Archive for the ‘Jihad’ Category

Jesus Incites Violence

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

Oh, wait, no, sorry; that would be Mohammad who incites violence amongst his devout.

Osama bin Laden’s communiqués have also quoted the Koran copiously. In his 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” he quotes seven Koran verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious “Verse of the Sword,” 9:5. Bin Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Koran quotations, both of a martial bent: “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” (22:39) and “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan” (4:76).”

One pro-Osama website put it this way: “The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Koran with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Koran, knowing that Muslims who understand the Koran will not distance themselves from Jihad.”

And yet, Spencer points out, it is not the kufaars, the non-believers, who need to be worried about harassment and, uh, getting killed and stuff. No, no.

Silly me. I thought that after an Islamic jihadist murdered twelve innocent non-Muslims, it would be the non-Muslims who would need reassuring and protecting. But of course that non-existent backlash takes priority over 12 dead unbelievers.

“Some Muslims fear backlash after rampage: In the wake of Fort Hood tragedy, Houston authorities try to assure the faithful steps are being taken to keep followers safe,” by Moises Mendoza and Lindsay Wise for the Houston Chronicle, November 7:

In Houston, government officials have been working to reassure Muslims that they’re safe, pointing out that there have been few cases of retaliation locally after previous attacks involving Muslims.

There have been few cases anywhere. So few that CAIR has had to invent them.

As always, I have to say (just because, so far, anyway, I can, and because it really upsets some people): There is no god, not even Allah, and Mohammad, may piss be upon him, was no prophet, but a child molesting mass-murderer.


Tom Maguire, over at JustOneMinute, points out “Some dots just can’t be connected.” He points to this piece from the New York Post:

What interpretation of Islam influ enced Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? As often before, the trail leads to the official sect of Saudi Arabia — known as Wahhabism to most of us of who denounce it.

We’ve also learned that, before his transfer to Ft. Hood last year, Hasan served as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, and regularly attended Friday prayer at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md.

The Silver Spring clerics have issued formal statements condemning the carnage at Ft. Hood. But Imam Faizul Khan, long the main prayer leader at the mosque and a friend of Hasan, said he never believed Hasan capable of such an act.

Yet what docrines did Hasan absorb at the mosque? While he was a communicant, it hosted at least four talks by Enver Masud, the founder of The Wisdom Fund, the main Muslim “truther” group in America [link, link].

And Khan is a leading board member of the Islamic Society of North America — the main Wahhabi-lobby group in the United States, established by Saudi Arabia to impose extremism on American Muslims. ISNA has a long and disgraceful record of promoting radical Islam.

Read the whole thing for the links.

Here’s the problem: it’s cover-ups, misdirection, and denial like the Chronicle engages that will eventually result in exactly the kind of “backlash” they claim to be trying to head off.

The NYPost gets it more right:

Confronting the role of radical Islam here is not Islamophobic, but common sense — and the first response moderate Muslims themselves will have.

“More right”, because the only way to ensure that moderate Muslims confront radical Islam, and pull it out by the roots, is to make America a very uncomfortable place for Muslims generally as part of the aftermath of incidents like Ft. Hood.

Let me point out that I believe the overwhelming majority of American Muslims to be “moderate”, i.e., non-observant or minimally observant, about on par with most American Christians.

However, we absolutely must hold the moderates responsible for the actions of the jihadists sheltering among them.

They should be every bit as afraid as the rest of us should be. Coddling them, and their viper brethren, is close to suicide.

QotD: “The very model of a modern major massacre”

Friday, November 6th, 2009

Please forgive me for laughing when I read Tam’s headline on her View From the Porch post.

The whole thing is that good, short, and well worth the read.

The cherry on the icing of the cake of the night was the mealy-mouthed General Cone simpering from the lectern about “We don’t go armed around here, this is our home,” which caused me to look at the loaded pistol on the nightstand in bafflement. I thought Texas had that “Castle Doctrine” thing? I know Texans on the internets are always bragging about how it’s legal for them to shoot someone stealing their hubcaps after dark, so I’m pretty sure a guy Allahu Akhbar-ing his way through a hospital waiting room gets the green light in the target selection sweepstakes.

Female Police Officer Heroically Wounded….

Friday, November 6th, 2009

… protecting unarmed, defenseless American soldiers being shot on American soil in an American military base by a Muslim jihadist wearing an American uniform, sworn to save lives as doctor, and sworn to defend the Constitution as a soldier himself, but mostly sworn to kill those who kill the followers of Allah.
alg_kimberly_munley

Kimberly Munley, thank you for stopping this outrageous attack.

Officer Munley, you were the hero of the day yesterday. Whatever a skeptic’s prayers may be worth, you have mine. You certainly have my admiration and gratitude, as well as the gratitude of the soldiers and families who were spared further grief by your bravery.

Well done. Very well done indeed.

[This story subject to change as real reporters get out the details that the entertainment media of CNN, MSNBC, AP, and so forth, are frantically trying to hide.]

Why, Sure He Can! He’s The One!

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Via the Sipsey Street Irregulars:
obama4As Mike and many of his commenters say, Islam, Communism, and Nazism are all variants of collectivism. Most peacenik types are inspired by Communist, or at least Socialist, ideology, although many are not aware of that.

So, yeah, absolutely: call him any of those things. You won’t be far wrong.

Islamic Water

Saturday, August 15th, 2009

This [Youtube video] has got to be seen to be believed. Scientists exposed water to Islamic scriptures, and obtained “beautiful crystals”. This “microscopically confirmed islam is the correct religion.”
islamicwater450

Praise Allah! Peace be upon Him! Islamic water forms beautiful, intricate, six-sided crystals!

Also known as “snowflakes”, you ignorant desert bandits. You should visit the poles, where there’s plenty of snow to embrace.

Oh, and you should probably capitalize the name of your religion, or the very rocks and trees will cry out, “There is an illiterate terrorist hiding behind me! Come and kill him!”

As always:

There is no god, not even Allah, and Mohammed, may piss be upon him, was no prophet, but a child-molesting mass murder.

I await the opportunity to embrace my fatwah, damn it.

Tip of the ski mask to Ghost of a Flea.

“Who’s On First?” At The State Department

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

Via Protein Wisdom and Powerline, Anne Bayefsky brings this scary funny briefing from The Big O’s Department of State:

Ian Kelly, State Department Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC

TRANSCRIPT: June 30, 2009, 12:37 p.m. EDT

QUESTION: On Iran, now that the Guardian Council has announced its decision and announced Ahmadinejad as the final winner with even more votes than before, is that enough for the U.S. Government, or are you still going to wait and see what happens on the street and by the opposition?

MR. KELLY: …as the Secretary said yesterday, we’re very concerned about what’s happening in Iran…And I think this process still has to play out.

QUESTION: Well, what are you waiting – what are you waiting to play out? …

MR. KELLY: I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by what are we waiting for.

QUESTION: Well, you say you’re waiting for it to play out. I mean, I’m just unclear what specifically you’re waiting for?….

QUESTION: What is it that hasn’t played out?

MR. KELLY: I think that there are – that the Iranian Government still has to take some action…

QUESTION: Well, I know, but –

***

MR. KELLY: In addition, we don’t see that they’ve addressed the concerns of the international community about their nuclear program. So we’re still waiting for some actions.

QUESTION: Well, but – I know. I mean, you could wait indefinitely for some actions, but just kind of –

MR. KELLY: Well, maybe we – I hope we don’t.

QUESTION: But – okay, but, I mean, at what point do you say there will be consequences if you don’t see some actions? …

MR. KELLY: Well, you know what the Secretary said yesterday. I mean, we’re going to – we are going to make decisions and base our actions on the national interests of the United States. We have…concerns …about Iran’s nuclear program, and we’re going to just continue to raise these concerns until we see that action is taken.

QUESTION: Well, …don’t you think that’s inconsistent with “we’re going to do what’s in the best interests of our national security interests regardless?”

MR. KELLY: I just – you’re asking us to take actions. I don’t think –

QUESTION: …I’m asking if you’re going to recognize President Ahmadinejad as the legitimate government that you will be – that you say you want to deal with in – on your other national security interests.

MR. KELLY: …[L]egitimacy of any government derives from the consent of the governed. I think that we’ve always had concerns about the political process in Iran…We will make decisions on that based on our dealings with Iran, based on our national interests. We think, right now, that this internal situation needs to play out.

QUESTION: Sorry, can I follow up? But it has played out. The Guardian Council has said –

MR. KELLY: I don’t think it’s played out.

QUESTION: — Ahmadinejad has – so what are you waiting for? You’re waiting for him to be sworn in?

MR. KELLY: Okay. I’ll say it again. We’re waiting for Iran to take some action.

QUESTION: What kind of action?

MR. KELLY: Well, they need to address the concerns of the international community.

QUESTION: But that’s separate from the election.

MR. KELLY: I know it’s separate from the election. We –

***

QUESTION: So at what point do you decide that you’re going to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

MR. KELLY: Well, we haven’t reached that point yet. We will reach that point when – I mean, we’ve laid out exactly what we think needs to happen in the P-5+1. Javier Solana has invited Iran to participate. We have said that we will participate…

***

QUESTION: It’s a bit confusing. You are saying that you are going to recognize Ahmadinejad when they decide –

MR. KELLY: Did I say that?

QUESTION: — when they decide they will attend this P-5+1 meeting. I don’t see the relationship.

MR. KELLY: Look…the situation is still evolving in Iran…When and if the Iranians respond to the concerns of the international community and decide to abide by their responsibilities under their agreements –

QUESTION: Then –

MR. KELLY: — we will make our decisions based on our national interests.

It reads like an Onion parody, but no. This is actual national policy, as established by people who think they’re better able than we are to run our lives. We need their help, they insist, and yet they’ll let a tyrant like Ahmadinejad stomp his own people into bloody mud.

Island Off the Coast of France: Deporting Gurkhas

Saturday, April 25th, 2009

No, there won’t always be an England, just an island off the coast of France.

Here’s more evidence that England has already ceased to exist:

The Brits discovered them when they fought them during the Nepalese War of 1814-16 and somehow managed to call them Gurkhas. They kick all kinds of butt.

Four original battalions of Gurkhas were formed into the East India Company, and they stayed loyal to the Crown through the Indian Mutiny…and every armed conflict Britain’s been part of ever since. Two hundred thousand of them joined up for Dubya-Dubya Eye-Eye and distinguished the hell out of themselves.

And now thousands of them are set to be deported from Britain. Gurkha veterans have been fighting for the right to live in Britain for a long time — and I don’t pretend to know the whole backstory — but the latest immigration rules released today are fucking evil: a soldier can stay if he’s served 20 years. The rank and file are only allowed to serve 15. Nice.

Meanwhile, St. George’s flag, the traditional flag of England, keeps getting banned because, having also been the flag of the Crusades, it might offend immigrants who want to destroy the traditional English way of life.

(In fairness, I should point out that the people of England are very fond of their flag. It’s only the government and Church of England officials who keep trying to ban it. Unfortunately, the people of England are too well behaved to hang the cowardly bastards.)

(Oh, and to stave off the nit-pickers: The Union Jack is the flag of Great Britain. Not the same as England.)

Island Off the Coast of France: Surveillance

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Formerly Great Britain, home of George Orwell, has more police TV cameras spying on its subjects than just about anywhere on Earth. Doesn’t do much to actually stop crime of course.

Fred Gallagher over at Megatokyo recently put up this spoof of an official poster:
childlargo
[Largo is a character in the Megatokyo webcomic; he's a very disruptive young man who strives always to act with honour, but who has almost no regard for the law.]

This is a spoof of another spoof. of an absurd anti-terrorist campaign by British “Anti-Terrorist” police.

The worst thing, the very worst thing, about the campaign is that Brit officials cannot bring themselves to name the actual terrorists: Muslim fanatics. Instead, they’re just trying to get real British subjects to rat on each other. Disgusting.

Long May It Wave

Friday, March 20th, 2009

Why, that cowardly little shitstain.

Barack Obama recently recorded a special message for Nowruz, an ancient Persian holiday that celebrates the start of spring and in many countries, like Iran, the new year. The speech itself is despicably groveling. I didn’t bother to link to it, because, hey, what do you expect?

But Mark Finklestein decided to dig around a bit on the official White House website.

In the main, generic version, an American flag is plainly visible in the background [see screencap below the break]. But below that there are links to other versions, including “.mp4 with Persian subtitles.” Persian is of course the language of Iran, so that is the version designed by the White House to be seen there.

Click on it and you’ll see that—poof!—the American flag has disappeared from the background…. So that’s why the image was cropped so tight. At times, the prez’s American flag lapel pin can be seen, but during most of the message the cropping is so tight that even that small American symbol is invisible.

Looks like Pres. Obama was worried about offending the mullahs and Ahmadinejad by displaying Old Glory.

Here is part of what Obama had to say:

“You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.”

President Obama, you boot-licking dhimmi, you won’t even show your flag. Why in the name of Allah (Piss Be Upon Him) should the murdering theocrat despots running Iraq do anything to please you, when you’ve made it so plain that you will do anything to please them?

Koran v. Bible Cage Match

Saturday, March 14th, 2009

[Just a quick link here, possible quoting and commentary later.]

Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch attacks the popular idea that the Koran and the Bible equally incite violence against non-believers.

Long, detailed, full of references, must read.

In general, Spencer’s argument is that in the Old Testament, God allows, even orders, Jews to kill specific others at specific times and places, but contains no injunctions to attack non-believers generally. The New Testament is considerably more pacifistic.

In contrast, the Koran starts out pacifistic, then moves through a self-defense phase, into a phase advocating violent jihad.

Further, while Jews and Christians throughout have consistently struggled with accommodating the Old Testament violence, striving to downplay its violence, Muslims have consistently concentrated on the most violent, Jihadist passages.

The modern trend is for learned Muslims — theologians, lawmakers, generals, lawyers — to increasingly advocate violence in the name of Allah, using the most violent passages of the Koran as justification. The Jewish and Christian trend is to excuse, equivocate, self-deprecate, using the most peaceful passages of the Bible.

Which will win, I wonder?