A Scholar and his class. Schools out-forever. Sorry, no make-up test.

What were their SAT scores?(Students Attempting Terror)

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 15, 2008 7:11 AM

When will they learn not to brag? WHY did they give a vivid description of HOW they breached embassy security? They didn't just give fellow jihadists a field manual. They gave normal people the field manual as well. They told us what to do in the future (or try to do).

Posted by: PMK at November 15, 2008 7:47 AM

Answer: Leave Yemen. We are not wanted there. "So sorry, ladies and gents, but when our non-combatants are murdered, we all leave. You're on your own; good luck."

"...the razor-tight security..."

The what?? Who writes this crap?

Posted by: Abscedere at November 15, 2008 8:26 AM

Why are Americans in Yemen? Or anywhere else in the Muslim world? Where there are consulates, where there are embassies, there are targets. There are unhappy and desparate American personnel, forced -- by the likes of Condoleezza Rice -- to agree to serve in such dangerous places. There are also those who work in the consultes and embassies who, necessarily, are native speakers of Arabic (for the Arab countries), and who tend to be hired from among those who are either locals, or are the descendants of locals. These people, if Muslim and not non-Muslim or clearly apostates, will owe their loyalty to Islam, which means that they will not be terribly concerned about who, for example, they help to obtain a student or tourist visa, and indeed there are too many examples of such inside help for one to doubt that in general Muslims (or non-Muslim fellow-travellers of Islam, or those who are persuadable in the old-fashioned way) should not be in a position to help decide who should be allowed to visit America.

By closing down the consulates and embassies, one also makes it impossible for the locals to arrive, and makes it far more difficult for those already in the West, in the United States, to smoothly move back and forth, and keep up contacts at home. American tourists, the ones foolish enough to still visit such places, will without a consulate or embassy to rely on for some kind of security, may finally stop this kind of dangerous (and sometimes expensive for the American government) and quite unnecessary tourism. And the long-suffering State Department personnel now required to go to such places will no longer have to do so. Besides, in the conditions in which they are forced to work, they learn far less about the places to which they are posted than they used to, for freedom of movement is restricted. The American governemnt would do far better to send a cadre of State Department personnel to school -- that is, to the library, to spend six months or a year learning, thoroughly, the texts and tenets of Islam, and the behavior, over 1350 years, of Muslims as they conquered vast non-Muslim lands, mostly but not always, by military means, and then further studied the attitudes, the atmospherics, that perforce arise in Muslim states and societies. And finally, they could then study the various fissures within the Camp of Islam, the points of purchase for non-Muslims who wish to divide, and demoralize, and weaken, the Camp of Islam.

Staying in Riyadh or San'a will do nothing to further that understanding in the minds of American government personnel. Going to the library, and sitting still, and reading, and assimilating, and thinking, and pondering by having enough leisure to think, rather than having to endure the hectic vacancy that being part of a government bureacracy such as that found in the diplomatic core necessarily imposes, will do a great deal.

Posted by: Hugh at November 15, 2008 9:38 AM

Hugh, that's a great idea.

Remove "the great satan" from the Muslim world and not a single person from those countries will be able to attain a visa of any kind into the US. In so doing, we also remove them from our shores, assuming we require all their consulates and their embassies in the US be closed as well. We would also have to ban all planes that land in Muslim countries from entering the US, or they could smuggle people and contraband.
Then, all that would remain is to find a new home for the UN.

Gosh darn it! There's a workaround. Before you know it the State Department will be issuing visas over the internet. Everyone makes it to Europe or Japan and then it's a short ride over the ocean.

Posted by: PMK at November 15, 2008 9:51 AM

I have to agree...remove the consulates...and stop all foreign aid, stop all military aid, discontinue student visas, travel permits, and monitor all phone calls, internet activity and increase satellite video surveillance...

there are many more things that could be done to hamper the Islamic onslaught...

the military should only be used if they are allowed to win without strings attached...

while the military today is proving itself a formidable force, it is not being allowed to win...when Obama takes over as commander in chief, this will be assured...I could be wrong, but I could be right...

Posted by: pulsar182 at November 15, 2008 10:31 AM

"...the razor-tight security..."

The what?? Who writes this crap?

Posted by: Abscedere

You're right; talk about mixed metaphors! I've heard of things being razor-thin, or razor-sharp, or air-tight, but never razor-tight.

Posted by: ebonystone at November 15, 2008 10:54 AM

Don't worry as soon a the 'Prophet President Obama (PBUH) takes power all these terrorist attacks will come to a screeching halt.

It would be great if PPO (PBUH), really could talk
Bin Laden and Zawahiri and Ahmadinijad and Nasrallah and whoever is in charge of Hamas and those pesky Janjaweed in Darfur and Abbas and
Somali Mohammadans and countless others, known and unknown...out of Jihad.

The talking project will of necessity require a lot of talking, PPO (PBUH) is one of the worlds greatest talkers...he proved that during the election...Of course many people had no idea what he was talking about, many swooned...Issues were not the issue, the issue is Propheteering...An idea whose time has apparently come...

Talk is cheap from a position of no power, we will see how PPO (PBUH), talks to the terrorist when he is sitting on the throne of power...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 15, 2008 11:14 AM

The `shutdown America' argument is a nothingburger. What will happen is this: Saudi regime and all Gulf regimes will fall to the Islamists. They will stop selling oil to the West for few months which will ruin the US economy. Their students will go to China and europe instead. Their huge investment in US economy will be moved to Russia, India and China. The US will become a second-rate power as it loses all global influence and prestige.

On the plus side the chances of terrorism on US soil will be reduced. Of course US citizen who dare to go abroad will still be targets and this time there will no US forces or Consulates to give immediate assistance.

Posted by: Gorgi at November 15, 2008 11:14 AM

Hugh,
Good thinking! But I think we probably need some sort of diplomatic presence in these countries. A solution might be to combine with many of the other Western countries to have the embassy of one look after the affairs of the others. I believe that many of the smaller countries, who cannot afford full-fledged embassies everywhere, have their affairs dealt with in this manner. The U.S. could combine with many of the European countries, as well as Canada, Australia, Japan, maybe some of the Latin American countries. In some places, the U.S embassy would handle the affairs of all, in others it could be the British, in others the Spanish, and so on. This would allow us all to be represented by a better trained staff -- better trained in the local language, history, and customs. There would be a large pool of trained staff to draw on, and fewer places that had to be staffed. So we could do away with using questionable locals as staff. Also, we could save a lot of money.

Posted by: ebonystone at November 15, 2008 11:23 AM

Gorgi; regime and all Gulf regimes will fall to the Islamists. They will stop selling oil to the West for few months which will ruin the US economy...

And what is to stop the Americans from just taking the oil, under those conditions. The US can seize Iraq's oilfields any time they want. Just cut a deal with China for cheap oil, and they wont object...

Of course your suggestion is yet another good reason to get over the addiction to MI oil, or oil in general...There are all kinds of free or cheap energy systems in the works. Drive your car on water, at least partially, as I am doing...on demand hydroxy production, which greatly increases gas mileage. That item is just one of many...Go to Youtube and search for energy subjects...You will be surprised and enlightened, and maybe stimulated. You need to do everything you can to protect your own economy, if you wait for gov and industry, you will have a long wait...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 15, 2008 11:29 AM

Gorgi,
No one suggests we shut down America. More than half of the world's population will still be welcome here. We take in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. That won't change.
As it stands, we are already becoming a second-rate power as our own corporations shut down American factories and move to Asia. The investment in Asia began under Clinton.
The US is the marketplace for all the world's products. Shut down the US economy and it is felt around the world. What do you think the current slowdown is all about? This economy is consumer-driven. If consumers have no money then it stops. No one buys imports from any country if they don't have the cash. This is the busiest time of year for retailers. This year people not only aren't buying, they're not even going to the mall.
If Islamists take over all these countries (what countries have they NOT taken over - Qatar?) then we will know the people were lying the whole time they gave us the religion-of-peace GARBAGE!
Americans who go to Muslim countries will be on their own in hostile territory. Them's the breaks.
If, on the other hand, the terrorism takes place in Europe or in non-Muslim countries in Asia and Africa, there will be plenty of consulates and embassy officials ready to lend assistance. It will then be up to those countries to decide if THEY want to put out the welcome mat for people who want to kill them.

Posted by: PMK at November 15, 2008 11:37 AM

OT
Remember Safia Jilani, the Elmhurst College student who about a month ago filed a claim that she had been assaulted by someone writing racist graffiti? The ROP website has an article that she's been indicted by the DuPage county grand jury for filing a false police report, which can carry a penalty of up to three years in jail. The ROP links to an article in the Daily Herald. Be sure to read the comments: a large number of them imply that it's the police making the false claims! Sure are some mixed up people in this country.

Posted by: ebonystone at November 15, 2008 12:06 PM

ebonystone,

Thanks for the update, but I can't imagine this woman getting anything more serious than probation. Such is the world we live in.

Posted by: PMK at November 15, 2008 12:41 PM

Guess this is what is meant by "wars and rumors of wars", there sure are a lot of both to keep track of. Hard to tally them all up isn't it?

So many terrorist attacks and terrorist threats yet to make, and so little time. Come Lord Jesus!

Posted by: champ at November 15, 2008 1:25 PM

However good in theory Hugh's idea is of basically withdrawing from Muslim countries, there is zero possibility it will happen, even assuming American government officials become deeply knowledgeable of Islam and its intentions, which, of course, is highly unlikely. America and many American officials (though not all) were quite aware of the iniquity of Marxism, but that didn't stop us from having diplomatic relations with most Communist nations. Ditto for Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy right up to the time we went to war against them. Moreover, as long as America and its allies are dependent on Middle Eastern oil, no American government will cut off ties to countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The bottom line here is that Islam has the West by the balls, both because it still hides behind its religious veil and because the Islamic world knows that we know that it knows that we will never cease contact with it, even if we do come to be sceptical, or even disgusted, by Mohammed's creed. But perhaps it is realistic to contemplate a time in the future when America will disallow virtually all Muslims from visiting or immigrating to the United States. It's also within the realm of the possible to think that the continued discrediting of Islam worldwide will result in a revulsion toward it so complete that it will redound to the benefit of non-Muslim nations across the earth in numerous ways. Having no contact with Muslims is not realistic. Treating the Muslim world as a pariah, just as we treated the Communist world, is a course we can follow until Islam withers on the vine internally, just as other totalitarian systems have. But this will take a very, very long time because Islam is a totalitarian system like no other. It is the most menacing and durable of all the malevolent systems of thought that have plagued mankind over the centuries.

Posted by: Wellington at November 15, 2008 2:14 PM

Wellington - I like your post. But I don't see it happening. With the likes of the MSA in our colleges what we will be getting, as we got with the left being in our colleges in our schools for decades - more sharia compliant laws until sharia law takes over.

The only way I see that we win against islam is to become more like China. And then what will happen? We become more communistic in nature.

We are raising children more ignorant of history, more accepting of Marxism/islam, and less accepting of Christians and Jews.

Our government knows about the MSA being linked to the muslim brotherhood and not one thing is being done to get them out of our colleges. Instead they are becoming more vocal - and we also see our kid's history books changing - to accomodate muslims. Heck we don't want to say that muslims slaughter people! Heck no - we might make them feeeeeel bad.

And look at our own military - they have the likes of Mr. Islam in the Pentagon, giving tickets to a fellow who defines our enemy while the military, and our government, are unwilling to do so! Then look what gets voted into the presidential office?! I won't go there since I don't want to discuss politics which is hard to do since islam IS political. We also have our CIA/FBI getting special training in how not to offend muslims when they SHOULD be offended! Because no group of clerics, etc came out and were offended that so many die due to islam - but instead they OPENLY on our streets tell us that they are going to get sharia law enforced. They openly bash Jews, or celebrate that terrorists kill.

The DVD, 'The Third Terrorist', will show that one muslim tried to do something to show that muslims do not support the terrorists and he is now an outcast and muslims draw cartoons about him being a dog. That is 'moderate' muslims (the term that the lefties dreamed up and no muslim uses unless cornered).

muslims are muslims and islam is islam - there is no 'moderate' or 'radical' in it. A true 'moderate' wouldn't follow such a creep as mohammed anyway.

Posted by: R_not at November 15, 2008 4:30 PM

Treating the Muslim world as a pariah, just as we treated the Communist world, is a course we can follow until Islam withers on the vine internally, just as other totalitarian systems have.

Wellington,
It's not clear how this can ever be achieved WITHOUT cutting off contacts. We didn't trade with Soviet-bloc countries. We do with Muslim countries. We didn't have a problem of infiltration because the Soviets restricted emigration. No one was allowed to leave. Those that did leave were, if I may be blunt, like us. They believed in democracy and they sought freedom for themselves and their posterity.
The Muslim countries have freedom of movement. People are allowed to come and go. They might not gain entry to the US but they are allowed to leave and return at will.
Islam isn't like other totalitarian systems. It's not a political system. It's religious. Most others are built on what the system provides for you here on earth. Soviet Communism fell within a century because it was clear to all who looked that it didn't fulfill the promises made by Lenin and envisioned by Marx. Islam isn't concerned with conditions on earth, except where they relate to jihad. People don't seek personal fulfillment. They believe their destinies are set before they are born. They believe suicide is the road to eternal glory.
We all think totalitarian systems are simply doomed to failure but that's not true. Look at what it took to remove fascism and naziism. It took war. Look at communism. We were convinced in the 1970s that we were destined to have a bipolar world for the remainder of our lifetimes. Peaceful coexistence with communism was the best we could hope for. Along came Ronald Reagan. He had to drag almost all of us, kicking and screaming, into the future. For all its internal difficulties, can we really be sure that the Soviet era would have ended as it did without Reagan's steadfast commitment to freedom? Even the fall of the Berlin Wall didn't free North Korea. Two decades have passed and the Communists of North Korea and China are still firmly in charge. Not all totalitarian systems have to die.
How do you treat the Muslim world as a pariah without cutting off almost all contacts? People want oil. Okay, so we buy the oil. They can't eat dollars or euros. So then what? As long as we have regular contacts and sell our goods to them then on what basis are they treated as a pariah?
Look at Iran. They keep talking about wiping countries off the map. Worldwide jihad is spoken of openly. At some point they are going to force our hand and we may be forced to do to the Muslim world what was done to Germany and Italy: remove the belief system by force of arms. That's hardly letting it wither on the vine.

Posted by: PMK at November 15, 2008 4:44 PM

People - Re: The Mohammedan female student who perpetrated a hate-crime hoax at Elmhurst College in Illinois. Her trial begins on Monday, November 17. Let's make sure to know the outcome:

http://www.ecleader.com/tabid/69/itemid/200/Spiritual-Life-Council-recovering-after-Jilanis-a.aspx

Posted by: darcy at November 15, 2008 5:16 PM

Raymond,

Wasn't there an article by you posted in the last week to ten days on the subject of taqqiya?

I recall reading it, but now I cannot find it. What happened, will it be available again soon?

My co-workers really need to read it!!

Max

Posted by: Agent Maxwell Smart at November 15, 2008 5:16 PM

Hugh: re November 15, 2008 9:38 AM (this column)

First our government has legitimate political and economic reasons for maintaining a physical presence in these countries.

Second "America" must maintain that physical presence. To leave simply because of threats or a few bodies is a tacit admission of defeat giving emboldenment to the enemy.

You have a very good idea about requiring State Department personnel staffing these embassies being educated about the true nature of the enemy, Islam, but I don't think it would take a year. Americans just aren't that stupid. A full-time dedicated course taking about a month should give them sufficient philosophical armor to deal with the iniquities of Islam.

I suggest also that any embassy location in Dar-al Islam should be staffed only by military personnel at all levels. Where this is impractical, the positions should be beefed up for the increased security demands necesitated by the presence of required civilians.

We have many young and older talented men and women in our military, as well as many civilian aspirants in this country. There is no reason that diplomatic and philosophical training could not be attached both to Basic Training and to Officer Training. As well, I am sure that many of our servicepeople currently on the payroll could fill short-term needs in these areas with only a minimum of additional training.

Under this system, essentially all diplomatic personnel would be capable of defending not only themselves and co-workers from Terrorists and their actions, but also handily organise and help local natives in their own defense.

Terrorists attempting to attack a US embassy or its personnel would have to overcome a capable well-armed military organisation in order to be successful.

They just aren't that good.

This is a war and should be fought as a war,
using "every stratagem of war" at our disposal.

Posted by: Jockaira at November 15, 2008 6:21 PM

R_not and PMK: I agree with much in your posts. Nothing is a given and that includes a totalitarian system failing, though I would argue that it's almost a given if such a system is deprived from without of all major resources. And often times when such a system has failed, it has indeed been immeasurably aided in failing within a particular time-frame by non-totalitarian systems in martial conflict with it. Yes, our institutions of higher learning are a problem, as our the elites across the board in America and other Western nations, but I remain confident they will be proven wrong in the long run for everyone to see. The alternative is to lose our culture to Islam and I just don't see that happening, though much weeping and gnashing of teeth, most of it unnecessary if we had a more sober assessment of Islam from the get-go, will unfortunatley occur before most everyone in the West "gets it" about Islam.

I don't envision masses of free people in the West, and especially America, succumbing to the tyranny and monstrosity which is Islamic thought. But I also see no precedent in all of history, long term, for completely shunning, diplomatically and otherwise, an entire part of humanity because we think their thinking is atrocious. As, I believe, "Alaskan," who posts here off and on, regularly signs off, "Islam is a lie and the truth is killing it." Just so.

Eventually most all the world will become disgusted with Islam, including many Muslims who will give up the ghost and join the rest of humanity in assigning Islam to the trash heap of history. But as I posted above, this will take a long time and Islam will do much damage to the world, just as other totalitarian systems have before expiring. And killing this especially invidious and deceptive totalitarian ideology called Islam will be one of the most, if not the most, difficult task ever undertaken by mankind. But I don't think just cutting off all contacts with the Islamic world is realistic, though eventually desiring nothing from it, especially oil, is definitely something that can be achieved. And if that happens, then the real withering will begin because Islam can no more sustain itself than could Marxist nations. Both Islam and Marxism, I believe, will fail from within if no support is given to said systems. That should be our goal----giving the bastards nothing and watching them collapse internally.

Posted by: Wellington at November 15, 2008 6:27 PM

Max

Mr Ibrahim's piece was pulled, I understand, because of copyright issues - it was the unedited long version of an article he wrote for 'Jane's Information Group', the people who put out all sorts of books and magazines dealing with things military (they're a sort of bible for the military enthusiast - it all started with Fred Jane in the late 19th century. "Jane's" is a name to conjure with, in the field).

Here's a description of "Jane's" and what they do:

"Jane's Information Group (often referred to as Jane's) was founded by Fred T. Jane in 1898.
" Jane began by sketching ships as an enthusiast, and this gradually developed into an encyclopedic knowledge, culminating in the publishing of 'All the World's Fighting Ships'.
" The company Jane founded gradually branched out into other arenas of military expertise.
'The books and trade magazines published by Jane's are often considered the de facto public source of information on warfare and transportation systems."

So it's actually very good news that something by Mr Ibrahim about the use of taqiyya by Muslims, has been published by "Jane's", even if we can't read it here.

I copied and saved Mr Ibrahim's piece, as soon as it appeared. Because it was removed from the website, I won't reproduce it: but here is what he said at the time:

"I was recently asked by Jane's Intelligence Group to write an essay devoted to taqiyya for Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst, which appeared late September."

So, Max - looks like your best bet is to track down that September issue, perhaps by getting in touch with Jane's via their website, buy yourself a copy, and then you'll have Mr Ibrahim's article in black and white to show your friends, in a magazine brought out by one of the world's most respected sources of information on matters military.

In the meantime, here are a number of items, relevant to al-taqiyya, from this website and elsewhere, that may be helpful.

The first may be found within the court statement made by Dr Mark Durie, an Australian who is reasonably well-informed about Islam, at the time when he acted as expert witness on behalf of two Australian pastors who were being tried for 'defaming Islam', or hurting Muslim feelings, or something.

http://www.saltshakers.org.au/pdf/313278_VCAT_-_DOCUMENTS_RELATIN.pdf

Poke around until you see '92. Dissimulation in Islam', then read the discussion.

2. This thread from Jihadwatch in August 2006 contains, in the comments field, a pretty good discussion of the different slithery ways in which Muslims use fast talking to get out of tight corners:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012713.php

Scroll down till you come a long posting by 'soovey', made on August 17, 2006 10:51 AM

3. This article,

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015800.php#comments

with comments, posted by Mr Spencer in March 2007, under the headline 'taqiyya about taqiyya' should also be of use.

4. Mr Fitzgerald wrote a little essay in response to that piece, entitled 'Not Just a Shi'a Doctrine', which was put up as a stand-alone, here, also in March 2007:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015816.php

5. Then there is this article from January this year, headlined by Mr Spencer "American Muslim writer: Islam rejects lying and deception in all forms, except when it doesn't" -

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019520.php#comments

make sure you read the discussion in the comments field, there is some good stuff there (make sure you read the mini-essay 'posted by Hugh'.

6. 'The Truth Depends on Who's Listening':

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021617.php

and

7. 'Excusing Taqiyya'

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021625.php#comments

which is one of the first articles posted and discussed by Mr Ibrahim at this site.

From that article, this paragraph might be good to show your friends (make sure you mention that Mr Ibrahim knows Arabic and is a scholar and reputable academic and published "The Al-Qaeda Reader'):

"As for the notion that 'some [Sunnis] reject taqiyya as unacceptable hypocrisy and evidence of cowardice…. Others argue that concealment is warranted under life-threatening circumstances,' the very first lines of one of the few Arabic books wholly dedicated to treating the doctrine of taqiyya, called al-Taqiyya fi al-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”), by Islamic studies professor Sami Makarem, unequivocally states in its opening page:

- 'Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Nearly every Islamic sect has agreed to it and practices it….Indeed, we can go so far as to say that mainstream Islam practices taqiyya, and that those few sects that do not practice it are aberrant, diverging from the mainstream. (p.7)'.

I hope that may be of use to you until you can track down 'Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 15, 2008 8:36 PM

Thanks dumbledoresarmy,

I wondered about the article appearing here and there at the same time....oh well. Doom on me for not copying it the night I saw it.

Thanks for the heads up. I believe I have access to Jane's resources, and will check there now.

I appreciate the heads up and effort!

Posted by: Agent Maxwell Smart at November 15, 2008 9:29 PM

OK, I got Raymond's article. It was just as good as I remembered it!

Great stuff Raymond!

In my excitement to download the document, I stumbled upon a "refutation" published in the November Jane's by a Dr. Michael Ryan. "Dr. Ryan" repeatedly uses the Majid Fakhry translation of the Qur'an- which although not an expert, is one version I don't believe I have heard of before.

Just to give a glimpse into how flimsy the Doctors article was (based on his 'feelings' not fact or historical reference), here are some excerpts from Dr. Ryan's piece 'Interpreting Taqiyya';

"It would be fundamentally incorrect to suggest that the strained positions of Osama bin Laden and other extremists somehow grow out of normal or mainstream Muslim thought: Al-Qaeda's deception does not grow out of valid religious duty."

WHAT?

APPARENTLY MY 3 QUR'AN ALL HAVE SOME MAJOR TYPO'S RELATING TO JIHAD!!

HEY DOC, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK THE OFFICIAL SAUDI MINISTRY OF DAWAH WEBSITE, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE THE WRONG QUR'AN AS WELL! (AND ALSO SOME SERIOUS EDITING ISSUES WITH AHADITH).

"If we fail to make the distinction between radical Islamists and valid, thoughtful and authoritative views of expert Muslim jurists, we risk undermining one of the most promising tools to defeat radical thought.I am referring to recent successful programmes by the Saudis and Egyptians to persuade what the West might call radical jihadists that their extremist activities are actually against the canons of Islam as interpreted by mainstream jurists."

RIGHT DOC!

DID QARADAWI CONVERT AND I MISSED IT?

NAME 3 OF THESE 'MAINSTREAM' JURISTS PLEASE?

Posted by: Agent Maxwell Smart at November 15, 2008 10:05 PM

I bet Obama wet his pants when he received the intelligence briefing at the Whitehouse.

God help US.......

Posted by: lafn at November 16, 2008 4:23 AM

Wellington,
Then globalization will be our undoing. If we can't cut off contacts with people who say openly that they want to kill us then what are we? Is trade all we care about? So we'll trade and we'll enrich the people who want to kill us. We're handing over our technology to people who would otherwise still be living in the 18th century, at best. None of us can say we weren't warned.
You don't see masses of Americans succumbing but I do. It's not that Americans will embrace Islam but that a determined minority can suppress the majority. Look at Communism in Eastern Europe. Those people didn't embrace Communism. It was forced upon them and so they went along. They had no choice. Some fought and some tried to escape. Most decided to adapt to their situation.
Americans might "resist" by refusing to convert but dhimmitude is our future unless we decide that there is something worth more than global trade.
We might have a "Northern Alliance" to resist the Taliban but it won't be enough if all Americans don't decide that there are some things worth fighting for and some that are even worth dying for. More people than not will go along to get along. Even if they don't become Muslims themselves, the people will accept Muslim dominance. The rationale will be that by doing so we will live to fight another day. Eventually the Muslims will see how good Western living is and decide we were right after all. That has been the idea behind all of our contacts. It hasn't worked in a thousand years.

Posted by: PMK at November 16, 2008 7:58 AM

"[obama] wet.. his pants"

To me he appears a man with far more grit, courage and steel than Bush(the world saw how Bush reacted on 9/11 - he froze then flew around for hours - FACT)

My fear is that Obama maybe so keen to prove himself on security that he might overreact and attack other little places that did America no harm thus creating more enemies for America and for us.

The bravest US president should be bombing Saudia. That is where ALL Islamist terrorism starts.

Alas even Obama aint that brave.

Posted by: Gorgi at November 16, 2008 8:50 AM

PMK: Thanks for your repsonse. Well, I detest Islam as much as you do and, I think, am as conscious as you are that a minority can suppress a majority often times, but what started this whole thread was Hugh's suggestion to just have virtually no diplomatic contact with the Islamic world. Is that your approach too? Do you really think it is realistic? Can't we still prevail even with certain kinds of contact with at least part of the Islamic world? Is it imperative to buy nothing from the Islamic sector of the earth in order to stay free? In any case, I have no doubt that wer're on the same page respecting Muslim immigration to America. It should stop.

Posted by: Wellington at November 16, 2008 12:33 PM

Dear all,

Missed in all this blather is the fact that Yemen is a fantastic country. I, as a white, non-Muslim, have hung out there for well over a year and loved every minute of it.

Surprisingly, the capital, Sana'a and the whole country in general, is much much safer than most of America, especially big cities. Wow, what a treat, if I could go back to Yemen again. What hospitable, kind people they are.

Actually, it's not surprising... the Islamic faith instills such great morals in people. What is surprising is that all you conservatives can't seem to appreciate the high levels of morality in practice in this truly fantastic country.

Just go there someday. As long as you stay away from Marib and don't actively try to convert people to Christianity you will be fine. I can put you in touch with numerous kind Yemenis I have the priviledge to call my friends if you would like. (Yes, friends with Muhammadans! - and yes, sometimes they wear skirts/gowns! - but it doesn't mean that they are not awesome people)

[If you are serious about trying to find something out about Yemen, check out the movie "The English Sheikh and the Yemeni Gentleman". Starring Tim Morton-Smith, a Brit, author of a great book on Yemen, and a very amiable, pleasant fellow - we lived in the same neighborhood in Yemen. Anyhoo, Netflix has the movie, so just put it at the top of your queue and let those prejudices slowly evaporate...]

Posted by: jasonrfruit at November 16, 2008 11:39 PM

jasonrfruit

In Yemen old men marry girls aged 8 or 9 - and subject them to forcible marital relations.

And the Muslim clerics argue that the age of consent should continue to be nine years, in conformity with the example of little Aisha.

And the Muslim clerics declare that it is A-OK to beat your wife or your daughter.

No, Yemen is not a nice place, Yemen is a very nasty place. Just go and talk to those British women who foolishly married Yemeni Muslim men, and bore daughters, and then had those daughters 'disappeared' by their fathers, at age 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, and whisked off to Yemen, and married, at 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, never to return.

Ask those Yemenis who tried to convert out of Islam to Christianity, and were arrested, and imprisoned.

Yemen is a horrible place, and Islam is what makes it so horrible.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 16, 2008 11:54 PM

From a Muslim apologist or Useful Idiot posting above, singing the praises of wonderful, wonderful Yemen:

"the Islamic faith instills such great morals in people. What is surprising is that all you conservatives can't seem to appreciate the high levels of morality in practice in this truly fantastic country".

Ah yes, let's remember what Yemen was like for the dhimmi Jews there, until things became absolutely impossible for them in the 1950s and almost all of them were expelled or fled (leaving a tiny highly dhimmified remnant behind).

Here are three postings from this jihadwatch/ dhimmiwatch thread in 2006.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013636.php

The article under discussion involved a case in which Muslims in Pakistan falsely made charges of blasphemy against de facto dhimmi Christians. This led to general discussion of dhimmitude - the religious apartheid (humiliating, degrading and dangerous) to which non-Muslims are subjected in a Muslim-dominated state.

A Jewish poster, Elderly Zionist, shared Jewish reminiscences of the horrors of life as dhimmis under the Muslim scimitar and jackboot in Yemen; Mr Hugh Fitzgerald then supplied a historical reference to support this testimony.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013636.php#c286598

"aynrandgirl: Now that I think about it, except in the unlikely case that a Muslim chooses to defend a non-Muslim in court, isn't any criminal charge against a non-Muslim an automatic conviction?

- Exactly so.

Which is why, in traditional sharia societies, in order to survive, each dhimmi head-of-household must form a client/patron relationship with a Muslim 'protector', who will protect his dhimmi client from abuse by other Muslims, will bear arms in his defense (dhimmi are forbidden to arm themselves, and can expect to be lynched if they so much as lift a hand to a Muslim), and will testify on his clients' behalf in sharia court.

'If the protector wishes to. And always for a price.

'I have never lived under sharia, but I have known former dhimmi who did, in Yemen back in the bad old days.

'They tell me it was hell on earth to live that way, and that they would die before they would go back.

'More to the point, they would kill before they would go back.

--Posted by: ElderlyZionist at October 18, 2006 3:14 PM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013636.php#c286602

'I was once told a story about Yemen in the bad old days, before the Jews had left, about how Muslims 'protected' their dhimmi.

'I don't know whether it's true, but I believe it.

'An Arab sheikh went to visit his neighbor, who welcomed him warmly. "Oh Abu Mustafa, my old friend. I'm glad you came to visit, it's been far too long. Please come sit, drink some coffee, and tell me what has brought you to my home today."

"Oh Abu Usama, my dear friend, it is black trouble that has brought me here.

'I am sorry to say that your sons have done something very wrong; they have damaged my honor, and if this thing is not made right, then there must be war between your clan and mine."

"Oh Abu Mustafa, this must not be! Now tell me how my sons have offended you, and for the sake of our old friendship, and of the peace between our families, surely I will make it right."

"Oh Abu Usama, your sons have shot one of my Jews, and raped his wife and daughter. This Jew was under my protection!

'By harming him, your sons have damaged my honor, and that of my whole clan. Now for the sake of my honor, and for the respect that is due my family, I must demand justice of you, and satisfaction for the harm done to my Jew."

"Oh Abu Mustafa, my old friend, I am so glad you came today to talk this matter over with me. You are completely right, and what my sons have done was very wrong.

'Surely, for the sake of our friendship and to keep the peace between us, I will give you justice.

"Now here is what I propose.

'"Oh Abu Mustafa, let your sons come, and shoot one of my Jews, and rape his wife and daughter. So the balance between us will be restored, and your honor will be made whole."

"And so it was done."
--Posted by: ElderlyZionist at October 18, 2006 3:45 PM

...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013636.php#c286778

'The story about the two Arabs in the Yemen is not apocryphal.

'That precise example -- that of a Jew "belonging" as chattel to Arab Tribe A being killed by a member of Arab Tribe B, and by way of obtaining appropriate justice, the members of Arab Tribe A are permitted to kill a Jew "belonging" to Arab Tribe B,

'is mentioned by R. S. Serjeant, the English scholar, in one of his articles on life in Yemen in the early 1950s."

- Posted by: Hugh at October 18, 2006 11:13 PM

Got that, 'jason'? THAT'S the 'great morals' of Islam. THAT'S what thoroughly-Muslim Yemen was like to live in, right up until the 1950s, if you were a Jew. (Want another nasty little fact about Yemen? - if the father of a Jewish family died, his children could be forcibly removed and forcibly 'converted' to Islam. And that disgustingly cruel law was in force, and applied, in the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s).

And I'd advise you to go back to my previous posting and have a good long think about the fact that in Yemen a girl can be wedded at 8, bedded and mercilessly screwed at 9, and pregnant at 12. Go on: ask a midwife what sort of cruel damage is done to the immature body of a prepubescent nine-year-old who is subjected to forcible marital rape (with beatings thrown in, as often as not) by a 30 or 40 or 50 year old pedophile pervert; and then what happens when she gives birth at age 12. Not surprisingly, Yemen has one of the highest rates of infant and maternal mortality in the world.

'Great morals'??? ::spit::

Hmmm - maybe, 'jason', like the late unlamented and thrice-accursed Ayatollah Khomeini, you think marriage to a prepubescent girl would be 'a divine blessing'??

Or is it the fact that, in Yemen, up until the 1950s, defenceless Jews could be murdered with total impunity, that makes you admire that hellhole so much?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 17, 2008 6:08 AM

Yemen is beautiful land with ancient history and some wonderfully friendly people but it also a place heaving with murderous fanatics and medieval tribes.. with tanks!

Again the thing that most people on this site or indeed anywhere in the West dont know is that there were two Yemens till the 90s. South yemen with Aden at its capital was thoroughly secular, modern, progressive and friendly. Polgamy was banned; age of consent was 16. All bus drivers were women so were 60% of all doctors. Hijab was not even banned no need girls simply did not have any interest in it.

It called itself " A beacon..enlightening the darknesses of the Gulf". Just a minor problem: it was also Marxist-led.

The other Yemen, North Yemen was medieval, backward, religious, misogynistic and thoroughly ghastly. But it had a Pro-Saudi/Pro American dictator.

The CIA gave the latter tanks and guns and trained hundreds of thousands of his savage tribal militia. Saudi Arabia paid for everything of course. He attacked `the beacon' and destroyed it within a month killing thousands of its inhabitants Their cries were never heard. They fought almost to the last man, woman and child. Unsurprisngly most inahabitants there today are the dictator's lice-ridden hordes from the northern mountains. He is still in power.

But you dont hear these stories do you?

Posted by: Gorgi at November 17, 2008 7:35 AM

Dear all,

Thank you for your replies to my comments on the great country that is Yemen. I am convinced that if anybody goes there without a pre-formed grudge against Yemen/Islam, that they will love the place, or at least come to appreciate many many aspects of it.

Your postings generally were in regard to two things:
1.) Jews in Yemen
2.) Child marriage

Now, I would be the first to admit that there are aspects of Yemen currently and historically, that I don't particularly care for. Unfortunately, no person and no place is perfect. Yemen, like America, has a couple faults, but they are both fantastic places that I love.

Some great prophet once said something about taking the plank out of your own eye before taking the speck out of another's eye (Matthew 7:5). I suggest we do the same in regard to Yemen.

1.) In regard to Jews, there have certainly been occasional abuses in Muslim lands, but the fact is that Jews somehow survived in Muslim lands for all those years, indicating that there was no widespread persecution of Jews as there was in say late 15th century Spain under Christian Ferdinand when Jews were completely wiped out (the lucky ones escaping to Muslim Morocco). To just stick in an anecdote to the contrary, I have chatted with some Jews in Amran, north of Sana'a, who love Yemen and though they had the chance to go to Israel, they would not (general lack of morals in Israel you know?).

2.) In regard to child marriage, keep in mind that Yemen, particularly North Yemen, has only recently (last 50 years) come into contact with the rapidly globalizing, modernizing world. It was until very recently the custom, as in Europe in the past, to get married very young: the boy might be 14-15, the girl a year or two younger. This was just the custom. What is happening now is that with the difficult economic situation, men need to wait longer before they can make enough of a dowry for the marriage. Thus they get married a bit later. The age of the woman has generally risen as well, though obviously you will find particular occasions to the contrary.

Yemenis point to America as a wasteland of sexual morality, with relations outside of marriage becoming the norm and the millions of abortions taking place per year. I might agree with both you and Yemenis and say that there are aspects of sexual morality in both countries that need improving.

Posted by: jasonrfruit at November 17, 2008 1:17 PM

Ladies and gentlemen

observe 'jason', our latest Muslim spin-doctor, blandly defending the utterly indefensible, and engaging in a bit of tu quoque and 'blame the Infidel' along the way.

As regards the conditions to which Jews were normally subjected in Muslim lands, by Muslims, throughout the centuries, and which they survived not because of Islam but in despite of it (my own impression of that history is of a slow-motion Shoah, and to read about it at any length and in any detail is to weep, and rage, and feel physically sickened by the abominable cruelties routinely inflicted by Muslims on defenceless Jews) I refer all new posters, anyone who hasn't yet caught up on the facts, to consult Bat Yeor, 'The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam', and Andrew Bostom, 'The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History'.

That book opens with a little historical essay entitled 'A Note on the Cover Art' - that is, the story of the Muslim murder of Sol Hachuel, teenage Jewish girl, on a totally trumped-up charge of 'apostasy', in 1834.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=48

Bostom's essay on Muslim attitudes toward, and treatment of, Jews in Persia in particular - an essay solidly based on original historical documents, both Muslim and non-Muslim - is entitled "Shiite Iran's Genocidal Jew-Hatred"
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7134DF10-DD44-40D0-B899-CCDC7F3D3B8C

And that's what it was, and is.

Maimonides' letter to the Jews of Yemen in 1200 is also very telling, for it shows exactly what Maimonides thought of the way in which Arab Muslims treated Jews. He did not regard Arab Muslims as paragons of tolerance, but as the worst persecutors the Jews had ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Here is Ibn Warraq in his foreword to Bostom's Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism:

"Patiently and methodically he [Bostom] shows the real situation of Jews against a background of the institution of dhimmitude, which relentlessly persecuted all non-Muslims, and reduced their lives to a misery, further punctuated with massacres and pogroms, all grimly recorded by him" - p. 25.

Just because 'jason' claims he has spoken with some of the tiny remnant of dhimmi Jews in Yemen and *claims* that they tell him everything's hunky-dory, proves absolutely nothing.

By the way, 'jason', don't think I don't know that you're defending Islam (in particular, you're trying to deny that there's anything seriously wrong with Muslim Yemen, and that anything that *is* wrong with it is nothing to do with Islam and is in fact, of course, the fault of wicked Infidel outsiders interfering...) - and that in protecting Islam, and in attempting to sucker others into the Cult, you are permitted to lie through your teeth. Why then should I believe even one word you say?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 17, 2008 4:26 PM

As for 'jason's defence of the practice of child marriage:

Here's an article that discusses the current state of play in Yemen and the appalling fallout in terms of women's and children's health; and the relationship between the practice - in many Muslim lands *today* - of adult men marrying prepubescent or barely pubescent girls, and the teachings of Islam.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022352.php

(click on the link within the article, to read the whole story in full from its original source).

I could post a whole lot of other articles, from here and elsewhere, on this revolting topic.

Here's an excellent discussion showing a modern Saudi cleric justifying the practice by referring to Mohammed and Aisha:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021524.php

And here is the story of the British women whose daughters are snatched off to Yemen and married off, by Muslim fathers:

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

Miriam Ali, in "Without Mercy", pub. by Warner Books, 1995 tells the story of her daughters being abducted and sold as wives in Yemen. Their names are Nadia and Zana. The girls were both in their early teens. Here are relevant excerpts:

page 123: Gowan (a man who purchased one of Miriam's daughters) laughed in my face.
"They are not your daughters Miriam, they are ours (because the men purchased the girls). Mine and Abdul Khada. I paid good money for Nadia to bear children for my son, as Abdul Khada paid for Zana....Muthana (Miriam's husband) knows this. He knew this when we struck our deal. He has no problem with it........."Do you think I would allow this, the sale of my own daughters?" What is it to do with you Miriam? This is man's business, nothing for a woman to concern herself with."

page 300: I discovered that I wasn't the only one to have suffered at the hands of a Shamiri. I now knew at least 5 other mothers who have had their children taken to Yemen. This had accounted for at least 10 other children, the majority of them female. I knew that there were many more like them.

Zana had met so many girls taken from the Midlands (England), taken by force who were now in Yemen.

One was a petite blonde from Derby.

She was 9 years old when she was taken and had already three miscarriages when she became pregnant a forth time. This time the child had been stillborn. The death of this little baby had taken the child-mother's sanity. She was 12 years old.

Another, also 12 years old, often chatted to Zana, telling her she could still count to 10 in English. She told Zana how desperate she was to go home to England. As they talked together, she suckled a child at her breast.

page 387: It's the Islam mom, I am Muslim, I can't come home with you. He said he would bring me, but it is not up to me, if -- if I can come home or not, it is up to him. I want to come home, but....."

page 390: "Imagine if you will, that this is your life, that this has happened to your own flesh and blood. Imagine a strange man touching her, beating her, raping her, impregnating her then laughing smugly in her face as she suffers."

"Please don't forget me, please don't leave me here too long, please." --- Nadia Muhsen, Taiz, Yemen. Feburary, 1992.

Even one such case, 'jason' - take a good long look at that case of the nine-year-old who had had four pregnancies, three miscarriages, and a stillbirth, by the time she turned twelve, is one too many.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 17, 2008 5:00 PM