Sunday, November 27, 2011

Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping...

The 3rd Committee action predicts similar action in the General Assembly next month.  This is a continuation of one branch of the OIC's ten year plan. The objective is to pass and enforce international and national legislation to criminalize, prohibit and punish all criticism and questioning of Islam. 

    Because the tyrants and clerics know that Islam is false & malignant, they can not tolerate any expression which might raise doubts among the Ummah.  Read this well documented essay to discover how Moe dealt with one of his critics.

    To examine the Shari'ah relevant to blasphemy, follow these links:


current resolutions

    Two relevant resolutions were recently approved by acclamation in the 3rd Cmte.  and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December '11.  I present titles, links, and a few pertinent paragraphs for your examination..

  • A/C.3/66/L.48/Rev.1
  • Promotion and protection of human rights: human
    rights questions, including alternative approaches
    for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
    and fundamental freedoms
    • Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based
      on religion or belief
6. Strongly condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of
print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means;
10. Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;
(b) Incidents of religious hatred, discrimination, intolerance and violence,
which may be manifested by the derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and
stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief;

(j) To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with
international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance
based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with
particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world;

advocacy of religious hatred

      What does that mean?  The expression is so broad and ambiguous as to be stretched over anything we say or write. See the Ban Ki-moon quote about Fitna. 

no religion should be equated with terrorism

    That boilerplate expression from previous resolutions should trigger alarm bells.  Who perpetrated the accursed abomination?  Were they Buddhists?  Were they Jews?  Were they Baptists?  No, they were Muslims!  

    Why  is Islam associated with Terrorism?  Maillot, New York, Madrid, London, Beslan & Mumbai: Get a  clue!!!  "Allahu akbar!" They shouted the takbir when they mounted their attacks.  Why?

 Mohammad Atta, in his final message to the Magnificent 19, directed them to shout the Takbir while slaughtering because it terrifies disbelievers
Psychological warfare

When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.

    Where did Atta get that brilliant idea? From his role model, of course.

Sahih Bukhari 4.52.195
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, "Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, Allahu--Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned."

I will cast terror.

Allah cast terror.

Jews more afraid of Moe than of Allah

to strike terror

  • 8:57 (Dr. Munir Munshey)
  • 8:60 (Yusuf Ali) 

victory through terror

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
    Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
    The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
    1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
    2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
    3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
    4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
    5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
     Narrated Abu Huraira:

        Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

  • A/C.3/66/L.47/Rev.1
    • Promotion and protection of human rights: human
      rights questions, including alternative approaches for
      improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
      and fundamental freedoms
      • Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,
        stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and
        violence against persons, based on religion or belief
Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which
involves the acceptance by the public of and its respect for religious and cultural
diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact
that education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to
promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory
stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion
or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations
and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious
groups, in particular when condoned by Governments

2. Expresses concern that the number of incidents of religious intolerance,
discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of
individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continues to rise around the world,
condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to
take effective measures, as set forth in the present resolution and consistent with
their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such
3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual
or electronic media or any other means;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;
(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and the negative religious
stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and
harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through,
inter alia, education and awareness-raising;

(d) To make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is
understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting
questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;


      Indoctrination! They want our schools to inculcate tolerance for that which is absolutely intolerable: a war cult which seeks to conquer or kill us.

incidents of intolerance

    Including Fitna, the Motoons and Rev. Jones trying & burning the Qur'an.  Refer to the OIC's Islamophobia Observatory for examples.

advocacy of hatred

Recall the remarks of Ban Ki-moon on Fitna. 
Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."


incitement to imminent violence

          Recall the remarks of Ban Ki-moon on Fitna, quoted above.  Ban equates exposure of incitement to incitement.

religious profiling

    Why waste time patting down Granny when all recent terror plots have been hatched or perpetrated by young Muslim males?  When you hear hoof beats, do you look for horses or unicorns? 

    They want to make it illegal to utter and publish any negative information about Islam.  They want to block our security personnel from scrutinizing those most likely to perpetrate terror attacks.  In fine, they are trying to disarm and disable us so that we can not mount an effective defense against their jihad. 

Take Action!

    Go to , create a free account, enter your Zip Code and tell your Representative & Senators to require the State Department to demand a vote on these resolutions and vote NO! in the General Assembly.  And share this information with everyone who will read or listen.

    These resolutions have no legal force, but they have the effect of legitimizing national blasphemy laws which are used to persecute indigenous religious minorities in lands conquered and dominated by Muslims.   These resolutions are a stepping stone to their tactical objective: amending ICERD to make all questioning and criticism an offense punishable by law. 

Thursday, November 24, 2011

CAIR Denounces Santorum's Call for Profiling

     One of my Google Alerts was triggered by an article about a CAIR press release demanding that the GOP denounce Rick Santorum's debate answer on profiling. Video of the debate segment is linked below, and embedded where possible.  Play it twice, once to listen and once to watch the facial expressions and gestures, particularly those of Rep. Paul and Herman Cain.  

    The text of CAIR's  press release and my analysis follow the video. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Breitbart!

WASHINGTONNov. 23, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on the Republican Party to repudiate GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum's call for profiling of American Muslims.

In a debate aired on CNN last night, Santorum was asked if he would support ethnic and religious profiling. CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the debate's moderator, asked Santorum: "So just to be precise, is it ethnic profiling, religious profiling, who would be profiled?"

"The folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes," replied Santorum. "Obviously Muslims would be someone you'd look at, absolutely."

Video: Rick Santorum Calls for Profiling of Muslims

In a statement released today, CAIR National Legislative Director Corey Saylor said:

"Last night, Rick Santorum casually tossed aside every American's constitutional right to equal protection under the law in favor of discriminatory profiling of Muslims. Mr. Santorum's obvious lack of appreciation for the Constitution and for the rejection of profiling by top law enforcement experts raises reasonable questions about his ability to lead our multi-faith nation.

"The International Association of Chiefs of Police and other security specialists reject racial profiling. President Bush called it 'wrong.' In 2009, President Obama pledged to end the counterproductive practice.

"We remind Mr. Santorum that the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), a man of Middle Eastern heritage, would fit his 'profile.'

"It is time for all Republican presidential candidates to reject Islamophobic rhetoric. Just as past candidates have learned the folly of targeting other religious or ethnic minorities, serious presidential hopefuls must reject the use anti-Muslim smears and the exploitation of Islamophobia for cheap political gain."

CAIR also thanked another GOP presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, for rejecting profiling and refusing to sacrifice the rule of law.

A CAIR Legislative Fact Sheet states that profiling is unconstitutional, hinders anti-terrorism efforts and "diverts precious law enforcement resources away from investigations of individuals who have been linked to terrorist activity by specific and credible evidence."

SEE: CAIR Legislative Fact Sheet on Profiling

Earlier this year, Santorum called "Sharia," or Islamic principles, "evil." He told a group in New Hampshire: "We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil." In a past "lecture on Islam," Santorum falsely claimed the Quran, Islam's revealed text, was written in "Islamic."

SEE: Santorum, GOP Continue Anti-Sharia Campaign

Last week, CAIR called on state and national GOP leaders to demand the resignation of a Tennessee lawmaker after he suggested in a radio interview that U.S. Muslims should "go back to where they came from" if they objected to his recent call for the removal of all Muslims serving in the military.

CAIR: TN GOP Rep. Tells Muslims to 'Go Back to Where They Came From'

A number of recent reports have documented the disturbing growth and promotion of Islamophobia in American society.

CAIR: Same Hate, New Target
Center for American Progress: Fear, Inc.
Southern Poverty Law Center: Jihad Against Islam
People for the American Way: The Right-Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CONTACT: CAIR National Legislative Director Corey Saylor, 202-384-8857, E-Mail:; CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, or 202-488-8787, E-Mail:; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, 202-341-4171, E-Mail:

SOURCE Council on American-Islamic Relations

called on GOP to repudiate

    The days of the smoke filled room backstage at the national convention are long gone.  The real nominating process belongs to the party membership, not to the hierarchy.  Condemning stands taken by candidates is not the role of the RNC or the state central committees. 

    CAIR is engaging in intimidation tactics, trying to cast terror into the hearts of nervous Nellie political consultants who conceive of political correctness as holy writ.  The RNC, Santorum and the rational candidates should denounce CAIR's political terror tactics and tell CAIR to sit down, shut up and mind their own business.

    I swear that, if the Republican Party surrenders to CAIR's outrageous demand, lifting Allah's tail and inserting their tongues, I will not vote for any Republican candidate who does not explicitly condemn Islam. 

profiling of American Muslims

    That  is a prime example of misdirection.  Attention of security personnel should be focused on Muslims, regardless of nationality.  While 9/11 was perpetrated by foreigners, many of the recent plots involved American citizens.  When you hear hoof beats, do you look for unicorns or horses? 

just to be precise

    Precise questioning is a good thing, particularly in court rooms, but in this case, what appears on the surface, to be  precision is entrapment.  A genuine precision question would not include "precise" in its rhetoric.  I have no doubt that Blitzer was setting Santorum up for this.

ethnic || religious: who would be profiled

    That question misdirects attention away from the real issue.  Terrorism is an intrinsic function of Islam, not primarily linked to nationality or race.  Most recent mass casualty terror attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims.
    Islam is neither a race nor a religion; it is a way of life which dictates every facet of human life, spiritual & temporal. Islam has inseverable & interdependent  religious, economic and military components. All of those components involve jihad. Jihad is the preferred alternative to trade & agriculture economies.

    Little old Catholic ladies and Baptist babies do not commit terror attacks, young Muslim men do. That should be a clue for you.  Rep. Paul cites Timothy McVeigh, the exception which proves the rule.  How many nitrate bombs have been planned or planted by lapsed Catholics?  Compare that to the number of improvised explosive devices planned or planted by Muslims.

     Muslims come in all colors.  Eliminate Islam and Islamic terrorism will be eliminated.  If you want travel to be safe, exclude Muslims from mass transit facilities and vehicles.  That would impede but not stop the Times Square Bomber.  To stop the multitude of alternative attack methods and venues, it is necessary to remove and exclude those persons most likely to engage in terrorism: Muslims. 

most likely to be committing: Muslims

    Why would Santorum say that? Baptists,  Buddhists  & Hindus are not turning up in the news for bombings every month, Muslims are. Why is that?  Who besides Moe preached and exemplified terrorism to his disciples?  "Its Islam, stupid!" Why did Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his excellent companions attack us?  Get a clue.

Cover page of confession.
First page of confession.

Obviously Muslims

    It is obvious to Santorum why is it not obvious to others?  Is it not common knowledge that Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims?  Is it not common knowledge that terror attacks are an act of worship?  Is it not common knowledge that Allah commanded casting terror into the hearts of enemies?  Is it not common knowledge that disbelievers are the enemies of Muslims?  Those facts are objectively true, why are they not common knowledge?  The answers are political correctness and intimidation.

constitutional right to equal protection

    Equal protection of the laws means no class distinctions; nobody is punished or immunized based on his social or economic status.  Equal protection  means that Baptists, Catholics & atheists are all protected from Islamic terror attacks by excluding terrorists from places where innocent people congregate. 

    Applying extra scrutiny to those persons most likely to engage in terror attacks does not deny equal protection of the laws. It does not impair anyone's constitutional rights. One bright Tuesday in September, '01, several thousand people had their right to life denied by Muslims who hijacked aircraft.  Keeping those Muslims off of those flights would not have impaired any rights.  Keeping them out of this nation would not have impaired anyone's rights.

appreciation for the Constitution

    The Constitution provides protection for the right to life and the right to free speech. It is CAIR, not Santorum who lacks appreciation for those rights. CAIR demands censorship of all criticism of Islam.  CAIR applies intimidation tactics to close private venues to those who speak out against it.  CAIR seeks to deny effective protection from terror attacks.  This is a prime example of hypocrisy & projection.

law enforcement experts

    Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Terrorism is a military issue, not a law enforcement issue.  Had all Muslims been excluded from all domestic flights as they should be, the Accursed Abomination would have been impossible; 3000 people would be alive and healthy.   Why has Israel not lost any aircraft recently?  How did they stop hijackings and prevent flying bombs?  If you want to stop air based terrorism, consult Israel's experts forst.

lead our multi-faith nation

    How do the leadership requirements vary between monocultural and multicultural nations?  What difference does it make to the Presidency whether we have no, 1, 2 or any number of religions? 

    The President can not lead Muslims. Muslims are commanded not to place themselves in positions subordinate to kuffar. Take a close look at Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:51 Surah At-Taubah 9:33.  Shari'ah declares non-Arabs to be unsuitable marriage partners for Muslimas "because "Allah has chosen the Arabs above others". Get a clue.

security specialists reject racial profiling

    Is Islam a race? Allah has enslaved people of all races, so what race is Islam?  Did race play a role in the acts of the "shoe bomber" & "underwear bomber"? They are different racially but both are Muslim. Get a clue.


    What Shrub said is not relevant; he is out of office and ineligible to run again. Being a fool who said "Islam is a great religion of peace", he has no probative authority.  Exactly what is wrong with scrutinizing Muslims in the airport lines?  Exactly what is wrong with determining the religious affiliation of persons with Arab & Asiatic appearance in airport lines? 

counterproductive practice

    Four of our aircraft were hijacked and deliberately crashed in '01; how many Israeli aircraft were hijacked in that year?  Exactly what is counter productive about profiling?  If a white man robs a bank do you draw black men into a dragnet?  Get a clue. 

Prophet Jesus ... would fit his 'profile

    The AssWholliness of that blasphemy is outrageous!  Jesus Christ is not a prophet of Islam. Which of his teachings do Muslims teach in the mosques and practice? Jesus Christ did not reveal the obligation of offensive conquest. Jesus Christ did not reveal the need to exterminate Jews.  Jesus Christ neither sanctified nor exemplified terrorism.  Jesus Christ is not a genocidal warlord.

    Jesus was born to a descendant of King David; His heritage is Jewish, not Arab. Jesus Christ taught Judaism in the Jewish Temple, not Islam in a mosque. The place of his birth is Israel, not Falestine.

reject Islamophobic rhetoric

    There is nothing phobic about loathing of Islam which is well founded in objective factual reality. Islam is perpetual war.  Muslims, motivated by Allah's threat & promise, perpetrated the Hindu, Armenian & Assyrian genocides. Those who perpetrated recent atrocities in New York, London & Beslan shouted  "Allahu Akbar", not "Jesus is Lord". Get a clue.

    I swear that I will not vote for any candidate who lifts Allah's tail and inserts his tongue by accepting CAIR's outrageous demand.

profiling is unconstitutional

    Prove it. Show us the constitutional provision which explicitly forbids it.

diverts precious law enforcement resources

    Resources are wasted by searching, scanning and harassing kuffar children and their grandmothers. Resources are wasted by random searches. Resources are wasted by not excluding Muslims from mass transit so that the whole TSA program could be scrapped.

linked to terrorist activity

    "I will cast terror.".  "Allah cast terror...". "...That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness....". "I have been made victorious with terror". "...Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment...." Islam is terrorist activity; Muslims are linked to it by Allah's yoke of slavery.

Santorum called "Sharia," or Islamic principles, "evil"

    Santorum spoke the truth. Examine the evidence; see for yourself.  Shari'ah imposes cruel & unusual punishment. Shari'ah mandates annual military attacks against disbelievers. Shari'ah declares that the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Shari'ah denies religious freedom, equality and dignity.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Cnn National Security Debate: Candidates fall short

 Wolf Blitzer asked good questions and persevered with follow ups without overt gotcha questions. On the down side, he went to breaks promising to return to the question and get a broader response, then asked a new question after the break.  I wonder whether someone higher up was dictating that behavior or Wolf was being loose with his rhetoric. 

    The major difference between this debate and the AFA debate last Saturday is that the entire debate was devoted to national security issues.  Better late than never.

    I readily admit my opposition to Huntsman, Perry, Paul & Romney, but even a stopped clock is right twide every 24 hours.  Huntsman said that we need to find a balance between security and liberty and that the state and federal governments must cooperate against terrorists. I do not view security against terror attacks and liberty as antagonists. I see the former as a necessary foundation for the latter.  Citizens of states and members of organizations inimical to America should not expect perfect privacy nor should their contacts and close associates.

    When the CIA find names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses on documents in terrorist training camps, or in the possession of captured terrorists, exploiting that information with surveillance, wire taps & intercepts  is not an assault on or threat to liberty, it is essential to national security. That is why I support maintaining and strengthening the Patriot Act. 

    In the most recent bomb plot case, the FBI declined to get involved, leaving the case to the locals. I doubt that FBI participation would have made a major difference, but I don't have all the facts. What would have happened if the NYC PD shared their attitude about the suspect and dropped the investigation?

    Huntsman stated the obvious: that sanctions against Iran & Syria won't work because of Chinese & Russian opposition. He is right about that.  I am firmly convinced that sanctions would fail even if they had global support & cooperation in their enforcement.

    At the end of the debate, Huntsman said named China as the major unrecognized foreign  threat and unemployment & debt as domestic threats stemming from a lack of leadership. He is right about that but events and trends in Latin America, particularly alliance with Iran and Hezbollah also require attention.

    Huntsman favored foresight over hindsight, saying that history will tell the outcome of the "Arab spring". He seemed to be critical of President Obama's neglect of the Green Revolution in Iran and intervention in Libya.  He implied that we should be more deliberate. I say, that when two Islamic enemies of ours fight each other, we should be spectators, not in the corner of either.

    Huntsman said that terrorism is permanent, meaning that it poses a continuing threat for the long term. Of course, he was stating the obvious.  We need to look beyond the burning trees to the burning forest;    bring on the bulldozers,  

    He said that the deficit hampers growth, which is true. Unfortunately, growth is the only way out of the deficit.  Wasteful spending must be stopped.

     Asked about the efficacy of drone attacks in Pakistan in defeating al-Qaeda, Huntsman said that Washington is dysfunctional, that we need a Washington that works and should bring our troops home from Afghanistan. He restated the obvious about Pakistan without proposing a solution. Of course, there is no solution, short of the ultimate solution. which nobody is willing to implement.

    Paul called the Patriot Act "unpatriotic", that it exchanges liberty for security.  Paul wants to know what we'd do if a terrorist looked like Tim McVeigh.  That straw man argument must be refuted. Tim's partner had a Filipino wife; their test bombs did not work until after the partner visited his wife and presumably met with al-Qaeda bomb makers to get technical advice.  The infamous "third terrorist" was described as looking like an Iraqi. 

    How many of the recent terrorists were not Muslims and either Asiatic or Arabian?  Yes, they are recruiting Caucasians, but those terrorists all have one thing in common. They are Muslims.  Profiling is not the answer.  Pat downs are not the answer. Body scanners are not the answer. Identify Muslims and exclude them from mass transit terminals & vehicles.  If you want to prevent terrorism, get the Muslims out of here, away from us.   We need a candidate and nominee who will abandon pc and state the obvious truth.  Islamic terrorism is a function  of Islamic doctrine; texts & teachings, not age, race, gender or national origin.  Allah said that he would "cast terror". Allah said that he "cast terror". Allah said that believers are only those who "fight in his cause", "killing others and being killed".  Moe said that he was made victorious with terror. Muslims get Brownie Points for "any step" taken to "injure or enrage" disbelievers.  What part of that do the candidates not comprehend?  Has any of them read the Qur'an & hadith?  Terrorism is an act of worship! If you need to obtain a clue, read the confession of Khalid Sheik Mohammed & associates.

    Paul said that he would not participate in an Israeli attack on Iran's nuke project, that we need to get out of Israel's way, mentioning their supposed possession of nuclear armed missiles.  Who will be the first to explore the ramifications of that last bit?  Green light, anyone?  That begged for a follow up question,

`   Paul referred to the Iraq & Afghanistan as needless and unnecessary wars.  When a nation sponsors an attack that kills 3000 and does billions of dollars in property damage, retaliation is necessary to deter further attacks. Exterminating the principals who dispatched  the attackers and their support network is necessary to prevent further attacks.   Retaliating against Afghanistan & Iraq was necessary but insufficient.  Peace and security will not be established without the total elimination of the root cause of terrorism: Allah's word and those who believe it.  Unfortunately for those who love to chant "racist, bigot, Nazi, hater, Islamophobe", there is ample evidence to substantiate my statement of objective factual reality.  If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah's perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror. Reasonable and rational readers will click those links and scroll down to the successive ayat; bigots will not.  I can point a fool to wisdom but I can't make him read. 

    Perry would privatize the TSA and strengthen the Patriot act. Not without a super majority of Conservatives in both houses! He says that we should remain involved with foreign aid, but not write blank checks, apparently feeling heat for suggestions of zero sum foreign aid budgets. He wants to use every possible sanction against Iran, including cutting off the central bank.  The problem is that sanctions do not work. Iran will have enough fissile material to produce a bomb within one year. Sanctions take months to implement, running us out of time without accomplishing anything.

    Romney wants a slower drawdown in Afghanistan instead of a precipitous withdrawal. He wants to drag them toward modernity. He wants to prevent Afghanistan from reverting to a launching pad for terrorism.  If we stay, they bleed us to death in a war of attrition, exploiting domestic impatience.  If we leave, they return to status quo ante.  We are in this bind because Shrub needed to nuke Afghanistan but invaded instead. Romney appears to be oblivious to the fact that nothing can be accomplished while the population and government of Afghanistan remain Islamic.

    Romney cites failed leadership; how about failure to submit a budget?  He says that cutting men and material weakens our defense. Kind of obvious, ain't it? 
    Bachmann says that terrorists should not be Mirandized and that Obama has turned interrogation over to the ACLU.  She calls Pakistan the "epicenter of terrorism" and unstable, mentioning that there are fifteen vulnerable nuclear weapons sites.  She would continue aid but wants more return on investment; no "blank check".

    Bachmann opposes amnesty for illegal aliens and the Dream Act. She favors visas for highly skilled technicians.She agrees with Gingrich on the urgent necessity of energy independence so that we can overcome the threat of oil cut off from Iran. She says that Obama's failed policy of appeasement has changed the course of history. She declares Iran's promise to eradicate Israel to be real, not an idle threat.

    Bachman said that Obama is giving away our victory in Iraq.  She lists al-Shebab as an emerging threat already manifesting in her state. .  .

     Cain. wants to keep and improve the Patriot Act and agreed with Santorum on profiling. He would privatize the TSA. He wants to use every means possible to identify terrorists.  How do you determine which skunk will spray or which snake will bite?  You avoid all of them, don't you?  What common association did all the recent attackers share? 

    Cain's response when asked about helping Israel neutralize Iran's nuclear bomb program was that he would join the attack if Israel had good intelligence on the locations of the facilities, a good plan, good chance of success and definition of victory. He opposes precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan.  He wants clear goals before sending foreign aid, emphasizing priority, efficiency and results.

    Cain says that we know that terrorists have entered from Mexico, so we must secure the border for real. . He says we need to reform the naturalization process and allow states to enforce immigration laws.   Cain won't support a no fly zone over Syria. He lists EMP and cyber attacks among the emerging threats  to be contended with.

    Gingrich emphasized the difference between domestic crime and terrorism, which is war. He would strengthen, not eliminate the Patriot Act. In the matter of Pakistan taking offense at our elimination of bin Ladin, Gingrich said that we should be furious about Pakistan's hiding him.  He said that hot pursuit should be allowed, there should be no sanctuaries.  He would overhaul the CIA.  He said that Pakistan should help us or get out of the way. 

    Europe won't back us on sanctioning Iran because they are dependent on Iranian oil. Gingrich would have us increase domestic production enough to replace Iran's European exports in the case of a boycott.  He would bomb their nuclear program only as a last resort if regime change was an assured outcome. 

    Gingrich mentioned Chili's social security system as a model for entitlement reform using guaranteed private accounts. Will taking  stand on the third rail wreck his candidacy, go unnoticed or serve as a springboard to the White House? 

    Gingrich wants to issue a green card to every foreign student  who graduates in math & science.  Did he consider the fact that many of them are Muslims who come from areas where hatred of the U.S.A. is rampant?  He should be more selective. He would the selective service board system as a model for picking the illegal aliens who should be allowed to stay on a path to citizenship. He mentioned community and church membership as criteria for selection.  He might as well stand between lanes on an expressway, he will surely be hit by both sides on this one. 

       `Santorum  irritated me by  proceeding Islam with "radical", wasting a word when time is critical. the "debate" parallel press conference format does not afford time for wasted words.  "Radical" implies the existence of a :moderate", harmless normative Islam, which does not exist and never will.  The enemy is Islam, not "radical Islam". He mentioned the time and patience factor, that they will wait us out; that Obama is proving them right.  He said that Obama is playing politics with his policy in Afghanistan. That's stating the obvious.

    Santorum supports profiling at airports. Who needs it? Excluding all Muslims from all mass transit vehicles & terminals is the simple solution which would not subject the general public to unnecessary harassment, indignity and delay.   .

    Santorum favors continuing foreign aid, particularly for development.  I agree with Santorum that Obama has poisoned the well of compromise, but I disagree that both sides should compromise more.  Appeasing and yielding to Socialists must come to an end.  Our economy needs a cure, not more poison.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Iowa Debate: No Guts, No Glory

 I missed the debate Saturday night. Monday night I found it on the web, and share the link with you. The program, which began with some introductory speeches and ceremony, runs 178 minutes of which the "debate" takes two hours. 

    This debate differs from the others because the questioners expressed and exercised respect for the candidates and avoided "gotcha" questions.  Civility prevailed. 

    There was plenty of emotion in this debate, and a great deal of deliberateness.  While issues of morality, marriage, abortion, education and health care took up most of the time, I am most interested in the final subject of the night, which begins at 158:36.

    What follows is strictly an amateurish attempt at transcription.  I type very slowly, and my memory is not the best. I take in a few words, pause the video and type what I have heard before restarting the video. Due to system lag, I lose some audio in the process.   My transcription  is not perfect, but it should be good enough to give you a good idea of what transpired in the last round of answers. 

    The final question: "Every one of you talked about the importance of preserving life.  Nothing takes life more than the declaration of war. I would like to hear from you, because nothing frightens a mother more, than watching her son or daughter go off ...Their pride in their country and their fear for their child...what is--can you define the moral justification for war? ...Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria --what is the moral justification? "

  • Rep. Paul:  The early church struggled with this, I mean, Christ came  and Christ taught about peace and Christ was to be the prince of peace and we were to defend that.  But early on in the church, struggled with this and St. Augustine came up with the principles of the just war.  I believe in and I think we should follow, from the religious viewpoint, that we have a Constitution that is very clear to guide us to try to prevent these wars and that is that we don't go to war without a declaration .  The wars that we have fought since World War2 were all . illegal, unconstitutional and all were un-winnable and it was tragic-- it was tragic, we did it by failing the rule of law and the tragedy let out of these wars the last ten years, that we have been so ... added ten billion dollars to our national debt, ...Americans have been killed in these wars, 44 thousand have come home wounded and crippled, hundreds of thousands are looking for help and we went to blind ourselves to this.  It is not in our national defense, it is mischief, it is getting involved where we don't need to be involved.  I think it is an utter tragedy in  what is happening.  You wanna talk about a family life --there has to have been somebody in this audience who has been the bearer of news, either a loved one lost or a loved one crippled.  It is on and on  I had one soldier come to me the other day and he was so against the wars, he spent three or four tours over there, that he says "I lost too many buddies and I don'd know why we were there. " And theres no signs of progress over there.  He says "now I'm losing my buddies to suicide."  The wars destroy the family, I'm the does the economic climate-- the bad economics  -- war is the most destructive things to the family and we oughtta concentrate on it and you can't concentrate on the economics unless we look at the business cycle, why we have inflation busts and booms  otherwise we will continue on a downhill path. 
  • Rep. Bachmann I am a mother and I have made  the most difficult calls of my live which has been when servicemen and women have lost their lives in my  congressional district and I have picked up that phone and I've called mothers and I've called fathers and I have wept with them over the phone because nothing is more difficult to lose than a child.  [Luntz: "So what is the definition--the moral justification for war?"]  The moral justification for war is if the United States is attacked or we are  threatened with attack, then we have a decision that we have to make because the number one duty of the commander in chief is to secure the safety of the American people, that is the duty, and in order to do that, I have to be convinced as commander in chief that we have a clearly defined American vital interest in that area and I need to know that we have a clear mission to go forward. ... have a plan and an exit strategy and we go in, I will commit overwhelming force and then we get out. Now some situations are ones where you can have special operations forces and then you have to have the tools to be able to deal with interrogation, which we don't have now under Obama.  You have to have the capacity for detention, which we don't have now under President Obama.   But we have to have a clearly defined interest and I think we also have to take advice from George Washington, who told us, rightly so, I'm not an isolationist,  but he said very carefully be very fearful of unnecessary foreign entanglements and if there is anything we have learned from the last twelve years, once you get in, its very difficult to get out.  So you go in wisely.
  • Cain: In the declaration where it says "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights",  and then it delineates three of them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It says that among these are those three, I happen to think that there is another that is implied: the right to protect yourself, your family and to protect your property. So the defense of freedom and the defense of liberty I believe, is the moral justification for going to war. Secondly, as commander in chief, I will not send our young men and women into war unless it is clear why --the mission and the definition of victory... And thirdly, I would not send them into war unless I would send my own and daughter. 
  • Gov. Perry: As a former individual who has worn the uniform of his country, as the commander in chief of over twenty thousand troops that are my command today,in the state of Texas with our Guard, I've been dealing with this issue for ten years.  And clearly, when America's interests are in jeopardy, there is a time and a place for us to intervene and intervene militarily.  But when we intervene militarily, we best make the decision of how we are going to win and how we are going to win convincingly and quickly.  Send those young men and women with the equipment to win.  Don't let some congressman sitting in an air conditioned office  in Washington DC decide what the rules of engagement are.  Let those war fighters win the war.  Let them come home victorious.  That is what the American military man and woman is all about.  And for us to micromanage them in a civilian way without their commanders truly being in charge, is absolutely irresponsible and as commander in chief of this country I will not let it happen.  
  • Santorum: Let me maybe try to drill it down to a more practical application.  We are engaged in what many people call the long war.  Americans are known to have a rather short attention span.  As we are a young country, an antique for us is a hundred years old. In the Middle East its two thousand years old. They have a very  different view of time and history.  As a result, when we are engaged in this long war, long to us is not the same as long to them.  What we are facing right now is a, again, read our history-- is a thousand year conflict between radical Islam and the West that ended only because of the West's great technical superiority that was able to defeat them and drive them back and eventually colonize the Middle East. But that changed with one three letter word: oil.  .  Oil allowed the radical elements within the Islamic world to be able to get access to technology, and now we have in the case of Iran, to drill it down even more, a radical theocracy that has been at war with us since 1979.  It has done more to kill our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan because they are the makers of the IEDs that are killing our troops.  They've attacked this country on repeated occasions from the Khobar Towers to ...their proxies in Beirut.  They've attempted the assassination of an Ambassador.  They have threatened  openly and repeatedly our closest allies.  They hold conventions in Tehran denyiug the Holocaust-- in fact most of the aea of the Middle East  now believes that the Holocaust didn't really occur so there is no justification for the state of Israel.  They are now developing a nuclear weapon. It is now apparent that they are doing so; international agencies, not necessarily the boldest group of folks have suggested that that is the case.  We have a moral obligation to partner with the state of Israel to make ... to assure their survival and to make sure that this radical regime that wants to spread its virulent form of radical Islam not just throughout the Middle East but throughout the world is stopped from having the ability to do so with impunity because that's the thing a nuclear weapon does, it gives you a nuclear shield.  It must be stopped.  I laid out a plan the other day and I know we are short of time that lists four major things that we should be doing: covert activities, sanctions, overturning the regime but also working with Israel right now to plan a military option to strike and destroy these facilities.  And let the Iranians know, that unless they open up their facilities [to inspection] and shut them down, that that is an option that will be used period. 
  • Gingrich: First of all In Christian theology, there is a clear development of a concept of just war. which people like Augustine developed because they were seeing the rise of pagans that wee actually threatening the very survival of the country. In fact, Augustine is buried in Italy because hes body was taken out of North Africa when the Christians lost North Africa.  So these things become very real.  My Dad spent twenty seven years in the Army, I watched my mother through that whole period in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.  . I think what makes us different and what makes us in some ways... much more ruthless and much tougher ... is we don't send soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen to war, we send our children, we send our fathers, we send our brothers and sisters; we send our mothers and therefore there is a preciousness to this decision unlike any other country that I know.  I think our position historically ...the Declaration of Independence was signed by people who were going to fight an eight year war. It was  a declaration of war in effect.  Washington was in the field eight years with one week at Mount Vernon.  These people who wrote those documents understood the grim reality.  I believe we should not go to war if we can avoid it.  And when we have to go to war we should do so decisively,  with overwhelming power to seek the quickest possible victory and we should in fact be prepared to do whatever it takes to win  when we begin an engagement.  But I think that there is no question ...this is the only place where I disagree with some of my friends-- you come into our country and you kill 3100 people and we will do whatever it takes to eliminate your capacity to threaten us ever again and I would be tougher and more decisive and I agree entirely with Senator Santorum--I would say to the government of Iran today: we have a very short time to solve ... and you should solve it on your own or we will solve it for you and frankly, we couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks ; we're gonna get it done. 
    In my view, Frank Luntz  probed the candidates for their views  on the morality of our invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq and our intervention in  Libya.  The answers seem to center on just war theory in general and how to bring war to a good end. 

    Congressman Paul mixed just enough truth into his spiel to make it attractive to the middle range of Morons.  Its a good thing that I was not in the audience, because I would have violated the decorum of the debate by booing.  The fact that wars should be declared, for good cause and with clearly stated objectives should go without saying, it is simply too obvious.  The jerk elevates my blood pressure too much.

    As I was listening, Congresswoman Bachmann sounded good. As I review the transcript, I get a sense of disappointment.  When America is threatened or attack, the vital national interest is clear on the face of the matter, no divination is required.  Victory is the exit strategy.  Commitment o overwhelming force is the part I liked, lacking in Afghanistan & Iraq, along with a  sane definition of strategic objectives.

    Cain made the right points about cause, clarity and mission definition.  I though his answer was brief and sensible, with just the right amount of emotion, somewhat overstated. I would have omitted the part about sending my own offspring, which would have fitted better if we still had an army of conscripts.

     Gov. Perry spoke with passion and conviction, with slightly clumsy rhetoric initially.  If he brought up the issue of defining victory, I overlooked it.  Since Vietnam, the micromanagement seems to me to be Presidential, not Congressional.  President Obama instituted the suicidal rules of engagement from which our troops are currently suffering.

    I wish that Santorum would drop the R word; it does not belong in discussions of national security issues.  As the wise man said "Its Islam, stupid!".  I think that he knows it, and is pandering to the politically correct crowd.  Of course he is correct about the need to support Israel and prevent Iran's nuclear ascension.

    Like Santorum, Gingrich brought in the theological and emotional elements, adding his own historian's perspective. The good part comes at the end when he said "whatever it takes".

    We got into this bind because, when I was too young to realize what was transpiring, we were terrified of the prospect of nuclear war with Russia & China. We therefore fought a half-assed war in Korea,  unwilling either to suffer an outright loss or exert sufficient force to win. 

    In Vietnam, we got in, sank in the quagmire, and escalated, once again unwilling to risk all out conflict with Ho Chi Minh's powerful patrons.  In the end, we allowed the media to defeat us with propaganda.

    President Carter began digging our grave when he gave Iran to Khomeini. His dithering while our Embassy staff sat in durance vile and his quarter-assed rescue attempt, which cost more lives,  let the enemy smell blood.

    I voted for President Reagan once at least, probably twice, but memory has faded and there is a strong chance that I wrote in Jesus Christ in '84. The Beirut fiasco caused me to demand that my Congressman introduce articles of impeachment.  In my opinion, nothing contributed more to our present situation than
Reagan's suicidal blunder.

    Sending the Marines to save Arafat's bacon was a blunder of momentous proportions.  Arafat was an enemy and his defeat was in our short and long term national interest.  Allowing the Beirut Massacre to go unpunished signaled weakness to the enemy, a fatal error.

    President Clinton dug the grave deeper and wider by affording impunity to Iran in the Khobar Towers bombing & other incidents, Mogadishu not being the least of them. Sending the Marines without the equipment they needed was a bad idea.

    Shrub installed the vault and set up the straps to lower the coffin by failing to recognize and declare that which, with the benefit of hindsight, the debate participants hinted at but failed to openly express. 

    In view of the antagonistic media, which defeated us in Vietnam, world public opinion and the UN allied with the media and our own diminished patience for long wars, common sense dictated the use of such overwhelming force that the war would be over in a few days.  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq & Pakistan should have disappeared from the globe in a flash of fire.  Disproportionate, overwhelming, terrifying force, signifying exhausted patience and the will to win, immediately and finally was required. 

    Victory is defined, in this conflict, as the extinction of Islam in the nations where the plot was conceived, assisted, expedited & celebrated.  So long as the populations of Afghanistan Iran & Pakistan are alive and Islamic, they will provoke, incite, promote and perpetuate terrorism. No other outcome is possible because of Allah's promise and threat. Go to war; go to Paradise or go to Hell.  For extra credit, injure or enrage the enemy and get more "virgins" & wine. If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah's perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror.  If they believe, they will terrorize to avoid Hell and gain admission to Allah's celestial bordello. 

    Truth is not hate speech. Advocacy of effective national defense is not warmongering neither is it inciting violence.  Terrorism is not the enemy, it is a tactic. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, it is a branch of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen.  Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is not the enemy, it is a branch of Islam.  Islam is the enemy. This is a fatal fact which the candidates for the Republican nomination seem to lack the courage to clearly state.

    The strategic objective is permanently terminating Islamic terrorism against the U.S.A.  Only exterminating Islam can achieve that objective. While there is Islam, there is war.  If we eliminate Islam in those nations most directly involved, we can temporarily intimidate the remainder so that they will delay the resumption of attacks.  That would buy us some time for the vital task of inducing mass apostasy among the remainder.

    So long as Afghanistan & Pakistan are populated by Muslims, they will host terrorist training camps and export terrorism.  Installing democracy does nothing to change that. Partially defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda does nothing to change that.  Victory requires their apostasy from Islam or death. No other option exists.  They are not liberated if they are still Muslims; they remain enslaved to the demon who demands "great slaughter".

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong

 Leonard Leo, chairman of the board of SCIRF, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights  on the International Religious Freedom Report. There is a move underway to defund SCIRF, presumably because its mission conflicts with Obamination's Islamophilia.

    While I sympathize with the SCIRF and believe that it should be preserved, I take issue with Leo's position on the resolution passed by the HRC last March and currently before the 3rd Committee prior to a General Assembly vote in December.

    I do not contest the fact that SCIRF was instrumental in steering the resolutions in a new direction, I take issue with the assertion that the  resolution has been substantially improved and its negative impact on freedom of belief & expression substantially reduced.  Only the rhetoric has improved, the meaning, intent and effect are not improved.

Defamation of Religion in the United Nations -- Intolerance Resolution Takes the Place of Defamation Resolution: Over the past decade, resolutions in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council on the so-called defamation of religions sought to establish a global blasphemy law.  USCIRF’s engagement with the State Department, the U.S. Congress and specific UN member states helped bring about a notable decrease in support for these resolutions over the past three years.  It is an example of the catalytic and coordinating role that the Commission has played.

  Since 2008, the resolutions were supported by only a plurality of member states.  Due to this loss of support, the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011 adopted, in place of the divisive “combating defamation of religions” resolution, a consensus resolution on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  The resolution properly focuses on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism.  The new resolution protects the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of focusing on one religion.  Unlike the defamation of religions resolution, the new consensus resolution does not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather, for positive measures, such as education and awareness-building, to address intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.


    I can not and will never tolerate the practice & propagation of a doctrine which mandates that we be killed or subjugated, our property seized and our widows raped and our orphans sold into slavery.  By God, I stand on the rights seized by the founders, which they enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.  I will not accept demands that I tolerate the intolerable.  I will not abide by laws, national or international, demanding silence in the face of approaching evil.


    Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us in 8:39 & 9:29. Those imperatives are confirmed by Moe's Sunnah in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and other hadith. They are codified in Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller O9.8-9.9. Allah promises Muslims admission to his celestial bordello if they wage war and threatens them with eternal damnation if they shirk.  Allah gives extra credit for a better seat in his bordello if they take any step to injure or enrage us.

    So most Muslims "don't do that / don't believe that". Oh, don't they? Islam is not cafeteria Catholicism, as made clear by 2:85: "Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. ".

    If Muslims "don't do that", then how did the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides happen?  How do you explain shouts of Takbir in the school at Beslan and the aircraft over New York City? 

    Which Muslim is a believer who fights in Allah's cause, killing and being killed [9:111] and which is a hypocrite whose Islam "will not exceed their throats." [Sahih Bukhari 5.59.638]?

protects individuals

    Who is going to go to Egypt and protect the Copts and their homes, businesses & churches?  Will you send the Marines to Kenya & Nigeria to protect Christians there?  Who will protect Christians in Pakistan?  You and whose army, 24/7/365? 

    You do not protect individuals by passing resolutions, you protect them with "boots on the ground".  You can only protect indigenous Christian minorities by eliminating the Muslims who murder them with impunity. 

    The cartoonists did not assault or kill any Muslims; they did not destroy any property. Muslims, stirred up by rabble rousing Imams at Jumah Salat did that. Exactly how do those resolutions protect Muslims? 

    Islam is not defamed by revelation of the fatal facts linked in previous paragraphs. Muslims are not threatened or stereotyped by revealing those facts. Silencing criticism of Islam would not protect Islam from defamation, neither would it protect Muslims; it would only remove our ability to warn our fellow citizens of approaching danger. 


    The malignant & malicious practice of al-Taqiyya & kitman is not education, it is indoctrination.  Islam is not a religion, neither is it peaceful nor is it great. Islam is intra-species predation.  Education will happen if intelligent and rational people read the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah.  What currently happens in our educational & religious institutions is indoctrination.

concrete details

    I have prepared two tables comparing the defamation & stereotyping memes. The tables are complemented by relevant quotes from the Secretaries General of the OIC and UN, followed by evidence to further clarify the issue. Bold, blue, underlined text is hyperlinked to source documents.

Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.
Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.
God would never select an unrepentant sinner as his final prophet.
Muslims tend toward pedophilia because Muhammad is their role model.

Regardless of which standard of conduct is adopted, stating the fact revealed by Aisha, that she was nine years old when Moe consummated their marriage, will be criminalized and condemned. 

defamation stereotyping no religion should be equated with terrorism
I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast

You are more awful as a fear

victorious with terror

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast

You are more awful as a fear

victorious with terro

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast

You are more awful as a fear

victorious with terro

Islamic doctrines incite terrorism.
Muslims are terrorists because they emulate Moe.
Islam =

    No  matter how you slice it; whichever protocol  they follow, truthful statements about Islam must be outlawed and condemned.  Defamation || negative stereotyping is a distinction without a difference.

concrete examples

    In this quote from a speech to the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu implies that  Geert Wilders' Fitna and the Danish Cartoons incite religious hatred & violence.

It is clearly established that international law and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 forbids any incitement to religious hatred. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Despite this clear stipulation, the Attorney General of Denmark failed to see in the infamous Danish Cartoons issues on Prophet Mohamed, any incitement to hatred on bases of religion or belief. The same authority in the Netherlands did the same thing in the case of the film Fitna, produced by a Member of Dutch Parliament. Such negative or indifferent attitudes adopted by officials in certain Western countries which seem to condone acts of an Islamophobic nature, can only lead to legitimizing Islamophobia and enhancing discrimination against Muslims and exposing their well-being and safety to danger. [Speech 0f His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General 0f the Organisation 0f the Islamic conference, at Columbia University 21/09/2008]

    Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.
Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

incitement ? 


 Fitna juxtaposes violent Qur'an verses and hadith with the rabid hate speech & incitement of several Imams and the resulting terrorism & riots. Fitna does not incite, it exposes incitement.


    The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist.  They are humorous; they do not exhort or incite Kuffar to assault Muslims. Moe died before the invention of gun powder, but he was a terrorist by his own admission, having declared that he was "made victorious with terror". He deliberately built a reputation for egregious barbarian rapine so as to terrify his intended victims, rendering them disorganized and effectively defenseless.

Quran burning

    Pastor Terry Jones planned to hold a Qur'an burning 09/11/10. He chickened out, but in March of '11, he held a four hour mock trial of the Qur'an with Arabic speaking experts on both sides of the debate and, having found the Qur'an guilty of inciting violence, burned it. 

    Muslims in Pakistan, on exiting from Jumah Salat, rioted, resulting in several deaths and considerable property damage. Pastor Jones did not incite violence, the Pakistani Imams incited violence in their rabid rants at Friday prayer services.

Ihsanoglu's jaundiced view

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.[]

We have to be sure about what constitutes criticism but not incitement to hatred. For example, when somebody calls for burning of our holy book Qur`an, can it be considered as mere criticism? []

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
[Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's speech to the HRC Session 15.]

legal foundation

    Moe ordered the murder of his critics; an example to be emulated.
Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.


    Reliance of the Traveller, O11.10  lists five acts which break the treaty of protection exposing a Dhimmi to execution. This is the fifth item in that list: "or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam."  What is impermissible to mention? O8.7 contains a list of 20 items including: "to revile Allah or His messenger ", "to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him ", "to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat",  "to deny any verse of the Koran ", and "to revile the religion of Islam".

    In reality, the OIC seeks, through the UN, to impose Islamic blasphemy law on us, denying our right to warn our fellow citizens of the existential threat Islam poses to our lives, liberties & prosperity.   We were not stupid enough to outlaw criticism of Communism during the cold war, why should we outlaw criticism of Islam?