Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi Infiltrates Washington – 1.29.2008

Sheer lunacy is the only way I can describe this. Why should the U.S. government allow an Islamist News Organization to function in Washington D.C.? This would be akin to allowing a Nazi propaganda office to function here in America during World War II. Qaradhawi is nobody’s idea of a moderate, is banned from the United States and United Kingdom, and yet is allowed to fund this television station.

Sheer lunacy.

From MEMRI.

Prominent Sunni Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi

 Banned in U.S., Opens Washington D.C. Office of Islamist News Organization

Says It (IslamOnline) Is “The Jihad of Our Era”

On December 27, 2008, the Islamist news organization Islamonline.net (IOL), which is overseen by prominent Sunni sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, announced that it had opened an office in Washington, D.C. Following is information about the new office, and about Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi’s connection to it:

IOL “Aims to Contribute to Projecting Much-Needed True Image of Muslims”

According to the announcement, the new Washington office, located in the National Press Building, was opened “in an effort to reach out to its wider audience and larger readership.”

IOL English managing editor Muhammad Zidan said, “This new office stands as a step forward in realizing part of the aims and objectives of IOL – that is, promoting awareness about important events in the Arab, Muslim and larger world, in addition to providing services to Muslims and non-Muslims in several languages.” [1]

Acting Bureau Chief Ossama El-Shamy said that he would put all his efforts into guaranteeing the success and growth of IOL presence in, and coverage of, the U.S.

Kamal Badr, IOL English website editor-in-chief, said, “In a true sense, America can be called a multicultural and multi-ethnic society. It is full of activities with interests to Muslims… Here in Washington D.C., one has direct access to important activities and personalities that will definitely enhance our coverage. [The] Washington office is a step in a proper direction for the English website, in a sense that it will further provide it a solid media ground in the strategic areas for its international coverage.”

The announcement added that IOL “aims to contribute to projecting the much-needed true image of Muslims.”

Zidan said, “U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has proved that if there are persistent efforts, there can be a change… Islam has a universal appeal. We invite all the people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, to come forward and express their views from [the] IOL platform.” [2]

 

IOL Founded, Supported, Supervised By Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi

IOL was, according to PBS, founded by prominent Sunni sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi. [3] In its early stages, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi personally “adopted” IOL, [4] supported it, and supervised it, and, according to The Guardian, it has remained under his supervision. [5] Al-Qaradawi has promoted IOL in the media, especially on his weekly Al-Jazeera TV program. [6]

Al-Qaradhawi, who is banned from entering the U.S. and the U.K., [7] is among the top spiritual leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and serves as a spiritual guide for many other Islamist organizations across the world. He heads the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and is founder and director of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS). [8]

Al-Qaradhawi’s activity in recent months has included preaching against Shi’ites and the spread of the Shi’a in the Sunni Arab world. [9] Most recently, in his Friday sermon of January 9, 2009 he promoted boycotting U.S. goods, including the Starbucks chain, as well as the U.K. chain Marks and Spencer, stressing to his audience, “[P]ut the boycott against the nation’s enemies into action. Every riyal you pay turns into a bullet in the heart of your brothers in Gaza and in other Islamic countries.” In the same sermon, he also said, “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people… and kill them, down to the very last one.’” [10]

 

Al-Qaradhawi: IOL is “The Jihad of Our Era”

According to Arab Media and Society, a publication of the Middle East Centre of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, and the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research at The American University in Cairo, IOL is “one of the most-visited Arabic/English Islamic web portals which issue fatwas.” In a promotional brochure for IOL, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi said of its mission: “This project is neither nationalistic nor one aiming at a grouping or a group of people; it is a project for the entire Islamic community. It is the jihad of our era.” [11]

 

Al-Qaradhawi: IOL A Means “To Carry This Religion to All People Around the World”

In a speech posted on the website, Al-Qaradhawi stressed IOL as a means of fulfilling the obligation “to carry this religion to all people around the world… We [have already] used print, radio, and television. Today, there is a new medium known as the Internet. All religions have used it to call to their religions and sects. It is the duty of the Muslims to use this tool to call to their great religion, which God has granted them with, and leave others – who have lost their way – to call it… This is what this major, global project – Islam Online – is doing. It carries the message of Islam to the world.”

 

---

[1] http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1230121266417&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

[2] http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1230121266417&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

[3] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-9-2009/islam-and-modernity/1880/

[4] According to Dr. Hamid Al-Ansari, as quoted in Arab Media and Society (U.K. and Egypt), January 2008, http://www.arabmediasociety.com/index.php?article=576&printarticle#_ednref1.

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/25/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker.

[6] Arab Media and Society (U.K. and Egypt), January 2008, http://www.arabmediasociety.com/index.php?article=576&printarticle#_ednref1.

[7] MEMRI: Special Report No. 30, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi in London to Establish ‘The International Council of Muslim Clerics,’” July 8, 2004, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3004 ; MEMRI: Special Dispatch No. 2162, December 29, 2008, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP216208.

[8] MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2183, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi On Al-Jazeera Incites Against Jews, Arab Regimes, and the U.S.; Calls on Muslims to Boycott Starbucks and Others; Says ‘Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band of People… And Kill Them, Down to the Very Last One,’” January 12, 2009, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP218309.

[9] MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 481,”Recent Rise in Sunni-Shi’ite Tension (Part II): Anti-Shi’ite Statements by Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi,” December 16, 2008, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA48108 ;

MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2080, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi in Interview With Egyptian Daily: Mubarak Should Step Down and Should Not Pass Presidency to Gamal; The Spread of the Shi’a Is A Danger,” October 16, 2008, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP208008.

[10] MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2183, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi On Al-Jazeera Incites Against Jews, Arab Regimes, and the U.S.; Calls on Muslims to Boycott Starbucks and Others; Says ‘Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band of People… And Kill Them, Down to the Very Last One,’ ” January 12, 2009.

[11] Brochure, printed on the occasion of the IOL’s first anniversary and distributed at the 2000 Cairo book fair: Mashru^‘ al-umma fi-l-qarn al-hadi wa-l-^‘ashrin. IslamOnline. Uktubir 1999-uktubir 2000 (Project of the Islamic community in the 21st century. IslamOnline. October 1999-2000).) As cited in Arab Media and Society (U.K. and Egypt), January 2008 http://www.arabmediasociety.com/index.php?article=576&printarticle#_ednref1.

War Against Islamism – 1.29.2008

Some days, I wonder why we aren’t already finished off in the War Against Islamism. Our political leaders have no clue what they’re doing. The Mass Media is an enabler. And the International Community plays right into the collective hands of Islamists.

Take for example this article:

U.S. Navy stopped Iran ship carrying weapons and headed to Gaza

Now, for years, Iran has been conducting Acts of War against both the United States of America and Israel unchecked and unchallenged. In purely military sense, you are well within your right to sink an enemy supply ship during times of war. And yet, the response of the United States Government was to let the supply ship go, and continue on to Egypt.

U.S. Navy ordered to release Iran weapons ship

According to the second article, the weapons aboard the Iranian ship were not bound for Hamas, but instead an Egyptian port. Thus, the U.S. ship detaining the Iranian vessel was ordered to release the vessel. All that was asked of the Egyptians was that a “thorough search of the vessel be conducted.”

Well I don’t think that will be a problem, seeing as the weapons will be unloaded in Egypt and smuggled into Gaza, all with the tacit approval of the Egyptian government. How can you possibly beat an enemy, particularly an enemy with a vast recruitment pool to draw from, if you do not cut the supply chain? The answer is you can’t. Every part of the supply chain for an opposing military is  perfectly valid target, and the United States is showing great foolishness by not sinking enemy supply ships such as the aforementioned Iranian ship.

In World War II, the only reason Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, was defeated in North Africa was that the Royal Air Force and United States Navy cut his supply line. The transport craft from Italy bearing men, munitions, vehicles, food, and fuel were sunk, and shown no mercy. If that supply line is not cut, then the entire course of the war changes.

Whether we like it or not, we are at war with Iran right this moment. They have been waging war via proxy forces for years, and we have never called them on it. And I am getting sick and tired of it. The time for political leaders to appreciate the new reality the world has come; our survival is at stake. The longer we deny our enemy exists, the more entrenched he becomes. The more people accept that Jihad against the Infidel is simply “the way life is”, and they fall into apathy. They stop caring about the enemy at the gates, and they stop fighting.

This is a war of attrition, and as of now, the United States is not giving everything it has. Our media lies about the conflict, our politicians delude themselves and the people. People like me are judged to be “dangerous radicals” and “bigots” despite the fact that we speak the truth. Jihad exists; it is all too real. Jihadists have no moral high ground, no courage, no honor, no respect for laws and common decency.

From Palestinian Media Watch:

Gaza victims describe being used as human shields by Hamas by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a “fortress” by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields. They told the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper that for years Hamas has used their property and homes for military installations from which to launch rockets into Israel, dig tunnels and store arms. According to the victims, those who tried to object were shot in the legs by Hamas.    The following are excerpts from the article from the official Palestinian Authority daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida:   “The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress. Right now they are waiting for the aid promised by the [Hamas] movement after Israel bombed the farm and turned it into ruins… The hill on which the Abd Rabbo family lives overlooks the Israeli town Sderot, a fact that turned it into an ideal military position for the Palestinian fighters, from which they have launched hundreds of rockets into southern Israel during the last few years. Several of the Abd Rabbo family members described how the fighters dug tunnels under their houses, stored arms in the fields and launched rockets from the yard of their farm during the nights. The Abd Rabbo family members emphasize that they are not [Hamas] activists and that they are still loyal to the Fatah movement, but that they were unable to prevent the armed squads from entering their neighborhood at night. One family member, Hadi (age 22) said: “You can’t say anything to the resistance [fighters], or they will accuse you of collaborating [with Israel] and shoot you in the legs.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 2009]

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

The Death Penalty (Again) – 1.29.2009

My original Post

This comment from Glen:

Mike:

With all due respect, I have to completely disagree with you. The death penalty is not solely a liberal thing. I know plenty of Conservatives who oppose it (mostly on religious grounds) and some Liberals who favor it.

I see you are an Irishman. So were many of my friends from my native Brooklyn. They, I’m sure like you, are Catholic and agree with the Vatican’s rejection of executions. Not one of them is liberal, only myself.

Please read this hyperlink. It is the perspective of a former San Quentin warden. I put it on my website.

His post about the Death Penalty

Very true, there are some Conservatives who do not favor the death penalty, but this is not an espoused position of the Right, but of the Left.

I was raised Catholic, yes, but I honestly could care less what the Pope says. I enthusiastically support the Death Penalty, unlike the Vatican. In fact, I could be hardly characterized as a “devout” Catholic. When I clicked on the link, I received a site error, so I settled for the blog posting I have hyperlinked above.

You post does not convince me at all of the “badness” of the death penalty.  As mentioned in my previous post, life imprisonment does not protect the inmates , and more importantly the Correctional Officers, of a jail. Inmate still manage to arm themselves using homemade weapons, and kill while supposedly confined. I find this unacceptable; I am not willing to walk down a tier, unarmed, and patrol among dozens of violent men who have killed in the past, and will show no hesitation to kill again. Are you willing to patrol that prison tier while unarmed, surrounded by hostile individuals? If not, then what gives you the right to DEMAND that others do so for your protection? What gives you the right to send others into danger, that you are not willing to face yourself?  And if you are willing to patrol the tier, and currently are not, then what are you waiting for?  After all, we lead by example, do we not?

To get into your post somewhat (each point will correspond with the paragraphs in numerical order):

Paragraphs 1 / 2 / 3:

Yes, the United States is a very civilized country. We are far better than Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, or any other country and region you could name.  We are the richest, most powerful, and have the best Constitution of any country. How do I know? Because every third world country that is serious about reform is trying to imitate the United States, not “Old World Europe.” I for one am extremely proud of this country, and part of that pride is that we still have the Death Penalty.

Guilt by association in this case is not an effective way to make your case. Muslim theocracies execute people because they are not Muslim, preach against the Islamic Faith, or because they deemed “subversive”, or are simple unfortunate enough to be a woman who was gang raped. In America, the death penalty is for men and women (though by far mostly men) who commit heinous acts against their fellow citizens, including homicide and rape. The United States executes people for breaking just and reasonable laws, not on the whim of some monarch or mullah. You must judge intent as well as action when comparing the United States to Muslim theocracies.

The spiritual component is justice. Evil men who do evil things must be killed, so that those who only wish to live in peace can be secure and safe. Really, I must ask, why you go to such lengths to defend men who rape and kill? Why are they worthy of my sympathy, my compassion, and my forgiveness? They have done nothing to earn these things, so why should I give them freely?

Paragraph 4:

Skipping right past the personal attack, deterrence does not work because it is hellishly hard to succeed in sending someone to death row in this country. And then, once a criminal arrives on death row he sits for twenty or thirty years while appeal after appeal goes through the courts. So knowing this in advance, prosecutors will go for life imprisonment, or even lesser sentences to make sure they at least put their thug away for some time. In short, the death penalty is seen as a paper tiger. It is a threat that will never be fulfilled, thus why should it affect someones behavior? In today’s age, it is similar to the threat of a parent to leave a misbehaving child at a store; the child knows he will not be left behind, so why should he listen to the parent? Also, a lot of criminals are stupid, and they don’t exactly plan long term. If they did, they wouldn’t be criminals, as they would see it is in their self interest to follow the laws of the land, and not kill and rape or deal drugs.

Paragraphs dealing with statistics:

Numbers, as all know, are not always truthful. Witness Wall Street right about now. When dealing with statistics, we need to factor in a number of things:

1) Who gathered them?

2) Who published them?

3) Who is using them, and what is that groups agenda?

Also, try and take into account the following ideas of mine:

Could it be the states without a death penalty have such low crime rates that they do not feel the need for capital punishment to begin with? Could it be that the states with capital punishment needed to implement it due to high crime? In all probability, it is a mixture of both theories. This leads to the demographic question. Crime rates bear out that though homicides are declining among the white male population, it is rising fast among the black male population. So, it stands to reason that states who have a large population of black males will have a higher murder rate than those states who do not have that same population. Factor in that criminals don’t view the death penalty as a deterrent because it is a paper tiger, and it isn’t surprising that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Also, the FBI Uniform Crime report which you cited (which I would appreciate a link to) says the difference was only 1.73 between states that had the death penalty and those that did not. 1.73 is not an especially large number. I would argue that if the death penalty were applied as it is meant to be, then it would be a real deterrent.

In short, your argument needs some more work.

To your comment on your blog, written by you:

You try to play the hypocrisy card on the religious right, and fail. I am anti-abortion, and proud of it. I will forgive those who I deem are worthy of it, and show the necessary repentance. Unborn children are alive aren’t they? The fetus is collection of organism and cells which will eventually grow into a human being. By killing those organism, you are essentially killing a human being. A human being who has never harmed you, or done anything wrong. But to you, it is a simple matter of convenience I suppose.

And now you try to frighten people, and again, fail. I can count on one hand the amount of abortion clinic bombers there were. And, they were all caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second of all, legality does not mean morality. If you believe that a fetus is an unborn child, and that the killing of that child is murder, then you see the doctor as a murderer. That said, I do not condone the bombing of abortion clinics, or the murder of those who sanction it. I merely offer that for point of view for your perspective, since you’re so anxious to have us understand murderers and rapists, and forgive them.

Again, an unborn child is entirely innocent of any crime, whereas murderers and rapists are not. It amuses me that you advocate the protection of killers, and the killing of children, who pose an “inconvenience.”

Giving forgiveness to someone who does not deserve it, especially a killer and/or rapist is foolishness. I say again, why should we respect them, when they have shown no respect for their victims?

I’m the animal of the world? I, the animal, who protects innocent life by advocating the killing of those who have NOT shown that respect, and have REPEATEDLY violated and killed other people. It isn’t heinous to kill someone who deserves it; that is justice. And you will never convince me otherwise.

One last point: Consider the case of this “man”, and see if he deserves your protection. This “man” means nothing to me, and contributes nothing to society except pain and suffering. Why should he not be executed?

Petition Against El Rushbo and a Few Other Thoughts – 1.28.2009

So, in the new era of “post-partisanship” America, supposedly ushered in by the new President, Barack Obama, what do we see in the eighth day of his administration? We see a petition, started by his own party, the supposedly “mature” and “enlightened” party which does not “cling to childish things”, against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, due to his comment of “I hope Barack Obama fails.” Now, what this petition is supposed to accomplish I’m not entirely sure.

What I do know is this: from the vast majority of comments I have thus far read, there is a great deal of venom directed at Rush from the party of “civility” and “maturity”. The insults of “idiot”, “un-American”, “close minded”, and even “evil” are thrown about with reckless abandon and delight towards Rush. Here are some examples:

The Actual Petition

Political Ticker.com

In my own personal opinion, I agree with Rush. I do hope Barack Obama fails in the ways he attempts to implement his agenda. I believe what he will try to do and possibly succeed at will be terrible for the country. But then again, I simple look beyond such catch phrases as “Hope” and “Change” and grand pronouncements of “healing the planet”, and “ending war, poverty, and racism.” The Obama supporters would respond (and have responded) with disbelief and insults, saying “What is wrong with you? How can you not be against ending war and racism? How can you be against health care for all?” They continue in a rather lengthy laundry list of evils our new Leader will supposedly cure. I respond to all this rather simply: What you propose cannot be done, is not sustainable, and if attempted would result in catastrophic failure, and the restriction of civil liberties in this country. As goals, in and of themselves, they sound great, don’t they? An example of Utopia on earth. It reminds of a debate I had with an avowed Communist. His entire argument centered around, and this will be a paraphrase because it has been a while, “Communism is about equality, brotherhood, and justice. How can you be against those goals?”

(I will also add this poor fellow was flat out convinced that modern American Conservatism was Fascist, and based upon the policies of Sir Edmund Burke, and that the only two forms of government in the world today were Communism and Fascism. At one point in time, he even had in his signature (this was on an internet forum ) the following quote: “To move one step forward, we must step back! Back to 1917!” If that is not scary in and of itself, I know not what is.)

Without going on too much of a tangent, people’s minds in the modern age are too easily grabbed by mottos and slogans, much like the motto “Four legs good, two legs bad” as read in the brilliant novel “Animal Farm”. They never stop to question just what that means, only that the goal sounds noble. ”Hope and Change” are the new theme of the day, the new hip saying. After all, what is wrong with having hope and wishing for change? If you’re against hope and change you must be a terribly dull and bitter person, who likes things the way they are. And since you like the way things are, and reject change, you must be one of the oppressors! You must be overthrown!

And so it goes. Why should I be hopeful for the future of our country when the above drivel is what is “in” ? You bet I desire change. I desire a change to a world where, logic, reason, and results are held in far higher esteem that grand pronouncements which lack substance. And it is my belief that Obama WILL NOT deliver the “change” I desire, therefore it is perfectly logical and reasonable of me to want him to fail at implementing a Leftist agenda. What happened to “Dissent is Patriotic” that was the war cry of the Left during the Bush years? What happened to “common ground”? Of course I am being sarcastic; even at my young age of 19 I fully realize that the Leftist Elite of this country never play by the rules. Their modus of operandi is as follows:

1) When not in power, play the oppressed card. Paint the enemy as reactionary zealots, eager to eliminate the 1st Amendment.

2) Once in power, work to silence the same people you accused of trying to silence you.

Which brings us back to Rush. He is being denounced as “evil” (yes, that is true – check the comment page on the petition) for rejecting the “change” that Obama offers. And yet, as pointed out, these same people trumpeted to the skies that “Dissent is Patriotic” during the terms of President Bush. So which is it? Do the same rules and courtesies apply to everyone, or just one certain group? Conservative talk radio has long been a thorn in the side of the Liberals in America; they can’t beat the popularity, influence, and commercial success of their opponent, even with the stranglehold they posses on “mainstream newspapers” and cable television. Therefore, rather than accept that the Liberal message may be flawed, the Liberal Elite work through the legal system to silence the opposition. Enter the Fairness Doctrine, which was brought back to the floor in 2005, though it failed to pass into law, fortunately. But now, with a Democratic majority and Barack Obama in power, I would be extremely surprised if another attempt was not made to bring the Fairness Doctrine back.

And you know what the most amusing thing is? Fewer things serve as such a harsher and damning indictment of Liberalism, than the fact that it still does not succeed when placed against Conservative talk radio. The Liberal Elite need to literally try and handcuff the arms of talk radio behind it’s back to make it a “fair” fight. How is that not one of the most ludicrous things ever witnessed in the arena of politics and ideology? Unfortunately, this isn’t a harmless joke; it is very real and very dangerous. Any attempt to reinstate that Fairness Doctrine is an immediate threat to the 1st Amendment and independent thought in this country. Groupthink is the new name of the game. Anyone outside of the consensus (which is falsely assumed to be centrist) is a “radical”, and “on the fringe”. Thus he is dangerous, and his subversive thoughts must be ignored or even silenced. Who knows – one day even humble blogs such as this one could be targeted.

Sound familiar? Of course it does – every Police State uses the same rationale to silence the citizenry. So for now, I happily accept my role as a subversive. I do not bend to the mainstream, I do not bend to Liberalism, and I do not bend to those who would seek to indtimidate me into silence. They will have to try harder than that for me to give them satisfaction.

Your friendly neighborhood subversive,

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Ayman Al-Zawahiri’s Message – 11.19.2008

I have this transcript thanks to MEMRIand I thought I would pass this on. Everyone needs to be reminded of the Islamist threat the West faces, as anxious as our political leaders and Media personalities are to have us forget.

Original Link

Al-Qaeda Deputy Leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri in Message on Islamist Websites

In an audio message posted on Islamist websites on November 19, 2008, Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri criticized U.S.president-elect Barack Obama.

The 11 minute 23 second message, in which the audio plays against a background of still images, is the first statement by an Al-Qaeda official relating to Obama’s presidential win.

The following is the transcript, from the message’s English subtitles.

“First, a Message of Congratulations to the Muslim Ummah on the American People’s Admission Of Defeat In Iraq“

“In the Name of Allah, and all praise is due to Allah, and prayers and peace on the Messenger of Allah and on his family, Companions and allies:

“Muslim brothers everywhere: Peace be upon you and the Mercy of Allah and His blessings. As for what comes after:

“Barack Obama has won the presidency of the United States of America, and on this occasion, I would like to send several messages.

“First, a message of congratulations to the Muslim Ummah on the American people’s admission of defeat in Iraq. Although the evidence of America’s defeat in Iraq appeared years ago, Bush and his administration continued to be stubborn and deny the brilliant midday sun. If Bush has achieved anything, it is in his transfer of America’s disaster and predicament to his successor. But the American people, by electing Obama, declared its anxiety and apprehension about the future towards which the policy of the likes of Bush is leading it, and so it decided to support someone calling for withdrawal from Iraq.”

 

“What You’ve Announced About How You’re Going to Reach an Understanding With Iran and Pull Your Troops Out of Iraq to Send Them to Afghanistan is a Policy… Destined for Failure”

“The second of these messages is to the new president of the United States. I tell him: you have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you. A failure in Iraq to which you have admitted, and a failure in Afghanistan to which the commanders of your army have admitted.

“The other thing to which I want to bring your attention is that what you’ve announced about how you’re going to reach an understanding with Iran and pull your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan is a policy which was destined for failure before it was born. It appears that you don’t know anything about the Muslim Ummah and its history, and the fate of the traitors who cooperated with the invaders against it, and don’t know anything about the history of Afghanistan and its free and defiant Muslim people. And if you still want to be stubborn about America’s failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them. And be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them.

“As for the crimes of America which await you, it appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims. The Muslim Ummah received with extreme bitterness your hypocritical statements to and stances towards Israel, which confirmed to the Ummah that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims.”

 

“You Were Born to a Muslim Father, but You Chose to Stand in the Ranks of the Enemies of the Muslims… in Order to Climb the Rungs of Leadership in America“

“You represent the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malik al-Shabazz, or Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him). You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American Crusade in it to continue. And last Monday, your aircraft killed 40 Afghan Muslims at a wedding party in Kandahar.

“As for Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him), he was born to a black pastor killed by white bigots, but Allah favored him with guidance to Islam, and so he prided himself on his fraternity with the Muslims, and he condemned the crimes of the Crusader West against the weak and oppressed, and he declared his support for peoples resisting American occupation, and he spoke about the worldwide revolution against the Western power structure.

“That’s why it wasn’t strange that Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him) was killed, while you have climbed the rungs of the presidency to take over the leadership of the greatest criminal force in the history of mankind and the leadership of the most violent Crusade ever against the Muslims.

“And in you and in Colin Powell, Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him) concerning ‘House Negroes’ are confirmed.”

 

“You Are Neither Facing Individuals nor Organizations, But… a Jihadi Awakening and Renaissance… This is the Fact Which You and Your Government And Country Refuse to Recognize”

“You also must appreciate, as you take over the presidency of America during its Crusade against Islam and Muslims, that you are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a Jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see.”

 

“To The Muslim Ummah…: America, the Criminal, Trespassing Crusader, Continues To Be the Same as Ever, So We Must Continue to Harm It”

“As for the third message, it is to the Muslim Ummah. I tell it: America, the criminal, trespassing Crusader, continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses, because its criminal, expansionist Crusader project in your lands has only been neutralized by the sacrifices of your sons, the Mujahideen. This, then, is the path, so stick to it.”

 

“To the Lions of Islam, The Mujahideen…: Your Enemy’s Stagger Has Begun, So Don’t Stop Hitting Him”

“As for the fourth message, it is to the lions of Islam, the Mujahideen. I tell them: may Allah reward you in the best way for your historic heroics, which have ruined America’s plans and rendered its projects ineffective. So be firm and resolute. Your enemy’s stagger has begun, so don’t stop hitting him.

“And I say to my brothers the Mujahideen in Iraq in general and the Islamic State of Iraq in particular, and to its Amir, the towering mountain Abu ‘Umar al-Baghdadi: your enemy has admitted defeat, and the forthcoming stage is expected to be dominated by conspiracies and betrayals in order to cover the American withdrawal, so you must persevere, for victory is in an hour of perseverance.

“And I tell my brothers, the lions of Islam in Somalia: rejoice in victory and conquest. America is gathering its wounds in Iraq, and Ethiopia is looking for a way out, and for this reason, the stage of conspiracies and machinations has begun. So hold tightly to the truth for which you have given your lives, and don’t put down your weapons before the Mujahid state of Islam and Tawheed has been set up in Somalia.

“And I tell all Mujahideen everywhere: the Hubal of the age has begun to falter and recede, and Allah has granted you success and honored you by making you the most important cause of that, so be resolute on the path of Jihad until you meet your Lord while He is pleased with you.”

 

“America Has Put On a New Face, But Its Heart Full Of Hate, Mind Drowning In Greed, And Spirit Which Spreads Evil, Murder, Repression And Despotism Continue To Be the Same As Always”

“And my fifth message is to all the world’s weak and oppressed. I tell them: America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always. And the Mujahideen of Islam, by the grace of Allah, continue to be the spearhead of the resistance against it to restrain it from injustice, aggression and arrogance.

“As for my final message, it is to the American people. I tell it: you incurred defeat and losses from the foolish actions of Bush and his gang, and at the same time, Shaykh Usama bin Ladin (may Allah preserve him) sent you a message to withdraw from the lands of the Muslims and refrain from stealing their treasures and interfering in their affairs. So choose for yourself whatever you like, and bear the consequences of your choice, and as you judge, you will be judged.

“And our final prayer is that all praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and may Allah send prayers and peace on our Master Muhammad and his family and Companions.”

———————————————————–

Well look at that, Ayman-Al Zawahiri insulted Obama’s race. Do know what I find interesting and disturbing? This Washington Post article focuses on the “house negro” comment, but it seems (to me anyway) to gloss over Zawahiri’s earlier comment:

“You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America.”

Why did this comment, where Zawahiri explicitly states that the enemies of Islam are Christian and Jews get no detailed coverage in the article? The full passage is quoted to be sure, but the main emphasis is on the slur against Obama, and its racial context. No special emphasis is given to hatred of Jews and Christians, which makes me believe that if Zawahiri had not made an ethnic slur against Obama, then this article would have been much shorter, and buried in the Post, if it had appeared at all. In this day and age when there is so much confusion (among some) about why Islamic Jihad is being waged, I would think such an explicit comment from the Number 2 man of Al-Qaeda would be explored in more depth, so that the enemy and his motivations may be understood. However, if this was done by the political and media elite, than it would utterly destroy their belief that the United States is to blame for Islamic Jihad, and that Qur’anic Scripture and the basic tenets of Islam have nothing to do with Jihad.

And we can’t have such inconvenient truths come to light, now can we?

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

The Obama Administration – 11.19.2008

Much media hay is being made of the possibility that President-Elect Barack Obama will stock his administration with old enemies, even up to appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. This possible move is heralded as a real change from Washington politics as usual, and it is even drawing comparisonsto the way Abraham Lincoln filled his administration positions. However, I wouldn’t be so sure that is the real root cause of Obama’s possible appointment of Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State. To paraphrase Michael Corleone in The Godfather II:“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” By appointing rivals to positions of power in his administration, Obama accomplishes several things that work to Obama’s benefit. First and foremost, Obama’s rivals are now in his debt, which renders them easier to control. For example, given that the media is trying to paint this as a magnanimous gesture by Obama, it would seem rather churlish and disloyal of the appointees to deviate too far outside the administration line on any number of controversial issues.

Also, it gives the appointees a personal stake in seeing an Obama Administration succeed. Personally, if my name and face are on a product, project, or piece of legislation then I don’t want it to fail, as the citizens and media would always remember that failure, and hold it against my record. Any rivals that Obama would appoint would also not be able to work in the Senate or House of Representatives to author / co-author big time legislation which would undermine Obama’s own agenda. A prime example of that is Hillary Clinton, who would have to give up her New York Senate seat if given the job of Secretary of State. Given the way politics works in Washington, Hillary would be virtually choice less in backing an Obama Health Care plan, instead of forcing a possible showdown in Congress. Ultimately, I cannot read President-Elect Barack Obama’s mind, so this is pure speculation on my part. However, I do believe it to be informed and logical speculation, given the way politicians of all stripes operate in taking and preserving their personal power. It will be very interesting to see what other rivals Obama may bring into his fold, and as a result we may be able to see if he is removing and/or minimizing potential obstacles for his agenda.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Syrian and Egyptian Interests – 11.7.2008

In this article from World Tribune, we learn a little bit about Barack Obama’s future plan (which we’re now seemingly stuck with) for diplomacy that involves the regimes of Damascus and Cairo. An excerpt below:

The aide said Obama plans to launch a U.S. diplomatic initiative toward Syria, regarded by the Bush administration as a leading supporter of the Al Qaida insurgency in Iraq. Obama, unlike President George Bush, has also supported Israeli peace negotiations with the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests,” the aide said.

Now, diplomacy in and of itself is not a bad tool, and every President should see fit to utilize it. A politician skilled in the art of talking can accomplish great things, whether from a trade agreement to averting armed conflict. However, before getting carried away with the ideal of “diplomacy”, let us examine for a minute what basic conditions must be met for diplomacy to succeed. First and foremost, both sides must willing to come to the table, and converse honestly about the needs and wants of each side. Secondly, both sides must be willing to yield in some of their interests, for the goal of reaching a consensus and ratifying the their new pact. Thirdly, both sides must honestly recognize what the other side represents. In our historical  ”relationships” with the regimes of Cairo and Damascus, I rarely, if ever, see any of the above conditions being met. Rather, I see the United States giving advanced military hardware, and billions of dollars every year to Egypt, while getting fairly little in return. The way I understand things, and you may have to forgive my naivete, when an individual or nation engages in an exchange of any sort with another individual or country, one often expects goods or services in return of equal value.

Now, every year the United States sends $1.3 billion worth of military aid to Egypt, which already has $2.5 billion of its own money devoted to its military. Additionally, the United States has been a historical supplier of economic assistance to Egypt as well, though fortunately, there are signs pointing to the end of this. In 2009, about $200 million is earmarked for Egypt, and there is no guarantee there will be another payout. In my opinion, there probably will. So the question is, do we get enough return? Now:

“Mubarak gives the US military free passage through Egypt’s air space and ensures priority passage for American navy vessels through the Suez Canal. According to US figures, Egypt granted airspace access to 36,553 US military aircraft between 2001 and 2005.”

Without a doubt, such service is clearly valuable, and worthy of Egypt getting something in return. But, we have to balance the “now”, with the longer term plan. When push comes to shove, is Egypt rally on our side? And if the answer is no, then why are we arming them with advanced military hardware every year? Why are we bolstering Egypt to stand against and pose a conventional threat to Israel, our one true ally in the region? In short, is what we receive from Egypt worth $1.3 billion ever year, along with any other economic assistance we send them, worth it?

Now, the “realists” among us may cite Egyptian backing of United States attempts to deter Iran from developing nuclear technology. They may also cite Eyptian support of the Middle Eastern “Peace” Process. But lets get real here – Iran continues to develop nuclear technology, and has no problem ignoring Egyptian and United Nations wishes. Also, Egypt would most likely be against Iranian getting nuclear weapons anyway, due to the constant fear of Shia infilitrations in Sunni countries. Also, has the violence against Israel abated any because of Egyptian desires? In some cases, it seems Egypt turns a tremendous blind eyeto Hamas efforts to arm themselves. So, essentially we’re paying Egypt for no return in these two cases, which are supposed to be cornerstones of our relationship with Cairo. Does that really seem wise to anyone? Indeed, I regard the Egyptian “incompetence” regarding Hamas arms tunnel to be tacit (or rather overt) support for their agenda, which is the destruction of Israel. I find it interesting that academia, the Media, and the International Community are so willing to condemn proxy wars of the United States, but when it comes to the enemies of Israel, anything goes. So taking this into account, why should an Obama administration take Egyptian interests into greater account? I say the United States should start getting real return, or pull the plug on that $1.3 billion dollars. But, I fear I am in the minority.

Turning our eyes to Syria, we must ask again why we should bow to their interests? They were using North Korean technology to assemble a covert nuclear reactor. Their support of Hizballah and other Jihadist groups is well documented, their enmity to Israel beyond all doubt. It seems that Syrian interests, to put it crudely, consist of screwing us over, not helping us out. And Obama wants to “emphasize” those interests of Syria? Perhaps President-elect Barack Obama, soon to become the most powerful man of the world, needs to do some more homework, before he can muster a passing grade on foreign policy.

The ironic thing is I am not a genius. I don’t work for the CIA, NSA, or Department of Defense. All the information I see is available to the general public, no security clearance required. If I can see the writing on the wall, why can’t our elected leaders? And how long will they accept, proscribe, and enact the failed policies of the past, before true “reality” sets in? My guess, is never. Which is hardly a comforting thought for those of us forced to live with the failed policies of others.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Conscientious Objector Status – 10.16.2008

*NOTE: All quotations will be rough paraphrases, doing as much justice to the original comment as possible.

So I’m flipping around the TV tonight, and I happen upon PBS, who is running a series on Conscientious Objector’s in the United States, relating to the Iraq War (from what I saw). Now not everything I saw or heard I disagreed with. They touched on Abu Ghraib, and basically that relegating an enemy to sub-human status leads to atrocities. I agree with the gist of what they said relating to those topics.

However:

I came away from this show very pissed, if not angry. My conclusion, based on the comments of the COs (Conscientious Objectors) was that they were idiots. This may sound disrespectful, and it probably is. But I speak plainly, and it’s how I feel. They live in the dream land of Utopia. They think they can “abolish” war, regardless that the desire to do violence upon others is inherent in human nature. One fellow said he was asked “What about Nazi Germany? If there were too many COs, then Hitler would not have been stopped.” The CO responded that “If there were enough COs in the German Army, then there would have been no more Hitler. You have to simply believe that we can abolish war.” What? Do you really think Hitler and the brainwashed SS would have allowed dissent, even if the German people felt like it? They would have been executed, like any other Enemy of the State, and the Nazi War Machine would have ground on.

One CO served at Abu Ghraib, and described his meeting with a self-avowed jihadist. The jihadist described his peace within Islam, and if it was Allah’s will for him to be in prison, then the Jihadist was content. The Jihadist challenged the now CO, and said “You’re not living up to Christianity, because Jesus said turn the other cheek.” The CO said on camera, that this statement offended him, because the Jihadist stated also that “I will kill you any chance I get.” Despite this statement, the CO was “rocked to his core” and realized he didn’t have a response to that. This is what I would have said:

“Jesus was the Son of God, and is a far greater being than I will ever manage to become. He lived out the life of a perfect Christian. Well, my jihadist friend, I have news for you – I am not a perfect Christian. I never will be a perfect Christian. Therefore, I accept my current condition as reality, and will act upon it. To quote General Mattis of the United State Marine Corp (speaking to Iraqi Tribal Leaders):

“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

Survival – kill or be killed. In this war against Jihad, where we face an enemy who embraces and welcomes death, that is what we face. They have no qualms about killing a Conscientious Objector. Indeed, they would relish it. They tape themselves beheading defenseless men, who are bound, and cannot fight. Such an enemy is not worthy of my sympathy or my understanding. As a U.S. Army soldier pointedly said on camera “Their right to lay down their arms – that is protected by the ones who stay and fight.” Damn straight – peace can only occur if BOTH sides desire it, and can be brought to a truce. In this war, I have yet to see the Jihadist desire peace. Therefore, one who lays down his arms will be butchered by the enemy he so valiantly protects.

Another CO made comments to the effect of “Humans figured out human sacrifice was wrong, and that slavery was wrong, and we stopped doing that. Maybe one day we can figure out war is wrong as well.” What this CO fails to comprehend, is the Roman Legions burned Carthage to the ground, thus ending the Phoenician religious rite of sacrificing human children to Moloch. The motto of Rome was Delenda est Carthago – Carthage must be destroyed. The Conscientious Objector did not force Carthage to heel – the military might of Rome did. The Aztecs did not magically stop believing in the validity of human sacrifice, until they were wiped out by the Spanish. Once again, force of arms ended a barbaric practice. As for slavery, the British and Americans (surprise) fought long bloody wars to abolish slavery, and even then it persisted (legally) in some Islamic countries until the 1970s. Even today, human trafficking across the globe is pervasive.

In short, and again excuse a few moments of irreverence, I was left thinking to myself “What ******* idiots. Can they not comprehend the dangers we face, and the unchangeable qualities of human nature that drive us to war? These COs, in sufficient numbers, would be the death of us all.” Case in point is Germany in 2004 – 150,000 men and woman were called to mandatory service, whereas 80,000 used the CSO to evade a combat role. If this were ancient times, and placed in Greece, they would have easily been wiped out by the Persians.

The program itself I found to be fairly neutral (as neutral as PBS can be anyway), though it was slanted in favor of the CO. By far the most camera time was given to showing COs, and their opinions. There were rebuttal opportunities for other voices, but not much. Additionally, the program focused on showing US troops and Humvees stalking Iraqi neighborhoods, and dead bodies of Iraqis, which the viewer presumes to casualties inflicted by the US military. Not once did they show carnage inflicted by the Jihadist adversary. Not once was the pervasive evil which we fight shown to viewers.

As a last add on, one CO – after escorting Iraqi Army POWs to a camp – decided he could not fight anymore, and turn in his SAW (M249) to his command and said “Put me in non-combat role.” He was moved to the motor pool, and the Army also took his ballistic plates, to give to another soldier. At this, the CO took umbrage, and the Army replied “Well you won’t be in combat, so you won’t need them.” Damn straight – you turn your SAW in – which can be integral to the survival of your men, and then whine when they your body armor? Remember, this was at a time when not all soldiers had body armor. This was right after the invasion. I would have done the same thing – give the plates and the weapon to someone whol will use them!

In short, I was left puzzled and angry.

PBS Link

I simply cannot fathom how Western Civilization will survive, as we continue on the path to self-destruction.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Rise in HIV Infections – 8.17.2008

HIV More Prevalent Than Was Believed

According to new research by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there ae about 56,300 HIV infections every year. Researchers state that HIV is falling among heterosexuals, but rising among gay men, young blacks, and Hispanics.

This leads to some interesting thoughts, if one is prepared to stray outside the bounds that our politically correct masters have established. For example, why has HIV fallen among heterosexuals (read white males), but risen in gays, young blacks, and Hispanics? I think the answer can be summed up in a fairly simple way, though I think the answer will…upset…certain members of Black America and the American Left.  In my opinion, the answer is some superior cultural behaviors and norms of White America. When I look at what is presented as mainstream Black Culture, I am appalled. Jesse Jackson excoriates the white man for using ethnic slurs, and yet starts this firestorm. Rappers roll in armed posses, get into gunfights, and boost their “street cred” by either emphasizing criminal acts or fabricating them. Music which emphasizes violence, sex, and drugs further poisons the mind of a young black male. Fatherless households, due to the fact that young black males commit the vast majority of violent crime, are rampant and test scores (at least in Baltimore) are terrible. Instead of lionizing Bill Cosby, Ben Carson, George Washington Carver, or any other famous leaders (black or  white) young black males immerse themselves into the “gangsta” lifestyle of Frank Lucas and Nicky Barnes.

What does all this have to do with HIV? Well, with the ”gangsta” lifestyle comes drug use, drug abuse, and drug running. Intravenous drug use is one of the prime ways to contract HIV; obviously any group that participates in that set of activities is going to have greater exposure to the disease. According to the article, HIV has been falling in injection drug users and heterosexuals. Perhaps needle exchange programs are helping draw the number down, though I haven’t seen any data to support that conclusion. Just know that I’m especially plugged into the scientific community, so just because I haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. 

As for gays, Hispanics, and young black males I think the answer is the most uncomfortable of all. Gay sex. It links all three groups, and is a proven way to contact HIV. As the gay sex continues to be normalized in the mainstream, more people are going to experiment, and contract the disease. The “official” answer that is pushed is money, education, and condoms. But no one ever broaches the issue of asking gays to stop having gay sex. You want to stop the disease cold? Push behavioral and societal reforms. Until then, have fun paying for other people’s selfish transgressions.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Hamas Prepares for War – 7.15.2008

Hamas is training, arming, and bracing itself for an Israeli incursion. That comes as no suprise to me, but I did find this interesting.

 ”Hamas seen using new Russian weapons to break Israelis’ will following invasion”

As you can see from the article, Hamas has learned from the tactical successes that Hizballah achieved in the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah War. Our enemy adapts yet we do not - a disastrous recipe for failure. I would also be interested as to how these Russian weapons made it to the hands of Hamas – simple black market or Russian support? I don’t suppose we’ll ever know for sure. One thing is clear: Ehud Olmert is acting in a similar fashion to Neville Chamberlain.

Olmert Says Peace Deal Close than Ever

He can’t seriously believe that can he?

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator