Sunday, October 05, 2008

Taking the Jihad Temperature - A Gathering Storm Special Series - DISINFORMATION

If you throw a frog into boiling water, he will jump out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will not notice the rise in temperature and will eventually boil. 

The Islamists are boiling our frog and though this blog and hundreds like it record almost daily the rise in the Jihad temperature, unless we see how far and fast the temperature has risen, we will not know how far along our boiling has progressed. 

So, the Gathering Storm will be posting only once a week but these weekly posts will take the Jihadist temperature by looking back at news and events over the last two years. Over the next several weeks in the areas of intimidationinfiltrationdisinformation and those appeasers and apologists who either knowingly or unknowingly advance the Jihad agenda, the Gathering Storm will show how far our frog has been boiled. 

By seeing the boiling water around us, we can see how far the boiling has progressed. 

The good news is that we are noticing that the water is getting warmer. There is a glimmer of awareness here - a glimmer of hope there. But we have a long way to go. 

Here’s this week’s look back at the rising Jihad temperature of DISINFORMATION !! And remember – this is just a sampling of Jihadist Disinformation. More to follow.

Jesus Christ as "history's first ... suicide bomber".

A leading children's publisher has dumped a novel because of political sensitivity over Islamic issues.

  • Scholastic Australia pulled the plug on the Army of the Pure after booksellers and librarians said they would not stock the adventure thriller for younger readers because the "baddie" was a Muslim terrorist. A prominent literary agent has slammed the move as "gutless", while the book's author, award-winning novelist John Dale, said the decision was "disturbing because it's the book's content they are censoring". "There are no guns, no bad language, no sex, no drugs, no violence that is seen or on the page," Dale said, but because two characters are Arabic-speaking and the plot involves a mujaheddin extremist group, Scholastic's decision is based "100 per cent (on) the Muslim issue".

Now contrast that with this. Hold your cookies. Deranged mind at work.

  • This decision is at odds with the recent publication of Richard Flanagan's bestselling The Unknown Terrorist and Andrew McGahan's Underground in which terrorists are portrayed as victims driven to extreme acts by the failings of the West. The Unknown Terrorist is dedicated to David Hicks and describes Jesus Christ as "history's first ... suicide bomber".

Who are these people?! What are they thinking?

Maybe someone like this.

  • In a shocking interview with the Jerusalem Post, UN High Commissioner for Human (Arab) Rights Louise Arbour implies that Israel is more culpable than Hezbollah for civilian deaths during the Lebanon war. This despite the fact that Hezbollah intentionally targeted civilians while Israel did not. This despite the fact that Hezbollah used human shields while Israel did not. Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.

"She claims that accidental deaths caused by Israel are more criminal that the intentional deaths caused by Hezbollah."

In her never ending quest to vilify Israel, Arbour knows no boundaries. She visits the relatives of dead terrorists while refusing to meet the relatives of kidnapped Israelis. She is willing to hang the victims and exonerate the criminals. Louise Arbour is truly a shining star of the UN.

And Whose Fault Is It Really?

India is moving ahead but majority of Muslims continue to live in poverty, superstition, insecurities in the collective shells of their ghettoes, not only in India but also throughout the world. This reality will not change by mouthing slogans and blaming others for Muslim underdevelopment.”

This quote comes from a review of a committee report by a Retd. Justice Sachar in India. The report is enlightening placing the fault of Muslims living in India to progress in one of the fasted growing economies in the world. So, who’s responsible for the backward state of Muslims in India? This litany of reasons apply to all Muslims in all non-Muslim countries who refuse to assimilate.

  • EDUCATION: If even the most illiterate and poor Indian believes that the govt schools are open for everyone and modern education can bring about change and prosperity to their lives, why Muslims still prefer to shy away from education or send their children to Madarsas, where all they learn is ‘majhabi’ education? In these Madarsas, no vocational training is given and those coming out of them are fit for becoming Islamic teachers only.
  • MISPLACED PRIORITIES: Do Muslims ever object to Haj subsidy and insist the govt to open schools and hospitals for them from this money? Has the Muslim society ever questioned the failure of the Muslim leadership to use the huge funds it receives from abroad to build modern schools and colleges for them, instead of mosques?
  • EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE FOR MUSLIMS: When job opportunities –in govt, private sectors, Armed Forces and judiciary-- are equally available on the basis of merit only, how can anyone claim that there’s discrimination against Muslims? How come so many Muslim actors of the Mumbai film industry have been able to conquer the Indian audience if there is discrimination against them? The industry doesn’t care about how well the candidate knows the Koran, the hadiths and other Islamic things. If the Muslims bothered to study things other than religion, then they stand a much better chance of getting jobs. And, if they’re educated, they stand a better chance of getting a loan from the banks for their business.
  • FEMALE EQUALITY: When female literacy and education is becoming increasingly important throughout the world, why 50% of Muslims are not getting their rights of equality by the Muslim society? Muslims don’t want to give equal rights to their womenfolk, who’re constantly under attack from their patriarchal family heads. Muslim women are not allowed to educate themselves, are forced to drop out of schools, are married off early, are not allowed to use family planning methods to limit their families and are under constant threat of divorce.
  • FAMILY PLANNING: When every strata of Indian society are adopting family planning, why Muslims find it against their religious laws and continue to live in poverty due to the large size of their families and supporting the thesis that Muslims want to outnumber others by fast-breeding?
  • HEALTHCARE: When every Indian is adopting modern healthcare to enhance the quality of life, why Muslim society adopts superstitious stance on health programs like ‘Pulse Polio’?
  • NOT MERGING WITH MAINSTREAM: Muslims don’t merge with the mainstream of majority society anywhere they live and are conspicuous by their dressing habits, special food habits, beards, skullcaps, 5-times Namaz and their insistence on veils for their womenfolk even in this 21st Century. Muslims don’t want to bring about social changes in their society and any efforts by any well-meaning ones, including those within, is rejected as an encroachment and insult to their religion. No wonder that even in liberal countries in Europe and USA, Muslims are considered anachronistic and out of touch with modernity.
  • OTHER MINORITIES HAVE NO PROBLEMS: Why other minorities like Parsis, Jains, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists never complain about discrimination? Why is it that other minorities do not find any problem in getting access to education and jobs either in public or in private sector? There is no reservation for these classes of people in Government or public sector jobs and yet they are rubbing shoulders with the majority.

Hand this to a Lefty Dhimmicrat or Islamist Muslim next time they claim that Muslims are being discriminated against and are an oppressed minority.

Terrorist TV

It’s 1942. The TV networks, ABC, CBS and NBC are running propaganda speeches and pro-opinion pieces on Nazism. Absurd, right? No broadcasting network would be allowed to serve such blatant propaganda and misinformation from the enemy in time of war.

Fast forward 50 odd years and we see it happening right before our eyes. And the enemy mouthpiece freely admits what they are doing and are jeered on by the liberal left as an example of free speech in this country. How far we have devolved in our ideas of fighting a war brought on by the political failures of Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

Pierre Heumann of the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche spoke with Al-Jazeera Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Sheikh in Doha. This revealing interview appears here in English for the first time - a master of misinformation and double talk. Goebbels would be proud.


Mr. Sheikh, as the Editor in Chief of Al-Jazeera, you are one of the most important opinion-makers in the Arab world. What do you call suicide bombers?
For what is happening in Palestine, we never use the _expression "suicide bombing."

What do you call it then?
In English, I would describe it as "bombings."

And in Arabic?
Literally translated, we would speak of "commando attacks." In our culture, it is precisely not suicide.

But instead a praiseworthy act?
When the country is occupied and the people are being killed by the enemy, everyone must take action, even if he sacrifices himself in so doing.

Even if in so doing he kills innocent civilians?
That is not a Palestinian problem, but a problem of the Israelis.

You're avoiding the question.
Not at all. When the Israeli Army attacks, it kills civilians. An army should be able to distinguish between military and civilian targets. But how many innocent people did it kill in Beit Hanoun? And then they justify this in saying that the grenade went astray, that there was a technical problem or something. But who believes that?

There's a difference between Palestinian "commando actions" and Israeli military operations. In the one case, the aim is to kill as many civilians as possible; in the other, it is exclusively a matter of military targets.

Oh really? If the Israelis made such mistakes only once or twice a year, I would agree with you and say that it didn't happen intentionally. But such mistakes happen every week. There are three possible explanations for this: either the military equipment is not up to date or the soldiers are badly trained and do not know how to use their weapons or they do it intentionally. Now, we know that the Israelis get the best weaponry from the American arsenal and that the soldiers are well trained. That leaves, then, only one conclusion: they do it intentionally.

You come originally from Nablus: a city that was occupied by the Israelis in 1967. In 1968 you left your homeland to study in Jordan. When you say that, is it the Palestinian in you speaking, who regards Israel as the enemy, or the journalist, who is dedicated to finding the truth.

The journalist.

So your personal background has no influence on your work?
When I'm in the newsroom, I forget my personal background. I set aside my political convictions. The news story is sacred for me. One cannot change it. One has to broadcast the story, as it is. Unchanged.

Still, I have trouble believing that you leave out your personal history in assessing a story.
You're right. It's not always possible at work completely to separate oneself from one's personal background. For example, in the newsroom one evening I received the images of the poor little girl whose parents were killed on the beach in Gaza and who was screaming in such a heartbreaking way. I went into my office, closed the door, and cried. Then I decided to broadcast the images of the girl screaming, but without commentary. In this case, you could, of course, say to me that it was the Palestinian in me who acted. Nonetheless, I do believe that one can separate oneself from one's personal background provided one works hard enough at it. In the newsroom, an editor has to set aside his personal feelings. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

How did you report on Beit Hanoun, where 19 Palestinians were killed?
We interviewed people on location. We even spoke with the Israelis. We wanted to know from them if they had done it intentionally, which, of course, they denied. We had to ask them that. As professional journalists, we can't afford only to speak to Palestinians. Even if you hate the Israelis that doesn't mean that you shouldn't speak with them. They are, after all, a party to the conflict.

Did you show all the images from Beit-Hanoun or did you censor particularly gruesome bloody scenes?
We didn't show close-ups of what was too brutal. We don't want to turn the spectator's life into a nightmare.

Evidently, for your coverage of Iraq other standards apply. You have repeatedly shown beheadings of western hostages. In the U.S., you are accused of using Al-Jazeera to incite the Iraqi population against the American troops.
The U.S.A. is occupying a country and one has not only to expect, but also to accept that the people there resist. You see yourself: in the end, the American Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had to resign. Because everyone in the White House and in Washington understood that the man was a catastrophe. In fact, I am sorry about his resignation. (Laughs.) With his attacks against us, he was a very good promoter of Al-Jazeera. But seriously: now even Tony Blair, in his interview with Al-Jazeera [November 18], has admitted that the war in Iraq is a disaster. The British now say that he misspoke, that he didn't mean it like that. But I ask you: can one justify the American policy and America's actions in Iraq? My opinion is clear. The Americans should stop accusing us of putting the lives of their soldiers in Iraq in danger with our reports.

Is that why you again and again broadcast tapes of Osama bin Laden that your station receives?
You are a journalist and you must know actually that if somebody offers you a tape or an interview with bin Laden, you don't hesitate to accept the offer -- even if it will get you sent to Guantanamo.

It's striking, of course, that Al-Jazeera has a quasi-monopoly on information coming from the milieu of bin Laden. Obviously, you are close to them. On conservative blogs, your network is even called "Osama TV."
Because the Americans are in a difficult situation in Iraq, they are looking for scapegoats and they've found one in Al-Jazeera. In the last five or six years, we've received maybe two or three tapes per year. That's news that we cannot hold back from our public. Besides, we're not the only ones to get mail occasionally from bin Laden. In the past, CNN was also in the mailing list, and news agencies like the AP or broadcasters like Al-Arabiya also receive messages from al Qaida. It's true, though, that we receive such tapes more often than the others. Then we put this information in a news context. When, for example, bin Laden offers a 90-day ceasefire or when he takes responsibility for the bombings in Madrid, we have, of course, to report on it. It's news.

It's not only in Washington that you have few friends among those in power. It's also the case in the Arab world.
We are not aiming to overthrow any regime. It is part of our code of honor, however, that we value people's right freely to express their opinions. We provide information, nothing else. We see ourselves as a pluralistic forum dedicated to the search for the truth. If in the process we manage to help to push through reforms, of course we're happy about that.

Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting for ten years now -- but there is precious little democracy or reform to be found in the Arab world.
We don't say to the Egyptians "Overthrow the regime!" That is not our job. But if the people should vote out Hosni Mubarak one day at the ballot box, we will report on it of course. We are always uncovering cases of corruption -- like just recently in Egypt. If one disseminates such information, sooner or later it has to have an effect. People begin to pose questions.

You don't only target the Egyptian regime, but practically all the Arab regimes in the region. As consequence, the editorial offices of your network are always being shut down. In what countries are you blacklisted at the moment?
Saudi Arabia has never allowed us to work. Just once, we were allowed to report on the Hajj and I went there to shoot a film. Tunisia and Algeria have stopped us; Iraq banned us temporarily; for a time our reporters were also not allowed into Syria, Jordan, and Kuwait. We also have problems in Sudan, because we report on the atrocities in Darfur, where innocent people are being killed. In Khartoum, they weren't happy that we broadcast a report on this subject and they threw us out. Later, however, the Sudanese thought better of it and they let us work in the country again. We never make compromises, because we don't want to put our credibility at risk. The Iranians also shut down our bureau for a time, after we broadcast a report on the oppressed Arab minority in Iran. The report provoked demonstrations in Iran and the Iranian government held us responsible. We don't want to serve as the mouthpiece of those in power -- as, unfortunately, so many of our competitors do.

You describe yourself as independent. Since the amount of advertising on Al-Jazeera is limited, one has to wonder who is financing such a costly news channel.
The Qatari government covers 75 percent of our expenses. The remaining 25 percent we cover ourselves through our commercial activities. But we take no instructions from the Qatari government.

One hears it said, of course, that your independence ends where criticism of the royal family of Qatar, your financiers, begins.
What nonsense! Whoever says that obviously does not follow our broadcasts very carefully. We do criticize the government of Qatar.

For example?
We criticize the large presence of the American air force in the country. We also criticize the fact that the Israelis are permitted to have a diplomatic representation in Doha. But, besides that, I have to ask you: what happens in Doha that would be worth reporting about? Qatar is a small country. Apart from the skyscrapers -- which spring from the ground like mushrooms and nobody knows why they're needed -- absolutely nothing happens here. It is impossible to compare Qatar with Saudi Arabia and the social unrest there or with Iran or Iraq. Our situation at Al-Jazeera is comparable to that of the BBC. This highly respected network is also financed by the government. If the BBC is independent -- and nobody doubts that it is -- why don't people accept that this is also the case for us?

Of course, the BBC is financed via taxes. . . . Up to now, one could only hear Al-Jazeera in Arabic. Since mid-November, an English-language news channel is also part of your group. Does this represent competition for you?
Not at all. Our new channel is the perfect complement for us.

Let's do a test. Suppose that your bureau uncovers a corruption scandal. Who reports first on it and thus gets the praises for their investigative work: you or your colleagues with the English-language channel?
It would be destructive to create a situation of competition at the interior of the Al-Jazeera group. So, we would bring out the revelation simultaneously, in Arabic and in English. After all, we belong to the same organization and we work together in perfect harmony. If, however, we send out two reporters and in the end our man comes back with a worse story than his colleague at the English-language channel, I'd give him a slap. I couldn't accept that.

But it's possible that you will have to accept that your budget could be restricted by the new channel, since the investor is the same.
I hope that won't be the case. I hardly believe that the investor will permit budget cuts at the Arabic channel. I'm convinced that it will remain the most important part of the organization.

How can you be so sure?
The influence of the Arabic channel in the Arab world is enormous. Go to Amman or Jerusalem or Cairo or Casablanca: With around 50 million spectators, we are the most important source of information in the Arab world and the most important opinion-maker. In Palestine, for example, we are seen by 76 percent of the population.

What are you expecting from the English-language channel?
We are hoping to contribute with it to the mutual understanding of cultures. Above all in a time of crisis, it is important to clear up misunderstandings in order to defuse conflicts.

Of course, often you stir up conflicts. For example, in the case of the Mohammed cartoons.
I can't accept this accusation. For example, we interviewed the editor of the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons. In doing that, we helped to reduce tensions.

Of course, many people claim that you outright staged the conflict.
Nonsense. We never even showed the cartoons. It was not us, but a news agency that first reported about the cartoons. It was a good story, a very important piece of news. It had consequences. There were demonstrations, there were debates. It was a subject of conversation. And, of course, we had to report on all that. It is not, after all, the responsibility of a news organization to decide whether to play up a particular story or to cool things down. That's not our job. We have to report and in as unpartisan a manner as possible. If the situation does not calm down, that's not my fault. I only have to guarantee that my sources are reliable, credible and precise.

Did you abide by this rule in your coverage of the Pope's speech?
When the Pope claimed in public that Islam and the Prophet Mohammed only use the sword and accused Muslims of being ignorant, our editor did not really grasp the significance of this text. Until I explained to him that it was a highly important speech and that he should make a headline out of it.

Was it right and was it necessary to give so much weight to a speech that the Pope gave in the context of an academic ceremony?
Of course. We have to report, after all, what the highest authority of the Church thinks about Mohammed and Islam.

But the Pope merely cited a medieval scholar.
But why did he do that? Normally, one cites someone in order to support one's own point of view.

You have become one of the most important opinion-makers in the Arab world and you play in the major leagues of the international media. What is your journalistic credo?
I am not a big fan of the CNN motto to try always to be the first with news. I consider scoops that are obtained at the cost of truth and precision to be dangerous. In order to avoid only one mistake, I prefer that the competition gets to a story faster than me ten times. Because a mistake costs us our credibility. Of course, we still do strive to be fast. We always have a suitcase available with $150,000 dollars in cash in it. Whenever we want to send a reporter to a war zone, we hand the suitcase over to him, so that he can pay his expenses underway in an unbureaucratic manner. That gives us flexibility.

Mister Sheikh, as a young man you had to leave your homeland. What effect did this have on your personality?
If I had stayed in Nablus, I probably would have turned out differently. But deep within you there is something that never changes; and that is the formative influence of one's childhood. We always remain children. If the child in you dies off, then you're finished. So, it is a blessing for humanity, if the child in you is kept alive.

What do you remember for example?
I still remember clearly how the Israelis invaded our town in June 1967. We were expecting them from the West, but they attacked from the East. Since I wanted to study, after that I went to Jordan. Of course, that was important for my later development. If I had remained in Palestine, I would see the death and the problems every day. I would have to witness how Palestinian land is confiscated. I would even have to put up with having to speak with the enemy at road blocks. I would have to put up with the daily humiliations of the occupying power, but also to observe how Israelis are killed by suicide bombers.

How do you see the future of this region in which news of wars, dictators and poverty predominates?
The future here looks very bleak.

Can you explain what you mean by that?
By bleak I mean something like "dark." I've advised my thirty year old son, who lives in Jordan, that he should leave the region. Just this morning I spoke with him about it. He has a son and we spoke about his son's education. I'd like my grandson to go to a trilingual private school. The public schools are bad. He should learn English, German, and French -- Spanish would also be important. But the private schools are very expensive. That's why I told my son to emigrate to the West for the sake of my grandson.

You sound bitter.
Yes, I am.

At whom are you angry?
It's not only the lack of democracy in the region that makes me worried. I don't understand why we don't develop as quickly and dynamically as the rest of the world. We have to face the challenge and say: enough is enough! When a President can stay in power for 25 years, like in Egypt, and he is not in a position to implement reforms, we have a problem. Either the man has to change or he has to be replaced. But the society is not dynamic enough to bring about such a change in a peaceful and constructive fashion.

Why not?
In many Arab states, the middle class is disappearing. The rich get richer and the poor get still poorer. Look at the schools in Jordan, Egypt or Morocco: You have up to 70 youngsters crammed together in a single classroom. How can a teacher do his job in such circumstances? The public hospitals are also in a hopeless condition. These are just examples. They show how hopeless the situation is for us in the Middle East.

Who is responsible for the situation?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important reasons why these crises and problems continue to simmer. The day when Israel was founded created the basis for our problems. The West should finally come to understand this. Everything would be much calmer if the Palestinians were given their rights.

Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?
I think so.

Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems?
The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.

In the end, is it a matter of feelings of self-esteem?
Exactly. It's because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this.

And How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?

Recently, NPR held a debate on Hamas. The debate was part of a series called Intelligence Squared U.S., produced in New York by WYNC. Through a number of intellectual contortions the inteligencia labored over the motion whether Hamas was a government entity or a terrorist organization.

Steven Cook (from left), John O'Sullivan and Daniel Ayalon argued in support of the motion, "A democratically elected Hamas is still a terrorist organization." Mark Perry (from left), Mahmoud Mohamedou and Stanley Cohen argued against the motion.

I don’t really don’t understand what was the argument. They could have just as well argued how many angels can dance on the head of pin.


What you have here is a perfect example of how democracy is misunderstood today. The Left points to the election of tyrannical governments in Iran and Lebanon and says, “See? This is what Democracy is all about. The will of the people.” For some reason that escapes me, why can’t they read a little history and see that democracies do not guarantee personal freedom. The voting population can just as well vote in a Stalin or a Jefferson. Neither result guarantees the rights of individuals and their protection. That comes from the laws the nation works under and those laws can written to enslave or free its citizens.

Democracy produces freedoms when there is a built in set of protections like the Bill of Rights and a courts to enforce those rights. In addition, that democratically elected government must be secular in nature. Theocratic governments have little respect for the laws made by man, only those made by God. Thus we have Iran and constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan that state both are Islamic Republics and the final arbiter of what is to become law and what is not is the Koran interpreted by some unelected mullahs.

It would be as if the US Congress passes a bill, the President signs it and then it goes to the Supreme Court who opens the Bible to make sure it doesn’t violate any of it contradictory teachings.

Hitler was democratically elected. Mussolini was democratically elected. Both were allowed by the populace to tear down the edifice of freedom in Germany and Italy in the 1930s. Any government formed on the foundation of Islam will produce tyranny and not freedom.

Where’s the Muslim Voice Against Terrorism?

Yes, yes. We hear it all the time and now recently again in print. Muslims are against violence and a recent post at the American Muslim by Imam Plemon T. El-Amin declares fact once again. Or do they?

Muslim voices against terrorism have not been silent, but it is the trend, perhaps even the policy of major media, to downplay the voice of reason, the voice of faith, and the voice of principle, in favor of the shouts of the extreme, the wails of the grief-stricken, and the threats of the treacherous. The voices of peace, justice, mercy, and tolerance are not difficult to find among Muslims and Islamic media, who consistently denounce acts of terrorism and reject them as illegitimate and unacceptable Islamic strategies or methods……The voice of the Muslim is not mute.

Very nice, Imam El-Amin. But as the Burger King commercial said, “Where’s the beef?” Why didn’t you list the many Muslims voices? Saying they exist does not prove they do.

Here’s the real story Muslim voice that paints Islam as a treacherous religion of violence and intimidation to impose its mores and morals on the non-Muslim world. From Sea to Shinning Sea by Russell Wilcox.

Why is it then, that every time a Muslim spokesman appears on television to explain the position of America’s Muslims, my perception changes slightly for the worse? Sometimes I watch O’Reilly, and sometimes I watch Glen Beck – two programs that often have Muslim spokesmen on to point out the many times Muslim organizations have decried the use of terror. Why is it that their statements ring so hollow? Why is it that they usually appear to be spinning, distorting and obfuscating? Could it be that so many Muslim organizations in the U.S., especially C.A.I.R., have leaders and associates who have some sort of ties to terrorists? Could it be because some of these leaders have led funding drives to raise funds for foreign terrorist organizations? Could it be because some of these leaders have called for the imposition of Sharia law on the citizens of this country?

Russell hits the nail on the head.

I understand why peaceful Muslims who live in areas of the world that are more-directly exposed to terrorists might be afraid to speak out and to act to rid their communities of these mass murderers, but those living in the United States cannot claim this rationale. You have to rid yourselves of those denying the role of Muslims in 9/11. You have to rid yourselves of those teaching jihad to Muslim-American children. You have to rid yourselves of imams who try to pull off the atrocious acts at the US Airway’s counter discussed again below. If you do not, the American people are going to conclude that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it’s a duck.


The ‘Tolerance’ of Islam

We hear it time and time again about the tolerance of Islam. Let’s see how tolerant they were last week.

Pakistan Detains Christian Woman For "Insulting" Islam
Police took Martha Bibi into custody late Monday, January 22, in the town of Kot Nanak Singh in District Kasur, southeast of the city of Lahore, after the local Imam urged Muslims to attack the Christian family saying "Martha uttered derogatory words against the Holy Prophet Muhammad," said the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA) advocacy group.

"On hearing the continuous announcement [from the mosque] and voices of people outside who were gathered to attack her home, Martha’s family left to hide in one of the neighboring houses," APMA said. However soon, "police came and arrested Martha Bibi." She was charged under section 295 C of Pakistan’s controversial Blasphemy Law and could face the death penalty if convicted, APMA. In many cases Christians have however received long prison sentences. Bibi has denied the charges.

Here’s some more tolerance.

Video: Anti-Christian Atrocities During The Anti-Pope Jihad ...
In the midst of the Papal Jihad, a Nigerian Muslim accused his Christian tailor of blasphemy. Before the ensuring riots were over, sixteen churches had been burned to the ground in a mysteriously coordinated campaign

Even more tolerance.

UK city council bans Holocaust Memorial under Muslim pressure
In A move widely seen to be bowing to Muslim pressure, Bolton Council has scrapped its Holocaust Memorial Day event. The council is to replace it with a Genocide Memorial Day in June. This is in line with the policy of the Muslim Council of Britain, which continues to boycott HMD and is asking for a Genocide Day, which will also mark "the ongoing genocide and human rights abuses of Palestinians" by Israelis. The council decision was made in consultation with the town’s Interfaith Council.

We have such a plethora of tolerance!

Bethlehem Christians Break Silence on Muslim Oppression
After many years of the mainstream media’s annual story about mean Israelis stealing Bethlehem’s Christmas (see here for a comical example), the truth has been revealed. Christians are fleeing every Muslim-majority territory because of the apartheid discrimination encouraged by Muslim sharia law. Land theft works because the testimony of non-Muslims is weighed less in every sharia court in the world.

Pakistan: Tortured brick makers refuse to embrace Islam
Steadfast Christian faith sustains them through month-long imprisonment. Two brothers who used to work at a brick kiln have escaped from what they describe as a kidnapping and torture by the business owner, who wanted them to convert from Christianity to Islam, according to a new report from Voice of the Martyrs, a U.S.-based Christian group helping members of the persecuted Christian church worldwide.

You gotta love the tolerance of Islam.

Those are examples of the rising Jihad temperature of for this week. When seen in groups like this, the slow boil becomes obvious.

Next week a look back at the rising Jihad temperature of Islamist appeasement!!

Get a FREE TRIAL COPY of the The Gathering Storm eBook which includes the Forward by Walid Shoebat, Introduction, and first 50 pages of The Gathering Storm eBook. And sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home