BlogPlatoon

Pope ready to bow to Allah

Add comment November 29th, 2006

Source: The Daily Telegraph
Nov 27, 2006

Vatican officials announced Sunday that Pope Benedict plans to become just the second pope to enter a mosque when he visits Turkey Tuesday.

In order to be permitted into an Islamic place of worship the pontiff - who has been trying to placate Muslim rage he triggered last September - will have to remove his shoes in deference to the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish religion and its Allah.

Analysts in the Vatican said the purpose of the mosque visit would be to try and build bridges between “Christians” and Muslims.

But the announcement did nothing to placate the fury or encourage tolerance from tens of thousands of Muslims who rallied in Istanbul Sunday to protest against the pope’s arrival.

The mob’s message to the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics was vividly spelled out on a large banner above the crowd.

It was an attack on the very heart of the Christian faith and read:
“Jesus is not the son of God. He is a prophet of Mohammed.”

In Islamic parlance “God” means “Allah” so the protestors were half right. However, the orthodox Jewish Rabbi from Nazareth Muslims repeatedly delight in defaming lived long before Mohammed and, in fact, warned His followers to be on the alert against false prophets like one who founded Islam.

Instead of shunning this religion, Pope Benedict appears poised to embrace its followers in order to “build bridges” between the Vatican and the Muslim world.

© Jerusalem Newswire 2002-2006

Immigration by the Numbers. MUST SEE!

Add comment November 15th, 2006

Roy Beck’s celebrated demonstration of the population consequences of current U.S. immigration policies has entertained and shocked … all » audiences across the country. This video is packed with the facts and analysis that make moral and practical sense of a complex and highly contentious issue.

Iraq Statistics…

Add comment November 15th, 2006

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, here’s a sobering statistic. There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq. Conclusion: Maybe the U.S. should pull out of Washington.

Photo shows Iran leader as ‘79 U.S. hostage taker

Add comment November 14th, 2006

Posted: November 13, 2006
10:26 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily. com
The Russian publication Kommersant has published a newly located photograph of a U.S. hostage-taker in Iran circa 1979 bearing a striking resemblance to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leader has steadfastly denied he was involved in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the holding of 52 Americans for 444 days despite assertions to the contrary of some of those hostages and former Iranian President Abholhassan Bani-Sadr, who says he was a ringleader and the liaison with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Charges by the ex-hostages were made shortly after Ahmadinejad came to power June 24, 2005. But from the beginning, the White House and State Department made it clear they would rather not know the truth about Ahmadinejad because it would place the U.S. in a position of refusing to permit a head of government into the country to attend U.N. meetings.

(Story continues below)

One official said such a finding would “enormously complicate” matters.

U.S. “investigators” never bothered to interview any of the former hostages who made the charges against the Iranian leader.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against Ahmadinejad with regard to the hostage-taking came from Bani-Sadr, Iran’s president during the early days of the Khomeini revolution.

He has adamantly affirmed Ahmadinejad was one of the kidnappers who held 52 Americans for 444 days. He said the former student leader was in the embassy throughout the hostage crisis.

“Ayatollah Khomeini’s deputy, Ayatollah Khamenei, demanded of him a constant report on what is happening in the embassy,” he said.

When told Ahmadinejad denied the accusation, Bani-Sadr laughed.

“What do you want?” he said. “That he should not deny it? I was president, and I know the details, and I am telling you for sure that he was there, though his role was not organizational. He was the chief reporter to Khamenei.”

Sadr added that Ahmadinejad initially opposed the hostage-taking but changed his mind once Khomeini gave his support.

At least six former American hostages agree the president of Iran played a key role in interrogating and abusing them.

Chuck Scott characterized his tormentor as “cold, hard-nosed” and said his memory is solid, “as sure as I’m sitting here.”

“If you went through a traumatic experience like that and you were around people who made it possible, you’re never going to forget them,” said Scott, a 73-year-old retired U.S. Army colonel.

Scott said he recognized him almost instantly during the publicity surrounding his election in June, when he shocked the world by winning in an upset.

Former hostage Don Sharer identified Ahmadinejad as a student leader who called Americans “pigs and dogs.”

Ahmadinejad acknowledges membership in the radical student organization that stormed the embassy when he was 23.

“He was in the background, like an adviser,” recalled Sharer, a former U.S. Navy officer. “He called us pigs and dogs and said we deserved to be locked up forever.”

Scott called him “a leader, what I would call a hard-a–. Even the other guards said he was very strict.”

“The new president of Iran is a terrorist,” said Scott.

Sharer said Ahmadinejad was an interrogator and remembers being personally grilled by him.

“He was involved in interrogating me the day we were taken captive,” said former Marine security guard Kevin Hermening. “There is absolutely no reason the United States should be trying to normalize relations with a man who seems intent on trying to force-feed the world with state-sponsored terrorism.”

William Daugherty, another former hostage, concurs that Ahmadinejad was there. He claims he saw him eight to 10 times in the first 19 days of captivity before the hostages were separated into smaller groups.

“As soon as I saw the face, it rang a lot of bells to me, and it was a recent picture, but he still looks like a man, take 20 years off of him, he was there. He was there in the background.”

David Roeder, the embassy’s former deputy Air Force attache, also said Ahmadinejad was present during one of his interrogations.

“It was almost like he was checking on the interrogation techniques they were using in a sort of adviser capacity,” Roeder said.

Sharer added: “He was extremely cruel. He is one of the hardliners, so that tells you what their government is going to stand for in the next four to five years.”

In addition to Bani-Sadr and the hostages, BBC correspondent John Simpson also recalled seeing Ahmadinejad on the embassy grounds, according to Middle East analyst Daniel Pipes.

Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

Add comment November 2nd, 2006

Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists to destroy Israel, America

When the terrorists agree with them, you know the Democrats have lost their way. kams912

Posted: November 2, 2006
9:27 a.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday’s midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party’s position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are “tired.”

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance “resistance” against Israel.

“Of course Americans should vote Democrat,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND “This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud,” said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared “military wing” of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats’ talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel “proud.”

“As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk,” he told WND. “Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.”

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal “proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation.”

“We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq,” said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas’ Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas’ declared “resistance” department. “They did not succeed in stealing Iraq’s oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw.”

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is “emboldened” by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

“[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq,” boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America’s war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

President Bush has even said he would send more troops if Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said they are needed to stabilize the region

The debate became especially poignant following remarks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate who voted in support of the war in Iraq. Earlier this week he intimated American troops are uneducated, and it is the uneducated who “get stuck in Iraq.”

Kerry, under intense pressure from fellow Democrats, now says his remarks were a “botched joke.”

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi’s comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, “The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn’t mean we stay there. They’ll stay there as long as we’re there.”

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week’s elections.

WND read Pelosi’s remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad’s Saadi, laughing, stated, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop.”

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would “prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States.”

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would “mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America).”

“Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam.”

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also “reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them.”

Hamas’ Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would “convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance.”

“The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel’s confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation,” Abdullah said.

While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, “Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases.”

He called both Democrats and Republicans “agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S.”

Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power “the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it.”

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush’s party.

“Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world.”

Muslim Rape, Feminist Silence

Add comment November 2nd, 2006

Everyday new statements are made public by prominent Muslims that do more damage to Islam then the west ever could. kams912

Muslim Rape, Feminist Silence
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine. com | November 1, 2006

“Unveiled women who get raped deserve it”.

That’s the pedagogy preached by the Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, who recently sparked an international stir by pronouncing that women who do not veil themselves, and allow themselves to be “uncovered meat”, are at fault if they are rapedThis is nothing new, of course, and it is somewhat mysterious why the Sheikh’s comments have caused any shock at all, since his view is legitimized by various Islamic texts and numerous social and legal Islamic structures. And that is why back in September 2004 in Denmark , al-Hilali’s Australian counterpart, the Mufti Shahid Mehdi, declared exactly the same thing, stating that unveiled women are “asking for rape.”

All of this, in turn, explains the skyrocketing epidemic of Muslim rape in non-Islamic countries. Muslim newcomers are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects throughout European nations such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Scandinavia.

No wonder why many Muslim rapists openly admit their actions and justify them smugly with casual references to their religious and cultural beliefs. This horrifying phenomenon was on display in a court trial in Australia last year , in which a Muslim rapist, going by the name “MSK”, taunted his sobbing 14-year-old victim and proudly professed the legitimacy of his sexual assaults on young girls by explaining that his victims were not veiled — as the Islamic religion mandates women to be. [1]

“MSK” is from Pakistan. He is doing in Australia what he learned best back home: in some of the most notorious rural areas of Pakistan, gang rape is officially sanctioned as a legitimate form of keeping women marginalized and “in their place.” As noted earlier, certain realms of Islam help institutionalize this form of violent misogyny. The Koran, for instance, permits Muslim men to enslave - and have sexual relations with - the women of unbelievers captured in the spoils of war (Sura 4:23-24). The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, sanctions this violence, affirming that Muslims can enslave captured infidel women and make them concubines.

To compound this pathology, a notion has developed within the system of gender apartheid in which Muslims like “MSK” have grown up: the idea that a woman who does not veil herself is somehow responsible for any sexual or physical harm done to her. In the psychopathic mental gymnastics that occur in the perpetrators’ minds, the unveiled woman must be sexually punished for violating the “modesty” code. Thus, when Islamic Muftis like Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi declare that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape,” they are merely regurgitating a popular theme in many segments of Islamic culture.

In traditional Islamic law, rape cannot be proven unless four males testify as witnesses (Sura 24:4 and 24:13). In other words, raped women cannot get justice anywhere Islamic law prevails. More horrifying still, a woman who has the courage to say she was raped, and fails to produce the four male witnesses (which is obviously almost always the case), ends up being punished because her accusation is regarded as an admission of pre-marital sex or adultery. And this is why seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.

In Holland, myriad women now bear the horrible scar that has infamously become known as “smiley,” whereby one side of the face is cut up from mouth to ear - a war mark left by Muslim rapists as a warning to other women who don’t veil themselves.

In France, the phenomenon of Muslim gang rape as punishment for non-veiling even has a word to describe it: “tournante” (take your turn). In areas where Muslims form the majority (i.e. the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France), even non-Muslim women feel pressured to veil themselves in fear of Muslim sexual and physical punishment.

In the context of this epidemic of Muslim violence against women, and the open legitimization of it pronounced by Islamic clerics, one would think that the Western feminists of our time would be up in arms, sympathetically coming to the side of their raped sisters and standing up for women’s rights in general.

But this is just not the case.

The West’s leftist feminists are responding with an apathetic heartlessness and deafening silence. [2]

It’s all very much understandable and expected, of course: it is politically correct and cutting-edge to scream with moral indignation about a woman’s right to an abortion in the West, but to actually care for - and come to the public defense of - the female victim of a gang-rape committed by Muslims is unthinkable . This is so because admitting the Muslim rape epidemic, and the theology and institutions on which it is based, and denouncing it, would violate the central code of the “progressive” leftist faith: anti-Americanism and cultural relativism. No culture can be said to be better than any other - unless it is American culture, which is always fair game for derision and ridicule. But to criticize any Third World culture in general - and an adversary culture in particular - is to surrender the political cause and faith.

The worldview of Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, is perfect in representing leftist feminists’ stand on Muslim rape and Islamic gender apartheid. Wikan’s solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women stresses neither the punishment of the perpetrators nor the repudiation of the Islamic theology that legitimizes such abuse of women. Instead, Wikan recommends that Norwegian women veil themselves. This is because, in Wikan’s view, Western women must take their share of responsibility for the rapes, since they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and should, therefore, adapt themselves to it. Sheikhs Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi would be proud.

It has long been evident that Western leftist feminists couldn’t care less about real actual breathing women; they care only about their ideological beliefs. For them, the victims of Muslim rape can be easily forgotten and dismissed — for the pursuit of their ultimate goal: to aid and abet the West’s totalitarian enemies and to wreak the destruction of their own free societies which bestow the individual liberties and rights that they despise and abhor.

NOTES:

[1] Although debate exists about whether Islam enforces women’s veiling, and there are some valiant Islamic reformers fighting for a tolerant Islam that does not enforce veiling, the unfortunate reality is that Muslim fundamentalists find legitimacy for forced veiling in Islamic texts. See Robert Spencer’s Onward Muslim Soldiers, pp. 77-78 and his new book The Truth About Mohammad, pp. 44 and 61.

[2] Dr. Phyllis Chesler has powerfully documented Western feminism’s betrayal of Islamic gender apartheid’s victims in The Death of Feminism.