9-11 Do More Than Never Forget- Stop Islam's Assault

9-11 Do More Than Never Forget- Stop Islam's Assault
News about Islamic violence world-wide and the Islamic threat , driven by the Quran and its followers. Politics and the issues of our Allies Globally - will greatly effect whether we will be able to stop the spread of Islam and the violence that is backbone of this sick ideology. Islam is United Globally and so must all people who value Freedom be United to Stop Islam!

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Photo : Ethnic cleansing of Jews in the Middle East



Congress- America’s worst enemies: Kerry gets it wrong again


The Issue: Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that Congress is the biggest challenge to US foreign affairs.
***
Congress doesn’t pose the “greatest challenge” to US foreign policy (“Kerry vs. America [the Sequel],” Editorial, Feb. 22).
Secretary of State John Kerry does — along with his boss in the White House.
Someone who frequently visited a murderer like Bashar Assad of Syria has no business running the State Department.
And someone who gives money to the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt, as President Obama does, has no business running the country.
John Kerry
AP

John Kerry

Charlie Honadel
Staten Island
***
Given another opportunity to trash American policy, John Kerry has darkened the stain on his character that he created during and after the Vietnam War.
A traitor to his Swift Boat comrades, Kerry’s comments reveal that he has never changed his unpatriotic stance.
He’s a modern-day Benedict Arnold.
Theodore Miraldi
The Bronx
***
Is anyone surprised by what Kerry said?
After all, he accused his fellow servicemen of killing innocent women and children when they served in Vietnam.
This is exactly the type of individual Obama would choose for office: Someone who blames everybody else except those who are truly responsible.
The sad fact is that not only Democrats were eager to have Kerry as secretary of state — Republicans also voted for him.
It’s becoming more and more difficult to tell the difference between the two parties in Washington.
When we have the likes of Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Jack Lew as Obama’s choices to lead our nation, we need legislators willing to say no.
Marilyn Beasley
Nypost

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Photo: Obama will Stand with Muslims



Soldier Michael Behenna: Imprisoned for Killing a Terrorist

By Michael Volpe -

Last month, a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on behalf of former Airborne Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna. Behenna has been locked up in Leavenworth since 2009. He’s serving a sentence of 25 years (he’s eligible for parole after 15) in the homicide of Ali Mansur Mohamed in Iraq in 2008. This ruling, said Behenna’s lawyers, will decide whether service-members will have the same right to self-defense in a combat zone that police officers have every day on duty.
Mohamed was a suspected terrorist with links to Al Qaeda in Iraq. On April 21, 2008, Behenna and his platoon were returning to their base in the Salahuddin Province in Iraq when their convoy was hit by an Improvised Explosives Device (IED). Two of his men, Specialists Adam Kohlhaas and Steven Christofferson, were killed.
On May 5, 2008, Behenna received a tip that a terrorist linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq and to the IED attack was staying in a house in the town of Butoma. Behenna and his men arrested Mohamed that evening and they found a cache of ammunition, a RPK light machine gun, and a passport with Syrian visas.
Mohamed was returned to base and turned over for questioning. On May 16, 2008, Mohamed was set to be let go because the military said there wasn’t enough evidence to hold him. Behenna and his team were tasked with returning him home. According to an article in the Oklahoman, here’s what happened next.
Behenna took Ali Mansur, an Iraqi civilian, to a deserted area, forced him to strip naked and then questioned him at gunpoint. In his court martial, Behenna claimed self-defense, saying he shot Mansur twice after the Iraqi threw a piece of concrete at him and lunged for his gun. An Iraqi translator who accompanied Behenna testified at Behenna’s court-martial that he murdered Mansour in cold blood.
Behenna was court martialed for Mohamed’s murder on July 31, 2008. Opening statements in his trial started on February 23, 2009. On February 28, 2009, he was convicted of murdering Mohamed and sentenced to 25 years in Leavenworth.
So far, all appeals courts have sided against Behenna, claiming that he lost all rights to self-defense once Behenna pointed his gun at Mansour. Behenna’s attorneys believe that if these rulings stand, this would have serious ramifications for our military service people serving in combat zones. Their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court read in part:
The majority woodenly treats a confrontation between a service-member and a suspected terrorist in a combat zone no differently than a barroom brawl between two civilians in the States.
The petition then goes on to make these four points about the ramification of the Appeals Court decision.
• Service-members who overstep their authority instantly become defenseless targets for deadly enemy attacks.
• If they draw their firearms first, they could lose all right to self-defense “as a matter of law.”
• If they wait for the enemy to attack before drawing their weapons, they could lose their lives.
• Neither “basic concepts of criminal law” nor common sense requires service-members to make that Hobbesian choice.
Dr. Herbert MacDonell is a forensic scientist that testified at Behenna’s court-martial as a prosecution witness. He told prosecuting attorneys during that court-martial that in his estimation, Mansour was reaching for Behenna’s gun when Behenna shot the suspected terrorist. Here’s how Dr. MacDonell explained it in an interview with the Washington Times.
I believe his (Behenna’s) testimony fits the known physical facts. If Ali Mansur was standing and reaching for Behenna’s gun and was, at that moment shot, it would explain the horizontal trajectory of Ali Mansur’s chest wound. If he dropped straight down and was shot in the head as his head passed in front of the muzzle of Behenna’s gun that would be consistent with the horizontal trajectory of the head shot and the near parallel trajectories of both shots.
The US government has yet to respond to this latest petition. If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t take on the case, all that Behenna could hope for is a presidential pardon. If not, he’ll be forty years old before he leaves prison.
source

College: Fire professor who forced students to vote for Obama Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/18/college-fire-professor-who-forced-students-to-vote-for-obama/#ixzz2LIRdChu2

Well this is typical of liberal professors. I to experienced " pressure" witnessed manipulation ( listing reasons why voting for dem is smart choice) by teachers encouraging students to make the "educated decision " and vote for lol Gore and later on Kerry - no threats are needed to get youth- that relies on high grades, to bend .
So while this is the extreem end of the spectrum its just an example of the left using education as well as welfare and hand outs to enforce the liberal agenda.
A tenured professor who forced her students to sign pledges that they would vote for President last November should be fired, the college’s president recommended.
Sharon Sweet, an associate professor of mathematics at Brevard Community College in Florida, is guilty of electioneering, harassment, and incompetence, according to a three-month investigation into her classroom behavior leading up to the November election.
The Board of Trustees will hold a hearing on the matter, and then vote on whether to adopt President James Richey’s recommendation that Sweet be fired.

According to a report on the investigation:
“Professor Sweet strongly encouraged or mandated that students from several classes sign a pledge card that stated, ‘I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.’ She also misrepresented her intentions to multiple students, indicating at various times that she was conducting voter registration for the college, that the pledge cards were non-partisan voter registration forms, and that the pledge was a ‘statistical analysis.’”
In the eyes of the college, Sweet clearly created a hostile environment for students, since many feared their grades would be affected if they did not sign the pledge. She remains on paid leave until the board votes to fire her.


Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Photo Best ever Lay off Letter



Op-Ed: Hagel’s $160 Billion 'West Bank' US Troops Deathtrap

TAKE ACTION!! Pressure YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO VOTE NO ON HAGEL.-

Hagel, at Obama's bidding, plans to send troops to Judea andSamaria (the "West Bank") where they would soon be victims of Hamas terror. It's in writing. An investigative report.


There is only one reason that Chuck Hagel was picked by President Obama to be US Defense Secretary, and why Obama will go nuclear to get him confirmed:

Hagel is the only person alive now dumb enough to deploy US “peacekeeping” troops to what is surely a "West Bank" deathtrap. Don’t believe me??! Well, in early 2009, two years after Hamas violently took over Gaza, Hagel along with a ragged has-been crew of “Israel Lasters” had some strong “recommendations” for the incoming President Obama.

I will let Hagel’s 2009 “recommendations” speak for themselves. But to lend a note of rationality, Florence Gaub, a NATO researcher, in 2010 published a NATO Research paper outlining some of the problems of such a deployment. (I.e. it would need about 60,000 US/Nato troops and about 160 billion Dollars over 10 years) I and I will excerpt her report as well.

Obama’s determination in confirming Hagel is based on Obama’s belief that Hagel will cripple Israel at any price: including the deaths of thousands of US soldiers at the hands of Hamas suicide bombs in the Palestinian Authority.


START OF HAGEL’S 2009 REPORT:

“A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement,” April 2009. “Submitted to the administration of President Barack Obama” by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Chuck Hagel, et al.

The U.S. parameters should reflect the following fundamental compromise:

[A] non-militarized Palestinian state, together with security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty, and a U.S.-led multinational force to ensure a peaceful transitional security period. This coalition peacekeeping structure, under UN mandate, would feature American leadership of a NATO force supplemented by Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis. We can envision a five-year, renewable mandate with the objective of achieving full Palestinian domination of security affairs on the Palestine side of the line within 15 years. Page 6

III. Substantive Issues to be Resolved: Israel-Palestine

Security.

The borders between the two states must be physically secure and fully controlled for their entire length. A U.S.-led multinational force would likely be essential for a transitional period once a peace agreement is concluded. Palestine would likely be non-militarized. No doubt Jerusalem will require a special security and administrative regime of its own and special arrangements will be needed for the use and regulation of Palestinian airspace. Page 12

Israel-Syria

Security. Demilitarization of the Golan Heights and limited forces zones on both sides – all likely to be supervised by multinational forces featuring American leadership – will be mandatory. Page 13


Annex: Addressing Israel’s Security Challenges

Beyond the current efforts we expect that, upon the full agreement of the parties, there will be a robust international effort involving outside armed forces for a period of indeterminate length assisting Palestinian authorities in executing their responsibilities in the security sphere and helping them build capacity in order eventually to act without outside assistance. Page 14

Naturally, the U.S. will play a large and perhaps decisive role. Yet it should not act alone – there should be broad participation reflecting international consensus on the importance of supporting the emergence of a truly sustainable two-state outcome. Page 14

Although General Jones’ mandate has focused exclusively on the Israel-Palestine track, clearly there would also be a robust American role in implementing the security-related aspects of any Israel-Syria accord. Beyond helping the IDF with improving capabilities designed to compensate for full withdrawal from territory occupied on the Syrian front since 1967, the U.S. would undoubtedly play a vital role in monitoring a demilitarized Golan Heights and providing early warning services to both parties. Page 16

In our view there is no avoiding a central U.S. role in helping the parties (especially the Palestinian side) meet their security-related responsibilities to each other in the context of two states. Page 16

GAUB’S 2010 NATO REPORT:

Research Paper – Research Division – NATO Defense College, Rome – “NATO: Peacekeeping in the Holy Land? A feasibility study,” by Florence Gaub. March 2010.

This paper argues that such a mission would struggle to be successful, and is very likely to fail. Although the idea is attractive to some who would like to prove NATO’s global peace-enforcing capacity, the chances are that this endeavor would turn bad and tarnish NATO’s image in more ways than one. NATO is not currently ready to take on this kind of mission, and might never be. Page 2

Bright lights, big city

Also, there are over 19 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. In total, 4.2 million inhabitants in the area live in cities of this kind, with more than half a million living in refugee camps. This itself implies two things: first, arms caches are difficult to locate without local knowledge, and arms smuggle is facilitated greatly. Disarmament measures would be even more difficult to enforce than they already are under friendlier circumstances. Page 8

Less is not more, less is less

Independently from the local security forces, the NATO force in Palestine (hence the minimalist version) would, if it follows the example of the successful cases of Bosnia and Kosovo, need forces ranging from 43,700 to 76,000 men, including the police forces. Of these, between 16,100 and 28,000 would patrol Gaza, and between 27,600 and 48,000 the West Bank. Page 10

Current theatres of operations would have to be reduced in size before a suitable size NATO mission in Palestine would be available without introducing longer deployments – something many Allies would like to avoid. Page 11

Who dunnit?

Stabilisation missions are largely infantry missions. This is topped in our case by the fact that in worst case scenario, the tasks would entail urban warfare and counterinsurgency, which are also infantry heavy tasks. Page 11

According to some estimates, 57,000 of the 76,000 men would preferably be international civilian police or gendarmerie. Page 11

Time is Money

Aside from the costs for the mission itself, additional costs can be expected, due to the training of the Palestinian police, building infrastructure and providing equipment. Some estimates calculate between $9.61 billion and $16.72 billion per year, notcalculating reconstruction efforts, which in the case of the recommended 5 years would result in a total number between $48.05 billion and $83.6 billion. Page 11

In a Nutshell

NATO’s mission in Palestine would have slim chances of success, and a high probability of failure. One should not be blinded by perceptions of a historical opportunity and embark on an endeavor that could cost NATO credibility, prestige, money and lives simply because it seems to be a politically symbolic chance in a lifetime to establish NATO as a global security provider.

The territory involved presents aspects that would cause any campaign planner nightmares – densely populated, urban areas with highly intermingled conflicting populations, a volatile political ambiance where the tides can turn any second, and a very experienced opponent if it ever comes to counterinsurgency. Thus, this mission would need thorough preparation, careful planning, sufficient staffing and funding, a significant amount of political will, and would leave a very narrow margin for success. At the current stage, and with its other operations ongoing, it seems irresponsible to hasten NATO into a mission that has all the ingredients to turn into a quagmire that equals the Alliance’s involvement in Afghanistan. Page 12

END OF GAUB’S 2010 NATO REPORT:

And now for my analysis: Florence Gaub’s NATO College real analysis exposes Hagel’s US “peacekeeping” “recommendation” for the US defense policy fraud it is. Based on Hagel’s sheer hate of Israel, and without a whit of real thinking, Hagel would have had Obama commit the greatest US defense error in US history bringing the deaths of thousands of US soldiers, and the destruction of Israel, America’s anchor in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.

Can anyone imagine the depraved analysis Hagel has been spewing while, at this very moment, he is currently the “Co-Chair” of Obama’s “President Intelligence Advisory Board” (“PIAB”)?

In fact, Obama specifically nominated Hagel as Co-Chair of the PIAB as reward for Hagel’s 2009 insane Middle East “recommendations.” No wonder Obama’s policy has enabled Iran’s nuke program, and betrayed all our historic allies. “Hagel” and “Intelligence” are mutually exclusive terms. For 3 years, Obama has seen Hagel prove himself to be a useful-idiot who will dance to any Kill-Israel tune Obama plays for him.

So, in conclusion, Obama will do anything and everything to get Hagel confirmed because Obama knows Hagel, and only Hagel, hates Israel enough to sacrifice 1000s of US soldiers in body bags, and dumb enough to gladly blow 160 Billion US dollars, we don’t have, in order to grossly cripple, or perhaps even destroy Israel. In 2007,

Hagel saw Hamas takeover the Gaza Strip in 10 seconds flat. So in 2009, he knew the 60,000 US troops he was recommending Obama send into the "West Bank" would have been instantly trapped by Hamas, and subject to multiple Marine Beirut Barrack’s-type suicide blasts and kidnappings. But to compound Hagel’s rank stupidity, Hagel also wanted to put US troops on the Golan at the same time. Imagine what Assad would have done with US troops on the Golan Heights!! Add to the thousands of US body bags,

Hagel would happily spend 160 Billion US dollars we will have to borrow from the Chinese (over ten years of a minimum deployment) to expose US troops to mass-murder suicide bombing by Iran’s Hizbullah, and Tel Aviv to Hamas fired chemical-katyusha rocket barrages. (As an author’s note, if AIPAC plans on lobbying the US Congress for their “West Bank/Golan-for-Dead-US-GIs” “peace” plan, they should also plan on fighting Mark Langfan like they did in 1994; when they tried it the first time, and lost. Remember well the Nickels’ Defense Authorization Amendment fight!!!! See, US Troops On Golan Quicksand, by Mark Langfan,1994,


But get this, in early 2009, Hagel proved his total obsession with annihilating Israel by his stating in the 2009 paper’s preface: “In short, the next six to twelve months may represent the last chance for a fair, viable and lasting solution.” (Toto, we’re not in Nebraska 2009 anymore!) So, in 2009, Hagel was fiercely advocating for 60,000 US troops to have been already deployed by 2010, and 45 Billion US dollars already poured down the drain!! Such defense policy insanity conclusively proves Hagel is uniquely and inherently disqualified to be US Defense Secretary. Hagel’s 2009 “White Paper” shows only one thing: Obama has, in Hagel, knowingly nominated someone whose abysmal defense policy judgment is only “exceeded” by his evident virulent genetic in-bred German-Polish hate for both Israeli and American Jews.


The US Senators now voting for Hagel’s confirmation don’t know that they are now really voting for a deployment of 60,000 US soldiers to the "West Bank" and Golan Heights. If the Senators don’t stop this catastrophic train now, the Obama-Hagel “peace” locomotive will run them over when the actual time comes for the deployment decision.

Calling Israel’s “Guardian” Chuck Schumer?? Where are you?



Here call him http://www.schumer.senate.gov/Contact/office_locations.htm



 

Islamists to West: Put Up Your Hands and Hand Over Your Property!


Here’s the perfect parable for understanding not just the contemporary Middle East but the wider world today.

Two unarmed Finnish soldiers assigned to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) were observing along the Israel-Syria border from the Syrian side. Armed men stopped their car. While the two Finns didn’t speak Arabic they were quickly made to understand that the men wanted their UN vehicle and their other possessions.


In short, the supposed representatives of the world’s community were being mugged and they could do nothing about it, or at least nothing but to give in.

A Finnish officer explained that the men weren’t in fear of their lives; the gunmen just wanted their property.
Now let me make it clear that I’m not criticizing the two soldiers. What are you going to do when you are unarmed and terrorists with guns hold you up? Yet this little story struck me as incredibly symbolic on several levels.

The world is constantly held up by terrorists and nowadays it tends to give in, if not to the specific operations to the narrative being imposed on it. We do see rescue operations sometimes—as in the Algerian army’s disastrous “rescue” in which all the technicians being held hostage at a gas field were killed—and sometimes we don’t, as in Benghazi while the U.S. government stood by as men it had sent into a dangerous situation were murdered.

Yet what happens is that even if the terrorists don’t always win in their military operations they succeed in intimidating the West to hand over its intellectual property—by suppressing its own debate—and sometimes to pay tribute money as well.

As a reward for failing to fulfill its commitments and cheering on terrorist attacks, the UN’s General Assembly assigned non-member state status to the Palestinian Authority. Billions of dollars of U.S. aid go to Pakistan, which helps the Taliban and shields al-Qaida. Arms are handed over to Syrian Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Turkish government backs a terrorist group to create a violent confrontation with Israel (the IHH in the Gaza flotilla) and President Obama declares that regime to be his soul mate. Even after an official report that Hizballah carried out a terrorist attack in Bulgaria, the European Union won’t put it on the terrorism list.

There is a long list of such items. Terrorism mugs the West and gets paid off as long as it doesn’t overreach too much. Not attacking the World Trade Center is enough to make some group America’s “friend.”

One reason the West tends to yield is that it is unarmed. Not literally, of course, But unarmed in terms of its ideas, analysis, and understanding.

As for a good case study, take Lebanon, a few miles from where the two Finns were mugged and where the much larger UNIFIL force has received the same treatment. In 2006 the UN and the U.S. government promised Israel, as a condition for ending its war with Hizballah, that a much-enlarged UN force would keep Hizballah in southern Lebanon and help stop arms’ smuggling from Syria to Lebanese terrorists.

Hizballah has walked all over the UN (UN Resolution 1701) and the U.S. commitments without any cost to itself. UN observers have been regularly intimidated by Hizballah, which has moved back into southern Lebanon and built new fortifications. See here and here. The UN and the White House have not only done nothing but they haven’t even criticized Hizballah for this behavior.

General Alberto Asarta, the Spanish general who commands UNFIL forces in southern Lebanon, cannot praise Hizballah highly enough. The area, he explains, is "the best and most stable in the whole of the Middle East” thanks to Hizballah’s cooperation. It is "the most successful model when compared to the experiences of other UN peacekeeping missions around the world." And Hizballah has actually helped combat terrorist groups that sought to attack UNIFIL. Indeed, the cooperation with Hizballah is called—I kid you not--“The Partnership against Radical Islamic Terrorism.”

Memo to police forces: This could be a model for The Partnership against Crime to be formed in alliance with the Mafia. I can assure you that the Mafia is willing to help you from time to time against its competitors.

Did I mention that having won the last Lebanese elections—with a little help from violent intimidation and assassination of opponents—Hizballah now runs Lebanon? And did I mention that the new CIA director, John Brennan, is an apologist for Hizballah and has advocated normalizing relations between the United States and that terrorist group?

And, of course, unless hit with an Israeli air attack, Syria and Iran smuggle any weapons into Lebanon they wish without U.S. or UN objection or blockage. The effect of this smuggling is not only to set the stage for future Hizballah terrorism against Israel and a possible war, but helps to guarantee that Lebanon will continue to be in the hands of a terrorist group that is closely aligned with Tehran and advocates genocide against Jews.

Oh, and Israel is supposed to be the bad guy because it defends itself against muggers.

It’s bad enough to be mugged repeatedly but it’s even worse to provide the weapons and money for the assailants while also praising them. But that's precisely the moral of the story as far as Obama Administration policy is concerned: Except for a few exceptions who won't play politely (i.e., al-Qaida and part of the Taliban) if you're nice to the terrorists and they'll be nice to you.

By Barry Rubin

HAMAS FIRE ROCKET INTO ISRAEL

Obama -Morisi Deal $$$- and Israel suffers....

US AID $$$ DELIVERED and now Islam can commence Rocket attacks-ASHKELON HIT http://standingunitedforfreedom.blogspot.com/2013/02/news-alert-ashkelon-back-to-routine.html

Not that there were no jihadi stabbing riots or bomb attempts in the interim

http://standingunitedforfreedom.blogspot.com/2013/02/alertisrael-provokes-arabs-in-judea-and.html

*****If you remember Congress Way n Means commitee halted funds to Egypt back in sept/oct .

Obama was furious he whined " but i promised"

Hamas an offshoot of MBH. Increases attacks on Israel...

( encouraged by Morsi Mr Muslim Brotherhood Himself )

 

Then when clinton went to israel to stop ground assault -the day of cease fire - obama promised if Egypt could broker cease and no rockets fired by hamas- 1 billion would be given ....( seeF16's to Egypt)

Typical lib bribery-- never worked - never will and it causes Islam to GROW .

Obama also told israel it would get more Iron Dome not to wage ground assault - basically we heavily armed the enemy but gave our Allie a temporary cardboard shield.

// Egypt’s president, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, now will be held accountable if Hamas or anyone else fires rockets from Gaza into Israel. On the line is $1.5 billion dollars in U.S. aid to Egypt./ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/21/what-cease-fire-means-to-israel-and-hamas/#ixzz2M0hHatYJ

 

THATS THE F16 people have been posting on but they never tie it to Obama bribe

 

 

 

 

In Tweets, Pakistani Nuclear Scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan Legitimates Attacks On America,


Advocates Global Islamism And Arming The Taliban to Shoot Down U.S. Drones

Using the micro-blogging website Twitter, former Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan glorifies the advancement of the Pakistani nuclear program, inculcates global Islamism among his followers, and seeks to legitimize attacks against the West. Khan is chairperson of the Tehreek-e-Tahafuz-e-Pakistan (TTP or the Movement for the Defense of Pakistan), a new political party. Using the handle @DrAQ_Khan, he has published more than 1,000 tweets as of February 11, 2013 and has over 18,800 followers. His tweets are aimed at a nationalistic audience of Pakistanis. The tweets comment on issues and events in Pakistani life; for example, sending greetings on Prophet Muhammad's birthday or when Pakistan's cricket team wins matches, steps for electoral reforms in Pakistan, activities of Pakistani government, endorsing tweets and websites that promote Shi'ite-Sunni unity in Pakistan, justifying Pakistan's nuclear program, supporting freedom for Kashmir, and criticizing India and the Amn ki Asha peace initiative launched jointly by Pakistani and Indian media groups, among others.
source

Monday, February 25, 2013

Muslim cleric in the U.S. tells followers not to engage in offensive jihad: “not quite ready yet….”

American Muslim Jurists: Offensive Jihad — Not Yet
.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opposes offensive jihad in the West, but for reasons that may surprise you. In an Arabic fatwa (religious decree) that doesn’t appear on its English website, it states that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time [emphasis added].”
This doesn’t mean that all jihad is to be abandoned. “With our current capabilities, we are aspiring towards defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation,” it said.
It is important to notice that it was issued in Arabic on the website of its Secretary-General, Salah Al-Sawy. Even though AMJA is based in Sacramento and its mission is to serve their American Muslim audience, it decided against issuing this fatwa in English. If it wasn’t translated by the Translating Jihad blog and reported by Andrew Bostom in 2011, we probably wouldn’t know about it.
Deception is something that AMJA approves of. In an English-language fatwa on its website, issued by Al-Sawy in 2005, Muslims are authorized to lie for the sake of “repulsing evil” if there are “compelling strokes of necessity.” In that case, “he can indirectly say something that his listener can understand something else.”
(That’s the concept of necessity, also known as darura.)
In a 2007 Arabic paper presented at one of its conferences, AMJA even recommends that Muslims become judges and use deception to implement sharia law to the best of their ability. According to a non-verbatim translation, it says a Muslim judge in a non-Muslim country “must in his heart hate the man-made law” and “judge by the rulings of the Shari’ah as much as possible, even if by a ruse. [emphasis added]”
The AMJA commands Muslims in the West to remain committed to establishing “Shari’ah rule.” Another fatwa from Al-Sawy states that Muslims can only become American citizens if is no other viable option and “on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country.”
Al-Sawy blames the Muslim world’s ills on its failure to apply “Shari’ah Rule,” attributing it to the “Devil’s” influence. In another fatwa, he says the “Devil” has misled Muslims into believing that Sharia’s hudud, or its criminal punishments, are “harsh and barbarous.”
AMJA has issued fatwas in support of marital rape, stoning married men that commit adultery, executing critics of Islam’s founder and apostates and female circumcision. It even warns Muslims of the dangers of becoming police officers because they might be forced to engage in sins like “gender mixing” or having to“arrest a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her.” Unsurprisingly, from 1992 to 1995 Al-Sawy was a visiting professor for a satellite campus of Saudi Arabia’s Ibn Saud Islamic University located in Fairfax.
Other AMJA fatwas are based in anti-Americanism and hostility to non-Muslims. One tells Muslims to “not take as a friend anyone apart from the believers.” Another declares that Muslims are forbidden from providing food and other supplies to U.S. and foreign soldiers in Muslim countries. They can only serve in the U.S. military in capacities where they are not “involved in fighting, harming or even bothering Muslims at all.” Joining the FBI or other security agencies isimpermissible because of their supposed persecution of Muslims.
In 2009, AMJA endorsed supporting armed jihad against Israel in response to military operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Al-Sawy issued a rage-filledfatwa that was nothing less than a call-to-arms. It said that when a Muslim land is invaded, obviously referring to Gaza, every Muslim is required to help their co-religionists “fight in their own defense” and “with every possible means of support: military, financial, political and journalistic.”
Al-Sawy also declared that Muslims should use the conflict to “revive the obligation of jihad,” “revive the call to Sharia rule,” “reinvigorate and continue the option of the resistance and rejection of the Zionist project;” “revive the policy of using all available and possible means of da’wah [proselytizing] and jihad” and “revive the bonds between Muslim communities living beyond the lands of Islam.”
That’s pretty extreme for a group that says its jurisprudence is based on a “moderate approach and a rejection of extremism.”
This type of preaching isn’t limited to the AMJA website audience. AMJA’s Fatwa Committee scholars, experts and members hold positions in mosques and Islamic schools across the U.S. and outside the country. Al-Sawy is also the president of theMishkah Islamic University of North America, an online school that was originally called the Sharia Academy of America. He also co-founded the American Open University and was its Vice President from 1995 to 2004.
AMJA’s extremism is so pronounced that it’s hard to believe that anyone affiliated with it is ignorant. This is an organization that believes offensive jihad in the West is wrong only because it is impractical. It endorses “defensive jihad” against Israel and in the Muslim world. It explicitly endorses instituting “Shari’ah Rule” without any room for believable equivocation. And, if necessary, it’s willing to lie and deceive.
Any group or individual that embraces AMJA should be disqualified from being considered a “moderate.”

Photo - The Living Quran



ALERT NYC CAB Jihad? 4 Bloody crashes

Deadly day of cab crashes across NYC

A woman was killed when a cab careened out of control and pinned her to a utility pole, in the worst of four bloody cab wrecks across Manhattan yesterday.

The unidentified victim, who cops say may have been homeless, suffered a severe leg injury and bled to death as she lay on the sidewalk in the horrifying 1:48 a.m. accident at Third Avenue and East 27th Street.

The victim, in her 60s, was pronounced dead on arrival at Bellevue Hospital, cops said.

Cabby Sayeed Ahmed, 32, was heading north on the avenue when his taxi was bumped from behind by a 2010 Honda pulling out of a parking spot.

IT’S OUT OF CONTROL: This early-morning cab crash (above) on the corner of Third Avenue and East 27th Street, which killed a woman on the sidewalk, was just the first of four yesterday, including one in Chelsea and another on the Upper East Side.
Seth Gottfried

IT’S OUT OF CONTROL: This early-morning cab crash (above) on the corner of Third Avenue and East 27th Street, which killed a woman on the sidewalk, was just the first of four yesterday, including one in Chelsea and another on the Upper East Side.

Ahmed wasn’t charged, but motorist Derek Greenbaum, 22, was ticketed for failure to yield, a source said.

A few hours later, Caitlin Leahy, 22, suffered a broken pelvis when she was hit by a taxi at Sixth Avenue and West 23rd Street. Cabby Nabi Umar, 48, wasn’t charged.

A third cabby suffered minor injuries and went to the hospital after smashing his taxi into a utility pole on Park Avenue near 75th Street at about 7:42 a.m.

Several nearby building workers said the cab — which wasn’t carrying any passengers — was traveling south when it ran up on the median and hit a tree in a concrete planter before getting wrapped around a pole.

“He got turned around 360 degrees,” said Mustafa Cekic, 58, a doorman at 800 Park Ave., directly across from the wreck.

Then, around 6:45 p.m., a 59-year-old woman was struck by a Ford Escape yellow cab on West 181st Street in Washington Heights, cops said.

A witness said she was dragged, along with her grocery bags, underneath the vehicle.

“I saw a cabby going real fast,” said James Ribas, 58. “He didn’t know he hit her.”

She suffered non-life-threatening injuries and was transported to Lincoln Hospital. The cab driver was not charged.

NYPOST Additional reporting by Bruce Golding and Kenneth Garger


Sunday, February 24, 2013

In Washington Post, Palestinian Oxymorons Threaten Israeli Archaeology



Arab rejectionism of Israel has always included,
by definition, attacking archaeological evidence as lies and thievery. The truth of Jewish presence predating Muslim Arab presence is too damaging to their fanatic hatreds and geographic demands to go unopposed even through the blatent use of outright falsehoods. No one who has followed the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict should now be surprised at this latest outrageous accusation.
(Ben-Shmuel,)


wapolog.jpg

Several paragraphs of The Washington Post article “In Israel’s Herod exhibit, Palestinians see cultural theft; Museum displays artifacts excavated from West Bank site” (February 14) read like they belong more appropriately in Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.

The Post reports that the director-general of something called the Palestinian Authority’s Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage faults the Jewish state of Israel for displaying artifacts from Herodium in the Israel Museum. Herodium was a palace-fortress built 2,000 years ago by Herod the Great, King of Judea. What’s Arabic for chutzpah?

A few paragraphs are missing from this report by The Post’s Joel Greenberg. They would be the ones from archaeologists and historians pointing out that the Arabs who began calling themselves Palestinians only in the 20th century have no historical, religious, ethnic or national connection to the Judean artifacts on exhibit in the Israel Museum.

The article’s lead paragraphs make clear that material in the exhibit was found at Herodium, built by Herod, a Roman-era king of Judea—that is, king of the Jews and their land. Yet it relays with a straight face, without contradictory context, criticism from Palestinian Arabs that Israeli removal of artifacts from Herodium for display in Israel “violates international law and appropriates cultural property that should remain in the West Bank, which the Palestinians seek as part of a future state.”

The Post never mentions that “West Bank” is the term Jordan, during its illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967, applied to the territories widely known previously as Judea and Samaria. Likewise, the article quotes no source to point out the obvious: Even if the West Bank were to become part of a future Palestinian Arab state, the archaeological strata beneath it would not suddenly become “Palestinian.”

That’s because there was no Palestinian Arab antiquity. Prior to 1920, Palestinian Arabs were not a discrete national, religious, ethnic, or linguistic group (see, for example, Daniel Pipes’ “1920: The Year The Arabs Discovered Palestine".)

The layers of archaeologically significant artifacts beneath the West Bank, under Judea and Samaria, include Canaanite, Israelite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Jewish, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, and Turkish. But they don’t include Palestinian Arab, any more than pre-World War I layers of Balkan archaeology include Yugoslav. That identity, like Palestinian, was a 20th century political construct.

At some point in an article dealing with the past’s loud echoes in the present, The Post usefully might have reminded readers that today’s Palestinian Arabs have no connection to the ancient Philistines, a Mediterranean Sea people who settled in and around what today is the Gaza Strip. Babylonia defeated Judea, but it destroyed Philistia.

Too much history for one Post article? Yet the paper managed to quote an Israeli archaeologist from a group worried that the Israel Museum’s Herodium exhibit “served efforts by the government and Jewish settlers to appropriate West Bank sites as part of Israel’s national heritage.”

No appropriation is needed. Jewish archaeological sites are by history and by definition part of the national heritage of the Jewish state and the Jewish people, regardless of any future political disposition of the surface above them.