Kuwaiti 'cell' planned to hit Americans

OT, but I want Everyone to see this:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16546

And I think Everyone should make a point to get everyone they know, to watch the '24 Hours' mini-series starting on the 9th.

Gary,

Other films which Mr Pipes doesn't mention include 'The Siege' (precient pre-9/11 thriller about Islamic terrorists in the US); 'Dirty War', a BBC TV movie about Islamists detonating a dirty bomb in the heart of London, and 'Fatima', a British 'social realism' drama from the Ken Loach school of filmmaking which portrays UK Muslims as innocent victims goaded into terrorist acts by western racism (free pass, anybody?) I'm glad to say this film has had trouble finding a distributor (outside of France!)

Hollywood seems to have chosen to approach the WoT symbolically through history-based dramas. So Ridley Scott has just made 'Kingdom of Heaven', a Saladin versus Crusaders epic about the Siege of Jerusalem. Two rival movies about US marines attacking Barbary pirates in Tripoli have been announced. And there are also rival versions planned of the Siege of Malta, in which a huge Islamic army besieged a small number of Christian knights (kind of like 'Zulu', only with knights and Turks.)

The best thriller about Islamic terrorists is probably 'Black Sunday', a 70's John Frankenheimer film in which Mossad agents help the FBI to track down Palestinians planning to blow up the SuperBowl. When it was originally released it got panned as 'too unbelieveable'. Catch it if you can.

Hmmm, I wonder if this is why they forgot to send the US a thank-you card after we reclaimed their country for them?

Benelux~ Yes, I remember 'Black Sunday,' good movie. And while this one probably doesn't count for much: 'True Lies.' Eh.

In regards to this article above: I believe people have pointed to Kuwaitie citizens once before, who have been involved in terrorism, and wondering why they would after we helped liberate their country?
It should be evident by now to most, that the 'faith' far outweighs ME national pride, in some people.

OT -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/05/wlakh05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/05/ixportal.html

Briton is accused of missile plot in US

A British businessman offered to sell 200 shoulder-launched missiles to be used in a plot to terrorise the United States, a court heard yesterday.

Hemant Lakhani told an undercover FBI agent that they could be used to shoot down 10 to 15 airlines simultaneously on the second anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Lakhani, 69, from Hendon in north London, claims he was the victim of an entrapment operation.

Prosecutors also claim he told the agent that he could obtain a radioactive "dirty bomb". He denies the charges, which include attempting to provide material support to terrorists. He could face 25 years in jail.

The Indian-born businessman arrived at court in Newark escorted by police armed with sub-machineguns. He was arrested in August 2003 by FBI agents at a Newark hotel where he had allegedly gone to demonstrate a missile launcher he had bought in Russia.

It is alleged that Lakhani was arranging the sale of 50 more missiles, saying America could be terrorised if 10 to 15 commercial jets were shot down simultaneously.

Stuart Rabner, prosecuting, said: "He spent more than a year and a half eagerly trying to make this deal happen, actively trying to smuggle 200 shoulder-fired missiles into the United States, all the time issuing advice on how to shoot planes out of the sky in order to shake the US economy."

Prosecutors are expected to submit as evidence more than 150 audio or video tapes they claim implicate Lakhani.

But Lakhani, who has been described by associates in London as an Arthur Daley type with a taste for the high life, claims he was guilty only of greed and stupidity.

He said recently: "All I wanted to do was to make money, but I got myself into something I didn't know much about."

The defence will argue that there were never any real missiles, only one fake, no real buyer and no real seller.

The trial continues.

Just in case you missed my post yesterday, here it is again:

I’ve read the posts asking for Jihadwatch readers to provide ideas for what we might do to help spread the word. From what I’ve seen so far, there are some great ideas and you have my complete support. I would suggest though that we’d be remiss in our efforts if first we didn’t recognize and show our tangible support and appreciation to Robert and Hugh for running the Jihadwatch site. They’re providing a great service and doing outstanding work--I think we should do what we can to help them continue that work.

With that said, I’m challenging all Jihadwatch readers to donate $100.00 (or whatever you can) to jihadwatch.org AND to send at least one of Robert’s books to someone (friend, foe, family, politician, etc.).

There’s a donation link in the left column on the home page and a link at the top of the page for purchasing books.

Please do what you can.

Mr. Spencer:

I took the opportunity to listen to you this morning on the radio. You made some excellent points on the Kuwaiti article,Cat Stevens, and why moderate Muslims don`t step up to the plate enough against the hardliners in Islam.

In reference to the Kuwaiti article,I find it interesting why al-Qaeda always comes into play in a lot of these terrorist plots. Could it be that they are just good muslims following the most fundamental tenets of the Quran,and the hadith?

I'd like to draw your attention to our meeting behind the scenes at Jan. 4, 05: "Asked if he...."

We began a volunteer committee on Jan. 2 with the purpose of organizing some concrete and organized support for Spencer's work, our work, against jihad. we began a general committee, Planned Action Co-ordinating Committee, (PACC) to enlist people here who want to serve as leaders in this fight against the threat of world-wide Islamic aggression.

We're moving slowly but surely toward our own movement in defense of our lives and cultures and nations. Each of us has a talent or abilities to contribute to that cause, and if you have an activist spirit and wish to do something concrete, something tangible and productive, please join us to begin a sub-committee of your own or to join those of us who are already involved in the leaflet campaign.

Yes, rational dissent is welcome. Spencer leads the way here each day, and he creates for us, as I've written many times, a powerhouse. We are the energy. We want to channel and focus that energy into a true force of community activism in support of the fight against jihad.

Many of us are sickened by Islamic propaganda in shcools, for example, and some of us are combining our strengths and abilities to form comittees to counter-act the islamic da'wa that seeps in unchallenged. this is where you can say that Spencer has brought you to the water. He does his work daily, and here we can begin to help in ways that will spread effectively across the globe.

If you're interested in working as a volunteer leader for change in your community, go to Jan. 4, 05. Look for the thread beginning "Asked if he...." Go to the row of stars now near the bottom of the page, and from there begin to organize some resistence to this islamic madness in our midst. Hope to see you there today. And each day after we will try to meet at the same first thread of the previous day to do more.

"Staunch ally"? Kuwait?

Says who?

They are all allied to the Koran, and anyone like the passing-through 'useful idiot' Americans, are mere tools to be used to further the aims of the jihadistic subcurrents of all Islamic states heading for the 'Restored Caliphate'.

Like the Saudi "staunch ally", Kuwait will likely ask the soldiers to apologize and release them as 'rehabilitated'.

The Muslim world laughs, excuses its own maniacs and murderers and 'traitors', realizing that they are just 'getting ahead of the game'- and are not the enemies of Kuwait, but of the true, ultimate enemy- the infidels everywhere.

With allies like this, who needs a brain tumor?

P.S.-

By "brain tumor" (in previous post) I mean the invasive belief systems, like the Koran, which are infiltrating the global mind.

Previous ones have vanished from the Earth, so there is hope that this current mentally-occluded creed will end up alongside the Manicheans, Cathars, et al, who hated the world (as the fallen realm of a demonic deity), and received the world's revulsion and expulsion, finally, in return.

Islam is lame.

And cripples to make its followers match.

All fine points, of course. Now let's start doing something about it. some of us are organizing a leaflet campaign. We could use some input. Other concerns need attention. Visit us at Jan. 4, "Asked if he...." Look for the row of stars at what is now the bottom of the page. This is an invitation to you to act. Hope you'll join us.

That's gratitude for you.

A scorpion and a frog are resting at the edge of a river. The scorpion asks the frog for a lift to the other side. The frog says, "No, because you will sting me." Then the scorpion says, "If I sting you then we will both drown." The frog then reluctantly agrees. The scorpion climbs on the frog's back and they start crossing the river. Half-way across the scorpion stings the frog. The frog says, "Why did you sting me? We are both going to drown." The scorpion says, "I am a scorpion, that is what I do. It's in my nature."

I'm sure most have heard of this story or something similar. Can we liken this to the jihadis?

OT, but not very long, and EXTREMELY important information to arm ourselves with. It's critical for us to know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. CRITICAL!

ARE WE A REPUBLIC OR A DEMOCRACY?

by Dr. Walter Williams

We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution — two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

posted by George Mason © @ 1/5/2005 07:10:08 AM 0 comments

OT:
Palestinians Using More Children, Women for Terrorism

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200501/FOR20050106a.shtml

OT:
CAIR-CANADA Sued for $1 Trillion

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

Great job in thwarting yet another attempt at murder and mayhem in Kuwait, I pray that many more be discovered and dismantled and that those of us who truly seek peace keep meeting in the middle to reassure each other of the efforts each provide.

Make them talk and give up other plans.

"When nothing is sure,everything is possible".

Margaret Drabble(English novelist)

Hi everyone,

Sorry to be out of commission right when we are getting started, but, it's better now.

Update:

Mike has the freedom of religion information and is working on putting that together.

Suzi has pulled all the information together concerning the new immigration vote that is coming up. Still need someone to put all of it together with facts and figures on how many OTM, (other than Mexicans) have crossed the border.

And the amount of illegals still here, where abouts--unknown, purpose for being here--unknown.

Mom and Libby'smom are looking into Islam in the public school system---this will go to Rublev, for mass e-mailings and letters to the Secretary of Education.

Greg and Chuck are looking for "friendly news programs, radio and web sites, we can send information to and hopefully get Robert on them.

Rikki is pulling together information on the "hate Speech" law in England, so we can look at that and also getting information on who we might be able to endorse there.

We still need someone else in the U.K. to look up "friendly news sites".

Need a volunteer to look up Sharia law in Canada, put something together showing what cause and effect this will have on Canadian laws.

Son of walker is reworking his flyers and they should be done soon.

Still need someone to work on womens rights in Islam. Highlight the lack of and the abuse, ie, honor killings, female mutilations, stonings, etc.
This will go to all the major women's rights groups.

Also, need someone to work on the gay issues in Islam. I'd like to send this out to Act Up.
They will take it and forward the information along to their various groups.

Someone mentioned getting the VFW's involved. Could we have someone look into that for us?
I believe it was Informed Christian?

Another thing I'd like to get to tie into Islam in the schools is a list of college professors that have written, made speeches promoting Islam in the schools, calling for the end of Isreal or have known terrorist ties.

Also, we need to get more of the posters in the U.K. in touch with Rikki, so we can get everything organized there.

I also need to hear from the posters from the Netherlands to let me know what you would like to do there and what we can forward over to you to get you started.

Australia, same thing, let me know what info you need.

Contact me at Susan_b356@yahoo.com

OT...
cair, cair canada sued...

That's really great news for the good guys side. A trillion bucks is a real eye popper and is sure to attract a great deal of public attention as ths suit unfolds. It's going to expose the evil under belly of all of Islam, not just the "radical" element. This case, even if lost in court will still be a victory for our side, just for the number of eyes that will get a close look at Islam and those two organizations.Hopefully when the trial over those two fronts for terrorism will no longer be able to operate with any degree of credibility and the mask will be peeled off the ugly face of Islam.

Susan_B/sonofwalker/dana/et al-

For your idea of spreading the word- via 'post it notes/lampost stickers/train station fliers' etc., sounds good and I will join this effort to try to influence the woefully uninformed in the West against Islamic fanaticism.

For my taste, the pithiest and most memorable sayings would work best.

No one wants to be preached at, but, if you can give them something quick, honest, and memorable (whether mordant or dadaistic) it can seep into the subconscious without too much resistence.

(Things like the WW II motto: "Loose lips sink ships" transcend politics and mere proselytizing and get to the meat of the matter.)

I'll try to offer some potential 'Muslim Fortune Cookie' sayings for use on spreadable semiotic items.

I'll connect them to your continuing links on this activism.

"Islam is lame"

would be a simple sticker saying to paste on bus shelters, mailboxes,etc.- perhaps written over a 'smiley face button' image to render it less serious (i.e.dogmatic-) looking?

"Mohammad had 12 wives, -but only one was 9 years old!"

could be another.

Information, -accurate, brief and unsettling. (To those unfamiliar with the desert pedophile's personal predilections or the text of the Koran.)

I'll get back with any that could be printed on small objects, read fast, and leave an unnerving impression to commuters, passersby, shoppers, etc.

"A woman counts as only half a man in Islam"

seems obvious.

Or-

"To leave the Muslim faith is punishable by death under Islamic Law."

Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

Thanks for the efforts, one and all.

Hope to help however I can.

"Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are considered mere infidels by Islam."

(A good bumper sticker to add to city buses.)

And:

"A.L.L.A.H. (A Lying Lunacy Against Humanity)"

(I can see that on a pinback button handed-out at rock concerts.)

Lo-tech, but so was the symbol of the 'fish' (the sly visual anagram for I.C.H.T.H.Y.S.) scratched sgraffito on walls in the Roman Empire.

OT,

But I want to address a concern that was raised about our information efforts:

After being away for a few days, I'm just catching up on some of the issues.

I'd like to state the following:

First, in no way do we advocate any form of violence. That is NOT what this group is about. It's about getting information out to the public. It's about letting our law makers know, that they are being watched on how they vote on issues of the public safety.

It's about protecting our most valuable resources---OUR CHILDREN.

It's about my rights as a woman to freely express myself in whatever manner I choose to do so.

It's about defending the bloodiest piece of paper ever written, our Constitution. And by that I mean, the blood of the men and women who have died to ensure that we can live in freedom. Don't let that be for nothing.

It's about continueing to be able to live in peace and worship however I choose to.

Would I go to jail for this? YES! Would I like going to jail for this? NO! But sometimes you have to draw a line as to how much you, personally are willing to lose.

Some will say, "It's not that bad yet", and they'd be right. But "Yet" is the operative word here. If you go to CAIR'S homepage, you will find a list of lawsuites and pending actions. Each one is designed to limit our abilities to protect ourselves. If they are successful, it will open the door to the very people who would bring about the "YET".

You cannot be jailed for telling the truth. You cannot be jailed for informing the public of the dangers coming your way.

In the words of Court Justice William Rehnquist:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.... The freedom to speak one's mind,'" he continued, quoting from another Supreme Court decision called Bose v. Consumers Union , "is not only an aspect of individual liberty ? and thus a good unto itself ? but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.'"

"History reveals that, as often as not, the great First Amendment battles have been fought by our cultural rejects and misfits, by our communist-agitators, our civil rights activists, our Ku Klux Klanners, our Jehovah's Witnesses, our Larry Flynts."

The United States is:
the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. The great resiliency of the American Constitution is its capacity for growth, and that capacity is nourished by our abiding faith in tolerance, even for the intolerant. We have wagered our salvation not on our collective capacity to elevate public discourse by controlling it but on our collective capacity to discover truth through the free, unregulated trade of ideas.

I suggest to those that are concerned about what we are doing, watch our progress, read up on First Amendment rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I, The Bill of Rights

Read the relevent case law:http://www.epic.org/free_speech/

And look around you, think about the everyday things you value, ask yourself, "How important is my life and the lives of my children, family, friends?"

OT,

But I want to address a concern that was raised about our information efforts:

After being away for a few days, I'm just catching up on some of the issues.

I'd like to state the following:

First, in no way do we advocate any form of violence. That is NOT what this group is about. It's about getting information out to the public. It's about letting our law makers know, that they are being watched on how they vote on issues of the public safety.

It's about protecting our most valuable resources---OUR CHILDREN.

It's about my rights as a woman to freely express myself in whatever manner I choose to do so.

It's about defending the bloodiest piece of paper ever written, our Constitution. And by that I mean, the blood of the men and women who have died to ensure that we can live in freedom. Don't let that be for nothing.

It's about continueing to be able to live in peace and worship however I choose to.

Would I go to jail for this? YES! Would I like going to jail for this? NO! But sometimes you have to draw a line as to how much you, personally are willing to lose.

Some will say, "It's not that bad yet", and they'd be right. But "Yet" is the operative word here. If you go to CAIR'S homepage, you will find a list of lawsuites and pending actions. Each one is designed to limit our abilities to protect ourselves. If they are successful, it will open the door to the very people who would bring about the "YET".

You cannot be jailed for telling the truth. You cannot be jailed for informing the public of the dangers coming your way.

In the words of Court Justice William Rehnquist:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.... The freedom to speak one's mind,'" he continued, quoting from another Supreme Court decision called Bose v. Consumers Union , "is not only an aspect of individual liberty ? and thus a good unto itself ? but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.'"

"History reveals that, as often as not, the great First Amendment battles have been fought by our cultural rejects and misfits, by our communist-agitators, our civil rights activists, our Ku Klux Klanners, our Jehovah's Witnesses, our Larry Flynts."

The United States is:
the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. The great resiliency of the American Constitution is its capacity for growth, and that capacity is nourished by our abiding faith in tolerance, even for the intolerant. We have wagered our salvation not on our collective capacity to elevate public discourse by controlling it but on our collective capacity to discover truth through the free, unregulated trade of ideas.

I suggest to those that are concerned about what we are doing, watch our progress, read up on First Amendment rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I, The Bill of Rights

Read the relevent case law:http://www.epic.org/free_speech/

And look around you, think about the everyday things you value, ask yourself, "How important is my life and the lives of my children, family, friends?"

The idea of the "post-it" notes is a good one. However, there should be no need to try to use catch phrases... all one needs to do is use verses from the Koran to get the point across. Many uninformed persons would be startled by what's really behind the 'religion' of 'peace'... if they only knew!

Also, using verses from the koran would eliminate any cries from the moslems about "hate speech" .... after all, the koran was written by allahthestone itself and is therefore perfect, right?

Sign me up! If you print them, I'll post them.

Profitsbeard,
Of course Kuwaits an ally, just like Saudi Arabia are..... because they've got oil dribbling out of their ears (otherwise I'd like to think we'd have erased them from existence a decade ago).

Wow!!! Our governments sure know how to pick their friends don't they. Bush and Blair calling Kuwait an ally would be like Winston Churchill making the same claim about Austria in 1941.

Susan B
I never avacate people to hurt anyone just to prepare for the STORM that is coming??

I Never saw a peice of paper protect anyone from a madman!!!

There are ways to fight and you are doing the right thing just like Mr. Berg was doing but HE STILL LOST HIS HEAD BY MADMEN!!!

Would a gun have saved his head we will never Know!!

REMEMBER
Our Forfathers did not just give us the 1st Admenment but also thought that the 2nd Admenment was more important than all the others!!!

You answer you would go to jail and you are Fighting but will you really Fight if need be??

Also, using verses from the koran would eliminate any cries from the moslems about "hate speech" .... after all, the koran was written by allahthestone itself and is therefore perfect, right?

Sign me up! If you print them, I'll post them.

Posted by: Just_Linda at January 7, 2005 08:51 AM

I think you have the best answer this is why I post that sh-t so you can copie it and send it around learn to copie and paste if I can do it any one can!! the cost is Free and like a chain letter will open Eyes yes it will give some screaming fits but there are many good people in America that do not just sit by and do nothing??

SAK YOURSELF WHY WE CAN NOT USE THIS AGAINST THE MULSUMS WHO PREACH HATE AND KILLING EVERY DAY??

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/Chaplinsky_v_NH.html
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
No. 255
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
315 U.S. 568
Argued February 5, 1942
Decided March 9, 1942

Syllabus
1. That part of c. 378, § 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire which forbids under penalty that any person shall address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place," or "call him by any offensive or derisive name," was construed by the Supreme Court of the State, in this case and before this case arose, as limited to the use in a public place of words directly tending to cause a breach of the peace by provoking the person addressed to acts of violence.
Held:
(1) That, so construed, it is sufficiently definite and specific to comply with requirements of due process of law. P. 573.
(2) That as applied to a person who, on a public street, addressed another as a "damned Fascist" and a "damned racketeer," it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon freedom of speech. P. 574.
(3) The refusal of the state court to admit evidence offered by the defendant tending to prove provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances charged is open to no constitutional objection. P. 574.
2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. P. 574.
91 N. H. 310, 18 A. 2d 754, affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, § 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire:
"No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation."
The complaint charged that appellant, "with force and arms, in a certain public place in said city of Rochester, to wit, on the public sidewalk on the easterly side of Wakefield Street, near unto the entrance of the City Hall, did unlawfully repeat, the words following, addressed to the complainant, that is to say, 'You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists,' the same being offensive, derisive and annoying words and names."
Upon appeal there was a trial de novo of appellant before a jury in the Superior Court. He was found guilty and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 91 N.H. 310, 18 A. 2d 754.
By motions and exceptions, appellant raised the questions that the statute was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that it placed an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of worship, and because it was vague and indefinite. These contentions were overruled and the case comes here on appeal.
There is no substantial dispute over the facts. Chaplinsky was distributing the literature of his sect on the streets [570] of Rochester on a busy Saturday afternoon. Members of the local citizenry complained to the City Marshal, Bowering, that Chaplinsky was denouncing all religion as a "racket." Bowering told them that Chaplinsky was lawfully engaged, and then warned Chaplinsky that the crowd was getting restless. Some time later, a disturbance occurred and the traffic officer on duty at the busy intersection started with Chaplinsky for the police station, but did not inform him that he was under arrest or that he was going to be arrested. On the way, they encountered Marshal Bowering, who had been advised that a riot was under way and was therefore hurrying to the scene. Bowering repeated his earlier warning to Chaplinsky, who then addressed to Bowering the words set forth in the complaint.
Chaplinsky's version of the affair was slightly different. He testified that, when he met Bowering, he asked him to arrest the ones responsible for the disturbance. In reply, Bowering cursed him and told him to come along. Appellant admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the Deity.
Over appellant's objection the trial court excluded, as immaterial, testimony relating to appellant's mission "to preach the true facts of the Bible," his treatment at the hands of the crowd, and the alleged neglect of duty on the part of the police. This action was approved by the court below, which held that neither provocation nor the truth of the utterance would constitute a defense to the charge.
It is now clear that "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state [571] action." Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450.[note 1] Freedom of worship is similarly sheltered. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303.
Appellant assails the statute as a violation of all three freedoms, speech, press and worship, but only an attack on the basis of free speech is warranted. The spoken, not the written, word is involved. And we cannot conceive that cursing a public officer is the exercise of religion in any sense of the term. But even if the activities of the appellant which preceded the incident could be viewed as religious in character, and therefore entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, they would not cloak him with immunity from the legal consequences for concomitant acts committed in violation of a valid criminal statute. We turn, therefore, to an examination of the statute itself.
Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.[note 2] There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [572] and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.[note 3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.[note 4] It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.[note 5] "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309-310.
The state statute here challenged comes to us authoritatively construed by the highest court of New Hampshire. It has two provisions--the first relates to words or names addressed to another in a public place; the second refers to noises and exclamations. The court said: "The two provisions are distinct. One may stand separately from the other. Assuming, without holding, that the second were unconstitutional, the first could stand if constitutional." We accept that construction of severability and limit our consideration to the first provision of the statute.[note 6]
[573] On the authority of its earlier decisions, the state court declared that the statute's purpose was to preserve the public peace, no words being "forbidden except such as have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed." [note 7] It was further said: "The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker--including 'classical fighting words', words in current use less 'classical' but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."
We are unable to say that the limited scope of the statute as thus construed contravenes the Constitutional right of free expression. It is a statute narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace. Cf. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 311; Thornhill v. Alabama, [574] 310 U.S. 88, 105. This conclusion necessarily disposes of appellant's contention that the statute is so vague and indefinite as to render a conviction thereunder a violation of due process. A statute punishing verbal acts, carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression, is not too vague for a criminal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277.[note 8]
Nor can we say that the application of the statute to the facts disclosed by the record substantially or unreasonably impinges upon the privilege of free speech. Argument is unnecessary to demonstrate that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.
The refusal of the state court to admit evidence of provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances, is open to no Constitutional objection. Whether the facts sought to be proved by such evidence constitute a defense to the charge, or may be shown in mitigation, are questions for the state court to determine. Our function is fulfilled by a determination that the challenged statute, on its face and as applied, does not contravene the Fourteenth Amendment.
Affirmed.

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to Stay the course to Victory to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat and give the World Courage to Stand and Fight them Amen

*** KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! ***

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

[note 7] It was further said: "The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker--including 'classical fighting words', words in current use less 'classical' but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

DOES THIS WORK FOR YOU IT WORKS FOR ME!!!

Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

Tabari VIII:96 “A raiding party led by Zayd set out against Umm in Ramadan. During it, Umm suffered a cruel death. Zyad tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She was a very old woman. Then they brought Umm’s daughter and Abdallah to the Messenger. Umm’s daughter belonged to Salamah who had captured her. Muhammad asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her to him.”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Qur’an 59:6 “What Allah gave as booty to His Messenger He has taken away from them [the Jews]. For this you made no raid. Allah gives His Messenger Lordship over whomsoever He wills. Whatever booty Allah has given to His Messenger and taken away from the [Jewish] people of the townships, belongs to Allah and to His Messenger.... So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.”

Ishaq:327 “Allah made booty lawful and good. He used it to incite the Muslims to unity of purpose. So enjoy what you have captured.”

Bukhari:V4B52N276 “By Allah, we saw the Meccan women running, revealing their leg-bangles. So, we cried out, ‘The booty! O Muslims, the booty! Our Companions have become victorious. What are we waiting for? By Allah! We will go to the pagans and collect our share of the war booty.’”

Ishaq:508/Tabari VIII:91 “Abu Jandal, Suhayl’s son, escaped and joined Abu Basir. Nearly seventy Muslim men gathered around them and they harassed the Quraysh. Whenever they heard of a Meccan caravan setting out for Syria, they intercepted it, and killed everyone they could get a hold of. They tore every caravan to pieces and took the goods.”

PEACE, ISLAM STYLE:
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.’”

Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think they can bypass (Islamic law or the punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot escape.”

Qur’an 47:33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.”

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”

Qur’an 9:3 “And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Pilgrimage is that Allah and His Messenger dissolve treaty obligations with the Pagans.”

Tabari VIII:104 “Peace to whoever follows the right guidance! To proceed; Submit yourself, and you shall be safe.’”

Qur’an 49:9 “If two parties among the Believers fall into fighting, make peace: but if one becomes aggressive, then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies.”

Qur’an 9:7 “How can there be a covenant between Allah and His Messenger and the disbelievers with whom you made a treaty near the sacred Mosque?”

Qur’an 9:8 “How (can there be such a treaty), seeing that they get an advantage, the upper hand over you? They do not pay you respect, or honor you or the ties of kinship or covenant. With (good words from) their mouths they entice you [out negotiate you], but their hearts are averse to you.”

Qur’an 9:12 “If they violate their oaths and break treaties, taunting you for your Religion, then fight these specimens of faithlessness.”

Ishaq:544 “Muhammad commanded the people to prepare for the foray [raid, incursion, sortie, attack, or assault]. The Messenger informed his troops that he was going to Mecca. He ordered them to prepare themselves and ready their equipment quickly. He said, ‘O Allah, keep spies and news from the Quraysh until we take them by surprise in their land.’”

Ishaq:552 “When the populace settled down, Muhammad went to the Ka’aba and compassed it seven times on his camel, touching the Black Stone with a stick. Then he went inside the Temple. There he found a dove made of wood. He broke it in his hands and threw it away.” [The first idol Muhammad broke was the international symbol of peace.]

Ishaq:607 “The Byzantines encountered the Messenger’s cavalry which was led by Khalid. Ukaydir was seized and his brother Hassan was killed. Muhammad spared his life and made peace with him on the condition that he pay the zakat tax.”

Ishaq:316 “In peace you are wild asses—rough and coarse. And in war you are like women wearing corsets. But I care not so long as my hand can grasp my trusty blade.”

Ishaq:454 “Now that Allah has conferred Islam on us, and made us famous, shall we give them our property? By Allah, we will offer them only the sword until Allah judges between us.’ ‘As you wish,’ said Allah’s Messenger.”

Tabari VIII:100 “Abu Sufyan said, ‘We were merchants but the fighting between us and Muhammad has prevented us from journeying, so our wealth is depleted. [This is the purpose of terrorism.] Even after the truce with the Muslims, we fear that we still are not safe. [Muslims, continuing to plunder Meccan caravans, violated the treaty twenty times.]’”

Qur’an 4:90 “For those who join a group between you and whom there is a treaty, or (those who become) weary of fighting you, had Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore if they withdraw and wage not war, and send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah has not given you a way (to war) against them.” [The purpose of terror is to cause people to become so “weary of fighting” they surrender.]

Qur’an 4:91 “You will find others who, while wishing to live in peace and being safe from you to gain the confidence of their people; thrown back to mischief headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and offer you peace besides restraining their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear sanction and authority.” [So if you wish to live in peace, but are perceived as being mischievous (i.e., non-Muslim), Allah has given his Jihad warriors “a clear sanction and authority to seize and kill” you.]

PEACEFUL MUSLIM HYPOCRITES:
Qur’an 48:11 “The desert Arabs who lagged behind [in fighting] will say to you (Muhammad): ‘We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and our families.’ We have prepared for them a Blazing Fire!”

Qur’an 4:77 “Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: ‘Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?’”

NOW YOU KNOW WHY THE MULSUMS IN THE USA ARE SILIENT??

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16554
The Silent Muslim Majority IS the Problem
By Nonie Darwish
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 7, 2005
I am overwhelmed with sadness over the state of the Muslim world. I am looking at the photograph of an Iranian woman about to be stoned to death in Iran, buried to her waste in dirt to keep her from running away.
A few weeks ago, I read about a 14 year-old Iranian boy who died after receiving 85 lashes for the ‘sin’ of eating in public in the month of Ramadan. Salah Uddin Choudhury has been in prison for one year in Bangladesh for the ‘crime’ of urging his nation to recognize Israel and advocating interfaith dialogue among equals as well as warning against the growing power of Islamists in Bangladesh.
What are Muslim community activists in America doing about their homegrown brutal human rights violations? They are silent.
The picture of the stoned woman has been seen by some Muslims I know in the Middle East and also fellow Americans, Christians and Jews. The first reaction by the Muslims was “what did she do?” while the first reaction by Americans was “How could this happen?”

The Muslim majority here in the US remains silent seeing the outrageous brutal medieval-style and inhumane punishments practiced in many parts of the Muslim world. Americans, who are puzzled by the silence of the so called “moderate” Arab-Americans after 9/11, do not understand that Arabs learned to be silent and indifferent to terror before even coming to America. Generations after generations of Muslims lived under dictatorships and were trained to look the other way when Muslims tortured and terrorized other Muslims. The result is a population de-sensitized to seeing brutality and horror. Too many of them see cruel punishment as normal. Their silence over the killing was not just an insult to America after 9/11, but is aiding and abetting the cruel culture of hate, terror, torture and beheadings.

Arab men, known for ‘machismo’, are doing nothing while watching such horrible injustice happen to their women and children. There is no uprising by Arab women over the inhumanity and cruelty their sisters in Islam are suffering. “She must have done something really bad!” one Muslim woman said to me after seeing the picture. By that, she of course meant having sex outside of marriage. 2000 years after Christianity abandoned stoning as a form of punishment, Islam still continues to practice it.

Even Muslim groups who live with Western freedoms are not making a strong stand to stop this cruel practice. There is a petition being circulated on the Internet by mostly non-Muslim or former Muslim groups to save the life of yet another Iranian woman from being stoned to death. On the other hand, many Muslim women in America, all the while enjoying Western freedoms, are busy covering their ankles, complaining about the French law against wearing religious symbols in French public schools or filing law suits to get their faces covered up on their drivers’ licenses in America.

These hijab-wearing Muslim women expressed no outrage over the brutal murder of Margaret Hassan in Iraq, a British woman who dedicated 30 years of her life to helping Iraqis. How many properly covered up Saudi, gulf state, Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian women went to Iraq, Iran, Algeria or Sudan, to help their sisters and brothers in Islam as did Margaret Hassan? The answer is practically none. That job was usually left to Westerners who do it out of their Judeo-Christian inspired sense of humanity.

Most Islamic studies professors and Islamist groups in America exercise their freedom of speech given to them by America, but only when speaking against America, Judaism, Christianity, President Bush and Pat Robertson. However, they never dare to criticize their culture of origin and some even still have respect for the tyranny of the old country. They leave the job of ridding the Muslim world of terror to the victims of terror, namely America and Israel. Whenever they criticize the Muslim world it is in the context of blaming America for supporting dictatorships. However, when America attempts to bring democracy and get rid of Arab dictators they turn around and accuse America of occupation or empire building. No matter what America does, they voice criticism. That can only mean they do not seem to be serious about reformation in Muslim countries. They are, however, very serious about embarrassing, criticizing and hurting America.

Many Muslim groups and Middle East studies professors are aligning themselves with the liberal ‘hate America’ crowd in Western academia and media. Three days after the Tsunami in South Asia, I saw an Arab-American leader criticize America’s response as “slow and too little, too late” on CNN. They have the audacity to criticize America and give a free pass to the oil rich Arab countries that should be the first to respond financially to save their poor Muslim brothers and sisters in Indonesia.

Islamism and the old defeated and failed ideology of pan-Arabism is what many Islamic groups in America are advocating. They are silent in the face of Muslim poverty, corruption, neglect of human rights, oppression of women, honor killings and the brutal and unusual punishments such as cutting off limbs, flogging and stoning. They are not using American freedoms as an opportunity to change their countries of origin, but as an opportunity to influence and change America to be like the countries they came from. Their goal is also to keep Muslim-Americans under their control and the control of Muslim world mullahs, sheiks and dictators they should have left behind. How can any one take them seriously when they do not lift a finger to protect human rights in Muslim countries, but are militant in turning Arab-Americans into yet another voting block to influence American politics? They take no stand to protect the life of the Muslim woman being stoned and explain away such atrocities and beheadings while crying ‘profiling’ in America by the FBI.

Wahhabi Islamist groups in the West are dreaming of a day when Sharia Islamic laws that call for stoning women come to America and dominate the whole world. That is why Muslims in the West are not outraged over this picture.

Arab-Americans should reject Islamist groups and become part of the solution and not part of the problem in America. Let the history books say that Arab-Americans were the seed and cause of change in the Middle East. Let us stand behind President Bush in trying to bring about democracy in the Arab world. Let us form active genuine peace groups and reach out to other religions. Let us celebrate the freedoms America has given us by extending our compassion to the victims of terror left behind in our countries of origin. That should be the mission of Arab organizations in America and not the silly anti-American causes they are pursuing with the blessings from the enemies of America.

Arab-Americans should no longer stand silent before acts of terror and beheadings on our fellow brave American men and women in the US armed forces as well. America should never allow the poison of medieval-style justice and morality to penetrate its psyche under the guise of multiculturalism. It is time for America to hold Muslim countries and culture responsible for terrorism. Those countries are waging a two-faced war against the West while hiding behind their terrorists and their sacred veils.

Yes, the silent Muslim majority is the problem. Their silence is empowering not only the terrorists and brutal dictatorships, but all of the cultural, political and social pathologies behind them. Arab- Americans who speak out might be called ‘heroes’ by some. However, speaking out of love and gratitude for America is the duty of all American citizens

REMEMBER When good men do nothing???

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WOTH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT AND COURAGE TO CRUSH ALL ISALMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPOPRT THEM AMEN

Catherine,

You asked the following:

You answer you would go to jail and you are Fighting but will you really Fight if need be??

My answer:

I'm more hard core than you will ever be. I appreciate your question, but if a person is willing to put themselves in the forefront of a site like this and to get people organized and mobilized, then that person better be able and willing to defend themselves if neccessary.

When I put my name and information out for the public view, I put myself on the line. I get at least 7 death threats a day because of this.

I passed them along to the other posters so they could see first hand what we're dealing with.

I haven't backed off an inch.

And while I have defended your right to post whatever you want, and this is not personal, but don't question my motives.

Bully for you, Susan!

I'll be sending the questionnaireto Susan this evening, so be expecting that soon.
Have a great weekend, everyone. If you need me contact me through Susan, and if it's ok with you, pass along your e-mail address so I can contact you directly. I intend to make my e-mail address available to vetted members.

I hope I'm on the right page here. This site was down when I tried earlier, or maybe it was just here, but I lost the trhead for a while. If you have my address please feel free to cntact me. I'll look around and return here later.

This if from a Yahoo Group called Cyver_jihad located at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cyber_Jihad/

i have just created 2 new websites with somewhat related topics to
that of this Yahoo group.I urge anyone who dislikes Israel and aid
being givin to Israel to begin there own anti-Israeli websites.
By doing so, we will be able to spread the truth about the $3 billion
Americans lose every year to the evil people of Israel who will stop
at nothing to erase every Arab in general and Muslim specifically
from the face of the Earth.I have created the following web-sites:

www.13813.0catch.com and www.xmail.net/deathpasser/index.html

The Jews own the Western media and it is our right to fight back
using the internet.I have created the following website to raise
funds in order to be able to teach people about Israels crime:

www.13813.o-f.com
www.13813.bravehost.com

I wish for all who are humane to do the same and to teach the world
the truth hidden behind those bus-bombings and suicide-bombers.These
people are Martyrs and their doings can benefit us many ways.That is
all.

This is also from Cyber_Terror at Yahoo Groups:

"beckerboarder2003"
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:34 pm
Subject: Help Im south florida

ADVERTISEMENT


Allah Akbar!!
Allah be praised
My brothers and sisters The jihad has called us to attack some web
locations in south florida.

These are the demonic christian websites:
www.alm.org
http://billysbaby.proboards32.com

If you want to keep fighting and defeating the Islamist on line,join us at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmeriicanJihad/

George M Weinert V
Chicago Public Schools

I saw 24 Last night here in Chicago on FOX Channel 32 - quite well done, with a nice sub plot about a young Muslim youth who gets sucked into his Islamist fathers' activities but his romantic involvement with a NON-MUSLIM girl leads to many complications.

The 2 hour start was well done, and CAIR ought to be having a hemorrage today too - part II and another 2 hours of 24 is on tonight in Chicago at 7:00 PM on WFLD, Channel 32.

God Bless America,
George M Weinert V
http://www.americanjihad.blogspot.com

I wish for all who are humane to do the same and to teach the world
the truth hidden behind those bus-bombings and suicide-bombers.These
people are Martyrs and their doings can benefit us many ways.That is
all.

Posted by: Americanjihad at January 10, 2005 11:17 AM

When you say human do you mean Mulsum??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight and Courage to stay the course to Victory[FREDOM] Amen