Saturday, March 31, 2007

Storm Track Disinformation: Muslims Dishearten By Attempts to Free Them Seek New Sources of Hope

When I read this news item from Montreal Muslims sent in to me by Michael, I nearly tossed my cookies. This is such a load of horse hockey that it defies belief and shows the lack of any attempts at advancing the Islamic culture and stands as an example of why that civilization never advanced beyond the 13th century.

DAMASCUS–For prominent Syrian career woman Luna Rajab, the moment of truth came last Ramadan at an evening social gathering of friends and colleagues. Steeling herself to express outwardly what she had felt inside for many years, the 34-year-old architect stepped forward to reveal a decision that would earn the dismay of many of those closest to her, her mother and grandmother included.

Rajab's favourite motto had always been "say it with actions, not with words." And on this night, she said it all by covering her hair with that most Islamic of accessories – the hijab. Never before had she worn the head scarf. Never before had anyone in her social circle, or even her own family. Today, she won't take it off. Rajab's hijab is here to stay.

She knows the decision to wear hijab placed her out of step with many in her circle. But taken in the context of the larger Arab world, she says, it is her friends who are out of step. Which is okay by her. Rajab does not believe in forcing anyone on the question of hijab. In a free world, it is a personal choice, she says. Yet Rajab takes comfort in the fact that by just about any standard one might care to apply, Islam is on the rise again in the Middle East.

And why?

Lebanese sociologist Abdo Kahi describes the drift toward Islamic identity as anything but ideological. "Ideology has logic, but the return to Islam is happening as an idea without logic. It is happening by default, without discussion, as a matter of the heart. What all human beings share is the universal desire for hope, security, justice, values – and one day perhaps, real democracy.

And whose fault is it that democracy has not come to the Middle East? Why America, of course.

Arab thinkers lost faith. (Arab thinkers? Thinking people turn to logic to solve problems - not faith.) What some describe as the "democracy hypocrisy" was laid bare one year ago with the surprise election of Hamas in Western-backed elections in the Palestinian territories. Those who actually covered the campaign saw the Palestinian electorate embrace a deftly played Hamas election platform built as a war on corruption without so much as a mention of the word Israel.

What a crock! Not so much a mention of the word Israel? It’s in their charter? They want Israel destroyed.

"The Bush administration sees all Islamists as radicals and all radicals as terrorists and thus they all need to be eliminated. (No. Not all Islamists are terrorists. Most the majority of Islamists use the non-violent media, litigation, demographic, economic, and institutional jihads and the implementation of Shaira law to advance Islamism.) But this attempt to corner Hamas – clearly has backfired," said Ahmad Moussalli, a political scientist at the American University of Beirut. "It sent a message to the entire Arab world that the promise of democracy is false. And it handed a gift to political Islam by keeping it outside the halls of power, thereby giving them an even greater aura of sanctity."

Let me give you the 411, Montreal Muslims, about democracy. Just because you have a democrcy doesn’t guarantee a policy of human rights and individual freedom. Democracies can vote in a dictatorship just as well as a tyrant can establish it. Read up on Hitler. He was voted into office by the German people then through lawful means at his disposal, grabbed power and made himself Fuehrer.

So, since the ‘democracy conspiracy’ failed in the Middle East, it’s time to turn back the clock to a nicer, gentler time of the 13th century.

"Arab Muslims today see the George Bush project of democracy in the Middle East crashing to a halt," said Kahi. "The only results they can see are McDonald's, Madonna and bombs. There is nothing real in it for them. The only place left to turn is Islam."

Blanket rejection also feeds radicalism, said Moussalli, as the pole of political Islam wavers between moderation and radicalism. "The more venues are closed, the more moderates get forced to the margins. The radicals are a much smaller force than the moderates, but without a political future some people will resort to military activities to change what they consider to be an evil reality."

So on the one hand moderates are forced to the margin but accept Hamas as an example of ‘democracy’. Moderate Muslims would rather sit back and watch their countries just fold under the tyranny of Islamo-fascism by choosing the hajib instead of the Ann Taylor suit.

"There are only two ways for the West to contend with this. Either give a comparatively moderate Islamic group like the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to live up to their promises by having a chance to govern. Or conversely, they can undermine the Muslim Brotherhood by actually forcing the ruling governments in the Arab world to clean up their act by fighting corruption, governing properly and actually offering some freedoms to their people."

The first option is insane. The Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for advancing the Islamist agenda throughout the world. The second option will not work until we are off the oil-tit of the Arab states. As long as those theocratic dictatorships have us over a barrel we’ll have little luck putting them over one.

If moderate Muslims don’t want to see their region slide into the hands of the likes of Iran then they should learn a word that has been very useful in the Western world when it comes to establishing freedom.


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.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Storm Track Infiltration: Resisting the Islamist Agenda for the Free World

The threat of Islamism that is obvious to the anti-jihadist bloggers and alternative news services has not seeped into the general consciousness of non-Muslim world. There is a litany of reasons why this is so, ranging from the lack of coverage by the MSM, the lack of comprehension by our political and military leaders, the mislabeling of the struggle - and of course the appeasers and apologists who muddy up the education of the couch potatoes who would rather watch American Idol or the ongoing soap opera of Anna Nicole Smith than enlighten themselves to the Islamic threat before us.

At times it seems that the march towards Islamization and Sharia law, in Europe especially, goes on unabated with no effective strategy to combat it.

But there is hope. A group of Muslim apostates who have left Islam out of their own conviction that the religion of Islam is not a religion at all is trying to do something about the creep of Sharia law. Their site is Islam Watch and they have posted a series on articles entitled No Sharia. They believe that we now know enough about Islam to formulate a detailed, practical and effective policy that will keep Europe free for the next few hundred years.

The aim of the first article in the series was to give a prognosis of the political development in European countries if the on-going Islamization process is not interrupted. The conclusion of that analysis is that the dreams of a peaceful transition to Eurabia is a complete illusion. What we will experience in the future in European countries is an ever increasing level of violence interrupted by spikes of violent cruelty. Civil strife and in the end civil war in some countries, if the Islamization process is not stopped.

That’s not a new prognosis. Fjordman has been saying this for some time. What is new is the attempt of the writers at Islam Watch to formulate a Theory of Policies and Laws That Prevents Islamization of a Country.

Here are the major points of the anti-Sharia integration strategy.

A suitable policy will build on an integrated approach using many methods and laws regarding a multitude of matters. Policies using few methods are doomed to fail because the attack against western society is so broad and consists of so many dimensions.

1. Individual Rights

Special attention must be given to an individual’s right to be an independent person enjoying all now existing freedoms. Human rights in general, and especially in relation to how the Muslims value persons of different faiths, must be stressed. For example, the low valuation of women’s rights in the Muslim religion must be counteracted.

2. Values and Laws

How much freedom shall a religion have to proclaim opinions and rules which are contrary to human rights and the laws of the country? What can imams say, and what is permitted in mosques? It is important to delimit religious freedom in a rational manner and taking a long-term view because those rules have such an important influence on the behavior of people.

The penalties for breaking various laws and specially those of importance for preserving a free society, is another area of interest. The definition of hate crimes (se below) is especially important.

3. Citizenship and Integration

The specific requirements for being allowed to live in a country is another factor of interest in a policy. The rules for annulment of citizenships and for deportation must be realistic and take the interest of the population of the country into enough consideration. The type and extent of the education given to immigrants and later their family members after their arrival to the country is important and influences their worldview and chances to progress in the society. This education can be a very powerful instrument to influence immigrants and change values opposite to human rights and democracy.

The demand that an immigrant integrates into the ways and values of the society, and the level of assimilation demanded are vital aspects.

4. Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of the country must also be formulated to resist the threat from political Islam and in the end eliminates that threat.

The articles go on to explain these policies in detail. Though much more must be done, the article is well worth the read for start.

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.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Tomorrow on the The Gathering Storm Radio Show

Tomorrow’s special guest on the The Gathering Storm Radio Show is Jeff Epstein from Americas Truth Forum. America's Truth Forum is a non-partisan, fact-based organization whose mission is to educate the American people on controversial topics of national security. Their primary objective is to disseminate critical information that is not readily available, via conventional channels, to concerned citizens.

Jeff’s organization (America’s Truth Forum) took the lead in producing the first-ever and critically acclaimed symposium on the threat of radical Islamist terrorism in Washington, DC. During the most recent presidential election cycle, Mr. Epstein served as Media Relations director for a 527 political action committee that successfully organized a major advocates rally in Washington DC.

Jeff has been featured on Fox & Friends and has appeared on numerous local and national television and radio talk shows and he’ll appear tomorrow on our show.

CALL IN LIVE at (646) 915-9870 for comments, questions or just to air your spleen!

Click here to listen from Noon to 1PM PST

Storm Track Disinformation: Islam and Democracy Double Speak

I love to see Muslim scholars go through intellectual contortions trying to make Islam compatible with democracy. Try and follow the logic from Dr Pervaiz Nazir, a senior research fellow at the Centre for International Studies, University of Cambridge, during a lecture on ‘The Rise of Political Religion and its Implications for Democracy’ at the Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (SZABIST).

Right from the start, Dr. Nazir sets the argument. Muslims are victims.

A scholar of Pakistani origin, Dr Nazir said that western nations should improve their perception of Islam instead of enforcing western ideals on Muslim countries. He said the west developed its economy and governing system in a particular setting due to which the Muslim polity suffered. He urged the world to keep past differences in mind while handing down judgment on a democratic system, prevalent in the Islamic world.

Let' see. First, loosely translated – Keep in mind all the terrible things you have done to my culture through history then we can have a reasoned discussion in the present. And second - a democratic system, prevalent in the Islamic world?!

What democratic system? Did I miss something?

He also said that modernity, secularism and democracy could be incorporated into religion instead of casting religion aside to adopt them.

I guess he’s never heard of the separation of church and state. But of course Islam is the perfect solution to both the obedience to Allah and a governmental system. Islam holds that political life can only function properly within the context of Islamic law. To such believers, since God's law is universally true and beneficial to all people, any state law or action opposed to God's law would be harmful to the citizens, and displeasing to God. Many Muslims consider the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be rebellion against God's law.

He said that religion was a separate entity and should not be mixed with politics, but he agreed to the audience’s suggestion that Islam could not be separated from modern politics.

Huh?! I’m confused. Relgion is a seperate entity from government but Islam can not be sperarted from politics?

This shows that those who hold a fundamental view of their religion befuddles the mind and blinds them to the inconsistencies of their logic.

OK, Dr. Nazir. Which is it? Should Islam be separated from the role of government or not? You’re argument is as clear as mud.

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.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Storm Track Infiltration: Economic Jihad – Muslims and Student Loans

In an entry on the Chronicle of Higher Ed's Daily News Blog, a new report is noted that talks about barriers to Islamic students studying in western schools. And thus the quandary.

Should our western educational system in search of the almighty dollar make special accommodations to Muslim students seeking student loans or should we just change the entire educational system to accommodate them?

The report offers nearly five dozen recommendations for improvements. Among them are retaining Muslim faculty members and offering halal meals, which meet Islam’s dietary restrictions. One of the biggest problems facing Muslim students is the loan-based student-aid system. “Interest-bearing loans are forbidden in Islam, which means that provincial- and federal-government loans are simply off-limits for many practicing Muslims,” said Mohamed Sheibani, president of the Muslim Students’ Association National of the U.S. and Canada...

The solution?

In principle if a university wanted to attract these students it would be possible to create a contract to charge them a higher tuition than non-Islamic students, then have them replay the loan on installment after graduation without interest. The university would receive the same amount of money either way.

OK. I’ll buy that. That's a fair solution to their cultural problem. But final remark in the article is the most telling of all.

But could you imagine how the news would handle the idea that Islamic students paid a higher tuition?

God forbid! Well we can’t have that. That’s racist, right? You can bet your bottom Canadian dollar that if education institutions implement such a sensible policy, the uproar would be so loud that the schools will back down and say – “OK. Here’s you loan – interest free.”

It will happen. It follows the pattern. You heard it hear first.

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.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Storm Track Infiltration: Struggle for the Soul of Europe-Danes & Dutch on the Firing Line

Europe is in a life or death struggle with Islam and Denmark and the Netherlands along with Great Britain are on point and multiculturalism is the jihadist’s weapon of choice.

First the Netherlands.

Dutch politicians and media are downplaying excesses of multicultural society and thereby increasing these, in the view of Islam expert Hans Janssen. Jansen, Professor of Modern Islamic Ideology at Utrecht University, characterizes the Dutch as inhabitants of "a peaceful enclave" who have, however, "forgotten that peace sometimes needs to be defended through violence". A peaceful society that wishes to remain existent and stay peaceful "will have to find a way to defend itself through non-peaceful means from people who are not peaceful", as the Arabist writes.

As Jansen sees it, the Netherlands is too indulgent to violence of fundamentalist Muslims. But he also suggests that moderate Muslims, too, strive after an Islamic society in the Netherlands. They intentionally make use of the radicals to enforce their wishes, according to the Arabist. According to Jansen, Muslim fundamentalists frequently make threats, but the Dutch media remain silent about them.

Jensen has an interesting solution that should be seriously considered by all European nations threatened by the jihadists.

He is pleading for a central reporting station for all Dutch people who are being threatened.

His analysis of the multicultural problem is sound.

“What is thought, written, exhibited or performed in the Netherlands is to a large extent no longer made in freedom, without this being perceptible. It is not the lie but the obscure threat that reigns. We do not realize that the threat of violence, and violence itself, can only be stopped through the controlled and cunning use of violence". The Dutch secret service (AIVD) should get a special department "that gets its hands dirty, if need be".

BTW: Jensen knows what he’s talking about. He’s an authority on the Arabic language and the Koran. Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a Muslim terrorist in 2004, employed him as his tutor on Islam.

Now on to Denmark.

Multiculturalist ideology, i.e. the blind tolerance of any culture or tradition, is destroying Europe and standing in the way of any positive development of Islam. In making room for Sharia, there is the risk of conflict with European constitutions. An interesting thing is taking place in Denmark, a country which is at the forefront of multi-culturality. The SIAD Party has recently been founded and it proposes the following: anyone who cites Koranic verses contrary to the Danish constitution must be punished because the constitution is superior to all other laws. And they quote articles 67-69 of the Danish Constitution which says, “We authorize freedom of worship, as long as it is exercised within the framework of Danish laws without disturbing public order.”

Perhaps Europeans are beginning to reflect on the possible contrast that exists between the constitutions of European countries and certain laws of the Koran.

In Demark too, there exist two trends: the “left”, or the “do-gooders”, who want to respect the culture of others, saying that ours is not an absolute, or suggest that we must be tolerant and give Muslims time to take this step; and those who make no allowances, and who say that if a person is not able to integrate, he is better off going elsewhere.

But the most significant and problematic case is that of Great Britain: here, after decades of multiculturalism, instead of integrating and coexisting, Islamic communities are increasingly closing themselves into ghettos, and fundamentalistic behaviours, dangerous for all society, are emerging.

LionHeart blogs on this threat and does a good job of it.

Rape, assaults, muggings, pedophilic forays and other forms of harassment and general degradation of the Kaffirs' quality of life, in order to make 'them feel themselves subdued', are all part of the 'street Jihad' being waged out of Europe's muslim ghettos to humiliate the surrounding Kaffir populations.

On to Great Britain.

The most representative association of British Muslims, the Muslim Council of Great Britain, has asked that Muslims be recognized the right to apply Islamic morals in state schools. On February 21, it published a 72-page document and presented it to the government in the name of 400,000 Muslim students attending the country’s state schools. They ask that the government accept the demands of Muslim parents and youngster on the grounds of faith concerns.

They also demand separate classes for girls and boys; the refusal of dancing and of sex education (which is a family matter and not a topic for school); drawings and anatomy textbooks must not show genital organs. As for faith and history, they ask for a revision of the entire teaching system in the name of Islamic morals. The Education Ministry has not yet replied officially, but has already said that these requests will be a step backwards in terms of the tolerance that already existed.

And this is one of the best explanations of the Muslim culture problem and how the way multiculturalism should work.

In other terms, despite the best intentions, Muslims tend to confuse customs with ethics. Customs are tied to determined groups (ethnic, geographic, religious…) and do not apply to the national civil society. Ethics dictate principles which are valid for every human person, independent of their sex or religion, and therefore are worth defending and fighting to defend. It is time that we learn to defend ethics that are respectful of the human person, by starting to teach and practice them in schools, to everyone. As for special treatment for a particular group, in the name of their different culture, this is a deformation of what should be “authentic multiculturalism,” which learns to evaluate different cultures and improve one’s own on the basis of comparison.

And on citizenship:

What is the identity of an Italian citizen of Egyptian or Moroccan or Chinese or Albanian origin? If it is Egyptian, Moroccan, Chinese, Albanian, then I ask: what is the sense of having requested and obtained Italian citizenship? It is not perhaps to enjoy the advantages that a country offers and then return to live in one’s country of birth or that of one’s parents? In that case, I am just an exploiter. But if it means a conscious choice, which implies changes in behaviour, the desire to build with other citizens a more just society etc, then, yes, I deserve citizenship. I think that society must help each person to make such pondered choices, helping and facilitating efforts to integrate.

‘nuff said.

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.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Storm Track Infiltration: Marxist-Islamist Speech Code Under Guise of Legitimacy

The Canadian Federation of Students has completed its “Task Force on the Needs of Islamic Students”, and - surprise! - has concluded that Ontario Universities are hotbeds of “Islamophobia”. From Flaggman’s Canada.

Its report calls on University administrators to use the Ontario Human Rights Commission to vigorously counter and prosecute violators of “Islamophobia”. I would like to expose the untold story of this report - a report that is being promoted uncritically by mainstream media like the CBC. That is, this report was not created to give an unbiased look at the life of Muslim students on campus. It was created by Muslim activists and Marxist agitators with pre-existing agendas, looking to exploit white liberal guilt to further their goals of Islamic supremacy and anticapitalism.

Here are seven of the ten who ran the commission and prepared the report:

  • Sheikh Faisal Abdur-Razak, President of the Islamic Forum of Canada, who proudly boasts on his web site of having studied in Saudi Arabia from 1977-1986 at King Abdel-Aziz University in Jeddah, under scholars such as Sheikh Muhammad Qutb and other Wahabbi and Muslim Brotherhood teachers. Osama Bin Laden attended the same school in the late 1970s, and has identified Qutb as one of his chief influences.
  • Grace Edward Galabuzi, a Ryerson professor who regularly presents at Marxist and Socialist conferences;
  • Alex Kerner, the notorious Trotskyite socialist agitator who ran the SAC at the University of Toronto in the early part of the decade, and now works for the Ryerson Students Union.
  • Ausma Malik, a U of T social justice agitator who will be speaking at the “Marxism: A Festival of Resistance” conference in Toronto this May;
  • Diana Ralph, Carlton University professor, and favourite of the paranoid-delusional “9/11 Truth” movement;
  • Mohamed Sheibani, President of the Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada, a lobby group with documented links to the Saudi Wahabbi movement.
  • Wahida Chisti Valiante, National Vice President of Mohamed Elmasry’s Canadian Islamic Congress, who has been promoting anti-American, anti-Israel sentiment for years (read her 2004 article here)

So, we have a coalition of Marxists and Islamists, under the seemingly legitimate umbrella of the Canadian Federation of Students, telling us we’re all racists, and demanding that we give up our freedom of speech and ways of living as compensation. Scary to you? Scary to me. I can only imagine the state the University campus will be in when my now two-year-old son heads off to his post-secondary education.

So when are University administrators and Canadian politicians cease being good little dhimmis, grow a backbone and stand up and condemn this type of dishonest, subversive bullying report.

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.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Winds of War: When Freedom Hung by a Thread

We could have easily lost WWII if…

  • The Nazis didn’t hound Einstein and other scientists out of Germany.
  • If German scientists developed the A-Bomb first delivered by V2s.
  • If the German navy had more U-Boats in the Atlantic at the start of the war and won the Battle of the Atlantic.
  • If the appeasers led by Lord Halifax kept Britain from declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.
  • If the Luftwaffe continued their raids on RAF airfield and radar stations gaining air superiority and the ability to successfully invade England but instead turned on London with the blitz.
  • If Hitler didn’t attack Russia.

Victories most times ride on what are called the fortunes of war. But there are also the fortunes of history.

In December of 1931, a rather portly gentleman was on an American lecture tour. On December 13, he took a taxi from the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to Bernard Baruch's home on 5th Avenue. Upon arriving at his destination he looked the wrong way and was run down by another New York taxicab. His injuries were so severe that he was taken immediately to Lenox Hill Hospital.

That portly gentleman was Winston Churchill. After Churchill’s car accident, Dr. Otto C. Pickhardt wrote a prescription for him. What did the doctor prescribe? "The use of alcoholic spirits at meal time...the minimum requirement to be 250 cc."

Much credit for victory against Nazi Germany can be given to Churchill. He stood up to Hitler when he knew quite well that Britain would most likely succumb to a German invasion. Even after Hitler extended the hand of peace to Britain promising that if they signed a treaty with Hitler, Britain could keep its empire.

Churchill refused.

What’s interesting about his refusal was the little opposition to it by the British public. I mean, Hitler said that his squabble was not with the British who he believed were natural allies. Why didn’t the British force Churchill to grab this peace offering and avoid the terror of the blitz? If they did, Britain would be out of the war and the US would have to eventually fight Hitler alone – and most probably lose.

But Churchill stood his ground. Had he not, or was unable to, the fortunes of war would have dictated that freedom had little chance of surviving the 20th century. But that was a time when the Anglo-Saxons had spirit - unlike today where the kidnapping of British Marines is answered with diplomacy instaed of cruise missles.

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.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Storm Track Disinformation: The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same

It’s no secret that America is reviled by Europe because of a culture that is exported throughout the world. Europe sees America imposing its values and mores on a resistant world. America sees European culture in decay and asks what right does America have imposing its culture on Europe and the rest of the world.

Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, who writes for the German Weekly Die Zeit, posted the following on his blog.

So you think it's ludicrous, it's outlandish, it's just plain nuts to assume that the United States is more dangerous than Iran? Well, think again. Three weeks ago Russian President Putin attacked the American goliath at a security conference in Munich. On its website, my newspaper analyzed the speech saying:

"It was nothing less than the attempt to re-erect an old world order, an order in which the American superpower is contained by the power of other states, by the rule of international law and strategic considerations of its alliance management".

Putin was quoted as saying: "Nobody in the word feels safe". According to the analyst at my paper, Putin’s statements were "rammed into world history".

The author concluded by writing: "As of today, nobody in the West has any reason to feel at ease." Immediately after the publication of this analysis, readers started a debate. I counted close to 70 comments.

Here are some samples.

  • One reader argues that Putin's "critical assessment" was "appropriate". Another finds Putin spoke "in the name of all mankind".
  • Putin "disclosed" the "illegal ventures" of the West and "unmasked" Western leaders, primarily Americans, as "dangerous outlaws".
  • A third reader finds: "The United States are not a role model, but a sick moloch".
  • Reader number four states that the problem is not Putin, but Bush. He "has to go, immediately."
  • Reader number five argues that the only individuals who might feel threatened by Putin "have been completely indoctrinated by American fantasies".
  • Consequently, this reader argues that Germany's armed forces should vacate the Mediterranean Sea and Afghanistan and all the places where "they support the American crimes".
  • Reader number six said that "no person in his right mind can doubt that Putin is right on target".
  • Reader number seven weighs in claiming that "countries like Russia and Iran" are the hope of all those who "suffer" from the American led military machine.
  • Reader number eight notes that it is Europe's security interest to "stop offending Russia and the countries of the Islamic world".
  • Reader number nine, ten and eleven agree. So do readers forty-seven and sixty-four.

If I didn’t know any better I’d say we were back in 1980 where Reagan’s attempts at defeating the threat of communist imperialism hung like a sword over all of free Europe’s head.

Maybe this is just a one-sided sample. Surely, not everybody in Germany feels this way. And most of the policy community certainly does not. On the other hand, DIE ZEIT is not a paper for ideologues; it is squarely middle-of-the-road. It is read by educated people, and has a wide circulation of 500,000 copies every week.Maybe we are getting a good look at anti-Americanism. Surely, Germany has quite a bit of that.

That fact ordinary citizens of European liberal democracies feel more threatened by America than Iran (or Putin’s Russia) is not just because of a lapse of judgment that can easily be dismissed. It is cause for alarm.

Look at this poster and see Anti-American propaganda at its best. The sign at the bottom of the poster reads “The USA wants to save European culture from decay. Based on what right?”

What year do you think it is? 1980, 1970, 1960 – Today?

Nope – 1944. Nazi occupied Belgium. Granted, it’s Nazi appeasement propaganda – but has little changed?

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.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Today on the The Gathering Storm Radio Show

Today's special guest on the The Gathering Storm Radio Show is LionHeart from the LionHeart Blog. He’ll fill us in on the Islamist situation in the UK.

His recent post on UK Muslims, and which we will discuss, will give you pause to think of what’s happening in Britain. He’ll be on at the bottom of the hour. Tune in at the beginning of the show and hear the latest pontifications from myself and my co-host Always on Watch.

CALL IN LIVE at (646) 915-9870 for comments, questions or just to air your spleen!

Click here to listen from Noon to 1PM PST

Winds of War: 10 Common Myths On The War on Terror

Recently, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington. In his remarks, he listed the most common myths about the war on terror. Unfortunately, they don’t go far enough in identifying the crux of the problem facing us in our struggle against Islamo-fascism.

Vice President Cheney names and refutes 4 myths. But there are several other myths that exist and by not identifying them and countering them we run the real risk of losing the struggle between a 13th century culture of the Islamists and the 21st century civilization of today.

First, Cheney’s myths.

Myth #1: Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror.

Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating (Osama) bin Laden and the Al Qaida network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. The most serious issue today for the whole world, he has said, is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq. He called it a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam. He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, quote, “The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.”

Cheney is correct. The enemy defines what and where a struggle will take place, not you. And Al Qaida has made that very clear a many occasions in their public proclamations.

Myth #2: We can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements needed to carry out their mission.

When members of Congress pursue an antiwar strategy that’s been called “Slow-Bleed,” they’re not supporting the troops; they are undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits…deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they’re telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.

Cheney is half right here. You can only win a war when it’s fought in the entire theater of Operation. We couldn’t win the Vietnam War because of political reasons, and we’re not going to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for the very same reason.

A theater of war can not be contained within artificial boundaries on a map. The enemy needs to be pursued and defeated with in the entire theater of war. In Vietnam we could not invade North Vietnam which was supporting the war effort in the south without having China enter war.

This defeatist strategy also was employed in the Korean War. When General MacArthur asked to bomb the bridges between China and North Korea to prevent China from sending troops into the peninsula to support the defeated North Koreans, he was told he could only bomb the Korean side of the bridge. The befuddled MacArthur replied, “In all my time as a combat officer, I’ve never knew how to bomb only half a bridge!”

Ii the first Gulf War, the military were given free reign to fight within the theater or war. To eject the Iraqis from Kuwait, the military invaded parts of Iraq - and succeeded in meeting the military objective.

When the military’s hands are tied and the enemy has a safe haven to plan the strategists and deploy their forces, that’s a recipe for defeat. And that’s what we are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamist jihadists operate from safe haven in Pakistan and Iran and as long as they are not pursued into those parts of the theater of war, the outlook for success in Iraq and Afghanistan is bleak. The Islamists know that our inability to pursue them will lead to the wearing down of the multinational forces that will eventually lead to withdrawal and defeat.

You want to win a war? Keep the politics out of it and realize that there is nothing “correct” about war. The point is to win as fast as possible to end the misery of all concerned. Worry about winning the “hearts and minds” of those who have a heart and a mind AFTER you defeat those who have neither.

Myth #3: Leaving Iraq before the job is done will actually strengthen America’s hand in the fight against terrorists.

This myth is dangerous because it represents a full validation of the Al Qaida strategy. The terrorists don’t expect to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. They’re not likely to try. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission, and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome. Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They cite the cases of Beirut in the 1980s and Somalia in the ‘90s. These examples, they believe, show that we are weak and decadent, and that if we’re hit hard enough, we’ll pack it in and retreat.

The result would even greater danger to the United States, because if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again.

Cheney is right on here.

Myth #4: The false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to the broader Middle East.

It’s not hard to imagine what could occur if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves. Moderates would be crushed. Shi’ite extremists, backed by Iran, could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists, led by Al Qaida and remnants of the old Saddam (Hussein) regime. As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional war. If Sunni extremists prevailed, Al Qaida and its allies would recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and underwrite their terrorist designs, including their pledge to destroy Israel. If Iran’s allies prevailed, the regime in Tehran’s own designs for the Middle East would be advanced and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.

I agree 100%.

But Cheney is amiss in his myths and thus the reason why both proponents and opponents of the ‘war on terror’ believe the struggle will go on almost in definitely or is unwinnable in its present state. These myths, if not confronted, will lead to our defeat against the Islamists and their global agenda.

Here they are.

Myth #5: The War is a Criminal Matter.

This is the myth held by the Left. The terrorist are a band of international criminals and should be brought to justice. And that they have rights. The military operations should be used sparingly or not at all or America’s reputation ye world will continue to plummet at the same time making potential allies withdraw their assistance. An article in Newsweek makes this position very clear.

The next American president will be well advised to replace the “war on terror” with the kind of coordinated effort that the fight always should have entailed. In other words, the hunt for the culprits of 9/11 was never simply a war or a criminal manhunt. It was always both, a hybrid covert-war-and-criminal roundup—one in which clear legal rules should have been set to brand terrorists like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as outlaws in the international system. The Geneva Conventions should have been applied; suspects should have had lawyers; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should have been expressly prohibited.

But without knowing it, the article states what really has to be done.

Only if the next president sets the rules more clearly and does a better job of discriminating who the enemy is can we have any hope of winning.

Ah, yes, identifying the actual enemy. But it won’t be the Left who does it.

But now, by letting Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others remain in legal limbo and gradually expanding his definition of the war on terror to include all Islamic “extremists”—among them Hezbollah and Hamas—President Bush may have condemned us to a permanent war. A war in which we are, again, waging an uncomfortably lonely fight, since almost no other country agrees on such a broadly defined enemy.

The article is right about that. Our ‘allies’ are very reluctant to identify these extremist organizations or even the nation states that support them. Appeasement is the rule of the day and nothing short of full scale military attacks on their territory will brings our allies into the real war – the war against Islamism.

Myth #6: The Poverty Myth

There is no robust evidence that there is a link between poverty and terrorism. Jihad Watch writes:

Over the years we have posted many studies that show that jihadists are generally better educated and wealthier than their peers. I expect that at least some of them have come to the attention of officials in Washington, but the assumption among law enforcement and government officials that money will solve the problem of terrorism remains deeply entrenched. Anyway, here is more evidence. "The poverty/terror myth: There may be an economic dimension to terrorism -- but it's not what you think, says Fortune's Cait Murphy," by Cait Murphy in Fortune:

Of the 50 poorest countries in the world only Afghanistan (and perhaps Bangladesh and Yemen) has much experience in terrorism, global or domestic. …..Aren't the people who commit terrorist acts poor, even if they are from countries that are not? No. Remember, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were middle-class sons of Saudi Arabia and many were well-educated. And Osama bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in the Middle East.

But it goes deeper than that. In a 2003 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reported the results of a post-9/11 survey of Palestinians. Asked whether there were "any circumstances under which you would justify the use of terrorism to achieve political goals," the higher-status respondents (merchant, farmer or professional) were more likely to agree (43.3 percent) than those lower down the ladder (laborer, craftsman or employee) (34.6 percent). The higher-status respondents were also more likely to support armed attacks against Israeli targets (86.7 percent to 80.8 percent). The same dynamic existed when education was taken into account.

A comprehensive study of 1,776 terrorist incidents (240 international, the rest domestic) by Harvard professor Albert Abadie, who was sympathetic to the poverty-terrorism idea at first, found no such thing. "When you look at the data," he told the Harvard Gazette, "it's not there."

What drives the militant jihadist is politics – not economics.

Myth #7: You Can’t Fight Billion Muslims

You don’t have to. But what you must do is help non-jihadist Muslims (and that includes the non-violent forms of Jihad) defend themselves against the Islamists and their attempts at imposing their ideology on one time moderate Islamic nations.

Surely the success of Indonesia and Malaysia where Muslims enjoy a high standard of living would temper any attempts at Islamist infiltration? Wrong again.

As Reuters reported on back in October, just 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists. But Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, so while 10 percent may sound like a small number percentage-wise, it is actually quite large in absolute terms. It means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings.

So what do the numbers tell us? That terrorism is the only jihad that the Islamists use to advance their agenda of Islamatizing the world?

The figures above, taken from a variety of nations, continents and contexts, all point in one very ominous direction. They demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the global jihadist movement enjoys a wide and broad base of support that extends far beyond just a minuscule number of supporters. And that far beyond includes the many different types of jihads used by the Islamists – media, litigation, financial, economic, demographic and cultural jihads.

If we are to defeat the Islamist ideology then we need to see that up to now moderate Muslims can be turned and we need to help those who oppose the radical elements in their midst.

Myth #8: If Israel Makes Peace, the Terrorists Will Have No Issue to Rally Around

Those who believe this myth (mostly appeasers and apologists for Islamism) are the most delusional of all. Al Qaeda has make it very clear that though they want to see Israel destroyed, they’ve made it clear that they want America destroyed too.

Eliminating Israel, imposing a peace on Israel that strips her of its defenses will only embolden the terrorist and prove that their tactics will bring them victory.

Myth #8: The Terrorists are Frustrated with the Free World

This is another cherished belief of the appeasers and apologists for Islamism. They say we have ‘understand’ the terrorists and that we are responsible for their anger towards us. There is something wrong with us – not them.

In the words of one of the great appeasers – George Clooney- "They are, in a way, the most sympathetic, but I think that's important. Because if you are going to fight a war on terror, which is not a state that you can go and bomb, then you need to understand what it is that creates the people that would do such horrible things, rather then just saying- labeling them as evildoers."

They are frustrated with the policies and plans of the West, but in reality, we are frustrating theirs – and they don’t like it.

Myth #9: The War on Terror is Threatening Our Civil Freedoms

According to the misguided apologists and appeasers, it’s not the terrorists who want to rob us of our freedoms but the US government itself.

We are told that we are fighting a war against terrorists who "hate our freedom" and seek to "undermine our very way of life." If America succumbs to full-blown tyranny it will not be because of crazed, diabolical "Islamo-Fascists." It will be because the American people willingly relinquished their freedom in the name of security.

To those that believe such tripe I say, “I have a camel to sell you – cheap.”

Then there’s the political side. Former Vice President Al Gore accuses the Bush administration on many an ocassion of using the war on terrorism "to consolidate its power and escape any accountability for its use."

Perhaps this myth is just a ruse to regain political power after all.

Myth #10: It’s a War on Terror

Finally, the most delusional myth of all – we are fighting a war on terror. Even president Bush, in his most lucid moments admits, “We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.”

And how should this ideology, this ‘ism’, this ideology of Islamism be fought? Walid Phares has the answer.

A sound Homeland Security must begin by educating the public as to the nature of the enemy, its ideology, its strategies and tactics. This is how you should prepare the nation to face future Jihadism, not by avoiding a national debate on the real issue under the pretext that Jihadism is some sort of theological matter. Precisely, the enemy wants you to believe that Jihadism (the enemy's profound nature) is just a matter of academic and theological debate. It would be the equivalent of having the propagandists of the IIIrd Reich convincing the Allies, that Nazism is a cultural issue. The West cannot avoid future Jihad unless it rises to a level of an advanced understanding of the enemy's ideology and tactics. And unless that new well-prepared international society equips itself with all the necessary tools, including education and outreach to fellow resisters in the East, the clash with future Jihadists is unavoidable and will last longer.

And those tactics, or multiple coordinated jihads, I have written about time and time before.

  • Cultural jihad
  • Economic jihad
  • Demographic jihad
  • Litigation jihad
  • Institutional jihad
  • Financial jihad
  • Media jihad.
  • Thugery jihad
  • Criminal jihad

All of which has the objective of imposing, one way or another, Shariah law on a society.

If we are to win this war against Islamism wherever an whenever it’s found, we need to confront and dispel these myths or we will find ourselves under the heel of the boot of the Islamists.

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.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Storm Track Infiltration: Terrorists Conned UK Out of Passports

The UK is becoming the biggest threats to US security. Their incessant accommodations to Muslims in the name of political correctness are undermining the security of the free world.

An article in the New Republic magazine details how this summer's terror alert has left a question mark in the US over the trustworthiness of young Asians in Britain who trace their roots back to Pakistan and in particular Kashmir. It highlights how extremists with links to Pakistan have been implicated in a string of attacks and plots against Western targets, often after attending training camps run by terror organizations.

The analysis comes amid mounting calls in Washington for a review of the threat posed by British citizens, who are increasingly being seen as a likely source of terror attacks against the US. The US administration and its supporters are also worried by signs that so-called moderate British Muslims have used the terror alerts to call for a change in British foreign policy.

That’s old news. Now the new.

TWO convicted terrorists, including a key al-Qaeda member, were among at least 10,000 applicants who fraudulently obtained passports from the Home Office in the last year, ministers said.

One of the men - Dhiren Barot - was the al-Qaeda figure who planned radioactive "dirty" bombs in London. He was convicted in December after admitting conspiracy to murder and jailed for 40 years. He managed to obtain nine British passports, seven of them in his name. The other, Salaheddine Benyaich, a Moroccan national, obtained two British passports. He is serving 18 years in a Moroccan jail for terrorist offences.

Last night, the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) said a face-to-face interview would have stopped the applications.

DUH! You think? Oh, wait a minute. That might lead the official seeing the applicant to apply profiling. Can’t do that. Especially if he’s in prison garb.

The Home Office revealed that an estimated 10,000 fake applications had been successful by the year to September, out of more than 16,500 attempted fraudulent applications. The real figure could be far higher as officials admitted 10,000 was only an estimate.

Ministers used the high incidence of fraud to make the case for face-to-face interviews and identity cards. However opposition politicians warned that the ease of obtaining passports under false pretences undermined, rather than justified, the need to roll out identity cards.

But [the] arguments were dismissed by the Conservatives, Lib Dems and the SNP.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said it was "outrageous" that the government issued multiple genuine passports to convicted terrorists under false pretences.

"What is to say they won't issue genuine ID cards to terrorists or that terrorists will not use fraudulent passports to obtain genuine ID cards?" he added.

Yep – a really quandary. It’s now a little too late to close the security barn door after the political correct multicultural horse has gotten out.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems home affairs spokesman, said: "This bad news should not be used cynically to justify the creation of an ID card sledgehammer to crack the passport fraud nut."

Typical liberal hogwash. Perhaps the Libs might see that such an ID card might solve a multiple of security problems now facing Britain thanks to the liberals and their policies.

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.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Storm Track Appeasement: US Judge Orders American Children to be Indoctrinated into Islam

Here are the facts as presented at the Americans Against Hate site. Hat tip to Michael.

This is the case of Rosine Ghawji, a woman who unknowingly married and had two children with a man who, through his family and acquaintances, was involved in international terrorism. Originally from Syria, Maher Ghawji, Rosine's husband, is an admitted Wahhabist and member of the violent Muslim Brotherhood. Maher's brother, Haitham Ghawji, is linked to Al-Qaida and has trained for jihad in Afghanistan and has fought in Bosnia. Maher Ghawji's hatred towards Jews borders on obsession. He has told his sons that he wants to "get rid" of all Jews and that he wishes for at least one of his sons to become a suicide bomber. Maher Ghawji is currently romantically involved with Areej Zufari, the Spokesperson for the Islamic Society of Central Florida (ISCF), an umbrella organization for seven mosques in the Orlando, Florida area with various ties to radical Islam. According to Maher Ghawji's sons, he (Maher), on a number of occasions, has told them (his sons) that he would be happy to blow them up for the sake of Allah; Maher Ghawji has, as well, tried to obtain their passports, in an attempt to take the boys to Syria against their will. Maher Ghawji has also threatened to murder his wife, Rosine, who is Catholic.

Now, Maher Ghawji wants custody of his children. Rosine Ghawji wants desperately for that not to happen.

Now, thanks to Judge Donna M. Fields of Memphis, Tennessee, Rosine is about to be thrown out of her house, and her ex-husband will be made primary custodian of the children, in charge of their religious upbringing.

Americans Against Hate urges all who are concerned about the wellbeing of Rosine Ghawji and her children to rally to their cause. Blog on the internet, make phone calls, spread the word, and donate what you can. Joe Kaufman, Chairman of Americans Against Hate and author of the affidavit proving Maher Ghawji's terrorist ties, stated:

"Because of Mr. Ghawji's past actions and because of past statements he has made, we have reason to believe that Judge Fields, in her ruling, has placed these children's lives at risk. We call on everyone to take interest in this case and help Rosine and her children. The war on terrorism is not just overseas."

For all the background and current information about this case or to place a donation, go to . Joe Kaufman is available for interview. E-mail:

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.

Storm Track Intimidation: Journalists on Trial for Insulting Muslims

Two Azerbaijani journalists accused of inciting religious hatred with an article that criticized Islam went on trial Monday, both accusing authorities of waging a politically motivated prosecution.

The case against reporter Rafiq Tagi and editor Samir Huseinov has touched a nerve in Azerbaijan, a mostly Muslim, ex-Soviet republic with a government that has little tolerance for independent media.

One downside to winning the Cold War was the freedom of radical Muslims to pursue the Islamist agenda in their countries. Azerbaijani is a prime example and shows that when Islamists take control of a country, it quickly devolves into a 13th century society.

Tagi's November article in the small newspaper Senet, edited by Huseinov, asserted that Islam has suffocated people, pulled them away from freedom and hindered humanity's development, and said the Prophet Muhammad created problems for Eastern countries.

That’s what you get for telling the truth in a Muslim country where freedom of speech is not tolerated and radical Islam is in control.

The article sparked angry protests - including calls for Tagi's death - in a village near Baku whose conservative Muslim community has clashed with the authoritarian government. The case has also deepened concerns about freedom of speech in the oil-rich country. Tagi, who was brought into the court in handcuffs, said he committed no crime.

"My article - this was purely artistic, a literary discussion and for words one must only answer with words. It is illegal to imprison someone for their convictions," he told the court. Huseinov told the court his constitutional rights had been violated and that authorities were trying to portray him as not being Muslim.

Right. If you’re a Muslim and criticize Muslims or Islam you are not really a Muslim and can be ignored, or worse yet, persecuted. This circular logic was used recently as a response to the secular Muslim conference in Florida.

The trial was expected to be closely watched in the West, which is interested in Azerbaijan because of its vast oil and gas wealth and its strategic position between Iran and Russia.

Of course human rights can be of no interest in the West unless the international human rights organizations can pin violations on only Western nations.

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.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Storm Track Intimidation: Media Jihad – Muslim Ummah Calls for Jihad Against Google

I know. What can Muslims possibly be mad at Google for? Google has time and time again censored anti-Islamic videos on YouTube. Muslims on YouTube have formed several groups where users and videos that criticize Islam (which they define as "Hate Speech") are listed and mass-flagged as abuse. YouTube seems to remove videos and sometimes even ban users automatically. Muslims claim that they only flag videos that have violated YouTube's TOS, but this has been proven false.

Here’s a recent example. From PowerLine.

Last week I posted links to the incredible documentary "Confrontation at Concordia" by Martin Himel on the 2002 takeover of Montreal's Concordia University by an Islamist student contingent. Charles Johnson described the documentary as showing "a little intifada, right in the middle of Montreal." Charles credited IDF Dave for uploading the documentary. I embedded the first of the documentary's five parts as loaded on YouTube by Dave, but YouTube removed the first part because of the introductory reference that Dave had inserted to "radical Islam."
But now, Muslims find that Google is somewhat two-faced. From Jihad Unspun.
Orkut, the so-called Internet social network service run by Google is the latest to jump on the bandwagon of ongoing blasphemy against our Prophet (pbuh) by allowing despicable content, hate speech and degrading cartoons to grace its pages.

Named after its creator, Google employee Orkut Büyükkökten, it claims to be designed to help users meet new friends and maintain existing relationships but it has rapidly become a place of racism and religious ridicule. As Orkut facilitates the easy creation of accounts and communities where users can then post so-called profiles, set up communities and link to external websites, it’s easy to post multiple id’s quickly.

In recent months, there has been rise in the nu
mber of fake and clone profiles, something that can be achieved just in a matter of a few minutes. These profiles are normally created to troll, to spam and to flood Orkut with depraved content. It isn't hard to find users owning more than one profile, with some stating they own hundreds. And that’s how the massive amount of defamation has been able to steep this Google product in hate filled profiles.

While several hate communities that focused on
racism, Nazism, and white supremacy have been deleted due to guideline violation, the same has not been true for the blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Has Google gone schizophrenic? Censoring Anti-Islamic content on YouTube and turning a blind eye on Orkut?

The website is now blocked by the government of Iran, UAE and Saudi Arabia but the filth is widely available elsewhere. Several profiles host links to cartoons more depraved than those in Denmark yet Google has failed to implement their terms of use. One of the most offensive posts is hosted in an Orkut profile that links to the following “Blogspot” page. Blogspot is also owned by Google. Here you we see shameful blasphemous cartoons that make Denmark’s assault look mild.
Here are some of what looks to be ‘educational’ cartoons about the prophet from Incredible Islam.

How to answer these blasphemers? Why with INTIMIDATION of course!

So it is now up to us, the Muslim Ummah, to take action against this religious hatred.

We need to let Google know that this content is unacceptable, especially from a publisher with this kind of distribution and that the Muslims will not tolerate it. Fill out this form for Google and register your complaint. While it is near impossible to find a “complaints” department on Google, this form will allow you to type in the url and submit it. Remember to be courteous and don’t sink to the low levels the enemies of Islam have.

The cartoons published in Denmark set a dangerous precedent that has proved to be a slippery slope. If we allow this type of content to be published, sooner or later even the Muslims will not find it offensive, may Allah prevent that, Amen. We need to act and act now to remove the vile material from the web. There is power in numbers and if we act as one hand, Google will have no choice but to respond and remove it.

Hear that bloggers? We’re next.

So what face will Google show to the world? Free speech or submission?

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.