What a disgrace.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 22, 2005 12:54 PM

The Scorpion and the Frog...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 22, 2005 1:16 PM

I think France has already started to wake up. I know a lot of French, they are overwhelmingly against Turkey joining the EU and have pretty much had it muslims.

Posted by: Anti-PC at September 22, 2005 1:36 PM

Look to see if anything unusual happens on British stamps. There is an etiquette of not having an image of a living person who is not a member of the royal family, though I think they once made an exception with Winston Churchill.
If we start honouring those alive today, it'll be a sign that the UK has turned a corner somewhere.

By the way, we are the only country in the world without the name of that country on stamps because we invented them.

Posted by: Elephant at September 22, 2005 1:46 PM

A crook & a weasel on the same stamps, who would have thought it....

Yet another superb reason (Number 973 & counting)for England to distance itself from EUrabia....

Posted by: albion at September 22, 2005 1:56 PM

How in god's name did Jacques Chirac pass his Bac?

Posted by: Hugh at September 22, 2005 2:07 PM

Yeah, archdhimmi is right... remember the way Chirac kissed the face of the King of Saudi Arabia and held hands with him as they traipsed around his ranch in Waco? What a disgrace that dastardly Chirac is. Especially considering that France is a MAJOR player on the world political/diplomatic scene.

Posted by: kj at September 22, 2005 2:36 PM

....another funny point is that France has banned the burqua while Oklahomer, Alaska, Mississippi, etc. WON'T. Hmmmm. Must be populated by left-wing lib'rul dhimmis.

Or not.

Posted by: kj at September 22, 2005 2:41 PM

...and another thing. I remember Saudi Arabia honoring Bush The Elder with HIS own stamp back when HE saved them from Saddam. It only cost us 10,000* or so ordinary GI lives, so no big whoop. The important thing is that the Saudi royal family was saved, because they are OUR ALLIES and they FIGHT TERROR.

* Gulf War Syndrome

Posted by: kj at September 22, 2005 2:44 PM

Keith,

Though you persist in ignoring and denying it, I have noted Bush's dhimmitude here on many occasions.

Nor did I compare Chirac unfavorably to Bush here, or anywhere else.

Why then do you think it so important to respond to this item by shrilly noting Bush's dhimmitude? Do you think this post is somehow an attack on liberals ("lib'ruls," in your sneering parlance)? Does Bush's archdhimmitude somehow make Chirac not a dhimmi?

Just wondering -- and also wondering why you don't go away to Democratic Underground to post away happily.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 22, 2005 2:48 PM

kj:

May I remind you that were it not for Israel blowing up Osirak, Saddam would have had nukes, largely because of one J. Chirac when he was a cabinet minister and the French are fairly well reconciled towards Iran's nuclear activities. And France has been the fore-front of the anti-Israel movement in Europe since De Gaulle's rule.

More recently, what could have been more craven than France at the Security Council in the run-up to the invasion, derriere-deep in cheap Iraqi oil and some government members implicated in oil-for-food graft.

As for Bush and the Saudis -- he looked anything but happy holding hands with the Prince and neither did the Prince. (Probably a case of hold your friends close and your enemies closer.)

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 22, 2005 2:50 PM

I love that any attempt to somehow bring the world together (even with postage stamps) is met with outrage here. However, I do agree that pressure needs to be put on Western governments to abandon their coddling of otherwise disgusting governments such as in S.A.

"and also wondering why you don't go away to Democratic Underground to post away happily."

King: Your website is designed to provoke heated debate. Why tell someone to go away?

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 22, 2005 3:11 PM

The Palestinians have stamps? Who knew.

Posted by: johnb at September 22, 2005 3:16 PM

kintolerance, read Eurabia, the Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or then perhaps you might understand what exactly is meant by bring the world together..., under the one religion of course.

Posted by: Daffersd at September 22, 2005 3:16 PM

Notice how the stamps' graphics suggest that the glorious old tricouleur of Valmy and Verdun is fading away, reduced to an insignificant blotch of pale tints, in front of the horizontal, driving pressure of the Palestinian/Arab flag. The artist who designed this was more truthful than his employers, and gave a good graphic accont of what "Peace" means to these gentry.

Incidentally, did you know that the obsessive and ultimately disastrous whizz-kid architect in the splendid French comic ASTERIX AND THE MANSIONS OF THE GODS is a caricature of the young Chirac?

Posted by: Paolo at September 22, 2005 3:53 PM

johnb

I heard the idea for a stamp was found in Arafat's will. He enjoyed having his ass kissed by his subjects so much that he requested a postage stamp (complete with the infidel responsible for his legitimacy) be issued so that his subjects could lick his backside into eternity.

"Why tell someone to go away"? posted by Useful Idiot.

Answer: For some of the reasons you've been asked to go away. Now scat you coward.

Posted by: William The Crusader at September 22, 2005 3:57 PM

I think someone needs their diaper changed. The romper room is getting a bit gamey.

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 22, 2005 4:19 PM

King, "bring the world together (even with postage stamps)" sounds very naive.

Tolerance of evil is not a virtue but foolish appeasement.

Tolerance of an enemy that wants to kill you and destroy your culture is suicidal.

Only tolerance of those who would be tolerant is wise.

Tell me king, how tolerant are you of those who would murder homosexuals...

How tolerant are you of those who would enslave women and rip from them all the rights that our shared western culture has bestowed on them.

How tolerant are you of those who would banish our artistic accomplishment or undermine scientific inquiry.

The danger is not as you might believe, I'm sure from the religious right, but from those who are delusionary and vicious enough to use violence. True Muslims following the words of their prophet.

Tell me king, don't you belive that to be truly tolerant is to be against violence. Especially violence from those who would impose their religious and cultural beliefs.

As far as Islam I would say no violence or no tolerance.

I think you visiting this site is a good thing, maybe some of the truth about Islam's true nature as expressed in their own words will reach you.

God knows need everyone's help to defeat this real menace.

Please read Eurabia and I'm sure anyone on this site will be willing to discuss it with you.

Posted by: thecid at September 22, 2005 4:31 PM

"Well done, good and faithful dhimmi: Chirac honored on Palestinian stamps"

'Dhimmi'?

"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race."

Huh?

Chirac does what he wants to do, he says what he wants to say. I could never have thought the Palestinians would take control of France (sarcasm). I just have to laugh at the use of this word. Anyone that doesn't do what the right wing death worshipping fanatical Islamophobes want is called a dhimmi.

Russia helping Iran with nuclear technology – Dhimmies

Russia promising to help the Palestinians – Dhimmies

Russians must really be feeling ‘subdued’.

Aid from Western countries to poor 3rd World countries across the World, when some of these happen to be Muslim countries – Dhimmies

Western Governments striving to provide equal opportunities for all, including Muslims – Dhimmies

You'll probably be telling me about how Arabs have taken control of the UN and the Western Media. (sarcasm)

Posted by: ia786 at September 22, 2005 4:37 PM

You'll probably be telling me about how Arabs have taken control of the UN and the Western Media. (sarcasm)
Don't laugh too hard, oil money is buying up our media. When the Saudi Prince doesn't like something on the news "he picks up the phone and calls", just lately he has increased his shares of "our" news sources.
As for theUseless Nations, yes it has become a place where the Arabs are the darlings of the moment.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 22, 2005 5:10 PM

Okay, ia786,
yes, The Arab and Muslim Empire has indeed taken over much of the western press, not directly, by purchase, but indirectly, through threat ( note that Reuters have stated that they dare not tell the truth for fear their reporters will be murdered by ???? ( not Christians, Jews or Hindus for sure, or Atheists, Rastafarians or Sikhs ), coercion and 'influence'; the latter two often on our own governments, who then lean on our 'free' press.

And yes, again, re the control that The Arab and Moslem Empire has over the U.N. Nothing can pass the U.N. that The Empire opposes, because they control nearly 30% of the votes directly, and even more 'indirectly'.

The Arab and Moslem Empire is in control of far more than you seem to be aware of, and, financed by oil revenue, is effectively gaining more control over the institutions, including governments, that are the 'systems' of our planet.
Start thinking in terms of the existence of an Arab and Moslem Empire; it is a functioning, expanding reality.
That empire is even gathering allies who are not muslim, like Chavez, of Venezuela, who has allied himself with that empire in his battle with the U.S., just as Castro, in his time, allied himself with the USSR, the great empire opposing the U.S. in an earlier era.

Posted by: dby at September 22, 2005 5:12 PM

Though you persist in ignoring and denying it, I have noted Bush's dhimmitude here on many occasions.

No, I do acknowledge when you occasionally point out Bush's dhimmitude. I coulnd't help but wonder why Chirac is archdhimmi when surely that title should go to--for example, maybe the man who will single-handedly create a new Islamic nation, they guy that re-created Iraq in Iran's image. And then there's the first American president to call for a sovereign palestinian nation. And there's the president who feted Arab diplomats with Ramadan "feasts" while the WTC towers were still buring. Or maybe the guy that let a Muslim preacher speak first at OUR National Cathedral at the 9-11 Memorial Day of Prayer. Oh wait...these are all the SAME guy: Bush.

Nor did I compare Chirac unfavorably to Bush here, or anywhere else.

It seems to me that you are engaged in France baiting. France is our ally and has been since our revolution against England. France has 3500 troops in Afghanistan and has had them there since we attacked them (if you can call letting Osama and his main henchmen escape to Pakistan and live there for four years an "attack".) That's more per capita that we have there, and we were the ones that were attacked.

Can anyone here remember the Amercian Embassy in Paris on 09-12-01? It was a solid wall of teddy bears, American flags, candles, and signs with slogans like "I am American" and "We are all Americans" and "06 Juin 1944" (i.e. D-Day)....yet...AND YET! because they wouldn't go along with Dubya "conservatives" hate them. I fear that the GOP has devolved into a personality cult much like that of North Korea but instead of Kim Il Jong our version features Dubya. Herein, the sole gauge of a person's value or respect is the extent to which they demostrate fealty to the Vacation King.

France helped us during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War (I think but I could be wrong there), World Wars One and Two; France helped us in Dessert Storm, France helped us in Beirut (they lost 79 Marines the same time that we lost 241, again more per capita than us... mayhap they have better memories and were thinking of this event when Dub went groveling to the UN for help invading a nation that couldn't possibly attack us) and France is helping us in Afghanistan.

Why then do you think it so important to respond to this item by shrilly noting Bush's dhimmitude?

The France bashing is fun and funny. But it does nothing to help jihad awareness. Some of your readers may get the false impression that France hates America, that France is an enemy of America. We should expect the France bashing from cavemen like Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, etc... but not from a website devoted to promoting jihad awareness. By purposefully trying to draw a parallel that doesn't exist, you may alienate people that are seeking the real truth on the issue of Islam, dhimmitude, jihad, sharia, etc.

Do you think this post is somehow an attack on liberals ("lib'ruls," in your sneering parlance)?

Sneering parlance? Like quoting the New Duranty Times and nary a word about the rest of the MSM that won't tell the truth about Islam? I guess I'm guilty. I won't mention who has influenced me.

Does Bush's archdhimmitude somehow make Chirac not a dhimmi?

No but Bush has a hell of a lot more power than Chirac. Despite what many French think (that they are some kind of superpower) they are NOTHING compared to America. So what means more in the grand scheme of things: Chirac on a worthless stamp or Bush and King Faud hand-in-hand down on "the ranch"?]

It's like comparing a nobody, never-was shyster like Lynne Stewart to James Baker III, or some obscure teacher from Middle-of-Nowhere U like Ward Churchill to Ivy league professor David Horowitz...there IS NO comparison.

Bush, Baker, and Horowitz are powers-of-ten more powerful than their alleged opposites Chirac, Stewart, and Horowitz. (Granted Horowitz isn't a dhimmi by any stretch of the imagination. For his accurate description of Islam and in particular the Arab-Israeli matter, I applaude him.)

I expect more from this site in terms of addressing the more serious problems for the same reason that some liberals criticize FOX, MSNBC, and CNN for running literally HUNDREDS of stories on Micheal Jackson, Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes, and the Georgia "runaway bride" while giving nary a word to the continuing slaughter in the Sudan. (See www.beawitness.org for more on the matter.)

The stories about pretty-much-nothing about France, Chirac, etc. only take away from the really important issues. And serve to alienate any liberals that stubmle in here seeking the truth about Islam.

Just wondering -- and also wondering why you don't go away to Democratic Underground to post away happily.

I have been to DU maybe three times in five years. My top priority is Jihad awareness... not talking about how stupid Dub is or how great Al Franken is or whatever else one may imagine "we" democrats talk about.

Maybe I expect to much... from St. Pete PD I expect that child molestors should be given more police attention than pickpockets... from the Feds I expect that Arab Muslims learning to fly--but not land--jumbo jets should receive more attention than potheads, porno, and Oregon's euthanasia law (John Aschcroft, call your office)...and from you I expect that the BIG dhimmis should garner more attention here than the lesser fools that have only minor notoriety and mere handfuls (if that many) hapless followers. Like secretly-converted-to-Islam Juan Cole. Or phony Native American Ward "Little Eichmann" Churchill.

[Sidebar... did anyone notice that Simon Weisenthal died the other day. He ARRESTED Eichmann in Argentina. He said that his greatest catch was the bastard that sent Anne Frank and her family to the camps. If there is a God, may He or She bless the wonderful, the mighty Simon Weisenthal.]

Please don't get me wrong, I admire your pluck and bravery. But I expect more. I expect the truth and the whole truth. I expect objective callings-to-task for any and all dhimmis, and I expect it to be done in proper context (i.e., more emphasis on Bush than on Chirac, and more on Chirac than say on the Prince of Monaco... and more on the Prince of Monaco than on the guy that cuts my hair... etc.)

I expect my children to make straight A's in school because I love them dearly and want to see them succeed, so please don't think I am criticizing you for the fun of it.

***************************************

Waterdragon spins:May I remind you that were it not for Israel blowing up Osirak, Saddam would have had nukes, largely because of one J. Chirac when he was a cabinet minister and the French are fairly well reconciled towards Iran's nuclear activities.

First of all, France helped Israel when America wouldn't: 1948.

Second of all, I am a committed Zionist and am glad that Israel blew up Saddam's toy.

Third, have you seen the photos of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam to sell him poison gas and missiles? Reagan sent him. Why didn't Reagan blow up Saddam's nuke site? You do know that Reagan helped Saddam immeasurably, right? Or are you like that young conservative rep-con hotshot that just started working here and wanted to debate me about "David" Kucinich who "speaks for the democRATs."? (The poor kid'd never even heard of David Duke... so I told him I couldn't have an intelligent conversation by myself.)

And France has been the fore-front of the anti-Israel movement in Europe since De Gaulle's rule.

And who is at the fore-front [sic] in America? Let's see: David Duke, Grovler Norquist (like Johnny Cole, also married to a Muslim), Pat Buchanon, Ralph Nader. All republicans. (One in disguise.)

More recently, what could have been more craven than France at the Security Council in the run-up to the invasion, derriere-deep in cheap Iraqi oil and some government members implicated in oil-for-food graft.

Talk about derriere-deep... how about Bush and Saudi Arabia?

What could have been more craven? How about this: lying to start a war in order to be re-elected as a "sitting war president." "Sitting-war" is right. He sits while the TROOPS are at war, he naps while the troops are at war, he golfs, he fishes, he clears brush, we gets ever more cozy with King Faud...

What's worse than killing 1,900 GIs for nothing? This very site is replete with condemnations of Iraq becoming a haven for terrorism, and predictions that it will soon be yet another Sharia hellhole where women without veils have acid splashed in their faces and Christians are made to suffer to the point of "compulsion-less" conversion or "voluntary" exile.

Like I said above: France is our ally. That's why they have 3,500 troops in Afghanistan compared to our 13,000 (1-to-3.7 ratio) yet have 60 million citizens alongside our 280 million (a 1-to-4.7 ratio)... that means that France is MORE committed to the war in Afghanistan that America. Why? Because "WE" are committed to letting the Shia majority of Iraq "democratically" vote in Sharia.

As for Bush and the Saudis -- he looked anything but happy holding hands with the Prince and neither did the Prince.

He's the King now, in case you haven't heard.

Bush looked unhappy? If he was unhappy, why did he do it? I thought he was a man of his word? I thought he said what he meant and meant what he said... didn't he say something about "in the war on terror, you're either with us or against us"?

Is Saudi "with us" in the war on terror? Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald say they aren't. Maybe you and Dub know better.

(Probably a case of hold your friends close and your enemies closer.)

Wasn't that Don Corleone's adage? Do you really want to ascribe that kind of mentality to Precious Leader? Then why doesn't he kiss and hold hands with Fidel Castro? Or Kim Il Jong? Or Chirac?

Listen, Dragon: the problem is that the Bush family and the royalty of Saudi Arabia are waaaaay too cozy. The same has been said here many times, and not just by me. YOU can lie, dissemble, and speculate for Dim Son all you want.

Keeping his enemies closer.... aww, that's so sweet. You've got quite an imagination when it comes to protecting Dub, much like Rush Limbaugh's "Ten Definitions Of Sorry" after Dub apologized to China after THEY shot down OUR greatest spyplane. And arrested the crew. And kept the plane for months. But hey, Hillary is the Maoist, right? And Bill sold the Chi-coms secrets, right? Ken Starr will be arresting Bill any day now.

I'll remember this episode in 2008 when you bring up Hillary kissing Arafat's ho. Which by then will be about 10 years in the past (which was WELL before the advent of the"war on terror" and "you're either with us or against us" btw.)

And dragon.... Frank Zappa* said that NOBODY looks good in brown lipstick.

*--actually an Arab American, son of a Sicilian woman and a Greek Arab immigrant to Sicily, both of whom moved to America before Frank's birth.

*************************************************
The Palestinians have stamps? Who knew.

Oh yes, they've had stamps for some time now. And coinage. These are offered up as proof by my liberal (and some not-so-liberal) brethren that "palestine" was a nation prior to the "Jewish invasion."

My usual response is to point out that Hong Kong had stamps and coins too (I used to carry an old brass Hong Kong threepence coin but I think my daughter threw it into a wishing well or one of those "vortex" coin thingies they have in children's museums) but Hong Kong wasn't a sovereign nation: it was a British possesion. The Brits legally acquired it from China, a lease agreement that China honored for it's hundred-year duration. Likewise England came to POSSESS the region of Palestine in a treaty with the leaders of the Ottoman Empire. Suddenly when England gave part of it to the Jews, no one wanted to honor the treaty.

*******************************************

You'll probably be telling me about how Arabs have taken control of the UN and the Western Media.

Yes they have. Money talks. If you think that oil controls America, why would you think that oil doesn't control the whole world? The Arabs most certainly have taken over the UN... that's why they spend so much time discussing the "racist", "apartheid nation" of Israel and the Zionist-are-taking-over-the-world-and-have-declared-war-on-Islam crap. That's why they spend billions on "palestine" and practically nothing in Bangladesh. That's why the criticize Israel for "not protecting the children of 'palestine'" and laugh Israel to scorn when it suggests that "palestine" should stop murdering Israeli children. That's why they condemn Israel's Security Barrier and say nothing about "palestinian freedom fighters" murdering Israelis and then running back to civilian areas to hide from the IDF. That's why they are STILL talking about Sabra, Chatilla, and the USS Liberty.

That's why the United Nothing helps neither the Christians of Sudan, nor the Hindus of Kashmir/Pakistan/Bangladesh, nor the minorities of any Muslim nation, Arab or otherwise.

Posted by: kj at September 22, 2005 5:15 PM

Alwaleed bin Talal http://www.nndb.com/people/242/000094957/

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 22, 2005 5:16 PM

ia786,

How do you feel about the oppression of Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities in Islamic countries?

What do you think of lack of human rights for Copts in Egypt?

Or the government of Egypt providing them equal opportunities.

If Muslims all over the world are allowed build and repair mosques them why can't a Christian do the same even in Mecca or Medina.

France may not be taken over by Palestinians, but more and more everyday ever French I talk to believes that Muslim immigrants "would take control of France" by there refusal to accept the secular laws of their home countries.

Don't you believe that Islamophobia ( fear of being murdered by Islam) is justified when people in the name of Islam smash planes full of women and children into buildings.

Oh I'm sorry, don't a majority of Muslims believe it was the Jews that did it?

Don't dare to talk about Islamophobia as a bad thing tome, a New Yorker who witnessed first hand the falling bodies that fell from the tower , all victims to those who would follow the true meaning of the words of the Prophet Mohammed.

And across America and across the world many more such as myself , everyday are sounding the alarm to Islam.

You can not hide the truth about Islam Not even with (sarcasm). What you should be doing is to look into yourself and find the courage to transform Islam into a true religion of peace.

ia789 do you really want to follow a religion founded by a man who would use the sword to spread it's message, even today.

Put down"the sword of the prophet" and choose the path of true peace!

You should consider if Islam really the right faith to believe.

Posted by: thecid at September 22, 2005 5:48 PM

King
I come across to you as gamey King because I despise you and I'm ashamed to call you a fellow American. You are a greater enemy to my country and me than the Islamic death cult. For if you and your ilk had your way, you would naively open the doors of this country to the Islamic barbarians. You are so morally corrupt that you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong and in your clumsy attempts to morally equivalize the actions of America and her sworn enemies, you threaten our very existence as a nation of freedom loving peoples.
This site and the posters here have realized the threat the west (and more importantly mankind) is under and have decided to do something about it. We are taking action by exposing and talking about this threat. You on the other hand, seem quit happy to sit on your ass and just condemn and ostracize this site and it’s posters who have the courage to speak out against this evil ideology. In my opinion that doesn’t make you a “King for Tolerance”, that makes you a cowardly American jerk.
You have ZERO credibility on this site, and contribute absolutely nothing of value because you have no debating skills and you are ignorant on the subject matter. And for these reasons and your insistance on coming back here again and again, I will give you no quarter.

Posted by: William The Crusader at September 22, 2005 5:50 PM

....another funny point is that France has banned the burqua while Oklahomer, Alaska, Mississippi, etc. WON'T. Hmmmm. Must be populated by left-wing lib'rul dhimmis.

It's WAY past time to ban the burkha in the US. It's an insult to every woman on the face of this planet.

And to those who would say I'm being "culturally insensitive":

Personal preference in modesty is one thing. Trying to eradicate a woman's humanity by stuffing her into one of those ghost bags is something else entirely.

Come on NOW, NARAL, it's time to realize who the real enemy is!

Posted by: treehugger at September 22, 2005 5:53 PM

My goal is to have my picture put on all of their dartboards, archery, and shooting gallery targets.

Posted by: DCWatson at September 22, 2005 6:33 PM

Don't look now, Abu Mazen, but there seems to be just a hint of a Star of David in the background of the Chirac-without-the-assassin stamp. There in the upper-left corner, just sort of shaded in there. See?

LOL. 'Tards.

Posted by: Cato the Elder at September 22, 2005 6:37 PM

Let's not forget, kj, that the trail of trips-ups, screw-ups and secret negotiations goes right thru the Clinton Administration also. What with:

F.A.A. Alerted on Qaeda in '98, 9/11 Panel Said (more lapses by the Clinton admin)
NY Times ^ | 9/14/05 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

Posted on 09/13/2005 8:30:24 PM PDT by Cableguy

American aviation officials were warned as early as 1998 that Al Qaeda could "seek to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark," according to previously secret portions of a report prepared last year by the Sept. 11 commission. The officials also realized months before the Sept. 11 attacks that two of the three airports used in the hijackings had suffered repeated security lapses.

Federal Aviation Administration officials were also warned in 2001 in a report prepared for the agency that airport screeners' ability to detect possible weapons had "declined significantly" in recent years, but little was done to remedy the problem, the Sept. 11 commission found.

And:

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.

By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

and:

Able Danger's hidden hand
By Jack Kelly
August 15, 2005

The report of the September 11 Commission, once a best seller and hailed by the news media as the definitive word on the subject, must now be moved to the fiction shelves.
The commission concluded, you'll recall, that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon couldn't have been prevented, and that if there was negligence, it was as much the fault of the Bush administration (for moving slowly on the recommendations of Clinton counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke) than of the Clinton administration.
Able Danger has changed all of that.
Able Danger was a military intelligence unit set up by Special Operations Command in 1999. A year before the September 11 attacks, Able Danger identified hijack leader Mohamed Atta and the other members of his cell. But Clinton administration officials stopped them -- three times -- from sharing this information with the FBI.
The problem was the order Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick made forbidding intelligence operatives from sharing information with criminal investigators.
"They were stopped because the lawyers at that time in 2000 told them Mohamed Atta had a green card (he didn't) and they could not go after someone with a green card," said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, who brought the existence of Able Danger to light.
The military spooks knew only that Atta and his confederates had links to al Qaeda. They hadn't unearthed their mission. But if the FBI had kept tabs on them (a big if, given the nature of the FBI at the time), September 11 almost certainly could have been prevented.
What may be a bigger scandal is that the staff of the September 11 Commission knew of Able Danger and what it had found, but made no mention of it in its report. This is as if the commission that investigated the attack on Pearl Harbor had written its final report without mentioning the Japanese.
Mr. Weldon unveiled Able Danger in a speech on the House floor June 27, but his remarks didn't attract attention until the New York Times reported on them Tuesday.
When the story broke, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, at first denied the commission had ever been informed of what Able Danger had found, and took a swipe at Mr. Weldon's credibility:
"The September 11 Commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of the surveillance of Mohamed Atta or his cell," Mr. Hamilton said. "Had we learned of it, obviously it would have been a major focus of our investigation."
Mr. Hamilton changed his tune after the New York Times reported Thursday, and the Associated Press confirmed, that commission staff had been briefed on Able Danger in October of 2003 and again in July of 2004.
It was in October of 2003 that Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives and destroyed some. Mr. Berger allegedly was studying documents in the archives to help prepare Clinton officials to testify before the September 11 Commission. Was he removing references to Able Danger? Someone should ask him before he is sentenced next month.
After having first denied that staff had been briefed on Able Danger, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said no reference was made to it in the final report because "it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks," the AP reported.
The only dispute over Atta's whereabouts is whether he was in Prague on April 9, 2001, to meet with Samir al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer.
Czech intelligence insists he was. Able Danger, apparently, had information supporting the Czechs.
The CIA, and the September 11 Commission, say Atta wasn't in Prague April 9, because his cell phone was used in Florida that day. But there is no evidence of who used the phone. Atta could have lent it to a confederate. (It wouldn't have worked in Europe anyway.)
But acknowledging that possibility would leave open the likelihood that Saddam's regime was involved in, or at least had foreknowledge of, the September 11 attacks. And that would have been as uncomfortable for Democrats as the revelation that September 11 could have been prevented if it hadn't been for the Clinton administration's wall of separation.
The September 11 Commission wrote history as it wanted it to be, not as it was. The real history of what happened that terrible September day has yet to be written.

Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette.

and:

Bill Clinton's Missed Chances To Take Out Osama Bin Laden
With the fourth anniversary of the September 11th attacks already upon us, the Qatar-based TV station AlJazeera will be running a series of programmes which will put to the test claims by fans of the Clinton administration that the Democrats did all within their power to neutralise the threat of Osama bin Laden. AlJazera's investigations have discovered numerous occasions between 1998 and 2000 when the Clinton administration had bin Laden in their sights but allowed him to walk free.

In 1999, bin Laden was filmed by a unmanned Predator aircraft near Khost in eastern Afghanistan. A former CIA officer, Michael Scheuer, has told the station: "We had no doubt over his identity. Bin Laden can clearly be seen standing out from the rest of the group next to the buildings." Nobody at the top of the CIA wanted to take the decision to arm the Predator. It meant that even if we could find him we were not allowed to kill him."

On one incident where Cruise missles were launched against bin Laden, by the time the White House and the Pentagon had agreed to launch the missiles, bin Laden's party had moved on. Bin Laden's group on that occasion was reported to include a number of minor princes from the United Arab Emirates. According to Scheuer, a senior member of the Emirates royal family had been informed of the impending attack by Clinton's senior counter-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke. By the time the missiles were launched, bin Laden and his group had moved on. According to Scheuer, "All that was left was a pile of burning garbage in the desert. It’s hardly surprising that they pulled out so quickly and that we lost our chance to kill Bin Laden."

The AlJazeera investigations also shed further light on the claims that the Clinton administration turned down an offer of assistance from the Sudanese government to arrest and extradite bin Laden when he was living in Khartoum. Clinton refused to Sudanese offer and bin Laden moved to Afghanistan.

and:

Posner: Clinton’s Negligence Led to 9/11
Dave Eberhart and NewsMax.com Staff
Thursday, Sept. 4, 2003
Best-selling author Gerald Posner says much of the blame for 9/11 and the U.S. government’s negligence falls squarely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton and his administration.
In a stunning revelation made in his just released “Why America Slept: the Failure to Prevent 9/11” – Posner asserts the disaster of Sept. 11 could have been prevented and that President Clinton passed on more than one opportunity to arrest or kill Osama bin Laden.

Posner describes one incident in 1996 when Clinton passed on an easy opportunity to nab bin Laden.

“When bin Laden leaves the Sudan on a chartered commercial airliner with 150 of his top aides and his family, he goes to Qatar to refuel on his way to Pakistan,” Posner recounted to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Wednesday night.

Posner continued: “And Qatar, being an ally of the U.S. calls up and says ‘what should we do with this guy?’

“And the word comes back from the top of the [Clinton] administration ‘let him land and proceed on to Pakistan.’”

Posner’s revelations come on top of one previously reported on NewsMax.com - that Clinton himself admitted he turned down an offer by Sudanese authorities to have bin Laden extradited in 1996.

But Posner’s revelations show just how close U.S. authorities came to capturing bin Laden – but was allowed to go free and implement a worldwide terror spree.

“Why America Slept” paints a picture of gross negligence from the Clinton administration.

“We just weren't focused on Islamic militants,” Posner told NBC’s Katie Couric Wednesday, explaining, “You had President Clinton in an eight-year period, there was two years he met with the head of the CIA twice. That was it. He just wasn't attuned to foreign policy or the issue of terrorism.”

Posner told O’Reilly his investigation of Clinton’s handling of bin Laden left him disgusted.

“This is from a fellow who voted twice for Clinton,” a repentant Posner said. “I wouldn’t do it again.”

Posner argues that had the Republicans been in charge in the 90s, he would have demanded the same accountability.

“I was infuriated. My blood kept boiling as I realized that eight of these ten years leading up to 9/11 were under his watch – and the job that was done was just terrible.”

Posner doesn’t buy arguments that bin Laden was not perceived as a great threat in 1996.

He notes that the CIA came to Clinton with significant evidence about bin Laden before 1996. “He didn’t put bin Laden on the wanted list until 1996, and he doesn’t pull the trigger time and time again.”

Posner is angered that instead of honing up to their culpability for 9/11, Clinton and top aides have been engaging in a false, “revisionist history.”

“You have Berger, you have Albright, and you have Clinton saying this was priority one; we wanted bin Laden with everything we had.”

Saudi Role

What was in those infamous 28 pages censored from Washington's official report on 9/11? Gerald Posner makes some startling revelations in “Why America Slept.”

Posner not only weaves a riveting tale of U.S. intelligence blunders that led to 9/11, he also makes the shocking disclosure of a Saudi-Pakistani-Osama terrorism triangle that should cause U.S. leaders to re-assess exactly who our friends are.

Posner, a former Wall Street lawyer and award-winning author of eight books on subjects ranging from Nazi war criminals, to assassinations (he debunked claims of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination), to the careers of politicians, spent 18 months investigating 9/11 -- uncovering explosive new evidence through interviews and in classified documents.

He reveals in “Why America Slept:"

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had foreknowledge that a terrorist attack was scheduled for September 11, 2001 on U.S. soil.

A startling account of the interrogation of one of bin Laden’s most senior aides, Abu Zubaydah. He is thought to have been in operational control of al-Qaeda's millennium bomb plots, as well as the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000.

Facts about a series of deaths that point to an ongoing effort by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to hide the extent of their earlier relationships with al-Qaida.

Details about a secret deal made between Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden more than a decade ago - keep your militant fundamentalists away from the Kingdom and we will help fund you.

How the U.S. government under Bill Clinton missed several chances to kill or capture bin Laden.

Evidence that German intelligence may have protected an informant who was involved with many of the 9/11 plotters.

How the CIA tracked - and then lost - two of the hijackers when they entered the United States more than twenty months before the attacks.

The devastating consequences of the crippling rivalry between the CIA and FBI as the United States moved unwittingly toward 9/11.
In his dramatic narrative, Posner exposes the frequent mistakes made by law enforcement and government agencies, and demonstrates how the failures to prevent 9/11 were tragically not an exception but typical.

Along the way, by delving into terror financing, the links between far-flung terror organizations, and how the United States responded over the years to other attacks, Posner also makes a damning case that 9/11 could have been prevented.

Special Interrogation

Posner graphically reveals how U.S. interrogators used drugs to make Zubaydah talk.

When the questioning falters, CIA operatives spirit him to an Afghan complex rigged as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, use more drugs and threats to scare him into revealing his secrets.

At one defining point when accused of lying, Zubaydah responds by erupting with the details of a Saudi-Pakistani-Osama triangle of intrigue.

He ticks off telephone numbers of a senior member of the royal family, that of Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd. The Saudi connection was through Prince Turki Al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom’s intelligence chief.

Further, he reveals how bin Laden had personally told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let Laden leave Saudi and provide him with funds to keep al-Qaida away from the kingdom.

The Pakistani contact, Air Force chief Mushaf Ali Mir, enters the conspiracy at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan. Bin Laden cuts a deal with Mir, who was tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan’s ISI to provide protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaida.

In the end, Posner reveals how the conspirators lose their lives -- seriatim.

On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed dies of a heart attack at 43; a day later Prince Turki, 41, is killed in “a high-speed car accident.” The last member, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, mysteriously perishes of thirst while traveling east of Riyadh - just a week after. Finally, seven months later, Mir perishes in a plane crash.

While the details of the terrorism triangle form the explosive heart of Posner's examination of who did what wrong before Sept. 11, most is a lucid analysis of how the CIA, FBI and U.S. leaders missed a decade's worth of clues and opportunities - if heeded, Posner postulates, might have foiled the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Since 9/11, one important question has persisted: What was really going on behind the scenes with intelligence services and government leaders during the time preceding the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks?

For sure, the official investigation stops far short of the new revelations offered by Posner.

--------

kj, I'd love to see you have a chat with King Tolerance.

Going to be a very busy next few days, take care everyone!

Posted by: Gary at September 22, 2005 6:43 PM

Kingky:I love that any attempt to somehow bring the world together (even with postage stamps) is met with outrage here.

Now thats so funny I almost fell off the chair laughing. Kingky thinks a dead terrorist and a dubious French official holding hands on a postage stamp is an attempt to bring the world together. Pay close attention...thats a real insight into a mind clouded with kingkology.
Dont worry, Kingkology is not contageous. Pieces of it fly around here a lot, but they never land anywhere..

And kj...I didn't know Chirac kissed booth in the garden. Maybe these guys just run around hugging and kissing a lot. You know, 'very affectionate'. I wonder if Condi kissed him, or better yet Hillary? Probably not Hillary, Bill kissed those princes enough for both of them when he was in. Why do you think all these high officials stand in line to kiss Saudi's and hold hands with terrorists? We might be able to figure out why Bush was kissing the King, But Chirac? I thought he was a mans man. And why Yasser? Ugly dude...Abdullah was better looking...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 22, 2005 6:56 PM

I don't think the Arab and Muslim world should stop with Chirac. There are so many others to thank. What about a "Great American Ambassadors" series in Saudi Arabia -- James Akins, John C. West, and all the others who worked so heroically on behalf of Saudi Arabia's image in the United States? Or perhaps it should be expanded to list "Great Americans" so that Paul Finley, Eugene Bird (who never rose terribly high in the Foreign Service), Raymond Close, and others might be honored. And there could be still another series for other countries --"Great Britons" -- Jonathan Aitken, Robert Fisk, Jonathan Dimbleby, John Pilger, Orla Guerin, John Simpson of the BBC, Edward Mortimer ("Senior Adviser" to Kofi Annan), and so many others. In France -- well, to get the right names there just buy a copy of "Putain de la Republique" and look around, beginning but not ending with Roland Dumas.

Libya could issue two stamps -- one for Edwin Wilson, one for Billy Carter. Oh hell, make that three -- one for Jimmy, too. He's done so much for the world, and asked so little attention, so little recognition, for it. No, he did NOT want a Nobel Prize -- he did nothing to lobby for it, absolutely nothing.

Syria could have its Great War Criminals series, beginning with some of the Nazis they harbored, but then so could Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia. Possibilities are endless.

A "Great Reverts" series could be a very nice way to celebrate the more unfortunate among us, the psychically marginal of the Western world, from Leopold Weiss and St. John Philby (father of Kim), to Roger Garaudy and Cat Stephens and right up through John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid and Jose Padilla and David Hicks.

It would all be stirring.

And think of how many eager new stamp-collectors these new series of stamps would produce -- better than Farley's National Parkss for getting young boys from Gaza to Riyadh, from Marrakech to Karachi, all fired up as philatelists.

But perhaps, first, Al-Qaradawi should tell us his opinion. Is it okay for a Muslim to collect stamps issued by Infidel nations? Is it okay for a Muslim to collect stamps that were on envelopes mailed to an Infidel nation, and which an Infidel hand has touched (along with Qaradawi's reply for Sunnis, we shall have to seek a ruling on the possible "uncleanness" of such stamps from a Shi'a cleric in Qom)?

This could be instructive.

Posted by: Hugh at September 22, 2005 8:55 PM

I don't think the Arab and Muslim world should stop with Chirac. There are so many others to thank. What about a "Great American Ambassadors" series in Saudi Arabia -- James Akins, John C. West, and all the others who worked so heroically on behalf of Saudi Arabia's image in the United States? Or perhaps it should be expanded to list "Great Americans" so that Paul Finley, Eugene Bird (who never rose terribly high in the Foreign Service), Raymond Close, and others might be honored. And there could be still another series for other countries --"Great Britons" -- Jonathan Aitken, Robert Fisk, Jonathan Dimbleby, John Pilger, Orla Guerin, John Simpson of the BBC, Edward Mortimer ("Senior Adviser" to Kofi Annan), and so many others. In France -- well, to get the right names there just buy a copy of "Putain de la Republique" and look around, beginning but not ending with Roland Dumas.

Libya could issue two stamps -- one for Edwin Wilson, one for Billy Carter. Oh hell, make that three -- one for Jimmy, too. He's done so much for the world, and asked so little attention, so little recognition, for it. No, he did NOT want a Nobel Prize -- he did nothing to lobby for it, absolutely nothing.

Syria could have its Great War Criminals series, beginning with some of the Nazis they harbored, but then so could Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia. Possibilities are endless.

A "Great Reverts" series could be a very nice way to celebrate the more unfortunate among us, the psychically marginal of the Western world, from Leopold Weiss and St. John Philby (father of Kim), to Roger Garaudy and Cat Stephens and right up through John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid and Jose Padilla and David Hicks.

It would all be stirring.

And think of how many eager new stamp-collectors these new series of stamps would produce -- better than Farley's National Parkss for getting young boys from Gaza to Riyadh, from Marrakech to Karachi, all fired up as philatelists.

But perhaps, first, Al-Qaradawi should tell us his opinion. Is it okay for a Muslim to collect stamps issued by Infidel nations? Is it okay for a Muslim to collect stamps that were on envelopes mailed to an Infidel nation, and which an Infidel hand has touched (along with Qaradawi's reply for Sunnis, we shall have to seek a ruling on the possible "uncleanness" of such stamps from a Shi'a cleric in Qom)? Is it okay for a Muslim to collect stamps at all? And if so, may girls do it too, or would it somehow corrupt them?

The answers could be instructive. As those of you who visit Muslim websites to see the Ask-the-Imam section, you can learn a great deal about Islam from those questions, and those answers.

This could be instructive.

Posted by: Hugh at September 22, 2005 8:56 PM

Hugh,

You know what a Bac is!
Very cosmopolitan.

Benjamin

Posted by: Benjamin at September 22, 2005 9:10 PM

I don't know if KJ is right, but damn he writes well and knows a lot. I wonder if he is a well-known blogger?

Did everyone hear what Christopher Hitchens said about Chirac? That he is so corrupt he would pay for the pleasure of selling himself!

Posted by: eduardo odraude at September 22, 2005 9:53 PM

M. Chirac est un anus exécrable !

Posted by: jsla at September 22, 2005 10:55 PM

Benedict may not agree with that reading of the previous pope's record, but he certainly agrees with the need for clarity on terrorism and religious liberty. It's no accident that in his recent meeting with Muslims in Cologne, those were precisely the two matters he brought up. He issued a lengthy appeal to combat terrorism, and then stated that a culture that does not honor religious freedom is not worthy of being called a civilization; the implied upshot was that states under shariah, or Islamic religious law, are not truly civilized.

The Fallaci audience, therefore, comes across as another sign that in his approach to Islam, Benedict XVI is likely to take a somewhat more explicitly "hawkish" line than his predecessor.
http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 22, 2005 11:40 PM

Darn, where's a puke bucket when you need one?!

Posted by: US_infidel at September 23, 2005 12:13 AM

Has anyone else noticed that these two brown eyed mullets King Tolerance and ia786 seem to appear on this blog at the same time and seem to go away at the same time for the same period of time?

Posted by: Unbridled at September 23, 2005 12:21 AM

Oh, no, somebody has let the syphlitic Mohammaden monkey out of its cage again.

"Americanos still have slaves, especially in the Far East. Slavery is alive today and the Americans are bringing only more and more misery to the vulnerable people. Why is America spreading White supremacy across the World, why does America aim to hold other non-White people back, please tell me. ............ America is forcing White supremacy on the rest of the World. The US is easily the most hated and feared country in the World. Even in Europe the image of the US is in tatters. Global warming, globalisation, slavery, looting, murdering, poisoning, the dropping of nukes on Non-White innocents, TWICE, the raping of French girls and women in WW2. The use of DU and Cluster bombs.
The total disregard for human life."

Question:

Where did this come from?

A. Osama Bin Laden's latest video
B. A London suicide bomber's last letter to the world
C. A speech by Ayatollah Khomeini
D. A sermon given by Omar Bakri Mohammed
E. A posting by ia786 on DW

If you answred E., (that "moderate Muslim" from Jolly Olde England) - congratulations! You've won a three month holiday to any Muslim country of your choice, or $25.00 cash....

What's that??? You want the 25 bucks?

Are you mad?

Posted by: Timbo at September 23, 2005 5:24 AM

I don't know why they bother coming here, I am about half way through Eurabia by Bat Ye'or and it is filling in a lot of missing pieces, it most certainly is and is chilling and terifying, I don't listen to people such as them, I read and make my own mind up, having a very good knowledge of history and current affairs also helps, it becomes pretty obvious what is going on.

I am totally stunned at how spineless and stupid Europe has been since the 1970's, I did not realise, but it makes sense now with this book. 35 years of destructive policies that will destroy our freedom and replace it with submission to Allah.

I know what needs to be done, I have worked out a strategy that would deal with the situation, but our leaders have not got there yet, if at all. So we will lose.

I will get on with my life, forget about saving for a pension (what is the point), drink and eat well, heart attack in 20 years will be my target, buy what I want, 43-inch flat screen here I come and make sure my kids emigrate to the USA. At least the Islamofacists won't (hopefully) have got to the stage where they can destroy my life as a European before the hardened arteries get me.

Hopefully my children in the USA will be safe and the Islamofacists removed from there, I have faith in the USA, I have no faith in Europe.

So from that comment you can get the understanding that I think we have already lost in Europe, there is no will and no backbone, we have men of Straw leading us. Therefore Europe will just keep on declining, pay too much to its current generation and the social security hangers on, bankrupt itself and leave nothing to the Islamofacists (hopefully.) Its military is a joke and its technology and industry is failing, in 20 years it will be a sad hole, with Islamofacists prowling the streets for infidels to rob and kill and play with.

Europe is now a pathetic shadow of what was once a great civilisation, well done to those stupid European national and unelected EU leaders over the last 35 years, just because they could not stand up to the threat to our oil supply and develop an alternative supply using technology and a bit of strategic foresight.

Posted by: Daffersd at September 23, 2005 6:26 AM

City of Faris is overcrowded and inefficient government has done nothing for the citizens. Faris is an Arabic word, meaning horseman or a knight. Twenty years ago, at the beginning of Islamic movement, suicide bombers used to ride horses and blow themselves up in the middle of the crowd. To honor those brave souls, it was decided that the name of this city would be changed to Faris. This also helps the Arabs, the new masters of the country to pronounce it. They do not have "P" in their alphabet. 1400 years earlier, they changed Parsi into Farsi when they invaded and subdued Iran.

At the beginning of this century, this country had a population of about 60 million of which 10% or 6 million were Muslims, far more than 2% of protestant and 1% of Jews. Although 83% of population were Roman Catholic, their birthrate was awfully low, merely .35% compared to 3% of Muslims. At the end of 2070, Muslims from all over the country moved to five Northwest regions. Soon high birthrates and the flood of Muslim immigrant outnumbered others.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:MbtSS3y2h6cJ:www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan40829.htm+veiled+venus+sher+khan&hl=en

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 23, 2005 8:45 AM

Daffersd,

Hopefully my children in the USA will be safe and the Islamofacists removed from there

Islamofascists? Wouldn't "moslems" be more to the point?

Posted by: thomas. h at September 23, 2005 8:56 AM

Keith:

As always, virtually all of your characterizations are inaccurate and unfair, but who has time to fisk them all? I don't.

But one idle question: why hasn't the PA put Bush on a stamp?

Cordially
RS

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 23, 2005 9:15 AM

KJ:

I'm no great fan of Bush. I'm just sickened by your obvious blindness. Nader a Republican?

Spencer: your "idle question" was worth a thousand fiskings.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 23, 2005 9:25 AM

"France helped us during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War (I think but I could be wrong there), World Wars One and Two; France helped us in Dessert Storm, France helped us in Beirut (they lost 79 Marines the same time that we lost 241, again more per capita than us... mayhap they have better memories and were thinking of this event when Dub went groveling to the UN for help invading a nation that couldn't possibly attack us) and France is helping us in Afghanistan."

Breaking this down to cases: France aided the United States against the British in the American Revolution, but for her own interests and not ours, its interest being the long-standing conflict and rivalry between the two nations. During the Civil War, France aided the Confederate states, selling arms and material, coming within a hair's breadth of diplomatic recognition, which likely would have ended the war on the basis of seperation. WWI and WWII are laughable. France did not "help us," we helped them, seeing as they were not far from collapse in WWI and rolled over and played dead in WWII. Desert Storm was aided by the French Foreign Legion, about the only military unit they have that's worth a cop, notable as only its officers (and not all of them) are French.

As for attacking nations that can't attack us, what is your opinion on Clinton playing bounty hunter in Somalia and his bombing the former Yugoslavia -- these were nations that "could not attack us."

As for the UN, it is a hidebound and mordibund bureaucracy, riddled with corruption and third-world incompetants, as evidenced both by recent events and by such matters as the looting of Turtle Bay last time they had a prolonged power outage. The practice of hiring based on quotas and nepotism and not competancy has driven the UN to the brink.

Posted by: Cthulhu at September 23, 2005 9:36 AM

"How do you feel about the oppression of Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities in Islamic countries?"

appalled.

"What do you think of lack of human rights for Copts in Egypt?"

appalling.

"Or the government of Egypt providing them equal opportunities."

I believe in equal opportunities for all.

"If Muslims all over the world are allowed build and repair mosques them why can't a Christian do the same even in Mecca or Medina."

You are comparing things that are different. Churches and Mosques should be allowed to be built across the World, I believe that. In England as far as I know Mosques are built when they are needed. That is, if there are a certain amount of Muslims in an area. Where I live, for example we have a few Mosques, we also have Churches, Gurdwaras and Temples. Now why would a someone want to build a Church in Makkah or Medina. Those are Islamic holy sites. That is the most sacred place for Muslims. When it comes to religiously sacred areas (Vatican) there will always be tension so I think it is best to avoid that.

"France may not be taken over by Palestinians, but more and more everyday ever French I talk to believes that Muslim immigrants "would take control of France" by there refusal to accept the secular laws of their home countries."

Huh??? That doesn't mean anything. Just one person saying some other guys said this.

"Don't you believe that Islamophobia ( fear of being murdered by Islam) is justified when people in the name of Islam smash planes full of women and children into buildings."

Erm……..No. You are willing to make all Muslim’s lives as hard and difficult as possible because you are afraid of being killed by some fanatics. What about discrimination in schools and the workplace, equal opportunities, you would oppose that for Muslims?

When terrorists attack civilians and whatever they kill Muslims too. They kill just for the sake of it, bombs don't discriminate between people of different faiths. When I'm in London I have an equal chance of being blown into pieces. I know that everyday, so what, doesn't mean anything to me. I personally believe the threat is exaggerated, but I do admit there is a threat.

How many Muslims commit terrorist attacks?

"Oh I'm sorry, don't a majority of Muslims believe it was the Jews that did it?"

How can you say that? (Islamophobia)

"Don't dare to talk about Islamophobia as a bad thing tome, a New Yorker who witnessed first hand the falling bodies that fell from the tower , all victims to those who would follow the true meaning of the words of the Prophet Mohammed."

I am sorry that you had to see that. It was a very sad day.

However you are making assumptions, you assume the attacks were committed by those following the words of the Prophet. Well, where does Islam allow drinking and visiting strip clubs (hijackers). I have asked before and received absolutely nothing but copy and pastes jobs. Terrorism cannot be justified in Islam, Quran verses taken out of context, hadiths taken out of context. Its all the same and then you wonder why you guys aren't taken seriously.

How many Muslims in the World don't commit terrorist attacks. How many practise Islam peacefully. What does that say? It says alot.

"You can not hide the truth about Islam Not even with (sarcasm). What you should be doing is to look into yourself and find the courage to transform Islam into a true religion of peace."

I have no fear. Islam is there for all, as is the Quran and hadith. I practise Islam peacefully as do more than a Billion Muslims across the World. Islam has brought me closer to God and has transformed me into a better human being, I always strive to help and do good to those around me. Again you don't know me so you won't be able to comment.

"ia789 do you really want to follow a religion founded by a man who would use the sword to spread it's message, even today."

I believe that Prophet Muhammad was the last messenger sent by God. Now as I stated, I practise Islam peacefully. The core Message of Islam is peace. I have been brought up in a mixed place, I have been to Churches, I studied Christianity and have great respect for Christians as they are very nice people. Now I hate extremism in all its forms, I'm a simple guy that just wants to live a simple life. I have no problem with those of other religions and I'm sure they have no problem with me.

"Put down"the sword of the prophet" and choose the path of true peace!

You should consider if Islam really the right faith to believe."

Your advice is sincere and I thank you for that. I believe that all religions lead to God and goodness. Islam is the way for me, that is the path I have chosen. Now your path may be different but I am sure that if we are both good human being we will be together when Jesus returns.

Take it easy mate.

Posted by: ia786 at September 23, 2005 12:02 PM

If I had a vote, I'd take Ia over KT any day.

Posted by: Gary at September 23, 2005 12:25 PM

kj,

Since when is/was David Horowitz an "Ivy league professor"?

Posted by: Cornelius at September 23, 2005 12:37 PM

Cornelius~ maybe he played piano fortissimo. (A pun and I wasn't even trying... gotta keep in this good mood).

Posted by: Gary at September 23, 2005 12:39 PM

"Your advice is sincere and I thank you for that. I believe that all religions lead to God and goodness..."
-- from a posting above

It is this kind of sentimental nonsense, shared by many non-Muslims, that anything called "religion" must be a Good Thing, that has helped prevent those same non-Muslims from going beyond the outward aspect of Islam --- assorted rituals of worship, monotheism, that sort of thing -- that make it appear to be akin to the other monotheisms, or to the other "World Religions" (i.e. religions with a large number of followers) when in fact it is quite different.

Christians and Jews, Muslims tell us, have a lot in common with Muslims. If by a "lot in common" one means that Islam has appropriated all of the major figures, the holy sites, many of the stories and even some of the phrases, to be found in Judaism and Christianity (and given the origins of Islam, as a mishmash of both pre-Islamic pagan lore and elements of both pre-existing monotheisms, this is hardly surprising), sure. But the stance is one of appropriation. The Qur'an is uncreated and eternal. Islam always was, everyone was a Muslim -- Jesus, Moses, you name it.

And calling something a "religion" allows the politics and geopolitics of that "religion" to be obscured or hidden from view. Since Islam distinguishes clearly, is based on the distinction, exists to make much of the distinction, between Believer and Infidel, and insists that between the two, or rather between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, there must be uncompromising hostility until such time as the latter is incorporated into the former, it is silly for Infidels to take comfort in the idea that as a "religion" Islam cannot possibly be a threat. It possesses a politics and a geopolitics. It is, for Infidels, a permanent threat, no matter what gush is uttered by this or that individual Muslim, who for all I know, may even believe, or believe he believes, such stuff.

Meanwhile, don't be distracted from studying Islam, its tenets and the history of its conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, or of the treatment of non-Muslims this very day, all over the Muslim-controlled lands.

The dogs bark, the caravan (with its lending library) moves on.

Posted by: Hugh at September 23, 2005 1:11 PM

Quel horreur!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at September 23, 2005 1:49 PM

IA is such a lame...when asked...ia789 do you really want to follow a religion founded by a man who would use the sword to spread it's message, even today?" His responce was a one liner about believing Mohammad was the last messenger sent by God, then he goes on to talk about himself, and not Mohammad. In my estimation, he evaded the question...but whats new?

Posted by: duh_swami at September 23, 2005 1:56 PM

"kj, I'd love to see you have a chat with King Tolerance."

King: I'd love to! KJ is here to have stimulating exchange with others as am I.

Gary: "If I had a vote..."

King: You don't.

Daffersd: "At least the Islamofacists won't (hopefully) have got to the stage where they can destroy my life as a European before the hardened arteries get me."

King: I really do wonder if you mean this as you say?

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 23, 2005 4:02 PM

I don't understand the reason for honoring chirac, or any other dhimmi for that matter. It is unislamic to honor dhimmis. Their servitude is expected, demanded in fact, with no acknowledgement whatsoever. Now, of course I understand why the megathief arafat was so honored by the French. It is expected of the dhimmi.

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 23, 2005 4:53 PM

Ay, la filatelia, como me gusta!

It's strange how perennial Islamic non-achievement even extends itself to philately.

Any serious collector with a global (usually thematic) interest will tell you that the Muslim nations generally produce artless and conceptually dull issues. Your average Caribbean speck on the map produces more appealing and innovative products than all the Middle Eastern Arab nations put together.

The Lebanon (under Christian rule) used to be a philatelic gem, since the Islamic takeover its national philately has gone down the toilet. The golden age of Afghan philately was during the Soviet occupation. As for Europe, the most conceptually weak and lacklustre postal authorities easily include Albania, Turkish Cyprus and Turkey.

I could write more on the subject, but you get the general drift I guess.

Posted by: Timbo at September 23, 2005 9:47 PM

`I believe that all religions lead to God and goodness. Islam is the way for me, that is the path I have chosen. Now your path may be different but I am sure that if we are both good human being we will be together when Jesus returns`.... posted above by ia786

This is classic taqqiya.
Compare the poseur poster`s words with the DPM of Malaysia, supposedly the most `moderate` islamic country, and Head of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries):

`Dato' Seri Najib kicked the ball first to insist to insist none should openly debate if Muslims could slander the followers of other religions`
AND
`Non-Malays living in the vicinity of mosques in Kuala Lumpur hear this call to arms against the non-Muslims through high-pitches megaphones`

http://mggpillai.com/print.php3?sid=2049

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 23, 2005 11:42 PM

This article gives a much better and more true picture:

Gandhi's experiment with Islam and why it failed
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/HinduWoman40718.htm
`It was not that Gandhi was ignorant of Islamic fanaticism. He complained that Muslims are bullies and Hindus are cowards during riots.`..`Needless to say Gandhi's experiment with Islam failed. The results were disastrous for both Hindus and Muslims.
AND
`Let us see how the orthodox Muslims repaid Gandhi: In 1924, Mohammed Ali to whom Gandhi showed such affection said, : "However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character." In 1925 he emphasized: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi".

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 23, 2005 11:45 PM

Ia 786, it's good that you are appalled at the discrimination of Christians in Muslim lands, but you are a minority of Muslim opinion, My question was directed more at what are you doing to change that.
"
Do you as a "peaceful Muslim" renounce the parts of the Koran. where Mohammed calls for the the humiliation of infidels and Jihad. and if you that this is taken out of context, them explain how is that so, and what is the real context

Do you as a "peaceful Muslim" agree that if Islam is to respect the faith of others it must denounce the call to Jihad both violent and passive.

Do you as a "peaceful Muslim" accept the western concept of religious freedom so that if a group of Christians were to emigrate to Mecca they would be given the same rights as Muslims in Rome and allowed to build a Church. If this is not possible within the context of Islam, they why would you expect Christians to allow Muslims rights that you would not grant in return.

Do you as a "peaceful Muslim" renounce the notion that Islam is superior to my faith, or that for other them yourself, Islam is superior and must be enforced by the sword or Jihad.

The most important question that I have asked is, would have led me to believe that your practice of Islam us done in a peaceful way has not been answered.

Let me repeat it once again and give you the opportunity to convince me and the world.

Do you renounce any of the passages in the Koran were your prophet Mohammed calls for violence against infidels, conquest of infidel lands and Dihimmitude for those that do not submit (Islam) to the word of the Prophet.

No one on this site has any problems with truly peaceful Muslims, but first you must prove that peace is really in your heart and that requires action not just words,

Go in peace, and put down the sword of the prophet.

Posted by: thecid at September 23, 2005 11:53 PM

Classic Muslim bulls**t:

A. Offensive passages in the Koran are badly translated.

B. Verses are taken out of context.

C. We are also victims and potential victims of terrorists - just like you.

.............

According to the Guinness Book of Records English has the most vocabulary of any language. How can Arabic not be properly translated into English? Maybe the poetical slant would be lost in the translation - but not the meaning!

They never clarify what, when and how something has been badly translated or taken out of context.

In fact, ironically the Koranic verses that talk of pacifism are often the ones taken out of context.

For this I will give an example -

"Whoever kills a soul is like one who has killed the whole of mankind."

We were all told this after 9/11, were we not?

Just look at what Sura 5, Ayat 32 actually says:

... whoever kills a soul, not in retaliation for a soul or corruption in the land, is like one who has killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves a life is like one who saves the lives of all mankind.

What the hell is "corruption in the land" supposed to mean? It means anything a Muslim wants it to mean and is an open invitation to murder anybody. The gruesome verse goes on to read:

Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment.

Yikes!

Oh but sorry, I've taken it out of context! And "killed, crucified," should really have been translated as "given a Cornetto ice-cream".

For the final point (C), yes Muslims might get caught in the crossfire, but they also fuel the fire by proclaiming the perfection of the Koran.

I consider myself a Christian yet I reject certain parts of the Old Testament, I don't believe in Noah's Ark for example. Unless Muslims can take a similar pragmatic, easy-going and flexible attitude (not words readily associated with Muslims)towards the Koran and speak up about it (and 99% don't) then they are
simply brainwashing yet another generation to believe that many bellicose verses in the Koran are to be taken seriously in 21st Century England, Spain, Thailand, India, China, Russia etc..

If there were a million Muslims in Brazil, Japan or Argentina - these nations would all have a terrorist problem as well. The fact that they are peaceful nowadays is due to their wise immigration policies. I mean, hell, let's face it, wherever Muslims live they create trouble. If you read the Koran it becomes crystal clear why.

Muslims simply can't live with other communities. They must either dominate or fight.
They tell us that they are victims, and yet all they do is victimize. They tell us they are exploited, and yet tens of millions have shifted west to exploit us. They are the world's biggest liars and hypocrites.

Having non-Muslim friends (i.e. integrating into wider society) and admitting that parts of their religion should not be taken seriously (to promote peace) is just not an option for them. They insist on the righteousness of the Koran in its entirety, and then act all shocked when somebody they've brainwashed takes them seriously and murders a bunch of infidel commuters.

So what do we get instead of sensible Islamic revision? ... we get a pack of lies from the likes of ia786 and millions like him: "we're victims too, it's not translated right, it's out of context..." it's all garbage and the sad thing is, so many people accept their dubious excuses as facts.

Posted by: Timbo at September 24, 2005 4:56 AM

Actually, when you think about it the Chirac stamp is quite fitting.........it belongs with the other atrocitites the Palios celebrate in their postage stamps, who could forget the Al Dura stamp?

The image of a twelve-year-old Palestinian boy whose death scene was broadcast worldwide at the very onset of the so-called al-Aqsa intifada that broke out in September 2000. Televised images of the boy, reportedly killed by Israeli soldiers, instantly ignited anti-Israel and anti-Jewish passions all over the world, provoking a wave of violence from the lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah to synagogue burnings in France. In the ensuing years, the story of Muhammad al-Dura has attained near-mythic stature in the Arab and Muslim world.

When in fact, The IDF took the rap while the Arabs got away with murder!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/09/chirac_honored_.html#comments

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 24, 2005 7:31 AM

The Al Dura stamp can be viewed here:

http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/islam/who_shot_mohammed_al-dura.htm

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 24, 2005 7:34 AM

Brilliant post, Timbo! The truth guides your words.

Posted by: thecid at September 24, 2005 9:29 AM

Regarding the original subject--three words: Fiends of pi$$.

Posted by: Xystus at September 26, 2005 2:58 AM