If the Muslim Brotherhood does gain control of Egypt, either through elections or assassination, that would be a good time to cut off the billions in US aid dollars that we funnel to that kleptocracy. What a hoot it would be to watch the mohamedens riot in the streets when food subsidies were removed.

Come to think of it, why wait, why not do it now anyway? With the French mohamedens running out of vehicles to torch, the religion of peace needs a new place to display their anger at not having enough jobs, housing etc.

Posted by: GFB at November 30, 2005 2:58 PM

This isn't the first take-over-the-world plan we've seen. The Commies and Nazis beat the Moslems to that honor. Good company, those.

But this looks like it may be the best plan.

Comparing the Brotherhood's master plan to that of the Bolsheviks and Nazis, a few things jump out at me:

1) The Moslem plan allows for decentralized flexibility, adaptation, and innovation. It is an elegant document that exhibits considerable forethought, much like the U.S. Constitution. The Commies and Nazis were central control freaks prone to shooting themselves in their jackboot at the worst times.

2) The Moslem's ideology runs much deeper; where the Bolsheviks were putatively fighting for some vague notion of economic justice, the Moslem struggle is for nothing less than every heart and every mind on earth (in addition to total control of economic activity).

3) Beneficiaries of the passage of time, the Moslems fully intend to leverage modern tools in the form of the Internet, jet age transportation, global finance networks, and, most important of all, mass media. Patient pays. Global take over and consolidation is much more feasible now.

Posted by: Duke Eudes at November 30, 2005 3:51 PM

protocals of the elders of mecca/cairo

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at November 30, 2005 5:22 PM

l dont think they can contain or control themselves. one good reason, while US is in Iraq will keep them busy going there, and keep them unhinged. we keep hammering them in THEIR back yard, their actions will speak louder than words.. their killings and other butchery will be known among non-muslims and muslims alike! it will be their undoing!!

Posted by: Lulu at November 30, 2005 7:09 PM

Read it all indeed. And to the UK posters here, send it to Tony Blair's attention. The excerpts above miss out references to the home base of the project's chief European proponent (Switerland, home of Tariq Ramadan, who now teaches at Oxford) and mentions Ken Livingstone's dear friend and occasional visitor to London, Sheik Yusuf Qawadari.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 30, 2005 7:11 PM

"while US is in Iraq will keep them busy going there, and keep them unhinged. we keep hammering them in THEIR back yard, their actions will speak louder than words.. their killings and other butchery will be known among non-muslims and muslims alike! it will be their undoing!!"
-- from a posting above

No, you have it exactly backward. While all of France is intimidated, while the most fanatical of Muslims set off bombs all over Bangladesh, while attacks continue in the Sudan, and in the Philippines, and in Thailand, while the Muslim Brotherhood shows its power in the "democratic process" in Egypt, while all this and so much more is going on, including the relentless assault, using Western laws and Western tolerance against that very West, by Muslim groups all over Bilad al-kufr, it is the AUnited States that is being kept busy, virtually paralyzed, by what is going on in Iraq. As for this idea that "we keep hammering them in their backyard" -- well, there is no backyard. There is only the world, and the whole world is the theatre of operations. This is what those who continue, despite their own common sense, to support American troops remaining in Iraq, essentially to create a nation-state where none has really existed, instead of doing what they should be doing, which is to leave so that that three-vilayet "nation" of "Iraq" can dissolve, not without great effort, but now without the Americans to fight and die, or merely to take a ride down the highway and die, in order to suppress the Sunnis for the sake of the Shi'a. This makes no sense, no matter how often Bush assumes that it does and never bothers to examine, or think he should examine, that assumption and a good many more.

As for "their killings and butchery" becoming "known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike," again you have it wrong. As long as the Americans are there, they will be blamed. The display of Muslim behavior, on all sides, unchecked by the presence of a powerful Infidel army, will be there for all to see. Do you think the Shi'a will, once the Americans leave, be more or less ruthless in settling scores with the Sunnis? And what will that tell the world, as the Sunnis retaliate in kind, and it keeps going, and going -- as it will, as soon as the Americans leave, whenever they leave.

Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2005 7:43 PM

depends on what you think is backwards... before 9-11, Americans, and some in the West, were not the least bit aware that they had been under attack for decades... Clinton being the savy lawyer he thinks he is, tried to strike at terror at those pesky troublemakers through the courts...yawn... backed away from Somalie,bombed a pill factory in the Sudan, which only gave more nerve to BinLaden. (Binladen's exact words!) you have to look back at history, when Hitler started taking over parts of Europe, and he was appeased by France and GreatBritain. It was estimated at that time, France had the superior army, fighting power, but chose to back down.. hoping to avoid a war. well the rest of the story you know..History shows that Muslims only back down to outright military victory by the Christian army! Hugh in all your words of wisdom, have not given any realistic method to defeat this islamofacist scurge. can you give a realistic method of their destruction? ps...

Posted by: Lulu at November 30, 2005 8:33 PM

Well, here's a little progress, if it goes through.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=25752&name=Villepin+backs+tougher+French+immigration+rules
Villepin backs tougher immigration rules

PARIS, Nov 29 (AFP) - Prime minister Dominique de Villepin on Tuesday announced plans to toughen entry criteria for the families of immigrants seeking to join their relatives in France.

Villepin told a press conference that it would be "more reasonable" for new arrivals to be asked to wait longer -- two years instead of the current one -- before bringing their families into the country.

Speaking following a meeting of a government committee on immigration, Villepin also called for so-called integration courses for immigrants to be "extended, then made compulsory".

Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy has been asked to submit recommendations on the issue to the government in February, he added.

The hardening of French policy comes weeks after an outbreak of rioting in high-immigration French suburbs that threw the spotlight on France's mixed record of integrating its immigrant minorities and their French-born children into mainstream society.

Villepin argued that only people deemed to have properly settled in France should be able to bring their families into the country.

"Integration into our society, notably the command of the French language, should be a condition for bringing in one's family," he said.

He also said the authorities should "have the means to uphold the law forbidding polygamy in France".

Controversial claims were made in the wake of the riots -- including by employment minister Gérard Larcher -- that large, polygamous families were partly to blame for a breakdown of parental authority in the suburbs affected.

According to figures quoted by the prime minister, family reunification accounted for 25,000 entries to France in 2004.

Villepin stressed that the government was not questioning the right to family reunification, which is guaranteed under both the French constitution and international conventions.

"This is not about questioning (that right), but about organising it in a better way to facilitate the integration of the people concerned," he said.

.
.
.
A very little progress but at least a start.

Posted by: Borg at November 30, 2005 8:38 PM

realistic, concise, to the point..thankyou!

Posted by: Lulu at November 30, 2005 8:40 PM

"The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is merely a nationalist struggle..."
-- from a posting above

This is nonsense, obviously designed by someone who promotes the so-called "Palestinian" people and their "cause," as so carefully redesigned, once Ahmed Shukairy was out of the way, and once the 1967 war was over, and the very term "Palestinian people" -- as applied to the local Arabs -- began to be used, quite tentatively at first, and then with greater freuqency and success. The success was in convincing many, not least many Israelis, that the Jihad against Israel, of Arab Muslims and of Arab islamochristians (which is what the poster above so transparently is) also promoting the Jihad which simply refuses to countenance an Infidel sovereign state in Dar al-Islam, one which was formerly under Muslim rule.

Hard to know if the poster is pretending to be Christian, in order to more convincingly make a case against all the obvious targets, such as Saudi Arabia (as that particular poster has in a previous posting). But the intent is clear. To maintain, against all the evidence, that the "Palestinian" cause is purely one of "nationalism" (you know, the "two tiny peoples" business) when it is so clearly motivated by the inability of Muslim Arabs, and their handmaidens among some, but not all, Arab Christians (certainly not among the Maronites, and even among those Copts who leave Egypt and drop the anti-Israel propaganda they have imbibed since birth), to accept a state ruled by, and for, non-Muslims.

That argument no longer washes. Not here. And fairly soon, as Islam becomes more widely understood, and the phenomenon of the islamochristian more widely comprehended, not anywhere.

Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2005 10:10 PM

"It is the US that is being kept busy, virtually paralyzed by what is going on in Iraq"...from posting above.

What other activity would be a better use of American resources than shooting jihadists? Don't look at it as paralysis, but more like a lawyer joke - a good start. Isn't this kind of busyness more productive than idle embasy chit chat? We need action, not diplomacy.

Our present policy in Iraq is the best of both worlds. First, under the new constitution Iraq is divided into three semi-autonomous zones. It is a divide and conquer strategy that diminishes the aggregate power of Iraq into three competing components.

No single group will be able to achieve dominance as was the case under Saddam, the result being that resources will be dispersed. Yet the existence of a weak central government will restrain any one group from pursuing a threatening agenda.

The US example of dealing with Saddam has shown the region that thugrocacies are paper tigers. We have already seen the results in Lebanon. Assad II in Syria is next on the chopping block. The vultures are circling.

The Kurdish Syrians are emboldened (and aided I hope) by their Iraqi counterparts. If UN sanctions are imposed on Syria, the majority Sunis will send Assad Jr back to his opthomology practice in the UK. The minority Alowotes will not go quietly.

Over in Iran, the Iranian Kurds are quietly rioting. Not much so far, but with a little support and assistance, they could give the Tehran mullahs constipation.

All these beneficial side effects result from our troops being on the ground in Iraq, in attack mode against the jihadists.

Dam the torpedos, full speed ahead.

Posted by: GFB at November 30, 2005 10:26 PM

"What other activity would be a better use of American resources than shooting jihadists?"
-- from a posting above

Husbanding those resources, and not squandering them on doing precisely the wrong thing in Iraq, which is to try to hold the country together, to get the Sunnis and Shi'a to lie down with each other, to discourage the Kurds at every turn (how many times in the past few months has Condoleeza Rice gone out of her way to dampen their thoughts of an independent Kurdistan?), spending time rebuilding the army, and especially the citizen army of Reservists and National Guard, whose ranks, and quality are diminishing, and that diminishment has permanent consequences.

Bush says he will accept nothing less than "total victory" in Iraq. Well, what should "total victory" mean? The phrase itself is idiotic, for the war of self-defense against Islam has no "total victory"; it goes on, essentially, forever. The very idea of "total victory" shows he does not understand this. In his entire speech today he mentioned Islam -- in an adjectival form, "Islamic" -- exactly once in the entire speech. He is supposed to instruct the people he purports to lead. He misleads and he confuses them. He is not a leader but someone "taking a leadership role" as so many like to call it. And "role" it is, not the real thing, not even close.

The only correct definition of "victory" in Iraq -- a "victory" but not a "total victory" -- is to cause in Iraq a weakening of Islam, both within the country, and outside. The two most dangerous Muslim states in the Middle East -- for their money and their ideology, and their willingness to use both to promote Islam -- Iran and Saudi Arabia, are both much relieved by the removal of Saddam Hussein, and now possess a freedom from fear of Iraq that allows them to believe, with renewed confidence at the missing-the-point naivete of the Americans, that they can continue to spread the message of Islam, the power of Islam, the threat of Islam, all over the world. And that is what both, through the deployment of money, and in the case of Iran arms, are doing.

How, then, should Iraq, could Iraq, be used to undo the unintentional favor that was done to the two chief beneficiaries of the removal, by the Americans, of Saddam Hussein? The answer is clear. If the natural resentments and hatreds that divide Kurds from Arabs (i.e. non-Arab Muslims from Arab Muslims) and that divide Sunnis from Shi'a (not only a question of power, but of the widespread Sunni belief that the Shi'a are inferior, inferior as Muslims, and quite possibly not even real Muslims but rather "Rafidite dogs"), can be exploited -- and they can only be exploited if the American forces leave, because as long as they stay they will serve as a quasi-referee, preventing the two murderous boxers from hitting each other below the belt (the Americans, in the Middle Eastern context, are stricly Marquess-of-Queensberry in their hewing to all sorts of rules, and inhibiting the Shi'a, so far, from hitting back as they really will, once the Americans are gone). And it is absurd for the American forces to keep prating about building an "Iraqi" army -- it simply cannot be done, because the resentments and hatreds, ethnic and sectarian, are too deep, save for a remarkable few, and will always be exposed in actual battle. Just imagine a mixed battalion of Shi'a and Sunni Arabs, and Kurds, being asked to separate, let's say, Kurdish Moslawis and Arab Moslawis in a particular neighborhood of Mosul. What if, in the presence of some Kurdsih soldiers, Sunni Arabs treat or are believed to treat, local Kurds far more roughly than they treat the local Sunnis? Or the reverse? And what if, in Ramadi or Fallujah, Shi'a soldiers are suddenly turned on by Sunnis who form part of the same unit, but are outraged at the suppression of fellow Sunnis? And so on -- it is so obvous, and should be so obvious, but apparently it is not for Bush, becuase this dangerous and futile fiction of building up an "Iraq" with an "Iraqi" army is one of his obstinately pious goals.

At the helm of the ship of state is a smiling fellow, full of certainties and yet at the same time very unsure of himself, lacking in cunning, ignorant, who has led a charmed life of privilege, a life of bounty, and if he continues to behave like a riff on Captain Queeg in his Iraq policy, may well find that on top of that bounty will come -- a mutiny. "Democracy" applies to America far more than it does to Iraq. If he thinks the most serious decision of all, which is where to send troops, can be made by him alone, and he can stick with a course that most people now see through despite 70% of the population wanting the soldiers out, then perhaps he should think again about what the word "democracy" means.

Besides, even more importantly, he's got it backwards. Iraq is good for only one thing as far as Infidels are concerned. A place to allow the Sunni-Shi'a rift to grow, and grow, and to expose through the Kurdish effort the Arab supremacist ideology within Islam. And that's all "Iraq" can do for American, and Infidel, interests.

Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2005 11:19 PM

Hugh you prattle on and on about all the things going wrong.. but what do you propose besides building a barrier around the US, drive hybred cars,
you do not have an alternative plan...something l am waiting to hear from the other side of the ailse as well. l guess all you can do is inform us of all the evils of the muslim cult, and that is a large task for sure... l rather have an army battleing the bastards in the middle of the mid east. they cant breed fast enough, as they are killing each other faster than the US army can!

Posted by: Lulu at November 30, 2005 11:31 PM

A "plan"? Perhaps you should spend more time in the Archives, or the Articles above.

Priorities:

1. Iran's nuclear project.
2. Islamization of Europe through Da'wa and demogrpahic conquest.

Those take precedence over anything else.

The first will require not keeping American troops around, but getting them away from Iranian agents in Iraq and far from possible retaliation from Iran.

The second requires education, propaganda, a War Office of Propaganda that is willing to examine, to distribute, to discuss, what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. And that must be coordinated with those who, within Europe, see the problem, but need help from the United States. It has happened before. Continuing to refer to this counter-Jihad as a "war on terror" is wrong, is misleading, is dangerrous.

More intelligent articulation of the problem, which will not and cannot come, apparently, from this obstinate and shallow administration, will have to come from elsewhere. Democrats, other Republicans, it doesn't matter.

A "plan"? How many times has the seizure of Darfur and the southern Sudan, and the ease with which that could be accomplished, and the inability of the usual critics to criticize this obviously humanitarian move which will also be, of course, a signal that parts of what has been assumed to be Dar al-Islam can simply be recaptured, and its non-Muslim or non-Arab Muslim (and on the way to jettisoning Islam aftre all that has happened) populations can be rescued, protected, and allowed to hold a referendum on whether or not they wish to be independent. A very good way to signal, in sub-Saharan Africa, to the Christians in Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Togo, and to those in Kenya, Tanzania, and South Africa, that Islam is not on the march, that black Christians and animists will be aided. And Egypt's beady eye on Ethiopia, and bullying to prevent Ethiopian diversion for irrigation purposes of some of the headwaters of the Nile will be dealt a blow. And should be.

many things that might be done instead of this Iraq business have been discussed, repeatedly, possibly with too much insistence, over the past three years. If you haven't seen any "plan" then you haven't looked. Look.

Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2005 11:50 PM

This Islamic "Project" is remarkably rational, intelligent and clear-eyed. The only thing missing from it (and the blogger hasn't yet published the full text) is an awareness of how useful the Western self-imposed PC straitjacket will be to their strategy. They would be fools not to know that; and from this document, they don't appear to be fools.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 30, 2005 11:58 PM

1.Iran's Nuclear Project, can only be taken out with
the use of military. Iranians are not taking Europe seriously...or the U.N., but the US and most likely Israel needs to do the dirty work.
2.Islamaztion of Europe...l think Europe will only wake up when they have several 9-11's,and or more killings of the likes of film maker of the Netherlands.VanGogh.. already from what i hear of my European friends.. they really know the dangers of Islam.. l think the turning point is near. the vote against the EU constitution was a big blow to the liberal elite rulling class of europe..With the US forces in Iraq,it will speed up things. Islamofacist
cannot contain themselves.. will act out of desparation. again l do know from history..islam only fears brute force... and that is a proven fact!

Posted by: Lulu at December 1, 2005 12:32 AM

"The only thing missing from it ... is an awareness of how useful the Western self-imposed PC straitjacket will be to their strategy."
-- posted by Dr. Pepper

I think that, as supremacists, preferential treatment is so embedded in the Moslem Psyche that they don't even need to mention it amongst themselves.

It all started when the Koreish pagan army decided not to slaughter them after, which was it, the Battle of the Ditch?

Much later, an ocean of oil was discovered beneath their dead asses.

You can't even use the word arrogance to describe how Moslems regard themselves. A new word would need to be invented to adequately describe their self-praise. So, dhimmi compliance with Moslem takeover barely gets noticed.

Posted by: Duke Eudes at December 1, 2005 7:55 AM

"Islamists are based in Saudi Arabia and Iran (not Palestine)..."
-- from a posting above

Hamas? Islamic Jihad? What is "Islamic Jihad"? What is Hamas? What is the cause that swells Arab Muslim hearts, and has been the subject of the Lesser Jihad ever since it became clear that Jews were coming to re-establish themeselves in their ancient homeleand, by then a scene -- pace Edward Said -- of ruin and desolation, as every Western visitor from the late 18th century on so clearly testified (it is only by ignoring that eye-witness testimony that Arab propgagandists, and the local Arabs themselves, who believe that propaganda, have convinced the world that things were otherwise. I'll stick with Mark Twain, Melville, Arthur Stanley, Volney, and many others).

The transparent attempt by this poster -- who I'm afraid will not be permitted to conduct this propaganda campaign at this site any longer -- to pretend, by demonstrating his/her bonafides as anti-Islam, denouncing Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran with vigor, so as, it is fondly believed, others at this site will accept the attempt to exempt the "Palestinians" (my god, the "Palestinians" who were once 20% Christian are now 98% Muslim, having driven by their behavior and attitudes many of the Christians out, and yet it is among the "Palestinians" that the phenomenon of the "islamochristian" is most frequently observed, and can be studied as a clinical case.

Can't tell if this is a case of such an "islamochristian" or the run-of-the-mill anti-Israel poster (with all the usual promptings) or possibly a Muslim "Palestinian" who wants to keep insisting that the whole business -- you know, Hamas and Islamic Jihad and so on -- has "nothing to do with Islam."

Basta.

Posted by: Hugh at December 1, 2005 8:54 AM

Hugh:

u-c's spate of posting imply that he/she is an islamochristian.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 1, 2005 9:14 AM

"We can act as friends to a secular Palestinian state and neuter one appeal of our true enemies."

Man, that is a good one. Haven't laughed so much for ages. Just as well I am wearing my corset!

"If Israel wants to help it needs to accept that it needs to do so from a distance."

From where would you suggest, 30 feet below the surface of the Mediterranean Sea?

Posted by: Anthony at December 1, 2005 10:23 AM

"... a War Office of Propaganda that is willing to examine, to distribute, to discuss, what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira."
-- posted by Hugh

A simple ad campaign would suffice. That alone would generate so much publicity as a byproduct that a public firestorm would erupt, leaving a radically altered collective public perception of Islam and Moslems than before.

If we can fund and produce ad campaigns to peddle beer, why can't we do the same to save ourselves from total loss of freedom? Does anybody realize that beer will be illegal in the Sharia States of America?!

Posted by: Duke Eudes at December 1, 2005 4:39 PM

RE: 1. Iran's nuclear project

Israel is too far to deal with Iran's nuclear projects, but the USA is closer with bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The War in Iraq has benefits which are two numerous to mention here.
But for reference read "America's Secret War" by Dr. George Friedman and "The CIA At War.
'America's Secret War is probably one of the best and most illuminating books I have ever read.

Posted by: learjet0450 at December 1, 2005 8:43 PM