Islamic Terrorism Ignored by Mainstream Media

More people need to be complaining about this fact of dangerous global censorship, well described in the article below by Diane West. The fact that the mainstream media worldwide are terrified of calling a spade a spade demonstrates quite clearly that terrorism works. Terrorism pays - and Islamic terrorism has paid handsomely, as the world's governments have turned into yellow jelly following the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7, the subject of much conspiracy theory but which are perceived by millions of non-Muslims and Muslims alike as acts of terror done by, well, Muslims.

If such perceptions were true, that would make these tragic events Muslim terrorist acts. Even if there was some grand conspiracy, the fact is that these terrorist acts have been used by Muslim terrorists themselves to continue to terrorize the world. (Who was behind 9/11 is an important aside: The point here is that Muslim fanatics themselves have been using 9/11 as a club, as in the accompanying photo and as in sermons by imams extolling the "virtuous" sacrifice of the "19 Martyrs." And, by the way, I've been reading the conspiracy theories since the first days after 9/11. I am well aware of practically every major player and aspect of those theories. This is not a discussion of those theories.)

The dishonesty and cowardice of the mainstream press - and the world's governments! - in addressing honestly this critical issue of identifying Islamic terrorism as Islamic will spell doom for the free world, as the Islamic terrorism continues relatively unabated, with appeasement of all manner, including throwing women to the wolves. Most dangerous of all, agencies like the U.N. are virtually controlled by Islamic countries that are forcing an agenda of censorship of anything relating to Islam, including criticism of the abysmal treatment of women and non-Muslims.

The censorship has gotten so bad that news and government agencies bend over backwards NOT to bring Islam into the picture, even if the perpetrator of a violent crime has admitted to acting in the name of Islam! Soon will we be forced to accept all kinds of violent crimes so long as they are committed in the name of Islam, since we will not be able to bring up the subject at all? Islamic warriors terrorizing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere globally - it will be illegal to identify them as Islamic, even if they call themselves the "Army of Allah!"

Obviously, all such laws restricting criticism of any religion should be rejected immediately.

If we wish to be absolutely fair, all terrorism and violence done in the name of any religion should be identified as such.

That would include Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, of course, these latter two being the least warmongering and proselytizing.

If we do not start being meticulously honest in identifying the sources of terror, we will never defeat it. Fighting some nebulous "war on terror" without getting to the root of it will surely fail. The fact that it is Islam at the root of much of the world's terror is confirmed by some of the programs that governments and NGOs have been forced to create, including attempting to head off the hateful and violent brainwashing of so-called radical Islam. If it were not Islamic teachings - straight out of the Quran/Koran - that were driving "radical Islam," it wouldn't be "radical Islam" and there would be no need to have programs addressing it as such. Islamic teachings, therefore, lead to Islamic terror. As taught in the Quran/Koran:

(Translation by N.J. Dawood: The Koran: With a Parallel Arabic Text, Penguin Classics, 1991)

This Book is not to be doubted.... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them. --Q 2:1-2:6-2:10; "The Cow," Dawood, pp. 1-2.

The only true faith in God's sight is Islam. --Q 3:19; "The Imrans," Dawood, p. 51.

He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost. --Q 3:85, "The Imrans," Dawood, p. 60.

God's curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God's own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers. --Q 2:89-2:90, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 13.

Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors.

Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.... --Q 2:190-2:191, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 28.

[Note that within Islam, many things can and are interpreted to be "aggression," such that the death penalty is freely handed out.]

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.... --Q 9:5; "Repentance," Dawood, p. 186.

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. --Q 9:73, "Repentance," Dawood, p. 198.

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. --Q 4:34, "Women," Dawood, p. 83.

As we might guess, these are some the Islamic teachings leading to Islamic terror. Would not these remarks constitute hate speech under the laws being tossed up all over the place in order to protect Islam?

And now, here is some Acharya Law:

No individual, group or government should be forced to kowtow to any religion against its will, moral, ethics and laws.

We are reminded of one of the Koranic injunctions that, like Islamic terrorism, is widely ignored as well:

"There shall be no compulsion in religion." (Q 2:236)

Yet, here the world is being compelled left and right - ultimately through terrorist acts that have turned many into a frightened pack of sheep running willy-nilly - to accept what amounts to spiritual terrorism.

Our future generations will have little to thank this current one for turning it over to the terrorism of the very soul.

Roars about Russia, Nary a Whisper about Islam
by Diane West

Amazing, how quickly the punditocracy switches maps, time zones and histories, simultaneously mastering new combinations of consonants and vowels, to report and react to a "surprise" conflict in Georgia. It's almost hard to recall that, just a few days ago, the most urgent questions confounding most of the media had to do with just how narcissistic John Edwards really is, or what the ramifications of Barack Obama's plans to announce his vice presidential pick via text message might finally be.

Since the sight of tanks rolling usually has a way of concentrating the media mind, the question has become: Whither Russia?

In truth, the demise of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn earlier this month was a journalistic godsend. After all, who hadn't already dusted off their long-retired Soviet history books -- not to mention their long-retired Soviet history experts, all of whom have had the busiest couple of weeks in years -- by the time Vladimir Putin announced last week that "war has started" over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

Historical memory somewhat refreshed, Western media were ready with the headlines -- "The evil empire is back"; "Welcome to the 19th century"; "The Russian bear's new teeth" -- to promote the main thrust of most stories: namely, that Russia is reverting to tsarist, expansionist, Soviet-style, empire-amassing type.

It's not that there's anything controversial in this journalistic approach, although I do tend to think there remain aspects of the Georgian story we haven't reconciled. What's noteworthy about this narrative consensus, however, is that the invocation of Russia's historical and cultural record is being made so frankly and without hedging. That is, no one's blaming "Russian extremists," "tsarismists," or "hijackers of a great history." On the contrary, the implication behind most Russia-versus-Georgia stories is that the Russians' world-stage behavior as they smash Georgia is something that this same historical and cultural record tells us that Russians do....

And why is this important? When I started seeing these stories and statements -- even making some of them myself -- I realized there was something free-wheeling about the style of expression that made it different from what has been the norm. I first wondered if there was a somewhat perverse trace of nostalgia in dealing again with the Russians. And then it hit me. In the nearly seven years since Islam has wholly dominated current events, neither our media nor our leaders have ever, not even once, looked at similarly characteristic behavior from the Islamic world and labeled it accordingly.

In other words, no pattern of avowedly Islam-inspired violence in the world has ever earned a headline nearly as straightforward as "Islamic jihad is back." Not even the Islamic success of Motoon Rage, which has severely repressed Western modes of expression regarding Muhammad in particular and Islam in general, inspired anything as descriptive as, for example, "Sharia's new teeth."...

And what American presidential candidate would ever explain the Islamic push, financial and otherwise, in the West for mosque construction, Islamic schools (madrassas), campus Islamic studies (apologetics) departments, Sharia law-inspired legal challenges, lobbying for Sharia-compliant banking and the like as a matter of Islamic imperialism?

I quoted McCain above discussing, matter-of-fact, what he considers to be catchall "Russian" ambitions to restore the "old Russian empire." Would he, or any other American politician, ever say the same regarding catchall "Islamic" ambitions? While both Russia and Islam claim similarly long histories and cultures of conquest for reference, it's mighty tough to imagine any U.S. politician ever saying the following: "I think it's very clear that Islamic ambitions are to restore the old caliphate." (And that's despite a growing body of statements, even polling data, reflecting the persistence of Islamic caliphate dreams.)...

See also this article:

We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

"Islam is Dominated by Radicals"

A debate on April 15, 2008 hosted by the show Intelligence Squared put forth the premise "Islam is Dominated by Radicals." On the "pro" side appeared Daveed Garten-Stein Ross, Paul Marshall and Asra Nomani. On the "con" were Reza Aslan, Richard Bulliet and Edina Lekovic.

When the audience was polled with the following (paraphrased) question, upon entering the debate, the numbers were thus:

Do you agree or disagree with the statement that Islam is dominated by radicals?

43% agreed
32% disagreed
22% were undecided

After the debate, the numbers stacked up as follows:

73% agreed
23% disagreed
4% were undecided

During the debate, a number of shocking points were made by the "pro" team, using statistics concerning what is actually happening in the world today, including Islamic law in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as how much money is being spent worldwide to spread "radical" Islamic fundamentalism that abides by these appalling laws. One point raised by Paul Marshall was that Iran has now recently proposed legislation that would make heresy and apostasy a capital offense even outside of Iran, meaning that, in Marshall's words, "Under Iranian law, Barack Obama should be executed as an apostate."

We are reminded that the "radical" Muslims are not only quite willing to kill and die for their cause, but they are "well funded, often by Saudi Arabia." We can look towards Saudi Arabia, in fact, for an example of a "true Islamic state," according to them, of course. There, Marshall informs us, the terms "human rights" and "democracy" are considered to be "un-Islamic terminology." Saudi Arabia's long brutal and oppressive history verifies this notion that human rights in that country are un-Islamic.

Marshall also reminds us that in Iran if you murder someone from an "unrecognized religion," such as the Bahai faith, you will not be punished. The life of a human being who is not a member of a recognized religion is as worthless as that of a dog or cat in Iran.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are in competition to spread their "radical" version of Islam around the world," the Saudis spending at least $3 billion a year on missionary causes.

We also hear about the millions of people who have died in the past few decades because of "radical" Islam being introduced into their countries, such as in Pakistan and Nigeria. This radicalization is happening even in moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

As concerns the "cons," one of the first comments out of Reza Aslan serves to establish the superiority of Islam, insulting the intelligence of the people in the audience at the same time (apparently because they are NOT Muslim): "So, I suppose it's not surprising that a large percentage in this room would believe that Islam - unquestionably the most eclectic, the most diverse religion in the history of the world - is dominated by radicals. After all, no field work or research is necessary to come to such a conclusion, just turn on your television...."

Yes, "unquestionably" is the correct term here, since questions are not encouraged within Islam. And how do total submission to Allah and the compulsion to pray five times a day constitute "diversity?"

Moreover, those who are speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have often been in the heart of it, not just sitting in front of the boobtube, mindlessly watching propaganda films.

Aslan continues in the same vein, stating that the cartoons that cause people to riot are "deliberately provocative." (Can't you hear it now: "Your honor, she was wearing a miniskirt, so I had to rape her.") Aslan also calls Geert Wilders a "racist," evidently because he doesn't want "radical" Islam to destroy his country or the world. (Reza apparently does not understand that Islam is NOT a race, as he, a darker-skinned Persian sits next to a white Muslim woman.) As a typical Muslim apologist, Aslan just cannot acknowledge that "radical" Islam is the source of violence and terror the world over. He couldn't possibly answer Marshall's factual recitation with a truly MODERATE statement like, "Yes, that doesn't sound very good, and I do not support those things within Islam." No, he immediately started insulting people, in a typically aggressive Muslim manner.

In the fourth clip, in response to a question by Garten-Stein Ross, Aslan essentially proves the point about every devout Muslim potentially being "radical," when he asserts that Islam is not "just a religion" but an identity, and that an attack on Islam is an attack on him personally which would warrant violence. In his response, in fact, Aslan seems to start shaking with anger at the very thought of "his" religion being assailed.

Re-wording a question from Daveed Garten-Stein Ross to ask, "Should I act violently in defense of my religion," the so-called "moderate" Reza Aslan responds, "ABSOLUTELY."

Is that not radical Islam in a nutshell?

It is my long-held stance that religious fanaticism is a form of psychopathy, and these responses merely verify my position. I personally hold that we are NOT "our" religion - indeed, they are not even OUR religions but are borrowed beliefs extending back to caveman days - and that becoming violent against a living, breathing human being over such an IDEOLOGY is in itself evil. In the end, my constant requests online since 1995 for people to DROP religious "isms" and "i(n)anities," and just be HUMAN BEINGS become even more urgent and meritable.

Back on the pro side, Asra Nomani gives us an insider's view about how even in the U.S. moderate Muslims are now being bombarded by radical Islam calling for the ostracism and oppression of non-Muslims.

Con speaker Edina Lekovic essentially admits that Islam does not belong to the 21st century and that electing a secular government is a good thing, as is "integration" (i.e., assimilation) for Muslims. Indeed, her remarks pretty much prove that Islam IS dominated by radicals, as she puts out the call for help to overpower them.

Daveed Garten-Stein Ross goes into factual detail about the lack of human rights and religious freedoms in Muslim countries, as well as the opinion, for example, of many Muslims in the West that Muslim apostates should be killed. Ross also nails home the point that Saudi Arabia is radical and that its ideology is being pushed all over the world, using oil money. He also addresses the fact that "mainstream" Muslim organizations are now attempting to shut down free speech worldwide, demonstrating their desire for hegemony.

Anyway, I could make comment throughout this debate - and I was doing so as I watched it - but this blog would then become very long.

In the end, the debate here was not whether or not Islam is a "great religion" but whether it is dominated by so-called radicals - who, it should be noted, consider themselves in fact to be the REAL Muslims and are, therefore, not "radical" at all.

The verdict is in: "Islam is dominated by radicals."

Following are some of the clips from this important debate. If you would like to see the rest of the 15 parts, including the free-for-all Q&A at the end, please go to YouTube.

Pro: Paul Marshall



Con: Reza Aslan



Debate: Garten-Stein Ross and Aslan



Pro: Asra Nomani



Con: Edina Lekovic



Pro: Daveed Garten-Stein Ross



For further reading:

'Islam Is Dominated By Radicals'

Note to Commenters: Before you write some hateful spew against Jews, read this website about Islam. If you haven't read my original article above and cannot prove to me that you have, I will not pass through your message. (BTW, mindless hatred of Jews is a sign of RADICAL Islam, so if no one but Jew-haters post here, they will be proving the point that Islam is dominated by radicals.)

U.S. a Hotbed of Islamic Fanaticism

Just so no readers of mine will be surprised if they wake up one day to a loud and obnoxious "call to prayer" designed to enslave them down to their very soul....

That is very much the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood and its many offshoots that are freely operating around the world and are funded by hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in Middle Eastern oil money.

Lest you make the mistake that this devious plot is far offshore and away from reality, you should know that it is in fact under your very eyes and is being enabled by all sorts of dhimwitted apologists who see nothing wrong with allowing anti-West fanatics to operate with impunity right here on American soil. As is happening in Europe at an alarming rate, if we do not become aware to what is occurring right now in the U.S., we will be living in the United States of Arabia, or some variant thereof. All of our hard-earned civil rights will be gone, and the bulk of humanity will be enslaved under Islamic domination - including and especially women, as the enslavement and abuse of women is what essentially defines Islam, in significant part.

Here is what at least 100 mosques and Muslim schools in the United States are currently up to, with no apparent interference from governmental officials:

"Preliminary findings indicate that almost 80 percent of the group exhibit a high level of sharia-compliance and jihadi threat, including:

"* Ultra-orthodox worship in which women are separated from men in the prayer hall and must enter the mosque from a separate, usually back, entrance; and are required to wear hijabs.

"* Sermons that preach women are inferior to men and can be beaten for disobedience; that non-Muslims, particularly Jews, are infidels and inferior to Muslims; that jihad or support of jihad is not only a Muslim's duty but the noblest way, and suicide bombers and other so-called "martyrs" are worthy of the highest praise; and that an Islamic caliphate should one day encompass the U.S.

"* Solicitation of financial support for jihad.

"* Bookstores that sell books, CDs and DVDs promoting jihad and glorifying martyrdom."

Source: Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism

The American citizens must call for their politicians to shut down all mosques and Muslim schools that are teaching this evil trash, and deport all the preachers of such venom wherever they can.

No more mosques or Muslim schools built in the United States - until the Muslim world opens itself up to a proliferation of churches, synagogues and secular organizations. No more Muslim immigration - unless the Muslim world allows its non-Muslim populations to increase and freely operate, with full rights to citizenship and the human rights accorded in decent and civilized nations.

Islam constitutes Arab cultural imperialism, pure and simple. Its proponents will settle for nothing less than total global domination. And at the moment, they are winning, because much of the rest of humanity may be too kind and loving to recognize the threat by such predators - or too terrorized already by the "religion of peace." (Or, of course, bought off, as is the case with many politicians.)

Get rid of all politicians on all levels who tolerate, endorse, appease or promote this sort of mentality. And for heaven's sake, do not elect as president a man who has the most ties to Islam - many to radical Islam, in fact - than any other candidate in history.

Muslim Misogyny Strikes Again

The apparent targets of last week's attempted bombing allegedly by Muslim fanatics were the patrons of a "ladies night" at the London club outside of which the bombs were found.

The statements made by Christopher Hitchens regarding the targeted victims in the thwarted bomb attacks underscore the grotesqueness of the vicious attitude towards women - and life in general - promulgated by so-called radical Islam. That women are considered subhuman within Islam could not be more readily exemplified than by the hateful attitude that female British citizens are "slags" and "sluts" about whom nobody would be concerned.

Without a doubt, Islam is oppressive of women, as well as men and children. No amount of sophistry or mendacity asserting the opposite will serve to convince otherwise anyone who has given any serious thought to these important issues.

A nightclub full of uncovered women drinking alcohol is about as antipathetic to this mentality as one can get, and this violent attack is how it's going to go with this psychopathology that thinks it has the right to rule the world. Unless fiercely resisted and contained, this dementia will terrorize the rest of humanity into capitulating to its enslaving will. It has no intelligent argument to be made, just barbaric, animalistic and sadistic violence and aggression. If this derangement possessed significant weapons, the world would be dead already, as it succumbed to the cult of death.

We must take a stand now, as Muslim authorities in the UK and elsewhere are doing this time around - finally! Of course, we hope they are sincere, and that the words will sink in with the younger generation, if this world is to survive.

We will not be covered up and chased out of life, cowering in the corners surrounded by darkness and threats of harm. The world's dividing lines are clearly now those who love life and those who hate it - and we simply cannot allow those who hate life to win.

The London car-bomb plot was designed to kill women.
by Christopher Hitchens

...Only at the tail end of the coverage was it admitted that a car bomb might have been parked outside a club in Piccadilly because it was "ladies night" and that this explosion might have been designed to lure people into to the street, the better to be burned and shredded by the succeeding explosion from the second car-borne cargo of gasoline and nails. Since we have known since 2004 that a near-identical attack on a club called the Ministry of Sound was proposed in just these terms, on the grounds that dead "slags" or "sluts" would be regretted by nobody, a certain amount of trouble might have been saved by assuming the obvious. The murderers did not just want body parts in general but female body parts in particular.

I suppose that some people might want to shy away from this conclusion for whatever reason, but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque, or among those who watched Sunday's report from Christiane Amanpour on CNN's Special Investigations Unit. On these shows, the British Muslim fanatics came right out with their program. Straight into the camera, leading figures like Anjem Choudary spoke of their love for Osama Bin Laden and their explicit rejection of any definition of Islam as a religion of peace. On tape or in person, mullahs in prominent British mosques called for the killing of Indians and Jews.

Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.

To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much....