Friday, April 24, 2009
CONVICTED murderer Bassam Hamzy, accused of masterminding a drug ring from jail, has won the right to sue the New South Wales Commissioner of Corrective Services over his solitary confinement.
After the decision was handed down, Hamzy - who appeared by videolink from jail - shouted: "I just f..cked the commissioner, I just f..ed the commissioner.''
Justice Michael Adams had already left the courtroom in the NSW Supreme Court in Sydney, but the link was immediately turned off after the outburst.
The judge had given Hamzy and another convicted murderer Emad Sleiman permission to sue Commissioner Ron Woodham and the State of NSW over their segregation.
Both prisoners are seeking damages.
Hamzy was charged with supplying drugs last December, after police alleged he made more than 19,000 calls from jail as he coordinated a $250,000-a-week drug operation.
In 2007, he was accused of converting fellow prisoners to Islam in order to form a gang labelled the "Super Max Jihadists''.
In 2001, he was convicted of murder, malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, maliciously discharging loaded arms with intent to do grievous bodily harm, threatening to use a firearm with intent to prevent or hinder lawful apprehension and conspiracy to murder.
His non-parole period will expire in December 2023.
Sleiman was jailed in 1999 for at least 16 years and three months for murder and contempt.
Both claim their solitary confinement is unlawful due to the absence of a "segregation direction'' which is required under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act.
Sleiman's lawyers say if it was lawful, it was void as it was made for "an improper purpose''.
Justice Adams dismissed an application by lawyers for the commissioner and state who wanted the cases thrown out.
"The case is about what the law will do to require obedience to and redress departures from the obligations it imposes,'' he said.
"It has nothing to do with the personal merits, or lack of them for that matter, of the prisoner.''
The judge said it was self-evident the isolation of a person from communication with others was a "severe and possibly dangerous step''.
"It must be done with considerable care and only when it is truly necessary,'' he said.
The judge ruled the commissioner and the State should pay the costs of the prisoners for the latest proceedings.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
MOGADISHU (Mareeg)--Amanda Lindhout, a Canadian journalist who was abducted by Somali gunmen in the Somali capital Mogadishu about eight months ago is reportedly pregnant after she was apparently raped by her abductors, sources told Mareeg’s office in Mogadishu on Wednesday.
Sources say the Canadian journalist Amanda and an Australian photojournalist are being held by the militia in the northeastern neighbourhood of Suqa Holaha neighborhood in Mogadishu.
The abductors have demanded $2.5 million of ransom from the two journalists to release.
Amanda and the Australian photojournalist once escaped from a house in Suqa Holaha neighnourhood and entered a mosque near by, but they were recaptured again.
File photo of Amanda
The militia who kidnapped the journalists claims they are al-shabab Islamists. Some reports suggest that one the abductors made Amanda as his wife.
The journalists were kidnapped between the Afgoye district and the capital city with their Somali photojournalist, Abdifatah Mohammed Elmi, who was acting as a translator for the two in September 2008, but Abdifitah was released after 5 months.
Abdiftah said that he did not see Amanda and colleague since the militia abducted them.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Islam IS the problem
Pakistan Should Serve as a Warning
18 Apr, 2009In order to control or eliminate any problem, the source of the problem must be identified, controlled and/or eliminated. Such an approach to problem-solving seems patently obvious, but apparently it is not. One of the problems facing governments worldwide is how to stop the advance of militant Islam. However, relatively few people even seem capable of admitting what the source of the problem, which is Islam, let alone addressing it. By "Islam", I do mean "Islam"—not Islamic radicals or militants, nor radical Islam—but Islam in all of its guises.
- On September 11, 2008, I published an article wherein I noted that:
...much of the Islamic world seems to be sliding deeper and deeper into Islamic extremism and I see no signs of anything occurring to stop the decline or the trend. For example, Lebanon, Egypt, and Pakistan will be lost to Islamic extremists within the next half century. Oil wealth continues to pour into the Middle East with the adverse effect of hurting Western economies and providing the very revenue being used to finance the advance of fundamentalist Islamic ideology throughout the world, including the United States, as well as to fund international terrorism.
It has taken seven months, but I see that the "experts" are now confirming some of my conclusions. An article by Jonathan S. Landay, writing for the McClatchy Newspapers on April 16, 2009, observed:
"A growing number of U.S. intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials have concluded that there's little hope of preventing nuclear-armed Pakistan from disintegrating into fiefdoms controlled by Islamist warlords and terrorists, posing the a greater threat to the U.S. than Afghanistan's terrorist haven did before 9/11."
As I listen to politicians and experts alike discuss the many ways they have tried to stop the spread of Islamists such as the Taliban and Islamic tribal warlords in Pakistan, I am always unnerved by the fact that they never say that the problem is the inherent nature of Islam and that if we want to stop Islamists from spreading their influence and control we must reverse Islam's influence. Yet, there is no other solution that will work in the long-run to save places like Pakistan, Lebanon, and Egypt from falling victim to total Islamist control, to prevent Europe from becoming Eurabia, and to preserve other non-Muslim cultures. Because our leaders are unwilling or unable to address the root cause of the problem, it is obvious that they seem increasingly perplexed as to how to stem the Islamists' ominous advance.
Durban II intends to criminalize any “defamation of Islam”
The UN’s Durban II Hate-FestBy Alan Caruba Sunday, April 19, 2009
On Monday, April 20, the United Nations will convene Durban II, a conference which purports to encourage efforts to end the scourge of racism that has driven much of the history of mankind.
Like everything that emanates from that disgusting international organization, it has no intention of living up to its Declaration on Human Rights. If it did, it is unlikely that Iran’s Mamoud Ahmadinejad would receive a warm welcome, nor that Iran would have been the vice-chair of the preparatory committee led by Libya’s representative.
When Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN General Assembly last September, he said: “The dignity, integrity and rights of the European and American people are being played with by a small, but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the U.S. in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”
For Ahmadinejad, all of the Arab nations of the Middle East, and a large number of European nations, everything wrong with the world is conveniently explained by blaming the Jews. Durban I, held in South Africa, was such a hate-fest of anti-Semitism that the U.S. representatives withdrew and refused to participate.
Under the Obama administration, some of our diplomats tentatively attended planning sessions of Durban II despite knowing that it was going to be a repeat of Durban I. In doing so they signaled a degree of legitimacy for this most vile conclave. The Obama administration has decided to renew its membership in the UN Human Rights Council, something the Bush administration refused to do.
The previous UN Human Rights Commission was so vile that it had to be “reformed” into the present Council, but its membership includes the African and Asian groups, neither of which is famous for anything other than repression, corruption, and racism.
Member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference hold a majority in each of these groups, giving it the balance of power. Neither the U.S. vote, nor that of its “Western European and Others” group play any role in ameliorating the abject racism of the Council.
Durban II intends to criminalize any “defamation of Islam” based on a Pakistani proposal that only mentions Islam by name and ignores the other religions of the world such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and, of course, Judaism.
Islam regards all other faiths as “infidels” or unbelievers and the Koran explicitly says they should be subjugated and that their adherents can be killed, especially if they are Jews. It is a crime in Islamic nations to speak ill of Islam and the punishment is death. Converting to another religion will get you killed as well.
In a statement to the April 17 meeting of the preparatory committee held in Geneva, Switzerland, Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN, said, “The eyes of millions of victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance are upon YOU, the representatives of states and the United Nations. And instead of hope you have given them despair. Instead of truth you have handed them diplomatic double-talk. Instead of combating anti-Semitism, you have handed them a reason for Jews to fear UN-driven hatemongering on a global scale.”
When it convenes on April 20th, the birth date of Adolph Hitler in 1889, his spirit will dominate the proceedings of Durban II. The good news is that no U.S. diplomats will attend. One hopes other nations whose people suffered and died as the result of his genocidal hatred will not attend either.
Durban II is yet another example of the Islamic jihad, its centuries old war on all other faiths. Those that deny its existence will continue to suffer its consequences.
Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com and a weekly commentary at http://www.anxietycenter.com, the website of The National Anxiety Center.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Genocidal Harvest of Leftist Self-Loathing
By Andrew G. Bostom
AndrewBostom.org | 4/8/2009
Why does the Left—from the more vociferous, to the (outwardly) sober—openly embrace, or rationalize, or at very best ignore and fail to condemn—the totalitarian scourge of contemporary jihadism, and all its accompanying “sacralized” Islamic ugliness: genocidal hatred of non-Muslims, Muslim “apostate” freethinkers, and women?
Almost immediately after Bolshevism emerged as an important political ideology, with real power, Bertrand Russell understood its similarity to Islam. He made the following comparison between Islam and Bolshevism in his 1920, “Theory and Practice of Bolshevism”:
Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam.
Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike the early successors of Muhammad.
Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.
Three decades later, sociologist Jules Monnerot’s “Sociology and Psychology of Communism” (first published in French in 1949) opened with a chapter describing Communism as, “The Twentieth-century Islam.” Monnerot noted that like its religious antecedent, Islam, “Communism takes the field both as a secular religion and as a universal State.[emphasis in the original]” He concludes the comparison by observing,
This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of a State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranean warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.
Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical center from which communist influence radiates; it is an ‘Islam’ on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment…[I]t is not the first empire in which the temporal and public power goes hand in hand with a shadowy power which works outside its imperial frontiers to undermine the social structure of neighboring States. The Islamic East affords several examples of a like duality and duplicity. The Egyptian Fatimids, and later the Persian Safavids, were the animators from the heart of their own States, of an active and organizing legend, an historical myth, calculated to make fanatics and obtain their total devotion, designed to create in neighboring States an underworld of ruthless gangsters. The eponymous ancestor of the Safavids was a saint from whom they magically derived the religious authority in whose name they operated. They were Shi’is of Arabian origin, and the militant order they founded was dedicated to propaganda and ‘nucleation’ throughout the whole of Persia and Asia Minor. It recruited ‘militants’ and ‘adherents’ and ‘sympathizers’. These were the Sufis. As rulers their sympathies were recognized by other sovereigns in the same way that Stalin, head of the State, is recognized by other heads of States, and rightly, as the leader of world communism.
Jamie Glazov’s trenchant, timely analysis United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror, elucidates how the contemporary Left—self-professed torch-bearers of “humanitarianism”—is so afflicted with moral and intellectual idiocy that it promotes, via activism, or apologetics—the genocidal aspirations of totalitarian Islam.
Glazov reminds us of Eric Hoffer’s seminal observations from “The True Believer,” contrasting those persons who possess “…a sense of fulfillment [and] think it is a good world and would like to conserve it as it is…,” with “…the frustrated [who] favor radical change.” Unfortunately, as Hoffer noted, the true believer’s desire for “radical change” is characteristically founded upon the nihilistic craving to “…be rid of an unwanted self…,” creating destructive mass movements which “…satisfy the passion for self-renunciation.”
Hoffer’s paradigm is deftly expanded upon by Glazov to explain the contemporary phenomenon of Leftist support for jihadists and jihadism.
In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole.
…As history tragically recorded, this “holy cause” follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition—that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest—and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be shaped into a more perfect form.
…[T]he new generation of believers found their own idols in the terror war. The romance with Islamism is just a logical continuation of the long leftist tradition of worshipping America’s foes.
An added ingredient in this equation is the Left’s sacred cow of multiculturalism. The believer cannot accept the truth about Islamism or much of Islam, because he would then have to concede that not all cultures are equal, and that some cultures (e.g., America’s, with its striving for equality) are superior to others (e.g., Islam’s structure of gender apartheid). For the believer to retain his sense of purpose and to avoid the collapse of his identity and community, such thoughts must be suppressed at all cost. Because he seeks to nurture his self-identification as a victim and to lose himself inside a totalitarian collective whole, he must deny the truth about the object of his worship, as believers of previous generations denied the truth about Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and other totalitarian societies.
Because of these factors, the believer clings to a rigid Marxist view of the terror war, no matter how much empirical evidence proves that Islamist violence has absolutely nothing to do with economic inequality, class oppression, or Western exploitation. This is why, when Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi justify their terror with references to the Koran, and when Zacarias Moussaoui casually explains in court that he was simply following the Koran’s directive that Muslims must make Islam the world’s superpower, the believer always turns a deaf ear.
This is a long tradition of the Left: progressives have always assumed that they understand the world much better than the people for whom they purport to speak. In terms of the terror war, there exists an obvious and profound racism in the believer’s disposition, since the implication is that Muslims and Arabs are not bright enough to understand their own circumstances, and therefore their explanations of their own actions cannot be taken seriously.
Thus while bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Moussaoui may insist that the holy jihad is motivated by the desire to spread sharia throughout the world, to erase individual freedom, and to kill, convert, or subjugate infidels, the Western leftists is constrained to rationalize that they are saying such things only because they have been hurt by capitalism and Western imperialism. As David Horowitz points out, the leftist holds the Marxist perspective that religion is nothing more than a thought structure rooted in suffering under capitalism. Once the oppression stops, the believer assumes, the Islamist conceptions of Allah and jihad (which the believer privately considers ridiculous but would never dare say so in public) will simply disappear. Believers, therefore, inevitably deny the Islamic dimension that the terrorists themselves insist is their impetus for terror.
Unlike any other book, Jamie Glazov’s remarkably lucid, succinct analysis explains the odious alliance between resurgent totalitarian Islam, and a large swath of the contemporary Left.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The dark side of Dubai
Dubai was meant to be a Middle-Eastern Shangri-La, a glittering monument to Arab enterprise and western capitalism. But as hard times arrive in the city state that rose from the desert sands, an uglier story is emerging. Johann Hari reports
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
The wide, smiling face of Sheikh Mohammed – the absolute ruler of Dubai – beams down on his creation. His image is displayed on every other building, sandwiched between the more familiar corporate rictuses of Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders. This man has sold Dubai to the world as the city of One Thousand and One Arabian Lights, a Shangri-La in the Middle East insulated from the dust-storms blasting across the region. He dominates the Manhattan-manqué skyline, beaming out from row after row of glass pyramids and hotels smelted into the shape of piles of golden coins. And there he stands on the tallest building in the world – a skinny spike, jabbing farther into the sky than any other human construction in history.
But something has flickered in Sheikh Mohammed's smile. The ubiquitous cranes have paused on the skyline, as if stuck in time. There are countless buildings half-finished, seemingly abandoned. In the swankiest new constructions – like the vast Atlantis hotel, a giant pink castle built in 1,000 days for $1.5bn on its own artificial island – where rainwater is leaking from the ceilings and the tiles are falling off the roof. This Neverland was built on the Never-Never – and now the cracks are beginning to show. Suddenly it looks less like Manhattan in the sun than Iceland in the desert.
Once the manic burst of building has stopped and the whirlwind has slowed, the secrets of Dubai are slowly seeping out. This is a city built from nothing in just a few wild decades on credit and ecocide, suppression and slavery. Dubai is a living metal metaphor for the neo-liberal globalised world that may be crashing – at last – into history.
The colapse of Dubai, couldn't have happen to a nicer bunch of assholes. :-)
Friday, April 10, 2009
The unspeakable practice of female circumcision that's destroying young women's lives in Britain
By JO-ANN GOODWIN and DAVID JONES - Mail online
Last updated at 11:57 03 January 2008
The girl is 15 years old but looks much younger. Her face has the fine-boned elegance typical of her native Somalia, but her accent belongs to the streets of East London. She is plainly terrified. That much is clear from the way she avoids eye contact and constantly fidgets in her chair.
"Promise you won't print my name or anything?" she implores repeatedly. "Promise no one will ever know that I've spoken to you? If people in my community find out, they'll say that I've betrayed them and I'll have to run away. And anyway, I don't want my parents to be sent to jail."
With great courage, this British-Somali girl - she asks that we call her "Lali" - is about to describe a barbaric act of ritualised cruelty which has been perpetrated against her. Knowing the danger to which she is exposing herself, her anxiety is entirely understandable.
read more here..
Isn't multiculturalism fantastic? - Dave
What can be called a travesty of judiciary, the Saudi Arabia’s Higher Judicial Council has actually sentenced a rape victim to receive 200 lashes and prison while the perpetrators of humanity’s most heinous crime were allowed to walk free.
The 19-year-old Shiite woman who was raped by six armed men was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes for traveling in the car of an ‘unrelated male’ at the time of the rape. However after the woman had the temerity of not unquestioningly submitting herself to be tortured as punishment of being raped, the judges on Saudi Arabia’s Higher Judicial Council more than doubled her punishment for attempting to influence the judiciary through the media.
Appeasing Islam again:
Sydney hospital bans crucifixes, bibles from chapel
NSW Health Minister John Della Bosca says he will seek a review of a major Sydney hospital's decision to remove religious symbols - such as crucifixes and Bibles - from a chapel.
Royal North Shore Hospital has asked for all religious symbols to be removed from the hospital chapel because the building is now being used by a number of different faiths.
Each faith will be allowed to display their symbols during religious services, but they must be taken down and stored out of sight afterwards, The Daily Telegraph says.
The hospital was "moving with the times'', a spokeswoman told the paper.
Mr Della Bosca says he will ask a public chaplaincy committee, which advises NSW Health and is made up of religious leaders from all faiths, to review the decision and provide the hospital with advice.
"We do need to move with the times, but we need to move with the advice of the people, the ministers of religion and priests that work in ... chapels in our public hospital,'' Mr Della Bosca told Macquarie Radio.
''(They) are the people I want to get making these decisions.
"A politician, a bureaucrat, should not be making these decisions.''
Mr Della Bosca said the decision to ban the religious symbols had been made three years ago by the then director of nursing, not by a hospital bureaucrat, as had been reported.
"You really want the right people making decisions - when I need some advice about how we should handle surgery, I ask surgeons,'' Mr Della Bosca said.
"I would have thought the most sensible outcome here, and I don't want to anticipate the outcome I'll get from the chaplains ... is that rather than nobody having their symbols, that everybody has their symbols appropriately arranged and organised, respectful of one another.''
As far as I'm concerned, the hospital shouldn't even provide a chapel. If people want to worship their imaginary Gods and practice their superstition, they can organise to do it elsewhere. If there is no elsewhere to do it, then toughen the fuck up! However, the fact still remains, that the well established traditions, namely Judaism and Chritianity, have full right to remain intact and respected within the domian of the hospital systems. Further more, subjugating our religious traditions for the sake of Islam, is not only extremely insulting, it is counter to our well established moral values. Islam is a ruthless and barbaric ideology, which has absolutely NO place within our health care systems, period! - Dave
Thursday, April 9, 2009
I watched this video last night.
I was very impressed with the celestial observations but the conclusion was wildly unscientific.
It occurred to me immediately that the stars themselves are the real characters as represented by the bible, that the stories in the bible are not referring to actual people, but instead provide a description of heavenly observations, later interpretations elaborating the story to mythical proportions.
The messiah then, could instead of being a man born on earth, is a star born in the heavens.
It could quite easily be possible, that that star inhabited the skies for a period of 30 odd years, hung upon a cross, descended below the horizon, reappeared again after three days, and then vanished.
I'm no astronomer but I can see how this could be possible.
I have a sneaky suspicion, that Obama was going for the Abdullahs groin, seriously.
And a nice nod to the queen:
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
More and more we are getting glimpses into Obama's soul. He himself must be deeply offended by America and thinks that parts of it (America) are "crass". He feels this so much he felt he needed to apologise for it to a bunch of Islamic students in Turkey this week- whilst not asking the same of them, i.e, to do a bit of self reflection themselves about their own "culture" and way of life. To be blunt we need to talk about beheadings, sexual assault of women and girls, paedofilia, public whipping, burning of women's faces and the contant verbal threats made vis a vis the western way of life.
If Obama feels the need to confess to muslims that the USA is "crass" we need to get all of the apologies and confessions out on the table. Its not fair for one side to do all the self reflection, apologising and confessing and bowing down to. I need and want the very same from the Islamic world before we start "working together". Until such time, there will never be a mutual understanding.
Obama visited Turkey this week telling officials and students that he has muslims in his family and that USA is not at war with Islam, never was, and never will be.
What about addressing the fact that Islam has been at war with the west; was, is, and always has been? George Bush never made any declarations of a war against Islam in fact calling it the "religion of peace" so what is Obama apologising for?
Calling Islam a religion of peace was Bush's biggest mistake in my view, as Islam is clearly not a religion of peace. Islam has been calling, all along, for the complete domination of the world, for Islam to have complete and total interference in ALL aspects of life, everywhere.
Obama also declared that Islam has "alot" to offer the west: beheadings, rape, inequality, bombings, sharia law? Is that what he's referring to? I don't agree with Obama. I think Islam has nothing to offer the west at all. Freedom from Islam is what the west needs and requires. Why isn't the government listening?
I can understand what Obama is trying to do and I'm sure it is with best intentions. Somewhere along the way though he will have to address the facts that Islam is not friendly to the west, never was and never will be.
Islam and Islamics have made it abundantly clear, that Islam and Islamics intend to dominate EVERY sphere of influence in the world.
ISLAM IS AT WAR WITH THE WEST!!
Why doesn't president Obama already understand this? Maybe its because he's got muslims 'in his family'.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Why is political correctness still preventing us from protecting liberty, freedom and prosperity?
There needs to a be radical change, NOW, other wise we are going to lose our security, our liberty and our values, our way of life.
This link is an ACT for America but its also applicable to Australia and other countries and cultures opposed to the spread of Islam.
Get the book: They must be stopped
Monday, April 6, 2009
Now it is best to let Islam to speak for itself.
Ayatollah Khomeini elaborates on duties for every Muslim (source)
As Khomeini himself put it: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world….But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.”
The goal of this conquest would be to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. As Khomeini put it: “What is the good of us [i.e., the mullahs] asking for the hand of a thief to be severed or an adulteress to be stoned to death when all we can do is recommend such punishments, having no power to implement them?”
Khomeini accordingly delivered notorious rebuke to the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
If you don’t know much about Islam, you are at an disadvantage understanding terrorist events and during discussions. This is one of the best site on basic facts on Islam. Click here
More to come …..
Saudi judge sentences pregnant gang-rape victim to 100 lashes for committing adultery
By Liz Hazelton, 11th February 2009
A Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.
The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.
He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.
A judge in the Saudi city of Jeddah, pictured, ruled that the woman was guilty of adultery and should be jailed for a year.
She later discovered she was pregnant and made a desperate attempt to get an abortion at the King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces.
According to the Saudi Gazette, she eventually ‘confessed’ to having ‘forced intercourse’ with her attackers and was brought before a judge at the District Court in Jeddah.
He ruled she had committed adultery - despite not even being married - and handed down a year’s prison sentence, which she will serve in a prison just outside the city.
She is still pregnant and will be flogged once she has had the child.
The Saudi Arabian legal system practices a strict form of medieval law. Women have very few rights and are not even allowed to drive.
They are also banned from going out in public in the company of men other than male relatives.
Heybrook primary school, then and now.
The British have ONE country to call their own, just ONE home, and this is what the insanity of muti-cult-ism has done to that home. Turned it into a melting pot of ethnic diversity, given the British ONE home land away, to foreign invasion.
Its a crying shame, a crying shame.
US President Barack Obama greets King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
Obama in Deep Submission to Saudi Arabian King AbdullahBy Sean Osborne Thursday, April 2, 2009
Thank the Lord that Barack Obama is an usurper president and not a real President of these United States, for if he were then the above clickable image of the deep head and bended-knee bow of submission (Islam) before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia would be the surest sign that his “my Muslim faith” gaffe comment in front of the whole nation while a guest on George Stephanopoulos ‘This Week’ television program was no gaffe at all.
Photo: US President Barack Obama, center, back to camera, greets King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, center, before the official G20 leaders group photo with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II at London’s Buckingham Palace, Wednesday, April 1, 2009. (AP Photo/John Stillwell/pool)
A Tale of Two Bows, starring Barack Obama
Barack Obama paid his respects to two very different monarchs.
Watch the American President give a slight head nod to the UK’s Queen Elizabeth, and then practically touch the toes of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Unfortunately those two don't go together in Islam...
KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Amid mounting pressure from the West, Afghan President Hamid Karzai says his government will review a recently approved version of a law that critics say legalizes marital rape and the U.S. president has called "abhorrent."
Recently approved version of law also mandates that a woman ask a male relative to leave the house.
"We understand the concerns of our allies in the international community," Karzai told reporters Saturday.
The minister of justice would study the draft, he said.
"If there is anything that is of concern to us then we will definitely take action in consultation with our [religious clerics] and send it back to the parliament," Karzai said. "This is something that we are also serious about and we should not allow."
Karzai's news conference was in response to a series of news reports by Western media since the president signed the law last month.
He specifically mentioned a March 31 story by London-based The Independent, which called the law "a massive blow for women's rights" and cited critics who said Karzai "rushed" the bill through parliament in hopes of appeasing Islamic fundamentalists ahead of August elections.
Human rights groups and news reports consistently refer to a report from the U.N. Development Fund for Women which reportedly stated that the legislation -- a piece of sharia law, or Islamic law -- that affects the Shiite community in the predominantly Sunni nation "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband" by allowing men to force sexual intercourse on their spouses.
Shiites make up roughly 10 percent of Afghanistan's population.
Western leaders attending a NATO conference Saturday also signaled their disapproval of the legislation.
"I think this law is abhorrent," U.S. President Obama said in Strasbourg, France. "We think that it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture, but we also think that there are certain basic principles that all nations should uphold, and respect for women and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed, with the latter saying, "We very much hope that the draft piece of legislation is to be withdrawn."
The law was drafted by Afghanistan's conservative lawmakers after spending more than a year off and on the parliament's daily agenda. Shia Muslims have been practicing their form of Islam for centuries in Afghanistan, but this law allows them to preserve their identity among the majority Sunni population, one parliamentarian said.
Among its provisions are that women must ask a male relative to leave the house.
"What my fear is, women and children of Afghanistan are always the victims of political games," Afghan lawmaker Fawzia Koofi told CNN in a recent interview. "I mean, they don't have a gun to fight, they cannot create a mess."
Koofi, and other critics of the law, hope that the supreme court will rule that the legislation is at odds with the Afghan constitution, which promises equal rights to all citizens -- male or female.
Still, despite the international outcry against the bill, many in Afghanistan remain unaware of it. Support can be found among those who do, especially the Shiite population.
"Shia people are in Afghanistan," Shia resident Mohammad Zahir said. "They are a part of Afghanistan and there needs to be a law that they go by and follow."
Madonna the disgusting excuse for a "mother" goes and tries to adopt a black little toddler as a substitute for a "designer handbag". The kid has a living father, its not an orphan... disgusting! We are teaching black people well aren't we? In years go come, we'll see little white designer handbags hanging off rich black people. I'm sure we'll think its "cute" then too...
Saturday, April 4, 2009
I am not surprised and nor should any American. Starstruck Americans who voted for this clown did not bother checking Obama's background before voting for him. It was freely available on the internet and in the media. He's an American hating, self deprecating traitor who basically can't stand anything America stands for. His wife is even worse. They have no place in the white house and there should be no place in government for politicians who do not love their own country.
Good minds are studied; great minds are prosecuted. If this historical dictum holds true, then Geert Wilders is a modern great mind.
The Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) currently faces trial in his native Amsterdam for “hate crimes” and incitement, for the sin of quoting the Koran’s less flattering passages in his groundbreaking film, Fitna. (Click here to view it online.) His film explores the religious roots of Islamic terrorism on the national and individual level. He considers the Koran the blueprint for a totalitarian theocracy, telling the Hudson Institute last year, “Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.”
Although he lives under constant threat of death – a threat made all-too-real to his fellow Dutchmen Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, both liberal-minded critics of Mohammedanism – he faces persecution for inciting his own peril. In addition to the Dutch trial, French “human rights activists” – in particular one Yassine Bouzrou – are suing Wilders for stating that many Parisian neighborhoods are “no-go areas for women without head scarves” and calling the 2005 riots a “Muslim intifada.” (FrontPage Magazine has noted the disturbing worldwide incidence of Muslim gang-rape, as well as Muslim riots in Paris.) The umpteenth French collaboration followed on the heels of the Kingdom of Jordan charging Wilders with blasphemy last summer. Another kingdom, Great Britain, denied Wilders entry in February. After he had been invited to screen Fitna before the House of Lords, his invitation was withdrawn under Muslim protest. When he arrived in the UK, he was detained for hours, then ejected from the country.
Wilders, already of consequence for his defense of freedom, may attain another historical distinction: he may become the first man convicted for expressing the dominant view of his own country. FrontPage Magazine’s Jacob Laksin has noted Wilders’ policies include support for “restricting immigration from Muslim countries; for more aggressively monitoring domestic extremism, including radical mosques; and for reducing an indulgent welfare state that allows immigrants to live comfortably without assimilating” – all positions gaining ground as the traditionally tolerant land witnesses increasing physical assaults upon its homosexual population. It is precisely his homeland’s tradition of secularism and tolerance he wishes to uphold, as he takes up his newest battle: repealing EU hate speech laws.
Despite his being on trial for allegedly offending his nation’s conscience, polls show if elections were held today, the PVV would win between one-fifth and one-quarter of the Netherlands’ 150 seats.
His stance – speaking out although it means traveling with a hefty contingent of security – has won him acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. FrontPage Magazine selected Wilders as its 2008 Man of the Year. He eschews personal glory, telling FrontPage in an interview, “Speaking out boldly cost me my personal liberty, with 24-hour security and police protection for more than four years now…I am no hero but I would rather be killed for what I say and believe than submit in silence to Islamic totalitarianism.”
It is not everyday Americans have the opportunity to meet someone charged with thoughtcrime, but they will have just that opportunity this weekend, as the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the International Free Press Society (IFPS) welcome the man London turned away. DHFC and IFPS will bring Wilders, one of the most outspoken defenders of free speech, for his first visit to the West Coast this weekend, April 4-5. On Saturday, April 4, he will speak at Chapman University. Then, from 6:30-10 p.m., the Freedom Center will bring in the fearless MP for a dinner, the California premier of Fitna, and a keynote speech in Beverly Hills. His tour will commence from 10 a.m.-noon on Sunday, April 5, in Los Angeles.
Tickets are available from Stephanie Knudson: Stephanie@horowitzfreedomcenter.org, or by calling (818) 849-3470, extension 209. Due to security, advanced registration and pre-payment are required.
Those on the frontlines of the battle against totalitarianism are rare; opportunities to hear from and assist those directly under fire for their stance is rarer yet. This weekend affords the keepers of freedom’s flame an historic opportunity.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Brishen Hoff writes: Unless earth is hit by a massive meteor, we will be vastly overpopulated for well over 40 years even if everyone is immediately sterilized. This means we will experience a die-off and more species extinctions. I suggest that earth's sustainable population is only 2,500,000.
Yes, that's million, not billion. If you think that is extremely low, think again. That is over 7 times the current population of all great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) combined! That is 10 times earth's population that persisted for the majority of our 2 million year human history! Perhaps if you think 2.5 million is too low for a global sustainable human population you are underestimating:
B) how much we've already permanently degraded earth's carrying capacity
C) how unsustainable our current "6th Mass Extinction" is
My estimate of 2.5 million as a sustainable global population is based on a viable hunter-gatherer population 10,000 years ago (when our numbers forced us into the low EROEI lifestyle of agriculture) of 5 million. I adjusted 5 million to 2.5 million because I believe our carrying capacity has been permanently degraded by at least 50%. There aren't as many species left and much of our land is now polluted, deforested, paved, infertile, etc. I think it is important to have a low enough population that a high EROEI hunter-gatherer culture is viable for all who desire it.
How badly we are overpopulated in the next 40 years depends on what we do. Quinacrine sterilization has great potential and offers real hope for a brighter future. Without harming anyone we can ensure maximum speed of population decline (which we already know is slower than desired) using Quinacrine sterilization which would have to be mutually-agreed upon by the majority and enforced just like other laws (eg: everyone has to pay taxes).
The ideal family for a stable sustainable population size would be two children per couple, with fair conditions to rear them. Actual family sizes however depend upon the psychology of population and the luck of the game, sometimes claimed to be the Will of God.
Who think they gain from population growth?
1. In developed countries, Governments and commercial interests in developed countries seek continual growth of mass markets, increasing consumption, a prosperous building industry, rising prices for real estate, and docile labor pools. They fear supporting ageing populations (See Fact Sheet 8). However, Government funding of babies is most likely to encourage fertility at the welfare-receiving end of the socio-economic scale, where larger families may not receive a fair chance in life.
Western nations’ pronatalist policies for their own countries is scandalous in face of overseas soaring distress of overpopulation beyond resources. National pronatalism is economically wrong because even with the most open of doors, the West could not contain the rising tides of economic refugees from the South. Imagine Australia taking in the overflow of millions, not dozens or hundreds, from Indonesia, PNG, East Timor, the Solomon Islands and other brimming islands of the Pacific. There are even more millions in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and the smaller nations of the Indian subcontinent.
Vested interests may promote complacency about economic refugees because they can become low-paid labor in developed countries, including as seasonal workers, laid off when not wanted.
National pronatalism is also politically wrong because the West cannot promote family planning for the poor countries without being seen as horribly hypocritical and arousing cries of ‘genocide’.
2. In the worst hotspots of the world, populations are soaring, because of as well as in spite of failed statehood, social and economic chaos, wars, massacres, AIDS and famines.
Throughout history and folklore, the poor are burdened with more children than they can raise, as well as with the distress of no children.
Where there is no social security and child deathrates have traditionally been high, it makes sense to have many children, in the hope that some at least will survive to help support their parents. Increasingly states as well as families are depending on remittances from their children working abroad (as with Tonga and the Philippines). And children can be the greatest joy in life – and they may be the only joy the poor can have. Where women have access to education and family planning, they show their desire for smaller families, that they can cope with.
3. Religious and political outbreeding rivalries. Religious dogmatism overlooks that the first supposed commandment of God, to increase and multiply, is now the only divine commandment that has been fully obeyed, and now it is time to obey the other commands, about loving neighbours and so on. Religions and politics that foster outbreeding their rivals increase the hate and fear in the world as well as the scandal of using ,more children as ‘our weapons’. Influential American fundamentalism cares more for the unborn embryo than for the living child, and cares not for earthly future.
4. Providing food aid and policing for poor nations may even serve particular interests among the donor nations and aid organizations. This too is a problem that must be faced. But it is becoming increasingly clear, especially in Africa and among Australia’s neighbours that however generous the aid and the policing, they will be unable to solve population growth, or even keep up with its increasing needs.
It would seem that one of the two sanest things that humans could do to try to save the planet would be to redirect most financing of armaments to the education of women, supplying access to family planning, and helping states to become economically secure. (The other sane thing is reducing the footprint on the earth that currently accompanies rises in standard of living.) What are the forces that not only prevent this, but actively prevent such campaigning?
Capitalism has raised living standards through the whole world, and the poorest now wear T-shirts, not rags, but it must find a way to operate without requiring continual growth and consumption, seeking growing mass-markets and cheap labor.http://candobetter.org/FactSheets/WhoGains
Áine Ní Chonaill, spokesperson for the Irish immigration reduction organisation Immigration Control Platform, debunks one of the more popular myths about immigration:
Immigrants are no fix for an aging society
The Irish Times
10 August 2004
One of the great myths regarding immigration is that the aging profile of Europe will require large-scale immigration if the dependency ratio is not to become a big problem.
An excellent book, Do We Need Mass Immigration?, by Anthony Browne (published by Civitas, £6.00), deals, one by one, with the arguments of mass immigrationists and what he has to say on this point is of particular interest. The idea is known as “replacement immigration” and is more and more put forward as an unquestionable scientific law by pundits and by media.
Browne said this is “one of the most widespread and comforting self-delusions since humanity believed the sun went round the earth”. It is, he said, refuted by elementary demographics: immigrants are no fix for an ageing society because they age too.
Finally, something sensible and well-written to counteract the marketing horrors of the growth merchants. MarkO'Connor and Bill Lines’s next prose book on the topic Overloading Australia is due out in late 2008 from Enviro Books, Australia. O'Connor hass co-authored with William Lines (whose latest book is Patriots, a history of the Australian conservation movements).
Here is a collation of extracts:
Extracts from Overloading Australia :
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Turkey is a Muslim country where honor killings of women who "embarrass" their men still exists. If you're a man in Islam, and your woman embarrasses you, say, because she was seen "talking" to a strange man, you can kill her, as sanctioned by Islam. Few Islamic women see any problem with this, as it is "Allah's will".
When Turkey joins the EU, Muslims will have free passage to move all around Europe without a passport including the United Kingdom spreading their "religion of peace". This influx of Muslims into the European Union will mean that the percentage of Muslims in Europe will start pushing towards 50 per cent of the total European population; and Europe will essentially become Muslim. As Muslims breed like rabbits because their women and young girls have no choice whether they have sex or not, the takeover jihad will happen sooner than later.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
A FORMER NSW Young Australian of the Year sobbed at her arrest for supplying cocaine, saying "I am supposed to be a role model", a Sydney court has been told.Giving evidence in the NSW District Court, Inspector Steven Patton contradicted Iktimal Hage-Ali's testimony that she did not use those words. The 24-year-old is suing the state of NSW, claiming she was wrongfully arrested and detained in Sydney on November 6, 2006. The arrest occurred eight days before Ms Hage-Ali, a member of former prime minister John Howard's Muslim Community Reference Group, was named NSW Young Australian of the Year, a title she later relinquished. She was released without charge, hours after her arrest, having told police she was a cocaine user but had never supplied the drug. Ms Hage-Ali, who gave evidence last December, was not present in court on Wednesday for her case, which resumed earlier this week. Under questioning from Peter Boder QC, for the state of NSW, Insp Patton said he had spoken to Ms Hage-Ali at the police station after her arrest. "She was crying, she also said, `I'm supposed to be a role model, I'm a finalist in the NSW Young Australian of the Year','' he said. "As she was saying this she was sobbing, and said, `I spoke at your multicultural day, how embarrassing, you must have all been laughing'.'' Ms Hage-Ali has denied making those statements. Insp Patton said that before her arrest he believed police had evidence that showed she was a "very low level'' supplier. "Was she a person who ought to have been arrested?'' Mr Boder asked. Insp Patton replied, "Yes'', but added that after her interview he had found her to be credible when she said she had not supplied cocaine and only bought the drug for her own use. The hearing is continuing before Judge Michael Elkaim.
The Meaning of Diversity
January 27, 2009 by guywhite
Yesterday I had the misfortune to stumble upon the Colbert Report for a minute and this is what I hear: “Republican are trying to increase diversity. Mitt Romney is both Anglo and Saxon.”
Colbert uses his air time to mock anyone he perceives as a conservative with his fake conservative act.
As I’ve written several times before, this is one more example of whites - in this case those of English descent - not being “diversity”.
Diversity is a positive word used in reference to minorities.
Whites are “gentrification”, a negative word used to mean destruction of a vibrant, beautiful culture.
Any time non-whites move into a neighborhood, they are bringing in “diversity “. This magic diversity will somehow (not sure how since liberals only state conclusions, never reasons) bring more competitiveness and better neighbor relations.
When white “gentrification” moves in, they are just destroying the local culture. As noted before, whites have no culture according to multiculturalists, just as Jews did not have a culture according to the Nazis.
Interestingly, when “diversity” results in massive business bankruptcies in the neighborhood instead of additional competitiveness, and when neighbor relations become terrible and people seize to cooperate completely, we can never bring up the fact that this coincided with “diversity”.
We just move to a new neighborhood and preach to them about the great benefits of diversity to the people and businesses. And they will embrace diversity, whether they like it or not.