicide Killers where he interviewed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He warns that we are facing “a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization,” a “culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God. I hear a mother saying ‘Thank God, my son is dead.’ Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. [...] They don’t see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.”

Rehov believes that we are dealing with “a new form of Nazism” that it is going to spread to Europe and the United States, too.

Spanish journalist Sebastian Villar Rodriguez claims that Europe died in Auschwitz: “We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!” Yet in 2007, Ciempozuelos, a small Madrid suburb, refused to commemorate Holocaust Day and opted instead to commemorate the ‘Day of Palestinian Genocide.’ In Britain following Muslim pressure, the Bolton Council scrapped its Holocaust Memorial Day event. The Muslim Council of Britain asked for a Genocide Day to protest the Israeli “genocide” against the Palestinians. The secretary-general of the MCB, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, has earlier compared the situation of Muslims in Britain to Jews under Hitler.

We thus have the absurd situation where the Nazis of today are presented as Jews while the Jews are presented as Nazis.

French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of the European Union, a culture based on guilt. “I can understand the feeling of remorse that is leading Europe to this, but this remorse goes too far.” It is too great a gift to present Hitler to reject every single aspect of European culture. This is said by the Jewish son of an Auschwitz prisoner.

The Holocaust was an unspeakable crime. It also did massive damage to Europe’s own identity and cultural confidence, and is one of the major causes of Europe’s seeming inability to withstand the ongoing Islamic Jihad.

As Hugh Fitzgerald notes, “Fortunately for so many, and for the Arabs, the victory of Israel in the Six-Day War promptly provided a reason to depict Jews as villains, not victims. This found an eager audience of Europeans, who were already eager for psychological reasons to find fault with Jews so as to avoid thinking unduly about the behavior of many European peoples and states during the war. [...] The damage done to the morale of Europe because of the destruction of European Jewry has been great. If Western Europe, or the West generally, were after all that has happened to permit Israel to go under, Europe would not recover.”

He warns that those who believe sacrificing Israel would in any way stop the global Jihad are very wrong. On the contrary, “The loss of Israel would fill the Arabs and Muslims with such triumphalism that their Jihad in Western Europe and elsewhere (including the Americas) would receive a gigantic boost. The duty is to make sure that Islam covers the globe; that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule.”

Europeans need to understand how closely intertwined are the fates of Israel and of Europe itself. The term “Judeo-Christian” is not a cliche. We cannot defend Western civilization without defending its Jewish component, without which modern Western culture would have been unthinkable.

The religious identity of the West has two legs: The Christian and the Jewish ones. It needs both to stand upright. Sacrificing one to save the other is like fighting a battle by chopping off one of your legs, throwing it at the feet of your enemies and shouting: “You won’t get the other one! We will never surrender!” We could always hope that our enemies will laugh themselves to death faster than we bleed to death, the Monty Python way of fighting. Maybe that works, but most likely it will leave us crippled and pathetic, if not dead.

I agree with Mr. Finkielkraut: To reduce absolutely everything about Europe to gas chambers, thereby allowing the Nazis the opportunity to expropriate everything that has been created during thousands of years, is to grant Adolf Hitler victory posthumously. We should not award him that pleasure, especially since what would replace Western civilization would be Islamic culture, the most warlike and anti-Semitic on earth, and greatly admired by Mr. Hitler for it.

We cannot change what has happened in the past. We should, however, consider it our duty to combat anti-Semitism in the here and now and make sure that the remaining Jews both in Europe and in Israel are safe. This is not just because it is our moral and historical obligation, which it is, but also because we only gain the right to defend ourselves against Islamization of we grant the same right to Israel. Likewise, we can only begin to heal our self-inflicted civilizational wounds if we embrace the Jewish component of our cultural identity.

Written by well known blogger Fjordman, you can find many of his works at: Gates of Vienna, Islam-Watch, Global Politician, JihadWatch, The Brussels Journal and his own blog @ Blogspot bearing his name Fjordman.

Pertinent Links:

1) Why Europeans Should Support Israel

MUST READ: BRITAIN - RAISING HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:42:00 +0000

Britain – Raising Homegrown Terrorists
by Adrian Morgan

Though his presence has hardly made any impact compared to the Pope, Britain's near-invisible prime minister Gordon Brown has been visiting the United States. Brown's trip to the States happens as his popularity plunges at home, and he faces a rebellion from the ranks of his Labour Party. Once again, Brown quotes Winston Churchill. At home, Brown never quotes Churchill. He would be savaged by the press for hypocrisy.

It is not the first time Brown that has resurrected the ghost of Churchill in a bland attempt to impress America. In July last year on his first visit to America as prime minister, he used words lifted from a famous speech by Churchill. To resurrect Churchill for a second time indicates either a lack of imagination on Brown's part, or he patronizingly thinks Americans are so shallow they can only relate to Churchill as an influential British politician.

In 1975, while rector of Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown wrote fawningly of Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist party. For socialist Brown to compare himself to Churchill would make the former Tory statesman turn in his grave.

Gordon Brown was the "right-hand man" of Tony Blair until June 27, 2007, so he cannot be absolved of the messes that Labour has made since it assumed power in May 1997. Ever since July 7, 2005, there have been ample opportunities for Britain to work out a coherent strategy against homegrown terrorism. Sadly, the Labour Party is too dependent upon Muslim votes in inner cities to really produce any strategy of substance.

In the aftermath of 7/7, instead of ensuring that potential extremists were kept under control, the Labour government acted to appease the Muslim "representatives." When Tony Blair wanted to ban the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, his own advisory group, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) refused to support the move, and Hizb is still active in Britain nearly three years later. The MCB claims to be moderate but has a history of relations with Islamists. Indeed, the group was co-founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood member.

In 2005, Home Office minister Hazel Blears was sent on a tour of Muslim communities and came back with the anodyne statement: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love." The Muslims who killed 52 civilians in London on 7/7 were well-versed in Islam, but were hardly radiating "peace and love" for their fellow citizens when they detonated their explosive rucksacks.

The British government has attempted to deal with Muslim extremism by dishonestly pretending that extremists are not Muslims. They are. They just happen to be extreme Muslims. Such blinkered approaches continue and the current Home Secretary is either naive or dishonest when she maintains that Islamist terrorism is "anti-Islamic activity."

In 2006, the Labour government wasted tax-payers’ money by creating a Muslim website that claims to be moderate, entitled "The Radical Middle Way." Funds are being thrown at Islamic extremism, with little hope of actually doing anything. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office wastes tax-payers' money on sending groups of Muslims abroad to Muslim countries to meet other Muslims to "share their experiences."

The Foreign Office spends much time trying to "reach out" to Islamofascists. In 2005, it approved of the disastrous "Waziristan Accord," a peace deal between the Taliban and the army in northwestern Pakistan. Though that accord was broken by Islamists within days, Gordon Brown appears to approve of similar acts of appeasement. His Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, is currently in Pakistan to encourage more negotiations with terrorists.

In October 2007 the communities secretary Hazel Blears announced that £70 million would be granted to set up websites so that young Muslims in Britain can discuss their "identity." Currently, the government has increased the annual funding of such hare-brained schemes to £90 million ($180 million).

The latest half-baked attempt by the British government to defuse extremism in the Muslim community is a suggestion to import more foreign imams into Britain. These are to come mainly from Pakistan, a country with such a "moderate" approach to Islam that anyone found guilty of blaspheming against the prophet Mohammed receives a mandatory death sentence. Imams brought up in such a climate are hardly going to understand or support the "liberal" customs of Britain, where freedom of speech is meant to trump religious supremacy. Who is going to decide which of these Pakistani imams is "moderate?"

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Britain – Raising Homegrown Terrorists

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:39:00 +0000

Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism
by Adrian Morgan

Britain's commitment to the war on terror is certainly less strong under the unelected leadership of Gordon Brown, who became prime minister on June 27, 2007. As soon as he became the premier, Brown ordered his cabinet ministers to avoid the term "War on terror."

A sign of the current administration's lack of realism came in January this year, when Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Islamic terrorism was "anti-Islamic activity." She said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic." Smith's Islamic scholars seem to ignore the evidence of the Hadith of Bukhari, in which Mohammed's last words included the statement: "I have been made victorious with terror."

Despite previous bland statements about terrorism, Brown and Smith are now facing rebellion from Labour party ranks for trying to be "tough" on terror suspects. On November 9, 2005 Tony Blair was defeated when he tried to extend the time that terror suspects could be detained without being charged. Blair wanted suspects detained for 90 days, but Parliament only accepted a compromise of 28 days. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith want the time to be raised to 42 days in a bill to be discussed next month.

In 1998 the Labour Party introduced the Human Rights Act, which ensured that all of British law had to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights. Already this legislation has proved to be disastrous when dealing with terrorism. It has allowed Afghan terrorists the right to remain in Britain indefinitely.

Control orders were introduced by then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2005. These measures were brought in to monitor and regulate the activities of terror suspects who could not be prosecuted, often in the form of a partial house arrest. In May 2007 it was revealed that three individuals – Cerie Bullivant, Lamine Adam and Ibrahim Adam – had escaped, despite being under "control orders."

A month later, it was revealed that another individual had escaped a control order. Zeeshan Sidique, like the Adam brothers and Bullivant, had connections with the individuals convicted in the Operation Crevice trial of trying to cause explosions in Britain. Sidique had gone to Pakistan to commit "Jihad." He had been admitted to a lunatic asylum while on a control order, but had escaped through a window in September 2006. He has not been found. His diary entries record the rantings of a disturbed individual, desperate to return to "the battlefield" of Jihad for the sake of Allah.

On December 12, 2007, Cerie Bullivant was cleared by a jury on seven counts relating to his breaching his control order. He admitted he had absconded, but claimed that the control order had made his life miserable. He was placed on another control order, but his lawyer announced that he would appeal against the original order on the grounds that it breached Bullivant's human rights.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism

MUST READ: THE PLOT TO ATTACK U.S.-BOUND PLANES FROM BRITAIN

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:32:00 +0000

The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain
by Adrian Morgan

On Thursday, April 3, a trial began at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. Eight men stood accused under Section 1 (1) of Britain's Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiring to murder others. They are also accused under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 of preparing acts of terrorism.

The men on trial are: Abdullah Ahmed Ali, (27), Assad Sarwar, (27), Tanvir Hussain, (27), Mohammed Gulzar, (26), Ibrahim Savant (27), Arafat Khan, (26), Waheed Zaman, (25) and Umar Islam aka Brian Young (29).

The men were among 21 who had been arrested on the morning of Thursday, August 10, 2006. The arrests had taken place after an operation that had involved intelligence shared between Britain, Pakistan and the United States. The chief of U.S. Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, announced to a press conference in Washington D.C. that: "This operation is in some respects suggestive of an al-Qaeda plot... They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution."

He said that the plan had been to smuggle explosives on board planes which were bound for North America. These explosives would be disguised as harmless drinks and also electronic apparatus. On board the planes these would be assembled into bombs. Secretary Chertoff said the plan was "really quite close to the execution phase."

Transatlantic flight plans were thrown into chaos as Britain and America raised their security threat levels to their highest. President George W. Bush was on vacation at Crawford, Texas. He made a press announcement, in which he said: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.... Travelers are going to be inconvenienced as a result of the steps we've taken. I urge their patience and ask them to be vigilant. The inconvenience is – occurs because we will take the steps necessary to protect the American people."

At British airports, the inconvenience was widespread. Flights were delayed, and several outgoing flights were cancelled. Passengers had their shoes examined before boarding planes, and limits were placed on hand luggage. Only items that could be placed in a small clear plastic bag were allowed onto planes. No cans or bottles of drinks were allowed onto flights. Mothers who had babies were asked to take a sample sip from bottles of milk they wished to take on board.

British officials made announcements to inform the public. The arrests took place at three main locations, London, High Wycombe in Buckingamshire and Birmingham. The Bank of England froze the accounts of nineteen of the arrested suspects.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain

MUST VIEW: DEBATE - PROTECTING EUROPEAN CRITICS OF ISLAM (1 OF 4)

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:35:00 +0000

MUST VIEW: DEBATE - PROTECTING EUROPEAN CRITICS OF ISLAM (2 OF 4)

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:34:00 +0000

MUST VIEW: DEBATE - PROTECTING EUROPEAN CRITICS OF ISLAM (3 OF 4)

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:33:00 +0000

MUST VIEW: DEBATE - PROTECTING EUROPEAN CRITICS OF ISLAM (4 OF 4)

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:32:00 +0000

MUST READ: IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE BEHIND TURKISH SUCCESS IN LATEST ANTI-PKK OPERATIONS

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:21:00 +0000

Improved Intelligence Behind Turkish Success in Latest Anti-PKK Operations
By Frank Hyland

The latest operations by the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) against the facilities and personnel of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in northern Iraq and in southeastern Turkey have displayed a growing competence on the part of the TSK in the use of real-time information in directing its forces in quick-reaction operations. As a result of this heightened level of skill, the TSK gives every appearance of having markedly altered the balance of power between the TSK and the PKK guerrillas since December 2007. The terrain of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq has long been one of the chief obstacles faced by Turkey in its ongoing battle with PKK forces since 1984. The hostile wintertime climate has only added further to Turkey’s difficulty in pinpointing and reaching PKK locations in a timely fashion to carry out effective operations. In many cases over the years, Turkish forces have found themselves in the role of being forced to react to PKK attacks rather than being able to take the offensive. In its latest actions against the PKK, Operation Sancak 2, which have included cross-border artillery fire and airstrikes and ground forces operations in southeastern Turkey, it has been the PKK that has found itself on the defensive and on the run continually.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Improved Intelligence Behind Turkish Success in Latest Anti-PKK Operations

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:17:00 +0000

Welcome to ‘Lawfare’ - A New Type of Jihad
by Brooke Goldstein

The Islamist movement has two wings – one violent and one lawful, which can operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad.

Islamists with financial means have launched a “legal Jihad,” filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West.

Islamist Lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished.

Forum shopping, whereby Plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of “libel tourism.” At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and other jurisdictions by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work.

Libel Tourism has also resulted in foreign judgments against American authors mandating the regulation of their speech and behavior. The litany of American anti-Islamist researchers, authors, activists, publishers, congressman, newspapers, television news stations, think tanks, NGOs, reporters, student journals and others targeted for censorship is long and merits brief mentioning here.

One of the earliest cases in the US dates back to 1937, where in Birmington, Alabama, an Arab Sheik sued the Birmington Post for libel over an article entitled “Arabian Sheik Asks Friend Here to Buy him an American Girl for Harem.” The Post reported that Sheik Fareed Iman, “who is 29 years old and fears he may reach 30 before he obtains a chief-wife for his four-wife harem, is ready to purchase a suitable girl from her parents. The lucky girl”, the article continued, “will benefit from the traditional Arabian protective treatment of women but she can’t be seen by those who are not members of the household.”

The article read more like a parody of a personal ad in the dating section of a magazine and listed a telephone number should anyone reading be interested. Nevertheless, the Alabama court of appeals refused to dismiss the suit and judged the article libelous per se, or defamatory on its face, and remanded it for jury trial, where eventually the Plaintiff lost for his failure to state a cause of action.

Within the last ten years, however, we have seen a steady increase in cases pursued by Islamic organizations and Muslim individuals attempting to use Western courts to stop the flow of certain information. They are achieving a degree of success in Europe because the judicial systems in England, France and elsewhere don’t afford their citizens, or American citizens for that matter, the same free speech protections granted in America under the U.S. Constitution. The cumulative effect of the suits abroad, and of the suits here at home even if they are not successful, and the looming threat of future suits is creating a detrimental chilling effect on dialogue concerning important matters of public concern because, naturally, people want to avoid costly litigation.

...

Pertinent Links:

1) Welcome to ‘Lawfare’ - A New Type of Jihad

MUST VIEW: THE VIOLENT OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IN ISLAM - WAFA SULTAN (PART 1 OF 2)

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:04:00 +0000

MUST VIEW: THE VIOLENT OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IN ISLAM - WAFA SULTAN (PART 2 OF 2)

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:02:00 +0000

MUST VIEW: ROBERT SPENCER ON THE 'CAUSES OF JIHAD' ACCORDING TO THE O.I.C.

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:59:00 +0000

JIHAD WATCH #54

MUST READ: UNDERSTANDING CHECHNYA PART I: A SHORT HISTORY

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:49:00 +0000

Understanding Chechnya Part I: A Short History
Tom Ordeman, Jr.

Author's note: This is the first piece in a series on Chechnya. A remote and poorly understood component of the Russian Federation, Chechen history is dominated by secessionism and influenced in part by Islamism. In order to understand the global connections of international terrorism, one must understand Chechnya.

As the conflict between the West and militant Islam continues, international focus has fallen primarily on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. While Afghanistan and Iraq remain the primary fronts in this conflict and Iran remains the primary state sponsor of terrorism, terrorism remains a globally linked phenomenon. Terrorism and Islamist militancy have played a pivotal role in the recent history of the Russian Federation. Both phenomena have played an important role in Russian domestic and foreign policies, and terrorism within Russia is believed to have influenced terrorism globally. The region of Russia most closely tied to Islamist militancy, separatism, and terrorism is one that many of heard of, but few are truly familiar with: Chechnya.

...

Another factor, possibly more important than the issue of political cohesion, was and is Chechnya's natural resources in general, and oil in particular. Just as the Russian Federation continues to exert its influence over the energy resources of the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union, Russia was and is unwilling to sacrifice the Chechen component of its energy infrastructure. These oil fields, among others, combine with Chechen and Central Asian gas reserves to become a piece of Russia's last credible trump card in its relationship with the outside world. Russia's disputes during the last several years with Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania over energy supplies demonstrate how crucial Chechen oil is to an otherwise unstable Russian economy.

The next piece in this series will detail the two Chechen Wars and the history of Chechen terrorism.

Pertinent Links:

1) Understanding Chechnya Part I: A Short History

MUST READ: UNDERSTANDING CHECHNYA PART II: THE FIRST CHECHEN WAR

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:46:00 +0000

Understanding Chechnya Part II: The First Chechen War
by Tom Ordeman, Jr.

Author's note: This is the second piece in a series on Chechnya. A remote and poorly understood component of the Russian Federation, Chechen history is dominated by secessionism and influenced in part by Islamism. In order to understand the global connections of international terrorism, one must understand Chechnya.

In the years directly following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the tiny Russian republic of Chechnya became increasingly independent. Having declared their independence from Russia on several previous occasions, the Chechens prepared Grozny for the coming invasion by Russia in the hopes that they would be able to bleed Russian resolve. Meanwhile, Russia appeared to make exacting preparations for a massive assault; as the waning days of 1994 would show, Russian military leaders made numerous critical errors. The First Chechen War, as it would come to be known, became an object lesson in failed urban warfare doctrines.

...

In many ways, the siege of Grozny and the ensuing war were inevitable. The Chechens were motivated by a mix of nationalism and religious fervor, and their separatist history compelled them to once again seize the opportunity of a weak and preoccupied Russia to attempt a forced independence. Meanwhile, Moscow was motivated by economic, political, and social motivators to prevent a second secessionist domino effect from beginning. Although the invasion was likely to have been bloody and protracted no matter what, the near-total failure of the Russian military to secure a timely victory was astonishing. Had the Russian military leadership put forth a realistic and cognizant plan, the conflict may not have dragged into a two year boondoggle that ended in a bloody stalemate.

Unfortunately for both the Russians and the Chechens, this bloody stalemate was only temporary. The First Chechen War would only set the stage for subsequent conflicts in the Caucasus.

Pertinent Links:

1) Understanding Chechnya Part II: The First Chechen War

MUST READ: PAMELA, ATLAS SHRUGS INTERVIEWS BAT YE'OR - - - THE TRANSCRIPT

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:26:00 +0000

Instead of watching/listening to the YOU TUBE video's below, you may read the complete transcript at Atlas Shrugs:

The Atlas Interview: Bat Yeor

MUST VIEW: PAMELA, ATLAS SHRUGS INTERVIEWS BAT YE'OR, PART 1

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:47:00 +0000

MUST VIEW: PAMELA, ATLAS SHRUGS INTERVIEWS BAT YE'OR, PART 2

noreply@blogger.com (American Infidel) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:46:00 +0000