Day by Day

Friday, March 31, 2006

Islam - 9/11 bred fear of Muslims

I don't know if the fear of Muslims can be traced exactly to 9/11, but it sure seems ever since that day, people display a lot more of that fear. Everywhere you turn there are signs of it.

The US and UK media refused to publish the Muhammad cartoons out of fear of Muslims.

A bookstore chain in Canada refused to carry a magazine that contained them - out of fear of Muslims.

Now, two major bookstore chains in America are refusing to carry a magazine with them - out of fear of Muslims. This despite the fact that one of them, Borders, had carried a magazine with a picture of Muhammad in 1999 - before 9/11.

NYU had to close a discussion about the cartoons to the public out of fear of Muslims.

Secretary of State, Rice, had part of her multicultural tour of Britain cancelled by Muslims out of fear of Muslims.

The fear has gotten so irrational, that the London Underground has refused to allow an advert that contains the word "Muslim" out of fear of Muslims.

The result of all this fear of Muslims has been most profound on Britain and is speeding up the Islamization of Britain.

The BBC is helping in the process by never using the "M" word in a report unless it is to portray Muslims in a good light or as victims. There is currently a Muslim terror trial in the UK, that involves British Muslims and predates the 7/7 attacks on London, but you wouldn't know that from the BBC.

Welcome to the new world order. Not what you expected is it?

Thanfully, a few brave souls are fighting back and winning.

There are others. See the links under "Jihad Watchers" on the left side bar.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran Gets 30 Days to Clear Nuke Suspicions

And if this doesn't work then we'll send them a nasty letter telling them how mad we are.

Iran says it doesn't need 30 days and tells the UN to piss off.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Tehran's chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said "it is impossible to go back to suspension.

"This enrichment matter is not reversible," he said in a telephone call from Vienna, Austria.


Take that UN!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - CAIR: Muslim group loses terror suit

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which bills itself as the moderate voice of Muslims in America, but is in fact a front for terrorists, has lost its lawsuit aginst Anti-CAIR. This is indeed a great victory over the forces of evil.

Robert Spencer reports:

"More detail on this major victory for the good guys from Anti-CAIR:

A $1.35 million libel suit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR), who called CAIR a “terrorist front organization,” that was “founded by Hamas supporters,” and was working to “make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States,” has been dismissed with prejudice. According to ACAIR’s Mr. Whitehead, who posts at www.anti-cair-net.org, “I am pleased to report the CAIR lawsuit has been dismissed after the parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement.”


Terms of the settlement are confidential. However, no apology was issued, no retraction or corrections made, and the statements that triggered CAIR’s suit remain on the ACAIR website."


More on CAIR here.

CAIR is to the US what the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) are to the UK. You can read about the MAB's terror links here and the MCB's terror links here.

In a rare moment of honesty, the BBC aired a program, "A Question of Leadership" that exposed these two groups.

Keep this in mind when you see any of these groups quoted in the media.

UPDATE

Seems some in the media are noticing. Don't worry MSM will not report on any of this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Islam says on religious freedom

Isn't pretty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - 'Muslim' adverts banned from Tube

Good grief! Now you can't even use the word "Muslim" in adverstising, even though it portrays Muslims in a positive light!

The channel described the show, starring Michael Ealy as FBI agent Darwyn Al Sayeed, as the first American drama to feature a Muslim as the lead heroic character.

The character poses as a prisoner in order to infiltrate a fundamentalist group.


And the reason for the ban?

"This decision was taken in line with our standard policies, which seek to avoid gratuitously insulting large groups of Londoners."


Now which groups whould that be?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - Protests to follow Rice's tour

The BBC reports.

Mr Straw says he wants to show Ms Rice a thriving multicultural modern Britain beyond the capital.


So, how's that working out?

But her arrival has divided Muslim opinion and a planned visit to a mosque in Mr Straw's Blackburn constituency was scrapped after fears of protests.


Oh, not so well then with the multicultural thingy.

Who's behind the protests?

Earlier, mosque leaders in Blackburn decided to withdraw their invitation for Ms Rice to visit them on Saturday, amid warnings of protests from a group of Muslims which included members of the Stop the War Coalition.


Ah, Muslims joining up with Communists. Why do you suppose the BBC never tell the publich that the STWC is led by Communists? It sure puts this story in a different context.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Islam - Staring Down Shariah

Like the Danish cartoons before him, the case of an Afghan Muslim being persecuted for converting to Christianity, is forcing the world to admit that Islam is not the tolerant religion they and their backers say it is.

Even more, the Left have nowhere to hide now. They, and their mouthpiece, the left wing media, tried to hide the Muslim attacks on free speech with appeals over Muslim sensitivites. Not so with the Rahman case. It is what it is, naked religious persecution in a country that has been liberated and still enjoys security provided by western democracies. In short, Afghanistan is not Saudi Arabia where the Left remain silent on religious persecution and abuse of women.

As David Warren notes:

The case of Abdul Rahman, like the organized Danish cartoon apoplexy (still continuing in some parts of the world, where Muslim demagogues are still using it to whoop up anti-Western hysteria), brings us face to face with Islamic doctrines inimical to the survival of our civilization. And here, I wish I could say "Islamist", but the unpleasant truth is, Islamic doctrines. For the Shariah principles in question are shared by all four of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), plus the Shia school. There is no "sixth school" that recognizes religious and civic freedom, in any way that resembles what these expressions mean in the West.

All five of the actual schools or traditions take a view of idolatry, that entirely removes the possibility of freedom of expression in public life. Moreover, all take a view of apostasy that presents a palpable threat to the life and liberty of every non-Muslim, and excommunicated Muslim. And such doctrines as "jihad" (when interpreted as perpetual holy war against all infidels), and "razzia" (permission to raid and plunder our infidel communities) are not such as can be assimilated with Western jurisprudence.

We cannot pretend for long, the way President Bush has been doing (albeit from humane and sound tactical motives to begin with), that the Shariah is compatible with freedom and democracy. The systems of government we advocate, or by necessity impose, must explicitly provide civil protection to non-Muslims and Muslims alike, against Shariah courts and their rulings. I have come to realize there is no alternative to this.


Welcome to the club. Now, we need more people to admit this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Time mag sides with Islamists

Robert Spencer reports on Time magazines smear of Abdul Rahman, the Muslim Afghan that was persecuted for converting to Christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Caving in to Muslims

Everywhere you turn in the US, everyone seems to be caving in to Muslims.

Borders and Waldenbooks are refusing to carry a magazine with the Muhammad cartoons.

NYU is refusing to open a panel discussion about the cartoons to the public.

Do none of these people value free speech anymore?

This is sad, very sad.

Kudos to the magazine for running the cartoons.

You can view the cartoons on my blog here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - New York Times deceit on wiretaps

Powerline has the story on how the New York Times tried to deceive its readers over the testimony of five former judges of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

As Powerline notes: "It's a sad thing when a once-respected newspaper can't be counted on for a straight account of a Congressional hearing."

You haven't been able to "count on" the NYT for straight acounts in years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afghanistan - More persecution of Christians

Rahman's not the only Chrisian being persecuted in Afghanistan.

US-based Christian news source, Compass Direct, reports that more Christians have been arrested for their faith in Afghanistan in the wake of the release of Abdul Rahman. Compass, a news service that tracks persecution of Christians mostly in Islamic countries, says harassment of the Christian community has been stepped up.

Compass says two more Christian converts have been arrested in other parts of the country, but further information is being withheld in the “sensitive situation” caused by the international media furor over Rahman.

Reports of beatings and police raids on the homes of Christians are filtering out of the country through local Christian ministers...


This is not what we liberated Afghanistan for and this is not what Afghanistan's constitution allows. Karzai better step up to the plate and soon.

If nothing else, this severs to highlight the true nature of Islam. The Islamist supporting Left can't hide from this.

Time for Islam to reform.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - Hospital terror arrests

For the last few days I've been posting about how many more terrorists there may be in the UK.

Now comes news of more terror arrests. Details are sketchy and raise more questions.

Hopefully we'll learn more later.

UPDATE

Now Sky is reporting that the arrests are not terror related. This despite a news conference that said it was. We'll see.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - BBC on US immigration

While the BBC ignore the UK and Europe's immigration problems, they're quite happy to report on America's.

I didn't have time to fisk Frei's article the other day. Turns out I didn't have to. The commenters at the BBC's have your say on the post did a great job.

When I returned to the UK in 2000, with my wife and 3 kids who are all British citizens, I had to pay $500 for an immigration visa which was good for only one year. In addition, I had to prove that we had sufficient funds to maintain us and a place for us to live. During that first year we were not allowed any state benefits, other than medical. After that year, I had to apply for permanent residency and had to prove that we had remained good citizens. We had to send in our last 3 months of bank statements, electric bills, gas bills, phone bills and 5 other letters addressed to our address.

Remember, my wife and 3 kids are British citizens with British passports.

When I questioned UK immigration officials about all of this, I was told, just because you're born in this country does not give you automatic right of abode here. I kid you not.

So, how about it BBC, care to take a look the UK's immigration policies?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - BBC: Iraq and tatoos

I know, I know, what the hell do tatoos have to do with Iraq and the BBC?

Well, what caught my eye was a front page "news" story by the BBC with this headline: "US Army redraws its tattoo policy". Now, I'm thinking why in the world would the BBC put such a "news" article on the front page. (Really, I'm thinking why do the story at all.) Shouldn't the story be on the "Americas" page at best?

Knowing the BBC's anti-American agenda as I do, I figured they must have some ulterior motive. And they do.

After a lame story about the Army relaxing its policy on tatoos and make up, the BBC toss out this:

The US army was 7,000 short of its target of recruiting 80,000 new soldiers last year.

Army officials admitted the shortfall has been caused partly by a wariness among young people of having to serve in Iraq.


Now you know the real reason for the story and why it's on the front page.

But how about those numbers the BBC just toss out and hope you won't question?

Let's take a look.

So, for the last 3 months of 2005 the US military exceeded their recrutiment goals.

Ok, but what about the "wariness" to serve in Iraq?

Doesn't seem to be a problem for those who saw combat in Iraq.

Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.


An interestingly, more US Naval grads are choosing the Marines than at any time in their 161 year history.

Not surprising since the US military is the most respected institution in America.

And it's not surprising the BBC do this sort of thing since the BBC have sided with the terrorists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

UK - How many Muslim terrorists here?

I asked that question on Saturday as a result of information coming out of the current Muslim terrorist trial going on.

Today, from the Times we learn of references to even more Muslim terrorists here in the UK, including al Qaeda.

A MUSLIM Tube worker was asked to become a suicide bomber by an Islamic extremist on trial for plotting to attack a British target, the Old Bailey was told yesterday.

The London Underground worker, known only as Imran, allegedly attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan with four of seven men who are charged with conspiracy.


So, who is he? Does he still work for the Underground? Remember, the activities of these UK Muslim terrorists predates the 7/7 London Underground attacks.

Then there's this reference to al Qaeda here in the UK.

The court was also told that a key al-Qaeda operative called Q, who gave the men their orders, was living in Luton. Q reported to Abdul Hadi, No 3 in command of the terrorist organisation.


Got that? al Qaeda living in Luton.

There's more.

And the older brother of a third defendant, Anthony Garcia, was allegedly planning a separate terrorist attack on a target in Britain.


Still more.

He attended the [terrorist] camp with his younger brother, Shujah Mahmood, 18, Mr Garcia, 24, from Ilford, East London, and other British Muslims who are not on trial.


Who, how many and where are they?

And more.

Mr Khyam was said to have given a “watered-down” formula for explosives to a British Muslim known as Uniboy, who wanted to carry out his own terrorist attack with Mr Garcia’s older brother, Lamine.

Babar said: “Uniboy said he wanted the formula because he wanted to do an operation himself in the UK.


And more.

“He didn’t know how to make a bomb . . . He said he wanted to do something with someone else as far as making a bomb and hitting a nightclub.”


Who might that be?

Not done yet.

Babar added that another man had brought supplies for al-Qaeda from Britain, on behalf of Waheed Mahmood.


Again, who and where is he?

Oh, you didn't know any of this? Ahh, you must have been reading the BBC's report on the trial.

That's why you don't know these UK terrorists are Muslims, that al Qaeda are here and that there are many many more UK Muslim terrorists out there. Or, that prior to 7/7, UK Muslim terrorists tried to recruit a Muslim Underground worker to mount a terrorist attack.

You see the BBC don't want you to know all that. Why? Because the BBC are on the side of the terrorists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

France - Paris Muslim bomber jailed

Ten years later.

In 1993 he was sentenced to death in absentia in Algeria over an attack on Algiers airport that left 9 dead and 123 wounded.

Dominique de Villepin, the French Prime Minister, had earlier lobbied Mr Blair for a speedy resolution to the saga in their first meeting after the July 7 bombings in London.

"Can you imagine how the British would react if France caught the alleged moneyman behind the July 7 bombings, and ten years later he was still fighting extradition?" said a former senior officer with the General Directorate for External Security, France's foreign intelligence service.

The Metro bombings were carried out between July and November 1995, killing 8 and injuring 170. The bombs consisted of explosives and nails.


Pretty pissed off I'd imagine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq - History lessons

From the Washington Times.

Jan. 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." -- Sen. John Kerry


How soon they forget. Or rather, how soon they'd like you to forget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norway - Burning Bibles: Where's the riots?

Newsweek fabricates a story about Koran descecration and Muslims riot and kill around the world.

The Danes publish a few cartoons of Muhammad and Muslims riot and kill around the world.

In Norway a comedian burns the Bible and.......no Christian riots......no Christians killing anyone.

Funny that.

(via a readers email)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - How the BBC thinks

Or doesn't.

Scott takes the BBC's Paul Reynolds to task over Paul's article on Iraq.

In that article, Paul tried to show there is some confusion on the number of Iraqi deaths.

Thousands of people have died. The true number of Iraqi deaths is not known and even the Iraqi Body Count figure -- compiled largely from news reports -- of somewhere in the mid 30,000s is criticised as a possible underestimate and admitted by IBC to be a baseline. The British medical journal The Lancet suggested a figure of about 100,000 back in October 2004.


There are several things wrong with this. One, Paul fails to mention that the 30,000 figure is for civilians, including Clerics, politicians and Police - no matter how or who killed them. All have been targeted by terrorists, gangs and sectarian violence.

Second, is the much debunked Lancet report. I find Paul's response to Scott on this point both amazing and revealing.

"I neither found the figure credible nor incredible It was simply a figure. I reported it. . What's the problem?"


What's the problem?!? Paul, just admitted he used a figure that he did not find credible. That fact that Paul didn't find it incredible is beside the point. The point is, he didn't find it credible but he used it anyway.

They're not just simply figures. The IBD figures are designed to try and blame the US for these "civilian" deaths. Likewise the Lancet figures were inflated to attack the US. Paul knew both and yet he "reported it". Sure he did, because it fits his and the BBC's anti-American agenda.

Read the rest of Scott's post for some more insight into the Beebs thinking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Puerto Rico questions US ties

While I question the BBC's shoddy reporting.

Let's start at the beginning.

Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States in 1898 and has remained a US territory ever since.


Now why do you suppose the US did that? One things for sure, you won't find out in this BBC article. But here's why.

1898 - Under the Treaty of Paris, Puerto Rico is ceded by the Spanish to the US at the end of the Spanish-American War.


Ok fine. But why has it remained so all these years after the invasion? Again, you won't find out from this BBC article. But if you look closely at the webpage and bother to follow some of the links on the right, you'll find this timeline. The timeline shows Puerto Ricans have always voted to remain a US commonwealth. Imagine that, the US allowing the Puerto Ricans to decide.

But could things be changing as the BBC want you to believe?

But some islanders are now demanding independence, others want Puerto Rico to become a US state - still others believe it should remain a US colony.


But that's always been the case. Like everything else in this shoddy piece, if there are some numbers to back up what the BBC is saying, the BBC isn't telling us.

So what's this all about? Why is the BBC bringing this up? Here's why.

Cuba's leader Fidel Castro has long argued for Puerto Rico to be given its independence.


Well gee, that got the Beeb's attention didn't it?

Now how to make hay out of the situation?

The Cuban team was banned from talking politics but still Pedro Cabrerra, the Cuban team's spokesman, cannot resist a dig at his hosts:

"The politics that are being applied is the politics of the powerful against the poor," he says.

It's the kind of rhetoric associated with Castro's Cuba - but even here it strikes a chord.


Really? With how many? And why do they keep voting to remain a commonwealth? And why the calls for US statehood? The BBC does not tell us.

The Beeb go on to give some radio host a lot of air time about loving Castro and then comes back to this - just in case you missed it the first time.

Out in demonstrations on the streets, some Puerto Ricans are already demanding full independence.

In part they're inspired by Castro's revolutionary fervour - he, too, has called for an end to American occupation.


Again, how many we are not told and the Beeb ignores the fact that the Puerto Ricans have voted everytime to remain a commonwealth. Some occupation, eh?

The BBC then go on to paint a picture of injustice being done to Puerto Rico. What the BBC want you to forget is a commonwealth comes with some rights and some restrictions. A commonwealth they keep voting to keep.

Now the BBC try to close the deal with "True Injustice".

"When you see behind us over 2,000 names of Puerto Ricans who served in the US armed forces and were the only members of the armed forces that were not allowed to vote for the commander-in-chief and served in wars that were declared by a congress at which we don't have representation.

"Here's where you can actually see the true injustice."


There's just one problem with all this - the US military is an all volunteer force. Those Puerto Ricans who died serving in the US military after the draft ended in 1973 volunteered to fight in America's armed forces.

Even when there was a draft during the Vietnam war, Puerto Ricans voted overwhelmingly to remain a US commonwealth.

1967 - Referendum on island's political status: 60% of voters back continued commonwealth status.


The BBC concludes...

Yet Puerto Rico is now questioning its ties with the United States. Is America prepared to allow a Latino island to become the 51st state, or even let Puerto Rico go its own way?


Where in this story did the BBC show us that the entire nation of Puerto Rico is "now questioning its ties with the United States"?

They didn't. In fact, this same BBC, masquerading as a news organization, told us just 3 months ago that "Opinion polls suggest there is little support for independence." And that "Only 3% of islanders voted in favour of independence in a referendum in 1999."

So what do the Puerto Ricans want? Continuing from the Dec BBC article we learn..

However, islanders are split over whether to keep their current status or become a US state.


In other words, Puerto Ricans want to either remain a US commonwealth and retain their US citizenship or become the 51st American state.

Does that sound to you like Puerto Ricans are questioning their US ties?

If Puerto Rico wants to become a US state, I'm happy with that. If they want to remain a commonwealth, I'm ok with that too.

What I'm not ok with is the crap we have to pay the BBC for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - Terror trial: No excuses for the left this time

Others are noticing the BBC's attempts to whitewash Muslims out of their terror reports. And they point out something that the Islamofacist enabling Left cannot excuse away this time.

Speaking of the current British Muslims on trial for attempted terrorism they note this:

When you put all of this together, then, the picture that emerges is one of [Muslim] men who hate us unconditionally, and who positively relish the prospect of causing as much suffering as possible. In particular, Jawad and his cohorts seem to gleefully focus on the shock value of interrupting the English at play — Whether we’re nightclubbing, drinking beer and watching football, or taking our families on holiday (’fantissimo’), no target seems to have been too soft for these scumbags, no victim too helpless or unsuspecting.

This evidence presents Islamofascism’s enablers on the left with something of a problem. After all, in the past they’ve been fortunate (if that’s the right word) in either being able to argue that suicide-bombers take their secrets to the grave, or, failing that, to concoct wild conspiracy theories (as happened with last year’s ricin plot) that cast doubt on precisely what the intentions of the Islamopaths in question actually were.

[Or, somehow try to spin it as our fault for any number of sins commited against Muslims]

Not so this time.


And they note the BBC's Islamofacist enabling.

So what to do? What to do? Well, if you’re a leftist drone working for the BBC, Plan B appears to be one of scrubbing all references to Islam from the reporting of the trial. Indeed, over the course of one, two, three, four, five, six articles on the proceedings, the word ‘Muslim’ makes only one appearance, while ‘Islam’ gets no mention at all … Which is, one might think, a little odd considering the obvious importance of the RoP to these creatures.


Not at all odd considering the BBC have sided with the terrorists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - BBC supporting racism?

What else can you call this?

"I do not necessarily object if people want to come to this country to look for a new life. I do object if they want this at my expense - at my expense as a tax payer, and at the expense of the constitutional rights which are my birthright."

"Every so often, someone stands up and tells us what benefits we have had from diversity. Such may be, but we must also consider that part of the price has been a police state. In this country, we have severe restrictions on freedom of speech, on freedom of association and on freedom of contract - all in the name of good race relations."

"The Libertarian Alliance believes in repealing all the race relations laws and in shutting down the Commission for Racial Equality."

When Yasmin Alibhai-Brown objected that this would remove all controls on racial attacks and on discrimination, Dr Gabb replied:

"Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?"

Her answer was yes, though she seemed to think better of this answer immediately after. But she did not take the invitation to deny that the white population was only kept in line by criminal laws to restrain them from attacking ethnic minorities. When Dr Gabb asked if she seriously believed he wanted to murder her, his microphone was turned off and he was "released" from his engagement with 20 minutes of discussion still to run.


There's more so read the whole thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islam - Behead the Allah fish?

Why not? Isn't it blasphemous? After all, Muslims were up in arms over Burger King's supposed Allah ice cream and Nike's Allah sneakers and demanded their withdrawal. Why not behead this blasphemous fish?

Michelle has the story and photos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islam - "Religion of Peace"?

Wow! And I mean wow! A media outlet braves the PC correct world, the Islamic sensitized media world, to not only ask the right questions, but dare to broach the idea that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. This from Investors Business Daily.

IBD sets the scene and has this to say about the ROP.

Psychologists might call this cognitive dissonance — a state of mind where rational people essentially lie to themselves. But in this case, it's understandable. In our politically correct culture, criticizing any religion, even one that plots our destruction, is still taboo. And no one wants to suggest the terrorists are driven by their holy text.


I said wow. There's lots more.

Good. What better time for CAIR and other Muslim leaders to step up, cut through the politically correct fog and provide factual answers to the questions that give so many non-Muslims pause?

Generally speaking, those questions focus on whether the Quran does indeed promote violence against non-Muslims, and how many of the terrorists' ideas — about the violent jihad, the self-immolation, the kidnappings, even the beheadings — come right out of the text? But even more specifically:

Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?

Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?

Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?

Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?

And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?

Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?

Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?

Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?

There are other questions, but these should do for a start. If the answers are "yes," then at least Americans will know there's no such thing as moderate Islam, even as they trust that there are moderate Muslims who do not act out on its violent commands.


You won't get any straight answers from CAIR as they have their own terror connection problems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Democrats and wiretaps

Seems not all Democrats are against wiretaps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Democrats Pledge to 'Eliminate' Osama

But they have no plan. Boy, does that sound familiar.

It [their position paper] covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.

The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.


That's the Democrats for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq - Saddam admits sponsoring terrorism: audio

If authentic, in this amazing telephone interview, Saddam admits to sponsoring terrorism and says just because he is in prison he has not stopped. He claims he left Al Duri billions of dollars to carry out terrorist acts.

He also admits he is using his trial to give speeches and says he gives one every session.

He goes on to say that the Iraqi people are worthless without him and says "It will make me happy if Iraq turns into dust".

He then calls for Al Duri's tounge and ears to be cut off for giving a speech without his permission.

This is a fascinating look at a brutal dictator but one has to wonder why Saddam is being allowed to give interviews and speeches at his trial.

MEMRI now says it was a hoax from the station. Now why would they do that?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Americans Anonymous - Hope for expats

I like it!

Here's a sample.

"Yes, unfortunately, I must confess the truth, there's no use denying it: I'm an American. That means I am not intelligent enough to realize the gravest dangers threatening mankind today are Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and a rodent named Mickey. It means I am too simple-minded to realize that modern European society represents the pinnacle of brotherhood (or is on the path thereto). It means I am too myopic to realize that referring to régimes such as Saddam's or Kim Jong-Il's or Brezhnev's as 'evil' is hopelessly retrograde, not to mention preposterous. (And I hope that one day Iraqis, North Koreans, and citizens of former Warsaw Pact countries who think the same will be able to make a pilgrimage to Western Europe, where the powers that be will, in their infinite wisdom, sober them up by telling them to shut up and by otherwise correcting all such reactionary beliefs.)

"It means I am too stupid to see what is obvious to Europeans (and others): that the US of A is a 'false democracy' and that I and my fellow countrymen are incapable of seeing when we are being manipulated. It means I am too naive to see that respect and dialogue are necessary, nay vital, in international relations. And if the leaders we show this respect and tolerance to don't show the same respect and tolerance to their own citizens (because of, say, mass imprisonment, torture, rape, beheadings, and things of that order), I'm too stupid to understand that just a little more of European-type dialogue would convince said autocrats to see the light, do away with their uncouth ways, and install a democratic system in their lands (the fraternal European kind, bien sûr, not the 'false' American kind)…

"Thank goodness there is a Higher Power to which to turn. And that is the vastly superior European system of brotherhood. These wise, visionary beings are here to set us straight. All we need do is turn our power over to them, and an era of world peace will ensue…"


It gets even better!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq - Hostage hid homosexuality

Now why do you suppose he did that? What did he have to fear from the tolerant religion of peace? Here's the story.

TORONTO - Fears that Iraqi captors might harm a Canadian hostage if they knew he was gay forced his partner to remain silent as loved ones called for an end to the ordeal, a director from the freed hostage’s aid group said Monday.


Make that Muslim captors.

I don't know if this is true around the world...

“It’s a sad fact that around the world gays and lesbians are more vulnerable to attack than straights,” Pritchard said.


but it's certainly true in the Muslim world. Being gay will get you killed almost as fast as converting to Christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia - On the road to an Islamic state?

Western Resistance takes a look.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq - How the media fabricate the story

Here's a good lesson in how they do it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

America - "What's it about?"

Powerline notes some interesting people are finding out.

As an American living in Scotland, I'm always pleased when someone tells me of their visit to the US for the first time. Invariably they tell me how they found it to be completly the opposite of what the media had led them to believe it was. They seem amazed at how friendly everyone is and how the words "Thank you", "Sir" and "Madam" are used often and sincerely. In fact, the words "Polite", "Sincere" and "Genuine" are words they use often to describe the Americans they met.

Yes, we all have our little horror stories to tell. But that's true of anyone who visits any country. What stands out starkly for me, is the continual refrain I hear of "it's the opposite of what I was told it was".

Yes it is thanks to the BBC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islam - Muslim women speak out

When will we see any of these brave Muslim women on Oprah?

When will the feminist movement stand up for these oppressed women?

When will the Left stand against Muslim oppression?

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations," Sultan said in that interview. "It is a clash between civilization and backwardness... between barbarity and rationality... between human rights on the one hand and the violation of these rights on the other, between those who treat women like beasts and those who treat them like human beings."

Then she went even further.

"The Jews have come from tragedy and forced the world to respect them," she said, "with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling.

"We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant... Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. ... The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind before they demand that humankind respect them."

Perhaps inspired by Sultan, on March 11, the Syrian poet Adonis said on Dubai TV: "When I look at the Arab world, with all its resources, the capacities of Arabs individuals, especially abroad - you will find among them great philosophers, scientists, engineers, and doctors. In other words, the Arab... can excel - but only outside his society. I have nothing against the individuals - only against the institutions and the regimes... we Arabs are in a phase of extinction, in the sense that we have no creative presence in the world." (translation by MEMRI)

The taboo has been broken. It has become impossible to prevent Arabs from questioning the mantra that has sustained oppressive regimes for so long: both denying backwardness and blaming it on America and the Jews.

Perhaps the most striking and radical entry in this "Muslim Spring" of fresh thinking, however, was an op-ed in this week's New York Times by author Irshad Manji.

"Like all Muslims, I look forward to the day when neither the [IDF] jeep nor the wall is in Abu Dis. So will we tell the self-appointed martyrs of Islam that... before the barrier, there was the bomber? And that the barrier can be dismantled, but the bomber's victims are gone forever?"

Manji is even more heretical to the Muslim ear than Sultan because she not only defends Jews, but Israel, and not only Israel, but the security fence.

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

Islam's two voices

There's one for us infidels and another for the faithful. One speaks of peace and tolerance, the other the opposite.

In this post Judy takes a look at the latest from the Palestinians.

Similar things happen in Denmark and in Britain.

Bear these in mind when you listen to Muslim speakers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Insane Hollywood limo liberals

Heh, and from the Guardian no less!

"Pay attention, civilians. Actor Charlie Sheen has been focusing his mind on the official explanation for 9/11. And you know what? He's not buying it. "It just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life," the Hotshots Part Deux star told a US radio station this week, "and then when the buildings came down later on that day, I said to my brother 'call me insane', but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"

You're insane. Next."


Too bad for limo liberals like Sheen, but one of the 9/11 terrorists, Zacarias Moussaoui, has confessed to the plot - at his death sentencing hearing no less!

Poor old Charlie isn't the only insane Hollywood limo liberal, Alec Baldwin's there to keep him company.

Then there's Sean Penn with his Vodoo doll.

You'd think will all the millions they have they'd take better drugs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islam - "Lisa Simpson of Islam"

Questions for a Muslim refusenik.

4 Later, at the local madressa, you apparently distinguished yourself as the "Little Miss Thang with the Questions," a kind of "Lisa Simpson of Islam." You didn't exactly get the "Most Promising Muslim" award, did you?

No. My first question for my madressa teacher was, "Why can't girls lead prayer?" I graduated to asking more nuanced questions, such as, "If the Koran came to Prophet Muhammad as a message of peace, why did he command his army to kill an entire Jewish tribe?" You can imagine that such questions irritated the hell out of my madressa teacher, who routinely put down women and trashed the Jews. He and I reached the ultimate impasse over yet another question: "Where," I asked, "is the evidence of the 'Jewish conspiracy' against Islam? You love to talk about it, but what's the proof?"

What he provided was an ultimatum: "Either you believe or get out. And if you get out, get out for good." With my temples throbbing and my neck sweating under the itchy polyester chador, I stood up. As I crossed the partition checkpoint, I could have uncovered my head for all the boys to see, but I didn't . . . All I could think to do was fling open the madressa's hefty metal door and yell, "Jesus Christ!" A memorable exit, I hoped.

Here's her website.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - Free speech and leftwing lies

I find it very telling that the anti-war crowd and the far left support Islam's intolerance of gays, other faiths and the abuse of women.

Now we find they are against free speech as well.

My resident Communist supporting leftist troll, Sonic, called the free speech march "a pathetic campaign" and he believes the anti-war movement is against free speech. "Poor guys, you had to try and compete and look where you ended up."

Got that? According to Sonic, the anti-war movement is competing against free speech.

Did anybody see any pro-war, pro-America or pro-Bush signs at the rally? Didn't think so. In fact there was one anti-Blair poster.

Take a look at the photos for yourself. (Link) here and (Link)

What do you see? All posters calling for freedom of expression.

Thanks for the insight into the far Left's thinking Sonic.

Now, care to tell us why you support Communists, the abuses of Islam and are against free speech?

Here's a great take on the march with some disturbing information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Alec Baldwin the coward: Audio tape

What happens when you challenge the Hollywood limo liberals to explain their remarks that the Vice President is a terrorist, the President a mass murder and calls for Henry Hyde to be stoned to death? He runs away.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Fukuyama's Fantasy

The Left's new darling is caught fabricating a story.

Read the whole thing but here is the conclusion.

For Fukuyama to assert that I characterized it as ``a virtually unqualified success'' is simply breathtaking. My argument then, as now, was the necessity of this undertaking, never its assured success. And it was necessary because, as I said, there is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the root causes of 9/11: ``the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world -- oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism.''

Fukuyama's book is proof of this proposition about the lack of the plausible alternative. The alternative he proposes for the challenges of 9/11 -- new international institutions, new forms of foreign aid and sundry other forms of ``soft power'' -- is a mush of bureaucratic make-work in the face of a raging fire. Even Berman, his sympathetic reviewer, concludes that ``neither his old arguments nor his new ones offer much insight into this, the most important problem of all -- the problem of murderous ideologies and how to combat them.''

Fukuyama now says that he had secretly opposed the Iraq War before it was launched. An unusual and convenient reticence, notes Irwin Stelzer, editor of ``The Neocon Reader,'' for such an inveterate pamphleteer, letter writer and essayist. After public opinion had turned against the war, Fukuyama then courageously came out against it. He has every right to change his mind at his convenience. He has no right to change what I said.

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

Europe - Anti-Americanism as religion

Boy, isn't this the truth.

Claire Berlinski: Certainly. The phenomena to be explained are the irrationality and the ardor of European anti-Americanism. Irrational, because entirely disproportionate to any real faults in American society. Of course America has flaws, and no, it is not lunacy to point them out. But in poll after poll, you see substantial numbers of Europeans, non-trivial numbers, who believe the September 11 attacks were staged, yes, staged, by an oil-hungry American military-industrial complex to justify its imperialist adventures in Iraq. In Germany, 20 percent of the population believes this. In France, a book arguing this case was a galloping bestseller. Now that is bughouse nuts. Totally bats in the belfry. Then the ardor: "My anti-Americanism," wrote one columnist in the British Telegraph, "has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness." If only we could harness all that outrage and transform it into a non-polluting energy source! You see this kind of thing all the time in the European press. (Meanwhile, if the French, say, wipe out the entire Ivorian air force, do you see protestors on the streets chanting "No blood for cocoa?" What a question.) When you have these two phenomena together-irrationality and this curious passion, this fervor-it seems reasonable to conclude that you are in the presence of something like a cult. So you consider it, sociologically. What role does this ideology serve in the European psyche? One answer: It fulfills many of the roles once played by the Church. It offers a comprehensive-if lunatic-answer to the question, "Why is the world the way it is, and why is there evil in that world?" It provides a devil to excoriate and then to exorcise. There is community and belonging in anti-American activism, ecstasy in protest. Again, a form of Christian heresy, and no more lunatic, surely, than anything the Cathars believed, if also no less.

John Hawkins: How pervasive is anti-Americanism in Europe?

Claire Berlinski: Very, very. See poll numbers above. We see members of the Dutch parliament in hiding, the abrogation of freedom of expression throughout Europe, the rise of right-wing leaders who openly advocate the mass deportation of non-white Europeans, one barely-thwarted terrorist attack after another-and yet, according to the polls, the majority of Europeans consider the United States to be their biggest worry. They're monomaniacally obsessed with the danger posed to them by Americans and the perfidious cabal of Jews who yank our puppet strings. [Even though Muslims are responsible for the Dutch parliament in hiding and the loss of free speech throughout Europe]

John Hawkins: A lot of people like to play down the differences between America and Europe, but it has become clear that there is a huge cultural & political gap between us on a wide variety of issues. Why do you believe we've grown so far apart or have we always been split like this and just haven't really noticed because our cooperation during the Cold War masked the differences?

Claire Berlinski: The divide has always been there-European anti-Americanism is as old as America itself. It tends to flare up and then die down, flaring up generally at times of European insecurity. Certainly, since the end of the Cold War Europe has really come into its own, and unfortunately, Europe's own is historically rather an unattractive thing. If young Germans are now seen muttering darkly about how they deplore American militarism-a sentiment, I am persuaded, that represents nothing more than their own stifled longing to switch on the tank's ignition and thrill once again to the low deep rumble of its engine-it is certainly nothing new; Germans have complained for a very long time of these things. If we heard less of this during the Cold War, yes, of course it was because the alternative to our militarism was the hammer and sickle; this kind of choice does seem to sober people up.


Read the whole thing.

It's not just people writing in the Telegraph that are possesed by anti-Americanism, the BBC is the world's largest anti-American propaganda machine.

UPDATE

Here is the vile Telegraph article Claire refers to.

And here is a fine rebuttal from a fellow British author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, March 27, 2006

UK - BBC promoting anti-Americanism

No surprise there.

There are many good Iraqi blogs the BBC could have chosen for this award but which one did they choose? An anti-American one of course.

An anonymous blog by a young woman in war-torn Iraq has been longlisted for BBC Four's Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction.


So, for all the BBC know it could be Zaraqwi himself.

From the blog: "It has been three years since the beginning of the war that marked the end of Iraq’s independence."

That's strange. Over 8 million Iraqis defied terrorists and voted three times for their independence.

via Biased BBC.

UPDATE

Look who the BBC picked for judges. Just to make sure the winner reflected the BBC's anti-American stance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - BBC accused of medical quackery

In addition to this the BBC is also practicing journalistic quackery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - Prince Charles calls for Muslim tolerance

Really? Well, for some strange reason that's what the Times (UK) thinks but without offering any proof.

Prince calls on Muslims to become more tolerant


THE Prince of Wales used a speech at Saudi Arabia’s leading Islamic university yesterday to hint at the need for Muslims to adapt their religion to the modern world and called for tolerance of others’ views.


I haven't seen his speech verbatim, but what the Times quotes from it says nothing of the kind. Have a read and see if you can find where he calls for Muslims to be more tolerant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - Rice trip angers Communisits

Well, that's how the headline should read since the anti-war movement, who are planning to protest her visit, are led by Communists. Instead, here's CNN's headline.

Rice trip angers UK peace group

The Communist led Stop the War Coalition is a "peace group"?!?

And CNN let their spokesperson retell a myth about the Iraq war.

"This visit comes after the National Museum in Baghdad was looted under the eyes of U.S. soldiers and part of Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, is being destroyed," a coalition spokeswoman said.


Just one problem with that. It's a myth created by the lying left wing media. See here for some more myth debunking.

There you have it. Left wing journalists tell a lie, the communist anti-war movement repeats it and the Left wing media are happy to report the lie. One nice big happy family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Happy Birthday Neverdock

USS Neverdock was two years old last Friday!

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Afghanistan - Abdul Rahman: Why the silence?

As usual the Left are remaining silent over the Muslim threat to kill Rahman for converting to Christianity.

A search of the BBC website yeilds just 3 stories about this outrage is attracting world wide condemnation - except for the Left.

Mark Steyn has some thoughts on this clash of civilizations.

The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

As always, we come back to the words of Osama bin Laden: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." That's really the only issue: The Islamists know our side have tanks and planes, but they have will and faith, and they reckon in a long struggle that's the better bet. Most prominent Western leaders sound way too eager to climb into the weak-horse suit and audition to play the rear end. Consider, for example, the words of the Prince of Wales, speaking a few days ago at al-Azhar University in Cairo, which makes the average Ivy League nuthouse look like a beacon of sanity. Anyway, this is what His Royal Highness had to say to 800 Islamic "scholars":

"The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilized society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers."

That's correct. But the reality is that our society pays enormous respect to minorities - President Bush holds a monthlong Ramadan-a-ding-dong at the White House every year. The immediate reaction to the slaughter of 9/11 by Western leaders everywhere was to visit a mosque to demonstrate their great respect for Islam. One party to this dispute is respectful to a fault: after all, to describe the violence perpetrated by Muslims over the Danish cartoons as the "recent ghastly strife" barely passes muster as effete Brit toff understatement.

Unfortunately, what's "precious and sacred" to Islam is its institutional contempt for others. In his book "Islam And The West," Bernard Lewis writes, "The primary duty of the Muslim as set forth not once but many times in the Quran is 'to command good and forbid evil.' It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid." Or as the Canadian columnist David Warren put it: "We take it for granted that it is wrong to kill someone for his religious beliefs. Whereas Islam holds it is wrong not to kill him." In that sense, those imams are right, and Karzai's attempts to finesse the issue are, sharia-wise, wrong.

I can understand why the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would rather deal with this through back channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies. Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.


Yes it is. Just ask any "moderate" Muslim who has dared to speak out, that's if you can find them since they are in hiding for their life.

Or ask the Danish cartoonists, or Christians living in Muslim lands, or women who are abused by Islam.

Better yet ask someone on the Left why don't they speak out against Muslim abuses.

One way or another Islam is going to have to be brought out of the stone age.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - Naval grads choosing Marines

Instapundit notes this:

When it came time for Jake Dove, a senior at the U.S. Naval Academy, to decide how he would fulfill his required military duty after graduation, there was no question about it: Marine Corps all the way.

"In my eyes it's a perfect community," said Dove, an Annapolis High School graduate. "The idea of being a platoon leader in charge of guys that have done two, three tours in Iraq already, when I haven't been over there - that's an awesome responsibility. I'm eager to take it on."

Despite a war that has entered its fourth year with mounting casualties and waning public support, more and more midshipmen at the Annapolis military college are volunteering for the Marines when asked to choose how they will fulfill the five-year commitment required of all academy graduates.

When the assignments were made official last month for the 992 members of the class of 2006, 209 were placed as officers with the Corps - the most in the school's 161-year history. . . . Having a surplus of mids who want to be Marines has been a change from the Vietnam era. In 1968, the Marine Corps failed to meet its quota for the first time in academy history.


Be sure to read Glenn's discussion on the "mounting casualties" jibe. As ususal MSM try to muddy the water.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - Freedom of Expression march

According to this yesterdays first Freedom of Expression march went rather well.

The rally in Trafalgar Square today was attended by about 1,000 (at most by my estimate) very disparate people and was a worthy effort for a poorly funded ad-hoc team of folks.


Too bad it was pouring down rain or maybe more would have turned out. Still not bad for a march put together by a few individuals with no financial support.

And he notes this about the police:

On two occasions, The Plod tried to prevent certain signs being shown (one featured the Mohammed Cartoons on a placard from the Iranian Communist Party and another showed a mask of Tony Blair over a Nazi symbol). These incidents at a 'pro-freedom of expression' rally, and the presence of the police taking pictures of the crowd, were a useful reminder of the deadening hand of the state and just how precarious the state of civil liberties in Britain are.


Indeed. Especially since Britain is being turned into an Islamic state.

Be sure and follow the links at the end of the post for more photos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Iraq - Russians aided Saddam during the war

In the words of one analyst:

"This is one step short of firing upon us themselves with Russian equipment," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution. "It's actively aiding and abetting the enemy tactically. It's hard to get more unfriendly than that."


How bad is this for US/Russian relations?

The revelations, based on captured Iraqi intelligence documents, could jeopardize U.S.-Russian relations more than any single event since the end of the Cold War, analysts said. Although they cautioned that Moscow might have an explanation, the analysts said some of the details were so sensitive that they would be difficult for the government of President Vladimir V. Putin to justify.


How detailed and useful was the intelligence the Russians passed to Saddam?

One of the most sensitive revelations, which came in a captured letter detailing Russian intelligence on American troop movements, accurately informed Baghdad that U.S. forces were massing south of a narrow passage near the southern city of Karbala.

The April 2, 2003, letter, which was reportedly passed through Moscow's ambassador to Baghdad, informed Iraqi leaders that "the heaviest concentration of troops (12,000 troops plus 1,000 vehicles) was in the vicinity of Karbala."


This isn't the only instance of accurate and specific troop movements the Russians gave to Saddam. See here for more.

Compare all of this to the BBC lame report.

Just so you know whose side the BBC is on, the BBC frame the argument as if all of this is according to the Pentagon.

Russia provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on US military moves in the opening days of the US-led invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report has said.

Russia passed the details through its Baghdad ambassador, the report said. Russia has not commented on the claim.


Er, no beeboids, the Russians and Saddam's men said.

Here's one example.

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document. [Sources as in plural]


And because some of these captured documents reveal Saddam's WMD and ties to bin Laden the BBC is ignoring them.

Now you know whose side the BBC is on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - How many Muslim terrorists are here?

One thing that keeps coming up in the trial of the British Muslim terrorists, is that the witness keeps refering to additional Muslim terrorists not on trial.

You will also note, as usual, the BBC censor the word "Muslim" from their report.

He said they were shown the "video wills" of two of the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks in the US.

Asked what the attitude of those at the meeting had been toward 9/11, Babar replied: "Everyone at the meeting agreed with it, everyone was in praise of those who carried it out."

In Pakistan he met a number of Britons mainly from the London and Crawley areas, he told the court.


How many and are they back in Britain? Seemingly yes.

He said Asim had come to Pakistan from east London, but he also had strong ties with the "Crawley group".

The two had lived together in a flat in Lahore and were joined by others from the "east London group" of which Asim was part.


This is just the tip of the iceberg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq - Looking for an exit strategy

At least Zarqawi is.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist and the head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, has sharply lowered his profile in recent months, and his group claims to have submitted itself to the leadership of an Iraqi.

In postings on Web sites used by jihadi groups, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the terrorist network's arm in Iraq, claims to have joined with five other guerrilla groups to form the Mujahedeen Shura, or Council of Holy Warriors. The new group, whose formation was announced in January, is said to be headed by an Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi. Since then, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has stopped issuing its own proclamations.

The Mujahedeen Shura, which continues to call for attacks against American and Iraqi forces, has stopped taking responsibility for large-scale suicide attacks against civilians, and it has toned down its fierce verbal attacks against Iraq's Shiite majority.


Zarqawi has few options. The Coalition and Iraqi forces are hunting him. Local terrorists have decalred all out war on him and the locals have turned against him. Thanks to tips from both of these groups, the coalition have been capturing or killing hundreds of al Qaeda as well as capturing numerous weapons caches.

These coupled with Iraqis taking more control of their country, led to the lowest US troop deaths since the beggining of the war.

Just more proof we are winning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, March 24, 2006

US - Vast majority say media biased on Iraq

That's what Good Morning America's listners said.

March 23, 2006 — Over the last 24 hours, ABC News has been reading hundreds of messages sent in by viewers in response to President Bush's claim that the media are undermining support for war in Iraq.

Viewer opinions ran the gamut, but the vast majority believed the media were biased in their Iraq coverage.


That's not surprising since John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, sent an email saying "Bush makes me sick". See here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq - Russian Ambassador gave Saddam US war plans

This is pretty damning and raises a big question. Who gave the plans to the Russians?

This is so important, I'm posting the entire piece.

March 23, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of five documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which the U.S. government has released.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.

"U.S. War Plan Leaked to Iraqis by Russian Ambassador"

Documents dated March 5-8, 2003

Two Iraqi documents dated in March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document. [Sources as in plural]

This document also includes an account of an amusing incident in which several Iraqi Army officers (presumably seeking further elaboration of the U.S. war plans) contacted the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and stated that the ambassador was their source. Needless to say, this caused great embarrassment to the ambassador, and the officers were instructed "not to mention the ambassador again in that context."

(Editor's Note: The Russian ambassador in March 2003 was Vladimir Teterenko. Teterenko appears in documents released by the Volker Commission, which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, as receiving allocations of 3 million barrels of oil — worth roughly $1.5 million. )


This is why the Russians opposed us at the UN - they were on the take and siding with Saddam.

Watch for Teterenko to have an untimely accident.

I think ABC may have spelled his name wrong and it is in fact Titorenko.

This story may explain why the US shot at him as he fled Iraq.

Russian ambassador to Iraq Vladimir Titorenko believes that the motorcade of Russian cars with diplomats and journalists was deliberately fired at by Americans. During the attack, the ambassador suffered a slight hand wound. Doctors rendered aid to the ambassador.


It also helps explain why Russia objected to the UN's oil for food investigation.

Those reports, published first by an Iraqi newspaper in January and in the international press since then, listed companies and individuals as recipients of illegal allocations of oil. Forty-six were Russian, among them Vladimir Titorenko, a former Russian ambassador to Baghdad, and Nikolai Ryzhkov, a member of Parliament.

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

UK - Terrorists tied to Abu Hamza

The Times (UK) reports.

Muhammad Babar, who has admitted having links to al-Qaeda, was taken to court by armed police amid maximum security to give evidence against his former accomplices.

He allegedly left America days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to fight in Pakistan, even though his mother, who worked in the World Trade Centre, had narrowly escaped death when the aircraft hit.

Babar, 31, told the court that he met Omar Bakri Muhammad, the exiled leader of alMuhajiroun, a radical Islamist group, during a visit to Britain. He was later in contact with Abu Hamza and spent time in Pakistan preparing for jihad (holy war) with 15 to 20 “brothers”, mostly from Britain.


There's only 7 in this trial. Who and where are the others?

Guess who else he is connected to?

Babar said that he became a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun while at university, when he became angered by the Gulf War.


And here you thought HT wanted to bring about the Islamic state peacefully.

How did Barba learn about all of this?

Babar cited his influences as Abu Hamza and Bakri Muhammad. He followed Abu Hamza’s website proclamations on Sharia and met Bakri Muhammad in person, later communicating with him by e-mail and telephone. The British “brothers”, with him in Pakistan for jihad, were mostly from London and Crawley, West Sussex, he said. The names he listed were, the prosecution says, those used by the defendants while in Pakistan.


This is the price Britain is paying for letting the Muslim preachers of hate roam free.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US - ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'

Drudge reports on an internal email messeage sent by "John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA...".

Just more evidence of the Left wing biased media.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afghanistan - Muslims want to kill Christian

Led by top clerics, Muslims in Afghanistan want to kill a former Muslim for converting to Christianity.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Senior Muslim clerics are demanding that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."


Just in case you think it's just militant Muslims who want him dead: "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001." And "Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council".

So, on what basis do these moderate Muslims claim they have the right to murder someone who converts to Christianity? "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs."

Do tell.

What's the Left and the human rights groups doing about all of this? Nothing. Here's what AI had to say.

Human rights group Amnesty International said if Rahman has been detained solely for his religious beliefs, he would be a "prisoner of conscience" and that the charges should be dropped.


Why the if? And instead of calling for the charges to be dropped, shouldn't AI be calling for the law to be scrapped? After all, the law violates Afghanistan's constitution which guarantees feedom of religion.

The Left remain silent on Muslim intolerance to gays, other faiths and their abuse of women.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK - BBC feeling sorry for terrorists

At least the BBC use the "t" and "m" words.

Still, there are some interesting under currents in Andy Tighe's article.

Take for example how he constantly refers to the key prosecution witness, Mohammed Babar's, American background. Starting with the headline which reads "The US 'supergrass' central to trial". Next we are told he is a "college drop-out from the US". Then we are told he "pleaded guilty to terrorist-related offences in New York. Follwed by his "clear American accent" and the fact that he moved to the US at the age of 2. All facts I'm sure but as I read the article I couldn't help get the impression that Tighe was trying to play up the American angle and ignore the fact that most of the Muslim terrorist are home grown.

And there is Tighe's portrayal of Barba that sounds almost as if Tighe has pity for him. First we are told Barba is a college dropout. Next we're told he's "a large man with broad sholders" who "spoke softly when questioned". Again we are told he is "A university drop-out" who was "radicalised as a Muslim activist while doing a number of unskilled jobs." Then we are told his "mother had survived the al-Qaeda suicide attacks on the World Trade Center". [This is interesting since the BBC claim in "The Power of Nightmares" that al-Qaeda doesn't exist] As for why Barba wanted to attack Britain we're told "it was his responsibility to fight for his "brother" Muslims".

Get the picture? Barba is an American college dropout who couldn't get a decent job in rich America, became radicalised while helping fellow Muslims being persecuted in the US and wanted to fight for his brother Muslims who were being persecuted by the great Satan in Afghanistan.

Add to the mix Tighe's description of the courtroom, the heavy police presence outside and this: "The heavy gates suddenly opened and with a squeal of sirens he was gone." Tighe frames the story in the sense of an entire police state apparatus against one man. And Tighe lets you know it's not over yet. "But tomorrow he would be back. And for many more days..."

By now one might almost feel sorry for Barba - thanks to the BBC.

That is until you read what their plans were.

Watch for this bit to be stealth edited. "so central to this English terrorist trial."

At least he used the "t" word.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Iran's angel of death

You might want to get to know this fellow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq documents reveal bin Laden link and WMD

More proof Bush didn't lie.

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein.


And what were they planning?

"carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.


And what of WMD?

This document is consistent with the Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam Hussein's government towards the U.N. inspectors in the mid to late 90's. Hussein halted all cooperation with those inspectors and expelled them in October 1998.


You have to have something to conceal it.

These documents are just the tip of the iceberg and it will be interesting to see what remains to come out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran - Hijab-free flight from Iran

Harry notes something interesting.

ET, the American woman married to an Iranian who blogs at View from Iran, writes:

Hoo ha! On our first vacation in a long, long time. The flight from Iran was uneventful. By the end of our flight, not one woman was wearing a headscarf. "You would see more women in headscarves on any flight in Europe or the US," I told K [her husband]. Turns out I was right. On the US leg of the trip, more women were in hijab in our 10-row area than on the entire flight from Tehran.

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

World - Death of the anti-war movement

Last weekends disasterous turnout of anti-war protesters was very revealing. As one blogger noted, more people show up every weekend to see Black Burn play than showed up for the latest anti-war march in London. There were even fewer protesters in countries around the world.

There are several reasons for the death of the anti-war movement.

People are becoming more aware that the leaders of the anti-war movement are communists.

Then there are all the failed predictions of the anti-war left.

These two combined have led some in the anti-war movement to question their leaders anti-American stance while supporting terrorists.

Harry pointed out a falling out between the Socialist party and the Stop the War Coalition.

Now another group, Class War, has fallen out with not only the STWC but George Galloway as well.

London Class War took part in Saturdays Demonstration organised by the stop The War Coalition- we have serious critisisms of the liberal/leninist politics of the STWC, and felt that their uncritical support for both the so called 'resistance' in Iraq and the antics of 'Gorgeous' George Galloway in Britain should be challenged.


A similar civil war is taking place in America.

Instead, the groups appear to be caught in their own brand of civil war, criticizing each other for management styles, sympathizing with Communist dictators and pandering to the media. They have bickered over alleged racism and even over issues like who would get more microphone time and pay for the portable toilets at anti-war rallies.

The feuding appears to have precluded any kind of nationally coordinated anti-war rallies from happening on March 19, the third-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Small, local protests are planned by various anti-war groups around the country. [Which is exactly what happened]

"The souring of the political atmosphere is largely due to ANSWER, which, in our experience, consistently substitutes labels ('racist,' 'anti-unity') and mischaracterization of others' views for substantive political debate or problem solving," reads the open letter issued last Dec. 12, by the group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). It marked the opening salvo in a war of words that has been fought on the groups' individual websites and all over the blogosphere.

In announcing that it would no longer coordinate activities with International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), UFPJ criticized ANSWER's links to the Workers World Party (WWP), a group that allegedly had supported atrocities committed by Communist regimes around the world.


If that doesn't make you laugh, then check out the excuses the moonbats gave for not protesting.

Add to all of this the Democrats are in a civil war and one has to smile, smile, smile.

Back on January 15th I said 2006 was starting out to be a hell of year. Boy! Did I get that one right!

UPDATE

Harry reports that purges are underway. That's the ticket!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Brain Bliss