"And his family denied he had any militant links, despite a profusion of Islamic Jihad posters at his home."

as always, Muslims deny everything, it is what they do.

remember this.

Posted by: pulsar182 at May 6, 2008 10:01 AM

He built rockets in/with his mind?

Posted by: Beagle at May 6, 2008 10:15 AM

UNRWA is staffed almost entirely by "Palestinian" Arabs, with a mere handful of non-Arabs supposedly in charge at the top -- but the whole operation is now "Palestinian" and there is nothing about it that distinguishes it from any other "Palestinian" group. The numbers of those whose lives are funded entirely by the U.N. -- which means Western taxpayers -- never seems to go down, for no one ever drops off. And in Lebanon, in Jordan, man y of those who never lived in Mandatory Palestine and were not "Palestinian" Arabs nonetheless have been able to be put on those rolls, with no difficulty, and there they, and their dozen children, and their dozen children's dozen children apiece, remain, on the UNRWA list, where they continiue to use up U.N. money and attention that should, long ago, have been spent more legitimately not on one small group of local Arabs (the same Arabs who who have received ten trillion dollars from oil revenues since 1973 alone, and who show no signs of sharing it with the world, but instead, continue to expect the West to fund every sort of aid to other Arabs and other Muslims) but on the truly deserving poor of this world, who have been set back, in their own lives, by the rapacity, and the selfishness, of the oil-producing Muslim states, who rake in those trillions but give nothing out, unless of course it serves some PR purposes (that check proferred to Giuliani, or the Qatar ruler's $10 million to "Katrina victims" that was supposed to make us forget the double-game of the Al-Thani family, and in particular their support for Al Jazeera, now taken over by the Ikhwan, and responsible for the deaths of many Americans in Iraq).

UNRWA is merely one more "Palestinian" organization at this point, with a Western sympathizer or fellow traveller -- John Ging is the latest in a long line -- formally at the top, where he echoes the charges made by all the "Paleastinians" who dole out the Infidel-supplied money that goes to those ever-expanding lists of "Palestinians" who live in what are described as "refugee camps" but are in fact cities, cities with DVD stores, and flat-screen televisions, and all kinds of other things that one does not find in real refugee camps -- say, those in southern Sudan, or Chad, where non-Arab black Africans, Muslim and non-Muslim, live in real refugee camps unlike what the "Palestinians" have managed to arrange for themselves. Many may have overlooked what was reported in the Times when, a few months ago, "Palestinians" from Gaza broke down fences and went to Egypt. They were, those "Palestinians," amazed at the poverty of the Egyptians. So much for those "refugee camps." So much for UNRWA.

Posted by: Hugh at May 6, 2008 10:17 AM

Surrounded by Islamic Jihad mourning posters at the family home, Qiq's sister Naima insisted: "He's only a teacher and head of the school. School was his life. He had no time to work with Islamic Jihad."
....................................

More blatant cognitive dissonance. This woman was not mearly surrounded by Islamic Jihad posters--which would have been damning enough, at least in indicating the family's sympathies--but by Islamic Jihad *mourning* posters--specifically mourning for her brother, the head of the group's "engineering unit".

And yet she denies everything. Either denial is so reflexive for her at this point that she can no longer see the irony, or--more likely--she mearly expects the UN and the West to believe in the inherent innocence of the "Palestinians", always and forever, and under whatever unlikely circumstances.

And, of course, it is not just the family. It sounds as if most of the students at the "prep school"--preparing for what, one may ask? College, or something else?--are both supposed to simultaneously consider Qiq as "only a teacher and head of our school" and "the chief leader of the engineering unit", (who) would now find "paradise".

Also, from above: "No-one from the UN attended the funeral or has paid their respects to the family, relatives said." Is the family surprised that the UN would find any sticking point in glorifying this terrorists "martyr"? They probably do find it surprising, given the UN's previous actions.

Posted by: gravenimage at May 6, 2008 10:50 AM

Can someone please tell me why the United States is still in the U.N. (Useless/undesirable/ummah nations)?

For that matter, why is any sane country still in the u.n.?

Posted by: Winged_Hussar at May 6, 2008 10:57 AM

"And in Lebanon, in Jordan, man y of those who never lived in Mandatory Palestine and were not "Palestinian" Arabs nonetheless have been able to be put on those rolls, with no difficulty, and there they, and their dozen children, and their dozen children's dozen children apiece, remain, on the UNRWA list, where they continiue to use up U.N. money and attention"
by Hugh

And now it's up to the US and other Western governments to relieve food shortages all around the world. No one gives a thought to the overpopulation caused by Muslim practices. It's time those who have a dozen (heck, even half that number) children are solely responsible for feeding them.

China has a one child policy. How many Muslims would celebrate their only child's martyrdom? The family line ends with a bomb.

Posted by: PMK at May 6, 2008 11:24 AM

Israel's handling of this situation was exactly right. They tried complaining through the UN, even though they surely knew this would go nowhere. However, Israel has lots of practice in dealing with the UN, and it is not completely wasted effort since if nothing else it does leave a paper trail that could come in handy when the day of reckoning comes. After exhausting what few options there were that might have solved this problem peacefully, they then proceeded to solve it by exercising the only option that was left to them.

Posted by: Eastview at May 6, 2008 12:00 PM

" were, those "Palestinians," amazed at the poverty of the Egyptians.""

I suppose they also wondered why the Egyptians had put up a barrier between the Palestinians and Egypt. Maybe they figured out that the Israelis were not the only ones who wanted nothing to do with them..

Posted by: pulsar182 at May 6, 2008 12:21 PM

Can someone please tell me why the United States is still in the U.N. (Useless/undesirable/ummah nations)?

For that matter, why is any sane country still in the u.n.?

Posted by: Winged_Hussar

The answer to both is political correctness.

Another question: why is the UN still in the US?
The original headquarters is old. It was built when membership was half (at least) what it is now. The UN expects the US taxpayer to foot the bill for a new HQ in NYC. Why aren't the wealthier nations of the world paying up?
It's not 1945. The US doesn't need to pay 25% of the UN's operating costs. It doesn't need to pay 15%. Even 10% is high, but it's acceptable.
Fareed Zakaria describes this as a post-American world. Let's move the UN to a post-American locale. How about somewhere in Asia?

Posted by: PMK at May 6, 2008 12:50 PM

Awad al-Qiq must be one of the two targeted by the IDF where the secondary explosion caused by explosives he was carrying killed a woman and some kids, and the MSM were quick to point out, as usual, that the IDF had targeted civilians, which they hadn't, and the IDF had video to back up the story. Luckily, none of the MSM had a journalist embedded with these terrorists, like they are doing in Iraq.

Posted by: Dsinc at May 6, 2008 1:07 PM

I'd love to have a glimpse of the State Department's report on this deceased individual. How could they describe him without using the terms "jihad", "jihadist" or "Islamic"?
/ Bring back Ambassador Bolton - too honest to last .

Posted by: MP at May 6, 2008 1:10 PM

PMK: Following up on your sensible suggestion respecting moving UN headquarters to another locale, I couldn't help but recall President Reagan's proposal to have UN headquarters at least half of every year in Moscow so that UN personnel could see what life was like in a non-free country. Well, why not now Tehran-----all year round? Of course, if we're going to have a truly effective international organization (without any gooey world state nonsense attached to it), only democracies should be allowed to join such an international body. As for the present UN, it's a moral cesspool and should be abolished.

Posted by: Wellington at May 6, 2008 1:23 PM

I vote for Mogadishu.

Posted by: MP at May 6, 2008 1:28 PM

I vote for Beijing.

Imagine UN officials traveling around with masks to guard against all the pollution. In addition, all the ambassadors would be right there for the Olympics.
You wouldn't see any impromptu press conferences on the street. They'd be too worried about all the particulate matter in the air.

Posted by: PMK at May 6, 2008 1:31 PM

Wellington,
Does Tehran have diplomatic relations with Israel? I thought they were severed after the revolution. Israel is a member of the UN and so Iran would have to let them in.
The UN in Tehran is just too much of a target. It's doubtful that the mullahs would feel any duty to protect the people who come there. Let it go to a dictatorship like North Korea. Wouldn't Ban Ki-moon love that one?

Posted by: PMK at May 6, 2008 1:45 PM

I say we move the UN to Gaza with a view of the fecal matter drifting in the Mediterranean - courtesy of the "palestinians" .

And they'll have a nice view of the rockets being launched into Israel on a daily basis.

No more New York nightlife for the UN swine.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at May 6, 2008 1:47 PM

PMK: Iran indeed has no diplomatic relations with the Little Satan (ditto, of course, for the Big Satan). But, just as Iran and Israel still belong to the UN now, despite Iran's diplomatic hissy fit where Israel is concerned, so could it be the case in lovely downtown Tehran, not that Israeli personnel could be blamed for not going there. But just think how quickly all the parasites at the UN would tire of being in Tehran rather than NYC. Could help expedite the abolishment of the United Nations, which, to quote Martha Stewart, would be a good thing.

Mogadishu? Beijing? Gaza? Fine suggestions as well.

Posted by: Wellington at May 6, 2008 2:04 PM

UNRWA sponsors education in Palestinian refugee camps. Well and good. Not so, if we realize that UNRWA pays for the education laid out by Fatah and Hamas. Whatever other meager or irrelevant knowledge Palestinian children acquire in schools, what matters is that UNRWA pays for anti-Jewish education. Likewise, the UNRWA food deliveries to Palestinians benefit Fatah and Hamas who distribute the supplies and perform other organizational tasks. More importantly, Palestinians know that their livelihood is not affected by policy changes; whether Hamas or some mythical doves are at the helm, Palestinians would still receive their food allowance from UNRWA. Guaranteed supplies of food and medicines create safety net for Palestinians and prompt them to radicalize, to take chances. The guaranteed supplies keep Palestinians at the refugee camps while absent of such aid they would have long gone to work and assimilated in the countries of residence. But UN loves its pet project and its pet people; the UNRWA has created the Palestinian nation – in refugee camps.

http://samsonblinded.org/blog/unrwa-a-sponsor-of-terrorism.htm

Posted by: InfidelK9 at May 6, 2008 2:25 PM

"I vote for Mogadishu.

Posted by: MP "

Lahore could use the new influx of worldly politicians..

I vot for Lahore.

Posted by: pulsar182 at May 6, 2008 2:31 PM

"Can someone please tell me why the United States is still in the U.N.?"
From a post above.

The answer can be found in Sun Tzu's famous dictum from "The Art of War", "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Posted by: Eastview at May 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Gaza, Tehran, Mogadishu, Baghdad, or Detroit.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at May 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Hey I have an idea! Since Mecca is the True Center of the World.. sewe their attampt to change GMT..

I say move the UN to that True Center of the Universe!

The homeplace of the islamic "prophet"

Mecca.. hehhehhe.. and when they and their spawn commit crimes.. well, you know the rest of the story.. :-)

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at May 6, 2008 3:29 PM

Let us put the UN in Mecca. this way we will never have to go there.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 6, 2008 5:24 PM

The UN is already in Mecca. They call it the ummah. All infidels are barred from Mecca so that means the US and all other non-muslim nations won't join. No membership, no dues. Too bad. We won't lose any sleep over it.

Posted by: PMK at May 6, 2008 6:51 PM

Let's defund UNRRWA. If anyone yawps about how heartless Uncle Sugar is, let's wave the number of Palestinian Arabs naturalized in the USofA in their faces and tell them to kindly jump in the Med three times and come out twice.

Posted by: Kepha at May 6, 2008 7:19 PM

Islamic multi-tasking.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 6, 2008 8:58 PM

As several people have already suggested Mecca sounds like the perfect place for the UN. I would also like to suggest that the headquarters for the EU commissars be located in Tehran. If the "leaders" of non-Arab and non-Muslim governments have to deal with the restrictions Mecca and Tehran officials impose on visitors they might get a clue their beloved "little darlings" are nothing more than ruthless street thugs.

What happens if the diplomatic staff includes both males and females that want to have dinner together in a restaurant? Would they be allowed to ride in staff vehicles together? Would they be allowed to have literature of their own choosing at their residence or office. How about female supervisors. Just how constricting would the thought police be towards the diplomats and their staffs?

Posted by: getrealnow4 at May 6, 2008 9:26 PM

Mecca indeed. That's the best suggestion yet for where UN headquarters should be relocated. Gee, I wonder if dhimmis like representatives of haircut boy (Kim Jong Il) will be allowed into the damn sacred city even though they are merely kuffaars. Hmmm. This is all rich with a myriad of possibilities. Out of New York now and on to the promised city of Mecca!

Posted by: Wellington at May 6, 2008 9:40 PM

youth' excuses, don't wash.

This man was well-educated - a physics graduate - a family man, 33 years old, and doubtless quite well paid. A literate, well-to-do professional. So, naturally, as per the Quran, he put his talents and his resources to work for the Jihad.

As for the protestations of his family and colleagues at the school - pull the other one, folks, it's got bells on.

Furthermore: don't ANY msm reporters have any idea about...TAQIYYA?

That it is permitted to Muslims to LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH, to advance Islam?

Let's revisit Nonie Darwish, from a speech she gave in 2007 at UC Berkeley, to kickoff 'Islamofascism Awareness Week', as republished in FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, October 25, 2007:
First, her description of what she was taught in elementary schools in Gaza, in the 1950s (I'll bet my bottom dollar the curriculum has not changed one iota):

"I attended Gaza elementary schools. It is there that we learned hatred vengeance and retaliation; peace was never an option; but a sign of defeat and weakness. Jews were portrayed as less than human; I was told ‘don’t take candy or fruit from a stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you’. They filled our hearts with fear of Jews; that made hatred come easy and terrorism acceptable, even honorable".

And, later in the same speech:

"On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions 1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam. 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them. And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship.

"Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships. Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11? Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors.
"By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam."

When Darwish's article was posted here on jihadwatch, Hugh Fitzgerald added the following remarks, which I repeat:

- 'This is standard Islamic doctrine: the three cases when lying is justified. The one that is of concern to Infidels is, of course, #1. "War is deception," said Muhammad.

'And Muhammad is described in the Qur'an as "uswa hasana" -- the Model of Conduct. He is al-insan al-kamil -- the Perfect Man. And he is the one who says that war must be conducted against Infidels, as long as they continue to preserve any obstacle -- and the American Constitution is certainly an obstacle, as is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights --to the spread, and dominance, of Islam.
Posted by: ‘Hugh Fitzgerald’ on jihadwatch.org at April 10, 2008 12:31 PM'.

We need to send to The Scotsman , a propos the story about the jihadi headmaster and bomb-maker and the indignant and doubtless totally specious 'protestations of ignorance' by his colleagues, family, pupils and UNRWA, a Letter to the Editor, drawing the Editor's attention to Nonie Darwish's remarks about lying in Islam, together with Hugh's remark, merely replacing Hugh's words - 'and the American Constitution is certainly an obstacle, as is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'- with the following: -'and the Jewish state of Israel is certainly an obstacle-'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 6, 2008 10:09 PM

Sorry - the first line of my comment, above, was lost: I was referring to the usual excuses made for Islamic 'radicalisation', to wit, poverty, lack of education, and the hotheadedness of youth.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 6, 2008 10:14 PM

PS - If you follow the link Mr Spencer gave, and read the entire article, you will see in it the following statement, which everyone here knows to be a piece of blatant agitprop, entirely false:

"Sympathies for guerrillas, who number in the tens of thousands, are widespread, despite Israeli efforts to discredit Hamas and its allies by choking food and fuel supplies".

We all know, here, that Hamas has MANUFACTURED the shortages, by actions such as attacking an Israeli fuel depot (killing two of the civilian workers), and by brazenly diverting and stockpiling fuel and other supplies.

Letters need to be sent to The Scotsman, pointing out that by unquestioningly repeating the paragraph that I have quoted, The Scotsman has become an agent of Muslim jihad propaganda and a peddler of falsehood.

One might include the link to the following story from 'Jerusalem Post, by their Arab reporter, Khaled Abu Toameh (who stopped reporting in 'Palestinian' Arab controlled areas, and chose to work instead for a Jewish paper inside Israel, because of ISRAELI FREEDOM OF THE PRESS):

'Hamas Disrupts Fuel Supplies to Gaza' -

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870504767&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A couple of juicy paragraphs from Mr Abu Toameh's article, will give the flavour of what is ACTUALLY going on:

"Hamas militiamen in the Gaza Strip on Sunday attacked fuel trucks headed toward the Nahal Oz border crossing, forcing them to turn back, sources in the Palestinian Petroleum Authority said."
The fuel was supposed to go to the UN Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] and hospitals in the Gaza Strip, the sources said.

"Dozens of Hamas militiamen hurled stones and opened fire at the trucks," the sources added. "The trucks were on their way to receive fuel supplied by Israel. The drivers were forced to turn back. Some of them had their windshields smashed."

There's lots more!

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 6, 2008 10:26 PM

May this rat rest in hell!

Posted by: Lebanese at May 7, 2008 9:44 AM

AND PEOPLE AROUND HIM WERE THINKING THAT HE WAS A MODERATE MUSLIM....

Posted by: Tartine at May 7, 2008 10:11 AM