A blog revealing the horrors of Islam,International Socialism,the misery these two evils are inflicting upon the free the world,and those it has already enslaved,along with various articles revealing the attacks from within upon the western Judeo Christian ethic by those we entrusted to preserve it.
Videos and Pictures of many varied subjects from around the world, along with some jokes of mine and any funny ones you want to send me.
An American, Australian ,Israeli, British "Judeo Christian Friendly " blog.
Quote
Warning to all Muslims the world over seeking asylum and protection from the manifestations of their faith.
Do not under any circumstances come to Australia, for we are a Nation founded upon Judeo Christian Law and principles and as such Australia is an anathema to any follower of the Paedophile Slave Trader Mohammad's cult of Islam.
There is no ideology more hated and despised in Australia than Islam.You simply would not like it here.
“ If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
“There may be even a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves” Winston Churchill. Pg.310 “The Hell Makers” John C. Grover ISBN # 0 7316 1918 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. —Confucius
Hontar: We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus.
Altamirano: No, Señor Hontar. Thus have we made the world... thus have I made it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voltaire said: “If you want to know who rules over you, just find out who you are not permitted to criticize.”
--------Check this out, what an Bum WOW!!!!
When those sworn to destroy you,Communism, Socialism,"Change you can Believe in" via their rabid salivating Mongrel Dog,Islam,take away your humanity, your God given Sanctity of Life, Created in His Image , If you are lucky this prayer is maybe all you have left, If you believe in God and his Son,Jesus Christ, then you are, despite the evils that may befall you are better off than most.
Lord, I come before You with a heavy heart. I feel so much and yet sometimes I feel nothing at all. I don't know where to turn, who to talk to, or how to deal with the things going on in my life. You see everything, Lord. You know everything, Lord. Yet when I seek you it is so hard to feel You here with me. Lord, help me through this. I don't see any other way to get out of this. There is no light at the end of my tunnel, yet everyone says You can show it to me. Lord, help me find that light. Let it be Your light. Give me someone to help. Let me feel You with me. Lord, let me see what You provide and see an alternative to taking my life. Let me feel Your blessings and comfort. Amen.
-----------------------------------------
"The chief weapon in the quiver of all Islamist expansionist movements, is the absolute necessity to keep victims largely unaware of the actual theology plotting their demise. To complete this deception, a large body of ‘moderates’ continue to spew such ridiculous claims as “Islam means Peace” thereby keeping non-Muslims from actually reading the Qur’an, the Sira, the Hadith, or actually looking into the past 1400 years of history. Islamists also deny or dismiss the concept of ‘abrogation’, which is the universal intra-Islamic method of replacing slightly more tolerable aspects of the religion in favor of more violent demands for Muslims to slay and subdue infidels"
I heard the Hulk Interviewed a few weeks back when he came here to sus out the place for his upcoming Hulkamania tour.
He seemed like a really good guy and very genuine,he attracted a lot of positive attention whilst he was here then,I hope he is able to continue with his wrestling matches and was not too badly injured today, he did not deserve that kind of treatment,it was uncalled for.
The only positive from Australia’s point of view is that his assailant was NOT an Australian,thank God.
INDEPENDENT senator Nick Xenophon has accused the Church of Scientology of being a criminal organisation.
The South Australian parliamentarian said he had been contacted by a number of former Scientologists, after he questioned the organisation's tax exempt status in a recent television interview.
"They have provided long and detailed letters to me about the workings of this organisation,'' he told the Senate today.
"These people rightly see themselves as victims of Scientology.''
Senator Xenophon said their correspondence implicated the organisation in a range of crimes, including forced imprisonment, coerced abortions, embezzlement of church funds, physical violence, intimidation and blackmail.
"I am deeply concerned about this organisation and the devastating impact it can have on its followers,'' he said.
Senator Xenophon said the Church of Scientology had been convicted of fraud in France and was facing similar charges in Belgium.
A number of the organisation's former high ranking executives in the US had also recently spoken out against its leader, David Miscavige, saying they had seen him assaulting staff and urging others to do the same, he said.
"What we are seeing is a worldwide pattern of abuse and criminality,'' Senator Xenophon said.
"On the body of evidence, this is not happening by accident, it is happening by design.
"Scientology is not a religious organisation, it is a criminal organisation that hides behind its so-called religious beliefs.''
At Last someone here in Australia calling these loons what they are. See Lisa McPherson
How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:
Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States--to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack. It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know. It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He's still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts. In a sense, Hassan's lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated--rather than swept under the rug--more people will die. In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. . Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything. Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5]. Now here’s Hassan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it’s getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn’t do so. He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13] Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’t they will suffer torments of Hell. Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by its perpetrators by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return. And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” with those who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40] If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in his eyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem. He sympathized with the other side. Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision. It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing. Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world. The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries. So, in his thinking, how might Hassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42] Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44]. The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’t mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews. A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida. As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror. Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47]. His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes: “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the `infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.” And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48] Why? Hassan tells us: “God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49] And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route: "Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” [Slide 50] If that had existed for Hassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the last two. Consequently, Hassan's lecture also tells us why Muslims can choose not to be Jihadists, though this requires ignoring or rationalizing clear, religiously binding commandments in their religion or by being basically secular people of Muslim background. This is the kind of solution found in Christianity and Judaism, of course. Hassan was too pious and consistent to take this way out. The answer to his personal behavior must be found in a mix of psychological factors and political-religious beliefs. The fact is, however, that he clearly did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of psycological factors in no way negates the importance of religious considerations. All terrorists have some psychological forces working to make them follow such a path. Yet if not for ideological--and in the case of Islamists, religious--beliefs they never would have become terrorists. In contrast, criminals have psychological factors plus material goals, while mentally ill people who commit crimes are compelled by purely psychogical factors. Hassan does not fit either of those two categories. Equally, his action cannot be attributed to a "misreading" or "heretical" interpretation of Islam. To read this lecture is to understand how carefully and self-critically he approached the issues. Anything so obviously false or deviant from mainstream Islam would simply not appeal to so many Muslims. Hassan was looking for a way out in the texts and listed the "loopholes" he did find: either the United States must not fight anyone who was a Muslim or it must let him out of the military. What Hassan neglected was an explanation that lay outside what his strict reading of the Muslim texts would allow him to say: the United States must fight, in general, because the Islamists have been the aggressors. And the United States is actually fighting as allies with one group of (more moderate) Muslims against another (of radical Islamists). Yet the texts always deal with the Muslim community as a united whole (the umma), an interpretation that just doesn't correspond with reality. Indeed and ironically, this view enables Islamists to themselves kill thousands of Muslims all over the world! The fact that Hassan’s lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they're wasting everyone's time. They're also going to be wasting quite a few lives.
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
Many thanks to Barry for forwarding me the above article, I urge ANV readers to go to his web site GLORIA (Global Research in International Affairs Center) for some of the BEST commentary on world events and most particularly the activities of the members of the “ Religion of Peace” aka. Islam.
JONATHAN PEARLMAN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT November 14, 2009
BRITAIN'S new high commissioner,
has expressed surprise that Australians are still debating whether humans cause climate change and says other nations have long since ''moved on''.
In her first public comments since arriving in Canberra three weeks ago, Baroness Amos, a former leader of the House of Lords, said Australia was well-positioned to lead the international community on climate change but the public debate should move beyond scepticism and negativity to finding solutions.
Her comments come days after a senior Liberal, Nick Minchin, said he and most of his party colleagues believed man-made climate change was a myth.
''I have been surprised that the science itself is being questioned,'' she said. ''These are things where there have been debates over a long period of time in other countries and where we have reached conclusions and moved on.
''In the UK, there is a degree of political consensus about what in broad terms needs to be done. There is a lot of debate about how we do it. You would certainly not see on a daily basis … the kind of negative reporting that you have here.''
British envoys tend to be among the most influential of the foreign diplomats in Canberra and usually have a direct line to senior political and business leaders. When she first met Kevin Rudd, on her third day in the country, Baroness Amos presented the Prime Minister with a world map showing the potentially horrific global consequences of rising temperatures, including the risk of more dangerous bushfires.
''Australia as a country has seen the impact of some of this, in terms of drought and what is happening with annual fires,'' she said.
''I was a bit surprised at the negativity of some of the debate … It would be great for Australia to be out there and leading the way. Being a resource-rich country does not mean that, in putting in place measures that lead to clean-coal technology and lower emissions, economically you need to fall behind.''
Baroness Amos, who was born in Guyana in South America, said relations between Britain and Australia were evolving and should focus on future common goals - such as promoting human rights or dealing with cultural diversity - rather than dwelling on their shared past.
''We did go through a period where we took the relationship for granted. We just assumed we had strong historical ties and a very strong legacy and it would just go on and on.
''We should look at what we can do together as nations, particularly how we can take the partnership between our young people from being about travel and working holidays to … looking forward in the world.''
Baroness Amos said a decision on whether to become a republic was ''definitely an issue for Australia'' and would not affect relations with Britain.
The baroness, who first visited Australia for a Commonwealth leaders' meeting in 2002, is a keen cricket, tennis and soccer fan but is still ''getting the hang'' of Australian rules. ''It's a sport-mad nation. It seems to have got the balance right between working hard and enjoying life.''
Baroness Amos, who was a political appointment rather than a career diplomat, was posted for a year but said she hoped to stay on if the Labour Government loses next year's election.
Dear Baroness Amos, GO HOME NOW or STFUP, you like the majority of your socialist ideologues have nothing to contribute to Australia,as a matter of fact you sound STUPID and ignorant in the extreme to say the least.
The European Parliaments “England” would be a far more suitable environment for you and your cabal of like thinkers to wank in.
May I ask just how many times you and your personally selected pampered Socialist “pooches” have FARTED since you arrived in Australia, just how much C0 2 you have expelled and how much tax you have paid to Kevin 07,Penny Wong and Peter Garrett for engaging in such anti environmentally sensitive activities?
How about you just shut the Fuck UP and pretend you are ascending the ladder of evolution, collect your pay packet and chill out, and when your contract expires just fuck off back to Guyana and share the wealth that you have been able to extract from the social and political system you claim you are so determined to destroy, before you are deported,in chains back to whence from where you came, our jails are full, we don’t need any more snake oil sales “persons”
President Nicolas Sarkozy has reiterated his belief that the burqa, the head-to-toe veil worn by some Muslim women, has no place in secular France.
"France is a country where there is no place for the burqa, where there is no place for the subservience of women," he said in a speech on French national identity.
France, home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority, has set up a special panel of 32 lawmakers to consider whether a law should be enacted to bar Muslim women from wearing the full veil. The country has had a long-running debate on how far it is willing to go to accommodate Islam without undermining the tradition of separating church and state, enshrined in a flagship 1905 law.
In 2004, it passed a law banning headscarves or any other "conspicuous" religious symbols in state schools to defend secularism.
Mr Sarkozy in June said the burqa was not a symbol of religious faith but a sign of women's "subservience" and declared that the full veil was "not welcome" in France.
He was speaking on Thursday in the Alpine town of La Chapelle en Vercors in his first intervention in a country-wide debate begun last month on what it means to be French.
Public meetings are due to take place in some 450 government offices around the country, involving campaigners, students, parents and teachers, unions, business leaders and French and European lawmakers.
The debate will end with a conference early next year on the twin questions of "what it means to be French today" and "what immigration contributes to our national identity."
The Socialist opposition has accused the government of pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment to shore up support on the Right ahead of regional elections in March.
It has said the debate risks alienating France's large immigrant communities.
But Mr Sarkozy on Thursday defended the "noble debate" and said: "Those who do not want this debate are afraid of it."
Is France, the “western” European nation,most infected with the scourge of Islam, declaring enough is enough ? or is this it’s death rattle?
A SYDNEY couple has withdrawn their two children from a public primary school, claiming their 11-year-old son was bullied by Muslim students because he ate a salami sandwich during Ramadan.
Andrew Grigoriou said yesterday he complained to the school and to police after his son Antonios was chased and later assaulted by Muslim students after a confrontation over the contents of his lunch.
Antonios, a Year 5 student of Greek-Australian background at Punchbowl Public School in Sydney's southwest, said he and a friend had to be locked inside the library for an hour after being chased by a group of Muslim boys offended by his choice of food while they were fasting.
The Grigoriou family said the following exchange took place:
Muslim student to Antonios: "Why are you eating ham, it's Ramadan?"
Antonios: "My mum packed this for lunch today."
Muslim student: "Don't eat that. How can you eat pig, it's disgusting."
During the confrontation a Muslim boy allegedly accused Antonios of saying: "F. . . the Muslims" but Antonios denied swearing.
Mr Grigoriou said he removed his son and a younger child from the school on Tuesday after the boy was punched in the eye and kicked in the legs by a Muslim student.
"It has broken my heart to see this happening to my boy," he said. Antonios, who wrote about his experiences in words and drawings, still has nightmares.
The Department of Education and Training said it had a zero tolerance policy towards racism.
"Claims of bullying or racial intolerance are taken very seriously and looked into," a spokeswoman said. "The School Education Director is looking into the matter and called the father concerned.
"As a result . . . the school will work with all families and students involved to ensure that the values promoted by Punchbowl Public School and the department are understood and supported."
After the salami sandwich incident a student described as "the ringleader of the group" was suspended from the school. The department said that the school had "ongoing cultural and interfaith awareness programs to improve understanding among students of events like Ramadan and Christmas".
Other parents also complained to The Daily Telegraph about bullying at the school and claimed victims received too little protection.
One said her 12-year-old son was scared to open his lunch box at school because he was harassed about what is in it. "He has been bullied from day one . . . about being a Christian and about the hot salami in his lunch," she said.
"My boy has a Greek background . . . the bullying is extreme.
"He has been called a fat pig and hit on the back with a stick."
Another mother said her young son refused to go on school excursions for fear he would be bashed.
These apprentice Assassin’s, Rapist’s, Drug dealers, Car re birthers and common criminals are simply doing what they do because they CAN, they enabled and facilitated by the same socialist arse clowns who are reported above :"As a result . . . the school will work with all families and students involved to ensure that the values promoted by Punchbowl Public School and the department are understood and supported." talk about the arsonist’s arriving at the fire dressed as Firemen.
Australia’s SAS should be recalled from Afghanistan immediately and let lose in South Western Sydney aka. Sydney’s Occupied Territories.
capture + disarmament + internment + repatriation = a return to Labor’s pre Muslim / Multiculturalist’s chaos in Australia.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
