Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hock]

Please do keep an eye on that JihadWatch.org page...
It is really very well done!
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                       <<
                <<<<<
       <<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<   (To the left)
       <<<<<<<<<
                <<<<<
                       <<

                                                                                                           Hock

[misshinryu]

It is very well done. Thanks for posting it on your site. When and if I ever redo my website that is going on mine.
Are you familier with Robert Spencer's book, The Politicaly Incorrect Guide to Islam?"
He contrast the founder of the faith of Christianity and Islam (hello Wardog).
Good stuff. I got a free copy when I subscribed to Human Events.

[misshinryu]

Great article by Cal Thomas
Columns Any port in the terrorist storm
Feb 20, 2006
by Cal Thomas ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."

The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

 
Security experts have repeatedly said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have mostly gone unheeded.

In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Bush administration dismissed security risk concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by CFIUS, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently money talked more than common sense.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. - both members of Collins' committee - have raised concerns. New York's Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R.-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real."

The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level."

Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.

The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired U.S. Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.

Cal Thomas is the co-author of Blinded By Might.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
 

[misshinryu]

 
So, Three Muslims Walk Into a Port

by Ann Coulter
Posted Feb 22, 2006

The idea that the Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security is a joke, so I'm perfectly willing to believe there's more to this port story.

But President Bush is going to need a better justification for turning over management of our ports to an Arab country than he's come up with so far -- especially now that Jimmy Carter has said it's a good idea. Judging from his life's work to date, Carter's definition of a good idea is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies."

Bush's defense of the port deal is to say that "those who are questioning it" need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

First of all, it's not "all of a sudden." The phrase you're searching for, Mr. President, is "ever since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11." The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9/11 attacks -- attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

Even four years after 9/11, I note that we don't hear Tony Blair condemning some cartoons in a Danish newspaper as "a cultural extremism," or saying their publication represents a "dreadful clash of civilizations."

That was U.A.E. Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri's recent comment on the great Danish cartoon caper.

So maybe Bush could defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.

Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports.

Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

The Bush administration defended Muslims rioting over cartoons, saying, "We certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive." Hey, while they're at it, why don't they invite some Muslim leaders with well-known ties to terrorism to the White House for a reception? Oh wait, I forgot ... They did that right after 9/11. Yes, now I see why we must turn over our ports to the United Arab Emirates.

The University of Illinois has suspended editors of the student newspaper, The Daily Illini, for republishing the cartoons -- even though the kiss-ass editors ran a column accompanying the cartoons denouncing them as "bigoted and insensitive."

That was still not enough for Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, who wrote a letter to the editor saying that he was "saddened" by the publication of the cartoons. You want sad? The University of Illinois' sports teams are known as the "Fighting Illini." Now they're going to have to change it to the "Surrendering Illini."

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly refuses to show the cartoons on "The O'Reilly Factor," saying he doesn't want to offend anyone's religion. Someone should tell him those endless interviews with prostitutes from the Bunny Ranch and porn stars aren't high on Christians' list of enjoyable viewing either. (How about adding Prophet Muhammad cartoon T-shirts and fleece tops to his vast collection of "Factor gear"? Isn't Father's Day right around the corner? I'd buy those.)

Needless to say, the Treason Times won't show the cartoons that have incited mass rioting around the globe. At least The New York Times has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming with classified information about our techniques for spying on terrorists here in America -- no room for newsworthy cartoons! The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.

Two days after the Times editorial page justified its decision not to reprint the cartoons as "a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words," the Times ran a photo of the Virgin Mary covered in cutouts from pornographic magazines and cow dung -- which I seem to have just described using a handful of common words! Gee, that was easy!

Taking to heart the lesson that violence works, I hereby announce to the world: I am offended by hotel windows that don't open, pilots chattering when the passengers are trying to sleep, and Garfield cartoons. Next time my sleep is disturbed by gibberish about our altitude over Kansas, the National Pilots Emirate embassy is going down. And mark my words: One minute after "Garfield II" goes into pre-production, some heads are gonna roll. Oh -- and I'll take the San Diego port, please.
Sign up to receive Ann Coulter's weekly column by email:

A copy of Ann's weekly column will be sent to you by email as part of Human Events' Weekly Wrap-up. Also by email, you'll be kept up to date on the latest conservative issues and offers from Human Events. Click here to review our privacy policy. You can unsubscribe at any time.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are the cartoons published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten. Click each image to enlarge.

   
   
   


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

[Planetkillr]

Great posts misshinryu  and as usual....thanks Hock for the info (http://www.jihadwatch.org/).

[Kentbob]

  This really is a great site, and quite fascinating.  Its easy to think of it as Anti-Muslim, if you don't keep in mind the intended message, instead of the percieved message.  And, I think part of the reason that it is easy to percieve it as anti-Muslim is that the articles presented show just how prevalent the Jihad is in western society, how many Muslims are willing to participate, and how many leaders have caved in to such violence and threats of violence.  It makes me sad, angry, and frightened all at the same time. 
  I agree with planetkillr, great post Mike.  Thanks for putting that up there.

Kent

[misshinryu]

I have a friend who is army intel officer who recomended this book; The Pollitically Incorreect Guide to Islam and the Crusades"
Much of this stuff I was familier with by reading the Quran, but this puts the Islamic world view in perspective. It is an eye opener.
One interesting question I will ask you; much of the news about the crusades paints the west in a horrible light. Yes their were horrible crimes committed, but were the Crusade in response to the sword of Islam? Did you know that much of North Africa, Iraq, Syria, Turkey were Christian before the muslims? Did they welcome the muslims with open arms or were their bloodshed by the Mohamedians?
You should read this book, because, in my opinion, we will be dealing with this problem for a long time.

[Kentbob]

I have a friend who is army intel officer who recomended this book; The Pollitically Incorreect Guide to Islam and the Crusades"
Much of this stuff I was familier with by reading the Quran, but this puts the Islamic world view in perspective. It is an eye opener.
One interesting question I will ask you; much of the news about the crusades paints the west in a horrible light. Yes their were horrible crimes committed, but were the Crusade in response to the sword of Islam? Did you know that much of North Africa, Iraq, Syria, Turkey were Christian before the muslims? Did they welcome the muslims with open arms or were their bloodshed by the Mohamedians?
You should read this book, because, in my opinion, we will be dealing with this problem for a long time.

  I read that book today, and it is indeed very well written, and quite fascinating.  I couldn't stop reading, and the seeming position of subservience our leaders have subjected us to throughout the centuries is indeed something that we are going to be dealing with for a long, long time.  My platoon sergeant asked to borrow it after I was done.  I hope that everyone who reads this book will have their eyes opened as to the true nature of the threat to our way of life posed by Islam. 
  In addition, I see that the House Appropriations Comittee voted down the Dubai deal, concerning the buying of six U.S. ports by a U.A.E. owned company.  Now that puts a big smile on my face.  I was pretty sure that they would just cave to political pressure, but they actually grabbed their cojones and stepped up to the plate for the first time in a long time, it would seem.  Let's hope the Senate does the same.  I feel like celebrating.

Kent

[misshinryu]

Articlr from Human Events

Jihad Watch 

Abdul Rahman: On Trial for Freedom
by Robert Spencer
Posted Mar 22, 2006

   
 
 Text Size:  S   M   L
 printer-friendly
 email to a friend
 respond to this article
 
 
 
Living in a Dream World 
 
Jihad in Chapel Hill 
 
Iran's Broken Moral Compass 
 
Fallaci Decapitated: Emblem of the New Europe 
   
   
 
 
President Bush recently declared: “Before September the 11th, 2001, Afghanistan was ruled by a cruel regime that oppressed its people, brutalized women, and gave safe haven to the terrorists who attacked America. Today…the Afghan people are building a vibrant young democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. And America is proud to have such a determined partner in the cause of freedom.”

But last month an Afghan, Abdul Rahman, was arrested for the crime of leaving Islam and becoming a Christian—demonstrating that the freedom Afghans enjoy under the Karzai regime is not what Westerners might expect.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack tried to find a silver lining: “Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death. Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan.” Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was hopeful: “As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court.”

But that Constitution also stipulates that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam….The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam. Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.”

It is likely that that last clause refers to provisions of traditional Islamic law denying various rights to non-Muslims and restricting freedom of conscience. It is just as likely that most Westerners who read the Afghan Constitution before the arrest of Abdul Rahman had no idea of its import. Thus Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), in an indignant letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, took pains to point out that Abdul Rahman’s conversion had occurred long before the Karzai government took power, as if this restriction on freedom of conscience were somehow newly minted: “I find it outrageous that Mr. Rahman is being prosecuted and facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, which he did 16 years ago before your government even existed.”

In fact, however, the Islamic death penalty for apostasy was not invented either by Karzai or Mullah Omar. It is as old as the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s command that “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260). It is deeply ingrained in Islamic culture—which is one reason why it was Abdul Rahman’s family that went to police to file a complaint about his conversion, even so many years after the fact. Whatever triggered their action now, they could be confident that the police would receive such a complaint with the utmost seriousness.

The Abdul Rahman case is an opportunity for the British and American governments to refine and clarify what exactly they mean by freedom: is it simple one-person one-vote self-determination, which has elected exponents of political Islam in large numbers recently in the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere? Or is it Western concepts of universal human rights and freedoms, as derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition and encapsulated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Abdul Rahman may go free simply as a bid to keep American aid flowing into Kabul. But the deeper problem within Afghan society—and the larger lack of focus in the Western powers’ overall aims in Afghanistan and Iraq—will still remain. We may hope that sometime soon President Bush, having determined to keep his new “partners in the cause of freedom,” will call for the removal of the Sharia provisions in the Afghan and Iraqi Constitutions, and declare his support for full freedom of conscience such as that exercised by Abdul Rahman.

Certainly such a course would lose him many friends in the Islamic world, but it would win him many there and elsewhere as well—among those who hold that the dignity of the human person, and the right not to be coerced into belief, are worth defending.

[Kentbob]

As I said on another forum, I hadn't realized until now that Afghanistan's government was based on sharia.  I felt sure that if anyone was going to be a shining example for democracy to the rest of the muslim world, it would be Afghanistan.  Now, I realize I didn't know the whole story.  What an f'ing shame. 

Kent