Tuesday, December 09, 2008

British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing

Mark Steyn is not only brilliant, he is courageous. Or, brilliantly courageous. Or, courageously brilliant. However you slice it, Steyn tells the truth about the Religion of Death and our media's failure to do so.

Following are excerpts from his recent article on the latest jihad attack in Mumbai. Steyn exposes the cowardice of those entrusted to inform the public of facts pertinent to the preservation of their Life and Liberty.

One must ask, Where does Mr. Steyn's associate Hugh "Extremist, Fundamentalist, Islamicisicismists have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam" Hewitt fall? Is he silently accepting, too?

What of President Bush? He's confessed his belief that all gods are the same. That goes a long way to explaining seven-and-one-half years of "Religion of Peace" nonsense. Still working to advance Islam by obfuscation, it's good to see that the President hasn't become apathetic his last weeks in office. Doesn't he have an industry to nationalize?

What about Monarch-Elect Barack "I was never a Muslim except when I was one" Hussein?

Here's some clarity:
Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnar wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round — Bombay — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.”

Oh, I don’t know about that. In fact, you’d be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was “linked” to any religion, least of all one beginning with “I-“ and ending in “-slam.” In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations — “Islamic terrorists,” “Muslim extremists” — and by the time of the assault on Bombay found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators “militants” or “gunmen” or “teenage gunmen,” as in the opening line of this report in the Australian: “An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok…”

Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution “practitioners.” “Practitioners” of what, exactly?

Hard to say. And getting harder. Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Bombay media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured, and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

Hmm. Greater Bombay forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?”

Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for “going after the wrong people” and inflaming moderates, and “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.”

Really? The inflammation just “appears”? Like a bad pimple? The “fairer” we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.” Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young Rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their two-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mown down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.

The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity — and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they’re any more important than the Indians, Britons, and Americans targeted in the attack on Bombay, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.

In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”

And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani “militants” in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.

We are enjoined to be “understanding,” and we’re doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there’s a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what’s the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that’s not “too big to fail,” what is?

Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel “vulnerable.” Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They’re the world’s fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he’s feeling “vulnerable,” he’s doing a terrific job of covering it up.

We are told that the “vast majority” of the 1.6-1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra’s estimate) are “moderate.” Maybe so, but they’re also quiet. And, as the AIDs activists used to say, “Silence=Acceptance.” It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam — “Allahu Akbar.”

I wrote in my book, America Alone, that “reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Muslim liars and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis violate jihad's victims postmortem

Allah's apologists come out to defend Muslim bloodlust here and here. In doing this, they profane the dead.

True courage is here.

Monday, December 01, 2008

Going from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims” in Mumbai

In response to one obfuscating for Allah here:

Only the ignorant and the deceitful deny the fact that the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad is the word of Allah and the example of his genocidal, pedophile prophet Mohammed.

One needs only to examine Islam’s “sacred” texts—Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira—to know this is true. Have you done that? If you have, then you are an accomplice to the slavery, rape, and slaughter of non-Muslims around the world. If not, why post in ignorance?

Either way, you are part of the problem, for Mohammed commanded:
“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
It is true that most Muslims do not carry out physical violence against non-Muslims and apostates. However, there are a number of nonviolent means to establishing the rule of Allah over all mankind including political, economic, legal, demographic, academic, and media-related efforts. Include those who support violent jihad with their prayers, words, wealth, and wombs, and you’ve gone from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims.”

And what do you do with those Muslims who say that they reject jihad? How can you know? For unlike the Christian God, to Whom lying is a sin, Mohammed advocated falsehood saying, ”War is deceit,” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268). And since Allah calls Mohammed, “a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah” (Qur’an 33:21), lying in advancing the cause of Allah is a good thing.

As for your charge of bigotry, “Islamophobia” by definition means an “irrational fear of Islam.” What is irrational about reporting atrocities carried out in the name of Allah? Isn’t denying them the real crime? Why are you not outraged at Muslims obeying their god, rather than attacking Powerline for reporting their barbarism?

This is one of the few sites with the courage and veracity to tell the truth about jihad. The threat is urgent and real—just ask the victims of jihad in:


-7/7 London;

-3/11 Madrid;

-the USS Cole, our embassies, and the Khobar Towers;

-the first WTC attack;

-Beirut ‘83;

-the Barbary pirates;

-the Christians and animists enslaved, raped, and butchered in Sudan before Darfur became fashionable;

-modern Israel, since its inception;

-the 70-80 million Indians killed in earlier jihad offensives;

-all of Christian North Africa;

-The Holy Land, which was Jewish and Christian;

-Medieval Spain, which needed 750 years to regain its freedom from its Muslim overlords;

-the Balkans, whose beautiful boys were kidnapped, enslaved, and made into monsters for Allah;

-Zoroastrian Persia;

-Chaldean Iraq;


-and Asia Minor to Indonesia, where Christian schoolgirls are beheaded for Allah.
The clear exposition of the jihad threat should headline every newspaper, nightly news program, inaugural address, and State of the Union until its end. Our immigration, entitlement, energy, and national defense programs should be overhauled accordingly.

Following is just a sampling of the utter depravity thrust upon the world by Mohammed, and it’s the reason that over 12,000 terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11 alone and billions have been enslaved, raped, and slaughtered for Allah around the world since the seventh century:
“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . “ (Qur’an 9:5).

”Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ’I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘“ (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

”It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

”fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
This is that for which you obfuscate, Zelda.

With Islam, clarification brings more questions

A discussion yesterday with one whom I thought was a good-natured Muslim-In-Name-Only brings up new questions.

If he's had some education in "the book," and is familiar with commands to jihad:
Why the yelling?

Why the rage for my quoting Mohammed?

Why talk about Muslims killing me?

Why refer to monsters ("jihadists") as "my people"?

Why not condemn such evil? Why are you not outraged at Muslims obeying their god and their apologists, rather than attacking me?

And what of his wife? According to him, she's Muslim because she married a Muslim.
In case he hasn't heard, the United States is not under Islamic law.