ROMULUS, Mich. (AP) - An attempted terrorist attack on a Christmas Day flight began with a pop and a puff of smoke - sending passengers scrambling to subdue a Nigerian man who claimed to be acting on orders from al-Qaida to blow up the airliner, officials and travelers said.
The commotion began as Northwest Airlines Flight 253, carrying 278 passengers and 11 crew members from Amsterdam, prepared to land in Detroit just before noon Friday. Travelers said they smelled smoke, saw a glow, and heard what sounded like firecrackers. At least one person climbed over others and jumped on the man, who officials say was trying to ignite an explosive device.
"It sounded like a firecracker in a pillowcase," said Peter Smith, a passenger from the Netherlands. "First there was a pop, and then (there) was smoke."
Smith said one passenger, sitting opposite the man, climbed over passengers, went across the aisle and tried to restrain the man. The heroic passenger appeared to have been burned.
Afterward, the suspect was taken to a front-row seat with his pants cut off and his legs burned. Multiple law enforcement officials also said the man appeared badly burned on his legs, indicating the explosive was strapped there. The components were apparently mixed in-flight and included a powdery substance, multiple law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said.
The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism and stricter security measures were quickly imposed on airline travel. Dutch anti-terrorism authorities said the U.S. has asked all airlines to take extra precautions on flights worldwide that are bound for the United States.
The incident was reminiscent of Richard Reid, who tried to destroy a trans-Atlantic flight in 2001 with explosives hidden in his shoes, but was subdued by other passengers.
Multiple law enforcement officials identified the suspect in Friday's attempted attack as Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab. He was described as Nigerian.
One law enforcement official said the man claimed to have been instructed by al-Qaida to detonate the plane over U.S. soil, but other law enforcement officials cautioned that such claims could not be verified immediately, and said the man may have been acting independently - inspired but not specifically trained or ordered by terror groups.
All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing.
Intelligence and anti-terrorism officials in Yemen said they were investigating claims by the suspect that he picked up the explosive device and instructions on how to use it in that country. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.
It would be easy to write this guy off as a moron wannabe because his bomb fizzled out but remember nearly all terrorist plots look like something cooked up by the Three Stooges conspiring with the Keystone Cops - until they pull them off successfully. After all if the 9/11 terrorists had been caught the evening of 9/10 the idea that they were going to hijack four airliners and fly them into major American landmarks while armed only with box-cutters would have been greeted with howls of laughter.
I hope that there is some recognition for the quick-acting passenger who jumped the terrorist. Before 9/11 that article would have went out of its way to quote law enforcement and airline officials saying that what the man did was "brave but also foolish". That the best thing to do in that situation is to remain in your seat and allow the flight crew to deal with the problem.
No one thinks like that any more.
UPDATE -
This is from American Thinker:
The passengers of Northwest/Delta Airlines Flight 253 are lucky they are still alive. They should be the last passengers in the US exposed to this kind of risk because of political correctness.
The incident would have never happened on a plane flying out of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, because the Israelis do it right. They try to find out what is on the passenger's mind, not what is in his bag or shoe.
How many dead innocents will it take before the US realizes it has to do the same? Since almost all the terrorist are jihadists who are either Muslims or converts to Islam, security personnel should concentrate on finding out who are the passengers such a mindset, instead of wasting time randomly checking everybody with the same intensity.
At what point will the responsible authorities realize they have to change policy? Is anybody looking forward to being in the unfortunate group whose killing will finally trigger a change? Why not do it NOW?
We all know what the problem is. After Fort Hood only the most stubborn ostriches refuse to acknowledge Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan motives displayed in his power point presentation available in the Washington Post.
It is time to hold politicians who refuse to protect their fellow citizens from jihadi terror accountable. Or would the majority of Americans rather be dead than viewed as politically incorrect?
Here's the problem. The left has succeeded in using America's past racial sins as a stick to beat the nation over the head with to the point that the average American can think of nothing worse than to be branded a racist.
Now the average American knows in his head that it is better to be called a racist than to be killed by a terrorist BUT the average American doesn't really believe in his heart that he is in much danger from terrorism.
Yeah, 9/11 happened but that was over 8 years ago. . .
What it will take to change the average American's mind on these things is for America to experience the kind of terrorism that Israel has experienced.
When Americans know in both their hearts and their heads that a plane which is not screened by Israeli methods will probably be hijacked by jihadists then we will change airport security.
When Americans know in both heart and head that sometime in the next few months that they are going to be on the street of their hometown and a car full of Muslim terrorists will stop and those terrorists will start spraying automatic weapons fire into the crowd. When Americans know that the only thing that can stop a massacre is for the ordinary citizens to be armed and ready to put the terrorist down then average Americans will start carrying pistols and sub-machine guns.
When Americans know in heart and head that Muslim suicide bombers WILL target the places where they and their children shop, eat, work and play they will demand that both their police and private security guards at places like shopping malls be trained to recognize the warning signs of a suicide bomber and be ordered to shoot first, even if they are not 100% sure.
In short nothing will cause America to change its ways other than the average American coming to believe that his life and the lives of his loved ones are in constant danger from Islamic terror.
If that day ever comes I believe that Americans will look at Israel's security measures as a starting point and move well beyond them in order to keep Americans safe.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Christmas airline bombing foiled - Updated
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Why we fight
Pamela Geller, who normally blogs at Atlas Shrugs. has a nice essay on American Thinker today:
"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments. An artist recreates those aspects of reality which represent his fundamental view of man's nature."
One of the things I'm doing this long snowed-in weekend is catching up on my movie watching. I have the new blu-ray boxed sets of both Gone With The Wind and Wizard of OZ that I'm looking forward to watching as well as a standard def DVD of They Were Expendable which is probably the best war movie ever made. For more on this masterpiece check out this seven-part essay by Leo Grin on Big Hollywood. And a note to the copyright holder, a film this excellent deserves a restored version on blu-ray with plenty of extras - like maybe, among others, a history of the movie adapted from Mr. Grin's work.
Ms. Geller is correct. Islam not only wishes to deny us freedom but to rob all joy from life and it must be opposed.
In fact all such anti-life absolutist philosophies must be opposed whether they call themselves religions like Islam or political movements like the modern neomarxism of the American Democrat party or religions masquerading as scientific theories like human caused global warming.
All are anti-life, anti-liberty and anti-joy and the best any of them deserve is an unmarked plot in the graveyard of discarded lies.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Miss Ann is talking
That means that YOU are listening!
MUSLIM SUFFERS BRUISED EGO IN FORT HOOD TRAGEDY
by Ann Coulter
November 11, 2009
The massacre at Fort Hood last week is the perfect apotheosis of the liberal victimology described in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America."
According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.
President Obama honored the victims by immediately warning Americans not to "jump to conclusions" -- namely, the obvious conclusion that the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. As conclusions go, it wasn't much of a jump.
But the mainstream media waited for no information -- indeed actively avoided learning any information -- before leaping to the far less obvious conclusion that the suspect's mass murder was set off by "stress."
The day after the slaughter, The New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much -- which was at least one more than the Times usually runs about psycho-killer soldiers going on rampages.
Two days after the mass shooting, the Times' laughably predictable headlines about the Fort Hood bloodbath were:
-- "Preliminary Inquiry Finds No Link to Terror Plot"
-- "Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists"
-- "When Soldiers' Minds Snap"
The Los Angeles Times jumped to the exact same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: "Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues." Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: "Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan."
Inasmuch as Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, liberals seem to have discovered the first recorded case of "pre-traumatic stress syndrome."
Their point was: The real victim of Fort Hood was Maj. Hasan. Indeed, all Muslims were the victims that day.
The media quickly set to work assembling lachrymose accounts of taunts Hasan had been subjected to in the military for being a Muslim, the most harrowing of which seems to have been his car being keyed at his off-base apartment complex.
I suppose we should be relieved that liberals weren't claiming Hasan snapped because of the dimming prospects for a health care bill by the end of the year.
The evidence for the manifestly obvious conclusion we were supposed to avoid jumping to is rather more extensive.
According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan denounced the "war on terror" as a war against Islam, said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq, defended suicide bombers and said he was "happy" when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Arkansas earlier this year.
Stranger still, he wasn't auditioning for his own show on MSNBC when he made these statements.
Hasan shared a "spiritual adviser" with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link.
A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats.
He had tried to contact al-Qaida, and at least one U.S. intelligence official says the Army knew it.
Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.
Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, for example, two Navy officers were reprimanded and reassigned after putting up a sign with the words of a nursery rhyme altered to include a vulgar sexual reference to liberal congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.
But a Muslim Army doctor can go around a military installation somberly advocating the beheading of infidels, and the girls running the military treat him like he's Nicole Kidman and they're press junket reporters.
The Army's top brass, Gen. George Casey, responded to the military's shocking decision to keep a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim in the Army by announcing: "Our diversity ... is a strength." And I thought gays couldn't openly serve in the military.
On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims moved to the top of liberals' victim pantheon on the basis of having slaughtered 3,000 Americans. Muslims were "victims" of Americans' displeasure with them for the biggest terrorist attack in world history. The only American deserving of more coddling than a Muslim is the first African-American president.
So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once. As with all liberal "victims," it is the victim who is massively guilty.
About the "taunts" that Hasan was on the recieving end of and the business about having his car keyed.
Perhaps the ill will was directed at him not because he was Muslim but because he was being outspoken in his opposition to the war that his fellow soldiers were currently fighting and dying in and because he said things like Muslims ought to attack American servicemen and so on.
Just maybe other soldiers didn't like him because he went so far out of his way to make himself obnoxious to them.
I'm just saying. . .
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Miss Ann is talking
That means that YOU are listening!
NATURAL-BORN LOSERS
by Ann Coulter
October 14, 2009
The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.
What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" while the war in Iraq was a "war of choice." (Oh, and as long as you're back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay "school safety" czar.)
The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 -- or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over "regime change" in Iran in 1979. Both countries -- and others -- gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.
As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.
By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.
It's always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator -- Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) -- or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders -- Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.
Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq's countryside was susceptible to America's overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq's oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it's not just oil: They're basically sitting on top of most of the world's proven reserves of cab drivers.)
By contrast, there aren't a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only "carrot" we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.
But Democrats couldn't care less about military strategy -- at least any "strategy" that doesn't involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.
Liberals sneered at Bush's description of Iraq as the "central front of the war on terror" and a step toward the "democratization of the Middle East" -- as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times -- because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.
Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq ... to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.
Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)
Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq -- and then they stopped because of Obama's indifference. Sadly for them, America's foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.
During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a "war of choice" and Afghanistan a "war of necessity" for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.
But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: "Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention."
Now they notice.
Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare -- something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.
Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.
The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals' and certainly not Bush's. It was Obama's meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity" during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq -- a good battleground for the U.S. -- to Afghanistan -- a lousy battlefront for the U.S.
And it was Obama's idea to treat war as if it's an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm's way.
A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an "unwinnable war." I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.
Many people, including myself, have made this point about the wisdom of changing the battlefield from Afghanistan to Iran being in our best interests.
But, as usual, the left is immune to any kind of true reason.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Miss Ann is talking
That means that YOU are listening!
Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.
Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).
But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!
Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.
Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)
In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."
So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.
Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.
Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.
The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.
The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)
Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.
Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.
The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.
Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.
But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.
True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.
In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.
For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.
Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?
I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.
But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?
Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.
The sections I have drawn attention to are the only commentary needed.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Miss Ann is talking
That means that YOU are listening!
Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.
Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?
The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:
"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."
The end.
There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.
And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."
People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.
As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)
If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.
The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:
Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...
Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.
Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."
If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)
I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.
In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."
Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."
If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver -- the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" -- CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.
I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."
Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.
Thousands of our troops are waterboarded every year as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.
I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.
As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.
Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care -- including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.
Normal human beings -- especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy -- can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.
At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.
But The New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.
Once again Miss Ann hits the nail on the head.
Al Qaeda must be pissing themselves from laughing so hard at what the American left considers "torture". Of course Americans are going to die because of this. Our enemies are subhuman savages who will attack when they sense weakness and Obama has made us appear contemptibly weak.
The bad guys now know that no matter what they do to us the worst we'll do to them is menace them with a larva.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Since the West has no will to survive
From American Thinker:
The Obama administration looks like it's going to acquiesce in the face of a nuclear-armed radicalized Pakistan, just as Jimmy Carter bowed down low in the face of Ayatollah Khomeini. Soon we will have two radicalized Muslim states with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles: A Shiite Iran, and a Sunni Pakistan.
Afghanistan is slipping out of control. But worse, Afghanistan is no longer the main battleground: a Taliban-controlled Pakistan is.
And in case you've forgotten, in the decade before 9/11 Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida suiciders found safe haven with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Talibs are Islamist fanatics just like Ahmadinejad. They will die for Allah. That means they may not be rational actors in the Western sense. They certainly will stir up terror attacks in India and maybe Sri Lanka and the Philippines, just as the Iranians are sponsoring terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Gaza and Egypt.
Once they have nuclear weapons, they will have safe havens for further terrorist attacks. Expect nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to start spreading even faster.
Weakness? Our enemies have taken the measure of Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are not bothering to wait. They know this is Jimmy Carter II in the White House, and they are acting accordingly. Expect push, push, push on all the fronts: South America with Chavez, Ortega and the Castro brothers, now trying to control Brazil; Africa with Zuma, another mad radical now in control of the modern state of South Africa; the Sudan under its genocidal regime, backed by the Arab League and tolerated by the UN; Iran and Syria now within reach of their own nukes and missiles; and Russia, which will play big power games in the Middle East as long as it hurts the West.
The Taliban just accepted Pakistan's surrender in six provinces. They promptly moved on the seventh province, and are now within a day's drive of the capital of Pakistan. And the West? The West can't even hold down medieval terrorist pirates in little speed boats, who are making a good living off kidnapping Westerners and terrorizing Western shipping companies. The pirates are making the West pay for the Shabab Islamist rebellion in Somalia.
Remember Osama Bin Laden's strong horse and weak horse? Barack Obama is the weak horse. The Muslim world may have hated Bush, but they despise weakness.
Go read the rest.
It is just possible that a radical Islamist takeover in Pakistan could be the best possible thing to happen.
Of course the United States under the "leadership" of on B. Hussein Obama will do nothing in the face of such a catastrophe (other than seek to appease) however India might very well invade and crush the new Islamofascist state, destroying or capturing its nuclear weapons.
I have long said on this blog that India would be a far better ally for the US than most of Old Europe. The Indians have the kind of hatred of Islam that only people forced to share a border with an Islamic state or forced to endure the presence of a large Muslim minority living among them can feel. That is the Indians have the natural reaction to Islam of any sane people forced to see it up close - revulsion.
India has already indicated that it if pushed it would consider the limited nuclear strike that Pakistan could launch against it an acceptable price to pay for the eradication of Muslim Pakistan.
An out and out Islamist takeover of Pakistan is likely one of the contingencies which would trigger an all out invasion of Pakistan by India and since the United States and Western Europe will not do what must be done to preserve their own culture from the barbarians seeking to destroy it all the civilized and sane people of the West (there are still some) can do is hope that some third party will step up and defeat our enemies for us.
Now if we can just get Israel to take out Iran. . .
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Terrorist training camps in America
And I'm not talking about DNC "leadership" seminars. “Homegrown Jihad” documents the networks of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist group run by a radical Muslim leader in Lahore, Pakistan named Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, an individual who, as I said in my last interview, does us the favor of not hiding his true colors. While he casts himself as a peace-loving Muslim, his actions and the actions of his network are anything but. In the documentary, we show a secret videotape, one which Gilani strictly instructs his followers to keep hidden, where he personally engages in terrorist training, from killing guards to hijacking vehicles to setting off explosives. On this tape, he says that those seeking to “join one of the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare” can contact any of his “Muslims of America” compounds in the United States, almost all of which still operate today. “Muslims of America” is a group set up by Gilani to act as a thinly-veiled front for Jamaat ul-Fuqra. There are at least 35 “Muslims of America” compounds in the U.S. alone, along with at least 3,000 members, many of which have criminal backgrounds. The websites of these compounds do not hide the fact that they are devoted to, and are led by, Sheikh Gilani. The compound at Red House, Virginia, even has a street named after him. With Gilani saying things like “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are in America”, “Jews are an example of human Satans,” and “Act like you are a friend, then kill him”, we need to question the motives and beliefs of those who live in and are educated in his communities and take action to stop them from acting upon these beliefs. Members of this group continue to be arrested and convicted for involvement in terrorism and all sorts of criminal activity. Members are also required to make a pledge: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake.” They continue to recruit members, build and expand compounds, and operate in isolation, away from the eyes of the public. Perhaps the most riveting part of the documentary is when CAN travels to several of these compounds in an attempt to get members of the group to view the terrorist training videotape and get a reaction. Before joining CAN, I personally visited the 70-acre large headquarters in Hancock, New York. Although the residents were friendly, almost immediately after greeting the man who I spoke to, he said with a disarming smile, “Are you Jewish? It’s clear that the anti-Semitism and overall beliefs of Sheikh Gilani are present at these compounds.
Here is an interview with Martin Mawyer about the documentary Homegrown Jihad which is being released this month.
Part 1
Part 2
Here are portions of an interview with Ryan Mauro about the documentary that appears in today's Front Page Magazine:
I would urge everyone to go over to ChristianAction.org and get a copy. When and if it is seralized on YouTube I will post it here.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Monks attacked
From the TimesOnline:
Italians have been left shocked by a ferocious assault on Franciscan monks by hooded thugs at a monastery in the foothills of the Alps, which has been compared to incidents seen in the film 'A Clockwork Orange'.
Father Sergio Baldini, 48, the guardian of the San Colombano Belmonte monastery near Turin, and three elderly monks from the Franciscan order of Friars Minor, were having their evening meal when they were attacked by three hooded men who gagged and bound them before punching, kicking and beating them with clubs.
Father Baldini suffered severe head injuries but also has "serious respiratory problems" because he choked on his food while being assaulted, doctors say. He has had brain surgery and was in a coma.
Father Salvatore Magliano, 86, Father Emanuele Battagliotti, 81, and Father Martino Giurini, 76 suffered less serious injuries, but were still being treated in hospital today.
Speaking from his hospital bed, Father Battagliotti said the monks had been eating "a dish of spinach" when they heard noises outside.
"I got up to have a look, but the moment I got to the door I was attacked - suddenly, immediately. I was struck on the head with a blow which made me totter," he said.
"Father Sergio (Baldini) came to my aid. He put himself in front of me to try and defend me, but he too was knocked down without mercy. They hit him until he stopped crying out. Then they beat Father Salvatore and Father Martin as well. It was terrible."
Cardinal Severino Poletto, the Archbishop of Turin, who visited the victims in hospital, said the attack was "beyond comprehension". The only possible explanation was that the assailants had been "either drugged or possessed, or both", he said.
Police said the motive appeared to robbery, although the monks only had "small amounts of money". A spokesman said: "Presumably the attackers thought they would find riches at the monastery."
Italian media compared the attack to A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess's story of violent young thugs, filmed in 1971 by Stanley Kubrick.
Father Gabriele Trivellin, provincial head of the Friars Minor, said the assault amounted to "mindless, savage and gratuitous violence". He said the hooded men had carried on beating the monks even though they offered no resistance.
Colonel Antonio De Vita, head of the Carabinieri in the province of Turin, said a manhunt was under way for the perpetrators, with road blocks set up in the area of the monastery.
One of the areas where the Europeans unquestionably do a better job than America is in public education. However I still doubt that a bunch of thugs would be literate enough to have read A Clockwork Orange
What I find much more likely is that the punks were Muslims out to recreate the glories of jihad by looting a monastery just like the great heros of the faith like Mehmed and Saladin. The only thing missing was the demand that the monks convert or die.
That there is nothing about this in the press reports is meaningless. The European police and press are even more reluctant than their American counterparts to say anything remotely critical of Islam.
If I am right about this it cannot even be called a "disturbing development" in that it represents nothing more than the continuation of well established behavior patterns among Europ's Islamic population.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
A good idea
The Dowager Viscountess had this to say about the post about Muslim offense against the Scottish police advertisement featuring a photograph of a puppy:Hmmm, so one could consider having a doggy around or even having pics of dogs the same as hanging garlic about to ward off vampires? This tidbit might come in handy in the future!
This started me to thinking. Do you remember that story by Robert Heinlein called "The Man Who Sold The Moon"? Heinlein wrote this is 1949 when the idea of even launching satellites into earth orbit was new. The story involves a businessman who develops the first rockets which can reach the moon, but he needs funding to develop his idea. So he goes to "Moka-Cola" wearing a button depicting the full moon with a giant "6+" logo (their chief competitor) on it and then to someone from the US government with a full moon button with a giant hammer and sickle plastered across its face.
He explains that it would be possible to place an image on the face of the moon by firing rockets with payloads of powdered coal programed to impact in the right pattern on the lunar surface.
He then explains that for a fee he could be persuaded not to do such a thing. Coke and Uncle Sam pony up the cash and thus begins the colonization of the moon.
As I said this started me thinking. The idea of using powdered coal to create a pattern on the lunar surface is absolutely sound from a technological point of view. What if we placed a large image of a dog standing next to a pig on the moon so that every time Muslims looked up into the night sky they were forced to view those hateful images? What if they knew that even when they couldn't see the moon that it was still there the dog and pig looking down upon them, mocking their faith and their prophet?
You know, we could even add that picture of Mohamed with the bomb in his head rag that gets them so riled up!
What would happen? Would they kill each other off in a mass wave of rioting?
It's worth thinking about.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The latest sin against Islam
From The Daily Mail:
A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman's hat advertising a Scottish police force's new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.
Tayside Police's new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.
The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards - a black dog sitting in a police officer's hat - has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.
The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.
Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: 'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.
'It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.
'They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it.'
Councillor Asif, who is a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, said that the force had a diversity adviser and was generally very aware of such issues.
He raised the matter with Mr Vine at a meeting of the board. The chief constable said he was unaware of the concerns and that the force had not sought to cause any upset but added he would look into the matter.
Councillor Asif said: 'People who have shops just won't put up the postcard. But the police have said to me that it was simply an oversight and they did not seek to offend or upset.'
Cards featuring police dog-in-training Rebel have been distributed to communities throughout the area to advertise the single number point of contact for non-emergency calls to the police.
Rebel has proved a popular recruit for Tayside Police after coming through the very first Lothian and Borders Police dog-breeding programme in February.
One of seven German Shepherd pups born in early December, he has now completed his course of inoculations, and is free to venture out onto the streets of Tayside.
A spokesman for Tayside Police said: 'Trainee police dog Rebel has proved extremely popular with children and adults since being introduced to the public, aged six weeks old, as Tayside Police's newest canine recruit.
'His incredible world-wide popularity - he has attracted record visitor numbers to our website - led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number.
'We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.'Good lord but the British Empire has surely fallen hard and far. Why in heaven's name would anyone have thought to consult the "diversity adviser" before using a picture of a puppy in an advertisement?
Why in heaven's name do they even have a "diversity adviser"?
Of course Muslims are offended. Muslims are offended by anything which does not conform exactly to the standards of their filthy Dark Ages religious code. If the UK wishes to have a nation full of offense free Muslims they must get busy conforming their entire society to the standards of sharia.
Oh, wait a minute. They already are busy conforming their entire society to the demands of sharia.
Never mind.
But the West is no longer sane.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Why are they hiring fundamentalist Muslims in the first place?
From The BBC:
The Metropolitan Police Force is to drop the crown and cross from its insignia for non-Christian officers because of objections from a Muslim recruit.
A Muslim traffic warden resigned because he complained he was unable to wear the symbol from any other faith.
The Sunday Times reports that the force has come under pressure from a threatened employment tribunal resulting from the case.
Currently all officers in Britain's 51 police areas wear the badge which incorporates the St Edward's crown, topped with a Christian cross.
In a statement, the Met said it had long "cherished" its association with the Crown.
However, its future depended on its "ability to attract and maintain the most talented people and cater for their individual needs and requirements".
It proposes that all employees will still be issued with the traditional badges "as a matter of course" but if they object - with supportable reasons - they will be offered a badge without the crown.The initiative could be adopted nationwide after the Met's deputy commissioner Ian Blair discusses the issue with the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Traditionalists have rejected the idea.
Inspector Glenn Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, told the Sunday Times: "Uniform should be exactly what the word means - it should apply to everyone.
"We swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. The crown is the symbol of that oath and this move attacks its meaning."
Tony Arbour, a Conservative member of the Greater London Authority, said it was political correctness "going mad".
Un friggin' believable. No, its Europe so it it all too believable.At least there are some people left over there with the sanity to object. Not enough of them, but at least the great mass of Eurosheep won't be able to claim that they weren't warned.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Demography is destiny
Red Planet presents a couple of good articles to go with this cartoon. Here is one of them:
Mark Steyn, The Wall Street Journal (2006): It’s the Demography, Stupid.
The thing is though that it won't be an empty continent. It will be teeming with humanity - it's just that it will be Muslim humanity. By the middle of this century Europe will be majority Muslim, unless the Europeans find the political will to do something about it right now.If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026. And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common…
Nineteen seventy doesn’t seem that long ago. If you’re the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair’s less groovy, but the landscape of your life–the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge–isn’t significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.
And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.
And by 2020?
So the world’s people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less “Western.” Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)–or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
Unfortunately "doing something" would mean deporting tens of millions of Muslims - and not just immigrants but native born as well - back to the North African and Middle Eastern nations from which they, or their parents, came. Given the sheer number of Muslims living in Western Europe and the degree to which they have been radicalized this would likely mean continent wide civil wars of terrible savagery.
The question is whether Europeans will be willing to pay that kind of price to retain their civilization. I would guess that the answer is going to be "NO". After all if they do not even care enough about the survival of their culture to have enough children to replace themselves will they really be willing to turn their streets into rivers of blood to save it?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Speaking out against Islam is a crime in Europe
PARIS - Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.
A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against the former screen siren and animal rightscampaigner. The court also ordered Bardot to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP.
Bardot's lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, said he would talk to her about the possibility of an appeal.
A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed a lawsuit last year over a letter she sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The remarks were published in her foundation's quarterly journal.
In the December 2006 letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."
Bardot, 73, was referring to the Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.
French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious or racial grounds. Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.
"She is tired of this type of proceedings," he said. "She has the impression that people want to silence her. She will not be silenced in her defense of animal rights."
It would be easy to express unqualified admiration for Ms. Bardot. She is standing up to the oppressive climate of political correctness and appeasment of Islam which is killing European culture.
However honesty compels us to note that Bardot is offended by the killing of sheep by Muslims as part of a religious festival. It would seem that Bardot is not nearly as worried by the practice of Muslim males murdering women and girls in "honor" killings over "crimes" like going out with their hair uncovered or wearing jeans.
As an animal rights extremist Ms. Bardot and her ilk have helped create the climate of political correctness which has now turned against her. I hope that Ms. Bardot is self aware enough to figure that out for herself.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Soldier diciplined for shooting Quran
BAGHDAD (AP) - An American soldier used a Quran, the Islamic holy book, for target practice in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad, prompting an apology from the U.S. military, a spokesman said Sunday. The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group, condemned the shooting of the Quran, calling it "a hideous act against the book of almighty God and the constitution of the nation and the source of its glory and dignity." The incident was first reported by CNN, which broadcast a ceremony at which the top American commander in Baghdad apologized to tribal leaders in Radwaniyah. The military confirmed the details in an e-mailed response to a query. "I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond was quoted as saying. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."
[. . .]
Iraqi police found the bullet-riddled Quran with graffiti inside the cover on a small-arms range near a police station in Radwaniyah, a former insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said in an e-mailed response to a query.
American commanders then launched an inquiry that led to disciplinary action against the soldier, who has been removed from Iraq, Buckner said.
"[K]issed a Quran and presented it to the tribal leaders". I may vomit.
The troops have been ordered not to desecrate Qurans or other Muslim religious artifacts so discipline was in order however there is a line between showing a decent respect for our allies beliefs and imposing dhiminitude upon our military personnel.
I thought that at least one of our goals in liberating Iraq was to help lift this nation out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. It would seem to me that helping the Iraqis understand that however offensive they might find the defacing of the Quran on a personal level that it should not be legally actionable unless the book belonged to someone other than the defacer.
In other words unless private property rights have been violated then it is not a matter for the authorities.
I know that it is a great deal to ask of Muslims to understand the fact that the best way to protect their own right to believe and worship as they please is to protect the rights of others to not only think but actually say - out loud - that they are crazy for doing so, but it should be among the least of things we ask of them in exchange for all of the blood and treasure we have poured into making and keeping them free.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Saturday morning cartoon
This morning's cartoon is another calculated insult to Islam where Porky Pig battles Arab terrorists, and defeats them by causing them to be blown up by their own suicide bomber.
Imagine the Koran being trampled underfoot by a PIG. All Muslims are symbolically castrated by this cartoon!
DEATH TO ISLAM!
Monday, April 21, 2008
What to expect
From Front Page Magazine:
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%
[. . .]
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
From sex kitten to genuine hero
From The Brussels Journal:
If Brigitte Bardot (73) had been fifty years younger, French President Nicolas Sarkozy might have made her France’s First Lady and her nude pictures might have been sold to help charities in Cambodia. Now, instead, the French are taking her to court. The former French sex symbol stood trial in Paris today for “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims. The public prosecutor demanded that the former filmstar be given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 15,000 euros.
For the last fraking time, Islam is a RELIGION, not a RACE!
In December 2006, Bardot wrote a letter to Sarkozy, then France’s Interior minister, to demand that Muslims anaesthesize their animals before slaughtering them. In her letter she said, referring to Muslims, that she is “fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.”
What, exactly, has she said that isn't true? I rather suspect that commercial butchers in all of the EU member states are required to conform to humane slaughter laws. Why should Muslims be any different?
Since 1997 Bardot has already been fined four times for “inciting hatred” against Muslims. Recently she was given a fine of 5,000 euros. Public prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court today that she was seeking a tough sentence because she is getting “tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot.” The former star refuses to shut up. The verdict of the Paris court is expected on 3 June.
She just won't shut up, the bitch! Just wait till Muslims are in the majority. She'll be put in a sack, buried up to her neck and stoned.In Austria, the authorities are prosecuting the politician Susanne Winter on similar charges of “Islamophobia,” while in Belgium the minister of Justice has asked the European Parliament to lift the immunity of Frank Vanhecke, a member of the European Parliament and a leading member and former president (1996-2008) of the Vlaams Belang party, a secessionist party which aims for the independence of Dutch-speaking Flanders from Belgium. The Belgian authorities want to prosecute Vanhecke for a leaflet his party published in 2005, in which acts of vandalism in the city of Sint-Niklaas were linked to Moroccan youths. As the perpetrators of the vandalism were minors their identity has not been divulged by the authorities and Vanhecke is unable to prove whether or not they are indeed immigrants.
Seriously, does anyone doubt the identity of the vandals? Really?
On September 11 last year Mr. Vanhecke was severely beaten up and publicly humiliated by the Belgian police during a demonstration in Brussels to remember the victims of 9/11. If convicted now he could lose his seat in the European Parliament as well as his right to be active in politics.
This is why I say that Europe is doomed. Oh, Europe will still exist as a geographic expression, that is there will be a place on the map called Europe. But the European culture; the culture which gave the world Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci and Newton and Wagner and penicillin and the scientific method and Aristotle and the Parthenon and so many other wonders will be dead.
In its place will be the dysfunctional society of Islam under sharia. Like the barbarians who dressed as Romans and occupied Roman villas but repaired nothing, built nothing, invented nothing and whose existence ushered in the Dark Ages the Muslim masters of Europe will rule over a decaying continent.
And all of it will come about because the European people lost faith in their own culture's value, forgot the great contributions they gave to the world, turned their backs upon God and sold out their entire future for a comfortable socialist present.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Why are they still here?
From Front Page Magazine:
. . . Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s (Organization of the Islamic Conference) secretary general, declared: “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination.” The Associated Press reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.” Ihsanoglu stated that “Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.”
What kind of robust political engagement? Nothing less than restrictions on freedom of speech, of course. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, said: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”
These words, and the OIC’s “legal instrument” in general, demonstrate why the foundations of a free society cannot take root where Islamic Sharia law prevails.
Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination or declare that these people must at all costs not be offended, or that if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed free speech. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. Whenever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. No less in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.
That’s why all free people should oppose the OIC’s legal initiative. Not only does it threaten the foundations of Western society, but as it would render us unable to analyze it, it is an attempt to leave us defenseless against the jihad threat.
Yet at the United Nations, officials seemed eager to use Fitna as an excuse to enact laws restricting free speech. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dubbed the film “offensively anti-Islamic” and declared: “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.” Or maybe it is: the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, urged those angered by the film to work to limit free speech rights. “There is a protective legal framework,” she noted, “and the resolution of the controversy that this film will generate should take place within it.” She said that legislators “should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others.” And last week, the UN Human Rights Council passed unanimously a resolution proposed by Egypt and Pakistan that calls for the policing of individuals and media reports for negative statements about Islam.
Will it soon be illegal to speak about the use that Islamic jihadists make of Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism? If it is, the only ones who will benefit will be the jihadists themselves – advancing the jihadist agenda far more effectively than riots ever could alone. The demonstrations on the one hand and the calls to limit free speech on the other neatly coalesce into a carrot-and-stick strategy. The message to the West is that speech about Islam that the Islamic world dislikes could lead to violent reprisals – but if the West heeds the voice of reason and clamps down on free speech and free inquiry, this violence will melt away. It is a message that all too many Leftist, appeasement-minded European and American leaders will find quite enticing. And that could be the most serious threat of all to our survival as a free people.
That Islam is the enemy of freedom in general and the United States in particular is no secret. So this kind of initiative from an Islamic organization is only surprising in its sophistication (normally they just strap on explosives blow themselves up in a day care center.
What I want to do here is ask why the United Nations is still allowed on US soil, why the US is still a member of that organization and why we are still providing the majority of its funding?
The UN is an enemy organization. It is hostile to the United States and to the freedom which Americans enjoy as their birthright. How could it be otherwise given that the great majority of nations which make up the membership in the world body are unfree and hostile to the US?
Why have we not long ago withdrawn from that useless anti-American talking shop, expelled its worthless diplomats from our shores and turned the buildings into low rent housing for the elderly?
Monday, April 07, 2008
Fjordman asks a good question
In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn't open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it's one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as "racism and hate speech." To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it's as if we don't even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having "democratic" governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?
We could ask the same thing about the pro amnesty forces in the United States.
Explore Christian Blogosphere
