Islamic Danger to Americans: January 2008

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Jihad has been a feature of Islam from its beginnings

Confronting Radical Jihad

Mitt Romney says,

"Jihadism – violent, radical, fundamental Islam – is this century’s nightmare. It follows the same dark path as last century’s nightmares: fascism and Soviet communism. Many still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, specifically by those extremists who promote violent Jihad against the United States and the universal values Americans espouse. Yet, the consequences of ignoring this threat – such as a radicalized Islamic actor possessing nuclear weapons – are simply unacceptable."

Challenges » The Romney Plan »

I say,

Read on. Click on "Challenges" and "The Romney Plan" to find our more. The challenges are fairly stated, the plan sounds good. I am not crazy about the distinction he makes between "radical Islam" and (what in the blazes is that?) just plain, garden-variety, every-day Islam. Same ball of wax (or whatever substance you think it should be) . . .

BUT DO READ . . .

Challenges » The Romney Plan »

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

THE TRUTH ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA +

"This world is an unsafe place for Americans--and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people."

". . .our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory--not just stalemate"
--David Frum and Richard Perle

[Note: I know the following contains repetitious material as well as dead links--to the Google-banned-and-now-unreachable original Islamic Danger* posts. I shall put all in order as soon as I can. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Leslie White]
___________
*This blog is in violation of Blogger's Terms of Service and is currently visible to authors only.
___________

Sick of the "Sowdis?"

So are we! Sick of Saudi "students*," Sowdi plane hijackers, Sowdi diplomats, Sowdi-purchased American influential people, Sowdi "princeling" refusing to shake the hand of a Jew, Sowdi, Sowdi, Sowdi, dinned into our ears by the --our--government. We know about the prez--his connex with the Sows, we know about State--and whom the Sows have purchased in there, we know, but, so far, we DO nothing about this*. We know about the madrassas (schools teaching Islam as written in the koran), we know about the mosques the Sows are proliferating in our land. But we do nothing. Time to roll 'em back! We doan need no stinkin' Sowdis!

Oh, their oil? Oh, did I forget about that? No! Sure as shootin' Ah didn'. Lookee here: Pissed off by the price of gas?--gasoline, petrol, gasolina? Click on that. New stuff there! Very interesting. Muy interesante! Go there, read it.

For a history of how Saudi arabia was given the oil by the idiotic West, see Pissed off by the price of gasoline? The History of Saudi Oil

and then, there's
Surprise, Surprise: Yet More Evidence that the Majority of Foreign Fighters in Iraq Come from Saudi Arabia.

And how 'bout this?
`Our Eternal Friends' The Saudis Release 1500 Jihadi Terrorists

and also from
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/our-eternal-friends-saudis-release-1500.html there's this:

Of course then there are the "emirates" (UAE). Are they any better than the Sowdis? they are buying their way into our economy (Citibank), and they are Islamic. Draw your own conclusions.

and, come to think of it . . .

. . . Is Islam a Parasite? Click here to find out

_______________________
*+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 27 Nov.'07:"US Team Told About Saudi Students'
Harassment", Raid Qusti

QUOTE:" 'harassed, mistreated or faced discrimination at airports or from US
Security Officers' "

EXCERPTS - RIYADH, 27 November 2007 - Officials from Saudi Arabia's governmental Human Rights Commission (HRC) as well the private human rights body, the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR), brought to the attention of a visiting US congressional delegation yesterday issues of harassment of Saudi students studying in the United States.....

. . many Saudi students were being harassed, mistreated or faced discrimination at airports or from US securityofficers," ... .

Under the King Abdullah Scholarship Program, 11,000 Saudi students are currently studying at American universities...(IMRA: 5,000 scholarshps made available Sept.2006.)

Al-Harithi told Arab News that the shortness of the meeting and the severaltopics raised from both sides did not allow both parties to elaborate on these issues . . .

=================================
Sue Lerner - Associate, IMRA
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=37004
=================================
[COMMENT: 11,000 Saudi "students." The 9-11 "pilots" studied flying]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**But we will DO something about this. this will not go on, never fear. the climate will change, a real sea-change, and it will not benefit the Sowdis.
______________________________

The Sowdis are slavers (still are, have slaves) floggers, amputators, beheaders--in short, they are inexcusable savages, sand-trekkers that feel superior because they have been gifted the oil that they never discovered, produced or did anything about except receive the profits from. This country of innumerable princelings and a kinglet have bought much of the United States with their unearned oil wealth--including one person very high up in the hierarchy of the government (as high as you can get).

The Sowdis are high up on the list of what can be called the "shit countries," of which Sudan is one of the leading turds. These countries--that deserve to be flushed--are what control the UN--the "United Nations." Were it not for the Security Council, where there are a couple of civilized countries that can keep the shit from overflowing the world, we would all be drowning in it by now. Come to think of it, most of the shit countries are Islamic. Those that are not, have Islamic components stinking up the mess. Iran--the former Persia--has not always been a shit country. It once was civilized. Sowdi never was--civilized, that is.

Question: how is it that we accept the Islamic practice of "lashing," especially of women, as something normal in these shit countries? Why are we not appalled, outraged to the point of giving a good tongue-lashing to the shit-countries' governments? Are we becoming inured to whipping, amputation, public hanging of children, beheadings--all the shariah-instigated brutalities employed by the shits?

***

HOW DID THIS ANACHRONISM KNOWN AS "SAUDI ARABIA" GET ITS START?

WHEN AND HOW DID ARABIA BECOME "SAUDI ARABIA?"

(More familiarly known to us as "Sowdi")

Read all about that at http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/11/pissed-off-by-price-of-gas-gasoline.html (look for it at the tail end of that post)

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON SAUDI ARABIA

At that time [when Ibn Saud was forming Saudi Arabia], Churchill was secretary for the British colonies, and he had been involved in the creation of Iraq (in 1921), Jordan (Transjordan) and Palestine. The intention, he told the Commons, was "to set up an Arab government, and to make it take the responsibility, with our aid and our guidance and with an effective measure of our support, until they are strong enough to stand alone ... (and) to reduce our commitments and to extricate ourselves from our burdens while at the same time honorably discharging our obligations and building up strong and effective Arab government which will always be the friend of Britain.

[NOTE: If you click on the "that time" link above, you will see why Bush is acting as he does in Iraq and why it didn't work too well for Churchill--nor will the end result be what Bush is expecting. The reason is that "Arab nationalism" (Islam really) will always get in the way of having an Arab nation as an "Islamic friend." lw]

[Now we get to the part pertinent to Saudi Arabia]

What is less well known is that he also said on that day: "A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe's] religious wars.

The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.

It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The Bin Saud to whom Churchill refers here is King Abdul Aziz bin Saud (c. 1880 - 1953), who would go on officially to establish Saudi Arabia in 1932. In 1926, this king's followers had control of Mecca. Traditionally a caravan procession (mahmal) would arrive annually at Mecca with embroidered curtains from Egypt at the time of the Hajj pilgrimage. The curtains would be placed around the Ka'aba and then returned to Egypt. The Wahhabists slaughtered 25 of the Mahmal caravan members at Mina because they played trumpets. Music was forbidden to the Wahhabists, and the tradition of mahmal was abandoned. The incident soured relations between Egypt and the emerging nation of Saudi Arabia.

Winston Churchill was fully aware of the potential for fanaticism and warfare, inherent within Islam since the time of the founder and his successors. He did not choose to dilute his words. His experiments at nation building in the Middle East may not have been as successful as he would have wished. He knew that war had attended Islam since its origins, and a century ago fanatics were exploiting this. Today, the world is still threatened by Islamic terrorism and the war of jihad is still being fought, even in the mountains and valleys of Malakand. Our leaders today, unlike Winston Churchill, are too conciliatory to acknowledge publicly the true nature of the beast that threatens us.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Winston-Churchill-Islamism.htm

[Following is New Material added to this post at this venue on January 2, 2008. lw]

Fitzgerald: Saudi Arabia ridimensionato

"Saudi Arabia needs to be 'ridimensionato' -- that is to say, cut down to size." - Hugh Fitzgerald

Why has the American government not read Saudi Arabia the riot act? Why haven't the hate-filled pamphlets collected at mosques around the country that were built and are now maintained by Saudi money brought together by Rice or Bush and put out on a table at the White House? And then the Arab ambassadors could all be invited over to see this "Special Exhibit," an exhibit to which representatives of all the major networks and the major newspapers here and abroad will be invited and urged to cover?

And then why does Bush or someone else not have a little private meeting with the enraged Saudi Ambassador, to tell him that there is much more in that sort of "Special Exhibit" -- which could of course tour the country -- if he doesn't stop funding the mosques and madrasas in this country, and stop allowing Saudi money to pay for Muslim missionaries in the prisons, to prey on the psychically as well as economically marginal.

If the American government had a mind to do it, it could bring the Saudi government around in no time.

But it doesn't, because so many former government officials and those who listen to them are directly or indirectly on the Saudi or other Muslim dole. Who pays Eugene Bird, and pays for the ads of the "Council for the National Interest" that is virtually identical in its views to the Saudi government? Who pays for "consultancy" by Raymond Close, or James Akins? Who pays for that magazine about the Middle East, full of Arab propaganda, that another ex-diplomat, Andrew Kilgore, runs? Who pays or has paid fees to Brent Scowcroft? To George McGovern? What Presidential libraries have been battening on Saudi and other Arab money? Who has received those million-dollar lecture fees in Kuwait, or from that Arab-funded lectureship at the Fletcher School (hint: Bush, Clinton)? Who has been getting what?

Ask yourself why since 1973 there has been not a move toward decreasing, through the simple device of taxes, demand for oil and gasoline? Why for thirty years did American energy policy consist of trusting "our staunch ally Saudi Arabia" to keep prices low, when it never happened, and never could have happened? Why was no one aware until the last year or two of what, inevitably, OPEC oil revenues would fund? Why was Prince Bandar the only foreigner allowed in on the plans for invading Iraq? Why today do we worry about what the Sunni Arabs want, and believe that we have a duty to remain in Iraq to protect those Sunnis (i.e., keep the "catastrophe of civil war" from happening)?

And that is just the beginning of the list of questions that need to be asked.

Meanwhile, as long as the Saudi "royal" family (self-anointed monarchs since they defeated the Jabal Shammar in 1920, or soon thereafter) exists, and appropriates most of the nation's wealth, there will be those who will as Muslims find their resentment and outraged channeled into Islam as the total explanation of everything. And terrorism will continue in Saudi Arabia until the end of time. Let it. The only business the Infidel world should have with Saudi Arabia is to attempt to have as little business with Saudi Arabia.

For the moment great sums of money flow in, and they will continue to flow in. But this does not mean that every effort cannot be made to diminish that flow of money (instead of aiming at a ludicrously irrelevant "energy independence" for the United States, which is both unachievable and would have no effect on Saudi Arabia or other Muslim oil states, for oil not sold to America will simply be sold to others, unless collective demand goes down).

Saudi Arabia needs to be "ridimensionato" -- that is to say, cut down to size. "Money can buy everything - except civilization." It is a barbarous place; its government is barbarous, its economy barbarous, the mental state of its inhabitants barbarous. A very few, who have spent a long time in the West, can appear to have acquired the habits of thought of Western man. And a very few of those may actually manage to do so. But no one should be fooled by the oleaginous new ambassador, Al-Jubeir.

Posted by Hugh at January 6, 2007 01:03 PM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014720.php#more

"This world is an unsafe place for Americans--and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people."
"how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory--not just stalemate"
http://www.aei.org/books/filter.all,bookID.650/book_detail.asp

ALSO DON'T MISS ISLAM IS A PARASITE

which is why

Islam delenda est

For the original post "Sick of the 'Sowdis'" at the Islamic Danger blog containing a tribute to Sheik Yer 'Mami and an excellent piece by Alanfanculo, (try to) see
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/11/sick-of-sowdis-so-are-we-sick-of-saudi.html
You'll find they won't let you into that blog any longer. Wonder whether Saudi pressure had anything to do with that?

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/01/sick-of-sowdis-so-are-we-sick-of-saudi.html

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/01/pissed-off-by-price-of-gas-gasoline.html

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-saudi-government-danger-to.html

The Saudis do not take kindly if the truth is told about them.

And what is that truth? Well, first of all they are raping us via the price of oil, and keeping production at a level that will increase what we pay at the pump.

On top of that we are providing them with aid? That's like after being raped and going to bed willingly and repeatedly with your rapist between rapes.

Hey, but it's okay. Our George-Double-U-in-chief declared, “I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort.”

We all know what that Certification is worth.

As to the question, "The Saudis: Which Side Are They On?" We all know the answer to that one. The Saudis are on Allah's side, and what Allah wants, Allah gets. What does Allah want? That's an easy one: Allah wants the whole world to submit to Islam. And Allah appears to be having great successes. Can't you see him smiling at the appropriate phase of the month?

Stuart Levey knows that the Saudis are bankrolling the worldwide jihad. But knowing
that doesn't mean anything will and can be done about that. You see Stuart Levey is only the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which means he is part of the Administration--he works for the Secretary of the Treasury and the boss of all of them is that same George-Double-U-in-chief who "certified" that the Saudis are Kosher--or more appropriately, halal.

Now it's not only that the Saudis have control of our economy via oil prices, they also are deeply embedded via investments (with money gained from the gauging us at the pump) in our corporations.

These include our media. Now, as far as Moslems are concerned, these channels for our news and opinions can be compared to ladies of easy virtue who are eager to go with a favorite customer--and the Moslem Arabs are favorities as far as the left-leaning mainstream media are concerned.

But the Saudis, who we must rememeber are always on the side of Allah and not on that of the United States, are much more pervasive here in the United States than having their paws in our corporations. (One would hope that they are using only the right paw in that endeavor.) They also have heavily endowed our universities with chairs and Islamic centers, are exerting control over what goes into our school textebooks and curricula, and are spreading d'awa (proselytizing propaganda) into all levels of our society with the desired results of making Islamic converts amongst our population. As Islam is an ideology foreign to our system of government and at odds with our Constitution, that makes the Saudis not on our side.

More than all the hate literature emanating from the saudi-funded mosques, the damage to us is the attack on our freedom of speech by these self-same "certified" Saudis. This is an insidious process via coercion and extortion, putting pressure on organs in which the Saudis (and we must not forget their fellow travellers in the UAE) hold an interest to censor free speeech--unfavorable to Islam--in the private (non-governmental--so far) bodies that they can control.

Do not underestimate the enormity of what that can do in keeping our population informed of Islamic intentions in our country.

What can we do about this? Precious little, at this time, I am afraid. The Islamic forces--financed by the Saudis and greased by Saudi influence have infiltrated our Department of Defense, Administration, State Department and its Ambassadorial and Consular corps, as well as the FBI and what is invisible to us, our Intelligence agencies.

As to the Saudis claim that "Saudi officials announced . . . that they had arrested 56 members of Al-Qaeda, who were at an “advanced stage” of planning jihad terror attacks within the Kingdom," I would not put too much weight on that as far as the Saudis being on our side in our war with the forces of jihad. These could well be not high-level al qaeda operatives that posed a danger to U.S. territory and interests. They could be figuratively likened to a bone being tossed at a dog to keep it from sniffing around.

pong said,

"That is why I have always been against such terms as Islamo-Facsism, Islamic extremists and so on. Keep it simple: MOSLEMS. It is easy to stereotype them: beards, clothes, ethnicity, mosques."

Of course that is what is needed in a war: an enemy you can portray simply in caricatures. This was done in World War II--you might have seen the way our Japanese enemy was drawn by political cartoonists.

What is commonly bandied about, however, is the sentiment that "we are not against Moslems, only against Islam." It is something that was forced upon us by political correctness and is held as the proper course to combat our "War on Terror."

Islam is an ideology, a succession of thoughts that sprang from a mind (whose health is still in question) that are called ideas.

Ideas do not float around in the ether. They are carried in the minds of men (and women--msulimahs) and flow from there into spoken or written (and typed) words.

What men (and muslimahs) have the ideas that form Islam on their minds? Why MOSLEMS of course! What a revelation!

But is it safe? Is it safe to say that we are fighting Moslems? Can we say that the men we kill in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in secret crevices all over the world, are Moslems? Isn't better to call them "jihadists," so that the "moderate" Moslem who is biding his time until the violent Moslems and the subversive Moslems in our system have taken over so that he can come out and declare that Islam reigns supreme does not feel verbally assaulted?

No, I do not believe that it is safe--yet. The time will come. but right now, if you say we are warring against Moslems, you will be a very unpopular person. You will be hit with that there are "several billion" Moslems all over the world, and do you want to fight all of them? What odds will you be taking on?

Billions of Moslems or whatever they claim, we--non-Moslems--still outnumber them, so when it's a numbers game, we are ahead. Technologically, as long as we keep them from sticking their right paws into our classified data, there is no contest. (I hope that they have the sense and common decency to keep their left ones safely out of our business. We do find them offensive.)

So what is there to be afraid of? Our government, our corporations, our every channel to speak our piece. It is not "political correctness," it is fear--fear of being shut up, censored, kicked off websites, and if we speak up in a public forum of being physically assaulted and injured or killed that keep us from telling the truth.

And it is not only our fear, but the fear of those who own and control the venues we want to speak our piece on that keeps us from "calling it what it is."

Also, if we call "a spade a spade," (or Islamic fundamentalism MOSLEMS) will we be protected by the law? Not likely as if you tell the truth you will be accused of "hate speech," and incitement against a "religion."

Hence speak up at your own risk. There is no one to protect you. No lifeguards on the beach. And there are plenty of riptides.

http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2008/03/islam-and-muslim-is-there-difference.html

Islam and Muslim, is there a difference?

Also, for how to solve the world's problem with Islam, see http://howtostoptheislamicjihad.blogspot.com/2008/09/do-you-possibly-believe-that-it-is-only.html

ISLAM IS A PARASITE

by najistani

[submitted as a comment on our post " ISLAM AND THE BLACK RACE BLACK AFRICANS . . ...]

Muslims seem to have an arrogant sense of entitlement, that the kuffars owe them a living.

We see this with the Mullahs who come uninvited into Britain to draw the dole, whose multiple wives and vast families are housed at public expense while all the time they are spewing venomous hatred at their benefactors. They are like loathsome parasitic worms excreting toxins into the body of their host.

Litigation jihad is another form of parasitism. Muslims sue employers who turn them down for jobs, and even when they are employed they demand special treatment and refuse to carry out certain parts of their work, then sue for discrimination when the employer complains.

But of course they are only following the example of their 'prophet', the worthless parasite Mohammed. Muslims regard Mohammed as the 'Perfect Man' whose example they try to follow in everthing.

Mohammed began his career as a toyboy kept by a rich widow. When the money ran out he took up looting, pillaging, highway robbery, slave-trading and extortion. He tortured people whom he captured in his ambushes to make them reveal the whereabouts of their hidden treasures.

In Islamic countries the Muslims have traditionally tried to avoid work. Until recently large numbers of slaves have been kept. Another source of income for the parasites is 'jizya', where kuffars pay the taxes and the muslims live off the benefits (sound familiar?).

In Malaysia, the "jizya" is disguised. It is called the "Bumiputra" ("Sons of the Soil"). By its terms, those who are Chinese or Hindus (i.e., non-Muslims) must include in all of their economic undertakings, as equal partners, Malaysian Muslims. So, for example, if two Malaysian Chinese were to open, say, an architectural office, they would have to take on as a full partner a Malaysian Muslim, who would receive a share even if he contributed little or nothing to the enterprise.

The Islamic religion is itself a parasite or mind-virus (the 'rabies of religions'). Islam draws on other religions to establish its credibility, yet violates the principles of its host religions. Thus Jesus is regarded as a prophet, but a second-rate one who brought an incomplete and corrupted message from Allah. Mohammed is the final 'seal of the prophets' who brought the correct and complete message in the form of the Koran.

Remember how Jesus effectively forbade stoning ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone") ? Well Jesus, being an imperfect prophet was WRONG. Mohammed set things right when he reintroduced stoning and made it the major spectator sport in places like Iran that it continues to be till today.

The cult parasitizes the natural instincts of its followers by repressing their sexual urges and chanelling them into rage, fury and fanatical aggression.

-End-

Islam delenda est

Palaestina arabica delenda est

THE TRUTH ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA

"This world is an unsafe place for Americans--and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people."

". . .our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory--not just stalemate"
--David Frum and Richard Perle

Sick of the "Sowdis?"

So are we! Sick of Saudi "students*," Sowdi plane hijackers, Sowdi diplomats, Sowdi-purchased American influential people, Sowdi "princeling" refusing to shake the hand of a Jew, Sowdi, Sowdi, Sowdi, dinned into our ears by the --our--government. We know about the prez--his connex with the Sows, we know about State--and whom the Sows have purchased in there, we know, but, so far, we DO nothing about this*. We know about the madrassas (schools teaching Islam as written in the koran), we know about the mosques the Sows are proliferating in our land. But we do nothing. Time to roll 'em back! We doan need no stinkin' Sowdis!

Oh, their oil? Oh, did I forget about that? No! Sure as shootin' Ah didn'. Lookee here: Pissed off by the price of gas?--gasoline, petrol, gasolina? Click on that. New stuff there! Very interesting. Muy interesante! Go there, read it.

For a history of how Saudi arabia was given the oil by the idiotic West, see Pissed off by the price of gasoline? The History of Saudi Oil

and then, there's
Surprise, Surprise: Yet More Evidence that the Majority of Foreign Fighters in Iraq Come from Saudi Arabia.

And how 'bout this?
`Our Eternal Friends' The Saudis Release 1500 Jihadi Terrorists

and also from
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/our-eternal-friends-saudis-release-1500.html there's this:

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Jihad has been a feature of Islam from its beginnings

Thursday, January 10, 2008

ATTACKING MECCA, MEDINA, AND THE DOME MOSQUE

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

WHAT WORRIES US MOST ABOUT THE ISLAMIC JIHAD?

". . . the essential decency of the American fighting forces -- a fact we need to affirm unapologetically today in the face of jihadist propaganda, and as one principal manifestation of the superiority (yes) of the culture and civilization that we are defending."
--Robert Spencer

With what do we, in the civilized world, concern ourselves mostly? what do we spend the most time wrangling about--in the halls of Congress, in endless hearings? Whom do we grill, drag into courts--military or civilian?

All of the foregoing--in carrying out this war against the Islamic jihad that threatens to overwhelm and enslave us?

Or is it our enemies? The apprehended jihadists---whether here or abroad--whom we torment?
No. We bend over backwards to give our enemies the benefit of the doubt.

What worries us most is whether we can stay on the high moral road while fighting an enemy that recognizes no morality except that of forcing Islam upon all those not already ensnared by that cult--an ideology based on unreason, a fragmentary and poorly understood aping of two existing religions--not ideologies.

We are trying to hold on to this "moral high ground," against an enemy who disregards all the compacts and conventions formulated to make war more "civilized," an enemy whose most sacred text counsels breaking cease-fires, deceit at all costs. While we are doing this, we are losing sight of what warfare is all about: survival--winning.

No, we do not want to sink to the level of our enemies, to become savages--again (because before the introduction of Judeo-Christian morality, war was a no-holds-barred affair).

But we (Western Civilization) are being ridiculous about what worries us most, as we continue fighting the savages who attacked us--again--using the establishment of Israel as a ready excuse. There were plane hijackings and murder of children, women and civilian men, and then the signal that Islam was on the warpath--once again--with the takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran, Iran.

Islamic attacks against us followed after our non-response to this act of war on the part of the Iranian ayatollahs.

By now, the Islamic jihad against us--Western Civilization (Islam is not a civilization, it is a catastrophe [naqba])--is in full swing. And what outrages us the most?

The killing of near 3000 innocent civilians in New York by jihadists? Blowing up of our embassies in Africa? Blowing a hole into one of our warships, unprovokes, with casualties of our naval personnel? Killing our U.S. Marines in Lebanon--uprovoked, sent there as peacekeepers--to save Moslem lives?

No. These incidents passed, while we sighed, mourning our losses, and in the greatest outrage of all--the 9-11 attack--unduly concerned that the members of the ideology living here, in our country, were safe from what could have been an enraged citizenry.

Beheadings of our people, caused us to shake our heads in disbelief that such savage acts could happen today--the 21st Century. Were we outraged? Not really.

What brought us to flaming outrage was Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the monitoring of jihadists phone conversations (some of the jihadists perhaps US citizens!).

Marines and soldiers face courts-martial , often based on the words of people that could or could not be enemies (all being of the same ideological persuasion of our enemies).

All is needed is that one of the co-cultists of the jihadists bring charges against our military personnel and we get in a tizzy.

We are worrying about the wrong things. In war--and this is war, although too few of us seem to realize it--winning is the only thing.

(Lest you'd rather be dead, knowing before you got that way, that you and your fellow citizens were traipsing along the moral high road.)

Photo: HH-60H Seahawk. Its weapons system includes Hellfire missiles, 2 GAU-17 mini-guns and a Forward Looking Infrared imaging system with LASER designator. The crew deploy SEALs,and fly behind enemy lines for rescues and combat support.

The flag being displayed is the first U.S. Navy Jack. Since 1977, the First U.S. Navy Jack adorns the oldest active duty warship. The USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 serving in the Persian Gulf currently holds this distinguished honor.

from
http://www.gadsdenandculpeper.com/

MORE . . .

Case in point of the meticulous investigation of any action on part of our fighting personnel is the shooting of three Islamic jihadists enemy combatants in a mosque complex by a Marine corporal. The Marines had been under fire from the mosque, and during the clearing operation of the main mosque building. One opf the jihadist combatants appeared dead, but his left arm was hidden behind his head. The corporal, familiar with the jihadist tactic of feigning death and subsequently killing Marines, made certain that the jihadist--who appeared to be dead--was dead.

The shooting of the jihadist enemy combatant was captured on video tape by an embedded reporter. The video clip caused an outcry for an investigation into the incident.

The value of "embedded reporters" with our combat forces is dubious to say the least. The anti-military orientation of some of these "embeddeds" may cause them to act as self-styled "neutral" observers--with an axe to grind--and have them take on the role of civilian "enforcers" of the Rules of Engagement (ROE).

The investigation by the Marine Corps was exhaustive--and to my mind unhelpful to the morale of combat troops. Shooting an enemy jihadist who either was feigning death--or was dead--to protect Marines from a deadly threat only became a "celebrated cause" because the embedded reporter decded to make it so.

You can read the Marine Corps Press Release--a short one-page writeup--at

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/templatereleaseview1/A22091551DEB1D4185256FF800380615?opendocument

Well worth your time.

AND STILL MORE

ABOUT OUR CONCERN

FOR OUR ISLAMIC ENEMY

. . . AND LACK OF IT FOR OUR TROOPS

From RULES OF ENGAGEMENT -- There [Iraq]

For the insurgents, Iraq has become a war without rules, and yet the militants also score big propaganda victories every time Americans break their own codes of warfare. In the battle for Fallujah the insurgents feigned surrender, waving white flags to approach within killing range of U.S. Marines and Iraqi government forces. They positioned their fighters in mosques, medical centers and civilian neighborhoods. They booby-trapped their fallen comrades' corpses and shot at crews trying to collect the Muslim dead. Practically every taboo has been discarded.
--Newsweek

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/01/rules-of-engagement-there-from-newsweek.html

From WE HAVE LOST THE WAR IN IRAQ

As so many say so well, the object of war is for our troops to kill people and break things, not to be emasculated by these godawful rules of engagement. These ROE, as the military calls them, should be to permit the most efficient killing of people and breaking of things, not to prevent getting hurt--or even worse, not to hurt the poor enemy.

* * *

. . an embedded reporter with our own surging troops in Iraq reported on National Public Radio that our troops chased a very bad guy, a big time leader of the bad guys in Sunni Iraq, into a mosque. Did they go get him? Of course not. Why not? Rules of engagement. The reporter never stated what happened to the bad guy, which leads everyone to "know" that he got away to kill Americans again

Death by Rules of Engagement

fromSixth Column (a.k.a., Brush Fires of Freedom, 15May07)
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/04/have-we-lost-war-in-iraq-huh-when-sen.html

from We have the technology to defeat any enemy in the world . . .but . . .

Although many military personnel may support the Iraq war, and although war is inherently distressing, Washington’s immoral policies necessitate putting our troops in an impossible situation. The reported attitudes of combat troops in Iraq can be understood as the natural reaction of individuals thrust into that situation.
* * *
According to the report: "More than one-third of all Soldiers and Marines continue to report being in threatening situations where they were unable to respond due to the Rules of Engagement (ROE). In interviews, Soldiers reported that Iraqis would throw gasoline-filled bottles (i.e., Molotov cocktails) at their vehicles, yet they were prohibited from responding with force for nearly a month until the ROE were changed. Soldiers also reported they are still not allowed to respond with force when Iraqis drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses on them when they drive by. Every group of Soldiers and Marines interviewed reported that they felt the existing ROE tied their hands, preventing them from doing what needed to be done to win the war."
from Brushfires of Freedom, quotinghttp://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2007/05/study-of-troops-mental-health-ethics.asp

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/05/we-have-technology-to-defeat-any-enemy.html

From The Nightmare of Being a U.S. Combat Troop in Iraq Hamstrung By Washington's Battlefield "Ethics"

The death and misery caused by Washington's self-crippling rules of engagement--rules endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike--are part of the inevitable destruction flowing from a broader evil: the philosophy of "compassionate" war.
This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4986

From Guantanamo and the Geneva Convention

When the enemy consists of fanatical terrorists (who, incidentally, are not part of a national army), the idea of applying the Geneva Convention is grotesque. Yet Senator John McCain, who was himself a POW in the Vietnam war, worries about the consequences to our soldiers if we don't play nice with the terrorist captives in Guantanamo. But, in fact, there's simply no relation between the treatment of Guantanmo captives and what will or won't happen to American POWs in some unspecified future future war against some unspecified enemy.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4797

From Why is the Bush Administration Sacrificing Our Marines?

The law regulates international military operations, and anyone found in violation can be held liable for war crimes and be court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not uncommon for insurgents to launch attacks from homes, hospitals and other public buildings, where civilians can get caught in the crossfire. [Lolita C. Baldor, AP]

Let us consider the basic facts. There is no legitimate reason for Iraqis to oppose the US mission in Iraq. The US has toppled a bloody, brutal dictatorship and replaced it with a government whose constitution was written by the Iraqis themselves (and US policy in this regard has been excruciatingly deferential, for the Iraqi constitution is a mess). Despite the magnanimous treatment of the Iraqi people by the US, many in Iraq nevertheless oppose the US mission and have either given material support to the Iraqi insurgency, or have allowed the insurgency to flourish by failing to fight it themselves.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4610

HOW DID WE GET THIS WAY?

By making war a "no-no." A fact of history and life that must be derided, ignored, relegated to lower human life forms.

As Victor Davis Hanson says:

"The academic neglect of war is even more acute today. Military history as a discipline has atrophied, with very few professorships, journal articles, or degree programs. In 2004, Edward Coffman, a retired military history professor who taught at the University of Wisconsin, reviewed the faculties of the top 25 history departments, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report. He found that of over 1,000 professors, only 21 identified war as a specialty.

When war does show up on university syllabi, it’s often about the race, class, and gender of combatants and wartime civilians. So a class on the Civil War will focus on the Underground Railroad and Reconstruction, not on Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. One on World War II might emphasize Japanese internment, Rosie the Riveter, and the horror of Hiroshima, not Guadalcanal and Midway. A survey of the Vietnam War will devote lots of time to the inequities of the draft, media coverage, and the antiwar movement at home, and scant the air and artillery barrages at Khe Sanh.

* * *
Historians of war must derive perverse pleasure, their critics suspect, from reading about carnage and suffering. Why not figure out instead how to outlaw war forever, as if it were not a tragic, nearly inevitable aspect of human existence? Hence the recent surge of “peace studies” (see “The Peace Racket”).

* * *
A wartime public illiterate about the conflicts of the past can easily find itself paralyzed in the acrimony of the present. Without standards of historical comparison, it will prove ill equipped to make informed judgments. Neither our politicians nor most of our citizens seem to recall the incompetence and terrible decisions that, in December 1777, December 1941, and November 1950, led to massive American casualties and, for a time, public despair. So it’s no surprise that today so many seem to think that the violence in Iraq is unprecedented in our history. Roughly 3,000 combat dead in Iraq in some four years of fighting is, of course, a terrible thing. And it has provoked national outrage to the point of considering withdrawal and defeat, as we still bicker over up-armored Humvees and proper troop levels. But a previous generation considered Okinawa a stunning American victory, and prepared to follow it with an invasion of the Japanese mainland itself—despite losing, in a little over two months, four times as many Americans as we have lost in Iraq, casualties of faulty intelligence, poor generalship, and suicidal head-on assaults against fortified positions.
It’s not that military history offers cookie-cutter comparisons with the past. Germany’s World War I victory over Russia in under three years and her failure to take France in four apparently misled Hitler into thinking that he could overrun the Soviets in three or four weeks—after all, he had brought down historically tougher France in just six. Similarly, the conquest of the Taliban in eight weeks in 2001, followed by the establishment of constitutional government within a year in Kabul, did not mean that the similarly easy removal of Saddam Hussein in three weeks in 2003 would ensure a working Iraqi democracy within six months. The differences between the countries—cultural, political, geographical, and economic—were too great.
Instead, knowledge of past wars establishes wide parameters of what to expect from new ones. Themes, emotions, and rhetoric remain constant over the centuries, and thus generally predictable. Athens’s disastrous expedition in 415 BC against Sicily, the largest democracy in the Greek world, may not prefigure our war in Iraq. But the story of the Sicilian calamity does instruct us on how consensual societies can clamor for war—yet soon become disheartened and predicate their support on the perceived pulse of the battlefield.

Military history teaches us, contrary to popular belief these days, that wars aren’t necessarily the most costly of human calamities. The first Gulf War took few lives in getting Saddam out of Kuwait; doing nothing in Rwanda allowed savage gangs and militias to murder hundreds of thousands with impunity. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin killed far more off the battlefield than on it. The 1918 Spanish flu epidemic brought down more people than World War I did. And more Americans—over 3.2 million—lost their lives driving over the last 90 years than died in combat in this nation’s 231-year history. Perhaps what bothers us about wars, though, isn’t just their horrific lethality but also that people choose to wage them—which makes them seem avoidable, unlike a flu virus or a car wreck, and their tolls unduly grievous. Yet military history also reminds us that war sometimes has an eerie utility: as British strategist Basil H. Liddell Hart put it, “War is always a matter of doing evil in the hope that good may come of it.” Wars—or threats of wars—put an end to chattel slavery, Nazism, fascism, Japanese militarism, and Soviet Communism.

Military history is as often the story of appeasement as of warmongering. The destructive military careers of Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler would all have ended early had any of their numerous enemies united when the odds favored them. Western air power stopped Slobodan Milošević’s reign of terror at little cost to NATO forces—but only after a near-decade of inaction and dialogue had made possible the slaughter of tens of thousands. Affluent Western societies have often proved reluctant to use force to prevent greater future violence. “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things,” observed the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. “The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”

Indeed, by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking—as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, frustrated by the Bush administration’s intransigence in the War on Terror, flew to Syria, hoping to persuade President Assad to stop funding terror in the Middle East. She assumed that Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom might in fact destroy him. For a therapeutically inclined generation raised on Oprah and Dr. Phil—and not on the letters of William Tecumseh Sherman and William Shirer’s Berlin Diary—problems between states, like those in our personal lives, should be argued about by equally civilized and peaceful rivals, and so solved without resorting to violence.

Yet it’s hard to find many wars that result from miscommunication. Far more often they break out because of malevolent intent and the absence of deterrence. Margaret Atwood also wrote in her poem: “Wars happen because the ones who start them / think they can win.” Hitler did; so did Mussolini and Tojo—and their assumptions were logical, given the relative disarmament of the Western democracies at the time. Bin Laden attacked on September 11 not because there was a dearth of American diplomats willing to dialogue with him in the Hindu Kush. Instead, he recognized that a series of Islamic terrorist assaults against U.S. interests over two decades had met with no meaningful reprisals, and concluded that decadent Westerners would never fight, whatever the provocation—or that, if we did, we would withdraw as we had from Mogadishu.
In the twenty-first century, it’s easier than ever to succumb to technological determinism, the idea that science, new weaponry, and globalization have altered the very rules of war. But military history teaches us that our ability to strike a single individual from 30,000 feet up with a GPS bomb or a jihadist’s efforts to have his propaganda beamed to millions in real time do not necessarily transform the conditions that determine who wins and who loses wars.

excerpted from
Victor Davis Hanson: "Why Study War? Military history teaches us about honor, sacrifice, and the inevitability of conflict."
City Journal
Summer 2007
Reprinted at
http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/Noteworthy_P3.htm
More there, read the whole thing!
Especially the section "Studying War: Where to Start" This gives you a starting bibliography. It will show you that we should be concerned with winning any war we engage in instead of worrying about the well-being of our deadly enemies.

Links Related to this Post:

(some material is redundant--but a lot of new and different information)

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-you-hear-someone-shout-allahu.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/04/blog-post.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/11/dont-tread-on-me-bold-look-at-history.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/09/dont-tread-on-me-one-answer-to-jihad.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/10/to-shores-of-tripoli.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/01/sing-song-of-history-sing-song-of.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/01/will-many-small-wars-help-us-win-large.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/01/defeating-islam_30.html

Islam delenda est

-30-

PENTAGON INFILTRATED BY MOSLEM ACTIVISTS!

Deputy Defense Secretary England personally promoted a Muslim Navy chaplain who, according to the WorldNetDaily report reprinted below, is a “Wahhabi-trained Muslim chaplain.” Wahhabism is a very radical strain of Islam that emanates principally from Saudi Arabia.

It would seem reasonable for all of us to ask: “What’s going on at the Pentagon?”

ACT for America

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Quantico mosque leader promoted
Pentagon honors Wahhabi-trained Muslim chaplain

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
In a special ceremony, the Pentagon recently promoted a Wahhabi-trained Muslim chaplain who catered to al-Qaida detainees at Guantanamo and fought to establish the first mosque in Marine Corps history.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England personally promoted Navy chaplain Abuhena Mohammed Saifulislam from lieutenant to lieutenant commander. Saifulislam also received a Joint Service Commendation Medal at the Pentagon ceremony held on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Pentagon officials say the ceremony was unprecedented.

"It's unusual for a deputy secretary to personally promote an officer of that rank," said one official who wished to go unnamed. "No one has known of such a high-level dignitary doing that."

England also earlier this year personally dedicated a new Islamic center at Marine headquarters in Quantico, Va., on the advice of Saifulislam, a Bangladesh immigrant who became a U.S. citizen in 1995.

The Muslim chaplain, who is stationed at Quantico, recited verses from the Quran in Arabic and English at the summer dedication ceremony, which included representatives from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, several leaders of which have been convicted on terrorism-related charges.

Saifulislam, which is Arabic for "Sword of Islam," received his religious training at a radical Islamic school raided by federal agents after 9/11. The Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, based in Leesburg, Va., is run by Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Sami al-Arian terror case. A federal affidavit used to obtain a warrant to search the school alleges Al-Alwani gave at least $50,000 in jihad money "to support suicide bombings."

Saifulislam insists he is moderate and condemns "terrorism," but critics say his Wahhabi background and associations should give the Pentagon pause.

"The Pentagon is giving him a permanent, taxpayer-supported platform from which to convert grunts to Islam," said terror expert Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington." "With the Quantico mosque, the Pentagon is facilitating the study of the holy text the enemy uses, heretically or not, as their manual of warfare."

Saifulislam's promotion along with the dedication of his new Quantico mosque – the first of its kind in the 230-year history of the Corps – comes on the heels of a Muslim spy scandal at Gitmo involving another Muslim chaplain.

Army Capt. James "Yousef" Yee, who ministered to al-Qaida detainees, was charged with mishandling classified information. Yee, a convert to Islam, quit the Army and the charges were dropped. But two of his Muslim military friends at Gitmo were convicted of espionage-related crimes.

Yee's predecessor at Gitmo was Saifulislam, who was first assigned to the terrorist prison camp after 9/11. While at the Cuban base, the Navy imam privately counseled al-Qaida prisoners in their native tongues of Urdu and Arabic. "I must give hope for them to cope," Saifulislam said at the time.

He set up the diet and prayer regimes for the detainees, recommending they be served halal meals – including traditional dates and lamb – prepared according to Islamic dietary law. Gitmo detainees can now choose from a menu of 113 Muslim-appropriate meals.

In addition, Saifulislam saw to it that detainees receive copies of the Quran and have access to prayer beads and skull caps. Saifulislam also set up a program to train guards to be more sensitive to the religious customs of their Muslim prisoners.

West Point bows to Mecca

Multiculturalism appears to trump concerns about Islamist infiltration of the military. Following the Marine's lead, the Army in October dedicated a new mosque at West Point.

The U.S. Military Academy's first worship hall for Muslims boasts green carpets, shoe racks and a pulpit facing Mecca. Officials agreed to set up the mosque, large enough for dozens of followers, after Muslim leaders complained that the office where Muslim cadets gathered for Friday prayers had become too crowded.

The Army has been recruiting international cadets from Muslim countries such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Muslim enrollment at the academy in New York has jumped to 32 from just two in 2001.

"We live in a world where everyone is looking at the United States saying, 'You're anti-Islam,'" explained West Point Chaplain Col. John Cook. "But here at West Point, that's not what we do."

The U.S. military now boasts more than 10,000 Muslim soldiers, many of them black converts. On the eve of the Army's push into Iraq, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a black Muslim convert, fragged commanding officers at a military camp in Kuwait. He killed two of them and wounded 15 others.

Akbar, recently convicted of murder and given the death sentence, said at the time he did it out of loyalty to the umma, or global community of Muslims.

"You guys are coming into our countries," he said, "and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."

Within months of Akbar's traitorous 2003 attacks, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued an internal report warning that Muslim soldiers pose a possible security threat, according to national security reporter Bill Gertz in his new book "Enemies."

It was also in 2003 that Yee was accused of spying for the enemy while serving as a Muslim chaplain at Gitmo. Yee graduated from West Point, site of the Army's new mosque.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[COMMENT: They hang traitors, don't they? And if they don't, they should be doing so, lest the Saracen triumphs. lw]

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

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
http://www.actforamerica.org/

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

HOW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO TO REMAIN FREE*?

. . . of Islam

What are you willing to do if it appears that Islam will conquer our nation?

Will you support with your earnings the idolent Moslems lolling about the streets, raping your wives, daughters, and girlfriends at will? Will you willingly pay the tax required of the non-believer? Or will you just as soon convert to Islam, to save yourself humiliation and the tax?

Will you "brave the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" or do the as yet unthinkable? It has been done before, in history. You would not be the first nor the last to think, to ponder, "Would I rather live as a slave or feed the Tree of Liberty with the blood of the enemy?

Right now, we still have a Bill of Rights, and its second amendment, to keep the government from forcing its will upon the people.

Remember though, once the Constitution has been subverted and replaced by shariah as the highest law of the land its protections and guarantees are gone, whatever you do to reclaim your country will no longer be in danger of being branded as sedition or treason.

Do not accept the Moslem as your superior. Do not accept Islamic demands with bowed heads. There is that foreign element amongst us (Islam and its adherents). Do not take it into your bosom.

There might be treason at the top, but do not throw up your hands and say that there is nothing that can be done.

As long as there are those with the will to do what must be done, we will not bow to the invisible idol worshipped by our enemy.

Edited and amended from a Post by: unicorns62000 January 5, 2008 1:56 AM

THERE IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE OFFING:

Be careful for whom you vote--those who promise a drastic change may take us further into that dark night that is poised to swallow us.

CHANGE - 'the sought-after solution to all our problems," what is it? Placating the Moslems, diplomatic overtures to try and mollify those who want only to destroy us. You can take the boy out of the madrassa, but can you ever take the madrassa competely out of the boy?
__________
*Anything less than ALL THE WAY is asking for disaster (defeat).
-----------------
***
Do not expect anything but defeatism from . . .

The Useless Bastards of the 60s

Pacifists, "lovers of all cultures, religions, and ideologies," cowards at heart who want more than anything "peace at any price."

***
As to our sworn enemies . . .

Kill them before they kill us

THE GREEKS, WHO KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT WARFARE, HAD THEIR GOD OF WAR--ARES--WITH TWO SONS

DEMOS AND PHOBOS--"TERROR" AND "FEAR"

We, who have become so disgustingly (what we believe to be) "civilized" that we appear to have forgotten the basics of waging war to win--by letting our all the stops.

DEIMOS
Δειμος (Ancient Greek)
Means "terror" in Greek. This was one of the sons of the Greek god Ares.

PHOBOS
Φοβος (Ancient Greek)
Pronounced: FO-bos (English)
Means "fear" in Greek. This was one of the sons of Ares in Greek mythology.

Both of these techniques of warfare--terror and fear--were employed by our side during World War II--using terror to bring fear into the hearts of the enemies' populations, e.g. Dresden and its "Firestorm" and the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Racial and "religious'"(ideological) hatred played no part in the decision to use these two techniques to defeat the enemy. They were used to assure the survival of OUR side.

We must use these twin boys of Ares against our most determined enemy. He is determined to destroy us. We MUST destroy him first.

No matter how much they squeal "Islamophobia!" or "race" crime! Remember the enemy is neither a race nor one ethnicity. The enemy is an ideology. This ideology consists of killing or enslaving all those who do not BELIEVE in it. It is an ideology of evil. Destroying it--utterly--can be done with a clear conscience.

Now, an ideology is not something that float about the ether. It resides in the minds of men (and women). To destroy the ideology, we must destroy the men (and women0 in whose minds the ideology resides.

Here's where the squeamish start shying away from what must be done.

If you have a child (or more), whom would you rather see die: your child or the enemy? It is a decision that you will have to make. Your children or theirs? Your women or theirs?

You must decide. Do it or die.

THE ENEMY WITHIN

U.S. OFFICIALS . . .
Bought and paid for:

US officials sold sensitive military and nuke secrets to foreign agents
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019473.php

and . . .

What should we do about it?

how about:

Civil Disobedience or Civil War?

Civil Disobedience Versus Sedition

Why No Revolution in Israel

Have we Lost the War in Iraq?

SHOULD GOVERNMENT LEADERS BE HANGED FOR TREASON? ...

America's Extreme Left Wing Student Army - The International Solidarity Movement

Lionheart writes,

Foreword: I thought I would repost this article "The ISM Terror Connection" that I was involved with concerning America's foremost Left Wing Student Army - The International Solidarity Movement

Every concerned American citizen should think long and hard about what your government allows upon your College campuses.

We all agree with free speech anywhere within our societies because this is a corner stone of democracy, that same free speech that 'unseen forces' are trying to take away from me.

But if you go onto College campuses and recruit young College students to your Extreme Left Wing cause, then this takes you beyond the free speech arena and places you well and truly in the context of an organisation that recruits for Foreign Terrorist Organisations, namely Hamas.

I am sure that in American you have laws for just such terrorist recruiting organisations considering you are engaged in a 'War on Terror', so how then can this organisation be slipping past your radar screen.

The modus operandi of the International Solidarity Movement is to invade American college campuses with their propoganda aimed at demonising Israel and painting a picture of oppressed Palestinians. This Islamic engineered propoganda obviously effects some of the young impressionable students that hear it, who are young idealists who want to try to do their bit to make the World a better place, so are easy prey for the predators wanting to lure them into their Left Wing Extremist Army.

Once in the fold they are indoctrinated by the Islamic engineering process of poor Palestinians and big bad Israelis and their American supporters.

They are then sent off on a tour of duty to Israel and the West Bank to be used and trained in the art of urban warfare by their Islamic Palestinian handlers.

They riot and support terrorism within Israel against innocent Jewish communities.

Once they have completed their tour of duty they then return to America as trained indoctrinated Extreme Left Wing guerilla soldiers with a complete hatred for America and what it stands for in the World.

The training, radicalising and recruiting process of this Extreme Left Wing Army starts off upon U. S College campuses because the International Solidarity Movement is given a free reign upon your institutes of higher learning under the banner free speech.

How do American parents feel about their children being exposed to this propoganda when they are supposed to be in a safe environment to expand their education ready for the future, I am sure that considering the amount of money paid in college fees they expect these institutes to be protected from such Islamic terrorist supporting and recruiting groups that endanger their childrens lives - Look at Rachel Cory as a prime example of an innocent student recruited, radicalised, sent off to Israel and then killed in the line of duty of defending Palestinian terrorist tunnels.

Even worse is that there has even been a case of a College Professor recruiting two of his students to the cause of the International Solidarity Movement during his lessons and then sending them off to the West bank.

There cannot be a more sinister case of infiltration into Americas education system than this with the International Solidarity Movement and their associated groups.

The links to International Islamic terrorism through this organisation and their willingness to support Palestinian terrorism cannot be ignored.

I spent less than 24 hours with this group in Israel and ended up in the West Bank with terrorists and their AK47 machine guns.

Is this what you expect for your children when you send them off to college?

To be placed in the position of being confronted with this Islamic terror supporting Extreme Left Wing organisation and recruited into their Army, an Army of guerilla soldiers trained in the art of urban warfare by their Islamic Palestinian friends?

To read more about this group and its actions and links to Islamic terrorism check - Stop the ISM

Frontpage Mag - The ISM Terror connection
Lee Kaplan - Dafka

As a front group for Palestinian terrorists, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) sends young people from all over the world to the training fields of the West Bank and Gaza to learn from terrorists and to aid them logistically. Stop the ISM has now obtained photographs of ISM leaders and organizers holding AK-47 assault rifles. The images show some of the ISM women disguised as Jews living in the West Bank and in the company of an Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorist.

One of our volunteers in the United Kingdom for Stop the ISM managed to infiltrate the ISM late last June in the Holy Land where the ISM operates in direct support of terrorists. Our volunteer (who prefers to remain anonymous to avoid retaliatory attacks) has had prior experience going undercover for the police in the UK. The photos and intelligence he brought back are proving invaluable to intelligence agencies watching the ISM and have been in official hands for over a month prior to this publication.

Unfortunately, neither U.S. Homeland Security nor the Israeli security agencies have to date regarded the ISM as a serious threat. Some of these ISM people in these photos managed to escape; nevertheless, arrests have been made, and more are forthcoming.

In April 2003, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that "ISM members take an active part in illegal and violent actions against IDF soldiers. At times, their activity in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip is under the auspices of Palestinian terrorist organizations." The ISM always tries to maintain the veneer of a “peace group”; however, ISM founders Adam Shapiro and his wife, Huwaida Arraf, and Norcal ISM’s leader Paul LaRudee, a man who Stop the ISM recently succeeded in getting deported from Israel as a security threat, began revealing their true colors recently by going to Lebanon to act as “human shields” for the Hezbollah.

Up to now, the ISM has been permitted to use our colleges and universities to find recruits to send to the Middle East to interfere with Israeli soldiers and border police. For example, every Friday, the ISM organizes riots in the West Bank. ISM members openly boast about having been arrested for vandalizing and destroying Israeli security fences and equipment. In March 2003, fugitive Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Sukiya was arrested in a house the ISM rented in Jenin. Two suicide bombers from the UK met with the ISM in Gaza before blowing up Mike’s Place, a bar in Tel Aviv, killing three people and wounding more than fifty in the process.

Here at home, ISM appears to blatantly violate 18 USC Code 2339a, a statute banning going overseas to aid terrorist groups. The government has also failed to enforce felony passport laws that are continually being violated by ISM activists. This allows the ISM to function across international boundaries. Rico Statutes in the US are routinely violated too through a campus network. Emiliano, an American ISM activist in these photos, was sent to the West Bank with money given to him by New York ISM as a “grant.” That means a conspiratorial subversive group is paying to send subversives to riot in an allied country in this War on Terror. When I called the San Francisco office of the FBI three times to alert them about information in this article, I was disconnected twice and the third time given a voice recorder for the duty agent. Nobody called back.

Our Stop the ISM volunteer arrived at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv two months ago where he was immediately recruited by an ISM activist named Emiliano, who was there from the United States. A young man like our volunteer, Emiliano approached our man on arrival at the airport and asked where he was going. When our volunteer replied, “Jerusalem,” Emiliano joined him on a bus and struck up a conversation with him, recommending a youth hostel in the Israeli capital near the Damascus Gate. Destination: The Faisal Youth Hostel in East Jerusalem.

Continue reading: ISM Terror connection
Posted by Lionheart at 3:24 AM 3 comments Links to this post

Posted by Lionheart at 3:24 AM January 8, 2008
at http://www.lionheartuk.blogspot.com/