Tag Archives: Islam

President Obama: Jihad Your Chance to Win the Election

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

The term for Christians and other non–Moslems living in Islamic countries is “dhimmi.” Think of it as Jim Crow with a turban. Think of it as Jim Crow right now.

According to Mitchell Bard, dhimmis in Islamic lands “on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman.”

Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, serve in the armed forces or own weapons. Non–Moslems cannot build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, construct houses taller than those of Moslems or drink wine in public, which helps to explain Donald Trump’s absence.

A dhimmi’s testimony in court was worthless, which meant attacking dhimmis was penalty–free for Moslems, just like today.

But one doesn’t have to live in the Middle East to be a dhimmi. You could be the President of the United States and impose dhimmitude on an entire nation.

Obama orders our soldiers to wear white gloves when touching the Koran (no word on whether the troops are required to suit up before touching the Bible or Bagvad Gita) and avoid drinking or eating in front of Moslems during their Ramadan fast.

His administration can insist there is no nexus between Islam and terrorism; and collaborate with Muslim Brotherhood front groups here at home.

And the President can treat the murder of our Libyan ambassador and an attack on our embassy in Egypt as simply a random act in response to provocation from US citizens.

In full dhimmi mode the embassy in Cairo and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton scrambled to burn the Constitution in a futile effort to placate readers of the Koran. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” the statement read. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The death of the ambassador presented a problem for the State Department since he was important, and not a grunt in Afghanistan. They couldn’t blame his death on asking to see photos of a Moslem’s wife and kids, like the military does in “green on blue” attacks in Kabul.

So Hillary “strongly condemned the attack” and asked the same Libyans who allowed the murder to provide additional protection for the rubble.

An attack on an embassy or the murder of an ambassador is not a law enforcement problem. It’s an act of war. The proper response is not a hand–wringing statement and a eulogy for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

That would be like FDR — Obama’s hero — issuing a statement after Pearl Harbor that saluted the dead, praised them for their public service and failed to mention the attack by Japan.

The proper response to an act of war is a demand the perpetrators be handed over immediately.

And until then, the US 6th fleet should blockade Libyan ports and institute a no–fly zone over every airport. In the case of Egypt, the administration should end discussions on forgiving its $1 billion debt and Egypt should not get a penny of the $1.5 billion in aid until rioters who violated US sovereignty are turned over.

(On second thought, keep the rioters. Since they crossed an international border while invading our embassy, this administration might feel relieved to finally encounter illegals that don’t speak Spanish. There’s a real possibility Janet Incompetano would offer rioters a green card and a free college education.)

Unfortunately, none of this will happen. This weak, feckless, incompetent excuse for a President puts a higher priority on making sure the Pentagon allows homosexuals in military uniform to march in “gay pride” parades than he does in protecting Americans and embassies overseas on the anniversary of 9/11.

Instead the Cairo embassy apologetically announced there would be no visa services on Wednesday due to clean up from a previously unplanned al Qaeda festival.

Any psychologist will tell you successful behavior is learned behavior and since 1979 Moslems have learned attacking a US embassy is penalty–free and gives the attackers plenty of cachet with the hijab hotties.

One of the Islamists at the embassy storming explained, “This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet.” So why can’t the United States have a very simple reaction to harming our embassy and our citizens?

A good friend of mine observed that if Obama had ordered Marines in Cairo to fire when the rioters crossed the wall, he would have won the election yesterday. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, that dhimmi knows his place.

U.S. embassies under seige as protests spread

Fire near/at U.S. Embassy in Tunis

American diplomatic facilities around the globe are being attacked and set fire as protest grows over everything from the Pope’s visit to Lebanon to the killing of Al-Qaida’s second-in-command. Despite the Obama administration’s condemnation of the an American-produced youtube video trailer that displays the Islamic prophet Mohammed in a negative light, the protests seem to be largely-fueled by the recent publicity the video has received. The video was released in July.

Lebanon: Protesters set a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant ablaze in protest to the Pope’s visit to Lebanon. One protester has been killed and 25 wounded in clashes with police.

Sudan: Protesters broke into the German embassy, removed the German flag and replaced it with the now-familiar black, Islamic religious flag. The embassy is now reportedly on fire. At least one protester killed.

Libya: U.S. Ambassador, staff member and two former Navy Seals killed at Consulate on 9-11 and Consulate burned down. Four people have been arrested in connection to the attack, but Libyan officials say that the suspects are not directly connected to the killings.

Yemen: Hundreds of protesters storm the U.S. embassy in San’a. One protester shot and killed by Yemeni security forces.

Iraq: Protesters in the Sadr City district of northeast Baghdad carried banners and pictures of radical Shiite and anti-American cleric Muqtada

Egypt: Egyptian security forces pushed protesters back to Tahrir square on Thursday after four days of protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Thursday’s protests included crowd-thrown fire bombs and rocks.

Afghanistan: An hour-long protest of the youtube video was held in the Nangarhar province. The Afghan government has indefinitely blocked the entirety of youtube to prevent further violence.

Syria: Hundreds gathered in protest of the American government’s failure to prevent the production of the youtube video and the film it portrays. Buses and cars carrying protesters are now heading to the U.S. Embassy outside of Khartoum.

India: Thousands are holding protest in the Kashmir region. Protesters are calling President Obama a “real terrorist” and chanting “Down with America. Down with Israel.” Five top separatist leaders have been put under house arrest.

Fire near/at U.S. Embassy in Tunis

Tunisia:Fire reported near U.S. Embassy in Tunis. 3 dead, 28 wounded after protesters attacked the embassy.

U.K.: American flag being burned among hundreds of protesters at American embassy in London.

Oman: Protest occurring in front of U.S. embassy.

Sinai Peninsula: U.N. Peacekeeping forces attacked by anti-American protesters.

Mauritania: U.S. Personnel told to avoid embassy and BMCI bank area due to large anti-American protest.

You Don’t Have to Be President to Impose Amnesty

obama_amnesty

Where I live we’ve already had extensive experience with small scale unilateral amnesty for illegal aliens without actual legal authority. Ours came courtesy of a “morally sensitive” police chief who knew much more about illegal aliens than the elected officials who hired him.

Fortunately for us Chief Charlie Deane — Virginia’s foremost practitioner of “ignoring while Hispanic” law enforcement — is voluntarily saying, “Adios, amigos” and retiring. I wish I could say the same for Barack Obama and his unilaterally declared amnesty for almost 2 million illegals.

Deane received quite the sendoff from his fellow travelers at the Washington Post. Members of the morally superior caucus find it newsworthy when someone they assume is conservative and therefore morally backward, say a police officer, turns out to share their enlightened views.

The WaPo editorial proclaimed: “When county officials wanted police to check the immigration status of residents and arrest those who were in the country illegally, he wasn’t afraid to push back at a policy he saw as bigoted and sure to cause problems for law enforcement.”

The Metro section concurred, “When the Prince William Board of County Supervisors jumped into the national immigration debate in 2007 and became one of the first places in the country to require the police department to question residents about their immigration status, Chief Charlie T. Deane thought otherwise.

“He feared cries of racial profiling and losing the trust of the county’s growing immigrant community. His stance angered his bosses on the county board and many residents who thought he was flouting the law…’When this was forced on us, we had no experience with it, and there were legal and moral implications,’ Deane said.”

The policy Deane refers to as being “forced on us” was in truth a law passed by an overwhelming majority of the county board of supervisors and a concept recently ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What’s more, Deane didn’t simply express his opinion as a law enforcement official. He used his power as chief to actively sabotage the implementation of a law supported by the vast majority of citizens here legally.

Since Deane couldn’t persuade the board not to pass the law, he decided to obstruct enforcement until the 2008 election, hoping voters would elect Democrats who prefer coddling illegals. (Note to readers, don’t try this at home, obstruction of justice is a crime if you’re not the chief of police.)

Deane accomplished this by waiting until the entire police department went through training before allowing officers to enforce the law. This took months and is in direct opposition to the procedure in departments where the chief obeys his elected bosses.

Deane was forced to implement Plan B when stubborn voters re–elected Republicans who believe in the rule of law. Chief Sanctimony announced, “…we were going to focus on individuals who had committed crimes, and that we were going to protect crime victims and witnesses regardless of their status, and we were not going to do racial profiling, roadblocks, sweeps or employment investigations.”

This made it crystal clear to patrol officers and supervisors that they would be wise to avoid enthusiastic enforcement of the new law.

Simultaneously Deane began his viaje de apología. The Patron was concerned about the “climate of fear” in the Hispanic community, along with “bigotry and profiling.” He met with “immigrant rights groups” (think aiding and abetting associations) and even has an audiencia with the Mexican consul, who represents a government that actively encourages illegal aliens and works to undermine border enforcement.

But in spite of Deane’s best efforts some illegals were initially captured. The first report on the law’s effectiveness found, “In the majority of cases, [the arrest] was made during a call for service, second to that was traffic for stops (sic).”

So Deane works to dilute the law and restrict enforcement inquiries to individuals placed under arrest, which means illegals caught previously during “a call for service” or traffic stop, would go free in the future.

Progressives were fine with Deane’s unilateral decision that the intensity of law enforcement should vary depending on the individual’s national origin, because all the right people were in agreement.

But I wonder what progressive response would have been if Deane had decided to de–emphasize enforcement of domestic violence and homosexual bullying in the Moslem community because Islam has a different view of women’s roles and the Koran prohibits homosexual conduct?

Do you think worries about “Islamophobia” and encouraging cooperation with anti–terrorism efforts would have persuaded elite opinion to accept this type of arbitrary lack of enforcement? We all know the answer to that.

Charlie has his “Bridge Builder” award from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and his gold watch from the WaPo. Now maybe my county will get a chief who believes his role is to enforce the law, rather than interpret it. Maybe it will set a precedent for the nation.

America’s Trojan Horse

trojan horse

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is asking hard questions of DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. He might as well have asked Eric Holder for “Fast and Furious” documents. In our constitutional republic, the main purpose of government is to protect the God-given rights of the citizens it represents. The goal of Rep. Gohmert was to get to the heart of an issue that should concern all Americans across all party lines: Did Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano know she gave a visa and a classified security clearance to a known terrorist facilitator and sympathizer, Hani Nour Eldin.

Eldin is a member of Egypt’s parliament and a member of Egypt’s Gamaa Islamiya group which is listed as a known terrorist organization. Eldin attended multiple meetings last month at the behest of the president and DHS – some of which were conducted at the White House. Issue number two: did Napolitano know that the DHS advisory council member (appointed by Obama), Mohamed Elibiary, used his security clearance (that Napolitano gave him) to access and download classified documents with his personal computer and shop the information to media outlets?

Napolitano couldn’t really answer any of Gohmert’s questions other than telling him that it was “objectionable” to attack or accuse someone because they are Muslim, (classic liberal response, Gohmert asks hard questions and he is deemed “bigoted” or “racist”). Rep. Gohmert also asked Napolitano if she was aware of the fact that Elibiary was affiliated with a charity here in the states named the Freedom and Justice Foundation. This is important because the name of the now defunct foundation here in America also shared its name with the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt. The Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt is the legislative arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The administration has been very open to advice from the “Council on American Islāmic Relations” aka (CAIR) which have been named an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation court case that took place in northern Texas. You will remember, that this is the court case that named all the people responsible for using the giving nature of Americans to secretly fund terrorist activities all around the globe.

If the stonewall tactic looks familiar to you, it should, it worked for Eric Holder at the Fast and Furious hearings. If congress keeps pushing this issue as it should, I foresee Obama pulling rank and invoking executive privilege once again. As a nation we are in a very precarious era. When agencies have absolutely no congressional oversight, we become a dictatorship or a monarchy by definition. The current administration that promised to be the most transparent, is anything but. It seems Obama “leads” better by fiat rather than inside of a constitutional construct.

As a nation, we need to show courage and begin a debate about what role Islam is going to play in our government. Will we cower when liberals attack and call us “bigoted” for asking relevent and important questions? We can not. We must stand courageous in the face of name calling. When we have come to a place in our society where the secretary of DHS is not concerned about men using their personal computers to access classified government information, and known terrorist sympathizers holding meetings in the White House, we are in grave danger. If Janet Napolitano is not going to perform her job as secretary of DHS, why do we have a DHS? We should not cower from the debate simply because it’s politically incorrect to broach these subjects or because of a political agenda. We have already done that, in 1999 when Osama Bin Laden stated that blood would run in the streets of New York city, no one stood against his statement. We also done the same with the Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, over and over people in the know were reporting to the FBI that he was very anti-American and a possible threat, the FBI did not investigate because they were fearful the investigation would be seen as an “Islāmic witch hunt”. All because of political correctness, thirteen people were shot in cold blood. The man had S.O.A. on his government (Army) business card, S.O.A. meaning Soldier Of Allah. To add insult to injury the government will still not call the acts perpetrated by Hasan a terrorist act, they consider it an incident of “work place violence”. Also, I don’t remember anyone mentioning gun control after Hasan killed thirteen.

We recently seen how political agenda has driven the gun control debate after the tragic shooting spree in Aurora, Colorado. Before the victims were all properly identified news anchors were already blaming those they disagree with politically, pushing accusations on Tea Party members. Guns needed to be outlawed so people would be “safe”. Just a day later, an Afghan police officer opened fire on American contractors killing three. No where did you hear anyone calling for the outlaw of guns in Afghanistan. One shooting spree fits the liberal agenda narrative, and one did not. So one gets the nod for a refreshed attack on the second amendment rights of American people, and one is ignored, because only one story is politically expedient. I bring this up because I want the American people to drive the debate regarding Islam in the government, and not another terrorist attack, God forbid.

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

Obama Ignores Sharia in America

Obama Quran

Much has already been said by conservatives about Obama’s apparent disdain for following the Constitution, let alone protecting it. So, it is not surprising to find out that there are no particularly vocal statements against the implementation of sharia law, in any form, in the United States coming from the White House. In fact, it is fair to say that Obama is far more concerned with extending an open hand to Islam, as opposed to lifting a finger to stop it.

Obama Quran

Richard Loyal French (CC)


This administration’s foreign policy on Islam is virtually non-existent, in the sense that it is largely handled on a nation by nation basis, as opposed to viewing the Islamic world as a single ideological entity. That is probably part of the reason why one needs to stick with media sources outside the mainstream to find out about things like suicide bomber auctions in Saudi Arabia. But, perhaps the primary reason lies in the left-wing’s belief that Islam – the moderate variety – is not a threat to the U.S.

While many on the right are harping on Obama’s publicity biography from the 1990’s, a little story probably slipped by unnoticed. Kansas is considering outlawing the recognition of sharia law, and CAIR is not happy about that. They have asked the governor of Kansas to not sign that law. It makes perfect sense that this organization should involve itself in this, because part of its mission is to protect the rights of Muslims to observe their faith. The left would be very happy if everyone would just sit back, and let CAIR do its job, too.

It is discrimination, according to the left and Obama, to prevent Muslims from freely observing their faith. Sharia law is part and parcel with that, so there should be no objections to it being legally recognized in this country. Of course the Thomas More Law Center would disagree with that. They have dedicated a great deal of time and effort to the task of protecting the rights of Americans, in particular, against the imposition of sharia law in this country. They have a problem with non-Muslim children being forced to learn the ways of Islam, and to accept those ideological tenets, for one example.

The leftist love affair with Islam, and in particular, CAIR, only serves to depict our nation as weak. In the name of being politically correct, the administration turns a blind eye to that organization, as it “demonizes” our country on Iranian television. It is no wonder that the Obama administration had to leave nuclear negotiations with Iran to Russia. The president has declared the end of the war on terror, and has heralded a new era of friendship with the Islamic world. Obama, yet again, fails to notice that the very people he is attempting to engage with peacefully are quietly getting what they wanted all along – they are engaged in stealth jihad, using our own courts against us when they can. And Obama is doing nothing to stop it.

The Muslim Brotherhood

In my last article I told you about the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood in our country and our government. In previous articles I have provided some insight into the goals of radial Islam in an effort to enlighten Americans on the subject.  Robert Spencer wrote a pamphlet of the same issue which you can download at: http://frontpagemag.com/downloads/ or watch the video:

The War on Terror has been changed to be something different, but remains the same issue nonetheless. There are those on the Hill who seemingly would like to parade around the terms in an effort to dismiss the severity of the issues.  The Supreme leader of Islam, Ali Khamenei continues to flaunt his ideals suggesting the United States has “rejected” Israel.  He continues: the only real “obstacle” in the way are the Saudi Royal Family and once they are eliminated Israel can be destroyed.

754px Gra...The hatred of anyone outside of Islam persists with the death of Coptic Pope Shenouda III.  Many Egyptian Muslims displayed their condolences to Christians while Islam Clerics pointed out it is against Sharia Law to offer condolences to the Copts (all non-Muslims are destined and deserving of hell, Koran 9: 113).

Sheikh Wagdi Ghoneim, a former mosque prayer leader from California, called the Pope an”accursed criminal.”  May 17, 2012 he said, ” Thanks be to Allah, the head of infidelity and polytheism, this so-called Shenouda, died—may Allah be avenged on him.  He perished, and all were relieved of him—people, worshippers, trees, and animals; Egypt is relieved of him, for he initiated sectarian strife.”

For more information on Islam read, “Did You Know” which provides verifiable information regarding Islam and its growth within our government.

 

Did You Know?

You may feel as though you are well aware of the events that seem to shape the world today? Perhaps you feel as though they are beyond your power to change?  And then again, you might be inclined as many American’s are, to state you don’t care about politics.  In either case even the most diligent American would have a hard time keeping up with all the rhetoric on a daily basis that continues to plague the world we live in. It hard to keep up on the facts, and even harder to recognize what is fact and what is fiction on the Hill, when integrity seems to be a thing of the past.  The reality is, despite the attempts to dismiss the threat of radical Islam by the media and government officials, Islam is very much close to home and a real threat to our national security.  The majority of people are under the impression there is no cause for alarm; they fail to recognize the depth of the infiltration of Islam which is deeply rooted in our U.S. culture, society, and government.

Ironically, probably 99 percent of American’s probably don’t know most of what I am about to tell you. If they do know, and discuss it publicly, they are either criticized, dismissed, or marginalized.  To a certain extent we have become complacent and have allowed our government to spiral out of control while those we elect have their own self-serving agendas.  Career Politicians seem to feel as tho they are the voice for us, yet the words they choose behind close doors would probably make most of us cringe.

This year, and election year, you may want to take a closer look at who your voting for because not caring, lack of interest, or the other typical excuse “I’m not interested in politics” are all reasons that could contribute to the downfall of the United States as you believe it to be.   As an American you have a moral, ethical, and civic duty to care about the people you put into office, because they not only effect you, they have a significant impact on generations to come – not caring, lack of interest, or whatever the reason is what got us here in the first place.

Did you know:

There are real threats to the United States by Terrorists?

Did you know:

One of those threats included the use of Anthrax, brought in through Mexico to the U.S via our unprotected borders. Had they succeeded 330,000 American’s would have died in one hour.

Did you know:

There are undocumented people from more than 130 countries who have entered the U.S. illegally?

Did you know:

Since 2010 there have been multiple plots to smuggle “weapons of mass effect” into the U.S.?

Did you know:

According to Border Patrol Estimates, between 2010 & 2011 only 5 percent of individuals crossing the border illegally were apprehended?

Did you know:

February 2, 2012 – Michael Braun, former chief of operations @drug enforcement agency, testified before a Congressional foreign affairs committee.  He testified Hezbollah has developed, strong ties to drug cartels. He said, “These groups allow them to operate freely in our neighborhood and they are getting closer to our door-step.  He continued … there will be hell to pay in the not to distant future.”

Did you know:

Iran has reached an agreement to build missile bases in South America – close enough to hit the U.S.?

Did you know:

There are active members of the Muslim Brotherhood working within the U.S. Government with access to the president?

Did you know:

February 26, 1993 radical Islamists declared Jihad on American soil – a bomb went off at the base of  the World Trade Center?

Did you know:

Freedom and Justice are the slogans for the political party of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt?

Did you know:

Umar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahmah, aka “Omar Ahmed – Ali” aka “Omar Abdel Al-Rahman” was the mastermind behind the bombing? He entered the U.S. despite having a warrant for his arrest from Egypt for the murder of Anwar Sadat.

Did you know:

In 2004 the FBI raided the home of Ismail Salim Elbarasse, alias Abdul Hassan in Annandale, VA. He was the founding member & finance officer for an Islamic school & center in Falls Church, VA, named Dar al-Hijrah.  The Islamic center hosted some of the U.S. Islamic militants namely: Abdurahman al-Amoudi .  He was jailed in 1998 for 9 months, along with Abdelhaleem Ashqar, for refusing to testify in terrorist funding.

Did you know:

In that raid, in a sub-basement, they found a 1991 Explanatory Memorandum which held the strategic Goals for MB Groups in North America?

Did you know:

The Holy Land Foundation which was disguised as humanitarian group was actually a front for terrorist groups?

Did you know:

The Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 was the largest Foundation trail ever held in the U.S.?

Did you know:

Among those indicted as co-conspirators was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) & the Islamic Society in North America (ISNA)?

Did you know:

CAIR operates under the disguise of a Muslim Civil Liberties Advocacy Group, founded in 1994, with documented ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups?

Did you know:

In addition to CAIR and ISNA those indicted were: Shukri Abu Baker (02), Mohammad El-Mezain (03), Ghassan Elashi (04), Mufid Abdul Qader (07), and Abdulraham Odeh (08)?

Did you know:

CAIR has 32 chapters operating in the US?

Did you know:

The co-founder of ISNA, Sami AL-Arain plead guilty to terrorist charges, he has documented ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and was named a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial?

Did you know:

The trial exposed a number of Muslim Brotherhood fronts?

Did you know:

After the trial the groups did not disappear they simply regrouped under the disguise of other civil liberties groups?

Did you know:

Despite the fact these groups have terrorist ties they remain trusted sources for many of our news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC?  (CNN – Nihad Awad; MSNBC – Ibrahim Hooper, Council on American Islamic Relations).

Did you know:

Members of CAIR, et.al., are trained in public relations, media management, etc.?

Did you know:

CAIR produced and made public, “The Islamophobes Nightmare?”

Did you know:

One of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is a military term called Information Dominance, whose objective is to shape the perception of them ultimately giving them the upper hand in defeating their enemy? The objective of the MB is to destroy America from within.

Did you know:

Another goal of radical Islam, the MB, is the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate – an Islamic super-state which would destroy the US and Israel?

Did you know?

President Obama talked about the Arab Spring as a good thing while radical Islamists took advantage of the chaos in Egypt?  The Muslim Brotherhood controls around 80% of Egypt at the time this was written.

Did you know?

Former Ann Arbor, MI resident, Bassem Kahfaji, Egyptian presidential candidate vows to implement Islamic Law in Egypt? (shari’a law). He was the former director of community affairs for CAIR, he was arrested and later convicted in 2003 on terrorism charges?  He was deported.

Did you know?

The Creed for the Muslim Brotherhood, since its indoctrination in 1928 is: “Jihad is our way. Dying in the name of Allah is our highest hope.”

Did you know?

James R.Clapper, retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and is currently the Director of National Intelligence made a very dangerous statement when he stated the “Muslim Brotherhood is largely a secular organization“?

Did you know?

The Muslim Brotherhood continues to expand in the U.S?  They have infiltrated and continue to advise the White House, State Dept, CIA, FBI, DHS.

Did you know?

In 2009 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) positioned Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development? Alikhan was a career prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice from 1997-2006. During that time, he served as Chief of the Cyber and Intellectual Crimes Section for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and as a Senior Advisor to the U.S. Attorney General in Washington, D.C., where he oversaw the national Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Program for the Department of Justice.  Just prior to his appointment he participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  In addition, President Obama appointed David Heymen as Assistant Secretary for Policy. Heymen comes from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Did you know?

Arif Ailkhan called Hezbollah a “liberation movement?”

Did you know?

In 1991, a memo written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood spelled out the objective of the organization. Akram said the Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Did you know?

In 2002 Mohamed Elibiary, Founder & President of Freedom & Justice Foundation in Plano, TX was appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.  Rep. Louie Gohmert R-Texas, 1st District reported Elibiary had access to security documents and on October 26, 2011 he took sensitive reports from Texas Department of Public Safety.   Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, stated she would look into the matter.  As of April 12, 2012 the committee has not received a response.

Did you know:

Salam Al Marayati (Los Angeles, CA) is the founder, president of MPAC,  was denied a leadership position in 1999  for the National Commission on Terrorism.  He has ties to terrorist groups and Hezbollah; he wants Hezbollah and Hamas removed from US terrorist groups list, and considers Hezbollah a legitimate organization with the right to attack Israel..

Did you know?

In 2010 President Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to a prominent envoy position at the State Department.   A background check showed in 2004 Hussain spoke at a Muslim Brotherhood Affiliate – MB Student Association Annual Conference.  He spoke in support of convicted terrorist Sami Al – Arian and criticized US terror prosecutions.  2009 -2010 he served as Deputy Associate Counsel to President Obama.

Did you know?

The very first Islamic National Islamic organization in America was founded in 1962, at the University of IL-Urbana, called the Muslim Student Association?

Did you know?

In 2007 NY police report on Radicalization – Student organizations are used for the recruitment and development of extremists?

Did you know?

The North American Islamic Trust in Plainfield, IN funds  the Muslim Students Association?

Did you know?

The North American Islamic Trust was named as an unedited co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trail?

Did you know?

In February 2012 – NYPD identified 12 former members of the Muslim Student Organization Association.  They were later arrested or convicted on terrorism charges?

Did you know?

Anwar Al-Awlaki, the former head of AlQaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was the mentor to the Ft. Hood shooter, and the Underwear bomber. He was also the president of the Muslim Student Association at Colorado State University?

Did you know?

In March 2012 Reza Naqdi, head of Iran’s BAsij Parliamentary forces said, “As long as America exists, we will not rest.” America is Iran’s ultimate target?

Did you know?

According to Professor William Forstcher if the United States were to experience an EMP attack 90 percent of all Americans would die within 12-18 months after the attack.

Did you know?

Rep Roscoe Bartlett-R Maryland – 2008 study done confirmed Professor Forstcher statements.

Did you know?

Rep Bartlett introduced House Bill H.R. 5026 with authorized the federal government to take emergency measures to protect the United States from solar flares or an EMP attack? This bill passed the House of Representatives unanimously in August 2010.

Did you know?

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski – D, killed the bill in favor of a clean energy bill which was back by senate democrats?

Did you know?

This all began under the Clinton Administration?

Did you know?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aid since 1996 is Huma Abedin. Former Palestinian terrorist, now converted Christian Walid Shoebat, says that Abedin was never properly screened..Shoebat reports that Abedin “is closely associated with her Muslim Brotherhood family and even joined Clinton at an event with her mother, Saleha Abedin, at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. Clinton recently overruled the Immigration and Nationality Act by allowing Tariq Ramadan entry into the United States. Ramadan, described as an independent power center within the MB, is the grandson of the founder of the MB. He has been banned to travel in the US since 2004 for his contributions to Hamas and links to radical Islamists.

So what do you think? Time to take and active interest in your country?

References:

1 Clabough, Raven.2011. Self-avowed Muslim Marxist Says White House Tied to Muslim Brotherhood.  Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2011/08/self-avowed-muslim-marxist-says-white-house-tied-to-muslim-brotherhood.html#ixzz1tkbf6PBl

 

It’s Only Controversial If America’s Involved

Another Koran controversy. That it somehow involves the U.S. and its military should go without saying. How would it possibly be controversial otherwise?

All across the Muslim world at the hands of their own, Mosques are desecrated with fire and bullets. Muslim individuals are butchered in all manner of barbaric ways. And Koran’s? Well, you’ll find pay phone yellow pages in red light districts that are treated with more reverence. But none of that raises the merest whiff of ire from Islamists or the Left.

Now though, with the involvement of the United States, the usual suspects threaten once more to trample one another in their stampede to proclaim themselves sensitive to yet another Western outrage.

That Islamic Fascists engage in such behavior is wholly understandable, if no less repugnant. After all, an ideology that desires nothing less than the complete subjugation of the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, before a Caliphate lead Theocracy, is hardly going to blush at employing hypocrisy of even the most whorish kind.

But what of the Left? What is it that they get by legitimizing the manufactured outrage of those who would quite happily see them dead or enslaved?

Is it simple opportunism? A belief that by delegitimizing Conservative identification of the Islamist threat, they will direct power back to themselves at the ballot box? That may be a part of it. But if it is, then it stands purely as an ancillary benefit of a driving psychosis that demands reality be distorted in the most self-serving way imaginable.

Of course, this a sin to which those on the Conservative side of the political spectrum are not immune. Indeed we all fall prey at times to painting ourselves in an overly flattering light. Even if deep down we suspect we may have acted a bit of a twerp. But the psychologically mature individual draws the line at fabricating a reality that stands dangerously opposed to the world at large, and those individuals within it who wish them ill.

Down through history, civilization after civilization has fallen before aggressors whose hearts beat with rapacious greed for the treasure of land, lives and gold.

Always, such lusts have been painted less base through the use of injustices, whether exaggerated or wholly concocted.

And always, of those who were faced with this aggression, a certain number could be relied upon to employ the same moral and intellectual self-aggrandizement that is the province of the Left today.

In the minds of such people, the threat, if indeed there was such a threat at all, was an entirely manageable and oft times, wholly understandable one.

For such people, appeasement, was not seen as a fundamental capitulation that would only embolden an enemy. Rather, such an act was the exclusive privilege of the civilized man. For only he could extend his hand in benevolent condescension to the savages unable to control themselves.

In this fatal conceit, the question was never asked: Do those whose aggression I patronize and indulge, view me as I view myself, or do they see me as weak, and easy prey?

It is a question which is still not asked by the Left today when it comes to their dealings with Islamic Fascism.

The fundamental difference now of course is, the stakes are so much higher. Technological advancements have given mankind much that is of benefit, but also, they enable just one man to personally inflict truly nightmarish levels of death and destruction.

A forgiving heart might be tempted to ascribe simple ignorance to the Left’s penchant for minimizing or excusing behavior wholly antithetical of the individual freedom necessary for the existence of Western democracy.

Certainly it is impossible to imagine any of today’s Liberal talking heads facing a situation in which they were forced to deal personally, even physically, with another who wished them unjust harm.

Could not this inexperience then explain their ignorance as to the ramifications of their actions?

No. It could not.

There are examples such as Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, two American hikers imprisoned in Iran for two years on trumped up espionage charges. Who upon their release proceeded to trash America, whilst talking with forgiving moral equivalency of the regime that had just demonstrated to them forcibly that the freedoms they were raised in are by no means a universal human condition.

But really, are such needed? A child confronted by a bully in the playground understands in that moment when violence is immediately before them, that to condescend or legitimize such, is to ensure being beaten bloody. And that the only thing likely to stay the bully’s hand, is a fear of the consequences they will face. Especially if those consequences are sure to be even bloodier in turn.

The idea then that an adult would not recognize these dynamics is purely preposterous. What drives this patently suicidal behavior of the Left then, is not ignorance. But rather, a very conscious decision that self-veneration trumps all. Even when it comes to dealing with those who would take not only our freedom from us, but our very lives.

Remember that the next time you hear such an individual talk with abhorrence of your right to bear arms.

Vaughan Starr is a freelance writer. Professional inquiries may be directed to [email protected]

Don't Get Offended This Christmas

Don’t you dare say “Merry Christmas” or someone might get offended! Don’t wave that American flag! Foreigners might get offended. Change the school mascot from the Redskins to something else or Native Americans might get teed off. Burn the Confederate flag, or African-Americans will get stirred up (yet the Civil War was not primarily over slavery, but state’s rights). Destroy your fur coat or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals will hiss and growl. Sound familiar? Yet we shouldn’t be surprised because statements similar to these are the result of a “multi-cultural society” which over stresses diversity, leading to division and a one-sided tolerance.

Yet, as Christians, we should be concerned about not causing offences. Where do we draw the line? How do we walk the tightrope of never offending anyone, yet standing for what we believe simultaneously? It is important to stand, with the right attitude. Even then, some are looking to be offended. I could get offended all the time, if I so choose. Here’s a list of some things that light my fire. I could get offended:

**When Bible-believing, conservative Christians are portrayed as backward, illiterate fools, which is usually the way the news media and entertainment industry portrays them.
**When trans-sexuals claim they were born the wrong gender and want insurance companies or taxpayers to pay for the “handicap” they have had to endure. God doesn’t make mistakes. Live with what you have and be who you are born to be.
**When we are told that Islam is a religion of peace and that we cannot dare speak the words “terrorism” and “Islam” in the same sentence, nor can we point out the hypocrisy of the media in defending Islam while trashing Christianity.
**When Christmas haters continually attack Christmas in public government places, The should be reminded of the First Amendment’s guarantee is about the freedom FOR religion and not freedom FROM religion.

However, I choose to be mature and not walk around crying and sniveling over these blatant inequities. Yet, I get so weary hearing of the few who yell the loudest. ONE person doesn’t want a Christian symbol displayed, so the FIVE HUNDRED people who prefer the symbol MUST defer to the ONE. ONE or TWO complain about a Santa appearing at a public city government sponsored event, so the whole town is supposed to give up the time honored tradition, even for the ONE or TWO (regardless what your personal opinion of Santa Clause may be, the principle is the issue here). ONE artist has the right to express himself or herself by creating and exhibiting obscene art, so EVERYONE must be exposed to it and endure. And so forth, and so on . . .

So what answer do you give to people who on these issues? I want to say, “Get a life” but that might offend someone. Instead, I’ll just say get in the Word of God. It will thicken your skin, ground you in reality, and insulate you with wisdom and discernment. “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them,” Psalm 119:165. People who are easily offended are usually immature and selfish. Those individuals with a healthy degree of maturity (from the Word), who put others first in Christian service, aren’t easily offended, and they stand like a rock.

GOP Candidates Finally Say The Word "Muslim"

For me, this by far has been the best debate. It’s about time the candidates had the courage to say words like “Muslim”, “Islam” , and *GASP* “Jihadist”.

Gingrich and Santorum win as the the most informed regarding the threat of Islam against United States.  Romney gave his usual slick answers, however I’m not convinced that he will do everything he says given his flip flop record. Bachmann, never scared to mix things up, told it like it is. PLUS, she gets major cool points for being willing to say “Jihadist” first. Herman Cain, has a bold plan… And then there is Ron Paul.

I’m not really sure exactly where he stands. Initially, I thought he was a Muslim sympathizer and completely ignorant of the Jihad threat. However, after speaking with a rational Paul supporter, whose opinion I respect, I may possibly take a different stance. I don’t consider myself a Libertarian, but do share their Constitutionalists views. It IS a slippery slope when it comes to singling out a specific ethnic group. Unfortunately, history is not on Muslims side when it comes to the benefit of a doubt. So they get none from me.

I am going to contact Congressman Paul’s office myself and see if I can determine his stance on hardcore and stealth Jihad.

But We Were Tolerant!


courtesy of http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

 

Islamization is one the largest, if not the largest, threat facing the nation today. If you don’t think so, chances are you haven’t done your homework regarding the subject. Don’t be fooled by lack of Muslim violence in the United States, as opposed to Muslim nations, or what you see in Europe.

A thought occurred to me the other day. Why is it that the only country in the world I hear Imams talk of peace is the United States? It is my firm belief that the ONLY reasons are the First and Second Amendments. Americans can say whatever they want about Islam without fear of reprisal. Although it appears that Muslims, in conjunction with their “progressive” partners, are trying to change that. In addition, the Second Amendment is our right to bear arms. So if Muslims, or anyone for that matter, decide to threaten our sovereignty we can defend ourselves. American, you need to wake up and realize what is happening right before your eyes. Do not conform to the political correctness standard. That’s what they did in Europe, especially France. Worked out well for them didn’t it?

I decided to write a “what could happen” piece on what the United States could look like in the not so distant future if we don’t stand up to the threat of Islamization. If it seems far fetched to you, then I encourage you follow the hyperlinks associated to get an idea of what’s happening in the world today.

A typical American family, (what you would’ve considered typical today) is walking down the street. The problem is, things aren’t typical anymore. The family of five moves down the street looking more a tactical military unit than a family. They do so for good reason. Mom and Dad hold the hands of their toddler son and two teenage daughters, moving from building to building with a vigilance born of experience. Dad remembers the days of the entire family climbing in the car for the Sunday morning drive to church. Sometimes the morning routine was peaceful, sometimes not. But, they never had worry about dying on the way. The underground church network has done a good job rotating the meeting place and filtering the message to it’s members.

The Waters family disappeared last week and everyone learned from their mistakes. The O’Niell family’s daughters were kidnapped last month and no one has seen or heard from them since. Everyone knows what probably happened. People had an inkling leading up to this, but we all chose to ignore it. It could never happen in the United States, right? We were supposed to have an airtight Constitution that would protect us from this sort of thing. The Government kept telling us to trust them! That they could make decisions for me, better than I. Additionally, there were the groups like CAIR, who said they protected the rights of all people and religions. And now here we are.

Dad spots them first and moves quickly to get his family to side of the building and out of sight: A gang of about 6 to 9 men and boys of all ages. You know who they are because of their signature head wraps and hats. They stopped pretending to be our friends years ago. Especially after they had control of the local and state governments. When we sit down and really discuss it, we draw the conclusion that it started in Florida. The day that judge ruled Sharia law could be used in a civil dispute. It seemed so insignificant at the time….. It was gradual and hardly anyone even noticed it. Before we realized what happened, they flooded all levels of the federal government. The First Amendment was abolished, followed shortly by the Second. It went down hill from there. Soon all religions, except theirs, were abolished. Everyone who refused to convert was called an infidel, hunted down, and most times murdered. How could this be? I thought this sort of thing only happened in movies and fictional books. They said they represented a religion of peace and tolerance, that they only wanted to live a moral life. One that was pleasing to Allah.

OH NO! They’ve been spotted!! Dad couldn’t get the family to the side of the building fast enough. Like a pack of wolves they move in on the family. Hollering and screaming in English and other languages the message is the same. Mom and Dad are savagely beat to a bloody pulp. Through blood soaked eyes the parents search for their children, they hear the screams. The last thing the parents hear before the fade the black was the son crying and the men arguing over who would get the daughters first. As he lays on the ground unable to move or speak, Dad silently weeps for his family. And amidst the many the many thoughts racing through his head, one of last are……But we were tolerant!

Need A Good Laugh?

This guy is HILARIOUS! He is a Muslim comedian, and is very funny!

As The Blaze says, Azhar Usman is “part of ‘a fresh wave of humor’ that is sweeping clergy and comics, [and] a welcome distraction from the contentious social and political debates that often surround faith and religion’.”

Failure To Condemn All Terrorism

Having just remembered the terrorist attacks that occurred (World Trade Center, Pentagon, Shanksville, Pa) on September 11, 2001, I thought it would be worth our time to see where we are today, ten years later.

9/11 An Act of War or Terrorism?

In November, 2009, Pat Buchanan asked, “Are we at war – or not?” Good question. Most Americans consider the 9/11 attacks both an act of war and an act of terror. But are there other terrorist acts that can be considered acts of war? Are there acts of war that can also be considered terrorism?

The Obama administration‘s plan was to send terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who (with others) plotted the 9/11 attack on New York City, back to NYC for trial. There he was to stand trial in a civilian court, where he was to be accorded the same constitutional rights as any other common criminal. AG Eric Holder justified this act of insanity by saying it is was chance to show the world that we don’t put enemy combatants before star chamber proceedings and then send them to the firing squad. We cannot give them the military trial normally accorded enemy combatants because we’re better than that. But NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the 9/11 attack was not a “crime,” but an “act of war,” and therefore, the perpetrators should be tried in a military court. Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught. When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?

BTW, here is what the Department of Defense (DoD) has to say on the subject. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were watershed events that altered the American military’s philosophy and role in regard to terrorism. The U.S. military now looks upon terrorism as an act of war, as well as a crime. That’s what’s allowing the military to go look for al Qaeda, to operate against terrorist organizations, because we’ve basically classified them as enemy combatants.

Condemning Terrorism

Here is what the United Nations (UN) has to say about terrorism. “… there is no excuse for terrorism and that all terrorism is unacceptable.” “The United Nations should project a clear, principled and immutable message that terrorism is unacceptable. Terrorists must never be allowed to create a pretext for their actions. Whatever the causes they claim to be advancing, whatever grievances they claim to be responding to, terrorism cannot be justified. The United Nations must maintain the moral high ground in this regard.”

Here is what Muslims and imams had to say about the 9/11 terrorist attack. “The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: ‘No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another’.” “All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. … [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. … [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”

Refusing to Condemn Terrorism

In a statement released on Sunday (September 11, 2011) a bloc of Islamic states reiterated their position that has hindered efforts by the UN to develop a global convention against terrorism. The Islamic states insist that any definition of terrorism should make an exception for “resistance” against foreign occupation. As long as that view exists, it promotes attacks by Palestinians against Israelis, by jihadists fighting in India, by groups who portray the US and coalition military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as “occupation,” or any other jihad they wish to “justify.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Convention on Combating Terrorism includes a definition of terrorism, in Article 1, “… any act of violence or threat thereof notwithstanding its motives or intentions perpetrated to carry out an individual or collective criminal plan with the aim of terrorizing people or threatening to harm them or imperiling their lives, honor, freedoms, security or rights …” It continues in Article 2, “Peoples’ struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”   [emphasis mine]

In April 2002, OIC foreign ministers met in Malaysia, aiming to define terrorism, and with dissociating it from Islam, as a direct response to al-Qaeda’s attack in the name of Islam. The meeting ended with the statement: “We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Sharif [Jerusalem] as its capital.”

Terrorism and War

But… terrorism will always beget more terrorism, regardless of whether we call it “war” or not. All future policies and actions should be predicated upon that fact.

But that’s just my opinion.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »