Stockholm suicide bomber Taimour Abdulwahab received more money from the Swedish state than from his terrorist financiers, including a 54,000-kronor ($8,550) payout made after he bled to death in his failed terror bid. All told, Abdulwahab received nearly 750,000 kronor ($119,000) from the Swedish National Board for Student Aid (Centrala studiestödsnämnden, CSN), the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper reports.
Abdulwahab first applied for student aid in the late 1990s and used the money he received from the Swedish agency to fund his studies in Luton, England, the place where the Iraqi-born Swede is believed to have became inspired by militant Islamism.
It remains unclear what happened to the 54,000 kronor sent by CSN to Abdulwahab two days after he died in the December 2012 suicide bomb attack in a busy shopping district in central Stockholm. After Abdulwahab's death, CSN subsequently wrote off 670,000 kronor of his student loan debt.
Prosecutor Agnetha Hilding Qvarnström continues to investigate the suicide bomb attack but refused to speculate on how much money Abdulwahab may have spent or whether Swedish student aid money may have been used to buy materials used in the bomb attack.
Hilding Qvarnström is expected to present her investigation some time in the spring.
"This has been a real eye-opener for us," CSN spokesman Klas Elfving told DN, adding that the payment was authorized on December 9th, prior to Abdulwahab's death.
Lead defense lawyer believes that the prosecution will have a tough time proving the guilt of the accused. Two brothers from Aarhus have been accused of financing terror and training for terrorist acts.
The state's prosecuting authority, Anklagemyndigheden, has commenced criminal proceedings against the two men after the justice minister, Morten Bødskov (Socialdemokraterne), concurred with the public prosecuting authority, Rigsadvokaten, that the two brothers, aged 24 and 19, violated the nation's terror laws.
“Anklagemyndigheden has accused the two brothers of collaborating to arrange and finance the older brother’s stay at a Somali training camp controlled by the terror organisation Al-Shabaab,” public prosecutor Jens Røn said in a statement.
According to the indictment, the 24-year-old spent several months in late 2011 and early 2012 at a training camp close to Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, where he allegedly received instruction on how to commit acts of terror. His 19-year-old brother stands accused of having helped to finance his brother’s stay in Somalia, and both are accused of financially supporting Al-Shabaab.
The case is set to be tried in front of a jury in Aarhus and Anklagemyndigheden expects the case to begin by March 11.
The brothers’ father said he didn't believe his sons were involved in terrorism.
“They are nice, sweet boys. They are normal kids who go to school (aged 24 and 19? what sort of school?) and would never hurt another human being, and so I am deeply shocked over this case,” the father, who only wanted to be identified as Mohammed, said to TV2 News.
Syrian Rebels Give Hezbollah 48 Hours To Cease Attacks In Syria
FSA warns of retaliation against Hezbollah inside Lebanon
The rebel Free Syrian Army released a statement giving the Lebanese group Hezbollah 48 hours to cease attacks in Syria before it “retaliates” in Lebanon.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the FSA said that it will “retaliate to the source of fire and will so inside Lebanese territory” if Hezbollah does not cease its military activities in Syria.
The rebel army also called on the residents of the Lebanese border town of Hermel to “stay away from the missile launchers of Hezbollah and its military outposts.”
The statement came following claims that the Lebanese Shiite group was fighting alongside the Syrian regime to fend off the armed uprising.
Lebanon was dominated politically and militarily by its larger neighbor Syria for three decades, and the small Mediterranean country is sharply divided over the Syrian revolt which erupted in March 2011.
Hezbollah and its allies in the ruling coalition back the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, but the Sunni-led March 14 movement and its allies support the rebellion.
The Shiite party, Lebanon's most powerful military force, occasionally announces the death of one of its fighters killed "carrying out his jihadist duty," but without clarification.
On Sunday, a Hezbollah official said that three Lebanese Shiites have been killed in clashes in Syria, as the opposition accused the Shiite militant group of fighting alongside its Damascus regime allies.
Iranian Cleric Mehdi Ta'eb Causes Furor With Claims That "Syria More Important To Iran Than Khuzestan
Note: Khuzestan, or Khuzistan, in the southwest of Iran (with its capital Ahwaz), is the main oil-producing region of that country. It is peopled largely by ethnic Arabs.
“Iran has to prefer Syria to the Khuzestan region”: Ammar Headquarters chief’s announcement draws angry reactions
February 17, 2013
Dr. Raz Zimmt
“Iran has to prefer Syria to the Khuzestan region”: Ammar Headquarters chief’s announcement draws angry reactions
Hojjat-ol-Eslam Mehdi Ta’eb, chief of the Ammar Headquarters, a think tank affiliated with the radical right wing of the conservative camp, has announced that Iran needs to give more importance to Syria than to the Khuzestan region, drawing strong reactions from the Iranian media and from social networks.
In a speech delivered at a conference of Student Basij members, the cleric discussed the developments in Syria and said that Syria is more important for Iran than the Khuzestan region, which lies on the Persian Gulf coast. He referred to Syria as “Iran’s 35th, strategic province”, and said that, in case of a war, Iran has to give preference to keeping Syria over Khuzestan.
In response to Ta’eb’s remarks, the Baztab website posted a strong-worded article titled “We will not exchange Khuzestan for anything, not even for Damascus”. The website argued that the remarks made by the cleric serve the extremist groups of the Arab world, which claim sovereignty over some of Iran’s territory. The article went on to say that Iran’s opposition to foreign intervention in Syria does not make it justified to ignore the need to maintain Iran’s territorial integrity or compare Syria to Khuzestan.
Most news website readers and social network users also reacted angrily to Ta’eb’s remarks. Many of them mentioned the numerous casualties suffered by Iran while defending Khuzestan in the Iran-Iraq War, and some of them even accused Ta’eb of treason.
The storm provoked by the Ammar Headquarters chief’s remarks is yet more evidence of the power of nationalist sentiments in the Iranian public. These sentiments could also be seen in past comments made by web users on controversial statements having to do with the territorial integrity and national-cultural identity of their country.
Hojjat-ol-Eslam Mehdi Ta’eb, chief of the Ammar Headquarters, a think tank affiliated with the radical right wing of the conservative camp, has announced that Iran needs to give more importance to Syria than to the Khuzestan region in southwestern Iran, drawing strong reactions from the Iranian media and from social networks.
In a speech delivered at a conference of Student Basij members held in Tehran on February 14, the cleric discussed the developments in Syria and said that Syria is more important for Iran than the Khuzestan region, which lies on the Persian Gulf coast. He even referred to Syria as “Iran’s 35th, strategic province”. Ta’eb said that, if the enemy attacks Iran and wishes to take over Syria or Khuzestan, Iran’s priority should be to keep Syria. The reason, according to Ta’eb, is that, if Syria remains in Iran’s possession, it will be able to reclaim Khuzestan, but if Iran loses Syria, it will not be able to maintain its hold even on Tehran itself.
In his remarks, Ta’eb also discussed the Iranian assistance to the forces that fight at President Assad’s side. He said that the Syrian army was unable to wage war inside the cities, which is why Syria adopted Iran’s proposal and created a militia consisting of 60 thousand Hezbollah members whose mission is to wage war inside the cities.
In another part of the speech, Ta’eb discussed the political and economic situation in Iran. He argued that the main reason for the economic crisis lies in the economic sanctions, and that no Iranian government had ever faced such severe oil export sanctions before. The cleric thus adopted the claim made by the president and his supporters, according to which the economic crisis should be blamed mostly on the international sanctions rather than on the economic performance of the government, as its critics argue.
Referring to the military threats facing Iran, Ta’eb said that the only threat that faces Iran is the “Zionist regime”, which has both the motivation and the capability to attack the country. He stressed, however, that Iran, through Hezbollah, has Israel in a “lock” from which it couldn’t escape during the second Lebanon war. Speaking about the United States, Ta’eb said that it has neither the funds nor the military ability to start a war against Iran (Aftab News, February 14).
The Ammar Headquarters (Ù‚Ø±Ø§Ø±Ú¯Ø§Ù‡Ø¹Ù…Ø§Ø±), headed by Mehdi Ta’eb, was established in early 2011 on the initiative of regime loyalists and pro-Khamenei conservatives affiliated with the radical right wing of the Iranian politics, including clerics, culture activists, Majles members, and Revolutionary Guards veterans. Its creation reflected the need felt by top officials in the conservative religious establishment to mobilize the regime’s supporters in light of the political crisis that broke out after the 2009 elections. Early on, the think tank’s members focused most of their efforts on combating the reformist opposition. Several months after it was established, however, its leaders shifted most of their attention to fighting the “deviant faction”, affiliated with the president and his controversial former office chief Rahim Masha’i.
During the elections for the Majles, held in March 2012, members of the Ammar Headquarters expanded their political activity and worked to push forward candidates belonging to the radical right wing but unaffiliated with the president’s supporters and the “deviant faction”. Key members of Ammar co-founded the Steadfast Front, supported by radical cleric Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi.
“Ta’eb’s remarks serve Iran’s enemies who seek to undermine its territorial integrity”
Shortly after the report on the controversial speech delivered by the head of the Ammar Headquarters surfaced, Baztab, a website affiliated with the moderate wing of the conservative camp, posted a strong-worded commentary article titled “We will not exchange Khuzestan for anything, not even for Damascus”.
The website argued that, in his remarks, Ta’eb ignored the possibility that his statement would be exploited by Iran’s enemies who seek to undermine the country’s territorial integrity. Baztab mentioned that such aspirations had been recently manifested at a conference to support the Arab minority in Khuzestan, held in Cairo (see the January 14, 2013 issue of Spotlight on Iran: “Conference in support of Khuzestani Arabs convenes in Cairo during Foreign Minister Salehi’s visit to Egypt, provoking anger from Iran”). According to the website, there are extremist groups operating in the Arab world which for several decades have claimed sovereignty over those regions in Iran where Arabs reside, and Ta’eb’s remarks lend credence to the claims made by these extremist elements.
Baztab said that Ta’eb not only spoke about prioritizing Syria over Khuzestan but also stressed the need to make use of the Basij forces to wage war in the cities of Syria. His remarks come at a time when those media that are hostile to Iran are taking advantage of the “unfounded rumors” about the presence of Iranian Basij forces in Syria to lash out against the country, and just when Iran is making considerable efforts to put an end to the bloodshed in Syria.
Syria’s role in the resistance against Israel cannot be ignored, the website argued, and since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, Iran has stressed its opposition to the intervention of foreign forces in that country and its support for gradual reforms there. However, there is a growing realization even in Iran that solving the crisis in Syria may only be possible by removing President Assad from power, as the talks that Iran has been holding recently with members of the Syrian opposition may indicate.
Iran is opposed to any kind of foreign intervention in Syria, the article said, but this does not mean that Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity can be ignored or that Syria can be compared to Khuzestan, a strategic, oil-rich region. The existence of an anti-Israeli government in Syria is an important strategic principle for Iran, but no military, diplomatic, or strategic official will ever suggest giving up even one inch of Iranian soil. Bringing up the issue, even if only as an example aimed to stress the importance of the subject, provokes unnecessary sensitivity. Those who fought in the Iran-Iraq War did not spend eight years on the battlefield to see part of Khuzestan’s blood-soaked soil fall into foreign hands. They fought courageously so that no one would dare set their sights on Khuzestan or any other part of Iranian soil.
What ensures Iran’s fate and superiority in the diplomatic game that it is playing with its enemies in the beginning of the 21st century is not war or weapons but rather intelligence, direction, political knowledge, and bargaining power. The interior and foreign policies as well as the media are better left to those well-versed in political science and international relations, who can turn enemies into friends and avoid unnecessary media scandals instead of instigating nationalist sentiments and foment differences of opinion. Clerics who wish to become involved in foreign policy and national security need to know that expressing an opinion about the country’s territorial integrity and national identity is a more sensitive issue than ones having to do with domestic policy, Baztab concluded.
“We will not give up Khuzestan even in exchange for all of Syria”: web users’ reactions to Ta’eb’s speech
Most news website readers also reacted angrily to Ta’eb’s remarks. Some of them personally attacked the cleric (“Is this a university lecturer or a warmonger and propagator of hatred?”, “Is he Iranian or a foreigner?”). One of the readers suggested sending Ta’eb to fight in Syria at President Assad’s side (“Perhaps we can get rid of him”). A number of readers referred to a hadith attributed to Prophet Muhammad, according to which one’s love for the homeland reflects the strength of religious faith. Speaking about the criticism voiced by Ta’eb against the “deviant faction”, one reader said that, judging by his remarks, he is a deviant himself. Another reader criticized Ta’eb’s statement and argued that the crisis that has gripped Syria for the past two years has had no negative influence on Iran’s security.
In their criticism of Ta’eb, many readers highlighted the numerous casualties suffered by Iran during its war against Iraq, and some of them went as far as to accuse Ta’eb of treason. One reader wondered how the cleric can claim that Syria takes precedence over Khuzestan after eight years of war that saw so many people killed, injured, crippled, and captured. Another reader said that, even if all that Ta’eb meant was to stress how important Syria is for Iran, he would have been advised to use a different example than Khuzestan, which is a symbol of heroism and a monument for the blood of the soldiers who died defending it. He noted that the Iranians will not agree to give up even one inch of Khuzestan—not just for Damascus, but for all of Syria—and that if a war should start against the two countries (Iran and Syria), the Iranians will only be willing to defend their own land (readers’ comments posted on Baztab, February 14).
Ta’eb’s announcement also drew interest from social networks. In the wake of the remarks, an exiled Iranian blogger posted an entry on his weblog titled “The Provinces of the Islamic Republic of Iran”, in which he enumerated Iran’s “list of provinces” in the order of priority that they are normally given in the Islamic republic. The list includes the “provinces” of Palestine, Lebanon, Venezuela, Karbala and Najaf in Iraq, North Korea, Syria, and a lengthy list of countries in Africa (http://harfhaye-nagofte-elham.blogspot.fr/2013/02/).
The storm provoked by Ta’eb’s remarks: yet another manifestation of the strength of nationalist sentiments in the Iranian public
This is not the first time that Iranian web users have expressed their nationalist sentiments in the wake of controversial statements having to do with the territorial integrity or national-cultural identity of their country. For instance, a conference in support of the Arab residents of Khuzestan, recently held in Cairo, sparked angry reactions from web users who spoke out against expressions of separatism in Iran, lashed out against the Egyptian government and President Morsi, and demanded a strong Iranian reaction against Egypt.
In November 2010 many Iranian web users were angered by the release of a YouTube video containing excerpts from a speech made by Hassan Nasrallah, in which the Hezbollah leader discussed Iran’s Muslim identity and said that its roots are Arab rather than Persian. The release of the video provoked a storm on social networks in Iran and among Iranian exiles.
During my childhood, medicine always tasted disgusting and I suspected that adults made it so deliberately to spite children. They could have made it delicious had they wanted to.
Disgusting ingredients have been used in supposedly therapeutic concoctions down the ages. They had three qualities: vileness, rarity, and expense. These strongly promoted the placebo effect, for who would not claim to feel better if continuing to swallow camel’s goat’s bile were the alternative? A little bit of what revolts you does you good, that is the theory.
Now at least when we resort to disgusting means, they are scientifically reasonable. I worked for a time for a surgeon in a country where antibiotics were not easily available, who wanted to test honey as an antiseptic dressing for open wounds (bacteria do not grow in honey). I cannot remember the results from the bacteriological point of view, but I recall that the aesthetic results were not pleasing.
I have also seen the use of maggots for wound cleaning. The therapy is effective, but it is difficult not to be repelled by it, especially if (as I have) you have actually suffered a parasitic skin infection by maggots.
However, my disgust at honey and maggots paled by comparison with what I felt upon reading the title of a paper in a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, “Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile.” The excrement of various creatures was long an ingredient of supposed remedies in the days when nothing really worked, but I had fondly supposed that medicine had passes what Freud, in another context, would have called the anal stage.
Clostridium difficile is a life-threatening bowel infection that old people in particular are liable to contract when in hospital (indeed, the rate of such hospital-acquired infection is one indication of the general state of hygiene of hospitals). The infection gives rise to dangerous diarrhea and can be very difficult to treat. The usual method is therapy with an antibiotic, vancomycin, together (sometimes) with bowel washout; but in a sixth to a quarter of cases there is a recurrence. In addition, vancomycin is a drug with serious side-effects.
The authors, from Holland, divided patients with recurrent Clostridia into three groups: those who received vancomycin for fourteen days, those who received it for fourteen days plus bowel washout, and those who received vancomycin for four days and then a duodenal infusion of a solution of donor feces, the donors of the latter having first been screened for various communicable diseases of course.
Originally the authors had expected to enroll 40 patients in each group to show a difference between them, but as the trial progressed the results were so clear-cut (as is rarely the case in such trials) that it became unethical to continue. The cure rate of those given the infusion of feces 81 percent, or 94 percent on repeat treatment; in the other groups it was 31 percent in the vancomycin alone group and 23 percent with vancomycin plus bowel washout. Furthermore, 83 percent of the patients who did not respond to antibiotics were cured by infusion of feces.
Recolonization of the bowel by normal bacteria, then, is better than antibiotic therapy alone. Here is a case in which rationality must overcome revulsion. My admiration is great for the person who first thought of such a therapy: imagination leapt over prejudice. If it had been up to me, I should have waited passively until the pharmaceutical industry developed a more effective antibiotic than vancomycin. With this method, however, the raw material is abundant and cheap and not, I presume, under patent.
Wilders in Australia: Islam is an ideology because it aims for an Islamic state and wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on all of us.
Geert Wilders at La Mirage, Somerton, Australia
February 19, 2013
The following was a speech delivered by Geert Wilders at La Mirage in Melbourne, Ausralia, February 19, 2013 at an event sponsored by the Q Society.
Finally, I am here.
I am very happy to be in your beautiful and magnificent country, Australia.
400 years ago, the Dutch were the first Europeans to discover Australia. They named this land after their own and called it New Holland. So, here I am today, a visitor from the Netherlands, with a message from the old Holland to the New Holland.
I am here to tell you how Islam is changing the Netherlands and Western Europe beyond recognition. We are in the process of losing our culture, our identity, our freedom.
I am also here to warn Australia about the true nature of Islam. It is not just a religion as many people mistakenly think; it is primarily a dangerous totalitarian ideology.
I am here to warn you that what is happening in my native country might soon happen in Australia too, if you fail to be vigilant.
And I am here to advice you on how to turn the tide of Islamization. Inform people. Confront them with the truth. Don’t be afraid to speak. Use your right of free speech.
Because if you do not use it, you will lose it. And find and elect politicians who are not afraid to speak the truth about Islam.
Before I start, allow me to thank the Q Society for inviting me to your country. Thank you Debbie, Andrew, Ralf, and all the other volunteers for making this visit possible. Debbie never booked so many conference rooms in her life as in the past few weeks, and never had so many cancellations. Debbie, you are my hero. You have had a very hard time. But I bet you think twice about ever inviting me to Australia again.
The Q Society and its volunteers embody the courage for which Australians are known in Europe.
We, Europeans, owe our freedom in part to the thousands of young and brave Australians who fought, and died, at Passiondale and at Gallipoli.
These Australians – your fathers and grandfathers – persevered against all odds.
And so did the Q Society, despite the efforts of the governing establishment to discourage my visit.
First, Chris Bowen, the then federal minister of Immigration, had me wait five long weeks for a visa, forcing us to postpone my visit from October to February.
Then, the minister implicitly warned people to stay away from my speeches by writing a newspaper article in the Australian saying that I was a fringe figure from the far-right.
Western Australia’s premier Colin Bartnett went as far as to tell the media that I am “not welcome” in his state. I wonder how many public figures in the world have already been told that they are not welcome in Western Australia. Trying to find this out, I googled the words “not welcome in Western Australia.” Guess what? Only two items popped up: “Geert Wilders” and “US nuclear base.”
Private enterprises followed the example by boycotting my visit, declining the booking of venues, turning down adds, and refusing banking services.
But the Q Society did not give up.
Thank you also to La Mirage here in Melbourne, where we are gathered today, for making this evening possible.
So, here I am, with a message that your political leaders do not want you to hear.
But first, let me tell you who I am and how I live.
I am an elected politician from one of the oldest democracies in the world. I am the leader of the Party for Freedom, the largest Dutch opposition party. We have almost 1 million voters in a country that is known for its tolerance. I am not a fringe figure; I am not far-right either. Political opponents brought me to court, accusing me of hate speech and discrimination. But the court in Amsterdam after an ordeal that lasted 2 years cleared me of all charges.
Earlier, I have spoken in the premises of the United States Congress, the British House of Lords, the Danish Parliament and other government premises. I participated in conferences in the U.S. and Canada, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, with people none of which belong to the far-right.
For the past 9 years I have been living under round the clock police protection. Wherever I go, plainclothes policemen go with me. I live in a government safe house, bulletproof and safer than the National Bank. I wish I had their money. Earlier my wife and I have even lived in army barracks and prison cells just to be safe from assassins.
Why do I need this protection? I am not a president or king, I am a simple parliamentarian.
I have been marked for death. I was placed under police protection in November 2004 when the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was slaughtered in broad daylight because he had criticized Islam. A few hours later, the police found a letter written by van Gogh’s assassin threatening to kill me and my colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali as well. We, too, had been critical of Islam, especially through our work in parliament.
Ayaan has since left for America, but I continue to candidly express my views about Islam in the Dutch Parliament and in the public debate around the world.
But it is not I who am important here. What is at stake is the defense of our freedom.
Only two weeks ago, a good friend of mine, Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, survived an assassination attempt. A foreigner tried to shoot him through the head. Why? For the simple reason that Lars is critical of Islam.
Europe has become a dangerous place for those who criticize Islam. So many people rooted in a culture entirely different from our own Judeo-Christian and humanist tradition have entered Europe that now Europe’s identity and its culture are in danger.
Australian tourists visiting our major European cities today can still see the postcard views of the Eiffel tower, Buckingham Palace and the Amsterdam canals, but if they are not careful and walk too far, they risk entering a dangerous Islamic ghetto.
Islam has creating a parallel society within our cities. Shortly before her death in 2006, the
well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci wrote: “In each one of our cities, there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – end of quote.
The Islamic presence is changing the outlook and the character of Europe. In some urban neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings.
Five years ago, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Anglican bishop of Rochester, England, who is himself of Muslim descent, already warned for Islamic no-go zones. “Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence,” he said.
Last month, a group called Muslim Patrol posted a video on Youtube showing how they control an entire neighborhood of the British capital London. They intimidate people, force women to cover up, harass gays, confiscate alcohol, and forbid non-Muslims to walk past the local mosque.
Two years ago, a high ranking German police officer admitted that no-go zones outside police authority are proliferating all over Germany. We can witness this phenomenon all over Europe.
I used to live in Kanaleneiland, a suburb of Utrecht which, during the 20 years that I lived there, transformed into a very dangerous neighborhood for non-Muslims. I have been robbed. On several occasions I had to run for safety.
The same transformation has happened in parts of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other cities, in the Netherlands, as well as in cities in Belgium, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden and other countries.
In August 2011, a Dutch newspaper sent its war correspondent – yes, you heard right, its war correspondent – to the Dutch city of Helmond to investigate reports that Islamic thugs were harassing local residents. His article detailed terrible abuses suffered by the non-Muslim population, including the sexual harassment of young girls. The locals complained that the police are afraid of the thugs.
In France, the authorities have drawn up a list of 751 so-called “sensible urban areas.” These are the lost territories of the French Republic, even though a staggering 5 million people, or 8 percent of the total French population, live in them.
In Brussels, the capital of the European Union, 25 percent of the population is Muslim. The city has several predominantly Islamic districts. Police officers entering these neighborhoods have been shot at with Kalashnikovs. Three years ago, the police union acknowledged that there are boroughs in Brussels which – I quote – “officers do not dare enter in uniforms.” End of quote.
In my own country, Moroccans are the largest ethnic group among Islamic immigrants. Almost every week there are incidents with Moroccan youths. In the Netherlands, 65 percent of all the Moroccan boys between 12 and 23 years have have already been arrested at least once by the police.
The list of violent incidents involving Moroccans, whether occurring in our streets, our schools, our shopping malls or on our sports fields, is endless. But the victims are almost never Moroccans or Muslims.
I am not exaggerating. I tell it like it is.
Two years ago, Germany’s Family Minister Kristina Schröder advocated – I quote – “an open debate about racist Muslims.” End of quote.
Last September, Jean-Francois Copé, the former French Budget Minister under president Sarkozy, also pointed out that – I quote “racism is growing in our cities.”
Copé, too, was referring to the surge of Islamic violence against ethnic Frenchmen.
Islam has brought us jihad: intimidation, violence.
Then there is the phenomenon of nonviolent jihad. The rise of Islam also means the rise of Islamic sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe, we have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. The introduction of elements of sharia law in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Sharia law systematically discriminates between groups of people.
Britain now has official sharia courts. One of these courts settled the inheritance of a man whose estate had to be divided between his children. It gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with the Koranic pronouncement that a woman is only worth half a man. This is a disgrace. In our civilization, men and women used to be treated as equals before the law. In contemporary Europe, this is no longer the case.
Sharia law also affects our fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech. Sharia law forbids criticism of Islam. This is considered blasphemy. The penalty is death.
That is why I have been marked for death. That is why people like me and Lars Hedegaard are in so much trouble; that is why three years ago a man with an axe tried to chop the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard to pieces; that is why we, and Salman Rushdie and others are living in hiding. Because if you criticize Islam, you pay a very high price.
This brings me to the second major topic of my speech. The nature of Islam.
Is it not strange that we, who are not Muslims, are punished by Islam for breaking Islamic rules? Religious rules do not apply to people who do not belong to a specific religion, do they? Indeed, a religion – every religion – should be voluntary. Yet, Islam imposes its rules on everyone.
Why does sharia law alter our Western secular legal system in such a dramatic fashion? The answer is that rather than a religion, Islam is a totalitarian political ideology which aims to impose its legal system on the whole society.
Islam is an ideology because it is political rather than religious: Islam is an ideology because it aims for an Islamic state and wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on all of us.
Islam is totalitarian because it is not voluntary. It orders that people who leave Islam must be killed.
Contrary to all the other religions – real religions – Islam also lays obligations on non-members.
Your fellow Australian, the theologian Mark Durie has said – I quote: “Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions. Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere.” – end of quote.
We can see what Islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the Islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians anywhere in the Islamic and Arab world. The cause of their suffering is Islam. Indeed, the only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe to be Christians is Israel. Israel is also the only democracy in the Middle East, a beacon of light in an area of total darkness. We should all support Israel.
My friends, I always make a distinction between Muslims and Islam. Most Muslims are moderate, but the ideology of Islam is dangerous. The moderates are the captives of a totalitarian system. If only they could liberate themselves from the Islamic culture of fatalism and apathy, then the most beautiful things could happen to them and the whole world.
I have travelled the Islamic world extensively. I have visited countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia. I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of many people there. They are often good people, but they are the captives of Islam. These people are not free; they live under the yoke of Islamic sharia law. If they leave Islam, they sign their own death verdict.
Thirty years ago, I travelled from Israel to Egypt. This trip made a huge impression on me. Israel and Egypt are neighbours, with the same climate, the same natural riches, similar resources, the same potential. And yet Egypt is poor, while Israel is wealthy.
Freedom is the key to prosperity; and Islam deprives people of it.
However, as long as Islam remains dominant, there can be no real freedom.
Just look at what is happening in the Arab countries. The so-called Arab Spring quickly degraded into a freezing Arab Winter. The situation of women and non-Muslims, such as Christians, worsened dramatically.
In Islamic countries, democracy does not lead to freedom. Islam keeps people entrapped in a mental prison. A survey by the American Pew Center found that even though 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates.
Despite the presence of many moderate Muslims, the growing Islamic presence in Europe is causing huge problems. Europe’s Islamic lobby is increasingly assertive.
It has successfully pressured European politicians into implementing pro-Islamic policies, institutionalizing sharia practices, adopting anti-Israeli positions, and restricting freedom of speech under the pretext that telling the truth about Islam is a hate speech crime.
In the Netherlands, we have prison cells with arrows on the floor directing towards Mecca; prisons where only halal food is served; Islamic lawyers who do not have to rise when the judge enters the courtroom; schools that close on Islamic holidays; works of art that are removed from public buildings because they might offend Islam; separate swimming hours, separate theatre performances, separate courses for men and women; nurses in homes for the elderly who are exempt for treating men because Islam forbids women to touch men; etcetera.
Islamic and pro-Islamic groups drag people to court simply because they exercise their legal right of freedom of speech. This is called legal jihad. People like myself, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, and countless others from Canada to Austria have been subjected to endless time, energy and money consuming trials for speaking the truth.
To understand the nature of Islam, one also has to understand its founder, Muhammad, the author of the Koran. It is uncomfortable for people to speak about it, but we must because he is the example of 1.5 billion people. According to Islam, Muhammad is the perfect man whose life must be imitated. The consequences are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.
Islam presents Muhammad as the role model to 1.5 billion people. Fortunately, the majority of them do not follow this example. The fact that Islam presents him as the model man obliges us, however, to talk about his character and the things he did.
Islamic texts such as the Sira, Muhammad’s biography, and the Hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of his contemporaries, show that he was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered.
The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the Jews in Medina in 627. Muhammad himself participated in chopping off their heads. The women and children were sold as slaves. As you know, Muhammad married the 6 year old girl Aisha whom consummated when she was 9 years old. In our countries today, such a pedophile would be sent to jail for a very long time.
Islamic violence does not spring from social and political grievances, as politically-correct sources claim. Islamic violence springs directly from Islam and Muhammad’s example.
Because Muhammad lied and cheated in order to advance Islam, some followers feel entitled to do the same. Islam even has a word for this kind of lying. It is called taqqiya.
Because Muhammad spread Islam through acts of terror, some of his followers do the same.
Because Muhammad established an Islamic state, some of his followers see it as their duty to do the same.
Because Muhammad had his critics and the critics of his Islamic state murdered, some of his followers regard it as their duty to kill everyone who speaks his mind about Muhammad and Islam.
It is no coincidence that all the Islamic states in the world demand that freedom of speech be curtailed and that criticism of Islam and its prophet be forbidden. And yet, it is our duty to speak out and tell the truth.
Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risk the death penalty. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad is badly needed how uncomfortable it might be to some people.
Understanding Islam and Muhammad, also learns us important lessons about our present situation. That is the third major topic I want to address: the lessons for Australia.
It is important that you realize that in our present days Islam is spreading predominantly through the method of immigration from Islamic countries. Muhammad himself conquered Medina through the method of immigration. Or Hijra as it is called in Islam.
Hijra is an instrument of jihad. It is an instrument that Islam uses to dominate the free world.
So, in order to stop Islamization, we should stop as we try to do in the Netherland where my party sees it as its first priority to stop immigration from Islamic countries. Enough is enough.
I realize that this may be a difficult message in a country such as Australia. Your country was built on immigration. Over one in four of Australia’s 22 million inhabitants were born overseas.
They came to Australia from many countries and continents. They were welcomed because they contributed. They have strengthened Australia.
Dutch immigrants, like countless immigrants from other countries, have helped to turn Australia into what it is today. Australia is home to over 300,000 people of Dutch descent.
These Dutchmen never caused any problems because they did not bring along an ideology which prohibits friendship with non-Dutchmen, which commands them to hate non-Dutchmen, and to submit or kill non-Dutchmen.
My countrymen did not come to impose their own culture upon the non-Dutch Australians; they assimilated into Australian society and, in doing so, they enriched it.
Today, Europe, too, is confronted with millions of immigrants. Unfortunately, many of these immigrants are not strengthening nor enriching our societies, because many of them refuse to assimilate and they create a parallel society within our nations. A very large number of these immigrants have moved to Europe from Islamic countries. Europe is in the middle of an Islamization process, driven by immigration from North Africa, Turkey, the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world, such as Somalia.
The Islamic countries belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is the largest voting bloc and the biggest Israel haters in the United Nations. In 1990, it adopted the Cairo Declaration on human rights in Islam, in which human rights is bound by Sharia law. It also calls for the death penalty for people who leave Islam or insult Islam, Muhammad or the Koran.
There is a second priority which we have in our party platform. This is to counter Sharia or Islamic law in our own country.
Let me explain. When people move to another country, they integrate, they blend in, they assimilate. That is the natural order of things.
When immigrants from Islamic countries settle in Western countries, they move from an unfree society to a free society. People always prefer freedom over tyranny. That is human nature.
In the normal order of things, immigration from Islamic countries would weaken Islam.
Their contact with Western freedoms, would lead Islamic people to abandon Islam. However, through the creation of a Sharia-based parallel society – we see it happen all over Europe, be careful that it does not happen in Australia – Islam manages to continue its control over its captives.
Islamic societies – including Islamic enclaves in the West—exert tight social control that is indicative of the totalitarian character of Islam.
My friends, I am here to warn Australia. Learn from the European lesson. The more Islam you get into your society, the less civilized it becomes and the less free.
How did the Europeans get into their present situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the ideology of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is far worse than multiculturalism. Cultural relativism is the biggest political disease that we face in our countries today.
I am proud to say – I do not care whether people like it or not – that our culture which is based on Judeo-Christian and humanist values such as liberty, democracy and tolerance, is far better than the Islamic culture. I am proud of it.
We should not close our eyes to the fact that all over Europe and Australia, new mosques and Islamic centers are under construction. In any major city in Europe you will encounter halal shops and women in headscarves and burkas.
Two years ago, there was the case of Carnita Matthews, the Islamic convert in a burka, who escaped a jail sentence in New South Wales because the authorities could not prove that she was the person in a burka making a false statement to the police.
Open the pages of our newspapers and you will read horrific stories of women being trampled, female genital mutilation and honor killings in our own back yards.
We have to speak out, because it is the only tool we have got. We stand for our convictions, but we never use violence. We abhor violence. The reason why we reject Islam is exactly Islam’s violent nature. We believe in democracy.
We cherish the tradition of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Jelena Bonner, Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan. These heroes defeated a totalitarian ideology by the power of their conviction and by using no other means than their words.
As the ex-Muslim and Islam-critic Ali Sina said: “We don’t raise a sword against darkness; we lit a light.” So it is. We lit the light of the truth. And the truth will set us free. The truth that while Muslims can embrace freedom, Islam cannot.
Let no one tell you that Islam respects freedom. Freedom and Islam are incompatible.
Let no one tell you that Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is an ideology of violence.
Let no one tell you that you should tolerate the intolerant. We should not tolerate the intolerant and start becoming intolerant to those who are intolerant to us.
We should stop the building of new mosques. Enough is enough.
We want no more immigration from Islamic countries for we have enough Islam already.
If you are a criminal immigrant you should be expelled! If immigrants do not commit crimes, they are equal to anyone else. But if they commit crimes, they should be sent packing.
Very often, the appeasers are the governments who are afraid of Islamic radicals threatening violence and riots against anyone who dares to confront their intolerant ideas.
What we are witnessing today is how freedom dies. It dies because the political elite is cowardly unwilling to defend it. We must not accept that.
Indeed, my friends, we must change course.
We must struggle every single day against the rising tide of Islamization, even when our opponents brand us as extremists, even when they take us to court, and treathen to kill us, we should continue speaking the truth.
If we do not oppose Islam, we will lose everything: our freedom, our identity, our democracy, our rule of law, and all our liberties.
We must end the disease of cultural relativism and proudly proclaim: Our Western culture, based on Judeo-Christian and humanist principles, is far better than the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, will we be willing to defend our own identity.
You must demand that immigrants accept Australia’s values, and not the other way round.
We must support the persecuted Christians in the Islamic world. We must also stand with Israel. Israel is in jihad’s frontline. Because by helping Israel to survive, we help ourselves.
But most important of all – and this is the final message of my speech – most important of all, we must defend freedom of speech. Everything else depends on it.
We cannot correct our mistakes if we are not allowed to talk about them.
There is reason for concern if the erosion of our freedom of speech is the price we must pay to accommodate Islam. There is something badly wrong if those who deny that Islam is a problem do not grant us the right to talk about the issue.
Public discussion should not be stifled by threats; On the contrary, public discussion should be promoted. And everyone should be allowed to freely express his opinions. That is why Europe and Australia are in desperate need of an equivalent of America’s First Amendment which guarantees us a maximum of freedom of speech.
Friends, there is hope if we overcome our fears and begin to speak the truth.
If we remain silent, we are certain to go from defeat to defeat; But if we speak the truth, we will be able to turn the tide and it will be our first victory of many.
Yes, my friends, there is hope. But only if we outgrow our fears and dare speak the truth.
As Ronald Reagan said “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted.”
The future freedom of Australia, the liberties of your children – they depend on you.
The ANZAC spirit helped keep Europe free in the past; the ANZAC spirit will keep you free in the future. Be as brave as your fathers, and you will survive.
There is hope because we are not alone. We still speak for the majority. While the elite has largely fallen for cultural relativism, the people have not.
In my country, the Netherlands, 56 percent of the population see Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity.
In Britain, a survey last month showed that the public regard immigration as the biggest issue facing British society.
In Germany, 64 percent hold that Islam is violent and 70 percent that it is fanatical.
In France, 74 percent are convinced that Islam is intolerant and not compatible with French society.
These people are not wrongheaded, they are not extremists; they stand for decency, common sense and liberty. We must speak on their behalf. We must encourage them. We must tell them not to give up and not to lose heart.
My friends, always remember that our voice is the voice of liberty; it is the voice of liberation.
Let us defend our own freedoms. And let us support Muslims – and especially the suppressed Muslim women – who want to free themselves from the yoke of Islam.
Let them join the worldwide community of freedom, renounce Sharia and Islam. And be free, as we are free.
It would be good if Muslims leave Islam for Christianity or atheism or whatever they want, as long as it is not Islam.
Friends, though we live thousands of miles apart, we – Australians and Europeans – belong to a common civilization. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian and humanist heritage. We must help each other in the struggle for this heritage, because Islam is a threat to Europe as well as to Australia.
If we want to preserve our nations – our homes – and our freedoms and pass them on to our children, we must stand together, shoulder to shoulder, with Israel and the other nations in the West.
We have to rely upon each other and help each other in the struggle against a common adversary. We must stand together. Otherwise we will be swept away by Islam.
I believe, my friends, that we will stand together, that we will stand firm, that we will not submit, and that we will survive. Why?
"Like A Drowning Man, If We Try To Save Them, Then They Will Pull Us Down With Them"
Saving 1 Billion People From Themselves
ByDaniel GreenfieldTuesday, February 19, 2013
The West is almost as in love with improving the world, as the Muslim world is with conquering it. These two contradictory impulses, the missionary and the warrior, come together in the Clash of Civilizations.
The Muslim world has two approaches to the West; underhanded deceit and outright terror. The practitioners of the former are considered moderates and the latter extremists. The West has two approaches to the Muslim world, regime change and love bombing. With regime change we bomb their cities to save them from their rulers and with love bombing we shamelessly flatter and appease them in our own cities to save them from themselves.
Westerners worry a great deal over who runs the Muslim world. Muslims do not care very much who runs Western countries. They prefer weak liberal Western leaders to strong ones, but they do not believe that there is truly a moral difference between them. Even a Hussein in the White House has not improved America’s ratings in the Muslim world.
Muslims are religiously and culturally antagonistic to the West
Muslims are religiously and culturally antagonistic to the West. Whether a John McCain or a Barack Hussein Obama is in the White House; America is still a great non-Muslim power. That very fact, in contradiction to the promises of the Koran and its deity, will continue to bring forth a xenophobic response no matter how much America flatters the Muslim world.
Westerners focus their animus on Muslim leaders, on a Saddam, a Gaddafi or an Arafat—not recognizing that the hostility comes not from the leaders, but from the people. We can remove all the leaders of the Muslim world and replace them with muppets, and it won’t noticeably change the underlying bigotry of the Muslim world. And very soon the muppets will also start chanting, “Death to America” because it’s the popular thing to do.
Regime change, whether through armed force or democratic revolutions, won’t save the Muslim world.
The Muslim world is not backward by their standards, it is backward by our standards
The Muslim world is not backward by their standards, it is backward by our standards. It refuses to make the social and political changes that the West did, but that is because it does not like the trade-offs that come with those changes. And that is a choice that each Muslim country and society has to make. Individualism, freedom and tolerance are not acceptable values in the Muslim world. And totalitarianism, theocracy and repression are not acceptable values in ours. The Muslim world has no obligation to accede to our cultural standards, but we accordingly have no obligation to accede to theirs.
There is always a gap between civilizations, but rarely has the gap yawned as starkly as it does now. We are as eager to bring the Muslim world into the light, as they are to drag us into the darkness. And the momentum is on their side. We don’t have the answers that we think we do. Democracy is not the solution. Neither is embracing Muslim culture with open arms. They don’t have the answers either, but they have something better; unrestrained violence that is fueled by the moral desperation of a failed culture struggling against the tidal pull of that failure.Like a drowning man, if we try to save them, then they will pull us down with them.
How does one protect them from the damage that they do to their own character? And how does one save people from their own hate?
We are not so wise and so perfect that we can claim to know how to save 1 billion people from themselves. Right now we are having a good deal of trouble saving us from ourselves and we cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of reforming the Muslim world as well. Whatever spiritual or cultural redemption waits for them, can only come from themselves and through themselves. It will not come through a change of government or lavish praise. Only through a growing moral awareness. There is no telling when or if such an awareness will come. There are animal rights campaigns in China and anti-rape campaigns in Africa—but no progress on human rights in the Muslim world. It is likely that China will be vegetarian before non-Muslims are treated as equals in the Muslim world.
It has been made manifestly clear that Muslim violence against us, both individual and collective, will not cease any time soon, and that such violence is informed by the scriptures of their faith. While some Muslim countries claim to harbor no violent intentions toward us—such claims often prove false under the pressure of domestic unrest and growing religiosity.
If the Muslim world has raised up a wall of sand against freedom, tolerance and the recognition of our common humanity—then it is best for their sake and ours that they remain on their side of that wall of sand.
If they refuse to coexist with us, either locally or globally, then that is their choice.They may have their paradise of hefty-bagged women, towering mosques and cowering infidels—so long as their bigotry and oppression remains on their side of the wall of sand. When they breach that wall, then they have to live by our laws, not theirs. If there is no room for our laws in their lands, then there is no room for their laws in ours.
Thinkers and politicians talk on of how to save 1 billion Muslims from themselves. Remove their tyrannies, some cry. But what will they replace them with? More tyrannies. Governments reflect their peoples. If 1 billion Muslims really wanted to be free, they would be. The tyrants are expressions of their condition, not repressions of their moral will. The Muslim world does not differ on whether there should be tyranny, but on what manner of tyranny it should be. The Arab Spring has proven that.
The most fundamental error of the West toward the Muslim world is that of condescension. Western governments may see Muslims as minorities, but they see themselves as majorities. And throughout the world they are majorities. Muslims in the West do not see themselves as minorities, but as natural majorities who have the right to impose their will and their way of life on a minority that functions as a majority only because it has not yet been overrun and conquered. Unlike refugees who come from cultures where they are minorities, Muslims come expecting to have things done their way. And when the West accedes, that only affirms the Muslim sense of privilege.
The West condescends to Muslims, and Muslims condescend to the West
The West condescends to Muslims, and Muslims condescend to the West. Both reassure the other that everything is fine. But while the West’s condescension is based on wishful thinking, that of the Muslim world is based on progressive conquest. If diplomacy is the art of saying, ‘Nice Doggie’ while looking for a stick, then the West isn’t looking for the stick, and the Muslim is.
The West’s missionary impulse toward the Muslim world is not only misplaced, it is positively dangerous. How can the West convince the Muslim world to believe as it does, when it no longer knows what it believes?
The Muslim world lacks such weaknesses. It cannot be crippled by moral quandaries, ideological contradictions, philosophical crises or doubts about the future. Its members do not recognize contradiction, rather they embrace them, until those contradictions explode in violence.
Western codes are black and white, Muslim codes combine all shades into one. When the Muslim world is confused or in doubt, it resolves these feelings with violence. The West does not resolve them at all. While the West broods, the Muslim world slits throats. The problems of the Clash of Civilization cannot be postponed much longer. They are our problem. We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them.
When An Arab Denounces The Arabs For Their Backwardness, Etc. What Is It He Can't Say?
Every so often, at www.MEMRITV.org, you can see a video of an Arab journalist, or professor, or political figure, who denounces the sorry condition of his fellow Arabs, deplores their miserable state, their plight, their wretchedness, their backwardness, their conspiracy-mentality, their everything. But what lies behind this vehemence? What is it that that speaker, brave as he may be or seem, cannot speak about?
Consider, for example, this denunciation of the Arabs by an Algerian journalist. , Khaled Omar Ben Guiga. He notes that the replacement of despots has not bettered the condition of Arabs, that the regimes or governments or semi-anarchies that have replaced the previous despots are not an improvement and may even be worse than what preceded. He concludes bleakly that the ,Arab peoples are, in his view, headed toward "Defeat, Decline, and Even Suicide."
Or consider the diagnosis of Arab society by a Tunisian doctor who, back in 1982, published a book, David Pryce-Jones notes in The Closed Circle, "with the sardonic title" Why The Arabs Will Go To Mars. Here's his own summary: "The Arab despises himself, despises his reality, because he knows that the real facts go against what he is asked to think of them. Politics, news, intellectual life, is a weave of lies."
That Tunisian doctor was Moncef Marzouki, now the leader of the secularists in Tunisia, and a member of the Tunisian government, who has admitted that he has had to compromise with Ennahda, for that "Islamist" party (meaning: the party of those who take Islam most to heart, for "Islamism" is only a word to describe Islam as received, and acted upon, by such Believers, who differ only in the present level of their passion and enthusiasm for the faith, and willingness to act upon both, and not in the content of that faith which are perfectly mainstream (in either the Sunni or Shi'a versions), has been unable to act to assure the triumph of his own secular (meaning: those who want to constrain Islam and its most fervent believers, for they sense the danger to freedom as they understand the word).
But both Omar Ben Guiga, and Moncef Marzouki, and many others, cannot say what some of them, if they were quite sincere with themselves, would have to say: the misery of Arab misrule, economic backwardness, social injustice, intellectual impoverishment, moral squalor, comes from Islam itself. This some of them cannot allow themselves to believe, because it would then call into question everything about their own societies, suffused as they are with Islam. And others allow themselves to believe this bleak truth, or truths, but do not express openly their thoughts because they know it would render them pariahs, and possibly subject to threats of death.
So those Arabs who see that something is wrong, but do not live in the West, and therefore cannot speak the truths that such people as Wafa Sultan or Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak, are not to be taken at face value. Look behind their denunciation of "the Arabs" to what they are really semaphoring: a denunciation of Islam.
Did Argentinaâ€™s Jewish Foreign Minister Betray Justice?
Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman 1994 Buenos Aires AMIA Jewish Community Center Bombing
Source: CC-BY MRECIC ARG
The troubled Argentine leftist Peronista government of President Cristina de Fernandez Kirchner has expanded agricultural trade with the Islamic Regime in Tehran. Apparently there is a ready market for soybeans and Argentine beef in Iran. In 2012, Argentinean trade with the Islamic Republic zoomed to more than $85 Billion, an increase of 1,100 Percent in six years. More than 55% of the trade is in agricultural products.
That may have been the principal reason behind a deal cut for creation of a South African-style Truth Commission in which Argentine judges would hear testimony from former Revolutionary Guard Commander and now Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi. There is an outstanding Interpol warrant for the arrests of Vahidi as there was for the late Hezbollah terrorist mastermind, Imad Mughniyah, assassinated in Damascus by a Mossad hit team in February 2008. The 2007 Interpol arrest warrant was issued given substantial evidence that Iran had perpetrated the 1994 AMIA Argentine Jewish Community bombing that had killed over 85, injuring hundreds. An earlier 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing in Beunos Aires that killed 29 and injured more than 242 persons was suspected of also being perpetrated by Hezbollah and Irn's Revolutionary Guards.
The architect of the Truth Commission treaty with Iran is the Jewish Foreign Minister of Argentina, Hector Timerman, whose late father, Jacopo, was a human rights icon and publisher who was jailed and then deported by the ruling military junta in the early 1980’s. Israel gave the elder Timerman, author of the acclaimed, Prisoner without a Name, Cell without a Number, sanctuary, only to have him criticize the Jewish state for its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Jacopo Timerman returned to Buenos Aires where he passed away in 1993.
Now, his son has been severely criticized for his instrumental role in negotiating and concluding a Truth Commission with the Islamic regime. His fellow co-religionists in Argentina and the State of Israel expressed outrage for betraying justice due the victims of the 1992 Israeli Embassy and 1994 AMIA Jewish Community blasts. The leadership of the Argentine Jewish community organized protest rallies this past weekend in Buenos Aires and issued statements criticizing Timerman.
“I did not betray my Judaism in the pact with Iran because we are trying to solve the AMIA bombing case,” Timerman said Monday during an interview with La Red radio. “The move was inspired by the deep humanistic tradition of Judaism and thinking always about the victims and the relatives of the victims.”
Interviewer Luis Novaresio asked Timerman how he could sign the deal with Iran, a country whose president has denied the Holocaust. The deal established a “truth commission” that allows independent judges to interview suspects in the bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994.
“I did not meet with the Iranians to discuss the Holocaust; I was with them to solve the AMIA case,” Timerman responded. “If I will have the opportunity to talk with them about the Holocaust, they will know what my opinion is.”
Timerman defended the dialogue with Iran and criticized the Israeli position on the issue.
“There are some sectors in Israel that are very close to the government; they do not want any dialogue. They want a military solution to the Iranian problem, and Argentina doesn’t believe in that,” he said.
Timerman, in an interview with Radio Continental in Argentina, said that he “had no debt” to Israel for harboring his father.
My father was imprisoned, disappeared [in Argentina], and I have to go and thank them [Israel]? I mean, I have to change Argentine foreign policy and shit on the AMIA because supposedly I have a debt to Israel? I have no debt. When a person being pursued is saved, there are no debts.
The Argentine Senate will vote on ratification of the memorandum of understanding with Iran on Thursday, February 21st followed by a vote in the lower chamber on Tuesday, February 26th.
Protests are scheduled the same day at the Argentinean Embassy in Herzliya, Israel.
Last Friday, February 15th a rally by 300 Argentine Jews was held in Buenos Aires protesting the truth commission treaty with the Islamic Republic and commemorating the deadly AMIA Jewish Community bombing that occurred on July 18th, 1994. After many years of investigation, no trial has been convened by Argentine prosecutors to bring the Iranian and Hezbollah perpetrators to justice.
Sergio Bergman, a lawmaker and Reform rabbi, remarked at the rally:
We ask Argentine society’s forgiveness for wasting a great privilege that democracy gave us. We have the first Jewish foreign minister, and that is why we say sorry.
Timerman’s calumnies against his own people stand in marked contrast to the former Jewish Foreign Minister of The Netherlands, Prof. Dr. Uri Rosenthal, the son of Dutch Jews who fled Nazi-occupation for sanctuary in Montreux, Switzerland where their son was born in 1945. Rosenthal, a respected academic expert in foreign affairs, and Parliamentary leader in the Senate for the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), served as Foreign Minister in the ruling VVD coalition from October 2010 to November 2012. Rosenthal’s wife is Israeli and he has two sisters who made aliyah to Israel. He is a defender of the Jewish State and had prodded the EU to list Hezbollah as a terrorist group in the wake of the Burgas, Bulgaria suicide bombing of a tourist bus in 2012 that killed five Israelis and the Bulgarian Bus driver. The Netherlands had listed Hezbollah as a terrorist group in 2004. The irony, given the current controversy over Argentinean Foreign Minister Timerman’s role in fashioning the Truth Commission with Iran, was the Burgas blast perpetrated by Hezbollah with support of Iran’s Qods Force occurred on the 18th anniversary of the AMIA Jewish Community bombing on July 18th, 1994 .
As Geert Wilders Visits Down Under, Aussie ABC Airs Hit-Piece on Q Society
They do their level best to represent Q Society, who have hosted and paid for Geert Wilders' visit, as some sort of sinister conspiracy/ secret society; note the repetition of the word 'secretive' which is completely silly, given that Q Society's aims and methods are plainly stated for all to read on the website and anybody who wishes may join up and then attend meetings.
From the transcript of the piece by Hayden Cooper, presented on ABC's 7.30 report, 18th February 2013, ahead of Wilders' first gig.
'Hate Speech or Free Speech? Secretive Society Splits Opinions'.
'Anti-immigration and anti-Islam Dutch MP Geert Wilders is touring Australia as the guest of Q Society, but what exactly is this secretive organisation about?
Not 'secretive'. Rationally security-conscious. We of Q Society (I am a member) are taking all reasonable precautions to ensure that Mr Wilders, while here in Australia, does not meet - at the hands of a Muslim resident on or visiting Australian soil - the same sort of dreadful end as did Theo Van Gogh: murdered in broad daylight in front of horrified Dutch infidel onlookers, by a Muslim acting in accord with the sharia rule that those who mock, or criticise, or 'blaspheme' Islam, Mohammed or Muslims must be killed. We are rationally wary of the possibility of gun-toting would-be sharia Enforcers such as the man who tried to murder Lars Hedegaard, and axe-wielding would-be sharia Enforcers, such as the Somali Muslim man who broke into Kurt Westergaard's house, not so long ago. Will you mention those recent cases, Mr Cooper? Will you mention the death fatwa that remains on the head of Salman Rushdie, or the multiple death threats issued by Muslims against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and against Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali? We are not discounting the possibility of suicide murder-'martyrs' packing explosive vests, or of truck bombs parked and then detonated outside venues. And if you, Mr Hayden Cooper of the ABC, think we are silly to entertain such fears and that there is really no need at all to take precautions, then it is you, alas, who are the fool. - CM
LEIGH SALES, PRESENT: To some, right-wing (bzzzzt! buzzword alert. In this kind of 'reporting', 'right-wing' = critical of Islam - CM) Dutch MP Geert Wilders is a courageous campaigner. To others, he's just a racist bigot. (Racist? Where do you get that from, O ABC? You could call him a bigot - that would at least keep the focus on the subject of ideologies and belief systems, 'memes' rather than genes - but not a 'racist', for his critique of Islam has nothing to do with the colour of people's skins or where in the world they were born. In his Australian speech he spoke admiringly of Ayaan Hirsi Ali - who is ethnic Somali - and Michael Nazir-Ali, who is Indo-Pakistani. - CM) And tomorrow he begins a speaking tour of Australia. Mr Wilders is here to warn about what he calls the dangers of Muslim immigration.
Those dangers are very real. See the following review of ex-Muslim Sam Solomon and Elias Al-Maqdisi's book "Modern-Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration":
'So who's bankrolling his visit? A secretive (no: just security-conscious - CM) group called the Q Society, an anti-Islamic organisation that hopes the Wilders world-view will catch on. Here's Hayden Cooper.
HAYDEN COOPER, REPORTER: 'Most of Melbourne doesn't yet know it, but there's a newly-arrived tourist in this town, and he just happens to be one of the world's most divisive political figures. (Really? One Dutch MP? Mr Cooper, don't you think that the title of 'one of the world's most divisive political figures' ought rather to be applied to somebody like, oh, let's just say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? - CM). The Dutch right-wing anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders.
Geert Wilders is rationally critical of Islam, yes. But.. 'right-wing'? By calling him 'right wing', of course, O ABC, you hope to program your viewers to dismiss him as if he were some goose-stepping Neo-Nazi or Dutch version of a KKKlansman. But he is not. He is not that, and if you paid any attention at all to his overall politics and demeanour, you would see that to represent him as such is the grossest of slanders. - CM
GEERT WILDERS, PARTY FOR FREEDOM - "Australia can learn from our [the Dutch] experience to stand up, to fight for who we are, for our own identity, and never, ever we should become an Islamic society.
What's so wrong about Wilders' or other people's not wanting Holland or Australia to become Islamic societies, Ms Leigh Sales, Mr Hayden Cooper? Do you, really, want Australia to become an Islamic society? Do you think Australia ought to be, one day ten percent Muslim? How about twenty percent? Thirty, forty, fifty, seventy, eighty percent? 100 percent, like Saudi Arabia or Somalia or the Maldives, where people get murdered if they leave Islam and become Christians? Do you want us to become like Indonesia, where they lynch Ahmadis, and have burned churches, and throw urine and faeces at Christians who are trying to pray? Should we be like Turkey?- where Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are hot best-sellers, and Catholic priests have been shot, stabbed, beheaded? Would you be OK with that? Really? Come on: if you had to choose, either to live in Australia or in the Netherlands, or in either Saudi Arabia or Iran, which would you choose? - CM
HAYDEN COOPER: He hasn't even spoken in public yet, but he's already causing a furore.
Good. We are finding out who are our worst dhimmi fools and enablers of Jihad, and our slyest Muslim taqiyya-masters and da'wa artists. - CM
JASMINE ALI, SOLIDARITY: 'This man is an extremist, he's an Islamophobe, and he shouldn't be welcome. He's not welcome.
YASEMIN SHAMSILI, STUDENTS FOR PALESTINE (in other words, a zealous supporter of the genocidal Muslim Jihad against the Jews of Israel...and against Jews, period. - CM). "I think Geert Wilders is a racist Islamophobe. And I think his visit to Australia is actually an attack on Muslims everywhere.
Hmmm. And we know that the cry of an 'attack on Muslims' is the cue for Muslims to attack Infidels - in 'self-defence', of course, in 'defence of Islam' - everywhere. So was that the raising of the cry of 'Jihad!' on Australian soil, milady? - CM
HAYDEN COOPER: Ahead of the Wilders arrival in an unassuming Melbourne courtyard on Saturday afternoon, a small group of activists met to plot their protest.
ACTIVIST II: 'Maybe something like "Refugees are welcome here, fascists are not" or "Refugees are welcome, Geert Wilders is not", or something alone those lines.
Dear anonymous activist, I am very happy to accept any number of Coptic Christian, Assyrian Christian, Sudanese Christian, Malaysian and Indonesian and Bangladeshi and Pakistani Christian, Buddhist and Hindu refugees fleeing from the horrors that the Muslims in their homelands inflict upon them. I am happy to offer refuge to Karen Christians from Burma who have been very badly treated by the Bama majority. But I refuse to see why we must be compelled to accept a flood of Muslim 'refugees' and 'immigrants' who, when they settle here, behave not like guests but like an invading and occupying army, and who insist on maintaining all the destructive behaviours and practices that made their home countries such wretched hell-holes. And as for the cry of 'fascist'...NONSENSE. It is Islam, not Geert Wilders, that has - as ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq once pointed out - all the marks of an 'ur-fascism'. - CM
HAYDEN COOPER: These people come from a handful of different protest groups. They're gearing up for the Dutch MP's first Australian speech here on Tuesday, a speech they object to.
How can they object to what they have not yet heard? It occurs to me to wonder whether any of them have even bothered to look him up and read what he has actually said, on previous occasions; such as his speech at Jerusalem, a few years ago. Or whether any of the non-Muslims among them have bothered to watch 'Fitna'...and cross-check the Quranic passages there quoted. If they did, they would see that the Quran says exactly the kinds of ugly things that Wilders says it does. - CM
JASMINE ALI: The way that Geert wilders hides behind the argument of free speech is really about him trying to promote what are I think very quite coercive and violent ideas (ROFLMAO: My dear Ms Muslim, don't you think I don't know about Quran 9: 29? That qualifies as 'coercive and violent ideas', so far as I can see. And how about that fatwa against Salman Rushdie? And the stories in the Hadith and the Sira about Mohammed sending out his hitmen to assassinate the poets who had criticised him and his Muslims? Should I mention the murder of Asma Bint Marwan? Or perhaps we should mention Theo Van Gogh. Do you think Theo Van Gogh deserved to be murdered, Ms Ali? Islam is simply chockfull of coercion and violence. And then there's that apostasy law, based on the Bukhari Hadith which says Mohammed said, 'If anyone changes his religion, kill him" (meaning that those who leave Islam, must be killed). Looks as though Hayden Cooper, of the ABC, doesn't know enough about Islam, to ask Ms Ali about all those little trifling matters of Islamic scripture and Islamic law, and the brutal coercion and violence that are plainly visible there, as well as being visible in the conduct of all too many Muslims, in the recent past, and the here and now. - CM) and in that regard I think it isn't a debate about free speech; it's very much a debate about hate speech.
"Hate speech" being, presumably, to Ms Jasmine Ali's way of thinking, anything that is in any way critical of Islam, Mohammed, and Muslims. I'm sure Ms Ali would be all for a Pakistan-style Blasphemy Law to be introduced and enforced world-wide, aso that anybody anywhere who uttered a peep of complaint after being mistreated by Muslims, or who voiced even the smallest whisper of critique of wonderful, wonderful Islam, could be punished, and silenced, preferably forever. - CM
HAYDEN COOPER: This is a trip that's been long planned and long delayed. It's been organised by the Q Society, a group of Australians opposed to the spread of Islam.
ANDREW HORWOOD, Q SOCIETY: It's really just getting the message out there about Islam. We want people to understand it's not like every other religion in the world. It is fundamentally different. And the core values of Islam don't really fit with Western democracies. And that's what we'd like to explain to the Australian public.
HAYDEN COOPER: Our meeting with the Dutch MP is held outside Melbourne in a secret location. We're told not to identify the venue, for fear of reprisals.
'Under tight security, Mr Wilders' every move is watched by his own protection team from Holland.
GEERT WILDERS: It's something you don't wish your worst enemy to have, but if this is the price to speak out and warn people about the threats they are facing, then it's worth it.
HAYDEN COOPER: The threat, as he sees it, for both Europe and Australia, is Muslim immigration.
GEERT WILDERS: We should stop the immigration from Islamic countries. I have nothing against the people. I have nothing against Muslims. I travelled through almost every Islamic country and I found often very friendly and helpful people, but they are all prisoners in this - well, this ideology called Islam, and it's pure terror by which they are ruled.
Yes. Pure terror. First, the apostasy law, which requires that those who leave Islam for another faith, or no faith, must be killed. It is discussed in detail by Samuel Zwemer in 'The Law of Apostasy in Islam', and by ex-Muslim Canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, in 'Freedom to Believe: Challenging Islam's Apostasy Law'. It is very much alive in the modern world, and not only within the dar al Islam. And then, second, there is the blasphemy law: that those who criticise or mock Islam, Mohammed, Muslims, must be punished - usually, by being killed. In Pakistan, certainly, 'blasphemy' is punishable by death. A Christian woman, Asia Bibi, sits on death row in Pakistan, because her Muslim co-workers, after failing to persuade or intimidate her into becoming a Muslim, screamed 'blasphemy!' when she quietly insisted that she preferred Jesus over Mohammed. Another Christian girl, little Rimsha Masih, was the victim of a patently false, deliberately fabricated charge of 'blasphemy!' by a Muslim 'cleric'; her entire Christian community was driven from their homes by a rampaging Muslim mob; she could be executed, if the Muslims get their way. Muslims themselves are not safe, for the mere cry of 'blasphemy!' raised against them by another Muslim with a grudge is enough, often, for their lives to be snuffed out by a self-appointed sharia Enforcer. - CM
HAYDEN COOPER: For such forthright views, even just finding a venue to host them has proven near impossible.
But, thankfully, not entirely impossible. Kudos to those brave Aussie businesses which were prepared to host Mr Wilders. - CM
ANDREW HORWOOD: 'In the process of getting this organised, we've had 30 professional venues where we've called them and said, "Look, we've got someone to come in to speak", we'd say who it was, we need 500 or 1000 seats, and then two days later we'd get a phone call back to say that they're double booked. So we're up to 30.
GEERT WILDERS: 'People are afraid. People are afraid to be connected to somebody that really is not me, and I hope by speaking in Australia I can show people that our concern is their concern and that my message is a positive message for Australia: make sure you don't make the mistakes that we made in Europe."
HAYDEN COOPER: Tomorrow, hundreds are expected to turn out to hear that message.
'In staging this tour, the Q Society is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, all donated by members.
That is because there are a lot of Australians who have been doing their homework on the subject of Islam, the sharia, and Jihad.- CM
'Even the venue is kept under wraps until the very last minute.
Because, to repeat, we don't want Geert Wilders to get murdered by a Muslim, like Theo Van Gogh did. - CM
'And as for political traction, well, hundreds of state and federal MPs have been invited to attend, but such is the aura of controversy surrounding Wilders and the Q Society (or, perhaps, such is the menace already exuded by the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, within Australia - CM) , that only a small handful have said yes.
'This man is one of them, the stalwart Christian Democrat Fred Nile.
Good on him. I recall that he was one of the few people anywhere in the Western world to draw the obvious conclusion, after that Muslim American-in-name-only soldier ran amok at Fort Hood in the USA and murdered thirteen people. Here's the link to what Mr Nile said after the news broke:
FRED NILE, NSW MP: I'm looking forward to - I haven't met him, of course. I've read a lot about him, and I've printed articles and printed his speeches in my own monthly newspaper. So I feel like I know him, but I'm looking forward to meeting him personally and give him my encouragement and support.
GEERT WILDERS: I understand it's election time now in Australia, so even some of my old friends like your Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who I met in Holland, now decides not to meet me. And I can even understand it; I am a politician. It's sad, but I understand that.
HAYDEN COOPER: Geert Wilders is determined to support the fledgling Q Society, an organisation that's secretive about its membership and meetings. (Really? I'm a member and all I see is ordinary caution about security, entirely justified in light of the common Muslim practice of threatening and attacking anyone who publicly criticises them. - CM) But one insider can take us behind the curtain.
ANONYMOUS MUSLIM MAN: Very extreme, very paranoid, very unsettling.
I'm sure it is unsettling, Mr Muslim, to discover that the najis kuffar, we filthy unbelievers, have read your book - and some of the other books, too - and have figured out that the Ummah is out to achieve Total World Domination, Islam, Islam Ueber Alles. And that we intend to do our best to prevent you from achieving this. - CM
HAYDEN COOPER; This Muslim man attended undercover a meeting of the Q Society at the North Sydney Leagues Club.
ANONYMOUS MUSLIM MAN: 'They're a group of people who are stridently anti-Muslim, who are trying to generate fear in the Australian society about what Muslims really are.
We are raising the alarm precisely because we have found out, from the canonical Islamic texts, and from looking at the deeds and words of Muslims both historic and contemporary, exactly what Islam - 'Submission' - really is all about. As Joseph Schacht put it in his book 'An Introduction to Islamic Law': "the basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be converted, or subjugated, or killed". Well, we Aussies in the Q Society, like an ever-increasing number of self-educated and rationally alarmed Infidels in other countries both western and non-western, have no intention whatsoever of converting to Islam - we prefer our own beliefs, customs and laws - nor have we any interest in becoming terrorised, exploited, humiliated and degraded dhimmi near-slaves, nor do we intend to allow ourselves to be mass-murdered as a sacrifice to 'allah' because we have refused the previous two options (conversion, or dhimmitude). So, in the end, we and all the world's other non-Muslims will have to fight, and defend ourselves against the Jihad. Mr Muslim, of course, would prefer that Infidels not realize they need to defend themselves, until it's too late. It won't be too late, however, if the truth about Islam's grand plan and about Muslims' malevolent intent toward non-Muslim worldwide, can be spread fast enough. - CM
"I mean, for example, I was in a meeting at one stage, and there's this woman sitting next to me, and she was talking to us, just an interchange about some fellow who was speaking a couple of rows in front of us. And I just leant over to her and said "I think that man's a Muslim". And she said, "How would you know?" And I said, "Well he seems to know a lot about the Koran and the Hadith". (This is silly. Many in the Q Society know a lot about the Koran and the Hadith. Knowing about what is in the Koran and the Hadith does not necessarily mean that the knowledgeable one is a Muslim! Samuel Zwemer, who wrote 'The Law of Apostasy in Islam', was a Christian missionary and traveller within the Msulim world; he knew an enormous amount about the Quran and the Hadith. In the 19th century a scholar named Palgrave, quoted extensively in James Freeman Clarke's pioneering work, 'Ten Great Religions', clearly knew a great deal about the contents of the Quran and the Hadith. But he was not a Muslim by any means; indeed, he scathingly condemned the Muslim concept of deity. - CM) And her face just screwed up and she said, "I wish I had a knife, I'd stab him".
I have to say, I simply don't believe this story. I cannot see any Australian non-Muslim woman, no matter how angry and alarmed, saying something like that to a stranger in the middle of a public meeting. I think that this Muslim just lied to Mr Cooper, lied to blacken the name of Q Society; lied, in other words, in order to further the cause of Islam. And if he was lying, he was also projecting; because knives are a favoured Muslim weapon. It was with a butcher knife that the Muslim who murdered Theo Van Gogh pinned to his victim's chest a piece of paper with threatening, boastful proclamation. It was with a knife that a Muslim assassin slit the throat of a Jewish baby, Hadass Fogel. And then there was that UK MP, Stephen Timms, who was greeted by a smiling demurely-behijabbed Muslimah, as he met his constituents; smiling, she held out her left hand to shake his, and still smiling, with her right hand she whipped out a knife she had concealed in her bag, and shoved it into his gut. Hayden Cooper swallowed and then publicised- on national TV - this Muslim yarn ; he needs to read what Raymond Ibrahim has had to say, about the uses of deception, in Islam
and he should visit MEMRI and watch a few dozen clips, and get a feel for just how much nonsense and lies - how much that in the eyes of any historically informed, rational person can be plainly seen to be 100 % false and beyond false, bizarre, sheer madhattery and much of it malicious to boot - is brazenly peddled by Muslims of all kinds, including white-robed elderly 'clerics', each and every day. - CM
HAYDEN COOPER: The Q Society is formed in the mould of overseas groups like Robert Spencer's Stop [the] Islamisation of America. He is a proud Q Society board member and something of a figurehead for the anti-Islamic cause.
And have you actually bothered to read any of Mr Spencer's books, Mr Hayden Cooper? Or watch a video presentation? You might get a surprise. He's a nice guy, very scholarly, gentle and funny, very thorough and - like Geert Wilders - very brave, because like Geert Wilders, he must live in a secure undisclosed location because of the deluge of vicious Muslim death threats that hammer in upon him day and night. - CM
ROBERT SPENCER, ANTI-ISLAMIC AUTHOR (that is: Robert Spencer, critic of Islam - CM). "The hatred and discrimination are all on the part of the sharia supremacists in Australia, of which there are many, who have preached that women who go outside without the sufficient Islamic covering are uncovered meat and are thus fair game to be raped, and things like that. That's where the hatred and discrimination are coming in, not from the Q Society, which is in defence of human rights."
HAYDEN COOPER: "For these protestors, the mere presence of Geert Wilders in Australia is offensive, and for those who are Muslim, the message he brings is deeply personal.
Sure it is: because it tells them, 'you've been rumbled; we kuffar are onto you, we know what your religion of blood and war is all about.' . But now, cue what I am pretty sure is more Muslim madhattery, invented in order to represent Muslims as victims.
JASMINE ALI - "You know, I hear stories all the time about relatives, family friends of mine, who have had their hijabs ripped off their heads, walking on the streets of Sydney.
Oh, pooor little persecuted petals....frankly, I don't believe it, miss. I don't believe it; because if things like this were really happening, I'm pretty sure there would have been a whole slew of loudly publicised court cases, with the affected Muslimahs weeping, wailing, and playing the Victim card for all they were worth. But I do believe - because they are consonant with so many other stories of Muslim conduct toward non-Muslims, world-wide - the stories of Muslim males at Cronulla leering at and threatening and sexually harassing Aussie non-Muslim bathing beauties; and then beating up a Surf lifesaver when he dared to remonstrate with them about their deeply uncivil conduct. And when Paul Sheehan describes what happened to his female - non-Muslim - friend, who used to live at now-heavily-Islamised Lakemba, in the western suburbs of Sydney, I believe him.
"A friend of mine, Jenny D, used to live in Lakemba. She began receiving insults from people in the street, usually Muslim women wearing headscarves, and sometimes Muslim men. If she wore a short skirt, she could expect abuse or comment. She left Lakemba." (Shall we confront Ms Ali with that story, perhaps? - CM)
"These are the sorts of consequences that these ideas bring. So in that sense, it's a very personal issue. And that's what people actually have to get across as well, that this isn't just some abstract debate about ideas. They have real consequences for people's lives."
Yes, Ideas do have consequences. So let's think about the real-life this-worldly consequences of the many malignant ideas enshrined in the Islamic texts. Let's ask Salman Rushdie and Asia Bibi and Rimsha Masih and any number of others, what Muslim ideas about Blasphemy have done to their lives. Let's ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Magdi Cristiano Allam and Hannah Shah and Lina Joy about the effect on their lives of the Muslim teaching about what should be done - must be done - to apostates from Islam. Let's ask South Sudanese about how they have experienced the outworking of the doctrine of Jihad. Let's ask Coptic Christians and Indonesian Christians about the effect of the Islamic rule that dhimmis - non-Muslims within an Islamic state - are not to be allowed to build new churches or repair old ones. Let's ask the musicians of Mali about the effect upon them, of the sharia ban upon music.Let's discuss what happens and has happened to Jews, in many places - I'll mention, just for starters, Miriam Monsonego, Jonathan and Gavriel and Aryeh Sandler, Ilan Halimi, the Fogel family, Sebastien Selam, and Gavriel and Rivkah Holzberger - when pious Muslims put into practice the venomous and all-pervasive anti-Jewish ideas that are hardwired into all the core texts of Islam. - CM
With Tunisia, As With Egypt, An IMF Loan Will Help The Ikhwan
And the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Ennahda Party that is now sole ruler over Tunisia (with Jemali's resignation, and the failure of the "cabinet of technocrats"), will become more popular if, with Western -- Infidel -- IMF aid, it manages to stabilize or even improve the economy. Why is that in the Western interest? Why is in the interest of the best elements in Tunisia, or in Egypt -- those who recognize that Islam, undiluted, is a menace and the cause of the many failures -- political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral -- of both Tunisia and Egypt.
Nothing should be done to bail out the ikhwan. Nothing should be done, in fact, to bail out with Infidel aid any Muslim polity or people. It makes no sense. It delays the day of recognition, for those in Muslim lands capable of such recognition.
Here's the Reuters story about Tunisia:
IMF says still in touch with Tunisia on loan
WASHINGTON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Negotiations between Tunisia and the International Monetary Fund on a $1.78 billion loan are continuing at a technical level, an IMF spokeswoman said after political turmoil prompted Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali to resign.
"Negotiations for a new precautionary SBA are still ongoing at a technical level," Wafa Amr told Reuters in an email on Tuesday.
"Once a new government is named, we will enquire about its intentions/mandate. Once the political situation is clarified, we'll assess how best to help Tunisia."
The IMF said early this month that talks on Tunisia obtaining a $1.78 billion SBA, a stand-by arrangement that would be used as insurance to back the country's development after its 2011 revolution, were at "an advanced stage".
But economic policy-making in Tunisia is now threatened by a political crisis following the assassination of leading secular opposition politician Chokri Belaid outside his home in Tunis on Feb. 6.
Jebali initially responded to the crisis by proposing to create a non-partisan cabinet of technocrats that would lead the country into early elections. He resigned on Tuesday after his own Islamist Ennahda party opposed the idea, fearing it would be sidelined from power; the shape of Tunisia's new government is not yet known.