Nov 11, 2009 10:51 am | Robert
Yesterday I was asked to participate in a Symposium at National Review about the Fort Hood massacre and the role political correctness played in it. Here is my entry: The Fort Hood massacre wouldn't have happened were it not for political correctness. Nidal Hasan lectured on the Koran's punishments for...
Fox News talking heads are asking how……..
Hasan was able to do what he did.
Why would he and his co religionists in the US Military,NOT feel free to engage in their Religions Satanic manifesto ?, when the commander in chief of the worlds most powerful military force on earth, dictates that Non Muslim Americans,follow his example and bow, roll over, SUBMITT to Islam,rather than reject it,in fact the “Community Organizer in Chief” demands non Muslims Americans RESPECT Islam and what it’s followers have given the world in the name of this thing they, Islamist’s call “allah”.
Hussein Obowma has made it clear by his words and actions as to what “Religion”, “Ideology” “Medievil Cult” he expects Americans to obey and follow.
Americans VOTED for “Change they can believe in” …… now I believe that you can get a FREE koran from CAIR upon request, until you get your copy of same, just remember SATAN Good,God Bad and you too might avoid getting shot to death by one of the President of the United States of America’s ideologues that he DEMANDS that YOU RESPECT….. spsssss I know, I know don’t ask why, just respect it you might live a lot longer if you do……
Or do ya wanna Fight? for not only YOUR life but for that of your Wife,Children,Parents,Brothers, Sisters and Loved ones.
Internment of Muslims, and their facilitators / apologists in the West, combined with Repatriation to an Islamic (cesspool) of their choice is the ONLY answer to the continuation of Judeo /Christian Democracies.
Hussein Obowma’s friends can believe in anything he, and they want to, so long as they are unable, and are prevented from killing “Americans” (Judeo Christian Western Democracies citizens) who do not.
Islam IS what Islam DOES
Hussein Obama IS what Hussein Obama DOES
The American Commander in Chief,Hussein Obama, bows to the CULT who’s followers are dancing in the streets every time an American is slaughtered by HIS “Religion of Peace” that he Decrees Americans RESPECT.
A Muslim is in the White House.. God Damn Hussein Obama.
What part of Ralph Peters comments on the Fort Hood Muslim Killer does Hussein Obama and his cabal of US taxpayer funded Muslim apologists not understand?
Whilst the Wives,Husbands,Mothers and Fathers,Brothers and Sisters and Children of the victims, of the latest Islamic Terrorist attack upon civilization,wrestle with their indescribable pain and suffering, make plans to bury their loved ones all the MSM and the Islamic Terrorist apologists on the left can do is rush to be the first with the best excuse for this piece of SHITS murderous behaviour.
As Ralph Peters says in the above interview, where is the coverage of VICTIMS of this Islamist savage’s MASS MURDER Spree?
Hussein Obama has previously decreed that there is no war on terror nor are there any Islamic Terrorists.
Saying it so don’t make it so Hussein, just ask the victims and their families.
Islam IS what Islam DOES
Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror
By RALPH PETERS
NYPost
November 7, 2009
On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror.
Period.
When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit -- well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."
But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.
And the Army won't. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."
And the media won't. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops -- despite their crocodile tears.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn't killed on the spot.
Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There'll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn't dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.
Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he'll have the last laugh.
But Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Fort Hood.
Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his
chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.
Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoom. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.
Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. At least 38 people were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.
There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist wacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed
from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another.
Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.
Get ready for the apologias. We've already heard from the terrorist's family that "he's a good American." In their world, maybe he is.
But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?
A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit.
A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized.
Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace."
I guarantee you that the Obama administration's nonresponse to the Fort Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.
Ralph Peters' latest novel is "The War After Armageddon."
Rupert Murdoch speaks out on recovery and opportunity missed
By Terry McCrann
The Daily Telegraph
November 07, 2009
A YEAR ago I spoke to Rupert Murdoch at the very darkest point of the global financial meltdown. What a difference a year makes. Then, the News Corporation chairman and chief executive was gobsmacked at the wealth destruction. Now he apologises for being "bearish" - I'd call it instead cautious and realistic.
He's not taking the US recovery for granted; he recognises only too well the deep structural problems America faces and has added to over the past year; he has some fundamental question marks over President (Barack) Obama and, even more, the US Congress.
While he emphasises the fundamental entrepreneurial strengths of America, and the driving spirit of the people, he thinks all the negative factors will ensure a very, very slow recovery in the world's biggest economy.
"I think the danger of a double dip (back into recession) is unlikely; and there's a case that can be made that it has turned the corner and will recover strongly," he said.
But the Fed has poured money into the banking system - the $US700 billion bailout was wrong in principle, in practice a necessity - and the banks were sitting tight on credit. Cutting it back even to their best customers. Officially the jobless rate was 10 per cent, in reality it was probably more than 15 per cent. There was as yet no sign of a jobs pick-up and the key driver of recovery - capital formation by small business - was not happening, he added.
A critical issue was political leadership.
OBAMA OF THE three choices for President in last year's election, did the US get the right one, I ask? He pauses, then says: "No. I think Hillary (Clinton) would have been a lot tougher.
"I wouldn't have liked everything she did. (John) McCain (the Republican candidate who stood against Obama) would have had policies more to my approval.
"Albeit he would also have been unpredictable," he adds.
Obama has very, very enormous charm and a great way with words. But there's his total inexperience of the real world, the commercial world. And the same goes for the whole White House, Murdoch says.
Further he doesn't listen. And like Rudd he wants to micro-manage everything.
He faces huge geo-political challenges. Take Afghanistan: he doesn't know what he should do. I do, Murdoch adds with emphasis. He should send the extra troops.
The core problem was indecisive leadership. Last month he came out with a speech on education, with which I agreed 100 per cent. And then he concluded with: "I look to Congress to send me a bill. They'll never send him a bill!" Murdoch thunders.
The question still to be answered is whether he was an ideologue.
How many times had you been to the Obama White House, I asked?
Never, he responds. Followed by "I only went once when Bush was there."
RUDD HE'S very intelligent, he's very interesting, Murdoch starts. But then moves quickly to "but he's kidding himself with the G20", the grouping of the top 20 countries which includes Australia and which Rudd has been pushing to replace the G8 - of only the top eight countries which does not include Australia - as the main global negotiating forum.
Obama had no interest in the G20. He even wanted to cut the G8 to the G4 and really to a G2 - just the US and China - to agree to all the big decisions.
Rudd was kidding himself that we could use the G20 to lead the world. Or that we could strike out alone with a cap- and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions - our ETS or Emissions Trading Scheme.
That we'd lead and the rest would follow. All it would do would be to push up the cost of living in Australia, and the rest of the world would laugh at us.
His efforts to "lead the world" were delusional. But was it hurting Australia? Not yet, Murdoch asks and answers his own question.
THE NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK THE Government had to decide whether the national broadband network should be built as a great national asset. To go to every school, to every hospital, to every business, to every home, Murdoch says striking his hand for emphasis at each destination.
But then it had to decide whether to hold it as a public utility or whether to sell it to private enterprise.
If the latter, it could only happen if the Government was prepared to write off half the cost openly upfront.
To spend $40 billion to build it; to be prepared to sell it for $20 billion, so that the investors buying it could have a chance of a return.
In all this would Telstra be the major shareholder in such an NBN? Its biggest shareholder, the Future Fund, would not want it to go there unless it could see an acceptable return.
MURDOCH AND THE MEDIA COULD he be tempted back into free-to-air television in Australia?
He pauses before responding with a yes. But then immediately adds "If I had my choice of buying Telstra out of Foxtel or FTA, I would take the former".
So the future is Foxtel rather than FTA, I respond?
"Absolutely," he comes back, and then immediately details the continual, slow but inexorable drop in the network audience in the US. And he digresses into musing about the future of NBC - one of the major networks, put up for sale by its parent GE.
"In its present condition , it's unsaleable," he says.
And while we couldn't buy a second network, we would be interested in NBC's Universal movie studio. We'd be allowed to own two studios, he says.
Interestingly while he would like to buy Telstra out of its 50 per cent stake in Foxtel, he has no interest in the 25 per cent owned by James Packer's CMH group.
Asked to comment on Packer, he says he has no comment. Then adds, he had made his bed with his decision to became a major global player in gaming. But he'd kept the two media assets - the 25 per cent of Foxtel and the half share of Fox Sports (NewsCorp has the other 50 per cent).
"I'd certainly be interested in Fox Sports, but not another 25 per cent of Foxtel. There'd be no point unless you were going to get the whole thing."
THE LOST CHANCE ASKED about the challenges and opportunities in media going forward, Murdoch comes up with a surprising nomination: the great opportunity missed. The Food Network.
No, it wasn't a simple "MasterChef moment", but a textbook example of building hugely profitable media business, which in classic Murdoch style, he thinks he should have done.
It takes years for a new station/network to get on the cable channels in the US, Murdoch says with the knowledge of exactly his own struggles over two decades. New channels generally ask for 15-20c per customer per month.
"The Food Network went in at 2c and achieved total distribution." That delivered all the food advertisers. With very cheap programming, it's now a $US350 million revenue business that throws off an incredible $US250 million profit! It's a business that's gone from nothing to a value of at least $US3 billion. And all that's still only charging the 2c! Murdoch adds with emphatic undisguised admiration. But they are about to renegotiate that.
Alexandra Frean AMERICA'S unemployment rate pushed through the 10 per cent mark in October for the first time in 26 years.
Join Muslim Asia or perish: Taliban
Abraham Rabinovich
The Australian
November 06, 2009 1:54AM
AN official Taliban publication warns Australia that it will have to assimilate into a dominant Asia or face the prospect of being overpowered and forced to take population overspill from Asia.
The choice is spelled out in the latest issue of the online Taliban monthly magazine, Al Sumud (Steadfastness), whose lead article offers a sweeping view of a post-war order in which a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan becomes a moral pivot for a pan-Asian renaissance that will coincide with the decline of Western power.
Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud (left) seen here in a tender moment holding hands with his Boy / Girlfriend Wali-ur Rehman (right)
"The end of European leadership in the world will place the white settler diaspora in Australia before two choices," writes the author, Mustafa Hamid, a former senior al-Qa'ida member who in 2001 married Australian Rabiah Hutchinson, a Sydney mother with links to Islamic extremists.
"It can either return to its motherland in Europe or reconcile with its Asian surroundings and assimilate into it as a wealthy and active member."
Otherwise, he warns, a lengthy conflict will ensue in which Australia will be overpowered "by Asian waves that are better armed and more numerous".
"There is no doubt that the huge growth in the population of Asia, together with its economic and military development, will make Australia into lebensraum -- to use the European term," writes Mr Hamid. Lebensraum, meaning living space, was a term used by Nazi Germany as a motivation for territorial conquest.
Asia, Mr Hamid writes, is facing a population explosion "while Australia is nearly empty of people, apart from scattered groups of white residents".
Residents of "the Israeli outpost" at the other end of Asia are likewise warned to return to their countries of origin or face an "unequal conflict".
These warnings, however, are marginal to the central vision offered in the article -- the emergence of a vibrant pan-Asian identity in which Islam, and the Taliban in particular, constitutes a powerful moral and cultural force but not an exclusive one. Its emphasis on pan-Asian political identity rather than pan-Islamic sets it apart from al-Qa'ida ideology. The Taliban article does not call for jihad, although it hints at the possibility of "peaceful Islamic expansion" and the linchpin role in the "Asian Age", as the author terms it, is ceded to non-Islamic China.
Western power is fading fast, he writes, "to the benefit of Asian giants, and first and foremost among them the colossal economic and human power of China".
Even Russia, whose invasion of Afghanistan 30 years ago would prove a milestone in the emergence of militant Islam, is depicted as an ally arraigned with Asia against the "arrogance" of the West.
"Today, Russia is taking a defensive position against the Western advance which aims to break (Russia) up into statelets and to cross it on the way to China to break it up as well. Russia desires a coalition with China, with India, with Iran if possible, and even more so with Afghanistan, and even more so with the Taliban movement (which) is a serious, realistic and victorious leadership in that vital country (Afghanistan)."
In the article, ": A vision of Afghanistan's role in the coming international order", Mr Hamid depicts a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan having a fundamental leadership role in the new Asian order -- "not in the field of finance, industry and interest-bearing banks" but as a moral force.
"This was demonstrated by the ability of Islam to inspire a small, poor people to resist and defeat five military campaigns of the largest armies on earth."
This article was obtained as an exclusive from the Middle East Media Research Institute’s Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor Project (www.memrijttm.org ) which monitors and translates the 100 most important Islamist sites and blogs around the clock.
Yeah sure Nancy anything you say.
Islamists impose sharia by stealth
Daniel Pipes
The Australian
November 05, 2009 9:51PM
TO borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden represent Islamism 1.0, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the French intellectual, Tariq Ramadan, represent Islamism 2.0. The former are more deadly but the latter will likely do greater long-term damage.
The 1.0 version presents a potentially mortal danger to those unfortunate enough to get in its way. From totalitarian rule to mega-terrorism, Islamism's original tactics present a potential for unlimited brutality. Three thousand dead in one attack? Bin Laden's search for atomic weaponry suggests the murderous toll could be a hundred or even a thousand times larger.
But Islamist violence, a review of the past six decades suggests, proves generally unsuccessful in attaining the goal of a society fully regulated by the sharia (Islamic law), much less does it help establish a global caliphate.
Survivors of mass murder tend not to capitulate to radical Islam. Victims did not raise the white flag after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in Egypt in 1981, the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bali bombings of 2002, the Madrid bombings of 2004, the Amman bombing of 2005, or the latest bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Extrapolating from these and other failures suggests terrorism does damage and causes human suffering but rarely changes the existing order. Imagine the devastation done by Hurricane Katrina or the tsunami of 2004 had been caused by Islamists: what could they have lastingly achieved?
Non-terrorist attempts from the outside to apply the sharia are hardly easier to accomplish. Revolution (meaning, a wide-scale social revolt) took Islamists to power in just one place at one time: Iran in 1978-79. Coup d'etat (a military overthrow) also carried them to power in just one place at one time: Sudan in 1989. Same for civil war: Afghanistan in 1996.
If Islamism 1.0's violence rarely overthrows governments, Islamism 2.0's working through the system serves significantly better. Islamists, adept at winning public opinion, have enjoyed electoral success in various Muslim-majority countries, including Algeria in 1992, Bangladesh in 2001, Turkey in 2002 and Iraq in 2005. In many other countries, such as Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon and Kuwait, Islamist political parties represent the main opposition force.
(What one might call Islamism 1.5 also works, that being a combination of hard and soft means, of the external and internal approaches. In it, Islamists soften up the enemy with lawful means and then use violence to seize power. The Hamas takeover of Gaza offers one case of such a combination, first winning the elections in 2006, then staging a violent insurrection against Fatah in 2007, and similar processes may be under way in Pakistan.)
At least one leading Islamist thinker with close ties to al-Qa'ida has publicly repudiated terrorism and adopted political means. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (also known by the nom de guerre Dr Fadl) was born in Egypt in 1950 and trained as a medical doctor. He emerged as a leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group in the 1980s and came to public attention with the 1988 publication of his book, Al-'Umda fi I'dad al-'Udda (The Essentials of Preparation), in which he argued for perpetual violent jihad against the West.
With time, however, Sharif shifted gears: observing that violent attacks are counterproductive he instead advocated a strategy of infiltrating the state and influencing society.
In a recent book, At-Ta'riya li-Kitab at-Tabri'a (Exposing the Exoneration), he condemned the use of force against Muslims ("Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers") and against non-Muslims (9/11 was immoral and counterproductive, for "what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?").
Sharif's evolution from al-Qa'ida theorist to advocate of lawful transformation echoes a broader shift as Islamists notice that while bin Laden, for all his notoriety, cowers in a cave, Erdogan remakes the Republic of Turkey.
In conclusion, fascists never developed a 2.0 version, nor did communists; only Islamists have done so. Because it threatens our values and our civilisation, this evolution represents perhaps an aspect of their movement no less frightening than their brutality.
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Aussie 'predator' admits assaulting two boys at US camp: prosecutor
November 3, 2009
Accused Australian child predator Scott Zirus has confessed in video-taped interviews to sexually assaulting two boys at a camp in Texas, US authorities confirmed.
The Texas district attorney prosecuting the case, Amos Barton, said he was hellbent on ensuring the 25-year-old West Australian camp counsellor was punished with the maximum sentence - life in a Texan jail.
"We will be firing with both barrels at this defendant," Barton told AAP.
"I don't want him to ever be able to victimise another kid."
Zirus, from Pinjarra, south of Perth, appeared in the District Court in Kerr County Texas on Monday local time for arraignment.
Zirus is accused of assaulting three boys while working at the Camp Stewart for Boys in Hunt, Texas, as part of an international exchange program.
Family members of the alleged victims were in court for the arraignment.
"They want justice," Barton said.
Zirus is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, indecency with a child and continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14.
He entered not guilty pleas to all charges during the court appearance, did not seek bail and a trial was set for March 9.
Since Zirus' arrest in August three other potential victims at the camp have contacted Texan authorities, but charges have not yet been laid.
"We are aware of the possibility of more victims, but no charges have been filed yet and investigations are continuing," Barton said.
US authorities believe Zirus, who had links with Australian scout groups and is believed to have run his own camp for children in Australia, likely assaulted boys in Australia.
A computer confiscated by US authorities revealed evidence pointing to Australian assaults, Kerr County Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer, who has labelled Zirus a "predator", said.
West Australian police have opened an investigation and asked the public to come forward with any information.
Barton said Zirus admitted in the video-taped confessions to assaulting two of his alleged victims.
"As to two of the victims, we have a full confession," the prosecutor said.
"He has confessed to aggravated sexual assault of a child and sexual assault of a child by contact."
Zirus was arrested at San Antonio international airport on August 20 as he was about to fly back to Australia.
He has remained in jail since his arrest and Barton said he would fight to keep Zirus behind bars if he applied to have his $US100,000 ($110,500) bail lowered in an attempt to gain release from jail before his trial.
Barton said Zirus was a flight risk and a danger to children.
"I would oppose any reductions because of his ability to travel and for him being such a danger," Barton said.
"We have so many victims."
Video shows kidnapped priest in Philippines
October 31, 2009
KIDNAPPERS holding an elderly Irish Catholic priest hostage in the southern Philippines have released a video of their captive in which he says two million dollars must be paid for his release.
The video, a copy of which was seen by a local journalist in Pagadian city on Saturday, showed 79-year-old Father Michael Sinnott holding a copy of the October 22 issue of a Manila newspaper.
”My kidnappers are led by commander Abu Jayad. They are asking two million US dollars as ransom money,” the priest said while standing in front of what appeared to be a bed sheet or table cloth in a forested area.
”We are living in the open, in difficult circumstances. I am still in good health even if I do not have the full medicines.”
It was the first time any proof had been made public that Sinnott, who needs medication for a
heart condition, was alive since gunmen seized him from his mission office in Pagadian on Mindanao island on October 11.
Father Patrick O'Donoghue, the Philippine head of the Missionary Society of Saint Columban, who saw photographs taken from the video, confirmed that it was Sinnott and expressed relief that he was looking relatively healthy.
However he stressed that no money would be paid to secure Sinnott's freedom.
”The Columban fathers do not pay ransom and we never have and I don't think we ever would,” O'Donoghue said.
He said Sinnott would not want a ransom to be paid.
”I could see him wanting that money to be used in ways rather than ransom. That two million should rather be used for education, for the care of people with disabilities,” he said.
O'Donoghue said he had no previous knowledge of the video and that he immediately relayed the news to a government commission that is in charge of recovering Sinnott.
The pictures from the video showed an unshaven Sinnott smiling slightly, while someone else's hand from outside the frame helped in holding up the newspaper. Regional military chief Major
General Benjamin Dolorfino said he was not aware of the video.
”I know nothing about the video. We have not seen the video,” he said.
There have been conflicting reports about who is holding Sinnott, with the military initially saying he was kidnapped by a Muslim pirate active in the area.
However Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro has also said he believes Sinnott is being held by rogue elements of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a separatist Muslim rebel group engaged in peace talks with the government.
The MILF has repeatedly denied any involvement. MILF spokesman Eid Kabalu said he did not know of any Abu Jayad, and had not been aware of the video before it was released to the media.
”We don't know anything about a video that came out as proof of life,” said MILF spokesman Eid Kabalu.
However he said the MILF leadership was aware of Sinnott's general location and the likely identity of his kidnappers. But he said he would not reveal the details while the MILF pursued its own efforts to recover Sinnott.
The area of the southern Philippines where Sinnott is believed to be being held is a known stronghold of the MILF, while armed gangs and the Muslim Abu Sayyaf militant group are also known to operate in the often lawless region.
The Abu Sayyaf and other gangs have kidnapped priests and other foreigners in the region previously, then demanded ransoms for their release.
Sinnott has spent about 40 years in the Philippines, and is well-known in Pagadian for helping disabled children and other charity work.
How long before Catholic Priests and Rabbi’s or any other “non believer” start disappearing from the streets of Chicago, New York, and other American Streets,and an offer of buying their lives back is made by Hussein Obama’s new best friends, aka the “Religion of Peace” ?
How much money is 75% of the American population prepared to pay for the LIFE of THEIR Religious leader when the “Religion of Peace” makes a demand for payment for same?
1 in 4 people in world are Muslim
News.com.au
October 09, 2009 7:33AM
THE global Muslim population stands at 1.57 billion, meaning that nearly 1 in 4 people in the world practise Islam, a landmark study has claimed.
The Pew Forum report also revealed that Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon - or North and South America combined.
It claimed that about five per cent of Europe's population practises Islam - and that there are more Muslims living in Asia than in the Middle East.
Until now, experts have largely been guessing at the precise number of Muslims in the world, with estimates from one billion to 1.8 billion.
But the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life report, released today, finally pinpoints the number of those practising the world's second largest religion, behind Christianity.
The three-year-long project also provided some surprising statistics. For instance, Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon, China has more Muslims than Syria, Russia has more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined, and Ethiopia has nearly as many Muslims as Afghanistan.
'This whole idea that Muslims are Arabs and Arabs are Muslims is really just obliterated by this report,' said Amaney Jamal, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton University who reviewed an advance copy.
The report provides further evidence that while the heart of Islam might beat in the Middle
East, its greatest numbers lie in Asia: More than 60 per cent of the world's Muslims live in Asia.
About 20 per cent live in the Middle East and North Africa, 15 per cent live in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2.4 per cent are in Europe and 0.3 per cent are in the Americas.
While the Middle East and North Africa have fewer Muslims overall than Asia, the region easily claims the most Muslim-majority countries.
While those population trends are well established, the large numbers of Muslims who live as minorities in countries aren't as scrutinized.
The report identified about 317 million Muslims - or one-fifth of the world's Muslim population - living in countries where Islam is not the majority religion.
About three-quarters of Muslims living as minorities are concentrated in five countries: India (161 million), Ethiopia (28 million), China (22 million), Russia (16 million) and Tanzania (13 million).
In several of these countries - from India to Nigeria and China to France - divisions featuring a volatile mix of religion, class and politics have contributed to tension and bloodshed among groups.
The immense size of majority-Hindu India is underscored by the fact that it boasts the third-largest Muslim population of any nation - yet Muslims account for just 13 per cent of India's population.
'Most people think of the Muslim world being Muslims living mostly in Muslim-majority countries,' Grim said. 'But with India ... that sort of turns that on its head a bit.'
The report also revealed that:
Europe is home to about 38 million Muslims, or about five per cent of its population. Germany appears to have more than 4 million Muslims - almost as many as North and South America combined.
In France, where tensions have run high over an influx of Muslim immigrant laborers, the overall numbers were lower but a larger percentage of the population is Muslim.
Two-thirds of all Muslims live in 10 countries. Six are in Asia (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey), three are in North Africa (Egypt, Algeria and Morocco) and one is in sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria).
Indonesia, which has a tradition of a more tolerant Islam, has the world's largest Muslim population (203 million, or 13 per cent of the world's total). Religious extremists have been involved in several high-profile bombings there in recent years.
In China, the highest concentrations of Muslims were in western provinces. The country experienced its worst outbreak of ethnic violence in decades when rioting broke out this summer between minority Muslim Uighurs and majority Han Chinese.
Of roughly 4.6 million Muslims in the Americas, more than half live in the United States although they only make up 0.8 percent of the population there. About 700,000 people in Canada are Muslim, or about two percent of the total population.
Whilst these statistics are probably legit, I feel it would have been prudent for the authors to note the number of Islamic countries where it is not possible to deny been a Muslim,a believer in the Koran.
A believer in the syphilis induced ranting’s of the Paedophile Pirate and slave trader, Mohammed, the “Religion of Peace” is compulsory under threat of DEATH, according to the Islamic Terror Manual,the Koran,so the 25% claimed to follow the teachings of the said Paedophile, Mohammed are greatly embellished to say the least.
Like Communism (Socialism) Nazism,the victims of Islamism have no choice but to claim they are supporters of the Godless despots that rule their lives lest they are killed.
Why do western Judeo Christian democratic leaders, Australia, America, Canada, England, kneel to this demonic minority cabal of confused and befuddled of mind,misfits and criminals?
31st October 2006
WHATEVER its rights or wrongs, unlawful migration to Australia over the past three decades has not had a deleterious outcome. Most unauthorised entrants who have attained visas have settled relatively well. This includes the Indochinese and Chinese intakes in the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, and the Afghans and Iraqis. When immigration has led to poor social outcomes, this has resulted from the decisions of government - of both political persuasions.
The Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser became prime minister in late 1975, around the time of the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war between left-leaning Muslims and right-leaning Maronite Christians. Initially Fraser and his immigration and ethnic affairs minister, Michael MacKellar, were approached by Maronite Australians to allow some Lebanese Christians, who had close relatives in Australia, to settle here.
Fraser agreed. However, it was not long before the process got out of hand. As it turned out, very few Christians wanted to, or were able to, come to Australia at the time. Department officials sent to Lebanon to administer the program began granting visas mainly to Muslims - often on the flimsiest evidence they had close relatives or, indeed, any relative in Australia.
The program soon became known as "the Lebanese concession". The concession involved was that the Lebanese concerned would be admitted to Australia under the refugee intake, despite the fact that strictly speaking, they were not refugees. They were not fleeing persecution but rather, the impact of a civil war.
In her book Muslims in Australia, the Perth academic Nahid Kabir writes that the Lebanese were sometimes referred to as "quasi-refugees".
For a long time, Christian Lebanese have been successful migrants. Their descendants include the NSW Governor, Dr Marie Bashir, and the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks. The unintended consequence of the Fraser government's decision was to allow, for the first time, numerous Lebanese Muslims to enter Australia. They were from rural areas, had little education and minimal English language skills.
As Kabir documents, the numbers grew. There were about 3500 Lebanese Muslims in Australia in 1971. Just two decades later, the number had increased to more than 25,000. The number grew quickly, due primarily to Australia's then family reunion policy. Most Muslim Lebanese migrants settled in south-western Sydney. The Shia gathered around the Arncliffe mosque and the Sunnis at the Lakemba mosque.
At the time some Maronite leaders warned the Fraser government, at the highest levels, that the decision to allow large numbers of poorly educated Lebanese Muslims into Australia would have unexpected and unwanted policy outcomes. They were dismissed with the "you-would-say-that-wouldn't-you?" refrain, meaning the Lebanese Christians opposed the Muslims simply on account of religion.
This was inaccurate and unfair. The Turks were the first large group of Muslims to settle here, arriving in the late 1960s when a Coalition government was headed by John Gorton and William McMahon. Despite the usual initial difficulties, the Turks settled well and soon found employment. The problem with Lebanese Muslims was that they were ill equipped to enter the workforce. Also, a number were fundamentalist Islamists. In time, some Shias became supporters of Hezbollah while some Sunnis became admirers of Osama bin Laden. The fundamentalists gave other Muslims a bad name, many of whom have had no connection with Lebanon or the Middle East or, indeed, Islamism.
When I recently spoke to Fraser about this, he said he had no memory of the Lebanese concession but added it was the sort of policy he might have supported. There is no mention of the Lebanese concession in biographies of Fraser. Some Coalition ministers and backbenchers at the time have a clearer recall than Fraser.
In 1982, during the final years of the Fraser government, the Egyptian-born Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly entered Australia on a tourist visa. He overstayed his visa and soon became prominent at the Lakemba mosque. In 1988 he told a Sydney University meeting that "the Jews try to control the world through sex, then sexual perversion, then the promotion of espionage, treason and economic hoarding".
Al Hilaly's language has not changed much in 20 years. In the past week The Australian has quoted the sheik making outrageous claims about women and supporting jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Australian troops are supporting the UN-sanctioned and Muslim-led governments in Baghdad and Kabul.
In The Adelaide Review in January 2003, Chris Hurford, the immigration minister from 1984 to 1987, said the decision to give al Hilaly permanent residence was done for political reasons: to appease some Australian Muslims. His view has not been challenged by al Hilaly's main Labor Party supporters at the time, including Paul Keating and Leo McLeay.
As Denis MacShane (the former British union official and Blair Government minister) said in London's Daily Telegraph last week, the 10,000 Muslims in his constituency "can only benefit from removing the dead hand of ideological Islamism - allowing their faith to be respected and their children to flourish".
The unfortunate fact is that in Australia and Britain, the best intentions of conservative and social democrat governments alike have resulted in bad policy.
Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot
Janet Albrechtsen
The Australian
October 28, 2009
SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?
With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in
Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come.
Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.
Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14.
Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.
Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”
Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft treaty. It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.”
Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded.
Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,” he says.
The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.
How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.
Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.
Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any
Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.
Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable?
And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy?
At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.”
Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about.
Uncontrolled Muslim influx a threat
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
The Australian
October 29, 2009
A FEW weeks ago in London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that 75 per cent of the terrorist plots aimed at Britain originated in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. Some 800,000 Pakistanis live in Britain.
The vast majority, it goes without saying, are law-abiding citizens. But there is a link between uncontrolled Muslim immigration and terrorism.
The real historic significance of the illegal immigration crisis in our northern waters is that this could, if things go wrong, be the moment Australia loses control of our immigration program, and that would be a disaster.
It is extremely difficult to talk honestly about Muslim immigration. All generalisations about it are subject to countless exceptions. Muslims are very different from each other. Most are reasonably successful.
But a much bigger minority end up with social, political, extremist or other problems resulting from a lack of integration than is the case with any other cohort of immigrants in Western societies. A lack of honest discussion about this results in bad policy.
The most enlightening book you could possibly read on this is by US
journalist Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. It is by far the best book on public policy of any kind I have read for a long time. It is wittily written but attempts to be neither provocative nor politically correct. It is dense with data but its greatest strength lies in laying bare the intellectual, political and social dynamics that have led to the mess in Europe. The way the Australian debate is reprising what were profoundly destructive and misguided European debates, dominated by moral sanctimony and a failure to grasp reality, is eerie.
Caldwell is enlightening on the way asylum assessment processes are so easily scammed, and the sophisticated, intense exchange of information that means the slightest change in attitude by a receiving country is instantly relayed throughout illegal immigrant networks. He writes:
"An easily game-able system was in place that made admissions automatic to prospective immigrants who understood it. Various immigrant advocacy NGOs in Europe made sure they understood it... migrants knew the best countries to claim to come from. They also knew the best countries to go to ... (There was an) incredible sensitivity of prospective migrants to shifts in immigration law, and to countries' moods towards immigrants."
Caldwell also shows that once an illegal immigrant route is established as reliable it becomes immensely popular. This is what the struggle in the waters to Australia's north now is really all about. He further demonstrates how completely subjective and plastic the asylum-seeker assessment procedures are. In 2001 Denmark approved a majority of asylum applicants. By 2004, when the mood had changed, it approved only one in 10, though of course in Europe rejected applicants basically don't go home.
At times Caldwell seems to be arguing against immigration in principle, although all the problems he adduces relate specifically to Muslim immigration, and he acknowledges the success of other immigrants in Europe.
He frequently acknowledges the success of immigration in Canada, the US and Australia. In Canada and Australia, the governments choose the immigrants. In the US, most illegal immigrants come from Latin America and don't have the Muslim problems.
But in so far as he makes a general case against immigration, I strongly disagree with Caldwell.
What he is really concerned with is uncontrolled Muslim immigration. The facts he produces are very disturbing. No European majority ever wanted this to happen. There are 20million Muslims in western Europe and this number will double by 2025.
How did this mass immigration of people with few relevant job or language skills, and a culture deeply alien to Europe, come about? Caldwell argues that the post-World War II period saw a radical disjuncture in European attitudes. Europe had just been wrecked by an enemy, the Nazis, who were avowedly racist. The unimaginable disaster of the Holocaust haunted every discussion of morality or policy. Europe was in the throes of decolonisation and felt guilty about its relations with non-white people.
This made an ideology of anti-racism - which itself became extreme and distorted, detached from reality and in many cases downright intolerant - the more or less official state religion of Europe. This had little to do with really combating racism.
In one of history's countless ironies, Muslim immigrants benefited from the legacy of the Jewish Holocaust. The determination initially to extirpate anti-Semitism didn't help many European Jews because they were almost all gone, but it offered a template for Muslim immigrants to find and exploit an ethnic victim status. This set up profoundly destructive dynamics and, in another irony, reintroduced serious anti-Semitism to Europe, carried with the Muslim arrivals.
Caldwell suggests a welfare state makes a bad marriage with mass, unskilled immigration.
Welfare rather than opportunity becomes the attraction. More importantly, welfare becomes a lethal poverty trap.
At the same time, satellite television, the internet and mass immigration from a few countries means the old culture is always on hand for Muslim migrants. They don't need to integrate if they don't want to or find it difficult. In many cases Caldwell cites, the second-generation of Muslim immigrants is less integrated than the first, and the third less than the second.
The demographic figures he cites are familiar but still shocking. Native Europeans won't have babies at anything like replacement level while the fertility of Muslim immigrants does not decline through time, as is the case with other immigrants.
Religion is the strongest predictor of fertility in Europe.
By mid-century Islam will be the majority religion of Austrians under the age of 15. In Brussels, most births are to Muslims and have been since 2006. In France, one in 10 people are Muslims, but they are one in three of those entering their child-bearing years, and Muslims have three times as many children as other French.
Caldwell writes: "Europe finds itself in a contest with Islam for the allegiance of its newcomers.
For now, Islam is the stronger party in that contest ... when an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter."
Uncontrolled Muslim immigration is a change to Europe so great it makes all the treaties and bureaucratic falderol of the EU look footling and transitory by comparison.
Defective body armour risk to Diggers
EXCLUSIVE by Ian McPhedran
From: The Daily Telegraph
October 29, 2009
DEFENCE chiefs were told more than a year ago about serious safety concerns with combat body armour worn by Diggers in Afghanistan.
Federal Government documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph confirm troops were issued with armour with "known defects".
The documents also show that top brass knew in April this year that troops were forced to use split pins and nails to prevent quick release catches on the armour from failing.
The military ordered 14,688 sets of the suspect armour under a $24 million project and by May this year more than 8400 had been delivered.
Despite two years of field testing by the army, the body armour, known as the modular combat armour system (MCBAS), will now be replaced by a lightweight system called American Eagle that is worn by special forces troops.
The documents show serious failures in the original armour were identified in September 2008 and in February and April this year.
Amid concerns about the impact of weight and a dodgy quick-release mechanism, the armour put soldiers at risk as they attempted to drag the body of Corporal Mathew Hopkins to safety during an ambush in Afghanistan in March this year.
An official report said the armour "did contribute to the difficulty in recovering Cpl Hopkins from an exposed position and evacuating him" to a medical post. According to one document dated September 23, 2008, the armour's quick-release system had opened "without the wearer's intent" when "simulated" casualties were dragged by the shoulder straps by two personnel.
However, despite the numerous documented complaints, Defence Materiel Organisation official Brigadier Bill Horrocks told a Senate inquiry in June "the feedback we have . . . is that they are very happy with what we delivered to them; however, it is certainly heavy".
Another Defence document dated April 6, 2009 said that one inspection had found that 15 sets of the armour had failed.
"Some MCBAS issued to units and members has shoulder straps with single loop brown plastic buckle. These buckles are a known defect," the document said.
Another report dated February 17, 2009 said quick release could not be operated by a single hand pull if the armour was wet or submerged.
Troops in Afghanistan patrol through channels and streams.
So whats the big deal ? is there anyone out there who actually thought that Comrade Rudd and his Government would have ensured that the armaments Australian troops had access to would have given them some advantage over their pontential killers?
Have you forgotten the Australian Labor Party and their betrayal of Australian troops in the Vietnam war already? hwy its business as usual…. Labor and their bankers,the Australian Council of Trade Unions, ACTU,doing what they do best, ensuring that as many Australian Soldiers get killed or injured as possible whenever they are able to do so, by white anting Australian Troops or directly aiding their enemy.
Jordan girl killed for pregnancy outside marriage
News.com.au
Sun Oct 18 2009
A JORDANIAN man was charged today with premeditated murder after allegedly stabbing to death his 22-year-old daughter because she became pregnant outside wedlock, police said.
"The father and his brother took the girl on Saturday to a doctor because she suffered stomach pains, and everybody was surprised to learn that she was six months pregnant,'' a police spokesman said.
"On their way home, the father stabbed the girl with a sword 25 times in her stomach, killing her immediately as well as her unborn baby boy.''
The source said the suspect has confessed to the crime following the murder, which took place in the Jordan Valley.
"His brother was also charged with premeditated murder, while the victim's boyfriend is being held in custody for his own protection,'' he added.
Murder is punishable by the death penalty in Jordan but in such cases of the so-called "honour killings'' a court usually commutes or reduces sentences, particularly if the victim's family urges leniency.
In the past, parliament has refused to institute harsher penalties.
Around 15-20 women are murdered each year in Jordan in the name of honour, despite government efforts to fight such crimes. So far this year, 17 cases have been reported.
