Sunday, November 30, 2008

Terrorism in Mumbai

Not calling the enemy by name is not only dishonest, even stupid but also dangerous and suicidal.

Imagine not mentioning the Nazis for their crimes excused by 'not to offend the feelings of the Germans and innocent Nazis'.
That is precisely the logic the medias are using today.

From Honest Reporting

When will the media show some consistency in defining terror?

The murderous terrorist attack in Mumbai, India has shocked all decent human beings around the world. Armed men targeting civilians, taking hostages and shooting and murdering indiscriminately can only be described as an act of terror carried out by terrorists.

HonestReporting has long campaigned for the media to call terror by its name. Too many times, media outlets report on terrorist acts in Israel referring to "militants", "activists" or any number of other descriptions, meticulously avoiding the "T" word.


We took a look at some of the initial media coverage of the Mumbai terror attack to see if the media is consistent with its terminology or if there are different rules for terror in Israel and terror elsewhere.

  • The BBC, at least, was consistent in its refusal to break from its style guide. As per usual, the perpetrators were referred to as "militants" or "gunmen" who carried out an "attack". However, some deviations managed to slip through. For example, an analysis by Sumantra Bose of the London School of Economics begins with the statement: "India's cities are no strangers to indiscriminate terror attacks." [emphasis added]

The BBC did try to correct its "errors" but perhaps the sheer scale of the events taking place may have strained even the BBC editors' ability to downplay terror. In the example below, the same story featured on the BBC website started off headlined as "Terror tactic switch" and later changed to "Method amid madness". This amendment, however, referred to "urban terrorism", perhaps indicating a certain amount of confusion.

  • Equally, The Guardian did its best to describe the terrorists as "militants", although the "T" word was used in a number of places.
  • Reuters also stuck with the term "militants".


  • CNN and particularly Sky News freely employed the "T" word.
  • The LA Times and New York Times both used the term "terrorist attacks" while The Daily Telegraph and even The Independent referred to "terrorists".


"Terrorism" is the correct term to describe politically motivated attacks that do not differentiate between civilian and military targets and are designed to create a sense of terror in the minds of the general public. The term has been correctly used

by much of the world media to describe attacks such as the September 11, Al-Qaeda attack on the United States, the London bombings, the Madrid train attacks, and many more.

Even the BBC used the word "terrorist" at the outset of the London bombings before embarrassingly removing it:

In the Middle East, it has been used to describe attacks within Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. However, within Israel, the terms "terrorism" and "terrorists" are often left out of media reports and replaced with "militants", "gunmen" or even "activists". This implies that attacks by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are somehow different and perhaps justifiable.

For example, in March 2006, the AP demonstrated how it sees Palestinian terrorism as different to that of Al-Qaeda:

The issue is best summed up by The Jerusalem Post's editorial:

even though this was clearly an assault against innocent civilians and exclusively against civilian targets - hospitals, hotels and a train station - why does much of the British media, including the BBC ... label the killers "militants" instead of terrorists? Why does the The Guardian join Al-Jazeera in calling them "gunmen"?

This may sound like a marginal concern, but nomenclature matters: The primary, often only, target of terrorists are civilians. Anti-civilian warfare is a key tool of Muslim extremists. Terrorism is a cruelty that has become the scourge of modern civilization and changed the way we live. It has debased humanity.

The international community, together with responsible elements in the media, should show zero tolerance for the kind of depravity manifested in Mumbai.

And a vital step to confronting it effectively is to recognize terrorism and call it by its name.

HonestReporting. com

Thursday, November 27, 2008

What do the present financial crisis and U.S. Middle East policy have in common?

An illuminating analysis by Martin kramer and food for thought.

By Martin Kramer from The Adeldon Institute for Strategic Studies.

Behind the financial crisis was a well-practiced mechanism for concealing risk. The risk was there, and it was constantly growing, but it could be disguised, repackaged and renamed, so that in the end it seemed to have disappeared. Much of the debate about foreign policy in the United States is conducted in the same manner: policymakers and pundits, to get what they want, conceal the risks.
In the case of the Middle East, they concealed the risks of bringing Yasser Arafat in from the cold; they concealed the risks of neglecting the growth of Al Qaeda; and they concealed the risks involved in occupying Iraq. It isn't that the risks weren't known—to someone. The intelligence was always there. But if you were clever enough, and determined enough, you could find a way to conceal them.
But concealed risk doesn't go away. It accumulates away from sight, until the moment when it surges back to the surface. It did that after Camp David in 2000, when the "peace process" collapsed in blood; it did that on 9/11, when hijackers shattered the skies over New York in Washington; and it happened in Iraq, when an insurgency kicked us back. This tendency to downplay risk may be an American trait: we have seen it in U.S. markets, and now we see it in U.S. election-year politics. In Middle East policy, its outcome has been a string of very unpleasant surprises.
A case in point is radical Islam. One would think that after the Iranian revolution, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the terrorism of Hezbollah, the Rushdie affair, the suicide attacks of Hamas and Al Qaeda, the Danish cartoons, and a host of other "surprises," that we would not be inclined to ignore the risks posed by radical Islam. And yet there are batteries of interpreters, analysts and pundits whose principal project is to obscure if not conceal the risks. Here are some of the most widespread variations on the theme:
Worried about Ahmadinejad? Pay him no mind. He doesn't really call the shots in Iran, he's just a figurehead. And anyway, he didn't really say what he's purported to have said, about wiping Israel off the map. What the Iranians really want is to sit down with us and cut a deal. They have a few grievances, some of them are even legitimate, so let's hear them out and invite them to the table, without preconditions. Iran isn't all that dangerous; it's just a small country; and even their own people are tired of the revolution. So pay no attention to Ahmadinejad, and pay no attention to the old slogans of "death to America," because that's not the real Iran.
Worried about the Palestinian Hamas? You've got it wrong. They merely represent another face of Palestinian nationalism. They aren't really Islamists at all: Hamas is basically a protest movement against corruption. Given the right incentives, they can be drawn into the peace process. Sure, they say they will never recognize Israel, but that is what the PLO once said, and didn't they change their tune? Anyway, Hamas controls Gaza, so there can't be a real peace process—a settlement of the big issues like Jerusalem, refugees, borders—without bringing them into the tent. So let's sit down and talk to them, figure out what their grievances are—no doubt, some of them are legitimate too. And let's get the process back on track.
Troubled by Hezbollah? Don't believe everything they say. They only pretend to be faithful to Iran's ayatollahs, and all their talk about "onwards to Jerusalem" is rhetoric for domestic consumption. What they really want is to earn the Shiites their rightful place in Lebanon, and improve the lot of their aggrieved sect. Engage them, dangle some carrots, give them a place at the table, and see how quickly they transform themselves from an armed militia into a peaceable political party.
And so on. There is a large industry out there, which has as its sole purpose the systematic downplaying of the risks posed by radical Islam. And in the best American tradition, these risks are repackaged as opportunities, under a new name. It could just as easily be called appeasement, but the public associates appeasement with high risk. So let's rename it engagement, which sounds low-risk—after all, there's no harm in talking, right? And once the risk has been minimized, the possible pay-off is then inflated: if we engage with the Islamists, we will reap the reward in the form of a less tumultuous Middle East. Nuclear plans might be shelved, terror might wane, and peace might prevail.
The engagement package rests upon a key assumption: that these "radical" states, groups, and individuals are motivated by grievances. If only we were able to address or ameliorate those grievances, we could effectively domesticate just about every form of Islamism. Another assumption is that these grievances are finite—that is, by ameliorating them, they will be diminished.
It is precisely here that advocates of "engagement" are concealing the risk. They do so in two ways. First, they distract us from the deep-down dimension of Islamism—from the overarching narrative that drives all forms of Islamism. The narrative goes like this: the enemies of Islam—America, Europe, the Christians, the Jews, Israel—enjoy much more power than the believing Muslims do. But if we Muslim return to the faith, we can restore to ourselves the vast power we exercised in past, when Islam dominated the world as the West dominates it today. The Islamists believe that through faith—exemplified by self-sacrifice and self-martyrdom—they can put history in reverse.
Once this is understood, the second concealment of risk comes into focus. We are told that the demands of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran are finite. If we give them a concession here, or a foothold there, we will have somehow diminished their demand for more concessions and footholds. But if their purpose is the reversal of history, then our gestures of accommodation, far from enticing them to give up their grand vision, only persuade them to press on. They understand our desire to engage them as a sign of weakness—an attempt to appease them—which is itself an enticement for them to push harder against us and our allies. And since they believe in their narrative of an empowered Islam with the fervency of religious conviction, no amount of insistence by us that we will go only so far and no further will stop them.
Our inability to estimate this risk derives in part from our unwillingness to give credence to religious conviction in politics. We are keen to recast Islamists in secular terms—to see them as political parties, or reform movements, or interest groups. But what if Islamists are none of these things? What if they see themselves as soldiers of God, working his will in the world? How do you deal with someone who believes that a paradise awaits every jihadist "martyr," and that the existence of this paradise is as real and certain to him as the existence of a Sheraton Hotel in Chicago? Or that at any moment, the mahdi, the awaited one, could make a reappearance and usher in the end of days? How do we calculate that risk?
So what are the real risks posed by Islamic extremism? If I were preparing a prospectus for a potential investor in "engagement," or a warning label on possible side effects of "engagement," they would include these warnings:
With regards to Iran. The downside risk is that Iran will prolong "engagement" in such a way as to buy time for its nuclear program—perhaps just the amount of time it needs to complete it. At the same time, it will use the fact of "engagement" with the United States to chisel away at the weak coalition of Arab states that the United States has cobbled together to contain Iran. If "engagement" is unconditionally offered, Iran will continue its subversive activities in Iraq and Lebanon until it receives some other massive concession. Indeed, it may even accelerate these activities, so as to demand a higher price for their cessation. If the United States stands its ground and "engagement" fails, many in the Middle East will automatically blame the United States, but by then, military options will be even less appealing than they are today.
In regards to Hamas. The downside risk is that "engagement"—even if conducted indirectly through various mediators—will be the nail in the coffin of Mahmoud Abbas, and of any directly negotiated understandings between Israel and the Palestinians. It is true that Israelis and Palestinians aren't capable today of reaching a final status agreement. But the present situation in the West Bank allows for a degree of stability and cooperation. This is because Israel stands as the guarantor against Hamas subversion of the West Bank. "Engagement" with Hamas would weaken that guarantee, signal to Palestinians once again that terrorism pays, and validate and legitimate the anti-Semitic, racist rhetoric that emanates daily from the leaders and preachers of Hamas. It might do all this without bringing Israeli-Palestinian peace even one inch closer.
In regards to Hezbollah. The downside risk is that "engagement" will effectively concede control of Lebanon to an armed militia that constitutes a state within a state. It will undermine America's pretension to champion civil society and pluralism in the most diverse Arab state. It will constitute the final rout of the beleaguered democracy forces within Lebanon, which have been consistently pro-American. It will compound the unfortunate effects of the 2006 summer war, by seeming to acknowledge Hezbollah as the victor. And it might do all this without bringing about the disarming of a single Hezbollah terrorist, or the removal of a single Iranian-supplied missile from Lebanon.
One would have to be a relentless pessimist to believe that all the downside risks I have outlined would be realized. But every serious advocate of "engagement" should acknowledge the risks, and explain their strategy for mitigating them. And it isn't enough to say: don't worry, we're going to practice "tough engagement." Perhaps we might. But most of the risks arise from the very fact of engagement—from the legitimacy it accords to the other party.
In the Middle East, the idea that "there's no harm in talking" is entirely incomprehensible. It matters whom you talk to, because you legitimize your interlocutors. Hence the Arab refusal to normalize relations with Israel. Remember the scene that unfolded this past summer, when Bashar Asad scrupulously avoided contact with Ehud Olmert on the same reviewing stand at a Mediterranean summit. An Arab head of state will never directly engage Israel before extracting every concession. Only an American would think of doing this at the outset, and in return for nothing: "unconditional talks" is a purely American concept, incomprehensible in the Middle East. There is harm in talking, if your talking legitimates your enemies, and persuades them and those on the sidelines that you have done so from weakness. For only the weak talk "unconditionally," which is tantamount to accepting the enemy's conditions. It is widely regarded as the prelude to unconditional surrender.
The United States cannot afford to roll the dice again in the Middle East, in the pious hope of winning it all. Chances are slim to nil that the United States is going to talk the Iranians, Hamas or Hezbollah out of their grand plan. Should that surprise us? We "engaged" before, with Yasser Arafat, and we know how that ended. We downplayed radical rhetoric before, with Osama bin Laden, and we know how that ended. We assumed we could talk people out of their passions in Iraq, and we know how that ended.
It is time to question risk-defying policies in the Middle East. The slogans of peace and democracy misled us. Let's not let the new slogan of engagement do the same. The United States is going to have to show the resolve and grit to wear and grind down adversaries, with soft power, hard power and will power. Paradoxically, that is the least risky path—because if America persists, it will prevail.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

The hatred against the Jews is growing in Norway

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs held last wednesday a conference in Jerusalem on the growing phenomena of Antisemitism in Norway and Sweden where Norway has become the worst country in Europe in the demonization of Israel.
It made frontpage news in Dagbladet, a heavy left leaning mainstream daily.
The Norwegian and Swedish medias are in particular bad and political correct to the absurd, the anti Israel bias rampant - No wonder such onesided pseudo journalism promotes an ugliness we all recognize so well.

Translated from Dagbladet.

Claims the hatred against the Jews is growing in Norway.

The Antisemitism is growing in Norway, and Norway is the only country which is demoinizing Israel to such a degree, claims the Author Manfred Gerstenfeld. Yesterday [25 Nov.08] at a conference on the specific theme was held in Jerusalem.

JERUSALEM (Dagsavisen): Never before has academics in Israel gathered to a conference to discuss something as uncommon: The antisemitism in Norway and Sweden. But yesterday it happened in Jerusalem.

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, The chairman of the conference, claims that Israel in the Norwegian medias to such a degree gets villified, criticized and scorned upon «as if the Israeli state was the representative of evil», while other countries with a lot worse record hardly get similar attention.

- I have never seen such a phenomena, only in Norway, just Norway, is Israel to such a degree pointed out as the unique villain, says Manfred Gerstenfeld to Dagsavisen.

Getting Demonized

Until recently Norway's reputation in Israel has been associated with democracy, a well functioning society, Nobel's peace prize and not the least the Oslo-process. But now the Norwegian rosy picture begins to fade.

In all 65 academics, diplomats and others was yesterday [25 Nov 08] gathered at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and the accusations from the stage was very serious.

To back up his case Gerstenfeld provides a long list of cases, including the author Jostein Gaarders infamous contribution in Aftonposten [Norwegian mainstream daily] during the Lebanon war. Gerstenfeld is equally not impressed with the contents of the criticism from Norway.

- To criticize Israel is of course legitimate, this is not what this is about. This is about such a biased focus that it has as an end result become a demonization, a dehumanization, says Gerstenfeld, a Dutch born environmental protection expert who in the last years has worked as a political correspondent.

Other criterias

Not long ago Gerstenfeld published a book called «Behind the face of humanism», which raises the case of Norway and Sweden's relations to Israel. In the book he claims that the state of Israel in Norway is judged from other criterias than other countries. It is exactly that which, according to Gerstenfeld, are the reasons for his accusations that antisemitism is growing in Norway.

Among the participants on the conference yesterday were Zvi Mazel, former ambassador to Sweden, and Ephraim Zuroff from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Zuroff spoke in addition that Sweden still allows Nazis who participated in war crimes during the second world war gets protection against extradition. Zuroff is in possession of a list with 21 men who still lives in Sweden.

New form of racism

Manfred Gerstenfeld is not surprised that a growing antisemitism is to be found in Scandinavia, countries with outspoken anti-racist and humanistic traditions. He says he is well aware of the human rights work in Norway, but thinks that these traditions paradoxially, has opened a new form of racism.

- A common notion here is that non-white people always are victims. And if you say that, you remove the ability to take responsibility for your own lifes, to be responsible, which is a basic human characteristic. You make people less human, they have become inferior. And this becomes a racism against non-white people whom you to begin with would help, he says.

Gerstenfeld says that it is first and foremost against Africans, and not the case with Israelis, who are exposed to such racism. But the Israelis in the Middle East are instead demonized «were they the greatest criminals against human rights, something they are not», he says, and warns that this has opened a door to a new legitimization of antisemitism.

Anti Israeli

To which degree Israel officially supports the accusations which has been expressed is difficult to measure, but it is no secret that diplomats with the Israeli Foreign Department has claimed that it is Norway of all the countries in Europe where the mood has become most anti-Israeli.

The Israeli Foreign Department was very restrained criticising foreign minister Jonas Gahr Stoere who earlier this month published a book, in which it is claimed that he compares the Jewish settlers with Nazis. Recently the Foreign Department in Oslo arranged a conference which goal was to increase trade between Israel and Norway.


The irony is that the reasearch director at the Holocaust Center, Odd-Bjorn Fure, further lashes out against Israel while claiming 'Not True' saying "It is totally legitimate to to criticise the Israeli state and the various Israeli governments when Israel breaches international human rights and practice a brutal occupation reign" echoing the propaganda which is the whole point - The whole tale smacks of hypocrisy, in particular "The press on guard".

Translated from Dagbladet.

Not True.

There is no reason to claim that the Norwegian [public] opinion has become more antisemitic, according, according to research director Odd-Bjorn Fure at the Holocaust Center.

- It is unquestionable that the opinion on the political level and in the Norwegian public opinion has become more sceptic towards Israel the last years. But to say it is an expression of antisemitism does not hold - It has got nothing to do with antisemitism, says Fure to Dagbladet.

- The Press on guard

He points out that the increased criticism in the public opinion is directed against Israel's policies.
- It is totally legitimate to to criticise the Israeli state and the various Israeli governments when Israel breaches international human rights and practice a brutal occupation reign, says Fure, he does not think Norwegian press can be accused of antisemitism.
- I would rather say on the contrary. Norwegian press is on guard against antisemitism, he says.
Fure believes that from the Israeli side from time to time have claimed unjustified accusations of antisemitism.
- I don't think it is the case with the current [Israeli] government, but in the government of Ariel Sharon you saw attempts of delegitimize legitimate criticism. You can claim that the Norwegian criticism of the Israeli government currently is onesided, undifferenciated and massive, but not that is is antisemitic, says Fure.

No more sludge.

He underscores that nevertheless there occur antisemitic opinions and expressions thereof in Norway.
- In certain situations antisemitic sludge emerges at the surface, when you mix together the actions of the Israeli state and the Jewish people. But that is not at all representative for the general Norwegian public opinion, and I do not have the impression that it have increased the last years, says the research director.
In an article in Aftonposten [Norwegian daily] recently it was claimed by a Norwegian school pupil in Oslo that "Jew" was among the worst slurs in the social circle.
- I have heard the same from other places and this is a deep, deep cause for worry. I do not have any information about how common this is, but if one person is using it as a swearword it is one to many who uses it as a swearword, says Fure, who nevertheless points out that the usage of the wording do not reflect in the public sphere.

- But it is clear that thios phenomena demands a special vigilance in regard to history, says Odd-Bjorn Fure.

Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update

A thought provoking essay by El Ingles which has caused a lot of debate and controversy.

The essay is a very interesting read as to the likely future scenario and consequences which is a likely result of our utopist and mediocre as well as intellectual bankrupt politicians notoriously from the left which has promoted their insane and outright racist ideology of multiculturalism and braindead collectivist tool of oppression - Political Correctness - Which they stuff down the native European citizens throats preventing opposition, criticism and hampering reason and rational thinking, all which is essential for their perverted social engineering and utopist fantasies.
by Baron Bodissey
Last spring El Inglés caused a bit of a stir here with his essay “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”. In recent weeks he has been busy researching and writing a follow-up, and the result is posted below.
A prefatory note from El Inglés:
I started writing ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What?’ with a fairly loose set of topics I wished to write a paragraph each on. There was no hint in my mind of how it might take shape when finished, or what threads of argument might bind it together. However, as I started to put metaphorical pen to paper, some paragraph headings were discarded as superfluous, others used at greater length, and the resulting chunks of text reorganized in accordance with an increasingly clear notion of what it was I wanted to say.
Having enjoyed the great privilege of having a number of very different essays read, enjoyed, loathed, praised, and torn down by presumably some thousands if not tens of thousands of readers, I would like to bring an end to my rather strange and short career as an analyst of Islamization and related issues with a long-brewing update to ‘Surrender, Genocide, or What?’ in which I consider again some of the key arguments, some new developments, and some factors which may be of relevance to issues of central importance.
Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update by El Inglés
The controversy over ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What?’ (hereafter referred to as SGW) was, by and large, fraudulent. It was simply used as ammunition in an ongoing conflict, by certain parties with limited reading comprehension skills and even more limited integrity. Nor is there any obvious reason why it should have been controversial. Given the prevalence of violent conflict of various sorts in human history, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that any polity, no matter how peaceful or prosperous, is never more than one or two macrohistorical wrong turns away from reacquainting itself with the unpleasantness such conflict results in. Given further the innumerable examples to be found even just in recent history of the extraordinary violence human beings will use to attack and/or separate themselves from others with whom they do not identify, the likelihood of an outbreak of vicious tribal conflict in Europe as a consequence of mass immigration struck me as obvious. Indeed, it still strikes me as being so obvious as to be slightly embarrassing to suggest at all.
Despite the above, there was a slightly surreal quality to the process of considering, in as much detail as I could manage at the time of writing, the implications of the fairly simple positive feedback arguments that were central to the essay. The conclusions I reached in SGW struck even me, the author, as being slightly fantastic in some regards. But that they did so was, I think, more a consequence of the unprecedented nature of the phenomena I predicted for post-war Western Europe than of any flaw in the arguments themselves. Indeed, nothing that has happened between now and my writing SGW has led me to believe that the reasoning therein was not fundamentally sound and the dynamics I claimed to see in the Islamization of Europe not actually real. On the contrary, subsequent events have convinced me that the point of no return I mentioned in SGW has, in all likelihood, already been crossed by at least some European countries, and others are dangerously close to crossing it. Before explaining why I think this, I would like to briefly review the key line of argument in the original essay.
Boiled down to its essentials, the argument goes as follows.
Political elites in most Western European countries are wedded, through genuine ideological conviction, institutional entanglements, or both, to a politics which has taken the influx of large numbers of Muslim immigrants to be both natural and beneficial. This position, facilitated by a belief in the equal worth and validity of all cultures and a consequent desire to allow all cultures consideration and concessions, has permitted Islam to start to display its true colours, as a vicious, expansionist, and totalitarian ideology that will continue to demand ever greater degrees of obeisance.
With both endogenous and exogenous growth of European Muslim communities driving up the Muslim population fractions in afflicted countries, a positive feedback loop emerges.
The abovementioned political elites, baffled by and helpless in the face of a tribalism the likes of which they had, one assumes, forgotten ever existed, rush to appease the followers of Allah as, their worldview informs them, all conceivable tensions can be resolved to the satisfaction of all relevant parties through compromise. Such capitulation as then takes place emboldens Muslim fifth columnists whilst allowing their numbers to continue to grow unabated. Before too long, further capitulation is required to soothe the anger of an ever-stronger Muslim community, thereby wearing the groove of a coupled behavioural pattern ever deeper into the minds of demanders and appeasers, predators and prey.
It is my contention that this disastrous positive feedback loop cannot be escaped from through the actions of extant political elites with decades of psychological and intellectual investment in its creation. Accordingly, it will be broken only by the emergence of qualitatively different political actors, who can be categorized in one of two ways: non-mainstream political parties who gain power on the back of opposition to Islamization and mass immigration more generally in electoral discontinuities; and agents acting outside of or after the breakdown of established political mechanisms in non-electoral discontinuities, which imply some significant collapse of law and order. Both of these discontinuities are likely to be extremely unpleasant and feature much violence.
Furthermore, there is a very real possibility that even electoral discontinuities will be induced by additional dynamics to collapse into non-electoral discontinuities with all that that implies. Note that none of these claims is offered up as some fundamental law of European societies pertinent to the situations they find themselves in today. Rather, they simply constitute a formalization of a number of easily observable, loosely bundled European dynamics vis-à-vis Islam.
Continue reading at The Gates of Vienna where you can join the debate as well.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Durban II - The UN Conference to Promote Antisemitism and Racism

The Durban II conference is nothing but a racist and antisemitic hatefest as well as promoting hatred against Israel - Any country attending that conference brings shame upon its citizens insulting their basic rights as human beings.
The Nazis with their Nuremberg laws could never have dreamed of achieving a fraction of what the UN is doing.

EuroNews has posted an extensive video playlist with the various UN thugs, it is unbelievable to watch such a hatefest in their preparations to the Durban II - These people are no less, in my eyes, criminals.

Video Playlist: Durban II - The UN Conference to Promote Antisemitism

YouTube-Playlist Durban II

VIDEO Documentation: Durban II is the next UN "anti-racism" conference - certain to be a global platform for antisemitism and the demonization of Israel. Planning for the 2009 hatefest is already underway.

Antisemitism at the UN under the guise of "combating racism". A conference to redefine "antisemitism", serve to encourage terrorism, fabricate "Islamophobia" and sing the pretense of combating racism to limit freedom of expression.

UN anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say

Boycott the UN, it is useless, corrupt, ineffective and infested with Transnational Socialists -TransNazis - In a perverse alliance with IslamoFascists, despots, terror regimes and dictatorships - The UN and the UNHRC is an insult to human rights and freedom.

The latest stunt is yet another reason to abolish the UN altogether.

From Euronews.

Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85-50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.

But while the draft's sponsors say it and earlier similar measures are aimed at preventing violence against worshippers regardless of religion, religious tolerance advocates warn the resolutions are being accumulated for a more sinister goal.

It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy,

said Bennett Graham, international program director with the Becket Fund, a think tank aimed at promoting religious liberty.

Those arrests are made legitimate by the UN body's (effective) stamp of approval.

Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure "renaissance" of the "Muslim Ummah" or community.

While the current resolution is non-binding, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan reminded the UN's Human Rights Council this year that the OIC ultimately seeks a "new instrument or convention" on the issue. Such a measure would impose its terms on signatory states.

Each time the resolution comes up, we get a measure of where the world is on this issue, and we see that the campaign has been ramped up,

said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch. (...)

UN, Saudis Conspire to Stifle Free Speech

From Euronews/IslamistWatch - As if the endless tales of corruption, ineptitude, and financial waste were not enough to sully one's view of the United Nations, here is another reason to look askance at Turtle Bay: the organization is pushing a global blasphemy law designed to thwart criticism of the Islamic faith:

United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann said on Tuesday [November 11] that the world body should ban defamation of all religions and disagreed that such a move would impinge upon freedom of speech.

"Yes, I believe that defamation of religion should be banned," he said in response to a question at a press conference to highlight the interfaith conference at the UN headquarters. No one should try to defame Islam or any other religion, he said, adding: "We should respect all religions."

President d'Escoto, a former Sandinista foreign minister and recipient of the International Lenin Peace Prize, was speaking prior to the UN's Culture of Peace Conference, held on November 12 and 13 at the behest of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. As the Middle East director of Human Rights Watch noted, "There is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, yet the kingdom asks the world to listen to its message of religious tolerance."

The meeting intended to build on a Saudi-led forum in Madrid earlier this year that issued a declaration touting "respect for religions." That sounds pleasant enough. Yet there is a thinly veiled agenda at work here: "a global law to punish blasphemy — a campaign championed by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference that puts the rights of religions ahead of individual liberties." Indeed, the details of last week's UN get-together are maddening:

Consider one key draft resolution at the event. Introduced jointly by the Philippines and Pakistan, it openly seeks to limit press freedoms. Sure, as read by Philippine President Gloria Arroyo, the language pays lip service to the notion of freedom of expression.

But the document then goes on to emphasize the "special duties and responsibilities necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, or of public health and morals."

Translation: Don't even think of publishing those Danish cartoons or anything even close to them. And forget about questioning authorities in places like, say, Riyadh.

Of course, this is just the latest attempt to silence critics of radical Islam. Proposed blasphemy laws will fail to win much support from Americans or Europeans, but they underscore the agenda that Islamists are already enacting through politically correct appeals and soft intimidation.

Culture of peace? This is the culture of censorship and the West should have none of it.

Monday, November 24, 2008

The Third Jihad - The Hidden War

There’s a war going on and the major battles take place right here in America. It’s a hidden war against the freedom and values we all take for granted. The enemy is taking advantage of our country’s democratic process, and using it to further its own aims.

Most people, busy with their daily struggles, don’t even realize there’s a war. And that’s just the way the Radical Islamists would like things to remain.

The Third Jihad is the ground breaking film that reveals the truth. It exposes the destructive aims of Radical Islam and its mounting threat for America and the world. It covers all the major players — the radical extremists and the leaders trying to stop them.

The Third Jihad will update you on the most urgent issue of our time in ways you can’t find in the media.

Using footage from the Arab media, the mounting dangers of jihad are uncovered: The numerous terrorist threats since 9/11, and the likelihood that more are being planned now. The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The subtle dangers of non-violent cultural jihad and its influence in America’s universities An update on radical Moslem prisoner recruitment.

From - Gates of Vienna.

The Third Jihad — Radical Islam’s Vision for America - The Hidden War

This is the full 71-minute version of Zudi Jasser’s movie The Third Jihad:

Sunday, November 23, 2008

The End of Islam

Islamic conquest and slavery - An enlightening article from South African Frontline Fellowship.

The End of Islam - Frontline Fellowship.

Muslim states are the most severe persecutors of Christians and radical Muslim extremists are the most vicious terrorists, hijackers, kidnappers, suicide bombers and assassins in the world today.

Yet Muslims, and their public relations agents and apologists, claim that Islam is a great religion of learning and tolerance. I have heard Muslim Imams of the Islamic Propagation Centre International declare in the mosque in Durban that Muslims are “more Jewish than the Jews and more Christian than the Christians!” All over the world, repeatedly, Muslims claim Islam to be superior to Christianity. “You Christians are so divided. We Muslims are all united. You have so many denominations, but we Muslims are all one. In Islam there is perfect unity.” And “Christianity is a religion for the Whites only, Islam is the Black man's religion.”; “There is no racism in Islam, we are all one in Islam.” “You Christians have so many Bibles, and you keep changing the Bible, but we Muslims have only one Quran, and it has never been changed.”

Slavery, Terrorism and Islam exposes the falsehood of these and other prevalent myths propagated about Islam. Far from Islam being a great religion of learning, tolerance and peace, this book presents the historical facts, and sets the record straight. Muhammad declared that if other books confirmed what was in the Quran then they didn't need them. And if the books did not confirm what was in the Quran they didn't want them. So the order was: Burn them! The Muslims burned libraries all across North Africa and the Middle East. They burned the library of Alexandria - the largest library in the world at that time. It probably included original copies of the Bible and other priceless manuscripts.

Over 3200 churches were destroyed or converted into mosques during the first century of Islamic Jihad alone. During the Muslim invasion of Syria in AD 634 thousands of Christians were massacred. As Mesopotamia was conquered between AD 635 and 643 many churches and monasteries were ransacked, and ministers and Christians slain. In the conquest of Egypt AD 640 and 641, the towns of Behnesa, Fayum, Nikiu and Aboit were all put to the sword. When the Muslims invaded Cyprus, they looted and pillaged homes and churches and massacred much of the population. In North Africa, when Tripoli was captured in AD 643, all the Jews and Christians were forced to hand their women and children over as slaves. When Carthage was captured, it was burned to the ground and most of its inhabitants slaughtered.

Beginning in AD 712 the Muslim armies invaded India. They smashed and demolished temples, plundered palaces, slaughtered millions of Indian men and enslaved the women and children. The ancient cities of Baranasai Mathura, Uggain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka were sacked, the populations massacred, and not one temple left standing.

Will Durant in his The Story of Civilisations, describes the Muslim invasion of India as “probably the bloodiest story in history.” The North Western region of India is called the Hindu Kush (“the slaughter of the Hindu”) as a reminder of the vast number of Hindu slaves who died while being marched across the Afghan Mountains to the Muslim slave markets in Central Asia. The Buddhists were also targeted for destruction. In AD 1193 Muhammad Khilji burned to the ground their famous library and the Buddhist stronghold of Bihar.

Shah Jahan is remembered as the builder of the Taj Mahal. What few Westerners know is that the builder of the Taj Mahal launched 48 military campaigns against non-Muslims in just 30 years. In AD 1628 he killed all his male relatives. Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines in his harem but also indulged in incestuous sex with his daughters. In just one town, Banares, Jahan destroyed 76 Hindu temples. He also demolished Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. When he captured Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, he had 10,000 inhabitants “blown up with powder, drowned in water or burned by fire.” Another 4,000 were enslaved and offered Islam or death. Those who refused to convert were killed.

Neither was Spain under the Muslim Moors the jewel of Islamic tolerance that it is often purported to be. In AD 920 all the inhabitants of Muez were put to the sword. Cordova, Zarajoza and Merida were burned to the ground, with all adult males executed and all women and children enslaved. In AD 1066 all the Jews of Grenada were slaughtered. In AD 1126, all the Christians of Grenada were deported to Morocco.

In AD 1009, Kalif Hakem of Egypt ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all Christian places of worship in Jerusalem. Christians were persecuted cruelly and pilgrims were attacked.

Under Mehmet II the Turks conquered the great Byzantine capital, Constantinople. On 29 May, AD 1453, waves of Turkish soldiers swept into Constantinople, the greatest city in the world at that time, and put it to the sword. Priceless libraries and irreplaceable works of art were burned, the population slaughtered, even in the Hagia Sophia, the greatest Christian church in the world at that time.

For centuries the Turks demanded an annual “blood levy” of Christian boys. Parents were forced to hand over one out of every five Christian boys for service in the Sultan’s army as janissaries.

Slavery, Terrorism and Islam documents hundreds of massacres of Christian populations by Muslim rulers. For example: In 1860 over 12,000 Christians were slaughtered in Lebanon. In 1876 14,700 Bulgarians were murdered by the Turks. 200,000 Armenian Christians were slaughtered by the Turks in Bayazid in 1877. And in 1915 the Turks massacred over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. As recently as September 1922 the Turkish army destroyed the ancient city of Smyrna with its 300,000 Christian population.

Despite Islam proclaiming itself as a religion of tolerance, no Muslim countries allow freedom of religion. Despite the Saudi Arabian government funding the building of thousands of mosques in Christian lands, no church or synagogue is tolerated in Saudi Arabia. Nor can any Saudi Arabian citizen be a Christian. Despite Muhammad being called a “prophet of peace”, he engaged in 47 battles and raids on caravans in his lifetime. It is inconsistent of Islam to insist on the cutting off of the hand of a thief when Muhammad and his successors, the Caliphas, engaged in wholesale theft, raiding caravans, kidnapping hostages for ransom and looting homes.

The persecution of Christians by Muslims has become a taboo subject in Western circles. Over thirteen centuries of religious discrimination and persecution, causing the suffering, oppression, murder and enslavement of countless millions has been buried under a thick whitewash of myths of “Islamic tolerance”. The deceit, cowardice and silence of all too many Western journalists and academics continues to facilitate the religious discrimination and persecutions of radical Muslims to this day.

The intellectual dishonesty of those Westerners who engage in academic gymnastics to justify the invasion of other people's lands; the looting, pillaging, raping, murdering and enslaving of whole peoples, needs to be exposed. The hypocrisy of those who justify the military aggression of Muslims, but condemn those who inflicted defeats upon these Muslim invaders needs to be challenged. The fiction that “Jihad has never been an aggressive, but only a defensive concept”, should be dismissed with the contempt that such deception deserves. What were Saudi Arabians defending in Spain?

When Islam defines a refusal to submit to Sharia law under Islam as aggression, and when they define peace as submission to Islam, then we must know that we are not talking the same language.

In the USA, at various airport chapels, I've noticed the increasing practice of providing prayer mats and qiblahs to indicate the direction Muslims must face to pray towards Mecca. Qurans and quantities of glossy publications printed by the Saudi Arabian Embassy to promote Islam overflow the tables at these chapels.

Even at Epcot Centre in Disney World, in their Progress Through The Ages, there is a section praising the religion of Islam, which “kept learning alive” during the Dark Ages! Perhaps burning libraries provided some light, but the destruction of millions of books is hardly the way to “keep learning alive!”

Numerous films from Hollywood have portrayed Christians as benighted, closed-minded bigots and the Muslim characters as compassionate, intelligent and enlightened. There has been a relentless barrage of anti-Christian bias and pro-Islamic propaganda generated by Hollywood filmmakers, liberal journalists and college professors. As Karl Marx declared: “The first battlefield is the rewriting of history!”

Despite Muslim claims to the contrary, the unity of Muslims is more of a thin veneer than a reality. Muslims are divided into three mega blocks: The Sunni (“one of the path”), the Shi'ites (those who believe that Muhammad's son-in-law Ali was the true successor to Muhammad), and the Sufi (the mystical sect of Islam). These three main blocks can be broken down into literally thousands of identifiable groupings with major variations and distinctives.

One of the more obvious evidences of the divisions within Islam are the many wars waged between Muslims. Since the “Wars of Apostasy” (that raged during the Caliph Abu Bakr's brief rule following the death of Muhammad) to more recent years, the Muslim world has been torn by revolutions and assassinations. Just since 1948, the 21 Arab countries have suffered 30 wars, 63 successful revolutions, at least 75 unsuccessful revolutions and the murder of 36 Heads of State.

In the Arab world, revolutions and assassinations have been the most prevalent means of political expression and of attaining power. The only Arab country that was ever a democracy was Lebanon, when Christians were the majority there. However, after the Syrian invasion and intensified persecution of Christians led many to flee, and the Muslims to gain the majority, democracy in Lebanon was extinguished.

As to the myth that “there is only one Quran and it has never been changed”, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam exposes that as falsehood as well. Both the times of prayer and the direction of prayer were changed from the original Quran. Originally Muhammad had declared that it was Allah's will that all Muslims pray towards Jerusalem. After the Jews refused to accept his “prophethood”, Muhammad changed the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca.

The third Calipha Uthman forcibly standardised the many variations of the Quran by demanding that all versions and copies of the Quran had to be surrendered - under pain of death - for destruction. At the end, Uthman issued a new, revised, standardised, version of the Quran which endures to this day.

As to there being only one version of the Quran, I have on my shelf a number of Qurans, several of which I obtained from the Islamic Propagation Centre International, including the translation and commentary by Yusuf Ali and the translation by Muhammad Pickthall. There are also the translations by Maulana Muhammad Ali, Ahmed Ali, J. M. Rodwell, A. J. Arberry, M. H. Shakir, N. J. Dawood and Muhammad Zafulla Khan. The differences between these various translations of the Quran can be quite interesting. For example the permitting of plunder in Surah 24:29: Rodwell translates it as “there shall be no harm in your entering (unoccupied) houses…for the supply of your needs”; M. Z. Khan's translation adds “wherein are your goods.” Dawood inserts “to seek shelter.” M. H. Shakir and M. M. Ali insert an ambiguous “wherein you have your necessities.” Ahmed Ali writes “where there is some convenience for you.” Whereas Arberry has a vague “wherein enjoyment is for you.”

Surah 4:34 (or:38, some versions of the Quran vary slightly as to their verse numbers), Dawood, Arberry and Rodwell translate as “as for (disobedient wives) beat them” whereas M. M. Ali and M. Z. Khan prefer a more obscure translation: “chastise them.”

Some Muslim translators such as M. M. Ali tried to soften Muhammad's savagery by retranslating verses such as Surah 8:12: “Strike off their heads. Strike off their fingertips!” with “smite…their necks…and every fingertip.”

Dawood translates Surah 8:68: “A prophet may not take captives until he has fought and triumphed in the land.” However, Rodwell uses these words in his translation: “…until he has made a slaughter in the earth.” Plainly the assertion that there is only one Quran, and the Quran has never been changed, is false.

Similarly, the claim that “there is no racism in Islam, we are all one…” is a blatant lie. From the very inception of Islam, and for its entire history, Muslims have made up the largest numbers of slave traders and engaged in the greatest slave trading campaigns in history. Even today, slavery continues in many parts of the Muslim world. Just about the only places in the world today where you will still find slavery practised are in the Muslim world.

Muhammad was a slave owner, and he traded in slaves. Throughout the Hadith, Black people are referred to as slaves. In fact, in the Arabic language it is impossible to distinguish between a Black person and a slave. The same word used for a slave is the word for a Black man. In the Hadith Muhammad is quoted as referring to Black people as “raisin heads.”

Several years ago when I was having a debate with Ahmed Deedat at the Islamic Propagation Centre International in Durban, Deedat tried to change the subject to get out of a sticky corner he had painted himself in to by some theological gymnastics. “Kafirs!” Deedat shouted “that's what the White Christians called the Black people when they came here to South Africa: Kafirs! That's what the Whites called the Black people: Kafirs!” For some time Deedat continued to try to shout this refrain and change the subject, injecting some kind of racial animosity in the mixed group which was listening to this debate.

So I asked him the question: “But isn't 'Kafir' an Arabic word? From the Quran? Isn't ‘Kafir’the Arabic word for infidel? Wasn't it the Muslim slave traders who gave the people of Africa the term ‘Kafirs?’” Ahmed Deedat promptly changed the subject and never answered the question. Nor did he revisit the issue.

As Slavery, Terrorism and Islam documents, at least 28 million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. As at least 80% of those captured by Muslim slaver raiders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave markets, it is estimated that the death toll from the 14 centuries of Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been over 112 million. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 million people.

There were many children born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, but very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive. Most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East slave bazaars were castrated and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth - in order to maintain Arab numerical supremacy.

As to the Muslim claim that “Christianity is a religion for the Whites only, Islam is the Black mans’ religion.” African Christians point out that Christianity predated Islam in Africa by 6 centuries. St. Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark, planted the Church in Egypt, in AD 62, and died for Christ in Alexandria. The Apostle Matthew, author of Matthew's Gospel, planted the Church in Abyssinia, (present day Ethiopia). Acts chapter 8 records the baptism of the treasurer of Queen Candice of Sudan, by the deacon Phillip. From the 1st Century the Church was firmly established in Egypt, Sudan and Abyssinia. Christianity came to Africa before it even went to Europe. It was an African, Simon of Cyrene, who helped carry the cross of Christ. Some of the greatest names in early Church history were Africans, including St. Augustine of Hippo, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Athanasius.

However, the Muslim armies wiped out the indigenous African Church that flourished in the countries which became Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Through the centuries the Christians in Egypt, Sudan and Abyssinia steadfastly resisted centuries of Islamic Jihad and persecution. Far from Islam being the Black man's religion, it has been the greatest affliction the Black people have ever endured through the 14 centuries of Islamic slave trade and the oppression of Sharia law.

Today, despite Muslims being only one sixth of the world's population, Muslim armies and terrorist groups are involved in 90% of the world's conflicts.

It is no wonder that William Muir (1819 - 1905) one of the greatest orientalists of all time, concluded at the end of his long and distinguished career: “The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilisation, liberty and truth which the world has ever known…an unmitigated cultural disaster parading as God's will…”

To this, many journalists and professors will claim that Islam was tremendously advanced scientifically and medically while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. However, as French historian Ernest Renan observed: “Science and philosophy flourished during the first half of the Middle Ages, but it was not by reason of Islam; it was in spite of Islam. Not a…philosopher or scholar escaped persecution…To give Islam the credit for…so many illustrious thinkers who passed half their life in prison, in forced hiding, in disgrace, whose books were burned and whose writings were suppressed by their theological authority, is as if one were to ascribe to the inquisition…a whole scientific development which it tried to prevent.”

What most of these propagandists for Islam choose to forget is that the Arab armies conquered the advanced Christian civilisations in North Africa and the Middle East. So, yes, by reason of plunder and occupation, the Islamic Empire was enriched and benefited immeasurably. But almost all of the scientific and technological advancements, and almost all of the hard work, were the work of Christian slaves and dhimmis.

We have not even looked here at the oppression of women in Islam, but there is a whole chapter on that in Slavery, Terrorism and Islam.

Faced as we are by the massive bloc of Islamic nations, and the vast petro-dollar funding of Islamic Propagation Centres, with their building of thousands of mosques and madrasses throughout Europe, Africa and the Americas, what hope is there for the future?

First of all, the Scripture is clear: “The desert tribes will bow before Him and His enemies will lick the dust…all kings will bow down to Him and all nations will serve Him.” Psalm 72:9-11

That's the 9/11 of the Scriptures. Probably the most foolish thing Muslim radicals have ever done was attacking the financial heart of America with the terror attacks on the New York World Trade Centre and Washington with hijacked aircraft. Since September the 11th 2001, more critical books on Islam have been written than in previous centuries. And we have begun to see the first cracks in the monolithic empire of Islam.

The Taliban, probably the most radical Islamic regime in the world, in Afghanistan, was toppled by US forces. For the first time free elections have been held in Afghanistan. Then Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the military superpower of the Muslim world was defeated by the American and Allied forces in a matter of weeks. (The Americans have now also organised the first free elections in Iraq's history).

Also, in the first free elections in Nigerian history, a Christian president came to power. For 38 years Nigeria suffered under a succession of Islamic dictators. Nigeria hosted the Islam in Africa Conference and was recognised as an officially Islamic state by the World Islamic Organisation. Although Sharia law continues to be enforced in the 12 Northern provinces of Nigeria, with hundreds of churches having been burned, and thousands of Christians massacred, the population of Nigeria has plainly rejected Islamic rule and a Christian president is in power there for the first time.

Next the National Islamic Front Government of Sudan which had waged Jihad against the Christian Black South, seeking to impose its policies of Islamisation and Arabisation, have now agreed to a cease-fire and signed a peace treaty. This peace treaty grants autonomy to the South, exempting them from Sharia law and recognising some religious freedom. Then, last year, Malawi, which had for ten years been ruled by a Muslim president, elected a Christian president.

Also, last year The Passion of the Christ film was shown throughout the Muslim world to overflowing theatres. Never before had any Christian medium impacted the lives of tens of millions of Muslims. Missionaries in the Middle East rejoiced that more people had seen The Passion in a single day in their city than they had been able to show the Jesus film in the previous four years of full-time missionary work! While the Jesus film was illegal and could only be shown secretly, at great risk, The Passion was being openly screened in the shopping mall cinemas! This, taken along with the phenomenal response to SAT-7, a Christian mission broadcasting Gospel programmes in Arabic throughout the Middle East, is also unprecedented.

Then we should mention the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and Libya's sudden renouncing of terrorism and seeking to co-operate with the USA. Taken together with the facts that: there are more missionaries focused on the Muslim world today than ever before in history, more books written on Islam from a Christian perspective than ever before, and there is also more prayer focused on the Muslim world than ever before. All of these factors considered together represent a series of seismic events shaking the very foundations of Islam.

Islam cannot survive freedom. The Quran cannot survive intense scrutiny and critical investigation. In this technological age, Islam's days are numbered. Although they can hijack Western technology to use against the West, the foundations of Islam are rotten to the core and cannot stand.

The Scriptures declare: “At the Name of Jesus every knee will bow…every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…” Philippians 2:10-11.

The day will come when the earth will be as full of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the seas are full of water (Habakkuk 2:14).

Yet it is also true that “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). There is a tremendous ignorance of Islam and most Christians are failing to evangelise their Muslim neighbours. That is why this book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam is needed at this time. We need to understand Islam and we need to evangelise Muslims.

“The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest therefore to send out workers into His harvest field.” Matthew 9:39

Frontline Fellowship's new book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam - The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat sets the record straight, with chapters on “Muhammad, the Caliphas and Jihad”, “The Oppression of Women in Islam”, “The Sources of Islam”, “The Scourge of Slavery - The Rest of the Story.” With 110 pictures and 12 maps and charts, this book is well illustrated. It consists of 12 chapters and 9 very helpful appendices, including demographic maps of the Spread of Islam, a Glossary to understand Islamic Terms, a comparison of Muslim Nations and Military Spending versus their National Prosperity, a chart on how Jihad works depending on the percentage of Muslims in the population and Guidelines for Effective Muslim Evangelism.

Obama - The House Negro

An enlightenment into islamic 'logic' if it contains such a notion as logic, rather it is simply the believe they follow, this is what they think about you and me, Al Zawahiri is just a practising muslim like so many others and here is an analysis by Bill Warner on Al Zawahiri's latest statement on Obama.

By Bill Warner - Political Islam.

The media has been atwitter with Al-Qaida's Ayman al-Zawahri's insult of Obama by calling him the house Negro. What he actually said was abeed al-beit. Abeed is not just a slave, but a black slave. Islam's refined doctrine of slavery includes over 40 words for slaves, including the slave's race. If you were white, you would be a mamluk, a white slave.

Mohammed and his wife owned black slaves, along with every other kind of slave, including sex slaves. Mohammed's favorite sexual partner at one time was a white slave, Mary, a Coptic Christian.

Zawahri's insult was pure Islam. The Koran is filled with insults and curses by Allah. Insults and curses are part of Islamic logic. Kafir (non-Muslim) logic advances an argument by analogy, syllogisms, cause and effect--scientific logic. Islamic logic is based upon making you submit to Islam. Therefore repeated force, threats and insults are all part of the logic of simply overpowering the other. This is similar to a thug using brute force and yelling to "persuade" the vicitm.

The Koran instructs Muslims on how to use insults and curses against kafirs:

74:16 No, I [Allah] say. He is an enemy of Our revelations. I will impose a dreadful punishment on him because he plotted and planned.
74:19 Damn him! How he planned. Again, Damn him! How he planned.

And here we have the Koran insulting Jews by calling them apes (a favorite insult by Muslims about Jews):

7:156 But when they [the Jews] persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them, "Be as apes, despised and loathed."

Here we have Mohammed repeating the insult when he attacked the Bin Qurayza Jews of Medina:

Ishaq note 684: Mohammed called upon his troops, and they headed for the Jews. Mohammed rode up to the forts and called out, "You brothers of apes, has Allah disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?"

Mohammed and Allah repeatedly insulted others who didn't agree with Mohammed. The worst insult is kafir. Most Korans translate this word as unbeliever, but that is a neutral term. The Koran goes further to say that Allah hates kafirs and plots against them. Over half of the Koran is written about kafirs and it is uniformly negative. Kafirs may be murdered, tortured, enslave, raped, robbed, insulted and deceived with impunity.

Zawahri's insult of Obama is an insult by a person. However, it is not a person, but Allah, the creator of the universe and the sole deity that says that I am a kafir. That is not a personal insult, but a universal, omnipotent, sacred insult. Kafirs are lower than animals.

So when a Muslim comes home from work and says to his wife that he met a nice kafir today, the insult is so deeply ingrained, that he does not even think about it. After all, both Mohammed and Allah say that those who do not believe in Mohammed are kafirs, "the lowest of the low."

But what is interesting is how Zawahri's insult does not rub off on Islam. After all, Zawahri is called a radical Muslim, not a "real" Muslim. Therefore, what he says does not trouble people about Islam. Zawahri is not a radical Muslim, but one who follows the Islam of Medina, the violent Islam. He is a moderate Muslim of the Medinan sort, a 100% Muslim.

What if a white Christian Republican said the same thing? The media would not be atwitter, but in full outrage. This would be headline, long-lasting news. Not only would the white Christian speaker be condemned, but all white people and all Christians. Not only would the speaker have personal guilt, but also every group he was a member of would share in corporate guilt. But no Muslims will be condemned because of Zawahri's slur. Muslims do not share in corporate guilt.

Another oddity is that some Obama supporters may think that since he has been insulted by a Muslim it proves that he is not in the Islamic camp. Such thinking ignores the fact that the person most apt to insult a Muslim is another Muslim. In the same way, a Muslim is much more apt to be killed by another Muslim than by a kafir. Once you get into the insult, curse and kill business, it is hard to limit it to kafirs.

There is some good news for Obama's supporters. He may have been called "house Negro" (and actually the N-word is a better translation for abeed than Negro) but at least he was not called Hussein.

Bill Warner

Friday, November 21, 2008

Orwell's Children

An article by excellence from the American Thinker.

It is astounding and quite worrisome how similar today's leftists or utopists as I now chose to call those lobotomized thrallsouls of the degenerated Marxoid utopist insanities.

Food for thought reading - Orwell's Children, American Thinker.

It has been sixty years since George Orwell wrote his chilling dystopian classic, 1984, and it has been thirty years since we saw the creepiest example of educated and free people willingly walking into a living dystopia. November 18, 1978, three decades ago, 918 people drank Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. Jim Jones, the communist leader of Jonestown, Guyana, had become "Big Brother." Soviet and Communist Chinese propaganda films and condemnations of capitalist and imperialist America blared continually to the subjects of this island of Leftist Hell.

Jonestown ended in mass suicide, but the real horror was that ordinary people, Americans like you and I, had become so decoupled from reality and morality that they could be led to surrender everything, even their lives, intoxicated only with the venom of modern Leftism. These were Orwell's Children.

We are drifting into the sort of horrific future he described. Too many of us for comfort or solace have become just like the denizens of Jonestown: Orwell's children -- a new generation of creature enraged into constant militancy against eternal enemies, oblivious to the notion of a Blessed Creator, melded into the consciousness of the party hive, divorced from history, hypnotized by images, inoculated against reason, stripped of family, and existing only to serve the cause.

Orwell did not write his book in a vacuum. 1984 describes the Soviet Union (the book describes Stalinist Russia so well so that subjects of that evil empire wondered when Orwell had lived there, though he had just described what he saw from the outside.) 1984 also describes Nazism and every other odious totalitarianism, which its secret police and propaganda machine and atomized subjects. But Orwell was very much also writing about the democratic western nations. His book was a warning of what could happen here. Oceania, the only totalitarian superstate actually descried in 1984, was largely America and the British Empire.

There were specific elements necessary for nations with a heritage of freedom to slide into the most absolute and abject slavery. These elements existed in Nazi Germany, they existed in Soviet Russia, and they exist in our free democracies today. What are the characteristics of the Orwellian state?

Start with God. He must go. The great Russian novelists knew this: "Without God, everything is permitted." In Oceania, God simply does not exist. The Nazis bragged that they would raise a generation "...without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments." The Soviet persecuted anyone who followed the God of Jews and Christians. God is hounded in our world today. A generation of Orwell's Children are growing up without thinking about God at all or thinking that God is a silly idea cherished by sillier old fogies.

Truth must go too. Nazis embraced the "Big Lie." Soviets denied that honesty, per se, mattered. In Orwell's Oceania, the Inner Party members learn to even lie to themselves and to hold utterly contradictory beliefs at the same time. Truth and honesty have little meaning to Orwell's Children in our world. All truth is relative, all honesty a sham.

(this is exactly like today's left)

Language must be brought to heel. The Nazis did this by inventing meaningless words like "Aryan science." Marxism foisted upon us words like "capitalism," which means nothing at all but which has so infected our minds that we reflexively use this silly nonsense word instead of freedom. Politically correct language is rampant. We come to view words like "discriminate" as inherently evil, and other words like "viable fetal mass" have replaced the reality of murdered babies.

Image and symbols replace words. Hitler, whose disciples seldom recalled what Hitler said, always recalled the raw imagery of their leader. Stalin's portrait was as inescapable in the Soviet Union as the portrait of Big Brother in Oceania. We live in a word of symbols and images. Conservatives succeed in books and talk radio, media that deal in words. Orwell's Children live in the realm of symbols and images.

The books of the Nazis and Soviets were unreadable tomes like Mein Kampf, The Myth of the Twentieth Century (the two Nazi "masterpieces") or vast empty volumes of Marxist-Leninism. Is it an accident that the giant who most resisted this evil, Solzhenitsyn, was a devout Christian who mastered the written word better than any stooge of Hitler or the Politburo ever could?

Immutable oppressors are the final nasty element in dystopia. Hitler blamed Jews for everything. Stalin blamed kulaks and his enemies in the party for everything. Subjects of Orwell's Oceania saw Emmanuel Goldstein as the eternal, immutable enemy of the party. Today there is a drearily predictable list of oppressors. Christians, men, white people, the "rich" (whatever that is supposed to mean), America, and Israel are oppressors and nothing can ever change that.

Orwell even told us, by name, the professionals who would lead us into the nightmare of 1984: "sociologists," "teachers," "bureaucrats," "journalists," "professional politicians," "scientists," "trade union organizers," "publicity experts," and "technicians." (The term "community organizer" was unknown to him.) Those who enslave were those who taught students, who created the news, who sat in the halls of government power, and who defined official "truth" (at least truth de jour.) (emphasize mine)

Orwell's Children live among us now, not in tiny numbers in weird Marxist cults like Jim Jones' People Temple, but as leaders of Congress, as the establishment of academia, as the producers of news and entertainment, as the administrators of public schools, as the "experts" in a thousand myriad and odd fields of putative "expertise." They infatuate our bored children with the only reality and the only diversion that many can find. They wait for the rest of us to grow older and to die.

Will these children inherit the earth? History, not theology, has shown a single defense against the spreading contagion of Orwell's Children. Solzhenitsyn found God in the godless Gulag. Michael Power in early 1939 wrote: "In the Christianity of the German people, the National Socialist has found the one enemy it could not vanquish" - and Christians in Germany, alone, chose to voluntarily seek death before selling their souls to Nazism.

The Jewish refusniks proved indigestible to the brutal Soviet police state. When all else failed the Jewish people under the Nazis, devout Jews like my wife's mother clung to the Blessed Creator and survived the Holocaust. God can touch us all. God can protect us all from evil (not from harm - we all suffer and we all die - but from the much greater danger of the sort of evil Orwell described.)
Education, science, technological gadgetry, good medical care - all of this can not stop us from sliding into a massive Jonestown, a realized Oceania, a place marked by Dante's grim caution "Abandon hope, all you who enter here." We are all anchored in belief, but it is what we believe that matters. We can believe in the lies of Big Brother, which change each day with the needs of the party or we can believe in the truth of a living God. We can become the children of Orwell or the special creatures of God. Everything -- our nation, our world, our families, our communities -- flows from that choice.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

A quick history lessons on pirates

What the PC fascists don't want you to know or teach our kids in school from our history.

Wafa Sultan: Its impossible to believe in Islam & be sane

One helluva woman - Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan knows first hand what she is talking about.
The irrationality of the islamic ideology is indeed insanity in itself

More on the muslim psyche by Shrinkwrapped who is a psychiatrist and do psychoanalysis - Extract from his excellent analysis The Arab Mind archive.

Narcissism and Honor-Shame Dynamics

The intersection of the Arab child rearing practices that I have been describing and Arab culture is nowhere so clear as in the Honor-Shame dynamics which dominate Arab culture today. Honor-Shame is nothing less than the summation of the pathological narcissism that Arab child rearing engenders.

Whether discussing sexual play with boys, the instant gratification afforded pre-Oedipal boys, the mirror image deprivation afforded young girls, or the sudden change for the boy to a posture of submission enforced by physical abuse, the consistent underlying pathological feature is a disrupted empathic connection between the parent and child. The young boy who is always gratified does not develop the necessary ability to tolerate reasonable frustration; at the same time he develops an exaggerated sense of self, a grandiose self. The young girl who is deprived of gratification develops a deeply impaired and damaged self, what has been called in its extreme form "soul murder" and what in more attenuated forms can evidence as poor self-esteem. In the cases of extreme gratification and extreme deprivation, the parent responds to their own designs and needs as opposed to the Western ideal of responding to the child's infantile needs. Such needs include a deft dosage of deprivation and a reasonable amount of gratification; at the extremes, narcissistic vulnerability is the result.

Deficits in parental empathy are instrumental in developing narcissistic pathology. Dr. Sanity has described the developmental lines of Narcissism in her excellent series on Narcissism and Society. She points out the need for the healthy character to integrate the parallel lines of grandiose self and the idealized parental image which originally emerge from the fused self/object symbiosis of the early Mother/infant dyad:

It is because of the slow separation of Self from Other that the two developmental lines come into being. The first line (Heinz) Kohut refers to as the “Grandiose Self”(or idealized self image) and the second is referred to as the “Idealized Parent Image”. Both of these images represent psychological attempts to save the original experience of "perfection" by the infant when the Mother (Other) and the infant (Self) were “one”.
The “Grandiose Self” will develop over time (if not disrupted) into healthy Self-Esteem; and the” Idealized Parent Image” will eventually lead to the development of Ideals that give meaning to the individual’s life; and to healthy interpersonal relationships.

The psychological developmental lines of Narcissism is a difficult concept; I urge you to read her series (Part I, Part II, Part III) as well as my series on Narcissism, Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV) to gain a better understanding of the concept. For the purposes of this series, suffice to point out that Arab child rearing practices seem ideally suited to the development of Narcissistic pathology. This has important implications for Arab culture and there are two especially significant features worth emphasizing. However, one more aspect of Narcissism must be considered before expanding the discussion to include the Honor-Shame dynamic.

In Narcissism, Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia: Part III, I described the inner poverty of the Narcissist who had grown up in a relatively non-empathic, emotionally deprived, environment and his need for others to act as "need satisfying objects."

One of the outcomes of this kind of family and environmental (emotional) impoverishment is that such children grow up with minimal reserves of self esteem. They don't feel valued and the need to fend off despair requires them to find ways for the environment (the other) to support their self esteem. Other people become important props who can buttress or threaten their self esteem. (Think again of the “gangsta” who "demands" respect; if he is feared and respected, he is powerful and safe; once the fear is gone, he trembles. We see this at work on a larger scale in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, Iraq, now Lebanon and Syria, perhaps Egypt and Saudi Arabia; once the people are no longer afraid of the tyrants, the system can not long be maintained.) Other people are not related to as independent people (objects or selves, in analytic terms) who have their own desires and emotional lives, but as "need satisfying objects" whose sole purpose is to enhance the self esteem of the damaged one. In mild forms, this can lead to people who literally cannot conceive of another person's mind working differently from their own. We all know people who insist that “everyone cheats”; since they cheat (and justify their cheating by rationalizing that everyone else does it, too) they cannot believe that you might not cheat, if faced with the opportunity.

In more severe cases, the existence of the other person’s mind and life is simply of no consequence. For the Malignant Narcissist, other people are mere props in the pageantry of their lives. A tyrant can throw someone into a shredding machine without a second thought because the victim only matters in relation to how he can support the grandiosity of the tyrant; beyond that, he is faceless, nameless, worthless. It was no accident that Saddam Hussein was surrounded by sycophants who all grew mustaches to look just like him.

Continue reading Narcissism and Honor-Shame dynamics.