Western Civilization at the Crossroad . . . !

There have been many times when the fate of Western civilization has reached a critical crossroad and, whether through chance, choice or compulsion, has taken a direction which has had irreversible and incalculable effects on the future development of mankind.

When, in 490 B.C.E., the Persian monarch Darius I made his first concerted attempt at a land invasion to conquer the Greek city-states, his force of approximately 50,000+ Persian troops were met by a smaller force of 8,000+ Greek and allied troops under the command of Militiades, Callimachus and Arimestus on the plain of Marathon. Against all odds, the Greeks won a decisive victory and ensured the continued existence and development of Greek culture that would shape the future of Western Civilization.

Ten years later, in 480 B.C.E., the Athenian commander Themistocles won, against all odds and a Persian force more than twice the size of his own, a naval victory in the Straits of Salamis that led to the defeat of the Persian navy and the eventual crumbling of the Persian Empire.

That fate was sealed at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 B.C.E. when Alexander the Great, with his 40,000 troops, faced the overwhelming might of Darius III and his estimated 200,000 Persian and allied forces. Alexander's brillant and tactically stunning generalship swept the field leaving over 50,000 Persian casualties while sustaining losses of less than 4,000 of his own troops.

During the Middle Ages, battles were fought by Crusaders and Mohammedans that determined the fate, not only of the Holy Land, but of European civilization itself. In 1187 the forces of Saladin overwhelmed and defeated the knights of Guy de Lusignon at the Battle of Hattin near Tiberius, opening the way for the Mohammedans' further conquests that eventually led to the expulsion of the Crusaders from the Middle East as both a political and religious influence and placed Israel under the iron heel of Islamic oppression for almost 750 years.

The most recent historical threat to civilized societies was the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany prior to and during the Second World War. When Adolph Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" while in Landsberg prison in 1924, he outlined in the most meticulous detail each and every policy he intended to follow should he ever gain political power in Germany.

For those of you who have never read this magnum opus of Hitler's, it contains, in stark black and white, the blueprint for his extermination of the Jews and all other "untermenchen", or sub-humans, such as the Slavs, Gypsies, Russians, etc. as well as an unabashed determination to acquire "lebensraum", or "living space", for the German nation which would be taken from the Russians.

In my personal opinion, "Mein Kampf" and "The Koran" should be required reading in every school and college Political Science class, to be read and analysed as the supreme examples of the roots of fascist and totalitarian political/religious philosophies throughout the civilized world.
Forewarned is forearmed . . . ! !

These goals and the methods by which Hitler intended to achieve them were there for all the world to see nine years before his Nazi Party gained seats in the German Reichstag and twelve years before he became Chancellor of the German nation.

And yet the world did nothing . . . . .

Ah, I apologize . . . the world did do something . . . it appeased Hitler.

The Western Powers waffled and wavered. They hemmed and hawed. They sacrificed the Danzig Corridor, they abandoned the Sudetenland, they watched in self-imposed impotency as Austria fell to the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo began its reign of terror.

Neville Chamberlain, to Britain's everlasting shame, licked Hitler's boots and brought home a piece of paper "guaranteeing peace in our times". That piece of paper cost Europe and Russia over 70 million dead and uncounted maimed, wounded and disabled. Over half of those were Russians.

Now, at this critical crossroads in the history of the world, we are faced with a greater threat than that of the Nazi juggernaut that cut such a brutal swathe through the nations of Eurpope and Africa.

That threat is Islam.

In the Koran, as in "Mein Kampf", the aims and methods of Islam to dominate the world and to lay waste Western Civilization are laid out in meticulous detail. There is no need to invent a plagarized "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to incriminate the Mohammedan in his clearly stated intent. There is no need to invent a spurious "international conspiracy" as the anti-Semites have lodged against the Jews.

The Koran itself lays out in precise and exhaustive detail, as Hitler did in "Mein Kampf" for the Nazis, the ambition and intent of Islam to conquer, enslave or exterminate the "infidel" wherever he may be found.

Here, below, are Koranic verses, the "holy scriptures" of Islam itself, nothing added, nothing omitted.

This is Islam's detailed blueprint for your fate should they ever gain the upper hand. . . as we see so blatantly illustrated on a daily basis in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Syria, etc. :

=====================================================================

Bukhari:V4B52N260 -"The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him!’"

Sura ( 5:51) - "Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends."

Sura (8:12) - "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will strike terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger."

Sura (2:216) - Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Sura (3:151) - Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority.

Sura (9:5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the non-believers wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.

Sura (2: 98) – "Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers."

Sura (2: 191-193) – "Kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them….Fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah."

Sura (2: 216) – "Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know."

Sura (3: 19) – "Surely the true religion with Allah is Islam…and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning."

Sura (4: 104) – "Be not weak in pursuit of the enemy."

Sura (5: 51) – "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whosoever among you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Sura (8: 12) – "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

Sura (8: 15-17 ) – "O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, turn not your backs to them. Whoever shall turn his back to them on that day – unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company – then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath, and his abode is hell… So you did not slay them, but it was Allah who slew them…that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing."

Sura (9: 29) – "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth… until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

(N.B.: The "tax" referred to here is the "Dhimmi" tax which requires each non-Mohammedan to pay an exorbitant tax for the "privilege" of living relatively unmolested under Islam rule.)

Sura (9 :33 ) – "[Allah] it is who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though polytheists may be averse."

Sura ( 8:60 ) - "Infidels (non-Muslims) should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them."

Bukhari [4:52:177]: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him !"

Bukhari, V1B4N234: "The prophet advised them to drink the urine of the camels. Later on when they killed the prophet's shepherd, the prophet seized them, gouged out their eyes, cut their hands and legs, and left them thirsty in the desert to die."

Source(s):

Some other sources, many from EX-MOHAMMEDANS THEMSELVES can be found at:
http://camera.org/
http://www.islamwatch.org/ExMuslims/Hon...
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
http://www.jpost.com/
http://www.honestreporting.com/
http://www.arabsforisrael.com/
http://www.memri.org/
http://www.memritv.org/
http://www.answering-islam.org/
http://news.spirithit.com/index/asia/mor...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery/26.h...
http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2004/08/...
http://middleeastfacts.com/yashiko
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

====================================================================

Who among our readers are prepared to resist this new Nazism ?

Are you going to go down on your knees in the face of Islamic terrorism and hope that by appeasing this ravenous monster with "small sacrifices" ( . . . like Israeli Jews ) as the Allied nations did to Hitler in sacrificing the Danzig Corridor, the Sudetenland and Austria . . . hoping his hunger would be appeased by these dainty morsels?

Your only choices now, as in 1939, are resistance . . . . or enslavement and death !

And, as we've witnessed time after time in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Palestine, Oman, Iran, Iraq, etc., if you're a woman, of the latter, death, would be by far the more preferable of the two . . .

The Seventy-two Virgins . . . Heaven or Hell ?

When, like Mohammed, you're inventing a new religion, one of the most difficult things is coming up with those snappy new gimmicks to attract followers. Unfortunately, Mohammed was living in the seventh century and was handicapped by the fact that T.V. and the Internet with all their high-tech bells and whistles hadn't been invented yet, so he was forced to fall back on pandering to basic human frailties like greed, lust, aggression and so on.

One day while he was enduring his annual bath, he, like Archimedes before him (who actually spent a lot of time in the suds), was struck by a magnificent inspiration, solving a problem of "hooking" new converts which had long perplexed him, and sprung excitedly from the tub with the Arabic equivalent of "Eureka" bursting from his lips, ran to his desk and jotted down the following note to himself;

"Any Mohammedan who commits suicide killing infidels will get seventy-two virgins in Paradise to do his bidding and fulfill his every whim and fantasy"

Now, at first glance, you have to admit that's a pretty effective proposition for a lot of pimply-faced young kids who keep getting shot down in the local singles bar by the hot chicks. Years of having drinks they've just bought for some babe who looks like a "Hooter's" centerfold poured down the front of their pants would tend to make make a lot of Mohammedan nerds begin to think seriously about those seventy-two virgins . . . and Mohammed knew this.

So far, so good . . . .

The only problem was that Mohammed never got around to thinking this thing all the way through.

Apparently, he got distracted while he was frolicking around in bed with his six-year-old wife Aisha ( if a fifty-four year old man can still actually "frolic" . . . ) and lost all his focus on this critical point of Islamic doctrine that has become so relevant in our time. His concentration wavered. His attention flagged. He neglected to work out the details.

And therein lies the problem . . . .

Let's take a look at this in a little more depth, shall we?

Here we have a 17-to-34 year old male Mohammedan, frustrated with life, strapped to the armpits with plastic explosives and ready to get his sweaty little hands on those seventy-two virgins. Out he goes into the street, climbs on a bus and . . .

K-A-A-BLOOIE ! ! !

He sets off the explosives and ascends to Paradise . . .

Again, so far, so good . . .

But now things begin to look a wee bit shaky. First of all, Allah never promised that these would be beautiful ( or, for that matter, even young . . . ) virgins. After they take off their veils, our freshly arrived martyr finds that Allah seems to have given him the wallflowers and bow-wows ( having kept the Jessica Simpsons for himself ) and the young fool never thought to bargain for the best deal like he naturally would have for a pound of apples in the marketplace.

BIG lapse of judgement there on our boy's part !

Now, he's stuck with deflowering all these virgins. Let's be charitable and say that he can manage three a night, that'll take him 24 consecutive nights to finish the job.

And, Islam being what it is, and Allah being who HE is, the poor schmuck's going to have to marry all seventy-two of these now EX-virgins.

Let's think about that. Seventy-two wives. Seventy-two newlywed wives who are now going to have to wait another 24 days before they get any more sex . . . and this is on the honeymoon !

Most guys have trouble satisfying one woman at the best of times. Why would any man in his right mind take the chance of pissing off seventy-two women even if he could keep up the pace?

Not a lot of rational thought there . . .

And, now that he's got seventy-two already bitchy and disgruntled wives, he's bound by Islamic law to provide for each of them equally. Consider the implications of that. It means ponying up for seventy-two new washing machines, seventy-two new dishwashers, seventy-two new strings of pearls, seventy-two new dresses every week, and only Allah knows how many new pairs of shoes the poor cretin will have to fork out his hard earned dinars for.

Wait . . . hard earned dinars ??? When's this poor guy going to have a chance to go to work ??

Even if he did find time for a job, where's he going to find a convenience store in Paradise that'll pay him more than minimum wage? Since the vast majority of suicide bombers are young, unskilled and under-educated, the chances of his getting a mangement position in Paradise are slim to none. You'll probably have noticed by now that none of the leaders of the terrorist groups are out on the front lines blowing themselves to smithereens . . .

And by now, he's got seventy-two SERIOUSLY cranked-off wives at home, with each and every one getting meaner by the day since they're all pregnant as a result of his initial twenty-four day orgy after his "martyrdom".

Ah, seventy-two pregnant wives . . . and now we come to the eventual children.

Yes, children are truly a gift from Allah. A blessing, each and every one of them, for the Mohammedan father. Each and every one of the ten kids those seventy-two wives will each be popping out like candy from a Pez dispenser over the years.

What a wonderfully blissful family scene that conjures to mind. Seventy-two bitchy, screeching, complaining, sex-deprived wives screaming at the seven hundred and twenty kids tearing like little maniacs around the house.

And just think, now our heroic martyr gets to foot the bill for seven hundred and twenty new pairs of designer jeans every three or four months, all the orthodontist's bills, health insurance, school supplies, etc.

Makes your mouth water just imagining that kind of Paradise, doesn't it?

Now, there's one other aspect of this "Seventy-Two Virgins" doctrine of Islam that we haven't considered yet. Not all Islamic terrorists are single men. Some are actually married men with families who thought they'd get out from under the harrow by becoming martyrs and getting in on the seventy-two virgins thing. As we can see, that was sort of like "out of the frying pan into the fire". You really have to pity guys that stupid.

Also, I don't know if you're aware of it, but if a Mohammedan's married here in this life, commits suicide as a terrorist and goes to Paradise and gets his seventy-two virgins, when his wife dies she's still married to him and joins him in Paradise. Most people would think that that would be a pretty degrading position for her to be in, but, personally, I'll bet she'll just be lying on the sofa eating chocolates and laughing her ass off watching her hubby get everything he deserves for bailing out on her and the kids.

For a woman, I think THAT'S true paradise!

It's curious, but neither the Koran or the Haditha mention the rewards awaiting the female suicide terrorists. I guess we can safely assume that they get new washer/dryers and a complete set of Tupperware.

Now, there's just one more point to cover here and we can do it quickly. There are those apologists for Islam who claim that the "seventy-two virgins" is really a mistranslation of the Koranic Arabic and that the true reading should be ( and this is a fact, I'm NOT making it up !) "seventy-two white raisins" !

Seventy-two white raisins . . . . ?!?

As far as I'm concerned, any fool that would blow himself up just to get his hands on "seventy-two white raisins" deserves more than any other individual on the face of God's green earth to have his or her DNA permanently flushed out of the human gene pool.

But that's Islam . . . . go figure . . . . !

Killing of non-muslims is legitimate (British Mullah)

There have been legions of apologists for Islamic atrocities over the past seventy to eighty years, most of these coming from individuals or groups with deeply entrenched financial, political or ideological interests in the Arab world.

When the Arabs were rabidly voicing their determination to "push the Jews into the sea" prior to each of their failed attempts to destroy the Nation of Israel, there were those in the Western media who assured us that this wasn't to be taken literally, that it was just another example of the Arab culture's tendency for bombast and hyperbole in their speech.

When the Mohammedans began to extend their range of terror beyond the bounds of the Middle East, those same media sources hammered on the manta that "Islam is a religion of peace!" Even after the unparalleled demonstration on September 11, 2001 of Islam's naked ambitions to spread their tentacles of hatred and destruction to the very heart of American society, President George W. Bush declared to a stunned and still reeling American public that "Islam is a religion of peace!"

After the atrocities perpetrated in London on July 7, 2005 there were still those who declared that Islam was a "religion of peace" and that these acts of violence ( the B.B.C. still refused to characterize them as "acts of terror") were carried out by a small number of "extremists" who were "hijacking" a "peaceful religion".

In the video above, you can hear with your own ears the naked and unashamed statements of a prominent "British" Mohammedan unmasking the soul of this "peaceful religion" to the world. As a minor, but telling, point of interest, you might note that the interviewer in this B.B.C. production of "Hardtalk", while appearing to take a severly critical line with this cleric, never once uses the word "terror" in reference to the past and future Mohammedan atrocities to which he refers.

Apparently at the B.B.C. old habits die hard.

Another extremely intriguing pattern that seems to be emerging as we develop this blog is that the vast majority of Mohammedans who are actively and increasingly vocal in their condemnation of Islam and its barbarian doctrines are women. The interview conducted in the video above seems to typify more and more frequently the attitudes of Mohammedan men.

This in itself should give the governmental authorities in all civilized countries extremely sound and valid reasons to reassess their immigration policies.

I know that if the lives and safety of millions of citizens were entrusted to me, I would certainly prefer to err on the side of caution . . . . unless, of course, I was closely linked in some way to the financial benefits the PetroSheiks are so eager and able to provide to those willing to whitewash their barbarism.

Muslim "Honor" Killings

"Honor" has different meanings in Islam . . .

The world is well aware of the barbarity of the concept of "honor killings" among the Mohammedans.

The preceeding video merely elaborates on the inhumanity of this doctrine, but it does not, it cannot, convey the sheer brutality and gut-wrenching inhumanity with which these lynching are carried out.

The idea behind "honor killings" is that a woman, no matter how young, is the sole vessel for the preservation of the "honor" of the Mohammedan's family and that any thought, act, or perceived act that might call the "honor" of the family into question requires the death of that woman, again, regardless of her youth.

There is really little to add that can further enforce or emphasize our condemation of this primitive and utterly barbaric doctrine.

What is truly interesting is that this "principle" of "family honor" is something which devolves solely upon the heads of the women in Islam; there is no such restriction placed upon men in Islamic society. As far as Islam is concerned, a man is free to behave in any way he pleases without fear of condemnation or punishment, as far as his responsibilities to maintaining the "family honor" are concerned. He is beyond the reach of any restraining social or religious doctrines.

And Mohammedan men make the most of this freedom.

Anyone who has visited a Mohammedan country has seen the packs of Mohammedan men trailing after a foreign female tourist like dogs scenting a steak. In all major tourist centers in the Islamic world, the single female tourist is hounded, sometimes with disarming courtesy, sometimes with blatant vulgarity, but always hounded wherever she goes. Whether it is in the souk or in the bazaar, a restaurant or a shop, there will always be the undercurrent of tension surrounding her, the knowledge that she is the prey and the Mohammedan men the predators.

These are the men who are willing, on the instant, to condemn and lynch their own mothers, sisters or daughters at the merest hint of an indiscretion or "perceived" indiscretion.

The hypocrisy of Islam defies comprehension by the civilized mind. These are barbaric practices that, even in earlier eras in less advanced cultures, were considered as unjust.

What would bring these atrocities to a screeching halt would be if Islamic women decided, in every Islamic society, to apply the same standards to, and inflict the same punishments on, the men in their families.

IF an erring son was seen talking to a Swedish tourist in Sharm-El Sheik, or a husband was caught with a woman not of his family in Doha, and they were shamed in public and subsequently lynched, I think that would go far to bring about a more civilized equality between the sexes in Mohammedan society. It wouldn't take more than two or three such examples to pull the rest in to line. I seriously doubt whether such public displays would be sanctioned by the male-dominated Islamic society, so the only reasonable alternative for the Mohammedan wife, sister or daughter would be to slit the offending male's throat in the night. Such an action would be well within the scope of any Mohammedan woman to perform without a second thought.

I think a week or so without sleep on the part of erring men would do wonders to rectify the situation.

But, given the mentality of the Mohammedan male, rather than surrender any of their "masculine prerogatives" of unfettered immorality, I think they would be more inclined to offer a bit more freedom to their women as a sop. I'm sure the Imams ( the Islamic clerics), tossing and turning restlessly in their beds at night, would find Koranic passages that would enable women to drive a car, work outside the home, visit freely among her friends, etc.

The threat of suffering the horrendous fate that the "men" in Islam have so easily meted out to women over the centuries would, I am sure, make them a little more civilized, if not less primitive.

"Yahoo" and "YouTube". . . Promoting Islamic Terror?

There is an extremely disturbing pattern emerging on the "Yahoo.com" website as well as the "Yahoo Answers"section of the "Yahoo.com" website.

For those who aren't familiar with "Yahoo Answers", it's an adjunct of "Yahoo.com" where anyone with a "Yahoo.com" e-mail address can register, sign in and then ask or answer questions posted by other members. This is a free service and it has a host of different sections covering virtually every subject imaginable.

While most of the sections are pretty innocuous and not likely to raise the hackles of the average poster or answerer, there are a few subject areas that tend to attract rather more heated responses than others. Two of the most volatile forums are the "Israel" section as a sub-section under the "Travel" heading and "Religion and Spirituality" as a sub-section under the "Society and Culture" heading.

The questions posed by Mohammedans in both of these sections tend to be extremely provocative and antagonistic toward non-Mohammedans, especially Jews, Christains and Israel, while their responses to any questions or answers critical of Islam can frequently border on the hysterical.

Now, the problem is that while "Yahoo Answers" understandably has what are called "Community Guidelines" that are meant to act as mechanisms to keep offensive material out of this forum, and can result in the "suspension" ( read: "termination") of a user's entire "Yahoo" account if an unacceptable number of "violations" are reported, this policy is more and more clearly being used selectively to terminate the accounts of users who are critical of Islam.

As an example of this selectivity, the following innocuous question resulted in the termination of one user's account:

===================================================================

"Question: After three million years of evolution . . .?

. . . . and the long, slow climb of civilization from hunter-gatherers through the rise of agricultural societies and then the gradual emergence of science from the intellectual black hole of the Middle Ages, climbing still higher to witness the spark of the Industrial Revolution that led to the explosion of technolgical and scientific advances in the 19th, and 20th centuries which ultimately gave us the conquest of space and the computer age, do you really think the absolute height of human achievement, both technological and intellectual, on this planet is being able to ask, " Why does my cat pee in the bathroom sink?" on Y/A ?

I mean, really, WTF ?!?"

===================================================================

That, with no additions or omissions, is the entire question exactly as it was posted. Nothing there to offend anyone with a modicum of a sense of humor, I think? Just a light-hearted little bit of fun, wouldn't you agree? But it was posted by a user known to be critical of Islam on "Yahoo Answers" and, as such, was targeted and flagged by ONE Mohammedan user as offensive, resulting in the termination of that user's entire "Yahoo.com" account.

Other users have had questions or answers critical of Islam deleted and received violation notices BEFORE they were even posted on the site itself.

Questions about the validity of Islamic values and doctrines, or especially those critical of Islamic terrorism, are routinely deleted within half an hour to an hour after their posting.

But, postings by Mohammedans which are offensive in the extreme to Christianity or Judaism, or rabidly anti-Semitic when posted in the "Israel" section are left alone even when they have been known to have received over seventy-five flaggings for violations of the "Community Guidelines".

One such example was posted in the "Egypt" sub-section of the "Travel" heading a little while ago and remained posted for over FOUR DAYS without being deleted even though it had received over sixty flaggings that we were aware of ! !

This is the posting, showing the user's screen-name and the content of the posting exactly as it appeared on "Yahoo Answers":

====================================================================
Posted by "Magdoulin"
Member since: October 21, 2007

"but what did YOU do for Palestines or for anyone? tell me if you can hero.. I advise you, rather to criticise the Egyptian people, suggest something to do like demonstration for example if you are Egyptian or tell us about your experience of this matter. Let me now ask you a question: are you really ready to gift your soul for the Palestanian cause? for me I know the answer prematurely, people like you do nothing except complaining but in the serious time, they shut up. For me I am ready to carry out what you called the suicidal missions and what I called martyrdom duty and I am ready right now, do you know a struggleful cell which I can join to it?? by the way.. it is not joke!"

Posted: 4 days ago

====================================================================
This is a typical example of the type of language used by Mohammedan "Yahoo.com" users when discussing Israel, Jews, Zionism, etc. in the "Yahoo Answers" site.

And, as you can see, this was left untouched by the Yahoo moderators for over four days!

This, I believe I can safely say, was a blatant statement of terrorist intent and, by refusing to delete it, "Yahoo.com" implictly aided and abetted this individual's clear intention to influence others to commit similar acts of terror.

A disturbing example of "Yahoo.com"s collaberation with "YouTube" in censoring material critical of Islam or Arab states was the recent termination of the "Yahoo"e-mail account ( FYI: wa2el_3abbas@yahoo.com ) and "YouYube" account of a prominant and internationally respected Egyptian human rights activist, Wael Abbas, who had posted graphic videos of the torture of prisoners in Egyptian police custody on his website http://misrdigital.blogspirit.com/
It was only after an international uproar and expressions of outrage that both "Yahoo" and "YouTube" restored the deleted material.

While "Yahoo.com" has been willing, even eager, to act as a watchdog in the interests of its Mohammedan users, it has also been supine in the extreme in allowing offensive comments or postings regarding Christianity or Judaism by those same Mohammedans or, just as frequently, atheists who routinely disparage any and all religious faiths in the most offensive manners imaginable.

Luckily, in the "Yahoo Answers" community, the overwhelming impression one receives is that the vast majority of users realize this manipulation and continue to expose postings by Islamic apologists to the ridicule and contempt they so richly deserve.

I might suggest that the "Yahoo Answers" moderators keep in mind Abraham Lincoln and his justly famous statement that "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Sexual Abuse of Children Authorized by Islamic Clerics

This is a great example of the true nature of Islam.

With the cancer of Pedophilia sweeping the globe through the media of the Internet, there are more and more children being subjected to some of the most horrendous sexual abuses. This problem has been high-lighted in recent years with the revelations that Catholic clerics had been, for generations, abusing the children under their spiritual care.

In response to these revelations, the Catholic Church has instituted new regulations concerning the behaviour of celibate clergy when interacting with children in their parishes.

With the outrage of the Western world at these sexual atrocities and the almost visible cloud of shame that has overshadowed the Catholic Church, Mohammedan clerics have now come out, in an extremely vocal and agressive manner IN SUPPORT of sexual child abuse ! !

In a way, this is hardly surprising, since one of Mohammed's "wives" was barely six years old !

This is hardly anti-Mohammedan "propoganda", since the Mohammedan scriptures themselves state, "The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)." (Sahih Bukhari 7.88)

I think that if you view the following video you'll have to agree that, in this age of rampant pedophilia, this kind of "religious" acceptance and encouragement of sexual abuse of children constitutes one of the most egregious and depraved doctrines that could possibly be imagined.

While the Catholic Church has admitted its shame and attempted to rectify its sins, the Mohammedans are revelling in these abominations.

Please watch the video, and let us know what you think through your comments.




Additionally, we suggest you visit www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/JenniferKing50718p2.htm

Regarding the practice of "thighing", the masterbating between the legs of a female infant or actually sodomizing her, Islamic clerics have this to say:

PEDOPHILIA LAWS FROM ISLAMIC-FATWA.NET

Question 1809

After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question forwarded by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)

Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children. (mufa’khathat - literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child).

What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her ?

Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:

As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:

"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

Khomeini, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

“It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”

Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's "Tahrir Al wasila" p. 241, issue number 12

"Young boys or girls in full sexual effervescence are kept from getting married before they reach the legal age of majority. This is against the intention of divine laws. Why should the marriage of pubescent girls and boys be forbidden because they are still minors, when they are allowed to listen to the radio and to sexually arousing music?"

"The Little Green Book" "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini", Bantam Books

MUHAMMAD, THE PROPHET OF ISLAM

PART 1 MECCA

An Arab is regarded as an old man, a sheik, when he is fifty.

Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old in Mecca and she joined him in Medina three years later when he was 53. He began having sex with Aisha when she was nine years old and still playing with dolls.

This is the original story told by the ONLY valid biographers of Muhammad and Islam, Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, and the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. Refer also to the works of the Qur’an commentators Ibn Kathir and Ibn Qayyim. (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume II, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Limited, UK. The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 2000. pp. 93-94)
(Ibn Qayyim Al-Juaziyyah, Zad-ul Ma’ad fi Hadyi Khairi-l ‘Ibad (Provisions for the Hereafter, From the Guidance of Allah’s Best Worshipper) translated by Jalal Abualrub, [Madinah Publishers & Distributors, December 2000] Volume I, pp. 157-158)

Muhammad said that he had dreamed of Aisha before demanding her from her father, and his own brother in Islam, Abu Bakr, claiming special ‘prophets rights’ when Abu Bakr was reluctant to give her to him.

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 235: Narrated 'Aisha: That the Prophet said to her, "You have been shown to me twice in my dreams. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said to me, 'This is your wife.' When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If this is from Allah, it will be done."

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother!"

The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Marriage to a female already offered to another was illegal in Arab law. Abu Bakr had already arranged for Aisha to marry Djubayr Mutim.

Muhammad married ‘A’isha in Mecca when she was a child of six and lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the only virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad) translated by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, p. 792)
Tabari VII:7 “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.”

Tabari IX:128 “When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.” [The History of Al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community] translated by M.V. McDonald annotated by W. Montgomery Watt [State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], Volume VII, pp. 6-7) (The History of Al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press, Albany 1990], Volume IX, pp. 129-130)

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236: Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

An "Infidel" in Israel

This article was published in The Jerusalem Post on October 23, 2007
The article was written by Lela Gilbert


Nonie Darwish was born in Cairo, and in the early 1950s moved with her family
to Egyptian-occupied Gaza, where her father, Lt.-Gen. Mustafa Hafez, was
appointed by president Gamal Abdel Nasser to command Egyptian army intelligence. Hafez founded Palestinian fedayeen units to launch terrorist raids across Israel's southern border. Between 1951 and 1956, the fedayeen killed some 400 Israelis. In July 1956, when Nonie was eight, her father became the IDF's first targeted assassination. He was immediately recognized as a shahid - a martyr for jihad. Nonie eventually graduated from the American University, and later worked as a journalist. In 1978 she moved to the US, where she has become a Christian.

Nonie Darwish's book "Now They Call Me Infidel" fascinated me, and I remember thinking as I read it that I would love to meet this woman. The opportunity came during her recent visit to Jerusalem to speak at the Feast of Tabernacles.

We began our conversation by talking about her family background.

You attended elementary school in Gaza. What was that like?

"In elementary school we learned hatred, vengeance and retaliation; peace was never an option, but a sign of defeat and weakness. Teachers filled our hearts with fear of Jews; that made hatred come easy and terrorism acceptable, even honorable. Looking back, I never heard a peace song in Arabic. All we heard were songs glorifying jihad, martyrdom and winning wars."

In "Now They Call Me Infidel", you wrote about the difficulties your mother faced as a widow, even though your father was an Egyptian hero. What was life like for you and your family after he died?


"After my father's death, my mother had to face life alone with five children in a culture that respects only families headed by a man. In the 1950s few women drove, and she was called names for buying a car to take us to school."
You've said that you gradually began to question the culture you lived in. Do any specific incidents come to mind that were turning points?


"I remember visiting a Christian friend in Cairo during the Friday prayers, and we both heard the verbal attacks on Christians and Jews from the loudspeakers. We heard "May God destroy the infidels and the Jews, the enemies of God…" and believe it or not, if you grow up with cursing prayers, they can sound and feel normal. But my Christian friend looked scared, and I was ashamed. That was when I first realized something was wrong with the way my religion was taught and practiced."
You are very outspoken in your book about the grave consequences of polygamy on women in the Arab culture. Why?


"Polygamy has a devastating effect on family dynamics, on the husband/wife relationship and on women's relationships with other women. Many Muslim men have only one wife, but the damage to the wife/husband relationship has already been done in the Muslim marriage contract, in which a man doesn't pledge loyalty to his wife. Besides the name of the bride, the marriage contract has three spaces left blank, to be filled with the names of any other women the man later wishes to marry. Yet in spite of this, a good Muslim woman must accept her destiny under Shari'a law..."
How would you describe Shari'a law?

"Under Islamic Shari'a law, punishments include flogging, stoning, beheading and amputation of limbs. These are cruel and unusual punishments by Western standards. Leaving Islam is punishable by death. Even if an Islamic state fails to kill an apostate, his death is guaranteed at the hands of a street mob. That makes Islam more than a religion; it's a state, with an elaborate legal system that can put you to death if you leave it. Shari'a guarantees that there is no crossing the "Berlin Wall" of the Muslim state... Amazingly, the majority of Muslim countries don't practice criminal Shari'a simply because they can't stomach it. But family Shari'a law is in every Muslim country. It allows only men the right to an easy divorce, permits up to four wives and allows wife beating. A woman is respected only when she hides her body, face and even her identity."

You've been to Israel several times. In your view, how does it differ from the rest of the Middle East?

"Israel really brings hope to the region. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that allows religious freedom. Even though it is the tiniest country in the region, it is not afraid to allow Muslims to have mosques to pray in; it is not afraid to allow Christians all these freedoms. It is really a credit to Judaism that it doesn't have the possessiveness Islam has. You know, it's amazing, with all the land the Muslims have, and all the wealth from oil, and all the armies, that no Arab country is secure in its existence. Why else would 1.2 billion Muslims feel threatened by five million Jews? It says a lot. And I've learned that the fear and hate are by design - of Islam's religious educators, its political leadership and its intellectuals. Hatred for Israel is part of how the Arab world operates. They need an enemy. Because there is so much turmoil inside the Muslim world and no one can really name the reason. Why do we have so much turmoil? Why do we have so much anger? Why do we have such rage in our families? They don't dare say it's because of Shari'a."

You still have family members in Egypt. When did you last see them, and what were your thoughts about life there during your visit?

"In August 2001 I visited my birthplace. I was stunned to see how radical Islam had taken over. The level of anger and hate speech was alarming. I saw extreme poverty, pollution, hazardous material and garbage along the Nile. There was high unemployment, inflation and widespread corruption. But when I read the Arab media, all I saw was the bashing of Israel and America. Citizens were unaware of Muslim-against-Muslim atrocities in Iraq, Algeria, Sudan and so forth. I was happy to return to the US on the evening of September 10, 2001."

So the next morning…?

"The next morning, when I saw the second plane hit the Twin Towers, I thought, 'Jihad has come to America.' Muhammad Atta was from Cairo, the same city I came from.

I called several friends in Cairo that day, but they were all in denial and asked me, "How dare you say that Arabs did this? Don't you know this is a Jewish conspiracy?"

Were the people you talked to affiliated with radical Islam?

"No, these were not radicals, but ordinary Egyptians, who are otherwise very nice people. I hung up and felt alone and disconnected from my culture of origin. Once again, my people are accusing the Jews of something we know very well that we Arabs have done... I started speaking after 9/11 out of respect for the 3,000 fellow Americans who died that day. I also spoke out of empathy for Israel - a country that deserves our respect and not our hatred. And today I speak out of love for my culture of origin, which is in desperate need of reformation. Arab terrorism is destroying the moral fabric and goodness in Arab culture."

You have written about the role envy plays in the Muslim world, describing it as a root of anti-American and anti-Israel thinking. Can you explain what you mean?

"As Muslims we fear the evil eye of others. We call it "hasad", which means envy. Unlike Christian teaching, which regards envy as a sin of the person who envies, in Islam envy is viewed as a curse brought upon one person by the evil eye of another. As a result we often see Muslims hide good news or keep their distance. Even giving a compliment is dangerous; it could be taken as a curse. The end result is a population that is extremely distrustful of one another...
Islamists are blinded by envy and can't understand Israel's success. They say it must be due to conspiracy and not merit... They have forgotten that Jewish success is due to a culture that promotes excellence and is blessed with self-discipline, education, dedication and a drive to leave this world a better place. There is no conspiracy there! If Arabs want to compete with Jews, let them do it in the realm of innovation and education, and not by terrorizing and eliminating the opposition. Arab mistakes are blamed on Israel, the West, past injustice or colonialism. Looking at a map of Israel in relationship to the Arab world tells us that Arabs don't need land; they need tolerance. There is no shortage of land. There is a shortage of freedom."

Exactly how do Muslim preachers stir up envy and hatred against non-Muslims?

"Non-Muslims are not just cursed, but are often described as "nagas", Arabic for "filth." The Times of London reported that Muslim students in Britain are being taught to despise non-Muslims as filth. That is why many Arabs believe that the existence of non-Muslims on Muslim land is a desecration... That is why America's defense of the Muslims against the Serbs, the Afghani Muslims against the Soviet Union, feeding Somali Muslims starved by their own leadership, received no credit in the Muslim world. In fact, the results are just the opposite; the more we try to help stabilize the region, the more we are despised. Muslims do not want to be rescued by infidels. This is a proud culture that is easily shamed by feelings of dependency on non-Muslims."

Besides your book, explain the other work you are doing.

"In February 2004, I started an organization called Arabs for Israel. Some criticized the name, claiming it implied a lack of support for Arabs. But to support Israel doesn't mean being anti-Arab. I love my people, but for peace to happen, we need a big leap, a new attitude; forgiveness and compassion. We Arabs need to ask "What can we do?" and not focus on what Israel must do to build trust, respect and peace... Improving living conditions for Arabs is not Israel's responsibility, it is the Arabs' responsibility. And Arab kids don't need hatred, they need hope. They don't need jihad, they need jobs."

What are your fears for Israel?

"My greatest fear for Israel is that it will lose the will to fight. Its founders are dying off, and now the same liberalism that is making the West weak is here too. I'm afraid Israel will give away too much, and the country will become too small to defend. Because the more you give, the more the Arabs want; it's part of the Arab culture. My Arab people are beautiful people, and I pray to God that they will find forgiveness in their hearts."



And "Amen" from the staff here on the blog!

Zionism as Opposed to Nazism / Islam

There have been numerous attempts by the "tin-foil-hatted" Mohammedan anti-Semites to equate Zionism to Nazism.

The difference between these two types of movements is clear to the most jaundiced eye.

Zionism was, and is, a movement for the re-establishment of, and return to, a secure homeland for a people who were conquered and forcibly exiled by the Romans two thousand years ago and subsequently suffered unprecedented persecution and oppression at the hands of both the Christian and Islamic communities who were desperately attempting to distance themselves from the Judaic roots of their religions.

At no time have Jews charaterized themselves as "superior" to any other people.

The catch-phrase of all anti-Semites, "the chosen people", refers solely to the fact that the God of Israel ( I repeat . . . the God of ISRAEL) acknowledged that He had chosen Israel to be His people. There is NO reference in the Jewish scriptures DENYING the existance of other gods. There are, in fact numerous references to many different gods . . . it simply states that the nation of Israel, specifically, is forbidden to worship them or to have intimate relations with those who do.

If you believe in Ba'al, Woden, Allah, Mohammad, Shiva, Buddha, Jesus, Wicca, Zeus, etc., Judaism couldn't care less . . . more power to you.

But no dedicated Jew will follow those beliefs voluntarily.

Another extremely interesting similarity between Nazism and Islam is the rabid assertions that Jews invented democracy, communism, human rights, animals rights, etc. That these could be conceived as negative achievements shows the glaring differences between Judaism, which encourages intellectual and philosophical diversity and the Nazi/Islamic mentality which so virulently suppresses any such freedoms.

As for Jews inventing democracy, that refers to the Biblical commandment that, during the forty year experience in the desert, those following Moses were commanded to chose freely among themselves the leaders of groups of ten, then those group leaders would choose from among themselves leaders of hundreds, etc. until they reached the leaders of groups of ten thousand. When critical matters arose which couldn't be decided by these sub-leaders, they brought the problems to Moses for final adjudication.

That communism, a political philosophy formulated by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, was a reaction to the overwhelmingly inhumane conditions suffered by the average worker during the Industrial Revolution in England under the control of PROTESTANT industrialists is universially ignored by anti-Semites.

Both Nazism and Islam consider all these (democracy, communism, human rights, animal rights, etc.) to be abominations because they imply an innate dignity and respect for the individual.

Human rights are guaranteed in the Biblical scriptures for women, where there were no such guarantees previously, there are guarantees for the rights of slaves ( and the OBLIGATORY release of those slaves after seven years) where NO other people or nation gave such rights.

Animal rights and the requirement for the care and consideration of both domestic and wild animals are also an integral part of Judaism.

Another unique feature of Judaism, which is anathama to both Nazism and Islam, is its consistant REFUSAL to accept new members into the community unless they are absolutely and FREELY determined to become Jewish.

Contrast those few examples of Jewish religious tenents with both National Socialism and Islam.

Both National Socialism and Islam are based on the ideology of the superiority of a certain race or religious belief.

Both National Socialism and Islam are forces which demand submission or extermination.

Both National Socialism and Islam demand blind acceptance of, and submission to, a central leader. In the case of National Socialism it was Adolph Hitler, with Islam it is Mohammed.

Both National Socialism and Islam purport to be "superior" to all other peoples or religions.

Both National Socialism and Islam are monolithic belief systems which persecute and oppress those who they believe to be "inferior" to them.

The similarities between National Socialism and Islam are virtually endless, but the examples given above are enough to make my point.

If a Mohammedan Imam opposes the terrorism of Mohammedans, he risks his life in doing so, and Mohammedan clerics have been killed in Europe and elsewhere for voicing just such opinions.

NO rabbis have been murdered for any "tin-foil-hatted" anti-Semitic or "anti-Zionist" statements . . . they're just ignored by the rest of the Jewish community . . . and bound with hoops of steel to the bosoms of the anti-Semites who pounce on these pronouncements as gospel.

The very fact that you state that you can read a Neturai Karta rabbi comparing Zionism to Nazism or a Noam Chomsky denegrating Judaism itself shows the leeway Judaism has in the scope of the beliefs it encompasses.

For those who have this image of tiny Israel as a monstrous, overshadowing threat to civilization, I have just answer one question . . .

"How many hundreds of thousands of Muslims live in Israel, with passports they can freely use to leave that " Zionist" country if they so wish, and how many Jews live freely and safely in Gaza . . . or in Saudi Arabia ( or Iran, Iraq, UAE, Qatar, etc.)?

For reference, you might want to look at some of the following links, many written by ex-Mohammedans themselves:

http://www.camera.org/
http://www.islam-watch.org/exmuslims/
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
http://www.jpost.com/
http://www.honestreporting.com/
http://www.arabsforisrael.com/
http://www.memri.org/
http://www.memritv.org/
http://www.answering-islam.org/
http://news.spirithit.com/index/asia/mor...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery/26.h...
http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2004/08/...
http://middleeastfacts.com/yashiko......
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Truth or Consequences . . . .?

Since we've been expanding the breadth and depth of our articles on Islam and its on-going threat to modern civilization, we've been getting excellent responses to our position . . . from both sides of the fence.

What we've found interesting is that the responses have taken on a pattern that's impossible to explain other than as a clear-cut conflict between good and evil.

Those who support our views, including both practicing and ex-Mohammedans, have condemned the examples of Islamic oppression and terror we have detailed and, along with the non-Mohammedans who read our blog, have concurred that Islam is today, indeed, an "unchained monster". This "monster", if left unopposed. will spread a far more deadly cancer of violence and barbarity than the Nazis of the Second World War could have ever imagined in their wildest dreams.

Those who oppose our views have uniformly ignored or, at best, minimized the continuing outrages of Islamic terror worldwide and have either riposted with hysterical rants about how Israel, the Jews, the U.S. the "Zionists', the West, the Christians, etc. are all responsible for the actions of the terrorists. More often, they have just stooped to slinging labels like "racist", "zionist", "hate-monger" and the like, rather than addressing the issues we've presented.

Islam is a religion that refuses to accept responsibility for its own actions.

While the world watches the daily beheadings, the bombings, the beatings, the rapes, the lynchings and other examples of Islamic "tolerance", the Mohammedans themselves seem to pride themselves on having a pathological condition of "blind-eye" to the most basic moral and ethical standards. They go on, endlessly, about how Islam is a "religion of peace and tolerance" while at the same justifying and applauding the atrocities commited by their co-religionists in the U.S., Britain, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Europe, South America, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan and on and on.

The internecine slaughter between the Mohammedan communities in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Indonesia, etc. today can't be blamed on the "Zionists", the "infidels", the "Great Satan" or any other outside influence.

These are Mohammedans slaughtering Mohammedans . . . period.

Just how blind or stupid they believe the rest of the world to be is anyone's guess, but the rising groundswell of global popular revulsion to Islam is due solely to the actions of the Mohammedans themselves.

That is not "racism", it's not "bigotry", it's not "Islamophobia" . . . it's simply a healthy universal moral revulsion toward the barbarism of Islam and its followers..

NO ONE ever "forced" a Mohammedan to become a terrorist. NO ONE ever "forced" a Mohammedan to slaughter the innocents in the name of Jihad. These are acts of their own choosing, their own free will and their own primitive culture.

Other people, other nations, other cultures have suffered far worse than the Mohammedans and overcome their oppressors without resorting to the atrocities that Mohammedans feel to be their unique right to commit.

The Jews suffered untold horrors at the hands of both Christians and Mohammedans for two thousand years . . . without raising a hand against their oppressors. Since the re-birth of the Nation of Israel, at the behest of a world shamed by the Nazis, they have defended themselves against the combined armies of the Islamic world and continue to be the ONLY nation on the face of the globe that actively and effectively combats Islamic terror.

As for opposing opinions, we welcome any rational, reasoned debate on our position, but when the epithet "racist" is used against us for our opinions expressed in this forum, we immediately know we've won the argument. As soon as the epithets begin to fly, the facts are being ignored.

And we base this forum on FACTS . . . not blind prejudice

There is no such thing as "the Islamic race". Islam is a religion embracing all races.

What we are standing up against is the spread of a violent religious movement that has ravaged the world for the past one hundred years. The violence is getting worse, the extremes to which Mohammedans will go are rapidly expanding and there is no doubt whatsoever that if Islam is left unopposed, the Western world will see itself destroyed from within by its own tolerance of the barbarians who have no tolerance for others.

In 1924, Adolph Hitler published his magnum opus, "Mein Kampf" and in it he detailed graphically exactly what he intended to do should he ever come into power. The world didn't take him seriously until it was far too late for the 40+million who died victims of, or in opposing, the Nazis.

The Quran was written 1400 years ago and it details as well exactly what the Mohammedans have in store for all non-Mohammedans should Islam gain ascendancy in this world. The daily evidence of this is there for all to see, even in a "politically correct" media that has bent over backwards to accommodate Mohammedan "sensitivities".

We have been criticized for using the term "Mohammedan" when referring to the followers of Islam, but we use that term purposely. In our book, if a Mohammedan is willing, even eager, to take the life of someone NOT OF HIS FAITH for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed, then Mohammed is no longer a man, but becomes a "God" to whom and through whom all prayers are directed and flow.

As one who worships Christ is called a "Christian", one who worships Buddha is a "Buddhist", so one who worships Mohammed is, logically, a "Mohammedan". There is no disapprobation attached to the term. It is simply a fact.

Jesus stands in the same relation to G-d that Mohammed holds with "Allah", but to my knowledge, NO ONE, Jew, Christian, Mohammedan or anyone else, has been slaughtered for portraying Jesus or any other Biblical figure either reverently or vulgarly.

That particular religious abberation is the unique province of the Mohammedans.

If you thought the death camps of the Nazis were an affront to humanity, wait till you see what Islam provides for the "infidels" around the world . . . if Islam is allowed to obtain supremecy.

But then, if you do see it . . . . it will be far too late for you.

There were those who resisted the Nazis and, in doing so, saved thousands of lives and shortened the war . . . thereby saving countless thousands of others.

But there were also those, like Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984), who wrote the poem "First They Came . . ." reminding us that silence makes one an accomplice of the terrorists


Original:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,habe ich geschwiegen;ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,habe ich geschwiegen;ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,habe ich nicht protestiert;ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie mich holten,gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

Translation:

When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,there was no one left to speak out.

It wouldn't take much editing to change "Nazis" to "Mohammedans" and that poem would be expressly applicable today.


"When the Mohammedans came . . ."

When the Mohammedans killed the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.
When they killed the Buddhists, I remained silent; I was not a Buddhist.
When they killed the Hindus, I did not speak out; I was not a Hindu.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.



So, are you going to submit . . . or resist?

The choice is yours . . . .

And a special "Yasser" Award goes to . . . .

Christiane Amanpour
(born: January 12, 1958 - died: ?)

Our newest recipient of the coveted "Yasser" Award for Yellow Journalism and a hearty "Hearst" handshake . . . . !

There are certain times in one's life where one just has to admit one's mistakes and try to correct them.

This is one of those times.

In an earlier posting (see "Pallywood" ) we bestowed the coveted "Yasser" Award for Yellow Journalism on the Reuters Wire Service for its coverage or, rather, non-coverage, of the Palestinian celebrations following 9/11 and the physical assault its field crew made on an AP news team in an attempt to stop the AP team from filming the riotous street festivities that might show the Palestinians in an unfavorable light.

We still stand by that award . . . credit where credit's due, we say . . . but after viewing Ms. Amanpour's magnificent performance as an apologist for Islamic terror in her program "G-d's Warriors" broadcast on C.N.N., we have to acknowledge her unrivalled virtuosity at distorting and warping the truth.

We certainly hope this doesn't adversely affect Ms. Amanpour's career since we do so enjoy handing out these awards. If her latest performance is anything to judge by, we'll be handing her quite a few more.

In the first segment of a three part program, Ms. Amanpour tackled "G-d's Jewish Warriors" as the equivalent of Islamic terrorists and we must say that with the little factual material she had to work with, she certainly spread herself on a grand scale.

In the course of the program, Ms. Amanpour focused on isolated incidents where Jews had attacked Arabs and stretched it out of all proportion to the extent that she made it seem as if these were daily incidents. What she didn't mention, of course, was that ALL Jewish attackers have been arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for their crimes.

Mohammedan terrorists? Irrelevant to Ms. Amanpour . . .

Ms. Amanpour went on to re-write history in an attempt to minimize the Jewish nation's claim to its holiest site, the Temple mount.

While Amanpour interviewed the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who offered an Islamic perspective on the importance of the Temple Mount and Al Aqsa Mosque to Mohammedans, no Jewish religious figure was interviewed to discuss the unparalleled spiritual significance of the Temple Mount to Jews.

In a WorldNetDaily article, Aaron Klein states, "Amanpour's feature also claimed a visit to the Temple Mount by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2000 instigated the Palestinian intifada which began that year, even though multiple intifada planners and Palestinian leaders admitted the violence was pre-planned and that Sharon's visit was used as an excuse.

The intifada was launched after Arafat returned from U.S.-mediated peace talks at the Camp David presidential retreat during which the Palestinian leader turned down an Israeli offer of a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

“Whoever thinks the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong…This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations,” admitted Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Al-Faluji to an Egyptian daily newspaper.

Arafat himself spoke of planning the intifada months before Sharon’s visit, as did Marwan Barghouti, a jailed Palestinian parliament member and one of the chief architects of the intifada.

Multiple senior terror leaders involved in intifada admitted during numerous WND interviews Sharon’s visit to the Mount did not spark the intifada."

But then, apparently, Ms. Amanpour knows more than the planners of the Intifada.

Ms. Amanpour's minimizing the tsunami of Islamic terror around the world while magnifying beyond all recognition the isolated incidents of Jewish extremism have become her trademark. Her contempt for the Jewish state and her blatant bias for Mohammedan perspectives in the Middle East have contributed in no small measure to the growing disaffection of viewers around the world for C.N.N. and its coverage of this region.

I would have to say that her piece de resistance in this program was her characterization of Islamic suicide bombers as "noble".

In her own words, "To the West, martyrdom has a really bad connotation (?!?) because of suicide bombers who call themselves martyrs," Amanpour stated. "Really, martyrdom is actually something that historically was quite noble, because it was about standing up and rejecting tyranny, rejecting injustice and rejecting oppression and, if necessary, dying for that."

So, we can assume that for Ms. Amanpour, a Mohammedan suicide bomber who slaughters tens of innocent people is "noble" while a Jew or Christian who resists or attempts by force to prevent such atrocities is a "terrorist".

What Ms. Amanpour has failed to grasp, what has failed to penetrate the solid ivory between her ears is the fact that in the Judeo-Christian tradition "martyrdom" meant, and still means, being willing to give up your own life in the face of extreme persecution. It has NEVER meant taking the lives of tens of innocent people with you. That particular perversion is uniquely Islamic . . .

If old William Randolph was alive today, I believe he'd be on bended knee before this woman, hat in hand, awestruck by her total lack of morals or ethics. He really does pale into insignificance compared to her. And, knowing W.R. Hearst, that's definitely saying something.

As for her opinion on the responsibility of the media to be objective, she has publicly stated, "There are some situations one cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice." So . . . she pitches in on the side of the terrorists !

Bad grammer and syntax aside, that statement alone would qualify her for the "Yasser" Award which her collection at home so sorely lacks.

There's really so much to critique in Ms. Amanpour's presentation, I just don't have the time, the energy or the inclination to nit-pick her voluminous journalistic travesties.

But again, in closing, we certainly hope this incredible spectacle of Hearst-quality yellow journalism doesn't affect her future career . . . we can always use her material for more articles.

"Let the little children come to me . . ." - Jesus of Nazareth

In the Christian Gospels, Mark 9: 35-37, Jesus is quoted as saying, "If anyone wants to become first, he must make himself last of all and servant of all." He then took a little child, set him in front of them (the disciples), put his arms around the boy, and said to them, "Anyone who welcomes one of these little children in my name, welcomes me; and anyone who welcomes me welcomes not me but the One Who sent me."

Jesus was an Orthodox Jew, fully imbued with all the love, compassion and faith in children that Judaism has held sacrosanct for thousands of years. When there is danger, the women and children are the first to be protected.

The children are the ones upon whom the Jews have lavished all their efforts to protect, educate, guide and comfort throughout the ages, even when the survival of the Jewish people endured its most perilous times.

In the darkest days of the reign of the Catholic Church and its burgeoning anti-Semitic theology, then, during the following centuries leading up to the horrors of the Holocaust, the Jews, against all odds, continued to love and educate their children in the Ways of the Lord and imbued in them a love of life, learning and a respect for the most basic moral and ethical social values of the civilized world.

For the Jewish people, education and a productive life in this world have been the cornerstones of their unprecedented achievements in art, science, literature, medicine, politics, etc.

The number of Jews who have achieved greatness and renown far exceed the ratio to their place in the world's population . . . and this is directly due to their love of their children and the Jewish people's love of learning.

Islam. on the other hand, with the single exception of the short-lived Cordovan Caliphate in Spain (circa 750 -1030 C.E . . . see previous posting) have focused on perpetrating violence, persecution and reveling in the oppression and slaughter of so-called "infidels".



The video we've provided above shows graphically how Islam has distorted, beyond all recognition, the tenets which Judaism, the faith Mohammed took as the cornerstone of his new cult, has held sacred for over 4000 years.

This Egyptian cleric is not alone in preaching the "glory of martyrdom" to Mohammedan children. This barbaric theology is being spread fervently world-wide in the madrasses by Islamic clerics and has the eager approval of the similarly indoctrinated parents of these children.

That a sermon such as this could be shown on a children's T.V. show in Egypt *LAST YEAR* is the clearest, most incontrovertible and stomach-turning example of why the West is now facing a culture of violence and death that makes the Nazis seem like saints in comparison.

When you watch this video, please keep in mind that this kind of spiritual, emotional and, ultimately, fatal abuse of Mohammedan children is being preached in mosques in the U.S, Canada, the U.K., South America, Asia and virtually every country in Europe to which Mohammedans have emigrated.

If you are interested in viewing countless other examples of the virulent rhetoric of Islamic violence and hate, I would refer you to the website: http://www.memritv.org/

Please remember that HAMAS, the governing power in Gaza, is now infecting the children of the territories with this kind of anti-Semitic venom and intolerance for all non-Mohammedans . . . and ask yourselves if these are the people for whom you feel true sympathy.

Islam . . . a religion of "peace" ?!?

Not in the mind of any sane individual on the face of G-d's green earth!

Islamic, and especially "Palestinian", --"Rule of Law" !

Is this the justice

the Western apologists for a Palestinian State applaud?

This is Palestinian Jurisprudence

Images are fed from the website of Walid Shoebat Foundation

Deeyah . . . A Symbol of Strength and Self-Worth in a Sea of Islamic Hatred

Deeyah (nee: Deepika Thathaal) was born to Sunni Muslim Pakistani and Afgan parents on August 7, 1977 in Oslo, Norway.

She is a singer, composer and human rights activist of Mohammedan Pakistani Pashtun heritage.

Deeyah's debut solo concert was as a 15 year old in Norway. She grew up with an innate sense of self-worth and, as her music career blossomed, she began to assert herself as a Mohammedan and as a woman. The first of these assertions was a result of her religious background, while the second was the result of her own strong and solidly founded faith in herself as an equal to any man in this world.

The music videos from her second album released in September 1995 caused an unprecedented outrage, and a violent backlash, in the Norwegian Mohammedan community which claimed Deeyah was an "evil" Mohammedan for displaying her uncovered back. She and her family were verbally threatened, physically harassed and, during a concert, she was attacked with pepper spray on stage by a "moderate" Mohammedan.

This last incident caused her to move to London in 1996 in hopes that she would be able to continue her career there in a more secure and freer creative environment.

But her past caught up with her once again.

The more her popularity in Britain grew, the more unpopular she became in some Mohammedan circles in the UK. The same controversy and problems hounded her in the UK as they did in Norway. Now, though, the threats against her escalated from verbal and physical abuse to death threats against both her and her family.

The "Muslim Council of Britain" asserted that death threats against Deeyah were faked or exaggerated simply to boost her popularity and public image.

Unfortunately for these terrorist apologists ( who were among the first to protest the innocence of "Livingstone's Lads", the Mohammedan terrorists of 7/7 in London), extensive and in-depth investigations by numerous journalists and music researchers proved these claims of threats to Deeyah to be "not only real but that the full extent of the intimidation against Deeyah has not yet been widely reported in the media."

The truth of this can be seen on several Mohammedan online forums and websites including the now-familiar violent Mohammedan messages and death threats posted about Deeyah on YouTube.

This is the naked face of Islamic intolerance from the victims' perspective.

This is the public and unashamed display of intolerance to the equality of women that has certainly become one of the "Five Pillars of Faith" of Islam.

This can be the fate of ANY woman who refuses to be vicimized by Islam.

Mohammedans have been claiming recently that the majority of new converts to Isalm are women ( claims ranging from 60% to 90% . . . ?!?). While those statistics are solely based on statements from Mohammedan apologists in the West, they pretty well bear out the famous quote (variously attributed) that ""There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

As we are witnessing daily, the Mohhamedans' lies invariably fall into the third, and most egregious, category.

We offer our unconditional support for Deeyah in her struggle for personal and creative freedom.

We tender Deeyah our deepest respect and admiration for her strength and courage in the face of Islamic intolerance.

And, finally, we believe she should be ranked among the greatest of those, both men and women, who have, throughout the ages, given so much, faced such obstacles and persevered in their stuggles for independence and equality.

Pallywood Classics and the first "Yasser Awards" !

And now, for those of our readers who have been looking for an alternative to the annual televised extravaganzas of Hollywood's Academy Awards, Britain's BAFTA Awards and the undeniably magnificent presentations of Bollywood's film awards for the best Indian and Asian films, we are proud to present . . . . the "Yasser"! This is the coveted Palestinian "Pallywood" cinematic award for the best acting, directing, make-up, special effects and overly emotive theatrics by Arabs in the "Palestinian Territories" for the eager ( and extremely undiscriminating ) consumption of foreign wire services around the world.

Since this is the first annual Palestinian "Pallywood Awards", coming to you directly from a safe hotel in Jerusalem, Israel, where all the best and highest paid foreign correspondents stay, we are admittedly going to be rather short on identifiable nominees for the different categories, BUT we are proud to bring you the first nominations for the foreign wire services most experienced and adept at staging and distorting news reports from "Palestine"!

The three leading nominees are . . . ( a breathless hush falls over the audience . . .):

1.) Reuters News Service ( . . . cheers and applause ! )

2.) Associated Press International ( . . . more cheers and applause ! !)

3.) Agence France-Presse ( . . . riotous whistling from the emotional French !)

While the judges are unanimous in their opinion that each of these three world-renowned wire services have contributed in their own unique ways to providing staged and outrageously distorted news coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the judges have decided that the award will go to . . . . REUTERS NEWS SERVICE !

THE AUDIENCE IS ON THEIR FEET, SCREAMING AND STAMPING THEIR APPROVAL !!!

Now, now . . . let's move on . . . quiet, there . . . thank you, thank you !

The reason why Reuters was awarded the coveted "Yasser" in the category of "Foreign Press Coverage" was due mainly to the incident following the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center when, while Palestinians were celebrating and dancing in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, the local Reuters news team actually physically assaulted an Associated Press team filming the Palestinians to stop them from documenting behaviour which would undoubtedly reflect poorly on the Palestinian image abroad.

We have to offer our own "tip of the hat" to this Reuters team for its diligence in attempting to suppress any reporting detrimental to the Arab cause, as well as a "hearty Hearst handshake" to the Reuters organization for its staunch stand against independent and objective journalism!

Well done, we say !

(The fact that the AP European news chief decided not to televise the Palestinian celebrations in no way detracts from the Reuters news team's heroic efforts to surpress this event.)

As for the next annual "Pallywood Awards", we are hoping to pin down the Palestinian individuals and Palestinian organizations responsible for such magnificently staged sound and video news "bites" and are looking forward to giving them the kudos due them for a world-wide audience ! !

Thank you, thank you all . . . and good night from Jerusalem ( as if we'd stay in Gaza . . . ! ).

The B.B.C . . . Continuing to Aid and Abet Islamic Terrorism

Although the B.B.C. has long been recognized as one of the principle Western media supporters of, and apologists for, international Islamic terror, its directors have apparently decided to pull out all the stops in their campaign to minimize or entirely ignore the atrocities being committed by Mohammedans worldwide, while censoring all negative references to Islam in their website, print media and electronic broadcasts.

Additionally, not only are they actively censoring negative comments regarding Islam, they are, as well, now actively promoting anti-Semitic and anti-Christian content even in the face of a deluge of complaints from these communities.

Recently, on one of their listener forums, they allowed such material as:

"Are you a christian? You do know that jesus had to hide all his short life he
lived in those promised land because his tribesmen used to call him fatherless,
ridiculed him for being a B-A-S-T-A-R-D...'

It was added: "Jesus...was also persecuted because the jews would never accept as their Messiah a person whose father was missing...' This comment was contributed by a listener calling himself "colonelartist", a regular and virulently anti-Semitic poster to B.B.C. forums.

The comments were not only allowed to remain for an entire week despite a deluge of complaints, but were subsequently given greater prominence in the forum itself.

They were only deleted following an enquiry from another British media source which questioned the B.B.C. regarding this posting.

The same contributor has also written: "The jews in much remembered concentration camps had even better quality of freedom that these palestinians have...'

One curious website user wanted to see if BBC editors were allowing these offensive remarks to remain while blocking others. He wrote: "No one can surpass the Muslims for denial of their role in Terrorism and Suicide bombing."

The remarks were immediately deleted.

The BBC has also been condemned for allowing virulently anti-Semitic posts from a contributor called "Iron Naz'. In a message left on the site for more than a month, Iron Naz wrote: "Zionism is a racist ideology where jews are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud...which allows jews to lie as long as its to non-jews."

These blatantly anti-Semitic remarks brought justifiably outraged complaints from the Board of Deputies, the organisation that represents Britain's Jews.

However, the BBC said the remarks did not merit removal or censure. A spokesman said postings were removed only if they were considered likely to 'disrupt, provoke attack or offend others or are considered racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable'.

Obviously, the phrases " . . . offend others" and " . . . or otherwise objectionable." have, for the B.B.C., lent themselves to a far more lax and flexible interpretation than most civilized individuals in this post-Nazi era would endorse.

The Board of Deputies has stated that it will pursue its complaints against the B.B.C.. Mark Gardiner, of the Community Security Trust, stated: "The BBC obviously no longer recognises anti-Semitism. The BBC is a public body, funded by the British taxpayer. It has legal obligations."

What the B.B.C. itself considers those "legal obligations" to be is anyone's guess.

While the B.B.C.'s editorial policies have long been widely condemned for their blatant suppression of any unfavorable coverage of the Mohammedan community, the B.B.C. has, until recently, generally refrained from actively encouraging anti-Semitic and anti-Christian content.

Now, in the face of a growing Western groundswell of anti-Islamic reaction to the terrorist atrocities being committed daily by Mohammedans around the globe, the B.B.C. has clearly decided to take off the kid gloves and mount an aggressive counter-offensive by endorsing transparently pro-Neo-Nazi and anti-Christian submissions while suppressing any anti-Islamic comments.

It should be remembered that the B.B.C. refused to characterize the 7/7 London atrocities committed by "Livingstone's Lads" as "terrorist" acts, nor have they allowed ANY atrocities committed against Jews, and especially Israeli civilians, by Mohammedans to be described as "terrorist acts".

It has been the B.B.C.'s long-standing policy to refrain from using such terms as "Palestinian terrorists", "Islamic terrorists", "Arab terrorists" or "Muslim terrorists" in any of its reports dealing with atrocities committed by Mohammedans anywhere at any time.

Oddly, they have had no problem characterizing similar acts committed by relatively small and unknown groups such as the Greek organization "November 17", also known as the "N 17" group, as "terrorists" or having committed "terrorist acts". In its twenty year existance the
"N 17" organization killed a TOTAL of 80+ people, mainly politicians, military and diplomatic figures. The B.B.C. directly, and repeatedly, characterized "N 17" as "terrorists".

"Livingstone's Lads" murdered 53 British citizens in ONE DAY, but the B.B.C. categorically refused to describe them as "terrorists".

As per B.B.C. editorial policy, ALL Islamic terror organizations are exempt from such characterizations.

With such clear and transparent endorsements of Islamic terror by the B.B.C. as well as the widely publicised pro-terrorist, and subsequent vitriolic anti-Semitic, statements by the London mayor Ken Livingstone ( after whom the 7/7 terrorists were nicknamed "Livingstone's Lads" ) and, more recently, by the Liberal Democratic British politician Baroness Jenny Tonge, it is little wonder that London has become the new Mecca and base of European operations for Islamic terrorists.

As noted in a previous posting here, sources within the British intelligence and security services have unequivocally stated that the recent increase and frequency of "chatter" gleaned from known Mohammedan terrorists and their sympathizers in London and its environs have led them to believe that an attack or a series of coordinated attacks in the London area are expected to be attempted within the next two months.

In closing, we would remind our readers that the B.B.C. is funded in large measure by the British government and its editorial policies are therefore closely defined by Whitehall and the historically pro-Arabist policies of that institution.