 Avner hunted Black September operatives involved in the 1972 slaughter of eleven Israeli Olympians. He began his mission as a believer, convinced that he was securing his people and bringing their enemies to justice. Now, Avner is confused, conflicted. For every Terrorist secretly killed, Islamic retaliation eliminated an embassy, a team, a close friend. He lives in fear of being hunted, realizing that this fear, as a new shadow, will cleave to him until death. Avner stands in an empty New York City field. His Mossad handler requests that the young man return to Israel, a metaphor, of course, for calling him back to his original disposition towards hunting the killers of innocent Jewish people. Avner’s conscience cries out, “What have I accomplished? For every man I have killed, another has taken his place. Where will it end?” “I cut off my fingernails,” retorts the callous elder, “even though they will grow back.” The agent departs, refusing to break bread with the exile. The audience watches the “abandoned Jew” a moment longer, long enough to ask, “Who is right?” Should cold-blooded murderers be hunted and destroyed before they can kill again, or is this the road to endless bloodshed and mutual hatred? Steven Spielberg, who wove this story of the Israeli pursuit of Black September for his 2005 film, Munich, will force his answer on the audience. The Director had addressed the audience in an unusual, taped “Personal Message” rolled before the feature played in theaters. Spielberg presented himself as the mature, impartial poser of a question. “My movie is not intended to be a statement about the actions of Israel. I merely ask if countries intend the consequences of policies they feel compelled to adopt.” For all his apparent impartial objectivity, Spielberg pronounces a fatal sentence against Israel in the final seconds of his film. His camera abandons the remorseful, haunted Jewish executioner in his empty field and pans the New York skyline until it rests on…of course, our Towers, the next escalation in the war Israel started by having the stone-age reaction of self-preservation. “Violence” begets only violence, anguish, personal and social destruction.” It is trite. It is contrived. It is cruel. Spielberg offers no solution, only a moment of silly Hollywood propaganda.
Munich was irresponsible and transparent. It fueled the anti-War left and afforded viewers an opportunity to revel in their own moral superiority. Why, only the enlightened elite can witness, in a plush seat with Dolby sound, the butchery of Israeli youth and remain true to the cause of real pacifism! On January 15, Spielberg announced his intention to produce a documentary for the Discovery Chanel on the reconstruction of the new World Trade Center Towers, including a special commemoration of those who were killed there in 2001.
While the new Tower rises, Spielberg will be reconstructing our national understanding of what actually occurred on September 11.
We can be certain the Islamic Terrorists will be but a negligible chorus. The stars will be President Bush, stumbling about in all his culpable splendor. We will descend into Machiavellian puppetry with a leering Cheney and watch Madam the National Security Advisor against a backdrop of spider-webs.
From the comfort of the cutting room and the clear skies of Los Angeles, Mr. Spielberg will sanitize the inhuman vaporizing of three thousand friends and family members and, in keeping with the final message of Munich, make sure we leave convinced that we deserved the attacks because of the part America plays in the endless cycle of terror. NewsReal Blog 
 Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy's ideology as:
"Islamic Fundamentalism", "Islamic Extremism", "Totalitarian Islam", "Islamofascism", "Political Islam", "Militant Islam", "Bin Ladenism", "Islamonazism", "Radical Islam", "Islamism", etc....
The enemy calls it "Islam".
Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as "Radical Nazism", "Extremist Shinto" and "Militant Communism". Those who use terms other than "Islam" create the impression that it's some variant of Islam that's behind the enemy that we're facing.
A term such as "Militant Islam" is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us, "Islam means peace" -- after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name.
He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Washington's defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.
Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and state is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic ("Sharia") Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian.
Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some "extremist" form of it. If jihadists were actually "perverting a great religion", Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can't is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:
"Slay the idolators wherever you find them..." Chapter 9, verse 5
"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them...." Ch. 47:4
Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life?
This evil man is Islam's ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It's no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent. For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity that he gained power and a large gang of followers.
But he wanted his moral pretense, too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah's conveniently timed "revelation" that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad.
From then on, violence became Islam's way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad's words, "War is deceit", Muslims use earlier "peaceful" verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims.
Those "peaceful" passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.
Note also that the only reason we're talking about Islam is because we've been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam's "conscientious objectors"? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn't stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of "Moderate Islam".
Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims.
And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam.
In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy's ideology "Islam", and they dismiss the idea of "Moderate Islam" as they would the idea of "Moderate Evil". When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a "Muslim Extremist", then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.
Islam is the enemy's ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it's up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can.
If we can't even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we'd be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy's ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, "Jihadists", and our response, "The War on Jihad." But behind it all, it's Islam that makes the enemy tick.
Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam "Islam", I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it's important that we acknowledge Islam's place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying "Islam" helps Islam and hurts us. So let's begin calling the enemy's ideology by its name.
Let's start calling Islam "Islam." Bosch Fawstin is an ex-Muslim, caricature artist and the author "Propiganda", a caricature presentation of Islam. Visit his website: http://fawstin.blogspot.com/. This article appeared in Infidel Bloggers Alliance website. Thanks to Islam Watch
 [Note: This is the latest segment in an ongoing series about Code Pink and its co-founder Jodie Evans. Click here to read earlier articles.] Fresh on the heels of their Hamas-protected trip to Gaza, the so-called feminist, American antiwar group Code Pink, co-founded by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, is running banner advertisements on the English language version of the official Web site of a terrorist sympathizing group, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of which invites the Muslim Brotherhood to “join us in cleansing our country.” The ad, titled “Arrest the War Criminals” with a subhead that contains the invitation to “join us in cleansing our country” links back to a Code Pink site that calls for the kidnapping of former President George W. Bush, his wife Laura and other former members of his administration through ‘citizens arrests’ for defending America against terrorists in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda. The Jawa Report first reported the advertising in a post this morning (January 11, 2010). A check by Big Government of the front page of www.ikhwanweb.com. on Janaury 11, 2010 showed three Code Pink banner ads. One near the top, one in the middle and one at the bottom of the Muslim Brotherhood’s official English language Web site. The top one is pink-colored and promotes Code Pink’s “Women Say NO to War!” campaign and features a subhead of “Gaza Peace Delegations & More!” The middle ad features pink handcuffs to promote Code Pink’s “Arrest the War Criminals” campaign. The bottom ad promotes Code Pink’s “Gaza Freedom March” and features a sepia-toned photograph of a forlorn-looking child with a message about the march that concludes with the phrase, “Lift the Siege of Gaza!” The middle ad links directly back to Code Pink’s official Web site, codepinkalert.org, while the other two link back to Code Pink created Web sites that bear the names of the respective campaigns, womensaynotowar.org and gazafreedommarch.org. The Muslim Brotherhood published a statement by Code Pink issued in May to promote Code Pink’s trip to Gaza that month. In December, the Muslim Brotherhood published an open letter to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak by Code Pink and the Gaza Freedom March decrying the Egyptian government’s refusal to allow the group passage into Gaza. Discover the Networks provides background on the current status of the Muslim Brotherhood: In recent years, the Brotherhood has attempted to forge a reputation as a moderate and reformist Islamic group that has renounced its violent past. Lending plausibility to this reputation has been criticism of the organization by radical Islamist groups, who have condemned the Brotherhood’s willingness to participate in the political process as heretical. These groups have also criticized the Brotherhood for supposedly abandoning violent struggle as a means of establishing an Islamic empire. However, numerous statements by the Brotherhood’s leadership belie its moderate posture. Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, has repeatedly disavowed violence while concurrently pledging his support for the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah. Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef, a prominent leader of the Brotherhood, has expressed his support for suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq “in order to expel the Zionists and the Americans.” He has also denounced the United States as a “Satan,” saying: “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.”
Many other leaders of the Brotherhood have likewise justified terrorism against Israel and the United States, with many defending the September 11 terrorist attacks against America.
Jews are another common object of the Brotherhood’s hatred. Of the Jewish people, Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood, has written: “There is no dialogue between them and us other than in one language — the language of the sword and force.” Even as it is deemed insufficiently militant by some Islamist groups, the Brotherhood has had a discernible influence on contemporary jihadist terrorism.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, was a member of Muslim Brotherhood. More prominently still, Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood preacher, was a mentor to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. A recent sympathetic article on the Muslim Brotherhood was published by the Christian Science Monitor. Jodie Evans and Code Pink attempted to destabilize the Egyptian government by provoking a crisis last month over the government’s refusal to allow all 1362 ‘Gaza Freedom’ marchers to enter Gaza through Egypt. It would appear that Jodie Evans and Code Pink found an ally in Egypt in their opposition to the Mubarak government. This is how Jodie Evans repays the kindness showed by First Lady Suzanne Mubarak who came to Code Pink’s aid after Jodie Evans sent her a letter asking for help delivering the ‘humanitarian aid’ to Hamas-controlled Gaza. Code Pink’s involvement with radical Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the Middle East would be troubling enough without Jodie Evans’ close ties to President Barack Obama and his administration. Does CIA Director Leon Panetta know that a close ally of the president he serves is asking a radical Muslim group with terrorist sympathies to join them in “cleansing our country”? Big Government H/T: WeaselZippers
 WELL into a January 3 New York Times report on the US administration's increasingly worried internal discussions about Iran, there came a couple of paragraphs that warranted closer scrutiny: "[Barack] Obama's top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, published a year before resident George W. Bush left office, which said that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003. "After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the West, Mr Obama's advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale - the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel." Leaving to one side the alarming possibility that any of Obama's people ever did believe the preposterous arguments of that National Intelligence Estimate, one must wonder what sort of scale is implied by "smaller". That ostensibly reassuring usage might, in fact, be accurate. The new documents alluded to in the article were published in The Times of London last December, and have been extensively reviewed by numerous authorities, none of whom has chosen to challenge their authenticity. And the documents do, in point of fact, throw light on something smaller scale.
To be precise, they show the internal memoranda of the dictatorship as they bear on the crucial question of a neutron initiator. Small as this device may be, it is the technical expression used for the trigger mechanism of a workable nuclear weapon.
The critical element of the trigger is uranium deuteride or UD3. And uranium deuteride has no other purpose. To quote David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington: "Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application. This is a very strong indicator of weapons work." Remember the other long-concealed enrichment site at Natanz and also the heavy-water plant at Arak. And remember, too, that this is not information that derives from possibly self-interested defectors or bickering intelligence services - even the most cautious spokesmen from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been confident enough to make public criticisms of Iran's self-evident duplicity. The signature of the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei despotism on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as its supposed adherence to a whole thesaurus of agreements with the UN and the European Union, has long been shown to be as cynical and worthless as its claims to have held a free election.
The regime's Revolutionary Guards, now engaged in still another bloody battle with unarmed Iranian civilians, are emerging as the proprietors of the secret nuclear arsenal. The enemy is in plain view. I encourage you to view the Iranian documents for yourselves: The Times of London subjected them to considerable expertise before publishing them and is confident of their provenance. I quote here from an excellent summary by the newspaper's diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp: "UD3, when used in a neutron initiator, emits a stream of neutrons that ignite the core of a bomb, either weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. The stream of neutrons is released using high explosives to compress a core of solid UD3, creating fusion." But this in turn presents a difficulty for the surreptitious bomb-makers, because the testing of such a trigger could not be explained away as a detonation of a conventional high-explosive weapon. In other words, it would allow monitors to detect the traces of UD3. The whole interest of the newly leaked documents lies precisely in the way in which a further level of cheating is therefore so carefully discussed. A smaller scale of test, according to the regime's scientists, could be attempted using titanium deuteride instead. By this means, a useful flow of neutrons could still be produced but without the incriminating trace elements. The apparent idea, according to one quoted expert, was "to test the match without burning it". The chance that this is not a militaristic and messianic design intended to harden the carapace of the dictatorship and help extend its powers of regional blackmail seem ridiculously close to zero. Iran has had numberless offers from the West to help it acquire the faculties of peaceful nuclear energy and reduce its wasteful use of oil and gas. If it would permit the most elementary transparency, it could also be enabled to purchase uranium at far less cost on the open market, as other nations do. But the mullahs prefer to risk isolation and sanctions in order to construct off-the-record sites and to conduct deception operations that would be almost pathetically crude if they were not so self-evidently sinister. (It also disdains to hide its real intentions from its clients and surrogates: at a Hezbollah rally in Beirut last year, I was impressed to see that the brand new poster of the Party of God is a mushroom cloud; officials from the Iranian embassy were openly on the podium at this uplifting event.) How fascinating it is to sit at home and watch while this menace is permitted to reach the point of no return. Almost as gripping, in fact, as following the jaunty itineraries of suicide-murderers as they calmly buy their one-way tickets, in cash, on airplanes bound for our cities.
The similarity between these two passive experiences is quite riveting as well: in both instances, we lavish billions of dollars on intelligence agencies that cannot make sense of elementary forensic evidence; that coddle and excuse our enemies and treat us like criminals when we ourselves try to travel; that meanwhile leave us unprotected under open skies; and that run a full-employment bureaucracy from which it seems nobody can be, or ever has been, fired. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the online Slate magazine, where this column originally appeared. He is the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, California. The Australian
 "The President's Daily Brief...is shared with such an extraordinarily small number of people who are in a need-to-know situation, a need-to-know position, so they can use that information to protect the country, to prevent the next possible attack." Not anymore. Yet another Which-Side-Is-Obama-On Alert: "Obama Imperils Intel Briefings," by Theodore Kettle for Newsmax, January 3: President Barack Obama's executive order last Tuesday to declassify millions of secret U.S. government document delighted left-wing "open government" groups, but it may render impotent one of the intelligence community's most vital tools: the President's Daily Brief, or PDB. Described as "the most highly sensitized classified document in the government," every one of the overnight-written reports the commander-in-chief receives each morning from the CIA and other spy agencies, going back decades, would eventually be required by law to be revealed under Obama's newly-established National Declassification Center within the National Archives. As the White House describes the massively lengthy executive order, which approaches 13,000 words, "For the first time, it establishes the principle that no records may remain classified indefinitely and provides enforceable deadlines for declassifying information exempted from automatic declassification at 25 years." According to the president's order, "No information may remain classified indefinitely." And while much of the order does not take effect until mid-2010, some provisions do, such as the directive that "all classified records that (1) are more than 25 years old and (2) have been determined to have permanent historical value under Title 44, United States Code, shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed."... Obama's order last week revokes both the Clinton and Bush executive orders, effective by the middle of this year.... Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, in a May 2002 press conference, warned of the consequences of scrapping the rule that PDBs never become public. Fleischer described "the overall principle about the President's Daily Brief, which is shared with such an extraordinarily small number of people who are in a need-to-know situation, a need-to-know position, so they can use that information to protect the country, to prevent the next possible attack." Bush, Fleischer added, was "concerned with the fact that if the presidential daily brief, which is a highly sensitized - the most highly sensitized classified document in the government - if that document were to be at risk of public reporting, public release, the people who prepare it will hold back and not give the president of the United States, the person who needs the most information, they will be inclined to give him less, rather than more, because they fear it will get made public, and that could compromise sources or methods."... Has Obama now constructed a wall between himself and U.S. spy agencies, discouraging them from being candid about terrorism threats in their daily briefings - not only to him, but to future presidents? Thanks to JihadWatch
 As we look back on the past ten years, it is clear that we are now entering a post-American decade. How did it all go so wrong so quickly?
The year 2000 kicked off with the Democrat ruse of a "stolen election" -- this from the racketeering party of ACORN -- but thankfully, it was not stolen after all. George W. Bush took the reins, but soon thereafter came the culmination of all the Islamic attacks on the U.S. during the Clinton years. Islam's fatwa on the West during the Clinton administration came home to New York and Washington on September 11th.
And while the Bush Doctrine (you are either with us or against us) was the right approach, the well dressed jihadists that Islamists like Grover Norquist ushered into the White House after 9/11 managed to sabotage the best strategy to fight Islamic jihad. The cowboy swagger set against the whole fantasy about the hijacking of Islam and the "religion of peace" nonsense was irreconcilable. It confused people. And it led to the marginalization and even dismissals of brave men and women who evaluated and exposed the jihadist ideology in our government agencies. Who can forget the case of counter-jihad expert Steve Coughlin, the Pentagon's most knowledgeable specialist on Islamic Law and jihad terrorism? The Pentagon ended the career of its most effective analyst at the behest of a Muslim aide, Hesham Islam, within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Islam scholar Andrew Bostom observed that Couglin's firing was symptomatic "of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global jihadism."
In February 2009, former Bush administration official Douglas Feith told me that that kind of rot is systemic. He recalled that an Office of Strategic Influence was created within his Pentagon office to fight the ideological war -- but then "somebody leaked -- well, leaked, no. No, somebody lied to the New York Times and gave a report saying that this Office of Strategic Influence was intending to lie to foreign journalists. And the New York Times ran a front-page story saying that. It caused a big imbroglio that resulted in the shutting down of this office. I don't think the U.S. government has recovered to this day from that fiasco, because every time anyone suggested creating an office to really deal with jihadist ideology in a systematic or strategic way at the Pentagon, people would say, oh, no, we are not going to have another Office of Strategic Influence problem."
And so the drip, drip, drip of jihad continued through the last decade. We became more paralyzed, impotent, and deceived. Meanwhile, the Leftist/Islamic alliance, a deadly marriage between the Democratic Party and their propaganda handmaidens in the mainstream media, engaged in daily beatings of Bush and his administration.
Removing Saddam Hussein was good. There is no way around that powerful truth. But why stop there? Removing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well would have been even better. But Bush lost his mojo in 2006. The relentless pounding by the Left, Israel's halfhearted performance in the war with Hezb'allah in the summer of 2006, and the loss of the House and the Senate in November 2006 all contributed to the rout.
But what really led to the downfall of Bush's leadership was the falsity of his premise. He wanted to believe, like Condi and Powell and the soft diplomacy crowd, that Islam would negotiate with the West. Islam cannot negotiate. Yet still the West continues its pursuit of the impossible, despite great risk. This is a function of the Western mind. These people think it inconceivable that talk can't solve anything and everything, that war is an indelible part of the human condition. But it is. War is as much in the makeup of man as sex, food, art, love, all of it.
And wars must be fought. They will not disappear, but we will.
Of course, we know this. But the Left, our in-house enemy, demonizes any war that America chooses to fight. The egregious, horrible crimes of Mao, Stalin, bin Laden, Che, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ahmadinejad, et al, which are so heinous and so enormous, are in their terrible minds a historical footnote. They become cultural icons for the "radical chic." Cold-blooded monsters have co-opted our country.
And so successful was the Left at infiltrating our government, schools, and institutions that eight years after the most heinous attack on American soil, we elected an icon of our mortal enemy. A Kenyan, Indonesian, third-worldish boulevardier with as much understanding of the American experience as any foreign national. Don't call me a racist for calling him what he is -- I am not interested in the color of his skin, but in the content of his character. His lack of experience in all relevant areas to the office of the president is breathtaking. And his bowing to Islam and our enemies worldwide is disastrous.
Bush's premise was false, but Bush was a patriot. Bush loved America, and he protected America, even if he refused to see the enemy for who and what it was. It was no accident that America was safe for eight years post-9/11. Eight years of safety is cracking apart now under a weak and pro-Islamic president. The jihadi attacks on America in 2009 were staggering. And it has only just begun. Dismantling the Bush protections against jihad and launching attacks on Americans, bloggers, tea partiers, town hallers, patriots, and vets is incomprehensible -- and if I hadn't lived through it, I wouldn't believe it possible.
I pray that America examines the Left decade and takes stock. It was the appeasement of the Left that destroyed the foundations of this country. We must rebuild them. The advancement of Islam would never have been possible -- could never have happened -- without our surrender to the Left. The real war is against the Leftist/Islamic alliance.
This is a fighting year.
Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America (Simon and Schuster).
 In his weekly radio address yesterday, President Barack Obama patted himself on the back for having "refocused the fight - bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks". He then told people to remember that "our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans", before decrying "fear and cynicism" and "partisanship and division" - the code phrases for horrid Republicans used during his 2008 election campaign. Complacency, faux moralising and partisan shots at Republicans. It was a neat summary of where Obama is going wrong after the Christmas Day debacle when the Nigerian knicker bomber managed to waltz onto a Detroit-bound flight. For a man who campaigned denouncing the politicisation of national security under President George W Bush, it is worth noting how intensely political Obama's treatment of what might henceforth be known as Underpantsgate has been. His White House recognised its political vulnerability more readily than it comprehended the level of danger faced by Americans. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father had courageously contacted the American Embassy in Abuja in November and met the CIA station chief to tell him that his son was involved with fundamentalist elements in Yemen. American intelligence had also intercepted discussions in Yemen about a possible attack by "the Nigerian". The Obama administration knew most, if not all, of this by last Sunday, 48 hours after the attack was thwarted. But the priority in Obamaland was to play things down and take pot shots at the Bush administration. Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security chief – who prefers the term "man-caused disasters" to "terrorism" - blithely stated that there was "no indication that it is part of anything larger". She then insisted that the "system is working". Although Napolitano has taken a lot of flak for these comic utterances, she was not "misspeaking" but trotting out the agreed talking points of the day. Robert Gibbs, Obama's chief mouthpiece, also stated that "in many ways this system has worked" and would say nothing about a possible wider plot. In Hawaii, where Obama was holidaying, Gibbs's deputy Bill Burton told the press that "we are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us" and that Obama was reviewing "procedures that have been in place the last several years" (i.e. Bush instituted them). He added, without apparent irony, that "the President refuses to play politics with these issues". Meanwhile, the White House was working overtime to build a case against Bush. A source in the White House counsel's office told The American Spectator of memos frantically seeking information that would "show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could". Republicans smell blood. There is a pattern in the Obama administration of dismissing Islamist terrorist attacks as regrettable random acts. In his radio address after Major Nidal Hassan's slaughtered 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, Obama made no mention of terrorism or militant Islam, instead blandly promising that the "ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy" would "look at the motives of the alleged gunman". Hassan was a committed Islamist who had corresponded with the fanatical Yemeni imam Anwar al-Awlaki. In June, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert being watched by the FBI and who had previously travelled to Yemen, murdered a US Army recruit in Arkansas. That rated only a tepid statement by Obama about a "senseless act of violence". But the violence wasn't senseless, it had a calculated objective - just as Abdulmutallab was not, as Obama described him, an "isolated extremist".
No wonder many Americans want to grab Obama by the lapels and scream: "It's the Jihad, stupid." Dick Cheney, the former vice-president, clearly struck a nerve when he charged last week that Obama was "trying to pretend we are not at war". More at the Telegraph
 Coming on the heels of the killing spree by Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, the latest terrorist "incident," involving Abdul Mutallab on Northwest Flight 253, is yet another isolated but tell-tale sign that we must learn from: 1) If solidly middle-class Westernized Muslims mouth the al-Qaeda line of radical Islamic, anti-American boilerplate, please take them seriously — i.e., worry less about their feelings and more about the lives of innocents they may in the future seek to annihilate. The more upscale and the more the Western exposure, the more there is to worry about. 2) For the last eight years, many have patiently tried to suggest that the answer to "Why do they hate us?" does not entail poverty, Western imperialism or colonialism, support for Israel, past provocations, etc.
Rather, radical Islam encourages in an Hasan or Mutallab age-old passions like pride, envy, and a sense of inferiority — all accelerated by instantaneous communications and abetted by continual Western apologetics that on a global level blame Westerners for self-induced misery in many Islamic countries. "They did it" is far easier than looking inward to address tribalism, gender apartheid, statism, autocracy, religious intolerance, and fundamentalism, which in perfect-storm fashion ensure an impoverished — and resentful and angry — radical Islamic community while the rest of the world moves merrily on. 3) I think the year-long mantra of "Bush destroyed the Constitution" is now almost over, and we will begin again worrying about our collective safety rather than scoring partisan points by citing supposed excesses in our anti-terrorism efforts.
With the delay in closing Guantanamo (from the promised shuttering on Jan. 20, 2010 to . . . sometime in 2011?), Obama's quiet copy-catting of Bush security protocols (such as wiretaps, intercepts, tribunals, and renditions), and the popular outcry against the upcoming show trial of KSM in New York, a public consensus is growing that radical Muslims like Hasan and Mutallab will continue to attempt to kill Americans.
Citizens increasingly understand that the last eight years of relative safety following 9/11 were due only to heightened security at home and proactive use of force abroad, that we should cease trying to appease radical Islam by dreaming up new euphemisms ("overseas contingency operations," "man made disasters," etc.), and that it is time to stop the apologetics and kowtowing, and grudgingly accept that thousands of radical Islamic fundamentalists worldwide want to kill Americans — and dozens of governments, at least on the sly, hope that they do.
Such venom has nothing to do with past American behavior or George Bush's strut, nor can it be ameliorated on the cheap by Barack Obama's Nobel Prize, middle name, or reset-button diplomacy. 4) As we learned on 9/11, it is often the unsung heroes among us that come out of the shadows to aid us, and not necessarily large bureaucracies entrusted with our safety. Individuals acting on their own so often make the difference between salvation and mass murder. 5) After the embarrassing debate about Hasan (e.g., "Was he a terrorist?"; second-hand post-traumatic stress syndrome, etc.), I don't think the public will put up with similar contextualization about Mutallab.
6) The politics of anti-terrorism in this administration will insidiously begin to change, given that there was no repeat of 9/11 between 2001 and 2009 — and that thereafter, signs began to emerge that radical Muslims were reenergized and eager to trump their feat of eight years ago.
In such a climate, one must worry more about the passengers on Flight 253 and less about whether self-confessed mass murderer and beheader KSM is given a public venue to explain his hatred of the United States, and is granted rights usually not accorded to such out-of-uniform and self-proclaimed terrorist enemies.
So a little more "Beware of radical Muslim terrorists who want to murder us — and won't!" and a little less chest-thumping about dropping the supposedly retrograde "War on Terror."
 When former President George W. Bush spoke to terrorists his message was simple and clear: We will hunt you down and kill you! Period, end of story. W’s “clenched fist” kept America safe for nearly eight years following the 9.11 attack. Regrettably, since Barack Obama was sworn is at the 44th U.S. President, the message to terrorists is: - Unclench your fists and let us talk
- Terrorists will be treated with the same dignity and politically correct manners afforded any American citizen
- Terrorists will be read their Miranda rights, provided with taxpayer-paid legal representation, and will be allowed to broadcast their anti-American, Jihad messages from the great media center that is New York City
- Terrorists are guilty of crimes which will be adjudicated in civilian courts rather than military tribunals, even for thugs like KSM who master-minded the 9.11 attack
- America is NOT a Christian nation—so fret not about your background in Islamofascism
- All things considered, 9.11 was justifiable and understandable. Let’s talk.
Obama’s unilateral unclenching of America’s mighty fist does not seem to have resonated. In just eleven months, a Muslim at Fort Hood has killed thirteen fellow soldiers. And an Al-Qaeda devotee tried to blow up an airplane headed to Detroit. In addition, nothing has been done to address Iran and its drive toward nuclear weapons. President Bush kept us safe for almost eight years; Obama has squandered home land security in order to pacify leftists who continue to operate under the illusion that Islam is a Religion of Peace.
Moonbats who voted for Obama need to answer a fundamental question: Is America safer today than it was before noon on January 20, 2009 Period, end of story.
 Obama's Nobel "lecture" offers critics the usual cornucopia of opportunities for criticism but I shall focus on just two statements: "I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars."
And here I thought there were three wars. Obama's two are Iraq and Afghanistan; missing is what George W. Bush termed the "war on terror" and I call the "war on radical Islam." Obama apparently reduces that third one to Al-Qaeda and counts it as just part of the Afghan war. His mistake has real consequences; long after American troops have left Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamists will be attacking and subverting us. If we don't see their efforts as a war, we lose. "Religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam."
Here, Obama follows his predecessor in presenting himself as an interpreter of Islam.
I ridiculed "Imam Bush" for telling Muslims about true Islam and its distortion, and now I must ridicule "Sheikh Obama" for the same. He's a politician, not a theologian. He's now a Christian, not a Muslim.
He should steer completely clear from the topic of who are good or bad Muslims. Daniel Pipes
 The emirate of Dubai has in the past few decades been more than a shiny example of glitzy capitalism and the insulation from the repercussions (and responsibilities) of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has represented the type of political model which has been promoted to the Arabs, by their rulers and by the West. When George W Bush, the former US president, visited the United Arab Emirates during his last year in office, he praised Dubai and its models of economic and political prosperity; he promoted the UAE's mantra and ethos as glimmers of hope to the new generation of Arabs. It took the former president little more than a few hours during his stop-over to assess the conditions in the region, and to reach his conclusions: resistance to Israel clashes with the type of prosperity that was prevalent in Dubai. Dubai hit a dramatic rise in the 1990s and became a success story that was carefully calibrated, promoted and disseminated in the Arab media and collective psyche. Daniel Pipes, who has a reputation for hostility towards Arabs and Muslims, was interviewed two years ago in the Jerusalem Post praising Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, after the release of his memoirs. There was not one word about Palestine in that book which nevertheless offered a recipe of unregulated and unrestricted capitalism. Dubai was supposed to be the antithesis of Palestine. It was designed to create a concrete Utopia that would encourage all young Arabs to forget about their political aspirations and dreams. In Lebanon, the March 14 opposition movement has been posing this question to the Lebanese people for three years: Hanoi or Dubai? But Hanoi is today a far more promising model than Dubai. Not only has Hanoi been liberated from foreign occupation and a corrupt puppet regime, but it has also become part of a sovereign country with a record of fast economic growth. Much has been written about Dubai and even more will be written about the emirate which was positioned as the success story that all Arabs were to emulate. However, its success is not based on sound economic or classical political theories. It was in fact a projection of what the West wanted to see in the Middle East. This projection represented the fruits of US co-operation with Middle Eastern governments, especially in the realm of defence and national security. Dubai was more important for the US due to military intelligence co-operation than for its lavish seven-star hotels. Dubai was supposed to be a vision but one not rooted in the productive sectors of the economy. There were early warnings of the debacle that struck Dubai World - too much glitz and ostentation and little attention to a careful building of culture and economy that reflect the region. There was a rush to build multi-billion dollar artificial ski slopes and playgrounds for the very rich of the world. But Dubai did not want to be part of the region, politically speaking. Instead it modelled itself as a copy of Las Vegas in the heart of the Arab Middle East. Dubai carefully steered away from all the issues that alarmed and agitated Arab public opinion. More at Al Jazeera
 by Khaled Abu ToamehNow it’s official: the honeymoon between the Palestinians and the administration of President Barack Obama is over. It was a honeymoon that lasted for nearly one year.
Many Palestinians were convinced that because of his color and background, Obama “was on our side.” They believed that in the White House there was finally a president who was more sympathetic to their causes and who would abandon Washington’s “bias” in favor of Israel.
Over the past year, mainstream Palestinian and Arab media outlets had been heaping praise on Obama, especially what they perceived to be his hostile attitude toward settlement construction. Reports about a crisis in relations bewteen the US and Israel were welcomed by many. It is hard to remember when the last time a US president had received positive coverage in the Arab media.
The Palestinians and Arabs liked Obama especially because he was not George W. Bush.
They liked him because he said he would close Guatanamo Prison. They liked him because he traveled all the way to Cairo to address Arabs and Muslims and offer them an olive branch. They adored him because he seemed to be exerting heavy pressure on Israel.
Now, however, they feel betrayed by the Obama Administration. They have discovered that Obama is actually “continuing the Bush doctrine” with regards to the Middle East conflict. As far as they are concerned, Obama has “succumbed to pressure from the Jewish lobby in the US.”
 By Jim Hoft ** Here is the video.
This was a new low for the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.
Louis Farrakhan blamed George Bush for the Fort Hood massacre.
He also spread hateful anti-American propaganda during his recent interview on Aljazeera.
FOX Nation and MEMRI reported:
Following are excerpts from an interview with “Nation of Islam” Leader Louis Farrakhan, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on November 6, 2009. The sub-titles follow the English original, where audible. Interviewer: Let us begin with the most recent development on the American front, and the racial discrimination against Muslims and their persecution – the incident associated with Mr. Nidhal Hassan, a Muslim psychiatrist of Arab origin, who killed 13 soldiers at the US Fort Hood base. To what extent might this incident affect the Muslims in the US and make them targets of persecution?
[...] Louis Farrakhan: As you know, since 9/11, in America and in other parts of the world, those anti-Islamic forces have stepped up their efforts to make Muslims… to cause the Muslims to be looked at as uncivilized, savage, or wicked people. This is an attempt by anti-Islamic forces, and some members of the Jewish community, and some members of the Christian community, who have united to condemn Islam and to speak ill of our Prophet Muhammad, and to even go so far as to say that the Muslims worship the devil.
[...] It is because, my dear brothers and sisters, Islam was making so much progress in the United States that those anti-Islamic forces are trying to stem the tide of the progress of Islam.
[...] This recent unfortunate event, which took place at the Fort Hood base in Texas, has only added fuel to the fire. On behalf of all the Muslims in the Muslim world, we are saddened by the loss of these 13 American soldiers and the thirty others who were wounded in the incident. No human being would be pleased to see that kind of slaughter, coming from a fellow officer in the US army. However, we have to look at Major Nidhal Hassan. What happened to him? What kind of stress was he under? What kind of insults had he borne?
[...] When there are Muslims who love America, and who join the armed forces to protect America, and to serve the interests of America, and then America, unfortunately, under the falsehoods of the George. W. Bush administration, launches attacks against Iraq and against Afghanistan, and now, those soldiers are killing Muslims… So when they go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the kind of hatred that is built up in the American forces, when they call the Muslims “ragheads” and “desert niggers,” and then, in the Abu Ghureib prison, Muslim women were raped, and Muslim men were sodomized… All this affects Muslims serving in the army. So when you are being insulted by your superior officers or by your fellow soldiers, at some point, a person might break. Unfortunately, I believe this is what happened to Captain Nidhal Hassan. With thanks to Gateway Pundit H/T: Jared
 President Obama came in for growing criticism over the weekend for his “insensitive” handling of the bloody shoot-out in Fort Hood, Texas, where 13 people were killed by a Muslim officer in the US Army. Mr Obama is not scheduled to arrive at America’s largest military base until tomorrow to attend a memorial service for victims of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who opened fire on a group of unarmed soldiers. The President’s jarring absence from Fort Hood — in contrast to a low-key visit by the former president George Bush on Friday — is not the only element of his response to the tragedy that is bothering his critics, Democrats and Republicans alike. In particular, much has been made of a transcript of the press conference where Mr Obama first gave his official response to the mass shooting. The President opened his remarks — he was attending a Tribal Nations Conference for America’s 564 federally recognised Native American tribes — with jocular “shout-outs” to various people in the audience. Only later did he turn his attention to the attack, saying: “I planned to make some broader remarks. But as some of you have heard, there has been a tragic shooting.” Unusually, the liberal Boston Globe agreed. In an editorial at the weekend the newspaper said: “It takes more than scripted eloquence for Presidents to connect with fellow Americans. It requires a visceral ability to grasp the scope of tragedy, calculate its impact on the national psyche, and react swiftly. Obama missed the first moment to show he understood how much it hurt.” As further details emerged about the shooting — including allegations that Major Hasan felt persecuted for his Muslim faith, and had stood on a table and shouted “Allahu Akbar!” (God is greatest) before opening fire — opinion was divided on whether or not it could be classified as a terrorist attack. The Army’s top officer, General George Casey, did not rule it out in an ABC News television interview, saying only: “We all want to know what happened and what motivated the suspect, but I think we need to be very, very careful. Speculation could potentially heighten a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. What happened at Ford Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.” Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said that he would begin an investigation into the mass shooting. The names of all 13 victims have been released, and accounts of the massacre are emerging as family members of survivors talk to the press. The suspect is thought to be in a coma. Source: Times Online
 Many Egyptians had fallen in love with the new young American president with an Arabic middle name. Some even picked up the "Yes we can" slogan. His appeal was fueled by an almost unanimous dislike for his predecessor, George W. Bush, widely perceived in the region as a Christian fundamentalist leading an anti-Muslim crusade. But that was then.
Euphoria has a short shelf life in the Middle East, and Barack Obama is not exempt.
To gauge reaction among Egyptian intellectuals to the news, I called Hisham Qassim, a democracy and human rights activist I've known for many years. He was perplexed at the news from Norway. President Obama, he said, "is stumbling in the Middle East. He hasn't achieved any of his promises, and the Arab-Israeli conflict appears to be getting even nastier." In short, he said, "nothing is working." One winner of the Nobel peace prize Egyptians continue to admire is former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002. After personally overseeing prolonged and painstaking negotiations between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Carter brokered the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords. It was the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country, and one a majority of Egyptians still believe was a major landmark in their long history. Egyptians contrast Carter's intensive involvement in peace efforts with Obama's stab at peace-making between Israel and the Palestinians. After initially demanding Israel halt all settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Obama administration softened its stand after running into a concrete wall of opposition from hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration is seen, not only in Egypt but also across the Arab world, as following in the footsteps of so many previous American administrations, caving in to Israeli intransigence. It hardly augurs well for peace in the Middle East, especially at a time when tensions are simmering in Jerusalem, with some wondering if a third Palestinian intifada is in the making. Read more here,,,, Source: CNN
 CAIRO — Al Qaeda's deputy leader in a video released Sunday paid tribute to a senior militant who was held in U.S. secret prisons and once gave information about links between the terror group and Iraq that was later deemed false. In his 10-minute video, Ayman al-Zawahri eulogized Ali Mohammed Abdel-Aziz al-Fakheri, a Libyan militant with the nom de guerre of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
The militant reportedly hanged himself with bedsheets in his prison cell in Libya in May, according to a newspaper with ties to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son. Al-Libi, which means Libyan in Arabic, was captured in Pakistan in 2001 and later sent to Egypt under the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, where he was reportedly tortured and then handed over to Libya. In the video, Al-Zawahri, dressed in a white traditional Arab robe and white turban, accused President Barack Obama of killing al-Libi and demanded the U.S. "apologize and pay financial and moral compensation" for those who have been detained in secret prisons. "This is the least to be accepted from you and from your government," al-Zawarhi said, addressing Obama. Al Qaeda 's no. 2 leader said the U.S. and Arab governments working with Washington tortured al-Libi before eventually handing him over to Libya "to carry on the torture." Al-Libi was then killed, al-Zawahri said, "on behalf of the American criminal monster, who fools us as the smiling Obama who seeks peace and the defender of human rights." Many experts believe that Al Qaeda is struggling in the face of Obama's popularity in the Muslim world — especially compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush — and the terror network has frequently sought to portray Obama's policies as a mere extension of Bush's. Read more here,,,, Source: FoxNews
 THE Iraqi journalist who was jailed for throwing his shoes at George W Bush says he wants to move to Switzerland and rally Iraqis to take the ex-US president to court. "I really want to go to Switzerland because it is a neutral country and because it is a country that did not support the occupation of Iraq," Muntazer al-Zaidi told TSR television in an interview broadcast overnight. "Switzerland hosts many international organisations, including some that fight for children, and Switzerland is a country that has a great democratic tradition. It is an example for the world," he said in an interview taped on Thursday from an undisclosed location. Mr Zaidi, who says he was tortured while in prison, was freed last week after being jailed for nine months for hurling the shoes at Mr Bush last December during a Baghdad press conference one month before he stood down as US president. His employer, Al-Baghdadia TV station in Baghdad, and a family member have said that Mr Zaidi had left Iraq for Syria and would travel on to Greece for medical treatment. Mr Zaidi told TSR that he wants to launch a "vast operation" to rally Iraqi families in order to lodge a legal complaint against Bush. Mr Bush and his collaborators should face trial in an international tribunal for "war crimes committed during the occupation of Iraq," he said. Mr Zaidi told the Swiss broadcaster that he was beaten with metal bars, tortured with electric cables and endured simulated drowning during his detention. A lawyer in Geneva said in February that he had lodged a political asylum application on Mr Zaidi's behalf. But one of Mr Zaidi's brothers had denied this at the time, calling it a "lie." The newsman was initially sentenced to three years for assaulting a foreign head of state, but had this reduced to one year on appeal. His sentence was cut further for good behaviour. Source: The Australian
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Avner hunted Black September operatives involved in the 1972 slaughter of eleven Israeli Olympians. He began his mission as a believer, convinced that he was securing his people and bringing their enemies to justice.
Posts
