Some of my readers who might be traveling to the Middle East this Summer will find that almost all the official phrase-books do not cover the most important aspects of travel in Arab countries. So in case you ever run into a group of friendly Janjaweed villagers (pictured here), I have compiled this list of useful Arab phrases from the Internet (with a few of my own thrown in) to help you make new friends.
ما هي مصادفة ، كنت فقط أقول لزوجتي هذا الصباح عند الإفطار ، "الموت لليهود"! What a coincidence, I was just saying that to my wife this morning at breakfast, "Death to all the Jews!"
سأقوم بكل سرور أن أبلغكم مع أسماء وعناوين العديد من الجواسيس الاميركية كما يسافر You are quite kind in showing me your marvelous gun.
سأقوم بكل سرور أن أبلغكم مع أسماء وعناوين العديد من الجواسيس الاميركية كما يسافر I will gladly tell you the names and addresses of many American spies traveling as reporters.
If your tired of increasing cable bills you should check out the deals at Direct Sat TV They can have a quote for you in 15 seconds. They have 12 categories of service with over 265 channel choices.
With the upcoming change to digital TV and the increasing problems with that, Direct Sat TV may be your entertainment answer! Check them out today.
Kate at the blog Small Dead Animals informs us that '[u]nder a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe, repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”'.
But what public figures, I almost hesitate to call them morons, imbeciles, and tyrannical idiots, would introduce such legislation? Would you believe Liberals? The very same morons, imbeciles, and tyrannical idiots who railed against George Bush for destroying our freedoms through the Patriot Act. The bill's sponsor is idiot Linda Sanchez (D-CA) (almost all of her 14 co-sponsors are liberal idiots as well). I hope and pray that my calling her a complete moron causes her substantial emotional distress. In fact, I wish she would have a complete mental breakdown over this blog article. It's the least punishment she should get for even suggesting such a hobble on the freedom of speech. What country is she representing, Cuba, Venezuela?
Unfortunately the United States still considers Islam a religion rather than a violent political organization so anti-discrimination laws may prevent you from overtly refusing to hire a Muslim candidate. The best bet is to avoid interviewing anyone who you suspect may be a Muslim. The reason is that once you have interviewed a Muslim and you don't give him or her a job, you are likely to get sued for religious discrimination (1).
There are many reasons not to hire Muslims; one of them is that Muslims like to apply for jobs their religion forbids them to do (2) or for which they are not suited or qualified. Another is that it costs more to accommodate Muslims, a lot more: Five prayer times a day, wash basins, separate eating rooms, Muslim sensitivity training for non-Muslim employees, trying to find other work when they refuse to do the job which they were hired to do (3), etc.
The main reason not to hire Muslims is that you will encourage more to come to America. Imagine that you are a restaurant owner and you are stupid enough to hire Muslims. If enough idiots like you hire Muslims your community will have enough Muslims to cause the building of a Mosque. What's wrong with that? How about they try to put you out of business because your restaurant serves alcohol and you are too close to their mosque (4)?
While Jews have been in America since the founding of our country, you can't tell that they are here except for their great contributions to American culture. Muslims have only been coming in recently and already they want to change how WE live.
To prevent interviewing a Muslim, screen the resumes carefully to weed out possible problem candidates and if possible hire a private investigation firm. It's cheaper doing that than hiring a Muslim and reaping the losses from doing so. You are less likely to get sued for not hiring a Muslim if you don't actually talk to one.
Disclaimer:
To keep oneself in the least legal hot water, you are urged to consult a specialist in employment law before establishing a screening program or hiring anyone. If you do not want to hire Muslims do everything you can to avoid interviewing them. If it cannot be helped and you find yourself with an appointment with a fellow named Mahmud bin Azz, for example, as an added precaution try to have a photo of Yasser Arafat (autographed if you can fake it) behind you when conducting the interview. Hopefully when you turn down Mahmud for the job of bacon slicer he won't sue you for discrimination.
It seems too lunatic to be true. But here a hair salon boss reveals how she was driven to the brink of ruin - and forced to pay £4,000 for 'hurt feelings' - after refusing to hire a Muslim stylist who wouldn't show her hair at work.
For Sarah Desrosiers, meeting Bushra Noah was not a moment in her life that she would describe as especially memorable.
Not only was it brief - lasting little more than ten minutes - but it was rapidly obvious to Sarah that Bushra was not the person for the junior stylist position she was trying to fill at her hairdressing salon.
Sarah's reasoning? Quite simply that Bushra, a Muslim who wears a headscarf for religions reasons, had made it clear she would not be removing the garment even while at work.
Sarah Desrosiers says she did nothing wrong by not employing Bushra Noah and would have done the same if an employee refused to remove a baseball cap
It is morally wrong to discriminate against anyone for their religious beliefs. However, refusing to hire someone precisely because their religious beliefs conflict with the purposes for which the business was organized is not discrimination any more than refusing to hire a black actor to play an albino is racist. It is not illegal to discriminate against midgets if the NBA does not hire them as players, nor should it be.
..
This is why you should never hire Muslims: a person of any other religious persuasion does not even want to have a job which offends his beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses do not apply for jobs at blood banks, devout Catholics who oppose abortion do not apply for jobs at abortion clinics, religious Jews do not butcher pigs, nor do Hindus slaughter beef for McDonald's. Muslims on the other hand, because they believe the world must ultimately become Dar al-Islam and cater to their whims, gladly infest businesses whose practices are in conflict with their faith. They insist Western culture must change to accommodate their beliefs. In these cases, confrontation is delightfully enjoyed by Muslims.
A Muslim from Derby is suing supermarket giant Tesco for religious discrimination because he was asked to handle crates of alcohol against his beliefs.
Mohammed Ahmed, of Upper Dale Road, Normanton, also accused Tesco of victimisation and harassment during a three-day employment tribunal.
Mr Ahmed was employed as a warehouse operative, which included driving fork-lift trucks, at the firm's Lichfield warehouse in September last year.
The 32-year-old told the tribunal he was not made aware he would be required to handle alcohol when he started the job, a claim denied by Tesco.
Building owner Trevor Hill wants to offer alcoholic drinks along with home-cooking-style dinner and lunch menus, and he hopes to launch the eatery in about a week. He'll keep the restaurant open as late at night as is still profitable in hope of appealing to the young residents of Fort Sanders, where the building is located.
The possibility that the restaurant could serve as a local drinking hangout bothers mosque attendees like board member Nadeem Sidiqqi.
Islam prohibits the consumption of alcohol, but Sidiqqi said the protest isn't an attack on drinking in general, just a call for buffer zones for religious establishments.
"People may say 'we may not want to go to this mosque' if it's not a good environment," Sidiqqi said. "You want an area where you can bring your kids or your family."
Hill counters that mosque-goers are unlikely to be disturbed by noise or patrons from his restaurant. The entrances are on opposites sides of the two buildings, and Hill said that he has offered to work with mosque board members during the holy period of Ramadan, when Knoxville-area Muslims often pray at the mosque late into the night.
Hill feels he is being unjustly targeted.
"I've taken a building that's been a total eyesore … really gone out on a limb and taken a risk for the benefit of the Fort Sanders community," he said, explaining that he has a mortgage and roughly a $1 million investment in the building. "It's not fair for me to be discriminated against any more than it is for them to be discriminated against."
Appearing on Oprah Winfrey's TV show in 2001, Jordan's westernized Queen Rania claimed that women in Islam are equal to men, and that we in the West have serious misconceptions on the role of women in the Islamic world. At the time she said: "Islam views women as full and equal partners to men, so rights are guaranteed by Islam."
Islam views women as full and equal partners to men, so rights are guaranteed by Islam. Really?!?!? Does Her Majesty actually believe that, or does she wish to believe it? Is she just saying it because she is talking to a Western audience? How does one reconcile Queen Rania's statement with the sad reality of women's daily life in the Islamic world, or in the Islamic communities in the West?h How does one reconcile the Queen's words with the words of the Qur'an?
Following are a few passages from the Qur'an - from many such - on the status of women:
Surah 4:3
And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then (marry) only one or that which your right hand possesses. This is more proper that you may not do injustice. (Maulana Muhammad Ali translation) If you fear that you cannot treat orphans with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three or four of them. But if you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them, marry one only or any slave girl you may own. This will make it easier for you to avoid injustice. (N. J. Dawood translation)
Maulana Muhammad Ali, comments on the above:
3a. - This passage permits polygamy under certain conditions, it does not enjoin it.
It does not obligate the practice of polygamy, but it permits it. So a man, according to his means, may marry up to four wives... does this sound full and equal to you, gentle reader?!?!?
Sura 4:34
Men are the maintainers of women, with that Allah has made of them to excel others and with that they spend out their wealth. So the good women are obedient guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the beds and chastise them. So if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely Allah is ever Exalted, Great. (Maulana Muhammad Ali translation) 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 their beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. (N. J. Dawood translation)
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other. With all due respect to Her Majesty, Queen Rania, that does not sound like Islam views women as full and equal partners to men. What do you think, gentle reader?
The word nushūz is translated above as desertion and as disobedience it refers to a woman withholding her conjugal services. While no husband would be pleased with such refusal, most husbands would desist but should such behavior persist they would divorce her. Islam allows the man to beat her in order to get her to submit. Sounds like rape to me!
In some Islamic countries (like Saudi Arabia) women may not drive, may not travel without permission from their husbands (or fathers, if they are not married). On what authority?
Sura 33:33
And stay in your houses and display not (your beauty) like the displaying of the ignorance of yore, and keep up prayer, and pay the poor rate, and obey Allah and his messenger. Allah only desires to take away uncleanness from you, O people of the household, and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. (Maulana Muhammad Ali translation) Stay in your homes and do not display your finery as women used to do in the days of ignorance. Attend to your prayers, give alms and obey God and His apostle. Women of the Household, God seeks only to remove uncleanliness from you and to purify you. (N. J. Dawood translation)
Although the above admonitions were meant for Muhammad's wifes, the above verse came to be interpreted as referring to all women. Do you still think, gentle reader, that women in Islam are full and equal partners to men?
How does one explain the video below then?
In all fairness violence against women has all too often reared its ugly face throughout the West, and was/is being perpetrated by westerners. The difference is that unlike those in Islam the cowards who engage in violent behavior against women can find neither find a shield behind their culture nor behind a religion. The difference lies in the fact that in European countries the incidence of violence against women has risen geometrically in proportion to the percentage of Muslim immigrants. In Australia Sheikh Al-Hillaly described western women as "uncovered meat" and, therefore, as the guilty ones when raped by Muslim. Such misogynistic attitudes have no place in the west, or anywhere else, in this the 21st century!
There is nothing honorable about "honor killings" and no western culture, no western religion offers refuge or justification for such an act. To the west it not an honorable act, rather a case of despicable murder. Yet, honor killings are prevalent throughout Muslim lands and spreading fast into Islamic communities in the West. In Queen Rania's own kingdom, which averages 20 honor killings a year, they just had the 8th one this year:
Jordan's Criminal Court has charged a 19-year-old man with stabbing to death his sister in what is believed to be an honor killing.
Judge Jihad al-Dridi charged the man Monday with premeditated murder and the possession of a dangerous weapon.
Al-Dridi said the man confessed to repeatedly stabbing his 22-year-old sister to cleanse the family honor because she left the house too often.
The victim is the eighth person to be killed in honor crimes this year.
About 20 women are killed annually in Jordan by male relatives. The conservative society tolerates the killings and perpetrators often receive light sentences.
The name of the man and the victim were not revealed due to the sensitivity of the case.
I have no doubt that Jordan's King Abdullah and Queen Rania have a loving marriage, I have no doubt they show mutual respect. I need look no further than my next door neighbors, he's a college professor and former Palestinian terrorist (who was jailed by the Israelis, but became disillusioned by the Palestinian leadership and their greed, after he was freed), she's a Southern girl whose father was a proud member of the KKK. She never met a Jew, let alone a Muslim, until she went to college but she grew up hating anyone who was not white and Christian. Today she is a proud Muslima.
The three of us have breakfast, together, almost everyday morning. They have the key to my place and I to theirs. She wears a hijab, not a niqqab, they have a loving marriage founded on mutual respect. I do not mean to accuse every Muslim of mistreating his wife, I merely point out the cultural/religious sources for the treatment of women by some Islamist elements.
Posted by Freedom's Cost at 4:52 PM Permalink || |
The Islamist World View - Part I
Violence is by no means the monopoly of Islamists. A simple perusal of history will convince anyone, with an open mind, that some of the greatest crimes against mankind were committed "in the name of God." All too often, the added authority of a deity has become the stamp of approval needed to carry out whatever political agenda the leader(s), invoking the divine, wished to push through to further their own ambitions. Most other religions have evolved to the point where indiscriminate killing is absolutely unacceptable. No priest of any Christian denomination would think of openly preaching the killing of non Christians. While humans are just that, flawed and all too often prejudiced, these preachings would result in the immediate dismissal of any priest, pastor, minister who would present those ideas to his congregation. No Rabbi, regardless of denomination would think of preaching the killing of Muslims, Christians or anyone else. Killing anyone because of creed, color, or ethnicity is simple and unadulterated murder. Such preachings would end with the one pronouncing them to be run out of the community in ignominy, as they would represent a direct contradiction to the 6th Commandment: Do Not murder. And yet... so many imams, so many Muslim clerics seem to have an acute case of infidel-o-phobia!
The overwhelming majority of those who practice Islam are law abiding citizens with the same struggles and the same aspirations as the rest of us. But... all the major terrorists and terror organizations throughout the world are professed Muslims! Why? What is the cultural core behind such a phenomenon? What is the divine source they cite as justification for their actions? Every single one of these individuals, every single one of these organizations claims they are merely following the Qur'an.
The Qur'an is the record of the revelations Muhammad received from Allah, through the angel Jibreel (Gabriel). These revelations change in tone from the Prophet's early times in Mecca to the time he fled to Meddina. The revelations in Mecca were more conciliatory in nature, but after he started building a military force in Meddina they became more hostile towards anyone who would oppose him, anyone who refused to submit. This contradictions are explained away by saying that later revelations supersede the earlier ones...
As you will see, in the video below, well known Mullah Amjun Chaudry has no problem justifying violence against infidels on British TV:
Some of the passages that explain infidels are wrong follow below:
Sura II:75
Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this). (Maulana Muhammad Ali translation) Do you then hope that they will believe in you, when some of them have already heard the Word of God and knowingly perverted it, although they understood its meaning. (N. J. Dawood translation)
Maulana Muhammad Ali, comments on this verse:
75a. - That the Israelites did not preserve their sacred books in their purity is a constant charge laid by the Holy Qur'an against the Jews. In fact, the alteration and corruption of the various books of the Bible is now proved beyond all doubt; see 79a
79a. - The alteration and corruption of the Bible, the Old as well as the New Testament, spoken of in verse 75 and repeated here, is now an established fact...
It is an established fact that those perfidious Jooz and their Christian friends corrupted both Testaments?!?!? How do we know this?
Sura II:79
Woe! then to those who write the Book with their hands then say, This is from Allah; so that they may take it all for a small price. So woe! to them for what their hands write and woe! to them for what the yearn. (Maulana Muhammad Ali translation) Woe betide those that write the scriptures with their own hands and then declare: 'This is from God,' in order to gain some paltry end. Woeful shall be their fate, because of what their hands have written, because of what they did.(N. J. Dawood translation)
Ah yes, foolish me. Definitely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt! Don't you agree, gentle reader? Now what passages were altered by the Jews and the Christians?
Sura II:140
Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say do you know better or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not heedless of what you do. (Maulana Muhammad Ali translation) Do you claim that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes were all Jews or Christians? Say: 'Who knows better, you or God? Who is more wicked than the man who hides a testimony he has received from God? God is never heedless of what you do."(N. J. Dawood translation)
In his comment and explanation to the above verse, Maulana Ali proves how little he knows or underrstands Judaism:
140a. -The interrogation here is simply to reprove the Jews and the Christians, the Jewish claim was that only acceptance of the Jewish law could save man, and the Christians claimed that none could be saved unless he accepted the atonement of Jesus. they are told that their ancestors who were prophets were the followers of neither the one nor the other. Islam was, in fact, a reversion to the simple faith of sincerity, the faith of Abraham and his immediate followers and descendants.
So the Jews and Christians not only perverted the earlier teachings but are, as a result, simply wrong, Islam is their only hope... I see and I can understand the reason why Allah requires mere humans to redeem his honor. Boyyy! Were we People of the Book wrong! Don't you feel enlightened and liberated, gentle reader, now that the truth has been revealed? Oh, what will it take for us - infidels - to understand that Islam really came before both Judaism and Christianity in spite of historical evidence of thousands of years to the contrary?!?!?
In spite of this being the second chapter of the Qur'an, it's revelations were from Meddina and they supersede anything that was said about the People of the Book in Mecca, even though Mecca's revelations may appear in later chapters. By quoting chapter and verse (and showing the original Arabic text) from the Qur'an, by showing one of the Mullahs justifying whatever Muslims may inflict on non Muslims... have I become guilty of disrespecting Islam? Did this very mild post, with direct quotes and my personal views on them, violate the latest travesty resolution passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council?
Posted by Freedom's Cost at 4:35 PM Permalink || |
Monday, March 02, 2009
Getting Rid of Anal Leakage and Muslim Immigration
It starts off innocently enough, You are sniffling and sneezing so you decide to take W (I don't want to mention brand names of medicines that might label my post as spam), which contains Pseudo-ephedrine. You get rid of the sniffles, but unfortunately one of the side effects is insomnia. So for insomnia you take Y, a popular Sedative-hypnotic, which helps you sleep, but your face becomes swollen and you develop a skin rash.
So for the skin rash you apply some Z, a Hydro-cortisone Lotion, to the affected area, but that puts you into a state of excessive sweating (Hyperhidrosis), so you take an anticholinergics drug which raises your blood pressure too high which you ameliorate with X, an Orlistat, which has the interesting property of rendering you fecally incontinent. The other name for fecal incontinence is anal leakage. You stand around minding your own business when all of a sudden you feel an oily, uncontrollable stool-stream passing through your impotent anal sphincter.
So that's how it happens, in small, barely perceptible stages if you are not careful: you start with a simple cold and you end up with brown stains in your underwear.
And so it is with the rapid growth of Muslims in Europe. In 1900 there were 50 thousand Muslims in the whole of Western Europe (1). In 2008, it was a thousand times as many: more than 50 million (2). By 2050 Europe will be a Muslim continent (3), as will be most of the world.
As for anal leakage, it is interesting to note that one of the side effects of having your throat slit during a beheading is fecal incontinence. That's right you poop in your pants. When Europe becomes predominantly Islamic, we can expect many more instances of beheadings during honor killings, forced conversions, and in general insults to Muslim sensibilities. I don't know what the proper drug is for stopping anal leakage. I know the proper prescription for avoiding the Islamic takeover of the world.
1.Although the Muslim presence in Europe is ancient, the presence of substantial minorities in West European cities is historically a very recent phenomenon, dating back largely to the 1960s. In 1900, for instance, Western Europe as a whole had just fifty thousand or so resident Muslims, almost all in France, ...
THE number of Muslims has overtaken that of Roman Catholics for the first time, according to the Vatican.
Muslims account for 19.2% of the world's population, while Catholics make up 17.4%, according to the Vatican's new statistics yearbook, which is based on figures for 2006.
"For the first time in history we are no longer at the top: the Muslims have overtaken us," said Monsignor Vittorio Formenti, who edited the yearbook.
consider this: Ethiopia had five million people in 1900; now it has 64 million, and it's projected to have 145 million by 2050 [BBC]. The largest religion in Ethiopia? Islam.
According to the US Census International Data Base By 2050, Russia's population will be 109,187,353. what's missing from this analysis is the fact that Russia already has approximately 27 million Muslims and at their current fertility rate there will be more Muslims than non-Muslims by then.
Medical Disclaimer: I have made every effort to ensure that the information provided is accurate, up-to-date, and complete, but I guarantee nothing. I do not endorse drugs, diagnose patients, or recommend therapy. The drug information mentioned is for entertainment purposes only and not a substitute for the expertise, skill, knowledge, and judgment of health care practitioners. The absence of a warning for a given drug or drug combination in no way should be construed to indicate that the drug of drug combination is safe, effective, or appropriate for you. I do not assume any responsibility for any information provided. The information contained herein is not intended to cover all possible uses, directions, precautions, warnings, drug interactions, allergic reactions, or adverse effects. If you have questions about the drugs you are taking, check with an appropriate health care practitioner. My full Disclaimer is here.
Socialize this!Personalize this!
Radicalize this!
Indoctrination and Training Camps - Islamicizing the West
The new US President, Barack Obama, hit the ground running. He wasted no timein making his first phone to a foreign dignitary, it was to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas; his first major interview as the American President was on an Arab TV network; in spite of the UN preparing itself to try the murderers of Lebanon's Rafik Hariri, Obama dispatched Senator Kerry to woo Syria's Baby Assad and try to tear him away from under Iran's wings (fat chance!). In a few days, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be in Cairo where she will announce a $900,000,000 grant to help Gazans rebuild (under the aegis of Hamas, perhaps with the help of Mahmoud Abbas... if Hamas comes to some convenient temporary agreement with him!). At the same time, we in the US under Obama's direction are ready to import thousands of Gazans to our shores and give them a chance for a better life (even if that means turning to terror and/or preaching hatred of all things American.
CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US
American spy chiefs have told the President that the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.
They believe that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.
Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British security service.
A British intelligence source revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in Britain.
And a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama told The Sunday Telegraph that the CIA has stepped up its efforts in the last month after the Mumbai massacre laid bare the threat from Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group behind the attacks, which has an extensive web of supporters in the UK.
The CIA has already spent 18 months developing a network of agents in Britain to combat al-Qaeda, unprecedented in size within the borders of such a close ally, according to intelligence sources in both London and Washington.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.
"The American security establishment believes that danger continues and there's very intimate cooperation between our security services to monitor that." Mr Riedel, who served three presidents as a Middle East expert on the White House National Security Council, added: "President Obama's national security team are well aware that this is a serious threat."
The British official said: "The Americans run their own assets in the Pakistani community; they get their own intelligence. There's close cooperation with MI5 but they don't tell us the names of all their sources.
"Around 40 per cent of CIA activity on homeland threats is now in the UK. This is quite unprecedented."
Explaining the increase in CIA activity over the past month, Mr Riedel added: "In the aftermath of the Mumbai attack the US and the UK intelligence services now have to regard Lashkar-e-Taiba as just as serious a threat to both of our countries as al-Qaeda. They have a much more extensive base among Pakistani Diaspora communities in the UK than al–Qaeda."
Information gleaned by CIA spies in Britain has already helped thwart several terrorist attacks in the UK and was instrumental in locating Rashid Rauf, a British-born al-Qaeda operative implicated in a plot to explode airliners over the Atlantic, who was tracked down and killed in a US missile strike in November.
But some US intelligence officers are irritated that valuable manpower and resources have been diverted to the UK. One former intelligence officer who does contract work for the CIA dismissed Britain as a "swamp" of jihadis.
Jonathan Evans, the director general of MI5, admitted in January that the Security Service alone does not have the resources to maintain surveillance on all its targets. "We don't have anything approaching comprehensive coverage," he said.
The dramatic escalation in CIA activity in the UK followed the exposure in August 2006 of Operation Overt, the alleged airline bomb plot.
The British intelligence official revealed that CIA chiefs sent more resources to the UK because they were not prepared to see American citizens die as a result of MI5's inability to keep tabs on all suspects, even though the Security Service successfully uncovered the plot.
Meanwhile, what does Britain do about this cancer within? How does it deal with the threat? Last Friday's Friday's Daily Mail reported:
Pupils as young as 11 are being encouraged to imagine the July 7 bombings from the perspective of the terrorists as part of citizenship lessons promoted by the Government.
Secondary schools are urged to set the exercise by a lesson pack showcased on an official website for teachers.
However after being alerted to the material last night, ministers admitted it was ‘misguided and inappropriate’ and said it would be withdrawn immediately from the Government’s Teachernet website.
Schools in areas including Calderdale in West Yorkshire, Birmingham, Sandwell and Lancashire are said to be using the material.
Several police forces are also said to have adopted it as part of programmes to promote community cohesion.
A section in the lesson pack deals directly with the July 7 bombings of 2005 in which 52 London commuters were killed and 700 people injured.
A suggested group exercise requires pupils to ‘prepare a brief presentation on the 7/7 bombings from the perspective of the bombers’. They are also asked to summarise the ‘reasons ... for the actions of the London bombers’.
The suggestion that children should be asked to empathise with the bombers caused concern among heads last night.
Chris McGovern, a headmaster and director of History Curriculum Association, said: ‘In my view, this is extremely dangerous. Asking pupils to empathise with terrorists may lead to sympathy, and sympathy begins to lead to justification.
‘You begin to glamorise it – it’s disastrous.
‘This shows how out of touch the education establishment is with the rest of society.’
The teaching pack, for pupils aged 11 to 19, was developed by the council in Calderdale. Three of the 7/7 bombers came from the West Yorkshire area.
It is used in West Yorkshire madrassas and mosques, the Times Educational Supplement reported.
It had also been adopted by the Department for Children, Schools and Families as part of an online ‘toolkit’ to help teachers tackle extremism.
Last night a spokesman for the DCSF said ministers had decided to withdraw the material from the Teachernet site ‘as they believe it to be misguided and inappropriate’.
He said: ‘It’s important young people discuss these difficult and controversial issues in a controlled environment but, in this case, ministers apologise for any offence caused.’
Don Rowe, of the Citizenship Foundation, said he doubted if many teachers would wish to broach the ‘complicated’ issue.
‘I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone who wasn’t confident in this area to barge in with this sort of material,’ he said.
Explaining the materials, Sail Suleman, Calderdale’s hate crime co-ordinator and author of the pack, said: ‘Why do young people go out and do what the bombers did? Was it pressure from individuals they were hanging out with?
‘Hopefully, we’ll encourage pupils to stay away from those individuals.’
‘Hopefully, we’ll encourage pupils to stay away from those individuals.’ Riiiight! Mr Suleman sounds very convincing, don't you think so, gentle reader?!?!? Perhaps his attitude will explain this:
Some Islamic schools are promoting fundamentalist views and encouraging children to despise Western society, a report warns.
An investigation by the Civitas social policy think-tank found websites of some of the UK’s 166 Muslim schools are spreading extreme teachings, while a handful had links to sites promoting jihad, or holy war.
Examples include web forums forbidding Muslims from reading Harry Potter books, playing chess or cricket and listening to Western music.
The Civitas report, entitled Music, Chess and Other Sins, claims Ofsted inspectors are incapable of scrutinising Muslim faith schools properly, and demands an inquiry by MPs.
Many of the websites featured in the report were shut down or edited in the hours before it was published.
Islamic schools educate thousands of Muslim children. Most operate in the private sector although increasing numbers are seeking state funding.
Some Islamic schools are promoting fundamentalist views and encouraging children to despise Western society... Most operate in the private sector although increasing numbers are seeking state funding. I am not in any way, shape, or form, opposed to private religious schooling. I raised five kids who attended private Jewish religious schools and grew up to be successful professionals with families of their own. While I would not have minded some property tax relief , it never occurred to me or any parents I knew, or to any member of the schools' administrations to seek government funding. It would have been unfair, to say the least, and against separation of Church and state. None of the schools ever taught my kids and now their kids to despise Western society either. They are well integrated, and while proudly Jewish, they are are first and foremost Americans! By the way, you can believe when I tell that more than once my wife and I had to forego or at least compromise on some vacation and many other plans or paying for the schools would have been very hard, if not impossible. So why did we do it? We felt it was important for our children! Do these Muslim parents not feel it is important enough to sacrifice for their children? Or are their children to be raised as sacrifices to Allah, at taxpayers expense?!?!?!?
HATE preacher Abu Qatada was today awarded £2,500 compensation after judges ruled his detention without trial in the UK breached his human rights.
Yesterday Qatada— dubbed al-Qaeda’s European envoy — lost the latest round of his UK legal battle to stay in Britain.
But 24 hours later he won a separate case in the European Court of Human Rights that his detention violated the Human Rights Convention.
Attacks He was held under anti-terror laws introduced by the Government after the 2001 attacks on America.
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said today of the ruling: “This decision will horrify most reasonable people in the UK. TheSun “It shows just how incompetent the Government has been at managing the problem of preachers of hate and, frankly, it makes a mockery of the concept of human rights if we can’t protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy our society.”
Jacqui Smith was tonight warned against exercising 'double standards' as an Islamic extremist prepared to travel to the UK.
Ibrahim Moussawi, a known hardliner with links to Hezbollah, has been invited to speak at a London university.
But the Home Secretary is under pressure to refuse an entry visa to Moussawi, who has allegedly described Jews as 'a lesion on the forehead of history'.
Earlier this month, she banned the far-Right Dutch MP Geert Wilders from coming to Britain to show his film about Islam as it would threaten 'community harmony'.
But the Conservatives warned that to ban those who threaten community harmony, while letting in those who glorify terrorism or are part of terrorist groups, would send out the 'wrong message'.
There must be 'no double standards on extremists', warned Tory security spokesman Baroness Neville-Jones.
Moussawi, who has already made at least two trips to the UK, has been invited to speak on political Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies next month.
Editor for the newspaper of Lebanon-based terrorist organisation Hezbollah, he is a former political editor of the Iranian-backed group's TV station, which is banned in many countries including France, Spain and the U.S, as its output is seen as anti-Semitic.
Despite his background he has twice been allowed to speak publicly in Britain by the Home Office, once in December 2007 and again in February 2008.
Yesterday, in a letter to Miss Smith, Baroness Neville-Jones said: 'You will be aware that Mr Moussawi has links to Hezbollah, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation in many countries.
'Mr Moussawi has also, over the years, made a number of remarks that are extremist, anti-Semitic and inflammatory. In October last year you introduced what you described as "tough new measures" to deny entry to extremists.
'These measures included "creating a presumption in favour of exclusion in respect of all those who have engaged in fostering, encouraging or spreading extremism and hatred". Mr Moussawi has so engaged.
'In line with your "tough new measures", I trust that if Mr Moussawi applies for entry, you will use your powers to exclude him.'
Home Office sources said Moussawi's visa application had not yet been received, but would be studied closely.
A spokesman said: 'The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. We are determined to prevent individuals coming to the UK who want to spread extremism or hatred in our communities.
'Exclusion decisions are based on hard evidence not hearsay, and are targeted at those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs.'
The problem of children's indoctrination, however, is not merely a British problem, such practices to some degree or another are slowly being introduced throughout Europe and in the US, (aside from that .pdf document in the last link, you can also see a different report here) in the interest of multiculturalism Islamic indoctrination. Over at Islam in Europe, you can watch a BBC show on Islamic extremists in Britain, other videos give a far, far, worse picture of the stark new reality...
Lest you think that whatever may be happening over in the UK and elsewhere in Europe is merely a European problem perhaps much smaller over here on our shores, let me disabuse you of such mistaken notions. It's happening right here, among us, in some city near you!
The question, therefore, remains... shall we sit quietly by and acquiesce? Shall we occasionally throw a piece or two to this crocodile hoping we'll be the last to be swallowed up?!?!?
Posted by Freedom's Cost at 5:15 PM Permalink || |
Contributors
Jihadi Du Jour is actively looking for contributors who are concerned about America's future and are willing to research and post about the fight against Islamic Jihad.
If you are interested email us at jihadidujour@yahoo.com
Socialize this! 
Personalize this! 
Radicalize this!
Appearing on Oprah Winfrey's TV show in 2001, Jordan's westernized Queen Rania claimed that women in Islam are equal to men, and that we in the West have serious misconceptions on the role of women in the Islamic world. At the time she said: "Islam views women as full and equal partners to men, so rights are guaranteed by Islam."
