What if that plot to blow up airliners had not been detected well in advance, but had succeeded? What then? What would have followed? Other than stricter security measures at airports, what punishment would have been meted out to Muslims, to their interests, to the Umma -- a collective punishment as in modern warfare punishments always are, so that it would be far less likely to happen again? What exactly would the Western world, would the United States, would Great Britain, would France, would Germany, would all the countries of the Western world have done?
Would they have bombed several of the entry points into Mecca, so as to limit access to it, and threatened to steadily bomb others, until such time as only one narrow road led in and out -- a far better step, because deliberately incremental, than destroying Mecca or the Ka'ba itself, the Magic Wonderstone often confused with the meteorite which it contains within? Would they have promptly seized the assets of Saudis and other rich Arabs, declaring these to be the assets of enemy aliens, whose property was seized during World War II -- or would that first require legislation? Would they do something, as obviously they should, to damage the interests of Muslims living within the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, deep behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines?
One wishes to know. Surely Muslims should know that these things are now being talked about, and that they cannot continue to assume that no matter what happens, their position in the Western world is safe, that the Western peoples will continue to exhibit the extraordinary forbearance that they have exhibited? Does one forget how the United States, which in the late 1930s had the 18th largest army in the world, roused itself, in a vision almost like Milton's "methinks I see a puissant power," and churned out tens of thousands of planes and tanks, many of them sent to the Soviet Union as part of a non-returnable Lend-Lease, and to the United Kingdom, and then entered the war? And within two years of entering the war American bombers were taking part in raids on Berlin and bombing German cities, and then Japanese cities.
The Arabs and Muslims do not really comprehend what warfare is. They have lost only to tiny Israel, a country determined not to use its full armory, and so far very solicitous of the enemy -- partly because of that supposedly impressive but actually maddening doctrine of "purity of arms" (which gets them no points outside of Israel, none). Israel has never been permitted by the outside world, or by its own scruples, to inflict the kind of damage that the rest of the Western world can and will inflict, and not only militarily.
The plotters in England, or in a hundred other places, do not know this. No one has told them that there will be consequences. No one has told them that this can and will by many be treated as an act of war, an act of war by all those who participate in, or support financially or morally or demographically, the Jihad. This has to be discussed.
Again, I ask: if ten airliners had blown up in midflight over the Atlantic, what would have been the consequences, not merely for "increased security measures" and attempts to monitor specific individuals who are members of identifiable Muslim terror groups, but consequences for Muslims in Dar al-Harb, and Dar al-Islam? There cannot be any kind of deterrence for some thoroughly demented fanatics. But others will refrain from attacking. Egypt does not attack Israel, nor does Jordan, nor does Syria, and not because the first two have signed peace treaties. They do not attack because they are deterred. Deterrence may not work for all Muslims, but it will work with a great many. But they have to know that a price will be paid -- a price comparable to that paid by Nazi Germany, by Imperial Japan.
And this brings me to the Taj Mahal, that "tear in marble." Shah Jehan may have been one more Mughal ruler, the site itself probably built by Hindu workman for the Muslim lord. It is, however, to Muslims also part of India's economy, a symbol of the nation to tourists, and so a fit target.
What if it were to be blown up? What then? What would the government of India, or the Hindus and Sikhs and other non-Muslims of India, do to Muslim interests in India? Would the mosques remain exempt from attack?
What would happen? What would not happen? Perhaps it is better to threaten repercussions now, so as to prevent certain kinds of behavior, rather than to let everyone think that nothing will be done in response. The more we begin to talk aloud about a proper response, the more we discuss all the measures that might in the future need to be taken, the more that is likely to prevent attacks by Muslims who follow keenly all that the Infidels say and do.
They have been led to believe that they can get away, in many places, with murder or even mass-murder. And still the Muslim immigrants arrive. Still they are allowed to bring in their families, still they are allowed to exploit the system, still they are allowed to make demands for changes in our rights, in our legal and political institutions and social arrangements.
These smug assumptions must be undone. Muslims should be treated with something like the same attitude, and the same solicitude, that they so famously exhibit and offer to non-Muslims all over Dar al-Islam. How could any Muslim object to that?
I've wondered what we would do in another horrific attack. I questioned this the other day. In our country, would there be vigilantes stringing muslims up the old hanging tree? Shoot on sight? Would we round them up til we can get them sorted, or just let God do that?
I always thought that we should advise them what they are incurring the next time they do something horrific as 9/11. We shouldn't stop with payback in the middle east until camels are the last ones standing.
One would think, that, with the way we're having problems with the muslims at the moment, islam would have been outlawed.
The muslims need a good comeuppance, and need to grow up and learn how to get along. They can't get through their thick little heads, they're biting the hands that feed them.
Hugh
While the mood seems to be changing - these days, I do hear a lot more condemnation of our fabled 'Islamo-fascists' than I used to, I don't know that it would translate at the political levels. For one, the Dems, who usually do a good job in attacking the GOP, don't look like they'd be taking on anything Islamic should something like that occur - look at the lack of condemnation for Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling on the NSA wiretaps. On the GOP side, other than Tancredo and Newt, is anyone else sounding the alarm on 'Islamo-fascism'?
On the Taj, I don't know about other Hindus, but I for one wouldn't shed a tear if it got destroyed, let alone damaged. I turn the concept of Jahiliya around, and look at all Muslim monuments as symbols of Islamic supremacy over Infidel culture. The Taj Mahal itself is a mausoleum - why should an attack on it be retaliated by an attack on any mosque? I can understand that happening should a Hindu temple be attacked and damaged, but given the pro-Islamic government both federally in Delhi and locally in Lucknow, I doubt that any backlash would be allowed. But should anything happen to the Taj Mahal, not only would the presence of a very corrupt law-enforcement prevent a backlash on Muslims - Hindus themselves wouldn't feel inclined to risk life and limb for this purpose.
These smug assumptions must be undone. Muslims should be treated with something like the same attitude, and the same solicitude, that they so famously exhibit and offer to non-Muslims all over Dar al-Islam. How could any Muslim object to that?
Posted by Hugh
You forget they are the blessed ones. We infidels owe them. For almost 1400 years some infidel somewhere has bothered them. All of us should just submit and peace will spread across the world. Sarcasm off.
I don't want to guess what it will take to force even the dhimmis to demand action but I feel whatever that line is we are closer than we have ever been. For almost 1400 years they could murder, rape and run over anyone in their way (except Israel) but now they have met us (America). Although they have the power to make us notice them, it amounts to little more than an ant biting our neck; it hurts, makes us mad but can’t really hurt us. The USA has troops in almost every county that has asked for them, they build, teach, repair, treat and mentor everyone. They don’t choose who needs help, what religion they are or if they can pay, we go because we are driven to help. We are also the mightiest force ever to step foot on this planet. Much more powerful than every muslim nation combined. Do we feel the need to challenge others belief systems? Absolutely we do, and the muslims can not stand it. Those of you that want a fight need to consider the impact on your jihadi goals. We can fix it so you couldn’t raise another army for a few thousand years if then. We could also bring you into the 21st century as friends, you pick based on what you think you can afford.
I know of one politician who was raked over the coals for proposing just such a consequence. A while back, Tom Tancredo publicly stated that we should inform muslims if there was ever a nuclear bomb set off in an American city that we would retaliate in kind by bombing Mecca and Medina. He would not back-pedal from that statement when questioned about it which is why the JW/DW readers voted him American Anti-Dhimmi of the Year. Tom understands islam and that the only deterrent for the "We love death more than you love life" death cult is to put the consequence up front for them to stew on.
No_Mooselimbs
Tancredo talks at length about the issues with Islam in a chapter in his book In Mortal Danger, titled 'The clash of Civilizations'. Robert gets a cameo mention as an 'Islamic scholar' ;->
I'm assuming that 'Islamic' doesn't imply 'Muslim'
Things are looking up. As expected the internet conspiracy theorists (predominantly right wing,family values, homophobic, misogynistic Jew haters - which includes a lot of anti Vatican II Catholics) are trying to ridicule the plane plot as a frame up or false flag operation, surprisingly BBC America (Channel 135 on DishNetwork) just reported that a number of "martyrdom video's" featuring some of the "suspects" have been found, along with a briefcase with bomb making materials in a wood near their homes, and other well hidden caches of bomb making materials (they dig holes in brush and hide the stuff..seems that cops from every jurisdiction in London is combing the woods, and of course the cops show up at the local mosque, all apologetic, and the Imam spokesmen of course deny that their boys are involved (they are nice young men of course), and then whine about how this focus and investigation is hurting Islam and that Islam is not a religion of terror.
Which incidentally is confirmed by the rabid British convert "Imam" Abu Abdullah, he emphatically stated (just now on Wolf Blitzer)that all violence committed by Muslims is defensive ... Kaffirs (especially those in government and media) need a short course in muslim (il)logic, their ability to twist words and turn reality on it's head, until the west "gets it" all the initiative is with Islam.
And constantly whining about "multiculturalism", PC, the left and liberals, might cause the ejaculator some orgasmic relief, it does nothing at all to help win the war.. in fact such verbal ejaculations are counter productive, but no one every said that right wingers were capable of long range and strategic thinking, not with an icon and leader that calls it "strategery".
I wouldn't nuke mecca although during a few of my rants I might have said I would. Anyway, I think seizing the karbala and hiding it would be more fun. Kind of hard to hajj when you can not find your shiny rock.
Hugh someone must have read your article, because I just heard on the news (I think it was BBC America) that there has been a bomb threat against the Taj Mahal, supposedly by Al Qaeda..It would seem strange that Al Qaeda would waste their time targeting a famous Muslim shrine and mosque, some other muslim group perhaps but al Qaeda?
"someone must have read your article, because I just heard on the news (I think it was BBC America) that there has been a bomb threat against the Taj Mahal..."
-- from a posting above
The news about the threat to blow up the Taj Mahal had already been posted. It was hardly a lucky hypothetical.
If these planes had just disappeared off radar in the deepest part of the Atlantic, the FAA, FBI, and the international air traffic officials would just be standing around with their thumbs ...
There would be nothing to investigate, no black box and no wreckage to sift through for "evidence." If the bomb arming sequence had gone according to plan, the Flight 103 would not have fallen on Lockerbie, but in the deep ocean.
If they had exploded on their approach to their American runways, it would have been an event to rival 9-11.
What would have followed?
Another criminal investigation. It will not be treated as a military attack until
The Little Sheep Buggers© actually send a brigade of "individuals" ashore on Nantucket.
"Does one forget how the United States, which in the late 1930s had the 18th largest army in the world, roused itself, ... and churned out tens of thousands of planes and tanks,... And within two years of entering the war American bombers were taking part in raids on Berlin and bombing German cities, and then Japanese cities."
That was triggered, finally, by the attack on Pearl Harbor - a military base thousands of miles from the mainland.
9/11 should have been a similar trigger, and moreso. It was a direct attack on civilians on the homeland.
The president and congress should have recognized this climactic act, after an escalation of size and frequency of such attacks by muslims for years - remembering the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
On 9/12 the draft should have been reactivated, and the military told to prepare for global war, and the domestic economy geared up for war production.
All those Muslim countries who had harbored terrorists OR imams who called for "death to America", all of them, should have been slapped with huge indemnities, and, if oil producers, have the fields siezed and occupied. Saudi Arabia should have been occupied, reformed and restructured completely, the way Japan was under MacArthur. Mecca should have been closed for at least a year, and after that only muslims allowed to enter who accepted a new and pacified version of the Koran. Any insurgencies would result in the continued closing of Mecca/Medina or their permanent destruction - as well as harsh retaliation for insurgent actions.
Winston Churchill said: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
A "perfect storm" is coming together and gaining strength in the muslim world, and heading West to us. There are billions of dollars a day flooding into the treasuries of our enemies, and being used for military expansion, and subsidizing plots and terrorists, and for development of nuclear weapons, too. There are probably millions of muslim "kamikazes" now anxious to kill Americans, and getting trained to do it.
Churchill's admonition should be heard loudly by America and the non-muslim world. Every moment that passes our position/survival worsens and theirs improves.
Hugh, The ka'ba ("the magic wonderstone") is the enclosure for the meteorite? Does the meteorite have a name?
What would have followed? Hugh asks.
What would have followed is more of the same, with excruciatingly slight increments toward being closer, but no cigar -- like that Saturday Nite Live mock commercial about the multi-trac shaving blade that keeps seeming to shave closer and closer... and closer, but never seems to quite shave down to the nub of a clean shave.
That's what would have followed.
A few thousand Infidels dead. Nah, not enough to shake the PC Multiculturalist template that dominates all our thought, discourse, action, by which Islam remains forever inoculated from the "extremists" who pullulate out of it.
Oh pelayo, I fear you are right.
and the sight of that perfect storm,
waves of hateful humanity,
young men longing
for blood and death,
breaking on the shore,
takes my breath away.
Never did I ever think
it would all come to this.
And the words of Churchill live on,
the truth of his poetry hits hard,
his wisdom is to be heeded,
and all who refuse it
do so at their own peril.
Poetess asked
"Does the meteorite have a name?"
Yes. Allah. No, I'm not kidding or being facetious or sarcastic. I'd deadly serious. Research it yourself to confirm.
Hugh asks:
"What if that plot to blow up airliners had not been detected well in advance, but had succeeded? What then? What would have followed?"
Usually these terrorist attacks are followed by lots of people on TV saying that Islam means peace, hugging Muslims and praising multiculturalism. There's other stuff like more money going into Muslim communities, Muslim spokesmen all over the place (usually telling us that Islam means peace blablabla)and the constant repetition of 'tiny minority of extremists'. There are the insane demands for more Muslim security officers (at the airports, in MI5, etc.)
I would like to think that next time it would be different. I am sick of hearing about the tiny minority of extremists, and all the rest of it.
What I'm pushing for is a "holding" of Islamic immigration to the US. Hopefully this would take hold throughout the west, but, to be frank, I doubt it. The next attack will bring this into the forefront. It should be done now.
This is not racist: black African Christians, Arab Christians are welcome . . . as are Jews, Hindus and a select few apostates or critics such as Hirsi Ali. This is discriminatory by its definition, but needed.
Simply freeze Muslim immigration. We say 'when you get your act together . . . maybe in another 1400 years, we might change our mind, but for now, stay 'over there."
Freeze the number at it's current 1-2 million. That's more than enough to assimilate, more than enough to spend billions watching, more than enough by any measure of the yardstick. And if we are "lacking" something! so be it! It seems that Japan is getting along quite well without Muslims, or maybe I'm missing something.
This clarifies the mind. This defines the issue. It is not one of terrorists or radicals or highjackers or blacks, reds or white: this issue is Islam itself. If this is viewed draconian by our Islamic citizens, then the US government should pay for first class Air Pakistani tickets(one way of course) to the faithfull.
After the next attack(s), of which I see a dirty bomb in our cities in the future, this will occur.
The issue is not how well we spy, or how unified we are, or even oil; the issue is what will America look like in forty years--or ten. The issue is do we want "youths" rioting in Chicago, New York and Detroit? Do we want our FBI tracking twenty or thirty distinct plots at once! Just how much money, time, talen can we afford tracking these threats? Just how tough do we want it to fly within the US?
I do not want to live like they do in Paris or London. Such a policy does not discriminate against current US citizens, but it does discriminate against future potential US citizens. It is needed. Now.
"The Arabs and Muslims do not really comprehend what warfare is."
Thomas Edison often said "thoughts are in the air" when noting how new patent applications for an invention (never before thought of), often came, all at once, in large numbers, at the US Patent office. Many people think the Infidel world is at the end of its tolerance-patience with Islamic fascism.
The lethal nature of the response to the next major attack in the US, which must come eventually, will be understood and approved of by Infidels everywhere-with only Islamic fascists and their enablers surprised by the devastating nature of the response. Thoughts of a nuclear response to Iran are in the air: the unthinkable has become thinkable because of Islam and its defective products: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nasralla, etc., etc...
Thoughts are in the air re the next Islamic-fascist attack and the response to it.
Didnt Elagabalus bring a black stone from Syria to Rome? Is the stone in the Ka'ba possibly related to it in some way?
Look at England. Most Muslims do not want to strap suicide belts on, but a sizable minority support it, and so are considered a "pool" of future terrorists. We simply do not need or require another single Islamic immigrant. Not one.
How will another million or five million Muslim immigrants enrich our country? Will they enrich our economy? Will they enrich our culture with art or literature? Will they make our streets safer? Will they be loyal citizens? To paraphrase Pat Buchanan, will they be "America Firsters?" Will they dazzle us with biotechnology start ups?
It would appear that certain segments of our population would be enriched. Security firms would have a field day . . . as would body guards and scanners of all types. There would be a dearth of FBI agents! Is this what we want?
We can try to make this a global issue, but in the end, we cannot force Europe to act. This has to occur as a movement within Europe to succeed.
Millions of Muslim immigrants will also tear at the fabric of America. We will be forced to jettison more and more consitutional freedoms, and for what?
From a global perspective, a cessation of movement between the house of Islam and the West will also eliminate the safety valve for Islamic failed states. Let the overpopulated Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt stew in their inert societies. Let them fight under their fig trees. And for god sakes, get out of Iraq and let Muslims be Muslims.
Great question...
Liberals and muslims would have blamed the U.S. foreign policy towards the middle east.
Liberals would have jumped higher and screamed louder "it is because of Iraq".
Terrorists would say "step away from Israel and don't be their ally".
CAIR would say "is was not a muslim, don't talk about muslims, change your policy against muslims, and where is the 'red phone' to the ACLU?".
Many San Fransisco liberals will say we need to lay down our arms now.
Condi Rice will say "we should anticipate those that don't like us and attack us will lay down their weapons voluntarily".
George W. will say "individuals attacked us and I can't say who they are, what religion they are from, or what country sent them, because if I do Saudi Arabia will get mad at me and threaten to turn off the oil".
Conservatives will say "LETS ROLL" and "Now can we find a Presidant that will get serious?".
Elcordobes, For some reason our fearless or feckless or whatever leaders will continue to react to every attack as a crime. Our enemy, a.k.a. those individuals who don't like us very well, is a clandestine army that is fighting for a (whisper) religion. Until laws are passed that will allow those perpetrators of terrorist atttacks to be turned over to the military, we will be fighting red tape in addition to those individuals. I fear that red tape will win.
The Taj was commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan as a mausoleum for his favorite wife. It's Muslim, and Hindus don't go there very often. If Muslims want to blow it up, let 'em.
If we are attacked again during the remainder of Bush's term, which I think, unfortunately, is likely, I can't say I really know what Bush will do. I don't know whether his statements about the nature of our enemy--i.e. a small minority of extremists hijacking peaceful Islam to today's statements about Islamo-fascism--are what he truly believes or what he thinks he should say for policy reasons. My impression is that the "experts" who advise him on Islam are not the best and they may be feeding him the usual PC crap that stinks up the airwaves and university lecture halls.
Were I he, I would make it perfectly clear before such an attack, that because of the behavior of various Muslims around the world, the U.S. views Islam as its enemy. I would then announce that the U.S has abundant evidence that the states behind most attacks against the U.S. are Iran and Syria and that any attack against the U.S. would bring immediate retaliation against Iranian and Syrian capitol cities, militaries and infrastructures. Further attacks would result in even more retaliation agains these two, plus our less than stalwart allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and so on down the list. Even more attacks would result in a general war against the Muslim world.
But, unfortunately I am not the President.
What would have happened ? The US and its allies would have invaded Sudan (or maybe tiny Maldives). Why Sudan ? Because the US is severely challenged in identifying and tackling the fundamental source of terror. The Saudis and Pakistanis who are masters at playing the double game would continue to be its allies in the "war against terror"
On the subject of the Taj Mahal, perhaps the Hindus themselves should demolish it. Maybe its a tourist attraction. But its been built on the sweat and blood of many Hindus.
biorabbi said:
"I do not want to live like they do in Paris or London"
biorabbi, neither do most of us stuck here in Merry England, but we have no choice, the Government has really messed it all up for us.
What would have followed… We would have ‘investigated’, and the students would have been named, and their motives would have been ‘identified’. We would have figured out that the perpetrators were ‘disaffected youth’, ‘alienated’ in Western society. Strong, but inconclusive links to Iran would have been discovered.
We would increase TSA’s budget and blame each other for not buying equipment earlier. A UN Security Council statement would be sought, but in the end it would be weakly worded. We (the US) would issue a strongly worded statement to Iran. And then back to that Ramsey girl from Colorado. The one-year anniversary would be noted, and the media would take ‘pause’.
Here’s what we should do:
1. Establish a new doctrine called the Universal Response Doctrine or whatever. This Doctrine would define the threat to the world’s population from small numbers of people. It would state our right to respond against countries that we determine, by the preponderance of evidence, to have supported the action. It would state that the attacks would be on targets of our choosing and that ‘civilian’ casualties would be inevitable.
2. Declare a state of emergency and immediately suspend all immigration and visas until every single person in this Country has a national ID card. Deport all who are not fully documented.
3. While the iron is hot, push through a Constitutional Amendment that prevents ‘individuals’ from being activists on American soil.
We should be preparing the paperwork now.
p.s. I posted this link last night, it’s a 14-yr old Iraqi girl making Hugh’s point about divisions in Islam.
http://olivebranchoptimism.net/2006/08/17/our-portion-of-guilt/#more-152
l heard that many British muslims are complaining about feeling uncomfortable now, getting those looks from non muslims. well maybe we can make it even more difficult for them, so dam bad they will move back.
"These smug assumptions must be undone. Muslims should be treated with something like the same attitude, and the same solicitude, that they so famously exhibit and offer to non-Muslims all over Dar al-Islam. How could any Muslim object to that"
This is 100% correct moslems should be treated with all the tollerance and solicitude that they show others.
Islam is a disease that has infected our world, we need to find the cure and fast.
Perhaps it is better to threaten repercussions now, so as to prevent certain kinds of behavior, rather than to let everyone think that nothing will be done in response. Posted by Hugh
We've had this discussion many times and numerous options have been discussed, including nuking Mecca. We all know that muslims do not respect or value human life, even their own. They would sacrifice their own loved ones for allah and the cause of islam. So the only way to deter suicidal, muslim fanatics is to find their Achilles heel, and that is Islam. It is the only thing these maniacs care about, love, and will do anything to protect.
Right after 9-11, I read a book by Dr. Robert Morey and it concluded with ten measures to make America safe. Morey believes that Islam's greatest weakness is its connection to certain sacred places; the Kabah in Mecca; Medina; and the Dome Mosque in Jerusalem. He posits that if muslims were convinced that in the event of another catastrophic terror attack on America, these holy sites would be decimated by cruise missles launched from American ships near Saudi ARabia, which he contends would destroy Islam, they would be much less likely to attack us.
I'm inclined to agree with him. They do not love and cherish their own lives, the lives of their friends and families, their muslim nations, or anything else. Their only fear is that Islam might suffer defeat, humiliation, or extermination and they would do anything to prevent such a catastrophe. I'm not saying we should bomb Mecca, Medina, and the Dome Mosque, but to threaten these measures would certainly be no more heinous than what they have planned for us.
It is not only going to be messier than we think. It is going to be messier than we can think.
It would be less messy without the PC Multiculturalist template in the way.
Interesting question Hugh. It would first depend upon which terror group attacked us, whether it be a branch of Al Qaeda or Iranian terror cells. If Iranian, of course we would attack Iran. But....if Al Qaeda, I would like to think we would level the Waziristan area of Pakistan where Bin Laden and Zawahiri are hiding. However, it's unlikely we would do that, but I'm sure we wouldn't be doing enough. The jihadi's need something dramatic and catastrophic to scare the daylights out of them. I think we should go after their family members and begin hunting them down, killing them. We won't drop a bomb on Mecca because the Saudi's would cut off our oil supply. I would also like to think our government would begin rounding up muslims and deporting them. Unfortunately our government won't take the drastic steps needed unless we are attacked with chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.
What I keep wondering is when "discrimination" became a bad thing. It used to be a compliment to say "He is one with discriminating taste" but that would make this person today a bigot or some kind of -phobe.
RE: the round up
It has been done before.. Ask the Japanese citizens here during WWII. So yes there is precedent. It is only a matter of time though it may still be just a bit premature. Look around! It will still take more time for the average man on the street to focus his attention on the threat and learn the true extent of the problems and threat(s) that we face.
The PC, driveby liberal media continues to do its best to hide the truth and slant stories into meaninglessness pap. In fact it is the leftward leaning press that 'cannot handle the truth'. Otherwise why would they continually accept stories and photos uncritically from clearly biased sources. Clearly their coverage is biased towards an illusory goal.
I believe in the American people. We are smarter and will see through the tricks of the 'ignorance is bliss' left. Already printed press circulation is declining and New Duranty Times is downsizing its staff. The internet, to repeat what is now a time worn phrase, 'has changed everything.'
Damn the liberals who think these conspirators are merely psychologically deranged individuals. We are dealing with a globally diversified, well financed and well trained, death cult, whose actions are coordinated if not jointly planned. The west will one day find itself being rudely awakened by yet another attack.
Right now, the best thing we can do it is to vote out the liberals in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
The greatest enemy of Western Civilization is NOT Islamofascism; the first threat is the insane mental disease of Liberalism. Liberalism blinds us from recognizing the genocidal threat of Islamofascism. Liberalism paralyzes our ability and will to fight Islam as it must be fought.
The lies of multiculturism and collective "white guilt" has sapped our strength. Our young people don't even realize they have a culture WORTH fighting for.
How can a young man, trained to be ashamed of his heritage and culture and political leadership, be prepared to be a soldier and fight and perhaps die for his country?
Liberalism in the media, education and public life must be attacked and destroyed ideologically or it will result in the destruction and defeat of the West in the coming World War with Islam. Unless Liberalism is defeated first, we and our children's future will see a terrible new age of darkness and barbarity sweep across the world.
The Art of War says to attack your enemies weakest point with your strongest point. What is Islam's weakest point? Even Martyrs have something, somewhere, to lose.
Another way is make sure they know THEY will be held responsible. Go to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and tell them now THEY are responsible for protecting the United States. Tell them if ANY kind of WMD is EVER used in ANY way on United States soil, ALL of their major cities will be NUKED immediately. Iran has only 75 million people in a dozen or so major cities. Just a portion of one of our nuclear subs could literally wipe Iran off the map. If any WMD's are used against United States cities to the point where our economy will collapse or leadership decapitated, say, a nuke in New York harbor, or Sarin gas spread by crop dusters over Los Angeles, Tehran, Damascus AND North Korea MUST be destroyed with Nuclear Weapons at that moment. After September 11th, the President should have asked for and recieved a true Declaration of War against "...any group which has pledged to destroy the US...and any country which supports or harbors them in any way...will be considered AT WAR with the U.S. and will be attacked until defeated". The Draft should have been reinstated, the size of the Army quadrupled, and invasions launched. We will have to do these things soon anyway. It is criminal stupidity on the part of our leaders that we are still asleep an paralyzed.
alaskan1000 said
Of the three men on Flight 93 who attempted to overtake the highjackers, one of them was from the San Francisco Bay Area, Tom Burnett. I have no idea if he was a liberal. I don't think it matters. As a San Francisco Bay Area liberal, I know that I don't advocate laying down our arms now. Iraq is not where our troops belong, but that's another story.
I believe his last recorded words were "Let's roll it", meaning the beverage cart, as a battering ram. I like to think that they spent their last moments, not making macho statements of bravado, but analytically thinking of how they could kill the terrorists and take back the plane. But that's just me, a San Francisco liberal.
Famed for bringing back to Britain a piece of useless paper Nevil Chamberlain also said on September the 14th 1939 in the Houses of parliament quote “ what ever be the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women, and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism,” It was only a few years later that the R.A.F. And the A.A.F. Were bombing German cities with gay abandon causing the horrific fire storms of Hamburg and Dresden. People can quickly change there minds. The questions we should ask, is where is the tipping point when a people change from decent law abiding citizens into collaborates in mass murder. The tipping point came in Britain when Churchill in the summer of 1940 spelt it out after the defeat of Dunkirk, to the British people both in Parliament and on the Radio that if we didn't win this one our survival as a nation and people was at stake. The point is now when will a tipping point come in our fight against Islamofasism, when will the gloves come off, and we in the west start to apply industrialised extermination invented and perfected in the west Auschwitz, Dresden and Hiroshima to give three good examples. It is not a question of if, it is now a question of when, my guess is when Hizbullah starts to lob more rockets into the heart of Israel under the so called protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella. Israel will have been backed into a corner, and will have not other option. I could be wrong, it could be when they attack the great Satan with suitcase bombs , as I have said earlier it is not a question of if it is a question on WHEN.
Greetings.
I'm pasting an email forward I recently received that proves with considerable evidence that what we believe to be the history of the Taj Mahal is in fact not more than a great spoof. With the Congress/Communists/Marxists coalition that forms the Indian Government and has ruled Indian politics for major part of the last 60 years, one can expect little more than for the very evidence supporting this claim to be banned and outlawed in India.
Yes, this goes to show that in India the Muslims have, to a good extent, chewed up the political system from the inside.
________
Taj Mahal was in fact "Tejo Mahalaya" a Hindi word for " shining palace" which referred to Lord Shiva's Temple captured and reformed to later become the mausoleum as it is known today courtesy - the moghal bandits
(Check out the LINK below AFTER reading this)
Real History of "Taj Mahal"
"The Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by 20,000 artisans brought to India from all over the world!
Many people believe Ustad Isa of Iran designed it. This is what your guide probably told you if you ever visited the Taj Mahal. This is the same story I read in my history book as a student too.
NOW READ THIS.......
No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak reveals with over a 100 proofs to support his conclusion that Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya).
In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh.In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai Singh for Mumtaz's burial.
The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Taj building. Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place for dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.
For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says the term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim country from Afghanisthan to Algeria.
"The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal is illogical in atleast two aspects.
Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but "Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes.
Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for the building."Taj Mahal,he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's Palace.
Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists.
Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story. Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city.
For example:
Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan.
European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the city in his memoirs.
But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built.
The writings of Peter Mundy,an English visitor to Agra within a year of
Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.
Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies that support the belief of the Taj Mahal came into being as a typical Hindu temple rather than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have remained sealed since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to the public. Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples.
Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Prof. Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition dire consequences. There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research.
This link adds as a visual proof to what is described above. Don't forget to circulate it.
MAIN LINK (PICTURES WITH PROOF):
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/true_story_of_the_taj_mahal.htm
Check-out the hidden rooms never opened for public & rooms sealed since Shahjahan's era where in Lord Shiva's headless statue could be placed. Also notice some photographs of rooms wherefrom marbles from walls were removed for use in Mumtaz's tomb. Notice the stark difference in the colour of the original Tejo Mahlaya marble and the marble patches with Koranic inscriptions.
UTTER NEGATIONISM IN THE INDIAN PRESS / POLITICS:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1062264.cms
FURTHER ACCOUNTS OF ISLAMIC MASS-GENOCIDE IN INDIA AND ITS SUBSEQUENT NEGATIONISM IN INDIAN HISTORY
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/index.htm
The poster who wondered why "discrimination" has become a dirty word has put his finger on the reason we are having so much trouble in identifying our enemy. Discrimination is the act of analyzing and evaluating the qualities of various things in order to rank them according to which is best.
Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci proposed a way for revolutionaries to take over a society by using academics, cultural elites and the media to devalue and then reform the target society's key moral values, norms and attitudes; and attack, takeover and remake its key social building blocks--the church, schools, the family. Words, ideas, concepts--right, wrong, fair, objective, Evil, discrimination--were the key for Gramsci and can anyone deny that this attack plan hasn't been brilliantly carried out. Multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness have carried the field.
The result, we can no longer discriminate, weigh or judge anything or anyone for, to do so, would be to be unfair, a bigot or racist. Thus, all the confusion about who and what our enemy is because, in the postmodernist view, which suffuses the courses taught at most of our universities and which is believed by most of our cultural elites and opinion makers, there is no objective reality, truth or objective evil and therefore, all religions are equal, one person sees a terrorist while another sees a freedom fighter and, since there are no objective standards, it is impossible to say if the person is a terrorist or freedom fighter; its all Roshomon to them.
What would have followed?
Let me ask this the way I pose this to my anti-way friends - how many would have had to die in 9/11 for you to decide we must respond with war? 30,000? 300,000? 3,000,000? Is there a number? I'm not so sure. One would have though 3,000 was enough but apparently not.
You're wasting your time if you think the goverments of this world would do anything. They're too dependant on mid-east oil. If anything is going to be done it's going to have to be up to the citizens to do something. Maybe even forming our own versions of al-queda or hizBULLah.
Oh and hi, I'm a first time poster.
On 911 we lost more civilians than servicemen at Pearl Harbor yet we did next to nothing in comparison to our forefathers in 1941. Our country still remains uncommitted to winning this war, a war that perhaps is more dangerous for us to lose than WWII. We have yet to fully mobilize our armed forces and our industrial base, to conserve our resources for the war effort, to energize our citizens, to raise taxes (wars are not cheap), to start the draft, to take the fight to the enemy. Where are our Roosevelts? Our Churchills? Our General Marshalls?
We have yet to define whom our enemy really is. He hides behind our addiction to oil and like a drug addict we are afraid to challenge him. He uses our blood money to further undermine us and to fund his “religious” centers that develop the hatred among his youths and which generates future warriors just as the Nazis use the Hitler Youth to create the foundation of their Armies. He uses our banks to further his silent domination of our society and to finance his war against us. He uses our judicial system to enable the deployment of his saboteurs into our countries and the continuance of his recruitment centers of hatred.
We are being attacked from within and we do not see it. Will we ever see it in time?
Saudi Arabia is our true enemy. While the Iranian seek regional domination, the Saudi and their Wahhabis masters seek world domination, no different than Hitler and Imperial Japan. Remember those people? Very few Germans or Japanese today seek war. They have see the end result and extremely reluctant to repeat that mistake again.
History is filled with wars where men, women, children, farms, homes, cities, hospitals and religious centers where totally destroyed. How many churches have Christians destroyed, probably the same number as the number of Mosques destroyed by Muslims. So why do we care about their Mosque? Our own Bible and the Koran provides a lot of illustrations of total war. While I do not advocate the destruction of innocence people, there comes a time like in WWII that enough is enough. People make wars through their voluntarily direct or indirect actions, whether as soldiers, factory workers, financiers of war or supporting their leaders that seek war. In that respect they are not innocence but part of the problem.
An estimated 55 million people died in WWII. At what point will we bring total war to the footsteps of those who seek it…10 airliners blown up, 20 airliners, 3 nuclear power plants, nuclear explosion in NYC, Paris, London…
The Muslim people can bring an end to this war; they just have to say “NO” to their leaders (religious and political) that seek it. As we have yet to hear “NO” from them, we must assume that they seek war themselves. Perhaps it is time to bring this war to their footsteps in the manner as in all previous total wars in man history. A terrorist attack on the United States and its domains will bring a unilateral attack on Saudi Arabia. An attack on our capital will result in a unilateral attack on their capital. A repeat attack will bring an invasion and complete destruction of their country. Get the message?
That may invite a larger war with the Muslim world, but we must not fear that. To fear that will bring our ultimate destruction from within. Let the Muslim world beat their chest they’ll quickly back down when they realize that their buff has been called.
"Let me ask this the way I pose this to my anti-way friends - how many would have had to die in 9/11 for you to decide we must respond with war? 30,000? 300,000? 3,000,000? Is there a number? I'm not so sure."
There are, broadly speaking, two ways by which a person maintains his mind, before he would see fit to change it:
1) he holds various interpretations of the general field of data out there, interpretations based on the data as well as loosely based on interpretive models that remain flexible to modification as new data comes in
2) he holds his various interpretations of the general field of data out there inside an interpretive template which tends to encourage a stricter adherence to the interpretations and tends to resist the effects of new data.
The #1 type of person is more open-minded than the #2 type of person. #1 will be more open to new data and their potential effect of persuading him to modify one or more of his interpretations.
The #2 type of person, however, has entrusted his psychological-epistemological process to an interpretive template that, in effect, will do the thinking for him: when new data comes in, it is not attended to by the living, thinking person in his sincere search for truth, but is handed over to the digestive process of the interpretive template.
Thus, if an attack happened tomorrow on American soil, in which 5,000 Americans died -- or 10,000, or 50,000, or 100,000, or 500,000 etc. -- it would not have any effect on the interpretive template of PC Multiculturalism which dominates our sociopolitical culture in the West, by which the perpetrators of any future attacks are, and will always remain, a "tiny minority of extremists" who have little or virtually nothing substantively to do with the "great Abrahamic [and ethnic to boot!] religion of peace" Islam itself.
With the #2 type of person, there sometimes is a sufficient preponderance of new data that can shake up the interpretive template -- but the problem is, that new data must be egregiously overwhelming, and with our current problem with Islam, the necessary weight of data that could shake up the interpretive template of PC Multiculturalism would tend to be one by which tragically horrific numbers (perhaps millions) of innocent Westerners would have to die and many more suffer injuries and dislocations and grief, before the #2 type of person -- who is far more common than us Jihad Watchers I am sad to inform you blustering optimistic colleagues -- will be shaken to re-interpret the grim data out there.
Whatever actions we take if another major Islamic terrorist is carried out in the West, if it does not include the expulsion of Muslims from the West, it will be of no avail in the long run. In the long run, demographic growth rate of Muslims will ensure that politicians will bow to the democratic will.
The only thing that will bring the Jihad to full stop, and may even bring about the demise of Islam, is to stop and then reverse the growth of Muslim populations in the West.
Victory can be had with hardly a shot fired. It does not need the deaths of countless Muslims.
Being a lover of freedom, and a natural believer in live and let live, I find it hard to believe that I am contemplating this, but needs must... I think that there should be a concerted effort to convert Muslims in the West to Christianity.
I also think that in the West, if we call ourselves Christian in the loosest sense, then perhaps we should take a new look at why we do, and if we decide that it would be beneficial to the way we define ourselves - in terms of principles, identity, values and traditions - and if we find that it has a value that should be defended, then perhaps we should increase our commitment to it?
Someone here said that Muslims are feeling uncomfortable in Britain. Another one here quoted Edison, and said that the infidel in the West has come to the end of his tether. Could this be really true? I am in Britain and I am constantly appalled by the dhimmitude of officialdom. There are a few resistance fighters in the media, but I can't say that I have noticed a ground swell of new understanding concerning the nature of Islam. How else is it manifesting itself?
My worry is that this whole conflict with the Islamic world could lead to nuclear war, particularly in the Middle East. If they had managed to carry out their plot to blow up the planes God knows what America would have done. Yes, there would be unprecedented 'security' at airports, and yes, there would be a great deal of anger, much of it directed at Muslims.
The Muslims in the UK never seem to say very much when it comes to condemnation of these acts. It might be better for their communities if they stood up a little more and spoke out against the perpetrators instead of keep making concessions for them. This just leads me to think (rightly or wrongly) that many of them secretly support acts of terrorism in the name of Islam.
Sue.
sue posted: The Muslims in the UK never seem to say very much when it comes to condemnation of these acts. It might be better for their communities if they stood up a little more and spoke out against the perpetrators instead of keep making concessions for them
Muslim "moderates" and their spokesmen, far from speaking out against the acts of their Jihadi brothers, actually take advantage of the terrorsist threat by demanding concessions and privelages for Islam and Muslims. This they do with the guile, that if the demands are not met, then their angry young muslim men could not be restrained.
In reality, Muslim moderates and the Jihadis work in tandem, each in their own way to further Islam in the West.
GaryK is correct. Marxist demogogues posing as democrats, educators, media types and their ilk have succeeded in following Big Karl's books and messages perfectly. Multiculturalism and Political Correctness are key to destroying a people's sense of self-worth and national pride. Once we are divided into groups and fighting for the scraps the Lefties's give us, then it will be simple to destroy liverty and force their hate filled communist system on us. Then Hillary, Bill, George Soros, and their fellow travellers will have us goose-stepping in formation right into the open arms of the subhuman muslim filth!
I suspect that, most likely, the governments most directly involved (at the moment the US and Britain) would have ratcheted up the rhetoric a great deal, the action a bit but not much. But here's the thing, I think another attack like this would lead to a massive political split in the US. There would be Republicans claiming it was the Democrats' fault for holding us back, Democrats' claiming it was Bush's fault for being incompetent and for engaging in Iraq instead of fighting "the real war", and I would be unsurprised to see Muslims in the US become the recipients of random, amateur target practice. I'm not sure that we could politically heal from such an attack (regardless of who is in office when it happens) without coming close to civil war. Certainly, I think that there would be a slide closer to global cataclysm, because the far end result would be that a larger number of people would become less reluctant to use every instrument of our power to end the threat.
And I think that, had it happened, Bush could actually have turned the situation deftly towards a very violent attack on Iran and possibly other Muslim nations. All he would have had to do was to get on TV, explain that clearly his idea of democratizing the Muslims was a failure, and that therefore he was seeking a broad declaration of war from Congress to end the threat at any cost. He might even get it, though my initial political point still applies in such a case.
It is shameful to see such a bundle of lies on this website. Even ISRAELI newspapers and columnists are also accepting their defeat. How come a country with full sized airforce, nukes, tanks and a hugely funded army backed by UNITED STATES could not fight nor finish few thousands unarmed to very lightly armed people in 38 days. Got 120 military casualties and showed the worst of the mentality by destroying the infrastructure of the other country with embarassment to hide back behind a wall. Pitty for the nation and the supporters.
Islam is the complete religion and guide for the mankind . The holy book is QURAN,and it is the word of GOD. It is not like bible which was written by a group of " wisemen" and has been altered so many times. Everyone carries their own version and still no one believes in it nor leads his life according to the given principles. That is a fact and you can look into your collars and accept it.
Another dumb idiit unani,
"It is shameful to see such a bundle of lies on this website."
Can u prove it.
anyhow leaving the jerks aside.
Some concrete steps to fight Jihad.
1. Make it difficult for muslims to live among u. (I know that some ppl will say stop muslim immigration. u cannot introduce profiling how the hell can u guys stop immigration) so commonsense make it difficult.
2. Start asking them questions in a thought provoking way abt thekoran and hadith. ( wondering waht to ask -- Is it true Mo forced himself ona nine year girl) so on and so forth especially as at public gatherings and at interfaiths and befor e the Dhimmis and at their invite to Mosques.
3. the fight against this will need to take all fronts whether u agree or not. i mean spiritual , militarily, physcological, propoganda wise but more that all to stand for ur faith the Judeo christian faith and to show them, that it is a better alternative. ( point here: consider the number of Ex muslims testimonies including the ex terrorists and Imams.)
4. Spread the message. Take it to ur church pastor. Print and Start distributing.do whatever it takes.
5. When anymosque is going up in ur area to come file an objection. (point -- 911 hijackers used Hamburg mosque. Show proof how this one wont be used for similar purposes. Hence dont allow)
6. Write to the foolish senators abt that bull shit land called Saudi wher they wont even allow a crucifix while the dhimmis allow such huge mosques to come up with Saudi funding. Its a pity they lack an elementary grade brain.
7. support conversions of Mulims to christianity (point _ walid Shoebat et al) U reduce the threat.
8. Fund the Muslim outreach ministries in US and everywhere. every convert redues threat to ur LIFE.
9. Isolate thier businesses.dont give thema a stake in ur corporations. dont allow them on any positions in educationa d judiciary and so on.
I can go on and on but this is enough.