 by SIOE
Note that Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE) has no formal links with Geert Wilders's PVV Party, but supports its efforts to stop Islamisation of the Netherlands and Europe.
Today Churchill, the most stalwart anti-Nazi, would be arrested in Holland whereas Hitler would be free to promote Islam unmolested
As reported by the BBC, Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put elected politician Geert Wilders on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.
"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement. "The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.
How things have moved to the worst since Europe defeated Nazism in 1945. The most prominent European fighting Nazi tyranny had this to say about Islam:-
“How dreadful are the curses which Islam lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -the science against which it had vainly struggled -the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” ~~ Sir Winston Churchill~~
Nazi leader Himmler had this to say about Islam:-
"Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all -- Our Fuehrer."
In his memoirs Albert Speer wrote about Hitler’s enamour of Islam:-
Speer’s narrative includes a discussion which captures Hitler’s effusive praise for Islam, “…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.” Hitler, according to Speer’s account, repeatedly expressed the conviction that, “The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
Churchill likened Islamist terrorism to Nazism:-
"In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British "stiff upper lip," to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies." Geert Wilders (among many others) likened the Koran to Mein Kampf Jihad means “personal struggle” (supposedly) Mein Kampf means “my struggle” JUSTICE WILL FIND GEERT WILDERS NOT GUILTY AND THE KORAN GUILTY Islam Watch 
 Does anybody besides me remember the remilitarization of the Rhineland?
Or that that unopposed action was followed by the Austrian Anschluss? Or the Obersalzberg conference that brought forth “Peace in Our Time” for Sir Neville Chamberlain?
Or the occupation of the Sudetenland followed closely by the conquest of all Czechoslovakia? And that fateful day, September 1, 1939, when World War Two started in Europe with the invasion of Poland? Obviously not. Perhaps it is fitting that the radio station I am listening to is broadcasting Brahms German Requiem.
If you go back and read the accounts of the times on the German side you find out that Hitler would have retreated at the first sign of opposition. He know that his Wehrmacht was still hollow. Had the French mobilized we might have postponed if not ended World War Two before it started. Has Iran “remilitarized the Rhineland”?
Only time will tell. But you can be sure that if Iraq does not take strong action Iran will seize another oil well. Eventually they will seize the entire field if they do it one well at a time or all at once.
Will the Iraqis mobilize and take the well back?
There are rumors that Iraq has ordered home the families of its security personnel in Damascus.
Debka is reporting that the Obama Administration has gotten Israel to postpone by another six months any military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Can you say “Peace in Our Time”? Except we haven’t even gone to Obertehran and had a conference with the Hitler of our time or his puppet master. Sir Winston Churchill chronicled the rise of Nazi Germany in his The Gathering Storm.
The British were slow to believe what Sir Winston was saying during the rise of Hitler. Are we being slow to believe what Iran’s neighbors are saying about Iran’s rise under the Ayatollahs?I pray we are not chronicling the events prior to the next World War. World Threats 
 In a recent article in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, Saudi liberal Muhammad Jamil Kutbi wrote that the Arabs and Muslims are unjustified in regarding themselves as morally superior to the West. He argued that although Islam champions values such as equality, justice and charity, the West actually surpasses the Muslim world at implementing these values. Following are excerpts from the article. [1] "We Falsely Accuse the Westerners... of Being Liars, Forgers, and Criminals" "...We Arabs and Muslims see the Jews and Christians as people who do not acknowledge or fear Allah, and are not ashamed before Him. We also falsely accuse the Westerners, the Christians, and the Jews of being liars, forgers, criminals, and money lenders who charge usurious interest rates. "But when we look reality in the face and follow the developments [in the world], when we examine the facts as they are and investigate the Muslim and Arab reality in which we live - including all the exaggerations, [empty] statements, faults, flaws and problems - we discover that, though we are called Muslims, we do not truly embody the qualities, values and principles of Islam... "We claim that the Westerners love money and material things, while we Muslims are better than they are: we are ascetic, pious and charitable. As an example, we present one of the Prophet's companions, 'Abd Al-Rahman bin 'Awf, who was known to possess great wealth but donated half of it to the cause of jihad for the sake of Allah. We Muslims take great pride in his example. "But today there is a Westerner named Bill Gates, owner of the world's richest and most powerful computer company, who gave away all his wealth, leaving only $3 billion for himself. [The rest] he donated to the poor and the needy, and to social organizations.
Now, in the Arab and Muslim world there are hundreds of wealthy people like him, who appear on the list of the world's billionaires. But we never heard of them performing a humanitarian act like that of Bill Gates. Where are these wealthy Muslims [when it comes to performing] human, Islamic and civilized acts of this kind? "The Arabs accuse the West of loving the [pleasures] of this world and of pursuing power, but that is not true. It is we Arabs who love and sanctify power. It is we who invented the concept of hereditary rule. Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, the first Caliph of the Ummayad Dynasty, was the first who created and shaped [this concept]. This Arab greed [for power] is insatiable and is the cause of internal conflicts, wars and problems. "Let me point out incidentally that [in 1945,] the British people did not [reelect] their famous leader [Winston Churchill], who was prime minister during World War II, even though he had brought them victory [in that war]." The Arab and Muslim Judiciary System [That] Regards Itself as the Purest, Noblest and Best in the World - [Is] Nothing But Deception and Fraud, and Is Controlled by the Regimes and Their Associates" "We Arabs claim to be a nation that does not cheat, lie or deceive, but the Arab leadership, which regards itself as a model for emulation, [certainly] lies and deceives. [The late Egyptian] president Gamal Abdel Nasser was the first Arab leader to invent the concept of forging elections, giving himself 99.9% [of the votes]... "The Arab and Muslim judiciary system regards itself as the purest, noblest and best in the world. But in reality it is just the opposite. [This system] is nothing but deception and fraud, and it is controlled by the regimes and their associates. "The Western judiciary system is better. A Paris court [recently] rejected a lawsuit by French President [Nicolas] Sarkozy, and [the latter], despite his authority and clout as president, was not able to force the court to rule in his favor and according to his will. "The Prophet Muhammad said, 'By Allah, if [my own daughter] Fatima bint Muhammad had stolen, I would have cut off her hand.' This is the nature of a just and equal society according to Islam, and these are the values and principles of Muslim rule." The Jews... Are Better Than We Arabs and Muslims" in Implementing Justice And Equality "But the Muslim nation does not implement these values and principles of justice and equality between the rulers and the ruled. [In today's Muslim world,] the ruler does whatever he pleases, however he pleases, and whenever he pleases. "The Jews, on the other hand, are better than we Arabs and Muslims [in this respect]. [Former] Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert was indicted and tried for accepting bribes and for abusing his political office, and was forced to resign from his party and from his post as prime minister, in a political scandal that ended his career. This is the lexicon of justice and equality." "We Are a Nation Without an Identity or Future, and Without Essence, Power, Opinion, Morality, Values or Principles" "What would have happened in our Arab and Muslim countries if some leaders were brought to trial? Think about it, and don't be too angry when you realize the answer. You will eventually arrive at the realization that we are a nation without an identity or future, and without essence, power, opinion, morality, values or principles..." MEMRI
 By JAN SJOSTROM | March 21 PALM BEACH - Anyone who believes that Muslims can be assimilated into Western societies is in for a rude awakening, according to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali, who spoke at The Society of the Four Arts Tuesday, has reason to suspect Muslims' good will. She was born in Somalia, suffered genital mutilation as a child and was forced into an arranged marriage, according to her official biography. She rejected her Muslim faith and fled to The Netherlands, where she became a member of the Dutch parliament. She's been under protection since 2004, when a death threat against her was found pinned to the murdered body of Theo van Gogh, who directed her short movie documenting the suffering of women under Islam. Today she lives in the United States and is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. She's written a memoir, titled Infidel, and co-founded the AHA Foundation, which works to combat the oppression of women by fundamentalist Islamic regimes. In his introduction to her talk, Winston Churchill, a Palm Beach resident and the British prime minister's grandson, called her "quite the most courageous woman it's ever been my privilege to meet." Some aspects of her biography have been disputed, and her political views are controversial. There are two schools of thought in the West regarding Islam, she said. One says that radicals have hijacked Islam and that peaceful co-existence is possible with adherents of the faith. Ali subscribes to the second point of view. "Islam is not a religion of peace," she said. "It's a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can." In her opinion, European society is in danger of being hijacked by a rapidly growing population of Islamic immigrants, who lack the means or the inclination to assimilate and are supported by Muslim nations in their efforts to undermine their host countries. Islamic thought and practice is incompatible with that of the West, because in Islamic societies, religious law is supreme, she said. "All aspects of the life of a person in public and private, down to the most intimate details, are regulated," she said. "In liberal democracies, laws are not made by God." According to the prophet Muhammad, whose example is one of the foundations of Islamic law, associating with infidels is a sin; women should not be allowed to leave the house without their husbands or a guardian; polygamy and sexual intercourse with a child are permitted, and homosexuals should be executed, she said. "This is not my opinion," Ali said. "These are facts." But John Ederer, imam of the Islamic Foundation of South Florida, said Ali is ascribing the teachings of fringe elements to all Muslims. "... I can say with certainty that poor Ayaan is a victim of some men who call themselves Muslims but are not in accordance with our 14-century-old legacy of authentic scholarship," he said in a statement. "It is their lack of knowledge of the 'fundamentals' of Islam that would have them interpret a few texts to hold such unorthodox beliefs and practices. "No doubt Ayaan and the people who affected her thinking can bring you a few verses of the Koran or sayings of the prophet Muhammad to prove their point. The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacy groups can do the same with the words of the Bible to convince a commoner of their ideology." Many people believe that prejudice accounts for the high number of Muslims in Europe living on welfare, when the truth is that poorly educated Muslim women are ill-equipped to help their children succeed in school, and many Muslims use religious objections as an excuse not to work, Ali argued. Negotiating with radical Muslims won't succeed, she said. "Every accommodation of Muslim demands leads to a sense of euphoria and a conviction that Allah is on their side," she said. "They see every act of appeasement as an invitation to make fresh demands." Ali warned that European societies are in danger of being subverted by Muslim immigrants as European populations age and decline and the number of young Muslim immigrants explodes. "The most pressing question of our time is this: Is European society to be taken over by a radical invasion of Muslim immigrants?" she said. Ali's views are disputed by many authorities, including Robert Rabil, director of graduate studies in the political science department at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. Rabil teaches the school's Muslim studies courses. There are Islamic extremists in Europe who are trying to radicalize the Muslim population, he said. But "Islam is a monotheist religion embraced by 1.4 billion people," he said. "You don't lump all these people with the Islamic fundamentalists." Source: Palm Beach PostH/T: Doctor Bulldog and Ronin
By Frank Gaffney, Jr. It is no secret that Team Obama is all about symbolism and messaging. So presumably it was no accident that one of the new president’s first gestures was to have a bust of Winston Churchill given to the United States by the British government removed from the Oval Office. Mr. Obama didn’t have it relocated to another prestigious location in the White House complex – say, the Cabinet Room or even the First Family’s residence. Neither did he choose to put it on display in the Smithsonian, where this likeness of the greatest honorary American could have been enjoyed and revered by the rest of us. No, President Obama had it sent back to the Brits, who would be entitled to feel offended as well as appalled. If indeed this explicit disassociation with one of the iconic heroes of the last century was meant to convey a symbolic message, the question occurs: precisely which message – and for whom was it intended? Read more ...Source: Center for Security PolicyBarack Obama
Latest recipients of the Evil Dumbass Award
 Middle East: The global stage is set for a confrontation reminiscent of Churchill vs. Hitler and Reagan vs. Gorbachev. How long will Benjamin Netanyahu tolerate an Iranian nuclear threat before acting?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clearly wants to do something with the olive branch President Barack Obama has extended to him — even if what he does is stuff it into a Shahab-3 ballistic missile and fire it at somebody.
At a mega-rally for the 30th anniversary of the Islamist revolution, Ahmadinejad echoed the president's phrase in regard to U.S.-Iran relations, "mutual respect," and conceded that the Obama administration wanted "to produce change and pursue the course of dialogue."
It is clear, Ahmadinejad added, that "the Iranian nation welcomes real changes."
But whatever grand Barack/Mahmoud summits lie ahead may have just been dealt a pre-emptive strike, courtesy of the Israeli electorate.
Bibi Netanyahu, former prime minister and current Likud Party leader, has just been asked by President Shimon Peres to form a new coalition government after the close results in the recent Knesset elections.
His coalition will undeniably be fragile, depending on the support of one or a handful of the Jewish state's tiny fringe parties. But Netanyahu used his first statement as prime minister-presumptive to send a powerful message to both Iran and the Obama administration. To the shock of many, he pointedly refused even to mention the Palestinian peace process, which has been going nowhere of late. Nor was there, again clearly deliberately, any reference made to the so-called two-state solution, which those negotiations had been aiming to find. Instead, the man who will soon once again lead the state of Israel spoke of "the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence" — Tehran's Islamofascist regime, which for years now has been pursuing a uranium enrichment program it claims to be peaceful, but which even the United Nations diplomats who seek to appease Iran know to be an unprecedented danger to the free world. Just as Netanyahu's rise back to power was announced, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — the self-styled nuclear proliferation watchdog — announced the surprise discovery of an extra 209 kilograms of low-enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. That means the fanatical regime has finally reached "nuclear breakout" and possesses enough fissile material for a bomb. Such an amount of low-enriched uranium would allow the manufacture of as much as 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, enough fuel for one nuclear device of the type that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. The IAEA has been telling the world that Iran was six months to a year away from this threshold — another illustration of the agency's incompetence, its Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding. In fact, the IAEA doesn't even know how many centrifuges Iran is manufacturing. And considering the urgency of the Iranian nuclear threat, it is incomprehensible and outrageous that the rest of the world stands for its inspections taking place only once a year. Adding to the gravity of the situation, the IAEA also reported that a new roof has been built over Iran's heavy-water reactor under construction at the city of Arak, southwest of Tehran, a facility the regime has refused to allow inspectors to examine. And the U.N. agency has found that the uranium traces discovered at the Syrian facility bombed by Israel in 2007 did not originate from the Israelis' bombs, as Syria claims. It all spells the deadliest of challenges ahead for the United States and the rest of the civilized governments of the world. It seems, however, that only one leader fully appreciates the threat. Like Churchill, Benjamin Netanyahu is calling on his political rivals to unite in a broad "national unity" coalition government.
In nullifying the Islamist nuclear threat it should not be only Israel that unites, but all of us. Source: IBD Editorials H/T: daledamos
 By Kevin Myers | 20 February
It's been a good few days for Islamicists. In Europe, an elected MEP, Geert Wilders, has been banned from Britain by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.
He had been invited to show his anti-Islamic film ‘Fitna' to MPs in the House of Commons. Since the ban, I've had the exquisite pleasure of witnessing various “British” Muslims on television welcome the ban, meanwhile hastening to add that they had not seen the film. Well, naturally.
The egregious Smith justified the ban on the grounds that Mr Wilders' presence in Britain “would threaten community harmony and therefore, public security in the UK”. In other words, if Muslims in Britain don't like something going on in the House of Commons, there will — according to the Home Secretary herself — be violence which will threaten the lives and welfare of British people.
So, what do British leaders do when confronted by such blackmail? Do? Why, they back down, of course! Never mind for a moment that on the London stage you can have Christ sodomised, or the Virgin Mary turned into a whore, as has happened in recent theatrical productions. How is such anti-Christian blasphemy acceptable? Because it is not insulting to Christians? Or because Christians, once insulted, do not take violently to the streets, in the way of “angry Muslims” (as the estimable Ian O'Doherty asked the other day: “is there any other kind?”).
So what would the wretched Smith creature have done to the author of the following words, had he tried to enter the United Kingdom?
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
The author of those sentiments (which were rediscovered by Mark Steyn) was none other than Winston Churchill, who penned them precisely 110 years ago, during his account of ‘The River War' against the Mahdi, written in early 1899.
How enchanted — but perhaps not surprised — Churchill would have been to learn that a century and a decade later, western troops — including a large body of Irish soldiers — would be trying to curtail the ravages of the neo-Mahdist terrorists of the Janjaweed. Churchill had gone almost directly to the Sudan from north-west India, where he had been serving with the Malakand Field Force against Islamicist insurgents.
So in an almost sublime coincidence, we learnt this week that what is now the Malakand District of Pakistan is to introduce Sharia law as state law.
Some 30,000 sq km, and five million people, will effectively become an autonomous Islamic republic within the secular- governed state of Pakistan. This is in return for merely a 10-day ceasefire in the terrorist campaign by Pakistan's Taliban in the Swat valley, in the course of which through an informal Taliban enforcement of Sharia law, “executions” and floggings have become commonplace.
In other words, in exchange for only a temporary ceasefire — what you might call their Sudetenland moment — Taliban have effectively taken a legal foothold in Pakistan: and no election, no police force, no popular demonstrations — (ha!) — will henceforth remove them. Thus the old despotic refrain: one-man, one-vote, one-election.
‘The Times of India' predicts this capitulation will be replicated in other regions of Pakistan's North West Frontier Provinces. “And then,” it notes grimly, “it's a leap to Islamabad.”
Quite so: and Islamabad not merely has the Bomb, but it also has four flights a week to Bradford Airport, none of whose passengers seem ever to be treated in the way that Geert Wilders MEP was at Heathrow. Islamabad's airport is (for the time being, anyway) named after Benazir Bhutto, who was, of course, murdered by al-Qa'ida/Taliban just over a year ago; and it was her husband, now president, Asif Zardari, who abjectly authorised the Malakand deal.
So who says that violence doesn't pay? In the course of a week, Shariah law imposed on Malakand and a Christian MEP banned in Britain. Thus the irreducible ratchet-effect, with no going back, either way. Source: Belfast Telegraph
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
by SIOE 
Posts
