Stop Asking Why

Muslim whackos want to kill you. Does it really matter why?

Decide which gun you want to kill little Jewish children with when you grow up, son! AK47... When you absolutely, positively have to kill every Jew on the school bus! That's right, son, aim for the little Jewish girl's head! Daddy said I can wear real dynamite and blow up a restaurant full of Jews when I turn 12! Stop crying, son!  I'll get you a real automatic weapon to kill Jews with soon!
What kind of people teach their children how to kill other children?

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Soon it will be decision time

So far, the war between Islamo-Fascist Theocracy and Western Democratic Values can best be described as skirmishes along entrenched lines. Taking the broad view, losses are acceptable on both sides so far. 9/11, while horrific, still "only" killed 2850 or so. A similar number of military losses have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. Call it 6,000 or so killed by the enemy since 9/11/01. In war terms, minor losses. I know this sounds cold, but it's important to begin thinking of this war like any other. This is one of the keys to getting a majority of the "good guys" to see this war as just a longer version of other World Wars, instead of as more of a "police action."

But for one aspect, this war could be fought for decades at this level of casualties and life would go on for the vast majority of us as it normally does. That one aspect is nuclear weapons. Without them, a small group of terrorists could perpetrate more 9/11's or London Bombings, but probably not much worse. With small, mobile nukes, that same number of terrorists could kill hundreds of thousands of people at once.

We already know that the Islamic terrorists are patient. They have no problem with taking years to put together elaborate, highly coordinated attacks designed to produce maximum carnage simultaneously. They've used planes and low-technology explosive devices thus far. Nothing would really change in their planning and execution if they had, say, suitcase or backpack nukes instead. Same planning on their part, exponentially more casualties on our part. Is this scenario acceptable to you? Could you live with having 3 small nukes go off more or less at the same time in downtown New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago? That would kill, conservatively, about 300,000 people all told. Many instantly, many more slowly and agonizingly.

We're on the verge of this becoming a real possibility. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be, perhaps, the single biggest mistake humankind will have ever made. We already know they supply arms to Hezbollah with impunity, through their puppets in Syria. We know that Iran has a whacko religious zealot at the helm. We know he hates America. Is it really hard to extrapolate the current situation to its logical outcome if he can build nuclear weapons?

If the US or Israel or some combination of like-minded nations does not take immediate military action to physically prevent Iran from obtaining the means to create nukes, we will be accomplices in our own destruction, should it come to that. It's that simple.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Bush still does not get it

Just when it seems the British are getting their heads on straight about the threat posed not just by Islamic terrorists, but by the incongruous nature of some of the tenets of Islam itself, there's this about an American Democrat Congressman moving to thwart the irresponsible and dangerous moves by our Republican President:

[Democrat Congressman] Lantos said he was putting a legislative hold on Bush's proposal to provide $230 million in aid for Lebanon in the aftermath of the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas.

Full story here. [h/t: LGF]

Just so this is clear, Bush has decided that Lebanon deserves $230 million of your tax dollars to help it rebuild, even if it doesn't agree to let UN troops keep Syria (and through them, Iran) from re-arming Hezbollah, so it can kill more innocent Israeli civilians.

Who is our ally here? I thought it was Israel. I thought we were waging a global war against terrorism. Does anyone reading this actually believe that Bush believes all $230 million will actually go to helping Lebanon rebuild and none of it will find its way to Hezbollah? If so, frankly, you're naive beyond belief.

This is EXACTLY the lesson our politicians never learn. Bush is no doubt giving Lebanon your money in an effort to make America look better to Arabs in the Middle East. The only problem is - that's not what it does. Here's how most Arabs will undoubtedly view any aid from the US to Lebanon. WE WON! WE BEAT AMERICA!

To Arab Muslims, aid is an admission of guilt, of being really really sorry for not doing what they wanted us to do. It's that simple. This continued attempt to "win hearts and minds" is idiotic in the extreme. More importantly, it's dangerous! This capitulation only emboldens our enemies. "See? America made Israel back off and now they're giving us money! We WON!"

Once again, the West gets it completely wrong, and turns what is intended to be a noble act into motivation for more attacks by Muslim terrorists. When will this insanity end?

Saturday, August 26, 2006

A glimmer of hope

Perhaps the tide is beginning to turn...

A new poll by YouGov was just released, showing that a major change has occurred in the opinions of Brits regarding the threat posed by Islam. NOTE: Not just Islamic terrorism, but the religion itself.

Most strikingly, there has been a substantial increase over the past five years in the numbers who appear to subscribe to a belief in a clash of civilisations. When YouGov asked in 2001 whether people felt threatened by Islam, as distinct from fundamentalist Islamists, only 32 per cent said theydid. That figure has risen to 53 per cent.

Five years ago, a majority of two to one thought that Islam posed no threat, or only a negligible one, to democracy. Now, by a similar ratio, people think it is a serious threat.

This is encouraging news! It may indicate that Islamic terrorists have overplayed their hand. However, history teaches that by laying low for a few years, Islamic terrorists can gull Westerners into lapsing back into old belief patterns and letting down our guard.

Still, taken on balance, this is very good news! If a society as famously Liberal and tolerant as England's has a majority that sees not just radical elements of Islam, but rather the whole of Islam, as a threat, this can only bode well in the West's struggle against Islamo-Fascism.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Learn to think like a Muslim terrorist

"Know thy enemy and know thyself, find naught in fear for 100 battles." --Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Sun Tzu was a wise fellow. Were he alive today and in league with anti-Jihadists, this would surely be among the first of his statements. We are woefully undereducated when it comes to understanding the tactics and long-term strategies that drive the actions of Islamic terrorists and state leaders who often direct things from afar.

Please note that the question of WHY this enemy is at war with us is irrelevant. We don't ask 'why' questions when it comes to Muslim terrorists, because there can be no legitimate justification for killing innocent civilians purely for the purpose of killing innocent civilians. It's mass murder. Why they do it isn't important. Only that we prevent them from continuing.

The West's mistake is in analyzing Muslim terrorist actions through the prism of our Western, Judeo-Christian inspired system of morals and ethics. Where Westerners are taught from earliest age on that being honest with everyone is a virtue and that integrity is to be idolized, many Muslims are raised with the exact opposite system of values when dealing with infidels.

It's known as 'outwitting.' [h/t: Answering Islam] Follow the link for an in-depth explanation. For our purposes, it suffices to learn that many Muslims believe they are compelled to lie to infidels if it helps protect or further their religious goals. Their view is that lying in certain situations is not simply a distasteful act of necessity, but a positive advancement of the 'cause.'

This is absolutely critical to understand about Islam! It is one of the ways in which their core beliefs are fundamentally and often diametrically opposed to our own. And it has huge implications for our current mortal struggle against Islamic terrorism.

In theory, 'outwitting' compels Muslims to lie brazenly to non-Muslims, when the ultimate goal of advancing the causes of Islam is deemed in jeopardy.

In practice, it renders the words and deeds of Muslims highly suspect when the audience is infidels. Think about that in the context of the recent Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon and the subsequent discovery of doctored photos, staged events, and inflated death tolls. Starts to make more sense, doesn't it?

And the media eats up the lies, compounding the problem for Westerners. How can one form valid conclusions about good guys and bad guys when one side stages events and constantly lies, if you don't know about 'outwitting?' You can't. Which is why you've probably never heard this term before in this context.

We've been duped, friends. It is a virtue in Muslim minds to lie to infidels like us, by word or by deed. The only reason a Muslim needs is some connection, plausible to him alone, between his deception and the protection of Islam. In a war against Jews, it's no wonder so many lies, doctored pictures, and clearly staged events have been uncovered. We shake our heads in consternation and anger over being treated this way. The Muslims wink at each other knowingly and give themselves another Gold Star for 'outwitting' another infidel.

Are you beginning to see what we're up against?

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

This is what happens when you try to placate Islamic terrorists

The planned attack here stunned Germans who thought the country's vehement opposition to the Iraq war would insulate it from becoming a terror target almost five years after the attacks on Washington and New York.
That's from this article about Germany's recent foiled Islamic terrorism plot. One sentence that perfectly sums up the root of the problem. Germans (most Europeans and a lot of Americans, for that matter) just do not get it. You cannot make Islamic terrorists like you unless you do two things: convert to their brand of Islam and agree to live under Sharia Law. That's it. Nothing else will get you off of their "to be killed" list.

We Westerners have a hard time grasping absolutes, but we better wrap our heads around that one or we're all going down. Maybe some Germans finally got the message. Probably not nearly enough to make a difference. Most probably scratched their heads for a moment, then chalked it up to some other offense they think their nation is guilty of to make the terrorists want to kill them.

One more thing today. If we let Iran build nuclear weapons, we deserve to have them used against us. Letting ANY Arab nation get nukes is suicidal. Period.

Friday, August 18, 2006

The artistic side of killing innocents

One of my goals here is to shock those who don't quite get how different many Arab Muslims are from the rest of us. People need constant reminders because it's so easy to slip back into thinking that they're just like the rest of us. They are not just like the rest of us. There is something deeply wrong with any culture/religion that idolizes mass murder of innocent people for any reason.

Case in point:

This was one of the images a Palestinian 'artist' created to commemmorate the 5th anniversary of the gruesome bombing of a Sbarro Pizza restaurant by Palestinian terrorists in downtown Jerusalem on August 9, 2001. The blast killed 15 people - nearly all women and children - and injured about 130 others. Of course, they were Jews and they were all innocent civilians.

This image was part of a display set up at Al Najah University in the West Bank to glorify the mass murder event. That way, Palestinians like the two women shown above could stop by and really get a good feel for how glorious it must have been as the bomb went off. Note that most of the Jews depicted are male, while in reality only three adult males and one 4 year-old boy were killed. The other 11 were female, including 3 between the ages of 2-10. Note at the far left the image of the mother holding her baby. Nice touch.

I implore you - STOP ASKING WHY! This is the enemy. This is how they think. This is how they act. If we persist in treating them as though they were human beings on the same level as the rest of us, WE WILL LOSE.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Oh so predictable

France et al played Bush and Rice for chumps at the UN in getting Israel to stop its legitimate war on Hezbollah in Lebanon. I knew this was coming, and here it is:

Resolve Is Eroding in Face of Call to Disarm Hezbollah [NY Sun]

The nutshell version:

Step 1: Make big, manly talk in UN Security Council meetings and private diplomatic channels to dupe American officials into thinking the rest of them (France et al) are serious about de-clawing Hezbollah after the cease-fire. America agrees to back a cease-fire resolution.

Step 2: Get Israel to stop its legitimate war to de-claw Hezbollah by announcing cease-fire resolution and putting major pressure on Israel to abide by it.

Step 3: Once Israel stops shooting and pulls back, hem and haw and drag feet about ACTUALLY de-clawing Hezbollah.

Step 4: Allow Hezbollah to pick right up where they left off.

If this pattern can be seen coming from a long way off by a nobody like me, I'm left to conclude that Bush and Rice also saw this coming and went along with it for reasons of their own. It has been suggested that perhaps agreeing to the cease-fire will give Israel more of a leg to stand on when the next inevitable thing happens - Hezbollah isn't disarmed and continues trying to kill Israelis, and Israel once again invades Southern Lebanon to take them out. Then Israel can claim they tried it the UN's way and it didn't work.

You can't possibly believe Hezbollah will voluntarily stop attacking Israel for long, so this scenario is virtually a foregone conclusion. Maybe Round 2 of the Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon will feature direct support from the United States.

And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Bush hypocrisy on the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon

The Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon has exposed a lot of hypocrites, but the worst may be President Bush. Let's review his words following 9/11:

In the stirring 'Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People' a few days after 9/11 (Sept. 20, 2001), Bush had these words for the Taliban in Afghanistan:

The United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land....

Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities....

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Keep in mind that the Taliban did not attack the United States on 9/11. They were the ruling government in Afghanistan, and they allowed Al Qaeda to operate openly there. The US military, along with military personnel from several other countries not attacked at all by Al Qaeda or the Taliban, invaded Afghanistan a few weeks later, toppling the Taliban and chasing Al Qaeda members into the mountains, where many were killed.

Fast-forward to June-August of 2006 and the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon. After Hamas had kidnapped an Israeli soldier at an army outpost in Gaza in late June, Hezbollah sent raiders across the border from Lebanon into Israel and killed several Israeli soldiers while kidnapping two others. Israel responded by sending airstrikes against Hezbollah positions and Lebanese infrastructure being used by Hezbollah to facilitate their terrorist attacks on Israelis.

It's very important at this point to understand three key aspects of Hezbollah's history. First, they've been firing rockets into Israel from Lebanon for at least 13 years, beginning in mid-1993, killing and injuring civilians there.

Second, Hezbollah operates with impunity inside Lebanon. The Lebanese government does nothing to thwart or curtail them. In fact, Hezbollah is widely considered the de facto ruling party in Lebanon now.

Third, before 9/11, Hezbollah was the Muslim terrorist organization that had killed the most Americans. They killed 241 US military personnel in Beirut, Lebanon in a 1983 truck bombing. They killed 19 US military personnel in Khobar, Saudi Arabia in a 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers, where the US personnel were housed.

So, Hezbollah has been committing acts of terrorism against Israelis for many years. They operate with impunity inside a nation with a government that does nothing to stop them. And they have a history of killing Americans in acts of terrorism overseas.

Given what President Bush so forcefully demanded of the Taliban in his speech after 9/11, one would imagine that he would openly applaud Israel's attack against terrorists in Lebanon and push for them to continue the fight, right? After all, Hezbollah has killed 260 Americans in acts of terrorism. Hezbollah operates with impunity inside a nation with a government that does not seek to stop them.

But that's not what Bush has done. The US joined with France (big hint there) in crafting the UN cease-fire resolution that just took effect and ended Israel's attempt to wipe out Hezbollah.

Question: If the UN had passed a cease-fire resolution calling for the US to stop attacking targets inside Afghanistan before the Taliban had been toppled and Al Qaeda captured or killed, would he have abided by their demands?

Answer: Nope

There is no global war on terror. This cease-fire resolution, backed by the US, puts the lie to any assertion that there is. If there truly was such a war, not only would Bush have refused to go along with any UN resolution calling for Israel to stop the attack, he'd have openly committed to helping Israel defeat Hezbollah, a terrorist group that has 260 AMERICAN deaths to its credit.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Picture of the day

Well, actually this is my favorite picture from the "Stop the US-Israeli War" rally in San Francisco on August 12, 2006. I just found it today, though.

I think it's always interesting to mention images like these whenever it's suggested that only white, right-wing religious fundamentalists are racists and bigots. The guy looks Asian, which I think adds a nice multicultural aspect. His sentiment might disgust me, but hey, I have to admire the fact that he isn't mincing his words. You know exactly how he feels about Jews.

No code words like "Zionists" for this fellow. No sirree.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

You can learn a lot from Muslim demonstrators

Cartoon of Mohammed that enraged MuslimsRemember the controversy over the cartoons of Mohammed published in a newspaper in Denmark last year? Muslims consider it blasphemous to depict Mohammed. When a Danish newspaper - Jyllands Posten - ran the cartoons, all hell broke loose around the world. All Muslim hell, that is. Huge Muslim demonstrations were held. Anger was palpable.

When Muslims get angry, they show their true colors. They dispense with any pretense of sharing the fundamental values the rest of us consider essential, such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and refraining from murdering other people.

More than any other event in recent years, the publication of cartoons so offended Muslims worldwide that they felt compelled to march in the streets of several major cities, shouting and carrying signs like these:

Stop and consider for a moment what kind of person you'd have to be to want to murder someone simply because he/she made (or published) a cartoon you found offensive. To want to end another human being's life over a cartoon. Can you even imagine feeling that way?

It's not just Arab Muslims who hold these values. There were rage-filled demonstrations in Muslim communities outside of the Arab world, too. Here's a photo from Indonesia (home to the largest number of Muslims in any country) displaying the same Muslim desire to murder people for the perceived slight of a cartoon:

Whenever Muslims get really mad, something else always bubbles up to the surface: anti-semitism. Some Muslims do not hate Jews, of course. No group as large as the Muslim population of Earth can possibly have members who all hold the same exact view across the board. But it's clear that a lot of Muslims have big problems with Jews. Why else would Muslims demonstrating about cartoons in a Danish newspaper carry signs like the one below?

At last check, Denmark does not have a large Jewish community. They do not run the country. They don't run the newspaper that published the cartoons. The cartoonist was not Jewish. There was no connection whatsoever to Jews. Could it be that Muslims just hate Jews and don't need a reason to praise Hitler's attempt to exterminate them?

Oh, but wait. Many Muslims don't believe Hitler did any such thing, remember? Devout Muslims like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believe the holocaust is a myth. The cartoon demonstrators obviously believed it too:

Here are several more photos from the demonstrations held around the world after the publication of the Mohammed cartoons:

Muslims like these do not want to live peacefully with you and me. They don't. They want us to either convert to Islam (their version) or die. They see us and our way of life as an impediment to the expansion and eventual world supremacy of Shari'a Law.

Murdering us to attain their goals not only isn't a sin to them, it's REQUIRED. You must understand this fact and never lose sight of it.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Muslim leaders show their true colors again

While the world is still digesting the details of the foiled plane bombing plot in the UK, I want to point out the most educational things to happen in the aftermath. If you really want to understand the Muslim mindset regarding terrorist activities perpetrated by fellow Muslims, always pay close attention to what their leaders say shortly after each incident.

There have been two very instructive pronouncements by Muslim leaders in the last couple of days. The first was an editorial published in The Times (UK) that was written by Inayat Bunglawala [picture]. He is the Assistant Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, a powerful pro-Muslim organization in England. The last few paragraphs are where he really gets to the meat of what he actually believes:

Poll after poll has shown that large majorities in the Muslim world believe that British and American foreign policy is hostile towards them and that the West regards the spilling of Muslim blood as being of little importance.

Are such views really a caricature of the truth? By refusing to support calls for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict, Tony Blair appeared to be giving a nod and a wink to the Israelis that they had more time to accomplish their military goals.

There may be ministers who genuinely believe that the price to be paid for our policies overseas is worth it — but they should not insult the public’s intelligence by saying that they have had no impact on the terror threat that Britain is facing. The presumption now must be that al-Qaeda-inspired groups will keep on targeting Britain.

Mr Reid yesterday adopted a far more conciliatory tone when he called for all communities to pull together as part of a common purpose and common effort. This was in marked contrast to President Bush — no stranger to the odd injudicious phrase — who did not endear himself to Muslims around the world when he described terrorists as Islamic fascists. It is this kind of overexcitable “us and them” rhetoric, the kind of language that insinuates the Muslims are “ other” and the enemy, that will bring more strife and terror.

Let's see. What does that all boil down to, when you strip away the fluff and get right to the heart of what he's saying? Simply this: If the UK and US want to stop the terrorism against their innocent civilians, they had better start doing whatever it is the Middle East Muslims decide is right. Isn't that what he's really trying to impress upon his readers? Do what makes Muslims happy and we'll stop killing you. There are terms for this: extortion, blackmail, shakedown.

The second interesting thing was the widespread publication of an open letter written by several British Muslim groups, addressed to Tony Blair. Here it is in its entirety:

Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.

It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.

Such a move would make us all safer.

See the pattern emerging now? Just like the editorial by Mr Bunglawala, here are more Muslim leaders making thinly veiled threats: do what we Muslims believe is right and the attacks will stop. Of course, it's never that blatant. They toss in sentences that give them outs, such as this beauty: "Attacking civilians is never justified." Hmm. If they believe that attacking civilians is never justifiable, I wonder why I can't find one instance of any of these Muslim leaders publicly denouncing in unequivocal terms the innumerable attacks against Jewish civilians perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in Israel.

And of course, the last sentence is classic. Muslim leaders driving the REAL point home: change your ways, Western infidels, or we'll kill more of you.

This is a textbook Muslim leadership response to terrorism by their own. They never fully and unambiguously denounce specific events. Never. What they do is make a broad statement that covers more than just one specific event - "Attacking civilians is never justified." Invariably, that statement is surrounded by language that shifts the blame to the victim or in some other way rationalizes the murders.

Hezbollah has been firing Katyusha rockets into Northern Israel for years now, seeking to kill as many civilians as possible. Can you name one time a Muslim leader has publicly said something as blunt and unequivocal as - "I denounce what Hezbollah is doing because killing innocent people is always wrong. They should stop right now and pray for Allah to forgive them." - or anything comparable? Don't bother looking. You won't find any instance of that. Not one.

Start paying close attention to what Muslim leaders say (if they say anything at all) each time there is a Muslim terrorist attack. You'll see this pattern emerge each and every time in the aftermath: weak denouncement using vague language, surrounded by thinly veiled threats of more attacks and a claim that the attacks are somehow understandable because of vague, ill-defined Western atrocities.

What kind of religion has leaders that will not denounce the murder of innocent civilians by its own members in passionate, clear, unambiguous language?