Category Archives: counterterrorism

Let Me Be Imperfectly Clear

Sad Saga Of Homeland Security
America In Shackles

JUST TO PUT a sharper and more proper point on the stick that drives home the point by highlighting a few rhetoricals...

Why is my utter disdain of and rugged resistance to this wildly constructed totalitarianism called Islam a "prejudice" whereas my dislike of, say, communism or nazism (which are quite similar in ideological make-up when we sort the lies from the subterfuge), would be a political opinion? Why am I expected to automatically approve of any belief system supposedly grounded in the supernatural? Why is my reliance on reason considered inferior to their "faith" even when that faith orders great numbers of them to hate and kill all "infidels" and all of them to various other methods of aggression against said infidel?

Clearly, there are too damn many frightened little children running around this world in grown-up clothes ready to throw a tantrum if someone spoils their favorite fairy tale. The Muslims are by far the most pernicious contenders in this category.

I am not "prejudiced" against Islam. I detest it as a matter of conviction.

Educate yourselves America before it's too late, and remember, there are a myriad of strategic reasons why multiculturalism and the politically corrupted will seek to smother the truth in sickly sweet-smelling lies at every turn. But the bottom line America is fiscally and morally bankrupt. Global players are wrestling for strategic domination, and our leadership dances with our enemies and pacifies our attackers by acting like puppets, especially the Left. But realize that the Right is complicit, as well. Just educate yourself. Be certain of your sources as the BIG LIE is in vogue, but the truth is out there, and it's probably already in your heart. Knowledge will keep it there.

But the hour is getting late, said the joker to the thief...

Confused? Well, begin here with the Geert Wilders free speech case now going on in the Netherlands. Let me be imperfectly clear: it is a farce, but is European sensibility. Let's not embrace this menace of political correctness favoring these Islamic invaders.

Tracking The Paradox Of Tolerance

Just in case some of my friends and foes alike can't figure this out for themselves, here's one of the 20th century's most persuasive philosophers writing against the tide of totalitarian ideologies. In support of capitalism and the freedom to fail or succeed while empowering the individual in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Karl Popper is plainly spoken in his rejection of Plato and his anti-individualist descendents:

all we are saying
Funniest and most insightful riff on this sad topic I've seen...

UNLIMITED TOLERANCE MUST LEAD to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

—Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Islamic Violations Of Trust, Inc.

Dear Gabriel,

The article below reports that a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard was arrested on terrorist-related charges after being fingered by an informant. How the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (The Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC) and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) reacted is a perfect illustration of “properly understanding the times,” as discussed in our Monday and Tuesday emails this week.

Did the MPAC and CAIR denounce the alleged activities of the man who was arrested? Of course not. Following their predictably worn-out script, these two organizations attacked the FBI and law enforcement authorities for “violating the trust” of Muslims by working with an informant who infiltrated a mosque. Here’s one sentence from MPAC’s response:
“Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques.”

Notice the insinuation, that the man arrested was “instigated” by a paid federal informant. The man arrested isn’t responsible—the “devil made him do it!” This is the same kind of response organizations like MPAC and CAIR make whenever a Muslim is arrested or suspected of terrorist-related activities. They attack law enforcement, or politicians, or groups and people they call “Islamophobic.” They play the “offended victim” card, complaining that the latest action violates “trust” between Muslims and law enforcement.

This is the same script Islamic militants and leaders have followed for years in Europe and Great Britain.

Here’s what violates trust—Islamic organizations and spokespeople who refuse to acknowledge that there a lot of people in their community of faith who want to hurt America, kill Americans, and impose shariah law on America.

Here’s what violates trust—Islamic organizations and spokespeople who claim perpetual victim status for Islamic radicals, and who claim that Americans are the aggressors, when in fact it is the radicals who are the aggressors and Americans are the victims.

We don’t see FBI informants and undercover criminal investigations inside churches and synagogues, and there’s an obvious reason why. If MPAC and CAIR are genuinely and sincerely concerned about “trust,” they would do well to stop attacking Americans and law enforcement and start denouncing the real violators of our trust—the radical Muslims in our midst who intend us harm.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And that gives us an advantage—because we can predict with a high degree of accuracy what the Islamists will do next. Their “script” isn’t hard to read. We just have to expose them and refuse to play the role they’re trying to foist on us.

Muslim Agitation

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD in the United States is reacting to the arrest of a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. An AP report describes the case as follows:

In the California case, information about the informant who spied on the Islamic Center of Irvine came out last week at a detention hearing for a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, an Afghan native and naturalized U.S. citizen named Ahmadullah Niazi. Niazi, 34, was arrested Feb. 20 on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. He will be arraigned Monday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana. FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Ropel III testified at the hearing that an FBI informant infiltrated Niazi’s mosque and several others in Orange County and befriended Niazi.

Ropel said the informant recorded Niazi on multiple occasions talking about blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to the Afghan mujahadeen. Niazi has not been charged with terrorism and it’s not yet clear if the FBI was focused on anything beyond his activities. Neither the mosque nor any other of its members have been charged. A 46-year-old fitness instructor told The Associated Press last week he was the informant.

Craig Monteilh of Irvine said Niazi talked about blowing up buildings and discussed sending Monteilh to a terrorist training camp in Yemen or Pakistan. Monteilh said his tenure as an informant ended after Niazi and other members of the Islamic Center of Irvine reported him to authorities. A Muslim advocacy group has demanded a federal investigation into whether Niazi was arrested because he refused to become an FBI informant after telling the agency about Monteilh.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has reacted by stating that the use of informants in mosques “stigmatizes” the mosques and erodes trust. According an article on the MPAC website:

Trust is the cornerstone of any partnership between law enforcement and communities. It can only be established and maintained through clear and open communication. Without this, trust is eroded and suspicions arise on all sides. This clearly does not serve anyone’s interests.Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques. This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors.

It has also led many mosques and community groups to reconsider their relationship with the FBI, including most recently the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. It is now up to the FBI and law enforcement agencies to re-engage with the Muslim American community, and re-build trust and respect. MPAC will continue to raise these community concerns with federal law enforcement officials in its efforts to help form policies that preserve civil liberties while also protecting our nation.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that is planning to file a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest:

On Tuesday, February 24, the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) will host a news conference to announce the filing of a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest last week of Ahmad Niazi. The news conference will immediately follow a court hearing Tuesday for Niazi in Santa Ana, Calif. Members of his family will take part in the news conference. Mr. Niazi is charged with perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud, and making a false statement to a federal agency. He claims the charges are in retaliation for his refusal to become an FBI informant. Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR-LA and other community members that, during a raid of a friend’s house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a “living hell.”

MPAC was established in the mid 1980’s by individuals whose backgrounds are likely rooted in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and since its inception has acted in concert with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The organization, like other U.S. Brotherhood organizations, has a long history of fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and support for terrorism. The organization has long enjoyed generally good relations with the U.S. government and functions essentially as the political lobbying arm of the U.S. Brotherhood.

Documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being part of the U.S. Brotherhood. Investigative research posted on GMBDR had determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and is an integral part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with a long history of support for fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism. Numerous earlier posts have reported on the relationship between the FBI and CAIR which appears to have been terminated by the FBI.

Both organizations have long histories of opposing almost all elements of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. CAIR in particular has defended numerous individuals accused and/or convicted of terrorism offenses and a number of CAIR employees have also been convicted of terrorism.

CAIR Strikes In Predictable Fashion

Congressman Sue Myrick
Congressman Sue Myrick

IN THE PAST SEVEN DAYS, evidence surfaced that the FBI was cutting off its primary contacts with CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), after CAIR refused to address FBI questions about CAIR's relationship to Hamas (a designated terrorist organization). Then, five members of Congress sent a letter to other members of Congress entitled "Beware of CAIR," citing the evidence that the FBI had severed ties with CAIR.

Click here to read the letter.

CAIR has responded in its predictable timeworn fashion—attack the messengers. The commentary below, fetched from the website of SANE (Society of Americans for National Existence), includes the response letter that CAIR sent to Congresswoman Sue Myrick, a Republican from Charlotte, North Carolina, and co-chair of the House Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

One line in CAIR's letter is particularly telling: "If enduring these baseless attacks from you is part of God's price for freedom, we embrace them."

Playing the victim, or in this case, the martyr, is a common tactic among Islamists. In CAIR's world, any critique or criticism of it, no matter how reasoned or documented, is anti-Muslim bigotry. For CAIR to claim that allegations against it are "baseless" is, well, baseless.

Why would the FBI finally make the decision it did to sever ties with CAIR if there was no basis for doing so? Why would the Justice Department list CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial if there was no basis for doing so? Why would an FBI agent, testifying under oath during that trial, label CAIR as a front organization for Islamist extremism if there was no basis for saying so?

The answer is they wouldn't.

The CAIR "scare letter" to Congresswoman Sue Myrick can be downloaded HERE.

Sue Myrick
Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC)

When Representative Sue Myrick learned that the FBI had severed its connections with and ties to CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington, D.C., she understood the significance of this event. On the one hand, the US Attorneys prosecuting the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (the largest Muslim charity in the US post-9/11), CAIR Texas officials and others for materially supporting terrorism in the Middle East had taken the unprecedented step to publicly identify CAIR, ISNA, and other such groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF criminal trial. On the other hand, members of the FBI would use CAIR as a sounding board for the "Muslim community" notwithstanding the lack of any evidence that CAIR represents anyone much less a "Muslim community" known largely for its lack of community organization.

As a result, Rep. Myrick, who is deeply involved in counterterrorism issues in Congress, wrote a letter outlining this new awareness by the FBI to her congressional colleagues. In return, and almost precisely on cue, CAIR went on the offensive in an abject display of desperation.

But the obligation of Jizyah and along with it the mention of their subordination is a clear proof that the purpose is to smash their grandeur, so that the veils of their domination should be raised and people get a free chance to think over the blessings of Islam.
In the midst of their explanation that they are just a "civil rights organization" defending the downtrodden and oppressed among Muslims in America, they launch into a personal attack on Rep. Myrick, and this organization, SANE. (That letter is available above in PDF format for download at the unique URL for this entry.)

What CAIR has done here they have done before and will continue to do in the future. SANE, David Yerushalmi, Rep. Myrick, Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Dr. Andy Bostom, Frank Gaffney, Brigitte Gabriel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tawfiq Hamid, and many others, have taken on the difficult but critically important task to identify precisely the Enemy Common Threat Doctrine which animates the worldwide jihad against unbelievers and the West generally. This doctrine is of course Shariah or Islamic law. This doctrine commands the faithful to engage in the conversion, subjugation or murder of those who resist Shariah's call for submission to a worldwide hegemony called a caliphate.

CAIR's approach to public discourse on this subject, however, is to take writings out of context and to conceal the careful and thoughtful analysis of Shariah and to distort that body of work into a caricature of simple anti-Muslim bigotry.

We have responded to this ad hominem approach in broad strokes but for those interested, the more telling response to CAIR is to simply quote two of the most authoritative and "mainstream" Shariah authorities in the world. The first is the Dow Jones Shariah advisor Mufti Taqi Usmani, who has written a book on how a "good" Muslim ought to behave while living among the infidels in the West. In that book, published in 1999 in English and available on, Usmani wrote:

I am in receipt of your esteemed letter. Whatever you have written about Jehad can be summarized as this "If a non-Muslim state allows for preaching Islam in its country, Jehad against it does not remain lawful." If this is what you mean, my humble self does not agree with it. Obstruction in the way of preaching Islam does not mean only a legal obstacle, but greater power or domination of a non-Muslim state against Muslims is by itself a great obstacle in the propagation of Islam. There are no legal restrictions in most of the countries today on preaching Islam, but since their grandeur and authority is established in the world, it has led to developing a universal feeling which forms a greater obstacle than the greatest legal binding in the way of free propagation of Islam.

For this reason the most important purpose of Jehad is to break this grandeur so that the resulting psychological subordination should come to an end and the way of accepting the Truth become smooth. As long as this grandeur and domination persists the hearts of people will remain subdued and will not be fully inclined to accept the religion of Truth. Hence Jehad will continue. The Qur'an said in Sura Tauba:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Here, killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay Jizyah [subjugation tax on non-Muslims] after they are humbled or overpowered. If the purpose of killing was only to acquire permission and freedom of preaching Islam, it would have been said "until they allow for preaching Islam." But the obligation of Jizyah and along with it the mention of their subordination is a clear proof that the purpose is to smash their grandeur, so that the veils of their domination should be raised and people get a free chance to think over the blessings of Islam. Imam Razi has written the following commentary on this verse:

The purpose of "Jizyah" is not to let the unbelievers stay in their contumacy against Islam but sparing their lives to give them a chance for a time during which they may hopefully get convinced of the truth of Islam and embrace it. So when an unbeliever is given time wherein he would be observing the respect and honour of Islam, and hearing the arguments of its validity, and also observing the baselesness of disbelief, these things would convince him to turn towards Islam. This, in fact, is the real purpose of legalizing Jizyah.

Let's be clear. The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; unbelievers must either be converted, or subjugated, or killed. And CAIR is just one front on that war, the two-faced public front. We are encouraged the veil has been ripped back on this treasonous group.
According to CAIR and its national leadership, the most important and authoritative Shariah authority for them and their Muslim Brotherhood associates is Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Mr. Qaradawi is well known for his fatwa ordering the mujahideen of Afghanistan and Iraq to murder American combat soldiers and civilian contractors. He has also issued a fatwa authorizing the suicide-murder of any Jew in Israel—man, woman, or child. He is quoted from Al-Jazeera television. as follows:

Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. Oh Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, oh our God. Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers—oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.

If CAIR were interested in a real discussion of these matters, as they suggest in their letter to Rep. Myrick, they have lacked neither opportunities nor platforms. Instead, they engage in the rankest form of ad hominem attacks and issue statements denouncing "terrorism" and the murder of "innocents" and the need for "justice" in the world. But anyone who has spent any time studying this Shariah propaganda understands it for what it is. All of the Shariah authorities, including OBL (who is not himself a Shariah authority), issue the same pronouncements because, per Shariah, jihad is not "terror"; the "killing of infidels" is not the "murder of innocents"; and "justice" is only achieved, as Mufti Usmani and Sheikh Qaradawi tell us ever so clearly, when Shariah-Islam rules the world and CAIR and its minions can shed their western disguises and apply Shariah's rule of law without apology or ruse and dominate all others who continue to resist Shariah-Islam.

David Yerushalmi

Full disclosure: CAIR focuses attention on David Yerushalmi because he is representing several African American Muslims who are suing CAIR in federal court for racketeering, fraud and other crimes. For more information, CLICK HERE for the FrontPage interview with Yerushalmi.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Manager for Civil Rights” at the now defunct CAIR MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for assistance and who had paid for CAIR legal services.

Need to learn more about the ravages of Islam? D.S. Margoliouth and Joseph Schacht have recently been reprinted. Antoine Fattal's book on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam never went out of print. K. S. Lal is easily obtained. Tritton, Arthur Jeffery, Armand Abel, Georges Henri Bousquet, Snouck Hurgronje—they are all about to be reprinted, at least in relevant part. Of course, I don't think for a minute that Esposito, or any of his crew, are familiar with any of these great scholars, and dozens more. I doubt they've even read them. They seem actually to believe that the only person to have written about dhimmitude is Bat Ye'or, whom they like to airily dismiss as "polemical" so that they will not have to confront her meticulous, scrupulous, and irrefutable scholarship.

Let's be clear. The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; unbelievers must either be converted, or subjugated, or killed. And CAIR is just one front on that war, the two-faced public front. We are encouraged the veil has been ripped back on this treasonous group.

Cheney Cautions Nation On Obama

Former VP Dick Cheney

STOKING THE FIRES of American political intrigue, we have a new interview of former Vice President Dick Cheney speaking of the Obama camp to gnaw. Oddly, the words of Mr. Cheney sound very much like the words of the man now occupying his former suite at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Yes. Who can forget Joltin' Joe Biden's dire warning on the campaign trail just as things were heating up?

The incoming administration's controversial new policies on Guantanamo Bay prison and the treatment of detainees makes it more likely a terrorist attack against the United States will succeed, according to Cheney. In an interview with Politico, the former vice president issued a stringent defense of the Bush administration's record on the war on terror, and said he worries the President Obama has already made the country more vulnerable.

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said in the interview published Wednesday.

Cheney also predicted the Obama administration is likely to backtrack on its pledge to end coercive interrogation techniques, since the protection of the United States from terrorists is a "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business.”

"These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek," he said.

The blunt comments come two weeks after President Obama issued executive orders that will close Guantanamo Bay within a year, and shut down secret CIA prisons abroad. Obama also signed an executive order calling on U.S. personnel to follow the Army Field Manual's guidelines when it comes to interrogation. In the interview, Cheney suggested Obama was irresponsibly adhering to “campaign rhetoric,” and called Guantanamo Bay a “first-class program.”

Hold on tight. This is to be a rough ride.

Next point. Much has been made of the US ties to Saudi Arabia, even in this column, but I am willing to concede ever so cautiously the tightrope the US must walk in combatting this vicious enemy. While my contempt for Saudi Arabia is robust, and I am particularly outraged by the intensity at which they finance their Wahabbi madrassas within this country and elsewhere without so much as a speed bump thrown out by the State Department, let's be very clear about the prosecution of today's global war. I would now argue that for VP Cheney to have condemned the Saudis in the first years after the attacks on September 11, would have been similar to the difficulty of FDR reading the riot act to the Soviet Union during WWII.

Just as Joe Stalin was villainous and stoking the fires of Marxist discontent in the West even while we were allies with the bastard, so it is with the House of Saud in this present war against yet another totalitarianism. Cheney is fully three-dimensional. It's a shame geopolitics has to be this complicated but it is.

But we've got to readdress this issue. For years, proponents of Western, especially US, backing for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo have been assuring us that we would be acting as midwife for the ever-elusive peaceful, tolerant, democratic, et cetera Islam. As now-Vice President Joe Biden once put it, US support for an independent Kosovo was to have been a “much-needed example of a successful US-Muslim partnership.”

The predicate of such “partnership” was of course the absence of the radical, violent jihad ideology found—well, pretty much everywhere else in the Islamic world. Now comes one of the premier apologists for Balkan Islam, Stephen Schwartz, confirming in The Weekly Standard that—big surprise!—Kosovo and Bosnia, not to mention nearby areas of southern Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, are threatened by “Saudi-financed, ultrafundamentalist Wahhabi” agitation.

That, plus all the Saudi wings for Islamic Studies now financed and housed within nearly every major campus of higher learning on American soil, leads me to say, "Washington, we have a problem!"

And to quote the indefatigable Hugh Fitzgerald once again...

"There is no end to this. And it will not come to an end if India hands over Kashmir to Muslim rule, if all Serbs are booted out of Kosovo, if Israel is squeezed back into the 1949 Armistice Lines (the "llines of Auschwitz"), if Afghanistan becomes the private preserve of the Taliban, if China gives up Xinjiang, if Thailand gives up southern Thailand, if the Philippines gives up the Moro islands, if Father Zakaria is permanently silenced and the Copts permanently terrorized, if the Maronites all flee Lebanon for Montreal, if Christians living as quietly as they can inIraq are killed or expelled, if every single Christian or other non-Muslim living in Dar al-Islam is expelled—no, there is no end to this."

Unless the rest of the world finally resolves to fight for its culture, its history, its very life. Unfortunately, there remains a strong stupifaction to ignore the obvious in place across America, Europe, and elsewhere. Abandoned to our own lusts and shame, may God deliver us all...

Legalizing Terror In America With Benefits

Married To Children
Islam, Where Old Men Bethrothing Children Is A Legal Delicacy
IF ISLAM WITH ITS TERRORIST FOUNDER, role model and long bloody history gets all the fringe benefits, social largesse and tax breaks shouldn’t all other violent gangs with terrorist founders get the same benefits?

Was the founder of the Muslim gang mentality any less violent and hateful than Shoko Asahara of “Aum Shinkryo”, David Duke of K.K.K., Charles Manson of “The Family,” William Ayers of “Weather Underground” or gang-leaders of MS-13? Certainly not. Didn’t the founder of Islam kill and rob more people, enslave and rape more women than all the above mentioned gangsters combined? Isn't Mohammed considered the perfect example of an exemplary model of man, a man privileged to be unquestioned and instead, shamelessly imitated in all his ways. At least these other gangsters had the decency of not killing their own gang members and showing them mercy, but Prophet of Islam had no such reservations. He had his own followers burned alive when they got out of line. Meanwhile here another peek into Mohammed.

Type 1. Ticks the “Muslim” box on forms. Watches al Jazeera. Doesn’t drink in front of the children.

Type 2. Goes to mosque on Fridays. Buys Halal meat.

Type 3. Prays five times a day. Neat beards and headscarves. Advocates the non-violent bits of Sharia law.

Type 4. Supports full Sharia law, and world-wide Caliphate. Understands abrogation. Bushy beards and rent-a-tents.

Type 5. Taliban and al Qaeda.

Read it all at this website created by ex-Muslims.

And while the most gruesome of news continues to reach some of us concerning the volatility of global Islam on the rise, other oddball Islamic-inspired events also contribute to a mountain of evidence for concern to those of us who might wish for world peace if the question wasn't so damned contentious as to who gets to make the rules for that peace, such as this snippet from Kuwait, so many in the West sleep:

The only two women in Kuwait's executive branch risk being driven out from the government. The parliamentary legal committee has decided that their presence violates the constitution and the law, because they do not wear the hijab, the Islamic veil. The committee's statement will now be submitted to voting by the fifty members of parliament.

The Kuwaiti parliament is dominated by conservatives, who had four of the seven seats on the committee. But three "liberals" also voted against the two women. "The committee unanimously decided that appointing the two ministers in the cabinet violated article 82 of the constitution and article one of the election law for failing to abide by Islamic regulations," says Ali al-Hajeri, spokesman for the legal and legislative committee.

The two women under accusation are education minister Nuriya al-Sebih and administrative development minister Mudhi al-Humoud. Appointed following the elections on May 17, the two women immediately met with negative reactions from conservatives. At its first session, on June 1, parliament approved submission of the matter to the committee, which has now decided. That same day, as cabinet members took the oath, nine parliamentarians left the hall in protest against the "un-Islamic" attire of the two women. As one wit put it, guess in Kuwait you need to be a Type 3 Muslim to get along.


Type 1. Ticks the “Muslim” box on forms. Watches al Jazeera. Doesn’t drink in front of the children.

Type 2. Goes to mosque on Fridays. Buys Halal meat.

Type 3. Prays five times a day. Neat beards and headscarves. Advocates the non-violent bits of Sharia law.

Type 4. Supports full Sharia law, and world-wide Caliphate. Understands abrogation. Bushy beards and rent-a-tents.

Type 5. Taliban and al Qaeda.

Like VP candidate Joe Biden said, "Gird yourself, people. It's going to get rough."

Flags of Islam


THE MISNAMED WAR ON TERROR takes more casualties. The smiling day is overcast. The incessant caterwauling continues. Lest we forget who we are fighting in the name of freedom and liberty, regardless of the soil, the oil, the misery, the toil, let's turn an eye to the flags of our enemies, before the Marxist Left and the Unrepairable George Bush completely miss the point.

Note that the flag of Islam in the era of its warlord prophet was solid black. Someone over there in the Camp of Islam should notice that the would-be renewed caliphate has lost its path, forsaken the mores of Mohammed, and abandon the green flag with white crescent facing right with a five pointed star (shown above) to return to its all-black all the time flag. Makes sense, at least as far as following the often incomprehensible halal and haram strictures of the flag waving thuggery.

In fact, I have seen pictures of Middle Eastern Muslims toting the solid black flag. Those hardliners must be the Al-Qaeda reps in the crowd. Hey, there's a clue for the Crusaders. Grab it, destroy it, ban it from ever flying again, much like the West has done to the Nazi flag.