Friday, December 31, 2010

A Christian priest faces grim New Year in Iraq

By Ned Parker and Raheem Salman, Los Angeles Times

Father Nadheer Dako's flock in Baghdad is shrinking, some having long fled the turmoil and others falling victim to a recent rise in anti-Christian violence. On the last day of 2010 he buries an elderly couple targeted in a bombing.

Father Nadheer Dako, left, leads mourners as they carry in the coffin of Fawzi Rahim, 76, for funeral Mass at St. George Chaldean Church in Baghdad. (Khalid Mohammed, Associated Press / December 31, 2010)

Reporting from Baghdad — Father Nadheer Dako started the last day of 2010 with a funeral service for an elderly couple killed by a bomb during a string of attacks against Iraq's small Christian community.

The previous night Fawzi Ibrahim, 80, and his 75-year-old wife Jeanette had opened their door to find a piece of luggage. When they touched the bag a hidden bomb exploded. Their house was one of ten Christian targets hit by militants Thursday night.

Now Dako, who is always ready with a sarcastic barb and a smirk, had to round up enough parishioners to join five relatives for the service at St. George Chaldean Church in Baghdad. It was a cold day with gray skies. Rain pounded the sidewalk and flooded the half-paved streets.

He gathered together 20 people and they entered the yellow brick church with its cross standing out among the neighborhood's Islamic flags.

Dako, 38, is used to living with death. He had become accustomed to danger even before an Oct. 31 siege by Islamic militants at another Baghdad church that left 58 people dead and ushered in a new campaign of attacks against Iraq's Christian minority.

In 2007, he had played a cat-and-mouse game as he hid from would-be kidnappers who surrounded his church; that same year he narrowly escaped a bomb apparently meant for him. He had watched too many Christians leave the city for safety elsewhere. But he was not going to let himself fall into depression.

He would scowl and shout from the pulpit and jab the air with his finger. He would smile and indulge in ghoulish humor. Or he would sing.

And on Friday, he would bury a couple, victims of a senseless act of violence, and later in the day would celebrate life again.

"It was a good Santa Claus this year," he said with a wicked look in his eyes and a sardonic grin after returning home from the funeral.

He quickly veered off into angry screeds against the United States, blaming the 2003 invasion for his country's woes. He grinned as he said the names of U.S. officials as if speaking four-letter words. He hectored: "Where are you Americans. You promised bring us good democracy and good government. Where is [former U.S. administrator J. Paul] Bremer?"

At the service for the Ibrahims, he read to the mostly empty pews a verse from St. Paul. "God gives us a soul of power and charity, not a soul of fear."

He had admired the couple; their children had left years before for the United States and Europe but the Ibrahims refused to leave Iraq. He thought they had been preparing to die. They had readied tombstones months in advance.

As the small group of relatives traveled with the bodies to the cemetery, Dako prepared for his New Year's service that evening. He sat in his rectory, his collar loosened and a scarf tied tight around his neck and thought about what he should say. He made it clear his group was resilient and would never surrender.

"Jesus asks us not to be afraid, to be a disciple and share the light with the people," he said.

A baby's cry came from the next room, where a Christian couple were staying with their infant after fleeing from the northern city of Mosul.

Dako changed into white vestments and stood by the altar before a small crowd at 4:30 p.m. The decorations blinked on a white Christmas tree and candles gleamed by the altar. He raised his hands in the air.

"God is the light and peace," he said. "Protect the dignity of all, Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Shabak, Sudanis, Pakistanis."

Some leaned their heads against the wooden benches in thought. For a minute, the power went out and his voice bellowed in the dark.

Later in the evening Dako planned to eat and drink wine with friends. He would call his siblings and mother, who are scattered around the world as a result of the turmoil.

He promised: "Life will continue, and never, never will it stop, even if I die, it will continue. It is God's will."

Meet your Meat, the Barbarity of Halal Slaugter

Would you allow this barbarity to take place in your local supermarket? Lets hope you wouldn't. Where's Peta, when it comes to the way Muzzies slaughter their animals. Its no wonder Muzzies have no problems slitting a humans throat if they happen to be a christian.

No more Muslims or their Barbarity should be allow in America as long as they continue to practice their brutal savagery on Animals and Humans.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Q&A: Remaking a Religion

Daniel Pipes founded the Middle East Forum in 1994. The author of 12 books, with a Ph.D. in medieval Islamic history, he is the most prominent American scholar of radical Islam; even CBS said he was "years ahead of the curve" in identifying the radical threat.

Many people associate Islam with terrorism, but you also examine a long-term threat that would be peaceful but transformative. In this country, mostly because of 9/11, we focus on terrorism, but in Europe the discussion is much more about immigration and culture. They say, "Unless we make changes, our civilization will disappear." Demographics, culture, and religion may make Europe an extension of North Africa, with attractions like the Mosque of Notre Dame in Paris.

In part that's because non-Muslim Europeans have few children, Muslims have many? There are three factors. First, demography: Women on average need to have 2.1 children to maintain a population, but in Europe right now it's about 1.4, one-third fewer children than are needed. The second factor is religion: the weakening of Christianity. Factor three is multiculturalism: no sense that your own culture is special, something worth fighting for and defending. Muslims have many children. They also immigrate. They have a distinct sense of the superiority of their civilization.

Do you agree with those who say Europe is finished? I disagree. Non-Muslims still constitute 95 percent of Europe and have it within their means to say no to Islamization—and that's what they're doing. Parties that did not exist or had insignificant existence 10-20 years ago are now potently saying no. There are two options: Eurabia, or "No." Which way? It's too early to predict.

How exactly do they say no? That's the question, I don't know how exactly, but I would expect protracted civil conflict, expulsions, use of force. It's not going to be pretty. I can't give you precise scenarios, but Europe has within its history and its potential the prospect of pretty nasty treatment of Muslims.

Would the Netherlands be the leading edge of "No"? Yes, that is the country to watch. It looks like one-third of the government will be made up of an anti-Islamic bloc. What impact do they have? How will others respond? This is all to be seen.

How do the cartoon wars play into this? Were Islamists showing they would prevent anyone from speaking out against them? In 1989 Ayatollah Khomeini put out an edict against Salman Rushdie for his book, The Satanic Verses, in which Rushdie made fun of various Islamic sanctities. There was strong rejection of the edict: The U.S. Senate voted unanimously for a resolution asserting the right to write whatever you want. Well, 21 years later, people are being threatened and the Senate is not responding. Before 1989 anyone could write or draw whatever they wanted about Islam. Now if you do this, you are taking your life in your hands. If those of us who critique Islam and Muhammad are not allowed to speak or are intimidated from speaking, Islamists prevail: Islam walks in and who's to stop them? The real issue here is: Are we allowed to defend our civilization or not?

If current trends in the United States continue, what will be the situation in 2020? Increased deference to Islamic law. Look at Britain: Polygamy is legal so long as you contract the polygamist marriage in a place where it's legal (say, Morocco). The legal codes accommodate multiple marriages. Welfare and inheritance legal codes separate what wife No. 1 gets and what wife No. 2 gets. That has not happened in the United States, but about four years ago, in Brooklyn, two husbands with multiple wives, and a number of the wives and children, were killed in a fire. The mayor went to pay condolences—it was routine. No one blinked an eye about these polygamists in New York. Contrast that with American treatment of Mormons in the 19th century: furious rejection of polygamy.

So will we have polygamy in the United States by 2020? The debate over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque saw the emergence and mobilization of a resistance to Islamization that hitherto I haven't seen. It could well mean the beginning of a pushback.

Should we accept small accommodations—say, faucets outside an airport terminal for Muslim cab drivers to wash their feet—as an example of American pluralism and tolerance? Yes. We have chapels on military academies, with the ground given by the government and the chapel built with private money. It's an arrangement that works. Why not the same here?

What about the cab drivers and passengers with alcohol? The Minneapolis Airport had another initiative: Cab drivers were refusing to transport anyone carrying liquor. The airport solution was to create two lines, one where liquor is OK and the other where it's not. That might seem like an acceptable accommodation, but think about what this implies: liquor today, but maybe a ham sandwich tomorrow, or a woman with a sleeveless dress. If it's cab drivers today, it could be bus drivers tomorrow and then air captains the next day . . . so the whole plane doesn't take off because someone has a ham sandwich? No. This is U.S. application of Shariah law. I'm happy to report that the airport authorities told the cab drivers that if they wanted to drive taxis they would have to take whoever came along.

You've written that radical Islam is the problem and that "modern Islam" is the solution.* What is modern Islam? Modern Islam is an anti-Islamist Islam. I'm told that modern Islam is like the unicorn, much discussed but never seen—but its supporters do exist. You see Muslims all over arguing against Islamism, but they're not a movement and they're not coherent or organized with a follower and money. It needs deep thinkers—interpreters of the Quran and other sacred scriptures—along with activists and politicians.

So, defeat Islamism with secularized Islam? Work toward a form of Islam that is modern, moderate, neighborly. That is something that only Muslims can do, but we who are not Muslims can help by encouraging the anti-radicals and discouraging the radicals.

Comparing Islam and Christianity—Christianity is a religion of peace with a founder, Christ, who is clearly a person of peace. In Islam, though, Muhammad was often a warrior. Is the basis of Islam naturally warlike after its founder? The basis of Islam is warlike, but that doesn't mean it has to be warlike.

Is the "modern Islam" you want a move away from the core of Islam? It is reinterpreting Islam. The Islamist interpretation that's so dominant now was barely visible when I got into this field in the 1960s. Now it's dominant. If it can grow, then it can get smaller. We need to help it to get small.

In Christianity, you can always point to the person of Christ. In Islam, you can't move toward peace by pointing to the person of Muhammad. Fair enough, but the person of Muhammad for Muslims is not the equivalent of Jesus Christ but the equivalent of Saint Paul. Muslims have made him into almost a Jesus-like figure but that is not inherent in the religion.

But people in the United States can readily draw cartoons of any kind in relation to Christ, or Paul. If it is not a part of Islam to make Muhammad so significant, why is any criticism of him a capital crime in some places? Yes, in Pakistan regulation 295-C asserts that if you assault the prophet, you should be executed. It is a reality, but it doesn't have to be that way. Over the centuries the idea took hold that Muhammad was a perfect man—but we can rethink this. This is what I was getting at about reinterpreting the scriptures—it doesn't have to be that way.

* DP note: This should be: "that radical Islam is the problem and that 'moderate Islam' is the solution."

Monday, December 27, 2010

Christmas bomb plot: nine men remanded over plan to 'blow up Big Ben and Westminster Abbey'

The Telegraph
By Caroline Gammell 9:19PM GMT 27 Dec 2010

Nine alleged terrorists plotted a Christmas bombing campaign targeting sites that included the London Stock Exchange and Big Ben, a court heard.

They are alleged to have carried out reconnaissance missions before deciding on their possible targets.

Police were said to have found a list of six sites, including the full postal address of the Stock Exchange, Boris Johnson’s London mayoral office and the US embassy.

Defendants were seen studying the tower of Big Ben, before inspecting Westminster Abbey, the London Eye and the Church of Scientology.

Al-Qaeda inspired books and leaflets, including instructions on making a pipe bomb, were also uncovered during the counter-terrorism operation.

Details of the alleged plot were outlined at City of Westminster magistrates’ court.

Obama and Islam

No president in American history has taken a more admiring view of Islam than Barack Obama. Whether it is his repeated insistence that the attacks on Americans and the war that has been declared against the West have nothing do with Islam, or his flattering (and false) description of Islam as a religion “that teaches peace, justice, fairness and tolerance,” or his unprecedented revelation that he considers it “part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” Obama in his first two years of office has spurned no opportunity to speak well of the religion.

Considering the long history of Islamic extremism, the militancy of Islamic religious texts, and the justification that such texts provide for modern jihadist movements, the president’s fawning rhetoric may be confused for mere ignorance. But as David Horowitz and Robert Spencer forcefully argue in their new pamphlet, “Obama and Islam,” Obama’s Islamophilic outreach represents something far more disturbing than naïveté: a conscious effort to appease Islamic supremacism in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, and an energetic willingness to pander to the Islamic world in general. The consequence, the authors show, is a dangerously ill-conceived foreign policy that has betrayed American values, undermined the national interest, abandoned staunch allies like Israel, and forsaken Muslims who are condemned to suffer under brutal Islamic regimes. Cheap flattery has rarely exacted such a high cost.

To read the pamphlet, click here:

Sunday, December 26, 2010

The Zombie Bank

Thanks to The Economy Collapse Blog

The profound problem of Muslim immigration

EuropeNews December 26 2010
Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
Sam Solomon & Elias Al Maqdisi ANM Publishers, 2009, 139 pp., $14.95
By Henrik R. Clausen

As the West has accepted extensive immigration from Islamic countries, unexpected social and political problems have followed. While rising crime rates, rampant unemployment and a heavy load on our much-appreciated welfare systems are severe problems in itself, a distinct and dramatically more significant problem is the subtle subversion of our free and democratic societies, also known as "Stealth Jihad".

The retired Islamic scholar Sam Solomon, in this compact book "Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration", connects the dots and explains why seemingly unrelated incidents are in fact rooted in Islamic tradition and are steps on the path to create a fully Islamized society.

To demonstrate how this functions, Sam Solomon dives into his exhaustive knowledge of Islamic history and law. As Islamic scholars everywhere, he derives his conclusions from Islamic scripture, the life of Muhammad in particular, and shows how historically immigration has slowly but steadily lead to formerly Jewish or Christian societies submitting to Islam. The primary example in the book is Muhammads takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina, and how the concepts and strategies developed for the conquest of a relatively insignificant Arab city are being duplicated by Islamic leaders worldwide, with the same goal: Expanding Islamic conquest ever further.

The depth of knowledge and connections described in Al-Hijra constitute both a strength and a weakness. Most important is the strength: Sam Solomon uses his Islamic scholarship to reveal the justifications and machinations being applied to undermine and attack the very notion of a secular society. This is important information that everyone involved in these matters deserve to have.

The weakness is that the book frequently becomes hard to follow. Understanding Islamic terms like Darura (necessity), Takweem (empowerment), I'dad (readying) etcetera are important in order to counter the undercurrent of Islamization, yet the denseness of the presentation makes the lines of thought hard to follow for the unprepared. One does well in having some knowledge of Islamic thought before reading Al-Hijra.

That said, this book is indispensable for a very simple reason: It presents information otherwise not available to the uninitiated Westerner, and mercilessly reveals the twisted logic of Islamist activists, their justifications, methods and ultimate goal: A fully Shariah-compliant society. By pointing out the scriptural justifications and inner logic of seemingly benign and unrelated Muslim demands, it provides an invaluable tool for identifying and countering the stealth jihad destabilizing our societies. Dismantling this threat peacefully requires knowledge as provided by Sam Solomon.

Review opinion:

Unique book with invaluable understanding of matters. Well worth tackling despite dense prose.

Rating: 5/6

First up is the book cover: A wooden horse associates directly to the Trojan Horse, the stratagem that according to legend was applied by the Greeks to finally conquer the city of Troy. The use of this archetypical image is sure to evoke emotional responses by many, but it also points to an important fact:

The subversion against our societies is executed by relatively few immigrants. Most immigrants from Islamic countries do not come to the West in order tor transform free Western countries into semblances of the autocracies or theocracies they have fled from. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future – but they do so without the intention to change their religion, and this is where things get complicated.

Retaining faith in Islam and Islamic scholars will lead the immigrants to tacitly support the subversive aims of Islamists who have also come to the West, initially as a relatively small fraction of millions of Islamic immigrants. These Islamic leaders and scholars use the Islamic teachings to destroy confidence in Western democracies, and they are astonishingly effective in achieving that aim.

Explaining how this seemingly irrational development can take place requires some history. This first and foremost means the life and conduct of Muhammad, the perfect example for the pious Muslim even today. The authority of Muhammad is absolute in Islam, be it in form of Quranic commands or the examples of conduct recorded in hadith collections, known in Islam as the 'Sunna'. Hijra, immigration, was a key element in Muhammads takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina.

Unfortunately, the concept of Hijra is not limited in time or space to 7th century Arabia. The command as given is absolute, and remains an obligation on Muslims. One of many hadith quotes Muhammad for this:

I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.

Thus, immigration is step four out of a five step plan. Sam Solomon elaborates:

So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.

Those who do not desire to live in an Islamic theocracy better take heed. Over the last decade we have observed how jihad has come to the West in various forms. The most obvious is the violent, like train bombings in London and Madrid, and more recently even in immigration-friendly Sweden where a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks has become a pretext for detonating bombs during Christmas shopping.

However, more important than the flagship violent jihad is the so-called 'Stealth Jihad', where Islamic law (Shariah) is quietly being implemented in our societies, usually in seemingly benign aspects of life, but leading to a constant affirmation of Islamic identity being more important to Muslims than honest integration in the host societies. Sam Solomon quotes extensively from scripture and interpretation, pointing out how Islam in itself constitutes a barrier to integration.

The strange concept of 'necessity'

The Islamic doctrine of 'necessity' is a strange twist in these problems. For Muslims are permitted to ignore any and all Islamic rules if 'necessity' dictates it, even to the point of openly denying his or her religion, a move also known as 'Taqiyya'. Ignoring Islamic rules regarding halal/haram (permitted/forbidden) enables Muslims to work as shop clerks handling pork and alcohol if needed to make a living.

Later, when the Islamic community feels strong enough, cases are seen where Muslim shop workers start protesting having to handle these 'unclean' items, and demand an exception due to their 'religious needs'. Demands for gender segregated swimming halls, prayer breaks, prayer rooms and eventually mosques follow similar patterns, where items that were initially not a concern suddenly become demands voiced with strong conviction of their necessities. Employers and public institutions tend to yield to such Islamic demands, not noticing that this is a slippery slope towards implementation of Shariah.

Shariah – a totalitarian system of state

As has been pointed out by Robert R. Reilly (The Closing of the Muslim Mind) and others, Islam as a theological system has, step by step, lost the connection to Hellenic thought and ideals, respect for reason, the notion of causality (that laws of nature govern the physical world), the notion of individual responsibility, and has devolved into a Rule of Will, commonly known as 'despotism'. Instrumental in this rule is the Shariah, as established and interpreted by the Islamic clergy.

Islam today consists mainly of its legal code, the Shariah. Islamic law is derived from the life and actions of Muhammad. Codifying his life into law has been a major undertaking by Islamic scholars through the centuries, resulting in detailed manuals of conduct like Reliance of the Traveller, which describe in detail how a pious Muslim is supposed to behave. This all-regulated way of organizing a society is also known as 'totalitarian' (Wikipedia):

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Totalitarian models for organizing societies have been tried in the 20th century, most notably in Italy, where the totalitarian model of society was a cornerstone of fascism:

The new state was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.” He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

All Western attempts at establishing a totalitarian state have failed miserably. In the Islamic Middle East, however, the religious authority of Muhammad, combined with extensive enforcement on every level of society, regulating every aspect of human behaviour is largely successful, largely due to the religious prestige associated with interpreting Islamic law accurately.

The grand ambition of Islamists is to implement this system everywhere in the world.

Now, living under a totalitarian system might sound awful. Everyone is obligated to spy on everyone else, and those most zealous in enforcing the rules are held in highest regard, with actual living circumstances in the totalitarian system not being an issue of debate, for obvious reasons. Instead, such systems have intricate pecking orders, where the top cadres get to pick on the lower cadres, who pick on ordinary citizens, who in turn need some kind of enemy to pick on. As Wafa Sultan described in her book A God Who Hates, this is very much the case in Islam.

Easing the burdens: Tay'seer and Darura

Converts to Islam face a bewildering set of rules and norms to adhere to. One might think that breaking these rules would cause the failing Muslim to effectively become an apostate, but here the doctrine of Tay'seer ('easing of burdens') comes to the rescue. If the burdens imposed by Islam are too difficult to bear, the Muslim can depend on Allah to ease the burdens of those unable to bear them, or until bearing them becomes possible.

Rejecting the lifestyle of non-Muslims is one of those difficult challenges, in particular for converts who usually would come out of a Christian or secular background, be accustomed to having a beer or a glass of wine, to women having equal rights with men, and to religion being a private matter. Changing the mindset from one of reason to one of irrational religious zeal takes great effort, and has a great potential of conflict. The application of Tay'seer permits this transition to be quite gradual, but must also be seen in light of the polar opposite, the doctrine of Darura ('need').

The doctrines of Tay'seer and Darura add up to a rather confusing whole. Muslims in principle have an obligation to live in accordance with the Shariah, but host societies who find those customs bizarre, unreasonable and wildly impractical are likely to refuse implementation of all but a few minor elements of Shariah. Sam Solomon describes this contradictory situation:

So under the darura (necessities), the forbidden becomes lawful, the exception becomes the rule and the rule as we know it is suspended until the circumstances change or the objectives are achieved. Hence this principle is applied to overcome every obstacle by Muslims in a non-Muslim country from visa regulations, to obtaining nationality of the host country, to ushering in Islamic Shariah slowly [...]

The unsettling implication of this that Muslims, at large, cannot be trusted to respect secular law, even if superficially it would appear that they do.

Be prepared: Tamkeen and I'dad

Now for something disturbing: the Islamic concepts of tamkeen and i'dad. Tamkeen ('empowerment') is the strengthening of Islamic identity (as opposed to assimilating into the host society), and is a fundamental precondition for establishing Islamic rule. Without a significant number of persons identifying with being Muslims, having faith in Islamic scripture and its interpreters, Islamic leaders would have no cadres to base their authority upon, and thus no chance to seize power and establish Islamic rule in the land.

The next step, i'dad, is the practical preparation for seizing power in the land. This means building and strengthening Islamic infrastructure in the land, building networks and making Muslims proudly display their Islamic identity in public. I'dad also constitutes the practical preparation for the final physical effort to establish Islamic rule in the land, executed by a well-prepared army of soldiers fighting in the Cause of Allah, also known as jihad. Physical fighting would be a foregone conclusion at this point. For that reason, military training and accumulating weapon stocks are natural parts of i'dad. Logically, finding weapons in mosques or other Islamic buildings is a stark sign of warning to the host societies.

A logical and practical conclusion

The main text of the book ends on page 97 with a concluding chapter so short and clear I will repeat in full. It reads:

Islam is either a religion nor a faith in a personal way, as defined and understood I the West. It is a whole encompassing political system, barged in religious outfit, addressing every aspect of the life of its adherents.

So when Muslim immigrants refuse assimilation and despise integration, it is done as a political move expressed religiously. Hence it would be in the interest of the host society and its national security to examine all requests, from a socio-political angle. For every Islamic doctrine is a political dictated aiming to establish itself by undoing the existing systems to control, rule and dominate in every area.

It must be mandatory for all immigrants, and particularly Muslim immigrants, to sign an undertaking whit in built punitive charges, that they would:

1.Abide by the law of the land.

2.Do their utmost to be integrated and assimilated with the host society.

3.Regard religion as a personal matter of free will and choice.

4.Embrace the equality of genders in all aspects.

5.Regard and treat the discriminatory and violent doctrines and teachings of the Shariah as inapplicable and ineffective for today.

6.Accept the equality of all Muslims and non-Muslims.

7.Uphold the separation of state and religion.

8.Value and uphold the right of every individual to choose the religion of his or her choice, irrespective of the religion of the next of kin or community they might have belonged to by birth, or by association of any kind.

Closing thoughts

George Orwell in his novel "1984" described how the Western world might have fallen to the totalitarian temptation, as did F. A. Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom". This decay of our free societies into totalitarianism have not taken place on its own, but might come about through religious authority and pressure.

Sam Solomon describes the mechanisms used for this purpose, and is clear about what we must do to stop it. It is the task of our politicians to take heed and do so. Sam Solomon, as usual, is unrivalled in his profound understanding of the problems. Reading and re-reading the compact books of Sam Solomon is an excellent way to gain the knowledge needed for this task.

Video: Russian Navy response to Somali Pirates

Russians enforcing the law of the sea. No reading of their rights before the Somali ship is sent to the bottom of the ocean.

Burka Women -Saad Haroon

Roy Orbison must be rolling in his grave now. lol

Saturday, December 25, 2010

The Grinches Who Steal Christmas

Islamist Watch Blog
by David J. Rusin  •  Dec 25, 2010 at 1:26 pm 

Who are the bigger Grinches: Islamists who disparage Christmas celebrations in the Western societies they inhabit or appeasers who bend over backwards to shield Muslims from the trappings of the season? Both have been in action this year; one example of each will suffice.

First, radical Muslims in Britain have marked the holiday with a poster campaign on the "evils of Christmas," blaming it for sexually transmitted diseases, debt, rape, teenage pregnancies, abortion, raves, blasphemy, exploitation, promiscuity, nightclubs, crime, pedophilia, paganism, domestic violence, homelessness, violence, vandalism, alcohol, drugs, and, of course, "claiming God has a son." The signs then declare that "in Islam we are protected from all of these evils," with the faith guaranteeing "dignity" and "rights for man, woman, and child." Ho, ho, ho.

Abu Rumaysah, the leader of the project, asserts that "Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it." The Daily Mail article ties him to radical cleric Anjem Choudary, who may have inspired his Scrooge-like sentiments. Two years ago, Choudary described Christmas as "the pathway to hellfire" and warned Muslims that "decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees, or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah."

Second, in a particularly vexing case of appeasement from Christmas 2010, Santa Claus was banned from Minnesota's St. Peter Head Start, which offers lessons for young, low-income kids to help prepare them for school. Dennis Jackson, who had portrayed Santa there for years, "said he was told 'it was against some people's wishes' for him to make the half-hour appearances for two classes catering to about three dozen children," according to the Mankato Free Press.

"We have Somali families in the program," explained Chris Marben, a regional coordinator for Head Start through the Minnesota Valley Action Council (MVAC). "We're respecting the wishes of families in the program." Noting that parents are surveyed about commemorating holidays, Marben indicated, in the words of the newspaper, that "more than one objection would be sufficient to waive an observance."

Jackson argues that any uncomfortable parents simply could have had their children removed from class for the half hour, as opposed to overreaching administrators ruining the joy for everyone else. At least some local Somalis agree and ripped into program directors for canceling Santa and then scapegoating Muslims. IW readers are welcome to offer their thoughts to MVAC officials, using the contact information under Nicollet County at this link.

So who does more harm: Islamists or appeasers? Usually the latter. Fanatics like Abu Rumaysah thankfully have little power over our lives and thus are reduced to pasting signs on walls. May they forever be so weak. In contrast, appeasers like Chris Marben do exercise real power, acting as gatekeepers for what is allowed in the bland, offense-free "paradise" they wish to construct. By undermining its foundations and traditions, these efforts ready Western culture for the kill.

However, both camps deserve lumps of coal in their stockings on this and every other Christmas.

Jingle Bells - "Oh what fun with a knife or gun a Christian guy to slay..."

Allen West: "Terrorists Are Doing What Quran Says" 1/3

2/3Allen West - Full Speech : "Muslim Terrorists Are Doing Exactly what the Quran Say

3-3 Allen West - Full Speech - -Muslim Terrorists Are Doing Excactly what the Quran Says-.FLV

Kosovo PM Hashim Thaci: Head of Organ Harvesting in Kosovo

Thursday, December 23, 2010

On Radical Islam and Suicide Bombers - Q&A with Dr. Ganor, Counter Terrorism Expert

From IsraeliGirl Blog

Radical Islamic terror succeeded in impacting the daily life of everyone in this world. Anyone traveling on a plane, taking a train ride, or going to the theater in a capital city in Europe or the US, may be a victim of radical Islamic terror act. To drill down and better understand radical Islamic terror, I met with Dr. Boaz Ganor, head of the International Institute for Counter Terrorism in IDC Herzelia, one of the first such institutes in the world. Dr. Ganor is also the founder and Chairman of the International Academic Counter Terrorism Community (ICTAC), an International association of institutions, experts and researchers in fields related to the study of terrorism and counter terrorism. This interview is about radical Islamic terror – while Osama Bin Laden is a common household name these days – not everyone understands the motives. Let's take a look at the roots or Islamic terror organizations.

Dr. Ganor: When we talk about Islamic terror there are mainly 2 types of organizations: Global Jihad and local Jihad. Al Qaeda is the most prominent Global Jihad movement. Around Al Qaeda we see a number of circles. The first circle includes local organizations which are tightly connected to Al Qaeda. Examples of such organizations include Al Qaeda Iraq, North Africa Al Qaeda known as Maghreb Al Qaeda and the Yemen branch of the Arab Peninsula Al Qaeda. These are local establishments with local agendas but they all adhere to the main theme of Global Jihad as led by Al Qaeda's leaders.

The 2nd circle is made of affiliated organizations. These organizations are typically local Jihad groups which were founded as branches of the Muslim Brotherhood and developed military capabilities. In this category you can find organizations like Hamas and the JI in Indonesia. These groups often hide their affiliation to Al Qaeda to avoid the penalties that come with such affiliation. But the connection and the moral guidance are strong.

The 3rd circle is home grown terrorists. These are small groups or individuals that operate locally in the west. There is no real connection between these organization and Al Qaeda itself, but these are initiatives that were launched as a result of exposure to Al Qaeda's doctrine and incitement online. You could say Al Qaeda inspired them to launch their own terror group. Some home grown terror organizations may want to increase their involvement with Al Qaeda, so you might see individuals traveling to Al Qaeda's terror training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. In those cases, there is often a closer connection once they return to their home countries. Would you say that there is a central control to all these radical terror organizations?

Dr. Ganor: There is a debate on this issue led by 2 scholars Professor Bruce Hoffman and Professor Marc Sageman. Professor Sageman wrote several books including "Leaderless Jihad" where he claimed there is no central hierarchical control and that Jihad is all about local establishments taking advantage of local opportunities. Professor Hoffman claims however, that despite 10 years of counter terrorism activities Al Qaeda is alive and well and is still capable of launching centrally controlled terror attacks. It's still too early to dismiss Al Qaeda and its control over its own organization and the various affiliated organizations. I tend to agree with both scholars - I believe that Al Qaeda is still a power to reckon with and Bin Laden and Zawahiri have a strong control over the many local organizations that support their agenda. On the other hand, home grown terrorism has grown significantly leaving more room for individual action. So what's the difference in the agenda of local vs. global Jihad?

Dr. Ganor: Both types of groups believe that we should all live under an Islamic regime. The Global Jihad groups believe that their fight is to bring Islamic rule to the whole world. Local Jihad groups believe in the global vision but think they should focus on their own region as first priority. Hamas for example, fights to turn Israel into Islamic regime. They would like to see an Islamic rule over the whole world but they have local priority. There is no disagreement here just different priorities. As a main state sponsor of terror, how does Iran fit into this picture?

Dr. Ganor: All that we discussed above relates to Sunni Islamic Jihad. Iran, as a Shiite Islamic regime is a bit different. While they believe in the global Jihad cause, they would like to see global Shia Islamic rule. Ayatollah Khomeini which led the Iranian revolution in 1979 established Iran's foreign policy so that one of its pillars is the distribution of the Islamic revolution to other Shiite populated areas. Their method calls for empowerment of local Shiite populations and establishment of military/terrorist capabilities for these populations. Hezbollah in Lebanon is the best example of this strategy in action.

You have to remember that there is a wide and deep divide between the Sunni and Shiite branches in Islam. Some people claim that there would be peace between Israel and the Palestinians before there would be peace between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

But despite that divide you see tactical collaborations in certain areas in the world. Hamas is the best example. Hamas is a Sunni organization, highly affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet, Shiite Iran is its main financial backer and Hamas is happy to take their money despite their Sunni-Shiite differences.

Saudia, with a mainly Sunni population, played a major part in supporting Hamas in the early years, including major financial contributions. Today, as they understand the Iranian threat to the region, they are distancing themselves from Hamas. Iran is only happy to step in and fill this vacuum.

Hezbollah actually facilitated the connection between Iran and Hamas. In 1992, Rabin deported Hamas' and Palestinian Jihad's terrorists to Lebanon. Lebanon refused to let them in and they remained on top of a mountain between Israel and Lebanon for almost a year. Hezbollah was the only organization that supported them and brought them food. Israel eventually let those terrorists back in, but they've had a year to be influenced by Hezbollah and Iran.

So in essence Iran leads the Shiite terror activities aiming to spread Shiite Islam across the world. Sunni Jihad is led by Al Qaeda and its local support organization. They have the same goal but differ in their views of Islam. Why do Islamic terror organizations believe that suicide bombings are helping them pave the road to worldwide Islamic domination?

Dr. Ganor: I believe that terror organizations are rational and that suicide bombers are making an informed decision to blow up. A rational decision process is about choosing the right alternative, which in the eye of the beholder seems more efficient.

For terror organizations there are many benefits to conducting suicide bombings. The suicide bombers are their "smart bomb" technology. The suicide bomber can make decisions on the spot to maximize the bombing impact – if he arrives and sees the target (e.g. a restaurant) is empty and across the street there is a gathering of people he will blow himself up among the crowd to maximize the number of casualties.

Because of that precision, suicide bombings are the most lethal attacks. Looking at suicide bombings statistics in Israel, between 2000-2005 suicide bombings accounted for 0.6% of all terror attacks in Israel but those 0.6% of attacks resulted in 50% of casualties. So from the perspective of a terror organization suicide bombings are highly effective.

As a result of the large number of casualties suicide bombing create bloody scenes, leading to significant press coverage and increased fear in the general population. The intensive media coverage exposes suicide bombings worldwide. No matter what your initial opinion is, most people in the western world find it hard to believe someone of its free mind will opt to kill himself by becoming a suicide bomber. Oddly, this leads to some justification to suicide bombings – the most common reaction is these people must have been so badly treated that they would willfully kill themselves in a suicide bombing.

Last but not least, another benefit of a suicide bombing attack is the certainty that the attack will succeed. Once the suicide bomber is on his way you can be sure the attack will go through – it may be more or less successful but he will blow himself up killing as many people with him as he can. Once he does blows himself up, the terrorist poses no threat the organization as he cannot reveal incriminating details. Let's look from the perspective of the suicide bomber itself – what's in it for him?

•Self image – the suicide bomber view himself as martyr (Shahid). In the case of Palestinian bombers, they also believe they are becoming martyrs for the Ummah (community) of the Palestinian people. One suicide bomber insisted that in his last photo he will be seen with his head cut off in his hand showing the Palestinian people he became a martyr for them. By doing this altruistic act his self image is empowered.

•Family benefits – Most suicide bombers are from low income families. The families of Shahids enjoy immediate increased social standing in the community and receive monthly financial support from then on. Again, another act of altruism on behalf of the suicide bomber – by becoming a martyr he guarantees the well being of his parents and siblings.

•Heavenly benefits - these are the most crucial benefits and they rely on deep religious believe that martyrs go straight to heaven. We call these attacks suicide bombings but in the Islamic world suicide bombers are martyrs – the word suicide is not used at all. Suicide is forbidden in Islam, but becoming a martyr is sacred. The religious belief is that a martyr does not die but is immediately transformed to heaven. A martyr bypasses all the phases that good Muslims go through before they can reach heaven – tossing in their graves until their souls are pure and can enter heaven. There are those that claim that many suicide bombers were not religious and have violated Islamic laws before they triggered the bomb. To them I say, that the belief in martyrdom is so strong that you can do what you want before becoming a martyr, all will be forgiven. Furthermore, the concept of secular Muslim does not exist - even those that do not honor the rules of Islam, do not call themselves secular and are brought up with the belief that martyrs go straight to heaven. In letters written by the 9/11 terrorists this strong religious belief is evident. The letters from Mohamed Atta, a ring leader and the pilot that flew flight 11 into the World Trade Center, to the terrorists under his command reminded them - don't forget the beautiful virgins that will wait for you in heaven. This is a very realistic belief. There was a suicide bomber in Israel that detonated the bomb on his body but due to a technical error the blast was not strong enough to kill him. He woke up in an Israeli hospital and was convinced he is in heaven. He kept on insisting he is in heaven until the interrogator asked him if there are Jews in heaven. Of course the answer is NO and then he finally figured out something went wrong. How do you grow up with such convictions? How much does childhood incitement a part of this conviction?

Dr. Ganor: The wish to become martyrs is part of early childhood education in the Islamic world. From the early age into the school years martyrs are honored and children are encouraged to become Shahids. After years of indoctrination and with a strong belief in benefits of becoming a martyr there are those that are ready to go through with it.

Furthermore, the Islamic society is a close society in which relations between boys and girls are taboo. With the hormones raging like everywhere else in the world, the frustration is great. The only way to have a relationship and physical contact with a woman is to marry her. Marriage requires certain financial standing that may not be possible. So becoming a Shahid is a shortcut to enjoying physical pleasure with women. To western ears this seems absurd, but this is a realistic notion to Islamic youth. This is part of the rational from their perspective. Those that send these kids to suicide bombing missions don't view that as child abuse?

Dr. Ganor: While the managing level also believes that the suicide bombers go straight to heaven, they do not send their own kids to become suicide bomber. An Israeli reporter once interviewed the wife of a senior Hamas military official. He asked her about Shahids in general and about suicide bombings and then asked if she would send her own child to become a suicide bomber. Her answer was of course but not now he has to finish his studies first.

So there is of course abuse and manipulation on behalf of those that send others to suicide bombing missions. But there is also a wide spread belief among the general Muslim crowd in the heavenly benefits Martyrs gain after becoming Shahids in the name of Jihad. Since Al Qaeda's September 11th attacks airport security has been playing a cat and mouse game with terrorists. What's your opinion on the recent deployment of intrusive checks in US' airport security?

Dr. Ganor: It's much easier being a terrorist than being a counter terrorist. As a counter terrorist you cannot protect all targets and budget is also an issue. As a terrorist you have to find one loophole, one place less secured. When you deal with counter terrorism there are a number of circles. The first one and the most crucial one is intelligence. Without intelligence you are working in the dark. But when you have information and can stop a suicide bombing before it happens that's the major win. This by the way is why target killings as means to fight terrorism is on the rise – this is the only way to stop a ticking bomb before it reaches its target.

The 2nd circle in counter terrorism is security. Since terrorism is learning and evolving process so is counter terrorism. Terrorists are always looking for the soft spot – they are sending dry teams to gather intelligence and see what is being checked and then figure out how to bypass those checks.

To fight terror you have to think like a terrorist and that's not always easy for the counter terrorism organizations.

The new system deployed in the US relies on full body scan. It is a direct result of a failed terrorist attack in which the suicide bomber was hiding the bomb in his underwear. It has 2 major problems; first it poses a strong breach of privacy for the 99.9% of the travelers that are innocent. Secondly, it will not detect bombs hidden inside the terrorist's body. Since terrorists have used such methods before, they are likely to use them again. Considering these

There is a new approach to terrorism which aims to find the bomber and not the bomb. This new approach uses biometric methods and questioning to detect people with malicious intent and not necessarily find the bomb. I am working with an Israeli company weCU, which employs such new methods to advance airport security without sacrificing the privacy of innocent travelers.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

TSA under fire after businessman boards international flight with loaded handgun

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 3:18 PM on 17th December 2010

The effectiveness of security at U.S. ports is being questioned after a businessman accidentally travelled on a flight with a loaded handgun in his luggage.

Iranian-American Farid Seif was screened by Trasport Security Administration officials at Houston airport in Texas. His hand luggage was also X-rayed before he took off on his international flight.

It wasn't until Mr Seif arrived at his hotel several hours later that he realised that he had forgotten to unpack a loaded snub nose Glock pistol from his luggage before he embarked on his journey.

'It's just impossible to miss it, you know. I mean, this is not a small gun,' Mr Seif told ABC News.

'How can you miss it? You cannot miss it.'

According to ABC, security slip-ups in the U.S. are not rare.

The news network claims experts have confided that 'every year since the September 11 terror attacks, federal agencies have conducted random, covert "red team tests", where undercover agents try to see just how much they can get past security checks at major U.S. airports'.

ABC added that, while the U.S. Department of Homeland Security closely guards those test results, those that have leaked have been 'shocking'.

Undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times, the news network claimed.

And a 2007 government audit revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts. At Chicago's O'Hare airport, agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times.

Ironically the TSA has come under increased criticism in recent weeks - after it introduced new measures in a bid to bolster security.

Passengers have complained that new pat-down searches are invasive, and that full body scanning X-ray machines are too revealing.

Read more: 

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Racist Comments From Dream Amnesty Supporters Replace Whites

Listen to these bastards that want Amnesty. I say screw them all. Send them all back to that rat hole called Mexico.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Wikileaks cables: US Mexico drugs war fears revealed

3 December 2010

The US is concerned that the Mexican army is failing in its fight against drug cartels, according to diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks.

A cable sent by the US embassy in Mexico City in January 2010 described the army as "slow and risk averse."

It said troops were not trained to patrol the streets or gather evidence to convict those detained.

However, the cables praise the Mexican government for its "unprecedented commitment" to take on the drugs gangs.

But the fight is being hampered by widespread "official corruption" and a lack of co-ordination.

According to the cable dated 29 January 2010, the deployment of troops in Ciudad Juarez - a border city at the heart of the drugs war - had failed to reduce violence.

Troops were not trained for law enforcement operations, and only 2% of of people arrested in the city were charged with any crime, it says.

The Mexican navy is seen as more effective, particularly in the operation in which the cartel leader Arturo Beltran Leyva was killed - an operation that, the cable says, was based on US intelligence.

Losing control

But security institutions were often "locked in a zero-sum competition in which one agency's success is viewed as another's failure, information is closely guarded and joint operations are all but unheard of."

Another embassy cable sent in October 2009 quotes a senior Mexican official as saying his government was worried it was losing control of some regions to the drug gangs.

"We have 18 months," Geronimo Gutierrez, at the time Mexico's under-secretary of the interior, is quoted as saying.

"And if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognisable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain this confrontation into the next administration."

"It is damaging Mexico's reputation, hurting foreign investment, and leading to a sense of government impotence."

The BBC's Julian Miglierini in Mexico City says Washington's financial and political support for President Felipe Calderon's strategy has been crucial.

The cables highlight Mexico's calls for more help to fight what many in Mexico believe is a problem that originated in the high demand for drugs in US territory, he adds.

While the publication of the cables is unlikely to strain relations between the countries, it has opened the door into how Washington is thinking about the burdens of its southern neighbour, our correspondent adds.

More than 30,000 Mexicans have been killed in drug-related violence since President Calderon began deploying troops to fight the cartels four years ago.

The US embassy cables praise President Calderon's government for its willingness to build "strong civilian law enforcement institutions that are necessary for sustained success against organised crime in Mexico."

They also highlight how the kind of help Mexico requests from the US has shifted from military hardware to intelligence-gathering technology and training.

President Caderon's office said it had seen the leaked cables but had no immediate comment to make, the Associated Press reported.

Whats clear is that Mexico is losing the war against the Drug Cartels. Mexico continues to send their poor and indigent to America. Mexico is not a friend of America, Mexico is using America as a drop off point for all their problems. Eventually the Drug Cartels will be moving further into America if the Obama Administration doesn't end its kowtowing to Illegals and its wish for open borders.

Imagine if there were open borders tomorrow. How long till our cities would become a war zone for Mexican Drug Gangs and Cartels? 

Demo for Gilad Shalit on December 10th in Berlin

On June 25, 2006, the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (photo) was kidnapped by Hamas. It is assumed that he has since been brought to an unknown location in the Gaza Strip to be held prisoner. All attempts by the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Gilad Shalit have been rejected by Hamas. The reason stated was that said visit would expose the place where Gilad Shalit is being held.

(Press communication by the IAJLJ)

With this refusal, Gilad Shalit’s human rights have been trampled underfoot. It also represents an offense against the International Human Rights Declaration and the Geneva Convention.

The Red Cross, whose main duty is the protection of human rights, communicates that it wasn’t in the position to meet with Gilad Shalit. Even so, this organization hasn’t considered it necessary – although more than four years have passed in the meantime – to raise an outcry or to condemn Hamas openely for its actions.

The shameful weakness of the Red Cross in this affair is ignoble, particularly when it maintains a delegation in the Gaza Strip that has been in contact with Hamas throughout regarding other subjects relevant to human rights.

On June 1, 2010, our Israeli parent organization, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists formally requested of the Red Cross yet again to try making contact with Gilad Shalit. On June 4, 2010, the Red Cross declared that all of its efforts had been unsuccessful, and that it tries on a regular basis to meet with Hamas regarding this issue.

On the basis of this untenable situation, our association has decided to become publicly active: On December 10, 2010, the International Day of Human Rights, the day on which the International Human Rights Declaration was signed in 1948, the IAJLJ has, with support of our friends and supporters and in collaboration with other organizations worldwide, demonstrated before the national chapters of the Red Cross in order to demand that the Red Cross finally denounce and condemn Hamas.

Video taken at the demonstration (Source:

The IAJLJ was founded in 1989. Among its founding members are such peronalities as Haim Cohn, judge on the Israeli Supreme Court; Arthur Goldberg, judge on the United States Supreme Court; and the French Nobel Prize recipient, René Cassin. The IAJLJ is made up of jurists from all areas and fields of law. Any jurist that identifies with the objectives of the IAJLJ can become a regular member. The German branch was founded in May 2007 in Berlin. The IAJLJ engages worldwide in the promotion of human rights, the prosecution and prevention of war criminals, the ban of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the compliance with and implementation of international agreements. The IAJLJ especially steps in for the rights of Jews worldwide and battles against racism, hostillity to foreigners, antisemitism, denial of the Holocaust, as well as powers that reject Israel’s right to existence. The IAJLJ is a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Category II with the United Nations. This enables the IAJLJ to participate in consultation with various UN organizations. By means of this, the representatives of the IAJLJ among others was actively included in work on the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. You can find further information on the website:

VIDEO of Sweden's Muslim Homicide Bombing

Sweden now becomes another european country that has been  attacked by Muslim extremists. Muslims need to be banned from immigrating to any western country. Why Is Muslim Obama planning on bringing 80,000 Muslims here to America, mostly from Somalia in 2011? Why continue to allow people from countries that want to kill us be given a closer shot at those they want to kill?

Profiling airline passengers is constitutional and effective

The Legal Project

by Daniel Huff

The Daily Caller
December 11, 2010

Last Christmas, it looked like TSA might finally be getting serious.

That day, Umar Abdulmutallab very nearly brought down a jetliner using explosives hidden in his underwear. The agency's response was swift and two-fold.

Body scanners would become the norm in major airports. When TSA first proposed this, prior to the attack, the plan faced fierce opposition. Legislation was even introduced to prohibit it. The near-miss changed the mood. Suddenly, as a former security official put it, critics of the technology had "some explaining to do."

In addition, TSA implemented nationality profiling. US-bound passengers from 14 terrorism-prone countries were automatically subjected to extra screening. This second security protocol was critical because it justified the first. Seeing the government so worried that it began dropping the taboo on profiling made it easier for the public to accept the necessity of full-body scans.

That is why it is so frustrating that TSA continues pressuring passengers to accept scanners despite reneging on its commitment to nationality profiling.

When TSA introduced nationality profiling, it called it "long-term" and "sustainable." However, the policy came under increasing attack from Islamic groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and on April 2, the Obama administration announced it would be scrapped.

If the public is not angrier about this, it is probably because it has been indoctrinated to believe that profiling is unconstitutional.

In actuality, the Supreme Court resoundingly affirmed the basic premise underlying profiling in 1996. The context was a black defendant claiming selective prosecution for dealing crack cocaine. The 9th Circuit agreed, noting all recent prosecutions for that particular crime were of black defendants. It did not demand proof that there were "similarly situated" non-black defendants committing the same crime who went unpunished. The Supreme Court reversed:

The Court of Appeals reached its decision in part because it started "with the presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes — not with the premise that any type of crime is the exclusive province of any particular racial or ethnic group." It cited no authority for this proposition, which seems contradicted by the most recent statistics of the United States Sentencing Commission. Those statistics show: More than 90% of the persons sentenced in 1994 for crack cocaine trafficking were black, 93.4% of convicted LSD dealers were white and 91% of those convicted for pornography or prostitution were white. Presumptions at war with presumably reliable statistics have no proper place in the analysis of this issue.

Indeed, in 2008, in the first post-9/11 case to address the issue, government lawyers argued that Arab ethnicity was relevant to establishing probable cause because "all of the persons who participated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks were Middle Eastern males."

The district court disagreed, saying, "even assuming … that a large proportion of would-be anti-American terrorists are Arabs, the likelihood that any given airline passenger of Arab ethnicity is a terrorist is so negligible that Arab ethnicity has no probative value…."

The error in that argument is that it is equally true of non-Arabs and non-Muslims, so why check anyone. TSA's costly, cumbersome security apparatus is predicated on the belief that terrorists are trying to infiltrate airports. Accordingly, the relevant statistic is not the probability that a random Muslim traveler is a terrorist, which is, of course, small. Rather, it's what statisticians call the conditional probability: Given that a terrorist is attempting to penetrate airport security, what is the probability that he is Muslim. That figure is much higher.

Since the 9/11 attack that spawned TSA, most, if not all, attempted airplane bombings have been perpetrated by individuals claiming to act in the name of Islam. This result is consistent with the suspect profile provided by bin Laden, who characterized would-be bombers as "soldiers of Allah."

The objections from Islamic activists may not even represent broader Muslim opinion. Thanksgiving travelers largely ignored calls for a scanner boycott. In the same spirit, many Muslims may concede profiling is logical and submit to the relatively minor inconvenience of heightened screening in the interest of everyone's safety including their own.

That said, perhaps Thanksgiving travelers should not have been so complacent about body scans. While the weight of the authority insists the technology is safe, it is unsettling that prominent experts remain unconvinced and believe more research is required. These include Dr. David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, who told NPR that there is "convincing evidence" that "there will be some cancers induced…by these X-ray devices."

Scanners may not be the answer, but TSA cannot rely on religious profiling alone. A passenger's religion is not always obvious. Even solid indicators like name and nationality might miss radicalized converts like shoe bomber Richard Reid who traveled under his English name. To account for such cases, profiling must be used in concert with existing screening protocols including random checks.

TSA has to decide whether it's serious or not. If it is, it needs to break the taboo on profiling. Otherwise, it needs to stop annoying air travelers. As the president said in the context of the debate on stem cell research, decisions need to be based on "facts, not ideology."

Daniel Huff is Director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Apparent suicide attack kills one, injures two in central Stockholm

Published 21:42 11.12.10

Latest update 21:42 11.12.10

Apparent suicide attack kills one, injures two in central Stockholm

Threatening email sent right before explosions refers to Sweden's silence surrounding the Mohammed cartoons and its soldiers in Afghanistan.

By The Associated Press

Tags: Israel news Sweden Afghanistan

A car explosion and what appeared to be a suicide attack injured two people, killed the apparent bomber, and caused panic among Christmas shoppers in Stockholm.

Stockholm Police spokeswoman Petra Sjolander said a car exploded Saturday near Drottninggatan, a busy shopping street in the center of the city. Shortly afterward, a second explosion was heard higher up on the same street, and a man was found injured on the ground.

He was later pronounced dead.

Sjolander said it was unclear what caused the second explosion and whether the two blasts were linked, but said a police bomb squad has been sent to the site.

Ten minutes before the blasts, Swedish news agency TT received an email saying "the time has come to take action."

According to the news agency, the email referred to Sweden's silence surrounding artist Lars Vilk's drawing of Muhammad as a dog and its soldiers in Afghanistan.

"Now your children, daughters and sisters shall die like our brothers and sisters and children are dying," the news agency quoted the email as saying.

Police said they were aware of the email, which had also been addressed to Sweden's security police, but couldn't immediately confirm a link to the explosions.

Two people were taken to the hospital with light injuries. It was not immediately clear in which explosion they were hurt.

Rescue services spokesman Roger Sverndal said the car that exploded contained gas canisters.

Gabriel Gabiro, a former AP staffer, heard the second explosion from inside a watch store across the street and saw smoke coming from the area where the man was lying.

"There was a man lying on the ground with blood coming out in the area of his belly, and with his personal belongings scattered around him," he said.

Gabiro said the blast was "quite loud" and he saw people running from the site.

"It shook the store that I was in," he said. "Then there was smoke and gun powder coming into the store."

"I saw some people crying, perhaps from the shock," he said.

Sweden - which has so far been spared any large terrorist attacks - raised its terror threat alert level from low to elevated in October because of "a shift in activities" among Swedish-based groups that could be plotting attacks there.

The security police said then that the terrorism threat in Sweden remained low compared to that in other European countries, and no attack was imminent.

This is what happens when you let Muslims immigrate to your country. They can't coexist. They drain the resources of your welfare system, and eventually they become like cockroaches,  spreading their evil ideology upon society.  Demanding an end to freedom of speech. Calling for Hate Crimes against anyone who dares speak the truth about Islam. Americans need to watch Europe and see what we can expect here if we don't put an end to all the demands of CAIR and others Muslim organizations that are pushing the Muslim way of life upon us.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Ex Israel's envoy to Washington on the long way to peace in the Middle East

IsraeliGirl Blog

The ever alluding peace, the Holy Grail that Israel has been seeking for years, is not here yet. After years of negotiations there are still major obstacles on the way to peace in the Middle East. met with Professor Itamar Rabinovich to discuss the peace process and the way it is viewed by both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Professor Rabinovich was Israel's Ambassador to the US from the years 1992-1996 and is still involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians as part of the 2nd informal circle. The peace process has been going on for many years – do you believe there is a future to that process?

Prof. Rabinovich: The process will take many more years, but I believe there must be a positive outcome since Israel has no choice but to make peace with its neighbors, the Palestinians and Syria. At the end of this process, Israel will remain a strong and thriving country but will be much smaller, style Singapore. This will require many adjustments some of which have already began. For example, we recently learned that the Israeli Air Force is training in Romania. That fact was revealed due to a sad accident but that is part of the reality of a small state.

Though the process is long and will take many more years, we are in the right direction and peace will be achieved eventually. Israel is negotiating with Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority. Considering Abbas does not control Gaza, is he a relevant representative? Can he commit the Palestinians to a peace agreement?

Prof. Rabinovich: With the exception of Israel, there are no democratic societies in the Middle East. So it's not a question of representation but rather is Abbas an effective peace partner. One that can sign an agreement, fulfill it and stand behind it for the long run. Under these criteria, Abbas is not an effective partner for peace. Even if we assume he has full control of the West Bank he does not control Gaza and cannot deliver a full agreement. The Palestinians claim that if Abbas can reach an agreement with the Israeli government, he can go back to his people, call for new elections and win over Hamas.

This is the corridor problem, one of the main issues of the peace process. When Abbas cannot immediately deliver peace results due to Gaza/Hamas problem, any Israeli Prime Minister "walking" down that corridor between the agreement and its delivery is at risk. Despite his limitations, Israel is in fact dealing with Abbas. Please describe what happens when we do reach an agreement?

Prof. Rabinovich: Abbas will present the agreement to the Palestinian people and ask them to support it. Assuming they will support it, the international community will then have to decide what to do with Hamas that will try to sabotage this agreement. We might be able to start to act upon the agreement in the West Bank and leave Gaza to the international community to deal with. Is there any way that Hamas can be part of the negotiations?

Prof. Rabinovich: It is still unclear – there are two main theories. One is that Hamas sees itself as a Palestinian movement. They may be more radical than Fatah but they represent a different generation. While they are vocal about their unwillingness to accept Israel, there might come a moment when Hamas turns around and join the agreement. The other theory claims that Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic movement that can never turn over land to a Jewish state. They can only commit to a lengthy "Hudna" a long term intermediate agreement. It is still unclear which way Hamas will choose. The Palestinians have passed on many opportunities to establish a state of their own. They have recently discussed the possibility of self declaring their own state. How much are they willing to accept the Jewish state?

Prof. Rabinovich: Let's talk about the main stream of the Palestinian people as represented by Fatah. Fatah have accepted the Jewish state through Oslo agreements. But the Palestinians are still having a hard time grasping the concept of the Jewish state. They do not fully comprehend the difference between the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Accepting Israel as a Jewish state has implications for the right of return and the status of Israeli Arabs – two issues which make this demand tough for the Palestinians to swallow.

If you look at the peace process over time, you see what I call the far away horizon effect. When you think you covered all problems a new one is raised. The Arabs call it the Nail of Juha. The story goes like this: Juha had a house. A man asked if he could buy the house, and Juha offered to sell him the entire house, except for one nail. The man was a bit perplexed, but agreed. What difference could one nail make? So the house was sold, Juha moved out, and the man and his family moved in. A few weeks went by, and the man heard a knock on his door. It was Juha, coming to visit his nail. This began to happen more and more, and when the man complained, Juha said, “This nail is mine, and I have the right to see it any time I want.” Juha came by so many times that one day the man and his family stormed out of the house in frustration, saying, “Take your nail and take your house! I don’t want it!”

The fact that every time a new issue rises is part of the reason the peace process is delayed.

As for the Palestinians self declaring their state, it is not a realistic scenario. It will not pass the UN' general council. Furthermore, Abbas may declare the West Bank as a Palestinian state but he does not control Gaza. So the issue of Gaza will turn up immediately. This is not good for the Palestinians. What about the idea that Israel and the West Bank will swap heavily populated regions of Israeli Arabs and Jewish settlers?

Prof. Rabinovich: this solution may work on paper as a mathematical formula but it is not a realistic solution. Simply put, Israeli Arabs will not give up their Israeli citizenship. Despite their empathy to the Palestinian cause they enjoy living in a democratic state with social security benefits, health insurance and freedom to do as they like. They will not have these benefits in a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians are open to the concept of swapping territories but are looking to get clean unpopulated areas in exchange for heavily populated Jewish areas. The right of return seems like a major obstacle. What's your take on this complex issue?

Prof. Rabinovich: I'm not willing to accept the term "right of return". If you look at UN resolution 194, which describe the rights of refugees and on which the Palestinians rely on when discussing the issue, there is no mention of the right of return. When talking about this topic I call it the "claim of return" and here are some points to explain the issue:

•Compared with the 600,000 Palestinians that left when Israel was established. An even larger number of Jews left their homes in Arab states.

•Israel helped those Jews settle in and make a new home. They did not remain refugees. The Palestinians, however, remained refugees in the Arab states that took them in. UNRWA and its food stamps made the problem worse for the Palestinians.

•Practically speaking, there is no way to allow 2-3 million Palestinians into Israel. If this is what you demand, you do not want peace.

•Israel was established in 1948, 3 years after the end of WWII. So many people have been displaced in those years and yet none of them remained refugees. The only people that remained refugees were the Palestinians.

If you talk to a pragmatic Arab leader he'll say OK, I understand, Israel cannot take in 2-3 Million Palestinians. So just accept we have a right of return and take in 50,000 Palestinians. I'm against this categorically. Israel was not established in sin. More ever, over the years, many Israeli Arabs have married Palestinian women. In my estimate about 100,000 Palestinians have returned to Israel that way.

In Camp David summit, Clinton has said that the refugees issue should be resolved either by the Arab States taking in the Palestinian refugees as full citizens or having the refugees return to the Palestinian state, not to Israel. The other major issue is Jerusalem. What do the Palestinian want there?

Prof. Rabinovich: The problem in Jerusalem eventually focuses in the holy area. Palestinians in eastern Jerusalem are not citizens of Israel and there is no issue in adding those neighborhoods to the Palestinian state.

But as for the holy areas in Jerusalem to date there is no solution to this issue. Part of the problem is that the Palestinians turn to the Muslim states on every issue. The Palestinians need a brave leader that will stand up and say I want to reach a resolution on the issue of Jerusalem. When that happens we will be able to find an accepted solution. Our last question deals with the issue of incitement. Despite talking about peace, the Palestinians keep inciting against Israel – how does that work together?

Prof. Rabinovich: Oslo has failed and so the Palestinians keep inciting against Israel. Part of it is through children's TV programs and some is through the efforts to de-legitimize Israel.

As long as there is no peace agreement the Palestinians will keep on spreading hate against Israel

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Whose side is he on? "Disarmed And Dangerous" reveals why America's enemies love Obama's ‘New START'

Center for Security Policy

Nov 30, 2010

For immediate release
For more information, contact Dave Reaboi
Director of Communications, Center for Security Policy or (202) 835-9077

Washington, DC-- The Center for Security Policy today launched an innovative and interactive Youtube feature exposing the danger that Obama's New Start Treaty will disarm America in a threatening world of many emerging nuclear powers. Disarmed & Dangerous: Stop the New START Treaty presents an inventive and interactive video guide to how the treaty, in reality, escalates the threats from China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Watch Disarmed & Dangerous: Stop the New START Treaty now.

As President Obama pressures the Senate leadership to rubber-stamp his "New START" disarmament treaty with Russia, concerns continue to mount that the accord will actually make the world more dangerous, not less.

The case is becoming stronger by the day that senators should defer action on this flawed accord until the 112th Congress is seated - affording an opportunity to explore, debate and, where necessary, correct its defects. For example, recent Wikileaks documents have revealed that: North Korea has developed a sophisticated covert uranium enrichment program; Iran has acquired from Pyongyang nuclear-capable missiles capable of reaching much of Europe; and China has enabled North Korea's proliferation activities.

In unveiling the new video campaign, Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said:

President Obama's claims that the New START Treaty will enhance American security and make the planet safer do not stand up to scrutiny. Neither do his arguments for a truncated debate on this accord. Senators and their constituents need the truth about the Obama administration's dangerous plans to weaken the United States. To get it, they are going to have to reject the bum's rush they are being given - and consider the Treaty when it is possible to do so in a careful and constitutionally appropriate way, namely next year.

The WikiLeaks challenge

Jerusalem Post

Dec 03, 2010

By Caroline Glick 

Make no mistake about it, the ongoing WikiLeaks operation against the US is an act of war. It is not merely a criminal offense to publish hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents with malice aforethought. It is an act of sabotage.

Like acts of kinetic warfare on military battlefields, WikiLeaks' information warfare against the US aims to weaken the US. By exposing US government secrets, it seeks to embarrass and discredit America in a manner that makes it well neigh impossible for the US to carry out either routine diplomacy or build battlefield coalitions to defeat its enemies.

So far WikiLeaks has published more than 800,000 classified US documents. It has exposed classified information about US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and it has divulged 250,000 diplomatic cables.

One of the most distressing aspects of the WikiLeaks operation is the impotent US response to it. This operation has been going on since April. And the US had foreknowledge of the attack in the weeks and months before it began. And yet, the US has taken no effective steps to defend itself. Pathetically, the most it has been able to muster to date is the issuance of an international arrest warrant against WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange on rape charges in Sweden.

The US has not taken down the website. Aside from the US Army soldier Pfc Bradley Manning who leaked most of the documents to the website, no one has been arrested. And the US appears impotent to prevent the website from carrying through on its latest threat to publish new documents aimed at weakening the US economy next month.

Neither US President Barack Obama nor any of his top advisers has had anything relevant or useful to say about this onslaught. Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured journalists that the damage caused by publishing US operations on the battlefield, classified reports of meetings with and assessments of foreign heads of state and other highly sensitive information will have no long lasting impact on US power or status.

Ignoring the fact that the operation is aimed specifically against America, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was "an attack on the international community."

While the expressed aim of the attackers is to weaken the US, Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs called them "criminals, first and foremost." And US Attorney-General Eric Holder said he's checking the law books to figure out how to prosecute WikiLeaks personnel.

The leaked documents themselves expose a profound irony. To wit: The US is unwilling to lift a finger to defend itself against an act of information warfare which exposed to the world that the US is unwilling to lift a finger to protect itself and its allies from the most profound military threats endangering international security today.

In spite of the unanimity of the US's closest Arab allies that Iran's nuclear installations must be destroyed militarily - a unanimity confirmed by the documents revealed by WikiLeaks - the US has refused to take action. Instead it clings to a dual strategy of sanctions and engagement that everyone recognizes has failed repeatedly and has no chance of future success.

In spite of proof that North Korea is transferring advanced ballistic missiles to Iran through China, again confirmed by the illegally released documents, the US continues to push a policy of engagement based on a belief that there is value to China's vote for sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. It continues to push a policy predicated on its unfounded faith that China is interested in restraining North Korea.

In spite of the fact that US leaders including Gates recognize that Turkey is not a credible ally and that its leaders are radical Islamists, as documented in the classified documents, the US has agreed to sell Turkey a hundred F-35s. The US continues to support Turkish membership in the EU and of course embraces Turkey as a major NATO ally.

The publication of the US's true feelings about Turkey has not made a dent in its leaders' unwillingness to contend with reality. On the heels of the WikiLeaks exposure of thousands of documents from the US Embassy in Ankara discussing Turkish animosity towards America, Clinton flew to Turkey for the first leg of what The New York Times referred to as an "international contrition tour."

There she sucked up to the likes of Turkish Foreign Minister and Islamist ideologue Ahmet Davutoglu, who was kind enough to agree with Clinton's assertion that the publication of the State Department cables was "the 9/11 of diplomacy."

THE MOST important question that arises from the entire WikiLeaks disaster is why the US refuses to defend itself and its interests. What is wrong with Washington? Why is it allowing WikiLeaks to destroy its international reputation, credibility and ability to conduct international relations and military operations? And why has it refused to contend with the dangers it faces from the likes of Iran and North Korea, Turkey, Venezuela and the rest of the members of the axis of evil that even State Department officers recognize are colluding to undermine and destroy US superpower status?

The answer appears to be twofold. First, there is an issue of cowardice.

American leaders are afraid to fight their enemies. They don't want a confrontation with Iran or North Korea, or Venezuela or Turkey for that matter, because they don't want to deal with difficult situations with no easy answers or silver bullets to make problems disappear.
WikiLeaks showed that there is no Israel lobby plotting to bring the US into a war to serve Jewish interests. There is something approaching an international consensus that Iran is the head of the snake that must be cut off, as the Saudi potentate described it.

Yet that consensus opinion has fallen on deaf American ears for the past seven years. This despite the fact that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration certainly recognized that if the US were to attack Iran's nuclear installations or help Israel do so, despite all the theater of public handwringing and finger- wagging at Israel, the Arabs and the Europeans and Asians would celebrate the operation.

THE SECOND explanation for this behavior is ideological. The Obama administration will not take concerted action against WikiLeaks because doing so will compromise its adherence to leftist politically correct nostrums.

Those views assert that there is something fundamentally wrong with the assertion of US power and therefore the US has no right to defend itself. Moreover, nothing the Arabs or any other non-Western governments do is a function of their will. Rather it is a function of their response to US or Israeli aggression.

So it is that in the wake of the WikiLeaks disclosures that put paid the fiction that Israel is behind the fuss over Iran's nuclear weapons program, Juan Cole, the anti-Israel ideologue and conspiracy theorist favored by the Obama administration, published an article in The Guardian proclaiming that Israel is to blame for Saudis' fear of Iran. If the Arab masses weren't so worked up over Israeli aggression in Gaza, he claimed, the Saudi leadership wouldn't have been upset about Iran.

It is this sort of non sequitur that allows the Obama administration to continue pretending that the world is not a hard place and that there are no problems that cannot be solved by pressuring Israel.

So too, Fred Kaplan at Slate online magazine claimed that the leaks showed that the Obama administration's foreign policy is successful because it succeeded in getting China on board with UN sanctions against Iran. But of course, what the documents show is that China is breaching those sanctions, rendering the entire exercise at the UN worthless.

And the Left's voice of "reason," the New York Times editorial page, lauded the Obama administration for its courage in rejecting the pleas of Arab states and Israel and fiddling while Iranian centrifuges spin. According to the Times, true courage consists of defying reality, strategic necessity and allies to defend the dogmas of political correctness.

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate how fecklessly the US is behaving is by comparing its actions to those of Israel, which suffered a similar, if far smaller case of data theft earlier this year.

In April, the public learned that towards the end of her IDF service, a secretary in the office of the commander of Central Command named Anat Kamm copied some 2,000 highly secret documents onto her zip drive. After leaving the army she was hired as a reporter by the far-left Walla news portal, which was then partially owned by the far-left Haaretz newspaper. Kamm gave the documents she stole to Haaretz reporter Uri Blau, who began publishing them in November 2008.

Haaretz used its considerable power to discredit the investigation of Kamm and Blau by falsely telling foreign reporters that the story was an issue of press freedom and that Kamm was being persecuted as a journalist rather than investigated for treason she committed while serving in the military.

In the face of the predictable international outcry, Israel stuck to its guns. Kamm is on trial for stealing state secrets with the intent of harming state security and Blau, who fled to London, returned to Israel with the stolen documents.

While there is much to criticize in Israel's handling of the case, there is no doubt that despite its international weakness, Israeli authorities did not shirk their duty to defend state secrets.

THE FINAL irony of the WikiLeaks scandal is the cowardice of WikiLeaks that stands at the foundation of the story. Founded in 2006, Wikileaks was supposed to serve the cause of freedom. It claimed that it would defend dissidents in China, the former Soviet Union and other places where human rights remains an empty term. But then China made life difficult for WikiLeaks and so four years later, Assange and his colleagues declared war on the US, rightly assuming that unlike China, the US would take their attacks lying down. Why take risks to defend dissidents in a police state when it's so much easier and so much more rewarding to attempt to destroy free societies?

Assange and company are hardly the first to take this course. Human Rights Watch, created to fight for those crushed under the Soviet jackboot, now spends its millions of George Soros dollars to help terrorists in their war against the US and Israel. Amnesty International forgot long ago that it was founded to help prisoners of police states and instead devotes itself to attacking the imaginary evils of the Jewish state and Western democracies.

And that brings us to the real question raised by the WikiLeaks assault on America. Can democracies today protect themselves? In the era of leftist political correctness with its founding principle that Western power is evil and that the freedom to harm democracies is inviolate, can democracies defend their security and national interests?

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post