Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Is Islamic Terrorism World War 3?


Posted by: Shamalama 30-Mar-2004, 10:39 AM
There are three news stories today (30 March 2004) concerning Islamic terrorism and possible attempts to kill innocent civilians.

(1) An al Qaeda plot to blast London was dramatically foiled by police today. Seven hundred police swooped in a series of 6am raids in the capital and the Home Counties. They found half a tonne of fertiliser explosives - enough for a series of terror "spectaculars". The terrorist suspects arrested by police are believed to have chosen "soft targets" for bombings including pubs and clubs. One of the suspects being held had a job at Gatwick Airport, immediately raising concerns over airlines and passengers. A total of eight men - all of them British citizens of Pakistani descent, three of them teenagers - were arrested in the operation, with police from five forces searching a total of 24 addresses across London and the South-East.
http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/modules/Article/print.jsp?itemId=9969473

(2) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes. Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators. Mohammed told interrogators that he and Ramzi Yousuf, his nephew who was behind an earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, had leafed through almanacs of American skyscrapers when planning the first operation.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm

(3) A terrorist bombing on the scale of the Madrid attacks has been averted with the arrests of four Abu Sayyaf members and the confiscation of 36kg of TNT, the Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said on Tuesday. Mrs Arroyo, who faces a tough campaign for re-election on May 10, said the explosives were to have been used to bomb trains and shopping malls in Manila. 'We have prevented a Madrid-level attack in the metropolis,' she said, referring to the sprawling capital of more than 10 million people. She said one of the men arrested claimed responsibility for a Feb 27 explosion and fire aboard a passenger ferry that killed more than 100 people. Officials have not concluded what caused that disaster.
http://www.straitstimes.com/latest/story/0,4390,243078,00.html

Let's not forget what happened in Spain, and that there is intelligence that Islamic terrorists attacked for the sole purpose of altering/assuring Spain's socialist election. In a statement by the purported terrorists was the claim, "We change and destroy countries," the statement said. "We even influence the international economy, and this is God's blessing to us."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-spain-al-qaida,0,2469038,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

Americans should never forget 9/11, and the murder of 3000 innocent people.

Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa states that because the US staged the liberation of Kuwait on Saudi soil, the Zionist/Christian crusaders should die.

Hamas says that all Jews (and the US as Israel's friend) should die, regardless of the existance of a Palestinian state.

The majority of the attacks are against innocent civilians, not against either the military or the government. The attacks are meant to send a message.

Is this type of terrorism simply now a way of life around the world? Is there a solution? Do you want Israel to move to South America? Do you favor removing all US interests and personnel out of the Middle East?

Make no mistake - this is not a defensive act against any one party. Radical Islamic terrorism is an offensive attack on anyone not Muslim. I do not believe they will allow co-existance. We will either fight - and maybe die - against it, or we will bow down to it.


Posted by: tsargent62 30-Mar-2004, 11:06 AM
Islamic terrrorists hate the US largely because of our backing of Israel. IMHO, Israel causes their own problems. They say they want peace. They asks the terrorist organizations to stop attacking. Then they launch missiles at the very Palestinian leaders they are asking for peace from. And they wonder why the Arab world hates them.

The US needs to roundly condemn Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. What strategic advantage is there in standing with Israel? I don't get it. It seems to me that having the Arab world on our side would be far more advantageous.

Posted by: oldraven 30-Mar-2004, 11:54 AM
It all depends on how you look at it tsargent. Israel at least speaks of peace. Palestine has no intention of it ever coming to that. There was ONE attack on America, and we went to war. Israel has been asking for peace for ages, and still get bombed, and bombed and bombed. How long should they take these attacks before retaliating? They've made threats for years that if the Palestinians don't stop their reign of terror, then Israel will fight back. And when they do, they are condemned. So, the US should fight for peace, but Israel shouldn't? If they bombed Canada, I'd be willing to stand for my people, no matter how much I hate war and violence.

Make no mistake. This IS genocide. And that can't be averted with talks of peace. Take a look at the history books, and see how this sort of thing had to be dealt with, over and over.

Posted by: Shamalama 30-Mar-2004, 12:17 PM
Nov 2, 1917 - British issued the Balfour Declaration, viewed by Jews and Arabs as promising a ?National Home? for the Jews in Palestine.

1936-1939 - Arab Revolt led by Haj Amin Al-Husseini.

May 15, 1948 - Israel War of Independence (1948 War). Declaration of Israel as the Jewish State; British leave Palestine; Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian invasion began.

April 3, 1949 - Armistice - Israel and Arab states agree to armistice. Israel gained about 50% more territory than was originally allotted to it by the UN Partition Plan. The war created over 780,000 Palestinian refugees who fled or were evicted from Jewish held areas. Gaza fell under the jurisdiction of Egypt. The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by Jordan and later annexed.

Oct. 29, 1956 - Suez Campaign. In retaliation for a series of escalating border raids as well as the closure of the straits of Tiran and Suez canal to Israeli shipping, and to prevent Egyptian use of newly acquired Soviet arms in a war, Israel invades the Sinai peninsula and occupies it for several months, with French and British collaboration. Israel withdraws after a UN peace keeping force is placed in Sinai, and US guarantees right of passage for Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran.

May, 1964 - PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) founded with the aim of destroying Israel. The Palestinian National Charter (1968) officially called for liquidation of Israel.

May, 1967 - Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser closes the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and dismisses UN peacekeeping force. Negotiations with US to reopen the Straits of Tiran fail.

June 5-11, 1967 - 6-day war. Israel destroys the Egyptian air force on the ground, conquers and occupies Sinai and Gaza, then conquers the West Bank from Jordan, and Golan Heights from Syria. UN resolution 242 called for Israeli withdrawal, establishment of peace.

Oct. 6, 1973 - Yom Kippur War (October War). In a surprise attack on the Jewish day of atonement, Egypt retook the Suez canal and a narrow zone on the other side. Syria reconquered the Golan Heights. Israel succeeded in pushing back the Syrians and threatening Damascus.

March 26, 1979 - Peace treaty signed between Egypt and Israel.

June 6, 1982 - Massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon to fight PLO. UN Security Council Resolution 509 demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith, but Israel advances rapidly to Beirut, surrounding the capital by 13 Jun. Israeli cabinet is split on the sudden expansion of the war, beyond the 40 KM limit originally declared by Sharon.

Sept. 13, 1993 - Oslo Declaration of Principles - Israel and PLO agree to mutual recognition, Yasser Arafat and PLO will be allowed to return to Gaza. PLO and Palestinian leadership renounce violence and use of terrorism, and agree to revise the PLO charter to remove chapters referring to destruction of Israel. Over the next, years, Israel withdraws from a small area that is given to Palestinian sovereignty, a larger area is given to Palestinian civil control only, while a third area of the West Bank and Gaza strip remains under total Israeli control. Israel did not dismantle any settlements, and the number of settlers and new settlements increased considerably. Palestinian groups did not remove their charter goals of destroying Israel; the PNA continued to finance, organize and encourage terror activities.

Sept. 28, 2000 - Palestinians initiated riots after Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, which is also the location of the Haram as Sharif holy to Muslims. Violence was apparently encouraged by Fatah Tanzim, as admitted by Marwan Barghouhi. Violence escalated rapidly from rock throwing to machine gun and mortar fire, suicide bombings and lethal road ambushes, including some incidents instigated by settlers against Palestinians.


Posted by: tsargent62 30-Mar-2004, 12:22 PM
Yes, but if you look at history, Israel has a habit of attacking its neighbours. They haven't exactly been peaceful either. It's just really stupid to have a peace process going, talks proceeding, and then turn around and attack the people you're trying to negotiate a peace with.

Posted by: maisky 30-Mar-2004, 12:57 PM
Good post, sir!

There are two factors generating anti-US anger world-wide. The unquestioning support of ANYTHING Israel does and the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Post 9/11 we had world support for the war on terror. We have managed to piss away that support. sad.gif

Posted by: Randy 30-Mar-2004, 01:01 PM
If the US does not hold back Israel the entire middle east will be speaking Yiddish. There military capabilities are no joke after years of our support. Millions of innocients would die on both sides.

Posted by: oldraven 30-Mar-2004, 01:12 PM
Yes, but it's quite a statement to even talk about obtaining peace when your people are being killed on a daily basis. Just remember, one side is at least willing to live in coexistance.

Thank you Shamalama. I actually didn't know a lot of the history of fighting in that region. Well, I knew it was going on, just not the politics of it. Just call me a little less ignorant. wink.gif I still stand by my opinion that peace talks are at least a step in the right direction. Some people, on the other hand, will never agree to peace, no matter how much progress is made, and that thought scares me. Doesn't surprise me though.

Also, there's a huge difference between military attacks and bus bombings.

Posted by: Catriona 31-Mar-2004, 04:25 AM

I remember the 1967 War very well indeed. I was in my teens then. Maybe because Scotland is nearer to Israel, it made a great impact in Europe - don't forget the memories of the holocaust were still being taught to all Europeans with the phrase 'never again'...

A friend of mine (Catholic, not Jewish) volunteered to join the Israeli fighters during the six day war (of course, we didn't know it was going to be so short). He was 18 years old... He was killed by a sniper, in the days after the end of the 'War'.... I remember attending his funeral in St Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh.... the congregation was mainly young people... but it was touching to see that a group of elderly and middle-aged Jews from the local synagogue also attended. I still miss Henry, he would have been a shining star in some field or other had he lived....

My Dad served in what was then called Palestine after WWII. The stories that he told us defied belief. The Stern Gang killed British troops... And the Israelis later made one of the leaders of the Gang, their Prime Minister, Menachem Begin. Soooo, you see, one man's terrorist is another man's Prime Minister cool.gif

Israelis have made the desert bloom - and I think that most experts agree that only western looking people could have done so - after all, the Palestinians had that land prior to the Balfour Declaration and did absolutely NOTHING with it .... now many of the Palestinians who have infertile farms look greedily upon those farms and kibbutzes..

It is a scandal that only one Arab nation took in Palestinians in the late 40s - most refused to give them right of entry or allowed them citizenship. This was to be a propoganda tool to ensure that the Western world would believe that it was all the fault of the Israelis. THAT is the reason for the refugee camps still being in operation to this day...

The question of Israel/Palestine is not something that can be solved easily. But the 'Berlin Wall' built by the Israelis doesn't help, neither does targeting Muslim leaders. BUT the Jews swore that, after the Holocaust, never again would they turn the other cheek. They live by the principle of an eye for an eye.... The Palestinian suicide bombers continue to be funded by other Arab nations - and sadly, there appears to be a never-ending supply of gullible young men (and latterly, women) to carry out these deeds.. When you cannot sit in a cafe, or get on a bus in your OWN country without fearing death.... How must that make the Israelis feel?

The large sums of money (private and Government) supplied to Israel by many countries, but PRINCIPALLY, the USA, has put you (and us) squarely in the firing line of those militant fanatics. The US mantra has always been that they bolster up Israel as a means of having a close ally in the volatile area which supplies so much of the world's energy supplies... Personally, I believe that the very vocal American Jewish lobby has had a great deal more power and influence on US middle-east policy than is good for the true interests of the USA...

My daughter lives in London. I suggested that she try to avoid travelling on the tube (underground) at the moment, and to travel by bus where possible. Now it appears that the fertiliser bomb-making equipment was suspected of being aimed at buses and nightclubs... However, this is still speculation.

I don't have any answers to this problem - I have friends from both the Palestinian and the Israeli communities.


Posted by: Shamalama 31-Mar-2004, 08:32 AM
Hamas has stated that there will be no peace until all Jews are dead. They say that there will be no co-exstance.

If they hold true to their statement, then there are three possible outcomes: (1) all Jews in the Middle East die, (2) all members of Hamas die, (3) a bloody stalemate as it is today.

Or can someone come to the leadership of the Palestinians, and the Jews, that can usher in a philosophy of coexistance?

- On the continued attacks I think there is ample evidence that Israel has tried to target military/tactical leaders while the terrorists try to target civilians.
- Israel sends out soldiers in gunships while the terrorists send out teenage boys and girls.
- Israel has offered up Gaza, Golan Heights, West Bank, and has offered to recognize a Palestinian state. Arafat walked away from the discussions.

If the same people tried to detonate a bomb in your city every week for years on end what would you do?

Posted by: maisky 31-Mar-2004, 08:53 AM
And our genius president has us neck deep in this conflict that has been going on for thousands of years. sad.gif

Posted by: oldraven 31-Mar-2004, 09:07 AM
QUOTE
If the same people tried to detonate a bomb in your city every week for years on end what would you do?


My point exactly.

Posted by: Shamalama 31-Mar-2004, 09:16 AM
QUOTE

And our genius president has us neck deep in this conflict that has been going on for thousands of years.


- Would you advise to step back, wait until there's only one left standing, and then buddy-up to the winner?
- Would you advise not sending financial and military aid to Israel, saying, "It's your fight - good luck"?
- Is it not possible that there are simply some people that won't be satisfied until all infidels (per their definition) worldwide are dead?
- If Arafat and Sharon were sitting at the table with you, what would you advise?
- After watching the news over the last few years, who do you think will make the next attack, and who/what will be the target of the attack? And what does this say about the attackers?


Posted by: maisky 31-Mar-2004, 09:19 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ Mar 31 2004, 10:16 AM)
QUOTE

And our genius president has us neck deep in this conflict that has been going on for thousands of years.


- Would you advise to step back, wait until there's only one left standing, and then buddy-up to the winner?
- Would you advise not sending financial and military aid to Israel, saying, "It's your fight - good luck"?
- Is it not possible that there are simply some people that won't be satisfied until all infidels (per their definition) worldwide are dead?
- If Arafat and Sharon were sitting at the table with you, what would you advise?
- After watching the news over the last few years, who do you think will make the next attack, and who/what will be the target of the attack? And what does this say about the attackers?

Bush has GUARANTEED that the US will be the next target.

I do NOT suggest we not support Israel, but that we take steps to oppose their more extreme actions.

By being neck deep, I am refering to the approx. 100,000 US troops involved in a "dry Vietnam".

Posted by: Shamalama 01-Apr-2004, 12:18 PM
QUOTE

Bush has GUARANTEED that the US will be the next target.



I know what you're saying, but it wasn't Bush's fault that Islamic terrorists plowed commercial aircraft into civilian buildings. The US was the Great Satan and marked for death before Bush even ran for President. And I'm of the opinion that nothing the US does, short of complete appeasment, will change that. Something tells me that Gore would be Satan #1 just because he was President no matter what he would have done.

QUOTE

take steps to oppose their more extreme actions



I want to agree with you on this one. You never put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. But at the same time Israel has been under almost constant attack by certain Arabs ever since the turn of the century. Year after year after year. Hamas wants every Jew dead - period. With that kind of leadership, why not take out the leadership? Israel made an offer to give up Gaza, West Bank, etc., and Arafat turned it down. Why? Because peace is not a debatable option, only death. And I have very little sympathy for a group of people that lie to undereducated teenagers, promising them 72 virgins and a cell phone, if they'll only blow up some innocent civilians. My 3 dogs at home have more respect for life than them.

QUOTE

"dry Vietnam"



Yeah, this is one that we'll not see eye-to-eye on. Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist's DisneyWorld. He provided freedom, shelter, and tons of money to anyone with a grudge against the US. The world is better off without him. Islamic terrorism suffered a huge setback with him gone. Not to mention the humanitarian crimes he did to his own people. And if, and it's a big IF, a democratic government can somehow be established in Iraq then the Arab world just might see a future that they don't see today. And then those WMD's - they were there at one time and *poof* they're no longer there. Believe it that those toys still exist somewhere, they're still for sale to terrorists, and one day they'll be found (probably in Syria, and only after one gets detonated in a democratic city).

Since we can't agree on this one, how about a wee dram and a discussion of baseball?

beer_mug.gif


Posted by: maisky 01-Apr-2004, 12:40 PM
beer_mug.gif I'll drink to THAT my friend! Having you as a friend wouldn't be any FUN if we agreed ALL the time. I appreciate your reasoned arguments and spirited posts, even when I believe you to be "full of it" on specific issues. biggrin.gif

Now, baseball. Not much fun to watch, except it can be enjoyable to watch the Braves get beaten by the Cubs. tongue.gif

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 01-Apr-2004, 04:20 PM
I am of the oppinion that the hatred between West/Islamic World has deeper roots than the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is the way we behave towards them, the cultural misunderstanding and the fact that it is so easy to sway the masses when they aren't very educated.
How do we seem to those people who are poor and that only see the bad things (and probably deliberately get shown the bad things) that come from our side?

Of course, the Israel-Palestine Conflict has an impact. They see that the US is spending large sums to support Israelis of course and that other western nations seem to do the same. And how can we criticise when every time we do the "anti-semit" stamp is being pulled out again?

http://stuarthughes.blogspot.com/ In his blog there is an account on how the international media covered the Palestine boy who was caught with a bomb belt around him. I think it's worth a read.

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Apr-2004, 09:00 AM
I read somewhere once that the basis for the Islam-West hatred started centuries ago. At one time the Middle East was the cradle of civilization. Advanced mathematics, writings, trade, wealth, etc. The cultural center of the world was, once, in the Middle East. Everyone else were barbarians.

Today the situation is reversed. I'm not smart enough to know why, but some have implied that the repressive beliefs of a few religious/political leaders over the years have isloated and stagnated the Middle East. Instead of being the most civilized area on the planet they seem to be the most backward while Europe and America have leaped forwards. There is a great jealousy and envy.

Once Europe walked around wearing animal skins and hunted food using crude weapons, while the Middle East was bathed in culture, wealth, and wisdom. Today most of Europe and America is rich beyond belief, no longer hunt for anything, and spend our time in comparative luxury, while people in the Middle East go hungry. What happened over the last 2000 years?

Can someone with a lot more study in social anthropology give more insight?


Posted by: maisky 02-Apr-2004, 09:34 AM
Isn't the highest per capita income in the world in Quatar?

Posted by: Herrerano 02-Apr-2004, 10:28 AM
Some reasoned analysis has been written by Ralph Peters, I had some links to some of those, but sadly I can't get them to work. I will post them here in the hopes that the problem is some sort of firewall problem here on my end.

At anyrate, if these links do not work, the articles are still stored in cache on google. Just use the following search terms and two of the most pertinent will be the first two listed. Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States. RALPH PETERS

Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States
carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/ 98spring/peters.htm


Rolling Back Radical Islam
carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/ 02autumn/peters.htm

If you do a google on Ralph Peters, there are a great many newspaper articles listed as well.

Leo cool.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Apr-2004, 11:40 AM
From Herrerano's "Rolling Back Radical Islam" at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/02autumn/peters.htm

QUOTE

You cannot win a war if you do not fight, and you cannot win a peace through inattention. In peace and war, the American response to the violent extremism that so damages the Islamic world has been as halting and reactive as it has been reluctant. We simply do not want to get involved more deeply than ?necessary.? But Muslim extremists are determined to remain involved with us.

We are not at war with Islam. But the most radical elements within the Muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. For decades we have downplayed?or simply ignored?the hate-filled speech directed toward us, the monstrous lessons taught by extremists to children, and the duplicity of so many states we insisted were our friends. But nations do not have friends?at best, they have allies with a confluence of interests. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage. And we deal with cynical, corrupt old men who know which words to say to soothe our diplomats, while the future lies with the discontented young, to whom the poison of blame is always delicious.

Hatred taught to the young seems an ineradicable cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunity, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders. Above all, those futureless masses yearn to excuse their profound individual inadequacies and to explain away the prison walls their beliefs have made of their lives.




Posted by: maisky 02-Apr-2004, 12:34 PM
From Herrano's description of the horrors of being Republican:

Hatred taught to the young seems an ineradicable cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunity, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders. Above all, those futureless masses yearn to excuse their profound individual inadequacies and to explain away the prison walls their beliefs have made of their lives.

smile.gif

Posted by: Herrerano 02-Apr-2004, 12:37 PM
Maisky, obviously you have not been drinking enough today. tongue.gif

Leo cool.gif

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 05-Apr-2004, 02:05 PM
Just on the general subject on Israel and that it is not the promised land for everyone, taken from today's Scotsman:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=384912004

Posted by: Shamalama 05-Apr-2004, 02:12 PM
The Garden of Eden was supposed to be somewhere close to Bagdad.

The 'Land of Milk and Honey' has people that depend on charity to live.

This is really sad.


Posted by: Shamalama 19-Apr-2004, 09:23 AM
Myth: The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.
Fact: The Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

Myth: Palestine was always an Arab country.
Fact: The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name. The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.

Myth: The Zionists made no effort to compromise with the Arabs.
Fact: In 1913, the Zionist leadership recognized the desirability of reaching an agreement with the Arabs. In 1921, Winston Churchill tried to arrange a meeting between Palestinians and Zionists. On November 29, 1921, the two sides met, but no progress was made becaue the Arabs insisted that the Balfour Declaration be abrogated. A group of Zionists met with Syrian nationalist Riad al-Sulh in 1921. The Zionists agreed to support Arab nationalist aspirations and Sulh said he was willing to recognize the Jewish National Home. The talks resumed a year later and raised hopes for an agreement. In May 1923, however, Sulh?s efforts to convince Palestinian Arab leaders that Zionism was an accomplished fact were rejected. Over the next 25 years, Zionist leaders inside and outside Palestine would try repeatedly to negotiate with the Arabs. Similarly, Israeli leaders since 1948 have sought peace treaties with the Arab states, but Egypt and Jordan are the only nations that have signed them.

Myth: The Jews started the first war with the Arabs.
Fact: The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back.5 In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

Myth: The United States was the only nation that criticized the Arab attack on Israel.
Fact: The United States, the Soviet Union and most other states recognized Israel soon after it declared independence on May 14, 1948, and immediately indicted the Arabs for their aggression. On July 15, 1948, the UN Security Council threatened to cite the Arab governments for aggression under the UN Charter. By this time, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had succeeded in stopping the Arab offensive and the initial phase of the fighting ended.

Myth: Arab governments were prepared to accept Israel after the 1948 war.
Fact: In the fall of 1948, the UN Security Council called on Israel and the Arab states to negotiate armistice agreements. Thanks to UN mediator Ralph Bunche's insistence on direct bilateral talks between Israel and each Arab state, armistice agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were concluded by the summer of 1949. Iraq, which had also fought against Israel, refused to follow suit. Meanwhile, on December 11, 1948, the General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the parties to negotiate peace and creating a Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC), which consisted of the United States, France and Turkey. All Arab delegations voted against it.

Myth: Israel viewed the territories it captured as conquered lands that were now part of Israel and had no intention of negotiating over their return.
Fact: By the end of the 6 Day War, Israel had captured enough territory to more than triple the size of the area it controlled, from 8,000 to 26,000 square miles. The victory enabled Israel to unify Jerusalem. Israeli forces had also captured the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israel's leaders fully expected to negotiate a peace agreement with their neighbors that would involve some territorial compromise. Almost immediately after the war, Israel's leaders expressed their willingness to negotiate a return of at least some of the territories. Israel subsequently returned all of the Sinai to Egypt, territory claimed by Jordan was returned to the Hashemite Kingdom, and nearly all of the Gaza Strip and more than 40 percent of the West Bank was given to the Palestinians to establish the Palestinian Authority. To date, approximately 93 percent of the territories won in the defensive war have been given by Israel to its Arab neighbors as a result of negotiations. This demonstrates Israel's willingness to trade land for peace.

Myth: Resolution 242 requires Israel to return to its pre-1967 boundaries.
Fact: The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day War.

Myth: Resolution 242 recognizes a Palestinian right to self-determination.
Fact: The Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Nowhere does it require that Palestinians be given any political rights or territory.

Myth: The Arab states and the PLO accepted Resolution 242 whereas Israel rejected it.
Fact: The Arab states have traditionally said they accepted 242 as defined by them, that is, as requiring Israel's total, unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories. In a statement to the General Assembly October 15, 1968, the PLO, rejecting Resolution 242, said "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region." By contrast, Ambassador Abba Eban expressed Israel's position to the Security Council on May 1, 1968: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution." It took nearly a quarter century, but the PLO finally agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles in September 1993.

Myth: The Palestinians were willing to negotiate a settlement after the Six-Day War.
Fact: The Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel. Until the Six-Day War, the PLO engaged in terrorist attacks that contributed to the momentum toward conflict. Neither the PLO nor any other Palestinian groups campaigned for Jordan or Egypt to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The focus of Palestinian activism was on the destruction of Israel. After the Arab states were defeated in 1967, the Palestinians did not alter their basic objective. With one million Arabs coming under Israeli rule, some Palestinians believed the prospect for waging a popular war of liberation had grown. Toward that end, Yasser Arafat instigated a campaign of terror from the West Bank. During September-December 1967, 61 attacks were launched, most against civilian targets such as factories, movie theaters and private homes. Israeli security forces gradually became more effective in thwarting terrorist plans inside Israel and the territories. Consequently, the PLO began to pursue a different strategy ? attacking Jews and Israeli targets abroad. In early 1968, the first of many aircraft was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists.

Myth: Israel was responsible for the 1973 war.
Fact: On October 6, 1973 ? Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar ? Egypt and Syria opened a coordinated surprise attack against Israel. The equivalent of the total forces of NATO in Europe were mobilized on Israel's borders.1 On the Golan Heights, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal, fewer than 500 Israeli defenders were attacked by 80,000 Egyptians.

Myth: Israel has been an expansionist state since its creation.
Fact: Israel's boundaries were determined by the United Nations when it adopted the partition resolution in 1947. In a series of defensive wars, Israel captured additional territory. On numerous occasions, Israel has withdrawn from these areas. As part of the 1974 disengagement agreement, Israel returned territories captured in the 1967 and 1973 wars to Syria. Under the terms of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula for the third time. It had already withdrawn from large parts of the desert area it captured in its War of Independence. After capturing the entire Sinai in the 1956 Suez conflict, Israel relinquished the peninsula to Egypt a year later. In September 1983, Israel withdrew from large areas of Lebanon to positions south of the Awali River. In 1985, it completed its withdrawal from Lebanon, except for a narrow security zone just north of the Israeli border. That too was abandoned, unilaterally, in 2000. After signing peace agreements with the Palestinians, and a treaty with Jordan, Israel agreed to withdraw from most of the territory in the West Bank captured from Jordan in 1967. A small area was returned to Jordan, and more than 40 percent was ceded to the Palestinian Authority. The agreement with the Palestinians also involved Israel's withdrawal in 1994 from most of the Gaza Strip, which had been captured from Egypt in 1973. To date, Israel has withdrawn from more than 40 percent of the West Bank and approximately 80 percent of the Gaza Strip, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip in a final settlement. In addition, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his successors offered to withdraw from virtually all of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria. Negotiations continue regarding the final disposition of the remaining disputed territories in Israel's possession. Israel's willingness to make territorial concessions in exchange for security proves its goal is peace, not expansion.

Myth: The Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians.
Fact: Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.

---

Bottom line: There are many Arabs that simply do not want peace unless it includes the elimination of Israel. Period. Something you won't hear on the nightly news.


Posted by: maisky 19-Apr-2004, 11:22 AM
Good point, Shamalama. The tribes in this region, Arabic, Jewish and others have been at war with each other on and off for the last few thousand years. This is not likely to let up any times soon.

Posted by: Shamalama 21-Apr-2004, 11:51 AM
Damn my blood is boiling! Someone email me an Oxycontin fast!

Five suicide car bombings near police facilities in and around the southern Iraqi city of Basra killed at least 68 Iraqis Wednesday - including 18 schoolchildren. These animals aren't attacking the US military - they're killing children.

No, let's make it "five homicide attackers detonated simultaneous car bombs". Call it as it is. This ain't suicide - it's murder.

At least 238 (and this number is growing fast) others were wounded, which occurred after 7 a.m. during the height of rush hour. Rush hour. When "normal" folk are trying to get to work to earn an honest day's wages. These animals are killing innocent civilians. And not Americans this time - they're killing their own.

Most of the dead are civilians, killed in three bombings: one near each of three Basra police stations and two at the nearby Regional Police Academy. Local police, not US military. These animals do not want law and order - they want anarchy.

Ten boys and girls being driven to kindergarten in a minivan and eight girls in another minivan headed to a high school were killed in one of the blasts. Read that sentance again until you see the picture in your head. Dead children, burned beyond recognition, were taken to hospital morgues.

Basra, which is usually a quiet region of Iraq, is under the control of British coalition forces.

One car exploded in Az Zubayr and then, 30 minutes later as people gathered at the scene, a second suicide car bomb went off in the same location. The first bomber was dressed as a policeman.

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw blamed "insurgents who are trying to disrupt the June 30 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi people." Do you people get this? These animals don't want the Iraqi people to have sovereignty - they want Saddam back with his Terrorist Disneyland.

Iraqi Interior Minister Samir Shaker Mahmoud al-Sumeidi blamed "terrorists." He said the Basra attacks resembled suicide bombings earlier this year against Shiites and Kurds that killed hundreds and were blamed on foreign Islamic militants. Yeah, Rent-A-Terrorists from other countries. And still we hear the Libs cry "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism" - folks, Iraq (under Saddam) was the Wal-Mart of Terrorism. U.S. officials have pointed to Al Qaeda-linked Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in March 2 suicide bombings at Shiite shrines in Karbala and Baghdad that killed at least 181. Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group based in the north, is suspected in Feb. 1 bombings in Irbil that left 109 dead.

Al-Zarqawi has outlined a plot to attack Shiite religious sites to foment civil war between Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority and Sunni minority, say U.S. officials pointing to a letter from al-Zarqawi to Al Qaeda leaders that the military says it intercepted earlier this year. But there ain't no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, huh?

These animals are willing to kill as many people as they can, and as indiscriminately as possible. These fanatics who want to remove any vestige of freedom and liberty from the Iraqi lifestyle.

In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that the attackers were "desperate" terrorists who "were prepared to attack literally the most defenseless people they can find, simply to cause chaos."

The liberal media call them "insurgents".

That numb-nut Michael Moore compares them to the American Minutemen of 1776. Yeah Michael, I bet Thomas Jefferson would have loved to blow up teenage girls and boys.

And I, a dumb redneck from Georgia, has had just about a belly-full of these animals.

They are not civilized. They are not people. They are not human. And I feel no remorse no matter how many of them meet their Creator.

Blow up bombs that kill kindergarten girls. Blow up the police trying to keep order. Sounds just like those Palestinian animals. Cut from the same mold.

But this is limited to Iraq, huh? It's all the US's fault, right? At least 10 people have been killed and 130 wounded in a suicide bombing outside the Saudi General Security Building in the capital of Riyadh. On Tuesday, Saudi security forces defused two truck bombs outside Riyadh, bringing the number of car bombs seized in the kingdom to five within a week.

Folks, get with the program - this is World War 3: "Civilization Versus Terrorism". Do you want to continue appeasement? Do you want to meet them head-on? Do you want to look the other way and hope they disappear?

/disengage: RANT


Posted by: maisky 21-Apr-2004, 03:12 PM
If we weren't there they would STILL be killing each other. After we leave they will STILL be killing each other. Now they get to kill American soldiers, too. sad.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Apr-2004, 02:52 PM
AMMAN, Jordan (CNN) -- Jordanian authorities said Monday they have broken up an alleged al Qaeda plot that would have unleashed a deadly cloud of chemicals in the heart of Jordan's capital, Amman.

The plot would have been more deadly than anything al Qaeda has done before, including the September 11 attacks, according to the Jordanian government.

Among the alleged targets were the U.S. Embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office and the headquarters of Jordanian intelligence.

U.S. intelligence officials expressed caution about whether the chemicals captured by Jordanian authorities were intended to create a "toxic cloud" chemical weapon, but they said the large quantities involved were at a minimum intended to create "massive explosions."

Officials said there is debate within the CIA and other U.S. agencies over whether the plotters were planning to kill innocent people using toxic chemicals.

At issue is the presence of a large quantity of sulfuric acid among the tons of chemicals seized by Jordanian authorities. Sulfuric acid can be used as a blister agent, but it more commonly can increase the size of conventional explosions, according to U.S. officials.

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence officials called the capture of tons of chemicals that together could create several large conventional explosions "a big deal."

The plot was within days of being carried out, Jordanian officials said, when security forces broke it up April 20.

04-26-04

Posted by: Randy 27-Apr-2004, 07:45 AM
Wow I had not heard that, but on NPR this morning they were saying that the King of Jordan canceled its trip to the White House because he says Bush is taking Israel's side. Some thing about not lettign refugies back into Israel sorry forgot exacts.
You think if the US saved thousands of lives he would want to come.

Posted by: Shamalama 27-Apr-2004, 10:05 AM
On a confession shown on state-run Jordanian television, Jayyousi said he took orders from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a suspected terrorist leader who has been linked to al Qaeda and whom U.S. officials have said is behind some attacks in Iraq.

"I took explosives courses, poisons high level, then I pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to obey him without any questioning," Jayyousi said.

Jordanian intelligence suspects Jayyousi returned from Iraq in January after a meeting with al-Zarqawi in which they allegedly plotted to hit the three targets in Amman.

The first alleged target was the Jordanian intelligence headquarters. The alleged blast was intended to be a big one.

"According to my experience as an explosives expert, the whole of the Intelligence Department will be destroyed, and nothing of it will remain, nor anything surrounding it," Jayyousi said.

In an videotape shown on Jordanian TV, Hussein Sharif said Jayyousi recruited him as a suicide bomber.

"The aim, Azmi told me, was to execute an operation to strike Jordan and the Hashemite Royal family, a war against the crusaders and infidels," Sharif said. "Azmi told me that this will be the first chemical attack that al Qaeda will execute."

Jordanian authorities said the attack would have mixed a combination of 71 lethal chemicals, which they said has never been done before, including blistering agents to cause third-degree burns, nerve gas and choking agents.

A Jordanian government scientist said the plot had been carefully worked out, with just the right amount of explosives to spread the deadly cloud without diminishing the effects of the chemicals. The blast would not burn up the poisonous chemicals but instead produce a toxic cloud, the scientist said, possibly spreading for a mile, maybe more.

The Jordanian intelligence buildings are within a mile of a large medical center, a shopping mall and a residential area.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/index.html

---

A toxic cloud, containing blistering agents to cause third-degree burns, nerve gas and choking agents, spreading towards a medical center, a shopping mall, and a residential area.

These aren't freedom fighters or militiamen as Michael Moore is fond of explaining. These aren't insurgents as the world's media is fond of explaining. These are cold-blooded serial murderers. They need to be "dealt with" before they can kill more innocents. And not by lawyers and subpoenas and police as Kerry wants.

Oh Randy - I couldn't find any traces of this story on NPR.org. I wonder why?


Posted by: Herrerano 27-Apr-2004, 10:44 AM
In a different but related story, from Insight, the sister newsmagazine to the Washington Times.


Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found
Post April 26, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman




New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.



http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml


Leo cool.gif




Posted by: Shamalama 30-Apr-2004, 10:49 AM
A United Nations police force was in Kosovo. In this police force were (at least) two American women, one American man, and one Palestinian from Jordan.

The group of Americans, along with some Turkish personnel, were leaving a prison in the northern Kosovo town of Mitrovica when they were attacked by the Palestinian. It was their first day on the job. The Palestinian carried an M-16, from which he apparently discharged 400 rounds into the group, killing the three Americans and injuring eleven other people. According to the Associated Press, they were "trapped between a locked gate and Ali's assault rifle."

The carnage continued until the Palestinian's weapon jammed. The surviving Americans then stormed the Jordanians' guard shack, where they found his four comrades hiding. The Americans grabbed their weapons from them and killed the assailant, firing 16 bullets into his body.

The dead assailant, Sergeant Major Ahmed Mustafa Ibrahim Ali, is being investigated for connections with Hamas, the Palestinian terror organization. He had visited the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, home of the Wahhabi Islamic sect that produced al Qaeda, only a month before he was sent to Kosovo in March.

NATO investigators are examining whether his four colleagues in a Jordanian detachment assigned to guard the prison had helped him by feeding his weapon as he fired.

The Americans shot back with pistols. An Austrian guard heard the noise and ran to the scene, but was wounded in the legs by the Palestinian.

The Associated Press account states chillingly, "When he had shot all those he could see, Ali paced around the vans [in which the Americans had been riding], searching for more victims."

Because Kosovo media operates under heavy U.N. censorship, the whole truth about this atrocity may not be known for some time. But terrorism expert Dan Pipes warned this week, "If the Hamas connection does materialize, it could mean that the organization has in fact begun in earnest its war with the United States."

Full story at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/024rjfgr.asp

---

OK, so here we have a UN police force comprised of people from several nations. One of them is a Palestinian from Jordan, and he has some other Jordanian buddies close by. He then uses his automatic rifle to slaughter his fellow police officers in a clear attack against Americans. He is rumored to be connected with Hamas (the people that have already publically commanded all followers to kill Americans wherever they are). His Jordanian buddies kept his rifle fed with fresh ammunition. It was a complete slaughter, stopped only when his gun jammed and others were able to kill him.

Wake up people. World War 3, the fight of the civilized versus Islamic fanatics, has started. Actually it's been going on for years, but most of the world is just now figuring it out.

They have changed the outcome of one national election. Before the Madrid bombing "the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin" [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/14/spain.blasts.election/], but after the bombing "the election was thrown wide open by a reported al Qaeda claim that it was responsible for Thursday's Madrid train bombings to punish the government for supporting the Iraq war".

That's right, al Qaeda was able to change the expected outcome of a national election.

user posted image

And now it seems that a Palestinian slaughtered his fellow teammates just because they're Americans. Where is the UN outrage over this? Why has there been no media coverage on this?

Stand up or bow down - it's your choice.


Posted by: RavenWing 30-Apr-2004, 10:59 AM
this is terrible.

Posted by: maisky 30-Apr-2004, 04:06 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ Apr 30 2004, 11:49 AM)

Wake up people. World War 3, the fight of the civilized versus Islamic fanatics, has started. Actually it's been going on for years, but most of the world is just now figuring it out.

They have changed the outcome of one national election. Before the Madrid bombing "the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin" [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/14/spain.blasts.election/], but after the bombing "the election was thrown wide open by a reported al Qaeda claim that it was responsible for Thursday's Madrid train bombings to punish the government for supporting the Iraq war".

That's right, al Qaeda was able to change the expected outcome of a national election.

user posted image

And now it seems that a Palestinian slaughtered his fellow teammates just because they're Americans. Where is the UN outrage over this? Why has there been no media coverage on this?

Stand up or bow down - it's your choice.


"They have changed the outcome of one national election. Before the Madrid bombing "the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin"
They have changed the outcome of one national election. Before the Madrid bombing "the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin"

This is simply not true. 90% of the Spanish people were already against the war.

War with the Saudi's? Bush's 'good buddies'? Possible. The Saudi Royal family and the Bush Mafia have been in bed together for many years, manipulating world oil prices, among other things. Watch the price of gasoline take a nice drop just before the election..... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: maisky 30-Apr-2004, 04:09 PM
QUOTE (Herrerano @ Apr 27 2004, 11:44 AM)
In a different but related story, from Insight, the sister newsmagazine to the Washington Times.


Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found
Post April 26, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman




New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.



http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml


Leo cool.gif

Quoting Kenneth R. Timmerman in a rag that is Right Wing to the point of Fascism doesn't make what you are saying true. Just the opposite, It makes anything reported there WAY beyond suspect! I respect you, Brother Herrano, but come ON....

Posted by: Shamalama 01-May-2004, 02:20 PM
QUOTE

maisky: 90% of the Spanish people were already against the war.



Ah, that's why I also included the statement in quotes and included the CNN reference. Against the war maybe, but the election was turned around by the bombings. Either that or CNN is wrong.

And what do you mean the Washington Times is "Right Wing to the point of Fascism"? I simply see them trying to balance out rags like the New York Times, a self-described 'newspaper of record' that has not endorsed a Republican presidental candidate sinve Eisenhower in the 1950's. Fair and balanced, with no agenda - yeah right.


Posted by: Catriona 01-May-2004, 03:45 PM
The reality is not that the Spaniards 'gave into terrorism' but that the Spanish people voted against the then ruling party because they LIED about who was responsible. The Govt said that all the evidence pointed towards ETA... even though they had information that Muslim operatives were expected to try some atrocity in the near future.

The Spanish people were OUTRAGED that their Govt lied to them. THAT is why they voted them out.. The old adage of fooling some of the people some of the time seems to hold good here.

The fact that 90 plus per cent of the Spanish electorate were agin the war, just meant that when the party which had fought on the platform of removing their troops from Iraq elected... the Spanish people felt it was the right thing to do.

Posted by: Shamalama 03-May-2004, 10:46 AM
Exactly why was it that the government said the attacks came from ETA? Did the government hate the ETA more than al Qaeda? Were they scared that they would lose the election of al Qaeda was implicated?

---

Turkish police said Monday they had foiled a bomb plot targeting a NATO summit in Istanbul at the end of June.

Police arrested 16 men they said were believed to belong to a militant Islamist group called Ansar al-Islam. They were detained on April 29 in the town of Bursa, 160 miles south of Istanbul.

The police also seized guns, explosives, bomb-making booklets and 4,000 compact discs featuring training instructions from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The men arrested in Bursa had also been plotting an attack on a synagogue in the town as well as a bank robbery to raise funds for their operations, Bursa governor Oguz Kagan Koksal said.

Turkey is the only Muslim member of NATO.

---

Are we at the point yet where an Islamic group makes or attempts an attack once each week? Are there people that still think this is a police action that can be solved with lawyers and subpoena?


Posted by: maisky 03-May-2004, 06:29 PM
Most countries have to deal with terrorism on a fairly regular basis. The situation in Spain was complex. Their governments quick statement about ETA was definitely the wrong thing to say. The Basque separatist movement has give the Spanish government trouble for a long time. Their attacks were not the type of wanton killing that the train attacks represent. A number of the other coalition members are removing their troops from Iran. We are not far from going it alone, under the current administration. sad.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 07-May-2004, 09:38 AM
A statement attributed to Osama bin Laden today offered rewards in gold for the killing of top US and UN officials in Iraq.

The transcript of an audio recording dated today appeared on a website known for militant Islamic messages.

The website gave links to hear the statement, but none were working. The authenticity of the statement could not immediately be verified.

"You know that America promised big rewards for those who kill mujahideen (holy warriors)," the transcript read.

"We in al-Qaeda organisation will guarantee, God willing, 10,000 grams of gold to whoever kills the occupier Bremer, or the American chief commander or his deputy in Iraq." He was referring to Paul Bremer, the chief US administrator in Iraq, and top military officials.

The statement also promised the same reward for the deaths of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi.

"For security reasons, the rewards will be given as soon as conditions permit, God willing," the transcript read.

"As for those who die while killing an occupying soldier, the great prize will be for us and for him when God grants him martyrdom, and the smaller prize (the gold) will be for his family."

The transcript also denounced US plans to hand sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30, calling them a trick to end the resistance that has killed hundreds of US soldiers.

Full story at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9493729^1702,00.html


Posted by: Shamalama 07-May-2004, 12:57 PM
Cleric's Aide Says Captured Females Can Be Slaves.

BASRA, Iraq May 7, 2004 ? A senior aide of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told worshippers during a Friday sermon in southern Iraq that anyone capturing a female British soldier can keep her as a slave.

The aide, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli, also called on supporters to launch jihad, or holy war, against British troops in this southern city.

He offered money to anyone capturing or killing a member of the Governing Council, the widely unpopular interim administration appointed by the U.S.-led occupation 10 months ago.

Al-Bahadli said 250,000 dinars _ about $350 _ will be given to anyone capturing a British soldier and 100,000 dinars _ or $150 _ to anyone killing one.

Full story at: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/5704-iraq-slaves.html

---

And no one, not the press, not the media, not any government officials, will even think about this for more than five minutes - yet will spend hours screaming in protest against people like Rumsfeld.


Posted by: maisky 08-May-2004, 01:45 PM
Terrorism is a problem in all countries, the US is not excluded. We have long had the extreme-right "militias", ecoterrorists and "christian" terrorists (bombing clinics and shooting people). It is a mistake to look JUST at extreme Muslim groups. Shucks, some of the "good ol' boys" in North GA might qualify.... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 25-May-2004, 09:33 AM
The Islamic fanatics just keep on coming. Too bad Libs just give them a free pass. After all, aren't they Freedom Fighters as Michael Moore says?

Madonna has axed three gigs in Israel ? after terrorists threatened to kill her and her kids.

The singer was terrified by a blitz of poison-pen letters.

She "freaked out" when she learned of a terrorist plot to kill her two young children if she performed in Israel.

She first planned to defy the extremists but cancelled after the unnamed Palestinian group mentioned details about Lourdes, seven, and three-year-old Rocco in a series of threatening letters.

Full story at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004240450,00.html

OK. Madonna does not support Bush's war in Iraq, and she has publically said so. You would think that this would appease the Palestinians. But no. This group was threatening her because she represents many things they hate about the West. That's right: the Islamic fanatics simply hate the US, and are willing and prepared to kill any American simply because they're American. Some might call this attempted genocide.

These Islamic fanatics cannot be reasoned with. There are but a few options.


Posted by: Catriona 25-May-2004, 09:36 AM
Whilst in no way condoning the death threats by any group, I think there may be more behind the threats than the fact that she is an Amerian.


I think the fact that Madonna and her family practice Kaballah - a form of Judaism - and the fact that she has convinced some of her friends to join the pro-Israel religion - MAY have something to do with the death threats.

Posted by: gtrplr 25-May-2004, 10:25 AM
QUOTE
I think the fact that Madonna and her family practice Kaballah - a form of Judaism - and the fact that she has convinced some of her friends to join the pro-Israel religion - MAY have something to do with the death threats.


So the Palestinians want to kill anyone who supports Israel? And their children?

And this surprises you how?

Posted by: Catriona 25-May-2004, 03:58 PM
It certainly doesn't surprise ME. I've lived in the Arab world. My father served in Palestine after the establishment of the state of Israel.

I merely pointed out that saying that Madonna was targeted, simply because she was American was too simplistic.

As I said. I do NOT condone such outrages as threats to children and women.

Posted by: gtrplr 25-May-2004, 04:16 PM
My apologies if I offended you, Catriona. It was not my intention to imply that you condoned terrorism, or threats of violence. And I do agree with you that it is simplistic. But maybe it is just that simple. I think that targeting Americans is exactly what the terrorists are doing. Remember Nick Berg? Madonna makes headlines because she's a star. Would she have received these threats if she were French? Or Russian? Maybe. Maybe not.

In any case, I agree with you that threats against women and children (especially children) are outrageous and reprehensible.

I also noticed that Madonna has made a statement saying she received no such threats. So. . .I guess we simply wait and see.

Posted by: Catriona 25-May-2004, 04:30 PM
Well, if the woman didn't receive any death threats, is she what we in the UK call a 'gutless wonder' for cancelling her performances in a country whose (slightly off-centre) religion she is supposed to follow? cool.gif


Posted by: Shamalama 27-May-2004, 02:06 PM
She is what we in the southern US call a 'tramp', but I digress. rolleyes.gif

Nevertheless I would hope that she is not attacked, American or not, Kaballah or not.

---

Some boys kiss me, some boys hug me
I think they're O.K.
If they don't give me proper credit
I just walk away

They can beg and they can plead
But they can't see the light, that's right
'Cause the boy with the cold hard cash
Is always Mister Right, 'cause we are

Living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl




Posted by: Shamalama 28-May-2004, 02:09 PM
Many Americans still believe that the terrorist threat will end once Al-Qaeda is neutralized. But in reality, the roots of today's war on terror lie in the creation not of Al-Qaeda, but of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna in 1928. Al-Banna and the Brotherhood considered Islam to have an essential political and social character that needed to be reasserted in the face of the societal ills that had come to the Islamic world with secularism. Al-Banna's vision was in perfect accord with that of classical Muslim scholars such as Ibn Khaldun, who taught in the fourteenth century that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." According to historian Brynjar Lia, "Quoting the Qur'anic verse 'And fight them till sedition is no more, and the faith is God's' [Sura 2:193], the Muslim Brothers urged their fellow Muslims to restore the bygone greatness of Islam and to re-establish an Islamic empire. Sometimes they even called for the restoration of 'former Islamic colonies' in Andalus (Spain), southern Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and the Mediterranean islands."

One of the Muslim Brotherhood's principal children is the terrorist group Hamas, which identifies itself in its Charter as "one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era.

Jihad is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by radical Muslims today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

Jimmy Carter's weak policies made the Ayatollah Khomeini's triumph possible, but Khomeini himself, a Shi'ite who had no involvement in the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, was absolutely clear: "Islam," he declared, "makes it incumbent on all adult males . . . to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world."

The "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5).

The Brotherhood's ongoing involvement in violence (combined with American unwillingness to acknowledge how compelling the radical vision of Islam is to Muslims) is just more evidence that today's fixation with Al-Qaeda could be dangerously misleading. It also shows that despite Abu Ghraib and Al-Sadr, the Iraq war, in light of the damage it has done to this global Islamic terror network, has nonetheless been a success.

The West is facing a concerted effort by radical Muslims, most of whom are ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world. That effort goes under the general title of jihad - or also World War 3.




Posted by: maisky 28-May-2004, 05:43 PM
Local FBI warning In Pennsylvania!


The FBI has issued a warning
in Lancaster County.
They suspect a terrorist
may be hiding among
the Amish community.


This photo provided the first clue
that triggered the investigation:

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Jun-2004, 07:49 AM
Anyone remember Jose Padilla (or what we in the south like to call 'Osama bin Lopez')? He's the American citizen who has been detained by the government for the last two years. Well, we now know a little more about old Jose.

He sought to blow up hotels and apartment buildings in the U.S. and set off a nuclear "dirty bomb." Nice guy. Padilla, along with an Al-Qaeda accomplice, planned to find apartment buildings supplied with natural gas. They were then going to rent two apartments, seal them off, turn on the gas, then set timers to blow the buildings up for a nice little terrorist attack.

Padilla had wanted to set off a nuclear dirty bomb, but his handlers didn't think that was feasible, so Al-Qaeda leaders wanted him to focus on his apartment building plot.

How many Jose Padillas are in the USA right now? How many are in the UK?

Declassified documents at: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0601042padilla1.html

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Jun-2004, 08:19 AM
The recent terrorist murders of Westerners in Saudi Arabia has all the hallmarks of the global war waged by al-Qa'ida and its sympathisers.

Attack the Western presence in Saudi Arabia to force the departure of foreign experts. Shake the regime - and thus bring Osama bin Laden's minions one step closer to realising the Islamist goal of a Middle East caliphate. With much of the world's oil under the fundamentalists' control, they could strangle the global economy while obtaining the type of weapons that can blackmail the West, destroy Israel and implement a new dark ages in the Middle East.

We can learn much from this most recent abhorrent slaughter. Once more, the terrorists are politically sophisticated. They chose the time of their attack to coincide with the kingdom's announcement that it would increase oil production to prevent a slowdown of the world economy, now reeling under dramatic fuel price spikes. Appeasement was the Spanish response to the bombing in Madrid; in the Persian Gulf, will we see cutbacks in pumping in exchange for promised calm - a de facto turning over of the daily rate of petroleum production to al-Qa'ida's dictates?

By cutting and running in Iraq, the Spaniards may think they bought time, but all that capitulation did was to direct the emboldened killers elsewhere for a time. Blackmail, to work after all, must at least provide the illusion to the cowered that it brings safety for the moment.

Full article at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9707441^7583,00.html


Posted by: Shamalama 14-Jun-2004, 10:10 AM
Inspectors had found multiple traces of 36% enriched uranium, which has no civilian use and Iran has not offered a satisfactory explanation.

Iran had also lied about having a sophisticated P-2 uranium enrichment program of the kind peddled by Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.

Iran has not been able to explain experiments with polonium-210, a radioactive element primarily useful as a bomb trigger.

Remember that Iran is a petroleum-rich country that doesn't need nuclear power and whose former president has declared that "the world of Islam" should acquire the bomb so it can threaten the existence of Israel and thwart American "colonialism" in the Middle East. On Saturday, AP quoted Iran's foreign minister as declaring that Iran "has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path." All of this has finally provoked even the U.S. State Department to declare that Iran's nuclear activities "are in no way peaceful" and "specifically designed to create weapons."

Last year the U.S. deferred to the Europeans as they brokered an inspection agreement with Iran that the mullahs have since violated with impunity. In other words, the "multilateral" diplomatic path is failing (wow, doesn't that sound strangly familiar?).

History will not look kindly on the leaders, US or others, who let Iran get the bomb on their watch.


Posted by: maisky 15-Jun-2004, 03:59 AM
So this means we invaded the wrong middle-eastern country? Maybe we should have stayed home and let them use their wmds and wids on each other? They have been fighting each other for thousands of years anyway. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jun-2004, 07:54 AM
Al-Qaeda posted a video online yesterday of Paul Johnson, a man who works for Lockheed-Martin in Saudi Arabia. He was apparently taken hostage by these Islamic psychos on Saturday. The video shows the man blindfolded. Poor guy was just trying to earn a living.

So what are their demands? They are threatening to kill him within 72 hours unless the Saudi government releases some terrorists from a couple prisons. A Saudi government spokesman says it is unlikely their demands will be met because the Kingdom has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. And so it goes. Things don't look too good for Mr. Johnson. Very sad.

Those of you out there that oppose the war on terror, that are supporting Kerry because you think Islamic terrorism is a law enforcement problem, take a good look. This is what we have to look forward to if Al-Qaeda is not destroyed. Not negotiated with, not appeased, not minimized, but completely destroyed.

Get used to these images and these reports. As Communism was in the 50's and 60's, so is Islamic terrorism today. At least Khrushchev never kidnapped and sawed the heads off of civilians.


Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jun-2004, 07:59 AM
Ghazi al-Talabani, the security chief for Iraq's Northern Oil Company, was killed today when gunmen opened fire on his car as he left for work. This was apparently the work of terrorists (the media calls them 'insurgents', Michael Moore calls them 'freedom fighters'). But none of this should come as a surprise.

The Islamic terrorists who do not want self-rule for the Iraqis are doing their best to derail the June 30th transfer of power. This was expected. The enemies of freedom don't like what is happening in Iraq. They see their desire for a totalitarian theocracy slipping away as Iraq moves toward self-rule, and they can't stand it. They want an Islamic dictatorship.

The handover is two weeks away. Get ready for more of this. On June 30 a flower will be planted in the desert, and it has the chance to become an oasis.

Posted by: maisky 16-Jun-2004, 12:48 PM
There is no reason to believe that the violence on the part of Hussein's folks will change after the bogus "handover" of power to a puppet government. The gorilla warfare we are seeing is exactly what Hussein warned the US would happen before we invaded them. There is no reason to assume they will let up.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 16-Jun-2004, 07:12 PM
This is precisely what a number of Middle East experts (including a good many of our European allies) predicted before we invaded Iraq. We can't stop the violence because we're too civilized to use the brutal means--which would include the use of torture and the killing of innocent bystanders--necessary to find and deal with the people committing the atrocities. We can't pull out without appearing to follow the Spanish example, which I agree only encourages further atrocities. But, we can't really accomplish anything by staying--if we can't protect members of our hand-selected new government who can we protect? We've let an evil djin out of the bottle, and appear to be incapable of putting him back.

Posted by: Shamalama 17-Jun-2004, 09:50 AM
There was a time when we feared Soviet nukes. We did the 'duck and cover' in school. We built underground shelters. NORAD monitored the skies. We had B52's fully loaded and only minutes away from Soviet airspace, ready for the GO - NO GO.

Today there are civilians with C4 strapped to their belts. There are guys with explosives hidden in their shoes. I read something yesterday that said that dying as a martyr in Islam carries more 'blessing' than just dying of old age. So now we have people that actually WANT to die and kill as many infidels as possible to receive 'greater blessings' from Allah.

It's 2004, and we still have Saudi schools teaching that Jews make their meals out of Arab blood, and that Americans are to be killed on sight.

Personally I find this to be unacceptable. I'm waiting for the rest of the world to come to the same conclusion. Co-existance is impossible with this Islamic mindset.

Posted by: maisky 18-Jun-2004, 04:21 AM
Don't forget the mindset and teachings in remote (and not so remote) parts of certain Southern states that we won't mention where kids are taught that dancing is evil and that Catholics worship the devil. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Swanny 18-Jun-2004, 07:45 AM
Hey Maisky, did you know that some sects prohibit even married members from having sex while standing for fear it might lead to dancing?

S

Posted by: Shamalama 18-Jun-2004, 10:19 AM
In my case dancing IS evil. If you ever see me dancing you'll spend the rest of the evening trying to claw your own eyes out.


Posted by: maisky 18-Jun-2004, 04:36 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 18-Jun-2004, 11:19 AM)
In my case dancing IS evil. If you ever see me dancing you'll spend the rest of the evening trying to claw your own eyes out.

I never claimed to be able to dance, either. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 21-Jun-2004, 10:42 AM
Here we go again.

Paul M. Johnson Jr. had his head chopped off by Islamic terrorists. The event was videotaped, and pictures were sent through the internet. Those that did this are proud and happy of what they've done.

The head of the al-Qaida cell that killed Paul M. Johnson Jr. justified targeting the American engineer in a message written before he himself was killed in a gunbattle with Saudi security forces.

In an article posted Sunday on a Web site used by Islamic radicals, Abdulaziz al-Moqrin called Johnson "an infidel, a warrior of the military."

Johnson, who had worked on Apache helicopters for Lockheed Martin in Saudi Arabia, "works for military aviation and he belongs to the American army, which kills, tortures and harms Muslims everywhere, which supports enemies (of Islam) in Palestine, Philippines, Kashmir," al-Moqrin wrote.

Get used to more and more of this. You either stand, or bow to these people.


Posted by: maisky 21-Jun-2004, 05:00 PM
Where does it say we have to "stand" in their yard? We have NO business being in Iraq. The latest killing was in S. A., but it is a direct result of our stupid invasion of Iraq. sad.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Jun-2004, 10:11 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 21-Jun-2004, 07:00 PM)

it is a direct result of our stupid invasion of Iraq.


???

Invade Iraq --> chop off heads of American civilians in Saudi Arabia.
Invade Iraq --> chop off heads of South Koreans civilians in Saudi Arabia.

"The infidel got his fair treatment," the terrorists said about the South Korean after chopping off his head.

These Islamic menaces have no humanity. Not one ounce. They are cruel, cunning, capable ruthless monsters. They are certainly not civilized, and also not quite human.

Saddam gave these monsters free reign. Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Panel, says "There were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that."

Saddam gave these monsters money. Vladimir Putin said that he warned the U.S. after 9/11 that his Russian intelligence forces, who were a lot closer to Saddam's regime than our own intelligence forces, had determined that Saddam was preparing terrorist attacks on the United States.

Saddam gave these monsters free training facilities. The 9/11 Commission has received new information indicating that a senior officer in an elite unit of Saddam's security services may have been a member of Al-Qaeda. Not just a member of Al-Qaeda, but one involved in the planning of the 9/11 hijackings.

The overall War On Terror included Saddam's regime. Sit and complain all you want, but the removal of Saddam was a necessary step in the War On Terror. To remove Saddam does mean "we have to stand in their yard". And it ain't over yet.

And what do you mean by "their yard"? Do you imply that al Qaeda (the ones doing all the head chopping) considers Iraq (where our military forces currently are) to be "their yard"? Why Brother Maisky, I think you are I are finally agreeing on something! And you are exactly correct: Iraq was al Qaeda's playground, it was their yard. Thank you for that defense of Bush's actions.

- At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, several athletes were massacred.
- In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages held for more than a year.
- In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up, killing 241 U.S. soldiers.
- In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, killing 270 people.
- In 1993, there was the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
- In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more than 200 dead and 4,000 injured.
- In 2001 the World Trade Center was reduced to rubble, killing more than 3,000 Americans.

- "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29).
- "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them" (Quran 8:12).
- "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures" (Quran 98:1-8).
- "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam), until they are subdued" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29).

Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which radical Islam is not involved?

Dr. Thomas Sowell observes, "Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the 'infidels' of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise." He adds, "Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world." Sowell adds that few people, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don't blame themselves for their plight. For the Muslim world, it's the West who's to blame.

History never repeats itself exactly, but we might benefit from the knowledge of factors leading to the decline of past great civilizations. Rome was one of those advanced civilizations. Rome was so caught up in "bread and circuses" and moral decline that it couldn't manage to defend itself from invading barbaric hordes who ultimately plunged Europe into the Dark Ages.

The fight against worldwide Islamic terrorism is World War 3. Stand and fight, or sit and appease and enjoy the New Dark Ages.

Posted by: maisky 24-Jun-2004, 05:52 PM
As far as I can see, the "dark ages" is the goal of the bush Administration. sad.gif

Posted by: maisky 27-Jun-2004, 08:40 AM
More people are waking up to the idiocy of the invasion of Bushnam.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to that country.

Fifty-four percent of those polled said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, compared with 41 percent who expressed that sentiment in early June.

Most respondents to the poll, 55 percent, also said they don't believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism -- rejecting an argument that President Bush has repeatedly advanced in his rationale for the war.

Posted by: Shamalama 29-Jun-2004, 11:02 AM
Islamic Terrorism is World War 3.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes it kills 63 people.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and does nothing. Again.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. But these are acts of war.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war?

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision.

They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

Finally a President decides to do something about it, and he is vilified.

And here we go again. Al-Jazeera television is reporting that Islamic terrorists have murdered U.S. Army Spc. Matt Maupin. The video is grainy, dark and murky, and Pentagon officials said it was inconclusive, but it's probably what it says it is. after all, by now we should know one thing: when a bunch of Islamic Jihadists say they're going to kill somebody, that's usually what happens.

And just how was it carried out? On the tape, it shows him (or someone like him) kneeling on the ground with his back to the camera before he is shot and murdered in cold blood. And for what? Just like all Islamic terrorism, no reason at all.

So why do these terrorists keep doing this? President Bush nailed it on the head yesterday, speaking at the NATO summit. He said that the insurgents were taking hostages because they couldn't beat our military. Then, he also said this: "What they can do is get on your TV screens and stand in front of your TV cameras and cut someone's head off in order to get us to cringe and retreat. That's their strongest weapon." He's exactly right. We can't really expect a free press to not tell us what's going on. So, the question comes down to this. Are Americans tough enough to withstand the onslaught of images and news about the brutality of these adherents to the so-called "religion of peace?"

Until the new Iraqi government really cracks down on this, there appears to be no end to the hostage-taking and the murdering. And they need to crack down...not the wimpy, politically correct response that we started when we were in charge. No, it's time for the Iraqis to hit back against these "insurgents." And by the way, they're not "insurgents." They're Islamic radicals. They practice Islam. They're terrorists. They just shot and killed an American soldier in cold blood, right on TV. Think the war on terror isn't justified? Remember ... these Islamic maniacs have pledged to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans right here ... on our own soil.

Oh...that's right..."Bush lied." Whatever.

Posted by: Shamalama 24-Jul-2004, 05:23 PM
Terrorists attempt fresh wave of US hijackings

JAMES HALL
FOREIGN EDITOR

Key points
? Terrorists thought to have targeted at least two US flights in dry-run attacks
? 9/11 Commission warns attack worse than Twin Towers 'probable'
? Cameras caught 9/11 terrorists setting off security alarms prior to hijacking

Key quote
"Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable. We do not have the luxury of time" - Tom Kean, chairman 9/11 commission

Story in full DEVASTATING new evidence has emerged that terrorists are preparing another attack on the United States, with air marshals and flight crews reporting a series of dry runs for attacks on aircraft in mid-air.

At least two flights are thought to have been targeted so far by groups of Middle Eastern men who appear to be forming a plan of attack.

On one flight an air marshal reportedly broke into an onboard toilet to find that a mirror had been removed and that a Middle Eastern man was trying to break through a wall to the cockpit.

One air marshal told the Washington Times newspaper yesterday: "No doubt these are dry runs for a terrorist attack."

The revelation came on the day a major US report into the 11 September attacks warned that another attack was likely.

The commission recommended an overhaul of the country?s intelligence services to prevent al-Qaeda launching more deadly plots against America.

Warning that an attack "of even greater magnitude" than the one that killed almost 3,000 people in 2001 was "probable", the commission accused the Clinton and Bush administrations of failing to have sufficient imagination to have envisaged al-Qaeda?s lethal plot.

Tom Kean, the chairman of the commission, said: "Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable. We do not have the luxury of time.

"We must prepare and we must act. The al-Qaeda network and its affiliates are sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal."

Airline staff and passengers have catalogued repeated incidents that suggest new attacks are in preparation.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=842422004



Posted by: maisky 25-Jul-2004, 06:41 AM
Yes Al Quaeda is planning more attacks. It is a pity that we are futzing around in Iraq instead of focusing our resources on going after Al Quaeda. As it is, we are streatched MUCH to thin, with far too many of our resources tied down in Bushnam. The Arab world would have been far less upset with us for targeting the terrorists rather than making an illegal and immoral invasion. Our actions have generated the vast majority of the hatred for the US world wide. This is NOT just in the world of Islam, but the rest of the world, too. Al Queada is having NO problem recruiting thousands more members and collecting funds from around the world. Thank you very much, Cheney/bush for the enemies. sad.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Jul-2004, 09:38 AM
BUT...

Osama's 1996 declaration of jihad against all Americans came out of the Gulf War, the one sanctioned by the UN, before the liberation of Iraq.

The attack of the USS Cole (a genuine attack against a US warship, which Clinton did nothing about) came before the liberation of Iraq.

The first attack on the World Trade Towers (which had the intended effect of demolishing the buildings) came before the liberation of Iraq.

The various attacks on subways and nightclubs came before the liberation of Iraq.

Americans were dying at the hands of al Qaeda and its clones long before before the liberation of Iraq.

Al Qaeda no longer has a country it can go to for aid and resupply thanks to the liberation of Iraq.

If Iraq does become a democracy the social effect to al Qaeda is far greater than any US bomb could do. Al Qaeda will be receiving far fewer funds from Saddam now.

Illegal and immoral invasion? Tony Blair argued that the ceasefire resolution (Resolution 1441) and subsequent resolutions are like any other international agreement. In the case of material breach of a multilateral treaty, in some cases, all the parties may respond, including, where appropriate, by coercive countermeasures. Or do you believe that only the UN may authorize the use of force? Does the UN have the power to rule over independent members? Kerry does. I don't.

Blair argued that some of their uses of force against Iraq following the Gulf War are justified as humanitarian intervention. He said that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention could also support force against Iraq for regime change.

Bush, on the other hand, espoused the right of preemptive self-defense. He believed that this doctrine would support invading Iraq regardless of what the UN Security Council says or even of what Iraq does to comply. The doctrine of preemptive force purports to allow the United States to use military force against a perceived threat or even to prevent threats from developing. Bush saw Iraq as posing just such a future threat.

According to the UN in cases of threat that lack the objective evidence of an armed attack, either under way or imminent, the defender needs Security Council authorization to use significant military force. Do we really desire the UN to have this level of control over one of its members?

Posted by: maisky 26-Jul-2004, 01:06 PM
"Before the liberation of Iraq"? Iraq isn't liberated. It is OCCUPIED by an invading army, which is building 14 PERMANENT bases. The US is bogged down in Bushnam worse than we EVER were in Vietnam. We have lost the war in Iraq. The current US administration is simply too stupid to recognize that we have lost. We are losing the war on terror. Terrorist attacks are UP worldwide since the invasion of Bushnam. Fat lot of good it did. sad.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Aug-2004, 11:21 AM
We're getting close to the start of the Olympics in Athens. Almost $1.5 billion (that's with a "B") has been spent just on security for these Olympics. That's more than ten times what was spent on security in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics eight years ago.

There's one primary reason for these concerns over security and this spending. One reason, one word. Jihad. Radical fundamental Islamic jihad. Jihad that was begun before Bush took office. Jihad that attacked the US while both Bush and Clinton were President. Jihad that has stated, time and time again, that their goal is to kill as many Americans, wherever they are, as possible.

And is the worldwide Islamic community saying anything publically against it?


Posted by: maisky 02-Aug-2004, 03:31 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 02-Aug-2004, 11:21 AM)
We're getting close to the start of the Olympics in Athens. Almost $1.5 billion (that's with a "B") has been spent just on security for these Olympics. That's more than ten times what was spent on security in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics eight years ago.


If more attention had been paid to security in 1996, would have it prevented the bomb attack by the Christian Terrorist? unsure.gif

Posted by: maisky 02-Aug-2004, 03:33 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 02-Aug-2004, 03:31 PM)
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 02-Aug-2004, 11:21 AM)
We're getting close to the start of the Olympics in Athens.  Almost $1.5 billion (that's with a "B") has been spent just on security for these Olympics.  That's more than ten times what was spent on security in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics eight years ago. 



If more attention had been paid to security in 1996, would have it prevented the bomb attack by the Christian Terrorist? unsure.gif

There are a number of terror groups in the world. George Bush JR and his bosses have succeded in uniting many of them by our invasion of and occupation of Bushnam. There recruits and funding now abound.

Posted by: Shamalama 03-Aug-2004, 09:27 AM
I agree with you about 1996. Terrorism, and individuals using bombs against innocents, was still "pure fantasy" then - handled by police and warrants and not the full force of the US. We now know, and realize, what one deranged person can do.

That guy is, and was, a terrorist, and should be treated as such. He is a nutjob of the fundamental radical Christians (like the ones that kill abortion doctors) just like the thousands of fundamental radicals Muslims. They have their jihad just like Osama. They both believe they're acting on the will of God/Allah. They both have no place in civilized society and deserve an eternal dirt nap. I have no guilt about wanting to put a bullet between the eyes of either one.

It took 9/11 to finally wake up America. Many have since fallen back to sleep.

"George Bush JR and his bosses have succeded in uniting many of them by our invasion of and occupation of Bushnam"? You're right - we certainly don't want to get a bunch of terrorists mad as us, do we?

Where was Kerry when we needed him in World War II? If we had just not fought back against the Germans and the Japanese (and uniting them against the US) who knows how many American lives we would have saved!

Posted by: maisky 03-Aug-2004, 10:06 AM
"Where was Kerry when we needed him in World War II? If we had just not fought back against the Germans and the Japanese (and uniting them against the US) who knows how many American lives we would have saved!"

Aw shucks, brother S., you're just being silly again! That's MY job. tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 09-Aug-2004, 11:34 AM
"There can be little doubt that Al Qaeda is trying to strike the American homeland before Nov. 2. 'We are in the midst of Al Qaeda efforts to attack the U.S. on a scale as big or larger than 9/11,' says John Brennan, chief of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the interagency operation that consolidates threat information."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5636197/site/newsweek/


Posted by: maisky 16-Aug-2004, 07:29 AM
Speaking of terrorism, what about our administration's efforts to protect us?

From BushGreenwatch.com

August 16, 2004

Administration Ignores Terrorist Potential in Its Own Backyard

The Bush administration, which has ventured thousands of miles away to pursue still unsubstantiated reports of weapons of mass destruction, continues to thwart efforts to eliminate the very real danger of catastrophic terrorist attacks right in the nation's own backyard.


The threat consists of chemical-laden railroad tank cars-- lethal cargoes which the US Department of Transportation characterizes as potential "Weapons of Mass Destruction."


A hair-raising photo taken last September shows the Capitol dome in the background with a loaded, clearly identified, extremely dangerous chlorine tank car passing in the foreground, on tracks just blocks away (dangerous cargoes carry this identification to assist firemen and emergency personnel responding to an accident).


"This photo is an indictment of non-homeland security," says Dr. Fred Millar, a rail security specialist who served as a consultant to Friends of the Earth on the issue of terrorism and dangerous rail cargoes. "The blindness on this is stunning," Millar told Bushgreenwatch.


The simple, effective solution-- opposed by the chemical industry, the railroads, and the Bush administration-- is to reroute hazardous cargoes away from cities ranked as major targets for terrorists, such as Washington, New York, Chicago, Houston, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles.


A sudden release of chlorine from a 90-ton rail tank car could create a cloud 40 miles long and 4 miles wide and be fatal 8 to 10 miles downwind. [1] If terrorists ruptured a tank car on tracks near the Washington Mall during public events such as the Fourth of July or the Inauguration, the deadly cloud could kill 100,000 people in a half-hour, according to estimates from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratories. [2]


Dr. Millar, who also sits on DC's Local Emergency Planning Committee, has urged the DC City Council to enact a proposal to prevent the four most dangerous cargoes from passing through by rail or highway when practical alternative routes exist. "This seems a no-brainer," he told the council last October, "since re-routing would eliminate the attractiveness [to terrorists]." This could be done along the Eastern seaboard by shifting hazardous cargo to a rail route which runs largely through a rural corridor instead of major cities such as Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Newark. [3]


If anyone doubts how easy it would be to sabotage a rail car, all one need do is take a look at the rail cars passing the Capitol with graffiti sprayed all over them. That graffiti wasn't put there by any security police.


Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has conducted a study of the vulnerability of the Washington area's rail system to terrorist attack, it has repeatedly delayed the release. While awaiting this federal report, the DC Council has held back on the rerouting legislation.


On Capitol Hill, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) proposed a bill that would mandate DHS to reroute dangerous chemical cargoes, but Congress failed to take up the measure before going on recess. When promulgating regulations on hazardous cargo security in March 2003, the Bush administration dropped any mention of routing from the final rule.



###

SOURCES:
[1] Chlorine Institute, Pamphlet 74.
[2] Testimony of Jay P. Borris, chief scientist at US Naval Research Laboratories before District of Columbia Council, Oct. 6, 2003.
[3] Testimony of Dr. Fred Millar on Bill 15-25 "Terrorism Prevention and Safety In Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 2003," Jan. 23, 2004.

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Aug-2004, 10:19 AM
Geez.

"Friends of the Earth is dedicated to preserving biological, cultural and ethnic diversity..."

Biological diversity? Humans and cockroaches, holding hands, singing songs around the campfire.

Cultural diversity? Americans and radical Islamists, holding hands, singing songs around the campfire.

Listed as "radical left" by the Capital Research Center. And funded quite well by Teresa Heinz's Tides Foundation.
- Article against Bush by consultant of Friends of Earth
- Friends of Earth heavily funded by Tides Foundation
- Tides Foundation heavily funded by Teresa Heinz
- Teresa Heinz is current Sugar Mama of Presidental candidate John Kerry
- Surprising, huh?

Typical liberal group: opposes nuclear energy, big on labor rights and social wages, anti-capitalist. Founded in 1969 by the late David Brower (of Berkeley, California, of course) after he was fired as Executive Director of the Sierra Club. One of Brower's quotes: "Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

Leftist propaganda from easily identified leftists. There is a credible threat of attack by every UPS and FedEX truck moving through a city - you want to re-route them too? What about the "cargo" in moving vans - you want them inspected before they enter the city limits? Is this paranoia, or practical?

No news here. Move along.


Posted by: maisky 16-Aug-2004, 10:50 AM
Brother S. Your "reply" doesn't change the truth of the article. We have spent WAY too little on US security, while pi**ing $ hundreds of Billions down a rathole in Iraq.

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Aug-2004, 01:08 PM
The truth of the article is that there are, in fact, extremely dangerous chlorine tank cars traversing around Washington, DC.

There are hundreds of other cargo-containing transport vehicles traversing every major city in the US.

Washington area's rail system is vulnerable to terrorist attack. Atlanta's rail system is vulnerable to terrorist attack.

I don't deny any of the author's claims. Congress didn't see fit to take up the Ed Markey's bill before going on recess. America is vulnerable in any of thousands of directions. Get used to it - that's what happens in a free, non-government-controlled society.

Or are you, and the author, suggesting that "in the name of public safety" the government get even more involved in private enterprise? And I thought you hated all the government intrusions contained in the Patriot Act?

Is there, in fact, a rail route which runs largely through a rural corridor instead of major cities such as Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Newark? But what if a factory in Newark needs a shipment of "extremely dangerous chlorine"?

No, I didn't change the change the truth of the article - there was little of it both before and after my comments. It's just that the answer is not present in the article either. No elected official is going to ban Chemical A, Gas B, and Powder C from a city's planes, trains, and automobiles. The cities require them - those products are not simply going through a city on a sight-seeing visit.

The entire purpose of the article was to bash Bush - nothing more. The article came from BushGreenwatch.com, known for their anti-Bush stance. The article contained statements from Dr. Fred Millar, a left-wing scientists that has ties to left-wing organizations that are funded by left-wing foundations.

If this were an article from FreeRepublic.com, as described on Fox News, describing the dangers of abortion you yourself would be screaming about the inherent bias.

Even someone from a government school ought to be able to see that.


Posted by: Shamalama 01-Sep-2004, 01:19 PM
I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned this already.

If you've been paying attention to the news this morning (Wednesday), you'll know that about 400 people, including 200 children, are being held hostage in Russia. More than a dozen militants wearing suicide-bomb belts seized a southern Russian school in a region bordering Chechnya. As many as eight people have been reported killed, one of them a school parent.

Kazbek Dzantiyev, head of the North Ossetia region's Interior Ministry, said that the hostages have threatened "for every destroyed fighter, they will kill 50 children and for every injured fighter - 20 (children)."

If you listen to most newscasts you'll hear that they're being held hostage by "rebels." Some newscasters may even go so far as to identify them as "Chechnyan rebels" or "insurgents." It's what you don't hear that's interesting. The "rebels" are Muslims. They're Islamic terrorists. They've been on the attack in Russia for the past few weeks. A suicide bomber killed nine people in Moscow. Near-simultaneous explosions blamed on terrorists caused two Russian planes to crash, killing all on board.Exploding airliners. It is just another front on the Islamic radical's war against everything not Islamic.

Why is the media so petrified of identifying these terrorists as Muslims? Is there some new unwritten rule out there which says that you cannot identify terrorists as Islamic?

The surge in violence was apparently timed around last Sunday's Chechen presidential election. The previous president, Akhmad Kadyrov, was killed with more than 20 others in a bombing May 9. Anyone remember the deadly seizure of a Moscow theater in 2002?

They won in Spain, they thought they could win in Russia.

"In essence, war has been declared on us, where the enemy is unseen and there is no front," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said. Ah, you don't say? Michael Moore says they're Freedom Fighters.

A militant Muslim web site published a statement claiming responsibility for the bombing on behalf of the "Islambouli Brigades," a group that also claimed responsibility for the airliner crashes. The statement said Tuesday's bombing was a blow against Putin, "who slaughtered Muslims time and again." That's the same words used against Bush.

And we're back to the Islamic terrorists resurrecting the old Islamic terrorist staple of attacking schoolchildren, this time in Russia. I wonder if Putin is beginning to realize exactly what his former "business partners" are? They're animals. They hold no appreciation of life, either yours or theirs. They will happily kill you in order to achieve paradise themself.

Worldwide Islamic terrorism is World War 3, and it's already started. What do you want to do about it?

Posted by: Shamalama 06-Sep-2004, 07:22 PM

Did any of you read this over the holiday weekend concerning the hostage situation in Russia?

QUOTE

Muslins took to the streets around the world today to march in protest of the recent wave of violence perpetrated in Russia by Islamic radicals.  "We condemn any person, especially a Muslim, who would shoot a fleeing child in the back." said one of the protestors.  "These pigs are murderers, not Muslims.  They shame Allah rather than honor him."

Estimates of the numbers of Muslims marching worldwide to protest violent acts in the name of Islam numbered in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps the millions.


No, you didn't. No one did. I made it up.

We didn't read such a story because something like that didn't happen and hasn't happened since Islamic jihadists declared war on all things non-Muslim, and especially the West.

Over 200 schoolchildren were killed by those Islamic terrorists in Russia on Friday. Some of these kids were shot in the back as they were trying to flee. The New York Times wrote of one child who walked up to one of his captors to ask for a glass of water. Without so much as a second thought the Islamic animal ran the child through with his bayonet.

Russians report now that at least 10 of the Muslims holding these children hostage were Arabs. Huh? How did Arabs get into Russia, and what were they doing there?

I'll give you a hint: death to all things non-Muslim.

These are not "hostage takers". These are not "radicals". These are not "gunmen". They are all Islamic terrorists. They appear to have planned their seizure of a Russian school carefully, starting months earlier and sneaking weapons into the building in advance.

This whole thing about Islam being a wonderful religion of peace is starting to wear a bit thin. It may well be that the vast majority of devout Muslims in the world simply want to live their lives in accordance with their religious teachings without violence and without bothering anyone else. If that is so, then those peace loving Muslims are going to have to show that they are as disgusted, distressed and fed up with the actions of Islamic terrorists as the rest of us are. Else we're going to start assuming that they are in favor of such behavior.

Worldwide Islamic terrorism is World War 3, and it's already started. What do you want to do about it? Are you willing to fight a "more sensitive" war on Islamic goons who will shoot children in the back, as one of the candidates has suggested?



Posted by: Shamalama 08-Sep-2004, 01:58 PM
In CNN's latest article on the Beslan slaughter, they at least use the word "terrorists," but you will not find "Islam" or "Muslim" or "Islamist" or anything of the kind -- even though the "Chechen rebels" want their own muslim state ruled by Islamic laws.

Half the dead "Chechen separatists" were not Chechens at all, but Arabs. And yet, tastefully tiptoeing round the subject, The New York Times couldn't bring itself to use the words Muslim or Islamist, for fear presumably of offending multicultural sensibilities. We must, after all, fight a more "sensitive war", right?

How can one trust what one reads, hears, or sees when the self-evident fact of terrorism is being semi-denied? Worse, the multiple euphemisms for terrorist obstruct a clear understanding of the violent threats confronting the civilized world.

I wonder if, as they killed those schoolchildren, they chanted "Allahu Akbar!" -- as they did when they hacked the head of Nick Berg, and killed those 12 Nepalese workers, and blew up those Israeli diners in the Passover massacre.

In the face of such horror, who can offer up any shred of justification? Yet that is precisely what has happened in the worldwide mainstream media outlets in the wake of every terrorist event the world has seen in recent years.

After 9/11 there were those who "explained" the attacks by blaming U.S. policy in the Mideast as behind the "desperation" of the hijackers. After the Madrid bombings half the Spanish electorate effectively blamed their nation's participation in the war in Iraq by voting out the government that supported the U.S. In the wake of every suicide bombing in Israel, that country's policy on Palestinians is deemed responsible in many quarters, especially in Europe. After the carnage at Beslan will CNN blame the children?

Worldwide Islamic terrorism is World War 3, and it's already started. What do you want to do about it?


Posted by: Shamalama 10-Sep-2004, 01:34 PM

user posted image

And while you're at it, how many media stories do you remember seeing, reading, or hearing about the Abu Ghraib prisoners? Now compare them to how many media stories you remember seeing, reading, or hearing about this massacre of children. Can you easily see what is most important to the media outlets, and what the media outlets want you to see more of?


Posted by: Macfive 10-Sep-2004, 08:31 PM
Sorry if I sound out of sync with the way the current topic is going.

Is Islamic Terrorism World War 3?

I don't think it is WW3 just yet. But I honestly believe that we are entering a very dangerous period in humanity - speaking of course over the next 5, 10, 25 years. Unless the world can stop these savages from gaining a foothold turning countries into radical islamic states - we could face a WWIII down the road.

These islamic terrorists have no respect for life. For example, the old gray haired teacher that in the Russian school pleaded for mercy "Show a little mercy" was immediately shot in the head. Shooting helpless children and woman in the back? And videoing taping it because they know it will be showed around the world.

These terrorists are brought up from birth to hate and are brainwashed in a cultish setting, hour afer hour, day after day, repeating in their religoious chants to kill the infidels. How else could they get these individuals to blow themselves up. They pray on their own people, looking for the weak ones, that will carry out their deeds.

In alot of ways I see the current world events much like the movie "Lord of the Rings". It is a good vs. evil and there is nothing more that could describe it.

This is not about invasive U.S. policy, nor about Iraq or Afganistan or Sudan. It's about power and the hunger and greed for the ultimate power. To control a nation, to control people, at any cost does this thirst grows each and every day. Whether it is from Iran, North Korea or from some Jungle in a drug lords domain in South America. The western world has long shed its desire to expand their individual borders - there is no reason why the world should look on and let poverty, murders, rapes, forced slavery continue in this day in age.

But, the reason they continue is because the western world is divided. Canadian teenagers hate Americans by an overwhelming %, Americans want to boycott the french and make fun at their culture - the very nation who without their help we would not have been a nation at all (Lafayette is turning in his grave!). And equally France has no interest in helping an old Allie out - one that helped in the restoration of their country. There is so much finger pointing, blaming, positioning by nations and politicians it makes my stomach sick. Meanwhile, the dark forces will grow stronger and smarter and if we are not careful they could be at our doorsteps someday.

I really believe that as a culture, "United we Stand, divide we fall" is very true for the current state of affairs throughout the Western World.

Ok, my two cents. I don't get a chance very often to write on like this, so I'd like to thank the members of this forum for keeping it hot and interesting in here! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 13-Sep-2004, 01:57 PM
QUOTE (Macfive @ 10-Sep-2004, 10:31 PM)

I'd like to thank the members of this forum for keeping it hot and interesting in here!


If only my wife would complement me on "keeping it hot and interesting". sad.gif

---

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Russia stabbed babies to death, shot toddlers in the back, forced children to eat rose petals and drink their own urine, raped teenage girls, executed their teachers and blew themselves up in a crowded school gymnasium. Death toll: 339.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Spain detonated bombs on four commuter trains during Madrid's rush hour. Death toll: 190.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Bali blew up a beach resort with an electronically triggered bomb at one bar and a car bomb hidden in a van at another nightclub filled with young Western tourists on holiday. Death toll: 202.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Pakistan kidnapped and beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia kidnapped and beheaded American engineer Paul Johnson.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and beheaded American independent contractor Nick Berg.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and executed Italian security guard Fabrizio Quattrocchi.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in the Philippines kidnapped and killed American missionary Martin Burnham.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Israel engineered near-simultaneous suicide attacks on two buses, killing at least 15 people.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Morocco waged suicide bombing attacks in Casablanca.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Turkey bombed synagogues and the British consulate.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in America hijacked and incinerated three planes full of men, women and children, trapped pregnant women and firefighters in smoke-filled stairways, and forced office workers to leap 99 stories to their deaths after saying final prayers from the ledges of the World Trade Center on a peaceful September morning. Death toll: 3,000.

Does anyone see a pattern here? It's not no-name militants, wayward guerrillas, or freedom fighters who have butchered, beheaded and slaughtered thousands of innocents over the last three years alone.

It is my humble opinion that a very dangerous period in humanity has already been entered. To deny such is to deny recent history.

Like old times, the grand, anti-fascist coalition of World War II is now falling into place. First, it was America alone. Then Great Britain threw in. Now, here comes Russia.

Stalin made the mistake of cooperating with fascism in 1939 by signing a nonaggression pact with Hitler and woke up two years later with the German Army marching through Russia. I doubt Putin will make the same mistake with the Islamist Army.

France, far from being an Allied power in WWII, was then, as they are now, a servile nonentity. Islam will soon overtake that country with impunity just as the Germans did 60 years ago.

"We have to admit that we showed no understanding of the danger occurring in our own country and the world," Putin told Russians after the massacre. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff, promised to "liquidate" the terrorists "in any region of the world." Attacking the children of Beslan was a terrible mistake, akin to Hitler's invasion of Russia.

A few days after Beslan, Putin sent Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Jerusalem. Lavrov talked with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon about strategic cooperation in what the Russian called "the worldwide struggle."

What? The Russians cooperating with Israel? "Worldwide struggle"?

Israel was a destination for Russian officials because in this war, as in WWII, Jew-hatred is the emotional epicenter of the fascist, world-domination movement. As a result, publicly embracing Israel is a symbolic declaration of independence from the orbit of Islamic imperialism. All the various wordings of the jihad declarations include some reference to a fight to the death against all Jews and anyone that befriends them.

The Big Three have reasons to hang together. Russia will not soon forgive the massacre of its children, and Putin, if he wants to remain a credible leader, must turn his words into warfare. Great Britain, so far unattacked, remains committed to the Anglo-American special relationship. And the U.S. will fight until the threats and the ghosts of 9/11 are vanquished. The American public won't accept any less.

Except for the euro-styled liberals that still dream of a one-world, one-government utopia where all the world lives in one happy commune.

Posted by: Shamalama 20-Sep-2004, 10:25 PM

Don't you just love Kofi Annan, the United Nations, and their relevance in today's world? How could the world survive without the UN?

user posted image

And for today's More Of The Same: American civilian Eugene Armstrong was beheaded in Iraq by terrorists associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "We will apply God's law on them," a masked man said just before the killing. The video was posted on a Web site that has been used by insurgents in the past.

Armstrong, along with American Jack Hensley and British citizen Kenneth John Bigley, were kidnapped from their residence Thursday. All three worked for Gulf Supplies and Commercial Services, a company based in the Middle East, on reconstruction projects.

Is anyone becomming fed up with Islamic terrorists?

Posted by: Shamalama 05-Oct-2004, 02:16 PM
The Islamic radicals continue to amaze me. How is it that people still see them as 'freedom fighters'?

Do you remember that Mosque in Najaf where Moqtada al-Sadr was holed up for weeks? Al-Sadr's people were firing mortars at American troops from inside that Mosque, but American troops showed restraint and never stormed the place. Finally Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Muslim cleric in Iraq, told al Sadr to clear out.

Now we have learned while al-Sadr was hiding in his Mosque his "freedom fighters" were quite busy. Their assignment was to kidnap dozens of women and children and bring them into the Mosque. There they would be murdered. I think it's possibly safe to say that many of the women were possibly raped before, maybe after, they were murdered. When al-Sistani ordered them out, Al Sadr and his gang of murderers left the bodies of the women and children inside the Mosque.

So what was the purpose? The Islamic killers fully expected American troops to storm the Mosque to get to them. When that happened, and after the smoke cleared, the innocent and peace-loving followers of Al Sadr would be able to show the bodies of innocent women and children who were killed in the brutal U.S. assault on this place of holy worship.

Never forget, especially now, the brutal, murderous nature of the Islamic killers. They will murder their own sisters, mothers, sons and daughters if they think that they will then be able to use the western media to blame the deaths on American soldiers. And when the time comes, the Western media will be all-too-eager to relate the story just exactly the way al-Sadr wanted them to. The American media is no less guilty of promoting Islamic terrorism than are the ones actually carrying guns.

Posted by: Shamalama 15-Nov-2004, 09:53 AM
The Netherlands has long been Europe's most permissive society ? everything from window-shopping in Amsterdam for scantily clad hookers (50 to 80 Euros for 15 to 30 minutes) to hashish aroma in marijuana smoke-filled cafes. The government and the sex workers union protect some 30,000 women. The pimps are landlords and the aging prostitutes are quickly replaced with a steady influx from the former Soviet republics and East European countries.

It was such Dutch tolerance, pragmatism and guilt about the country's colonial past that allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Muslim Indonesia (a Dutch colony from the 17th century until World War II) to flood into tiny Holland. Today, Muslims are a majority among children under 14 in the Netherlands' four largest cities.

There are 1 million Muslims (6 percent of the population) now living in Europe's most crowded small country. Some 30,000 new Muslims arrive every year. They tend to live among themselves, with their own schools, mosques and restaurants. Most are horrified by what they view as sacrilegious in their own religion. Their imams speak no Dutch and know nothing of the Netherlands' history and culture.

Western Europe as a whole gets about half a million new Muslims a year. Most make their way from sub-Sahara Africa and North Africa, illegal immigrants smuggled by boat to Spain and Italy where they are free to travel with impunity to the rest of Europe. Thus, Europe's Muslim population has doubled to 20 million in the last 10 years.

What Dutch filmmaker and columnist Theo Van Gogh saw as the shabby treatment of females throughout the Muslim community led him to produce documentaries that portrayed Muslim men as tormentors of women, especially their wives. One recent scathingly critical Van Gogh film's carried the message that Islam promotes violence against women. Last week, Van Gogh, a grandnephew of the painter, was shot as he cycled to work. He managed to get up and stagger across the street to his building where he collapsed. The assailant followed him and slit his throat before pinning to his chest with a knife a five-page manifesto that called on Muslims to rise against the "infidel enemies" in the West.

Several were arrested, including the prime suspect, a Muhammad Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan, who was charged with murder and suspected links to an al Qaeda group.

Tit-for-tat terrorism quickly followed Van Gogh's assassination in widely scattered parts of the otherwise peaceful Netherlands. An arson attack against a Muslim school was followed in the same village of Uden by a Muslim attack against a primary school that was set ablaze and completely gutted. Then a small bomb damaged a Muslim school in Eindhoven. A score of mosques and churches were targeted by arson attacks in one week. Two young men were also arrested for putting a video on the Internet that promised 72 virgins in paradise for the "beheading" of Geert Wilders, a popular right-wing politician who decries the dangers of radical Islam. Two years ago, Pim Fortuyn, a populist politician who called for a halt to immigration, by simply saying the Netherlands was "full," was similarly gunned down.

Could the Netherlands be a curtain-raiser for a wider clash of civilizations in the old Continent? Hundreds of thousands of young Muslims in Europe are potential jihadis, according to European intelligence chiefs speaking not for publication. They have been warning their political masters about the tinderboxes that many Muslim communities have become. Jihadi volunteers are known to have left for Iraq from a number of Muslim slums on the outskirts of major European cities. Recruitment posters come on regular European and Arabic news programs.

Yes, the Koran does not accept infidels. You either convert, or you die. There is no allowance for co-existance. Read the Koran for yourself and see.

The Koran cannot live in a vacuum. It's borders must extend to the ends of the earth. It is no different from Communism in the 1950's or Nazism in the 1930's. When it knocks on your door, what will you say?


Posted by: maisky 15-Nov-2004, 10:59 AM
The Bush Mafia's illegal invasion of Iraq is indeed fueling hatred of the US. Isn't he just the clever one: If we don't have enemies, create them.

If we REALLY want to strike a blow against the Muslim (and Christian) extremists, pump the money being flushed down the toilet in Iraq into developing alternative energy technology. Make the demand for oil drop by 90%. Then they won't have the FUNDING to war against us. But wait!! Bush's corporate masters have been suppressing the alternate energy technologies for the last 50 years. They would NEVER allow Georgie to support such an progressive idea. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 15-Nov-2004, 11:42 AM
Funding alternative energy technology will save the Netherlands from potential jihadis?

Christian extremists grab civilians off the street and videotape their beheadings?

These anumals' survival depends on liberal apologists, not Bush's 'corporate masters'. The middle east butchers get more vaildity from American movies calling them 'freedom fighters' than from oil company profits.

One of the worst butchers of the last 50 years was Yasser Arafat. Several French municipalities governed by communist and left-wing majorities are considering naming a street or a square after Yasser Arafat. Are the socialist and left-wing minorities in the US going to do the same to their 'heroes'?

The terrorist's power doesn't come from raw dollars - it comes from acceptance, tolerance, vaildity, and apoligies by the left. Thanks for your support.


Posted by: maisky 16-Nov-2004, 06:51 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 15-Nov-2004, 11:42 AM)
Funding alternative energy technology will save the Netherlands from potential jihadis?

Christian extremists grab civilians off the street and videotape their beheadings?

These anumals' survival depends on liberal apologists, not Bush's 'corporate masters'.  The middle east butchers get more vaildity from American movies calling them 'freedom fighters' than from oil company profits.

One of the worst butchers of the last 50 years was Yasser Arafat.  Several French municipalities governed by communist and left-wing majorities are considering naming a street or a square after Yasser Arafat.   Are the socialist and left-wing minorities in the US going to do the same to their 'heroes'?

The terrorist's power doesn't come from raw dollars - it comes from acceptance, tolerance, vaildity, and apoligies by the left.  Thanks for your support.

You are welcome to my support, and it is MY turn to buy the drinks. beer_mug.gif
The terrorists are a product of "ugly westerners", particularly Americans. The Bush Administration has furthered the cause of world terrorism immensely with it's arrogant, cowboy attitudes.

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Nov-2004, 11:36 AM
Son, if you're buying them I'm 'a drinkin'! The guy that's trying to make time with my oldest daughter brought me a bottle of The Glenlivet last night because he heard me say something about me almost being out of the Scottish Water. He just made a few points!

tongue.gif

The terrorists are NOT a product of "ugly westerners". They are a product of a religion that has, at it's core, the belief that all infidels not converted to Islam are subject to death. They are a product of a religion that has, at it's core, a non-acceptance of the idea of co-existence. The older Muhammad was, the stronger the language of the Koran was. There is absolutely no compromise in Islam, and I believe Islam is the only religion to take such a hard stance.

The worst that can happen when you meet a Southern Baptist is that he thumps you on the head with his bible. In Islam you have to worry if your head is about to come off.

Don't take my word for it. Study the Koran (as I am doing now) and see if you can find the concept of co-existence. You either convert, or you die. The entirety of the Koran is based around war.

As for "arrogant" or "cowboy", as I see it you either appease and become a subject, or you take a stand and fight. It's the same scenario the world faced with 1930's Germany and 1950's USSR. And the same people are willing to fall on their knees as before, and it's the same people that will do all the fighting and protecting the world. Things never change because people never learn from history. Most people's view of history is whatever happened in the last 10 years and nothing more.

Russia and the Netherlands are learning.

France never will. France doesn't oppose Islamic terrorism. France misses their hero Yasser. France misses their Sugar Daddy Saddam. I hope the US remember's France's 'cooperation' the next time they need somebody to save their bacon . . . and that day will come, probably in our lifetime.

We are at war with a fascistic totalitarian ideology. The weapons are different, but we are in a war to the finish as we were then, and there doesn't seem to be that sense among many, particularly among the Liberals (the same as it was back in the 1930-40's).

We do have a grave problem in this country, but it is not the plan for Iraq, the neoconservatives, or targeting Saddam. This present generation of leaders at home, as well as a huge number of registered voters, would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 16-Nov-2004, 05:49 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 16-Nov-2004, 07:51 AM)
The terrorists are a product of "ugly westerners", particularly Americans. The Bush Administration has furthered the cause of world terrorism immensely with it's arrogant, cowboy attitudes.

I guess that explains why the Dutch are about to throw almost 30,000 Muslims out of Holland and tell any others that are thinking about migrating there to forget that idea!

Posted by: Shamalama 17-Nov-2004, 01:32 PM
You probably won't hear this on ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN:

If you visit the USA Today website you will be treated to a flash presentation of several pictures taken during the siege of Fallujah. Picture number two in this presentation shows 40 vials in boxes labeled "Sarin." Sarin gas. One drop of this stuff on your skin can kill you. The boxes have Cyrillic and German characters on them. The caption under the photo reads "Marines discovered 40 vials of suspected Sarin gas while searching a house in Fallujah, Iraq. It was secreted in a briefcase hidden in a truck in the courtyard of the house."

Weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons. This Sarin gas could, with an effective application, kill thousands. And where do they find it? In a briefcase! A briefcase in a car trunk. And you wonder why our troops have had some difficulty finding Saddam's weapons? You still think inspections could have worked?

While further analysis determined the find was probably part of a Soviet test kit with samples, the discovery of the deadly nerve gas in a room with mortar shells appeared to indicate an intent to weaponize the material.

Remember: according to Michael Moore these are just freedom fighters. Yeah.

Posted by: Shamalama 17-Nov-2004, 03:11 PM
I've run out of blood pressure medicine. The notes below are a steamed rant. You have been warned.

/rant:ON

"In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. 'Muslim' is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And 'Jihad' refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to acheive this objective. Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State." - Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam

"Allah revealed Islam in order that humanity could be governed according to it. Unbelief is darkness and disorder. So the unbelievers, if they are not suppressed, create disorder. That is why the Muslims are responsible for the implementation of Allah's Law on the planet, that humanity may be governed by it, as opposed to corrupt man-made laws. The Muslims must make all efforts to establish the religion of Allah on the earth." - Muhammad 'Abdus Salam Faraj, Jihad: The Absent Obligation

"Whoever says that Islam is free from terrorism or wants to differentiate between Islam and terrorism is committing Al Juhoud and that is Kufr Akbar ? and will take them out of the fold of Islam. The one who says ?we should fight against terrorism?, he is fighting against Islam. We know very well that USA meant no one else by the term ?terrorists? but Islam and Muslims and the one who wants to avoid terrorism is avoiding Islam." - Al Muhajiroun (Bakir School of Thought)

The more I watch, the more I hear, the more I truly am losing my tolerance of this so-called religion of peace. In order to more fully understand them, I am now reading the Quran and see that Islam is a religion of peace only if you are Islamic.

It is the intent of Islam to supplant all religions: that is the stated goal in the Quran. The moderates wish to take a slow but steady course, insinuating themselves into countries (France's population, for instance, is 10% Muslim) and working within the structure of those countries to undermine it to their ends. The fundamentals simply want aggressive jihad right now - there is no delay for them.

More and more, I am giving credence to the notion that to the Islamists, we are all infidels. The Quran is quite explicit in the treatment of infidels if you care to read it for yourselves.

If this continues, and I see no indication that it shall not, I am concerned that we will see a confrontation like we saw from 700 to 1400 AD - a period of Islam's spread from the Arabian penninsula and into Europe. That expansion brought war when the west took a stand against Islam, and many of the same factors are present today. Given the proper circumstances, we could be faced with a holy war in the 21st century.

It is wrong to have a prejudicial opinion of something and attack it out of ignorance. On the other hand it is equally ignorant to defend something in the face of overwhemling evidence of its destructive nature out of some false sense of proprietrty of moral equvolency.

Islam has a goal for the world and that is complete control with everyone being Islamic or dead. I have no qualms with how people wish to worship or not worship, as long as it's not forced on people. Islam is trying to push their cult of death on the world through murder and subjugation. One Christian can kill an abortion doctor and the liberals scream out against all Christians. Islamic fundamentals kill thousands over the course of 30 years and the same liberals fall over themselves with apologies.

On 9/10/01, I was starting to have ideas and thoughts that maybe Israel needs to back off, and leave those Palestinians alone. That changed on 9/11/01. I realized what monsters that fundamentalist Islam breeds. Did you see all the happy faces shouting with glee the fact that 3000 innocent Americans were butchered by "their brothers"?

Barely had the dust cleared from the Twin Towers' collapse before our politicians were on TV telling us Islam is not to blame, don't blame Islam, this has nothing to do with Islam, the terrorists are not true Muslims, etc. But Holland loses one person, just one, to Islamic terrorists and they're ready to boot every Muslim out of the country. They're burning mosques. They're looking into shutting their borders down. What's wrong with this picture? Why does one country get it after one death while we've lost thousands and we still refuse to listen?

The very few Arab-Muslim representatives that have appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States prove who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance.

If the calls for "Jihad!" widen, I fear we non-Islamists will be left with no recourse but to respond with "Crusade!"

/rant:OFF

Posted by: maisky 17-Nov-2004, 03:36 PM
Anti-Islamic hate posts are no prettier than anti-semetic or anti-christian posts.
Brother S., you are a great guy, but you are on the wrong road here.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 17-Nov-2004, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 17-Nov-2004, 04:36 PM)
Anti-Islamic hate posts are no prettier than anti-semetic or anti-christian posts.
Brother S., you are a great guy, but you are on the wrong road here.

Brother M, I must strongly disagree! You are burying your head in the sand if you can't see the facts, as illustrated by Brother S's dissertation (not Rant), staring you in the face!

Posted by: maisky 18-Nov-2004, 10:55 AM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 17-Nov-2004, 06:05 PM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 17-Nov-2004, 04:36 PM)
Anti-Islamic hate posts are no prettier than anti-semetic or anti-christian posts.
Brother S., you are a great guy, but you are on the wrong road here.

Brother M, I must strongly disagree! You are burying your head in the sand if you can't see the facts, as illustrated by Brother S's dissertation (not Rant), staring you in the face!

I KKKeep forgetting about you southern folKKKs. tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 18-Nov-2004, 11:48 AM
OK, let's dissect my "hate post". I'll make these simple 'yes or no' questions that even a Yankee Liberal can understand:

1) Are the quotes from Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, Muhammad 'Abdus Salam Faraj, and Al Muhajiroun correct?

2) Is stated goal in the Quran to supplant all other religions, by force if neccessary?

3) Is the notion that, to the Islamists, the unbelievers are all infidels, correct?

4) Is it, in fact, that Islam has a goal for the world complete control with everyone being either Islamic or dead?

5) Can you quote any of the Quran's suras which state that Islam proclaims tolerance and peace and love for all people?

6) Is it true that 90-95% of all the armed conflicts around the world today involve Muslims fighting non-Muslims or Muslims fighting each other?

7) Is it true that the world "Islam" is Arabic for "surrender" or "submission" to the will of Allah [God], and not, in fact, derived from the word "peace"?

For Muslims, there exist two kinds of non-Muslim enemies: 'kafir' (non-believers in Islam) and 'ahl al-kitab' (People of the Book). Kafir, such as Buddhists and Hindus, must either convert to Islam or face execution. People of the Book include Jews and Christians. These people need only submit to Muslim authority to avoid forced conversion or death. Although they may keep their original faith, their status becomes 'dhimmi' (a "protected," yet inferior non-Muslim status). So instead of outright forced conversion or slaughter, the Christians and Jews would be allowed to remain somewhat unmolested as long as they acknowledged the superiority of the Muslim. But the truth of the matter is that such "protection after acknowlement" is rarely guaranteed. Christians and Jews are more likely targets of execution that being "protected", even after becomming 'dhimmi'.

Islam remains a religion of the Dark Ages. It is the most violent and intolerant faith that has ever been presented to mankind. An example of the their belief found within the Quran is the warlike notion of "Jihad," or "Holy War." Apologists for Islam say "Jihad" is one personal struggle to obtain a higher moral standard. But what it really represents is a violent military action (even terrorism) against any non-Muslim. There is practically no other religion today that expouses "Holy War" against a non-believer.

Until a nation has embraced Islam, it is legally considered a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb). Once it has converted to Islam (or all its citizens have been slaughtered or driven out), it then becomes a Land of Peace (Dar-us-Salaam). Please don't blindly believe this - study the Quran yourself and see what you find. This is really non-debatable - it's written fact.

- Is it true that Algeria is wracked by bitter fighting between Islamic Fundamentalists and the military? The death toll is 100,000 over a ten year period.
- Is it true that Nigeria is in the midst of a war in which Muslims are murdering Christians and burning down their churches?
- Is it true that a civil war rages in the Sudan between Muslims in the north against the Christians in the south? Is it true that Sudan's militant Muslim regime is slaughtering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam?
- Is it true that Pakistani Muslim soldiers raped a quarter of a million Bangali women in 1971 after they massacred 3 million unarmed civilians? Is it true that this atrocity is not considered a sin in Islam, because the religious leader of the soldiers decreed that Bangladeshis were infidels?
- Is it true that Islamic activity is not confined only to the "Third World"? Is it true that by 2020 Muslims will account for 10% of the overall population of Europe?
- Is it true that Muslims in Britain have made it clear that they have no intention of assimilating? Did Dr. Zaki Badwari, former Director of the Islamic Cultural Centre of London write, "A proselytizing religion [like Islam] cannot stand still. Islam endeavors to expand in Britain. It aims at bringing its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community, the Umma,"?
- Is it true that every single Muslim country on this planet is governed by brutal dictatorships (Iraq might be the first to break this pattern)?
- Is it true that no other religion teaches their young to strap explosives to their chest and become a suicide bomber?

A comparison:
- Muslims are full of grievance, while Americans are full of guilt.
- Islam asserts a right to impose its dogma, while the West preaches equality.
- Islam is assertive, the West apologetic.

Is it true that regarding infidels (unbelievers), they are the Muslim's "inveterate enemies" (Sura 4:101). Does the Quran say Muslims are to "arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere" (Sura 9:5) for them? Is it true that they are to "seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly" (Sura 4:90)? Does the Quran say, "Fight them until Islam reigns supreme" (Sura 2:193), and "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers" (Sura 8:12)?

Does the Quran say if a Muslim does not go to war, Allah will kill him (Sura 9:39)? He is to be told, "the heat of war is fierce, but more fierce is the heat of Hell-fire" (Sura 9:81).

Is it true that Muslims are commanded to make war on the infidels (unbelievers) who live around them (Sura 9:123)? Is there such a command in Buddhism?

Is it true that a Muslim should "enjoy the good things" he has gained by fighting (Sura 8:69). Spoils of war are to be trophies? Did Christ mention anything about enjoying the spoils of war?

Is it true that a Muslim can kill any person he wishes if it be a "just cause" (Sura 6:152)? What do atheists say about killing?

Is it true that anyone who fights against Allah or renounces Islam in favor of another religion shall be "put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off alternative sides" (Sura 5:34)? What do Hindus say about killing non-believers?

Does the Quran say that you should slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush? (Quran 9:5). Did Budda say anything about lying in ambush against non-believers?

Does the Quran say, "The smallest reward for the people of Paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a,'"? Do other faiths have, in their vision of Paradise, a collection of servant waiting for you? Do other faiths describe the servantude of others as a good thing?

Does the Quran say that once Islam's followers got to heaven, they could pleasure themselves with endless sexual encounters with 'Houris' (beautiful young virgins) - 72 virgins girls and 28 young pre-pubescent boys? Does Mohammed go one step further and expand the promise of virgins to include a free sex market where there is no limit of the number of sexual partners? Are women and young boys on display as if in a fruit market where you can choose the desired ripeness? Is this truely Paradise, or simply Mohammed's fantasy? Quran 78:31, 37:40-48, 44:51-55, 52:17-20, 55:56-58, 55:70-77, 56:7-40. Read it for yourself.

Does the Quran say that there are even young boys for your pleasure in Islam's Paradise: Quran 52:24, 56:17, 76.19.

It is amazingly curious that in Islam, and no other faith, Paradise is filled with earthly pleasures, They are "houris" (beautiful virgins) and pre-pubescent boys (mentioned above), and:

- abundant pure water (Quran 13:35, 3:198, 3:136, 15:45, 22:23, 47:15, 55:50-51, 55:66-67, 44:51-55, 56:7-40),

- fruits (Quran 13:35, 37:40-48, 43:68-73, 47:15, 55:52-53, 55:54-55, 55:68-69, 44:51-55, 56:7-40, 76:13-21),

- wine (Quran 47:15, 37:40-48, 56:7-40, 83:23-26),

- and lots of wealth (Quran 22:23, 43:68-73, 55:70-77, 44:51-55, 55:54-55, 56:7-40, 76:13-21).

Could it be that Mohammed's promise of an Islamic Paradise that glittered with the fulfillment of all sorts of worldly desires was nothing but a ploy to recruit those who had no hope or expectation of ever getting these things in their "real" lives? Knowing that they are assured of such a Paradise simply because they follow Islam, Muslims could go around committing plunder, rape, looting, and murder. No other faith condones murder, and no other faith rewards their followers with endless sex with virgin girls and young boys. But don't take my word for it - do like I'm doing and study the Quran yourself.

Brother Maisky, I've provided a wealth of information here. What of what I've written do you dispute? Tell me, and all of CelticRadio, what errors I've made in this post. If I've drawn incorrect conclusions then please correct me. This is not a hate post, as you described, but rather solid facts and references that you can check out yourself. It is wrong to have a prejudicial opinion of something and attack it out of ignorance. On the other hand it is equally ignorant to defend something in the face of overwhemling evidence of its destructive nature out of some false sense of moral equivalency.

Yes, I do believe that what we're witnessing today, the spread of Islamism and violent jihad, is World War 3 (WW 4 if you count the Cold War as WW3). I see this as no different from Nazism in the 1930's or Communism in the 1950's. You either embrace it with open arms (while standing on your knees), or you fight against it. Mine is an attack on an idealogy no different than I do against Socialism or Liberalism, not an attack on a gender or race.


Posted by: Shamalama 18-Nov-2004, 12:17 PM
A 14 year old boy is sentenced to 85 lashes for breaking his Ramadan fast.

A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th, after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.




Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 18-Nov-2004, 01:06 PM
For more on the appalling state of injustice in Iran, see http://members.ozemail.com.au/~burnside/Iran.htm.
Ironically, by making it possible for a theocracy to be elected in Iraq if truly free elections are held, GWB has actually increased the odds of this type of injustice taking place in Iraq. As horrible as Saddam Hussein was and is, our true enemies in the Middle East are countries like Iran, and Saudi Arabia, where injustices committed by the theocrats are common. For an example from Saudi Arabia, see http://cuddlynecrobabes.com/mh/middle_east.htm. These are the people we are actually helping by getting rid of the sadistic, but secular Saddam Hussein regime, who commited the same brutal types of executions as the Saudis for political reasons.
Unless we are ready to use neutron bombs to totally de-populate the area, our best bet is to leave them to brutalize each other, and advise anyone with any pretense of civility to stay away.
As the Israelis have shown many times, the Arab Muslims simply lack the capacity to be a real threat outside their own borders, and that sealing them off seems to be the only way, outside total genocide, to minimize their terrorist capabilities.

Posted by: Shamalama 19-Nov-2004, 11:46 AM
If the world leaves them alone, as we're doing with the Sudan and Saudi Arabia, then the "world" screams for "justice".

If we go in and clean house, then the "world" screams about our "injustice" to "innocent" people.

Osama, an Arab Muslim, did have the capacity to be a real threat outside his own borders. As do those that had a suitcase of Sarin gas in the trunk of their car (as was found this week in Fallujah). Who needs a division of armored vehicles and several wings of state-of-the-art fighters to be a credible threat anymore? Muslim fanatics have been able to do quite a bit of damage throughout the world for the last 30 years with practically no advanced technology or military might. Nobody even mentions Indonesia yet they have had recent bombings that targetted and killed innocents.

What is it about Islam that enjoys killing innocent civilians, and how it is so different from Hitler's "solution"? And there were many during Hitler's time that recommended just leaving him alone as well.

Islam as a faith, and not just that of the Arabic Muslims, is still living in the year 1200.

Sura 9.3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

Sura 9.5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Has Jesus or Budda ever commanded that their followers slay, seize, beleaguer, and ambush the non-believers? Can anyone name a faith that commands such?

Co-existence?

Sura 5.51: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.



Posted by: Shamalama 23-Nov-2004, 10:21 AM
Now that the actual date for elections in Iraq has been set, look for more violence. There are a lot of people in very powerful positions in the Middle East who do not under any circumstances want to see the people of Iraq chose their own leaders. The Mullahs of Iran come to mind, as does the Saudi Royal Family and the leaders of Syria. Freedom has this nasty little habit of being contagious.

Can you imagine how the Iranian religious leaders would react to their own Iranian subjects watching in awe as the citizens of Iraq decide who will govern them?

So, ir you're a Mullah of Iran or a member of the Saudi royal family, how do you prevent this from happening? Violence. Send in the Islamic goon squad. Kill innocent people. Threaten voters. Create enough havoc and maybe you can prevent the elections from even taking place. The US media will be all too happy in presenting your reign of death to all the world.

The real sad thing here is that there are huge numbers of Americans who are rooting for the 'insurgents'. They don't want to see those elections take place either. Heck, there may be people here at CelticRadio that do not want to see those elections take place. Elections in Iraq, and a freely elected Iraqi government, would be a huge victory for liberalism's most hated man: George W. Bush.

If you haven't considered this before, now may be the time. Many liberals and Democrats in this country would rather see the people of Iraq live under a despotic, totalitarian regime than to see Bush prevail in his goal to bring democratic processes to the Middle East.

An attempt of peace in the Middle East has, in the past, garnered the 'author' with a Nobel Prize. Can you see the Liberal's angst in watching Bush receive a Nobel Prize? Don't worry about it, though - only Arafat, the guy that directed the killing of innocent children, could win the Nobel. Bush only destroyed a tyrany and ushered in free elections for the first time in history.

These elections will not come free, though. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent Iraqis will die at the hands of their own 'brothers'. Islam has no place for freedom - only subjugation.

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Nov-2004, 10:34 AM
Harvard security expert Graham Allison, founding dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, has written a new book titled "Nuclear Terrorism." Allison says that the chance of terrorists detonating a 10 kiloton nuclear devise in the United States in the next 10 years is 50/50.

He makes two provocative, compelling conclusions. First, if policy makers in Washington keep doing what they are currently doing about the threat, a nuclear terrorist attack on America is likely to occur in the next decade. And if one lengthens the time frame, a nuclear strike is inevitable. Second, the surprising and largely unrecognized good news is that nuclear terrorism is, in fact, preventable.

The United States once relied on the threat of mutually assured destruction to deter the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear strike. But the Islamic terrorists have no fear of dying themselves, so the concept of mutually assured destruction means nothing to them, and thus this threat by the US holds no strength.

- Every day 30,000 trucks, 6,500 rail cars, and 140 ships deliver more than 50,000 cargo containers into the United States, but only 5 percent ever get screened. But even this screening, which rarely involves physical inspection, may not detect nuclear weapons or fissile material.

- There are approximately 130 nuclear research reactors in 40 countries. Two dozen of these have enough highly enriched uranium for one or more nuclear bombs.

- If terrorists bought or stole a complete weapon, they could set it off immediately. If instead they bought fissile material, they could build a crude but working nuclear bomb within a year.

- In Russia, 10,000 nuclear warheads and fissile material for 30,000 additional weapons remain vulnerable to theft.

- Pakistan's black marketers, led by the country's leading nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan, have sold comprehensive "nuclear starter kits" that included advanced centrifuge components, blueprints for nuclear warheads, uranium samples in quantities sufficient to make a small bomb, and even provided personal consulting services to assist nuclear development.

Prior to September 11, 2001, many experts argued that terrorists were unlikely to kill large numbers of people, because they sought not to maximize victims but to win publicity and sympathy for their causes. After the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, however, few would disagree with President Bush's warning that if al Qaeda gets nuclear weapons, it will use them against the United States "in a heartbeat." Indeed, Osama bin Laden's press spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, has announced that the group aspires "to kill 4 million Americans, including 1 million children," in response to casualties supposedly inflicted on Muslims by the United States and Israel.

So, do we sit back and wait? Do we dare act proactively? Do we send our troops into harm's way? The "day after" was tough after 9-11. The "day after" a nuke strike is going to be a worse day.

Oh, and Islam is a religion of peace - so they say.


Posted by: maisky 24-Nov-2004, 06:50 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 17-Nov-2004, 03:11 PM)
I've run out of blood pressure medicine. The notes below are a steamed rant. You have been warned.

/rant:ON

"In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. 'Muslim' is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And 'Jihad' refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to acheive this objective. Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State." - Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam

"Allah revealed Islam in order that humanity could be governed according to it. Unbelief is darkness and disorder. So the unbelievers, if they are not suppressed, create disorder. That is why the Muslims are responsible for the implementation of Allah's Law on the planet, that humanity may be governed by it, as opposed to corrupt man-made laws. The Muslims must make all efforts to establish the religion of Allah on the earth." - Muhammad 'Abdus Salam Faraj, Jihad: The Absent Obligation

"Whoever says that Islam is free from terrorism or wants to differentiate between Islam and terrorism is committing Al Juhoud and that is Kufr Akbar ? and will take them out of the fold of Islam. The one who says ?we should fight against terrorism?, he is fighting against Islam. We know very well that USA meant no one else by the term ?terrorists? but Islam and Muslims and the one who wants to avoid terrorism is avoiding Islam." - Al Muhajiroun (Bakir School of Thought)

The more I watch, the more I hear, the more I truly am losing my tolerance of this so-called religion of peace. In order to more fully understand them, I am now reading the Quran and see that Islam is a religion of peace only if you are Islamic.

It is the intent of Islam to supplant all religions: that is the stated goal in the Quran. The moderates wish to take a slow but steady course, insinuating themselves into countries (France's population, for instance, is 10% Muslim) and working within the structure of those countries to undermine it to their ends. The fundamentals simply want aggressive jihad right now - there is no delay for them.

More and more, I am giving credence to the notion that to the Islamists, we are all infidels. The Quran is quite explicit in the treatment of infidels if you care to read it for yourselves.

If this continues, and I see no indication that it shall not, I am concerned that we will see a confrontation like we saw from 700 to 1400 AD - a period of Islam's spread from the Arabian penninsula and into Europe. That expansion brought war when the west took a stand against Islam, and many of the same factors are present today. Given the proper circumstances, we could be faced with a holy war in the 21st century.

It is wrong to have a prejudicial opinion of something and attack it out of ignorance. On the other hand it is equally ignorant to defend something in the face of overwhemling evidence of its destructive nature out of some false sense of proprietrty of moral equvolency.

Islam has a goal for the world and that is complete control with everyone being Islamic or dead. I have no qualms with how people wish to worship or not worship, as long as it's not forced on people. Islam is trying to push their cult of death on the world through murder and subjugation. One Christian can kill an abortion doctor and the liberals scream out against all Christians. Islamic fundamentals kill thousands over the course of 30 years and the same liberals fall over themselves with apologies.

On 9/10/01, I was starting to have ideas and thoughts that maybe Israel needs to back off, and leave those Palestinians alone. That changed on 9/11/01. I realized what monsters that fundamentalist Islam breeds. Did you see all the happy faces shouting with glee the fact that 3000 innocent Americans were butchered by "their brothers"?

Barely had the dust cleared from the Twin Towers' collapse before our politicians were on TV telling us Islam is not to blame, don't blame Islam, this has nothing to do with Islam, the terrorists are not true Muslims, etc. But Holland loses one person, just one, to Islamic terrorists and they're ready to boot every Muslim out of the country. They're burning mosques. They're looking into shutting their borders down. What's wrong with this picture? Why does one country get it after one death while we've lost thousands and we still refuse to listen?

The very few Arab-Muslim representatives that have appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States prove who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance.

If the calls for "Jihad!" widen, I fear we non-Islamists will be left with no recourse but to respond with "Crusade!"

/rant:OFF

The Grand Wizard approves this message.

Posted by: Shamalama 24-Nov-2004, 03:13 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 24-Nov-2004, 07:50 AM)

The Grand Wizard approves this message.


Neville Chamberlain disapproved it.

Appeasement can be defined as "giving a bully what he wants". Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland against the Treaty of Versailles, with relatively little opposition from Europe. Hitler deployed troops and formed close alliances, again against the Treaty of Versailles, and again there was little opposition from Europe. The League of Nations was supposed to mediate in cases of territorial dispute and to act as arbitrator between two nations struggling to maintain reasonable diplomatic relations. Hitler and Mussolini were encouraged by the inability of the League to prevent them taking action, however. They looked to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1933 and noted the League's failure to prevent Japanese expansion. In 1936 Mussolini ordered Italian troops to invade Abyssinia (Ethiopia). The League of Nations took 2 months to decide upon a response, which then lacked 'teeth', much like the UN's "strong oppositions".

In 1938 German troops annexed Austria, and Hitler then aimed at the Sudentenland. Both France and Britain pursued a policy of appeasement. Churchill, most famously, opposed the policy from the start and argued that decisive action had to be taken to prevent the onset of European conflict.

Hitler viewed appeasement as a weakness. Britain and France were extremely unlikely, in his mind, to do anything to prevent his expansion into the East, at least not until it was too late to do anything about it. The Sudentenland was ceded to Germany, and Hitler then invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia. World War II was then inevitable.

Churchill's greatness lay partly in the fact that he was able to cut through all the "complexities" and get to the root of the matter: that there would be no peace in Europe unless the Nazis were stopped. Bush, likewise, has come to the understanding that there will be no peace in the world unless Islamic terrorists are stopped.

The UN has no power, and even if it did it has a long history of being unable or unwilling to use it against dictators. Appeasement is a hallmark of the UN.

The worldwide anti-war movement, made up of liberals and Socialists, decry war as inhumane. I rather think Saddam's mass graves and torture rooms were inhumane. I rather think the 20 or so blood-stained rooms the US Marines found in Fallujah were inhumane.

There are 164 verses of the Koran that describe jihad, and those references do not imply some sort of "internal" conflict, but rather armed, and to the death, conflict with all who are not Islamic. There is nothing in the Koran that either promotes, condones, nor even allows co-existence with other faiths. It makes no difference whether you're an athiest or a Baptist - to a fundamental Islamist you have to either convert to Islam or die. That, whether you like it or not, is what is written in the Koran, and practiced by the "faithful".

Beheadings of innocent people. Shooting, at point-blank range, the back of the head of a CARE worker. An unidentified woman that now no longer has arms, or legs, or a throat, or guts. Training children to walk around town with explosives wrapped around them. Flying airplanes into civilian buildings. Holding the white flag of surrender while firing a weapon. No religion, no military force, no government has ever espoused such behavior, except Islam.

And when does the Islamic community publically disavow such behavior? I guess they don't have to when so many Americans will do all the apoligizing for them.

The creation of Eurabia is going to be interesting to watch. I just hope the appeasers are learning Arabic.

No, I will not stand to defend them. They want me, and my family, dead. If that makes me a Klansman, then so be it.

Posted by: Shamalama 08-Dec-2004, 09:30 AM
When the US military entered Fallujah there were screams by Muslims, the mainstream press, and the anti-war groupies against attacking the holy mosques. How dare the evil US troops shoot bullets into a House of God!

---

Raid on Baghdad mosque uncovers car bomb workshop

By OMAR JASSIM
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Sun, Nov. 28, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A mosque raided by security forces in southern Baghdad contained a workshop to rig suicide car bombs, with seven vehicles ready for terror attacks, an Iraqi Defense Ministry official said Sunday.

Car bombings and remote-controlled roadside blasts have become routine in the Iraqi capital in recent weeks, including a blast Sunday that wounded two U.S. soldiers.

National Guard forces raided the Sunni Muslim Al-Yassen Mosque in the southern Baghdad area of Abu Dshir on Saturday, said Gen. Saleh Sarhan of the Defense Ministry. In addition to seven cars pre-rigged with explosives, the guardsmen found 30 rocket-propelled grenades, high-powered rifles, mortars and remote control detonators, Sarhan said.

"The National Guard arrested the imam (religious leader) of the mosque," Sarhan said, and detained an additional 18 people suspected of involvement in the car bombings.

Anti-U.S. insurgents used some 60 mosques in the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, to stockpile weapons and provide cover during a U.S.-led offensive against the city earlier this month, the U.S. military says. One of the mosques was described as a general arms depot capable of equipping insurgents across much of Iraq.

---

Islam: the religion of "peace"

Oh, by the way, ANOTHER chemical weapons facility was discovered by US Marines in Falljuah on November 23. They were building cyanogen chloride and hydrogen cyanide explosives - both very deadly. Also found were fertilizer-bomb-type agriculturical chemicals; "cook books" containing formulas for anthrax, chemical blood agents, and explosives; a jihad flag; beakers and retorts; and blasting caps. Michael Moore's freedom fighters, huh? The liberals will probably demand OSHA inspections of the insurgent's labs to make sure that the terrorist's labs are safe.

Posted by: maisky 09-Dec-2004, 10:59 AM
Our "success" in Iraq:

Posted by: Herrerano 10-Dec-2004, 01:14 PM

Below is a link to a monograph published by the Army War College in October of this year. Entitled; Islamic Rulings on Warfare by: Dr. Sherifa D. Zuhur, LTCDR Youssef H Aboul-Enein, it might be interesting reading, ot at least a starting point to help understand some of those particular Muslim teachings such as Wahabism. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion of the thirty some page pdf document (which contains several more pages of notes and glossary):

QUOTE

In a 1938 speech urging greater U.S. involvement against the
Nazis, Winston Churchill pleaded: ?We must arm. Britain must arm.
America must arm . . . but arms . . . are not suffi cient by themselves.
We must add to them the power of ideas.?60 With this in mind, U.S.
policymakers should:
1. Become more cognizant of the complexity of Islamic law and the
debates among Muslims. This does not mean that policymakers should
direct the process or outcome of these debates.
2. Be aware of the danger of simplistic characterizations of Islam as
a ?violent religion.? Such characterizations infl ame the emotions of
Muslims everywhere, heighten perceptions of Western hostility,
and limit our own ability to understand the future of the war on
terrorism.
3. Understand how jihadist groups manipulate, hide and deemphasize
aspects of Islamic history, law, and Quranic verses. Jihadists and the
madrasas and study groups they sponsor are not creating theologians
who will contribute to the spiritual growth of Islam but suicide
bombers and foot-soldiers involved in Islamic nihilism.
4. Recognize that what al-Qaeda and its franchises fear most are Islamic
laws, histories, and principles that do not conform to their militant ideologies.
Therefore, the struggle between liberal and radical interpretations of
Islam is a key aspect of the global war on terror.
5. Acknowledge that a perfectly defi ned delineation between
?mainstream? and extremist views is not evident. Al-Qaeda and other
jihadists proselytize with interpretations such as those of Muhammad
ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyya, and Sayyid Qutb. But Wahhabism
is at the core of today?s Saudi Arabia, and Saudis must decide how
to best counter interpretations that lead toward extremism. Ibn
Taymiyya?s and Sayyid Qutb?s notions of social justice, the necessary
Islamic character of leadership, and the importance of the Quran are
highly palatable ideas to most Muslims, in contrast with other key
jihadist
notions in these theorists? work. That mixture of palatable and offensive ideas compounds the diffi culties of the Egyptian
government in seeking to limit radical infl uence. We nonetheless
must understand the implications of the measures our allies choose
to adopt.
6. Realize that the majority of Muslims do not speak Arabic. This
means that Islamic teachings can be manipulated, as evidenced
by the varying English translations of the Quran ranging from the
moderate to the radical. To the non-Arabic speaking masses in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Indonesia, Arabic is a sacred language.
Therefore, a radical cleric preaching and lacing his speech with
Arabic and Quranic words takes on an air of holiness, even though
the sentiments he expresses refl ect jihadic opinion.
7. U.S. forces, particularly those involved in psychological operations,
need to be educated in aspects of Islamic history, law, and culture. As
Islamic militants quote and violently interpret verses from the Quran
and hadith, U.S. and allied forces should not plead ignorance, but
achieve a higher level of familiarity with religious and other aspects
of Muslim culture. U.S. and allied forces may better comprehend the
specifi c dilemmas of our Muslim allies if they are familiar with the
messages of jihadist and moderate Islam. Alternatively, they should
consult experts who are well-versed in these matters.
8. Recognize the simultaneous impracticality of armistices and
reconciliation with Islamist militants, and the Islamic rationale for
attempting such solutions. Such efforts were attempted in both Saudi
Arabia and Iraq, but, in fact, those already passionately committed
to the jihadist
worldview will not be won over, and only those less committed might waver. We might therefore conclude more
pessimistically.
9. Factor in the possibility of failure in the battle against jihadist
sentiment, while working as assiduously as possible for a different outcome.
That Islamism consists of moderate as well as radical, extremist
groups operating in a politically unstable environment may
rather point to a protracted struggle and period of reformulation.
Knowledge of Islamic discourses will still be helpful and necessary
in determining our responses to such a situation.



http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/display.cfm/hurl/PubID=588

Posted by: maisky 11-Dec-2004, 06:19 AM
Herrerano, Sir. Let me remind you that logic and common sense are somewhat out of place in the political forum. tongue.gif
This is a forum for ranting and raving! Have you no mercy?! rolleyes.gif
Good post, Sir. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Herrerano 11-Dec-2004, 08:21 AM
Sorry Maisky, guess it was late and I needed a drink or something. I'll try not to let it happen again Sir.

Leo cool.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 13-Dec-2004, 08:47 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 11-Dec-2004, 07:19 AM)

Herrerano, Sir. Let me remind you that logic and common sense are somewhat out of place in the political forum. tongue.gif
This is a forum for ranting and raving! Have you no mercy?! rolleyes.gif


Someone needs to send a copy of the "Politics Live Online! FAQ" to Brother Herrerano, specifically stating the separation of Logic from Ranting as is applies to this Forum.

Now he's got me all confused. blink.gif

Common sense, indeed. How dare he!


Posted by: Shamalama 13-Dec-2004, 12:25 PM
Time for a joint news conference, attended by the worldwide press. We just killed ourselves a few more Jews!

Palestinian militants from Ezz el-Dein Al-Qassam brigades, left, the Hamas military wing, and from Fatah Hawks, right, a militia linked to Fatah movement, talk during a joint news conference in Gaza city, Sunday Dec. 12, 2004. Palestinian militants from the two groups blew up an Israeli army base at the Gaza-Egypt crossing Sunday by sneaking more than a ton of explosives through a tunnel, killing four Israeli soldiers and wounding at least 10 - the largest Palestinian attack in the month since Yasser Arafat's death.

There are other reports that it was a coordinated attack, with terrorists firing on the rescue workers and survivors in the aftermath.

user posted image

The world media flocks and panders to report the bragging of terrorist murderers, in essence giving them more and more legitimacy. Isn't this fun? Extra credit if you can tell the terrorists from the media. It's important to give them air time, so we could understand them. We need to learn why they hate us, and we need to make them feel heard, to feel their pain. It's not like the Jews are real people, right?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041212/481/axlp11012122028

These "freedom fighters" murder and blow things up in order to attract the attention of the media and the praise of Michael Moore. The media puts a nice, they're-not-so-bad spin on them, helping them push their "cause" and win the public's sympathy. Emboldened by all the attention, the terrorists go out and murder again, and the media lionizes them again, and ... and ... and ...

I don't think I can remember the last time that the media actually used the word "terrorist" to describe anybody but members of the Bush administration. Oh well, these religious men are a peace-loving group anyways.

On a fashion note, the black and white checkered facial covering makes a chic and insouciant change from the more traditional but somewhat overdone all-black maquillage. Expect to see the newer trend emerging on runways in Paris and London this spring.

No word yet if the militia has been having difficulty with up-armoring their stolen vehicles.

Certainly there will be a concerted public outcry by (insert your favorite group here) denouncing this action. Not. And therein lies a great deal of truth.

Posted by: maisky 13-Dec-2004, 12:47 PM
Yes, Brother S., members of Hamas ARE terrorists, so President Bush isn't alone. tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 14-Dec-2004, 10:47 AM
STOP THE PRESSES!
FRANCE ACTUALLY TAKES A STAND!
THE SURRENDER MONKEYS ACTUALLY GROW A PAIR!

France's highest civil court orders end to Hezbollah TV broadcasts
Mon Dec 13, 5:39 PM ET
Mideast - AFP

PARIS (AFP) - France's Council of State, the country's highest administrative court, ordered the satellite company Eutelsat to stop broadcasts of Al-Manar television, the mouthpiece of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah.

The bans on the broadcasts within the European Union had to be implemented within 48 hours, the court said after ruling that the channel had violated laws against inciting racial hatred.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20041213/wl_mideast_afp/francelebanonmedia

Wow. France's highest court says that Hezbollah says things, on the air, that incites racial hatred, and also that such behavior would no longer be tolerated. Of course you have to wonder how Hezbollah got on the air in the first place.

How long will it be before Hezbollah demands air time on PBS or NPR in America?

Posted by: Shamalama 14-Dec-2004, 12:01 PM
Anyone ever heard of the MSA? It's the Saudi-funded Muslim Student Association, and it's forming chapters across all of the major universities.

"MSA was established, as its constitution states, to "serve the best interests of Islam and Muslims in the United States and Canada so as to enable them to practice Islam as a complete way of life" says their representative Fahad Alqurashi at http://www.thestarpress.com/articles/8/031136-1178-009.html

It's the "complete way of life" that scares me. Does he mean to live under Shair'a, to implement Dhimmi status for non-believers, to replace our Constitution with their Hadiths and Koran, for those are the instructions set before them.

But before Brother Maisky can label me a racist once again I suppose I better back up a bit of my fears about this group.

- MSA members at UCLA raised money for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists at their annual "Anti-Zionist Week."
- Speaker Muammad Faheed told an MSA meeting at Queensborough Community College in New York, "The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"
- Nihad Awad addressed the 2003 Iowa Muslim Student Association Annual Conferences. Awad had told a college audience in 1994, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement."
- The University of Southern California MSA invited Taliban ambassador Sayyid Hashimi to speak on campus six months before 9/11.
- MSA at California State University Northridge held a fundraiser for Islamic Relief, an organization that received a $50,000 contribution from a front group run by Osama bin Laden.
- Dr. Abdulrahman Hijazi on James Madison University?s MSA 2002 "Jihad" panel, giving a speech on "The Islamic Peace Process and the Goals of Jihad." He once extolled a terrorist "martyr" whose "hope of having the mercy of Allah?by one of the greatest good deeds, which is jihad, was more attractive to him than by being happy with his wife at home."
- University of Idaho MSA President Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, was ordered deported for working for a radical Muslim charity with ties to terror. While on campus, he had sought access to a chemical lab containing nuclear material.
- Last October, the University of Pennsylvania MSA sponsored "Rev." Bill Baker, the onetime chairman of the neo-Nazi Populist Party.
- MSA is steering committee member of the Marxist-Leninist?front group International ANSWER.
- MSA has raised money for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a 'charity' organization that funded the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

The MSA says there here to serve the best interests of Islam and Muslims in the United States. Yeah, like the Ku Klux Klan is merely an organization of White Christians dedicated to the truth and education.

Groups have group identity, and even though some of their members may not share some of the group traits, that identity remains what it is. Which is to say, in the case of Islam, a vicious, savagely intolerant, expansionist cult. Their own holy texts do not allow the co-existance with non-believers (unless it is in a slave-master relationship). I do not say that with hatred in my heart, but rather as a factual observation from the outside. I am more than willing to stand corrected if anyone can find documentation that disproves anything I say here.

Islam scares me.

Posted by: maisky 14-Dec-2004, 12:10 PM
QUOTE
Islam scares me.

So do Liberals, Democrats, States Rights, Gun Control, Traffic Cops, Revanooers and your wife. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 14-Dec-2004, 12:23 PM
AND ANOTHER ... AND ANOTHER ...

The more I surf around the internet the more amazing things I find. This is a page from the Metroplex Organization of Muslims in North Texas, and they're describing a gala event they held last weekend: a tribute to "the great Islamic visionary," the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The page will probably disappear very soon so I'm uploading a copy of the page here.

http://www.momin.org/Imam_Seminar.htm

Of note:
- true policy of non-alliance for the Islamic countries
- accept Islam as the only school for liberating humanity
- will not ... sway from the policy even one step

#1 Who still thinks Khomeini was a great Islamic visionary?
#2 Who still doesn't think that a goal of Islam is worldwide Islamic domination?


Posted by: Shamalama 14-Dec-2004, 12:41 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 14-Dec-2004, 01:10 PM)

So do Liberals, Democrats, States Rights, Gun Control, Traffic Cops, Revanooers and your wife. biggrin.gif


But only Islam (and maybe my wife) will kill you if you don't accept their religious faith.

My religious texts, as sent by the Creator through his Prophet, instructs me to give you compassion and love whether you're a believer or not, and to pray that I can be in instrument in showing you the way to Paradise.

The Koran and the Hadiths, as sent by the Creator through his Prophet, instructs Muslims to only give compassion and love if you're already a believer, else to threaten you with death if you, as an evil infidel, do not submit to the faith.

There is a huge difference.

If you changed the names of the Principal Players around a bit, and moved Mecca to Oklahoma, you would be describing a dangerous cult that you would want the FBI to close down. His Holiness St. Bill of Clinton used much more agressive force against a much less dangerous religious group in Waco than he ever did against a much more dangerous cult already attacking US personnel abroad. Somehow Islam got elevated from "cult" to "protected" status, and I don't know why.

---

And a bit more about "the great Islamic visionary," the Ayatollah Khomeini:

QUOTE

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives.  The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990


QUOTE

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on.  However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990


QUOTE

"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned."
The little green book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Phylosophica, Social and Religious with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47


Posted by: Shamalama 15-Dec-2004, 03:51 PM
Yep, the page containing the Ayatollah Khomeini tribute I posted yesterday has been completely removed. A Google cache is at http://66.102.7.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.momin.org%2FImam_Seminar.htm

On November 12 Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, held an anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration. Protestors carried a large model of Jerusalem?s Al-Aqsa Mosque and waved signs bearing slogans such as ?US Hands Off Muslim Land.? But the most arresting image was of a Muslim woman carrying a large sign featuring the face of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=51735520&cdi=0

Khomeini. This guy is to Muslims what Clinton is to liberals.

Was the woman who carried Khomeini?s image in the Dearborn demonstration concerned about the human rights of women? Did she know that the Ayatollah himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight? Did she know that Khomeini called marriage to a girl before her first menstrual period "a divine blessing," and advised the faithful: "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house"?

It is unlikely that the protestor knew that in 1985, Sa?id Raja?i-Khorassani, the Permanent Delegate to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared, according to Amir Taheri, that "the very concept of human rights was 'a Judeo-Christian invention' and inadmissible in Islam. . . . According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah?s 'most despicable sins' was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Did she remember that Khomeini?s triumph in Iran in 1979 embodied the idea that Islamic law was superior to all other ways to order societies, and must be pressed forward by force? As Khomeini himself put it: "Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world....But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world."

Khomeini accordingly delivered notorious rebuke to the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]?. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur?anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

With Khomeini a hero in Dearborn, Americans may be finding this out for themselves before long. Just where American Muslims stand on Khomeini?s doctrines ? and how many stand with Khomeini ? are still forbidden questions for the major media - Muslims are still a 'protected' group in the US.

Continue to ignore the cult of Islam at your own risk.

Posted by: maisky 16-Dec-2004, 07:58 AM
QUOTE
Khomeini. This guy is to Muslims what Clinton is to liberals.

And what Bush is to inbred rednecks. tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Dec-2004, 09:44 AM
It ain't INBRED if your wife is also your cousin, or so I'm told. tongue.gif

[and the crowd says, "Ugh, yuck!"]




Posted by: maisky 16-Dec-2004, 10:24 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 16-Dec-2004, 09:44 AM)
It ain't INBRED if your wife is also your cousin, or so I'm told. tongue.gif

[and the crowd says, "Ugh, yuck!"]

It depends on whether or not your cousin is cute and can cook. laugh.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Dec-2004, 06:59 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 16-Dec-2004, 11:24 AM)

It depends on whether or not your cousin is cute and can cook. laugh.gif


Yep, that's my only criteria. It certainly makes genealogy research so much easier when your family tree has only one branch. biggrin.gif

---

MEMRI TV Project Special Report: Iranian TV Drama Series about Israeli Government Stealing Palestinian Children's Eyes

Iran's Sahar 1 TV station is currently airing a weekly series titled "For You, Palestine," or "Zahra's Blue Eyes." The series premiered on December 13, and is set in Israel and the West Bank. It broadcasts every Monday, and was filmed in Persian but subsequently dubbed into Arabic.

The story follows an Israeli candidate for Prime Minister, Yitzhak Cohen, who is also the military commander of the West Bank. The opening sequence of the show contains graphic scenes of surgery, and images of a Palestinian girl in a hospital whose eyes have been removed, with bandages covering the sockets.

In Episode 1, Yitzhak Cohen lectures at a medical conference on the advances being made by Israeli medicine regarding organ transplants. Later in the episode, Israelis disguised as UN workers visit a Palestinian school, ostensibly to examine the children's eyes for diseases, but in reality to select which children's eyes to steal to be used for transplants.

In Episode 2, the audience learns that the Israeli president is being kept alive by organs stolen from Palestinian children, and an Israeli military commander is seen kidnapping UN employees and Palestinians.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD83304

The amount of hatred and racism in 10 minutes of this show exceeds all the racism against Muslims expressed in the entire Western Media for the last 50 years combined. But we're the bad guys.

The Palestinians use all their time, energy and skills for the purpose of evil. If they channeled that into something positive, they could have a thriving economy, be building their lives and creating a future for their children. But as we know, mass-murdering Jews takes priority, even over the lives and well-being of their own flesh and blood. And all in the name of Allah. What a religion of peace.

Anyone see this story? The new Sbarro?s restaurant on Jerusalem?s Jaffa Road was targeted by an Israeli Arab couple whose plans to blow themselves up there following their wedding were thwarted by Israeli security forces. It was released for publication today that the GSS has recently arrested a resident of eastern Jerusalem suspected of planning to carry out a suicide bombing together with his 16-year-old fiance. The date of the scheduled attack was put off until after their wedding.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=74030

Hmmm. Get married to a 16-year-old girl, and have a suicide honeymoon while trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. If this had been some fundamental Christian pair of whackos in Alabama the media would be all over this. But since it is about those "poor, misunderstood" Palestinian "freedom fighters" the media in the US will give this one a pass.

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Dec-2004, 07:11 AM
More on "the religion of peace".

- Web video teaches terrorists to make bomb vest
- Chilling video offers step-by-step suicide vest instructions

Posted in a militant Islamic chat room three days ago, a stunningly detailed 26-minute video on how to make a sophisticated suicide bomb vest, along with a demonstration of its kill range, using a mannequin.

Titled "The Explosive Belt for Martyrdom Operations," the video obtained by NBC News demonstrates how to make an explosive vest that would be tough to detect, mostly from common off-the-shelf materials.

Experts believe the video was made by a Palestinian group.

NBC News will not reveal most details, but the video demonstrates each step of bomb making:

* select a fabric and sew the vest;
* mix explosives;
* arrange shrapnel to kill victims in a large radius;
* attach a detonator.

In one demonstration, a would-be bomber is told where to stand in a bus for maximum carnage. "Notice that the shrapnel has greatly penetrated all of the seats," says an Arabic voice on the video, translated by NBC News.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6746756/


Posted by: maisky 23-Dec-2004, 08:16 AM
Brother S., I agree with you when you talk about battling terrorism, whatever religion or ideology prompts it. How much of the current cycle is due to islamic teachings and how much is due to our Idiot administration's imperialism and the arrogance of US foreign policy? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Dec-2004, 09:50 AM
9/11 came about because Bin Laden got angry at the US.

Bin Laden was angry because we placed US troops in Saudi Arabia.

The US placed troops in Saudi Arabia in order to repel Saddam out of Kuwait.

We repelled Saddam out of Kuwait due to UN resolutions, and at the request of Saudi Arabia.

Why didn't Bin Laden attack Saudi Arabia instead of the US?

Islam makes no allowance for freedom. The US is the most free people in the world. Therefore the US is Target #1. Try and find anything in either the Hadith or the Quran that states anything about peaceful co-existance between religions. I think you will find in their holy texts that every other faith has two choices: accept Islam, or die. Islam is not a religion - it's a deadly cult.

If we try to assist freedom in Iraq, Islamist whackos from all over the region will do anything they can to stop freedom before it can take hold. If freedom does, in fact, take hold in Iraq you will begin to see Islam crumble. These whackos are not scared of bullets or bomb, but they are very scared of people having the freedom to do and act as they want, free of the complete control of the mullahs.

I still believe that Iraq has the potential to become a flower in the desert.

Posted by: maisky 23-Dec-2004, 03:15 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 23-Dec-2004, 09:50 AM)
9/11 came about because Bin Laden got angry at the US.

Bin Laden was angry because we placed US troops in Saudi Arabia.

The US placed troops in Saudi Arabia in order to repel Saddam out of Kuwait.

We repelled Saddam out of Kuwait due to UN resolutions, and at the request of Saudi Arabia.

Why didn't Bin Laden attack Saudi Arabia instead of the US?

Islam makes no allowance for freedom. The US is the most free people in the world. Therefore the US is Target #1. Try and find anything in either the Hadith or the Quran that states anything about peaceful co-existance between religions. I think you will find in their holy texts that every other faith has two choices: accept Islam, or die. Islam is not a religion - it's a deadly cult.

If we try to assist freedom in Iraq, Islamist whackos from all over the region will do anything they can to stop freedom before it can take hold. If freedom does, in fact, take hold in Iraq you will begin to see Islam crumble. These whackos are not scared of bullets or bomb, but they are very scared of people having the freedom to do and act as they want, free of the complete control of the mullahs.

I still believe that Iraq has the potential to become a flower in the desert.

Iraq is already flowering, with the blood of our children watering it. The flower is a civil war and terrorism, that WE are creating.

Posted by: Shamalama 30-Dec-2004, 12:48 PM
Monday an audio tape purportedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, aired Monday urging Iraqis to boycott January parliamentary polls and saying anyone who takes part would be an "infidel."

Anyone who dismisses the importance of the upcoming Iraqi elections need only listen to Reverend bin Laden's urgent plea for a boycott. Osama praised the atrocities of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a hands-on executioner, and welcomed his collaboration in efforts to block the balloting.

Think about this one for a moment. What other religious leader would condemn a vote by the people and threaten death against anyone that would actually vote?

What other religious leader would praise a person that kills innocent civilians?

Convinced that men and women must be governed fiercely from above, the terrorists are the gory religious incarnation of thousands of years of tyranny. Their god is an earthbound savage dictator.

Osama possesses no religious authority to condemn Iraqis for voting. Pretending to revere Islamic tradition, he and his fellow terrorists make up the rules as they go. Their Islam is a primitive blood-cult.

The upcoming vote in Iraq will be messy, at best. Sunni Arabs may stay home, intimidated by terror and poisoned by demagoguery. But that would no more invalidate the election results than a boycott by college professors would negate the legitimacy of a U.S. election. In a democracy, those who lack the courage or will to vote must bow to the ballots of those who take a stand.

Will other Arab governments ? terrified of democracy themselves ? condemn the results no matter how much courage Iraqis demonstrate?

The only thing of which we may be certain is that our deadliest enemies are doing all they can to stop Iraq's elections. It's the one goal on which the various terrorist factions and insurgent groups agree. If the liberals needed any further proof that our struggle against terror is about human freedom and the dignity of the common man and woman, our enemies are laying it in front of us. It is they that are creating terrorism, not the US.

Posted by: MDF3530 30-Dec-2004, 01:11 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 30-Dec-2004, 12:48 PM)
What other religious leader would praise a person that kills innocent civilians?

Jerry Falwell, every time he praises Dubya.

Posted by: Shamalama 30-Dec-2004, 01:53 PM
And that's why I could never be a liberal.

I was always under the assumption that it was the terrorists that started all of this.

Posted by: maisky 30-Dec-2004, 07:02 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 30-Dec-2004, 01:53 PM)
And that's why I could never be a liberal.

I was always under the assumption that it was the terrorists that started all of this.

You a liberal? Nah you can't be a cracker and a liberal at the same time! laugh.gif I can speak with some authority on this subject, since a large segment of my mother's family is in N. Alabama. They fit the term "cracker". rolleyes.gif
It just wouldn't be any FUN if we agreed on stuff, Brother S.! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: maisky 17-Jan-2005, 01:24 PM
It appears that Bush and his ultra-conservative masters are intent on GENERATING world war III. The worlds WORST terrorists are at the head of the US government.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'
Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."

Posted by: MDF3530 17-Jan-2005, 04:04 PM
Why does Bush think that spreading our troops even thinner than they already are is a good thing?

Also, I think that when the US government wants to oust other countries' leaders, instead of setting up a puppet government, they should set up a Muppet government biggrin.gif .

President:

user posted image

First Lady:

user posted image

Vice President:

user posted image

Chief of Staff:

user posted image

Secretary of Defense:

user posted image

Secretary of State:

user posted image

Posted by: maisky 17-Jan-2005, 07:15 PM
Mike, this has to be the BEST suggestion that I have yet to see here in the Political Mosh Pit!! thumbs_up.gif They can't be any worse than OUR current government.

Posted by: Shamalama 18-Jan-2005, 01:18 PM
QUOTE


"The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday."



Oh my heavens. EVERY administration since George Washington has been carrying secret reconnaissance missions to learn about just about everything they can about just every other government on the globe.

And a "journalist" says it's "all about preparation for possible airstrikes"? Geez, then it's got to be true, because I've never known any journalist to bend the truth.

Now we all know that Iran is playing with nukes. We all know that the UN is powerless to do anything about it. We all know that Europe is not going to do anything about it.

President Bush said on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran if that country was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush said in an interview with NBC News when asked if he would rule out the potential for military action against Iran "if it continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program."

Iran denies it has been trying to make nuclear weapons and says its nuclear program is geared solely to producing electricity.

OK. So what? We've got people in Iran that either are building nukes, or maybe building nukes, or not building nukes. Do you want to know which one is the correct answer? And once you learn the answer, what would you like to do about it?

I say let's keep snooping. I also think there has to be some sort of dialog between Iran and the US. I have no desire for Iran to be pandered to be the neutered UN. And if we discover that Iran is building and/or selling nukes, then we'll begin a completely different type of dialog.


Posted by: Shamalama 18-Jan-2005, 02:57 PM
So what's going on in merry 'ole England?

---

January 17, 2005

Britain's online imam declares war as he calls young to jihad
By Sean O'Neil and Yaakov Lappin

AN EXTREMIST London cleric is using live broadcasts on the internet to urge young British Muslims to join al-Qaeda and has condoned suicide terrorist attacks. Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has lived in the UK for 18 years on social security benefits, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and told his followers that they were in a state of war with Britain.

The Times monitored Mr Bakri Mohammed?s nightly webcasts in which he declared that the ?covenant of security? under which Muslims live peacefully in the UK had been ?violated? by the Government?s tough anti-terrorist legislation, The Syrian-born radical said: ?I believe the whole of Britain has become Dar ul-Harb (land of war). In such a state, he added, ?the kuffar (non-believer) has no sanctity for their own life or property.?

In his broadcasts, conducted through an internet chatroom, Mr Bakri Mohammed stopped short of calling for terrorist attacks in Britain. But he said that Muslims should join the jihad ?wherever you are? and told one woman that she was permitted to become a suicide bomber.

Last Monday he told his listeners: ?Al-Qaeda and all its branches and organisations of the world, that is the victorious group and they have the emir and you are obliged to join. There is no need . . . to mess about.? Two nights later he said that the voices of dead Mujahidin were calling young Britons to fight. ?These people are calling you and shouting to you from far distant places: al jihad, al jihad. They say to you my dear Muslim brothers, ?Where is your weapon, where is your weapon?? Come on to the jihad,? he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1443903,00.html


Posted by: Shamalama 26-Jan-2005, 12:10 PM
Terror recruitment on the rise in Europe

By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit
Updated: 7:44 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2005

In France, Tuesday, security agents detained seven people suspected of helping funnel Islamic militants into Iraq. In Mainz, Germany, this weekend, police arrested an alleged al-Qaida operative who is also accused of recruiting for Iraq. He is alleged to be a key al-Qaida recruiter who was living in an apartment building on a quiet street. Also arrested: a Palestinian allegedly headed to fight in Iraq.

U.S. officials tell NBC News that the recruiter, Ibrahim Mohammed Khalil, is an al-Qaida facilitator who trained in camps in Afghanistan, fought there after 9/11 and was sent back to Germany. There, both U.S. and German intelligence monitored him.

"He also had contact to the leadership of al-Qaida, including Osama bin Laden," says Kay Nehm, the German federal prosecutor working the case.

Experts say the arrest underscores al-Qaida's interest in the war in Iraq.

"It demonstrates that Europe is the central recruitment ground for al-Qaida when it comes to finding jihadists to fight in Iraq," says NBC terror analyst Roger Cressey.

---

Prepare for the Eurabian continent.

Historian Bat Ye?or explains that the European Union has since 1973 been constructing "a whole infrastructure of alliances and economic, industrial, media, cultural, financial bonds with the countries of the Arab League." This new Euro-Muslim entity ? which she has dubbed "Eurabia" ? has been consciously intended to become "a counterweight to American power" on the world stage, "whose aim was to separate and weaken the two continents by an incitement to hostility and the permanent denigration of American policy in the Middle East."

Eurabia is a political and economic entity. Through a succession of international agreements, Europe agreed to support the Islamic world?s political aims ? particularly its anti-Israel stance ? in exchange for favored treatment in Arab world markets.

Europeans encouraged Muslim immigration into Europe, discouraged assimilation of these immigrant populations, and fostered the dissemination in Europe of Islamic perspectives on history and contemporary politics.

Bat Ye?or continues that in exchange for markets in the Islamic world, Europe turned its back on its Judeo-Christian heritage and set the stage for its own Islamization.

Al-Qaeda has adjusted Spain?s foreign policy. Who, and what, are next? The Islamists will not be co-opted. Neither will they become contented citizens of secular Europe in return for shifts in policy toward Israel. Theirs is a revolutionary project, concerned with the transformation of societies. They see, however, the shifting of the European view toward greater hostility to Israel as an important interim goal. Israel's legitimacy, they hope, will be tossed to them as a morsel in return for political and social peace.

Remember Winston Churchill's classic definition of an appeaser: namely, one who feeds a crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_today_eurabia.php
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/6.4D.htm
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2004/12/death-of-europe-as-we-know-it.html
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5096
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1387077,00.html
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/eurabia.html

Posted by: Shamalama 21-Feb-2005, 12:11 PM
"Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way"

As Robert Spencer has demonstrated, rape can indeed be linked to Islamic teachings of Jihad, and even to the example of Muhammad himself, his Sunna. Above all, it is connected to Islamic notions of the role of women in society, and their behaviour in the public sphere. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he isn?t the only Muslim in Europe to think this way:

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte told in a recent interview that in Holland, you can now see examples of young, unveiled Moroccan women with a so-called "smiley". It means that the girl gets one side of her face cut up from mouth to ear, serving as a warning to other Muslim girls who should refuse to wear the veil. In the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France, 77 per cent of the veiled women carry veils reportedly because of fear of being harassed or molested by Islamic moral patrols.

An incredibly revealing article that tells us all we need to know about the multiculturalist fetish in Europe and some parts of North America, not to mention the need for change within Islam. Apparently, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants ? a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (note: her name is Unni Wikan) as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

In January 2005, Norwegian media reported that 2004 saw the highest number or rape charges ever recorded in the capital city of Oslo. Strangely enough, there was now no mentioning of how immigrants were grossly overrepresented in rape cases. Why not? Unless there has been a sudden and unexplained drop in the number of immigrants raping Norwegian women between 2001 and 2004, which is unlikely, the statistics should be at least as staggering in 2005 as they were before. If they are not revealed, it can only mean that ?somebody? didn?t like the numbers presented in 2001, and decided to bury them. That ?somebody? must be a person at the very top level in the police, maybe even in the government. If so, that is disquieting. What is even more disquieting is that the media are equally silent about this. How come no journalists are digging into the material? And where are all the professional Feminists, in a Scandinavian nation brimming with them?

The conclusion one may draw from this is that the authorities in Sweden and Norway know about, or should know about, a disturbing amount of Muslim immigrant rapes of native Scandinavian women, yet choose not to make this information known to the public. Perhaps it would be just too politically incorrect to reveal the negative effects of decades of naïve immigration policies. Perhaps it would also destroy too many multicultural pipe dreams among the intellectual elites, who have built their current careers and reputations on advocating how culturally and economically enriching this new population mix would be. So in the end, the safety of young Scandinavian women is sacrificed in order to keep the glossy image of a multicultural society intact. It is a chilling demonstration of an Eurabian continent that now appears to care more about not upsetting relations with its immigrant population than about protecting its own citizens.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html


Posted by: Shamalama 23-Feb-2005, 06:36 AM
Had this occurred to Clinton we'd be seeing tons more coverage, so it's up to me to give you the highlights.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is a US citizen charged with conspiring to assassinate President Bush. He was initially listed as "a former Virginia high school valedictorian," making it sound like intelligent, well-grounded people want to kill the President.

Not so.

- He was valedictorian of the Islamic Saudi Academy.
- His father Omar Abu Ali is a naturalized US citizen but works as a systems analyst at the Royal Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, DC.
- The web page of the school attended by Ahmed Omar Abu Ali indicates that admissions priority is given to the children of Saudi diplomats.
- The Islamic Saudi Academy is linked at the Saudi Embassy's web page.
- A webpage since removed by the Saudi Embassy but which was cached by Google also claims "The Academy is an independent, non-profit educational institution, funded by the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."
- From the school's course of studies: "In general, the Arabic program follows the curriculum, syllabus, and materials established by the Saudi Ministry of Education."
- This opening line is taken from a book given to first graders at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia: "For the teacher: Explain that all religions, other than Islam, are false, including that of the Jews, Christians, and all others."
- Eleventh-graders at the elite Islamic Saudi Academy are told the Day of Judgment can't come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews.
- One teenager at the school recited by memory the signs of the coming of the Day of Judgment: "They teach students that whatever is kuffar [non-Muslim], it is okay for you" to hurt or steal from that person."

So here we have a school, protected and shielded, funded and controlled by the Saudi government, teaching their pupils to hate all things non-Muslim. And this is taking place only miles from Washington, DC.

Anyone find this odd?

Anyone see any of this information on the CBS Evening News? Surely if little 'ole me can find this stuff then their crack team of professional journalists can find this as well.

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)