The most depressing bomb squad in the world.
John Howard has renamed the former Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
Click here to read the new title.
If you want to know why I consider the Democrats so dangerous, it isn't because most Democrats in Congress would tolerate a nuclear Iran. It is because the Democratic Party needs to keep making the multimillionaire leftist wing of the Party happy--and so they spend a lot of time coddling people like Michael Moore. This unintentionally sending the message to Iran that much of America lacks the resolve to act when push comes to shove.
Most politicians, it seems, don't care about losing this hard-earned sense of deterrence. Just recently, some of them met with the Syrian regime -- which is a state sponsor of terror.
To top it off, the hideous fact that American politicians simultaneously raised the profile of a terroristic enterprise while debasing their own country doesn't register on the public's radar.
Cramer talks about resolve. The Democrats don't even recognize the enemy.
I haven't read The Enemy at Home and have no plans to waste my time with it, but I think there might be a kernel of truth to what D'Souza believes: that is, I have no doubt Islamists really do despise an American culture they perceive as too secular, permissive and decadent. The thing is, I do not believe this means Americans should overhaul their culture to ensure Osama Bin Laden finds it more to his liking - and it's downright foolish to believe anything less than an Islamic theocracy would satisfy the jihadists.
Damian echoes the points I made earlier.
Hezballah's domestic policy in one photo:
Come to think of it, it's the same as their foreign policy.
“International pressure on the state of Israel for territorial concessions will only strengthen the jihadi threat being led by Iran today and encourage them to continue to attack Israel and the West,” Yaalon said.
Exactly! Rewarding decades of deprave terrorism and genocidal rhetoric with a state will only embolden the Jihadists.
(Same "logic", different era: Hey, let's give him Sudetenland. After that his territorial ambitions will be fulfilled.)
Why is this so hard to understand?
Link via LFG!
Redmond's marketers have dubbed Vista's release as a "wow moment—that instant when you recognize that your life has changed." That's according to a letter from Bill Gates himself.
Tech reviewers couldn't agree less. "Worthy, largely unexciting," yawned Walt Mossberg in his pacesetting Wall Street Journal review. Mossberg makes the "pleasant," "efficient" Vista sound less like a "wow moment" than a passable bore—the Canada of operating systems.
Ruffini has signed on with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign as an e-campaign adviser. The hiring is only the latest sign that Giuliani is serious about a run for national office in 2008.
Glenn Reynolds: "Good hire." Indeed.
The curses of High Definition.
Canadians should be proud to have an enemy like Hamas.
Canada risks making itself an enemy of the Palestinian people and of the broader Islamist movement by boycotting Hamas and openly siding with Israel, Palestinian foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar said yesterday after he was shunned by visiting Foreign Minister Peter MacKay.
That was a sensible decision.
When told that Mr. MacKay would likely have responded to his questions by insisting that Hamas still needs to meet the three conditions of the international community -- denouncing violence, recognizing Israel and respecting the agreements signed by the previous Palestinian government -- the 62-year-old former surgeon turned hostile.
"What borders of Israel should we recognize? The border that includes the Golan Heights? The borders it occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem? What type of Israel should we recognize? What is the constitution of Israel? And what is our border?"
Later in the interview, he suggested that there should be a single Islamic state stretching across the Middle East, adding that there was plenty of space in Canada to establish a Jewish homeland.
The wet dreams about a Caliphate never end.
There is only one man in history who so eloquently opposed Nazism, Communism and Islam. We -- again! -- ignore him at our own peril.
Josh Scholar asks in the comments:
For a long time I've wondered if there was (to some small extent) a connection between Islam's prohibitions on art and it's emphasis on triumphalism (conquest, hostility etc). It's as if without fantasy, Muslims have nothing to dream about but paranoid conspiracies and conquest...
But looking at those beautiful photographs made me think, there may not be a prohibition on photography because it isn't drawing or painting, it's a mechanical reproduction... Is that the case? What is the state of photography as an art form in the Muslim world?
Photography is not considered a respectable profession among the umma. I can think of three different and possibly overlapping reasons for this. (My apologies for the fragmented nature of this post.)
1. Islam. (Shocking!)
Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 34, Number 318.
Narrated Aisha: I bought a cushion with pictures on it. When Allah's Apostle saw it, he kept standing at the door and did not enter the house. I noticed the sign of disgust on his face, so I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I repent to Allah and His Apostle. (Please let me know) what sin I have done." Allah's Apostle said, "What about this cushion?" I replied, "I bought it for you to sit and recline on." Allah's Apostle said, "The painters (i.e. owners) of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, 'Put life in what you have created (i.e. painted).' " The Prophet added, "The angels do not enter a house where there are pictures."
Oh yes, all you Muslim artists out there have a reserved space in Hell. Of course, this is grade-A superstition: somehow drawing or photographing an animate object is bad behavior because it's like mimicking Allah!
And we can't have that. One can do a search for "pictures" at the Hadith database and find tons of stuff that showcases the moronic musings of Muhammad -- the guy who is the moral gold standard for Muslims.
Very often, your average Muslim is not aware of these sayings, so they ask imams about the matter. A few examples:
- Is it okay to take pictures with a digital camera?
- Is it okay to store pictures that aren't "printed" (like on a computer)?
- Is it okay to wear pyjamas with pictures on them?
- A detailed question with a long answer.
- This one made me :) and :(
2. So Uncouth!
One finds an asphyxiating view in the desi community when it comes to education: there are only two fields that are respectable. Medicine and Engineering. (During the 90s, anything computer-related became acceptable as well.)
Now, I do not have a problem with these courses of study. However, there is overwhelming pressure on desi kids to "choose" from these two fields. Other higher education pursuits are politely referred to as useless. Art and music fall in that category. So, while one can find artistic desis, it's quite rare for them to truly pursue their passion to the maximum.
Narrowing the field to Pakistanis, I've met families that never display a single photo in their home and then others who can't wait to show you the photo albums and talk about the background history of each individual in there.
I have also met well off Pakistanis who refuse to buy a computer or get cable for their TVs. They'd rather have their children be technologically inept, then risk their exposure to naughty pictures. Though, it's odd for them to have a TV, which shows 30 "pictures" per second, for a few local channels. And then there are Pakistanis who have a computer and who get the latest cable and watch all the haram stuff. Baywatch was a big hit in Saudi Arabia in the 90s!
My dad recorded the Miss World 1994 pageant and then later gave the VHS tape to one of his friends.
He never got it back.
One can also see that Muslim kids have no qualms about having their pictures taken. In fact, they love it. Whenever American soldiers pass by in Iraq, kids come out and behave like monkeys on acid. As soon as a camera appears, they calm down and offer a massive smile.
It's schizophrenic behavior. Muslims love to take up the frame for a picture during their lavish wedding ceremonies but offer lukewarm support as a community to the profession of photography or art in general.
The strong religious component might be the answer: they're fine with a few tasteful photographs with a cheap camera but having that as a hobby might elicit bad publicity. Parents will tell their wayward progeny to stop by saying, "Loog kya kahain gay? (What will people say?)"
3. Totalitarian regimes.
Islamic nations don't want people to take photographs within their borders. A lot of damaging material can get out. So, draconian laws are enforced to ensure this state of affairs. Note the case of Zahra Kazemi.
My dad once visited a friend in Europe. He later brought back many photographs of his stay there. He got more photos from that brief visit than he had taken in all the many years in Saudi Arabia.
For the purposes of ID, we would go to a photo studio where results can be had within an hour.
The rulers of Arabia certainly do not mind showcasing their perverted mugs. For example, one finds large frames of theirs in the airports; the king and a few other assorted thugs of the Saud family welcome newcomers to the center of modern evil.
I think photography can do a lot of good -- mainly by demonstrating to the world just how truly hideous the Islamic sphere really is.
Imagine if a student could put a camera to record the events of a classroom. Nothing can showcase better that Islam is a Religion of Peace than Muslim teachers who repeatedly slap, punch, kick and hit the young and helpless students throughout the day.
It's kinda tough to take that "out of context".
A SMOKER was refused cigarettes at a Cambridge store because the Muslim shop assistant said it was against her religion to sell tobacco.
What utter baloney! I have lived in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan where Muslims buy and smoke cigarettes a lot. Of course, many consider it a filthy habit but anti-Islamic it ain't.
Why, in certain areas of life, are Muslims in the West becoming more extreme than Muslims in Dar-ul-Islam?
Link via Western Resistance.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said 24's season premiere, in which Islamic terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb near Los Angeles, risked stoking racial hatred.
Robert Spencer asks:
What race are Muslims again?
You can see why leftists everywhere see no reason to assume that the West has anything over Islam.
Read, weep and laugh. A Cramer reader emailed this story:
A friend of mine told me of an incident years ago. Apparently, during negotiations over one or another of the peace accords in Israel, the Arab side took issue with one of the symbols used in typewritten documents.
Their complaint: The typeface included a six-sided asterisk -- just like the star of David. Obviously, the State Department was showing favoritism toward Israel.
The Jewish influence is everywhere, man.
Mahmood Aquavelvajihad is so gay:
The guy in the background is happy to watch the free show.
I'm quite shocked at this. I would have bet that, at the very least, material on (the infamous!) Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin would have got higher rank than my post on this subject matter.
Anyway, among the top ten, we have this press release from the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC).
The usual litany of accusations from being against gay rights and women’s rights, as well as accusations regarding support for jihad, Osamah bin Laden, the Taliban and Muslim world domination are ranged at various people within the film. This ‘standard’ is used exclusively for Muslims and exemplifies the problems of inherent Islamophobia and racism within the mainstream media.
Let's get something straight: Islam is not a race. Repeating the "racism" charge for the millionth time won't assign some magical racial or ethnic value to Islam. It's ultimately about the vile nature of Islam -- the cult, the ideology, the religion. Calling the critics "islamophobic" or "racists" won't change the ugly reality that Muslims (of numerous backgrounds) in the West are aiming to end Western Civilization.
Do note, the IHRC doesn't state that what the preachers uttered was morally wrong or factually incorrect. They're complaining that the MSM is being unfair by showing their odious views to the broader kafir public.
It's amazing: in addition to the explicit Undercover Mosque, the reaction to the programme by Muslim organizations is also very revealing.
In WWII, the Canadians fought the Nazis long before America was dragged into the war. In 1944, one of the five beaches on D-Day was assaulted by the men of this tiny but fierce nation. 1.1 million Canadians served in that war.
Today, a few Canadian cretins are complaining about the Great Financial Drain that is... the supporting role in the Battle of Afghanistan!
How things have changed.
Odd that this headline hasn’t appeared in previous centuries.
Click here to read it.
Ahnuld recently said, "We are the modern equivalent of the ancient city-states of Athens and Sparta. California has the ideas of Athens and the power of Sparta."
So, the illegal immigrants are the helots?
Pejman starts offering further history -- that will end two-thirds of the way.
I have heard that the Wii is a lot of fun.
But I didn't know that it was this mesmerizing.
Engadget: Navy develops 8-Megajoule railgun, Nukem bows down.
[...] the weapon should "only" cost around $1,000 per shot once loaded onboard, which is chump change compared to the cool million that vanishes each time a cruise missile is deployed, and if everything goes as planned, we'll be seeing a 32-Megajoule prototype in June, with a 64-Megajoule rendition adorning our ships by 2020.
Soon, Jihadists are going to get their 72 raisins more cheaply.
It's amusing to read this post and then the devastating first comment.
What were Abu Usama And Faiz thinking when making the statements they did? What they said was devoid of any understanding of the context of the time and place we are living in. And the more i think about it, the more i'm sure that brothers such as these have little or no interaction with non-Muslims because its impossible to hold such views and express them so boldly in the UK in 2007 if you're meeting non-Muslims regularly. They need to move on from describing the UK/Western populace as gays, controlled by Jews, etc.
Move on... to what? Unbridled hatred of the infidels is their core. They "gain" their identity by loathing the "dirty" and "inferior" kufaar.
Furthermore, wasn't one of these preacher a Muslim convert? He knows the infidels very well and still he hates them. It would certainly be nice if mingling with non-Muslims could dissipate the irrational ill-will but sadly that doesn't always happen. (And it didn't happen in this case.)
Take another example: Saudi Arabia. Western engineers and technicians have been maintaining the oil infrastructure in that nation for decades. The Saudis have worked with Americans, Aussies, Brits, Canadians, and other Westerners for all these years.
Have we seen a more friendly Saudi Arabia emerge after all that time?
No. 500,000 Americans saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1991. In 2001, the Saudis at my father's office celebrated the news of 9/11.
This so-called “undercover” investigation merely panders to age-old anti-Muslim prejudices by employing the time-honoured tradition of cherry picking statements and presenting them in the most inflammatory manner.
Muslim speakers, in front of supportive audiences, talked about:
- Killing those who leave Islam.
- Hitting children who refuse to pray.
- Murdering homosexuals because... they're homosexuals.
- The deficiency of a woman -- thus necessitating two women witnesses to challenge a male witness.
- Praising the Jihadists in Afghanistan who killed a British Muslim soldier. The Jihadists, you see, are the real heroes.
In what context would these statements be any less revolting?
Green Lane Masjid also, unintentionally, shows just what is coming to Europe:
Dispatches failed to adequately differentiate between the application of Islamic Shariah in an Islamic State and its application within a minority Muslim community in modern day Britain.
Oh yes, just wait till Muslims are a majority; that's when the real fun starts!
Perhaps, if there is one overwhelming lesson in all of this, it is that imams and religious leaders need to think very carefully about what they are saying.
Because you never know, there just might be a journalist around -- recording what your dark heart really believes.
Israellycool: Ironic Picture of the Day.
Few Muslims may have the guts to throw their own lives away in the name of jihad, but that does not mean that those who are stupid and reckless enough to do so are held in less than the greatest esteem by a frighteningly large number of their co-religionists [...]
Many in the West who come across this view find it comfortable and convenient to believe that the messenger is a "bigot", "racist" or "islamophobe" than to face the brutal reality of hundreds of millions of Jihad-supporting Muslims.
For this, the West will pay a heavy price.
I briefly talked about the Undercover Mosque documentary from Britain yesterday. The reply to the show makes for an interesting reading.
The programme also showed the preachers discussing what are actually normal Islamic opinions and practices and seemed to suggest that they were morally equivalent. For example, the command to enforce prayer on older children in the family, and to hit them if they refuse, is not limited to the people shown up as extremists in the programme: it comes straight from the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam).
That's the core problem. Islam is extreme.
Just look at the guy who is thought to be the perfect moral example for Muslims: he married multiple women; had sex with a 9-year-old girl; ordered to kill those who criticized him; had all the adults of a Jewish tribe murdered and took their women and children as slaves and on and on.
How the hell is that in any way moral?
But you see, for Muslims, morality is defined by what Muhammad did and what he told others to do. Period.
The documentary implicitly showed the prophet as an immoral man. This presents a "problem" for both non-Muslims and Muslims.
- Non-Muslims cannot criticize Islamic practices in a logical manner without inferring that Muhammad was a monster.
- Muslims can't explicitly and openly disagree with the odious imams and preachers without saying that Muhammad was wrong.
The entire rotten foundation of a religion is one evil man and the non-Muslims should not be afraid to say just that.
If Muslims think that that is wrong, then they can point out the flaws in the argument. (Saying that Muhammad did X and thus by definition X is moral ain't an argument.)
If the non-Muslims are right, then Muslims ought to wake up and leave their decrepit ideology.
Kamila, from the comments:
Islam is originally from Saudi Arabia and Muslim knows that, so the modern Muslims should not complain about the extremism because Islam never originated from Pakistan, Iran or England. So if the Saudi are extreme then the original Islam is extreme and it should be practiced to the fullest.
Yusuf Smith, from the comments:
Andy: parents hit their kids in this country for petty "P's and Q's" matters all the time, not just because they won't do their homework. To a lot of parents it's the only way to chastise a recalcitrant child. I got smacked many times and don't think my parents barbaric. Maybe Islam is superstition to you but to us it's the Truth.
Indeed. What is often barbaric in the West is normal in Islam.
Ergo, Islam is barbaric.
[...] despite the number of troops we've lost and how down the American people are on the war, 54% of people in uniform approve of Bush's handling of the war. This may be the only war in American history where the people who are getting shot at every day have a higher level of morale than the people who are sitting at home benefiting from their efforts.
What does that say about the American public?
Mezba provides a helpful FAQ on desi marriages. An excerpt:
It is also noted that men become fatter after their wedding. It is due to the fact that when a bachelor comes home, he sees what's in the fridge and goes to bed. Whereas the married man comes home, sees what's in the bed and goes to the fridge.
Cox and Forkum: Dead Ball.
Nice choice for the numbers.
The more I learn about FDR and his policies, the more negative my assessment of his legacy becomes. One of the things that really shocked me about his economic plans was just how clueless they were. There wasn't any logic to them -- except giving the appearance that his administration was doing something! (When they didn't work, then obviously the greedy businessmen were to blame.)
Recently Mahalanobis (via Samizdata) wrote a devastating post about FDR. He mentions many asinine policies that make up the New Deal; the most atrocious of them can be missed if one doesn't stop to ponder:
FDR introduced the great idea of paying farmers to take acreage out of production, mandated price fixing for various crops such as dairy, corn, cotton and wheat, and permitted price fixing for other commodities.
After a massive drop in national output, the obliteration of the money supply, and the unemployment rate dropping to 25%, FDR decides to transfer money from the credit-starved economy to the farmers...so, that they don't grow food!
LFG puts up links to the UK Channel 4 documentary Dispatches: Undercover Mosque. The documentary is divided into three parts at YouTube.
Part 1 of 3: Here the documentary narrator explains that the term kuffar means a non-believer. I think that kafir is the singular term that means a non-believer. Kuffar is the plural form -- non-believers.
A quintessential line: "We want to do away with the man-made laws."
Yours truly also gets some love from the Muslim preacher. Oh, and remember, Islam respects women (especially 9-year-old girls).
In a twist, one of the Muslim preachers talks about "properly" penetrating a gay man. (No, I'm not kidding.)
Part 2 of 3: "No peace with the Jews."
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia exports two things: Oil and pure unadulterated hatred for the West.
Do note the mirth of the moderate Muslims at the end. Nothing gets more laughs than talking about murdering Jews.
Part 3 of 3: Watch the last 30 seconds over and over again.
A message to all: Please, post these links at your blog and/or email them to friends. As I've said, "Nothing illustrates better how implicitly supportive mainstream Islamic organizations are of Islamist terror groups than their own words!"
A message to those of you who're learning about, and hearing this, evil for the first time: welcome to our world war -- now, pick a side.
Svend and I were visiting Pakistan once, and we went to attend this fancy shmancy wedding, right. The guests were divided up into men and women on either side. It was weird.
Been there, done that.
So I said, screw this, it won’t make any difference to anyone if we do sit together at the end of one block of chairs, right? So I had Svend move over to sit with me.
Ohh naughty. We were being watched. Ammi didn’t like it. “Nazaron mein aajao gi” - or you will become visible to people. I think she was afraid that we’d get nazar/the evil eye. Ooh, husband and wife CHOOSING to sit together. How jealous everyone would get. A man and a woman SITTING right next to each other. Who knows what else they might be doing in front of 300 people.
Hot passionate monkey sex?
Well, soon after we settled down inconspicuously next to each other, this fancy-shmancy no-hijab high-heels young lady came up to us. She says to us in her trying-to-be-snooty Urdu (which irritates me no end) “no, jee, males on this side and females on that side.”
I wanted to laugh in her face and say “Who died and made you mutawwa? [...]"
Umar Lee on 24:
In a nation where whites are slowy becoming a minority and white America feels helpless against the perceived power of African-Americans and the onslaught of Latino immigrants white America has found an adversary in which it can safely vilify, malign, and project bigotry towards and that group is Muslims and in Jack Bauer the white man is restoring his wounded ego and machismo (just as Norm Mailer in response to the American reaction to 9-11).
Read the second comment as well. These Muslims sure have high opinions of their fellow citizens.
The Toronto Sun reports that according to a survey they conducted, half of Canadians are racist. Which is pretty surprising as I must be running into the other half only then.
An excerpt from the Sun:
We are, after all, a nation that likes to puff our chest out in pride and congratulate ourselves for being a happy mosaic, unlike our southern neighbours. We believe we have transcended our somewhat checkered history in dealing with recent immigrants and aboriginal Canadians.
Among a slew of key findings, it was the answer to one question in particular that made the pollster stop what he was reading.
According to the Racial Tolerance Report, the majority of Canadians have a good opinion of all ethnic groups tested but the Arab community ellicited the most negative response among Canadians.
I'm shocked! SHOCKED! Who would have thought that dancing and high-fiving after learning about 9/11 could elicit such a response?
In the end, it is comforting to know that after all the silly "we are so tolerant unlike the uncouth Americans" talk, Canadians do know that culture matters. On the surface it seems racist but in reality they're assigning a culture to each ethnicity and deciding on that basis. (I think it's a sad, and a toxic, trend that race and ideology have become one or at least appear as one.)
I would bet that if most Canadians were provided the choice of the "other" who epitomized Western values, then s/he be welcomed with open arms. Skin color isn't the issue, ideology is.
Let's say, a different question had been asked: would you have a negative, positive or no reaction to your son / daughter marrying a person of a different religion?
The Canadians would think about the clash of beliefs, the raising of children in a two-religion family and the likely chance of the marriage ending in divorce. Most Canadians would have a negative reaction.
So, then the Canadians are religiously intolerant!?
Similarly, with such simple questions and flawed logic, one can conclude that Canadians are nationalist (they wouldn't want their kids to marry a non-Canadian) and discriminate against the poor!
I share D'Souza's disgust with the left's focus on redefining selfishness and depravity as normality. There's no question that much of what passes for wisdom on the left offends Muslims (as much of it offends most Christians). But that's not what is driving this hatred. The February 2006 Smithsonian had a fascinating article about how Sayyid Qutb came to the United States, and was so horrified by the sexual immorality and materialism of Americans that he went back to Egypt--and eventually became a major influence on Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta.
Do read the rest of this excellent post.
It is certainly true that the Islamists loath the freedom of the West. Islamists, and Muslims in general, are closer to the religious right than the lunatic left. This does not mean that the Left in any way caused 9/11.
At the root of it is the refusal of the West to accept Islam. The very fact that there are people on Earth who live their lives as they please without a care about Allah and his court jester (PUBH) pisses off Islamists. (The entire Left can embrace conservatism today, and the core reason for Islamists will still be there.)
Of course, the venom is not spewed evenly among the infidels. On average, a Leftist is hated more than a right-winger. Similarly, the Shias, Ahmadis, Jews, and ex-Muslims are hated more than your vanilla kafir.
Just because the beliefs and activities of the mentioned "infidels" unleashes more anger and violence from the Islamists does not make those "infidels" responsible for the atrocities. Ultimately the problem is Islamists and their ideology.
Modifying our "bad" behavior to somehow please (or rather appease) them is completely the wrong way to go about it.
Gates of Vienna gets a request:
You might have friends who could record and videogoogle this upcoming program on British TV, Monday 15 January, 8pm GMT, on Channel 4.
It sounds like a good idea to me — is there anyone across the pond who could tape the report and put it up on YouTube or Google Video? If so, please send us the link when it’s up.
I'd like to see this program as well.
Muslim mothers who do not speak English at home are stunting their children's literacy levels, one of the Government's most influential education advisers said last night.
This is compounded by the fact that their religion stunts intellectual growth. It's a double whammy: one knows zero English and the vicious clown* (PUBH) is one's role model.
Back to the article:
The problem, described by Sir Cyril as a "major issue", should be addressed by a national campaign to encourage the mothers of ethnic minority children to attend English classes, he said. "A very high proportion of the mothers come from Bangladesh and Pakistan, not speaking English when they arrive through arranged marriages," he added.
Why marry uppity English whores when one can
own get a pious Muslim woman who doesn't have a clue about her rights?
Concerns about Muslim women's lack of English were expressed earlier this month by Ann Cryer, the MP for Keighley in West Yorkshire, who has been raising the issue since the 2001 riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford.
She claimed that many young Asian women who were brought to the Bradford district as wives were deliberately discouraged from learning English by their in-laws. Children were then starting school with no awareness of English.
This is outrageous. Muslims need no kafir English! It should be the infidels who should bow down and soak up Arabic and Urdu!
It's the Westerners who ought to integrate with the Muslims, don't you know.
* By this, I mean no disrespect to professional clowns.
Cliff May thrashes Reuters for their "pro-bono propagandizing for Hamas".
Engadget: Woman Dies Trying to Win a Wii.
One of the easiest, and also the most forceful, things that the MSM can do is to record the exact words and speeches of imams and Muslim speakers and then relay the information to the public. The mere content of such speech is so hideous and devastating that there's little commentary required.
After long years of sugarcoating the Religion of PeaceTM, the media is finally waking up. Check out this article by the Daily Mail.
Every Friday, the Muslim worshippers begin to arrive just after midday on an anonymous Home Counties urban street.
What happens there?
It seems an unlikely setting but it is in places such as Sutton that one can discover the uncomfortable truth about how deeply the tentacles of radical Islam have spread.
The MSM still thinks that they are dealing with an Islamic mutation. Perhaps, in a few more years, they'll realize that the sweet version doesn't exist.
'The British soldiers are the soldiers of Satan, the soldiers of evil, of evilness. And I pray to Allah openly and in English that they will not return back except when they are dead - all of them.'
What a wonderful way to thank the host country.
During these religious speeches, monitored by the Mail over a period of a month, he also condemned the Pope as a loud-mouthed drunk and said President Bush's Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was an unclean fornicator.
As opposed to a clean fornicator?
Non-Muslims in Britain, declared Mr Latif, are dirty, unclean people who never wash their hands and become ill because of their own sexual promiscuity. He went on to denounce British democracy as 'demon-ocracy' and praised the shariah laws of Islam under which thieves have their hands cut off and adulterous women are stoned to death in public.
But remember Islam respects women!
More from the article:
As one worshipper told us: 'Please don't think that Mr Latif is alone in what he says. In many mosques, whether they are in the suburbs or the towns or the cities, there are imams (Islamic clerics) just like him giving powerful speeches which are turning Muslim worshippers against this country.
The investigators spent four months filming undercover at one mosque, Green Lane in Birmingham, which caters for thousands of worshippers.
The main preacher is Abu Usamah, an American convert to Islam, who studied at Medinah University in Saudi Arabia, before coming to Britain. He is seen telling worshippers not to believe that Islamic terrorists are operating in Britain, as all non-Muslims are liars.
In another sequence, he is heard saying that Christians and Jews are 'kuffaars' (non-believers) and the enemies of Islam. 'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar,' he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!' Then he adds, triumphantly: 'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state.
LFG: Muslims Want Special Treatment from UK Health Service.
That's cute because we all know the big health issue with UK Muslims is the lack of gender apartheid in hospitals.
A small "health service" suggestion to Muslims in the UK: Stop marrying your cousins.
The practice remains so popular because the community believes there are real benefits to marrying in the family. Many British Pakistanis celebrate cousin marriage because it is thought to generate more stable relationships.
Right. You see, it's mostly the infidels who are missing out -- they'll never get to experience the joy and stability of having a grandson who is also their grandnephew.
In addition, the infidels also miss out on this special treatment from Allah:
British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.
The reaction of the UK Muslim community?
According to Ann Cryer MP, whose Keighley constituency has a large Pakistani population, much of the Pakistani community is in denial about the problem.
There is a strong religious reason for this: the wretched Muhammad married his daughter, Fatima, to his cousin, Ali. To acknowledge the odiousness of such marriages would be to implicitly say that Muhammad was in the wrong.
Oh yes, the tentacles of Islam run deep.
The BBC asked for personal views on cousin marriages. A few gems:
- "Provided that both cousins consent to marry, there is no harm." Javaid, Oldham
- "If people still do not take this on board than at the end of the day it is the choice of the individual and who are we to judge? Yes, this is a great strain on the NHS but can also adversely affect actual lives as we saw in the film. But the same can be said for sexual promiscuity, so then should we start putting a ban on the number of partners people sleep with?" Sal, London
- "Cousins are free to marry each other by Islamic law. It is patronising to be told now who one should and should not marry." Farzana, UK
- "Islam has the solution to all the dilemmas of modern society if we actually look at the scriptures rather than the practices of the wayward colonised masses." Omar Ali, Jeddah/UK
The quote by Shaikh Feiz and the response to it is classic -- so is this line:
The Wahhabis of the sort who run Dar us-Salaam are not terrorists and pose no real threat to anyone's life and liberty.
Read the whole thing for "context".