More Than 60 Percent of Arabs OK Violent Response to Western Interference
 

Why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:





Survey: More Than 60 Percent of Arabs OK Violent Response to Western Interference
Friday, April 04, 2008

A new poll has found that more than 60 percent of Arabs believe violence is a permissible reaction to Western interference in a country, and 55 percent believed offensive words or behavior was another acceptable response, Qatar's Gulf Times reported.

The survey, conducted by YouGov, a British research and consulting firm, found that nearly half of all Arabs said they have met someone with extreme religious views, according to the Gulf Times. The survey was conducted between March 18 and 23 and included 940 respondents across the Arab world.

More than half the respondents believed that poor religious leadership caused the extremism — although 70 percent said the problem had been exaggerated, according to the report. Some 80 percent believed it provided an excuse for Western interference in Muslim countries.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346590,00.html

ISLAM
 

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam

Contemporary Threat..Subject: Islam - A SHORT SYNOPSIS OF HOW IT WORKS


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%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

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.

And we continue to cater and negotiate in a politically correct way so as not to "offend" our Muslim "brothers."

Islam
 

I have a friend who was telling about her brother's in laws who are Egyptian. Being Christians they were threatened and out of fear for their lives they immigrated to the US. The mother in law told my friend "America better wake up. You don't understand Muslims. You better quit letting them in because they will do the same thing here they did to us there in time," For thousands of years Egypt was their country too. No longer. How much longer will England be England or Netherlands be Dutch?

My answer to the question of this thread...

Yes, we are at war with Islam...That includes the peaceful Muslims - Islam has no civilians.

At the appropriate time, I would be for the outlawing of Islam and mass deportations of all practicing Muslims. I don't care how impractical this may seem today.

There comes a time wihen we must cease playing footsie with this cancer.

The state needs to leave our businesses, education, healthcare, families and environment alone - The state needs to concentrate its efforts on protecting us from the nation's enemies - including, and especially, the global darkness of Islam.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

BMT:

Good info!

Stay safe.

That's too close to the idea behind zero-tolerance/zero-leadership/zero-thinking policies I despise for me to agree, I'm afraid.

Yeah, I agree, it's fairly harsh...I believe, however, it is the right thing to do, but not necessarily the comfortable, easy, or even realistic thing to do. I wanted to put it out there understanding the inevitable blow-back.

Opposing Hitler with force early - in the mid 30s - was not really doable, either. A little resolve in 1936 may have saved 50 million lives. Generally, when something is REALLY difficult, people only do the right thing when it is absolutely necessary. This was true of the U.S. and the UK in World War II. It is true today. It's the early 30s and I'm saying contain Hitler and Germany's aspirations for global domination with force, if necessary (and, yes force would have been necessary to stop the Nazis in advance of their global quest).

I agree with Mark Steyn - I'm afraid we are at the beginning of an inevitable global political-religious demographic disaster. I'm not sure it can be reversed - slowed YES, but not reversed. The world lacks the fortitude necessary. We can buy some time, but global Islamification seems inevitable to me.

This is all my opinion. It may be zero or little tolerance for a growing global fascist system, but I think being resolved for specific actions when it is appropriate is not an abandonment of leadership - It is the ultimate form of leadership; albeit, lonely leadership - In the West, though, leadership can never be lonely since it is democratic - democratic leadership can only be applied via consensus (a weakness of democracy since it fails to confront threats early). The problem is the West has become weak and indolent - It has lost its stomach for confronting evil - Yes, in this observer's view Islam is evil. I would agree I may be over-the-top extreme, but I don't think so. Extreme threats demand extreme responses. We're heading into a violent age of seeming chaos and extreme is not necessarily extreme anymore.

Zero thinking - Hmmm...Well, I am thinking, I can assure you. Many folks are thinking deeply about these things all the time - My argument is with the quality of the thinking. My family thinks I think too much. For those of us young enough to see how the next two or three decades unfold, history will show us just how relevant this thinking is. I believe the West as we know it doesn't have much more than 30 years unless we respond strongly in the next five to ten years against the dark tides moving against us.

It may take something horrible to wake us up. God help us.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

I vehemently disagree with this position. One can't fight fascism with fascism. Edit: You just get different sides of the coin like Nazis and Soviets. They fought each other, but over the last century we've had to fight both of them and beat them in different ways.

First off, to say one billion people who follow the different sects of Islam don't have normal civilians is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. It doesn't matter if you believe they are true muslims or not. Islam has civilians, but depending on the place and location, war means civilians die depending on the choices they make as well. The modern definition that civilians cannot be harmed in war comes only from a western viewpoint, which arose from the ashes of the great World Wars. Historically, civilians have been burned, raped, pillaged as waring nations came head to head. I don't want to go back to those days, really, which is why fighting these wars smartly is more important than shotgun solutions.

Secondly, from a libertarian viewpoint, I want reduced influence of the large central/federal governments, on local governance. Doesn't mean the state (federal, state, or county) is out of the business, one just needs to take a look at where effective value and contributions can be made. Where consensus doesn't exist, it is a poor choice for a large organization to invent one solution for all. Let locals who can agree make their choices as they should.

I think the federal government actually does a decent job, when you stack it up against rest of the world, to protect us. But it will never, ever be a fail proof system and people need to understand this. The TSA was an exercise in stupidity. There will never be a fort secure enough, a mountain high enough, or a land isolated enough to keep us safe and sound. All great fortifications in history were merely circumvented by a smarter foe. Beyond the legality and ethics of it, removing all muslims from America will never work. Removing anyone that looks like a muslim will never work, removing anyone that has agreed to jihadi ideology will never work, because where there is a will, there is a way. The fight among men has always existed and will continue, only names, faces, religions, and ways have changed.

Muslims should be deported, but to where? At what cost to the United States? A significant chunk of our muslim population are domestic converts from the African American community, beyond that, all it takes for someone to become a "muslim" is converting to in their mind and they don't have to tell anyone about it. You're also assuming that all muslims here have already become jihadi and are evil. The idea of 'getting rid' of the cancer by deportation is akin to, in quality assurance terms, sorting out 'defect' once it has appeared. Bottom line - it never works. Well, it does, but is doomed to continue repeating itself.

Only way to reduce a defect is to eliminate the root of it. Which means continue to kill off the bad guys where they come from along with a healthy dosage of mind altering propaganda via economic, political, and social means locally and internationally. In essence, letting folks like QPs direct the fight and do their jobs unconstrained.

Practically speaking, one will never be able to get rid of "Islam". The idea, just like nuclear technology, is out there in the open. One has to roll with the punches and continue fighting the dynamic till community after community decides its in their best interest to get educated, civilized, and reform their little backward fragment of the world.

The Islamic world hasn't had its reformation, yet. People are fighting back and will continue to (and believe me, others are fighting, though many places unproductively as they either take the kumbaya multicultural (Europe) approach or the opposite extremely fascist method (ethnic cleansing)).

So you don't want the state meddling in business, education, the environment, etc., but you want them to decide which religions are acceptable for practice by US citizens?

I'll pass on that idea.

Also, what about Muslims who have (or are) honorably serving int he GWOT? Are they subject to deportation?

I think youa re going a wee bit too far on this one...

I hope you're right. I really do.

However, I am quite pessimistic on the subject. Forbidding Sharia law is a form of outlawing the practice of Islam - I'm for outlawing Islam's more sociopathic practices. Moslems who practice or condone Jihad, which is basic to Moslem practice, should be deported.

Again, I would be delighted to see Islam reform itself. I'm sorry to say on this subject I'm incredulous. The most despicable Moslems on the planet are the 950 million Moslems who cower before the 50 million Moslem fundamentalists. I see too little courage for widespread change. In addition to inspiring revolting deeds of violence, the Koran seems to procreate a sea of cowardice and emasculated men.

If it is any consolation, I don't like my views either. It cheers me to get a decent argument.

For this I thank you...


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

There is a place for laws and supervision - Yes. However, where the state can exercise a real benefit to the people is in its ability to protect its citizens. Killing bad guys and detouring bad guys is what the state is for. Everything else as far as I'm concerned is a garnish.

I don't want to decide. I want the state to protect me and you from anyone or anything that would seek to destroy us or enslave us. I think Islam seeks to accomplish one or the other.

Ain't America great...:)

If we wanted to get philosophical I would say they are not true Muslims. When they honor our military and participate in the GWOT they dishonor Islam and therefore - No, they shouldn't be deported. I think the time will come when we will have to put the Muslims in our midst to a loyalty test. I'm am not suggesting we "kill" those who fail the test (like the Nazis would), but rather we deport them.

Yeah, maybe.

Perhaps, it served to get your attention.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

Ok, who decides who is or isn't a "true" Muslim, and what "test" could possibly "prove" one way or another.

I'm sorry, but your ideas are too outlandish to be pragmatic.

Let's take your example - join the military or not; support the GWOT or not. Not too tough, really. Will they actively oppose Islamic terrorism or not - words and deeds...words and deeds...words and deeds.

No need to apologize. Ideas are often outlandish at first blush. When things get crazy, though, it's amazing what things don't seem so far fetched anymore. I'll submit for your consideration, that someday you may remember what I have written and you may call it to mind. You might even be surprised in that time at how practical my suggestions from this time will at that time seem. You might even find yourself being surprised that you ever perceived such suggestions could be thought of as so outlandish.

Some day, I'm afraid, we will probably get there. Relatively speaking we are currently enjoying peaceful times. In the Civil War 23,000 men fell in a couple days at the second Battle of Bull Run - More than five times the deaths suffered in this war. In World War II there were battles where more American soldiers died in six weeks than all the brave soldiers we've thus far lost in six years fighting the GWOT. Indeed, as one surveys history's "hot wars," it is not uncommon to discover 1/3 of the men in a nation ages 16 to 50 being wiped out by "a war." Therefore, when a society is truly threatened, we must not underestimate what a society won't or can't do in order to survive.

When and if the U.S. ever really gets hurt by the Islamic Fascists...All bets are off. It will get really messy for the Arab world. They haven't yet seen the West go red in the face. That will be a terrible day. It won't be a pragmatic day - It will be a terrible day.

So, no need to apologize. Some ideas can definitely appear outlandish at first.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

I'm not willing to empower the govt to take away the freedom of religion, one of our founding principles for which we fought a revolution, and to issue "loyalty tests" to determine what citizens are allowed to stay. A rather illogical and dangerous precedent to set.

Those who would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither.

Islam is a political system. Get this and all the rest is quibbling.

As a religion it is a ruse. People are free to do anything they want - including following a ruse - until the exercise of their freedom threatens me, my family, my community, and my country.

Islam has declared war on me and my people. The world's only Islamic Republic, Iran, conducts its daily business regularly chanting DEATH TO AMERICA - I for one am enjoining the war. I wish I had 3 X 3,000 more sons to give to the GWOT. I can't get in uniform and join-up. But, I can do other things.

I'm not endeavoring to be logical; at times reality defies neatness...And, yeah, it could be dangerous, but the alternative to doing too little is worse. Danger sooner is better than greater danger later.

The gov't that won't protect me and the liberty of those I love is an ally with those that would seek to destroy me and/or enslave me. Those who refuse to secure the nation and protect its liberties should be the first ones to be delivered over to the enemy as slaves.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

Sir, you keep talking about deporting muslims. To where, I submit the question again. If the jihadi in question is a foreign national, sure, the country of origin may comply in taking the person back. But Americans, who have adopted Islam or been born here for two generations, will be deported to.......?

We have Nazis, Black Panthers, and anarchist idiots, and many more who follow ideologies that aren't acceptable to main stream America. Over the years, we've beat back the Germans, Soviets and other extreme groups that have threatened our existence. Sure, they aren't direct threats to society today, but on a small scale they threaten the freedoms of individuals due to the hatred within them. I don't see any deportations. If they break a law, maybe some jail time. Using that logic, a bunch of white males would have been deported from the South for involvement in the KKK.

Your assumptions are based upon the idea that we're losing right now and will continue to lose ground on all fronts and be eventually inundated to where the choice to made will be that drastic. I don't think we'll get there simply because the country has been fighting back.

I've lived in a country with over 100 million muslims, who are a minority there. Yet, despite the violence, society of the majority hasn't fallen apart nor are they in any danger of "losing out" anytime soon and for the most part, the vast population peacefully co-exists with the majority other than a few hotspots or political games designed to incite ignorant masses on both sides to violent means. People don't budge so easily, however, the key to maintaining civil society is in education and the democratic process backed up by rule of law.

I empathize with what you're saying 3SoldierDad, and the worst of me agrees. But I know some pretty great guys and gals who are Muslim, and they are not in agreement with anything coming out of the ME.

We live in a tough world with dangerous people. But the ME is a choking point for thought, and I dare not apply the ME to America. Freedom is not free, but it is not half assed either.

The key to all this as I see it is that this country's strength came from the fact that no one specified that any religion be followed but rather that all who came here were welcome as long as they became assimilated into the culture, values upon which this country was founded-which happened to be judeo-christain (neither capitalized on purpose so as not to offend anyone or to offend all equally:D) and English Law to mention two. What has happened with all the happy little groups-be they religious oriented or hypenated AmeriKans- is that they fail to accept the basic tenets and values that defines who we once were, and who all true Americans are today.
They instead see their values/culture/beliefs/mores/tenets as overridding those for which this nation stands and are willing to get in my face to have me bend to their will. It is time to get out a large cuisinart and dump what has become a stew and run this nation through on high, breaking up the chunks and returning it back to the melting pot it once was. In the process, those little irritants and husks that rise to the top like the froth on a head of Wiezenbier and refuse to disolve into the mix should be scraped away and discarded.

Some place - Not here. I do have some ideas. This is something for the gov't to determine since they are responsible for protecting its citizens.


These people should have little to worry about from folks like me.


Super...


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

These people should have little to worry about from folks like me - They should be worried however what their Islamic peers are thinking about them.



I don't doubt that you have these friends, but I find it interesting that it is so difficult to find these people. Where are these Muslims who are so against what is happening in the Middle East? They don't seem to lift their voices very high - If they lift them at all. I haven't seen them demostrating nor have I seen these folks writing into their local newspapers or being interviewed by the local media, I don't see them joining the military in droves. I see a cowering, mealy-mouthed, beaten people....Dare I say it? Enablers one and all. (At least all that I can see)

I know a prominent local Muslim businessman in my city (I could call him a friend, but I won't - he isn't), and we've done breakfast several times discussing global politics when we were supposed to be discussing various business matters (as men are wont to do). This man is constantly defending why the Arabs are so frustrated and how certain behavior can be understood, and why the USA is getting its comeuppance for its years of hegemony in the region. I saw no outrage at the suicide bombings, or for the the lopping off of heads, or for the hateful temperment that the Muslims have for one another. Yes, he talks about how terrible everything is, but only after an hour of quasi-defense of what's going on - He backs-up to cover his tracks. It's so disgusting that even now I'm becoming sick just thinking about it. Seriously, after one of our discussions I wasn't sure if I wanted to shower first or call the FBI. This guy is one of the most prominent Muslim leaders in a large Midwestern city.

I would warn you not to be a dupe. We Americans love to believe the best. As far as I'm concerned, Islam in America has outlived this wonderful courtesy.

I for one am paid-up.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

Wow, some folks simply have a way with words. That's probably a better way of saying it rather than "to deport..." :)


Yes, thank you...Excellent image....be scraped away and discarded.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

I never asserted that any group should have the right to ignore our laws in favor of their religion of choice. They shouldn't.

But the answer to that is to equally enforce our laws upon everyone, religion be damned. Not to outlaw a religion, deport people based upon their religion, or give the govt the power to start administering "loyalty tests" to citizens.

How about these for loyalty tests: Obey the law, stand for our colors, stand for our National Anthem, speak our language. None of these are too difficult and it is a good start. I do not advocate deporting anyone for the practice of a recognized religion, but then as that womanizing, prevaricating, draft dodging, dope smoking husband of one of our presidential candidates might say, "It all depends on what the definition of the word religion is".

Loyalty
 

Let me go a bit beyond merely "Standing for the pledge of allegiance or national anthem." Although, yes, that would be a good start

Where are the Arab American volunteers for our military? Doesn't America have over 2 million Arab Americans? And, aren't most of them 1st or 2nd generation Americans? My Irish American son is currently at Fort Bragg studying Arabic - which is fine. But, why should Uncle Sam pay tens of thousands of $$$ to teach this Kansas kid Arabic when we have hundreds of thousands of Arabic speaking young men and women?

Question: Even with large $$$ bonuses why aren't we getting the young Arabic volunteers? Perhaps, one of the steps or "tests" of loyalty is that military service become quasi-compulsory for the Arab community.

Well, my sense is that they are on the sidelines for a reason. The Arab mind is a survivor mind - Islam has contributed to this psychological orientation. They are prone to backing the winner and what they do when parties are "going at it" in a struggle is to keep their head down...As a people, Arabs have an uncommonly strong attraction to naked power and strength. In the end, the biggest thug will be their their thug, or "LEADER." As I've indicated Islam is uniquely equipped to impose a frame-of-mind that is both cowardly and submissive. In fact, the word Islam itself means submission. Islam is a political system at its heart; yet, it uses religious threats (torture in the next life) and corporal threats (pain in this life) to cower its adherents.

As a political system Islam is viciously effective and quintessentially primal since it skips all the value esoterics of - rights, liberties, patriotism, freedoms, et. al. - and places itself squarely over the most efficient driver for human compliance and/or submission - Fear.

What am suggesting? Well, I am suggesting that simply "keeping their heads down" is not tolerable; not for the brave new world in which we find ourselves. We're done - Homey don't play that, anymore.

Yep, I'm for making folks take sides.

If they won't, okay, I get it...Yeah, I get it, I really do. Fear is real...The fear is pallatable, I can appreciate that. But, life is a bitch. No-ticky-no-washy...

If they are not with us other Americans, they need a one way ticket somewhere else.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

If followers of Islam feel that they are required to violate the laws of this nation, then they should celebrate their journey as martyrs when they are fined, incarcerated, scorned, or whatever.

They can be a living demonstration of their faith.
(as opposed to dying demonstration which they seem to prefer)

In this nation, those of us who do not follow Islam are not obliged to eliminate the consequences which they might bear adhering to their faith.

The Crusader Capital Soon to be Conquered by Islam
 

This idiot definiately thinks there is a war going on...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351242,00.html

Apes and Pigs
 

I see the Religion of Peace is back on the Apes and Pigs things.

Somebody should tell those Muslims that the nice smell of Bar-B-Que drifting over the Southeastern USA contains pork molecules.

Sniff a pig and go where:D

That's a lot better then the smells that are commonly drifting over Afghanistan or any other country in that part of the world. Doc giving us a detailed briefing on what type of molecules (and the percentage of each) thatmade up those smells the first time we went over definately fell into the category of "Too Much Information".

Smells
 

Smells - we could start a new thread just on smells. 1) 3rd world poor - limited/very few animals 2) 3rd world poor - animal based 3) 3rd world poor animal (maybe not based) but rich enough to produce limited garbage 4) 3rd world poor but going middle class and producing lots of garbage.

I've cruised past some neighborhoods around here and caught a wiff that flashed me back to some odd 3rd world country here or there.

OK, highjack over.

Pete

Not quite over... I guess there would have to be a subcategory that addressed the non-smelly but very fecal matter rich air in places such as ..um, I don't know... Afghanistan.:confused: Nothing like walking around an seeing piles of human excrement marked by little pieces of pink TP (in the more affluent areas)...(not to mention the goat, and sheep excrement) dessecating in the dry air and sun..slowly crumbling and blowing away and becoming part of the air that you breathe...

Third world urban poor is without a doubt the worst.

High population density + lack of working utilities = bad joo-joo

An Anatomy of Surrender
 

Well written and compelling article.

We may want to confront this sooner, rather than later.

TR

Bruce Bawer

An Anatomy of Surrender

Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_...jihadists.html

Islamic Preacher
 

Interesting article. Interesting he is not allowed to speak in Egypt. I would imagine he would be in serious danger from the peace loving Jihadists.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/5725957.html

Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks
 

Excellent article!!!!!!


Sam Harris
Posted May 5, 2008
The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_100132.html

Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."

Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline.

Into the breach stepped Liveleak, a British video-sharing website, which finally aired the film on March 27th. It received over 3 million views in the first 24 hours. The next day, however, Liveleak removed Fitna from its servers, having been terrorized into self-censorship by threats to its staff. But the film had spread too far on the internet to be suppressed (and Liveleak, after taking further security measures, has since reinstated it on its site as well).

Of course, there were immediate calls for a boycott of Dutch products throughout the Muslim world. In response, Dutch corporations placed ads in countries like Indonesia, denouncing the film in self-defense. Several Muslim countries blocked YouTube and other video-sharing sites in an effort to keep Wilders' blasphemy from penetrating the minds of their citizens. There have also been isolated protests and attacks on embassies, and ubiquitous demands for Wilders' murder. In Afghanistan, women in burqas could be seen burning the Dutch flag; the Taliban carried out at least two revenge attacks on Dutch troops, resulting in five Dutch casualties; and security concerns have caused the Netherlands to close its embassy in Kabul. It must be said, however, that nothing has yet occurred to rival the ferocious response to the Danish cartoons.

Meanwhile Kurt Westergaard, one of the Danish cartoonists, threatened to sue Wilders for copyright infringement, as Wilders used his drawing of a bomb-laden Muhammad without permission. Westergaard has lived in hiding since 2006 due to death threats of his own, so the Danish Union of Journalists volunteered to file this lawsuit on his behalf. Admittedly, there is something amusing about one hunted man, unable to venture out in public for fear of being killed by religious lunatics, threatening to sue another man in the same predicament over a copyright violation. But it is understandable that Westergaard wouldn't want to be repeatedly hurled at the enemy without his consent. Westergaard is an extraordinarily courageous man whose life has been ruined both by religious fanaticism and the free world's submission to it. In February, the Danish government arrested three Muslims who seemed poised to murder him. Other Danes unfortunate enough to have been born with the name "Kurt Westergaard" have had to take steps to escape being murdered in his place. (Wilder's has since removed the cartoon from the official version of Fitna.)

Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called "a chilling effect" on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced.

As for infringements of my own speech, my first book, The End of Faith, almost did not get published for fear of offending the sensibilities of (probably non-reading) religious fanatics. W.W. Norton, which did publish the book, was widely seen as taking a risk--one probably attenuated by the fact that I am an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith. However, when it came time to make final edits to the galleys of The End of Faith, many of the people I had thanked by name in my acknowledgments (including my agent at the time and my editor at Norton) independently asked to have their names removed from the book. Their concerns were explicitly for their personal safety. Given our shamefully ineffectual response to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, their concerns were perfectly understandable.

Nature, arguably the most influential scientific journal on the planet, recently published a lengthy whitewash of Islam (Z. Sardar "Beyond the troubled relationship." Nature 448, 131-133; 2007). The author began, as though atop a minaret, by simply declaring the religion of Islam to be "intrinsically rational." He then went on to argue, amid a highly idiosyncratic reading of history and theology, that this rational religion's current wallowing in the violent depths of unreason can be fully ascribed to the legacy of colonialism. After some negotiation, Nature also agreed to publish a brief response from me. What readers of my letter to the editor could not know, however, was that it was only published after perfectly factual sentences deemed offensive to Islam were expunged. I understood the editors' concerns at the time: not only did they have Britain's suffocating libel laws to worry about, but Muslim physicians and engineers in the UK had just revealed a penchant for suicide bombing. I was grateful that Nature published my letter at all.

In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_100132.html

I could list other examples of encounters with editors and publishers, as can many writers, all illustrating a single fact: While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam. Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century. There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam.

A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."

Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam?

What about all the civil, freedom-loving, moderate Muslims who are just as appalled by Muslim intolerance as I am? No doubt millions of men and women fit this description, but vocal moderates are very difficult to find. Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface. The subterfuge is rendered all but invisible to the general public by political correctness, wishful thinking, and "white guilt." This is where we find sinister people successfully posing as "moderates"--people like Tariq Ramadan who, while lionized by liberal Europeans as the epitome of cosmopolitan Islam, cannot bring himself to actually condemn honor killing in round terms (he recommends that the practice be suspended, pending further study). Moderation is also attributed to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby.

Even when one finds a true voice of Muslim moderation, it often seems distinguished by a lack of candor above all things. Take someone like Reza Aslan, author of No God But God: I debated Aslan for Book TV on the general subject of religion and modernity. During the course of our debate, I had a few unkind words to say about the Muslim Brotherhood. While admitting that there is a difference between the Brotherhood and a full-blown jihadist organization like al Qaeda, I said that their ideology was "close enough" to be of concern. Aslan responded with a grandiose, ad hominem attack saying, "that indicates the profound unsophistication that you have about this region. You could not be more wrong" and claiming that I'd taken my view of Islam from "Fox News." Such maneuvers, coming from a polished, Iranian-born scholar of Islam carry the weight of authority, especially in front of an audience of people who are desperate to believe the threat of Islam has been grossly exaggerated. The problem, however, is that the credo of the Muslim Brotherhood actually happens to be "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_100132.html

continued
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_100132.html

The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It's not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place. All of their talk about how benign Islam "really" is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world's Muslims, is antithetical to civil society. A recent poll showed that thirty-six percent of British Muslims (ages 16-24) believe that a person should be killed for leaving the faith. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should have been brought to justice. And these are British Muslims.

Occasionally, however, a lone voice can be heard acknowledging the obvious. Hassan Butt wrote in the Guardian:



When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

It is astounding how infrequently one hears such candor among the public voices of "moderate" Islam. This is what we owe the true moderates of the Muslim world: we must hold their co-religionists to the same standards of civility and reasonableness that we take for granted in all other people. Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates--and, indeed, women--to rise up and reform their faith.

And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and "multiculturalists" who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of "affirmative action" at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying "respect" to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that "Islam is peace," all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant--or the mere naming of a teddy bear.

Have you seen the Danish cartoons that so roiled the Muslim world? Probably not, as their publication was suppressed by almost every newspaper, magazine, and television station in the United States. Given their volcanic reception--hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioted, hundreds of people were killed--their sheer banality should have rendered these drawings extraordinarily newsworthy. One magazine which did print them, Free Inquiry (for which I am proud to have written), had its stock banned from every Borders and Waldenbooks in the country. These are precisely the sorts of capitulations that we must avoid in the future.

The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it. As Ibn Warraq, author of the revelatory Why I Am Not a Muslim, said in response to recent events:

It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.

It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_100132.html

It is so easy for them (Indonesians) to change their identities and passports in Kalimantan (Tarakan, Balikpapan) across the border from Tawau in Sabah so its really hard to track anyone. They can also get indonesian passports for the guys coming down from Davao and Zambonga who aren't Malaysian or Indonesian.

A large number of JI members have been arrested under the ISA (Internal Security Act) which is essentially, 2 years behind bars without trail. It has been proven to work. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors in Kemunting (the ISA Center) but most come out changed...

The problem is its also very easy to hide in Sabah and to use it as a transit point to operate in and out of South Philippines and then to make their away down south into Indonesia...bribery and corruption is also a big problem.

JI is active and well over on this side of the world..not necc. in West Malaysia where the police seem to have a better control and intelligence on whats going on in their backyard.

Right in our own backyard. Tolerance for the intolerant. How far can this go?CAIR is quick to the "rescue" btw :rolleyes:


WorldNetDaily, May 12, 2008

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

Muslim threats force out disabled teacher with dog
Islamic students reportedly taunted 'unclean' animal


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Muslim high school high school student's intolerance for a service dog needed by a student teacher with a disability has reportedly prompted the student teacher to abandon the last 10 hours of his scheduled assignment at Technical High School in St. Cloud, Minn.

The St. Cloud Times online said the situation developed with student teacher Tyler Hurd, 23, of Mahtomedi, who hopes to teach special education.

He's a student at St. Cloud State University, and was assigned to Technical High School in the St. Cloud district for his 50 hours of student teaching, and took with him his service dog, Emmitt.

The newspaper said Hurd needs a service dog because of a childhood injury that leaves him with seizures, sometimes happening as often as weekly. The black lab is trained to protect Hurd when he has a seizure.

The school district told the newspaper it wasn't really a threat.

"I think it was a misunderstanding where we didn't really prepare either side for possible implications," Julia Espe, curriculum director for the public schools, said.

Hurd, however, reported a student threatened to kill his dog. He said the threat came from a Somali student who is Muslim. Minnesota has a large Somali population, mostly Muslim, and they have been involved in issues over their religion in the past.

At the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, many taxi drivers are Somali Muslims and they have raised objections to carrying passengers with liquor. Airport officials finally threatened to remove from the cab drivers' line waiting for fares anyone who refused a passenger over the issue.

WND also has reported on the dispute over a taxpayer-funded school in a Minneapolis suburb serving mostly Somali Muslim students and accusations that Islam is being taught at the public facility.

Islam forbids its adherents from touching dogs.

Hurd earlier spent some time student teaching at Talahi Community School, where he said his experience was good. He told the newspaper Somali students there even petted his dog, although they used paper to keep their hands from actually making physical contact.

But at Tech, Hurd reported, students taunted his dog, and he left when he was told a student threatened the animal.

University officials said they waived the remaining 10 hours of work that Hurd was supposed to have finished.

"We came up with a solution because I felt threatened by it," Hurd told the newspaper.

A meeting was set up involving Kate Steffens, the dean of education at St. Cloud State, and assistant principal Lori Lockhart of Tech, in order to avoid future problems.

"We certainly welcome (Hurd) in our district, and we hope we can get this all resolved so he feels welcome and his dog is welcome," Espe said.

The college places about 1,000 students in 240 regional schools to help them get ready for careers in teaching.

Original link: http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS01/105120058

Kafir dreams
 

Kafir dreams.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...D-C3F1ACD07D8A

Interesting read.

I'm pretty well read up on Islam, and my dad is as well and we've had a few good discussions over the subject and come up with a pretty good saying.
"Not all Muslims are terrorist, but most terrorist are Muslim." Hope you guys can play around with this idea.:munchin